Alan Fishel on February 27, 2008, at 09:32PM – #1

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.

Ginny-Marie Case on February 27, 2008, at 10:49PM – #3

It's great that an online conversation is going to take place, however - as a neighbor (and as someone working on the project) please don't forget to submit your comments online. To make it easy, I've inserted the link to the online

So, once you've posted your comment on BlogDowntown, please consider posting that comment at the project website. This way your comment and opinion can be included in the study!

Tim on February 28, 2008, at 10:04AM – #4

Thanks for the link to the comment form. Just wonder why they didn't consider 3rd Street for the underground alignment. Like 2nd Street, 3rd has a tunnel that they can use. You wold still get stops on Bunker Hill and in the Historic Core (at 3rd instead of at 2nd), but you could also fit in another stop around San Pedro/Central and 3rd. Besides Little Tokyo Lofts, there might not be a lot going on over there, but we are not building this rail system for present day; we are building it for the next hundred years. An additional stop will only be a plus for future growth in that neighborhood.

Will Campbell on February 28, 2008, at 11:26AM – #6

Maybe I'm missing it because of the resolution of the 2nd Street rendering, but since 2nd Street is one of the more popular ways to get two wheels across downtown, is there no MTA love for the bikes? How surprising. Although I guess that may very well be a cyclist ahead of the last vehicle heading east.

Aaron on February 28, 2008, at 04:46PM – #8

Eric,

Thanks for posting this, I've linked to it over at my post at MetroRiderLA. It's really great to see Downtown engaged in these kinds of issues, and I really enjoy and appreciate your blog. I live over in Koreatown but I support Downtown and I hope to eventually live Downtown, when the stars align and all that.

I've been surprised before (Metro seems to be intent on building a fairly worthless Crenshaw line), but I can't serious think that Metro intends to run this entirely at grade, it's just too poor of an idea for all parties. It'll also severely disrupt Metro bus service through Downtown and probably give DASH a migraine too. I'm pretty anti-car, but I can't imagine trying to cross 2nd St and competing with 3 different train lines, let alone all of the public safety issues mentioned.

Sameer on February 29, 2008, at 02:09AM – #9

Of the alternatives presented, I'd support #5, as it follows a direct, largely grade-separated route. Of course, there would be the one grade crossing at Alameda and 1st, but hey, it's not like the Gold Line is grade-separated in that area anyhow. I strongly support running trains through Little Tokyo/Arts District Station, so that Blue Line trains can continue through to East LA, and Expo Line trains to Pasadena, or vice versa. The fewer transfers needed, the better. Of course, that would require reconfiguring the station, so we can save that for later, when Metro can actually afford to do that. (By that point, all our light rail lines might need grade separation!)

Metro Local on March 01, 2008, at 01:00AM – #10

It's frustrating to see all of these options cater to the Grand Avenue development that already has a Red Line stop at First/Hill and is far from certain it will be built (Grand Avenue that is).

Of those presented above, Options 6 or 8 then go back to the drawing board on the notion of not being able to have a Little Tokyo Station -- maybe an at grade platform on First west of Alameda? It's hard to see from the web image here but Option 6 looks like it incorporates a platform stop or something.

Jerard on March 01, 2008, at 02:17PM – #12

Metro Locol, You're right it is frustrating to see that, a well known Public-Private partnership development who traffic study didn't muster up in the EIR because of the hilly terrain and will be building deep parking structures in order to accomodate traffic all the while Metro can build the project cheaper and serve a larger destination.

Urban Bruin on March 01, 2008, at 05:56PM – #13

I agree, it wouldn't kill anyone at the "yet to break ground" Grand Ave. Project to walk a few blocks to get on the metro.

Why traffic the metro towards an area already serviced by the underground? If they have to build new stations why not service other parts of downtown that are far from the current stops?

Maybe add stops along the Old Bank/Historic Core, Santee Dist., and a Theater station, something creative and useful.

Metro Local on March 02, 2008, at 12:44AM – #14

Relocate Angels Flight to serve First/Hill Civic Center Red Line stop to Disney Concert Hall.

Build the regional connector on a clockwise southeast path that touches the Fashion District near the marts. The Historic Core already has Fifth/Hill but Main/Spring/Ninth might be a good place.

Jerard on March 02, 2008, at 11:45AM – #15

"Why traffic the metro towards an area already serviced by the underground? If they have to build new stations why not service other parts of downtown that are far from the current stops? "

Because some of the said areas don't have the justification YET for the full investment. Fashion District area can be served when they replace the street running Blue Line Washington Blvd portion with a new grade separated corridor to increase capacity on the Blue Line. But first things first, Tie the existing Downtown light rail corridors together (Blue, Gold, Expo) so that these future pieces can happen.

"Maybe add stops along the Old Bank/Historic Core, Santee Dist., and a Theater station, something creative and useful."

That sounds like the Broadway Street car and the original routing of the Red/Purple Line subway. Instead of running down Hill it went down Broadway to directly serve those areas. Thankfully -compared to Bunker Hill- walking to Central City East from Pershing Square Station isn't as hard as going up steep hills.

John Crandell on March 02, 2008, at 01:52PM – #16

Olivet and Sinai, the Angel's Fligh trams have steps built into them. They and the track upon which they run have to be set at a certain angle of repose. (Sorry, I won't apologize to the ghost of Wallace Stegner on that one). The angle or gradient of First Street to the west of the Civic Center station nowhere approaches the gradient of the existing Angel's Flight railway. Otherwise, the 1992 'Strategic Plan' spotlighted possible new funiculars at 3rd/Hope Streets and beside the east portal of the Second Street tunnel.

More in regards to ridiculosity: is it not ludicrous to spend fifty million bucks to redo the county mall whle the two outmoded county buildings remain in place (with asbestos and structural problems)? And the shiny new mall then remains isolated from Temple and First streets to boot.

Tommy on March 02, 2008, at 11:05PM – #17

I'm offended that Metro would even consider running trains through the Second Street Tunnel or on 2nd in general. There are two tunnels under bunker hill for any traffic coming west into Little Tokyo or Downtown, and they'd suggest removing access to the only one of them that isn't one-way? Not to mention that 2nd is about the only place in Little Tokyo where one can find street parking.

I'm also perplexed by Metro's "oh, if we build a subway there, we have to remove the Little Tokyo station." Ignoring the fact that an underground Little Tokyo Station wouldn't be a bad thing in the least, couldn't they run trains under 1st or 3rd street to connect at Alameda? Why the obsession with 2nd?

Urban Bruin on March 03, 2008, at 01:23AM – #18

"Because some of the said areas don't have the justification YET for the full investment. Fashion District area can be served when they replace the street running Blue Line Washington Blvd portion with a new grade separated corridor to increase capacity on the Blue Line."

Guess you haven't gone to the Fashion District during the week, it's a very busy place. The Metro would be well received in having a stop at that location, especially if it connects to the East L.A. line where many of the people who work in the Fashion Dist. live. Also, there is no reason routing the connetor line down along the eastern edge of downtown with a stop along the Theater District can't end at Metro Center thereby connecting Metro Center and Union Station.

The Broadway Trolley isn't the same as a Metro stop that will bring thousands of people to the area from all over Los Angeles. The trolley is to shuttle people around once they get here. Very different purpose.

Jerard on March 03, 2008, at 08:05AM – #19

Guess, you haven't been down there either, To see what happens after 5:30pm on the dot every day. Sure we could route the line down the eastern edge of Downtown and then build a tight curve to connect to the existing 7th Street Metro Center and now we'll have a very close duplication to the Red Line which makes you run and scream that this is "Duplicating the Red Line"

The Broadway Trolley isn't the same as a Metro stop that will bring thousands of people to the area from all over Los Angeles. The trolley is to shuttle people around once they get here. Very different purpose.

Hmmmm, and what is to say that tying in the Broadway streetcar with the Connector project wouldn't kill the same bird with one stone with two projects serving two different concepts. I would think that would provide justification for the streetcar to make it MORE than a tourist shuttle. In fact because of Fashion Districts vast size you can't get everything in one Regional LRT stop, but you could do a much better job with the streetcar with the future opportunity to establish a central location for a future subway corridor investment.

Urban Bruin on March 03, 2008, at 09:27AM – #20

Look at all of the proposals; the southeast quarter of downtown is not covered by any existing or proposed rail line. Despite the lack of evening traffic in the Fashion District the amount of metro riders for that portion of the line during M-F and weekends during the business hours would more than justify putting at least one stop near that district. Also, there is an emerging residential presence in that area of town.

The current proposals cross the Redline twice, whereas dropping down into the eastern quarter of downtown only overlaps with the Redline at Metro Center. In the proposals, the new stations are within walking distance to existing stations, whereas, there are no stations within walking distance from 7th and Los Angeles or 9th and Main. So yes, I am “running and screaming” that the proposed line is "Duplicating the Red Line" points of service.

As for the trolley, how would the Broadway Trolley provide mass transit solutions to the thousands of workers, wholesalers, and shoppers that visit the Fashion District? You do realize that the Fashion District is a significant part of local economy and a great place to get a bacon wrapped hot dog right?

Tommy on March 03, 2008, at 02:15PM – #21

I don't disagree with the plan to connect through Little Tokyo, but I also agree that a Fashion District/CCE station is sorely needed. It's sad that proximity to Skid Row has Metro ignoring options to that highly-trafficked part of town entirely. A connector from Washington running up-and-under Central, for example, would serve a currently under-represented part of Downtown.

I don't disagree with the current alignments for a direct route connection, either, but as someone who commutes regularly from Echo Park to 7th St AND Little Tokyo, I will fight tooth and nail to keep those trains off Second St - subway running is the only viable option for that corridor.

Jerard on March 03, 2008, at 03:13PM – #22

"As for the trolley, how would the Broadway Trolley provide mass transit solutions to the thousands of workers, wholesalers, and shoppers that visit the Fashion District? You do realize that the Fashion District is a significant part of local economy and a great place to get a bacon wrapped hot dog right? "

I can find better ones at Wilshire/Vermont. (Chuckles)

Do you realize how many square blocks Fashion District encompass? One stop to feed Fashion District isn't going to be enough, thus the Streetcars and it's closer stop spacing are more effective in distribution helps to even out crowds and make the trolley an effective solution.

From a planning perspective by linking it to Broadway it helps Fashion District come alive past the 5:30pm time. To allow the workers and visitors a place to go after work. Think of how effective the Market Streetcar works in San Francisco by linking major attractions along the line to the Main boulevard thus improving the local economy to both Fashion District and Broadway accelerating the revitilazation.

By making the trolley an appropriate feeder line to the existing regional transit infrastructure (Light and Heavy Rail) ensures to many FTA and CA State grant writers away from LA that this is a good transportation solution and an investment that pays dividends to make it more than just a tourist trolley, it's a usable asset. Unless Downtown has a hidden rich transit uncle who likes to dish out money.

Norbie 7 on March 04, 2008, at 09:11AM – #23

On second thought: if the alignment goes along First Street, there ought to be a station on the south side of city hall. Lobbyists and developers must have easier access to the seat of power. And it's hard having to haul those heavy bags of cash along, you understand....

I'm not Potus on March 04, 2008, at 07:12PM – #24

This is a cross post sorry... But I looked this over and thought this was an easier path to achieve results. I guess that runs contrary to "professional" planning principles. linky:

Metro Local on March 04, 2008, at 11:12PM – #25

Broadway's Theater District already has a stop at Pershing Square. There's just little on Broadway after dark to do.

A stop that serves any segment of the Fashion District would be better for current users of mass transit than a stop at the Grand Avenue development that only currently exists on paper.

A stop at Ninth/Main/Spring could serve the Fashion District AND the southern end of the Broadway district (like the one current spot of life on Broadway, the Orpheum).

A source indicates above-grade is 2x more expensive than at-grade while below-grade is 4x more expensive than at-grade.

Perhaps the answer is two routes, both above-grade, one that serves the Northwest passage, the other serves the Southeast. The end result is the same as one below-grade route.

Jerard on March 05, 2008, at 08:53AM – #26

There's just little on Broadway after dark to do.

I agree, the same can be said for Fashion District but with the revitalization plan tying these two together with the Streetcar would actually help.

A stop that serves any segment of the Fashion District would be better for current users of mass transit than a stop at the Grand Avenue development that only currently exists on paper.

Some people are getting so caught up in the Grand Avenue development but forgetting that there's existing things surrounding the future development that are magnets for transit ridership (DWP, County Courts, MOCA, Disney Hall, Music Center, Loads of Jobs on Bunker Hill). Grand Avenue development is merely a vehicle that would help reduce and pay for the costs of such a station something that can save money towards studying and actually building a regional Metro Rail down to Fashion District.

Perhaps the answer is two routes, both above-grade, one that serves the Northwest passage, the other serves the Southeast. The end result is the same as one below-grade route.

That wouldn't be a bad idea as I said in other posts the one limitation to the aerial alignment is with the current subway configuration at 7th Street Metro Center and progression in elevation on the NW side, it would make fairly difficult and almost roller coster steep to bring the line from subway to elevated in Bunker HILL.

Every study so far shows that that configuration would be difficult to acheive without closing off either a major delivery entrance or closing off 3rd Street.

As for the SE portion, I don't know how we'll route it elevated through South Park or off the subway at 7th Street and then slice it through Downtown, unless Metro Local you have a route suggestion with this idea that I'm sure you'd like to share so that I don't skew or misrepresent your idea.

The SE section in my mind would be better suited as a future provision to bring the at-grade Washington Section Blue Line into a busy grade separated corridor. Wouldn't you know it that a line connecting to Fashion District (via a different corridor perhaps such as Convention Center-South Park-FIDM-Fashion via Olympic or 11th St) would be the perfect project for such a Blue Line grade separation project that would then provide the direct connectivity off of it and with the NW connection allow greater access within Downtown to access Fashion District in conjunction with the Streetcar.

John Crandell on March 05, 2008, at 04:24PM – #27

Transition from below grade: either to surface grade or elevated - please go down to Flower and 11th and take a look at what such a transition does to the streetscape, specifically - the east side of Flower.

Then go and stand on any street or avenue in Downtown and imagine a miniature elevated freeway. Instead of ramps, there are stations, two way track with all kinds of support pylons and shear walls (to prevent seismic damage) and escalators and elevators. What that does to the street is horrific! And then comes the accumulating dust and grime of future years, layers of concert posters and here come the taggers (yeah, they love concrete). Let's stop this insane talk about elevated transit in Downtown L.A. Go over to Flower Street next to the Bonaventure and stand beneath the Fourth Street viaduct. Just stop and take a good look. You won't see anyone around carrying a designer shopping bag (brand new that is).

Ginny on March 06, 2008, at 07:57AM – #28

I'm working on the report today - if you haven't submitted comments yet through Metro's website - today is a really good day to do this.

Alex on June 09, 2008, at 11:23AM – #29

I look forward to see this street when it is ready.