Henry on February 18, 2010, at 09:45PM – #1

Does this project start at 7th and Flower? And then they planned the next stop stop at 5th and Flower?? Hmmmm...I wonder which stop they could possibly eliminate?

Russell Brown on February 19, 2010, at 12:53AM – #2

The other option that was mentioned was engineering cost savings or a public private partnership that could also include a transit oriented development project that would offset the costs.

2nd & Broadway is ripe for a huge makeover that could be a getway entry to Broadway and Historic Downtown. Add significant density to balance Bradbury, Grand Central Market with Civic Center and Grand Avenue Project. The Little Tokyo station could also become a great development opportunity, the LT community is not looking for major density.

Shame that the Federal Courthouse project is stalled and LA Times properties have a bankrupt owner with no ability to be a partner.

The process will look at maximizing the ridership to get the biggest bang for the buck. The problem becomes each station really is isolated from each other so that you can not easily combine 2 of the stations into a compromise location.

But 2nd and Broadway will connect the light rail with the Heavy rail at 1st and Broadway and with the Downtown streetcar.

Lauren on February 19, 2010, at 07:46AM – #3

I absolutely agree with you, Henry. I've wondered from the start why a stop was planned at 5th and Flower. It's a short walk from 7th. If that's where they need to find money to allow it to be underground all the way, then I think that's fine.

Russell Brown on February 19, 2010, at 10:40PM – #5

The 1st and Alameda station is not up for negotiation. That site is required since the surface station presently on site will be undergrounded. That station will be the gateway station to East LA.

The 2nd and Broadway station will connect to the Red line, Civic Center, Grand Avenue Park and Historic Downtown.

The station without a residential or office base at this point is the 2nd and Grand station. With the future Grand Avenue project, a proposed Broad Museum and Disney/ Music Center Connection that station could need support for ridership.

Roger Christensen on February 20, 2010, at 06:38AM – #6

A couple of corrections. The heavy rail that "connects" to the light rail 2nd and Broadway is at 1st and Hill and not 1st and Broadway. Is there an option for a connecting passageway between the two underground mezzanines? Metro hasn't been able to afford to do a similiar passageway at Universal City. Though it would be nice to see the Civic Center station connected to the Broadway light rail.

The "2nd and Grand" station is at 2nd and Hope.

I understand that the suggestion to eliminate a station to reduce costs was tossed out as a suggestion but not that seriously discussed.

Russell Brown on February 20, 2010, at 02:15PM – #7

Roger is correct that the underground station is at Hope. However, the main number of folks using that portal would be coming from Grand Avenue area at Disney/ Music Center. Maybe this station design gets incorparted into the base of a Broad Museum? That becomes part of the suggested public private partnership. Would be easier if The Grand project was moving forward.

The connection of a regional connector station at 2nd and Broadway would have to be designed to provide underground access to the Redline station. Otherwise, it is only a surface "connection" from portals 1 1/2 blocks away (which is still better than nothing, but there are connections at 7th and at Union Station also).

Maybe some creative ideas through the Federal Courthouse site for later? Or you just exit the station, walk a block away and go back down. NYC and other cities have underground paths between stations, why not LA?

The comment on costs was by Art Leahy who wanted to show concern that costs can not just be added on to this project (or others) with no regard to available funding. (Think subway stations on Crenshaw line and subway stations on Expo pahse 2). It was also mentioned in a context that the all underground alternative had a price tag of $200 to maybe $300 mil more. No one, including Zev who questioned this, was prepared for that comment.

Further explantion revealed that the $300 mil figure was not needed and not an option supported by the neighbors. Part of this was winging it without detailed plans of real construction budgets.

Roger Christensen on February 20, 2010, at 03:22PM – #8

Downtown is fortunate to have stations with multiple entrances. 7th Metro is accessed at Figueroa, Flower, Hope. Pershing Square serves both 4th and 5th.

Connector stations might not have that luxury. Will the 2nd St Station have entrances on both Broadway and Spring? (serving City Hall and the Police). It's very important that the Broadway entrance literally face the streetcar stop.

Russell Brown on February 20, 2010, at 05:17PM – #9

The public outreach on the Regional Connector is not far enough along to design stations and portals. There have been general discussions of design concepts and priciples.

What was agreed to by everyone is that an all underground route was the only proposal all communities could agree to. Almost everyone and every group agreed to underground alternatives early on. Most everyone also deferred the specifics of the 1st and Alameda connection to Metro and the Little Tokyo community. Consensus seems now to have been reached.

Now the EIR studies, design plans & budgets and figuring out how to move this forward and pay for it occurs. The Transportation forum yesterday with Sen. Boxer, LaHood and Mayor AV all emphasized the importance of moving the RC forward.

I agree that the closer the connection, the better. The light rail stations and platforms are not as long as the heavy rail. That may limit the number of portals and access.

The streetcar route is proposed for Broadway and Hill. A streetcar stop should be near the portal or at least have a very strong visual and signage connection once a rider exists the RC portal. Also the closer that connection is to Broadway, the closer that connection laso is to 1st & Hill Redline. That RC station is proposed to go from Broadway to Spring, but nothing is final at this point. (As this discussion shows).

Dennis Smith on February 21, 2010, at 09:26AM – #10

Russell: Has L.A. streetcar finally decided on the Hill Street alignment? I remember they also had a possible route running the streetcar down Olive instead.

On the subject of LASI, were they successful in garnering the federal TIGER funds they recently requested? In reading the initial list of winning projects, LASI did not seem to be mentioned.

Russell Brown on February 21, 2010, at 07:16PM – #12

The application was for a $25 mil (max amount) grant application to the Federal Government requesting as part of President Obama’s Livability Initiative. This is special money the FTA set aside specifically for urban circulators like streetcars. The TIGER funds is a different program.

The Obama admin set aside (I think) $160 mil this year and are proposing an increase to $280 for fiscal year.

http://www.lastreetcar.org/planning-design/route-destinations/

This is the link to LASI website. It also links to the 3 proposed alternatives. Olive is one of the choices but the steep hill at Cal Plaza is a significant limitation. Usually the north south couplets are on adjacent streets to allow easy connections and a tight footprint.

Lucille Royblad Allard was at the BBB annual 2nd year meeting and we are coordinating effoert with the electeds. All help and support is encouraged.

Dennis Smith on February 21, 2010, at 08:36PM – #13

Thank you, gentlemen.

Roger Christensen on February 22, 2010, at 03:31PM – #14

This Wed. Eve at 6:30 Metro Citizen's Advisory Council is having a Regional Connector presentation at it's regular General Meeting. The public is invited. It's at the Metro Headquarters, One Gateway Plaza, Union Station Conference Room on 3rd floor.

Jerard Wright on February 23, 2010, at 08:07PM – #15

Thank you Roger for the CAC meeting plug.

The $200-300 million dollar cost escalation for the Regional Connector (RC) and how this effects this project is a valid one because it has to be adjusted from increasing the project budget or from eliminating a station and that is coupled with how that effects the FTA Cost-effectiveness numbers that are important to get the added Federal Funding.

A suggestion of combining the station and placing it at 2nd/San Pedro would confirm a lot of the fears and sentinments of the Little Tokyo community which is not very good after Metro and LTCC have worked so hard to reach this consensus and understanding and it does nothing for the Broadway Streetcar which is an feeder component to the RC.

2nd/Broadway and Little Tokyo for the point of this conversation, I believe are locked because of how pieces will compliment other projects such as Nikkei Center at 1st/Alameda and Broadway Streetcar at 2nd/Broadway and developming on those lots around the 2nd/Broadway intersection.

On the other hand the Financial District and Bunker Hill stations will be an interesting Urban Design experiment if these two areas could have a combined station at 3rd/Flower or 2nd Hope. Since the area in question has some very interesting topographical variations from where the 3rd/Flower is at a lower level to 2nd/Hope and both spots are even lower than 2nd/Grand. This could work itself out into a stimulating urban design exercise component- later on in the project- as to how to best fit the station with the areas in question and how to best tie and connect station entrances to the platforms. Maybe this design challenge may require Metro to think outside the box a little bit in the ease of better Downtown connectivity.

Who knows? However, these are points to start seriously addressing now before we start asking for Federal Dollars.

Joel Covarrubias on February 27, 2010, at 01:08PM – #16

I understand the reasons for wanting this project to be as cost-effective as possible. But we don't want to go too cheapo on this either. Metro has a history of dropping critical features in order to save a bit of money, only to annoy transit riders for decades to come.

The project is starting with very good cost-effectiveness, so it can afford a bit more cost, if needed to do it right. This project is a critical link to the entire system, connecting tens of thousands of people traveling to downtown or to different places around the region. The benefits affect four separate lines. So let's make sure Metro gets this done right.

I'm not sure how important it is to connect the new 2nd/Broadway Station to the existing Civic Center Station. The lines already connect at Metro Center (7th/Flower), and all lines except the Eastside Line will connect at Union Station as well.

I think all of the stations proposed (Library, Bunker Hill, Historic Core, Little Tokyo) are needed, because they serve very different areas of downtown. Library Station is probably the weakest link though, just because it is so close to Metro Center (two blocks).