Regional Connector Environmental Docs Set for Release
Metro
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Get ready for another round of talk about the Regional Connector.
On Friday, Metro will release the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report, a massive document that details the impacts that different build alternatives would have on the surrounding environment.
A pair of stakeholder meetings will be held in September, one on September 28th from 6:30 – 8pm at the Japanese American National Museum, and the other on October 4th from 11:30am - 1pm at the Police Administration Building's Deaton Auditorium.
The Regional Connector is intended to connect all of Metro's light rail lines together via a link that would run from the Blue Line's 7th & Metro station to the Gold Line's Little Tokyo / Arts District station. The agency would then be able to offer trains running through Downtown from Long Beach to Pasadena or Culver City to East Los Angeles.
At the end of a 45-day comment period, the transit agency's board will vote on which of the three build options will be designated as the "locally preferred alternative." That should be a big deal for Downtown stakeholders who have been consistant in calling for a fully-underground solution.
Metro formally added that alternative as an option in February after an outcry from Little Tokyo over the way that existing plans would impact that community.
The project is estimated to cost $700 - $900 million. Metro anticipates opening the link in 2019, but that timeline could be sped up if Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is able to convince the federal government to provide funding for his "30/10 Initiative," which would compress 30 years of transit projects into just one decade.
Guest on August 30, 2010, at 05:07PM – #1
Awesome...this is the missing metro link! At least 10 years late, but still welcome.... You can thank construction mismanagement, and a tunnel ban by Zev Zaroslavsky for the delay. If you look at the light rail routes that have been built in the last 15 years you can see the MTA was counting on this connector getting built. They built right up to the edges of downtown. Now the tunnel looks like a brilliant idea...I hope this project is built quicky, efficiently and safely..
Guest on August 30, 2010, at 06:08PM – #2
Hella expensive
Brigham Yen on August 30, 2010, at 11:32PM – #3
It's really not that expensive considering that a single skyscraper nowadays can cost over a billion dollars (look at any of the ones built in New York these days) and not have the economic development impact that this rail connection would have in the surrounding community.
It is necessary for large cities to continue investing in infrastructure improvements like the Downtown Connector in LA's case. The amount of people who would now use the other light rail lines because of the convenience would produce tremendous economic benefits to LA.
Remember, tourism is one of LA's biggest "industries," and nowadays, visitors EXPECT mass transit to take them to where they "need" to go. LA has been a car-oriented city for too long, and THAT'S been extremely expensive building all those freeways and keeping those roads intact.
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 12:20AM – #4
I'm all for more mass transit (I live Downtown...duh), but the massive dollars per new rider would be better spent elsewhere.
We as Californians do send more money to Washington than we get, so every dollar back here is appreciated...but we do need to prioritize.
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 07:42AM – #5
Guest #4, I disagree completely. The DT Connector is THE missing link in the transit puzzle and would improve connectivity and flow greatly in the county. We really need this project! I'd say the cost effectiveness is above several other lines in LA County.
Laldava02 on August 31, 2010, at 11:19AM – #6
I agree with Brigham and #5. This is a critical missing link in our existing network that would allow our system to be connected and truly regional.
When you consider the money wasted on expanding freeways that will be congested again in 5 minutes, the expense for building a functional mass transit network seems like nothing. This line will be a huge boost for the county and will only help downtown in the long run. Let's get this built now along with the subway extension to the Westside!
Brigham Yen on August 31, 2010, at 02:27PM – #7
Guest #4 - So where would you like the dollars spent?
On more light-rail lines in the middle of freeways like the Green Line? Or how about more buses that get stuck right along with car traffic? Or better yet, let's spend the money elsewhere on widening more lanes on our VERY EXPENSIVE freeways! Oh wait! Even better idea, let's build more light rail lines that take people to downtown LA only so that they have to inconveniently transfer at Union Station and so that they won't use it again!
Jim Shafer on August 31, 2010, at 04:15PM – #8
The best thing about this story is the fact that the Little Tokyo community pressured the MTA to officially consider the all-underground alternative. I certainly hope that's how it winds up being built. I just wish the same uproar had happened with regards to the proposed Red Line station serving UCLA/Westwood. It's to be at or close to Wilshire/Westwood. Problem: that's a 15 minute walk to the heart of a campus with tens of thousands of students/employees. I'd rather see a well-situated station, such as Westwood/LeConte, than the "promise" of shuttle buses taking riders up into the campus. I suspect UCLA hasn't complained much because they realize a truly convenient station location would cut into their parking revenue.
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 04:57PM – #9
^^ This is not only about UCLA. There are a number of office buildings on Wilshire, along with the Federal Building. There is no location that will be convenient to both the college and to Wilshire Blvd. office workers.
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 05:09PM – #10
"Guest 4" here. No, I don't think we need light rail tucked in freeways. Yes, we need more buses...mass transit shouldn't be buses vs. rail...we need more of both. Yes, I am open to more freeway lanes where absolutely needed and already planned for...but not too many. We need to spend higher percentages of transit funding more for new rail, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, and we need to maintain existing roadways.
We need rail to crisscross the entire county, and each construction dollar is precious. So the connector is estimated at $700 to $900 million (hella expensive for that length)...that's about what the Gold Line from Union Station to Pasadena cost. Yes, we need connectors, but we need to connect entire cities throughout the county more so than several blocks in Downtown Los Angeles. Not everybody lives and/or works in our neighborhoods. There are over 80 cities in LA County, each with their own central business district deserving of rail connections.
Here is the map of existing rail in LA County...see for yourself...
http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.pdf
Russell Brown on August 31, 2010, at 05:21PM – #11
To #8:
There were many community meetings on the Westside extensions and both a UCLA stop and a Wilshire Blvd and Westwood stop were studied. Both passenger counts and costs for the continuation were factored in. Be aware that the station must also connect to all the other bus lines and transit network in the area.
The cut and cover stations also need a very large footprint and an excavation route for the dirt. Mostly the subway line needs to be in a straight line, is routed under existing large streets, avoids tunneling under buildings and has a large construction site as part of the location.
Not only were the ridership numbers not there for a UCLA campus station, but the costs of the deviation and retrenchment back westward were very expensive.
These issues are all vetted in the community process and the alternatives analysis. No final decisions have been made but the local preferred alternative is the vacant lot on Wilshire on the western edge of Westwood Village.
The community input does significantly influence decisions, but ridership, costs and feasibility also are huge influencers and often trump community opinion.
From Metro website: http://www.metro.net/projects/westside/fact-sheet-2-august-2009/
Initially, two potential station locations were considered in the Westwood/UCLA area: (1) a station near the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood boulevards; and, (2) a station under Le Conte Av near the Westwood Bl entrance to UCLA. As a result of scoping, a north-south oriented station under Westwood Bl, north of Wilshire was also evaluated. Both The Le Conte Av and north-south aligned Westwood Bl station locations have been dropped from further consideration because they presented two difficulties; specifically, (1) they would both result in the subway tunnel having to proceed west under the Veterans’ Cemetery and (2) greater potential construction impacts in Westwood Village. A new potential location for a Westwood station has been identified under the UCLA-owned parking lot on the north side of Wilshire Bl near Gayley Av. The Wilshire/ Westwood and UCLA Lot sites are being carried forward for further analysis in the Draft EIS/EIR.
LAofAnaheim on August 31, 2010, at 07:43PM – #12
Guest # 4/10 - the regional connector is supported by the whole county including the San Gabriel Valley who usually are Foothill extension or bust!). Based on cost per mile and per rider..the connector is actually more favorable FTA wise for investment. Consider $1 billion will extend the Purple Line from Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Fairfax, which is 3 miles in itself. The downtown connector is a 2 mile connection however, the expected ridership is much higher. Also, this connector will bring more riders finding convenience on the Gold, Blue, and Expo lines.
I live in downtown too..South Park more specifically. Guess what mode of transformation I take today to get to Little Tokyo...a cab or drive(depending on day/time). There is no Dash to help me at night or no Metro buses that convenient! But, now, with the connector I can take a 5 minute ride from 7th street/metro DIRECTLY to Little Tokyo. A previous 15 - 20 minute journey using Union Station and transfer will now be 5 minutes!!! Imagine the convenience for not just cross-town (Pasadena to Long Beach), but also for local trips. Wouldn't it be great taking a train directly from Chinatown to Pico station for a Lakers game? Most of these people drive due to inconvenience...the Connector is the "game changer" for mass transit in LA.
LAofAnaheim on August 31, 2010, at 07:47PM – #13
Guest # 4/ 10 - I agree many places are devoid of rail service...but does rail need to be everywhere? Is that efficient use of resources? The need for 2 subway lines in downtown LA make way more sense than Metro rail in Gardena, Signal Hill, Pacoima, Bellflower, etc...
Then why do cities (like the great world-class cities we always talk about - London, New York, Paris, etc..) build subways in the inner core, whereas LA has to build out? London's newest under construction line is also criss-crossing the city center...even though Watford still has no underground!! The demand for a convenient subway connection is HERE not THERE. Plus, other cities in LA county do not have the zoning ability (or political will) to become high density like the true city of LA county - Los Angeles itself.
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 08:30PM – #14
There is the sizeable apartment community to the west of the UCLA campus as well as to the south of Wilshire. These balance one another as far a locating a subway stop. But stop and compare the weekday population of the office buildings along Wilshire and the combined students, faculty and staff personnel on campus. There simply is no comparison. And consider what the Redline induced in the way of redevelopment at Hollywood and Vine. The MTA is obsessed with locating stations next to empty parcels.
Is there some sort of federal ban on tunneling under cemeteries?
Consider that the Redline was routed beneath sizeable office buildings - where it makes it's turn from Hill Street to Seventh Street. My vote is to locate a station beneath Weyburn beginning at the west edge of the old Bullock's Department Store extending west to the Fox Theater. What do we pay these engineers for anyway?
Guest on August 31, 2010, at 10:54PM – #15
Holy cows...can't compare Los Angeles with Manhattan or London, which both are far more centralized in employment and traffic patterns. Our employment centers are way more dispersed.
I live Downtown, I love Downtown...but this is not the center of the universe. There is more political will in other cities (and more neighborhood opposition in the City of Los Angeles...just look at Cheviot Hills) than you think. What's this about Bellflower not welcoming rail...they just refurbished their old Pacific Electric station!
Russell Brown on August 31, 2010, at 11:16PM – #16
I did think that digging under the cemetery was a strange reason to rule out that route. Sacred ground 150 feet below? Maybe there was a lot of issues with veteran's on that matter? Maybe someone saw the Poltergeist movie where they had developed on top of a cemetery?
I could see that both a Wilshire stop and a UCLA campus/ hospital stop would be useful. Unfortunately, they are not in line. Stops are usually about 2 miles apart, but the regional connector is changing that dynamic if ridership supports it.
This is the same reason the Wilshire line could not go from Wilshire and Fairfax to the Grove and then continue west.
Stations add about $150-$200 million to the price tag plus the extra cost of the length. Many curves are also not preferred and add safety and time delay issues.
Without great increase in ridership, the added cost lowers the cost effectiveness (and competitiveness) of the entire line in applying for federal funds.
Bert Green (@bgfa) on September 01, 2010, at 01:39AM – #17
The kind of rail system guest 4/10 seems to prefer is a suburban commuter rail system, rather than a local, city-based transit system. This is how BART in the Bay Area is set up. It's meant to get people from outer areas to employment centers in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and elsewhere. And in most cases people drive to the stations outside of the downtowns.
All the regional connector does is tie together several lines to meet downtown, providing both through service and local circulation. It's the best of both worlds. It provides access from Long Beach to Pasadena, and Culver City/Santa Monica to east LA, plus any extensions from those lines, as well as making it easy to get from South Park to Chinatown or Little Tokyo.
The idea that Los Angeles does not have centralized employment districts is wrong, however, and rail is the best way to serve them. The largest employment center west of Chicago is Downtown Los Angeles. The west side as a whole has about as many workers, but they are spread out over a huge area which cannot be well served by rail. Building rail with nodes in Century City, Westwood, Mid City and West LA will encourage these areas to densify. Time to stop pampering the car culture.
All this for 900 million or so? That's a good deal. I don't get the attitude that investing in our infrastructure is a bad thing. Especially considering that for years the project was in public meetings and was a major selling point for the passage of Measure R, which funds transit. Many billions are spent every year on roads and these same critics are silent.
Guest on September 01, 2010, at 01:49AM – #18
Bert, you just named several employment centers in the greater LA area. Therefore LA is decentralized, which in every urban planning course ever taught about Los Angeles is also the case.
Most pre-rail, pre-car cities have a dense centralized core, with densities generally decreasing outside of them. LA does not. LA has a dense core, multiple dense cores heading westward toward the ocean, pockets of density up in The Valley, and then there are the other cities that exist in LA County that each have their own little employment cores. In LA, these dense neighborhood cores have decreasing densities radiating outwardly, but they all kind of grew together a long time ago, resulting in an overall metro area of moderate density and many, many employment centers--therefore "decentralized" city.
Jim Shafer on September 01, 2010, at 09:22AM – #19
I've been at several of the community meetings regarding the Westside Subway Extension over the last 2 years. At one of the first, their own ridership projection bar graph showed the UCLA/Westwood location as having by far the highest projected ridership of the entire extension. At a later meeting I heard the reasons the MTA gave for rejecting the Westwood/LeConte location option, which was mainly the cemetery concern, and had nothing to do with more ridership expected at Wilshire/Westwood.
Guest #14 is right: "But stop and compare the weekday population of the office buildings along Wilshire and the combined students, faculty and staff personnel on campus. There simply is no comparison." Ideally, there should be a station serving the heart of the campus, and one located at or near Wilshire/Westwood. Compare the proposed Expo Line stops that will soon serve USC: Jefferson/Flower, between the Rose Garden and the campus, and Vermont/Exposition. That's 3 stations within a block of the campus! Obviously the trains coming down Flower and then turning onto the Exposition right-of-way helped to make that easier, and the engineering challenge for the UCLA/Westwood area is much greater, but definitely possible.
My point is that if we really want to get people out of their cars in a big way, transit stations have to be located to make that likely. Having just one station serving both Westwood and UCLA located close to the corner of Wilshire/Westwood is irresponsible. Yes, it would be much more expensive to do so, but spending the extra money now will mean many more people leaving their cars at home for the next fifty-plus years. It's the MTA's job to do this right, and to get permission to tunnel under the cemetery if necessary (avoiding unhappy spirits, of course), instead of just saying "No one's done that before", which was an excuse I heard from an MTA official at the meeting.
Guest on September 01, 2010, at 06:50PM – #20
Ok, I think a clarification is in order. The Regional Connector is estimated to cost $160 million. (Not sure if that accounts for undergrounding.) Reading the above article led me to believe that the connector alone was $700-900 million in construction costs, which is hella expensive for such a small stretch. $160 million isn't cheap, but with Federal dollars available, I'm not opposed. But 5 years in the future, please don't come back and tell me we'll need a new connector along 7th St through the Historic Core and into the Arts District. Enough now.
I do think we need to spread rail lines throughout the County, and not only focus on Downtown. Metro is getting a better handle on representing all corners. No Bert, we don't need to provide park and ride (or kiss and ride) lots in Bellflower. Each little city needs to work on its own cross-town shuttle/trolley/street car, and many already have them in place.
LAofAnaheim on September 01, 2010, at 08:21PM – #21
Guest # 19 (wish everybody would have log in names and not "guest")....the nearest BART station serving UC Berkeley will be the same as the nearest Metro station serving UCLA. Harvard's station is also not near the campus, or any closer than BART/Berkeley or proposed Metro/UCLA. USC is actually an exception than the rule. It would be nice to be closer to school, but still, a reasonable distance. And, not that far off comparable to other great world-wide institutions.
LAofAnaheim on September 01, 2010, at 08:27PM – #22
Guest # 20 (again...need names no more Guests!!)...the connector is estimated to cost $700 - $900 million. Measure R only provides $160 million. Read the details of Measure R on the Metro website when you have a chance. It spells out how much was allocated to each project (i.e. $4.1 billion for Purple Line, $700 million for Foothill extension, etc...). Due to the high cost effectiveness of the connector, it is MOST LIKELY the remaining connector cost above the $160 million will be given to us by federal funding, with some state assistance. The only other project with high cost effectiveness is the Purple Line, so Metro is going to leverage off the $4.1 billion for more cash from federal government.
By the way, if you think $160 million is "hella expensive"...consider that the 3 mile stretch from Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Fairfax of the Purple Line has an expected cost of $1 billion. The recently opened Gold Line eastside extension cost $900 million for 6 miles. Rail projects are not cheap. If you think $160 million is too much...no major transit projects would be built in the United States..actually none. Light rail may be cheaper...but even our Expo Line is running into $900 million for it's 10 miles to Culver City! And 2nd phase will exceed $1 billion!
Guest on September 01, 2010, at 10:48PM – #23
When I said hella expensive I was referring to $700-900 million. F that is way too high per mile. I already pointed out (I know, hard to tell with this anonymous guest stuff) that the Gold Line to Pasadena cost $900 million...although I should add that it was a design-build type of project, in which the design was still underway while the construction already began. Cheaper, but with its own risks.
Well maybe I'll set up a login, but I really am just lazy. My posts normally have the ... (dot dot dots)s
Bert Green (@bgfa) on September 01, 2010, at 11:44PM – #24
The whole point of building rail is not to mimic development patterns that were made possible by auto centric development, but to steer development towards walkable options and denser development that can take advantage of that infrastructure. Freeways are also hugely expensive, and do not pay their own way.
Since the backbone of the rail system began and was developed through downtown, Koreatown, and Hollywood, we have seen these areas boom. That is not a coincidence. Places like the Westside, which fought bitterly against rail for decades, are now playing catchup because they see the benefits. The costs of building any rail or freeway is not just an isolated number, it is an investment in the future of our economic well being. Rail is an investment in the next 150 years.
Guest on September 02, 2010, at 09:58PM – #25
Re-read all the above posts. You'll see that not one post is from an anti-rail perspective.