Tornadoes28 on September 03, 2010, at 09:30AM – #1

I pray they can get the additional funding. It seems such a waste to spend so much and build this system but not to it's full potential if they eliminate the Financial District station. I have no doubt this station would be very busy.

Chris Loos on September 03, 2010, at 10:24AM – #3

Pretty cool to actually see this thing on a map. So the gold line will always be Santa Monica to East LA, and the blue line will always be Long Beach to Pasadena? Or will they have every other train switch?

Jim Shafer on September 03, 2010, at 11:10AM – #5

Excellent news! Congratulations to the Little Tokyo Community for pressuring the MTA to officially consider the all-underground option. Let's hope the board of directors will agree with their staff in 45 days.

Brigham Yen on September 03, 2010, at 01:46PM – #9

Guest: I think the 5th/Flower stop would be beneficial. The goal is to make Downtown LA the undisputed center of walking in the region. The goal is NOT to funnel people as fast as possible THROUGH downtown LA, but to make it as convenient as possible, and since 5th/Flower is such a prominent corner, it would make perfect sense to put a stop there.

We can't continue to think like we did in the past with trying to get people in and out of Downtown LA as fast as possible.

Plus, the fact that Manhattan is ALL about walking, and for that city to have subway stops so frequently scattered throughout the island, means people have convenient access to stations almost everywhere. Hence, why they are now starting construction on the 2nd Ave subway.

I say find the money to put a station at 5th/Flower. Do it right Metro!

Rich Alossi on September 03, 2010, at 02:11PM – #10

I live at 6th and Flower, and while I appreciate Guest #2's humor, I have to agree with others that 5th and Flower is a pretty important stop. Right now, 7th/Metro serves everything from Staples at 11th Street, up to 3rd/Grand, and is the only station in the foreseeable future that will serve the southern Financial District/northern South Park. I'd say it's even more important than the 2nd/Hope station.

Brigham is correct. It's not about funneling people from Eastside to Westside as fast as possible.

Also, hipsters don't go to the Standard. That seems to have become a catch-all term for anyone under 30...

on September 03, 2010, at 03:47PM – #13

Considering how strongly that the Little Tokyo neighborhood fought for this, shouldn't the subway station at Second and Central be called "Little Tokyo?"

After all, the station will be right in the middle of Little Tokyo, and the existing Little Tokyo station won't survive the construction.

Little Tokyo deserves a replacement station.

Brigham Yen on September 03, 2010, at 04:48PM – #15

James Fujita - I would lobby to get that on Metro's radar screen if you haven't done so already. I think it SHOULD be called Little Tokyo instead of just 2nd/Central. I mean, Chinatown got a whole station named after it, and I think LT would be appropriate as well for 2nd/Central.

The reason why Koreatown doesn't get any stations named after it is because there are actually THREE stations within Koreatown!

Russell Brown on September 03, 2010, at 08:18PM – #19

Although there are many comments here about station location desirability, that process occurred for the last 2-3 years ago. It is called community outreach and scoping meetings. Both Westside Extension and Regional Connector have held over 30 meetings over the years.

Many alternative routes and stations locations are discussed. The community weighs in with its preferences. Then Metro and others analyze the options, costs and ridership numbers. Geological testing occurs to analyze construction obstacles and to help predict costs. Then cost effectiveness models are created.

By the time the local preferred alternative is presented, almost 3-5 years of work has been accomplished.

A Crenshaw Red Line station is an example where the community is split in its support, with many vocal opponents. It is a low density residential and commercial area. There is no support for further development. That station does not connect with many other bus lines, and the majority of riders were shown to pick up the line at Western or Fairfax. However, the distance between stations is longer than ideal. No consensus, no strong ridership numbers- probably no station.

The under-grounding of the Regional Connector is also a very good example of how the community can design transit systems by being engaged. The proposed local alternative is far far superior than all of the proposals that started for considerations. Something like 34 options were considered.

Metro thought that they could only support and finance an all surface option. Imaging the Washington Blvd, Blue Line through the 2nd street tunnel headed east and splitting Little Tokyo in half. All vehicle traffic on 2nd would have been lost. That was Metro's initial preferred route. Community engagement that was smart and involved non-stop changed that.

A large amount of info is posted at Metro’s website and it is easy to follow past conversations and decision making by searching transit blogs and blogdowntown articles and comments. http://www.metro.net/projects/toc/

Russell Brown on September 03, 2010, at 09:48PM – #20

From Metro announcement:

Because the Regional Connector offers a one-seat ride through downtown, ridership on all the light rail lines is expected to increase as commuting times decrease and transit becomes more competitive with driving. For example, the Gold Line is expected to see a 10% ridership gain between Chinatown and Pasadena and an 18.4% increase between Little Tokyo and East L.A.

•About 90,000 passengers are expected to ride the Regional Connector on the average weekday, including 17,000 who do not currently use mass transit. At present, the Blue Line is the most heavily-ridden of Metro’s light rail lines with 77,545 average boardings each weekday.

•The Regional Connector is expected to save many passengers 10 to 20 minutes in the time it currently takes to transfer to another line. For example, a passenger on the Blue Line will no longer have to transfer at 7th/Metro Center to the Red Line to reach the Civic Center in downtown L.A. And a passenger on the Gold Line will no longer have to transfer to the subway or a bus at Union Station to reach downtown L.A.’s central business district.

•Downtown L.A. remains the LARGEST employment center in the county and the Regional Connector will pass through several parts of downtown expected to keep growing in population and jobs in future years.

Brigham Yen on September 03, 2010, at 11:06PM – #21

Thank you Russell for your in-depth response and it's so refreshing to read so many people are finally starting to get what mass transit is about.

The Downtown Connector is ONE OF the most important rail lines LA can build at this time. And $1.4 billion is absolutely worth it for the positive change it will make to the city dynamics that will alter the entire inertia of a city run amok with sprawl hell.

LA needs to invest as much as necessary to bring back the central core and start reversing the egregiously detrimental effects of urban sprawl. Imagine the amount of money wasted in productivity and gas while millions sit in traffic, which happens EVERY DAY. Yes, $1.4 billion is worth it.

LAofAnaheim on September 03, 2010, at 11:53PM – #22

A lot of the guests here apparently cannot count. It's not 2 blocks between 5th and 7th street on Flower...it's 3 blocks. Everybody forget about Wilshire blvd? A 5th/Flower station is very important as it gets people from the Expo/Blue/Gold lines closer to Pershing Square area without having to transfer to the Red or Purple Lines. There will be more people boarding this station than Crenshaw station will ever see. Like Eric said, more stations make sense for downtown, but not for mid-city and other parts. The density is here, and with more stations, we can see even more density in the right place, which is downtown LA.

As for station namings, I would say we need to also re-adjust the station names of 5th/Flower to Financial District; 2nd/Hope to Bunker Hill; and 2nd/Broadway to either Broadway or Old Bank District (this will be the closest a station will ever be to the Old Bank District).

For the guest who said naming stations is insulting.....why do we have Chinatown and the existing Little Tokyo stations? Same with other cities worldwide...?

Russell Brown on September 04, 2010, at 01:05AM – #25

Just a reminder that the standard north/south blocks downtown are twice as long as the east west blocks. 600 feet versus 300 feet.

So 3 north/south blocks is the same as 6 east/west blocks.

A look at the NY subway map shows stations on the 1 Line Broadway/ 7th Avenue at 18th, 23rd, 28th, 34th, 42nd, 50th, 59th, 66nd, 72nd, 79th etc. So it is not uncommon in dense central city neighborhoods to have stations close together.

I can call Metro and ask the ridership number increase for the 5th & Flower station. It would not have been left in the local preferred analysis unless the numbers were there.

Maybe someone from Metro or the Roberts Group is following and can help with the stats?

If you want to be real critical, the Gold Line foothill extension numbers are not as impressive as the Regional Connector results. However, both geographic equity and the opportunity to now work with SG Valley cities that are united and enthusiastic in redesigning their cities and priorities around transit oriented density is a huge turnaround from even 10 years ago.

Remember, there is no subway to the sea already built because Hancock Park and the westside cities and communities fought in it the early 1990's. They now are unanimously in support and even pushing for an additional line from Hollywood & Highland through West Hollywood to connect up with the Red Line at LaCienega. This may also be where the Crenshaw line hooks up north and south.

We have made huge progress in just the last 3 years in changing the future face of transportation in LA County and the state. The high speed train and the future downtown streetcar will add even more interconnectedness.

The entire 3 miles of streetcar from Disney through Broadway to LA LIVE Convention Center is a little more than half the cost of one Regional Connector/ subway station.

Brigham Yen on September 04, 2010, at 01:47AM – #26

Russell Brown - Yes, that's exactly what I posted earlier as well that Manhattan, which is truly a walking city, proves that the more subway lines you have in a dense built environment, the more conducive it becomes for walking.

The fact that Manhattan is only 2 miles wide at its widest, with several lines going through it and a new subway line under construction (costing billions upon billions of dollars) under 2nd Ave means that you can never have enough stations in a densely built environment.

For the 5th/Flower station, it is absolutely necessary to include it to give Downtown LA as much access to rail as possible because it is the most densely built environment in all of Southern California (even more than Downtown San Diego). Downtown LA is a unique place.

on September 04, 2010, at 07:00AM – #28

These connectors are so important along with adding of street cars. It would create less travel time and more efficiency in the metro system.

Cheers,

John Apodaca www.daddyosmartinis.com

Nancy Richardson () on September 04, 2010, at 08:32AM – #29

Yesteday, I came in from Pasadena around 5:30.....and got on the Redline at Union Station, and by the time I got off at my stop at 7th/Metro Center, the train was packed like a sardine can.

Who is that right wing urban planning guy at Chapman College who says that the only people who use public transportation are maids?

Over at Huffington Post there was a topic on LA Public Transportation which took into account the current planning, and there is still this mindset that LA has crappy PT. As someone who uses PT for the majority of my travel, I know for a fact that I can get to Encino by subway and Express bus faster than driving, but people my age still look at me like I am two steps away from homelessness because I travel by PT. I also sent my kid to Public School, so that is the kind of attitude you get from people who consider themselves liberals. (he is now in Australia getting his masters in Urban Planning)

In any case, I find this plan terrific, and remember back to the late eighties when my husband was working for Metro rail that the initial planning. We thought it would never happen...

and now it is fantastic and just getting better.

In these times of horrible bad news....this is one bright spot we can't let get away from us.

Nancy Richardson () on September 04, 2010, at 09:17AM – #30

Oh yeah, that "rightwinger" I mentioned before...

it is Joel Kotkin.

Here is what he has to say the MTA rail projects:

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00273-mass-transit-great-train-robbery

Nancy Richardson () on September 04, 2010, at 09:54AM – #32

You might want to look into who funds his enterprises before you make such assertions.

http://www.calitics.com/diary/12325/joel-kotkins-war-on-california

() on September 04, 2010, at 10:42AM – #34

I have known Joel for many years and while we very much disagree about Downtown, I have a lot of respect for him. He is also a classic example of what used to be called a'liberal Democrat', and he is nothing resembling a right-winger. He has also been a long time supporter of immigration and he has written for decades about LA's immigrant communities and the positive affects that have had on this city.

But he also believes in reporting the facts and the facts do show that mass transit has - so far - not been as effective as has been hoped anywhere in this country. In fact the percentage of trips by cars in LA versus mass transit has until very recently been INCREASING during the time when LA has been building mass transit. The more mass transit we have been building, the lower the percentage of trips in the greater LA area by transit has been.

Now I disagree with Joel on why this is happening and what should be done - but at least he has a factual basis for his arguments. And, hopefully, someday the people I do agree with on this issue will not be afraid to factually discuss why the suburbs have growing far faster than inner cities and why even in New York, only 10% of all trips in the larger region are made by transit. Continuing to ignore these facts only makes it impossible to solve our problems

Nancy Richardson () on September 04, 2010, at 12:47PM – #35

Golly Brady, speaking of name dropping, my old friend of 40 or so years, Mike Davis was telling me, you just haven't lived until you have been fact-checked and patronized by Brady Westwater.

And by gum, he is right...

Concern trolls like Kotkin, who used to work for the DLC...and is currently to the right of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, is not now and has never been a liberal Democrat (but then again David Horowitz used to claim to be Soviet style Marxist, so one never knows.)The term you might be looking for here is "classic liberal" or "neoliberal" or "liberal hawk," and have more in common with say Bill Kristol than any legit center-left intellectual currently at the think tank feeding trough.

When one is anti-union, pro offshore drilling, and for MORE tax cuts during a horrible recession, that might a clue someone isn't and never was a liberal Democrat.

But as the man says, reasonable people can disagree...

Russell Brown on September 04, 2010, at 12:52PM – #36

Response to # 24 To suggest that they are late to the game sounds elitist, arrogant, and out of touch.

Not sure how educating folks of the opportunities and time-lines for participation and involvement is elitist.

My comment was that many of these decisions are going through a lengthy public procees. It is open to all. Metro and the community desperately wants smart ideas and an engaged community to participate. That is what builds support and gets these projects built.

My comment was that to not participate and have such a strident opinion after the fact without getting engaged earlier is a little like complaining that airlines do not want your business when you show up an hour late to your flight. Folks are listened to when they participate, otherwise you are left out. Same with voting and all other forms of involvement.

All of this info is online. Without even attending meetings there are weblinks, and broadcasts. Written comment is treated the same as in person verbal appearances. Regional connector is under a 45 day comment period now.

If my comment was misinterpreted, I apologize.

Folks should feel very emboldened that anyone who is informed and participates really does a pretty big say in designing these systems if their intent is to be constructive and work toward solutions.

LAofAnaheim on September 04, 2010, at 05:18PM – #40

The problem with Joel Kotkin and his "mass transit studies" is that he doesn't take into the fact that cities become denser when Metro rail is built. Would New York be as built up as it is without the subway? It wouldn't survive. I mean, 7.5 million people a day taking the subway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership), how would New York be so dense?

Locally, look at how well downtown, Hollywood, Koreatown, have developed with the Red Line. Drive down Wilshire (yes, drive so you can look up) and count the number of buildings that are here now that weren't there before. The convenience of living in the CITY goes higher when an efficient mass transit system is available. Kotkin ignores this fact.

Russell Brown on September 04, 2010, at 06:19PM – #41

#38 regarding Crenshaw station.

The concern that you state for the long distance between the Western and Fairfax station has been often discussed. No final decision has been made (I think).

The distance issue (in isolation) would favor a station. However, a station costs almost $200 million. A number of factors become key decision makers. Can significant development occur (is it allowed, is it wanted,is it desirable?), is there a significant increase in ridership (at this point), is there community consensus, support or strong opposition. On this station, it is sort of a draw. In this case NIMBY'ism may win out unless the local community pushes hard for a station.

Often the politics of what is doable and picking your battles means some of the weaker links are left along the battlefield. Not ideal but so goes life.

But the flip side also works if community and political leadership come together for a common goal. The Crenshaw line will be a light rail when it could have been bus rapid transit. The Foothill Extension is fast tracked because the community was organized and demanding so it was moved to the front of the list.

Side Note: The SG Valley leadership is the same community and leaders that fought Measure R non-stop and campaigned against it. There opposition was Measure R was too rail focused with most of the mass transit money going to the Westside (Expo, RedLine, Crenshaw, Green line). They wanted freeway money. Then they were first to demand they get their share when it passed).

I guess you can be born again as a transit conversion.

Measure R was passed by the transit advocates who took the lead and created broader community support. Special thanks to the leadership from Mayor AV.

Someone suggested that you just add a Crenshaw station later. It doesn't work that way. It is build it when you start or it is forever lost. Otherwise, you would have to shut down the entire system for almost a year to add a station. Can not dig a block long 150 foot deep hole on top of existing tunnels with trains and passengers going underneath. (Scenes of Matrix movie appear).

It is late in the game, but I do not think the final decision on Crenshaw has been decided. I have emailed Metro to send me the numbers on Crenshaw, both Century City options and the Westwood / Wilshire versus UCLA/ Village options. Maybe that will help decide.

Anyone know the Crenshaw/ Hancock Park community leadership? Now or never is decision time. (And hope that does not sound elitist.)

on September 04, 2010, at 09:24PM – #42

I love all these comments! (but there is no way i could read them ALL) Brady and Russell you are awesome and Nancy I don't know you, but you're awesome too.

Roger Christensen on September 07, 2010, at 12:59PM – #45

Another reason for supporting the 5th and Flower station: the 7th/Metro station is fearfully overcrowded at peak times and is only going to get worse with future rail expansion. The 5th Street station will relieve much of this.

Russell Brown on September 08, 2010, at 11:00AM – #46

Regarding the need for the 5th & Flower station:

Remember, we are designing a system for the next 100 years. If a station is not included, it cannot be added later.

As Metro was presenting plans for the Harbor subdivision (South Bay to Union Station), future capacity at 7th & Metro was at capacity with the full build-out of the Expo Line, Regional Connector and extensions of the Gold Line both through East LA and Foothill Extension.

There will need to be another route to get increased traffic from LAX, South Bay into downtown at Union Station. These options could include Blue Line Light rail along the LA River/ Arts District or an Alameda corridor route.

The 5th & Flower station will be needed as an expansion for loading and unloading light rail passengers separate from those who need to transfer between heavy rail and light rail. This station can also be another point of connection to the nearby streetcar at 5th and Grand.

http://www.lastreetcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/LASI_2010-04-23_rev.006.pdf

Russell Brown on September 08, 2010, at 11:28AM – #48

Regarding adding a station later, according to Metro, that is not an option.

It must be built with the original construction, or not at all. That has also been discussed in regards to the Crenshaw station on the Red Line extension.

The efficiency numbers of costs versus ridership are fine for the 5th & Flower station. The Feds usually pick up 50% of the construction tab through the New Starts program. The balance of the funding is local or non-fed. Measure R pays for part of this. The balance must be funded through an assortment of other sources.

Jerard Wright on September 17, 2010, at 01:16PM – #49

If I had to make the choice of eliminating a station if the extra funding doesn't come on-line in time I'd argue to eliminate the 2nd/Broadway station and use the Broadway streetcar to connect to the Bunker Hill station to feed the Broadway corridor. The current streetcar could potentially tie to the Pico station to the South and will need a northern tie in at Bunker Hill as its currently considering.

The ridership at 5th and Flower is much too great and it's demand as a means of relieving capacity to the 7th Street Metro Center much too important to eliminate.

Russell Brown on September 17, 2010, at 05:48PM – #50

The purpose of the Regional Connector is to stop the need for transfers, not to add to them.

The 2nd and Broadway station will connect to Civic Center, Historic Broadway corridor, Million Dollar Theatre, Grand Central Market, Angels Flight, Grand Avenue Project, Civic Center Park. It will be the closest station to Gallery Row and Old Bank District and Historic Downtown.

2nd & Broadway includes connections to the streetcar, Broadway buses, Civic Center shuttles, DASH, and Civic Center Red Line station.

Build it right, don't build it on the cheap. The CEI numbers are amazing. Better than almost every other light rail station in the whole county.

Downtown more than any place in all of southern California can easily accommodate another 50,000 residents and another 150,000 daily visitors. Presently numbers are at 450,000 daily.

Why debate doing this on the cheap and leaving whole neighborhoods disconnected? Think more in terms of what do we want for the future, not where we are today.