Laldava02 on September 24, 2010, at 04:41PM – #2

Obviously guest #1 is clueless about transit and how necessary this project is. The Downtown Connector will allow us to have a truly regional network that people will find convenient to use, especially as other lines are built. You want to know what is a colossal waste of money? all of the road and freeway widening projects that we fund regularly only to watch them contribute to our congestion and traffic woes.

Build this line now and build it underground.

Brigham Yen on September 24, 2010, at 06:34PM – #4

Guest #3 - The Regional Connector is not a waste of money. In fact, it's the best use of part of the Measure R funds as the Regional Connector will be the absolute key missing link that ties together all those EXISTING disparate rail lines that have obviously greater potential when they work together--linked together.

The debate here isn't whether or not the Regional Connector should be built or not, it's whether it should be underground or not. Being underground is a better option because it does not impede with traffic.

Again, the amount of money we spend on transit is a drop in the bucket compared to the TRUE squandering of our tax dollars to pave the roads in our disgusting sprawling suburban hell holes.

Russell Brown on September 24, 2010, at 08:37PM – #6

The Regional Connector is probably the most cost effective transit project in the entire nation. It will increase ridership throughout the stations downtown and every line connected to it. Its importance is connecting Santa Monica with East LA, and Pasadena with Long Beach.

It provides a seamless transfer-free network that dramatically decreases travel time and eliminates most neccesary changes of trains and stations.

The Cost Effectiveness Index for the Regional Connector is $16.00. The Federal target is $33. (The lower the better). The Westside Extension is right at that target CEI. The proposed East line Extension is as high as $130.

This missing link will integrate Red Line, with Light rail of Expo, Gold, Blue and Expo. It will help connect DASH, streetcar and buses.

Robert Moran (@RobertMoranLA) on September 25, 2010, at 02:05AM – #8

Guest #7. I see you criticizing the Regional Connector without suggesting an alternative. So what would you suggest we do with that Measure R funding which can only be used for public transit?

Brigham Yen on September 25, 2010, at 11:33AM – #10

Rail routes implementation in LA have been unfortunately swayed heavily by politics and neighborhood fervor (either for or against) and not by regional strategic planning.

It really should be emphasized that the purpose of rail is to get people to WALK to and from stations so that we start developing a WALKING LIFESTYLE where it is normal and expected to see throngs of people on the streets WALKING (and so events like the Art Walk are not viewed by the LAPD as "overwhelming" and requiring street closures and permits! LOL).

This is where DTLA comes in as the star of the area.

Downtown LA is the most unique built environment in the entire region as it pertains to pedestrian orientation. The grid network of streets allow a pedestrian to walk in any direction they choose to, which makes the walking experience infinitely more dynamic and interesting, and when DTLA has more things to do in the future, it will be the most exciting place to be a pedestrian.

Why?

Most of LA is zoned quite differently where long LINEAR commercial blvds. are flanked by huge swaths of pure residential neighborhoods. Think any commercial street and what usually branches off of it? Yes, houses or apartments. The long linear commercial streets may get a few people from the residential neighborhoods to come down, but the walking experience is really quite limited as you are forced to walk in only one direction (up or down the street). No one would be inclined turn right or left down a residential street unless they live there.

Anyway, it is important for this sprawling region to nurture and invest whatever it takes to get DTLA to become as walkable, safe, and vibrant as possible. The Regional Connector is one of the most critical pieces missing in that picture because, for example, it makes the Gold Lines (from Pasadena and East LA) so much more convenient to those who would otherwise not ride it to Downtown LA for work or pleasure.

Think about it:

If you're at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights and you wanted to go Downtown on a whim to LA Live/Staples Center, you probably wouldn't take the Gold Line unless you had to because it would either take you to Little Tokyo or Union Station. It's inconvenient and mentally discourages ridership. In fact, I used to lease lofts in DTLA and one of my new tenants worked downtown, but lived at the DEL MAR STATION in Pasadena. They NEVER rode the Gold Line downtown even though they lived right above it because they said they didn't like transferring at Union Station. This is a common complaint (even from me).

So if we can get people like that to ride the Gold Line downtown because they don't need to transfer, then I am confident more like her and her husband (both lawyers) will start to use it.

Finally, as we established earlier, DTLA is the most unique pedestrian oriented built environment (pre-war) in the region. It is an island of walkability in a sea of sprawling banal mess. It not only deserves to get a billion dollar rail line (which is still a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket spent on paving our ubiquitous freeways and roads), but it is absolutely necessary if we want to pave the tracks to walkability.

Russell Brown on September 25, 2010, at 12:35PM – #11

Use the example of Mariachi Plaza to LA Live.

Presently, if you wanted to use the rail system, you would enter at Mariachi Plaza, exit at Union Station Gold Line upstairs platform, walk 1 block downstairs then underground, enter the Red Line station at Union Station, exit at Metro and 7th RedLine to go upstairs to transfer to Blue Line to exit at 11th & Flower. You would pay 3 fares of $1.50 ea for one way. (Or buy a day pass). Same to return.

With Regional connector, 1 ticket, 1 seat, no transfers.

From Mariachi Plaza to Santa Monica pier and 3rd Street Promenade will be just as easy. 1 ticket, 1 seat, no transfers.

Or drive, wait on freeways with 50,000 others in traffic and pay $15 at LA Live (on a good day).

Imagine for downtown that Santa Monica Pier and Downtown Long Beach Aquarium and Old Town Pasadena are $1.50 30 minute back seat rides. No parking fees, minimal daytime schedule issues and a fun adventure. Little Toyko, Fashion District, Chinatown, Historic Downtown, LA Live will be just as easy for those in Santa Monica, Culver City, Pasadena, East LA, Long Beach and all the other cities along the routes.

We get all the benefits and none of the road and freeway traffic.

17,000 riders x $30,000 per parking space is $510 million to build parking garage spaces. A 5,000 car garage would be 6 stories high and 3 blocks long(from High speed rail studies). So where would one propose we build a 10 block long 6 story high parking structure to park the 17,000 rider cars?

Those are the choices. A great transit network of pedestrian neighborhoods focused on walkable distinct and divers communities or freeways, parking lots, parking garages, gas fumes, and dead landscapes in Sprawlville.

Russell Brown on September 25, 2010, at 03:40PM – #13

Not sure how regional Connector decisions are directly tied to Crenshaw station but...

A much better way to advocate for the Crenshaw station is for the neighborhood itself to show up and fight for it. That is not happening. Many in Hancock Park and the Crenshaw community itself are showing up at meetings and saying they do not want the station.

The numbers of riders are also not strong that there is a required need for the station. Only 1300 riders a day are lost if the station is not built. Local bus transfers to Western or Fairfax siphon most of the potential riders into the system at those stations.

The Red Line is close but still below the Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI)numbers that it needs. Either cost savings or increased ridership (which requires development and density) must occur to make a more solid case for that stations. The community is saying no increased development.

This is not my decision, but the community in that neighborhood and Metro's decision. Help organize locals to sound off on this. The decisions may be made and will be final within 45 days.

Scott Mercer on September 25, 2010, at 08:49PM – #14

Apparently, Mr. Guest has now inadvertanly revealed himself as Damien Goodmon. Tell me I'm wrong. You probably will, but I won't believe you, having read dozens of your, sorry, I mean, Mr. Goodmon's rambling whiny posts in the past. How are you Damien? Been around to check the construction at Farmdale recently?

James Fujita on September 25, 2010, at 10:42PM – #15

When I was at Anime Expo, I tried to convince my fellow anime fans to take Metro Rail.

It seemed like a natural choice: hordes of convention goers, unfamiliar with transit, often unable to afford the JW Marriott, uncertain or uneasy about buses, but willing to give rail a try. A lot of these Japanophiles wanted to combine a visit to Anime Expo (convention center) with a visit to Little Tokyo.

People were generally receptive to the Blue Line, and the transfer to the Red Line is relatively easy.

But, I found that the transfer from the Red Line to the Gold Line at Union Station is a harder sell. It's a longer, convoluted route and it's a more difficult transfer.

Even though Little Tokyo has its own light rail stop — one which really helps, I might add — a lot of people still get off at the Civic Center station, even though it involves a longer walk to Little Tokyo, and uphill on the way back.

I made the Pico Blue to Little Tokyo Gold Line shuffle, but then I'm crazy. I'm an anime-watching, train-riding otaku.

The Regional Connector would be a convention goer's dream. Little Tokyo (and they had better call it "Little Tokyo") to L.A. Live with no transfers? YES PLEASE.

Russell Brown on September 26, 2010, at 11:53AM – #17

to comment #16

Although that may be your preference, that is not a choice. Measure R is a transit plan and contract with the voters for a start of a master plan including rail.It is very detailed of what projects and expenditures nad amounts are included.

It is not a sidewalk repair and beautification program that can be substituted.

I do not disagree that the improvements that you want are bad ideas. I agree they are needed. However, Measure R is not the vehicle that will pay for them.

However, with all projects there are station improvements and a part of that will be included but not the entire budget as a substitute.

Joel Covarrubias on September 27, 2010, at 03:14PM – #19

To "guest": the residents of the Crenshaw District deserve better than a dead-end station at Crenshaw/Wilshire. Planning that location as the transfer point would mean terminating the Crenshaw Line in a place with no nearby destinations and no through connections. This would force Crenshaw riders to have to make an additional transfer to get anywhere useful.

Better to put the connection in a place with lots of north-south connections. At Wilshire/La Brea or Wilshire/Fairfax, Crenshaw riders can transfer to buses heading north, into Hollywood. One day, the Crenshaw Line itself might continue north from there as well. But that will never happen if you build the Crenshaw/Wilshire transfer station. That would be a permanent dead-end.

I think people get hung-up on the name "Crenshaw" and think that attempts to skip that station are racist. But if you give it just a minute of thought, you realize a station at Crenshaw/Wilshire would not serve the Crenshaw District at all. It would be in Hancock Park, and those people don't want or need a subway stop.

Joel Covarrubias on September 27, 2010, at 03:22PM – #20

Sorry, back on topic. The cost-effectiveness of this project is not determined per-mile but is based on the value it will add to the system. The FTA measures cost-effectiveness (value) by comparing calculating project cost (in dollars) to total commuter hours saved. Clearly, this line has very high value: its CEI (cost-effectiveness index) of $16 is better (lower) than the CEI for any other project in Metro's plans.

The Regional Connector will benefit all existing lines by removing bottlenecks at the turnaround points. It will allow riders to go farther with no extra effort. And it will remove a huge barrier to getting to other parts of the city. This project is a no-brainer.