Jim Shafer on September 24, 2012, at 11:32PM – #1

If you go to the "Its current proposed route" link in the last paragraph above, a map of the route can be seen. The loop in the southern part of Downtown is far too large-7th to 11th and Broadway to Figueroa. In that area, to go back where you came from, you'll have to go all the way around the loop first. From 7th to 1st it will be far better-a couplet running up and down Hill and Broadway. Tourists won't care about the loop since it'll be an adventure, but for locals, that loop will probably cause many not to use the system frequently.
Also, when the streetcar project was first proposed several years ago, the promotional materials originally showed what looked like replica or original streetcars, which would have fit in well with the historic architecture along a good part of the route and have been a nice way to pay tribute to LA's own Red Car and Yellow Car history (original cars from around the world are successfully used in San Francisco along Market Street and the Embarcadero). Then a switch was made in the promotional materials (including the website) to what is seen above-a very modern streetcar with a color scheme that I don't think I could ever warm up to...
The curious thing is that the website used to only show images of the modern-looking version in front of Staples Center and in front of Disney Hall, because I think they realized it would be too jarring to see the light green and blue modern streetcar with the backdrop of the beautiful historic buildings along Broadway and Hill.
To sum up, I'd like to see a couplet running along the southern part of the route (instead of the huge loop) and I'd like to see replica and/or original streetcars used for at least part of the fleet all the time. If modern streetcars must be used (they do have accessibility advantages I'll admit) they should at least have a more attractive body design and color scheme than what's currently being proposed.

on September 25, 2012, at 06:54AM – #2

Gross Factual Error Alert: The streetcar project's budget is $125 million, not the heart-attack inducing "billion," as presented at the end of the opening paragraph.

Pershing was a square on September 25, 2012, at 09:11AM – #3

@Jim - While I think old street cars look cool, I prefer the modern street cars for downtown. It projects modernity, progress, as well as having practical implications like accessibility. Most European cities use modern streetcars and they look great against the older architecture. I think the last thing L.A. needs is faux historical anything and downtown doesn't need to be locked into presenting itself as this old timey neighborhood locked into the past. It is the mix of urban modernity and history that will make downtown a vibrant place to live, work and visit.

Barry P on September 25, 2012, at 10:35AM – #5

I don't care about the longer loop, but I would love to see modern red cars to echo the city's history. Something like .

Matthew McKelligon on September 25, 2012, at 10:41AM – #6

@ Jim Shafer:

I agree with you about the loop. I, too, think it's far too wide in the southern portion. Honestly, I think the most useful route would be to run from 7th St./Metro Center south on Figueroa, down to 11th and then east to Broadway and up to 2nd St. That way, you still connect with 7th and Fig (who are big financial contributors to this project and won't stand for the streetcar not funneling customers to them) and allow for an easy connection for the lazy first-time Metro users who arrive at 7th St./Metro Center to go to LA Live. More importantly, though, both ends of the route would meet up with portions of the Regional Connector, which would form a continuous loop through downtown (albeit with one transfer on either end), connecting Bunker Hill, which was also a source of contention in planning the streetcar's route. Most importantly, though, the streetcar would make sense for residents in the Historic Core and wouldn't force them to ride the entire loop around to get home.

As far as the design is concerned, I disagree with you. Fundamentally, I don't believe in any recreation of the past, unless of course we find the actual streetcars that we had running downtown. This is 2012 and this project isn't solely an endeavor for tourists. Contemporary streetcars are larger, quieter and faster, to boot. The piecemeal mix of styles downtown are what make it interesting.

John G on September 25, 2012, at 10:56AM – #7

"Under the current proposal... our kids are going to be paying, our grandkids are going to be paying this for the next 30 years without any representation"

Diana Schwarz, the real costs to our kids will be the traffic congestion and exhorbitant expenses required to build a streetcar later in the future.

What our future kids will get now is the benefit and value of TIME. By building now, TIME lets today's costs (even for the next 30 yrs) become our future generations bargain deal. Just look at busy Wilshire Blvd and the benefit we would have had if we had build a subway earlier. Instead, people like you want to hold off and look what we have today. The Purple Line is under various lawsuits (Beverly Hills). Many rail lines are AT-GRADE, surface level competing with cars and pedestrians; no wonder why there are so many accidents like the Expo Line near USC. Building subways today are tremendously expensive and politically sensitive due to existing developments affected by such subway lines. If we had built earlier, it would have cost much less, economically and politically.

Today's vision of an LA Streetcar isn't just about our future kids piggybank. It's about their social and economic opportunities in living a global city that will be far different (and richer) from the one we are living in today...

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS () on September 26, 2012, at 12:16AM – #8

Just came from a DTLA streetcar meeting: it just doesn't seem like a sound project worthy of tying up congested DTLA with years (YEARS) of construction for a trolley that doesn't really go anywhere. (Look at the map. The route is tiny.) The trolley won't reduce congestion as it's not really a feasible form of transport -- it's just a little hopper from here to there for a distance that anyone can -- and should -- walk. (Look at obesity rates in Los Angeles...)

The trolley is cute, but it's far from essential, especially when DTLA's economy is so fragile. Even comparing it to Portland's tram system is a joke, as Portland has a tram network not just a little trolley circle. This is more like the trolley at The Grove.

Instead, DTLA residents should demand improvements and extended service and WIFI to the existing extensive DASH network. Incentivize walkability. Demand urban planning that serves DTLA residents, not just biz owners.

This is a project that will raise rents and wipe out all those mom and pop businesses on the route who can't weather five years of crippled business, including the new restaurants that are already struggling to "make it."

The smarter plan is to focus the energy and funds on what we already have -- the DASH for starters - and making DTLA the walkable / bikeable neighborhood it is.

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS () on September 26, 2012, at 12:35AM – #9

P.S. The promo video the streetcar people use relies heavily on the nostalgia of LA's historical streetcar system -- something that was a true citywide network rather than a highly local donut loop in a small part of downtown.

It also shows the streetcar passing by the Disney Music Hall (over and over) to exploit the Hall's Gehry architecture, but the streetcar isn't designed to go up Grand Avenue, but Hill.

The north 1/2 of the route -- between 1st and 7th -- makes little sense. It's only a block apart.

Matthew McKelligon on September 26, 2012, at 10:21AM – #10

@ TODOSSOMOSPUTOS:

If it's really the failure that you forecast, it shouldn't do very much to boost rental rates and real estate values through the roof. The congestion you speak of is also minimal--much less invasive and much quicker than cut-and-cover construction for a subway, for example.

Secondly, a streetcar WOULD be useful. Walking from 1st St. to 9th St. is one mile. That's nearly 20 minutes. It sounds like you don't walk very much yourself to make such an statement. It's basically allowing people to not have to take a short cab ride, which cab drivers don't like to give in LA anyway.

Thirdly, the northern half of the route is probably the most effective BECAUSE the tracks are a block or two apart--they're going in different directions. The southern half of the route is the questionable part of the alignment because it's less effective to have separate directions so far apart from each other. It's one continuous loop, not double-tracked in each direction. That's the problem.

Fourthly, LA's old streetcar network wasn't built at once, much like our subway and light-rail system. It takes time. Portland's system also started out smaller than it is today. You have to build off of something. Everyone would like to see a more extensive streetcar system connecting at least Union Station, Chinatown, the Arts District, etc., as well as other neighborhoods throughout LA.

Fifthly, the streetcar is not meant to "decongest" downtown. It's meant to help you get around it. It's a walk-extender. The subway, light-rail and buses that LEAVE downtown are meant to help with congestion.

Sixthly, nice name.

It bothers me that the same misinformed criticisms keep coming up and that many of those who have such a false perception may very well have a vote this November. It's too tiring to keep arguing. If you've lived anywhere else with a streetcar and utilized it, I think you'd understand the benefits. There is a clear hierarchy of transit (in order): long-distance trains, subways, light-rail, buses, streetcars, bikes, walking. Angelenos often don't understand because our system has been so piecemeal, but hopefully we'll evolve to realize that they all work together and don't compete against each other; they all fill separate, specific needs of distance and speed.

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS () on September 26, 2012, at 02:28PM – #11

MM:

1. The congestion of DTLA for the five years of construction will be insurmountable, particularly for those who work downtown and live elsewhere.

2. According to the streetcar people, there'd be a car about every 10 minutes. In 10 minutes, you'd easily be over 1/2way from 1st to 9th Street. We walk all the time, actually. That's part of living downtown -- it's so easily walkable. What's "cleaner" than a streetcar -- a pair of legs.

3. Hill and Broadway are a very short block apart. You're telling me that a trolley car is a benefit for this leg of the intended path? It might take someone 45 seconds to walk between Hill and Broadway. You're going to wait for a trolley to pick you up somewhere on Hill to loop around and drop you off a block away?

4. The LA streetcar isn't a transit system and it's highly speculative that it ever will be. Look at the friction the Beverly Hills dunderheads continue to give with the Subway. The DASH is a true and existing system. We need to pressure the LADOT to improve services and start buying eco-vehicles.

5. You need help walking from Broadway to Hill?

6. I know, thanks.

7. If you keep hearing similar criticisms, by and large, it's because they're true. Comparing the streetcar systems of other cities isn't relevant as this isn't a system. DTLA already has "connectability" to the transit leading to / from DTLA and people already use this network daily.

Matthew McKelligon on September 26, 2012, at 03:57PM – #12

@ TSP:

1. Construction is block by block, not all at once. It doesn't mean that every length of the route is going to be tied up for five years straight. (Honestly, I don't think it's supposed to even take five years to construct, though I wasn't at the meeting.)

2. I hear you. I walk quickly as well. For those who are walking even farther from their end stop on the streetcar, which I assume will be most people, it makes sense to ride it a mile in between as opposed to walking from 1st/Broadway all the way to 12th/Los Angeles. Remember, this is a "walk-extender", not a "walk-replacer".

3. I don't think the streetcar is targeting people who don't want to walk a block. If you're on 5th/Hill and need to go to 6th/Broadway, obviously you'd forego the streetcar and walk, just as you wouldn't take a bus either. If you're on 5th/Hill and need to go to the northernmost end, it could make sense to get onto the streetcar; if you need to go to the southernmost end, you'd obviously walk over one block to Broadway and get onto the streetcar (because like you said, it's not a wide block). We can all agree that the Historic Core is very walkable, as are most of the smaller neighborhoods within downtown. Walking in between those neighborhoods, however, is not always the easiest to get around, which is why my friends in the Historic Core DRIVE to Ralph's to grocery shop.

4. No, it's not a system--it's a route, much like the Purple Line on its own isn't a system for all of Los Angeles. The Purple Line is, however, great for going from the western end of Koreatown to MacArthur Park, which you most likely wouldn't spend the time or energy to walk to.

5. Not at all.

6. No hay de qué.

7. Nope, not really. It just means that there's a lot of misinformation or a lack of experience out there. Most cities I think of that have streetcars also have subways, buses and intercity trains, which the streetcar feeds into, much like the one in LA that they're planning. This will be part of the system, just like Angel's Flight isn't its own system. Why would you take the subway downtown if you're going to end up having to shovel back and forth between the Fashion District, Little Tokyo, the Historic Core and South Park? You won't--because most people don't know where the DASH runs or want to get onto a bus that has an unpredictable schedule or sits in traffic.

Ace Goodman on September 26, 2012, at 05:58PM – #13

This is the worst idea I have heard since that pocket park idea with the exercise bikes on spring street.

Why do local property owners have to foot the bill for an asset that benefits everyone in Los Angeles, especially shopping centers and MAJOR tourist attractions?

And of course, pay for it with a property tax hike in a neighborhood with a ton of renters who dont even have to pay for it. Why not a local sales tax increase so EVERYONE pays for it???

If you make bus stations LOOK and feel like trolley/light rail stations people will use the buses. LA buses can be confusing, the drivers are largely rude and plow through downtown. Not a welcoming environment either.

Those small DASH buses are difficult to enter and exit. Make them more accessible and create better station stops like they have in Seattle.

So many better solutions than laying fixed tracks for SLOW RAIL in 2012. LA needs rail to get people in and out of downtown fast.

Ace Goodman on September 26, 2012, at 05:59PM – #14

This is the worst idea I have heard since that pocket park idea with the exercise bikes on spring street.

Why do local property owners have to foot the bill for an asset that benefits everyone in Los Angeles, especially shopping centers and MAJOR tourist attractions?

And of course, pay for it with a property tax hike in a neighborhood with a ton of renters who dont even have to pay for it. Why not a local sales tax increase so EVERYONE pays for it???

If you make bus stations LOOK and feel like trolley/light rail stations people will use the buses. LA buses can be confusing, the drivers are largely rude and plow through downtown. Not a welcoming environment either.

Those small DASH buses are difficult to enter and exit. Make them more accessible and create better station stops like they have in Seattle.

So many better solutions than laying fixed tracks for SLOW RAIL in 2012. LA needs rail to get people in and out of downtown fast.

John G on September 27, 2012, at 02:52PM – #15

@Ace Goodman

I think it is reasonable to tax the local property owners. You say it will benefit everyone in Los Angeles, oh really? So if a person decides to hope on an LA Streetcar to catch a movie at LA Live (Regal Cinemas), who benefits? The residents near the Port of Los Angeles Harbor? Or maybe the businesses in San Fernando Valley near Chatsworth? The folks with the most direct economic (and social) impact of this project are the ones near these rail lines. And they will benefit indefinitely once its built, 7 days a week, 18 hours a day (based on the proposed operational schedule).

Be more specific. In the short-term, it will benefit the locals. In the long-term, it will benefit everybody. But your argument lies in the long-term perspective. And time means money (which helps the people near this project first).

Stop fooling people. You want everyone to pay for it? So why should someone outside this area subsidize the people who will utilize this project first. This route is a circuitous and confined rail network targeting specific areas. It will directly impact those around it. The increase in property taxes will most likely be offset by higher rents and retail prices, IF the market substatiates them. If consumers feel the higher prices are unjustified, then let them decide with their pocketbooks. There hasn't been one major city I have been to that had cheap rents and cheap prices in their core downtown areas. I don't think businesses and property owners should worry. So what's your next argument? The evils of Gentrification? Displacement?

The LA Streetcar should be built. It will provide the impetus for more development that benefits everybody in the long-run. It's not just for people who don't like to walk short distances. Its about alternative modes of accessibility, efficiency, a social venue, pathfinding adventure, and a sense of guidance among our urban infrastructure for the DIVERSE classes of people who are (or will be) living in downtown LOS ANGELES.

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS () on September 27, 2012, at 08:14PM – #16

The last most anyone noticed, DTLA was part of the City of Los Angeles, not a city unto itself, ergo, there's no valid reason why the burden of funding should rely on Downtowners.

You're accurate in calling the trolley car "circuitous and confined" however it's not a "network." Further, the "connectability" the planners are trying to sell is already covered and the trolley is redundant.

Have a look at the trolley route (in black) when layed over the existing DASH route, which already provides service to the bulk of riders already and is a true network:

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h64/toltekatl/388906_10151097469074482_448309228_n.jpg

John G on September 27, 2012, at 11:31PM – #17

@TSP

Perhaps that does indeed sound like a misnomer when I said "rail" network, but the message I was trying to convey was that this streetcar will "link" the various points of interests all together. In the mass scheme of things with downtown still currently growing, this project is exactly what we need to provide the "connectability" of downtown. How can one single mode of transportation (DASH buses) provide all the means necessary to fill in the gaps of mass downtown transit? A rail streetcar provides a dedicated route, a more stable platform, and most importantly, an alternative means of transportation that provides options to a diverse mix of residents living in downtown.

Matthew McKelligon on September 28, 2012, at 10:26AM – #18

@ TSP:

Also, I might add that rail replaces bus lines because in the long term, it's actually cheaper and more cost effective than running buses. Plus, they carry more riders. With that said, I think it's obvious some DASH lines would get phased out, just like certain bus lines get replaced by new light-rail or subway stretches. The DASH is great, I suppose, if you know its route and take it regularly, but for the average person who visits downtown by rail and doesn't necessarily live or work there, a streetcar is definitely more appealing given its fixed route. The streetcar makes perfect sense as a circulator of congestion.

Moreover, yes, construction can tie streets up, but we already have congested streets. Development is a reality and you have to plan for it. Being scared into doing nothing because you might cause traffic for a few years isn't a plausible argument in the 21st century--especially not in a city already paralyzed with traffic.

TODOSSOMOSPUTOS () on September 28, 2012, at 11:15AM – #19

Again, look at the map graphic in the link. The existing mass transit routes downtown are already well connected and this trolley car is both unnecessary and redundant. Look at the black line and see for yourself.

There is an abundance of MTA bus lines running up and down Broadway (and Hill and 7th, etc.) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to carry that passenger (in response to MM from above) from 1st to 9th street along Broadway -- in case they really don't want to walk the short distance in 13 minutes.

Further, considering the rush hour traffic that already takes place on narrow Broadway, how is that congestion not going to get worse with a slow moving trolley as the trolley won't have a dedicated lane?

John G on September 28, 2012, at 02:36PM – #20

@TSP

The trolley has a dedicated "ROUTE", not a lane. People move from point A to B through a route, whether its a lane, waterway, or an airway inside a Boeing 747 35,000 ft above mean sea level.

Let's be realistic here. Many of these Streetcar stops will satisfy the embarkation and destination points for many commuters. There will be no need to switch buses or walk longer distances than necessary. As the downtown population grows, we need redundant systems to complement each other. However, the key is implementing multi-modal means to cater to a growing diverse group of downtown residents. TSP, you are looking at this whole project affair in a piece-meal fashion. The fallacy I see in your argument is that the dynamics of a large urban downtown core have been neglected. Not everyone wants to take a bus, just like not everyone wants to drive a car or have the ability to walk long distances (handicapped, elderly), etc. It's not just about being LAZY or just using the system that works now. Remember, many of the projects we are doing today would have never made sense decades ago (like perhaps low ridership among various Metro light rail routes).

Today so many things have changed. Millions of commuters use the Metro rail every year and mixed-use in-fill developments are sprouting everywhere to fill the gaps in our old sprawled out tracts. According to the last census, people are moving into core urban areas (cities). So what if you hear that many Californians are leaving the state? There will be millions more moving in, whether its from another state, a new baby being born, or an immigrant coming in from another country. How will these people move in a large city? By using only one mode of transportation? Or maybe two? Or three?

The answer lies in creating a NETWORK, an integrated approach of moving people from point A to B through various multi-modal methods. People are not robots or clones. They have various styles, attitudes, and health conditions. Our global city called Los Angeles must reflect that. We must continue to innovate in a sustainable way that provides equitability for not only people, but the infrastructure we live in. If the LA Streetcar doesn't work, let us see. We haven't even given it a chance yet here. But we have already seen it in other cities and IT WORKS!!!

John G on September 28, 2012, at 03:03PM – #21

@TSP

"Further, considering the rush hour traffic that already takes place on narrow Broadway, how is that congestion not going to get worse with a slow moving trolley as the trolley won't have a dedicated lane?"

A rush hour traffic is a guaranteed way to waste hours sitting in a car. But why do you think people drive? Because they have NO OTHER BETTER ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. Ask anyone who drives if they had a better alternative, would they choose that alternative? I would bet on yes. If anything, the LA streetcar would help mitigate traffic, not create more. And yes, I believe that it will be a better alternative option for many instead of driving. For example, many non-downtowners take the Metro light rail into downtown. But once there, its another big headache to know all the various bus schedules. With the LA streetcar along major Metro train stops, the convenience and accessibility to other destinations can open up whole new markets for these businesses along the routes. Hence, it seems reasonable that they should pay supplementary taxes for this development.

You also need to think about what constitutes traffic along narrow Broadway. Are these car commuters out-of-town workers or locals performing "short-trip" errands? It can be various things. That's why I am a strong advocate for mixed-use developments and mass transit. Remember, downtown has been dead for decades and we are now just bring it back to life. Yet the current spatial arrangements of downtown primary and secondary uses reflects the love of suburbia we have had since post WWII. That's why we are so spread out between where we work and live. Today, we are still feeling its effects and getting worse as population density grows. And remember, most projects are never shovel-ready. It can take years for EIRs, entitlements, etc. etc. By the time a project has broken ground, the market or demographics might have changed that makes the development more feasible or even riskier. That's why we should never think of our Los Angeles city development in a piecemeal fashion. Those were terrible habits we formed through all the suburban developments we created, called "SPRAWL".