Talk Connector Rail with Metro; Tomorrow and Wednesday

So is this another commuter railway link? Or is this "connection" just for joining the Blue and Gold lines for maintenance purposes? I'm a bit confused as to what exactly the mesh of green grids will do... bring the Blue Line to meet with the Gold Line somewhere along the new East Side construction zone? More rail is always exciting in LA... :)

The green lines are all different alternatives. Only one would get built. If built as envisioned, the Downtown Connector would have at least 3 stops, one int he Financial District, one at Bunker Hill, and another at the Historic Core, providing real connectivity to all of downtown and providing direct train service to all of the outer ends of the light rail system.

It's been on the MTA's long range plan for years. I am very happy to see it moving forward.

Thanks for the followup Bert – I understand that all the green grid lines are alternative routes... but I still don't get what the "Downtown Connector" *IS* – is it a direct extension of the Blue Line from the 7th st Metro Station to meet the Gold Line? is it an added alternate track for the Gold Line to come to the 7th St station? or is it an entirely different "line" connecting the Blue and Gold terminals (ala NYC's "S" shuttle train from Grand Central to Times Square)?

Beyond the basic objective of linking the Blue and Gold lines with the attendant benefits of improved connections and sharing of the maintenance yard, it seems to me it is imperative that a station be constructed to service the Grand Avenue development. The fact this development is on top of a hill makes getting there quite physically demanding for residents if they are walking. (Try doing it pushing a stroller. Whew!) Hopefully, the Grand Avenue developers can understand how their project relates to the surrounding neighborhoods. My fear is it will be developed as another drive-in/drive-out project. Parking is important, but should not be the only element.

As Bert pointed out, a station in the Historic Core/Toy District would be very useful for residents. It would also give shoppers another way to get to the vibrant Toy District.

I also wonder if the routes are envisioned as underground like 7th & Metro or emerging to the street.

Simply put, the connector would join the Blue Line, the Expo Line, and both Gold Line branches into a single, connected system. It would do this by adding new track and stations in Downtown. This Connector would benefit the entire Metro Rail system by linking the various lines together.

To clarify some comments here, having a stop in the Historic Core is one option. As the alternatives map suggests, the route could also go farther north, by City Hall.

The whole point of the meeting is for the public to voice opinions like these. None of it is yet set in stone.

Speaking of Grand Avenue Development.

Because that project is set on top of a hill when they did it's EIR I believe it recieved a bad grade for traffic with limited vehicular access to the project. Having this transit project serve this area is one of the most important assests not only to the Bunker Hill/Grand Avenue but as to how the region sees the importance of how our transit network finally comes together.

One other element I'll add is that with this corridor ridership on the Gold Line would double even the triple because now the rail is providing time competative rush-hour transit trips to the auto going into Financial District or Staples Center.

Re #7

Exactly with with the ridership. i take the train almost everytime i go to Staples from the Pasadena Area or Ave 26, but for the normal person, its too much of a hassle because of the transfers. If, scratch that, when this connector is built, ridership will go up considerably on ALL lines. No doubt about it.

When the connector was first proposed back in the 90s, stations were spotlighted for 3rd & Flower, 3rd & Main and in Japan Town. Also, an added funicular from street level at 3rd & Flower to run up to 3rd & Hope. That would put people two blocks from the steps of Disney Hall. A station at 3rd & Main would prompt an entire new streetscape thereabouts and retail programming could take advantage of the decided historic content at that location. Most of all, the block now occupied by the World Trade Center needs to be redeveloped. That building is the most ill conceived structure in the entire city. A new highrise multiuse scheme would work great with a connector station thereat.

The only comment I'd make about the connector route proposed in the early 90s is that 3rd & Flower is one incredibly desolate intersection. I used to drive through here all the time when I lived on Broadway & Third. The southeast and southwest corners are completely dead. I'm not sure why a station would be built here. I don't think one should be. Close to the action is where it should be built.

My fear is the Grand Avenue developers will take the same tack as Universal Studios did with the Universal City station for the Red Line. That station is not integrated into this major destination in the most efficient way. Because 3rd & Flower is so dead, it would probably be easier to build a station at this location. But, riders would find it inconvenient getting to Grand Avenue, which realought to be a key objective.

David is spot on regards the intersection of 3rd and Flower. Flower Street is infamous across the nation among urbanistas and in circles architectural. That area ought not remain in infamy; major surgery is required. The undertaking of a light rail connector is a major opportunity in this regard. There are three significant facts determining the route. One is that a light rail tunnel would have to be constructed by cut and cover technique rather than by boring. The second is that such a tunnel can only be run under public streets or land as yet undeveloped. Third is that the light rail track can climb only SO steeply and not a degree more. If a cut and cover tunnel were to be dug along Flower Street and then curve eastward to run beneath Second Street (which seems like the only possible solution), then a station at 2nd & Grand would be quite deep and expensive, more deep than the Civic Center Redline Station. As well, the quality of development of parcels thereabouts is beyond doubt. Not so 3rd & Flower. Attention needs to be brought to a major proposal included within the CRA sponsored 1992 Strategic Plan. A transit station at 3rd & Flower would facilitate redevelopment of the blocks adjoining the southwest and northeast corners. The World Trade Center is an abysmal embarrassment to Downtown. The sloping lawn to the northeast looks like outer suburbia. We need density and urbanity here rather than placeless landscaping surrounding a concrete DWP bunker. There is a PDF which I can send to anyone who may wish to have it. Just send me a message at the e-mail address indicated at my website and I'll e-mail them the PDF. The document copies two pages out of the Strategic Plan, shows a spectacular aerial perspective looking southeast revealing a realigned Flower Street between 2nd and 3rd. This slight shift of the roadway would provide additional land for new housing development west of Hope to surround and hover above the obnoxious DWP facility at 3rd & Hope. A funicular is part of the concept. Also included is a brief text description explaining the benefit of a realignment of Flower. This concept was the Strategic Plan's one major surprize and it certainly ought to be pursued in tandem with the Connector. Utilizing the Connector for acutely needed urban repair on the west side of Bunker Hill is far more important than having a transit station beneath Grand Avenue. That avenue is and will be magnetic enough; no transit station is needed there.

If all of the lawn near the Third and Flower Street intersection is eliminated, where are the bums and homeless gonna sleep?

The World Trade Center should be replaced by the tallest building in L.A. Let's make it 90 stories tall. Instead of a crown at the top, there should be an entertainment venue, a revolving Gil Lindsay Memorial Lizard Lounge with an express elevator for politicians only. If he were still around, a light rail connector would have been completed a long time ago!

Sally, you're a scream. I stomped my feet laughing! You'd best hope Joanna Carson doesn't hear about all of this.

Nope.

The Connector should go up Flower and turn on First.

Nobody mentioned that alternative. Stations should be at Flower and Fourth/Fifth, First and Grand (Grand Ave. Project and Music Center/Disney Hall), and at First and Spring/Main (City Hall...station entrance on south lawn).

Should be ALL underground, emerging at First and Alameda to join the Gold Line. Unfortunately, we'd have to move that one story building that houses Senor Fish. I know it's old (probably around 1895), but it's not very distinctive architecturally and it's falling apart. Senor Fish, make way for the new Metrorail...I'm taking the E train from Pasadena to Santa Monica as soon as it arrives. Wake me up in 2020.

So I checked out one of the community meetings this week. On the way home from daycare, I stopped off at the Japanese-American Museum. I didn't hang around for the Powerpoint presentation. I just checked out the various exhibits. Nothing I couldn't find at the MTA website.

However, I did pick up one of the comment forms to give my two cents. My station and route recommendations were up Flower to Bunker Hill with a station to service Grand Avenue. Then east on First Street and turning south on Main for two blocks before heading east again on Third Street to Alameda. From there, just a couple blocks north up Alameda to the Little Tokyo station. I figured there'd be another station to service the Historic Core and/or the Toy District. I eschewed continuing straight down First all the way to Alameda as Scott recommends. I fear the construction would be so disruptive to the businesses there. First and Second are quite lively. I'd hate to see them endure a few years of construction activity.

I'd urge everyone here with thoughts and ideas to share them. Go to the MTA's website at:

http://www.metro.net/projects_programs/connector/default.htm

In an earlier comment, I was quite mistaken in regards to cut and cover vs. boring construction methodology. Twin-bore method has been used for the Gold Line Extension beneath Boyle Heights. I think it is pretty clear that cut and cover would be required beneath Flower Street, north of the Metro/7th St. Station. If there were to be a station at 3rd & Flower, the major issue is what method would be needed between that location and Japan Town, given the existing Redline tube and stations under Hill Street. Cut and cover wouldn't be feasible there. And I would answer David by asking why there should be a Connector station outside of a 2600 seat venue, two blocks from the Civic Center Redline Station? Why the obsession with Disney Hall? It seems clear that tunneling would need to descend and dive a sufficient depth beneath the Redline to prevent any damage. We all need exercise. Why couldn't Music Center/Disney patrons walk from a station at 3rd & Flower and loose ounces? So here's another possibility: from a station at 3rd & Flower, twin bores could curve eastward and downward beneath the exising structures atop Bunker Hill, plus the Redline, and then rise up to a station under 3rd Street between Main and Los Angeles. From there, these tunnels could make a broad, 120 curve, turn northward and rise up to grade on the west side of Alameda between 1st & 2nd. At the First Street intersection, trains could either proceed towards Pasadena or turn east towards Boyle Heights. Providing transit stations at presently (and superlatively) developed addresses is backward thinking. Nothing else is gained going forward other that the convenience of culture lovers. It's sort of like the fat man who goes Christmas shopping at the mall, walks a mile or two over four/five hours and when he walks outside to the parking lot, cusses and complains because he has to walk all the way back across the parking lot to his car. New light rail stations at 3rd & Flower and at 3rd & Los Angeles would provide a tremendous incentive for redevelopment. Redevelopment at 3rd and Flower is needed equally as much as at 3rd and Los Angeles.

You may well be correct, John. You've raised many details which I've not challenged. I'm not engineering expert. I would happily defer to such expertise.

My focus on a station servicing Grand Avenue/Bunker Hill is the fact the location is on a hilltop. I've hiked up that hill and pushed baby strollers up Grand and First and Temple. It is physical challenge which could easily cause location to be inaccessible to most pedestrians and local residents. I don't particularly care about the details. Just as long as I know my parents can access Grand Avenue and its various cultural ammenities without a gruelling hike.