downtown’s regional connector routes illustrated
This blog has moved to Twitter! Check out my twitter feed for the latest restaurant, retail, and cultural news in the neighborhood.
Eric Richardson at blogdowntown has been doing an excellent job covering the public outreach on Metro’s proposed Regional Connector aimed to link Downtown’s three rail lines (Red/Purple, Gold and Expo) while adding service to the northwest quadrant of the Financial District.
Eight alternative routes have been established for the connector designed to extend north from the 7th/Metro subway station through the northern edge of the Financial District before veering east toward Little Tokyo.
Each of the study options present slightly varied routes through the city, considering subway, street-level designs and combinations thereof. Though construction of this critical rail link is still years away, most Downtown boosters today argue 100% subway operation is the only feasible strategy.
Ultimately, factors such as cost, local resistance, ease of integration, coverage efficiency and traffic/pedestrian impacts will dictate the preferred alignment.
Alternative 1: Comes above ground on Flower before 3rd. At grade onto 3rd, Figueroa, into the 2nd street tunnel, and then 2nd through Little Tokyo.
Alternative 2: Comes above-ground on Flower, turns onto 3rd, onto Figueroa, then wraps around DWP to Temple street and takes that until the Gold Line.
Alternative 3: Subway into the 2nd street tunnel, pops up in the tunnel, then at-grade on 2nd to Main and Los Angeles, using the two to connect to Temple street and take that to the Gold Line. Alternative 7 is the same, except using only Los Angeles.
Alternative 4: Subway into the 2nd street tunnel, at-grade in the tunnel, then surface operation down 2nd through Little Tokyo.
Alternative 5: Subway operation all the way through Little Tokyo, then surfacing to run across Alameda and 1st to connect to the Gold Line.
Alternatives 6 & 8: 100% subway operation, including reconstruction of the connection to the Gold Line. Differ in whether they tunnel under right of way or under Little Tokyo Plaza. Metro currently says that either of these options would require losing the Arts District / Little Tokyo station.
12 comments
What? Why would these option necessitate losing the Little Tokyo station?
You could just build a simple Wye junction at the intersection of First and Alameda, just south of the station.
I don’t get it.
Plus, none of these options consider going underneath First Street. I don’t know why that was done, either.
I like alternative 2, connecting Grand Avenue with south downtown, but I wonder if Temple Street can handle more traffic. However, I encourage part of the line to be above ground as it I think an above ground rail line would improve the quality of streetlife and the civic image of the city. Many cities manage above ground rail and I think it improves the perception of the city and quality of the riders experience. I think for a smaller neighborhood line it totally appropriate for the line to be above ground —- more people would be on the street and more people would use it if they don’t have to descend into stations.
Underground is the only way to go. You don’t want the trains to have to slow down through downtown. That said, I would have chosen 3rd Street instead of 2nd Street for the crosstown portion of the line. Stops would be at Hope and 3rd (instead of Hope and 2nd), Spring and 3rd, (again, instead of 2nd). Would have then allowed for one more station, at either San Pedro (or Central) and 3rd, before turning up Alameda.
Alex, you make some good points. I also like the vibrancy a ground level train brings to the pedestrian experience. It would also be cheaper than subway tunneling. To me, one of the most important benefits of the connector is to bring connectivity to the northwest part of Downtown, which right now is a pedestrian wasteland b/c of its car-centric street designs and ramps.
Rail service up Figueroa to Temple (Alternative 2) could improve that part of the city. I haven’t decide which route I think is best yet though.
Personally, I don’t think it needs to go underground. Traffic in northwest Downtown isn’t that bad (with the exception of 2nd Street, usually).
There’s nothing wrong with the line going “local/streetcar” in the Downtown area, which is done in many cities around the world.
Portland, OR has the MAX light rail system. The trains are grade separated outside downtown, but in downtown they share the street with cars. Needless to say, this slows the trains down considerably. Now that might be okay in Portland, because downtown is truly the center of the region. But downtown is not the center of L.A. There will be many people passing through, from East LA to Culver City, or from South Central to Pasadena. These people don’t need to add an extra 10 or 15 minutes to their commutes because the train runs on surface streets.
I don’t understand you “underground is the only way to go people” - I feel like these are the same people saying we really need to bring back trolleys all over downtown. I might be wrong, but I don’t think you can justify advocating both positions.
Underground is my personal preference and I advocate strongly for it.
In spite of the last comment, adovcating for an underground Regional Connector, and an above-ground streetcar are NOT incompatible. Allow me to explain, Jo Mama. (If that is your real name.)
The two systems have two different functions. The “Downtown Streetcar” or whatever it ends up being called is a Circulator, which will probably run in some kind of loop within the Downtown area. Its purpose is to shuttle people around Downtown on short trips within the central city, which are too far to walk. Taking City Hall workers over to South Park for lunch. Moving people arriving on the Red Line to L.A. Live or the Grand Avenue complex. Bringing Bunker Hill residents over to the Fashion District. Trips of that variety. For brief trips like that, passengers will actually SAVE time with at-grade since they won’t spend 5 minutes walking down into a tunnel for a 2 or 3 minute train trip.
The light rail lines (Blue, Gold, Expo) are an entirely different animal. They are primarily for commuting over long distances (though a small minority of passengers do and will use them for short-hop one-stop trips) over 5 miles, or 10 miles, even as far as 35 miles if the Connector is built.
The idea of the Connector is to provide a one-seat ride (no stopping and transferring trains) along various corridors. Metro can then provide different services (A Train: Pasadena to Long Beach, B train: Culver City to Long Beach, C Train: Culver City to East L.A., D Train, Long Beach to East L.A., etc.). And they connect not just those terminals, but everywhere along the line(s) in between.
If the idea is to speed people’s commutes by eliminating transfers, then why go back and INCREASE their commutes again with slow, at-grade trains that have to stop at traffic lights in Downtown? Surface running will add probably up to 5 or 6 minutes to the trip through Downtown. When you have a 55 minute commute already, another 5 or 6 minutes can be frustrating.
For this reason, I advocate Alternative #5, and I believe everyone should as well.
Does this not bring back memories of Alameda in the 90’s?!
In this of car-oriented city, having light-rail go in between surface streets causes backups, traffic, and inevitably, collisions.
Besides; as it is, our streets in Downtown are ALREADY handling more traffic than they can handle. Let’s not make it worse.
Would it drive up the cost and price to build and maintain? ABSOLUTELY!
But I have come to the conclusion that they benefits far outweigh the costs when evading street traffic from the cars buses taxis and shuttles.
Having said that, my vote would go for the 100% underground alternative.
“Alex, you make some good points. I also like the vibrancy a ground level train brings to the pedestrian experience. It would also be cheaper than subway tunneling. To me, one of the most important benefits of the connector is to bring connectivity to the northwest part of Downtown, which right now is a pedestrian wasteland b/c of its car-centric street designs and ramps.”
I would agree with that assesment 100% if Second Street was rededicated as a strictly commercial/retail corridor, similiar to what was done in Calgary with it’s surface running at-grade transit mall, then Alternative #4b would be perfect. But with residential/mixed use in the mix with a narrower street, it alters the frequency and future capacity that is needed for our regional LRT system. There are projects on the pipeline that will be built as LRT that will need the direct Downtwon access and building it at-grade prohibit that access and potential to build future transit corridors because there’s no more room to squeeze out future extensions.
Very well stated , Scott. For those who still don’t understand the differing purposes of light rail versus a streetcar, please follow this link to the Portland Streetcar (http://portlandstreetcar.org/). On the left, click on “future planning” and download the map for the streetcar loop. You will see that all the light rail lines run into downtown, but the streetcar loop literally forms a loop from the west side of downtown to the east side of the Willamette river and back. Once you get downtown (either by train or by driving and parking), you are able to get around easily without your car. Portland is a model city when it comes to modern mass transit.
Scott Mercer - Absolutely; I couldn’t have said it better myself. Alternative #5 is the way to go. The point of the downtown connector is to connect people *through* downtown. If done underground, it would probably be faster than driving most times of the day. Increasing access *within* downtown is of secondary concern. Also note that as the connector, there will be many, many trains on this route. That much train traffic needs to be removed from the mixed flow of traffic; crossing 2nd Street with these trains blocking the way half the time would become a nightmare.
The Broadway/LA Live street trolley would serve a function that is almost entirely different. That one *would* be for trips within downtown.