Comments on: downtown’s regional connector routes illustrated

By: Ham

Ham — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:42:55 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:51:03 +0000

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.

By: Jerard

Jerard — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:38:46 +0000

“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.

By: Joshua Reyes

Joshua Reyes — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:54:16 +0000

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.

By: Scott Mercer

Scott Mercer — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:29:54 +0000

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.

By: Jo Mama

Jo Mama — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:38:59 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:30:58 +0000

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.

By: Rich Alossi

Rich Alossi — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:15:11 +0000

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.

By: Stephen Friday

Stephen Friday — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:12:05 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:54:20 +0000

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.