|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 11, 2007 10:25:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 1, 2007 17:26:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 1, 2007 17:57:58 GMT -8
So is this different from any previous studies? Or will this more likely recommend an underground alignment for the Downtown Connector?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 1, 2007 18:15:20 GMT -8
We won't know what they recommend until after the study is completed. According to the document subway, elevated, and street running are all on the table. Although technically since one end is already underground and the other end is on the street, those two options are guaranteed. The subway will almost certainly continue to at least first. The big question is whether it will stay underground all the way to Little Tokyo.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 1, 2007 18:22:45 GMT -8
I would hope that they recommend subway all the way. It's already hard enough going down Flower or any of those other streets through downtown. We don't need a train at-grade to slow us down even more.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 1, 2007 19:38:02 GMT -8
Yes we want a subway all the way, but not to keep the car traffic moving quickly. We want to keep the TRAIN moving quickly!
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Jul 1, 2007 19:58:03 GMT -8
Finally. Grand Avenue really has to get behind (read: help fund) this thing, since they will certainly benefit. It is a perfect opportunity to dovetail the construction site with the connector as well.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 1, 2007 23:09:52 GMT -8
My understanding is that the new Downtown projects are including stations specs in their construction, but we clearly need to focus on the subway, at-grade or elevated issue. I have heard from some Metro planners that an elevated route gives us 90 second headway capability, but that a subway gives us 30-60 second headway capability...which is the best long-term way to go.
My preference is to not do this or any other project in a half-hearted way, and to be built right the first time. This means a subway, and not some project to be shoved through so we can move on to other pet projects. I hope we can unite and make sure this project is built correctly, so that if a nonsubway portion exists then there had better be a darn good reason for it...and not just to save a few bucks.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 2, 2007 7:33:02 GMT -8
My understanding is that the new Downtown projects are including stations specs in their construction, but we clearly need to focus on the subway, at-grade or elevated issue. They could include it in their specifications once they know which route they'll take. 30 second headways? Is that in one direction or both? Techanically the most frequent either one could do is 45 seconds because of the dwell and acceleration times. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 3, 2007 2:19:57 GMT -8
I wouldn't totally discount a (mostly) at-grade alignment. From a pedestrian-oriented perspective tha tis ideal; it encourages more pedestrian activity and more visible activity at that. Pedestrians can simply walk up to platforms and board the trains. Underground segments involve a walk down the stairs/escalator or a slow elevator ride (including the time to wait for it). If a"Transit Mall" can be fashioned out of one of the existing streets, I think this would be ideal. Portland's light rail system is virtually all at-grade in their Downtown and it integrates with pedestrian activity rather well.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 3, 2007 8:08:45 GMT -8
What are the capacity limits of an at-grade alignment? Considering that both Expo and Blue Lines may operate on very close headways. How would that effect the street signals for crossing pedestrians? Portland's system is currently experiencing packed vehicles during rush hours and their 200' long street blocks can only handle so many 2 car LRV's.
Now a transit mall option isn't a bad idea and Second Street or First Street from San Pedro to Alameda in Little Tokyo would be good candidates for that but, what has to be in consideration are the length of the street blocks whether or not a 3 car platform with ADA ramp can be placed there?
What could also be looked at is keeping whatever grade separated option (subway or Elevated) as close to the street level as possible to reduce that time.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 3, 2007 9:06:43 GMT -8
I wouldn't totally discount a (mostly) at-grade alignment. From a pedestrian-oriented perspective tha tis ideal; it encourages more pedestrian activity and more visible activity at that. Pedestrians can simply walk up to platforms and board the trains. Underground segments involve a walk down the stairs/escalator or a slow elevator ride (including the time to wait for it). If a"Transit Mall" can be fashioned out of one of the existing streets, I think this would be ideal. Portland's light rail system is virtually all at-grade in their Downtown and it integrates with pedestrian activity rather well. I'm totally discounting it. The street running portions of the blue line are already too slow. LA drivers have also shown a marked inability to NOT drive in front of moving trains. We even have emergency vehicles getting hit, as well as pedestrians. Such an important section of our system where trains will run a minimum of 2.5 minute headways MUST be grade separated. A fender bender on Washington not even involving a train screws up blue line service when emergency vehicles respond and one or both tracks are closed for a few minutes. Having a small accident screw up service on the blue, gold, and expo lines would not be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 3, 2007 11:43:13 GMT -8
The only solution for the DTC is above ground. I think that a downtown Elevated loop is something we need but no one will support. Thanks to Zev, it is going to be difficult for LA to do anything in the future since everything will involve subways. Zev has caused more permanent damage to transportation in Los Angeles than anyone in recent history. And he now wants the Purple line to be extended. The ban on local subway funding needs to be repealed asap.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 3, 2007 14:01:41 GMT -8
It can be above ground it just depends on which corridor it takes and how it gets there. Here's a planning dialogue
For example, I can envision the route starting in a Subway emerging from a portal north of 3rd/Flower and taking the bus-only lane there and converting it to LRT use. Then it ducks into a shallow "tunnel" under Hope and Lower Grand for a station on the lot due South of Disney Concert Hall. From there continuing about 20' below grade crossing upper and lower Grand and passing by Colburn School, it goes under Olive until the topography changes and the grade lowers and it transitions from underground into an elevated.
It could continue down Second on the North side of the street with mitigation of wider southern Sidewalk with large street trees (But worry about noise and visual aesthetics from Loft residents) or cut diagonally above the 1st/Hill Subway station into an elevated down the middle of wider First Street.
From there this elevated could turn North onto Los Angeles Street until Aliso and then turn and meet with the existing elevated bridge being built for the East LA Gold Line forming an elevated Wye and then proceed north to Pasadena/S.G. Valley. And or for just East LA bound trains it could go down and transition from Elevated to Street level between LA Street and San Pedro where it could run in a transit mall fashion closing off the roadway for Car traffic except for one far right lane. Believe it or not this could work since all of the parking structures in the Little Tokyo area has it's entrances away from First Street except for one and that one is uni-directional with no Left turns in or out of the building.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 3, 2007 17:35:49 GMT -8
Zev has caused more permanent damage to transportation in Los Angeles than anyone in recent history. And he now wants the Purple line to be extended. Unless of course he's going to punt and demand the bus-only lanes, because that's how they do it in Brazil.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 3, 2007 20:32:01 GMT -8
Bus only lanes are in New York, London, Paris, Athens, Istanbul, etc....
It's something MUCH NEEDED in Los Angeles to complement a public transportation system. Bus only lanes should not compete against Metro rail (i.e. as in New York, London, Paris, Athens, Istanbul, etc...)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 3, 2007 20:53:33 GMT -8
To Jerard et al:
I've heard from some folks about a combined subway/elevated concept similar to what Jerard describes above, although I'm not familiar enough with Downtown to really wrap my brain around the specifics.
I do believe that the vicinity of the 7th and Metro station terminus of the Expo/Blue Lines should be underground, but beyond that I certainly don't mind elevated rail unless it's too slow or will have an inability to accommodate the trains of four lines.
As with the Green Line/LAX extension, we're talking about multiple lines coming together and using adjacent or even shared space. This must be done right the first time!
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 3, 2007 22:27:54 GMT -8
Here's my thoughts. When the line reaches the Little Tokyo area select trains will continue north to Union Station and other trains will continue east to East Los Angeles via the Gold Line.
My first choice is an underground subway. I saw some posts addressing the problem of losing time by walking from the street level and down to the stations. I think that if the stations are designed properly, then this issue should at the very least be addressed. Perhaps a good idea is to have subway entrances on both sides of the street and both ends of the station. That gives the passenger four access points from the street. I also think that (if fire codes allow) the elevators should travel directly from the street level all the way to the platform level. With that, I believe that at least two traction elevators need to be placed at each entrance and that the TVM's and TAP validators should also be placed at the street level. These are worth trying...
My second choice is the elevated structure. With that, the design of the entire structure (not just the stations) needs to match the theme of the redeveloped areas. I think its also worth it to try to have the TVM's and TAP validators on the street level.
The at-grade street level service is probably the least expensive of the three, but I believe safety comes before expense. Both the Blue Line and the Orange Line have histories of wrecks and I think for safety reasons, having an at-grade light rail line (shared by multiple lines) through Downtown is a bit risky. Slower speed local streetcars I think will work better at-grade in the Downtown area, but I think an at grade system for the Downtown Regional Connector are traffic wrecks waiting to happen. If at-grade is a must, serious safety and design work must be done or the wrecks will happen.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 4, 2007 11:05:19 GMT -8
Here's my thoughts... I saw some posts addressing the problem of losing time by walking from the street level and down to the stations. I think that if the stations are designed properly, then this issue should at the very least be addressed. Perhaps a good idea is to have subway entrances on both sides of the street and both ends of the station. Or keep the level of the subway as close to the surface level as possible to minimize that travel time by making the street the "mezzanine" and coupled with entrances at at least two sides of the street that go directly to the train platform. I believe it's legal, the only issue with the elvators is that they have to have a large enough size for an emergency services and the landing has to be large enough. That already exists on the elevated stations on the system.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 4, 2007 12:24:27 GMT -8
Assuming that there is a stop under Bunker Hill as I think that there should be, the station will likely be pretty deep.
If the elevator goes straight to the platform where would the fare gates be? On the street or on the platform?
Either way it's hard to say whether it will be even possible for elevators to go all the way to the platform level. We could decide to use the new wide bore TBM's which would mean that the tracks/platforms would be on top of each other.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 4, 2007 21:40:37 GMT -8
A station that serves Bunker Hill, and a station that serves City Hall and its immediate vicinity, are both paramount for this Downtown Connector to work. Ridership on all connecting light rail lines would likely immediately go up in a dramatic fashion.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 5, 2007 19:26:50 GMT -8
A station that serves Bunker Hill, and a station that serves City Hall and its immediate vicinity, are both paramount for this Downtown Connector to work. Ridership on all connecting light rail lines would likely immediately go up in a dramatic fashion. I agree and those are the only two stops that I envision between Little Tokyo and 7th/metro. One station should be between 2nd and 3rd on Hope and the other on 1st between Broadway and Spring.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 5, 2007 22:23:13 GMT -8
Thanks for the feedback. Of course, I'm just pitching some ideas. What comes out from the full, in-depth studies, will determine which option will work best. Of course, faster speed traction elevators from the street to the platforms of a streamlined, downtown LRT subway system from 7th Street to Little Tokyo would be nice, but the studies may conclude that the idea will or will not work. I understand that fare gates may also be factored into the equation. I think the gates should be on the street level, but I'm just throwing some ideas on the table.
I do agree with many on the intermediate station stops: the Bunker Hill area and for sure the Civic Center area. This will give Red Line, Purple Line, Blue Line, Gold Line, and Expo Line riders direct connection to the Civic Center area.
Of course, I'm in for an efficient downtown connector. One's that fast & convenient, yet one that's safe and well designed & built. Metro shouldn't rush this project only to have a flawed system. Metro needs to master plan this project well and complete it the right way the first time.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jul 5, 2007 23:22:27 GMT -8
I think we really need subway stations at Westin Bonaventure Hotel area and the Disney Concert Hall on Bunker Hill.
Those stations will be deep. People might get the bends, riding down from the elevator to the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 6, 2007 7:53:49 GMT -8
Isn't there already a red line station (civic center) a block from Disney Hall and City Hall? The only problem is the station is down-hill so it is a steep walk.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 6, 2007 9:20:42 GMT -8
I don't know that Disney by itself warrants a station. But it's on Bunker Hill. If we get a station on the hill, rather than at the bottom like they are now people that work in those huge office towers and use the cultural amenities in the area will be much more receptive to transit.
As Ken said a station there plus a station that serves the government office workers will really boost ridership. It will likely take ridership away from the red/purple lines. Many of the office workers that fill the subway at rush hours are also Metrolink riders. I think that many of them given the choice to not walk up/down the hill plus arrive at Union station at a better location for transferring to metrolink will choose the light rail subway.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 6, 2007 11:27:17 GMT -8
I don't know that Disney by itself warrants a station. But it's on Bunker Hill. If we get a station on the hill, rather than at the bottom like they are now people that work in those huge office towers and use the cultural amenities in the area will be much more receptive to transit. Exactly, One of LADOT's most heavily used services is their Metrolink Bunker Hill shuttle and a good number of the riders transfering from 7th Street Metro from the Rail will continue their trip up to Bunker Hill. When I have a free moment I'll scan the 2004 report where they were trying to go "cost-effectively" Not only there but right near the Civic Center is Historic Core/Broadway (either on First or Second between Broadway to Main Streets) area which would be a big lure for riders coming from East LA and other local art galleries and activites that are sprouting up at that location. As well as lure more of the Loft dwellers who are currently a large share of the reverse commute demographic around Downtown to get around the region a whole lot easier.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Sept 24, 2007 19:08:09 GMT -8
The main problem in the downtown connector is bunker hill, but if it was elevated, and then ran in a tunnel thourgh bunker hill, it would be as deep: lol sorry, I know its a bit big but oh well.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Sept 24, 2007 22:12:34 GMT -8
Wow, another tunnel and overpass on Bunker hill. Just add a streetcar trolley tunnel and Bunker hill will start looking like Swiss cheese.
Does your proposed tunnel go over or under the 2nd and 3rd St. tunnels ?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 27, 2007 17:02:29 GMT -8
It looks like it could go over the Second Street tunnel with a cut-cover hand dug tunnel and under Third Street and transition to a short "elevated" section between 3rd/Flower to Hope Street and then portal out of that after 2nd/Olive Street since there's a 40' difference between Olive and Hill Street.
|
|