|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 12, 2010 21:38:00 GMT -8
As much as it's frustrating at times, this is really moving forward. Metro didn't get federal funds this year for this project, but if it can get past the EIR process that should change for next year!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 12, 2010 22:54:19 GMT -8
As much as it's frustrating at times, this is really moving forward. Metro didn't get federal funds this year for this project, but if it can get past the EIR process that should change for next year! The million dollar question is whether this underground station and its extra costs still allow the connector to be a cost effective project that will attract federal money since so little local money is allocated for it. Overall, this underground station option appears to be the best solution from my relatively limited knowledge of this project, and with the new rules in New Starts not necessarily limiting awards with certain cost-effectiveness, it may not be a deal killer. We are starting to have a big problem with Measure R. One is that sales taxes are way down from initial projections so some projects are going to have to take a hit. Also, before we have even put shovels in the ground, we are likely to have a Downtown Connector and Crenshaw Line that are significantly more expensive than originally envisioned. So even without the first problem, some additional funding source has to be found.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 13, 2010 15:28:56 GMT -8
I hope the additional reliability and speed of the all-underground option will pay back the 20% cost increase required. 2 miles of subway and 3 subway stations for 1 billion is a pretty good deal, compared to similar projects such as the Link tunnels and subway stations in Seattle and the Purple Line extension.
With the Blue Line near capacity and the Expo Line likely to be heavily used, the Regional Connector needs to be as efficient as possible, so that it will not limit the number of LRT trains we can run thru downtown in rush hour. The at-grade crossing of Alameda could have led to frequent delays and required padding in the schedule.
I agree that the new federal New Starts rules should help this project, considering the downtown location. But it should still be cost-effective by the usual metrics.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 21, 2010 12:58:52 GMT -8
In the old underground alternative, the 2nd Street Station was between Main Street and Los Angeles Street. In the new underground alternative, this station has been moved west two blocks, to between Broadway and Spring.
Does anybody know why? I know they say it's because it would provide a connection to the proposed Broadway streetcar. But if that's the case, then why wasn't it moved west two blocks in the other alternative?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 22, 2010 12:06:00 GMT -8
In the old underground alternative, the 2nd Street Station was between Main Street and Los Angeles Street. In the new underground alternative, this station has been moved west two blocks, to between Broadway and Spring. Does anybody know why? I know they say it's because it would provide a connection to the proposed Broadway streetcar. But if that's the case, then why wasn't it moved west two blocks in the other alternative? Because it was originally located there to balance out the distance and serve both City Hall/Historic Core and Little Tokyo. Since Little Tokyo will have a station in this new alignment to replace the at-grade station, the City Hall/Historic Core would have a station serve this area.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 22, 2010 21:44:41 GMT -8
The new station position are one of the big improvements of the new all-underground alignment. The current "Little Tokyo" station is right on the border of the Art's / Warehouse district; the new station could have entrances a block further south-west, closer to the center of Little Tokyo. And the Main/Los Angeles station was would have been 2 block from Broadway, which will now get a station portal right at Broadway and 2nd, the north end of the historic theater district. Hopefully, the location of the station will dissuade the downtown streetcar planners from making a looped route on Broadway and Main, which would result on 2 block walks minimum for everyone (at at least one end of the trip), defeating the purpose of a street car, which tends to be rather slow. A couplet on Broadway and Spring would be tolerable, especially if the streetcar could get it's own lane, but a two-way route on Broadway would be much easier to use for the tourists and occasional riders that a streetcar would attract. And why not take out the parking on Broadway and put the streetcar there; downtown has a superabundance of parking garages and street parking as it is.
We should all get behind the underground alignment. It will be a good investment in the system and in downtown.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Feb 23, 2010 8:47:22 GMT -8
Does the contra-flow, bus only lane still exist on Spring St? If so, that would be idea for the trolley. Of course, the buses could still use it. Then the trolley flow would be N-Spring, S- Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 23, 2010 13:58:27 GMT -8
^ The contra-flow lane was removed in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 23, 2010 22:20:57 GMT -8
A transit-only lane would make a big difference for the streetcar. The big advantage buses have over streetcars is the ability to merge into the next lane over to get around obstacles (double-parked cars, crashed vehicles, construction work). That's why traditional streetcars are just as slow as buses, or slower, when mixed with cars in the same lane. Devoting a lane to transit north and south through the historic core would make the streetcar much more reliable, as well as improving bus service reliability throughout the system.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 24, 2010 8:05:34 GMT -8
I'm interested to find out how the wye at Little Tokyo is going to be done. Will it be squeezed in between the station and the portals...is there enough space? Or will it be located west of LT Station, which would imply two separate platforms at that station?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 24, 2010 16:02:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 24, 2010 20:22:34 GMT -8
^ Thanks, rubbertoe, but it doesn't answer my question. I get how a two-level station works. My question is: what do they intend to do for this particular project? Will they do a split station (with the wye west of the station), or do they intend to do a normal station (with the wye east of the station)?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 24, 2010 23:34:11 GMT -8
Will they do a split station (with the wye west of the station), or do they intend to do a normal station (with the wye east of the station)? A normal station with wye east of the station, per the conceptual map on the previous page, is the proposal for the fully-underground third alternative.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2010 9:52:55 GMT -8
Oh yeah, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 14, 2010 17:55:26 GMT -8
Anyone else think that the downtown connector would provide an opportunity for improvements to the light rail platform at LAUS? I'd be interested in what others think.
My thought is that the current platform configuration will be insufficient for the huge increase in ridership. At first I was thinking that maybe an additional entrance from the Metrolink platforms might help. Like an elevated walkway with escalators directly from the upper level tracks to Platform 1 and 2. And then I was also thinking about Brigham Yen's idea from years ago to knock down the wall at the bottom of the gold line steps and make an entrance directly to the red line. But I'm not sure that either will be enough.
Given that the downtown connector will have the closest stations to the business district I think that LAUS will need more than the 12 tph rush hour service that a combined Long Beach/SGV service would provide. I think that it will need that amount plus maybe 4-6 TPH of the Expo trains short-turning at LAUS. East LA should be able to get by with 6-8 TPH at rush hour.
The light rail platform at LAUS will be one of the busiest in the entire system including heavy rail stations. My idea would be to build an entirely new platform that would allow transfers to Metrolink trains at platform level. The new platform would be used in combination with the existing platform and would provide an additional third track for trains to short turn. The easiest way to do this would be to build an additional platform east of the existing platform. (Platform 3 would have to be closed for this to happen.) This would allow Metrolink riders to directly access the connector platform, but they would be on the "wrong side" for downtown bound trains in the morning therefore there would still need to be either an elevated or underground access built in addition to the existing access.
Anyone else think that the current platform will be insufficient or have any ideas for improving LAUS?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 15, 2010 18:59:16 GMT -8
A lot depends upon what happens with Cal HSR. Cal HSR could end up at Union Station, which I kinda hope it does because that sort of connection between Shinkansen-level service and Amtrak, Metrolink and Metro Rail is absolutely vital. If that happens, then the Cal HSR service would likely end up above the existing tracks. I would hope that station improvements would be done in such a way that people would be able to get easily from CalHSR to Metrolink/ Amtrak/ Gold Line but also, from Gold Line to Metrolink without going through CalHSR's gates.
If it doesn't happen, then an pedestrian overpass from the Gold Line to the Metrolink tracks would be a huge improvement, assuming that the platforms are wide enough for such a thing.
I'm not sure about the cross-platform transfer idea. I'd hate to kill that track between Metrolink and the Gold Line, as I think Union Station is going to want to have as many tracks as possible in the future. Then, of course, there's the fact that Gold Line passengers are standing ABOVE Metrolink passengers because of the elevated light rail platform. It would be easier if Metrolink had platform level boarding, of course.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Mar 19, 2010 22:52:19 GMT -8
Anyone else think that the downtown connector would provide an opportunity for improvements to the light rail platform at LAUS? I'd be interested in what others think. My thought is that the current platform configuration will be insufficient for the huge increase in ridership. At first I was thinking that maybe an additional entrance from the Metrolink platforms might help. Like an elevated walkway with escalators directly from the upper level tracks to Platform 1 and 2. And then I was also thinking about Brigham Yen's idea from years ago to knock down the wall at the bottom of the gold line steps and make an entrance directly to the red line. But I'm not sure that either will be enough. Given that the downtown connector will have the closest stations to the business district I think that LAUS will need more than the 12 tph rush hour service that a combined Long Beach/SGV service would provide. I think that it will need that amount plus maybe 4-6 TPH of the Expo trains short-turning at LAUS. East LA should be able to get by with 6-8 TPH at rush hour. The light rail platform at LAUS will be one of the busiest in the entire system including heavy rail stations. My idea would be to build an entirely new platform that would allow transfers to Metrolink trains at platform level. The new platform would be used in combination with the existing platform and would provide an additional third track for trains to short turn. The easiest way to do this would be to build an additional platform east of the existing platform. (Platform 3 would have to be closed for this to happen.) This would allow Metrolink riders to directly access the connector platform, but they would be on the "wrong side" for downtown bound trains in the morning therefore there would still need to be either an elevated or underground access built in addition to the existing access. Anyone else think that the current platform will be insufficient or have any ideas for improving LAUS? I am not so certain. Many Gold Line riders i n the mornings will remain onboard their trains, not disembark to other trains for their ride into downtown. From that perspective... the large flux of folks channelled down stairs will me much less. Admittedly, Metrolink riders going downtown would have a new option in the Blue/Gold Line, but if room/seats and frequency are not matched by what the Red/Purple provides, the switch-over could be nominal. Though, the Gold Line platforn IS much closer than the Red/Purple. I hope Metro is thinking about this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 20, 2010 12:01:36 GMT -8
As I'm reading this a thought occured to me that maybe the approach is to add a platform but to the west of Track 1. This would enable better directional flows and concentrate all the demand to the appropriate track and platform and in the appropriate direction.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 8, 2010 6:49:55 GMT -8
Metro was previously said the would have the DEIR completed by late summer. Anybody know if they are still planning to meet that schedule?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:21:06 GMT -8
I am cross-posting this advertisement for Friday's rally on several threads: RALLY FOR 30/10 Los Angeles City Hall Friday August 13 at noon"Join us on August 13th as we rally to tell the federal government to support LA County's 30/10 Plan with New Start Grants, low-interest federal loans and interest rate subsidies. This will enable LA Metro to build the 12 Measure R public transit projects in 10 years rather than 30! Invite everyone you know!" See the Facebook page for more information.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 11, 2010 10:31:14 GMT -8
Somebody really ought to make Facebook page for the 30/10 Initiative.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Aug 19, 2010 10:19:26 GMT -8
Regional Connector draft study almost complete thesource.metro.net/2010/08/19/regional-connector-draft-study-almost-complete/We’ve been writing a lot about the Westside Subway Extension in recent weeks, but I wanted to pass along some good news about a related project, the Regional Connector. The draft environmental impact study/report for the Regional Connector project is expected to be released later this summer or early this fall.That’s a big step because the draft study is a looooong document that analyzes all the small and big elements of the project. That includes whether the project is built at street level or underground (many members of the downtown community support the underground alternative, btw), the location of stations and construction impacts, to name a few. [...] It should be an interesting next few months, because the draft environmental studies for both the Westside subway and the connector projects should be released about the same time. It’s not quite as exciting as seeing actual dirt getting moved, but in my view it’s a major step forward — the next best thing. Under Metro’s long-range plan, the Regional Connector would open in 2019. There is a possibility — emphasis on that word — that date could be advanced if the 30/10 Initiative to accelerate construction gets traction in Washington. As of now, the connector project will receive some funding from the Measure R sales tax increase approved by voters in 2008. Metro is also negotiating federal New Starts funding with the Federal Transit Administration for both the connector and subway projects.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 19, 2010 17:09:35 GMT -8
Good to hear. Things are moving forward, even if sometimes it seems it's at a glacial pace. Here's a summary of the big Metro projects and their current status (August 2010). - Regional Connector - DEIR this fall, approval and LPA this winter.
- Wilshire Subway - DEIR this fall, approval and LPA this winter.
- Crenshaw Corridor - FEIR completed this winter.
- Gold Line Foothill - Design and pre-construction already begun.
- Expo Phase 1 - Opening 2012 (hopefully).
- Expo Phase 2 - Design and construction to begin in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 20, 2010 14:41:00 GMT -8
Good to hear. Things are moving forward, even if sometimes it seems it's at a glacial pace. Here's a summary of the big Metro projects and their current status (August 2010). - Regional Connector - DEIR this fall, approval and LPA this winter.
- Wilshire Subway - DEIR this fall, approval and LPA this winter.
- Crenshaw Corridor - FEIR completed this winter.
- Gold Line Foothill - Design and pre-construction already begun.
- Expo Phase 1 - Opening 2012 (hopefully).
- Expo Phase 2 - Design and construction to begin in 2011.
Lets hope we don't have any more Expo Phase I's going forward. We should be riding the line now and now the MTA is only saying some of the line may open in 2011. Yes, Farmdale is some of the reason, but a lot of the rest is just poor construction management. I am going to be upset if this line at least to Crenshaw is not open for the start of school and football season next year (although I realize there is a good chance it may not be). It will be nice to see some real construction on Expo Phase II. Lets hope we see that in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 28, 2010 7:15:52 GMT -8
Just received this e-mail from Metro about the DC: Please be on the look out for an important announcement regarding the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Study and Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR), and public hearing dates for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study. Metro anticipates releasing the Draft EIS/EIR on September 3, 2010. The document will be available in multiple locations in the project area for your review and will also be posted on the project website at www.metro.net/regionalconnector. If you are receiving this email, you are in our database and will be notified when the Draft EIS/EIR is released. In the meantime, please mark your calendars for the upcoming public hearings: Tuesday, September 28, 6:30 to 8 p.m. Japanese American National Museum 369 E 1st St, Los Angeles Monday, October 4, 11:30 to 1 p.m. Los Angeles Police Department Headquarters 100 W 1st Street, Los Angeles Thank you again for your interest in the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study. We look forward to seeing you at the upcoming public hearings.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 30, 2010 9:48:31 GMT -8
Here is the announcement rubbertoe was notified about: DEIRs for the Regional Connector (and the Westside Subway) will become available to the public this Friday, September 3!
From Metro CEO Art Leahy:
Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector Draft Environmental Documents
I am pleased to inform you that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has approved both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector draft environmental documents for public circulation. This is a major milestone for these Measure R 30/10 Transit projects which could not have been completed without the cooperative efforts of FTA and our staff. For both projects, the 45-day public comment period will start on September 3rd through October 18th. The Board will consider adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative for each project at the October 28, 2010 meeting.
Public hearings for the Westside Subway Extension will take place on September 20th at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, September 21st at the Westwood United Methodist Church, September 22nd at Plummer Park in West Hollywood, September 27th at Roxbury Park in Beverly Hills and on September 29th at the Santa Monica Library. All meetings will start at 6:00 p.m.
Public hearings for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor project will take place on September 28th, 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. at the Japanese American National Museum, and on October 4th, 11:30 -1:00 at the new Los Angeles Police Department Deaton Auditorium.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 30, 2010 14:42:27 GMT -8
So is this the project that Boxer hinted at last week that will be getting federal money to accelerate the timeline? Or is it Crenshaw? The purple line would seem to be the most obvious choice except that it's not as far along. My guess is Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 30, 2010 18:37:56 GMT -8
So is this the project that Boxer hinted at last week that will be getting federal money to accelerate the timeline? Or is it Crenshaw? The purple line would seem to be the most obvious choice except that it's not as far along. My guess is Crenshaw. I am guessing that it is a little money for prelim engineering for either the DTC or Purple Line. I don't think Crenshaw will get any New Starts funding - it just can't compete against projects across the country. I'm not sure there is a big pot of money that will just appear so I wouldn't get hopes up for anything big. Of course, I have no real knowledge of any of this so take with a grain of salt, but that is my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 31, 2010 8:56:23 GMT -8
So is this the project that Boxer hinted at last week that will be getting federal money to accelerate the timeline? Or is it Crenshaw? The purple line would seem to be the most obvious choice except that it's not as far along. My guess is Crenshaw. I wouldn't say the Purple Line isn't as far along: DEIRs for both projects (Regional Connector and Westside Subway Extension) will be released on Friday. Boxer is asking the Feds for FFGAs (Full Funding Grant Agreements) for both projects.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 3, 2010 6:55:56 GMT -8
Downtown's second subway is one step closer to reality as of this morning. Can't wait to dig into the details: thesource.metro.net/2010/09/02/draft-study-for-regional-connector-released-connecting-the-spokes-of-countys-transit-system/The Regional Connector Project team has designated the Fully Underground light rail transit alternative as its Locally Preferred Alternative — the version of the project proposed for further study and design. The recommendation is based on technical analysis and community input and support. The fully underground alternative was added to the project because the Little Tokyo / Arts District Community opposed having the regional connector cross 1st and Alameda at street level. This version — to again emphasize the point — would go under that intersection. In addition, a new underground Little Tokyo station would be built at the site of the current Office Depot to replace the current Gold Line station along Alameda after construction. Here are a few more details from the draft study: •The project creates two cross-regional light rail lines in the county. The North to South line — currently the Blue Line to Long Beach and the Gold Line to Pasadena and eventually to Azusa — would be about 50 miles long. The East to West line — the future Expo Line to Santa Monica and the Gold Line to East L.A. — is approximately 25 miles. There is also a study underway to possibly extend the Gold Line from East Los Angeles to either South El Monte or Whittier. •Because the Regional Connector offers a one-seat ride through downtown, ridership on all the light rail lines is expected to increase as commuting times decrease and transit becomes more competitive with driving. For example, the Gold Line is expected to see a 10% ridership gain between Chinatown and Pasadena and an 18.4% increase between Little Tokyo and East L.A. •About 90,000 passengers are expected to ride the Regional Connector on the average weekday, including 17,000 who do not currently use mass transit. At present, the Blue Line is the most heavily-ridden of Metro’s light rail lines with 77,545 average boardings each weekday. •The Regional Connector is expected to save many passengers 10 to 20 minutes in the time it currently takes to transfer to another line. For example, a passenger on the Blue Line will no longer have to transfer at 7th/Metro Center to the Red Line to reach the Civic Center in downtown L.A. And a passenger on the Gold Line will no longer have to transfer to the subway or a bus at Union Station to reach downtown L.A.’s central business district. •Downtown L.A. remains the LARGEST employment center in the county and the Regional Connector will pass through several parts of downtown expected to keep growing in population and jobs in future years. •Construction of the project should help improve traffic congestion at 11 intersections in downtown, including the busy junction of 1st and Alameda, by taking some cars off the road as more people ride transit. What happens next? The release of the draft report starts a 45-day public comment period to give community members a chance to offer their opinions on the report. Two public hearings are also scheduled for September 28 and October 4; more details are here. The Metro Board is set to consider approval of the Regional Connector draft and the locally preferred alternative at its Oct. 28 meeting.
|
|