|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 27, 2010 15:11:23 GMT -8
That street running on Flower is going to be an Achilles Heel for the Regional Connector for a while.
In 1990, it made sense. Demand a subway on Flower back then, and you end up with cost overruns = no Blue Line. In 2010 and beyond it's going to make less and less sense.
I like the idea of a Flower Subway. Make the Pico station nice and big and make sure you have entrances in that big ol' parking lot across the street from the convention center. Or run a pedestrian tunnel INTO the convention center lobby, just like you have parking directly under the convention center.
Of course, we should really consider other ideas as well. Such as a Second Regional Connector, this one up the east end of downtown.
None of this comes online until we have the Subway to LACMA, the Green Line to LAX, the Crenshaw Line and the Foothill extensions, of course!
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 27, 2010 15:51:44 GMT -8
Well, originally metro staff wanted a mostly above ground DTC. If there are severe problems from the volume of street running trains on Flower, they may find that the extra money for the underground option was well spent. I agree about the point that engineering compromises to reduce costs and make a project feasible are important, and often a good idea. I think it would be a sign of the system's success if some of those designs need to be upgraded at some point. It's unfortunate to miss out on building the system in a way that anticipates future growth, but better anticipation of future needs will be properly incentivized by the cost of a retrofitting project or two.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 27, 2010 16:57:57 GMT -8
The best thing to do would be to extend the tunnel along Flower to Washington, with the Expo Line emerging there (either north or south of the intersection) in a grade separated junction with the Blue Line, and the Blue Line continuing underground past the Grand station and the series of closely spaced cross streets between Grand and Los Angeles. That'll also speed both lines up just a bit and eliminate conflicts between southbound Blue and northbound Expo trains. But that's a project that's at least a decade or two out, and it doesn't make sense to even begin planning it until Expo and the DTC open and we get a good idea of how much demand there really is on the existing services on the Flower Street surface segment. Or one idea I've been flirting with for a while is just build a new alignment from a new super Pico Station through the bustling Fashion District that would replace the at-grade Washington Blvd section for the Blue Line, this would reduce impacts and improve capacity/demands.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 27, 2010 18:41:30 GMT -8
Well, originally metro staff wanted a mostly above ground DTC. If there are severe problems from the volume of street running trains on Flower, they may find that the extra money for the underground option was well spent. I agree about the point that engineering compromises to reduce costs and make a project feasible are important, and often a good idea. I think it would be a sign of the system's success if some of those designs need to be upgraded at some point. It's unfortunate to miss out on building the system in a way that anticipates future growth, but better anticipation of future needs will be properly incentivized by the cost of a retrofitting project or two. That, in a nutshell, is one of the central arguments amongst all rail transit fanatics. Some would rather wait and build the "perfect" system, but I, for one, have always felt that "perfect" is often the enemy of the "good" system. There are advantages to building NOW and waiting for upgrades later, and the Blue Line is a perfect example of this. We will very quickly see if Expo + Blue + Regional Connector = Blue Line upgrade. I suspect it will.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 27, 2010 20:24:23 GMT -8
Or one idea I've been flirting with for a while is just build a new alignment from a new super Pico Station through the bustling Fashion District that would replace the at-grade Washington Blvd section for the Blue Line, this would reduce impacts and improve capacity/demands. That would be a mistake. Pico station needs to serve Staples Center, the LA Convention Center, and LA Live!. Those hold huge crowds during the big events. This is a huge destination for both day and night. Whereas, Fashion District is daytime only..and limited on Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 27, 2010 22:49:59 GMT -8
I know this is getting off topic, but I have to mention the best solution sounds like the one someone mentioned about using Figueroa with an event day station off the Staple Center/Convention Center. During non-event days/time, it could be used as a layover, storage, or even as a bypass to Pico Station. I even drew up a quick jpg to illustrate, but, I can't seem to paste it here.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 27, 2010 23:08:57 GMT -8
Or one idea I've been flirting with for a while is just build a new alignment from a new super Pico Station through the bustling Fashion District that would replace the at-grade Washington Blvd section for the Blue Line, this would reduce impacts and improve capacity/demands. That would be a mistake. Pico station needs to serve Staples Center, the LA Convention Center, and LA Live!. Those hold huge crowds during the big events. This is a huge destination for both day and night. Whereas, Fashion District is daytime only..and limited on Sundays. I would agree if that is what Jerard meant. There's no real reason to bypass Pico, unless Pico were served by some other route. However, I'm not sure that's what Jerard meant. I would see no problem with a route which connected Pico with the Fashion District, although I'm not sure how that would look on the map. Certainly the Washington stretch is another source of slowness. Of course, we need to keep Trade Tech in mind as well. Perhaps one set of trains can run via the Fashion District and the other via Washington.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 28, 2010 6:59:14 GMT -8
I think the Washington portion could be eliminated since Expo will serve Trade Tech with the 23rd street station. I never see that many people get on and off on Washington except for at Grand and Pico, and more coming from downtown than from Long Beach...but it would create the problem where the two line no longer connect. hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 7:27:06 GMT -8
IMO, the problem to solve is not so much Washington Blvd., but rather Flower Street. This is the common section (shared by Blue and Expo Lines) running at-grade. I think it's important to reduce or eliminate this potential bottleneck. A traffic accident could take out two major rail lines. Moving the Blue-Expo connection any farther south that would not solve this problem (in fact, it would make it worse).
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 28, 2010 10:18:59 GMT -8
Or one idea I've been flirting with for a while is just build a new alignment from a new super Pico Station through the bustling Fashion District that would replace the at-grade Washington Blvd section for the Blue Line, this would reduce impacts and improve capacity/demands. That would be a mistake. Pico station needs to serve Staples Center, the LA Convention Center, and LA Live!. Those hold huge crowds during the big events. This is a huge destination for both day and night. Whereas, Fashion District is daytime only..and limited on Sundays. As for Fashion District, I'm sorry but I'd have to really disagree with you on that. On the weekends there are a lot of workers and shoppers looking for bargains down there and with a lot of the lofts and new condos sprouting out around that area, it only makes sense to have something serve it. The Blue Line would still serve the Pico Station, as I'm suggesting enlarging it in some fashion (with either a second set of platforms, placing it underground, etc)and having it run on a new alignment NORTH of the current one by doing this, the impacts are reduced by 50% for the Expo Line south of there because it can run on a 5 minute headway on its own track from Pico Station south.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 28, 2010 12:22:27 GMT -8
I love the idea of expanding Pico station. I'm not clear on the technical details, but what I'm thinking (combining my own ideas with everyone else's) is: - Put the Blue Line underground, eliminating the street running - enlarge the station, both with extra "big event overflow" tracks and with pedestrian corridors to the convention center/ Staples Center/ L.A. Live How we go about doing this, I don't know. Some blogger (I'm sorry, I forget the name) pointed out that there is a lot of open space near the existing station. This mostly takes the form of convention center overflow parking lots. He wasn't too happy about that and made the point that somebody could turn that into a TOD (he was right). I made the point that you might want to keep at least some of that open space. For one thing, the city (or somebody) held a giant streetball tournament at Staples Center not so long ago, and they converted several parking lots into outdoor basketball courts, which I thought was an awesome way to use that open space. An urban sports park. Also, during Anime Expo, one of those parking lots was transformed into a giant Food Truck Smorgasbord. Yummy! ;D Of course, even with food trucks and basketball nets, there would still be room from something to be put on top of our proposed new station. What we need is a transit-friendly developer. A railfan Anschutz or Eli Broad who would build "L.A. Live Mark 2", and allow the underground connections to the Pico Superstation. Aw well... dreams, eh?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 12:33:54 GMT -8
Some blogger (I'm sorry, I forget the name) pointed out that there is a lot of open space near the existing station. This mostly takes the form of convention center overflow parking lots. He wasn't too happy about that and made the point that somebody could turn that into a TOD (he was right). Those are parking lots, but they are owned by private entities and are among the most expensive undeveloped properties in Los Angeles. There are plans for each of them (all currently on hold due to the "downturn") to be hotels, condos, etc. IOW, these are not up for grabs, in any practical sense.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 12:37:13 GMT -8
I've been trying to figure out if there's a way to elevate the track over Flower Street. An elevated segment like this could be done with four tracks, at much lower cost than a subway. Doing this would result in grade separations for Venice and Pico. Pico station would be elevated.
Certainly this could be done north of the 10 Freeway. South of the freeway, the four tracks would be at grade. These would be two pairs: one pair for the Blue Line and one for the Expo Line. No curved junction at Washington/Flower.
The big question with that plan is how, on the north end, to transition the elevated train to underground.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 28, 2010 13:39:41 GMT -8
Some blogger (I'm sorry, I forget the name) pointed out that there is a lot of open space near the existing station. This mostly takes the form of convention center overflow parking lots. He wasn't too happy about that and made the point that somebody could turn that into a TOD (he was right). Those are parking lots, but they are owned by private entities and are among the most expensive undeveloped properties in Los Angeles. There are plans for each of them (all currently on hold due to the "downturn") to be hotels, condos, etc. IOW, these are not up for grabs, in any practical sense. Well, that just makes things easier. We do whatever the developers want. If the city were smart, it would demand that these private entities at least give strong consideration to the light rail station next door, assuming that they haven't already done so. Unfortunately, it also means that these new developments will be established well before any of our Pico subway station ideas get built. In the meantime, this question of public-private partnership isn't going to go away. It may be how we finally get some really awesome transit-oriented subway station malls, etc. built, along with the transit improvements which should go with development.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Sept 28, 2010 20:34:20 GMT -8
Elevated north of the freeway? That would be quite some rollercoaster, crossing under the freeway and presumably across Venice at grade, then flying up to an elevated section some 1000 feet long including the Pico station, and immediately diving down into a tunnel, crossing 12th at grade along the way.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 28, 2010 21:49:52 GMT -8
Yes that would be quite a rollercoaster LOL. I actually was thinking the tracks would go to elevated south of Venice. It looks to me like there is enough room for that.
As a rollercoaster though it's certainly not unprecedented. See the Blue Line's Slauson station as an example.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 29, 2010 2:04:48 GMT -8
I have to say, I'm not crazy about elevated stations.
We do have El stations in Los Angeles, from Chinatown to South Los Angeles, but we've also seen El stations attract NIMBY attention. NIMBYs killed the Wilshire El station idea.
Also, the possibilities for El station development are somewhat limited. You need something similar to Blossom Plaza, Chinatown (in development limbo) or a second/ third floor lobby (the Bonaventure is still waiting for its peoplemover...).
Los Angles hasn't fully taken advantage of the possibilities with subway station/ basement level development, but the possibilities are there.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 11, 2011 20:31:32 GMT -8
I find the Compton redevelopment to be impressive. Just look at the area surrounding the Compton station which has been a huge boon with the high ridership. There's the new Towne Center and easy access to the existing government operations and courts, and there's even new condos and apartments going up. www.comptoncity.org/index.php/Community-Redevelopment-Agency/community-redevelopment-agency-overview.htmI find remarkable that Compton Station has changed the surrounding area so much yet the station before it, Rosa Parks Station with many more boardings and potential has been left to languish, many don't like having to transfer there under the I-105/Green Line bridge. Luckily City of LA is looking into redeveloping it similarly though driven more by retail and public open space. thesource.metro.net/2011/02/24/renderings-of-potential-development-at-rosa-parkswillowbrook-station/It's awfully funny how Target is getting tacked onto nearly every redevelopment these days, like the new Target at Compton Station, the proposed one at Rosa Parks Station, there's one going in at Expo/Crenshaw Station, and the one under construction at 7th St/Metro Center Station.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 16, 2011 12:03:12 GMT -8
It's awfully funny how Target is getting tacked onto nearly every redevelopment these days, like the new Target at Compton Station, the proposed one at Rosa Parks Station, there's one going in at Expo/Crenshaw Station, and the one under construction at 7th St/Metro Center Station. Target has gotten flak for donating to Michele Bachmann, but I can see how they end up in all of these developments. They are one of these "everything in one place" stores, with clothes, toys, food, electronics, etc. Basically a department store without the status and prestige of a higher-end store.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Apr 16, 2011 12:32:24 GMT -8
It's awfully funny how Target is getting tacked onto nearly every redevelopment these days, like the new Target at Compton Station, the proposed one at Rosa Parks Station, there's one going in at Expo/Crenshaw Station, and the one under construction at 7th St/Metro Center Station. Target has gotten flak for donating to Michele Bachmann, but I can see how they end up in all of these developments. They are one of these "everything in one place" stores, with clothes, toys, food, electronics, etc. Basically a department store without the status and prestige of a higher-end store. And Walmart because of its anti-union policies has been pretty much shut out of Southern California.
|
|