|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 20, 2007 21:03:34 GMT -8
The DTC up Alameda is a horrible idea. What destinations would a rider hit if they had to divert off Washington and straight to Alameda to Little Tokyo? Think about it. What rationale person coming from South LA will want to take that route? Your major destinations are LA Convention Center, Staples, Nokia, LA Live, the Central Business District, Bunker Hill, Civic Center, etc...you would miss ALL that with an alignment bypassing Washington. Then, people would have to connect to buses, thereby creating an added 'inconvenience' to transit and another reason why transit doesn't go 'anywhere'.
Yes, functionality, a spur up Alameda would be faster, but you are missing a TON of destinations. I would rather drive if I was coming from South LA then have to walk to Alameda from South Park to take the Blue Line home.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Nov 20, 2007 21:20:58 GMT -8
I'm gonna have to agree with LAofAnaheim. Would you rather travel faster AND have to transfer to a bus just to get to Disney Concert Hall, or would you rather just have the train take you to the doorstep. Transportation is not all about speed. Its about getting where you want to get to without any hassle.
{Btw, that was just my 100th post!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D}
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 21, 2007 6:53:50 GMT -8
The TTC Boardmembers to date have, for the most part, recommended a four-line, subwayed routing beyond Metro Center to Union Station that goes up Figueroa/Flower and proceeds east on either 1st or Temple. We've also recommended a future project that extends the subway backward from Metro Center as a future project.
Speed and capacity are big issues, and it's my guess that we'll have this dilemma in the future. A pretty good dilemma, considering how we still have got lots of folks who wonder if folks will ever use mass transit at all.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 21, 2007 16:29:26 GMT -8
4 tracks? Maybe, but it'll be a big waste as long as there are only 2 street running tracks feeding them from Flower.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Nov 21, 2007 19:36:25 GMT -8
4 tracks are a bit much. And pricey. You can always make another line that could loop around downtown.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Nov 21, 2007 19:50:36 GMT -8
It actually wouldnt be a total waste. The way I thought of it is that it will give the Foothill Gold Line a proper terminus within downtown at 7th/Metro. The four lines radiating from downtown will all run through (SM-pasadena/East LA-LGB or SM-East LA/Pasadena-LGB) but the Foothill line is so long that it would have to terminate in downtown. Where the four tracks end at 7th/Metro they can be set up so that the platforms currently used by Blue/Expo would be the termini tracks for Foothill services while the outer tracks will run through to the south. Eventually we would like those four tracks to be extended down Flower but it wouldnt make sense to build a two-track DTC tunnel and then extend it to the Blue/Expo branch and widen the whole thing to four tracks when if you already have it four tracked you extend it at four tracks. As has been echoed here alot, we need to build the DTC right the first time
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 23, 2007 5:04:55 GMT -8
I believe that the Connector in this first iteration should have two through operating tracks but a pocket track in between the two operating tracks IOW a three track section between stations (Think of the Embarcadero Station at San Francisco's Muni Metro or Park Street in Boston's Green Line) for the proper train storage, layovers for short turns and to temporarily store broken LRV's until headways lighten up on the system. One could be placed between 7th Street and Bunker Hill or Little Tokyo and City Hall.
(Coughs and sniffles) Sorry folks I'm in the middle of a very nasty Thanksgiving cold
Antonio makes a very valid point about the length of a future Gold Line to Montclair, even to Ontario and the need for a terminal Downtown. One thing that could be looked at if we can't build this as a four track line is building a "Downtown Regional Connector, Phase 2" where we can grade separate the Washington Blvd at-grade running of the Blue Line to a new grade separated corridor tying Convention Center, South Park, Fashion District and Industrial District back to the Blue Line railroad right-of-way.
Within this project, we should mention including a three track pocket at a station like a new Convention Center subway stop or a three track set-up at the bustling Fashion District.
Eventually, I can see a third connection running north-south down Main, San Pedro or even Alameda Streets that will form a grade-separated loop serving most of Downtown and provide the ultimium form of flexibility and access for our growing LRT system.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 25, 2007 18:38:50 GMT -8
Mr. Erict wrote: I think that a DTC down Alameda is a great idea that should be studied. However, (I think) it would only be useful if there is first a continuation of the blue/expo line to the gold through downtown and bunker hill. First the DTC - then the Alameda Express (in the year 2050). ;D Great idea but if you looking for the cheapest it is Alameda! The trains ran down Alameda for a long time and the tracks are still down there and in some areas paved over, But in my thinking the less utility moving will be involved here but the tracks are still down, I know that Metro will dig up the old ones and put down new ones but it Will be cheaper in the Long run. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 25, 2007 21:18:34 GMT -8
Hey, if Downtown Development gets to be as big as I think it will be, I think that there will be a clamor for a second DTC real soon, or perhaps some linking Metro Rapid or trolley or other scheme.
I suspect you know a lot more about what's cheaper than I do, Roadtrainer, but the biggest question is (at least what my pea-sized brain grasps): What is the route that gets the most ridership and best operations for the next 20 years?
At this point, saving money should be (as with the necessary Expo Line cost increases) the lowest of our priorities at this time.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 26, 2007 0:24:01 GMT -8
I suspect you know a lot more about what's cheaper than I do, Roadtrainer, but the biggest question is (at least what my pea-sized brain grasps): What is the route that gets the most ridership and best operations for the next 20 years? For public transit, past performance is a very good indicator of future results. The Gold Line being an exception. Find the busiest bus routes and have the train mimic them.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 26, 2007 14:20:41 GMT -8
Mr. Erict wrote: I think that a DTC down Alameda is a great idea that should be studied. However, (I think) it would only be useful if there is first a continuation of the blue/expo line to the gold through downtown and bunker hill. First the DTC - then the Alameda Express (in the year 2050). ;D Great idea but if you looking for the cheapest it is Alameda! The trains ran down Alameda for a long time and the tracks are still down there and in some areas paved over, But in my thinking the less utility moving will be involved here but the tracks are still down, I know that Metro will dig up the old ones and put down new ones but it Will be cheaper in the Long run. Sincerely The Roadtrainer Alameda Street at grade would be very tough to implement. The area is still a busy Industrial Zone, and a Heavy Truck Corridor. The median of Alameda Street is packed day and night by long haul trucks waiting to turn left. A train or trolley running at grade would have to run very slow and careful. Unless the City changes the zoning to make it Residential or Commercial, Alameda Street will always be the "Little Pittsburgh" of Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 26, 2007 19:52:15 GMT -8
Mr Wad wrote: Find the busiest bus routes and have the train mimic them. ;D Guys and Gals: The Metro 68 line is pretty busy perhaps the line going south along the Pomona freeway would help take some of the traffic off this line. Somebody mentioned the DTC go out first street and connect to the E.L.A. line at Alameda. Question ---would every train go directly to Union Station? or would it be a split line---Half to Union Station and Half to E.L.A. /605/ Pomona? Sincerely The Road trainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 26, 2007 21:24:49 GMT -8
One heck of a good question, roadtrainer, and I imagine that that is one of the many questions that Metro and LADOT are working very hard to answer.
No one can or should even try to answer that question definitively, but my guess (and it's only a guess, and maybe a lousy one at that!) is that there would be some sort of split so that Expo/Eastside or Blue/Eastside trains can avoid a northerly detour to achieve quick and speedy thru-service.
Should Jerard Wright read these posts, I suspect he's be able to answer this vital question way, way better than I ever could.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 27, 2007 7:56:03 GMT -8
Mr Wad wrote: Find the busiest bus routes and have the train mimic them. ;D Guys and Gals: The Metro 68 line is pretty busy perhaps the line going south along the Pomona freeway would help take some of the traffic off this line. But the ridership drops off considerably east of ELA College/Atlantic Blvd to head towards Montebello Town Center, in some studies they may consider dropping this portion of the line and turn it into a shuttle route. The busiest portion of the 68 is the Boyle Heights to Downtown piece that is currently being built with the East LA Gold Line. With that set-up it would be a split, half of the lines would go to Union Station/Chinatown/Pasadena or Boyle Heights/ELA.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 28, 2007 23:48:19 GMT -8
Is the Little Tokyo station built in a way that would allow it to be a junction?
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Nov 29, 2007 2:55:24 GMT -8
No not really. I've been thinking about this junction for months and it certainly requires another platform either on a different corner of 1st/Alameda or elevated above the current one. I can think of one scenario that alows the station as it currently is to remain unchanged but I don't think this will be feasible because of complex headway coordination. There would be two portals: one on Temple for trains to and from east LA and one on 1st for trains to and from Union Station/Pasadena. The trains on first would turn left and stop at the current platform and continue along the current ELA Gold line track to LAUS. The trains on temple would make a right into the the ELA alignment, share the same platform and make a left onto first and continue on to ELA. However, I can only imagine this setup would snarl traffic on both the light rail lines and Alameda, First, and Temple. The one solution i think would be best would be the same thing I just described to you with the lines having been elevated long before Alameda and the Temple one coming to grade to use the existing platform with the First Street branch remaning elevated and building a platform directly above the current one to have smooth connections. Understandably, the DTC has to cross over itself either underground or above it so that either option can be achieved but such a large portion of the cost of our rail lines is consulting fees so I'm sure someone can figure that one out. Just to clarify I envision four tracks on two levels: Lower westfacing platform-eastbound, Lower east-facing platform-into DTC from ELA, Upper westfacing platform-into DTC from LAUS, Upper eastfacing platform-northbound)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 29, 2007 5:43:07 GMT -8
It does sound like that this project will have to be "expanded" to address the peripheral issues of both the 7th/Metro and 1st/Alameda stations in order for this to succeed...and I suspect that Metro is already well aware of these problems.
Jerard and Antonio et al, I really hope you keep in touch with each other and with Metro because you might be able to help present both challenges and potential solutions to the DTC project team.
My CD11 Transportation Committee is meeting on Monday, December 10th (probably at the Felicia Mahood Center in West L.A.) to hear from and provide feedback to the DTC Project Team, and I hope you can be there to offer your input.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 29, 2007 19:50:11 GMT -8
Is the Little Tokyo station built in a way that would allow it to be a junction? ;D If you look at the real estate involved the DTC might have to be routed out third or forth st and curve up Alameda Ave. By your observations (which are pretty darn good) you can see that the train turns left immediately after it leave the Little Tokyo Station. So there has to be a different route. I can't see Metro tearing down those new Condos at first and Alameda. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 30, 2007 10:18:01 GMT -8
Is the Little Tokyo station built in a way that would allow it to be a junction? ;D If you look at the real estate involved the DTC might have to be routed out third or forth st and curve up Alameda Ave. By your observations (which are pretty darn good) you can see that the train turns left immediately after it leave the Little Tokyo Station. So there has to be a different route. I can't see Metro tearing down those new Condos at first and Alameda. Sincerely The Roadtrainer That wouldn't work either because there's recent developments all along that area. On the NE corner and a small piece of the SW corner of 1st/Alameda there are pieces of a vacant lot that can be used for a construction area and station portals for such as underground station.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 30, 2007 19:17:29 GMT -8
;DMr Wright: I know that a lot of us would line to see more subways here in Beautiful Downtown Los Angeles, but does that board see that way for Mass Transit or do the always go with the preferred route (the cheapest) and the subway or trench ignored? I remember going to the hearing for the Blue Line, the was a couple of alinement's be studied, a trench through Compton, a switching over from the present ROW at Rosecrans and running down Alameda to avoid running in front of the Compton City Hall and Court House. The Nimby's put out anti-rail literature and at one of the meetings in Compton there was a rally in front of the meeting hall that all kinds of people railed and protested with signs saying "Save Compton from the trains" and "Don't let the Trains take over Compton". Well you know the rest of the story. We have the bustiest Light rail in the county. And the LACTC adopted the preferred route. Sincerely The Road trainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 30, 2007 19:37:31 GMT -8
Hmmmmm, you must not have seen the study area maps and that a straight Alameda corridor isn't in the area. Sure that route might be cheaper, but it will serve fewer riders overall. Maybe that can be used as DTC Phase 2 or 3 to close the gap and do a full by-pass once the grade separated (elevated or subway)alignment through Bunker Hill, Historic Core is built and is served and everybody loves it and uses it every day and more LRT lines are built to Downtown LA that extra corridor will be needed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 1, 2007 8:37:18 GMT -8
The downtown regional connector (DRC) will obviously be at least part subway extending from the current tunnel on 7th/Flower. Alameda might be a place for rail at some point, but for right now it would make no sense to bypass downtown since that's where the vast majority of the riders are going.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Dec 17, 2007 13:49:36 GMT -8
Was driving around last night and noticed that Webcor has 100 South Grand fenced off (Grand Avenue Project). Webcor is building 'The Concerto' at 9th and Fig, and the 'W' project at Hollywood and Vine as well. I suspect they will be digging the hole, setting up the crane, calling out carpenters and laborers etc in no time.
I was sincerely hoping that Grand Avenue Partners and MTA could work together on the Connector during construction, since there will be so much demolition and tunneling. Just looks like yet another gold opportunity slipping away...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 25, 2008 7:46:59 GMT -8
Metro to Hold February Public Meetings for Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting two public meetings for the agency’s Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project February 26 and 28, 2008.- Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008: 6:30 – 8:00 p.m., Japanese American National Museum, 369 E. 1st Street, Los Angeles
- Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008: Noon – 1:30 p.m., Los Angeles Central Library, 630 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles
The Project Update Presentation will last approximately 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute Question and Answer Session for both meetings. The study analyzes various transit alternatives for the possible connection of the Metro Gold Line, Metro Blue Line and Expo Line through downtown Los Angeles, and considers various transit modes, alignments and station location options for an area that encompasses approximately two square miles of downtown Los Angeles, including the communities of Little Tokyo, the Arts District, the Historic Core, the Toy District, Bunker Hill, the Financial District, the Jewelry District, and the Civic Center. Metro held two public scoping meetings last November to obtain community input on the scope of the alternatives to be studied in the Alternatives Analysis. Based on feedback from these meetings, Metro has identified some potential alignments and station locations for more detailed technical analysis. The public is invited to the meetings to receive a status report on the project and to learn about the schedule for future steps. For more information, visit metro.net/regionalconnector or call 213.922-7277.Metro-020
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 25, 2008 8:19:08 GMT -8
I shall be unable to attend either of these meetings, I'm afraid--is there any way some nice person can provide us an update/summary/link to any critical info given at these meetings?
I shall predict, Jerard, that your ideas will have a lot of play--just as they did with Crenshaw. Either it's just common sense you've promoted, and everyone would otherwise come to the same conclusion, or you've just been a great "thought leader" (I hate that expression, but sometimes it rings true). One way or another, Jerard, thanks for weighing in and I hope these Metro planners take your great advice under consideration here.
I also welcome some great new letters from The Transit Coalition supporting a two-phase Crenshaw Line to the Purple Line (see the other Crenshaw thread for the delineation of the two phases) and a Wilshire Subway that includes connections to the Grove and Beverly Center and the Crenshaw Line.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 25, 2008 13:39:05 GMT -8
This was my scoping submission last fall, seeking the shortest and quickest route across downtown that serves important destinations: ( enlarge) It would continue in subway from the existing Blue / Expo Line station at 7th Street up Flower Street to 3rd Street, then make a diagonal across Bunker Hill. It would continue east under 1st Street, then curve north under Main Street beneath the City Hall south lawn. North of Temple Street it would transition from shallow subway to aerial by Los Angeles Street at Aliso Street. The final section would be aerial along Aliso Street to an aerial half grand union with the Gold Line at Aliso and Alameda, to allow trains to go in all directions. Potential subway station locations are: * Flower Street at or north of 5th Street, which also serves southern Bunker Hill via existing escalators; * Around Grand Avenue and 2nd Street, serving northern Bunker Hill (hopefully part of the redevelopment project there); * By City Hall either on 1st Street around Spring Street or on Main Street near Temple Street. (End of submission) Conversely, if done at-grade east of Hill Street, the best prototypes are one-way couplets like across downtown Portland. Portland currently schedules 16 peak-period trains per hour in one direction. Los Angeles would be greater with Expo Line trains added to the 11 of the Blue Line resulting in headways of 2-3 minutes in each direction. A likely couplet in LA could be 2nd and 3rd Streets. Signals of one-way streets can be timed to give trains green lights, queuing cross traffic. The biggest problems would be loss of street space and difficult transitions at the ends. Surface tracks in the 2nd and 3rd Street tunnels would have to transition to the Flower rail tunnel, but the 2nd Street tunnel ends west of Flower. On the east 2nd and 3rd overshoot the Gold Line at 1st and Alameda, are narrow, and would put a half grand union in the middle of 1st and Alameda. Thus my scoping suggestion instead. It'll be interesting to see Metro's refined alternatives. BTW, did you know that part of the top of the 3rd Street tunnel is the bottom of the California Plaza parking structure? It was rebuilt in the 1980s. Look for the waffle pattern in the tunnel roof.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 25, 2008 15:36:03 GMT -8
This is an excerpt of my October scoping letter.
Personally I have nothing against operating Light Rail at-grade in Downtown LA even as a converted Transit Mall like it is done in Calgary. Light Rail operating in a slower mode through Downtown could encourage walkability and even improve the streetscapes they run on, as witnessed in the Long Beach Loop or in other cities such as Portland but there subtle but noticable logistical problems within this area that would arise if this corridor were designed to operate as such;
i) The street blocks between North-South streets in the Historic Core section are not long enough to berth or build a 3 car Light Rail train platform that would require ADA compliant ramps. The lack to be able for 3 car trains to operate on this corridor would severely limit capacity to our regional rail transit network for example the Blue Line already operates on 3 car LRV's. In addition not serving the Historic Core would limit ridership potential.
ii) In some locations in Bunker Hill the grades to have an at-grade platform are too steep to enable ADA accessibility to station platforms a key requirement to construct a project of this venture. Again limiting ridership potential by bypassing this location.
iii) The speed and running time with this at-grade running will be slower than required in order to be regionally effective. Even with signal priority this would strain an already burdened Downtown traffic system and would bring downtown movement to a crawl which doesn't help the operations of this project and would limit the maximum capacity of this vital piece of infrastructure. With the many recent marches, rallies and festivals along Broadway, Spring or San Pedro this would also impact ridership but operations as well.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 25, 2008 16:58:27 GMT -8
I don't have the expertise of others on this Board, but it strikes me as a whole lot easier to have a first-rate Downtown Connector that is a subway than to redo the entire surface of Downtown. Sometimes it's easier and necessary to do things the hard way, but it's probably a lot easier here to place this underground while we densify and coordinate all the projects going on at surface level.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Feb 25, 2008 20:09:42 GMT -8
Los Angeles Times: Monday, February 25, 2008 Transit agency studies creating a rail link of Blue, Gold and Expo lines in downtown L.A. to reduce transfers. By Cara Mia DiMassa, Staff Writer A battle is looming in the depths below downtown Los Angeles as transportation planners try to find a way to smooth out the commute for thousands who take rail into the city center each day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is studying how to link the three major rail corridors that go into the city center: the Blue Line, the Gold Line and the upcoming Exposition Line. The idea is to create a rail thoroughfare so that passengers can travel seamlessly from Pasadena to Long Beach -- and eventually from Culver City to East L.A. There is widespread agreement that linking the rail lines would help commuters, who must switch trains at least once to get through downtown. But some downtown residents worry that part of the rail connection would be above ground, potentially clogging already crowded streets."It would be a pox for the neighborhood," said Eric Richardson, a member of the Downtown Neighborhood Council and the editor of www.blogdowntown.com. Richardson and others want a commitment from the MTA that all rail connections would be underground, which could hike the price of the project. At two public meetings this week, the MTA is to unveil potential routes through downtown that would fill in the 1.6-mile gap between Union Station and the 7th Street/Metro Center station. Dolores Roybal Saltarelli, transportation planning manager for the MTA, said the routes and potential stops were being determined in large part by input from public meetings held last year. This "would enable us to allow people to travel all over, depending on the operation, without a transfer. They wouldn't need to use the Red Line, for example, to go from Gold to Blue, the way it is done now." The MTA's plan is being greeted with praise by commuters tired of transferring to two or three train systems daily. For Craig Thompson of Altadena, creating a seamless transition through downtown would be "beautiful." Thompson, 50, takes the Gold Line -- and then the Red Line and the Blue Line -- to attend evening classes at L.A. Trade Tech College on West Washington Boulevard. If the MTA gets its way, he said, "I'd be able to go straight from the Gold Line to the Blue Line, and then a few stops and boom! Right in front of school." For Tracy Mason, a paralegal, the changes can't happen fast enough. Mason, a Monrovia resident, takes the Gold Line to Union Station every day, then changes to the Red Line to get to her downtown job. Her law firm, she said, is planning a move next year to new offices near Staples Center, close to the Blue Line's Pico station. "That would be very helpful," Mason, 46, said of the extension proposal. "That'd be a third train I wouldn't have to take." Dan Parker, who gave up his car after moving downtown and now relies on public transportation, said he didn't care whether the trains ran above or below ground. "Anything would be positive if they make that connection," he said. He said he was concerned that having the rails at street level would mean they would run slower than they could below ground. Blog editor Richardson said he worried that having rail lines running along downtown streets would cause more congestion and ruin the pedestrian feel that downtown boosters are trying to achieve. A map of potential routes released by the MTA showed one route passing along 2nd Street from Central Avenue to Grand Avenue. That stretch of 2nd Street is fairly narrow, and Richardson wonders how it can accommodate cars, pedestrians and trains. Downtown boosters are not opposed to all above-ground rail. Officials last month unveiled a plan for a trolley line that would run along Broadway. Backers see the trolley as a way for residents and visitors to quickly navigate the spread-out downtown area, which stretches from the Staples Center area on the south to the Civic Center and Bunker Hill on the north. Broadway, they say, is an ideal location because it is a relatively wide street that already has several major bus lines. The downtown connection plan is one of several big-ticket rail items the MTA is considering, and it remains unclear which ones will get funding. They include the Subway to the Sea along Wilshire Boulevard, an extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to San Bernardino County and a new light-rail line from Southwest L.A. to El Segundo. Roybal Saltarelli said that the MTA would conduct a more detailed technical analysis and that she expected to present several alternatives to the agency's board later this year. She said that at that point, officials would have specific cost estimates for each of several alternatives. If the board approved moving forward, she said, the MTA would conduct an environmental impact report and begin identifying sources of funding for the project. "It's all still very conceptual," Roybal Saltarelli said. "But it's a starting point." cara.dimassa@latimes.com Times staff writer Jack Leonard contributed to this report.
|
|