|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 13, 2010 13:38:24 GMT -8
Budget Could Nix Regional Connector Stop at Fifth and Flower
by Ryan Vaillancourt
Published: Friday, September 10, 2010 5:29 PM PDT
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - This month, Metro released an anticipated report on the Regional Connector, a project that could have a major impact on Downtown’s transportation future. Yet even though plans are in the early stage, the agency is already considering eliminating a proposed Financial District rail station as a way to cut costs.
The agency released its draft environmental impact report on the Regional Connector on Sept. 2. In the study, Metro staff declared a preference for an all-underground alignment, which would cost $1.44 billion if it breaks ground in 2011, over routes that involve surface-level tracks or shuttles.
More than half of the budget is slated to come from the federal government, with another $190 million from local Measure R funds. However, Metro said there remains a $173.4 million funding gap for the all-underground route that has also won community support.
The Regional Connector would link existing and under-construction light rail lines so passengers would not have to transfer when traveling through Downtown on their way to Pasadena, East L.A., Long Beach or Culver City, speeding up travel times.
If the all-underground alignment goes forward, current plans envision four new underground stations. If the financial picture doesn’t change, however, that number could be cut to three.
Already on the chopping block is a proposed station at Fifth and Flower streets. Other stations are proposed for Second and Hope streets; Second Street and Broadway; and Second Street and Central Avenue.
Metro Project Director Dolores Roybal Saltarelli said the Financial District station would be the most obvious candidate for elimination because it is so close to the Seventh Street Metro Station, which is two blocks away on Flower Street.
“When we looked at it in our modeling analysis, with the elimination of Fifth and Flower, the three other stations still perform well and folks can still access the Financial District because we do have Seventh Street Metro Station,” she said.
In general, the cost of an underground rail station is about $150 million, she said.
Budget considerations aside, Dana Gabbard, executive secretary for the Southern California Transit Advocates, said that nixing a station might make sense from a transportation perspective.
The Regional Connector stretches for about two miles, linking the Gold Line in Little Tokyo with the Seventh Street Metro Station. Four stations along a two-mile path would likely slow trains down, Gabbard said.
“At that point you’re not really talking about rapid transit,” he said. “It’s more this slow-pokey thing that doesn’t really have time and the distance to pick up any speed.”
Community Input
Metro might not have to eliminate a station if the board ditches the all-underground option for less expensive alignments that are partially underground or entirely at street level. Those routes, however, have been hotly opposed by community stakeholders, namely in Little Tokyo, who say the neighborhood would face too much disruption and safety issues with aboveground tracks.
The partially aboveground option, which would have three underground stations and emerge to street level at First and Alameda streets in Little Tokyo, is budgeted at $1.3 billion. The at-grade alignment comes in at $1.04 billion.
But the all-underground alternative has significant momentum and community support. Metro staff identified the underground option as its preferred alternative in the draft EIR, even though agencies don’t normally make such a recommendation this early in the process.
The Financial District station Metro has targeted for possible elimination would be on Flower Street, between Fourth and Fifth streets.
Citigroup Center, at the northeast corner of Fifth and Flower streets, and the Westin Bonaventure Hotel, at the northwest corner, stand to be the most impacted by station construction. Officials with both properties, however, said they have not yet investigated the project and its implications for their buildings.
Thomas Properties Group, which owns City National Plaza on the southwest corner, has been working with Metro on the plans.
“In our mind it’s sort of a forgone conclusion that the connector will occur and the most logical route is the extension up Flower Street and past our project,” said Thomas Ricci, the firm’s executive vice president. If the Financial District station is ultimately built, Ricci said the company would need to work with the agency to minimize construction costs.
“Generally at a very high level we are very supportive of the overall objectives of the project and want to work closely with Metro to minimize what we would consider short-term impacts on our tenants and maximize the long-term benefits for our tenants,” Ricci said.
The Metro board is expected to consider the draft EIR and select a preferred route following the public comment period, which ends Oct. 18. That option will then undergo final environmental review.
Metro is hosting two meetings to present the draft EIR and take public comment. The first is from 6:30-8 p.m. on Sept. 28 at the Japanese American National Museum at 369 E. First St.; the second is 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. on Oct. 4 at the LAPD Administration Building at 100 W. First St. More information at metro.net/projects/connector.
Contact Ryan Vaillancourt at ryan@downtownnews.com.
page 6, 09/13/2010
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 13, 2010 14:17:50 GMT -8
The distance from the Vermont/Exposition Station to the USC/Expo Park Station is 0.34 miles. The distance between the 7th/Flower and 4½th/Flower Stations is 0.31 miles. Therefore, the spacing is reasonable, especially given the fact that Downtown is very dense.
This shows once again how scarce the money is. People think money grows on trees but it doesn't. I think they should save money from other projects (Crenshaw, Expo Phase 2, etc.) by eliminating unnecessary grade separations for those projects and build this station. 4½th St Station will be an important station.
Regarding time, every additional stop takes about 1 minute extra (including slowing down, waiting, and speeding up) or even less. So, it's not that much given the additional benefits of having a station in Bunker Hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Sept 13, 2010 14:40:12 GMT -8
Completely eliminate the proposed station at Wilshire/Crenshaw from the Purple line extension and redirect those funds to the Connector.
Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Sept 13, 2010 15:22:32 GMT -8
Is redirecting money from other projects a serious option here? I feel as though I read that the Purple is going to come significantly under budget, as are other projects. What I'm most worried about is a hasty board decision to cut the station instead of working with the lawyers (and the community) to find a way to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 13, 2010 18:08:35 GMT -8
Is redirecting money from other projects a serious option here? I feel as though I read that the Purple is going to come significantly under budget, as are other projects. What I'm most worried about is a hasty board decision to cut the station instead of working with the lawyers (and the community) to find a way to pay for it. But then comes your next dilemna what do you spend those monies on, in order to get that the Subway should be under construction to make that work out. Once these extra monies truly come in, what should it be spent on? * Northern Crenshaw extension to the Purple Line? * 405-Sepulveda Corridor? * West Hollywood corridor? |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2010 18:24:29 GMT -8
I would be really disappointed if Metro cut this station (4-1/2th Street station as Gokhan calls it). 7th/Metro is going to be overflowing with transfers, so this FiDi station will be the exit point for people going to Financial District and Library area.
I don't really have a good answer. I don't want to say get rid of the Historic Core station, but I guess I'd have to see which station would be used more or would result in more boardings.
It's too bad Measure R allocated so little money to this ($160 million). Reallocating Measure R money from one project to another would not be easy, given the way the measure was written. Maybe they need to go hat in hand to the local property owners. It's not unprecedented.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2010 18:39:02 GMT -8
It would've been easier to cut the Broadway station had they put the Bunker Hill station under Bunker Hill, on Lower Grand Avenue. My plan for years was that the train should use that tiny street Kosciusko to get from Flower Street to the station at Lower Grand, before sinking down into the east side of Bunker Hill. Engineering challenge? Maybe. But it would have been the most central location for the Bunker Hill stop.  |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2010 20:04:28 GMT -8
Measure R anticipated the following funding for the Regional Corridor: - $708 million - Federal funding
- $186 million - State funding
- $266 million - Local funding
- $160 million - Measure R
- $1,320 million - total
According to the DEIR, the fully underground alternative would cost $1,245 million, which puts it within funding plan. So is the problem that those anticipated funds won't be available? |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 13, 2010 20:32:24 GMT -8
This quote is silly: "“At that point you’re not really talking about rapid transit,” ... “It’s more this slow-pokey thing that doesn’t really have time and the distance to pick up any speed.”
New York, Paris and London, the original Rapid Transit subway systems, have many stations only 400 to 600 meters apart, less than the shortest spacing between stations on the Regional Connector.
In moderate-density areas it is reasonable to space stations every 1/2 mile (800 meters) or even every 1 mile in lower density areas, but Downtown is a huge destination. People like to be able to get close to their destination, especially in areas with hills, lots of car and pedestrian traffic, and many intersections.
This project is still twice as cost-effective as the Westside subway, and none of the other new lines or extensions in Measure R be even close in ridership and cost-effectiveness. We should spend a little extra to do this line right, including the underground Little Tokyo station and the Financial District station. Perhaps we can reconsider the need for a full-length Eastside Gold Line extension along the 60, or the need to put light rail underground on Crenshaw, instead of at grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 13, 2010 22:05:58 GMT -8
Subway systems need to be built according to what the local density, population and ridership will support.
Downtowns are obviously going to be very different than suburbs in this aspect. Los Angeles has so far built a very suburban system (the Blue Line between Willow and Compton, for example, or most of the Green Line), and I think people are used to this "long distances between stations" mentality.
Unfortunately, we do have to take budget constraints into consideration, and if we can't shift funds from one project to another, it basically comes down to 5th/Flower vs. 2nd/Broadway — Little Tokyo or Bunker Hill shouldn't even be considered in this poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2010 22:46:49 GMT -8
I second everything James said.
I question the Downtown News' figure of $1.44 billion. The DEIR executive summary says it'll cost $1.245 billion for the fully underground alternative. This is less than Measure R's estimated budget for the project of $1.320 billion.
So where did DT News get their figure? Are these different-year dollars? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 14, 2010 8:56:25 GMT -8
With respect to the valid opinions expressed above in regards to density, I feel they should remove both the 5th/flower and 2nd/Broadway stations. I feel the station distances without these stations are adequate. The additional stations will unnecessarily slow transit times for the majority of people. A few blocks of additional walking encourages healthier lifestyles. The removal of two stations will reduce construction time and finally millions of dollars will be shaved off the construction budget making the project easier to fund and build in a timely manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 14, 2010 10:58:49 GMT -8
With respect to the valid opinions expressed above in regards to density, I feel they should remove both the 5th/flower and 2nd/Broadway stations. I feel the station distances without these stations are adequate. The additional stations will unnecessarily slow transit times for the majority of people. A few blocks of additional walking encourages healthier lifestyles. The removal of two stations will reduce construction time and finally millions of dollars will be shaved off the construction budget making the project easier to fund and build in a timely manner. Jason, you should consider the fact that that each station only adds at most 60 seconds to the total trip time. Therefore, additional stations do not slow the line that much. It makes sense to have mile-apart stops in less dense areas but downtown is different. Also, as others users commented, 7th/Metro would exceed the capacity if they don't build the 4-1/2th St Station. This would be a major concern. It's important to have convenient stops in downtown areas. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 14, 2010 11:32:39 GMT -8
Isn't the 4.5/Flower station closer to the 7th St. station than the 2nd/Broadway station is to either Little Tokyo or Bunker hill stations?
In NYC, the Times Square, Grand Central and Port Authority stations have numerous tunnels and corridors for entering them. Could we eventually build a portal to access 7th St.more northernly if we have to give up the 4.5/Flower station?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2010 12:44:09 GMT -8
In NYC, the Times Square, Grand Central and Port Authority stations have numerous tunnels and corridors for entering them. Could we eventually build a portal to access 7th St.more northernly if we have to give up the 4.5/Flower station? I was thinking how that might be done. Part of the problem with 7th/Metro is that all of the portals/entrances are on 7th Street. An entrance at 6th/Flower would be great. Not quite as good as a separate station, but it (1) would save lots of money, (2) make access to the Financial District better than it is now, and (3) provide more exits in case of an emergency or overcrowding. Doing this would require new pedestrian walkways heading north, parallel to the tunnel. These could be either at the level of the Blue Line platforms, or at the level above that (mezzanine/pedestrian overcrossing). Extension of the mezzanine might be easier since they are going to excavate this north tunnel using cut-and-cover anyway, and so this design could theoretically be built without closing down the overcrossing. (Extension of the platform level would require demolition of the existing overcrossing, I think.) |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 14, 2010 12:44:22 GMT -8
Subway systems need to be built according to what the local density, population and ridership will support. Downtowns are obviously going to be very different than suburbs in this aspect. Los Angeles has so far built a very suburban system (the Blue Line between Willow and Compton, for example, or most of the Green Line), and I think people are used to this "long distances between stations" mentality. Unfortunately, we do have to take budget constraints into consideration, and if we can't shift funds from one project to another, it basically comes down to 5th/Flower vs. 2nd/Broadway — Little Tokyo or Bunker Hill shouldn't even be considered in this poll. I tend to fall on the side of having less stations rather than too many (i.e. Crenshaw), but I think this one is useful and hope it stays. The problem is that there is no real community or group advocating for it as many of the users would be workers at their destination and these workers could live in Riverside for example. The funding problem is real otherwise the staff would not be looking at cutting it out. As for shifting money from other projects, that opens up a can of worms as I mentioned before. If there is money allocated here from some other project like the Purple Line then the Crenshaw proponents are going to try to line up and get that money as well and all of this will certainly get ugly. One solution might be Prop 1B money. It has been used for Expo, but we can only go to that well so many times and even if that route is chosen it will face opposition from Crenshaw and Foothill proponents who want that money for their lines. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 14, 2010 12:47:18 GMT -8
Measure R anticipated the following funding for the Regional Corridor: - $708 million - Federal funding
- $186 million - State funding
- $266 million - Local funding
- $160 million - Measure R
- $1,320 million - total
According to the DEIR, the fully underground alternative would cost $1,245 million, which puts it within funding plan. So is the problem that those anticipated funds won't be available? I second everything James said. I question the Downtown News' figure of $1.44 billion. The DEIR executive summary says it'll cost $1.245 billion for the fully underground alternative. This is less than Measure R's estimated budget for the project of $1.320 billion. So where did DT News get their figure? Are these different-year dollars? Am I missing something? The $1.245B cost of the project in 2009$, the $1.32 B is the Year of Expenditure dollars which would mean both projects would have their cost increased. I'll take a look at the DEIR CD again to verify but I believe both the Underground and Fully underground would have a budget deficit of about $103M and $172M respectively. As I'm thinking about this reading through the DEIR last night a couple out-of-the-box things could be suggested; * Maybe Metro could assume a 60% Federal funding match as this project is rated High in Cost-effectiveness, * Learn from the Eastside Gold Line and get creative in the funding to use some Prop A and C funds to fund the non-subway components of the project like the Pedestrian bridge that would link the Upper Grand Avenue to the Bunker Hill station, or the 1st Street widening to build the portal, the restriping and repaving of Flower street from 3rd to 5th Street, the property take of the DWP to build the new portal incline as a portion of it is not fully underground or in open-cut therefore going around the Prop A and C ban on subway funding. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 14, 2010 12:51:41 GMT -8
In NYC, the Times Square, Grand Central and Port Authority stations have numerous tunnels and corridors for entering them. Could we eventually build a portal to access 7th St.more northernly if we have to give up the 4.5/Flower station? I was thinking how that might be done. Part of the problem with 7th/Metro is that all of the portals/entrances are on 7th Street. An entrance at 6th/Flower would be great. Not quite as good as a separate station, but it (1) would save lots of money, (2) make access to the Financial District better than it is now, and (3) provide more exits in case of an emergency or overcrowding. Doing this would require new pedestrian walkways heading north, parallel to the tunnel. These could be either at the level of the Blue Line platforms, or at the level above that (mezzanine/pedestrian overcrossing). Extension of the mezzanine might be easier since they are going to excavate this north tunnel using cut-and-cover anyway, and so this design could theoretically be built without closing down the overcrossing. (Extension of the platform level would require demolition of the existing overcrossing, I think.) Adding the extra entrance will create the severe overcrowding that will exist for 7th Street Metro Center because it is connected to 7th Street Metro Center. However, that solution could work in combining the Bunker Hill and Financial District Stations into a super station that would have the multiple entrances to tie into one main platform. Adding to that super station would be better integrating the Broadway Streetcar to meet with this Super Station and still by-pass the Broadway subway station as this will be served by the Proposed Streetcar. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2010 13:04:30 GMT -8
BTW, I can't imagine the Metro Board would simply eliminate "Station 4.5" between the DEIR and FEIR.
More likely, they would add this change (eliminate 5th/Flower station and extend 7th/Flower station north) as a design option to study in detail in the FEIR. For that matter, they could make both 5th/Flower station and the 2nd/Broadway station into design options, and study all the combinations of these (cost, station boardings, effect on overall ridership, early engineering, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2010 13:22:05 GMT -8
However, that solution could work in combining the Bunker Hill and Financial District Stations into a super station that would have the multiple entrances to tie into one main platform. Adding to that super station would be better integrating the Broadway Streetcar to meet with this Super Station and still by-pass the Broadway subway station as this will be served by the Proposed Streetcar. I would support a Bunker Hill superstation straddling Bunker Hill east/west. This could serve three distinct and hard-to-walk locations: west of Bunker Hill (Hope Street), east of Bunker Hill (Hill Street), and top of Bunker Hill (Grand Avenue). This would allow elimination of 2nd/Broadway station. However, I would oppose a superstation on Flower Street between 2nd and 5th on Flower Street. That sort of thing makes sense in Montreal (where it's freezing cold), but not on a flat street in Downtown L.A. where we have beautiful weather but a historical lack of pedestrians on the sidewalks. I'd rather have people walking on the street than hiding in a supertunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 14, 2010 13:50:02 GMT -8
The idea of a superstation does appeal to my sense of Tokyo subway station layouts. There are places there where you can walk from say, Ginza to Higashi-Ginza at what we would consider the mezzanine level of a subway station, often with shops or vendors, or even just artwork, to distract you/ entertain you/ amuse you along the way.
And, I've said time and time again that I felt that the Los Angeles subway station had far too few entrances.
I'd prefer to have the Bonaventure station, but I like these creative lines of thinking.
As far as the weather is concerned... even in a "fair-weather city" such as Los Angeles, I would argue that there are times of the year when walking below street-level would be far more comfortable than walking at street-level... what difference does it make, as long as you are walking and not driving?
A tunnel can protect from July-August heat and El Nino rains.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 14, 2010 14:32:18 GMT -8
The 2nd/Broadway DC station would sit right below the streetcar route, and that is in both current streetcar options. The 2nd/Flower DC station would only be "directly" served with option #2, and only if the dashed green "under study" route were picked. Presumably, if the streetcar follows the DC in terms of when the stations are chosen, if there is a DC station at 2nd/Flower that would influence the streetcar route/station choosing. I would just be worried about losing the 2nd/Broadway DC station if that is the only direct connection to the streetcar downtown. Someone coming from points North riding the DC, like Pasadena or Union Station, could get off at 2nd/Broadway and be heading down Broadway almost immediately. If they have to otherwise ride to the 2nd/Flower station, they have a small walk first, then a more roundabout route. I'm not a transportation analyst, but somehow I like the idea of NE bound Expo/Blue riders getting off at 7th/Pico (not shown on my 2 maps) and taking the streetcar directly to points North, with the SW bound Blue/Expo riders getting off at 2nd/Broadway and taking the streetcar to points South along Broadway. I suppose you could make the argument that there would be more riders going to 1st street from the 2nd/Flower DC station than going to Broadway from the 2d/Broadway DC station. I don't spend a lot of time downtown, so maybe others more familiar with the businesses down there can comment. Streetcar option 2 connects directly to 2 Red/Purple line stations along Hill, plus to the DC at 2nd/Broadway.  |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 14, 2010 14:38:29 GMT -8
Here is the whole option 2 streetcar map to show the big picture:  |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 14, 2010 14:54:32 GMT -8
I have to say, regardless of what hapens with the Regional Connector, option 2 just makes a whole lot more sense to me.
You still have northbound and southbound trains on separate streets, but at least they are consecutive streets, Broadway and Hill, instead of the much less pleasing Olive/ Broadway combination. And you have trains going in both directions on Grand, a nice feature. And trains in both directions for a short, uphill stretch of First.
Those maps are also useful for showing where the Regional Connector will be in relationship to the Red Line/ Purple Line. I mentally draw a little circle around the little "M"s on the map, and the 2nd/Broadway M is overlapping with the Civic Center M at 1st/Hill.
I can't remember where the new Broad Museum is going to be, except that I know it will be next door to Disney Hall. The downtown streetcar would benefit greatly from Broad.
(There should be a Blue M dot at 7th/Flower, since you can exit 7th/Metro directly above and a little to the right of the Blue Line)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2010 16:23:40 GMT -8
I can't remember where the new Broad Museum is going to be, except that I know it will be next door to Disney Hall. It will be in the little square/rectangle just below (south of) Disney Hall. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Sept 15, 2010 0:44:54 GMT -8
The folks planning the streetcar need to hire some transit professionals, or at least read humantransit.org
That huge, one-way loop on Broadway, Pico, Figueroa and 9th would be a pain for anyone who wants to ride the streetcar to and from their destination, and it would be confusing for visitors.
It would be best for the streetcar to run BOTH ways on Broadway. That failing, a couplet on Broadway and Spring or Hill would work. At the south end, two parallel streets 1 block apart should be used, if we cannot go both ways on Olympic (for example) or Pico.
Perhaps along we can use the streetcar project to push LADOT toward dedicating a lane for transit in both directions thru the historic core. Bus / streetcare lanes on Main and Spring, or Broadway, would speed up service, save money on operating costs and improve reliability, while making the street easier to cross for pedestrians, and safer for bike riders. And the streetcars would not get stuck behind turning or parking cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 15, 2010 8:24:57 GMT -8
Adding the extra entrance will create the severe overcrowding that will exist for 7th Street Metro Center because it is connected to 7th Street Metro Center. However, that solution could work in combining the Bunker Hill and Financial District Stations into a super station that would have the multiple entrances to tie into one main platform. Adding to that super station would be better integrating the Broadway Streetcar to meet with this Super Station and still by-pass the Broadway subway station as this will be served by the Proposed Streetcar. Combining the Bunker Hill and Financial District Stations into a superstation is an inspired idea. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 15, 2010 13:14:23 GMT -8
I like the idea of bigger stations, although "superstation" makes me think of Ted Turner and nothing else.
For that matter, you could probably link together the Civic Center station (1st/ Hill) and 2nd/ Broadway.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 15, 2010 13:33:56 GMT -8
IMHO, entrance tunnels must justify their cost. For me, an entrance tunnel only makes sense if (1) the weather is frequently horrible, or (2) the tunnel shortens the distance to your destination, or (3) the tunnel helps you avoid a steep hill.
I could support an entrance tunnel to 3rd/Flower because of the little hill along Flower Street north of 3rd. But I wouldn't go any further south, because there is no benefit. Flower Street is pretty flat south of 3rd (just a slight grade), so how does the tunnel make the walk any better?
Now an entrance tunnel to 6th/Flower (at Metro Center station) is different. This tunnel would reduce the travel distance for people heading north from the station (i.e., most people). Currently, to head north from the station, you have to walk south through the station to 7th Street, only to turn around at 7th/Flower and head back up toward 6th Street. With a 6th Street entrance, you could conceivably save 3 or 4 minutes on your commute.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 15, 2010 14:07:33 GMT -8
IMHO, entrance tunnels must justify their cost. For me, an entrance tunnel only makes sense if (1) the weather is frequently horrible, or (2) the tunnel shortens the distance to your destination, or (3) the tunnel helps you avoid a steep hill. I could support an entrance tunnel to 3rd/Flower because of the little hill along Flower Street north of 3rd. But I wouldn't go any further south, because there is no benefit. Flower Street is pretty flat south of 3rd (just a slight grade), so how does the tunnel make the walk any better? Now an entrance tunnel to 6th/Flower (at Metro Center station) is different. This tunnel would reduce the travel distance for people heading north from the station (i.e., most people). Currently, to head north from the station, you have to walk south through the station to 7th Street, only to turn around at 7th/Flower and head back up toward 6th Street. With a 6th Street entrance, you could conceivably save 3 or 4 minutes on your commute. You make a good point. You'd have to dig diagonally from 1st/Hill to 2nd Broadway to save any time. Say, what is in that block, anyways? Last time I checked it was empty.... I would love to supersize the 7th/Metro Center station. Of course, there is an exit at 7th/ Flower (up and over the Blue Line tracks, and out from there). However, if you dug due south from the 7th/Fig mezzanine exit you'd end up at the 7+Fig underground shops (or whatever it is they're calling it these days, it's been a while.) Or maybe you'd end up in California Pizza Kitchen's kitchen, I'm not sure. ;D If it could be done, people who work south of 7th Street would appreciate it. |
|
