|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 8, 2010 15:47:43 GMT -8
To continue our previous discussion of Tom LaBonge's proposal to extend the Red/Purple Lines from Union Station to 6th St. in the Arts District, I create this thread. Notably, Metro has completed its staff report on the feasibility of this proposal. In short, they say constructing a station would cost $90 million and would require significant modifications to the Division 20 Red Line yard. There is hope, however; the Westside Subway project will require the construction of new turnback tracks in the yard to support more frequent service and a station could be built in conjunction with that project. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 8, 2010 18:27:37 GMT -8
The $90 million cost appears to be for a 6th street station plus tail tracks. The report implies that the planned turn-back facility (which would be built a little farther north, around 4th street I believe) would provide half the required improvements and is already included in the budge for the Westside extension. So how much would a station at this location cost? $40 million or so?
If only 2000 riders per day board at this station (as suggested in the report), that's less than $1.50 per rider over 50 years. If this area continues to be developed, and 4000 boardings per day happen in 20 years, the capital cost is less than $.75 per ride, which seems like a fair price. For comparison, the whole Blue Line cost $1 billion and gets 80,000 riders per day; that's about $.80 per rider for the whole line, and construction inflation would double that amount quite a bit in the past 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Jun 8, 2010 19:19:34 GMT -8
I just finished reading that too. For some reason, it took a lot of time to open.
Metro at work? Or, perhaps it was the picture on page 5.
Anyway, it looks like they have a lot of work to do and it seems there is little benefit. Who would use it, Metro employees and operators going back and forth from Union Station?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 9, 2010 14:06:38 GMT -8
A lot depends upon what, exactly, are people expecting or hoping to have put in down there at the L.A. River.
Right now, I would agree that there's not enough evidence to support putting a subway station at 6th. At 4th Street maybe, if your goal is to give the Arts District its own station.
unfortunately, some of the proposals for greening up the river seem patently absurd or pie-in-the-sky. (I can't find the link to the illustration I saw last month. It featured a huge park and inexplicably, a completely FULL 'up to the banks' river.)
However, if there was some realistic plan for development (either commercial or residential) in that area, then a station would make more sense.
even then, I'm wondering why 6th and not 4th.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2010 5:09:57 GMT -8
This is a very creative idea. But I also know what it's ultimate goal is. It's obvious everyone has Whittier in the back of their minds. With that said, an extension from the 7th St Metro Station through the Historic Core and Santee Alley makes MUCH more sense, even after the River through downtown is revitalized and perhaps re zoned for less industrial and more residential and commercial development. unfortunately, some of the proposals for greening up the river seem patently absurd or pie-in-the-sky. (I can't find the link to the illustration I saw last month. It featured a huge park and inexplicably, a completely FULL 'up to the banks' river.) If I remember correctly, Metro plans to have most, if not all of the rails grade-seperated in the future, including Metrolink and CHSR. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 15, 2010 21:22:41 GMT -8
... an extension from the 7th St Metro Station through the Historic Core and Santee Alley makes MUCH more sense... We have talked about this before; the engineering challenge of tying in to the existing subway east of Metro Center station is even more difficult than rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The "detour" to Union Station would only add 5 minutes to trip times for riders going from eastern Whittier Blvd to Wilshire Blvd compared to a new direct route, while also providing direct rides to the Civic Center and LAUS. So in the medium-term, a direct extension of the line makes sense. If I remember correctly, Metro plans to have most, if not all of the rails grade-seperated in the future, including Metrolink and CHSR. Metrolink and Amtrak are already grade-separated along the LA River; roads pass overhead for the most part. Future plans call for elevated run-thru tracks from CAHSR and Metrolink (there are two separate projects) from LAUS to the River, but along the river tracks would remain at the current level. Putting a park above the tracks would be a whole 'nother matter; sounds expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 16, 2010 20:38:20 GMT -8
We have talked about this before; the engineering challenge of tying in to the existing subway east of Metro Center station is even more difficult than rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The "detour" to Union Station would only add 5 minutes to trip times for riders going from eastern Whittier Blvd to Wilshire Blvd compared to a new direct route, while also providing direct rides to the Civic Center and LAUS. So in the medium-term, a direct extension of the line makes sense. Yeah, but other than SCI-ARC, there will be virtually NOTHING major between Union Station and Whittier for years, maybe even decades. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 17, 2010 8:31:05 GMT -8
I recently saw a recommendation that L.A. create a "CleanTech" zone somewhere in the area of Olympic/Alameda, near the river, with a station serving that area. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 17, 2010 14:51:24 GMT -8
Hopefully that happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 18, 2010 15:08:16 GMT -8
... an extension from the 7th St Metro Station through the Historic Core and Santee Alley makes MUCH more sense... We have talked about this before; the engineering challenge of tying in to the existing subway east of Metro Center station is even more difficult than rebuilding Wilshire/Vermont. The "detour" to Union Station would only add 5 minutes to trip times for riders going from eastern Whittier Blvd to Wilshire Blvd compared to a new direct route, while also providing direct rides to the Civic Center and LAUS. So in the medium-term, a direct extension of the line makes sense. For some of the discussion of the feasibility of adding a junction to the existing Red/Purple Line tunnels, check out these posts back at the Whittier subway extension thread. IMHO, not would this particular junction be effectively impossible to construct, it would also be undesirable. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 30, 2010 9:41:27 GMT -8
Other cities saved money by developing the rail lines early, when land was cheap. But because L.A. is already so "built up", we usually have to pay through the nose to creating new rail lines where its already to dense to develop.
Here is an opportunity to build a short extension cheaply to an area that (compared to its surroundings) is not already "built up". Now is the time to build this station. If history tells us anything about urban development, this area will develop and densify. Why not seize the opportunity and create a true TOD in the arts district?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 30, 2010 9:42:04 GMT -8
The idea of this is to construct something that extends the system at a relatively low cost. Extending the subway along 7th Street would be extremely expensive and not cost-effective.
However, if they could extend this south from Union Station, for less than say $100 million, then it is well worth the cost. These neighborhoods are beginning a major intensification of use which will continue over the next decades.
The memo talks about two different stations. Primarily, it discusses the station at 6th Street (to serve the "Industrial Arts District"), and gives rough costs ($90 million) and possible ridership (1,000-2,000 weekdays). It then discusses the station/turnback facility between 3rd and 4th Streets (to serve the "Arts District"), which could cost maybe half that amount.
If I were king I would build both stations. But anyway, it seems like the latter option (the Arts District station) is not only feasible but at least partially being studied as part of the Westside Extension. Hopefully we will see this appear in the DEIR for that project, which is to be released this fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 30, 2010 16:45:45 GMT -8
Metrocenter, what memo are you referring to?
I don't think development of the type that will generate heavy rail type activity in this area will develop there. The location would be far to isolated to be a generator. The LA river flanks the location to the east and would be surrounded by industrial uses, such as the Red Line yard that is not going away. Build above?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 30, 2010 18:53:45 GMT -8
Metrocenter, what memo are you referring to? I don't think development of the type that will generate heavy rail type activity in this area will develop there. The location would be far to isolated to be a generator. The LA river flanks the location to the east and would be surrounded by industrial uses, such as the Red Line yard that is not going away. Build above? Look at this thread in the beginning for the memo. I don't know the area well enough to have a judgement on 6th Street vs. a 4th Street area station. However, I really like the concept of adding a station here for such a low price. The tracks are already here. If we are talking about only $40-$50M then I don't see why not. Ridership won't be very high for a long time, but if it can pick up 1,000 - 2,000 riders it will be worth the low cost. Also, if they don't have to have the turnaround at Union Station, I believe that would theoretically speed the trains coming in and out of LAUS since it wouldn't be an end station. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 30, 2010 19:17:24 GMT -8
^^^ Oh, I see. It was a staff report. And, so much time had passed that I thought there was a new development.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 30, 2010 22:15:52 GMT -8
If a station at 4th street makes the air-rights over the Red Line yard developable, Metro might be able to pay for the whole local cost of the station by selling the development rights, especially if the feds are picking up 50% of the cost. I'm not sure that the Arts District has high enough land values at this time to make this possible, but with the completion of the Regional Connector and further development around Little Tokyo, land in downtown may become scarce enough for development to occur over the rail tracks. New York is doing this at the Atlantic Yards.
|
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Aug 31, 2010 15:34:38 GMT -8
If a station at 4th street makes the air-rights over the Red Line yard developable, Metro might be able to pay for the whole local cost of the station by selling the development rights, especially if the feds are picking up 50% of the cost. I'm not sure that the Arts District has high enough land values at this time to make this possible, but with the completion of the Regional Connector and further development around Little Tokyo, land in downtown may become scarce enough for development to occur over the rail tracks. New York is doing this at the Atlantic Yards. If you build it, they (usually) will come. A stop somewhere in this area makes so much sense. With the revitalization of the River (see www.lariver.org and check out the Master Plan), the new lofts, etc. it makes a ton of sense. But we don't do things that make sense in LA. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Aug 31, 2010 17:31:39 GMT -8
Keeping in mind something important, for a plan/proposal to become reality, funding needs to come forward. So far, there is none to be found for either the Arts District Station or the River Plan. Is there?
Though, an extension from Union Station to a turn-back - assuming that is a real project with funding - would appear to lessen the funding gap if there were no project at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Aug 31, 2010 17:56:20 GMT -8
My question would be, and this is a real question since I don't know too much about this area, how would this affect any future plans to extend the Red/Purple line east? Presumably, if trains started running to this location, they would probably never stop. Does an arts district stop fit in with some of the proposals that we and others have put forward for extending the subway eats towards El Monte/Whittier/etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 31, 2010 18:53:49 GMT -8
Back before Zev's Anti-Subway Initiative, the Red Line's extension to Boyle Heights was supposed to have had a station roughly in this same general area.
The Red Line would have curved around from this so-called "Little Tokyo/ Arts District" station (I say "so-called" because it was only in Little Tokyo by a huge stretch of the imagination*) to reach Boyle Heights, so I suppose a subway station in the Arts District might be able to lead to the Eastside.
Alternatively, you could make this a short branch of the Red Line, ala the Kensington (Olympia) branch of the District tube line. I don't know how popular this idea would be, though ;D
* I'm actually sort of glad this wasn't built. Little Tokyo ended up with a much better station location and East L.A. got the Gold Line anyways....
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 31, 2010 19:51:18 GMT -8
A station between 3rd and 4th Streets would probably not preclude any future extensions. A station at 6th Street would probably preclude crossing the river at 4th Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 31, 2010 22:05:51 GMT -8
A station between 3rd and 4th Streets would probably not preclude any future extensions. A station at 6th Street would probably preclude crossing the river at 4th Street. It would be hard to cross the LA River at 4th street if the station is between 3rd and 4th. However, I don't think a crossing there is a good idea. This station would allow an easy crossing along 6th/Whittier, however, which would be very difficult with a station at 6th, due to the need for some room to curve. Most proposals to extend the Red Line or Purple Line (east) have suggested a route along Whittier or Olympic (switching to Whittier farther east). Other proposals extend the heavy rail line along the 10 freeway or nearby; these would branch at LA Union Station. But since both the Purple and Red line go there, you could have two eastern branches, if you don't mind spliting the max frequency. |
|
|
|
Post by saltire08 on Aug 31, 2010 23:42:13 GMT -8
Yes, there is not funding for it, but things can change fast in this world (ok...sometimes ;D)
Essentially, if you look at the Mayor's Clean Tech Coridor, the LARRMP (LA River Revitalization Master Plan), etc., they call for mixed used development from the 110/5 all the way down to Olympic essentially. Because of the recent designation by the EPA that the LA River is navigable, it allows for a lot more protections of the river. Basically, it won't be a concrete box and will become a much more attractive space to be around.
Combined with the River Revitalization Corporation (RRC) working on private funding, there is a high probability that that area could change radically in the next 10-20 years.
What factors into all of this is the CHSRA and the route that is chosen for it. If they go above grade, all bets are off as to where anything can be done b/c as we know those viaducts are big.
Moreover, you have the BNSF and UP which are both very "set in their ways"...i.e. they're even giving CHSRA crap.
In conclusion, *if* the city/county/developers can succeed in redoing that whole area (possibly making it a special CRA area), special zoning, etc., a stop like this would be HUGE.
However, as we all know, the right hand doesn't talk to the left hand. What it will take for this to happen is for the train people, environmentalist people, bike people, etc. to all advocate for a more complete community that includes the features all of them want.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 1, 2010 5:32:50 GMT -8
Money and a stronger river coalition is what the LA River folks need.
Right now, huge advantage to the railroads, CHSRA and existing uses. The River Plan is a faint blip on the radar. The river folks need to find stronger unity and there is still a way to go. Then, get the money, which is a much larger task in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 1, 2010 11:53:41 GMT -8
Back before Zev's Anti-Subway Initiative, the Red Line's extension to Boyle Heights was supposed to have had a station roughly in this same general area. But if we didn't have Zev's antisubway initiative, we wouldn't have the Gold and Expo Lines, and therefore there would naturally be no Downtown Connector. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2010 13:55:54 GMT -8
Back before Zev's Anti-Subway Initiative, the Red Line's extension to Boyle Heights was supposed to have had a station roughly in this same general area. But if we didn't have Zev's antisubway initiative, we wouldn't have the Gold and Expo Lines, and therefore there would naturally be no Downtown Connector. Well, speculative history is a tricky game to play. To be certain, we wouldn't have the Gold Line Eastside, which is why I included that asterisk footnote about the Little Tokyo station in my last post. Zev's law had the unintended consequence of shifting focus onto the Expo Line, but you can make a pretty strong argument for Expo with or without Zev. = One other thing I wanted to point out: Union Pacific's been pissy about CAHSR, not BNSF. From Amtrak to Metrolink (delays, delays and more delays) to high-speed rail, UP needs a serious attitude adjustment. However, Santa Fe's attitude has been much more sensible. The tracks on the west bank of the L.A. River south of Union Station are all BNSF (except for the Red Line maintenance yard tracks, of course), so the situation there might not be so bad. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 1, 2010 16:35:41 GMT -8
Was it Zev's law that shifted focus away from heavy rail subway to light-rail?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 1, 2010 19:14:59 GMT -8
Was it Zev's law that shifted focus away from heavy rail subway to light-rail? Not specifically, no. But the law made it much harder to build subways (heavy rail, 3rd-rail subway tunnels) in Los Angeles County. And people still wanted rail. So, the MTA did the next best thing and shifted money over to light rail projects. Boyle Heights got the subway tunnel that it needed through a loophole in Zev's law (I admit that I forget the exact details so please don't flame me, but basically, they found other sources of funding that weren't banned) and Little Tokyo got a train station at the Japanese American National Museum's front doorstop. And Expo Rail got sped up as well. History is a Rube Goldberg device. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 1, 2010 20:43:23 GMT -8
My question would be, and this is a real question since I don't know too much about this area, how would this affect any future plans to extend the Red/Purple line east? Presumably, if trains started running to this location, they would probably never stop. Does an arts district stop fit in with some of the proposals that we and others have put forward for extending the subway eats towards El Monte/Whittier/etc? Probably not El Monte, but Whittier. An extension into the San Gabriel Valley would probably happen as an extension of the Red Line, beginning immediately after Union Station, following the El Monte Busway and the 10 freeway until after crossing the 710, when it meets up with Ramona/Garvey. It would then run on Garvey until Santa Anita, and then turn north on Santa Anita with a station at the proposed Transit Village, and finally terminating at the El Monte Metrolink Station. If an extension to Whittier happens (which should be an extension of the Purple Line-whether by 7th Metro Station or Arts District), there shouldn't be a station at 6th street, because it would have to make a veering turn to follow 6th street itself, which becomes Whittier Blvd. * I'm actually sort of glad this wasn't built. Little Tokyo ended up with a much better station location and East L.A. got the Gold Line anyways.... This is the main reason why I like the idea of an extension from the 7th Street Metro Station. I just think the Arts District still has a ways to go, thats all. A station between 3rd and 4th Streets would probably not preclude any future extensions. A station at 6th Street would probably preclude crossing the river at 4th Street. A station at 4th or 3rd street just makes so much more sense. Most proposals to extend the Red Line or Purple Line (east) have suggested a route along Whittier or Olympic (switching to Whittier farther east). Whittier would be better than Olympic. More density, and less tunneling under homes. Red line to El Monte (or potentially a different color if the Vermont Corridor is built), and Purple Line to Whittier. Sounds great just thinking about it! ;D What factors into all of this is the CHSRA and the route that is chosen for it. If they go above grade, all bets are off as to where anything can be done b/c as we know those viaducts are big. Moreover, you have the BNSF and UP which are both very "set in their ways"...i.e. they're even giving CHSRA crap. However, as we all know, the right hand doesn't talk to the left hand. What it will take for this to happen is for the train people, environmentalist people, bike people, etc. to all advocate for a more complete community that includes the features all of them want. In the end, below-grade is simply a more attractive option when it comes to development in the Arts District along the river. It's very costly, but in the long run, it will be worth it. Money and a stronger river coalition is what the LA River folks need. Right now, huge advantage to the railroads, CHSRA and existing uses. The River Plan is a faint blip on the radar. The river folks need to find stronger unity and there is still a way to go. Then, get the money, which is a much larger task in itself. What we really need is to get City officials, MTA, CHSRA, BNSF & UP, along with LA River advocates and developers, and bring them together in a conference room to discuss integrating each other's plans and visions for the future. I think such coordination between different interests would say something positive about LA in general if it happened. But if we didn't have Zev's antisubway initiative, we wouldn't have the Gold and Expo Lines, and therefore there would naturally be no Downtown Connector. But what about the Blue Line and Gold Line Foothill corridor? |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Sept 2, 2010 5:23:07 GMT -8
Regarding getting the different stake holders together on the LA River Plan, I like your optomistic thinking!'.
But the challenge is much much greater than any layman is giving it. In the end, billions of dollars are needed from the private and public sectors to create a relatively small patch of green space, which at the end of the day will be poorly treated - homelessness, trash, pollution, etc. One needs to ask, 'is something like that worth such an investment?'
There is also addressing the State Park system - whereas they recently called the proposed HSR system 'enemy #1". That is in part because the LA River folks, or LA City council, requested that the CHSRA examine a route to Union Station respecting separation from the river. That in-turn resulted in an alignment through/under a state park and. Dodger Stadium.
|
|
