|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 9, 2012 12:29:45 GMT -8
When you enter the market from Hill St., there is a short flight of stairs that takes you down about half a floor then there's another flight of stairs that takes you to a basement. I've known of this space for years; in fact, I remember there was a lunch counter down there. The back part of the basement, which appears to be under Hill St. proper, looks like it can hold PE cars/LRV's. The Subway Terminal Building is not too far. Were there ever any plans to connect these two (2) underground spaces by rail? It seems as though back in its hay-day if there would have been a need to ease crowding at the Subway Terminal, run-through tracks north under Hill St. from the Subway Terminal to the Grand Central Market basement could have provided that relief. Is there any truth to this or was this simply a basement store/restaurant space all along?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 9, 2012 14:31:02 GMT -8
When you enter the market from Hill St., there is a short flight of stairs that takes you down about half a floor then there's another flight of stairs that takes you to a basement. I've known of this space for years; in fact, I remember there was a lunch counter down there. The back part of the basement, which appears to be under Hill St. proper, looks like it can hold PE cars/LRV's. The Subway Terminal Building is not too far. Were there ever any plans to connect these two (2) underground spaces by rail? It seems as though back in its hay-day if there would have been a need to ease crowding at the Subway Terminal, run-through tracks north under Hill St. from the Subway Terminal to the Grand Central Market basement could have provided that relief. Is there any truth to this or was this simply a basement store/restaurant space all along? Sometimes a basement is just a basement. No there were no plans. The Svbway Terminal cars would have to make a sharp turn in order to connect to Grand Central. Also keep in mind that transit back then was not *public* transit per se. The PE was a privately-owned company and only built its lines on property it owned, unless there was an agreement to use the street. The PE never owned the Grand Central Market, so there was no possibility of building it to there.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 9, 2012 16:29:50 GMT -8
As a kid in the early 70's. I remember that it was just a mass of retail space you could hide in. Over time, it's just been pared back more and more due to fewer crowds. Maybe that will change? Downtown is getting busier. Slowly.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 10, 2012 14:45:18 GMT -8
Also keep in mind that transit back then was not *public* transit per se. The PE was a privately-owned company and only built its lines on property it owned, unless there was an agreement to use the street. The PE never owned the Grand Central Market, so there was no possibility of building it to there. It's a moot point because the Pacific Electric no longer exists, and it didn't happen, but there's no reason why two private companies couldn't have come up with an agreement to coexist. Mitsukoshimae station in Tokyo is literally "next to Mitsukoshi," referring to the Japanese department store which has a basement-level entrance to a subway station passageway. Now, if there was a way to link the Grand Central Market basement to the Metro Rail station nearby, that would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 10, 2012 15:18:37 GMT -8
DTLA is becoming the place to live these days, so in a few more years, there will be a need for more neighborhood elements/entities like community gardens; a comprehensive street car system that overlays and interfaces w/the LRT/HRT system; mainstream and specialty grocery stores/shops (besides Ralph's Fresh Fare, Grand Central Market, and the soon to come Walmart); late closing hours at restaurants/night clubs/supper clubs/cabarets/lounges/plays/theaters w/liquor service till 3 a.m. (it's currently 2 a.m. and yes, one hour will make a world of difference in L.A.); a marry-go-round...OK, maybe I'm exaggerating with the marry-go-round, but LA. will need everything else sooner rather than later. DTLA won't remain the place to live if you can't readily get around; there's no convenient places to buy groceries; and lacks entertainment/dining.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 10, 2012 23:40:19 GMT -8
Also keep in mind that transit back then was not *public* transit per se. The PE was a privately-owned company and only built its lines on property it owned, unless there was an agreement to use the street. The PE never owned the Grand Central Market, so there was no possibility of building it to there. It's a moot point because the Pacific Electric no longer exists, and it didn't happen, but there's no reason why two private companies couldn't have come up with an agreement to coexist. Can you name a precedent for that though -- the PE and another private entity sharing a facility? The OP's point was, "Was this supposed to happen?"
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 11, 2012 11:13:14 GMT -8
It's too bad the Subway Terminal and the Grand Central Market were never destined to connect. I'm sure it was by sheer coincidence that the elements for it to happen came to be, except for accounting for the radius the Red Cars would need to exit the Subway Terminal north onto/under Hill St. The practicality of connecting these two (2) entities has long vanished, but I wonder if our modern LRV's or HRV's would be able to make that sharp turn today?
I'm looking at a bigger picture where the Blue Line and the Expo Line no longer share the tracks on Flower St. and the wye is eliminated. A new Blue Line route under Hill St. would go right by the Subway Terminal and the Grand Central Market. The Subway Terminal would become LRV storage and the Grand Central Market would become the station. Too bad the Red/Purple Lines already run under Hill St., although what if the Red/Purple Line tunnels were bored deep enough to allow another set of tunnels to be built over them?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 11, 2012 12:11:30 GMT -8
It's too bad the Subway Terminal and the Grand Central Market were never destined to connect. I'm sure it was by sheer coincidence that the elements for it to happen came to be, except for accounting for the radius the Red Cars would need to exit the Subway Terminal north onto/under Hill St. The practicality of connecting these two (2) entities has long vanished, but I wonder if our modern LRV's or HRV's would be able to make that sharp turn today? I'm looking at a bigger picture where the Blue Line and the Expo Line no longer share the tracks on Flower St. and the wye is eliminated. A new Blue Line route under Hill St. would go right by the Subway Terminal and the Grand Central Market. The Subway Terminal would become LRV storage and the Grand Central Market would become the station. I don't see that happening. Transit systems, for many reasons prefer "trunk lines" for routes - see SF's Market Street, for example. It wouldn't be impossible to put an LRT tunnel above the deep-bore subway on Hill Street, BUT the existing subway station mezzanines already occupy that space...
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 13, 2012 12:11:22 GMT -8
Damn those cavernous subway stations! I'm under the assumption Metro built those sprawling mezzanines in anticipation of mass ridership; and while I'm glad to use the Red Line once in a while, are we even close to the ridership anticipated to justify these kinds of stations? Or was this Metro's answer to meeting ADA compliance?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 13, 2012 15:43:46 GMT -8
Damn those cavernous subway stations! I'm under the assumption Metro built those sprawling mezzanines in anticipation of mass ridership; and while I'm glad to use the Red Line once in a while, are we even close to the ridership anticipated to justify these kinds of stations? Or was this Metro's answer to meeting ADA compliance? The design of the Downtown subway stations were drawn up back in the early-mid 1980s. The ADA was not passed until 1990. The Blue Line was the first "ADA-compliant" transit line, having anticipated the requirements identified in the legislation at the time. The stations were designed that way intentionally to address the stigma of dark, murky, cramped, narrow subway stations as seen in the East Coast. Around the time the RTD initially planned a Metro Rail system in the 1970s, NYC's subway trains were graffiti-strewn and crime on them was rampant, making the subway an even harder sell than it is today. SF's newly-opened BART was constantly looked upon as a model, but in the eyes of the public, that was the exception and not the rule. Bear in mind that before the Red Line was built, the concept of a subway in Los Angeles was an unfamiliar paradigm, so they had to be addressed through an open, well-lit, more aesthetically-pleasing design. You laugh now, but keep in mind that there was a time when subways didn't exist here (1925 PE subway notwithstanding).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 14, 2012 19:03:55 GMT -8
I can understand the psychological rationale behind making the original stations bigger, but I wish we wouldn't keep doing that for the newer stations. It's like a grown man with training wheels on his bicycle.
The ADA doesn't require high ceilings. That could be a problem when the Crenshaw Line reaches Wilshire, or for any subway line downtown.
Same goes for the large station entrances. In the illustrations I've seen, we seem to be doing that with the Purple Line and with the Regional Connector. The problem is not just aesthetics, but what happens if you have a building (like the Spice Table) that needs to be removed.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 19, 2012 16:00:15 GMT -8
The only thing I've been able to conclude from all this is that Metro seriously needs to look into recycling the old Subway Terminal. Granted, the apartment tenants may initially balk, but the location is still great (Grand Central Market/Angele's Flight to the north, Pershing Square to the south) and a third entrance/exit to Pershing Square Station could be added. I'm sure there's a reason as to why it has been allowed to languish in darkness all these decades, but this is ridiculous. From the pictures I've seen, the main floor appears to have space for a California Pizza Kitchen, a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, and CVS Express.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 19, 2012 17:12:19 GMT -8
The only thing I've been able to conclude from all this is that Metro seriously needs to look into recycling the old Subway Terminal. Granted, the apartment tenants may initially balk, but the location is still great (Grand Central Market/Angele's Flight to the north, Pershing Square to the south) and a third entrance/exit to Pershing Square Station could be added. I'm sure there's a reason as to why it has been allowed to languish in darkness all these decades, but this is ridiculous. From the pictures I've seen, the main floor appears to have space for a California Pizza Kitchen, a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, and CVS Express. Metro doesn't own the building...
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 19, 2012 19:30:35 GMT -8
The only thing I've been able to conclude from all this is that Metro seriously needs to look into recycling the old Subway Terminal. Granted, the apartment tenants may initially balk, but the location is still great (Grand Central Market/Angele's Flight to the north, Pershing Square to the south) and a third entrance/exit to Pershing Square Station could be added. I'm sure there's a reason as to why it has been allowed to languish in darkness all these decades, but this is ridiculous. From the pictures I've seen, the main floor appears to have space for a California Pizza Kitchen, a Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, and CVS Express. Metro doesn't own the building... Thanks for that big fat F U!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 19, 2012 21:48:34 GMT -8
The Subway terminal was built for a specific purpose--getting cars bound for Hollywood, Glendale and the San Fernando Valley in and out of downtown without tedious street running. Trying to re-use it (especially since the original tunnel is blocked) would appear to be an exercise in futility. Much as we would like to see this historic engineering work put back into service, sometimes it's just easier to start from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 20, 2012 12:10:39 GMT -8
Bummer! OK, it's probably time to let this ridiculous thread fade into obscurity. Besides, even conjecture can only be fun for so long.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Feb 22, 2014 17:44:29 GMT -8
Damn those cavernous subway stations! I'm under the assumption Metro built those sprawling mezzanines in anticipation of mass ridership; and while I'm glad to use the Red Line once in a while, are we even close to the ridership anticipated to justify these kinds of stations? Or was this Metro's answer to meeting ADA compliance? Some of the Red Line stations do get busy these days, but IME Civic Center is almost always nearly deserted, and the same for the Union Station terminus, except during rush hour. I'd say 7th/Metro is the real DTLA core of the transit system, even if that leaves out the Gold Line entirely. The last two times I was headed back to the Westside from that station during the weekday rush it looked pretty much like this: Granted, this is the upper LRT level, but still. Downstairs was equally crowded at the time. I've also noticed that they finally seem to be using the far platform, although not when this picture was taken.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 22, 2014 20:00:41 GMT -8
Oh geez! I all but forgot about starting this thread LOL!
I've been at 7th St./Metro catching the Blue and Red Lines when the station levels look (and are) as packed as in the picture. The crowding let's us know it's being used as prescribed.
Just curious, does anyone know how much of the Subway Terminal Building tunnel is still intact? Is it the portion from Flower St. to Hill St.?
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Feb 22, 2014 23:17:20 GMT -8
...Just curious, does anyone know how much of the Subway Terminal Building tunnel is still intact? Is it the portion from Flower St. to Hill St.? The tunnel is still there, however in the late seventies it was bisected by underground parking being built for the Hotel Bonaventure and is no longer contiguous. Further, the yard, at the exit of the tunnel on Glendale Blvd, was recently used for a (publicly funded?) apartment compound completely blocking he opening. If it were ever used again, both of theses significant problems would need to be addressed. Occasionally private tours of the downtown end of the tunnel are offered, but frankly there is not much to see. All equipment has been removed and different areas of the platform have been walled off to make storage rooms.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 23, 2014 21:11:47 GMT -8
What makes the Subway Terminal station location so attractive to wonder about is that it's yards from the Red/Purple Pershing Square Station.
If the long-rumored "Yellow Line" was ever built, Metro could use it as an opportunity to revamp this station. Can you imagine if the Yellow Line was able to meet up with the Santa Ana Branch line at this spot? It would be a HUGE transfer point. The Boneventure basement shouldn't be TOO much of a problem. The line could run ALONGSIDE the EXISTING tunnel from the Beverly/Toluca portal until just beyond the hotel via 4th St; then, it would merge with the tunnel before entering the Subway Terminal station. From there it could run under 4th street and meet up with the planned LRT tracks along the LA River.
As for the prospect of ever re-using Subway Terminal station to begin with. Come on guys, don't make excuses. The lack of such bold and ambitious vision has seriously damaged LA over the decades and is one reason why Downtown is the way it is today.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 24, 2014 8:59:49 GMT -8
Forgive me guys, but I don't understand the obsession with reusing old buildings for new subway lines. The old Subway Terminal building doesn't make sense for future subway use, for many reasons: - It is not owned by Metro.
- It is now a residential building filled with people who pay to live there.
- The tunnel is blocked by the foundation of the Bonaventure Hotel.
- The Belmont tunnel portal is blocked by another residential development at 2nd/Beverly.
As for the Grand Central Market basement, it is located at 3rd/Broadway, another block north of the 4th Street portals, which themselves are a full block north of the actual station at Pershing Square. At some point, it makes sense for the pedestrians to come to the surface and walk outside. If anything, I'd like to see a new portal integrated into a (hopefully redesigned) Pershing Square, at SW corner of 5th/Hill. That would actually expand the coverage of the station to points west. Anyway, we are about to have a new subway built through Downtown LA, and I do hope that it will be designed to integrate into the urban fabric. More entrances is certainly better, and I'm sick of Metro skimping on the entrances. But (for example) just because the LA Times building has a basement adjacent to the new station, doesn't mean it makes sense to connect them together. I'm not sure who would benefit from that. An excellent example of integration is the new portal that will soon be built at Macy's Plaza (renamed "The Bloc") into 7th/Metro Center station. Finally, we will have a portal that is not only on the south of 7th Street, but integrated with an actively-used shopping mall as well.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 24, 2014 9:17:58 GMT -8
Forgive me guys, but I don't understand the obsession with reusing old buildings for new subway lines. The old Subway Terminal building doesn't make sense for future subway use, for many reasons: - It is not owned by Metro.
Oh come on. Would it really be that difficult for Metro to just buy the whole basement as a tenant? If anything, whoever owns the building/property would want increased value to their asset by doing this. Why would they just want all that space to sit there abandoned? THAT, sir, makes no sense. Not sure how this has to do with anything. I'm sure there are lots of residential buildings in various parts of the world that have active stations built into them. Again, just run the line under 4th street until it passes the Bonaventure foundation (granted, probably tunnel-bored; cut and cover ain't gonna cut it with that maze of a road above). Then, after Flower st, just merge with the tunnel and run into the station. So? Locate the new LRT subway portal further north on Glendale Blvd. Seriously, this couldn't be that hard. You really are making it more difficult than it sounds. Furthermore (in case you have any seismic concerns) i'm sure accessible parts of the tunnel can be retrofitted to withstand tremors. In addition (if high costs are a concern to you), I point to the fact repeated numerous times on this forum that the majority of costs when building a subway in LA are the STATIONS, not the tunnels themselves.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 25, 2014 9:47:33 GMT -8
Wow! I didn't think this discussion was going to go any further than what Alex posted; and thank you for the video clip! I've been "dinged" in the past for resurrecting this poor forsaken tunnel topic. I was bluntly told once "Stop it! There's no current political backing for using it whatsoever!" Perhaps that's true. However, there is a reason I brought it up. If the tunnel is intact from the Subway Terminal to Flower St. where the Regional Connector is going to be tunneled/trenched, why is Metro passing up an opportunity to acquire and use the Subway Terminal as a LRV storage? If there's one thing I've learned from this message board over the years is that you cannot have too many LRV storage facilities! If the Terminal were brought back with five (5) tracks, and each held a 3-car train, there would be cars for early morning dispatch: two (2) to Santa Monica, two (2) Long Beach, and one (1) to East L.A. If this were successfully orchestrated, the next thing to explore would be opening the sub-level or track-level of the Terminal to the Pershing Square mezzanine. Then we'd have the kind of integration we could all be proud of. Until someone knows for sure whether the tunnel goes to Flower St. or not, I'm going to keep thinking this is a waste of resources.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 25, 2014 10:49:52 GMT -8
I think it was discussed here before that the orientation and alignment of the old subway tunnel doesn't really work with the Downtown Connector to be able to use it as storage.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2014 10:55:46 GMT -8
I am all for discussing this, I just happen to disagree that the tunnel is needed or very useful. It *always* comes down to cost vs. benefit. gatewaygent, the benefit of your suggestion is clear: storage tracks for LRVs would be a great thing to have in Downtown LA. The costs, would include: shoring up the old tunnel to modern seismic and technical standards, and integrating the old tunnel into the new tunnel. These costs might not be too great. I wonder if the FEIR would need to be revised? Interestingly, the FEIR LPA drawing ( see here, page 6) shows that the old tunnel is almost perfectly lined up with the new tunnel. This means that technically, it seems like it could be done. However, a junction would need to be created, connecting the old tunnel and tracks to the new tunnel and tracks. This would require creation of one or two curved tunnel sections to the east of Flower Street (under Citicorp Plaza). And, a significant amount of space would be needed under Flower Street for the new junction trackwork. This section of Flower Street is already slated for a pocket track (triple track), so I wonder how this could be done.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 25, 2014 10:55:56 GMT -8
As for using the tunnel to create the "Yellow Line" (which has been discussed on this forum and its predecessor since the 1990s), I just don't see it. You need to have either (a) people clamoring for the line, or (b) Metro Board members pushing for the line, in order for a new line to even get studied. Then, the study needs to suggest that ridership would be high enough, and costs and impacts would be low enough, to get political support.
From a technical standpoint, I think you stepped on part of the problem. Cut-and-cover ain't gonna cut it, going under multi-level 4th Street and then the 110 Freeway. So you have to set a TBM into the ground. Where does it connect to the existing sections of old tunnel in the east? How about in the west? That connection would have to be done in a huge open area, to insert and remove the TBM, and to do a cut-and-cover connection. And for what? So that we can take advantage of the existing tunnel? With all that taken into consideration, the existing tunnel doesn't have seem to be much advantage anymore.
I think more feasible would be to simple create a new tunnel under 2nd Street. Although, with the problems of methane gas and earthquake faults in that area (which caused huge problems with the Belmont school), that might create other issues.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 25, 2014 17:06:32 GMT -8
Hey metrocenter, thanks for the link to the FEIR/S. I'm with you on the feasibility of using the tunnel portion between the Bonaventure and the "Toluca Yard" apartments. There's no way the costs could ever be justified (ground exploration, excavation, reinforcement, seismic upgrade, etc.) Plus, it dead ends at an apartment complex that is honestly more relevant and important than the tunnel portion itself.
As for the "Yellow Line" concept: I think this is more of a 'good intention' line on a bad alignment. While the concept of tying Glendale/Burbank into the Metro grid for access to DTLA and points beyond, and vice versa, seems sound, who is going to ride it, especially when it's aligned inconveniently far from Glendale's biggest attraction: the Galleria on Brand Bl. The old "Silver Line" concept suffered from this. While the western portion down Sunset Bl. made sense (and to date this still seems to have the most potential), the eastern portion in the Mission Rd. trench didn't seem palatable when all the life/traffic/destinations are on Valley Bl.
Good intention doesn't expand the Metro rail grid. Demand and politics do, I get that now. Perhaps one day, when LRV storage becomes critical, a person that reads these message boards for politicians that can do something will mention using the Subway Terminal and become a hero.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 26, 2014 15:19:25 GMT -8
At railway enthusiast meetings I hear many "Why didn't they.....", "Why did they...", "Why don't they....." and (to quote Brian Wilson) "Wouldn't it be nice...." discussions. The short answer to many of them is "Anything is cheap to the person who doesn't have to pay for it, and anything is easy to the person who doesn't have to do it." Then there are things that have brought criticism, but had to be done to move the job along. The Farmdale station on the Expo Line, and the excessive amount paid for a certain property in Monrovia to allow construction of the Gold Line Operations Campus come to mind. As amateur transportation historian, I sometimes think that the proverbial "die was cast" when Henry Ford's first Model T hit the road over a hundred years ago.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 27, 2014 22:48:59 GMT -8
It's true...dreaming is free. That's why I was happy to see the 2009 LRTP Supplement #1 with all those ideas in it. I wonder if there's ever going to be a Supplement #2 and whether reusing the Subway Terminal could make it on there.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 28, 2014 1:29:00 GMT -8
I have to admit, sometimes dreams do come true. Back in the 1980s, probably after a pizza with everything on it, I dreamed that I was in Monrovia, on the north side of Duarte Rd. The Santa Fe line that went by there had been electrified, and PE 5300-class cars were running on it. A two-car train stopped and picked me up, and we headed eastward, and I woke up while we were going through Irwindale. This was long before the Gold Line was even thought of, and Amtrak passenger trains and Santa Fe freights were still running between LA and San Bernardino via Pasadena. If all goes well, in another year and a half to two years, I'll be able to ride from Monrovia to Irwindale (or on to Azusa) on the modern version of an interurban car.
|
|