|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 1, 2011 7:22:01 GMT -8
"they will have to turn some of the trains to avoid sending way too many out to Pasadena. In order to do that they likely need another track and platform" Trains could turn around at another station farther north, rather than right at Union Station. But do we need to turn around many trains before Pasadena? Currently the Gold Line has 7 minutes headways at rush hour. With the Regional Connector, ridership will improve, and a train every 4 minutes would not be unreasonable, at least to central Pasadena. I would agree with turning trains before the new Foothill Extension, which does not need such frequent service. They could turn farther north for sure, but since LAUS is really where they would be needed anything further would be unnecessary. And 7 min headways now with only 2-car trains is only 16-18 cars per hour. 3-car trains at 4 minute headways would be 45 cars per hour. It's nearly triple. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 1, 2011 19:20:14 GMT -8
On the Gold Line, having every other train turn back at Sierra Madre Villa would be analogous to the Pacific Electric Monrovia-Glendora line, where about half the trains continued on to Glendora and the others went only to Monrovia.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 14, 2011 7:29:27 GMT -8
This doesn't seem like nearly as good an idea now that the legs have been pulled out from under CAHSR. Assuming that this is already a done deal, I wonder how much they overpaid? Certainly the price would be cheaper now.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 14, 2011 17:20:36 GMT -8
This doesn't seem like nearly as good an idea now that the legs have been pulled out from under CAHSR. Assuming that this is already a done deal, I wonder how much they overpaid? Certainly the price would be cheaper now. Nah, CAHSR is still happening, it may just take longer to get finished. They already have enough money to build the first 1/4, from Fresno to Bakersfield. But Union Station isn't really about HSR. Most ridership will always be from local commuters. The value of the land is in the development rights. According to Metro, Union Station has more by-right development potential than the 3 billion dollar Grand Avenue Project on Bunker Hill. The land probably is worth 70 million, even without the station there. Actually, the historic nature of the station is as much a liability as an asset from a development standpoint. But I don't think they overpaid, considering the amount of downtown land involved thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/ |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2011 12:58:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 16, 2011 10:35:20 GMT -8
This doesn't seem like nearly as good an idea now that the legs have been pulled out from under CAHSR. Assuming that this is already a done deal, I wonder how much they overpaid? Certainly the price would be cheaper now. Nah, CAHSR is still happening, it may just take longer to get finished. They already have enough money to build the first 1/4, from Fresno to Bakersfield. But Union Station isn't really about HSR. Most ridership will always be from local commuters. The value of the land is in the development rights. According to Metro, Union Station has more by-right development potential than the 3 billion dollar Grand Avenue Project on Bunker Hill. The land probably is worth 70 million, even without the station there. Actually, the historic nature of the station is as much a liability as an asset from a development standpoint. But I don't think they overpaid, considering the amount of downtown land involved thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/High speed rail won't be central to Union Station's operations, but it will certainly be an important part of it. Think of all the people coming in off of the bullet trains and grabbing the Red Line, Gold Line (regional connector) or Metrolink for the remainder of their journey. Also, Metrolink and Cal HSR will have to learn to play nice if Cal HSR borrows Metrolink's ROW. I wonder just how much development potential Union Station has, considering few people outside a few cranks would want to make serious changes, at least as far as the historic end is concerned. Anything from the tunnel to Patsouras Plaza is fair game as far as I'm concerned, and the empty Harvey House is ridiculous. I do think Metro is underestimating Bunker Hill. @ Metrocenter: So, what would make a good housewarming gift for the new owners? |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 18, 2011 22:38:29 GMT -8
Nah, CAHSR is still happening, it may just take longer to get finished. They already have enough money to build the first 1/4, from Fresno to Bakersfield. But Union Station isn't really about HSR. Most ridership will always be from local commuters. The value of the land is in the development rights. According to Metro, Union Station has more by-right development potential than the 3 billion dollar Grand Avenue Project on Bunker Hill. The land probably is worth 70 million, even without the station there. Actually, the historic nature of the station is as much a liability as an asset from a development standpoint. But I don't think they overpaid, considering the amount of downtown land involved thesource.metro.net/2011/04/14/metro-tonight-officially-becomes-new-owner-of-los-angeles-union-station/High speed rail won't be central to Union Station's operations, but it will certainly be an important part of it. Think of all the people coming in off of the bullet trains and grabbing the Red Line, Gold Line (regional connector) or Metrolink for the remainder of their journey. Also, Metrolink and Cal HSR will have to learn to play nice if Cal HSR borrows Metrolink's ROW. I wonder just how much development potential Union Station has, considering few people outside a few cranks would want to make serious changes, at least as far as the historic end is concerned. Anything from the tunnel to Patsouras Plaza is fair game as far as I'm concerned, and the empty Harvey House is ridiculous. I do think Metro is underestimating Bunker Hill. @ Metrocenter: So, what would make a good housewarming gift for the new owners? Metro as the owner is limited by what they can do to Union Station due to it's historical designation. I was talking to the Project Planner of the Gold Line Eastside that the East Portal has been owned by it all along and they will not be able to change much in the building to match the new look. He said there is a door across from the Gold Line portal that can be opened up to make an additional portal up to the Gold Line platform. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 1:36:33 GMT -8
I'm not sure which door that would be, but I'm always in favor of improving access at Union Station.
I'm actually glad that there are limits in place at Union Station, because I think it looks good the way it is. The waiting room area definitely needs no help and the "food court" area where Famima!! is now is looking excellent.
People complain about the restrooms. There's an obvious fix.
Beyond that, anything else could probably wait until high speed rail comes in, as there will be a huge opportunity there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 19, 2011 2:53:32 GMT -8
He must mean knocking through the wall as Brigham Yen has been advocating for years. If you're facing the steps up to the gold line platform, look left where the TVM's are. If you take that wall out the red line passageway is on the other side. Also the red line platform is directly below the gold line platform. Although they are at an angle, they do overlap for a portion. I don't know if anything can be done there, but knocking out the wall seems easy enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 19, 2011 6:30:42 GMT -8
He must mean knocking through the wall as Brigham Yen has been advocating for years. If you're facing the steps up to the gold line platform, look left where the TVM's are. If you take that wall out the red line passageway is on the other side. Also the red line platform is directly below the gold line platform. Although they are at an angle, they do overlap for a portion. I don't know if anything can be done there, but knocking out the wall seems easy enough. Except that the design for re-doing the tracks at ground level for the possible HSR addition require moving the Gold Line tracks closer to Union Station. No point in knocking out walls now if they plan on moving the tracks later. I'm sure that the master plan that will be developed will factor that in. RT |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 14:59:28 GMT -8
If they go with the ground-level HSR tracks, then you're right, the Gold Line would have to move. If they go with elevated tracks, then it wouldn't.
However, either way, it might be worth considering. After all, the first tracks will be in the Central Valley, and it may take a while (sad, but true) to reach Los Angeles.
And they won't be building a new structure, they'll be taking out a wall. Even if it's a temporary fix, it's a temporary fix which would be around for several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 19, 2011 17:41:05 GMT -8
Eventually there should be a direct elevator and staircase from the Gold Line platform to the Red Line platform. This will make even more sense once we go to a free-transfer and/or distance-based fare system. But in the meantime I hope they consider making a more direct connection. Right now it takes over 5 minutes to walk from 1 platform to the other. The development rights for the station are for the land AROUND the historic building. The previous owners claim they have 3 areas on the station site that can be developed for up to 5.9 million more square feet of office, residential or retail space: Three parcels are available for high-density commercial or residential development: www.catellus.com/pdfs/unionstationprojectexperience.pdf"As the owner of Union Station, Catellus secured entitlement for 5.9 million square feet of development through 2022. Adopted by City Council ordinance as the Alameda District Specific Plan, the entitlement establishes a flexible set of physical and functional parameters for development at Union Station relating to area, parking and phasing. As part of the entitlement, building identification and signage is permitted as allowed under the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Build-To-Suit Catellus’ build-to-suit approach features large, flexibly configured floor plates with current technology and amenities consistent with Class A building construction. Although the station and its environs are historically designated, new building construction at Union Station thoughtfully adopts an architecture that is both modern and mindful of its historic context. Union Station is home to three build-to-suit office towers, which encompass elements of the historic design of the area: • The 26-story, 628,000-square-foot Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) headquarters building • The 10-story, 53,000-square-foot Metropolitan Water District (MWD) headquarters building • The 3-story, 47,000-square-foot First 5 LA headquarters building Three parcels are available for high-density commercial or residential development." This is the official LA City site about the Alameda Area (Union Station area) specific plan: cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/sparea/alameda.htm |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 19, 2011 18:31:57 GMT -8
Spatial geometry isn't my strong suit, so I don't know how you would build an escalator directly from the Gold Line to the Red Line. I'll take your word for it that it would be possible, at least to the mezzanine.
Even Tokyo's incredible, wonderful distance-based system has some ridiculously long transfers — although usually this is at stations with three or more lines, where getting from platform A to platform B requires going up and over platform C.
I'll admit the Gold-to-Red transfer probably seems more annoying because they are part of the same system, and not distinct, such as Metrolink/ Metro Rail (JR/ Tokyo Metro).
If Union Station has a weak point, it is the buildings surrounding it and not the main structure. It feels very disjointed, for example from Mozaic to the station, or from DWP to the station or even from Alameda/ Olvera Street to the station. There ought to be pedestrian bridges/ tunnels across Alameda.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 20, 2011 11:23:50 GMT -8
There is a large portion of Union Station, where all the old ticket windows are, that isnt open to the public. I dont see any reason not to add more seating there
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 20, 2011 11:45:12 GMT -8
There was a proposal to better connect the Gold and Red line, there is a drawing somewhere on this board or on metro.net of the idea. So far it has not had funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 20, 2011 11:54:46 GMT -8
There is a large portion of Union Station, where all the old ticket windows are, that isnt open to the public. I dont see any reason not to add more seating there More free seating? Or make money from filming, events, parties and weddings by renting out the space? What do you think is better? Actually...that area is leased out to Hollywood Productions, so the owner has no right to change unless they break the lease or the lease expires. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 20, 2011 12:22:44 GMT -8
If Union Station has a weak point, it is the buildings surrounding it and not the main structure. It feels very disjointed, for example from Mozaic to the station, or from DWP to the station or even from Alameda/ Olvera Street to the station. There ought to be pedestrian bridges/ tunnels across Alameda. A tunnel under Alameda isn't a bad idea. But a better one would be to eliminate at least half of the car parking in front of Union Station -- after all there's something like 600 public parking spots under Metro HQ. Turn that land into a pedestrian plaza/park that flows architecturally into El Pueblo and put Alameda on a road diet, close Los Angeles Street from the 101 to Alameda, and put in a giant, colorful cross walk connecting Union Station to El Pueblo. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 20, 2011 12:55:04 GMT -8
On the issue of seating vs. movie filming, I'd go with the movie filming. It seems like that area gets used for films and special events quite often and I don't think seating has become that much of an issue. A lot of people go straight from Metrolink to the Red Line or vice versa.
=
On the road diet and eliminating parking, it sounds like a great idea but realistically it would be very difficult. Alameda is a major thoroughfare and it would be impossible to convince either residents or officials to give up that extra lane.
It might be possible to kill the parking, but I think you'll need to find a replacement or suffer the wrath of the people who park there. The northern lot is larger than the southern half (and if I remember correctly, gets more crowded), so it might be easier to replace the southern lot.
Los Angeles Street can certainly be cut off beyond the freeway onramp; it already gets cut off plenty of times throughout the year for special events.
[ But note that closing Los Angeles would weaken the argument for putting Alameda on a diet. Without the Los Angeles Street shortcut, you'd need Alameda more than before. ]
Close Los Angeles Street north of the freeway ramp and make that the landing point for a pedestrian bridge across Alameda. The other landing point would be the southern parking lot. Done right you could have a colorful addition to the area and a vantage point for tourists and photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2011 12:55:42 GMT -8
If Metro had unlimited funds: - Replace parking in front with plaza/park, as carter suggests.
- Build parking structure around back, to replace parking in front.
- Build run-through tracks.
- Connect Red and Gold Lines via elevator, escalator or teleporting chamber.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 20, 2011 13:02:13 GMT -8
Well, of course funding is always an issue.
Of the ideas MetroCenter mentioned, the Run-Through tracks are the most important.
Also, I'd build the parking structure out back BEFORE closing the parking in front.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 20, 2011 14:34:18 GMT -8
Well, of course funding is always an issue. Of the ideas MetroCenter mentioned, the Run-Through tracks are the most important. Also, I'd build the parking structure out back BEFORE closing the parking in front. The underground structure is already quite large. It only gets full when there are special events at Union station, we don't need it any larger. Let's focus on rail and bus transit and use those costs for asphalt to build convenience for transit development. You can never have too much parking...people will always ask for more and more and more. Streetsblog showed a great graph of how 50% of our area around downtown LA is covered in parking (hence why LA is park-poor), but yet people still complain "oh I can't find parking, there's no parking, etc...". That just means "There's no free parking available right in front of my desired location". If parking becomes inconvenient......then people will use alternative means to get to their destination. If parking is convenient...what's the point in going Metro? |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 20, 2011 17:41:50 GMT -8
Well, of course funding is always an issue. Of the ideas MetroCenter mentioned, the Run-Through tracks are the most important. Also, I'd build the parking structure out back BEFORE closing the parking in front. The underground structure is already quite large. It only gets full when there are special events at Union station, we don't need it any larger. Let's focus on rail and bus transit and use those costs for asphalt to build convenience for transit development. You can never have too much parking...people will always ask for more and more and more. Streetsblog showed a great graph of how 50% of our area around downtown LA is covered in parking (hence why LA is park-poor), but yet people still complain "oh I can't find parking, there's no parking, etc...". That just means "There's no free parking available right in front of my desired location". If parking becomes inconvenient......then people will use alternative means to get to their destination. If parking is convenient...what's the point in going Metro? If the parking lot is at a train station, I'm all for it. Let people park at Willow in Long Beach or at whatever your favorite park-and-ride stop might be. Or at the Metrolink stations. Make free parking one of the benefits of taking the train. Sounds contradictory, but I swear to you that it works with "I don't know if I can take the train, the station isn't near my house" people. Union Station also hosts Amtrak, and some of those cars are people who prefer to drive to the train station, and take the train to the Grand Canyon or to San Francisco. I agree that Los Angeles is park-poor, but let's keep that a separate issue. You aren't going to build a soccer field, a swing set or a nature trail in front of Union Station, and "transit plazas" aren't all that they're cracked up to be, either. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 20, 2011 19:12:59 GMT -8
I'm not saying no parking...there is parking. 1,100 spaces to be exact in the garage. How much more is warranted? 1,100 is plenty, especially when this is the best connected transit station in Los Angeles.
We talk about building a direct connection between Red and Gold Line platforms through Union Station, which will give transit belief...but building more parking spaces will cost significantly more.
|
|
