|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 26, 2018 14:51:08 GMT -8
Wow! The above grade is pretty but so profoundly terrible from a user experience.
From a view from the board room experience (never ever using it) I’m sure above grade seems wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 26, 2018 16:14:17 GMT -8
Wow! The above grade is pretty but so profoundly terrible from a user experience. From a view from the board room experience (never ever using it) I’m sure above grade seems wonderful. I’m not sure that I could disagree more. The at-grade option reminds me so much of penn station. A low ceiling basement that you can’t wait to escape from. The above grade is higher (above the trains) than the at grade is deep (below the trains) so the stairs/escalators are slightly longer but to transfer from train to train? Who cares if the escalator ride is 4 seconds longer? The space is much more enjoyable to my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jan 26, 2018 18:15:04 GMT -8
As a passenger I want to get from Mode A to Mode B (e.g., Red Line to Metrolink) as quickly as possible. The at-grade option does that. As a railfan who wants to watch trains, the above grade version is superior. Not many passengers fit into that class, especially when running for a train.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jan 26, 2018 18:53:14 GMT -8
I really don't like that they are both fully open air, with plazas between transfers. Yes, LA has nicer weather, but the transfer experience should be as comfortable as possible. Weve all been in downtown when the wind is howling and trash blowing around, or stifling hot.
Little things like that make a huge difference for non-transit dependent riders. It will have a legitimate impact on ridership.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 27, 2018 14:17:40 GMT -8
Couldn't agree more with y'all. I'd like to see higher ceilings in the at-grade option, if possible. Another few feet would be good (enough). And something for the sun. It gets pretty hot there in the summer. A shed, perhaps. Or just the roof of one with a low-e glass, and keep all sides open.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 27, 2018 15:57:58 GMT -8
As a passenger I want to get from Mode A to Mode B (e.g., Red Line to Metrolink) as quickly as possible. The at-grade option does that. As a railfan who wants to watch trains, the above grade version is superior. Not many passengers fit into that class, especially when running for a train. The at grade looks like it does red to metrolink better. And that’s good because no one will want to stay any longer than absolutely necessary. But for other transfers it’s a wash.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 2, 2018 11:10:25 GMT -8
media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_bospacket_2018-0717.pdf
from page 18
refresher from metro
And a reminder, the above grade passenger concourse is a massive safety hazard according to TRAC, and it is also a gigantic pain in the ass for riders--which depresses ridership.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY it will look pretty to the Board of Directors, who value a scenic view more than passenger utility (and it will probably look really good when Hollywood shoots films and TV there)
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 2, 2018 11:14:49 GMT -8
This means metro is building the two worst options.
One, permanently allocating HSR to share a platform with regional rail forever, rather than building dedicated HSR platforms
This also means every regional rail rider will be subjected to the extensive security theatre HSR will require, because they'll have to use the security theatre platform as well.
Two, elevating the passenger concourse because the views are pretty but which will seriously depress ridership by impeding efficient passenger movement and it is not safe, trains shouldn't be on elevated platforms from a basic safety standpoint.
This is literally the worst combination they could have chosen of the four possible combinations.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 20, 2018 11:37:27 GMT -8
The anti-transit-rider, pro-pretty-views-for-non-transit-riders design of the new union station is having an open house next wednesday
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Oct 5, 2018 15:28:21 GMT -8
I hadn't seen this rendering of the at-grade option with a roof ... looks even better than before. They took out the intermediate building (baggage handling building IIRC) on the west side and opened the sight lines. To me, it already looked like the better option before... much more well laid-out than the above-grade option.. now, the roof option really looks even better. Really, absolutely, blows the doors off of the high-rise option. urbanize.la/post/metro-staff-recommends-above-grade-concourse-link-union-station-project
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 17, 2018 9:26:28 GMT -8
Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like Prop. 6 will pass. Yesterday a poll came out showing it winning by 29 points. There was a poll last month that showed it losing so who knows. I wonder what the contingency plan would be for the run through tracks. Just reading this thread from 10 years ago shows how little has been accomplished and now the rug is going to be pulled out since this was the major source of funding. West Santa Ana Branch, Gold Line Extension and East San Fernando Valley corridor projects would be at least delayed if not altered as well since they rely on major funding from SB 1.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 17, 2018 15:20:41 GMT -8
Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like Prop. 6 will pass. Yesterday a poll came out showing it winning by 29 points. There was a poll last month that showed it losing so who knows. I wonder what the contingency plan would be for the run through tracks. Just reading this thread from 10 years ago shows how little has been accomplished and now the rug is going to be pulled out since this was the major source of funding. West Santa Ana Branch, Gold Line Extension and East San Fernando Valley corridor projects would be at least delayed if not altered as well since they rely on major funding from SB 1. This person says that poll was asking leading questions on Proposition 6:
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 17, 2018 19:38:12 GMT -8
Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like Prop. 6 will pass. Yesterday a poll came out showing it winning by 29 points. There was a poll last month that showed it losing so who knows. I wonder what the contingency plan would be for the run through tracks. Just reading this thread from 10 years ago shows how little has been accomplished and now the rug is going to be pulled out since this was the major source of funding. West Santa Ana Branch, Gold Line Extension and East San Fernando Valley corridor projects would be at least delayed if not altered as well since they rely on major funding from SB 1. This person says that poll was asking leading questions on Proposition 6: Thanks. That makes sense, because the other main poll a few weeks ago had Prop 6 losing by 13 points. Hopefully that is more accurate.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 19, 2018 2:47:27 GMT -8
This person says that poll was asking leading questions on Proposition 6: Thanks. That makes sense, because the other main poll a few weeks ago had Prop 6 losing by 13 points. Hopefully that is more accurate. A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll just released today finds that it is a toss-up. 41% in favor, 42% opposed, the rest undecided. www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-usc-latimes-poll-gas-tax-20181019-story.html
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 6, 2018 23:16:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Nov 7, 2018 11:10:07 GMT -8
With the Democrats in charge of the house, we should see more money for Metro and HSR construction. Things are looking up!
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 9, 2018 17:17:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Dec 5, 2018 15:17:42 GMT -8
Love how Metro staff advocate for the above-ground option on the premise of saving money, while the chart clearly shows that spending 0 dollars instead would actually make the station easier and quicker to navigate.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Dec 5, 2018 15:25:46 GMT -8
Anyways, the board is all set to approve the above-grade option for further study at tomorrow's board meeting. thesource.metro.net/2018/12/05/board-to-consider-link-union-station-project-to-expand-capacity-improve-rail-service/Metro claims they can refine the above-ground option to reduce travel times, but the premise is fundamentally flawed. If your proposed concourse involves changing levels from the grade of the main concourse, main station entrances and subway entrances, then the proposal is shit and automatically worse than what exists at the station now. Tragically, it seems noting can stop the inertia of the Metro board and insiders once they set their mind on something... or ambivalently pull ideas out of their ass to be relieved of a certain task as quickly and easily as possible.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Dec 5, 2018 17:00:48 GMT -8
It seems like so many things transit related, the plan is to build a half baked, not future proofed version ASAP and then try to fix it for twice the price later if anybody ends up using it.. instead of actually building something worth using off the bat.
I understand the arguments for political expediency and the problems with theorycrafting insanely expensive "perfect" transit systems instead of realistic ones, but the planning and execution of this project has been very poor from my outsiders view.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Jan 17, 2019 13:21:35 GMT -8
Link-US DEIR is out!
Looks like they're going with the Above-Grade option AND enlarging the current passageway underneath the tracks (from 2-22):
Above-Grade Passenger Concourse with New Expanded Passageway – The proposed project includes an above-grade passenger concourse with new expanded passageway in Segment 2 of the project study area (concourse segment). The above-grade passenger concourse with new expanded passageway would include space dedicated for passenger circulation, waiting areas, ancillary support functions (back-of-house uses, baggage handling, etc.), transit-serving retail, office/commercial uses, and open spaces and terraces. The new passenger concourse would create an opportunity for an outdoor, community-oriented space and enhance ADA accessibility at LAUS. The elevated portion of the above-grade passenger concourse would be located above the rail yard, approximately 90 feet above the existing grade with new plazas east and west of the elevated rail yard (East and West Plazas). The new expanded passageway would be located below the rail yard to provide additional passenger travel-path convenience and options.
This is excellent news. They can have their ridiculous Donut-In-The-Sky™ as long as transfers from the red to gold line don't require an additional two flights of stairs.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 19, 2019 2:45:52 GMT -8
Is this fully funded? Can we get them to phase it so they build the tracks and expanded passageway with the funding they have, and then don't build the above-grade concourse because new politicians realize it's a dumb idea?
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 22, 2019 13:27:56 GMT -8
Metro staff appears inclined to recommend to Metro board that the above-grade concourse is removed from the project after over 75% of comments opposed the above-ground concourse during the draft EIR comment period.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 22, 2019 18:28:34 GMT -8
Wow!
Let’s flood the Sepulveda pass with anti monorail comments!
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 7, 2019 15:01:15 GMT -8
numble, what are some of the headlines from the changes, any big cost savings? Any changes to what they’re planning for the expanded concourse? What does the loss of the circulator track mean, did they get rid of it because without it they can avoid property takings?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 7, 2019 15:24:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 27, 2019 14:56:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jun 27, 2019 23:14:03 GMT -8
Happy to see sanity prevail!
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 30, 2019 15:34:51 GMT -8
The curbed LA article is good to read. The only other info was a quick one on KNX radio on Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 17, 2020 12:04:32 GMT -8
At the end of 2019, metro was saying that they hoped to have the Board approve a general contractor by December 2020. RFQ's were scheduled for March and RFP's were supposed to go out in June. Well it's August and I'm not sure that either has happened yet. RFP's haven't for sure. The new timeline is for board approval in early 2021 and groundbreaking in early 2022 with major construction starting Q1 2023 (page 59 in link below). I don't think that there's too much new in this, but it has lots of information in one place about what's happening. media.metro.net/2020/Link-US-Industry-Outreach-Final-Presentation.pdf
|
|