|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 11, 2012 19:18:39 GMT -8
And if the subway is ever extended East down Whittier Blvd, this Arts District station would be the logical first stop. RT Pretty sure that whole concept has been precluded by the GLEE. The way the GLEE ridership is increasing, they might find themselves wishing they had extended the Red Line to the Eastside instead of the Gold Line  Could you imagine what that would have done for subway ridership... |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 11, 2012 23:28:42 GMT -8
Pretty sure that whole concept has been precluded by the GLEE. Not necessarily. If anything, the opposite is true. Now that rail has returned to East LA for the first time in decades, the ridership is going to only grow with time, especially once the Regional Connector is built. This will result in the demand for another rail line through this dense part of LA. Indeed, the plan for the original Red Line extension was for it to follow a route very similar to the GLEE's. But this time, it would be much simpler, as you could just jump onto Whittier Blvd after the Arts District station. And demand for a Whittier subway will GREATLY increase if the GLEE Washington Blvd route isn't chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 12, 2012 9:15:37 GMT -8
I think it is more likely that eventually both GLEE proposed extensions will be built. The San Gabriel Valley knows it has political leverage if money is to be found for rail is ever to be built in the dense portions of the county.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 13, 2012 15:10:15 GMT -8
With 400 apartments and retail and commercial space on its way in a somewhat awkward spot for freeway access, it sounds like an obvious choice for TOD to me. Plus SCI-ARC is already there, along with the rest of the Arts District. AND the Red Line's maintenance tracks are already there, making this somewhat less expensive than digging a new tunnel.
Add it all up and I don't see how you don't extend the Red Line to the Arts District.
Right now, the Arts District has one-half of a station which clearly serves Little Tokyo much better than it does the area to the east of Alameda. (And with the Regional Connector, the new station will be unambiguously in Little Tokyo.)
Extending the Red Line beyond the Arts District to Whittier Boulevard seems a bit more iffy to me, but this may be the Eastside's equivalent to Expo Rail and the Wilshire Subway.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 13, 2012 17:59:52 GMT -8
Extending the Red Line beyond the Arts District to Whittier Boulevard seems a bit more iffy to me, but this may be the Eastside's equivalent to Expo Rail and the Wilshire Subway. Obviously aerial-grading parts of it would make it cheaper than tunneling the whole way. Perhaps elevated after Garfield, where density declines? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 1, 2012 15:07:43 GMT -8
Apparently the topic of Arts District Red/Purple line station was mentioned by Bruce Shelburne of Metro at the Transit Coalition meeting last month. Hemm... no one from Transit Coalition said anything. The article mentioned the extension without much context but made it seem like a done deal. Is it in the Purple line budget? steven-white.com/2012/07/25/the-secrets-of-metro-rail-operations/ |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 1, 2012 17:17:14 GMT -8
Apparently the topic of Arts District Red/Purple line station was mentioned by Bruce Shelburne of Metro at the Transit Coalition meeting last month. Hemm... no one from Transit Coalition said anything. The article mentioned the extension without much context but made it seem like a done deal. Is it in the Purple line budget? steven-white.com/2012/07/25/the-secrets-of-metro-rail-operations/An Arts District station is in no way a done deal. All Bruce said was that Union Station was not designed to turn as many trains as will be required when the purple line extension opens so they will use the yard to turn trains. He said that the yard will be maintained in such a way that a station could be added where they will turn the trains at some point in the future. There's no money for the station to happen, but they don't want to preclude one from being there should the money some day be available. He spent quite a bit of time speculating what may happen in various areas of the system with unlimited money. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 2, 2012 8:59:23 GMT -8
Apparently the topic of Arts District Red/Purple line station was mentioned by Bruce Shelburne of Metro at the Transit Coalition meeting last month. Hemm... no one from Transit Coalition said anything. The article mentioned the extension without much context but made it seem like a done deal. Is it in the Purple line budget? steven-white.com/2012/07/25/the-secrets-of-metro-rail-operations/An Arts District station is in no way a done deal. All Bruce said was that Union Station was not designed to turn as many trains as will be required when the purple line extension opens so they will use the yard to turn trains. He said that the yard will be maintained in such a way that a station could be added where they will turn the trains at some point in the future. There's no money for the station to happen, but they don't want to preclude one from being there should the money some day be available. He spent quite a bit of time speculating what may happen in various areas of the system with unlimited money. True there is no money for this yet and it is not imminent. However, it does seem like a good idea since the trains will have to go by here anyway for the new turnaround and the station can be above ground so the cost shouldn't be too much. Lets hope they can find the funds for this as it is a worthy idea. Overall, not having Union Station as a turnaround will be great and 4 minute headways is a dream come true (2 minutes in the Downtown area). |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 2, 2012 19:09:19 GMT -8
I was there. Bruce explained it like this: Union Station is the worse station possible to turn subway trains around, it wasn't intended to be a terminal station, noting the stubbed tunnel entrances, it was suppose to be an intermediate station on a line going to the eastside but it didn't turn out that way. To fix the station for smaller headways for subway trains to the westside a turn-back facility will be constructed in the Red/Purple Line rail yard, it will be triple tracks with high speed switches (like we've heard before), and it will be built not to preclude a future at-grade Arts District Station. I'll have to link you to the video because I'm fuzzy on the timeline, but it will have to be built before the Purple Line opens up beyond LaCienega.
Trains will operate similarly to the way they do at 7th St/Metro Center, except you won't be able to see the trains change tracks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 2, 2012 19:17:35 GMT -8
An Arts District station is in no way a done deal. All Bruce said was that Union Station was not designed to turn as many trains as will be required when the purple line extension opens so they will use the yard to turn trains. He said that the yard will be maintained in such a way that a station could be added where they will turn the trains at some point in the future. There's no money for the station to happen, but they don't want to preclude one from being there should the money some day be available. He spent quite a bit of time speculating what may happen in various areas of the system with unlimited money. True there is no money for this yet and it is not imminent. However, it does seem like a good idea since the trains will have to go by here anyway for the new turnaround and the station can be above ground so the cost shouldn't be too much. Lets hope they can find the funds for this as it is a worthy idea. Overall, not having Union Station as a turnaround will be great and 4 minute headways is a dream come true (2 minutes in the Downtown area). I agree 100%! However, when doling out limited resources I'm not sure how highly I'd rate an Arts District Station in that location. It wouldn't be at the top of my personal list, I don't think. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Aug 4, 2012 9:07:53 GMT -8
True there is no money for this yet and it is not imminent. However, it does seem like a good idea since the trains will have to go by here anyway for the new turnaround and the station can be above ground so the cost shouldn't be too much. Lets hope they can find the funds for this as it is a worthy idea. Overall, not having Union Station as a turnaround will be great and 4 minute headways is a dream come true (2 minutes in the Downtown area). I agree 100%! However, when doling out limited resources I'm not sure how highly I'd rate an Arts District Station in that location. It wouldn't be at the top of my personal list, I don't think. The upshot of the Art's District Station is that it would be the cheapest of any of the Red/Purple Line stations to build by quite a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 4, 2012 13:41:17 GMT -8
I agree 100%! However, when doling out limited resources I'm not sure how highly I'd rate an Arts District Station in that location. It wouldn't be at the top of my personal list, I don't think. The upshot of the Art's District Station is that it would be the cheapest of any of the Red/Purple Line stations to build by quite a lot. Well yeah, because it's not underground for one thing. But it would still be fairly expensive for what would be a very low usage station. I'd rather that a branch of the blue line or slauson line were eventually to serve this neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 4, 2012 14:54:31 GMT -8
Isn't the idea that having a subway stop there would help drive development?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 4, 2012 15:06:21 GMT -8
The upshot of the Art's District Station is that it would be the cheapest of any of the Red/Purple Line stations to build by quite a lot. Well yeah, because it's not underground for one thing. But it would still be fairly expensive for what would be a very low usage station. I'd rather that a branch of the blue line or slauson line were eventually to serve this neighborhood. You gotta remember there is basically no operating cost here since the trains will go here anyway. Also, the cost of an above ground station is what maybe $40-$50M. That is what we are spending for the combo pedestrian tunnel and pedestrian overpass at No. Hollywood and Universal City in total. I'm def in favor of it compared to some of the other things we could spend this money on. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 5, 2012 6:48:16 GMT -8
Well yeah, because it's not underground for one thing. But it would still be fairly expensive for what would be a very low usage station. I'd rather that a branch of the blue line or slauson line were eventually to serve this neighborhood. You gotta remember there is basically no operating cost here since the trains will go here anyway. Also, the cost of an above ground station is what maybe $40-$50M. That is what we are spending for the combo pedestrian tunnel and pedestrian overpass at No. Hollywood and Universal City in total. I'm def in favor of it compared to some of the other things we could spend this money on. I understand. I just think that money would be better spent towards a station at Leimert Park, or at 5th/Flower, or on numerous other projects that I see as more important. jmo. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 5, 2012 7:04:15 GMT -8
Isn't the idea that having a subway stop there would help drive development? Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Nothing specific that I am aware of, although both LA and Metro would like increased density around all stations, especially subway stations. It's not really an ideal station location so it's going to be somewhat limited in that regard. It would be at the far east end of the district and then completely blocked by tracks on the east side. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 5, 2012 7:44:59 GMT -8
You gotta remember there is basically no operating cost here since the trains will go here anyway. Also, the cost of an above ground station is what maybe $40-$50M. That is what we are spending for the combo pedestrian tunnel and pedestrian overpass at No. Hollywood and Universal City in total. I'm def in favor of it compared to some of the other things we could spend this money on. I understand. I just think that money would be better spent towards a station at Leimert Park, or at 5th/Flower, or on numerous other projects that I see as more important. jmo. I hear you and i agree those 2 stations would be much more ideal. Problem is they are both underground stations and thus much much more expensive, so 4 or 5 Arts District stations would equal one Leimert Park or one 5th and Flower Station in terms of cost. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 6, 2012 19:25:07 GMT -8
luckily we would only need one Arts District station.  I actually like the idea of building a station in anticipation of future growth (and I think that area is ripe for it). Way too often, Metro ends up trying to shoehorn a station into an inflexible, fully-developed neighborhood. If they design things right, the station would be the focus point for that whole area, and they would be able to do it for relatively little cost. |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 9, 2012 4:02:08 GMT -8
Way too often, Metro ends up trying to shoehorn a station into an inflexible, fully-developed neighborhood. That's the problem with planners: They put stations where the ridership exists.  |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Aug 9, 2012 13:14:22 GMT -8
Way too often, Metro ends up trying to shoehorn a station into an inflexible, fully-developed neighborhood. That's the problem with planners: They put stations where the ridership exists. If a station costs 1/4 the amount of another one, it only needs to attract 1/4 the ridership to be competitive as an investment. If you factor in on top of that the potential for development in an area close to other areas with high ridership, and where development is already planned, that puts it over the top. It certainly should be a bargain in comparison with the Foothill Gold line extension, which is funded and has much lower existing ridership and development potential (it's there because the ROW was convenient). I like the idea of an arts district station on the red line. I think it makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 20, 2013 8:30:13 GMT -8
Here's a blog post from a couple of months ago, describing progress on One Santa Fe, which is going up in front of the location of the proposed Arts District station. I have driven by the project recently, and can report that this huge complex is making progress, even if it does seem a bit slow. My biggest disappointment about this is the massive parking structure on the north end of the property. Hopefully there will be adequate camouflaging of this parking structure, because right now, it's just big and ugly. It sure would be great for the neighborhood folks (and the County) to get that proposed station. The Arts District is not just a residential neighborhood: it is increasingly a destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 20, 2013 8:37:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 17, 2014 12:40:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 17, 2014 14:39:08 GMT -8
I agree. Great news. I am a big supporter of this. Not a ton of money involved here, although probably more than people think if land acquisition and pedestrian ramps/crossings are needed. Nevertheless, it should be a good value add project, especially for the cost. If anything, I like that Union Station won't be a terminus station any longer. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 17, 2014 16:59:32 GMT -8
hah, if you go to sixth, you might as well connect it to the blue line. Great news that they're really pursuing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 21, 2014 21:12:21 GMT -8
I hope that if they plan on building one at Sixth street, they're smart enough to do so in such a way that enables them to cross the river onto Whittier Blvd...
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 21, 2014 21:27:02 GMT -8
I hope that if they plan on building one at Sixth street, they're smart enough to do so in such a way that enables them to cross the river onto Whittier Blvd... No. This proposal involves adding a station or possibly two to existing tracks associated with the maintenance yard. They won't be building new tracks across the river. This is a modest proposal that can have a relatively easy chance of being funded not waiting 30 years for sales tax revenue. You can clearly see the tracks on google maps. Not in the best location, but since the tracks are already there..... |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 21, 2014 21:53:23 GMT -8
I think he means that he just hopes they don't preclude a future crossing with the 6th street station design. If there were gobs of money for an extension (which obviously there aren't) I think it would be great if the Sixth Street Viaduct redesign took the red line into consideration and added rail tracks since they're rebuilding it anyway, but I know that's incredibly unrealistic. c'est la vie.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 25, 2014 19:36:51 GMT -8
It doesn't have to be implemented into the 6th street viaduct. It could just be underground.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Feb 4, 2014 17:03:18 GMT -8
|
|
