|
|
Post by skater on Feb 4, 2014 20:23:26 GMT -8
I'm glad this is back on the table. hopefully it won't be a "spur" but a continuation of the mainline into the east side. Whatever happens I hope it is done in a way that doesn't preclude crossing the river into east LA, and running the subway under Whittier blvd, and hopefully one day replacing/parraleling the entire route of the 720, east LA via Whittier blvd, downtown and then Wilshire all the way to Santa Monica. and if the system goes to letter based names, this HAS to be called the W line. This can't take that long to make the at grade stations if metro decides to do it. its really a shame that a way for the red/purple line to cross the river isn't being incorporated into the new sixth street viaduct. may I add how was the originaly planned eastside red line supposed to cross the river? a bridge I'm assuming below, the originally planned eastside red line  I might add, yesterday i rode the eastside gold line, and I noticed the subway trains moved very slowly through the yard, the mainline tracks are probably going to need to be separated from the rest of the yard somehow if the trains are to move at a recent speed. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 5, 2014 9:35:06 GMT -8
I am SO glad Leahy is pushing this project forward. In this case, I would support building it on the cheap, with minimal platforms, plus whatever new switches and minimal utilities are needed. If it's successful, the extension could be upgraded in the future.
I wonder if something like this would require a full-blown EIR? I imagine that some environmental study would be needed. My concern is how much an EIR would cost, and how long it would take.
As for extension to the Eastside, I don't see that as feasible in the next few decades, unless some new source of money comes available. The best thing to hope for is for this project to be built in a way that doesn't preclude an eastern extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 5, 2014 13:30:31 GMT -8
Wow Skater! Where did you find that map? Obviously the portion between Indiana St. and the L.A. River would have to be abandoned in favor of running it down Whittier Bl. to the Arts District Station. The Indiana to L.A. River portion--with the exception of Soto/Cesar Chavez Stn.--belongs to the Gold Line. The best case scenario is that the L.A. City and Transit planners have coordinated their efforts and have included a lower level fixed guide-way deck in the plans for the new 6th St. bridge design. Car traffic on top, HRT/LRT/Metrolink service on the lower level.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 17, 2017 13:51:59 GMT -8
The staff report on Arts District stations was completed per The Source: thesource.metro.net/2017/04/17/latest-metro-staff-report-on-issues-involving-an-arts-district-metro-rail-station/Metro is preliminary on board with 2 stations - 3rd street and 6th street but must resolve technical issues with placing train stations in active rail yards. Primary concern is available space for all of it... space for station platform, turn back facilities, and storage for all the new trains we are getting. Secondary concern is funding - nothing allocated. And The Source explains that it won't be as cheap as we initially thought because the 3rd rail power precludes having pedestrians cross the tracks so it can't be build like the light rail stations... basically, it has to be grade separated (full fencing/trench, pedestrian bridge and elevators for ADA compliance) even if the tracks and platforms are on the surface. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 17, 2017 8:35:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Nov 22, 2017 14:09:15 GMT -8
So manna has to fall out of the sky for this to happen...great. If this station were truly as important and necessary to the Arts District as thought, wouldn't there be a line of investors looking to bankroll this venture?
I really like the idea of this station. It's in line with an idea I've floated around for years now about extending this all the way into Vernon, Huntington Park, Walnut Park, Southgate, and Lynwood (by way of Pacific Bl./Long Beach Bl.) with a terminus at the Green Line. But oh well, Huntington Park is still getting the WSAB/PEROW. It may or may not bring patrons to the Pacific Bl. shopping district. But then again, no one ever thought the Watts Towers would see an up-tick of visitors; and that's complements of curious Blue Line patrons getting off to go see them. Food for thought....
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 22, 2017 16:49:37 GMT -8
It could easily happen. But only once we get rid of Phil Washington. He doesn't want to do anything unless it's a giveaway to corporations via a ppp. They've now got 100 billion to play with and thought they could do this station before measure m was even an idea. The money is there but Washington wants to graft funnel it into corporate coffers and leave the public with almost nothing so the money isn't there.  |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 22, 2017 19:45:29 GMT -8
It could easily happen. But only once we get rid of Phil Washington. He doesn't want to do anything unless it's a giveaway to corporations via a ppp. They've now got 100 billion to play with and thought they could do this station before measure m was even an idea. The money is there but Washington wants to graft funnel it into corporate coffers and leave the public with almost nothing so the money isn't there. I think the issue is why wasn't something like this put in Measure M. I would have liked to have seen this station, as well as an extension West to Barrington and North to Burbank Airport/Metrolink. Next step is to determine a preferred alternative and a cost estimate. Funds could come from somewhere given the small size although it isn't assured at all. As far as Washington, I think the jury is still out on how he handles operations. There is going to be increasing pressure to cut operations or raise fares to make things balance. I think you misunderstand the role of the CEO, as the Board determines what capital projects to pursue not the CEO. He also isn't sitting on a giant pot of money to dole out for construction projects either. Measure M has all projects specifically defined. If it isn't in there, it like,y isn't happening. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 29, 2020 13:15:37 GMT -8
Open question to all:
Has there been any planning on where the the Red/Purple would go besides Whittier Blvd? Assuming Red/Purple split on the eastside just as on the westside, that would mean a 2nd line (assuming one branch runs down Whittier Blvd). IMO, the most likely route is Valley Blvd, or possibly Las Tunas or Garvey. All of these could have stops at County/USC hospital and Cal State LA, but these are all north of any Arts District station. It looks difficult already with the subway's hook south under LAUS, but continuing south to the AD would make a huge hook back to the north a necessity.
Other streets to the south are close to Whittier or the WSAB, so it looks to me like these three routes are the best candidates. Should Metro abandon an Arts District stop on the Red/Purple, but still pursue one as part of WSAB? Is there any other better route?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 29, 2020 18:27:59 GMT -8
Open question to all: Has there been any planning on where the the Red/Purple would go besides Whittier Blvd? Assuming Red/Purple split on the eastside just as on the westside, that would mean a 2nd line (assuming one branch runs down Whittier Blvd). IMO, the most likely route is Valley Blvd, or possibly Las Tunas or Garvey. All of these could have stops at County/USC hospital and Cal State LA, but these are all north of any Arts District station. It looks difficult already with the subway's hook south under LAUS, but continuing south to the AD would make a huge hook back to the north a necessity. Other streets to the south are close to Whittier or the WSAB, so it looks to me like these three routes are the best candidates. Should Metro abandon an Arts District stop on the Red/Purple, but still pursue one as part of WSAB? Is there any other better route?
The Arts District Station would be built on existing tracks above ground at the edge of the Maintenance Yard. Abandoning it does little for anything else since it wouldn’t be very.expensive or disruptive to build. |
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 1, 2020 11:11:25 GMT -8
Open question to all: Has there been any planning on where the the Red/Purple would go besides Whittier Blvd? Assuming Red/Purple split on the eastside just as on the westside, that would mean a 2nd line (assuming one branch runs down Whittier Blvd). IMO, the most likely route is Valley Blvd, or possibly Las Tunas or Garvey. All of these could have stops at County/USC hospital and Cal State LA, but these are all north of any Arts District station. It looks difficult already with the subway's hook south under LAUS, but continuing south to the AD would make a huge hook back to the north a necessity. Other streets to the south are close to Whittier or the WSAB, so it looks to me like these three routes are the best candidates. Should Metro abandon an Arts District stop on the Red/Purple, but still pursue one as part of WSAB? Is there any other better route?
The Arts District Station would be built on existing tracks above ground at the edge of the Maintenance Yard. Abandoning it does little for anything else since it wouldn’t be very.expensive or disruptive to build.
ah I chewed it over some more, and now I think that Metro puts the 'Y' right by the tunnel exit at Ducommun or Jackson, then that branch can go NE to County/USC w/o much of a detour, and the AD station could still go on the southern branch (Whittier Blvd), in the currently proposed place at the subway yard.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Mar 3, 2020 13:40:23 GMT -8
ah I chewed it over some more, and now I think that Metro puts the 'Y' right by the tunnel exit at Ducommun or Jackson, then that branch can go NE to County/USC w/o much of a detour, and the AD station could still go on the southern branch (Whittier Blvd), in the currently proposed place at the subway yard. I can't find anything to back this up right now but I remember reading that the original MOS-1 proposal on the red line included a roughed-in wye just north of the current portal, around where Center St crosses the 101, to allow the line to continue east on the El Monte Busway. I'm not sure if this was actually built though, and by the mid-90s the plan had changed to routing south through the Division 20 yard before crossing the river. |
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Mar 6, 2020 13:17:45 GMT -8
Found it: libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/scrtd/1987-metro-rail-mos-1-realignment-between-civic-center-station-and-yard-and-shops.pdfThe original plan included a roughed-in turnout underneath the El Monte Busway at Ramirez St, but in 1987 they decided to change the alignment under LAUS to avoid contaminated soil regions. The turnout was replaced with a roughed-in double crossover immediately east of the LAUS platforms with provisions for flyover tunnels later that would cross the river (page 7), but obviously those were never constructed. Who knows if the flyover provisions were even built, I'll have to peek down the tunnel next time I'm on the platform down there. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 29, 2021 10:23:23 GMT -8
Metro has started working on the environmental impact report for the Arts District / 6th Street Station after the board asked them to in 2018. The project was delayed by the pandemic. Scoping meetings will be held April 14 and 17. www.metro.net/projects/arts-dist-6th-station/ |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 29, 2021 12:30:04 GMT -8
Great news to finally have some movement on such a no-brainer project that should be relatively inexpensive given that the portal widening work is designed to allow the station to be built.
Why does this project need an EIR?
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Mar 30, 2021 7:44:23 GMT -8
EIR is needed because location being California.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 30, 2021 10:28:07 GMT -8
EIR is needed because location being California. Thanks. I think what you mean is that if this were built outside of California that an EIR wouldn't be needed, but my question is what triggered an EIR for this? CEQA requires EIR's when there is potential to have an environmental impact, so what is the potential impact? |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Mar 30, 2021 13:02:58 GMT -8
EIR is needed because location being California. Thanks. I think what you mean is that if this were built outside of California that an EIR wouldn't be needed, but my question is what triggered an EIR for this? CEQA requires EIR's when there is potential to have an environmental impact, so what is the potential impact? There were some laws recently passed that exempted or expedited certain transit projects, but not sure if this station fits into those categories. They were asked to start doing the EIR in 2018. The EIR notice says this: media.metro.net/2020/NOP-FINAL.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 30, 2021 15:55:30 GMT -8
Thanks. I think what you mean is that if this were built outside of California that an EIR wouldn't be needed, but my question is what triggered an EIR for this? CEQA requires EIR's when there is potential to have an environmental impact, so what is the potential impact? There were some laws recently passed that exempted or expedited certain transit projects, but not sure if this station fits into those categories. They were asked to start doing the EIR in 2018. The EIR notice says this: media.metro.net/2020/NOP-FINAL.pdfYeah, I just don't see the need based on that list. I know that CEQA requires an EIR for projects lead by "state agencies". Metro is a county agency, but I don't know if that meets the CEQA definition since a county is a subset of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 30, 2021 15:57:42 GMT -8
Ok, I looked it up and the fact that metro is a public agency may play a role. If metro were a private company I'm not sure that an EIR would be required.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 31, 2021 14:45:56 GMT -8
Even if it is not required, Metro probably should do an EIR because it will inevitably get sued. So having done an EIR will be beneficial in defense because all the work that will be done to investigate and document the mitigation of any negative impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 2, 2021 22:23:59 GMT -8
Yeah buddy!!! It's about time! This is great news though. Now, let's start planning the next extension south to Huntington Park so that it can meet up with the WSAB station planned on Randolph St. and Pacific Bl. I would love to see what effects the trendy Arts District would have on the sleepy Pacific Bl. Shopping District.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 5, 2021 10:08:27 GMT -8
Yeah buddy!!! It's about time! This is great news though. Now, let's start planning the next extension south to Huntington Park so that it can meet up with the WSAB station planned on Randolph St. and Pacific Bl. I would love to see what effects the trendy Arts District would have on the sleepy Pacific Bl. Shopping District. That would be great and a strong argument that WASB should go to 7th Street Metro Center instead of Union Station. But Metro doesn't plan ahead like that. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 5, 2021 10:36:22 GMT -8
Feels like metro's been leaning toward 7th/Metro for WSAB for awhile now so hopefully they choose that anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2021 9:42:59 GMT -8
Metro staff prefers Alternative G that goes to Metro Center because it makes sense, both from operation and passenger destination standpoint; it also adds wholesale district station to the rail network which will get plenty of use. The preliminary study shows vast majority of WASB riders will end up in Western and Southern part of DTLA (financial district and wholesale district), USC, Santa Monica and West LA/UCLA area and only a handful of riders will go to Pasadena and SGV. But the politicians (none of them uses Metro) all want Alternative E to near Union Station because they don't understand the geography of the rail system. Because of the political support, there is strong inertia to end the line 1/4 mile in front of Union Station since there is no room at Union Station to actually accommodate WASB. If Alternative E is confirmed in EIR, it means 1/2 mile walk to transfer to Red line to back track to the final destination of most of the riders.   You can see that based on this map, the WASB priority for Metro should be: 1. Provide direct access wholesale and financial districts that doesn't require a transfer. 2. Make sure there is an easy one-seat transfer from WASB to both Wilshire and Expo line for the significant portion of riders going to USC and West LA. Going to Union Station like the politicians want means #1 goal is gone... you HAVE to transfer to get to financial district. And it is also terrible for #2 because it doesn't provide one-seat transfer to Expo and will result in a huge time-wasting backtrack and 1/2 mile walk to transfer to Wilshire line. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 6, 2021 10:53:40 GMT -8
Totally agree. Also worth noting that if it *were* to go to Union, it feels like coordination with the Link Union project would have allowed them to design a solution that placed the WSAB platform next to the gold line... but obviously the projects are on different schedules and that didn't come up. It's maddening to constantly see how fruitful coordination between projects that could seriously enhance the value of the system and reduce costs overall can never be pursued because of the way that individual projects are evaluated and funded. The system as a whole is starting to feel maddeningly restrictive and inefficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 6, 2021 11:35:36 GMT -8
Totally agree. Also worth noting that if it *were* to go to Union, it feels like coordination with the Link Union project would have allowed them to design a solution that placed the WSAB platform next to the gold line... but obviously the projects are on different schedules and that didn't come up. It's maddening to constantly see how fruitful coordination between projects that could seriously enhance the value of the system and reduce costs overall can never be pursued because of the way that individual projects are evaluated and funded. The system as a whole is starting to feel maddeningly restrictive and inefficient. The official position is there isn't room to put the tracks there without causing issues for the Link Union Station project, or even if they can find space, the passenger rail authorities want to keep it for their future use. CHSRA, Metrolink and the FRA wrote letters saying that any space on those platforms should be reserved for regional rail expansion. Probably for the better if we want the 7th/Metro alignment to "score" better. The original screening report had studied putting it at the Union Station train platforms, they had moved them out in response to comments from CHSRA, Metrolink and the FRA: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3503067&GUID=67B4ED39-988C-494F-A86B-FDD9F90E0E4F&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1media.metro.net/projects_studies/westSantaAnaBranch/images/wsab_final_northern_alignments_updated_screening_report.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 6, 2021 12:18:06 GMT -8
Slightly off-subject: I know it wouldn't have been aesthetically pleasing for everyone, and it's a moot point now, but for me I often preferred the idea of the Blue (now Gold) Line stopping right in front of Union Station, whether on an at-grade or aerial station (obviously not below) as opposed to veering off (and slowing down) to stop next to the Metrolink tracks, only to then slog and veer back onto Alameda. I think it would've been a lot easier to connect the WSAB with the Gold Line tracks.
In fact, ultimately I think the Blue line should've gone straight down Alameda bypassing the financial district while WSAB could continue on the Washington Blvd tracks and join up with Expo instead. I know they weren't planned at the same time and the CBD needed some form of rail ASAP, but oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 6, 2021 20:58:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 7, 2021 8:01:33 GMT -8
In fact, ultimately I think the Blue line should've gone straight down Alameda bypassing the financial district while WSAB could continue on the Washington Blvd tracks and join up with Expo instead. I know they weren't planned at the same time and the CBD needed some form of rail ASAP, but oh well. There are arguments for and against that. But they should've at least consider the option. |
|
