|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 10, 2010 20:53:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 11, 2010 6:21:09 GMT -8
My guess is that they are in talks over something less substantial. Like maybe rent or acquiring property for the Silver Line station or the Patsaouras Plaza. They can't "negotiate" buying LAUS without board approval and I would think that would have been decided in public.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 11, 2010 9:24:35 GMT -8
Is it better to have Union Station in private or public hands?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 12, 2010 16:18:07 GMT -8
I can go either way on the public vs. private question.
Private developers brought Famima!! to Union Station, and the private owner has done a good job of keeping up the place. If they were just absentee landlords, that would be a different story.
Union Station is a very public place, home to Amtrak, Metrolink, Metro Rail, buses and the world's loneliest car rental agent. It is a treasure of the city of Los Angeles. It deserves to be protected.
Right now, the building's historic status really prevents it from being altered too much, which is good. At the same time, I'm not sure which government agency would have the funds available to continue the proper upkeep.
So, the current arrangement works well.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 16:34:12 GMT -8
Well, so much for that. TPG Capital will purchase Union Station and other properties from ProLogis. link
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 22, 2010 22:39:35 GMT -8
I can't figure out from that press release what TPG actually does.
Wikipedia says they specialize in leveraged buyouts. They're in the business of making money for their investors. I suppose that could be a good thing or a bad thing. If they're only interested in maximizing profits, they could go for the cheapest possible security, maintenance, etc.
However, given Union Station's historic status, there's a limit to how much they'd be able to get away with.
Who knows, they may actually show an interest in improving the station, or at least show good stewardship.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 22, 2010 23:03:13 GMT -8
I can't figure out from that press release what TPG actually does. Wikipedia says they specialize in leveraged buyouts. They're in the business of making money for their investors. I suppose that could be a good thing or a bad thing. If they're only interested in maximizing profits, they could go for the cheapest possible security, maintenance, etc. However, given Union Station's historic status, there's a limit to how much they'd be able to get away with. Who knows, they may actually show an interest in improving the station, or at least show good stewardship. Every company is always in the game of maximizing profits and returns with a focus on cost reduction. TPG will be no different from the current owners of Union Station. You'll barely notice any change. As long as the owner puts in new public telephones (the current ones do not work well in the station at all...I know, because I volunteer there every weekend so I hear the complaints). And, it's not like the current owners rushed to put in any new retail when they purchased it in '05/'06; it only happened earlier this year.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 22, 2010 23:55:21 GMT -8
Well, let me put it this way, then. There's more than one strategy to maximize profits, and not all strategies are created equal.
You can spend money on new equipment, you can change advertising, you can put money into R&D, you can layoff workers. Is your primary focus the product, customers, employees, shareholders? TPG appears to be a private capital investment firm.
You're probably right, there's very little which can be screwed up at Union Station (alternatively, there's few big remaining moneymaking opportunities available...). I'm hopeful that there will be few drastic changes to the station itself.
[ Why did ProLogis wait so long to install Famima? I could guess a few reasons: Other company projects going on, subway and light rail construction in the way, moving cautiously, regulations and rules, and finally finding a company interested in staying at Union Station... ]
You could probably very successfully make no changes, take no chances and make money at Union Station.
Still, it couldn't hurt to keep your eyes open....
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 24, 2011 15:30:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 24, 2011 16:17:06 GMT -8
well, at least the new owners won't be absentee landlords... their HQ is right next door. I do wonder how well Metro will be able to maintain the place, and who Famima!! will contact if there's a problem with the plumbing... ;D but overall, this does seem like a good sign. a transportation company in charge of a historic transportation facility... which *ahem* happens to contain more than transportation
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 24, 2011 22:13:55 GMT -8
Does that mean the restroom will be maintained to a western standard, or should we continue to expect the kind of facilities found besides a highway in pakistan (but without the foot wash)?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 25, 2011 7:35:43 GMT -8
Does that mean the restroom will be maintained to a western standard, or should we continue to expect the kind of facilities found besides a highway in pakistan (but without the foot wash)? James, It isn't often that I extrude coffee from my nose while reading the Transit Forum, today is an exception
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 26, 2011 5:18:49 GMT -8
Does that mean the restroom will be maintained to a western standard, or should we continue to expect the kind of facilities found besides a highway in pakistan (but without the foot wash)? If you have ever experienced the 7th Street Metro Center elevator, that facility would be a step up.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 26, 2011 8:32:46 GMT -8
Does that mean the restroom will be maintained to a western standard, or should we continue to expect the kind of facilities found besides a highway in pakistan (but without the foot wash)? If the restrooms were as large as they should be for the amount of traffic that they get and were more modern, maintenance would be less of an issue. The main restrooms need to be the size that you find in an airport or movie theater. 4 or 5 times their existing size. I don't know what the solution is for the people that use the sinks as showers. Maybe there needs to be a separate area in the restroom for people to wash up or shower?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 26, 2011 8:59:33 GMT -8
What does metro decide to do now for improvements associated with the connector? I assume that the existing gold line platform will stay so they will probably need a second platform right next to it (assuming that they turn trains at LAUS). Then what? Do they knock down the wall separating the gold line TVM's from the red/purple line mezzanine? Do they install elevators from the gold line platform directly down to the purple/red line platform? Do they make an outdoor connection to Amtrak/Metrolink/HSR? Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 26, 2011 12:58:26 GMT -8
What does metro decide to do now for improvements associated with the connector? I assume that the existing gold line platform will stay so they will probably need a second platform right next to it (assuming that they turn trains at LAUS). Then what? Do they knock down the wall separating the gold line TVM's from the red/purple line mezzanine? Do they install elevators from the gold line platform directly down to the purple/red line platform? Do they make an outdoor connection to Amtrak/Metrolink/HSR? Any ideas? Shawn, I would think that they would be coordinating this with multiple parties. Since the CHSRA is either contributing or soon to be contributing to the purchase, I am assuming they will have a say in things. In a different thread, I posted a picture from the Union Station EIR that showed the new track configuration. I believe that they had the Gold Line tracks being moved about 60 feet closer to the main building. That would involve removing the current station. I can repost the track configuration if you can't find it in the HSR thread. Does anyone know or have an accurate blueprint of where the Red Line station is relative to both the main building and the Gold Line tracks? If we had that, we could see how a 60 ft. move toward the building would affect the ability to connect the Red and Gold more directly. RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 26, 2011 13:22:33 GMT -8
I'll duplicate the post here, since it is relevant to Union Station specific construction: I came across some additional info looking through the 06-30-10 supplemental AA report for the LAUS-Anaheim section. The new at grade bridge over the 101 will have 6 HSR tracks and 4 conventional tracks. The construction sequence shows the 8 steps involved, and matches the numbers above the top 2 pictures so that you can follow it. The above pictures are a bit confusing because when I cut and pasted them from the AA document, they show the Gold Line tracks in the same location, which is not the case. The bottom picture "shared track" needs to be shifted right about 60 feet to correspond to the upper picture. The LAUS platform area will increase significantly in size! I have to say that I like this "at grade" concept much better than the aerial structure which would have put the HSR tracks above the current LAUS. This way, all the station tracks are essentially at the same level, and when you ride in on the Gold Line, you are looking up at the HSR track. I'm guessing that it is less expensive than the aerial option, plus you get a completely new LAUS track area. The construction picture taking opportunities alone make this the most obvious choice The tracks at the transit plaza end are demolished first, with the new track/platform then constructed. Trains then start using that new platform, with demolition proceeding toward LAUS. The HST platform and tracks would then be the last ones built, since they would be the last ones to be needed. All the while keeping the current trains running. The one thing that seems puzzling is why they would choose to elevate the 8 new Amtrak/Metrolink tracks? I can certainly see why they would want to completely replace the current platforms, but why raise the entire slab shown in 2 and 4a off the ground on 5 columns when you could much more easily construct the slab on the ground itself?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 26, 2011 13:35:02 GMT -8
With re-building the Gold Line platform, and with the added traffic that the DC will provide, it would be completely stupid to not have a direct connection between the Gold Line and the Red/Purple Lines. It all depends where they lie relative to each other. Having said that, you would think that it could be done almost irrespective of the geometry, even if a short underground walk (i.e. 100ft) and escalator ride were required.
And this from the report itself, note that this at-grade option and the aerial option are the only 2 being studied further:
B. LAUS At-Grade HST Station Option Section not included in 2009 Draft AA Report and added as follows: An at-grade HST station will likely result in reduced noise and vibration impacts and reduced community impacts when compared to the LAUS Aerial HST Option. Locating the station directly adjacent to the current LAUS will also create superior pedestrian accessibility and circulation between HST and Metrolink, Amtrak, Metro Red/Purple Line, Metro Gold Line and local fixed route bus service. This option provides equivalent pedestrian access as the underground option with significantly lower costs and fewer constructability constraints. However, this option may have greater Section 106 and 4(f) and ROW issues between LAUS and I-5 heading to the north. In addition, it would require extensive reconstruction of the existing LAUS tracks and platforms. This option is proposed to be carried forward for analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS. It was not included in the Draft AA Report, but was developed after further consultation with area stakeholders.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 26, 2011 14:59:20 GMT -8
Does that mean the restroom will be maintained to a western standard, or should we continue to expect the kind of facilities found besides a highway in pakistan (but without the foot wash)? If the restrooms were as large as they should be for the amount of traffic that they get and were more modern, maintenance would be less of an issue. The main restrooms need to be the size that you find in an airport or movie theater. 4 or 5 times their existing size. I don't know what the solution is for the people that use the sinks as showers. Maybe there needs to be a separate area in the restroom for people to wash up or shower? Size is an issue, but so is the lack of cleaning. I mentioned in another thread, I was there for 3 hours waiting for amtrak. The bathroom was not serviced in those 3 hours. Based on the condition when I went in the first time, it hadnt been serviced for quite awhile before that. Airport bathrooms get serviced every 15 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 26, 2011 17:42:25 GMT -8
I'm not an engineer, but the slight elevation of the Metrolink/ Amtrak tracks may be because they want those tracks to be run-through tracks up and over the freeway.
Or it could be seismic. Or to prevent noise and vibration. This is all just wild guessing, though.
What's most interesting to me is that there will be 8 tracks for Metrolink/ Amtrak and 6 for HSR (if I'm looking at these pictures right). That doesn't seem like a lot, but if trains are entering from the north and exiting from the south, it might be enough, since trains wouldn't have to leave the way they came in.
=
The bathrooms do need help. I wouldn't dare put in showers until the existing bathrooms are taken better care of, first.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 26, 2011 18:41:55 GMT -8
If the restrooms were as large as they should be for the amount of traffic that they get and were more modern, maintenance would be less of an issue. The main restrooms need to be the size that you find in an airport or movie theater. 4 or 5 times their existing size. I don't know what the solution is for the people that use the sinks as showers. Maybe there needs to be a separate area in the restroom for people to wash up or shower? Size is an issue, but so is the lack of cleaning. I mentioned in another thread, I was there for 3 hours waiting for amtrak. The bathroom was not serviced in those 3 hours. Based on the condition when I went in the first time, it hadnt been serviced for quite awhile before that. Airport bathrooms get serviced every 15 minutes. I believe you, but in my experience it is very unusual for the bathrooms to not be serviced for 3 hours and I don't think that is typical. I have never timed the interval, but I see them serviced frequently.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 26, 2011 20:03:22 GMT -8
What's most interesting to me is that there will be 8 tracks for Metrolink/ Amtrak and 6 for HSR (if I'm looking at these pictures right). That doesn't seem like a lot, but if trains are entering from the north and exiting from the south, it might be enough, since trains wouldn't have to leave the way they came in. And only 4 of those Metrolink/Amtrak tracks are run through tracks. Still should be enough though. I guess. Interesting that only one gold line platform shown. Was this pre-connector? They can't turn trains at Union Station with that configuration. I guess that maybe they won't want to, but I don't see 12 blue/gold tph between 7th/metro and Union station being sufficient once HSR opens.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 26, 2011 20:11:08 GMT -8
Well, I'm not sure how the wye at Little Tokyo figures into our calculations. Between Pico and Little Tokyo, there should be plenty of trains.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2011 7:46:57 GMT -8
There will be plenty of trains between Pico and Little Tokyo, but if Union Station becomes much busier as planned, then that doesn't help Union Station travelers. Not running additional trains to Union Station beyond normal gold/blue headways will be a limitation. Many existing metrolink and Amtrak riders would take the connector now instead of the red and the purple lines and it's only going to gain in popularity.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 28, 2011 1:08:33 GMT -8
The line from Union Station to 7th St will be capacity-limited by the decision to build a 2-track Regional Connector and 3-car platforms. If 2 minute headways are the minimum (I wouldn't expect any less, considering the need to interweave two different lines), there could be a 3-car train every 4 minutes from 7th Street to Union Station, during peak periods. That provides capacity for 9000 people per direction per hour (most standing), or about 3300 seated.
Of course, the Red/Purple line subway can carry twice as many people per car, and if we buy enough trains it could run every 2 minutes between 7th St/Metro Center and Union Station; that's 36,000 per hour per direction (over 12,000 seats).
I wish we were considering building a 4-track Regional Connector, to prepare for future expansion of the Light Rail system. And 4-car platforms would be a smart choice. But it doesn't look like that will happen.
The Federal grant system needs reform, so that the whole network can be considered in future projections and when planning capital projects. Otherwise, we end up with an undersized connector, and a Westside subway that won't get to Santa Monica, and won't have a good connection to the Sepulveda Pass line, or a future West Hollywood line. There's too much focus on one line at at time, and no vision for completing a useful, efficient transit system for the whole city.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 28, 2011 1:23:28 GMT -8
Re: "Enough tracks?"
Metrolink and Amtrak currently uses Union Station as a terminus, where trains get cleaned, drivers and crews take their breaks, and most passengers get on or off. Trains often sit there for 30 minutes or more, so many platforms are needed. This is also the reason that Penn Station in New York "needs" more platforms.
But if almost all trains can run-thru, then very few platforms are needed. Consider that the Regional Connector will have 24 or even 30 trains per hour at each platform in each direction (a train every 2 to 2.5 minutes), and many other commuter rail systems run that way without problems.
Metrolink could certainly run trains like Metro, and make do with only 4 platform edges for all of its lines, even if service were greatly increased. Right now there are 6 "lines" to Union Station, which could be 3 run-thru lines. Even if we build a new Metrolink line down the Santa Ana right-of-way, and run Metrolink to Long Beach, that's 4 lines. With 4 platforms and short, 1 minute stops at Union Station, each line could run every 5 minutes at rush hour. With long trains, that's up to 10,000 people per direction per hour on each line. 8 platforms would let each line run every 2 minutes... but will there ever be a need for that many trains?
High Speed Rail can also have short, 1 minute stops at Union Station, as long as each train continues on to another destination. 6 platforms are planned, which is far more than enough. There are only 2 tracks in the Central Valley, so at most there will be 1 train every 5 minutes each way (max, due to stopping distance). With short stops, even 2 platforms at Union Station would be enough for a train every 5 minutes. 4 platforms would provide plenty of flexibility to turn around some trains in Los Angeles; 6 platforms will allow even more trains to end there.
Actually, the proposed design, with 8 Metrolink / Surfliner platforms and 6 for HSR, seems overbuilt. I would cut it down to 6 for Metrolink (4 run-thru, 2 for trains turning around), and 4 for HSR. Let the trains park in Anaheim or Riverside or San Diego, not at the (future) busiest station in the State. And consider that SF will only have 4 platforms for HSR, despite being a terminal rather than a run-thru station; if they can do it there, certainly 4 run-thru platforms are enough in Los Angeles.
This would make construction much easier now (no need to rebuild the east side of the plaza), and leave room for one more elevated light rail line, someday.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 28, 2011 2:29:42 GMT -8
Of course, the Red/Purple line subway can carry twice as many people per car, and if we buy enough trains it could run every 2 minutes between 7th St/Metro Center and Union Station; that's 36,000 per hour per direction (over 12,000 seats). I wish we were considering building a 4-track Regional Connector, to prepare for future expansion of the Light Rail system. And 4-car platforms would be a smart choice. But it doesn't look like that will happen. The Federal grant system needs reform, so that the whole network can be considered in future projections and when planning capital projects. Otherwise, we end up with an undersized connector, and a Westside subway that won't get to Santa Monica, and won't have a good connection to the Sepulveda Pass line, or a future West Hollywood line. There's too much focus on one line at at time, and no vision for completing a useful, efficient transit system for the whole city. I agree with the federal grant reform, but I'm not sure if a 4-track connector is the answer. That's four tracks underneath Second. A better answer would be to have several connectors, and to eventually pull apart the Expo and Blue Lines, so that each would have a separate route into downtown, and you could have many more stations and destinations within downtown that way. You could bring the Blue Line up Broadway or San Pedro or up through the fashion district or something.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 28, 2011 2:31:19 GMT -8
Also, you can never have too many platforms. You could have one platform be always for San Bernardino trains, one for Ventura....
[ EDIT: That is, as long as there is physical space... ]
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 28, 2011 17:43:13 GMT -8
The line from Union Station to 7th St will be capacity-limited by the decision to build a 2-track Regional Connector and 3-car platforms. If 2 minute headways are the minimum (I wouldn't expect any less, considering the need to interweave two different lines), there could be a 3-car train every 4 minutes from 7th Street to Union Station, during peak periods. That provides capacity for 9000 people per direction per hour (most standing), or about 3300 seated. Only one of the two lines will go to Union Station and I think that the max for that one line will be 5 minute headways. They need to change that to get 3 or 4 minute rush hour headways to Union Station by sending some Expo trains, but even if they do 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.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 1, 2011 0:29:41 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.
|
|