UNION STATION | Development News

10897 Views 34 Replies 13 Participants Last post by jgacis, Nov 6, 2015

Saiholmes

Discussion Starter · Apr 10, 2014

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

Broccolli

· #2 · May 7, 2014

Union Station, an only-in-L.A. icon

The story of Union Station, which marked its 75th anniversary on Saturday, is that kind of story: Contradictory, surprising, far more layered than most Southern Californians realize.

There are certainly buildings in Los Angeles more imposing or innovative, and there may be a handful more beautiful. But it's hard to think of another landmark that has played such a pivotal role in so many aspects of the city's growth and evolving self-image.

Union Station was designed by the prolific John Parkinson and his son, Donald. Architecture of the building is a winning blend of Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean, Moorish and Art Deco styles.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-le-0506-tuesday-union-station-20140506-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-of-union-station-20140503-column.html#page=1

See less See more

Saiholmes

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 28, 2014

LA Times said:
Union Station to get $350 million in track upgrades

Reviving a decades-old idea, Los Angeles transportation officials are planning $350 million in track improvements at Union Station that could dramatically reduce travel times for many trains and accommodate future growth of the famous terminal.

The Southern California Regional Interconnector Project is designed to benefit travelers by installing four sections of track that will enable Amtrak and Metrolink trains to run straight through the terminal, eliminating the 15 to 20 minutes it now takes to enter and exit the station at its lone north entrance. All tracks now dead-end in the terminal area.

The interconnector will significantly reduce turnaround times by extending several tracks out the south end of the station. They will cross over the 101 Freeway, turn to the left and connect with existing tracks heading north, south and east.

With the new layout, many trains would stop for just a few minutes or not at all if they were expresses. Planners say that would increase Union Station's capacity 40% to 50%.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-union-station-tracks-20140528-story.html

See less See more

pesto

· #4 · May 28, 2014

Probably a good idea. But I like the symbolism when you get to NY or SF or London or Paris and everyone is told to get off: you have arrived at THE city.

klamedia

· #5 · May 28, 2014

This is sorely needed.

croyboy

· #6 · May 29, 2014

Besides cutting down on the delays, I hope this also adds frequent arrivals and departures to many of the lines. I understand Metrolink shares freight routes, but grade separation has been under construction in some corridors.

Saiholmes

Discussion Starter · #7 · Jun 3, 2014

http://thesource.metro.net/2014/06/...gs-on-the-evolving-union-station-master-plan/

LA Times said:
Metro unveils bold proposal to modernize downtown's Union Station

A completed master plan for the station's 47 acres is scheduled to be sent to the Metro board for approval in September.

Anchored by the original Spanish-style terminal, the plan calls for a hotel, office towers, a residential complex and a high-speed rail station on the east side of Vignes Street.

The centerpiece of the modernization is a palatial concourse beneath the tracks of the platform area, which will have to be elevated to make room. The concourse will feature retail shops, cafes and snack bars.

Outside, the Patsouras Transit Plaza will be moved from its location in front of Metro's headquarters to the east side of Union Station, where passengers will be able to make their bus and train connections more conveniently.

Union Station will be preserved, but substantial landscaping and changes are proposed for the area in front of the terminal and Alameda Street.

A small parking lot will be replaced with a civic plaza, and Alameda will be reduced from six to four lanes and lined with trees. In addition, the end of Los Angeles Street across from the station will be turned into a cul de sac.

For those who prefer alternative forms of transportation, the plans include pedestrian walkways to and from the station as well as facilities for bicyclists such as bikeways, racks and storage areas.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-union-station-plan-20140602-story.html

See less See more

pesto

· #8 · Jun 8, 2014

Mostly useless; time to lay-off people at MTA that aren't focused on the core business.

The Grand Concourse, the retail and such should be axed. How does this improve the neighborhood or anything else? The station's purpose is to get people from one place to another easily not a new place for people to linger over packaged snack foods and TV screens. There are already beautiful but underused buildings.

The hotels, apartments, etc., are OK if there is any legitimate demand. This should be 100 percent handed over to private developers at their own risk, not run at the whim of government employees who really have no market sense.

See less See more

blackcat23

· #9 · Jun 8, 2014

^ lol

Reactions: 1

LosAngelesSportsFan

· #10 · Jun 9, 2014

pesto said:
Mostly useless; time to lay-off people at MTA that aren't focused on the core business.

The Grand Concourse, the retail and such should be axed. How does this improve the neighborhood or anything else? The station's purpose is to get people from one place to another easily not a new place for people to linger over packaged snack foods and TV screens. There are already beautiful but underused buildings.

The hotels, apartments, etc., are OK if there is any legitimate demand. This should be 100 percent handed over to private developers at their own risk, not run at the whim of government employees who really have no market sense.

nice one... way to troll for arguments. You cant really believe this right?

See less See more

202_cyclist

· #11 · Jun 9, 2014

pesto said:
Mostly useless; time to lay-off people at MTA that aren't focused on the core business.

The Grand Concourse, the retail and such should be axed. How does this improve the neighborhood or anything else? The station's purpose is to get people from one place to another easily not a new place for people to linger over packaged snack foods and TV screens. There are already beautiful but underused buildings.

The hotels, apartments, etc., are OK if there is any legitimate demand. This should be 100 percent handed over to private developers at their own risk, not run at the whim of government employees who really have no market sense.

Right-- because the model of leveraging real estate development next to the stations to fund rail investments has largely failed the high speed rail operators in Japan.

See less See more

pesto

· #12 · Jun 9, 2014

Tokyo is perhaps not a great example, given it's absurdly high density, congested streets, micro-housing and Japan's more or less dead economy (seriously, struggling Ireland has higher income and flat-broke Spain and Korea are close behind).

This must be a common theme here; some folks on the SJ thread propose that the new expanded Diridon Station should be comparable to Grand Central in NY. This is wishful thinking, nice to think about, but not reality. Not something you spend real money on.

Does US show signs of hideous over-crowding? Of great demand and popularity as a place to go for dinner or to hang? Maybe a hot new place to live like SF, Austin or Silicon Beach? Does it lack interesting and historical architecture? Then why spend your money on "grand concourses" and new dining options and snack-bars?

Better to focus on anything that makes transit smoother and quicker; refurbing the already great halls; providing easy parking access; improving connections within the LA area (Dodger Stadium, Glendale and the East Valley, Silverlake and Sunset, etc.). Any of those I can easily support.

As for hotels and housing: I support them strongly if there is demonstrated demand. The easiest way to judge this is to let people put their private money into it. You know, the same people that were going to pour private money into HSR, housing along the Blue Line, etc.). It's just good sense to test the waters before pouring public money in.

See less See more

croyboy

· #13 · Jun 10, 2014

I think this is proposal (or vision, whatever) is really the best plan for Union Station (really L.A.) that I've seen.

It's not a waste of space since it's stacked.. and continuing the rail south (instead of a dead end) is an obvious plus.

Even if capacity was low (it isn't, but we understand it's not overcrowded) constructing the extra platforms is great and will minimize delaying other departures/arrivals during construction.

I don't see how the other amenities are unnecessary... Thinking like that, you might as well get rid of skymall or airport kiosks/stores and we can all be bored together for hours... and hours again while we travel.

I don't see this project as a chance at marketing (it's really not supposed to be). The infrastructure is needed especially if this city wants to encourage people to use transit more frequently. This kind of project can increase the amount of train departures/arrivals and (along with increased daily trips) expand hours of service.

See less See more

pesto

· #14 · Jun 10, 2014

croyboy said:
I think this is proposal (or vision, whatever) is really the best plan for Union Station (really L.A.) that I've seen.

It's not a waste of space since it's stacked.. and continuing the rail south (instead of a dead end) is an obvious plus.

Even if capacity was low (it isn't, but we understand it's not overcrowded) constructing the extra platforms is great and will minimize delaying other departures/arrivals during construction.

I don't see how the other amenities are unnecessary... Thinking like that, you might as well get rid of skymall or airport kiosks/stores and we can all be bored together for hours... and hours again while we travel.

I don't see this project as a chance at marketing (it's really not supposed to be). The infrastructure is needed especially if this city wants to encourage people to use transit more frequently. This kind of project can increase the amount of train departures/arrivals and (along with increased daily trips) expand hours of service.

Realigning tracks for better service is good. So is anything else that makes for better service.

But comparison to LAX in not apt. LAX is much larger and has many more long flights and lay-overs. If you are sleeping at LAX you're waiting for a connection. By contrast, the average person at US is taking a subway for 10 minutes and has a very short wait for it. If you're sleeping at US, you are homeless.

Really, this is not going to be Grand Central. People want simplicity and speed in access and egress, not a place to linger in dining halls and grand promenades. A couple of coffee and bakery places plus the existing restaurants is more than adequate until real numbers show differently.

See less See more

blackcat23

· #15 · Jun 10, 2014 (Edited)

Speaking as a someone who makes the transfer between the subway and the Gold Line on a daily basis, I can say that an expanded passenger concourse would vastly improve "simplicity and speed in access and egress." The current setup requires a circuitous trip to either end of the access tunnel, in addition to the unavoidable trek up/down three flights of stairs. Besides being uninviting, the existing tunnel becomes uncomfortably narrow at rush hour. Too many people crammed into too little space, and thus the carts for disabled/elderly passengers have a difficult time making their way through.

Obviously you don't want to build something unnecessarily, but Union Station as currently configured has major shortcomings in terms of capacity and pedestrian flow. The existing flaws will only become a more glaring issue as projects like the RC, Purple Line, Foothill, etc. come on line in the next 5-15 years. Since Metro will already have to elevate the train platforms to accommodate SCRIP, I see no problem with adding additional pedestrian/retail/restaurant space in the process.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

croyboy

· #16 · Jun 11, 2014

pesto said:
Realigning tracks for better service is good. So is anything else that makes for better service.

But comparison to LAX in not apt. LAX is much larger and has many more long flights and lay-overs. If you are sleeping at LAX you're waiting for a connection. By contrast, the average person at US is taking a subway for 10 minutes and has a very short wait for it. If you're sleeping at US, you are homeless.

Really, this is not going to be Grand Central. People want simplicity and speed in access and egress, not a place to linger in dining halls and grand promenades. A couple of coffee and bakery places plus the existing restaurants is more than adequate until real numbers show differently.

Realigning tracks will just make trips smoother. US needs more tracks going-out-of and going-into the station.

I don't think US is trying to be LAX. I would hardly say that US is constructing dining halls or anything glorious. Yeah, what's there is fine, but expanding on the amenities is nothing to be upset about.

The numbers are growing so a project on this scale does make sense before it reaches capacity. It's likely construction will last years until it gets anywhere near the displayed render.

See less See more

pesto

· #17 · Jun 11, 2014

blackcat23 said:
Speaking as a someone who makes the transfer between the subway and the Gold Line on a daily basis, I can say that an expanded passenger concourse would vastly improve "simplicity and speed in access and egress." The current setup requires a circuitous trip to either end of the access tunnel, in addition to the unavoidable trek up/down three flights of stairs. Besides being uninviting, the existing tunnel becomes uncomfortably narrow at rush hour. Too many people crammed into too little space, and thus the carts for disabled/elderly passengers have a difficult time making their way through.

Obviously you don't want to build something unnecessarily, but Union Station as currently configured has major shortcomings in terms of capacity and pedestrian flow. The existing flaws will only become a more glaring issue as projects like the RC, Purple Line, Foothill, etc. come on line in the next 5-15 years. Since Metro will already have to elevate the train platforms to accommodate SCRIP, I see no problem with adding additional pedestrian/retail/restaurant space in the process.

If only it were true. Virtually the same argument being made in SF, SJ and smaller stations: the age of rail is upon us; huge growth in train to metro connections; new lines, restaurants, gift shops, dining halls, retail; LAX and Grand Central as the models, etc.

But for the sake of moving on, I will accept that by "grand concourse" and "dining halls" and such they mean just enough to meet reasonably expected demand for the next 20 years; and that HSR is not part of that thinking (it gets its own platform across the way if and when).

On a related subject, it seems even Metro can't jack itself up into believing that residential would work there given LA's very slow growth and the competition for urban living from South Park, Hollywood, Ktown, etc. This makes sense at least. And hopefully the office and hotel will be at somebody else's risk and management.

See less See more

blackcat23

· #18 · Jun 11, 2014 (Edited)

pesto said:
If only it were true. Virtually the same argument being made in SF, SJ and smaller stations: the age of rail is upon us; huge growth in train to metro connections; new lines, restaurants, gift shops, dining halls, retail; LAX and Grand Central as the models, etc.

My argument had nothing to do with hypothetical notions about "the age of rail." I'm not forecasting some futuristic urban utopia where all Angelenos have ditched their cars and now ride the subway. I've specifically referenced real projects that will feed into Union Station, all of which are scheduled to begin construction before the end of this calendar year.

The amount of retail/amenities proposed for LAUS is very spartan compared to Grand Central or the new Tom Bradley Terminal.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

202_cyclist

· #19 · Jun 12, 2014

Pesto:

If only it were true. Virtually the same argument being made in SF, SJ and smaller stations: the age of rail is upon us; huge growth in train to metro connections; new lines, restaurants, gift shops, dining halls, retail; LAX and Grand Central as the models, etc.

Come on now. You can't just make things up or willfully ignore facts. Amtrak has set ridership records nearly every year for the past decade and the Surfliner is one of Amtrak's busiest routes.

"Amtrak has reported setting new ridership records in nine of the last 10 years. Last year, the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin were among seven Amtrak routes nationwide to draw more than one million passengers, though ridership fluctuated greatly on a month-by-month basis.

The Pacific Surfliner in fiscal year 2012 had 2.64 million passengers, down from 2.79 million in 2011. Officials attributed the drop-off to track construction work in Orange County...."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Feb/19/amtrak-surfliner-subsidy-federal-pass-to-state/2/?#article-copy

See less See more

pesto

· #20 · Jun 14, 2014

202_cyclist said:
Pesto:

Come on now. You can't just make things up or willfully ignore facts. Amtrak has set ridership records nearly every year for the past decade and the Surfliner is one of Amtrak's busiest routes.

"Amtrak has reported setting new ridership records in nine of the last 10 years. Last year, the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin were among seven Amtrak routes nationwide to draw more than one million passengers, though ridership fluctuated greatly on a month-by-month basis.

The Pacific Surfliner in fiscal year 2012 had 2.64 million passengers, down from 2.79 million in 2011. Officials attributed the drop-off to track construction work in Orange County...."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Feb/19/amtrak-surfliner-subsidy-federal-pass-to-state/2/?#article-copy

Yes, the new Golden Age is upon us. SJ has already called their proposed expansion of Diridon the building of "the Grand Central of the West". SF did that about 20 years ago (still looks like the same as before). Union Station has managed just as it is without straining capacity for 70 years now and counting. So let's think in moderate terms.

I don't doubt that moderate growth will continue and new stations will be built here and there to track population growth. Like I said, I'm in favor of whatever improves efficiency without wasted space and pie-in-the-sky dreams.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.