|
Post by carter on May 6, 2011 8:42:26 GMT -8
I'm a little disheartened to see it so promptly devolve into thread about where can we put rail. I don't know anyone other than the BRU who "dreams" of riding a bus. Well, I'd rather dream of riding a bus in its own lane sometime in the next 10 years than dream of something I might not see until I'm a grandfather. What can I say, I'm a pragmatist!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 9, 2011 7:54:56 GMT -8
How pragmatic is that really?
Look at how the Wilshire bus-only lanes project has been shrunk. It may be cheaper to build a bus-only lane, but is it really more politically viable?
I have a friend on the Palms Neighborhood Council who wants to work with other neighborhood councils near Venice Blvd. to bring a streetcar connecting the beach with the Expo Line. Venice Blvd. station. Suggest to him that he focus instead on bringing a bus only lane to Venice Blvd. instead and he would just drop the matter entirely.
Now, if work on putting a streetcar on Venice that run in a transit-only lane that ends up with, oh by the way, buses can use it too, then you have one as a byproduct of the other.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 9, 2011 11:12:37 GMT -8
In all of this, I have yet to see one justification for the immense cost of building such a rail line that would easily cost half a billion dollars with with very marginal ridership or mobility advantages over a high quality BRT line.We are also realist, too. There is no way we will have a high quality BRT line on Venice. The political nature of our transit system building means true BRT will have approximately zero chance of success. A patch work of bus lanes during rush hour won't change a whole lot on Venice Blvd to improve mobility. On the other hand, a long term plan to put rail on Venice (with extension to San Gabriel Valley) is worth the discussion. If there is really no ridership potential on Venice corridor for rail, then there is really no potential for rail anywhere in LA beyond Wilshire Blvd. The success of 733 demonstrates its viability for rail... not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 9, 2011 13:18:18 GMT -8
Okay, here go my thoughts on the alternative modes brought up.
BRT: Venice already has rapid buses, many of which get very crowded throughout the day. Turning the present side lanes on Venice into bus-only lanes would be a good test, but speed would still be an issue due to bus headways and lack of signal priority. Unless Venice went all the way with BRT (dedicated lanes, real-time arrival info, bus bays a la Wilshire and Ventura, signal priority, buses running 2-5 minutes all day, etc.), I don't see it being much more successful than what already exists. Trip times would improve. Ridership? Probably not by much. However, it would relieve the congestion felt on the present 33/733. It would also be more expensive to maintain and operate than light rail.
Streetcar: A good idea, but not practical for the length of the corridor combined with the speed (or lack thereof) of the streetcars. Unless I'm mistaken, streetcars cannot go any faster than 25-30 mph, yes? If that’s the case, no one is going to opt for taking it to the beach if it’s much faster to just drive. Sure, people will ride it for recreation and streetcars are more attractive than buses, but not over long distances and certainly not if they’re slow. Not to mention that the route would hopefully be extended further in the future, making it even more of a liability. From speed and reliability perspectives, BRT would almost be the better option.
If mass transportation is going on Venice Blvd., it has to be light rail (multi-car, stations, etc.). It has the capacity to handle the present ridership, plus whatever new ridership is generated from the communities being served (as well as transfers from Expo and other buses). It can move at speeds up to 55 mph. The only x factor would be signal priority (though considering Venice being such a major arterial, I don’t think this would be that challenging).
It’s not the cheapest alternative, but it’s still the best.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 11, 2011 8:46:35 GMT -8
I spoke with my friend on the Palms Neighborhood Council who said that a BRT project could gain steam once Expo opens if it is branded as a rapid way to get to the beach from the Expo station.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 11, 2011 9:22:37 GMT -8
I'm more interested in fighting the political battle of convincing Westsiders that a bus-only lane is a better way to use two lanes of a six travel-lane road, than figuring out where to find the $500 million + you'd need to build a rail line.
And for that kind of money you could do, conservatively, 50-100 miles of bus lanes.
Los Angeles isn't going to become a transit-oriented city by putting expensive rail in marginal corridors, especially if it's at the expense of building a bus network that really works well consistently.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 16, 2011 8:14:39 GMT -8
Well, good luck with that. You'll need it.
While I support a county wide network of bus-only lanes, and part of what makes London's bus network a great supplement to its wonderful rail system are its network of bus-only lanes.
I have yet to see any evidence that you or anyone else will be able to get political support for taking away lanes of traffic for putting bus-only lanes on these "minor" corridors.
Now, if a bus-only lane is marketed as a feeder to the Expo LRT and coming Crenshaw/LAC LRT and possibly future Sepulveda and/or Lincoln LRT, you might have a chance. But you'll still have a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 12, 2011 19:31:39 GMT -8
I was thinking about this line again in terms of where to put it east of Culver City and I think this makes sense - tying it into the often-talked about "Silver Line."
After Venice/Robertson, run the line on Venice to Fairfax, up Fairfax to Santa Monica Blvd., where it would join the future Crenshaw/West Hollywood subway in a junction. Continue east on Santa Monica, with stops at La Brea, Vine, Western, and finally Vermont, connecting to the Red Line. Then, simply build the Silver Line out the way its been proposed from Hollywood to La Puente.
This way, it serves an entire new segment of L.A. in lieu of simply running it downtown and duplicating the service of the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 13, 2011 2:00:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 13, 2011 10:18:29 GMT -8
I was thinking about this line again in terms of where to put it east of Culver City and I think this makes sense - tying it into the often-talked about "Silver Line." After Venice/Robertson, run the line on Venice to Fairfax, up Fairfax to Santa Monica Blvd., where it would join the future Crenshaw/West Hollywood subway in a junction. Continue east on Santa Monica, with stops at La Brea, Vine, Western, and finally Vermont, connecting to the Red Line. Then, simply build the Silver Line out the way its been proposed from Hollywood to La Puente. This way, it serves an entire new segment of L.A. in lieu of simply running it downtown and duplicating the service of the Expo Line. I'm just guessing but I suspect most of the transit demand on Venice Blvd is east-west so terminating in Downtown makes sense. Going north to Crenshaw line will just duplicate Crenshaw. The east of Culver City alignment should stay on Venice, until mid city (Rimpau - ideal transfer point to Crenshaw line assuming it uses the San Vicente alignment) where I think there is merit for taking the line down Pico Blvd to Downtown instead of Venice Blvd due to higher residential and employment density. Neither streets (Venice or Pico) are wide enough to support full surface running east of Crenshaw so some type of grade separation will likely be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 13, 2011 13:17:52 GMT -8
I was thinking about this line again in terms of where to put it east of Culver City and I think this makes sense - tying it into the often-talked about "Silver Line." After Venice/Robertson, run the line on Venice to Fairfax, up Fairfax to Santa Monica Blvd., where it would join the future Crenshaw/West Hollywood subway in a junction. Continue east on Santa Monica, with stops at La Brea, Vine, Western, and finally Vermont, connecting to the Red Line. Then, simply build the Silver Line out the way its been proposed from Hollywood to La Puente. This way, it serves an entire new segment of L.A. in lieu of simply running it downtown and duplicating the service of the Expo Line. I'm just guessing but I suspect most of the transit demand on Venice Blvd is east-west so terminating in Downtown makes sense. Going north to Crenshaw line will just duplicate Crenshaw. The current Venice Blvd bus service has its heaviest loading between Venice Beach and Western Avenue, with the bulk of the connections are for points due north, so turning the line northward actually fits within the travel patterns, however depending on how most of that is underground and would have plenty of capacity left in the tunnel north of Pico/San Vicente station to enable another line to use it in the interim until the following: * Wilshire Subway and or Expo Line will be over capacity and will need an additional relief line to Downtown. * That Southern end of the line needs additional capacity to match the loads on the northern end. East of there is likely tricky because along Pico the trip distances will likely be shorter as the land-uses and demographics were for a Streetcar.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 7, 2012 18:34:17 GMT -8
Instead of staying on Venice Blvd to Pacific, I would turn onto Grand up to Windward Circle...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 15, 2012 11:05:41 GMT -8
I also really like the idea of the line terminating at Windward Circle via Grand.
You could do this in a single-track alignment, which would still allow one lane in each direction for cars without losing any street parking. Aside from construction, the neighborhood would stand to suffer little disruption in the long term.
Regarding extensions east past Expo: Having the line hit Pico after Rimpau makes a lot of sense as well. The only problem is cost, since the line would need total grade separation at that point.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Apr 28, 2012 1:29:23 GMT -8
Running either BRT, a Streetcar, or LRT up Grand, terminating at Windward Circle, is probably the routing that the Venice NIMBYS would object to the least. I wonder if the Circle is wide enough to allow LRT to do a 180?
Also, the Postal Service is looking to sell off the old Venice Post Office building, which is being fought tooth and nail by the locals. Turning it into a transit center might mollify them.
I wonder if the thing to do is to try to create something like a DASH line between the Expo Culver City Station and Windward Circle, once Culver City opens? It might be a great way to demonstrate the value and benefit of a higher - capacity solution. How does one go about creating something like a DASH line, any way?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 28, 2012 18:36:29 GMT -8
That's too long for a DASH line, plus it will duplicate Metro 733, 33 or Culver City #1 so I don't think it will demonstrate anything meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Apr 30, 2012 16:59:07 GMT -8
Bzcat, is there some legal limit for the length of a DASH line?
What I have is mind is not to duplicate the 33 or the 733, but to promote the usage of the Expo Line as a way to get to one of L.A.'s most popular weekend destinations: Venice Beach. A "Venice Express" that would run directly from Culver City to Windward Circle would be a great promotional tool for Expo, and would help alleviate the gridlock near the beach on summer weekends.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 30, 2012 17:04:44 GMT -8
I wonder if the Circle is wide enough to allow LRT to do a 180? A single track alignment along Grand should fit fine. Plus, the trains will have to turn around there anyway. The line would only have to stop at the Circle, then head back for its return trip.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 2, 2012 13:14:12 GMT -8
A Venice Blvd. Line could also hook into the bottom of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line allowing for a Hollywood - Venice Beach trains too.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 2, 2012 13:53:03 GMT -8
A Venice Blvd. Line could also hook into the bottom of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line allowing for a Hollywood - Venice Beach trains too. As a general rule, sharing tracks = bad unless track capacity is added. Any time you share tracks, you have a reduction in possible frequency in branch sections and a reduction in reliability.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 2, 2012 15:32:53 GMT -8
A Venice Blvd. Line could also hook into the bottom of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line allowing for a Hollywood - Venice Beach trains too. As a general rule, sharing tracks = bad unless track capacity is added. Any time you share tracks, you have a reduction in possible frequency in branch sections and a reduction in reliability. True. But is just a possibility. It could be something like a "rush hour" service, where as normal service requires a transfer.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 2, 2012 16:42:40 GMT -8
As a general rule, sharing tracks = bad unless track capacity is added. Any time you share tracks, you have a reduction in possible frequency in branch sections and a reduction in reliability. True. But is just a possibility. It could be something like a "rush hour" service, where as normal service requires a transfer. Then you are just confusing patrons.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 2, 2012 18:15:00 GMT -8
As a general rule, sharing tracks = bad unless track capacity is added. Any time you share tracks, you have a reduction in possible frequency in branch sections and a reduction in reliability. True. But is just a possibility. It could be something like a "rush hour" service, where as normal service requires a transfer. That would be worse because you'd be limiting service capacity at the time you'd need it most..
|
|
|
Post by fissure on May 2, 2012 20:15:33 GMT -8
A Venice Blvd. Line could also hook into the bottom of the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line allowing for a Hollywood - Venice Beach trains too. As a general rule, sharing tracks = bad unless track capacity is added. Any time you share tracks, you have a reduction in possible frequency in branch sections and a reduction in reliability. The entire line north of the junction would probably have to be grade separated anyway, which would allow for small headways on the shared portion.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 2, 2012 21:51:39 GMT -8
I still agree that the best extension for this line beyond Expo would be to Pico, and then down Pico to downtown and beyond (La Habra? Whittier? Montebello?).
Swinging the line north will only duplicate what will eventually become the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line, which Venice riders would be able to transfer to at the future San Vicente/Pico/Rimpau/Venice station (which will exist no matter what northern alignment on Crenshaw is chosen).
The only way going north would work is if Crenshaw is extended north on La Brea. If that happens, then another north-south line will be needed to serve West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, which is where the Venice line would come in.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 2, 2012 22:41:13 GMT -8
Hmm, how does ridership on Line 33 (Venice Blvd) compare to lines 35/38(Washington) and 30 (Pico)? Particularly between Crenshaw and Downtown? That way you could help decide which corridor deserves light rail.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 2, 2012 23:46:03 GMT -8
Hmm, how does ridership on Line 33 (Venice Blvd) compare to lines 35/38(Washington) and 30 (Pico)? Particularly between Crenshaw and Downtown? That way you could help decide which corridor deserves light rail. The Venice corridor performes much better than Washington or Pico
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 3, 2012 8:53:31 GMT -8
True. But is just a possibility. It could be something like a "rush hour" service, where as normal service requires a transfer. Then you are just confusing patrons. I don't see how. New York has certain subway services that only run during rush hour and millions of people manage.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 3, 2012 8:54:33 GMT -8
I still agree that the best extension for this line beyond Expo would be to Pico, and then down Pico to downtown and beyond (La Habra? Whittier? Montebello?). Swinging the line north will only duplicate what will eventually become the northern extension of the Crenshaw Line, which Venice riders would be able to transfer to at the future San Vicente/Pico/Rimpau/Venice station (which will exist no matter what northern alignment on Crenshaw is chosen). The only way going north would work is if Crenshaw is extended north on La Brea. If that happens, then another north-south line will be needed to serve West Hollywood and Beverly Hills, which is where the Venice line would come in. Well, there aren't going to be two midtown subway lines in anyone's lifetime, so that's out.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 3, 2012 9:02:57 GMT -8
True. But is just a possibility. It could be something like a "rush hour" service, where as normal service requires a transfer. That would be worse because you'd be limiting service capacity at the time you'd need it most.. Then how does NYC offer special Rush Hour services? No, really, I'm asking sincerely.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 3, 2012 10:16:50 GMT -8
Hmm, how does ridership on Line 33 (Venice Blvd) compare to lines 35/38(Washington) and 30 (Pico)? Particularly between Crenshaw and Downtown? That way you could help decide which corridor deserves light rail. The Venice corridor performes much better than Washington or Pico I think a big reason Venice bus performs better now is because no bus transfers is required to travel down Venice vs. Washington and Pico. In order to decide which alignment is better (Pico vs. Venice east of Rimpau) you need to study where the transit users are going, not which street they currently use. I happens to think if there is a light rail line, Pico makes more sense because it is closer to the heart of Pico Union district and more accessible to the residential area north of Pico Blvd. Pico also allows for easier approach to Downtown LA. But that's just my speculation. Reasonable people can disagree
|
|