|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 6, 2011 8:43:59 GMT -8
My friend on the Palms Neighborhood Council has been talking with some of his friends about the possibility of a streetcar down Venice connecting the beach to Expo. He ran into some people who feared that a streetcar would bring up development fears in neighborhoods like Mar Vista.
He suggested that perhaps this could begin as a busway branded as a "Busway to the Beach" that connects Expo (and potentially a Hollywood/WestHollywood/Crenshaw/LAX/SouthBay Line) to Venice Beach.
A busway down the center of Venice wouldn't raise development fears, and branding it as the "Busway to the Beach" might help sell it. (Of course, "Busway to the Beach" isn't as glamorous or sexy as "Subway to the Sea", but there you have it.")
I'd prefer a transitway that includes bus and streetcar, but that's me.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 6, 2011 9:28:29 GMT -8
This will certainly be very useful for me personally. But with all the trouble we have with Wilshire busway, this is going to be a difficult political sell. You still have to deal with busway public enemy #1 Bill Rosendahl, whose district overlaps almost the enitre length of Venice busway as you proposed. Rosendahl may decide to seek other political office after his term expires but you can be sure the Brentwood NIMBYs with all the money in this district will back a candidate that is openly hostile to busways.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 6, 2011 9:45:26 GMT -8
This will certainly be very useful for me personally. But with all the trouble we have with Wilshire busway, this is going to be a difficult political sell. You still have to deal with busway public enemy #1 Bill Rosendahl, whose district overlaps almost the enitre length of Venice busway as you proposed. Rosendahl may decide to seek other political office after his term expires but you can be sure the Brentwood NIMBYs with all the money in this district will back a candidate that is openly hostile to busways. But isn't the Venice "busway to the beach" systematically different than the Wilshire bus lanes? The Wilshire bus lanes will remove 2 lanes of mixed use (outside of the area in Brentwood where 1 new lane is being added) and convert them to bus lanes. Whereas, the Venice boulevard busway could just convert the existing center median, which is beyond ridiculously huge and spacious, without taking any space from cars or parking. I would think some sort of hybrid Orange Line with mixed flow once west of Lincoln; as there is no center median space and most likely the residents there will not want to see a lane converted. So, it's premature to think Rosenthal will be against this..as it was him that requested Metro replace the 333 with the 733.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 6, 2011 13:30:23 GMT -8
I still think this should be rail; Venice is so wide at times, it's obviously destined for rapid transit.
However, if they can do BRT and do it right (meaning a bus with its own lane 24x7, along with signal pre-emption, exempted from ADA/wheelchair dwell time, 2-5 minute headways with no schedule, and electric drive, so cross-town speeds of 20mph+ are the norm for local service with stops that are clean, safe, and reliable at all hours), then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 8, 2011 9:40:27 GMT -8
This will certainly be very useful for me personally. But with all the trouble we have with Wilshire busway, this is going to be a difficult political sell. You still have to deal with busway public enemy #1 Bill Rosendahl, whose district overlaps almost the enitre length of Venice busway as you proposed. Rosendahl may decide to seek other political office after his term expires but you can be sure the Brentwood NIMBYs with all the money in this district will back a candidate that is openly hostile to busways. But isn't the Venice "busway to the beach" systematically different than the Wilshire bus lanes? The Wilshire bus lanes will remove 2 lanes of mixed use (outside of the area in Brentwood where 1 new lane is being added) and convert them to bus lanes. Whereas, the Venice boulevard busway could just convert the existing center median, which is beyond ridiculously huge and spacious, without taking any space from cars or parking. I would think some sort of hybrid Orange Line with mixed flow once west of Lincoln; as there is no center median space and most likely the residents there will not want to see a lane converted. So, it's premature to think Rosenthal will be against this..as it was him that requested Metro replace the 333 with the 733. I don't know which Venice Blvd you are talking about but the one I drive/ride on everyday doesn't have wide median. Any busway project on Venice west of Robertson will require taking 2 directional travel lanes. The median doesn't get wide enough to support busway until you get all the way past Lincoln Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 8, 2011 18:34:43 GMT -8
if it connects to the Expo Line, it should tie into it by starting at the Washington/Flower rail crossing, run up Hoover, and head down Venice Blvd to Venice Beach (preferably as a blue line Long Beach style loop).
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 8, 2011 22:09:45 GMT -8
I don't know which Venice Blvd you are talking about but the one I drive/ride on everyday doesn't have wide median. Any busway project on Venice west of Robertson will require taking 2 directional travel lanes. The median doesn't get wide enough to support busway until you get all the way past Lincoln Blvd. I don't think you'll ever have success convincing people in communities like Mar Vista and Carthay Circle to support at grade transit in their streets' medians. Transit only lanes taking out vehicle travel lanes, yes, but not at the cost of their green boulevards. I don't blame them: L.A. has such a profound dearth of green space.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 18, 2011 8:09:35 GMT -8
You still have to deal with busway public enemy #1 Bill Rosendahl, whose district overlaps almost the enitre length of Venice busway as you proposed. Rosendahl may decide to seek other political office after his term expires but you can be sure the Brentwood NIMBYs with all the money in this district will back a candidate that is openly hostile to busways. I don't think it is accurate to call Bill Rosendahl public enemy #1 for busways. I heard him state at a Metro Board Meeting that there should be bus only lanes all over the county. Granted, like any politician, his wealthy contributors have a lot to say about what they will support in their own district. But by an large with the exception of the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes, he's actually one of the "good guys" when it comes to transit issues.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 18, 2011 10:50:24 GMT -8
You still have to deal with busway public enemy #1 Bill Rosendahl, whose district overlaps almost the enitre length of Venice busway as you proposed. Rosendahl may decide to seek other political office after his term expires but you can be sure the Brentwood NIMBYs with all the money in this district will back a candidate that is openly hostile to busways. I don't think it is accurate to call Bill Rosendahl public enemy #1 for busways. I heard him state at a Metro Board Meeting that there should be bus only lanes all over the county. Granted, like any politician, his wealthy contributors have a lot to say about what they will support in their own district. But by an large with the exception of the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes, he's actually one of the "good guys" when it comes to transit issues. And I tend to believe Rosendahl when he said that he would have supported the Wilshire BOL project if it had been contiguous from the Ocean to DTLA, and that he doesn't like that Santa Monica and BH aren't on board.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 18, 2011 10:56:26 GMT -8
If Rosendahl is really on board with busways, he should be willing to risk reelection to support something he believes in.
Maybe he will have a change of heart after the next election (he will be termed out) but I remain skeptical. The Wilshire busway is such a fundamental improvement to mobility and transit in his district and Rosendahl's repeated attempt to dismantle it has left me wondering if he is just paying lip service and take transit advocates for granted.
His anti-density, anti-development, and pro-parking positions are also stark contrast to what most transit advocates believe in.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 20, 2011 12:36:37 GMT -8
If Rosendahl is really on board with busways, he should be willing to risk reelection to support something he believes in. Maybe he will have a change of heart after the next election (he will be termed out) but I remain skeptical. The Wilshire busway is such a fundamental improvement to mobility and transit in his district and Rosendahl's repeated attempt to dismantle it has left me wondering if he is just paying lip service and take transit advocates for granted. His anti-density, anti-development, and pro-parking positions are also stark contrast to what most transit advocates believe in. Rosendahl is on board for Rosendahl, and no one else. He'll vote for the bus lanes, before he votes against them. Termed out, he still isn't going to do anything that will jeopardize his piece of the Westside election funding pie - no doubt, he still has aspirations in Washington, and Kenny Hahn's alleged offspring might be on shaky ground with redistricting. Venice should be rail, as it once was, with grade separation at critical intersections. Any pursuit of BRT is just folly. We don't need another Orange Line. If that means we have to wait a generation, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 25, 2011 4:23:10 GMT -8
and Kenny Hahn's alleged offspring might be on shaky ground with redistricting. I'm pretty sure Janice Hahn exists and Kenneth was her dad.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 25, 2011 15:00:16 GMT -8
Kenneth Hahn did a lot for Los Angeles transit. Unless you have some sort of proof, I don't think we need to put any "alleged" around Janice's name. And she'd have to move from one end of San Pedro to the other to meet the redistricting requirements, no biggie there.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 25, 2011 17:03:19 GMT -8
Kenneth Hahn did a lot for Los Angeles transit. Unless you have some sort of proof, I don't think we need to put any "alleged" around Janice's name. And she'd have to move from one end of San Pedro to the other to meet the redistricting requirements, no biggie there. Kenneth Hahn has 103rd Street (Watts) station named after him, history judges him as a success obviously. I wonder is there a movement yet to name I-don't-know-maybe the first Purple Line station beyond Wilshire/Western after Antonio Villaraigosa? (Ex: Wilshire/LaBrea/Antonio Villaraigosa Station) Just thinking out loud here... Moving along: As a regular Rapid 733 rider this idea is fantastic. However, I am within 0.5 mile of Lacienega/Jefferson Expo line station, so I would not ride it to Downtown, speaking of which there's literally nothing of interest on Venice Blvd in Mid City. Venice Blvd it would seem is something of a commuter street, it's setup like a highway of sorts, with little development other than houses, motels, and Public Storage locations. While Washington Blvd, however, is sorta the main street. Not to forget that Venice Blvd begins to narrow considerably east of Crenshaw Blvd so it might be an issue to fit it in there without riding in mixed traffic. I think I would be more in favor of a westward bound Venice-based "Busway to the Beach" to make up for lack of rapid transit to said beach. That said the segment going west of Culver City is extremely attractive, first off: the connection with the Culver City Expo line station, exciting developments such as restaurants, cafes, and amenities (the dominance for interesting developments shifts from Washington to Venice Blvd on the westside), the possibility of extremely frequent service to Venice Beach area or the reverse for a quick jog back to the metro station, the existing connections to north-south buses to Santa Monica and Ocean Park make a Westside Busway to the Beach seem to make more sense. Until perhaps a point where the Expo Line capacity is exceeded and a bypass line is necessary. Hypothetically from downtown passengers funnel out on the Expo Line then branch off via a transfer toward Venice Beach at Culver City Station.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 25, 2011 18:22:06 GMT -8
The irony of Los Angeles' "freeway width" streets is that many of them aren't freeway wide, they are streetcar wide. That is, Pacific Electric Red Car ROW wide (plus car lanes).
A lot has happened, development-wise, since the 1950s-60s when these last saw an interurban trolley, but adding a streetcar, light rail or busway to Venice would be returning it, so to speak, to its origins.
Giving Venice "a branch of the Expo Line" was, for a while, a Cheviot Hills NIMBY detour idea, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 25, 2011 18:43:17 GMT -8
I guess what I'm getting at is that a busway to DTLA could likely be starved of ridership, like the Rapid 733 undoubtedly will be, east of Culver City because of the Expo Line. Most of the ridership on that end are transferring at Figueroa, Hoover, Vermont, Western, Crenshaw (to a lesser degree), LaBrea as it is-- all of which served by the Expo Line to some degree. It's got to be totally expected that commuters will shift over to it and only those with business in the immediate vicinity of Venice will have use for it. The Westside could be seen as primed for a project like this with the increased relative walkability in pockets weighted its direction, the draw of the beach, and filling in a gap for east-west rapid transit access-- the "Busway to the Beach" sounds like a westside kind of thing, maybe with the savings over rail it could be extended up to Downtown Santa Monica's Expo Station. I'm totally in for a streetcar too though
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 25, 2011 23:42:58 GMT -8
I guess what I'm getting at is that a busway to DTLA could likely be starved of ridership, like the Rapid 733 undoubtedly will be, east of Culver City because of the Expo Line. Nah, the 733 will do just fine after Expo is built. Venice is way too far from the Expo line for anyone to walk there. Consider that the section of the 733 east of Western also parallels the existing subway, but that doesn't stop it from being a busy bus route. It's just too far to walk (1.3 mile between Venice and Wilshire). Exposition is even farther away on the east side (1.7 miles at Western or Vermont, for example). I agree that the wide section of Venice Blvd heading south-west of Culver city to the beach would be the easiest place to start. But the part of Venice Blvd in Mid-city and Pico Union is rather densely populated (25 to 40k people per square mile from Crenshaw east: maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=209582850025375035802.00047bbd63b18dd455fce&msa=0&ll=34.02421,-118.365841&spn=0.083799,0.153294). Mid-city and Pico-Union would greatly benefit from a rapid transit service within walking distance. Pico or Washington would also be good alternatives, but Venice make sense to start with.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jul 25, 2011 23:49:34 GMT -8
It actually might be useful if ridership on the Venice corridor was reduced due to the Expo Line being an alternative -- that route, even with articulated buses is very crowded. Not as much as WIlshire, but it's not that far behind. If you ride at 3am or 3pm it's busy.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jul 25, 2011 23:52:01 GMT -8
(It's true that people traveling to Downtown would transfer to Expo if traveling from further west on Venice, and near Culver Junction youcan walk to Expo. But east of Fairfax you will be better off taking the 733 if you are near Venice, even after the Regional Connector is finished. The 733 will get you to City Hall or Little Tokyo in 35 minutes, from Fairfax/Venice, not much slower than the Expo line from Culver City, so it will not be worth walking even an extra 1/2 mile, or transferring from an additional bus, to take Expo instead of the 733)
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 26, 2011 8:03:29 GMT -8
The new Venice/Robertson Rapid bus stop will be a busy transfer stop between the 733 and the Expo Line. We can all guarantee that.
The 733 service east of Robertson will be interesting. Remember, Metro was close this past year to gutting the 704 east of Vermont Avenue due to the heavy transfer volume of passengers going west on SaMo boulevard, but not the other way; primarily because of the Red Line. However, the service adjustment was shelved and the 704 continues as it has previously. And that corridor had no subway alignment, which we all know; but ridership was cannibalized by the Red Line.
I think the 733 may see a drop in ridership east of Robertson, but a sharp increase west of Robertson is also likely. This can be re-assessed after the Expo Line has started.
Now, the Metro Local 38 that travels on Jefferson boulevard....that should probably be terminated....
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 27, 2011 4:14:24 GMT -8
Remember, Metro was close this past year to gutting the 704 east of Vermont Avenue due to the heavy transfer volume of passengers going west on SaMo boulevard, but not the other way; primarily because of the Red Line. It was actually Alvarado that was proposed to be the eastern terminus. The ridership did fall off between downtown L.A. and Echo Park, but it did pick up at Alvarado. I think westbound riders may be taking the subway and catching 704 at Vermont and Santa Monica, but not eastbound. It was a stupid proposal, even with the low ridership. Downtown is so close after Alvarado, and it's just silly to cut off a route that short.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 27, 2011 10:01:25 GMT -8
Kenneth Hahn did a lot for Los Angeles transit. Unless you have some sort of proof, I don't think we need to put any "alleged" around Janice's name. And she'd have to move from one end of San Pedro to the other to meet the redistricting requirements, no biggie there. Sorry, bud, but I remember Kenny Hahn, and she's nothing like him. Only Ramona knows for sure, but I suspect they're having a long-overdue chat right now, and/or looking down, shaking their heads as they watch his namesake continue her "service". Her actions retard both civil rights and transit progress.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 27, 2011 11:49:14 GMT -8
Remember, Metro was close this past year to gutting the 704 east of Vermont Avenue due to the heavy transfer volume of passengers going west on SaMo boulevard, but not the other way; primarily because of the Red Line. It was actually Alvarado that was proposed to be the eastern terminus. The ridership did fall off between downtown L.A. and Echo Park, but it did pick up at Alvarado. I think westbound riders may be taking the subway and catching 704 at Vermont and Santa Monica, but not eastbound. It was a stupid proposal, even with the low ridership. Downtown is so close after Alvarado, and it's just silly to cut off a route that short. Actually, they ending up truncating service on some of the #2 buses instead with short line #2 buses between Sunset/Fairfax and Sunset/Alvarado. It seems that for Metro this was about reducing service on Sunset between Alvarado and Union Station and after receiving criticism for plans on cutting 704 service, they decided to cut some of the #2 service instead east of Alvarado.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 28, 2011 3:30:07 GMT -8
Now, the Metro Local 38 that travels on Jefferson boulevard....that should probably be terminated.... It definitely should stay. Remember, there are considerable distances between intersecting bus lines, and it's still another long walk to the expo stations east of La Brea. Many of the riders impacted by this proposal aren't going to be forced onto the Expo Line; they'll go for similar service along Adams instead. I demand this proposal be removed from further consideration.
|
|