|
Post by Philip on Apr 7, 2011 1:08:15 GMT -8
I know the prospect of rail on Venice has been brought up several times in the past. However, with the first phase of the Expo Line nearing completion, I had another thought that perhaps could work as a Phase 1 idea.
Build a line on Venice--but--start it at Venice/Robertson and run it all the way to the beach. Stations would be located at the following streets starting east on Venice: Robertson, Hughes, Culver Center, Inglewood, Lincoln, Abbot Kinney, and Pacific.
Pros: --Second rail line to the beach --Relatively inexpensive due to # of stations and most of the line being able to be built at-grade or even elevated (with the exception of the Culver City station, which might need to be underground to accommodate Expo) --Could (and should) be built as light-rail, also reducing cost --Little to no opposition from Culver City (especially nearby Cheviot Hills, since they pushed so hard for Expo to be on Venice in the first place)
Cons --Misses downtown --Will be viewed as more of a stub line than its own line serving L.A. County --Possible opposition from other locals (I can hear the parents from Venice High School shouting already) --Questionable ridership (though I don't see how this could be an issue, between Expo transfers, destinations on the line, and overcrowding on the 33/733 buses)
Really though, the above cons are no different than issues facing the Crenshaw Line, and it's moving forward.
The fact that it misses downtown is a bummer, but that's why we have the Expo Line, which solves the problem with a simple transfer.
Future phases could perhaps see the line going all the way down Venice to downtown, or maybe northeast to hook up with one of the Purple or future Crenshaw stations. The former suffers from the issue of more or less duplicating service with Expo; the latter suffers from treading on what will likely be future Crenshaw Line territory.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 7, 2011 14:11:25 GMT -8
Venice is wide enough to support a street running light rail through the Westside. I think it is a good long term idea. The transfer station to Expo at Venice/Robertson will make it a true "Culver Junction" again I sketched out a Venice line on my map a while back... I have the Venice line going from Venice to Culver City as you described, but continuing on to Downtown LA via Rimpau (to meet up with Crenshaw/WeHo line) and Pico Blvd. Once you go past Rimpau, Pico Blvd has higher residential density and wider street surface than Venice Blvd. Running into Downtown LA on Pico Blvd also allows the line to serve the heart of Pico Union district and more direct access to Convention Center (and NFL stadium) maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.024494,-118.315544&spn=0.181824,0.363579&z=12 The "cons" you mentioned can be addressed. - Missed Downtown LA: extend the line to Downtown (eventually) - Viewed as a stub: doesn't matter as long as it gets good ridership and has easy transfer to Expo - Local opposition: I doubt it... this part of town is probably going to really like the idea - Questionable ridership: I don't know why you would think that based on 730 overcrowding. Proposed stations: 1. Pacific Terminal (in the medium of Venice Blvd in the old ROW, half block from Abbot Kinney) 2. Venice Station (Venice/Lincoln) 3. Mar Vista Station (Venice/Centinela) 4a. Optional station at Venice/Sepulveda - only required if the 405 line runs down Sepulveda instead of Overland 4b. Culver Center Station/transfer to 405 line (Venice/Overland) - my preferred location over Sepulveda as this is closer to employment center and where people will want to go 5. Downtown Culver City Station (Venice/Hughes) 6. Culver Junction Station/transfer to Expo line (Venice/Robertson) 7. Kaiser Hospital Station (Venice/Cadillac) 8. Rimpau Station/transfer to Crenshaw-Weho line (Venice/San Vicente) 9. Pico/Western Station 10. Pico Union Station (Pico/Vermont) 11. Pico/Alvarado Station/transfer to Vermont line 12. LA Convention Center Station (Pico/LA Live Way) 13. Pico Station/transfer to Blue and Expo line (Pico/Flower) On my map, the line continues as a subway under Downtown LA to San Pedro Blvd, and then surface on 7th street to cross the LA River and turn north on Soto St and deep into SGV.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 7, 2011 16:16:50 GMT -8
My idea is somewhat similar, in the fact that it would be an East-West corridor. However, the eastern end would be Whittier.
It would run on Venice all the way from Pacific Ave to Hoover; it would then dive down Hoover to Washington; here it would run on the Blue Line corridor and Washington Blvd all the way to Sante Fe Springs.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 7, 2011 16:33:50 GMT -8
I think some people had talked about this being a streetcar. That could be a great idea, especially if it could head south once Venice hits the beach or near the beach. Also, a streetcar might be a lot more realistic from a funding standpoint. I'm all for light rail, but it would be decades before that could be a reality here.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2011 21:21:13 GMT -8
I think some people had talked about this being a streetcar. That could be a great idea, especially if it could head south once Venice hits the beach or near the beach. Also, a streetcar might be a lot more realistic from a funding standpoint. I'm all for light rail, but it would be decades before that could be a reality here. "Streetcar" and "Light rail" are very similar technologies. In the United States, "streetcar" currently refers to electric vehicles that are not coupled into trains, and that usually share space with traffic, at-grade. However, Europe has many types of trams which are often in exclusive right-of-ways, and which are sometimes made into longer trains. Here in Los Angeles, the Pacific Electric "red cars" were almost always at grade and occasionally shared street space with cars (mainly in Downtown, though there was a short subway and a short elevated section), but 90% of the routes had their own right-of-way, either in the middle of the street or off-street. For Venice, I would recommend building Light Rail cheaper by treating it like a streetcar. Build zero grade separations, but give the streetcar its own exclusive right-of-way in the street median, and limit stops to every 1/2 mile (like the current 733 bus). The initial line (if built from the west) can start out with one-car trains, but eventually 2 or 3 cars should be possible. This should provide good speeds, better than the 733, at much less cost than Expo or the Subway. Of course, we could get most of the improvement right now by designating one lane each way as bus-only, and making the 733 a true "bus rapid transit" line. I would be absolutely in favor of this, as a step before upgrading to light rail.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 8, 2011 7:01:16 GMT -8
I think some people had talked about this being a streetcar. That could be a great idea, especially if it could head south once Venice hits the beach or near the beach. Also, a streetcar might be a lot more realistic from a funding standpoint. I'm all for light rail, but it would be decades before that could be a reality here. "Streetcar" and "Light rail" are very similar technologies. In the United States, "streetcar" currently refers to electric vehicles that are not coupled into trains, and that usually share space with traffic, at-grade. However, Europe has many types of trams which are often in exclusive right-of-ways, and which are sometimes made into longer trains. Here in Los Angeles, the Pacific Electric "red cars" were almost always at grade and occasionally shared street space with cars (mainly in Downtown, though there was a short subway and a short elevated section), but 90% of the routes had their own right-of-way, either in the middle of the street or off-street. For Venice, I would recommend building Light Rail cheaper by treating it like a streetcar. Build zero grade separations, but give the streetcar its own exclusive right-of-way in the street median, and limit stops to every 1/2 mile (like the current 733 bus). The initial line (if built from the west) can start out with one-car trains, but eventually 2 or 3 cars should be possible. This should provide good speeds, better than the 733, at much less cost than Expo or the Subway. Of course, we could get most of the improvement right now by designating one lane each way as bus-only, and making the 733 a true "bus rapid transit" line. I would be absolutely in favor of this, as a step before upgrading to light rail. Not to mention that streetcars would be too slow for this kind of corridor (reaching speeds maybe in the range of 20-25 mph). I'm a fan of streetcars for sure, but only where it makes sense. Downtown L.A., for example, works for streetcars because they can function as circulatory lines over relatively short distances and communities being feeders, which is really the best way for them to work in today's world. Once you get into service that could stretch for several miles, streetcars lose their value due to lack of speed and traffic (unless of course, they're grade-separated or on a private ROW). If it was 1925, none of that would matter, but that's where we are. If there eventually is service on Venice, it should be LRT (or if need be and at the very least, BRT).
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Apr 9, 2011 22:46:01 GMT -8
I live in Venice, and would love it. But, for a number of reasons, I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen anytime soon. For me, the biggest practical obstacle is that it won't go all the way to the beach. The line ends at AK, because there is a library in the center median just a little farther west. That last 1/2 mile or so walk will limit ridership in a big way.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2011 19:04:20 GMT -8
I live in Venice, and would love it. But, for a number of reasons, I wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen anytime soon. For me, the biggest practical obstacle is that it won't go all the way to the beach. The line ends at AK, because there is a library in the center median just a little farther west. That last 1/2 mile or so walk will limit ridership in a big way. Yeah, that could be a problem. Maybe the line could split into a two single-track format, similar to the Blue Line loop in Long Beach?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2011 23:20:22 GMT -8
The line ends at AK, because there is a library in the center median just a little farther west. The median ends, but Venice Blvd is 4 lanes wide on each side (including parking). If a lane of parking was removed, the trains could use part of the existing roadway to get the last 1/2 mile to the beach. Or the library could be rebuilt, and part of the land used for tracks to the final station.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 11, 2011 8:58:59 GMT -8
The line ends at AK, because there is a library in the center median just a little farther west. The median ends, but Venice Blvd is 4 lanes wide on each side (including parking). If a lane of parking was removed, the trains could use part of the existing roadway to get the last 1/2 mile to the beach. Or the library could be rebuilt, and part of the land used for tracks to the final station. Or... After the line hits Abbot Kinney, it condenses into a one-track segment for the last stretch until the beach. Due to the short distance and the fact that it's only for one stop, there would be little affect on headways.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 11, 2011 10:48:20 GMT -8
The median ends, but Venice Blvd is 4 lanes wide on each side (including parking). If a lane of parking was removed, the trains could use part of the existing roadway to get the last 1/2 mile to the beach. Or the library could be rebuilt, and part of the land used for tracks to the final station. Or... After the line hits Abbot Kinney, it condenses into a one-track segment for the last stretch until the beach. Due to the short distance and the fact that it's only for one stop, there would be little affect on headways. Single track past Abbot Kinney will work just fine because the train has to layover (no where to go beyond Pacific Ave). All we need is one boarding platform. We can skirt the library by converting N Venice Blvd into rail ROW and funnel cars onto S Venice Blvd. The actual station can be build in the medium (which is the old ROW) past Venice Library, with a front facing Dell Ave for easy pedestrian access. maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&fb=1&gl=us&hq=venice+library&hnear=Los+Angeles,+CA&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=33.986428,-118.464471&spn=0.005685,0.011362&z=17
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Apr 11, 2011 12:38:06 GMT -8
Or... After the line hits Abbot Kinney, it condenses into a one-track segment for the last stretch until the beach. Due to the short distance and the fact that it's only for one stop, there would be little affect on headways. Single track past Abbot Kinney will work just fine because the train has to layover (no where to go beyond Pacific Ave). All we need is one boarding platform. We can skirt the library by converting N Venice Blvd into rail ROW and funnel cars onto S Venice Blvd. The actual station can be build in the medium (which is the old ROW) past Venice Library, with a front facing Dell Ave for easy pedestrian access. maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&fb=1&gl=us&hq=venice+library&hnear=Los+Angeles,+CA&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=33.986428,-118.464471&spn=0.005685,0.011362&z=17 How about a one-way loop past Abbot Kinney along Grand (wide, misses the library) to Windward Circle (arguably the heart of Venice) then along Main to Brooks/Abott Kinney with one or two stops on AK before rejoining the line eastbound?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 11, 2011 19:20:39 GMT -8
How about a one-way loop past Abbot Kinney along Grand (wide, misses the library) to Windward Circle (arguably the heart of Venice) then along Main to Brooks/Abott Kinney with one or two stops on AK before rejoining the line eastbound? Yeah, that would be cool because it would be just a short walk away from Venice Beach Park. It could actually still have a stop not too far from the library at Venice Centennial Park, just before turning on Grand.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Apr 11, 2011 19:53:05 GMT -8
These are all lovely ideas, but I have to wonder how many of you have spent a significant amount of time in Venice. Firstly, beyond the library are houses. Secondly, the locals will not be interested in giving up a lane of traffic on Venice Blvd. Based on my residing here for 15 years, it's my opinion that there ain't a more cantankerous bunch of NIMBY's in known universe.
I think the best we could hope for would be to have the line end somewhere west of the Library, and have shuttle vans go to the beach.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 11, 2011 20:51:43 GMT -8
These are all lovely ideas, but I have to wonder how many of you have spent a significant amount of time in Venice. Firstly, beyond the library are houses. Secondly, the locals will not be interested in giving up a lane of traffic on Venice Blvd. Based on my residing here for 15 years, it's my opinion that there ain't a more cantankerous bunch of NIMBY's in known universe. I think the best we could hope for would be to have the line end somewhere west of the Library, and have shuttle vans go to the beach. That's kind of what andop2 is suggesting. And I like it.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 12, 2011 10:11:58 GMT -8
Single track past Abbot Kinney will work just fine because the train has to layover (no where to go beyond Pacific Ave). All we need is one boarding platform. We can skirt the library by converting N Venice Blvd into rail ROW and funnel cars onto S Venice Blvd. The actual station can be build in the medium (which is the old ROW) past Venice Library, with a front facing Dell Ave for easy pedestrian access. maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&fb=1&gl=us&hq=venice+library&hnear=Los+Angeles,+CA&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=33.986428,-118.464471&spn=0.005685,0.011362&z=17 How about a one-way loop past Abbot Kinney along Grand (wide, misses the library) to Windward Circle (arguably the heart of Venice) then along Main to Brooks/Abott Kinney with one or two stops on AK before rejoining the line eastbound? Grand/Windward Circle is a good idea but Abbot Kinney is not wide enough to accommodate light rail. Ironically, the ROW used to go right behind Abbot Kinney but it is built over now. I think from an ease of construction and money stand point, the line will have to end on Venice Blvd by the library. Frequent bus service (as they exists already now) will have to make up for the "last mile" from the terminus to the beach.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 12, 2011 11:15:15 GMT -8
These are all lovely ideas, but I have to wonder how many of you have spent a significant amount of time in Venice. Firstly, beyond the library are houses. Secondly, the locals will not be interested in giving up a lane of traffic on Venice Blvd. Based on my residing here for 15 years, it's my opinion that there ain't a more cantankerous bunch of NIMBY's in known universe. I think the best we could hope for would be to have the line end somewhere west of the Library, and have shuttle vans go to the beach. That's unfortunate, but I also really like andop2's idea about running the line on Grand to Windward Circle (single-tracked of course). That would make for a perfect terminus, with the loop and all in what is arguably the heart of Venice. The only thing I disagree with is having the line continue on Main and loop back to Abbot Kinney; not necessary and would only inflate the cost of the project. One station on AK is enough.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Apr 12, 2011 12:31:40 GMT -8
These are all lovely ideas, but I have to wonder how many of you have spent a significant amount of time in Venice. Firstly, beyond the library are houses. Secondly, the locals will not be interested in giving up a lane of traffic on Venice Blvd. Based on my residing here for 15 years, it's my opinion that there ain't a more cantankerous bunch of NIMBY's in known universe. I think the best we could hope for would be to have the line end somewhere west of the Library, and have shuttle vans go to the beach. That's unfortunate, but I also really like andop2's idea about running the line on Grand to Windward Circle (single-tracked of course). That would make for a perfect terminus, with the loop and all in what is arguably the heart of Venice. The only thing I disagree with is having the line continue on Main and loop back to Abbot Kinney; not necessary and would only inflate the cost of the project. One station on AK is enough. I think Windward Circle as a terminus (one track, one platform station) would work fine. It's only a quarter-mile walk to the beach, and 1/2 mile back to the station at Abbot Kinney. And Santa Monica's BBB will allow connections to the north.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Apr 17, 2011 17:57:12 GMT -8
With over 35 years living on the Westside, I'm pessimistic that a lane or two could be taken from traffic along Venice from Exposition to any location west. I find vehicular traffic already abysmal, only growing worse. Accommodating new modes of transit would probably require expropriating "tree lawns" and reducing the depth of front yards or eliminating parking to accommodate rails. Regarding the cost of a raised track configuration--well, ...it would probably be prohibitive.
...But, if a responsible traffic flow study can demosntrate the efficacy of what's under discussion, and if residents get behind it, I think it would be a wonderful addition to the transit grid!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 18, 2011 7:52:41 GMT -8
I have a friend who is on the Palms Neighborhood Council and he wants to see a streetcar connecting the Expo Line to the beach. He did some personal outreach to members of other neighboring councils and he believes the biggest obstacle to any sort of streetcar, let alone light-rail, on Venice Blvd. would be the NIMBYs in Mar Vista near Centinela who fear (the horror) development.
This is not meant to be discouraging, but it seems that there are NIMBYs with every project.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 18, 2011 8:02:30 GMT -8
Why can't we just go underground for the last mile between Lincoln and Ocean (a la Blue Line between Pico to 7th street station in DT LA)?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2011 9:51:52 GMT -8
Why can't we just go underground for the last mile between Lincoln and Ocean (a la Blue Line between Pico to 7th street station in DT LA)? It's not a bad idea, but my concern would be the tens of millions (if not hundreds) it would cost to construct.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 18, 2011 11:07:28 GMT -8
Why can't we just go underground for the last mile between Lincoln and Ocean (a la Blue Line between Pico to 7th street station in DT LA)? $$$$ and there is no need. Blue line going underground at Pico was because it needed to reach 7th Street and there is no way to do it above ground. Plus the original plan was to continue to Union Station underground (i.e. the Downtown connector). Putting the end of Venice line underground serves no purpose as the train will never be extended past the beach.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on May 3, 2011 16:03:52 GMT -8
Why can't we just go underground for the last mile between Lincoln and Ocean (a la Blue Line between Pico to 7th street station in DT LA)? Um, a couple of handy phrases spring to mind: "Liquefaction zone", and "Tsunami Zone". Remember, Venice was built out of wetlands. The water table is very high, and the soil is very sandy. Any engineering types wanna tell us how that suit underground construction?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 4, 2011 4:39:04 GMT -8
Regarding the streetcar vs. light rail question. Why not build tracks that would be compatible with both and start with streetcar service using low floor vehicles? This could be with mixed traffic or without depending on the political feasibility. Stopping nearly a mile from the beach is a non-starter. This would have to go the whole way to deliver a significant proportion of its ridership. One track past Abbot Kinney is a possibilty, but precludes mixed use lanes. Once the line proved itself, mixed use lanes could be converted to exclusive transit lanes, street level boarding could be converted to platforms, and the rolling stock could be converted to standard Metro light rail vehicles. The old low floor vehicles could be moved to another part of the streetcar network, e.g. downtown or on a coastal route. That would remove hundreds of millions in station costs and political resistance to the elimination of traffic lanes. My best bet is that a streetcar on Venice wouldn't make the traffic any worse on the whole, but would deliver more people where they wanted to go.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 4, 2011 11:01:35 GMT -8
Depends on what you think is the main goal of rail line on Venice Blvd.
Personally, I don't think streetcar in this kind of length (from Culver City to the beach) is effective. It will be slow and you are better off sticking to buses with exclusive lane.
If the eventual goal is to provide mass transit on Venice Blvd, there is no point to start off as streetcar and convert it to light rail. That's just a waste of money. You can make light rail cars operate like a streetcar (see Blue line in Long Beach).
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 4, 2011 12:54:25 GMT -8
The point is that light rail cars require platforms. Converting to light rail in the above scenario would just be a matter of adding platforms along an existing line, a la Farmdale. I don't see how that would cost more than building the whole thing all at once, but could avoid the platform costs. If there were onboard payment systems, like in most of Europe, you wouldn't need ticket vending machines along the line either.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 4, 2011 15:52:26 GMT -8
Of course, we could get most of the improvement right now by designating one lane each way as bus-only, and making the 733 a true "bus rapid transit" line. I would be absolutely in favor of this, as a step before upgrading to light rail. Exactly! Granted this is "The Dream" thread, so I'm taking everything with a grain of salt. But I hope that everyone who is advocating for some type of rail is parenthetically thinking "If money is no object," before they write their proposal. 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. Again, this is "The Dream" thread, but I'm a little disheartened to see it so promptly devolve into thread about "where can we put rail?" instead of "how we can best improve transit" where "best" considers cost, speed, ridership, reliability, mobility and all those other factors. Here are the rest of my thoughts on Venice Blvd transit improvements from another thread: Not to get too side-tracked, but I am not convinced that rails will be necessary on Venice Blvd any time in the next 30 years. Bus only lanes would be a great start, something that would be very cost-effective and practical to advocate for, maybe using LA's local Measure R dollars and some Small Starts grants from the Feds. Using the Wilshire BRT as a reference -- $30 million for 10 miles -- you could do all of Venice for $40 million-ish. Or you could do light rail for 25 times that much. The latter just doesn't make sense. For that kind of money you could do the bus lanes and pay to have 733s running at 2 minute headways until the cows come home. Plus, when Expo opens to Santa Monica in 5 years, that line's going to be doing the downtown LA to the beach heavy lifting (granted that there are plenty of trips starting and ending along Venice).
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 4, 2011 20:28:53 GMT -8
Plus, when Expo opens to Santa Monica in 5 years, that line's going to be doing the downtown LA to the beach heavy lifting (granted that there are plenty of trips starting and ending along Venice). This is why I think it should continue east on Washington Blvd to Whittier.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 6, 2011 8:20:28 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.
|
|