Presently, the need for a connection between the Westside and Downtown is distorting the planning for the Expo line. In the absence of the Purple Line, the Expo has been forced to fulfill that transit goal. Consequently, opponents of the Venice-Sepulveda alignment believe it would compromise the regional effectiveness of that connection, slowing it down and diverting it from it route to downtown. I do sympathize with all who express frustration and simply want this line built as quickly and easily as possible. Considering how difficult it has been just to get to this point, I understand how supporters of this line can view any change that raises the cost and complexity as something to strongly resist. However, building an effective transit system is going to require the foresight to look beyond our most immediate needs and anticipate a larger vision for transit. Admittedly, the Expo will initially need to serve as the primary transit connection between Downtown and the Westside. However, what happens when the Purple line takes over for that role? And what about the other transit objectives we need to accomplish, like serving north-south traffic and creating a single transit core for the Westside where all lines converge?
The Venice-Sepulveda alignment has two major advantages over the Expo ROW that justify its greater cost and complexity:
1) Adjacent areas are more appropriate locations for transit service and intensified land usage. Expo staff downplayed the amount of business activity along Venice Blvd, but the scale of commerce along Venice is greatly overshadows the quiet, village-like commercial clusters that line the Expo ROW. Furthermore, there is vastly more empty and under-utilized space for intensified commercial activity along Venice than there is along the Expo ROW. Finally, transit would help Culver City evolve into a much more significant urban center of its own, further feeding the already bustling street life and commercial vitality along Culver Blvd.
2) The infrastructure, while more costly and complex, will be more adaptable and provide more options for future expansion. (a) The Venice segment would establish (along with the Pink line) infrastructure and the alignment that could be later used by a line running from Hollywood to Venice via La Cienega and Venice Blvds. Such a future line (which people are already clamoring for) will be a much easier sell if large parts of it already exist. (b) The Sepulveda segment would orient the Expo towards Westwood. This Westwood orientation is important because although the Expo will initially be connecting Santa Monica to Downtown, if the Purple Line replaces it in that function, the Expo can then be rerouted (sharing the Pink line's infrastructure) up Westwood Blvd to UCLA. The Sepulveda segment could also potentially be used by a line running from the San Fernando Valley down to LAX.
Simply put, the Venice-Sepuveda alignment keeps our options open for future expansion of the system while the Expo ROW simply doesn't. Considering the stop-start nature of transit development in LA, we need to keep our options open even if it is slightly more expensive in the short term. A stitch in time saves nine.
With that, here is my five phase proposal for the construction of the Westside System:
Phase One: Complete Expo line from present Washington/National terminus to Santa Monica via the Venice-Sepulveda alignment.
Phase Two: Build the Pink Line from Hollywood to Santa Monica via Westwood and Pico Blvds.
Phase Three: Extend the Purple Line to Santa Monica via Wilshire.
Phase Four: Reroute the Expo Line to UCLA via Pico and Westwood Blvds.
Phase Five: Construct "Venice-La Cienega" Line using existing infrastructure on Santa Monica Blvd (the Pink Line) and Venice Blvd (the Expo Line).
9 comments:
What fantasy’s are the Cheviot Hills NIMBY’s living in? The Venice Sepulveda route is within a hundred feet of thousands of residents, small businesses and a school, yet there are only a couple of stations that are less than half a mile from the stations on the original route. The original route passes far fewer residents and a school much further away from the LRT trains.
However the MTA seams distend to take a great and needed project and turn it into an overbuilt monstrosity. By building stations at Overland and Westwood Blvd in a quiet residential area and a huge and expensive elevated structure over the 405 freeway when it needs to run under the freeway at grade. The station also needs to be at Sepulveda, Not Overland or Westwood.
There are plans by privet groups showing the area between Overland and West of Westwood with the area around the tracks as a park and wetlands and allowing for a grade separation at Overland with the storm drain rerouted through the park instead of the line having to pass under the storm drain.
There is a way to build this line on the right-of-way and still keep the Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park area a quiet residential neighborhood with much improved transit service and even an added parkland. This is a Win for the neighborhood and a Win for the commuters of all of the Los Angeles area.
Simply put, aside from the standpoints of costs and ease of construction, the Expo ROW is an inferior route and the Venice-Sepulveda alignment is worth the investment.
I don't want to sound snarky but if you accept the issues of cost and ease of construction as being legitimate components why set them "aside?" Fixed rail for the Westside could ultimately possibly do for the subregion what the Green Line(s) did for the Back Bay. I personally don't think that but accept that it is in the realm of the possible.
Tech note; I am breaking out the component costs of the max build out of your previous post. It is harder because things like four track tunnels are not linear extrapolations from 2 lane tunnels.
Alan: Thanks for the comment but I'm not entirely clear what alignment you are advocating for?
Rob: I didn't take it as snarky. I'll take any substantive feedback I can get. I guess what I was trying to say is that cost, ease of construction, and directness of the route are the strongest arguments made in favor of the Expo ROW and against the V-S route. And the truth is, those ARE very compelling reasons to route it along the Expo ROW. It's what make the V-S route such a hard sell. That sell is made even harder by the fact that the V-S seems to have been conceived more out of political expediency than because of any design advantages. However, I really believe the local and the long-term advantages justify the added cost and difficulty of the V-S and represent a window of opportunity that would be tragic for LA to miss.
As far as the Green Line, I assume you mean Boston? Can you enlighten me on specifically what it did for the Back Bay subregion? Do you mean the Emerald Necklace? I don't know Boston very well.
Also, I'm half excited/half dreading seeing the numbers you come up with.
Jon,
I just love this blog. It's wonderful.
I'm glad to see you mention the Pink Line. If people want the Pink Line included in the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project along with the Purple Line down Wilshire, they need to make that known ASAP.
Write e-mails supporting the Santa Monica Blvd. line to
metroplan@mta.net
WestsideExtension@mta.net
To begin raising group support for the Pink Line I have started a Facebook group and a MySpace group for the "Friends of the Pink Line".
groups.mypsace.com/thepinkline
www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11096618173
Maybe a nonprofit group similar to the Friends of the Expo Line could be started eventually to lobby for this effort.
The MTA is so focused on Wilshire, understandably, it's going to take a sustained effort to get them and our elected officials to also support the Pink Line.
Nice idea, unfortunately the pink line will likely be a heavy transit line and the expo line is light rail, so these systems are not compatible. The heavy rail lines won't have the above wiring for LRT and the LRT lines won't have the dangerous third rail for HRT.
There is only ONE route. And that is along the PE Expo right-of-way, The V-S alignment was a political ploy to delay and kill the line and if the line was not killed it would keep it away from the homes of the NIMBY’s, be it several hundred feet away at the closestand out of sight.
How would the V-S alignment help business or improve the street scene along Venice? The activity is only generated at stations. With so many crossings or street closures how would this help Venice Blvd merchants? Also how about all of the residents along Venice and especially Sepulveda who would live with in 100 feet of the line and the loss of parking and greenery? V-S should never have been even considered let alone ever built.
Does this clear up which alignment I advocate?
Thanks
Alan
As for the Pink Line (Hollywood to Century City) is a wanted and needed line. But it does not compare to the ridership and need for a line down Wilshire. This needs to be an “in addition too,” not instead of the Wilshire Line.
This line could be an above ground line and even use a different technology. Why not, we have separate Blue Line, Gold Line, Green Line and Red Line technologies, why not one more? This line could be a surface streetcar,surface and elevated LRT, elevated light weight LRT, Airport style People Mover, Monorail or other technologies.
There is a need for this service and it should be high on the list of projects to be build in the next 20 years.
Alan
The Venice Sepulveda route is within a hundred feet of thousands of residents, small businesses and a school, yet there are only a couple of stations that are less than half a mile from the stations on the original route. The original route passes far fewer residents and a school much further away from the LRT trains.
These are precisely the reasons why the route should be built along the V-S. Venice and Pico are the main thoroughfares and are destinations in themselves. Culver City is a true downtown unlike the pleasant but small village-like clusters and the freeway along the PE.
The activity is only generated at stations. With so many crossings or street closures how would this help Venice Blvd merchants? Also how about all of the residents along Venice and especially Sepulveda who would live with in 100 feet of the line and the loss of parking and greenery?
There do not need to be any more stations along Venice other than Overland and Sepulveda. They will be sufficient. The Overland station will take riders right to the edge of downtown Culver City (unlike the Washington/National Station which is pretty far east), feeding that commercial core (currently served by those massive parking lots between Culver & Venice blvds) with a stream of customers and employees. The Venice station would prime the adjacent land for greater residential development, allowing nearby residents direct transit access to Downtown, Santa Monica, (and in the future) Westwood/UCLA, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Venice (and MAYBE in the real distant future) the Valley and the airport. All without a car. Obviously traffic impacts are of concern, but nothing has suggested so far that if designed & built correctly, those impacts could not be mitigated.
The V-S alignment was a political ploy to delay and kill the line and if the line was not killed it would keep it away from the homes of the NIMBY’s, be it several hundred feet away at the closestand out of sight.
This is the political baggage I referred to in my earlier response to Rob. And believe me, I have very little sympathy for NIMBYism. However, in this proposal (that was submitted for exactly the ulterior motives you cite) is the seed of an idea that could transform the Westside profoundly for the better. It's a hard sell, but its worth it.
Running the line close to people residents and businesses at a high speed does not help the area. If this was the case the line should run on the surface along Pico, Olympic or even Wilshire. The Blue Line on Flower and Washington and the Gold Line in Highland Park did not help the area, but did help the areas around the stations. The locations of the stations are what are important for connivance and usage of the line. Stations at Overland and Sepulveda on Venice serve no more of a populated are then stations at Motor or Sepulveda on the right of way would serve. The Venice Overland station would serve Sony better, but a walk from the Venice National Robertson station is only a couple of blocks further..
If running the LRT down the center of the street is such a good idea why not continue the line west on Venice to Venice and maybe Ocean Park with another line down Culver Blvd to serve Plea Vista?
Ideally a transit line should be away form populated and busy areas and the stations as close as possible to populated and busy areas.
Post a Comment