Measure R Planning - Valley-Westside Rail Tunnel

[Transit Coalition]

Currently, Metro is planning to study the Van Nuys Transit Corridor ("East San Fernando Valley North-South Transit Corridors") before the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor ("San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection").

This is driven in part by the Measure R schedule, which places the Van Nuys Corridor project before the Sepulveda Pass Corridor.

By studying the corridor with lower ridership potential first, there is a significant risk that Metro may create two disconnect transit services with incompatible vehicles, instead of one seamless project, such as the Valley-Westside Rail Tunnel that The Transit Coalition is advocating.

Moreover, as one connected corridor, the ridership potential of the whole is likely to be significantly higher than either section by itself. In particular, significant numbers of longer-distance commuters from Ventura and north Los Angeles County could use an I-405 Corridor transit service (e.g., Valley-Westside Rail Tunnel), that connects Metrolink to jobs on the Westside without having to go an extra hour to Union Station.

Over 300,000 trips occur on the I-405 in the Sepulveda Pass every day, with two of the nation's top freeway interchanges by traffic volume, I-405 / I-10 and I-405 / U.S. 101.

[jeisenbe]

Thanks for making the new topic. But should we call it the "Rail Tunnel" yet? I know we all support that idea, but in theory Metro could decide to just put a Rapid bus route along 405 and call it a day; the mode is not yet decided.

Personally, I support a rail tunnel, likely as light rail, to connect to an at-grade route along Van Nuys in the Valley, and along Sepulveda to Culver City and eventually LAX, in the Westside, as I've said before.

[regen]

The two projects should be combined together to provide a direct Metrolink to Expo rail line via UCLA. Both light rail and heavy rail should be studied as potential alternatives.

Here's a start for a list of potential advantages of each technology here:

Heavy Rail
- More passenger capacity with shorter-length trains, allowing for cheaper stations
- Potential connectivity with Metro Purple Line to avoid need for separate maintenance facility

Light Rail
- Cheaper vehicles and electric system
- Potential future connectivity with Metro Green Line system if/when the line is extended toward LAX
- Would allow at-grade sections for the alignment

[trackman]

Yes, I suppose they should be studied together. And, for another reason not yet specified. Rail yard! Where will that be? The Westside doesn't have any room for something like that. The Sepulvdea Pass NEEDS Van Nuys in order to be rail. IMO.

[tonyw79sfv]

As a resident along the potential Van Nuys corridor; for the record, I would want a single LRT on Van Nuys Boulevard and Sepulveda Pass corridor. The route would replace Metro Rapid 761, except run the route similar to the old 561 that had the northern terminus at Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink and future HSR station. If that can be accomplished, there should be land Metro can purchase cheaply in Pacoima or San Fernando for a rail yard. I would have favored HRT like the Cahuenga Pass, but that would preclude Van Nuys Boulevard and most of the San Fernando Valley from getting rail service.

[K 22]

Feb 15, 2011 23:25:37 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

Personally, I support a rail tunnel, likely as light rail, to connect to an at-grade route along Van Nuys in the Valley, and along Sepulveda to Culver City and eventually LAX, in the Westside, as I've said before.

I agree with this 100%.

What I'd like to see is an at-grade or above-grade LRT on Van Nuys where it would descend to a below-grade station at Ventura.

Then a straight shot from Van Nuys/Ventura to a below-grade station on the UCLA campus; followed by Wilshire/Westwood for the Purple Line connection.

From there go to Santa Monica/Sepulveda (or go to Santa Monica/Westwood first if it's necessary). And then straight down Sepulveda (next stop obviously would be Expo for the rail connection there) to LAX.

As far as the 405 itself, since I'm not a big fan of running rail lines along highways, take a couple of lanes for a BRT.


BTW, (sorry, I just remembered this) is that rule banning at-grade LRT still in effect in the Valley?

[blueridge]

Feb 16, 2011 9:21:59 GMT -8 K 22 said:

I agree with this 100%.

What I'd like to see is an at-grade or above-grade LRT on Van Nuys where it would descend to a below-grade station at Ventura.

Then a straight shot from Van Nuys/Ventura to a below-grade station on the UCLA campus; followed by Wilshire/Westwood for the Purple Line connection.

From there go to Santa Monica/Sepulveda (or go to Santa Monica/Westwood first if it's necessary). And then straight down Sepulveda (next stop obviously would be Expo for the rail connection there) to LAX.

As far as the 405 itself, since I'm not a big fan of running rail lines along highways, take a couple of lanes for a BRT.


BTW, (sorry, I just remembered this) is that rule banning at-grade LRT still in effect in the Valley?

I agree with K 22. And PLEASE no station at Getty Center. This is ALWAYS in any discussion of a Sepulveda corrider. It would be a huge waste of money and add time to the trip through the pass.
There should be a station at Ventura Blvd. and the next stop should be Wilshire near Westwood or Federal.

[regen]

Both HRT and LRT are possible along the Van Nuys Corridor. The difference is that HRT would have to be either elevated or cut-and-cover, while LRT could be at-grade as well, albeit with very frequent crossings. Closing off the crossings is probably a nonstarter.

[darrell]

Feb 16, 2011 9:21:59 GMT -8 K 22 said:

BTW, (sorry, I just remembered this) is that rule banning at-grade LRT still in effect in the Valley?

That should be ok. The operative language of the Robbins bill (1991 SB 211) is:

"In the area between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood Freeway, there may not be constructed any exclusive public mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway system that is covered and below grade."

I found this by searching for "Robbins" on www.transit-insider.org .

[metrocenter]

This really should be combined into a single project. I think this would require action from the Metro Board.

I support a Van Nuys Corridor light-rail line - one which continues south to Westwood via a tunnel. It should include stations at all major transfer points, including: Oxnard Blvd (Orange Line Busway), Ventura Blvd, UCLA and Wilshire/Westwood (Purple Line Subway).

A tunnel makes more sense than traversing the Sepulveda Pass at-grade. A tunnel would be not require taking homes, and its shorter, straighter route would make it much faster to traverse.

This would be a pretty sweet line.

[bzcat]

THANK YOU for making this thread. It articulates a point that I raised a while ago (as have many others) - if the Valley portion is studied separately, with its relatively low ridership, it could end up as BRT. That may make sense in a narrow scope of perspective which is typical of Metro's studies but it will make no sense in the bigger picture when connectivity to other future lines is taken into consideration (which Metro is NOT allowed to do in such studies). The only way to ensure we don't have incompatible service mode in the 2 segments is to combined into a single study.

[K 22]

Feb 16, 2011 11:52:22 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

This really should be combined into a single project. I think this would require action from the Metro Board.

I support a Van Nuys Corridor light-rail line - one which continues south to Westwood via a tunnel. It should include stations at all major transfer points, including: Oxnard Blvd (Orange Line Busway), Ventura Blvd, UCLA and Wilshire/Westwood (Purple Line Subway).

Don't forget to add Expo/Sepulveda to that list.

By the way, here's something to ponder. Of course, on a Van Nuys LRT, there has to be a stop for the Orange Line connection at Oxnard St. Would you place stations at both Burbank Blvd. and Victory Blvd. both of which are just a handful of blocks away or do you skip one or both?

I'd imagine having 3 stops within 8 city blocks isn't the best idea in the world unless the usage justifies it (and it definitely will for the Oxnard station).

[jdrcrasher]

Finally, this project has it's own thread!! ;D

Anyway: Start at the Sylmar Metrolink station and head down San Fernando OR Truman.

Run on the old PE ROW using Brand, Sepulveda, Parthenia, and Van Nuys.

Make it a straight shot to Westwood Plaza Rd with a station at Ackerman Loop (huge bus stop) in the heart of UCLA, continue down Westwood Blvd with a transfer station at the Purple Line.

Then, jump onto Sepulveda Blvd (turn on Wilkins?) for a station at SaMo blvd, and then a station at Pico (transfer station for Expo Line).

Continue on Sepulveda Blvd all the way to the Fox Hills Mall, jump on the 405 (or make it a tunnel) all the way to the Crenshaw ROW, and head down to LAX.

Feb 16, 2011 14:47:48 GMT -8 K 22 said:

Don't forget to add Expo/Sepulveda to that list.

In order to have both this and a Purple Line tranfer at Westwood, there has to be a couple tight curves. (see comment above)

By the way, here's something to ponder. Of course, on a Van Nuys LRT, there has to be a stop for the Orange Line connection at Oxnard St. Would you place stations at both Burbank Blvd. and Victory Blvd. both of which are just a handful of blocks away or do you skip one or both?

If I HAD to choose, i'd close my eyes and skip Burbank Blvd. There just seems to be more density at Victory.

[bzcat]

Feb 16, 2011 20:09:02 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

In order to have both this and a Purple Line tranfer at Westwood, there has to be a couple tight curves. (see comment above)

The question is why you want to turn the line on to Sepulveda right out of Westwood Village. It's much better to keep the line on Westwood Blvd due to higher residential density and likely destinations (office building/local retail/restaurants/mall on Westwood Blvd between Wilshire and Pico). Sepulveda between Wilshire and Pico has much lower density in comparison (cemetery, freeway, cement plant, autobody shop).

You can still interface with Expo line at Pico Blvd with an underground station/tunnel connecting to Expo line station on Exposition 500ft to the south.

The real decision is where to put the Palms or Venice station on the "405" line. The two options I think that warrants a look is Sepulveda/Venice or Overland/Venice. I would argue that Overland/Venice is again, much better than Sepulveda/Venice because it is closer to where people want to go: Sony Studio, West Culver City, good mix of residential and job center at Overland/Venice vs. 7-Eleven, gas stations, freeway on ramp, no major employer at Sepulveda/Venice.

I would propose the following routing from UCLA to LAX:

Ackerman (UCLA) - Westwood/Wilshire (Purple) - Westwood/Santa Monica - Westwood/Pico (Expo) - Overland/Venice (Sony) - Overland/Jefferson (West LA College) - Sepulveda/Fox Hills Mall - Sepulveda/Howard Hughes - Sepulveda/Manchester - Century/Aviation (LAX)

[Dan Wentzel]

Who at Metro do we communicate with to ask them to combine these two projects?

[carter]

Feb 17, 2011 11:41:39 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Feb 16, 2011 20:09:02 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

In order to have both this and a Purple Line tranfer at Westwood, there has to be a couple tight curves. (see comment above)

The question is why you want to turn the line on to Sepulveda right out of Westwood Village. It's much better to keep the line on Westwood Blvd due to higher residential density and likely destinations (office building/local retail/restaurants/mall on Westwood Blvd between Wilshire and Pico). Sepulveda between Wilshire and Pico has much lower density in comparison (cemetery, freeway, cement plant, autobody shop).

You can still interface with Expo line at Pico Blvd with an underground station/tunnel connecting to Expo line station on Exposition 500ft to the south.

The real decision is where to put the Palms or Venice station on the "405" line. The two options I think that warrants a look is Sepulveda/Venice or Overland/Venice. I would argue that Overland/Venice is again, much better than Sepulveda/Venice because it is closer to where people want to go: Sony Studio, West Culver City, good mix of residential and job center at Overland/Venice vs. 7-Eleven, gas stations, freeway on ramp, no major employer at Sepulveda/Venice.

I would propose the following routing from UCLA to LAX:

Ackerman (UCLA) - Westwood/Wilshire (Purple) - Westwood/Santa Monica - Westwood/Pico (Expo) - Overland/Venice (Sony) - Overland/Jefferson (West LA College) - Sepulveda/Fox Hills Mall - Sepulveda/Howard Hughes - Sepulveda/Manchester - Century/Aviation (LAX)

For what it's worth, that cement plant on Sepulveda is targeted for redevelopment during Expo Phase two. I also think there would be a lot of hostility to running light rail at grade along Westwood from the locals -- it might not be justified but I think it's likely.

Also, it'd probably be a faster shot down Sepulveda and I think a long distance Valley to LAX style line probably should value speed and access to major job centers over local stops in a commercial strip. In fact, though I'm not too big on streetcars, I've often thought a streetcar from UCLA down Westwood Blvd to Expo could work great. It would be better scaled to the community than a higher capacity Light Rail line.

I've also heard grumblings that Big Blue Bus wants to put transit only lanes (a la Wilshire) on Westwood Blvd from Expo to Wilshire. They already run tons of #8 and #12 along that stretch and it's only going to get busier when Expo Phase 2 is finished -- Westwood Blvd is projected to be the busiest Expo station along that stretch by far.


As for the Sepulveda Pass stretch of this line: My back of the napkin calculations says it's about 10 miles as the crow flies from Van Nuys and the Orange Line to the top of Westwood Plaza. With no stops in between and rail cars going 55+ MPH, that's at most a guaranteed 15 minute ride, as opposed to a 45-60 minute drive during rush hour. Talk about a game changer!

Google Map of Van Nuys to UCLA corridor

[bzcat]

Feb 17, 2011 15:32:42 GMT -8 carter said:

For what it's worth, that cement plant on Sepulveda is targeted for redevelopment during Expo Phase two.

And it will be well served by the Expo line

I also think there would be a lot of hostility to running light rail at grade along Westwood from the locals -- it might not be justified but I think it's likely.

Who said anything about street running on Westwood Blvd? It should be underground

Also, it'd probably be a faster shot down Sepulveda and I think a long distance Valley to LAX style line probably should value speed and access to major job centers over local stops in a commercial strip.

I agree... that is why a straight shot down Westwood Blvd and stopping by all the job centers is better than a winding route to Sepulveda that misses all the job centers. The Westwood-Overland routing is mostly straight, and will hit Wilshire/Westwood high rise office buildings, business district/mid rise office buildings around Westwood/Santa Monica, Westside Pavilion, Sony Studios, West Culver City business district, West LA College, and Fox Hills Mall (major bus terminal).

The Sepulveda routing will take a couple of sharp turns, butt up against 405 freeway on one side, low density/light industrial zone, cemetery/park, and lots of gas stations on the other side.

The residential density on Westwood-Overland is also higher than Supelveda from Wilshire to Palms. South of Palms Blvd, Sepulveda Blvd gains more residential density but not by an overwhelming amount.

maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000491e8933d8118cdde4&ll=34.029616,-118.419056&spn=0.091049,0.181789&z=13

In fact, though I'm not too big on streetcars, I've often thought a streetcar from UCLA down Westwood Blvd to Expo could work great. It would be better scaled to the community than a higher capacity Light Rail line.

A bus lane will be plenty enough on Westwood Blvd to achieve that goal

I've also heard grumblings that Big Blue Bus wants to put transit only lanes (a la Wilshire) on Westwood Blvd from Expo to Wilshire. They already run tons of #8 and #12 along that stretch and it's only going to get busier when Expo Phase 2 is finished -- Westwood Blvd is projected to be the busiest Expo station along that stretch by far.

There is no such plan right now and BBB will not be able to do anything to make that happen. Westwood Blvd could use a bus lane but that is entirely up to City of LA (LADOT) and Metro.

As for the Sepulveda Pass stretch of this line: My back of the napkin calculations says it's about 10 miles as the crow flies from Van Nuys and the Orange Line to the top of Westwood Plaza. With no stops in between and rail cars going 55+ MPH, that's at most a guaranteed 15 minute ride, as opposed to a 45-60 minute drive during rush hour. Talk about a game changer!

Amen brother!

[bobdavis]

Although this is in the "I should live so long" category for us "We remember the Red Cars" transit fans, it does seem like a logical addition to the system. When "rush hour" seems to extend from 6 AM to 9 PM on the 405, there should be a big market for an alternative. I would recommend using the nominal "light rail" cars and platforms, because they will be compatible with Green Line and Expo trains. There might be some argument for adding third rail shoes for the underground sections; Boston Blue Line trains run on third rail downtown and then switch to overhead for surface running. Third rail might be more reliable for long tunnels runs, although San Francisco Muni has long underground sections powered by overhead wire, just not long uninterrupted (and difficult to access in case of a broken wire) tunnel running.

[tobias087]

I must say, I hadn't before considered the Overland route, but you've made a very convincing case. First of all, I think that swinging by West LA college would more than offset ridership that any added travel time would take away. But, looking at the map, it seems that the Overland route might not actually be longer: For comparison, going from Santa Monica and Westwood (so there's less complaining about where the Expo transfer station is, although I favor Westwood) to Sepulveda and Slauson is roughly 5.4 miles according to Google, regardless of which route you take. In that case, the Overland route would probably be faster if there are fewer tight curves.

Unless there are issues I haven't thought of yet, I'm swayed!

[jdrcrasher]

Feb 17, 2011 11:41:39 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The question is why you want to turn the line on to Sepulveda right out of Westwood Village. It's much better to keep the line on Westwood Blvd due to higher residential density and likely destinations (office building/local retail/restaurants/mall on Westwood Blvd between Wilshire and Pico). Sepulveda between Wilshire and Pico has much lower density in comparison (cemetery, freeway, cement plant, autobody shop).

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying AFTER the Wilshire station, it should turn on Wilkins and turn again on Sepulveda (if it's possible) so it can hit Sepulveda/Santa Monica. There's more density in that area and its surroundings, than at Westwood/Santa Monica.

Also, on Pico, the distance between the Expo station (and the development there) and Overland Blvd is over 3000 ft. Too far for a portal, IMO.

[carter]

Feb 17, 2011 15:54:32 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Feb 17, 2011 15:32:42 GMT -8 carter said:

For what it's worth, that cement plant on Sepulveda is targeted for redevelopment during Expo Phase two.

And it will be well served by the Expo line



Who said anything about street running on Westwood Blvd? It should be underground



I agree... that is why a straight shot down Westwood Blvd and stopping by all the job centers is better than a winding route to Sepulveda that misses all the job centers. The Westwood-Overland routing is mostly straight, and will hit Wilshire/Westwood high rise office buildings, business district/mid rise office buildings around Westwood/Santa Monica, Westside Pavilion, Sony Studios, West Culver City business district, West LA College, and Fox Hills Mall (major bus terminal).

The Sepulveda routing will take a couple of sharp turns, butt up against 405 freeway on one side, low density/light industrial zone, cemetery/park, and lots of gas stations on the other side.

The residential density on Westwood-Overland is also higher than Supelveda from Wilshire to Palms. South of Palms Blvd, Sepulveda Blvd gains more residential density but not by an overwhelming amount.

maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000491e8933d8118cdde4&ll=34.029616,-118.419056&spn=0.091049,0.181789&z=13



A bus lane will be plenty enough on Westwood Blvd to achieve that goal



There is no such plan right now and BBB will not be able to do anything to make that happen. Westwood Blvd could use a bus lane but that is entirely up to City of LA (LADOT) and Metro.

As for the Sepulveda Pass stretch of this line: My back of the napkin calculations says it's about 10 miles as the crow flies from Van Nuys and the Orange Line to the top of Westwood Plaza. With no stops in between and rail cars going 55+ MPH, that's at most a guaranteed 15 minute ride, as opposed to a 45-60 minute drive during rush hour. Talk about a game changer!

Amen brother!

Regarding running along Westwood: if they're gunna pay to do it underground, then absolutely it should be under Westwood Blvd, not Sepulveda. I'm totally with you on that. I thought we were talking about street level...for some reason.

I also understand that BBB doesn't have direct jurisdiction over Westwood Blvd.

[Transit Coalition]

Feb 17, 2011 14:54:44 GMT -8 Dan Wentzel said:

Who at Metro do we communicate with to ask them to combine these two projects?

At the MoveLA Party on February 18, Faramarz and myself actually spent some time with Metro Board Director Richard Katz and had that discussion. Richard absolutely understood the need to connect and coordinate the two project. Maybe we should prepare a motion to present to Director Katz to ask that these two 30/10 projects be evaluated jointly.

Are there any volunteers to help us draft the motion? You can place it here on the Discussion Board, so others can join in and edit it. We will then clean it up and present to Katz for introduction.

[metrocenter]

Feb 17, 2011 22:53:03 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

Feb 17, 2011 11:41:39 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The question is why you want to turn the line on to Sepulveda right out of Westwood Village. It's much better to keep the line on Westwood Blvd due to higher residential density and likely destinations (office building/local retail/restaurants/mall on Westwood Blvd between Wilshire and Pico). Sepulveda between Wilshire and Pico has much lower density in comparison (cemetery, freeway, cement plant, autobody shop).

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying AFTER the Wilshire station, it should turn on Wilkins and turn again on Sepulveda (if it's possible) so it can hit Sepulveda/Santa Monica. There's more density in that area and its surroundings, than at Westwood/Santa Monica.

I worked in one of the highrises at Santa Monica/Sepulveda until last July. It's true, those high rises do contain a good amount of workers.

But Santa Monica/Sepulveda is also one of the most dangerous intersections in the city for pedestrians. (Even more dangerous than Farmdale/Expo, LOL!) This is due to the reckless drivers flying off the 405 Freeway, mixing with those impatient commuters on SM Blvd and Sepulveda Blvds. Trying to cross those streets requires prayer and nimble feet. I don't know that it's the right place for a subway station.

Santa Monica/Westwood also has quite a bit going on, as well. Certainly more retail. Probably comparable residential density.

Anyway, I think the stop at Santa Monica is important mainly because it would allow people to transfer to the 704 or other buses, and not because of the specific local destinations.

[K 22]

Two things:

1) Where would the Expo/Westwood 405 Line station lie? To the north of the Expo Line (and closer to the Westside Pavillion) or to the south? And also - where can you place the entrances? I can see that being a challenge with this being the Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park area and all.

[ 1a) Or would this station be better off at Pico - though it direct serves the Westside Pavillion - you lose the direct connection with the Expo Line ]

2) It looks like this line is going to be underground for quite a bit. Under the hills and the entirety of the Westwood-Overland route. So I'm guessing it'll resurface near the mall as at-grade - nearby where the 405 crosses Sepulveda and moves southeastward or would it resurface much closer to Manchester and LAX ?

[regen]

It's very exciting to see so many folks interested in this topic! Lots of great discussion going on.

It seems that a recurring question is what to do between Wilshire and Expo, which is clearly one of the tougher challenges. There may be a marginal advantage along Westwood/Overland with the Westside Pavilion, and Sony Pictures after Measure R. Having both Westwood and Sepulveda as options is a good thing in case if one of them turns out to have major problems.

For next week's poll, what do you think are some of the best justifications for a Valley-Westside rail line? Feel free to share your ideas now so we can consolidate them together.

[bzcat]

Feb 18, 2011 11:07:21 GMT -8 K 22 said:

Two things:

1) Where would the Expo/Westwood 405 Line station lie? To the north of the Expo Line (and closer to the Westside Pavillion) or to the south? And also - where can you place the entrances? I can see that being a challenge with this being the Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park area and all.

[ 1a) Or would this station be better off at Pico - though it direct serves the Westside Pavillion - you lose the direct connection with the Expo Line ]

I think the best place for this station is underground on Westwood Blvd, on the south side of the Pico Blvd intersection. The Pico/Westwood intersection is approximately 1000 feet from Exposition/Westwood. If the station box located just south of Pico, that means the platform will extend about half way to Exposition Blvd. We can construct 2 portals:

1. North exit that surface outside Barns & Noble (under the walkway overpass for Westside Pavilion), which also happens to be a major bus transfer point.

2. South exit that surface on the frontage area of the Expo line station on Westwood Blvd.

2) It looks like this line is going to be underground for quite a bit. Under the hills and the entirety of the Westwood-Overland route. So I'm guessing it'll resurface near the mall as at-grade - nearby where the 405 crosses Sepulveda and moves southeastward or would it resurface much closer to Manchester and LAX ?

The line will have to be constructed in phases obviously:
Sylmar Metrolink to Ventura Blvd: surface running
Ventura Blvd to UCLA: underground
UCLA to Expo line: underground
Expo line to Overland/Venice: underground
Overland/Venice to Fox Hills Mall: potentially surface running... depends on if Culver City wants to bury it or use this line as part of its urban design like Long Beach and Santa Monica; otherwise underground...
Fox Hills Mall to Howard Hughes Center: elevated over 405 or underground to avoid the big hill
Howard Hughes Center to Manchester Blvd: surface running (Sepulveda is wide enough here)
Manchester Blvd to Century/Aviation: elevated

[bzcat]

Feb 17, 2011 22:53:03 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

Feb 17, 2011 11:41:39 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The question is why you want to turn the line on to Sepulveda right out of Westwood Village. It's much better to keep the line on Westwood Blvd due to higher residential density and likely destinations (office building/local retail/restaurants/mall on Westwood Blvd between Wilshire and Pico). Sepulveda between Wilshire and Pico has much lower density in comparison (cemetery, freeway, cement plant, autobody shop).

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying AFTER the Wilshire station, it should turn on Wilkins and turn again on Sepulveda (if it's possible) so it can hit Sepulveda/Santa Monica. There's more density in that area and its surroundings, than at Westwood/Santa Monica.

Also, on Pico, the distance between the Expo station (and the development there) and Overland Blvd is over 3000 ft. Too far for a portal, IMO.

Sepulveda/Santa Monica has good density but is otherwise poor place for a subway station due to proximity to freeway traffic. But south of Santa Monica Blvd, Sepulveda is a really poor corridor for rail... this is why Westwood/Overland is better choice for the entire length between UCLA and LAX.

Why would you need a portal from Westwood to Overland

[carter]

Feb 18, 2011 11:46:38 GMT -8 bzcat said:

The line will have to be constructed in phases obviously:
Sylmar Metrolink to Ventura Blvd: surface running
Ventura Blvd to UCLA: underground
UCLA to Expo line: underground
Expo line to Overland/Venice: underground
Overland/Venice to Fox Hills Mall: potentially surface running... depends on if Culver City wants to bury it or use this line as part of its urban design like Long Beach and Santa Monica; otherwise underground...
Fox Hills Mall to Howard Hughes Center: elevated over 405 or underground to avoid the big hill
Howard Hughes Center to Manchester Blvd: surface running (Sepulveda is wide enough here)
Manchester Blvd to Century/Aviation: elevated

I'd definitely think of that alignment as the "ideal" option, but it pencils out as about 18 miles of grade separation and another 10 miles at grade, which sounds expensive. If the 9 mile Wilshire subway is going to be $5 billion, could this be upwards of $10 billion?

Granted, I think it's a 100% worth it, because this is one of the busiest travel corridor in L.A. County, with 300,000 car trips through the Sepulveda Pass, if not first outright.

Feb 18, 2011 11:30:28 GMT -8 regen said:

It's very exciting to see so many folks interested in this topic! Lots of great discussion going on.

It seems that a recurring question is what to do between Wilshire and Expo, which is clearly one of the tougher challenges. There may be a marginal advantage along Westwood/Overland with the Westside Pavilion, and Sony Pictures after Measure R. Having both Westwood and Sepulveda as options is a good thing in case if one of them turns out to have major problems.

For next week's poll, what do you think are some of the best justifications for a Valley-Westside rail line? Feel free to share your ideas now so we can consolidate them together.

300,000 car trips through the Sepulveda pass. The permanence of that travel market is unrivaled in LA.

It would also connect the Valley -- and its Metrolink, Orange Line, and Rapid bus stops -- to the future Purple Line, Expo Line, Crenshaw/Green Line, and LAX.

This is one of a handful of lines in Measure R that has such strong potential to draw people out of their cars because the time savings, especially during peak hours, would be so dramatic.

[trackman]

Ideas for the stretch from Wilshire to Expo..... First, what are the project limits for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor project as identified in the LRTP? I think it is Westwood, no? Is down to the Expo Line within this limit? How can the Board support a project that is beyond the LRTP?

Just asking.

But it is an interesting question none-the-less.

[jdrcrasher]

Feb 18, 2011 11:07:21 GMT -8 K 22 said:

Two things:

1) Where would the Expo/Westwood 405 Line station lie? To the north of the Expo Line (and closer to the Westside Pavillion) or to the south? And also - where can you place the entrances? I can see that being a challenge with this being the Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park area and all.

It doesn't matter. With the Westwood alignment, you have to choose between the two. Not so with the Sepulveda alignment.

Feb 18, 2011 11:52:04 GMT -8 bzcat said:

Sepulveda/Santa Monica has good density but is otherwise poor place for a subway station due to proximity to freeway traffic.

Ahhh, so that is the reason why you want Westwood Blvd. It's further away from the 405, but still in the vincinity.

I will say this: Freeways are a factor when determining where NOT to build a rail line... but I don't think it's the most important one.

But south of Santa Monica Blvd, Sepulveda is a really poor corridor for rail... this is why Westwood/Overland is better choice for the entire length between UCLA and LAX.

Well it does go through less all single-story residential neighborhoods, where homeowner association influence tends to be strong.

Why would you need a portal from Westwood to Overland

Huh? I'm talking about a station portal.