|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 15:07:25 GMT -8
jdrcrasher, your idea is a good one which has been suggested before.
In fact, our current light rail trains can reach 65 mph or more, almost as fast as heavy rail, and trains capable of faster speeds are also available. Finding a maintenance facility for the trains would be a problem, however, if the initial segment does not connect with the Expo line. But is one is built in the Valley it could also be used to if the Orange Line is converted to light rail.
One other option for the Sepulveda pass / 405 route would be regional rail (electrified Metrolink) capable of 110 or 125 mph thru the tunnels. However, reaching 110 mph speeds require at least 2 miles to 3 miles between stations (depending on acceleration). This would be a great option if we had the money to connect Sylmar to Orange County along 405, but politicially Metrolink is not yet popular enough, and High Speed Rail needs to be proven to Californians by the LA to SF line first.
Light rail, via a deep tunnel under the mountains from Van Nuys / Ventura to UCLA and Westwood seems the best initial choice. If we plan for 4 car trains, there should be enough capacity for the time being. In a post-peak-oil future, if half of the car drivers on 405 switch to the train, there will not be enough room for everyone on light rail, but in that environment we should be able to build a second route across the pass, perhaps along a newly-uncongested 405 freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 10, 2010 20:53:09 GMT -8
Hello all. They has been considerable debate on these boards regarding whether a rail line from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside should be be built as a deep-bore subway or as an above-ground rail line built on/near the I-405 over the Sepulveda Pass. It is important for us to consider the technical implications of such a decision, so I set out to try to design the best possible deep-bore alignment and the best possible freeway-adjacent alignment so that we could directly compare the two types of projects. For our comparison, I assume that the corridor will be served by a light-rail service that would eventually extend north to Sylmar and south to the Green Line near LAX. (I, along with many others here, agree for policy/operations reasons that such an approach would be better than a stand-alone HRT line or as an extension of the Purple Line into the SFV.) Further, I assume both alignments would have stations at Wilshire/Westwood and UCLA in a subway configuration. - The "Subway Alternative" proceeds directly north under the Santa Monica Mountains as a deep-bore subway to Ventura/Van Nuys.
- The "I-405 Alternative" curves westward from the UCLA campus to resurface on the east shoulder of the I-405. The line generally follows the I-405 freeway in an at-grade/aerial configuration* along its shoulders and ends in an aerial station at Ventura/Sepulveda.
I designed both rail alignments to meet the following criteria (as defined by the Transportation Research Board): - 65 MPH design speed (i.e. minimum horizontal curve radius: 1,675 ft.)
- Maximum Main Line Sustained Grade: 4.0%
- Maximum Main Line Grade for up to 2,500 ft: 6.0%
- Maximum Main Line Grade for up to 500 ft: 7.0%
The following alignment profiles resulted: From this, I can draw several conclusions: - A all-subway alignment between UCLA and Ventura Blvd. would be 5.5 miles long. An I-405 alignment would be 7.2 miles long.
- The I-405 alignment through the Sepulveda Pass generally features grades of 3-4% south of the summit and 5% north of the summit.
- Given the 4% maximum for prolonged light rail grades, any rail alignment attempting to follow the freeway alignment would require a lengthy below-grade segment (trench or subway) near the summit of the pass. My I-405 alternative features a relatively tall aerial segment (up to 50 ft. high) near the base of the hill to reduce the amount of tunneling required at the top of the hill.
- Any sort of subway configuration in Sherman Oaks would require ALL of the alignment up the north slope to be below-grade.
- The all-subway alternative features 5.5 miles of subway tunnel. The I-405 freeway alternative features a minimum of 2.4 miles of subway tunnel (1.8 miles between UCLA and the I-405, 0.6 miles minimum at the summit of the pass).
- Based on my calculations, UCLA-Ventura travel time would take 5:26 along the subway alternative and 7:07 along the I-405 alignment.
- As an aside, the I-405 alignment would allow the simple inclusion of a Getty Center station. The subway alternative would require a major dogleg to serve the Getty Center, similar to the Red Line Hollywood Bowl story.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 21:30:55 GMT -8
Interesting. But couldn't you make the LRT alternative also hit Van Nuys Blvd, too? And couldn't it be a subway tunnel between the Getty Center station and Van Nuys?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 10, 2010 21:43:53 GMT -8
Hello all. They has been considerable debate on these boards regarding whether a rail line from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside should be be built as a deep-bore subway or as an above-ground rail line built on/near the I-405 over the Sepulveda Pass. It is important for us to consider the technical implications of such a decision, so I set out to try to design the best possible deep-bore alignment and the best possible freeway-adjacent alignment so that we could directly compare to two types of projects. For our comparison, I assume that the corridor will be served by a light-rail service that would eventually extend north to Sylmar and south to the Green Line near LAX. (I, along with many others here, agree for policy/operations reasons that such an approach would be better than a stand-alone HRT line or as an extension of the Purple Line into the SFV.) Further, I assume both alignments would have stations at Wilshire/Westwood and UCLA in a subway configuration. - The "Subway Alternative" proceeds directly north under the Santa Monica Mountains as a deep-bore subway to Ventura/Van Nuys.
- The "I-405 Alternative" curves westward from the UCLA campus to resurface on the east shoulder of the I-405. The line generally follows the I-405 freeway in an at-grade/aerial configuration* along its shoulders and ends in an aerial station at Ventura/Sepulveda.
I designed both rail alignments to meet the following criteria defined (as by the Transportation Research Board): - 65 MPH design speed (i.e. minimum horizontal curve radius: 1,675 ft.
- Maximum Main Line Sustained Grade: 4.0%
- Maximum Main Line Grade for up to 2500 ft: 6.0%
- Maximum Main Line Grade for up to 500 ft: 7.0%
The following alignment profiles resulted: From this, I can draw several conclusions: - A all-subway alignment between UCLA and Ventura Blvd. would be 5.5 miles long. An I-405 alignment would be 7.2 miles long.
- The I-405 alignment through the Sepulveda Pass generally features grades of 3-4% south of the summit and 5% north of the summit.
- Given the 4% maximum for prolonged light rail grades, any rail alignment attempting to follow the freeway alignment would require a lengthy below-grade segment (trench or subway) near the summit of the pass. My I-405 alternative features a relatively tall aerial segment (up to 50 ft. high) near the base of the hill to reduce the amount of tunneling required at the top of the hill.
- Any sort of subway configuration in Sherman Oaks would require ALL of the alignment up the north slope to be below-grade.
- The all-subway alternative features 5.5 miles of subway tunnel. The I-405 freeway alternative features a minimum of 2.4 miles of subway tunnel (1.8 miles between UCLA and the I-405, 0.6 miles minimum at the summit of the pass).
- Based on my calculations, UCLA-Ventura travel time would take 5:26 along the subway alternative and 7:07 along the I-405 alignment.
- As an aside, the I-405 alignment would allow the simple inclusion of a Getty Center station. The subway alternative would require a major dogleg to serve the Getty Center, similar to the Red Line Hollywood Bowl story.
Justin: Thank you for doing this. The subway alternative from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura would also use less energy due to a less acute grade and less miles by avoiding above ground terrain. The other benefit is the travel time. I wonder if design standards would allow the rail vehicles to travel up to 79 mph from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura. I would imagine that the line could come above ground just north of the 101 Freeway and run in an aerial configuration north along Van Nuys Blvd. As far as the Getty goes as a station, you'd probably be looking at about 20% of the ridership that might use the Crenshaw Station. The key benefit is rapid access to both sides of the mountain and good transit distribution from stations on both sides. If you could travel from Ventura Blvd. to UCLA in 5 minutes or less, the mode shift from car to train would be tremendous. Keep up the great work!
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 21:58:12 GMT -8
Justin: Thank you for doing this. The subway alternative from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura would also use less energy due to a less acute grade and less miles by avoiding above ground terrain. Which is why i'm wondering if the LRT alternative's segment between Getty Center and Van Nuys/Ventura can be a subway tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 10, 2010 23:05:02 GMT -8
Justin: Thank you for doing this. The subway alternative from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura would also use less energy due to a less acute grade and less miles by avoiding above ground terrain. The other benefit is the travel time. I wonder if design standards would allow the rail vehicles to travel up to 79 mph from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura. I would imagine that the line could come above ground just north of the 101 Freeway and run in an aerial configuration north along Van Nuys Blvd. As far as the Getty goes as a station, you'd probably be looking at about 20% of the ridership that might use the Crenshaw Station. The key benefit is rapid access to both sides of the mountain and good transit distribution from stations on both sides. If you could travel from Ventura Blvd. to UCLA in 5 minutes or less, the mode shift from car to train would be tremendous. Keep up the great work! Justin, great analysis for a Measure R line that seems to be a great mystery. My vote would be for the deep bored tunnel alternative and it seems like a slam dunk. I'm not sure it would really be much more expensive than the above ground alternative because of its reduced length and the fact that the above ground alternative seems to need quite a bit of tunneling itself. Also, we are always told how expensive tunneling is, but the stations are what really are expensive and the two versions have the same number of underground stations. Like I said before, the Getty Station may seem like a great station but wouldn't get much usage as there is not a whole lot around there. SM BBB #14 stopped making a stop there years ago. Overall, this station really shouldn't figure into the decision between the two modes as it isn't worth it. It would be nice if they can design it and get light rail vehicles to run at 80 mph instead of 65 mph. Either way, whether it is 4 or 5 minutes from Ventura Blvd. directly onto the UCLA campus, it would be incredible. Compare that to what is probably a 30-35 minute drive during rush hour. The big problem seems to be that an initial segment has to go to Expo so they can use that maintenance facility (would it be big enough to handle more cars from another line?) or build another just for this line, although I don't know where this can go.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 5:41:23 GMT -8
Justin, what did you use to make those maps? They are as good as anything put out by Metro. Are you a professional in the industry?
Thank you for doing the vertical profile analysis. I think it confirms that the deep bore tunnel is the superior choice, considering the steep grade required to follow the 405 route. Maglev would be fine with 6%; we can leave the 405 right-of-way for our children or grandchildren to play with.
Is there any problem with 79 or 110 mph speeds thru the tunnel? The grade is less than 1%. I believe the high speed train project plans for even greater speeds thru their long base tunnels.
Are there light rail vehicles on the market which can reach 79 or 89 mph? We could save another minute of travel time in this section, and 79 mph could be achieved for a few seconds with 1 mile station spacing on the rest of the line, shaving a few more minutes off of long trips.
If not, that's more reason to plan for an electrified Metrolink line or moderately high speed line for the 405 corridor in the future. 110 or 125 mph top speeds and 5 mile station spacing from Sylmar to Long Beach or Orange County would give average speeds of over 75 mph with good acceleration, providing faster door-to-door times than car trips even on weekends and late in the evening. This would probably require a third or fourth track, if the Metro trains can't achieve similar top speeds thru the tunnel, or if the route proves so popular that we need to run trains every 2 minutes in rush hour.
I may make an attempt at modeling a high speed regional rail system for Southern California. If the Measure R projects and rising gas prices, and the success of the HSR project lead to the political will to take back space from cars, we could use freeway right-of-way with short tunnel and elevated sections near stations to build a network of high speed Metrolink / HSR tracks with stations every 3 to 5 miles for Metrolink and every 10 or so for long-distance high speed trains, serving the Westside, west SF valley, South Bay and Long Beach, in addition to the current Metrolink and Surfliner routes.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2010 7:30:31 GMT -8
Hello all. They has been considerable debate on these boards regarding whether a rail line from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside should be be built as a deep-bore subway or as an above-ground rail line built on/near the I-405 over the Sepulveda Pass. It is important for us to consider the technical implications of such a decision, so I set out to try to design the best possible deep-bore alignment and the best possible freeway-adjacent alignment so that we could directly compare to two types of projects... [/li][li]Based on my calculations, UCLA-Ventura travel time would take 5:26 along the subway alternative and 7:07 along the I-405 alignment.[/li][li]As an aside, the I-405 alignment would allow the simple inclusion of a Getty Center station. The subway alternative would require a major dogleg to serve the Getty Center, similar to the Red Line Hollywood Bowl story. [/list][/quote] First off, Justin a wonderful analysis of this particular segment. It actually proves what I thought would be the case which is the going along the 405 will be just as fast as the straight tunnel because it can be done on a consistent grade. The difference between 5.5 minutes and 7 minutes in this case is meaningless because if the Getty/Sunset Blvd station is added you'd add a good number of transfer trips that would be needed for patrons who make connections to reach Brentwood as is the case with the 761 Bus and congestion at the Sunset Blvd on-off ramps, in addition to the high ridership at Ventura and Sepulveda and stronger bi-directional flows that a corridor like this will need to be a success. The optional Getty Station could be done via a Private-Public Partnership, since a portion of the Getty Museum funding is based on a trust, that could be done and paid back overtime to Metro in exchange for land even parking at other stations to access the museum all Getty would do is pay for the station. The other benefit is the travel time. I wonder if design standards would allow the rail vehicles to travel up to 79 mph from UCLA to Van Nuys / Ventura. I would imagine that the line could come above ground just north of the 101 Freeway and run in an aerial configuration north along Van Nuys Blvd. As far as the Getty goes as a station, you'd probably be looking at about 20% of the ridership that might use the Crenshaw Station. The key benefit is rapid access to both sides of the mountain and good transit distribution from stations on both sides.TC, Going 79 mph for the sake of going fast will lose the energy savings benefits you've gained going at a consistent speed. Besides 5 minutes to go 5 miles is pretty good at a max of 65 mph. Going 79 mph would require more spacing between trains which can limit your maximum capacity through the pass. If there is another "No ventilation shaft at Runyon Canyon-Tom Hayden" incident like there is for the Red Line tunnel through the Cauhenga Pass that further limits speed and capacity. Now a design consideration that will need careful attention given this 5 plus mile under mountain tunnel stretch is track design for switches and crossovers in case a train is stuck in the tunnel. Whenever a train is stuck or malfunctions in the Red Line tunnel through the Cauhenga Pass, that significantly backs up the entire Red Line as no trains can move any further and now headways increases from 10 minutes to well over 30-40 minutes. With the 405 adjacent corridor, there's more flexibility to include these extra switches for such a delay with little effort. Going along the 405 is just as fast and will probably gain a lot more ridership than going straight to Van Nuys/Ventura because Ventura/Sepulveda is a stronger ridership anchor than Van Nuys/Ventura could ever be. This becomes more present as this line continues north towards Van Nuys CBD and Panaroma City and west and east when the Orange Line ever gets upgraded.The shift would be tremendous if the trip take 7-8 minutes because there's a reliable way of doing this all the time! But let's not forget how the connection to the Purple Line subway will be the strongest component in making this shift possible as patrons will no longer need to drive to go through to Century City and Beverly Hills, they can ride this and transfer to the Purple Line.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 11, 2010 11:25:07 GMT -8
I'm very torn about the station location on Ventura. Van Nuys would seem to have more destinations, and placing the station slightly farther from the 405 would probably ease congestion a bit, or at least avoid having the station contribute to it. But the ridership draw of having the Sherman Oaks Galleria be a 1-stop ride from UCLA in 5 minutes probably shouldn't be ignored, and the time lost from diverting the tunnel slightly west would probably be minimal. Without the station at Sepulveda, the travel time from UCLA would probably be about 25 minutes subway+walking or 10-20 minutes, subway+bus.
Is it feasible for us to do both? Especially if there's the chance that the Van Nuys Station may already be there as part of the SFV East N/S project by the time this gets built.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 11, 2010 11:26:18 GMT -8
I'm not an engineer but the 405 at grade/aerial alignment time estimate seems too low. There seem to be a couple of curves that a light rail train will be going more like 25 mph than 65 mph around. Also, if there is a Getty Center station, you have to add a minute there as well. Also, if there are any grade crossings, the train would have to slow down there too. Finally, can a light rail train be expected to be going 65 mph up a steep grade that is more than 4%? I don't know for sure, but that seems questionable. At the least it seems there would be a lot more power requirements to get a heavy 3-4 car train up a steep mountain at a decent speed.
Where would an at grade or aerial alignment go? Part of the reason the 405 carpool lane project is so expensive is that there is no room for it and they have had to take very expensive homes and cut into the mountain itself. I'd also imagine an aerial alignment would be quite tricky to construct given the tough, uneven and sometimes difficult to access terrain for heavy construction equipment. This wouldn't be like putting up an aerial section in Culver City.
I'm still not sure that aerial would even be cheaper than the tunnel option. Perhaps there are good answers for all these questions, but unless there are, I think the tunnel option seems far better. However, this board is great for discussion and turning opinions the other way and we really know very little detail about both these options.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 11, 2010 13:31:37 GMT -8
I'm very torn about the station location on Ventura. Van Nuys would seem to have more destinations, and placing the station slightly farther from the 405 would probably ease congestion a bit, or at least avoid having the station contribute to it. But the ridership draw of having the Sherman Oaks Galleria be a 1-stop ride from UCLA in 5 minutes probably shouldn't be ignored, and the time lost from diverting the tunnel slightly west would probably be minimal. Without the station at Sepulveda, the travel time from UCLA would probably be about 25 minutes subway+walking or 10-20 minutes, subway+bus. Is it feasible for us to do both? Especially if there's the chance that the Van Nuys Station may already be there as part of the SFV East N/S project by the time this gets built. It is important to realize that rail is for pedestrians, not vehicle pathways. Ventura and Van Nuys Blvd. are an important junction for east-west and north travel. If a north/south busway gets built, then the UCLA / Van Nuys & Ventura Line would require a mode transfer, just like the Red / Orange Line change. In this case, the extra mileage to tunnel to a longer end point such as Sepulveda ends up with no benefit to anyone. The Van Nuys Blvd. transit corridor is one of the top bus corridors in the Metro system. You would probably want to have the subway coming up just north of the 101 freeway to run as elevated north to at least Victory Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 11, 2010 13:57:00 GMT -8
Very interesting, Justin, especially the profiles and tunnel connection from UCLA to Sepulveda Pass. My assumptions were a bit different, seeking to do it with no tunnels. I presumed north of Getty Center it would be entirely on the east side, mostly into a new shelf in the existing freeway cut, and yes, with a tall aerial structure to ease the grade near Ventura Blvd. and ending at the Orange Line park-and-ride lot. How would that work without a summit tunnel on your profile? (A detail of my previous map is below.) South of Sunset I'm thinking of space for columns on the east side of the existing freeway soundwall, then using Veterans Administration land and a curve around the Federal Building, admittedly slower as well as missing UCLA. We should also talk about I-405 vs. Lincoln south of I-10. Although I-405 would be faster for Valley to South Bay trips, (1) there really isn't much development along it in Culver City and Mar Vista and (2) it would be expensive and difficult to fit aerial structure along one side of the freeway, especially after the recent widening. I think we've done most of Metro's Scoping for them, between these different concepts! I'll be very interested in comparative costs.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 11, 2010 14:13:07 GMT -8
Thanks for the positive feedback, everyone! I'm glad this has been helpful. Interesting. But couldn't you make the LRT alternative also hit Van Nuys Blvd, too? And couldn't it be a subway tunnel between the Getty Center station and Van Nuys? I'm very torn about the station location on Ventura. Van Nuys would seem to have more destinations, and placing the station slightly farther from the 405 would probably ease congestion a bit, or at least avoid having the station contribute to it. These are very important questions that deserve discussion and solutions. The exact routing of these corridor north of Ventura and south of Wilshire ought to be known when planning this corridor. Whether this rail corridor goes up Sepulveda or Van Nuys would need to be determined on a regional corridor-wide level and such considerations are beyond the scope of my analysis of the Sepulveda Pass here. I have attempted to reveal the nature of the Sepulveda Pass by comparing methods of getting rail from Westwood to Ventura Blvd. Could the subway alignment go to Ventura/Sepulveda instead of Ventura/Van Nuys? Of course. Could the at-grade alignment go to Ventura/Van Nuys instead of or as well as Ventura/Sepulveda? Yes, but likely only as a large elevated segment with low-speed curves or in a full subway configuration. The exact details of implementing rail on and north of Ventura Blvd. should be looked at by Metro sooner rather than later, but is beyond the scope of my simple freeway vs. subway Sepulveda Pass comparison. jdrcrasher: Yes, it would be possible for the line to proceed from the Getty to Ventura Blvd. directly as a deep tunnel. But, if we are going to be doing a predominantly-subway alignment, I would argue that we should just build the direct subway alternative. What you describe is in effect the subway alternative with a detour to pick up the Getty. Such a diversion would add about 1.5 miles to the direct subway length and the ridership the Getty would generate almost definitely not be worth this loss. Justin, what did you use to make those maps? They are as good as anything put out by Metro. Are you a professional in the industry? I made the maps using a vector-drawing program called Inkscape. I should also comment that some of the map content (i.e. streets, freeways) is adapted from maps Metro has produced. And, I am not a professional in the industry yet. I'm not an engineer but the 405 at grade/aerial alignment time estimate seems too low. There seem to be a couple of curves that a light rail train will be going more like 25 mph than 65 mph around. Also, if there is a Getty Center station, you have to add a minute there as well. Also, if there are any grade crossings, the train would have to slow down there too. Finally, can a light rail train be expected to be going 65 mph up a steep grade that is more than 4%? The perils of building transit corridors along freeways have been well-discussed on these boards. But the one thing transit corridors on freeways do have is speed (by virtue of large horizontal curve radii). The Caltrans Highway Design Manual dictates that freeways with design speeds of 70 MPH must have minimum curve radii of 2,100 ft., more than enough for the light-rail minimum radius of 1,675 ft. Also, in my comparisons, I assume no Getty Center station. Regarding maintaining speeds on a steep slope, slope only directly impacts acceleration, not speed, for which I have accounted for in my calculations. And given that the 4% maximum grade applies for prolonged grades, trains should have no problem maintaining speed on the grade. Where would an at grade or aerial alignment go? Part of the reason the 405 carpool lane project is so expensive is that there is no room for it and they have had to take very expensive homes and cut into the mountain itself. I'd also imagine an aerial alignment would be quite tricky to construct given the tough, uneven and sometimes difficult to access terrain for heavy construction equipment. ... I'm still not sure that aerial would even be cheaper than the tunnel option. Perhaps there are good answers for all these questions, but unless there are, I think the tunnel option seems far better. My I-405 alternative places the alignment at-grade with the freeway upon its embankment slopes with brief aerial segments to skirt around conflicting ramps. Between the Getty and the Sepulveda Blvd. interchange (exit 59), the alignment runs immediately to the east of the freeway, crosses the freeway there, and runs immediately to the west of the freeway until the summit tunnel section, which would begin near Mulholland Dr. Based on all of this information, I completely agree with you that an all-subway alternative would be far easier to build. Given the difficulty of building in this corridor, the costs of mitigations to the freeway and adjacent properties, the required tunneling sections, and the fact the I-405 option is 30% longer, it is entirely possible that the I-405 alternative would cost nearly as much as the all-subway alternative.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2010 14:38:32 GMT -8
Given the difficulty of building in this corridor, the costs of mitigations to the freeway and adjacent properties, the required tunneling sections, and the fact the I-405 option is 30% longer, it is entirely possible that the I-405 alternative would cost nearly as much as the all-subway alternative. Possible, however that extra 30% length has more to do with having to have a station at UCLA which will make the difference exactly 1.7 miles with is the difference between the two alignments. If no station is placed on the UCLA campus or be allowed to tunnel underneath UCLA where does this now put us? Will we back to the horrid VA Hospital Site or do we have no project at all? I don't know, and I don't want us to know that right away since I appreciate this is a conceptual exercise understanding how things differ from one another and what trade-offs and things will be required and deemed neccessary to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 11, 2010 15:07:25 GMT -8
Someone on here mentioned the need to connect to Expo in order to get access to an LRT rail maintenance yard. To get the line from Wilshire to Expo/Olympic-ish, I've always thought there were two options:
1. WESTERN ALIGNMENT: Below grade from Wilshire/Westwood to roughly that park at Cotner/Ohio (Bad News Bears Field?), where it would come above ground to run at grade/elevated on the eastern side of the 405 down to the Expo ROW. Take a look on Google maps--plenty of space there for trains to run. Only that new Public Storage facility is maybe in the way.
2. EASTERN ALIGNMENT: Just run it below grade all the way down to Expo/Westwood or Expo/Sepulveda.
The big question mark in my mind is how to get the line from Exposition down to LAX, assuming you keep it near the 405 (not Lincoln). Due to recent freeway widening, there is virtually no space near the the 405 corridor south of Expo. Run it completely underground or in the median of Sepulveda (a la Expo line option that was ruled out)?
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 11, 2010 16:34:50 GMT -8
I'm very torn about the station location on Ventura. Van Nuys would seem to have more destinations, and placing the station slightly farther from the 405 would probably ease congestion a bit, or at least avoid having the station contribute to it. But the ridership draw of having the Sherman Oaks Galleria be a 1-stop ride from UCLA in 5 minutes probably shouldn't be ignored, and the time lost from diverting the tunnel slightly west would probably be minimal. Without the station at Sepulveda, the travel time from UCLA would probably be about 25 minutes subway+walking or 10-20 minutes, subway+bus. Is it feasible for us to do both? Especially if there's the chance that the Van Nuys Station may already be there as part of the SFV East N/S project by the time this gets built. It is important to realize that rail is for pedestrians, not vehicle pathways. Ventura and Van Nuys Blvd. are an important junction for east-west and north travel. If a north/south busway gets built, then the UCLA / Van Nuys & Ventura Line would require a mode transfer, just like the Red / Orange Line change. In this case, the extra mileage to tunnel to a longer end point such as Sepulveda ends up with no benefit to anyone. The Van Nuys Blvd. transit corridor is one of the top bus corridors in the Metro system. You would probably want to have the subway coming up just north of the 101 freeway to run as elevated north to at least Victory Blvd. It occurs to me that in my question I had the tacit assumption that a Van Nuys project would be also LRT, which would hook up with this one, and have a station at the Orange line to facilitate the heavy arterial corridor ridership. In that case, the question really comes down to which station serves Ventura blvd, as opposed to how the 405 line serves Van Nuys. But based on everything so far that assumption is clearly unjustified . If Van Nuys is a busway terminating at Ventura, then Ventura/Van Nuys is clearly the way to go. But if Van Nuys is LRT north of the Orange line, then the location of the station serving Ventura blvd should be looked at carefully.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 11, 2010 16:42:22 GMT -8
As for the Lincoln vs Sepulveda/405 route, I'm open to the Lincoln alignment, but preferably in such a way that it doesn't share tracks with Expo. Having it run with the Expo line between the 405 and 4th, nearly 4 miles, would increase the frequency of trains through that area compared to the rest of Expo rather unnecessarily. Maybe it could continue south of the 10 along Sepulveda, then cut to Lincoln via either Venice or Culver?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 11, 2010 19:28:42 GMT -8
I couldn't transfer the maps, which are listed in a previous page by Darrell, but here is last Friday's CityWatch article on this subject.
Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Elusive 405 Corridor Rail Line Beyond Measure R By Ken Alpern
Whenever I’ve raised the idea of the Expo Line, the Green Line to LAX, the Wilshire Subway, the Orange Line being a light rail line instead of a busway, or anything other than a mass transit effort, my feedback has always included someone commenting on the need to connect the San Fernando Valley with the Westside via a rail alternative to the 405 freeway. Interestingly enough, pretty much EVERY rail line has had its organized supporters…except the 405 Corridor Rail Line!
Why this is, I do not know—it is one of those many observations that aren’t accompanied by explanations. I see it but I don’t get it. I’ve not seen Valley and Westside grassroots organizations, websites or other efforts sprout up to support what most folks consider to be a no-brainer.
The closest thing anyone’s done to suggest a transit alternative to the 405 freeway (one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in the nation, if not the world) is when Supervisor Yaroslavsky proposed a Busway to be established utilizing the HOV/carpool lanes being finalized in the middle of the Westside portion of the 405 freeway.
Transit nerds like Friends4Expo Co-Chair Darrell Clarke, Transit Coalition Executive Director Bart Reed and I have debated this issue for years, and as the Expo and Crenshaw Light Rail Lines convert from science fiction into the world of reality, and as the Wilshire Subway looks like something that will be built within our lifetimes, the role of this line, and how it can be routed, is a topic for debate that is increasingly relevant.
The following two maps, created by Darrell Clarke, enjoy a lot of interest and support among other transportation enthusiasts, and were made about a year ago before it was determined that the Crenshaw/LAX Line was indeed going to be a light rail. The first map shows a Crenshaw Blvd. and Lincoln Blvd. light rail line complex that both enjoy connectivity to the Expo and Green Lines, with LAX connectivity to boot. The 405 Corridor rail line is also a light rail that closely follows the 405 freeway to connect the Orange Line with the Wilshire and Expo Lines.
Note that the map, created by a Santa Monica resident and veteran of that city’s Planning Commission, does not have the Wilshire Subway to the Sea going entirely to the ocean. Very few transit advocates and planners have supported such a full extension westwards, because the 405/Wilshire Blvd. traffic jam begins in earnest at approximately Wilshire/Bundy, and it is doubtful that Santa Monica wants the Wilshire Blvd. corridor to be megadensified as far west as Lincoln Blvd. (which would normally accompany a subway).
Hence the argument that myself and others have pursued to have the Subway stop at approximately Wilshire/Bundy, and forego any expensive and unnecessary construction if the Expo Line makes it to the ocean (which it pretty much will). An interesting option would be for the Subway to proceed from Wilshire/Bundy to link with the Expo Line at Olympic/Bundy station, but it is also uncertain as to whether West Los Angeles wants that much densification there, either (it already has its hands full with the Bundy Village megadevelopment).
Regardless, when the Wilshire Subway finally reaches Westwood, the focus among grassroots and political leaders and thinkers will likely NOT be getting it as far west as the beach, but rather how to connect or extend it to the San Fernando Valley: The second map (below, to follow) has both outdated as well as rather likely features of what a 405 Corridor rail line would look like, but the thinking behind it follows a different paradigm than a rail routed along the 405 freeway. Rather it is a speedier (like 10 minutes or so!) and more direct subway route between the Valley and the Westside with only two stops between the Orange and Wilshire Subways (UCLA campus and Ventura Blvd.). In this map that follows, Lincoln and Crenshaw Blvds. have heavy rail subways that will likely NOT happen (Crenshaw Blvd. will be a light rail line, regardless of whether it’s above or below ground, or ground level), although any Crenshaw Corridor rail line extension north of the Expo Line will be underground to connect with the Wilshire Subway and, perhaps, the Red Line at Hollywood/Highland.
The details as to whether there would be one or two rail lines to connect the Red Line with the Purple and Crenshaw Lines is a subject I’ve addressed in previous articles, and is somewhat off-topic for the issue of the 405 Corridor rail line. It is an issue, however, that will affect construction of the Wilshire/Purple Line and be a topic for future generations to confront. What we must confront now, however, is the question of whether a Valley-Westside rail line need closely track the 405 freeway: My own personal epiphany on this topic came several years ago when I realized that successful rail lines either supplemented or replaced freeways that serve as major commercial corridors. The Expo and Gold (Pasadena, Eastside and Foothill) Lines track the 10, 710, 60 and 210 freeways, respectively, and the Wilshire Subway actually replaces the original freeway once planned in the 1940’s/50’s for where Wilshire Blvd. now is. With the understanding that the Wilshire Blvd. corridor is so megadense as to need a subway/heavy rail line, I came to the conclusion that the Sepulveda/405 freeway corridor is just as megadense and would ALSO need a subway—perhaps one that directly connected to the Purple/Wilshire Line, because up to 150,000 riders/day or more would use if built right. The uphill grade and narrowness of the Sepulveda Pass made a surface/elevated light rail difficult at best, a light rail would reach full capacity rather quickly, and there aren’t many good potential stops between Wilshire Blvd. and the Orange Line. I therefore believe that a straight shot with a 10 minute subway ride of 100 mph (like the Red Line does under the Cahuenga Pass) and with stops at the Orange Line, Ventura Blvd./Sherman Oaks, UCLA and Wilshire/Westwood would be remarkably attractive to many 405 commuters accessing one side or the other of the Sepulveda Pass. I still await the formation of a grassroots group to promote and advocate for this 405 Corridor line (or Valley-Westside line), but I expect such a group won’t form until the Expo Line is completed, the 405 HOV/carpool lane project is completed, and the Wilshire Subway is on its way to Century City and points west. Still, it is my strong prediction that the really BIG transportation improvement sought by Westsiders and Valley residents after the east-west rail lines are completed will be this elusive, probably wildly popular, but as of yet nonchampioned 405 Corridor Rail Line.
(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning/Land Use Management Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
CityWatch Vol 8 Issue 28 Pub: Apr 9, 2010
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 11, 2010 20:45:24 GMT -8
Another benefit in having it go on Van Nuys, Parthenia, and THEN Sepulveda is that it would cross 2 metrolink line stations: Van Nuys Metrolink station and Sylmar Metrolink station. Add in the Orange Line stop, and that's a pretty good LRT line, one that no doubt will get alot of ridership because of this.
And we NEED the Purple Line to continue to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 11, 2010 20:59:52 GMT -8
As for the Lincoln vs Sepulveda/405 route, I'm open to the Lincoln alignment, but preferably in such a way that it doesn't share tracks with Expo. Having it run with the Expo line between the 405 and 4th, nearly 4 miles, would increase the frequency of trains through that area compared to the rest of Expo rather unnecessarily. Maybe it could continue south of the 10 along Sepulveda, then cut to Lincoln via either Venice or Culver? Actually we need both. The 405 corridor misses the Venice area, but the Lincoln corridor misses Culver City. We need BOTH. The 405 corridor would be a seperate line, and the Green Line would continue on Lincoln after LAX to Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 11, 2010 21:52:30 GMT -8
[Edit: this refers to Stuckintraffic's post on the previous page. Several new post appeared before I finished this one! It talks about two options for the Westwood to Expo segment]
1. Your Western Alignment [Surfacing before Santa Monica and following 405 to Expo] would require a rather tight S-turn south of the Westwood / Wilshire station, unless the station is built at an angle, rather than perpendicular to Wilshire. It would results in rather unfortunately station locations next to the freeway. However, it would be possible to make an east-bound connection with expo (for trains to reach a maintenance facility) if the storage facility and part of the cement plant can be bought. If the planned development happens at the current cement plant location, things could get difficult. An elevated section would be needed at Santa Monica Blvd (due to freeway ramps) and again at Olympic.
2. [Subway all the way to expo] Finding a place for the subway to surface and connect with Expo is even tougher. Google labels Sepulveda / Expo as "Home Junction", and the satellite view shows traces of the former rail "Y" in this area. There used to be a rail line along the west side of Sepulveda Blvd, with connections in both directions to the Santa Monica Air Line (now to become Expo). The east-bound connection is a parking lot and could still be used. However, constructing the transition from subway to at-grade might be difficult. A station under Sepulveda between Pico and Expo would be idea, to provide connections to Expo and the busy Pico bus routes, but the planned development at that corner (mentioned above) could be a problem, again.
Further south, Sepulveda and the freeway are only a block apart, and right-of-way is scare, due to recent freeway widening. Sepulveda has 7 lanes (including parking), which could fit light rail at grade with split platforms, or elevated stations. And elevated structure down the center, or next to the freeway, would also be possible. It's a shame we did not get space reserved when the plans for freeway widening were made. This area is moderate density and most trips would be transfers to east-west bus routes, south of Pico until near LAX, so stations next to the freeway may be acceptable if there are sound walls and good bus connections.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 11, 2010 23:01:59 GMT -8
As for the Lincoln vs Sepulveda/405 route, I'm open to the Lincoln alignment, but preferably in such a way that it doesn't share tracks with Expo. Having it run with the Expo line between the 405 and 4th, nearly 4 miles, would increase the frequency of trains through that area compared to the rest of Expo rather unnecessarily. Maybe it could continue south of the 10 along Sepulveda, then cut to Lincoln via either Venice or Culver? Actually we need both. The 405 corridor misses the Venice area, but the Lincoln corridor misses Culver City. We need BOTH. The 405 corridor would be a seperate line, and the Green Line would continue on Lincoln after LAX to Santa Monica. Well put. As I've brought up for years, as have others, to suggest that the Lincoln and 405/Sepulveda Corridors are identical is to suggest that the Wilshire and I-10/Exposition Corridors are identical. We need both, although the Lincoln Corridor Green Line extension was originally planned to Marina Del Rey and has much, much more definition than the more nebulous (but oh so critical!) 405/Sepulveda Blvd. rail line.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 12, 2010 1:12:16 GMT -8
My assumptions were a bit different, seeking to do it with no tunnels. I presumed north of Getty Center it would be entirely on the east side, mostly into a new shelf in the existing freeway cut, and yes, with a tall aerial structure to ease the grade near Ventura Blvd. and ending at the Orange Line park-and-ride lot. How would that work without a summit tunnel on your profile? (A detail of my previous map is below.) If we choose not to follow the direct tunnel alternative, we have the difficult problem of getting up a 5% grade with only a 4% rail line. As a reminder to all, since the rail line can't "keep up" with the slope, we have three basic options: - Build an all-aerial alignment as Darrell suggested (i.e. get a head start on the grade we cannot keep up with)
- Build an all-below-grade alignment (i.e. start with the grade we cannot keep up with and simply "fall behind")
- Some combination of aerial and below-grade as I suggested (i.e. start with a small head start and then fall behind a little bit)
Here is a profile comparison of the three general options: While I agree it is a good goal to avoid tunnels for cost reasons, there are several implications of that that must be considered. As you can see above, avoiding all tunnels would require a massive aerial structure. It would have a maximum height of around 130 feet. (For comparison, the tallest HOV ramps at the 105-110 interchange is 122 feet tall.) This aerial structure could not even touch down until north of the Ventura Freeway. This would also eliminate the possibility of a below-ground station at Ventura Blvd. My original I-405 proposal featured the hybrid aerial alternative depicted above. By allowing tunnels at the summit of the pass, the required height of aerial structures is kept down to a still-tall 80 feet.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 12, 2010 2:40:01 GMT -8
1. WESTERN ALIGNMENT: Below grade from Wilshire/Westwood to roughly that park at Cotner/Ohio (Bad News Bears Field?), where it would come above ground to run at grade/elevated on the eastern side of the 405 down to the Expo ROW. Take a look on Google maps--plenty of space there for trains to run. Only that new Public Storage facility is maybe in the way. 2. EASTERN ALIGNMENT: Just run it below grade all the way down to Expo/Westwood or Expo/Sepulveda. Option 1 makes the most sense to me. Westwood Blvd heads directly south towards Westwood Park (the park to which you were referring), which makes that park area the ideal place for the tunnel portal. And Cotner Avenue is an industrial street, so I doubt anybody there would have objections to an above-grade line in this location. A line here would end at Expo station at Cotner/Expo (or more familiarly, Pico/Sepulveda). The options for continuing south from here would need to be explored. Final comment: Sepulveda and Lincoln are distinct corridors and they both need rail service. Anybody who has tried to cross over from Lincoln to Sepulveda during any rush hour knows that the physical distance is nothing compared to the effective distance created by the stopped traffic on Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, Ocean Park, etc.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 12, 2010 2:52:33 GMT -8
BTW, I favor the straight subway route across the mountains. The purpose of this line is speedy service between the Valley and the Westside for daily commuters (i.e., workers and students).
UCLA needs a station. It has 80,000 students, faculty and staff, most of whom commute. Anybody who doubts the importance of this station should compare traffic on the 405 when UCLA is in session vs. when it is not.
The Getty Center, on the other hand, does not need a station. It has hundreds of occasional visitors per day, most of whom are going to drive. The station would be nice, but IMO it is not worth the money and diversion from the straight route.
Now I have a possibly naive question. Suppose the straight subway route were chosen, with no stations between UCLA and Van Nuys/Ventura. Since LRT and HRT use the same types of tracks, would it not make sense to engineer the tunnels to allow either trains to run in them? The idea is to allow for flexibility in the future. We may think LRT makes sense now, but 40-50 years from now they might want to switch to HRT service. This would be a lot easier if they could simply replace the pantographs with a third rail and change out the station platforms.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 5:42:25 GMT -8
Keep in mind, we need to consider connecting the 405 and Harbor Subdivision corridors in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 5:54:06 GMT -8
We should also talk about I-405 vs. Lincoln south of I-10. Although I-405 would be faster for Valley to South Bay trips, (1) there really isn't much development along it in Culver City and Mar Vista and (2) it would be expensive and difficult to fit aerial structure along one side of the freeway, especially after the recent widening. Honestly, we need BOTH, not one or the other. The 405 corridor would be a separate line, while the Green Line would continue on Lincoln to Santa Monica after LAX.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 12, 2010 9:15:29 GMT -8
Keep in mind, we need to consider connecting the 405 and Harbor Subdivision corridors in the future. Could you clarify this? Do you perhaps mean the 405 line needs to connect with the Crenshaw Corridor (which will operate on a portion of the Harbor Subdivision)?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 9:56:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 12, 2010 9:58:20 GMT -8
2. Finding a place for the subway to surface and connect with Expo is even tougher. Google labels Sepulveda / Expo as "Home Junction", and the satellite view shows traces of the former rail "Y" in this area. There used to be a rail line along the west side of Sepulveda Blvd, with connections in both directions to the Santa Monica Air Line (now to become Expo). The east-bound connection is a parking lot and could still be used. However, constructing the transition from subway to at-grade might be difficult. A station under Sepulveda between Pico and Expo would be idea, to provide connections to Expo and the busy Pico bus routes, but the planned development at that corner (mentioned above) could be a problem, again. Here's a previously-posted photo map (what we don't have here is a useful index!):
|
|