conceptual alternatives reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/conceptual...

52
Conceptual Alternatives Report

Upload: others

Post on 25-Aug-2020

16 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report

Page 2: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 3: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

SEPULVEDA TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECTContract No. PS40442000

Conceptual Alternatives ReportTask No. 3.7

Prepared for:

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Prepared by:

601 W. 5th Street, Suite 1000Los Angeles, California 90071

Review

Date Name

Originator 6/4/2019 Armeen Neshat; Elenna Salcido

Checker 9/12/2019 Steven Greene

Backchecker 9/17/2019 Dennis Henderson

QA/QC Manager 9/19/2019 Zafer Müdar

Project Manager 9/20/2019 Dennis Henderson

September 2019

Page 4: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 5: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportTable of Contents

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project i

Table of Contents1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1-11.2 Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1-21.3 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................... 1-2

2 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................... 2-12.1 Roadway Facilities ........................................................................................................... 2-1

Existing Facilities ................................................................................................. 2-1 Planned Roadway Facilities ................................................................................. 2-4

2.2 Transit Facilities and Services ........................................................................................... 2-4 Existing Facilities and Services ............................................................................. 2-4 Planned Los Angeles World Airports Transit Project ............................................ 2-6

3 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 3-13.1 Approach to Definition of Conceptual Alternatives .......................................................... 3-13.2 HRT 1 ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

Operating Plans ................................................................................................... 3-43.3 HRT 2 ............................................................................................................................... 3-5

Operating Plans ................................................................................................... 3-73.4 HRT 3 ............................................................................................................................... 3-8

Operating Plans ................................................................................................. 3-113.5 MRT 1 ............................................................................................................................ 3-12

Operating Plans ................................................................................................. 3-153.6 Westside Alignment Options .......................................................................................... 3-16

Sepulveda-Gayley Alignment Option ................................................................. 3-18 Bundy-Veteran Alignment Option...................................................................... 3-18

3.7 Tunnel Configuration Options ........................................................................................ 3-183.8 Alignment and Configuration Options Included in Conceptual Engineering Drawings ..... 3-20

4 STATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4-1

5 SUPPORTING FACILITIES AND SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 5-15.1 Sepulveda at Nebraska MSF Option ................................................................................. 5-35.2 Van Nuys at Orange Line MSF Option ............................................................................... 5-35.3 Sepulveda at Orange Line MSF Option ............................................................................. 5-35.4 Metrolink at Woodman MSF Option ................................................................................ 5-3

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 6-1

Page 6: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportTable of Contents

ii Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

AppendixAPPENDIX A STATION-TO-STATION TRAVEL TIMES

Tables

Table 2-1. Existing Bus Providers and Service Types ................................................................... 2-4Table 2-2. Metro Fixed-Guideway Transit System in 2042 .......................................................... 2-6Table 3-1. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 1 .................................................. 3-5Table 3-2. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 2 .................................................. 3-7Table 3-3. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 3 ................................................ 3-11Table 3-4. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under MRT 1 ............................................... 3-16Table 3-5. Options Included in Conceptual Engineering Drawings ............................................ 3-21Table 4-1. Proposed Sepulveda Transit Corridor Stations ........................................................... 4-1

Figures

Figure 1-1. Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1-3Figure 2-1. 2042 No Build Transportation System ........................................................................ 2-2Figure 2-2. Existing Bus Service ................................................................................................... 2-5Figure 3-1. HRT 1 Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-2Figure 3-2. HRT 1, Looking South at Expo/Sepulveda Station ....................................................... 3-3Figure 3-3. HRT 2 Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-6Figure 3-4. HRT 3 Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-9Figure 3-5. HRT 3, Looking North at Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard Station ............... 3-10Figure 3-6. HRT 3, Looking South on Sepulveda Boulevard at Weddington Street ...................... 3-10Figure 3-7. MRT 1 Alternative.................................................................................................... 3-13Figure 3-8. MRT 1, Looking North at Mulholland Drive Bridge ................................................... 3-14Figure 3-9. MRT 1, Looking South on Sepulveda Boulevard at Weddington Street ..................... 3-14Figure 3-10. MRT 1, Looking North at Station at Metrolink Van Nuys Station .............................. 3-15Figure 3-11. Westside Alignment Options ................................................................................... 3-17Figure 3-12. Typical 20-Foot Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration ..................................................... 3-19Figure 3-13. Typical 27-Foot Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration ..................................................... 3-19Figure 3-14. Typical Forty-Foot Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration ............................................... 3-20Figure 5-1. Potential Locations for a Maintenance and Storage Facility ....................................... 5-2

Page 7: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportAbbreviations / Acronyms

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project iii

Abbreviations / Acronyms

AVTA Antelope Valley Transportation AuthorityBRT bus rapid transitHOV high-occupancy vehicleHOT high-occupancy tollHRT heavy rail transitI- InterstateLADOT Los Angeles Department of TransportationLAX Los Angeles International AirportLRT light rail transitMetro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMRDC Metro Rail Design CriteriaMRT monorail/rubber tire transitMSF maintenance and storage facilityMWD Metropolitan Water DistrictNEPA National Environmental Policy ActP3 public-private partnershipUCLA University of California Los Angeles

Page 8: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 9: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report1 Introduction

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 1-1

1 INTRODUCTIONThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has initiated the preparationof a Transit Feasibility Study and Technical Compendium for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Projectand has contracted with Sepulveda Mobility Partners as the Technical Contractor for provision ofplanning and engineering services in support of the study.

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Sepulveda Transit Feasibility Study is to develop and evaluate a range of high-capacity rail transit alternatives to serve the large and growing travel market and transit needs in theSepulveda Corridor between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, including the Los AngelesInternational Airport (LAX) area. For transit to be a competitive travel option that attracts new riders,there is a need to increase the speed, frequency, capacity, and reliability of transit service andprovide convenient connections to existing and planned transit lines. The alternatives developed inthe study are intended to represent a range of rail transit modes, alignments, and station locationsfor addressing the identified transportation needs of the Sepulveda Corridor.

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is included in Metro’s 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan,in the Measure R expenditure plan as the “San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection,” and inthe Measure M expenditure plan as the “Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor.” The Measure MExpenditure Plan provides for implementation of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project in twophases: 2033 for the Valley-Westside segment and 2057 for the Westside-LAX segment.

Based on the Measure M phasing plan for the Project, this study is designed to first develop andevaluate fixed-guideway transit alternatives between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside ofLos Angeles (Valley-Westside) and then evaluate extensions of those alternatives from the Westsideto LAX. The study is being undertaken in coordination with separate Metro efforts studying theimplementation of ExpressLanes on Interstate 405 (I-405) between US 101 and I-10, the potentialoperation of bus rapid transit service in the corridor, and delivery of the Sepulveda Transit CorridorProject through a public-private partnership (P3).

At the completion of the study, a reduced number of alternatives will be recommended to the MetroBoard of Directors for refinement and further study during a subsequent environmental reviewprocess. The environmental review of the Valley-Westside segment is currently anticipated to beginfollowing Metro Board review and action at the end of this study. The Westside-LAX segment will bethe focus of a separate environmental review process in the future.

This Sepulveda Transit Feasibility Study is being conducted so that the study can be referencedduring scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California EnvironmentalQuality Act in the next phase of the Project. The intent is for the results and decisions of this study tosupport the next phase environmental review by informing the purpose and need or goals andobjectives; transit mode, termini, and general alignments for consideration; and the preliminaryscreening of alternatives and elimination of unreasonable alternatives. To meet the requirements of23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 450 – Linking the Transportation and NEPA Processes, the studyis being conducted through input from an extensive public outreach effort and through closecoordination with local, state, and federal agencies and by ensuring that the process for developing

Page 10: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report1 Introduction

1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

and screening of alternatives, the level of definition of the alternatives, and the types and level ofanalyses are commensurate with the decisions that need to be made.

1.2 Project Study Area

Figure 1-1 shows the Study Area for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. It is generally centeredon I-405, extending approximately two miles to the east and to the west. The northern limit is atRoscoe Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, and the southern limit is at LAX. The Study Arearepresents the area in which the transit concepts and ancillary facilities are expected to be located.

1.3 Purpose of this Report

The Initial Screening Report documented the process of developing, evaluating, and refining initialtransit concepts for the Valley-Westside and Westside-LAX segments of the Project. Through theprocess of conceptual engineering and associated operational analyses, the transit conceptsrecommended for the Valley-Westside segment in that report have been more fully developed intoproject alternatives.

This Conceptual Alternatives Report documents the physical and operating characteristics of theValley-Westside alternatives, including a description of the alignments, configuration, stations,operating plans, fleet requirements, fare assumptions, and supporting facilities as presented in theConceptual Engineering Drawings. The design decisions, options, and outstanding issues associatedwith the development of the conceptual engineering plans will be documented in a subsequentEngineering Analysis Report.

The project alternatives will undergo a final evaluation. The results of that evaluation, as well asdocumentation of additional public input and agency and stakeholder coordination, will bepresented in the Final Feasibility Report.

The alternatives described in this report have been developed for the purposes of estimating costsand identifying potential impacts of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. All alternatives aresubject to review and change during the environmental review process.

Page 11: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report1 Introduction

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 1-3

Figure 1-1. Study Area

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Page 12: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 13: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-1

2 No Build AlternativeThe No Build alternative represents the future transportation infrastructure and services in the StudyArea if the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project were not to be built. It provides a baseline againstwhich to compare the performance of each alternative. The No Build alternative includes all existingand under construction highway and transit services and facilities, as well as the committed transitand highway projects scheduled to be operational by 2042 in the Measure M Expenditure Plan andthe Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/SustainableCommunities Strategy. In consultation with the Federal Transit Administration, Metro selected 2042as the analysis year to provide consistency across studies for Measure M transit corridor projects.

Figure 2-1 displays a map of 2042 No Build transportation facilities in the Study Area and surroundingareas without the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. The following sections describe existing andplanned highway facilities within the portion of the Study Area in which the Valley-Westsidealternatives are located, followed by existing and planned transit facilities and services.

2.1 Roadway FacilitiesExisting Facilities

The Study Area is served by a network of freeways and arterial roadways. The following freewaystravel through the portion of the Study Area in which the Valley-Westside alternatives are located:

µ I-10 travels east-west through the Westside in the southern part of the Study Area. Withinthe Study Area, I-10 consists of four general purpose lanes in each direction, with no high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.

µ I-405 travels north-south through the center of the Study Area. I-405 ranges from four to sixgeneral purpose lanes in each direction and has one continuous HOV lane in each direction.

µ US 101 travels east-west through the San Fernando Valley in the northern part of the StudyArea. US 101 has five general purpose lanes in each direction, with auxiliary lanes near theI-405 interchange, and does not have any HOV lanes in either direction within the StudyArea.

In the Westside, the roadway network includes the following major arterials:

µ Bundy Drive travels north-south between Sunset Boulevard and Stanwood Drive (south ofNational Boulevard), where it becomes Centinela Avenue. Within the Study Area, BundyDrive generally has one lane in each direction north of Wilshire Boulevard, and two lanes ineach direction south of Wilshire Boulevard.

µ Olympic Boulevard travels east-west between the City of Santa Monica and Downtown LosAngeles. Within the Study Area, Olympic Boulevard has three lanes in each direction.

µ Overland Avenue travels north-south between Santa Monica Boulevard and the edge of FoxHills. Within the Study Area, Overland Avenue generally has two lanes in each direction southof Pico Boulevard and one lane in each direction north of Pico Boulevard.

µ Pico Boulevard travels east-west between the City of Santa Monica and Downtown LosAngeles. Within the Study Area, Pico Boulevard generally has three lanes in each directioneast of Gateway Boulevard and two lanes in each direction west of Gateway Boulevard.

Page 14: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

2-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 2-1. 2042 No Build Transportation System

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 15: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-3

µ Santa Monica Boulevard travels east-west between the City of Santa Monica and SunsetBoulevard in Silver Lake. Within the Study Area, Santa Monica Boulevard has three lanes ineach direction. Santa Monica Boulevard is designated as State Route 2 from the SantaMonica City Limits to I-405.

µ Sawtelle Boulevard travels north-south between the Veterans Affairs Healthcare Centercampus and Overland Avenue. Within the Study Area, Sawtelle Boulevard has one lane ineach direction north of Mississippi Avenue and two lanes south of Mississippi Avenue.

µ Sepulveda Boulevard travels north-south between Mission Hills and the South Bay. Withinthe Westside, Sepulveda Boulevard has two lanes in each direction.

µ Sunset Boulevard travels east-west between Pacific Palisades and Downtown Los Angeles.Within the Study Area, Sunset Boulevard has two lanes in each direction.

µ Wilshire Boulevard travels east-west between the City of Santa Monica and Downtown LosAngeles. Within the Study Area, Wilshire Boulevard generally has three lanes in eachdirection west of I-405 and four lanes in each direction east of I-405. During weekday peakperiods, one lane becomes a bus-only lane in parts of the Study Area.

In the San Fernando Valley, the roadway network includes the following major arterials:µ Burbank Boulevard travels east-west between Woodland Hills and the City of Burbank.

Within the Study Area, Burbank Boulevard has two lanes in each direction.µ Magnolia Boulevard travels east-west between Sherman Oaks and the City of Burbank.

Within the Study Area, Magnolia Boulevard has two lanes in each direction.µ Oxnard Street travels east-west between Van Nuys and North Hollywood. Within the Study

Area, Oxnard Street has two lanes in each direction.µ Roscoe Boulevard travels east-west between Canoga Park and Sun Valley. Within the Study

Area, Roscoe Boulevard has three lanes in each direction.µ Sepulveda Boulevard travels north-south between Mission Hills and the South Bay. Within

the Valley, Sepulveda Boulevard has three lanes in each direction.µ Sherman Way travels east-west between Canoga Park and the City of Burbank. Within the

Study Area, Sherman Way has three lanes in each direction.µ Van Nuys Boulevard travels north-south between Pacoima and Sherman Oaks. Within the

Study Area, Van Nuys Boulevard generally has three lanes in each direction north of ChandlerBoulevard and two lanes in each direction south of Chandler Boulevard.

µ Vanowen Street travels east-west between Canoga Park and the City of Burbank. Within theStudy Area, Vanowen Street has two lanes in each direction.

µ Ventura Boulevard travels east-west between Hidden Hills and Studio City. Within the StudyArea, Ventura Boulevard generally has three lanes in each direction west of I-405 and twolanes in each direction east of I-405.

µ Victory Boulevard travels east-west between Canoga Park and the City of Burbank. Withinthe Study Area, Victory Boulevard has three lanes in each direction.

Page 16: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

2-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Planned Roadway Facilities

The only major highway improvement in the vicinity of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor included in theNo Build alternative is the addition of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-405 between the US 101and I-10 as part of the I-405 ExpressLanes Project. While the exact configuration of the ExpressLanesProject has not been determined, it is assumed to include two HOT lanes in each direction for thepurpose of this study. The I-405 ExpressLanes may also be used by bus rapid transit (BRT), Rapid Bus,and express bus services, as are other ExpressLanes in Los Angeles County.

2.2 Transit Facilities and ServicesExisting Facilities and Services

As shown in Figure 2-1, Metro currently provides fixed-guideway bus and rail service in the StudyArea with the Metro Orange and Expo Lines. The Metro Green Line provides service to areasimmediately adjacent to the southern limits of the Study Area.

The Study Area is also served extensively by buses operated by the Antelope Valley Transit Authority(AVTA), Santa Clarita Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver CityBus, the Los Angeles Departmentof Transportation (LADOT), LAX Flyaway, and Metro. Big Blue Bus and Culver CityBus both provideservice primarily on the Westside and connect the Westside to activity centers south of the SanFernando Valley. Services operated by AVTA and Santa Clarita Transit within the Study Area primarilytravel north-south to connect the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita to activity centers within LosAngeles. LADOT operates both commuter service (Commuter Express) and local service (DASH)within the Study Area. The LAX Flyaway provides express service between key locations and LAX,with multiple stops located within the Study Area. Metro bus lines operate throughout the StudyArea and provide service between the Study Area and the rest of the Metro service area, includingconnecting service between the San Fernando Valley and Westside. Table 2-1 lists the types of busservices provided by these operators throughout the Study Area. Figure 2-2 displays a map of transitservices within the Study Area that connect the San Fernando Valley and the Westside.

Table 2-1. Existing Bus Providers and Service Types

Service Service Type

Antelope Valley Transit Authority Commuter bus service

City of Santa Clarita Transit Commuter bus service

Culver CityBus Rapid bus service, local bus service

LAX Flyaway Express bus service

LADOT Commuter bus service, local bus service

Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines Rapid bus service, local bus service

Metro Rapid Bus, local bus service

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 17: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-5

Figure 2-2. Existing Bus Service

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 18: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report2 No Build Alternative

2-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

2.2.1.1 Planned Metro Transit ProjectsAccording to the Measure R and Measure M Expenditure Plans, by 2042, the Metro transit projectslisted in Table 2-2 will be operational throughout Los Angeles County. During peak hours, heavy railtransit (HRT) services will operate at 4-minute headways, and light rail transit (LRT) and BRT serviceswill operate at 5-minute headways. During non-peak hours, HRT, LRT, and BRT services other thanthe Metro Orange Line will operate at 10-minute headways, and the Metro Orange Line will operateat 8-minute headways.

Table 2-2. Metro Fixed-Guideway Transit System in 2042

Transit Line Mode Alignment Description

Purple Line HRT Union Station to Westwood/VA Station

Red Line HRT Union Station to North Hollywood Station

Green Line LRT AMC 96th Street Transit Station to Torrance

Crenshaw Line LRT Norwalk Green Line Station to Expo/Crenshaw Station

Blue LineGold Line

LRT Claremont to Downtown Long Beach

Gold LineExpo Line

LRT Lambert Road to Downtown Santa Monica Station

Peck Road to Downtown Santa Monica Station

East San Fernando Valley TransitCorridor Line

LRT Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station to Metro OrangeLine Van Nuys

West Santa Ana Branch Line LRT Union Station to Artesia

Orange Line BRT Del Mar Station to Chatsworth

North San Fernando Valley Line BRT North Hollywood to Chatsworth

Vermont Corridor BRT Sunset Boulevard to 120th Street

Note: With the completion of the Regional Connector Project in Downtown Los Angeles, the Metro Blue, Gold, and ExpoLines will become two lines, one north-south and one east-west.

Planned Los Angeles World Airports Transit Project

The No Build alternative includes the LAX Automated People Mover, currently under construction byLos Angeles World Airports. It will operate between the LAX Central Terminal Area and the AirportMetro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, where it will connect to the Metro Rail system.

Page 19: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-1

3 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVESThe conceptual alternatives selected for further study in the Initial Screening Report are detailed inthe Conceptual Engineering Drawings and described in this chapter. Descriptions of the alignments,configuration, stations, operating plans, fleet requirements, fare assumptions, and supportingfacilities are provided in this chapter.

3.1 Approach to Definition of Conceptual AlternativesThe Initial Screening Report recommended that three HRT alternatives and one monorail/rubber tiretransit (MRT) alternative be evaluated further, including the development of conceptual engineeringdrawings. All four conceptual alternatives extend from the Metro Expo Line in the south to theMetrolink Ventura County Line Van Nuys Station in the north.

In the San Fernando Valley, the four alternatives include a variety of station locations andconfigurations at Ventura Boulevard, the Metro Orange Line, and the Metrolink Ventura Line VanNuys Station. Because they are particular to each alternative, these station configurations arediscussed with the appropriate alternative.

In the Westside, the base alignment for all conceptual alternatives includes a southern terminus atthe Expo/Sepulveda Station and connects to the planned Metro Purple Line Westwood/UCLA(University of California Los Angeles) Station under Westwood Boulevard. Alignment options with asouthern terminus at the Expo/Bundy Station and with different roadway alignments at theWestwood/UCLA Station were developed to permit the evaluation of a variety of means to connectto the Metro Expo and Purple Lines. Because these alignment options apply to multiple alternatives,they are discussed separately, following the discussion of the four base alignments.

3.2 HRT 1This section describes the base alignment of the proposed HRT 1, an entirely underground HRT line,illustrated in Figure 3-1. Including tail tracks, the HRT 1 alignment is 12.9 miles from end to end andwould include seven stations.

HRT 1 would have a southern terminus at an underground station oriented generally in a north-southdirection on private property just north of the Expo/Sepulveda Station on the Metro Expo Line, withdouble crossovers north and south of the station. Figure 3-2 illustrates the station entrance adjacentto the existing Expo/Sepulveda Station, which would be similar for all alternatives.

Page 20: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 3-1. HRT 1 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019Note: HRT 1 alignment in the Conceptual Engineering Drawings depicts the Bundy-Veteran alignment option

on the Westside.

Page 21: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-3

Figure 3-2. HRT 1, Looking South at Expo/Sepulveda Station

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

North of the station, the alignment would turn slightly east toward Bentley Avenue and continue in atunnel under Bentley Avenue. Tunneling under Bentley Avenue rather than Sepulveda Boulevardavoids the 96-inch Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Sepulveda Feeder under SepulvedaBoulevard. Just south of Santa Monica Boulevard, there would be an underground station generallyoriented north-south under Bentley Avenue, with an entrance between Sepulveda Boulevard andBentley Avenue. The location of this station may need to be modified pending detailed investigationof the Santa Monica Fault Zone in this area. To the north of the station, a special seismic sectionwould likely be required for the tunnel as it crosses the fault zone.

North of Santa Monica Boulevard, the alignment would follow an S-curve to the northeast to reachWestwood Boulevard, traveling under residences, businesses, and smaller roadways. Continuingnorth under Westwood Boulevard, it would reach a proposed station at Wilshire Boulevard and thePurple Line, generally oriented north-south at the east end of the Purple Line station. This stationwould provide a connection to the Purple Line station.

North of the Purple Line, the alignment would continue northeast toward the UCLA campus. Once oncampus, the tunnel would turn to align north-south under Westwood Plaza. A station would belocated under Westwood Plaza just north of the UCLA Medical Center, with a double crossover northof the station.

The alignment on the UCLA campus will have to consider the locations of equipment sensitive to noise,vibration, and electromagnetic fields. In addition, deviations from Metro Rail Design Criteria (MRDC)(Metro, 2014-2016) standards governing horizontal curves may be required to allow a station centrallylocated on campus and a connection to the Metro Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station.

Page 22: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

HRT 1 would continue north under the Santa Monica Mountains. The alignment would roughlyfollow, though not parallel, Beverly Glen Boulevard for much of its length under the mountains.There would be one double crossover under the Santa Monica Mountains. Once in the San FernandoValley, the tunnel would continue north under Van Nuys Boulevard. There would be an undergroundstation at Ventura Boulevard, with a double crossover south of the station.

The tunnel would remain under Van Nuys Boulevard, including a station beneath the Metro OrangeLine, which would provide a connection with the Metro Orange Line and the East San FernandoValley Transit Corridor. The Orange Line busway and station would be grade-separated at thislocation as part of the Metro Orange Line Improvements Project, which would result in a two-leveltransfer from the underground Sepulveda Transit Corridor station to the aerial Orange Line station.The future East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor station is planned to be at-grade. Because theEast San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor and grade-separated Metro Orange Line stations at thislocation do not have final designs, continued coordination will be necessary for a well-integratedtransfer station. There would be a double crossover south of this station.

North of the Metro Orange Line, HRT 1 would continue north under Van Nuys Boulevard until ShermanWay, where it would curve slightly to the east and parallel Van Nuys Boulevard under the properties onthe east side of the roadway. An off-street underground station would provide a connection with theMetrolink Van Nuys Station, as well as the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor station atthis location. Double crossovers would be provided north and south of this terminus station. The tailtracks of the alignment would extend north past the Metrolink right-of-way to Arminta Street.

Operating Plans

3.2.1.1 Headways and Span of ServiceHRT 1 would operate over its 12.2-mile route from the Expo/Sepulveda Station to the Metrolink VanNuys Station in 16 minutes and 12 seconds, allowing for a dwell time of 30 seconds at transferstations and 20 seconds at intermediate stations. (Note that the operational length of the alignmentis slightly less than its physical length, which includes tail tracks.) Headways would be 4 minutes with6-car trains during peak periods and 10 minutes with 4-car trains during off-peak periods. To achievethese operational parameters and serve ridership demand, HRT 1 would require a fleet of 87vehicles, including spares. Station-to-station travel times are included in Appendix A. Detailedoperating statistics are included in the O&M Cost Estimates Report (Metro, 2019). The SepulvedaTransit Corridor would charge the standard fare used across the Metro system.

3.2.1.2 Supporting Bus ServiceIt is expected that some Metro and municipal bus services would be modified to eliminateduplicative service and to support regional access to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Table 3-1summarizes the bus service changes that would be made to support HRT 1.

Page 23: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-5

Table 3-1. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 1

Route Proposed ModificationPeak

HeadwayMetro Line 234 Operate from Sylmar to West Los Angeles (replacing Metro Rapid

734’s function) all day20 minutes

Metro Rapid 734 Eliminate N/AMetro Rapid 744 Reroute the portion along Van Nuys Boulevard to instead continue

eastward on Ventura Boulevard to Universal City/Studio City10 minutes

Metro Rapid 788 Eliminate N/ALADOT Commuter Express573

Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at VenturaBoulevard/Van Nuys Boulevard Station

20 minutes

AVTA 786 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atMetrolink Van Nuys Station

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 792 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atMetrolink Van Nuys Station

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 797 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atMetrolink Van Nuys Station

20 minutes

Note: Service changes were assumed for purposes of travel demand forecasting and to calculate operations andmaintenance costs. Operators will be consulted to refine and finalize service changes during the environmentalreview process.

3.3 HRT 2This section describes the base alignment of the proposed HRT 2, an entirely underground HRT line,illustrated in Figure 3-3. The drawings for HRT 2 in the Conceptual Engineering Drawings reflect boththe base alignment on the Westside for a twin-bore tunnel configuration and the Sepulveda-Gayleyalignment option described in Section 3.6.1 for a single-bore tunnel configuration. Including tailtracks, this alternative is 13.3 miles from end to end and would include seven stations.

As with HRT 1, HRT 2 would have a southern terminus at an underground station at theExpo/Sepulveda Station on the Metro Expo Line. From its southern terminus to the UCLA campusstation, the alignment would be the same as that of HRT 1, with the same constraints andconsiderations that would need to be addressed.

North of the UCLA campus, HRT 2 would continue north under the Santa Monica Mountains. Therewould be a double crossover under the Santa Monica Mountains. While under the mountains, thealignment would turn northwest toward Sepulveda Boulevard. Once in the San Fernando Valley,there would be an underground station generally oriented north-south at Ventura Boulevard at itsintersection with Columbus Avenue, east of Sepulveda Boulevard, and a double crossover south ofthe station. The station entrance would be located between Sepulveda Boulevard and ColumbusAvenue. As on the Westside, tunneling under a roadway other than Sepulveda Boulevard wouldavoid the MWD Sepulveda Feeder under Sepulveda Boulevard.

Page 24: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 3-3. HRT 2 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 25: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-7

The alignment would continue north under Columbus Avenue. South of Burbank Boulevard, the alignmentwould begin to curve to the west to line up with Sepulveda Boulevard and connect with the Metro OrangeLine. This underground station would require a two-level transfer, as the Orange Line busway and stationwould be grade-separated at Sepulveda Boulevard as part of the Metro Orange Line ImprovementsProject. Because the MWD Sepulveda Feeder leaves the Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way at HatterasStreet, south of the Orange Line, the tunnel and underground station would not conflict with it.

North of the Metro Orange Line, the alignment would turn to the east toward its terminus at theMetrolink Van Nuys Station. It would continue in a northeast direction under residences, businesses,and roadways until it parallels Van Nuys Boulevard to the east. It would have the same off-streetunderground transfer station at Metrolink and the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor as HRT 1.The northern tail tracks of the alignment extend north past the railroad right-of-way to Arminta Street.

Operating Plans

3.3.1.1 Headways and Span of ServiceHRT 2 would operate over its 12.9-mile route from the Expo/Sepulveda Station to the Metrolink Van NuysStation in 17 minutes. There would be a dwell time of 30 seconds at transfer stations and 20 seconds atintermediate stations. Station-to-station travel times are included in Appendix A. Service span, servicefrequency, size of train consists, and fares would be the same as described for HRT 1. To achieve theseoperational parameters and serve ridership demand, HRT 2 would require a fleet of 87 vehicles, includingspares. Detailed operating statistics are included in the O&M Cost Estimates Report (Metro, 2019).

3.3.1.2 Supporting Bus ServiceIt is expected that some Metro and municipal bus services would be modified to eliminateduplicative service and to support regional access to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Table 3-2summarizes the bus services changes that would be made to support HRT 2.

Table 3-2. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 2

Route Proposed ModificationPeak

HeadwayMetro Line 234 Operate from Sylmar to West Los Angeles (replacing Metro Rapid

734’s function) all day20 minutes

Metro Rapid 734 Eliminate N/AMetro Rapid 744 Reroute the portion along Van Nuys Boulevard to instead continue

eastward on Ventura Boulevard to Universal City/Studio City10 minutes

Metro Rapid 788 Eliminate N/ALADOT CommuterExpress 573

Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at VenturaBoulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard Station

20 minutes

AVTA 786 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at MetroOrange Line Sepulveda Station

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 792 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at MetroOrange Line Sepulveda Station

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 797 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at MetroOrange Line Sepulveda Station

20 minutes

Note: Service changes were assumed for purposes of travel demand forecasting and to calculate operations and maintenancecosts. Operators will be consulted to refine and finalize service changes during the environmental review process.

Page 26: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

3.4 HRT 3The alignment of the proposed HRT 3, a mixed aerial and underground HRT line, is illustrated inFigure 3-4. Including tail tracks, this alternative is 14.6 miles from end to end and would include eightstations. The alignment for HRT 3 from the Metro Expo Line to the UCLA campus would be the sameas HRT 1 and HRT 2. Note that HRT 3 in the Conceptual Engineering Drawings reflect the Bundy-Veteran alignment variation described in Section 3.6.2.

North of UCLA, the alignment would continue in a tunnel under the Santa Monica Mountains, similarto that of HRT 2, and there would be a double crossover under the mountains. However, instead ofcontinuing to an underground station in the San Fernando Valley, HRT 3 would portal and transitionto an aerial structure at Del Gado Drive, just east of I-405. After crossing over Sepulveda Boulevard,there would be an off-street aerial station between the I-405 freeway ramps and Ventura Boulevard,with a double crossover south of the station. Figure 3-5 illustrates this station. The alignment wouldthen turn toward the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard.

Once north of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard, the alignment wouldcontinue on an aerial structure on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard until crossing over US 101.North of US 101, the aerial structure would follow the center of the roadway, as illustrated in Figure3-6. In this area, the MWD Sepulveda Feeder would need to be relocated. There would be an aerialstation at the Metro Orange Line, over the Orange Line Sepulveda Station, with a double crossoversouth of the station. As this Orange Line station would be grade-separated by the Orange LineImprovements Project, the top of rail of the aerial guideway would be approximately 50 feet abovethe ground.

North of the Metro Orange Line, the aerial guideway would continue in the center of SepulvedaBoulevard, with an aerial station just south of Sherman Way and a double crossover south of thestation. The aerial guideway would continue north on Sepulveda Boulevard until approximately StaggStreet, where it would curve to the east across private property to align with the Metro and UnionPacific Railroad right-of-way used by Metrolink and Amtrak. The aerial guideway would parallel therailroad to the south until its terminus at an aerial station above Van Nuys Boulevard at theMetrolink Van Nuys Station, with a double crossover both east and west of the station. The tail trackswould extend past the station to the south of the existing Union Pacific yard.

Page 27: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-9

Figure 3-4. HRT 3 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019Note: HRT 3 alignment in the Conceptual Engineering Drawings depicts the Bundy-Veteran alignment option

on the Westside.

Page 28: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 3-5. HRT 3, Looking North at Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard Station

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Figure 3-6. HRT 3, Looking South on Sepulveda Boulevard at Weddington Street

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 29: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-11

Operating Plans

3.4.1.1 Headways and Span of ServiceHRT 3 would operate over its 13.8-mile route from the Expo/Sepulveda Station to the Metrolink VanNuys Station in 19 minutes. There would be a dwell time of 30 seconds at transfer stations and 20seconds at intermediate stations. Station-to-station travel times are included in Appendix A of thisreport. Service span, service frequency, size of train consists, and fares would be the same as describedfor HRT 1. To achieve these operational parameters and serve ridership demand, HRT 3 would require afleet of 94 vehicles, including spares, because the alignment is longer than that of HRT 1 or HRT 2.Detailed operating statistics are included in the O&M Cost Estimates Report (Metro, 2019).

3.4.1.2 Supporting Bus ServiceIt is expected that some Metro and municipal bus services would be modified to eliminateduplicative service and to support regional access to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Table 3-3summarizes the bus service changes that could be made to support HRT 3.

Table 3-3. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under HRT 3

Route Proposed ModificationPeak

Headway

Metro Line 234 Operate from Sylmar to West Los Angeles (replacing MetroRapid 734’s function) all day

20 minutes

Metro Rapid 734 Eliminate N/A

Metro Rapid 744 Reroute the portion along Van Nuys Boulevard to insteadcontinue eastward on Ventura Boulevard to UniversalCity/Studio City

10 minutes

Metro Rapid 788 Eliminate N/A

LADOT Commuter Express 573 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atVentura Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard Station

20 minutes

AVTA 786 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 792 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 797 Truncate to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Note: Service changes were assumed for purposes of travel demand forecasting and to calculate operations andmaintenance costs. Operators will be consulted to refine and finalize service changes during the environmentalreview process.

Page 30: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

3.5 MRT 1The proposed MRT 1, a mixed aerial, cut-and-fill, and underground monorail or rubber tire line, isillustrated in Figure 3-7. MRT 1 would not have an option to terminate at the Expo/Bundy Station, asthe intent of the MRT alternative is to allow for a southern extension to LAX that could be aerial tothe maximum extent possible, which may be feasible along I-405, near Sepulveda Boulevard.Including tail tracks, this alternative is 14.9 miles from end to end and would include eight stations.

The alignment of MRT 1 from the Expo Line through the Westside to the UCLA campus station wouldbe the same as described for the other alternatives. North of the UCLA station, the alignment wouldbegin to differ from the HRT alternatives. The alignment would curve west under the campus and BelAir toward the I-405 interchange with Getty Center Drive. Slightly south of the interchange, it wouldportal on the east side of the freeway and transition to an aerial structure and cross over thefreeway. To reach the surface from beneath the canyons of Bel Air and cross over the freeway, thealignment would require a 7 percent grade.

After crossing I-405, the alignment would turn to the north and parallel the freeway to its westthrough most of the Sepulveda Pass. The alignment would be on aerial structure or retained fillthroughout the Sepulveda Pass. There would be two double crossovers through the Sepulveda Pass.Figure 3-8 illustrates the alternative between Skirball Center Drive and Mulholland Drive.

The steep and varying grades throughout the Sepulveda Pass would require inclines of the aerialguideway of up to 6.5 percent in some areas, in addition to the 7 percent grade required for thetransition from tunnel to aerial guideway. These 6.5 percent inclines would be located immediatelynorth and south of Mulholland Drive, the apex of the Sepulveda Pass, and entering the San FernandoValley.

Before it reaches the Sepulveda Boulevard crossing under I-405, the aerial guideway would crossover I-405 and briefly remain adjacent to I-405 on the east side of the freeway over private property.It would then turn toward the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Ventura Boulevard. After theaerial guideway crosses Ventura Boulevard, there would be an aerial station near the Sherman OaksGalleria, with a double crossover south of the station.

North of the Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard station, MRT 1 would have the same alignmentand stations as HRT 3. Figure 3-9 illustrates the alternative in this area, and Figure 3-10 shows aconceptual rendering of the station adjacent to the Metrolink Van Nuys Station.

Page 31: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-13

Figure 3-7. MRT 1 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 32: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 3-8. MRT 1, Looking North at Mulholland Drive Bridge

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Figure 3-9. MRT 1, Looking South on Sepulveda Boulevard at Weddington Street

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 33: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-15

Figure 3-10. MRT 1, Looking North at Station at Metrolink Van Nuys Station

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Operating Plans

3.5.1.1 Headways and Span of ServiceMRT 1 would operate over its 14.7-mile route from the Expo/Sepulveda Station to Metrolink VanNuys Station in 25 minutes and 36 seconds. There would be a dwell time of 30 seconds at transferstations and 20 seconds at intermediate stations. Station-to-station travel times are included inAppendix A of this report. Service span, service frequency, and fares would be the same as describedfor HRT 1. Headways would be 4 minutes with 8-car trains during peak periods and 10 minutes with6-car trains during off-peak periods. Because of the slower speeds of monorail and rubber tiresystems, more vehicles would be required for MRT 1 than for the HRT alternatives. To meetoperational requirements, a fleet of 154 vehicles, including spares, would be required. Detailedoperating statistics are included in the O&M Cost Estimates Report (Metro, 2019).

3.5.1.2 Supporting Bus ServiceIt is expected that some Metro and municipal bus services would be modified to eliminateduplicative service and to support regional access to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Table 3-4summarizes the bus services changes that would be made to support MRT 1.

Page 34: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Table 3-4. Proposed Modifications to Bus Service under MRT 1

Route Proposed ModificationPeak

Headway

Metro Line 234 Operate from Sylmar to West Los Angeles (replacing MetroRapid 734’s function) all day

20 minutes

Metro Rapid 734 Eliminate N/A

Metro Rapid 744 Reroute the portion along Van Nuys Boulevard to insteadcontinue eastward on Ventura Boulevard to UniversalCity/Studio City

10 minutes

Metro Rapid 788 Eliminate N/A

LADOT Commuter Express 573 Truncated to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atVentura Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard Station

20 minutes

AVTA 786 Truncated to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 792 Truncated to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Santa Clarita Transit 797 Truncated to connect with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor atSherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard

20 minutes

Note: Service changes were assumed for purposes of travel demand forecasting and to calculate operations andmaintenance costs. Operators will be consulted to refine and finalize service changes during the environmentalreview process.

3.6 Westside Alignment OptionsIn addition to the base alternatives described above, the Conceptual Engineering Drawings alsoinclude two alignment options on the Westside that were developed to provide different ways toconnect to the Metro Purple Line and Metro Expo Line. As illustrated in Figure 3-11, the “Sepulveda-Gayley” alignment option has a southern terminus at the Expo/Sepulveda Station like the basealternative, but it connects to the Metro Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station at Gayley Avenueinstead of Westwood Boulevard. The “Bundy-Veteran” alignment option has a southern terminus atthe Expo/Bundy Station instead of the Expo/Sepulveda Station, and it connects to the Metro PurpleLine Westwood/UCLA Station from Veteran Avenue.

Both alignment options are applicable to all of the HRT alternatives. The “Bundy-Veteran” alignmentoption would not be applicable to MRT 1 because the intention of the MRT alternatives is to continuesouth in the I-405 right-of-way for the Westside-LAX segment of the Project. Other alignment optionson the Westside could be considered, such as Bundy-Gayley or Sepulveda-Veteran, but conceptualengineering drawings have not been prepared for additional options.

Page 35: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-17

Figure 3-11. Westside Alignment Options

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 36: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-18 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Sepulveda-Gayley Alignment Option

The Sepulveda-Gayley alignment option would be the same as the base alignment from its southernterminus at the Expo/Sepulveda Station to the proposed station at Santa Monica Boulevard. North ofSanta Monica Boulevard, the alignment would continue toward the intersection of Midvale Avenueand Wilshire Boulevard. Midvale Avenue continues as Gayley Avenue north of Wilshire Boulevardand curves to the northeast. This differs from other intersections in the area, including those ofWestwood Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which are oriented toward the northwest. This allows forthe possibility of a narrow station, more easily achieved with a single-bore alignment, at theintersection of Gayley Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. The station platform would be directly underthe future Purple Line station platform. North of the Metro Purple Line, the alignment wouldcontinue north to the UCLA campus station previously described.

Bundy-Veteran Alignment Option

The Bundy-Veteran alignment option would have a southern terminus at the Expo/Bundy Station onthe Metro Expo Line, with double crossovers both north and south of the station. The alignmentwould curve east of Bundy Drive just north of the station and continue northeast toward SantaMonica Boulevard, under residences, businesses, and roadways. Just south of Santa MonicaBoulevard at Federal Avenue there would be an underground station. As with the base alignment,the location of this station would need to take into consideration the Santa Monica Fault Zone to thenorth, and a special seismic section would likely be required for the tunnel in this area.

North of the proposed Santa Monica Boulevard Station the alignment would continue to thenortheast, still under residences, businesses, and roadways, where it would connect with the MetroPurple Line Westwood/UCLA Station at Veteran Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. The proposedstation would be underground, below and to the west of the Purple Line station, with a pedestrianconnection via the station mezzanines. North of the Metro Purple Line, the alignment wouldcontinue northeast toward the UCLA campus. Once on campus, the tunnel would curve to the eastand align north-south with Westwood Plaza and the UCLA campus station previously described.

3.7 Tunnel Configuration OptionsAll of the alignment alternatives include substantial tunnel segments. The tunnel configurationspecified in the MRDC consists of twin 20-foot-diameter tunnels with ventilation provided at stations.This “twin-bore” configuration, illustrated in Figure 3-12, accommodates one guideway in eachtunnel, and it would require numerous mined cross-passages between the twin tunnels under theSanta Monica Mountains, as well as up to two vertical shafts to provide for intermediate ventilationdue to the long run under the mountains without any stations.

Twin-bore 27-foot-diameter tunnels would allow for a longitudinal ventilation duct to beincorporated into each tunnel, eliminating the need for ventilation shafts, but still requiring minedcross-passages under the mountains. Alternatively, a larger, single-bore 40-foot-diameter tunnelwould accommodate both guideways and ventilation in a single tunnel, eliminating the need formined cross-passages and for ventilation shafts. Typical cross-sections of twin- and single-boretunnels are illustrated in Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14, respectively. These alternative tunnelconfigurations are discussed in greater detail in the Engineering Analysis Report.

Page 37: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-19

Figure 3-12. Typical 20-Foot Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019Note: Tunnel cross-section shown for HRT. Cross-section for MRT would be similar.

Figure 3-13. Typical 27-Foot Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019Note: Tunnel cross-section shown for HRT. Cross-section for MRT would be similar.

Page 38: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

3-20 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 3-14. Typical Forty-Foot Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019Note: Tunnel cross-section shown for HRT. Cross-section for MRT would be similar.

Because twin-bore tunnels generally require one tunnel diameter separation between the twotunnels, the right-of-way width for twin 20-foot tunnels is approximately 60 feet, and for twin 27-foot tunnels it is approximately 81 feet. To allow a comparison of the range of potential impacts, theConceptual Engineering Drawings include tunnel configurations having the least and greatest right-of-way requirements: 40 feet for a single-bore tunnel and 81 feet for 27-foot twin-bore tunnels.

The base alignment and the Bundy-Veteran alignment option could be designed using any of the threeconfiguration options: 20-foot twin-bore, 27-foot twin bore, or 40-foot single bore. The Sepulveda-Gayleyalignment option could only be designed as single-bore because of the narrow distance between majorbuilding foundations at the intersection of Gayley Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.

3.8 Alignment and Configuration Options Included in Conceptual EngineeringDrawings

The Conceptual Engineering Drawings were developed to efficiently convey the range of potentialalignment and configuration options for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. While any of the HRTalternatives could be designed with any of the Westside alignment options, the HRT 1 plan setincludes the Bundy-Veteran alignment option; the HRT 2 twin-bore plan set includes the basealignment; and the HRT 2 single-bore plan set includes the Sepulveda-Gayley alignment option.

Both single- and twin-bore tunnel configurations should be explored further for any alternativescarried into environmental analysis. In the Conceptual Engineering Drawings, HRT 1, one variation ofHRT 2, and HRT 3 are designed with a 27-foot twin-bore tunnel configuration, and another variationof HRT 2 and MRT 1 are designed with a 40-foot single-bore tunnel configuration. Table 3-5summarizes which plan sets reflect which alignment variations and tunnel configurations.

Page 39: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report3 Definition of Conceptual Alternatives

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-21

Table 3-5. Options Included in Conceptual Engineering Drawings

Plan Set

Alignment Option Tunnel Configuration

BaseSepulveda-

GayleyBundy-Veteran

27-footTwin-Bore

40-footSingle Bore

HRT 1 X X

HRT 2 TB X X

HRT 2 SB X X

HRT 3 X X

MRT 1 X X

Page 40: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 41: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report4 Stations

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-1

4 STATIONSThe station locations included in each alternative are summarized in Table 4-1. All stations would beunderground or aerial, depending on the vertical configuration of the alignment at that location.Stations would be designed to accommodate HRT trains of up to six cars or MRT trains of equivalentlength.

Table 4-1. Proposed Sepulveda Transit Corridor Stations

Station

Alternative

HRT

1

HRT

2

HRT

3

MRT

1

Expo/Bundy Station U U U

Expo/Sepulveda Station U U U U

Santa Monica Boulevard/Federal Avenue U U U

Santa Monica Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard U U U U

Westwood/UCLA Station U U U U

UCLA Campus U U U U

Ventura Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard U A A

Ventura Boulevard/Van Nuys Boulevard U

Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station U A A

Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station U

Sherman Way and Sepulveda Boulevard A A

Metrolink Van Nuys Station U U A A

Note: U = underground, A = aerial

Underground stations would have off-street entrances which include vertical circulation to bringpatrons to a mezzanine level where the ticketing functions are located. Station platforms would beaccessed from the mezzanine level. All underground stations with twin-bore tunnel configurationswould have center platforms, and those with single-bore tunnel configurations would have sideplatforms.

Aerial stations would have off-street entrances which include vertical circulation to bring patrons tothe platforms. Ticketing functions would be located at the station plaza at street level. In general,aerial stations would have side platforms to facilitate access to either side of the street withoutrequiring an additional level for a mezzanine. Exceptions would be the Sepulveda Boulevard/VenturaBoulevard aerial station, because it would be located in an off-street plaza, and the Metro OrangeLine Sepulveda aerial station, because the side platforms planned for the Orange Line station wouldcomplicate passenger transfers to another side-platform station unless a third station level wereconstructed for a mezzanine.

Page 42: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 43: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report5 Supporting Facilities and Systems

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-1

5 SUPPORTING FACILITIES AND SYSTEMSAll alternatives would require traction power substations, communications and signaling systems,and a maintenance and storage facility (MSF) sized to accommodate its fleet. This chapter describesthese supporting facilities and systems.

Traction power substations are adjacent to the track and power the “third rail” that propels the train.Communications and signaling buildings house train control and communications for train operationsin a central facility at each station. Each facility is located within the station site area, typicallyadjacent to a station platform.

There would be a traction power substation approximately every mile along the alignment. Becausestations on the Westside are separated by one mile or less, the traction power substations would beco-located with the stations. Because of the depth of the tunnel under the Santa Monica Mountains,it would not be practical to locate traction power substations at the surface, so they would likely bein caverns adjacent to the tunnel through the mountains. In the San Fernando Valley, stations arespaced greater than a mile apart, so traction power substations would be required between stations.

All alternatives would require a new MSF to support the required fleet of vehicles. The MSF would bea stand-alone facility capable of performing all levels of service and maintenance of the HRT or MRTvehicles. Typical maintenance functions that would take place at the facility include interior andexterior cleaning of the rail vehicles, scheduled service and inspection, heavy repair, interior andexterior painting of the rail vehicles, and wheel truing. The MSF would also include storage andmaintenance of equipment for maintaining the guideway and right-of-way.

The MSF would also serve as a storage area for vehicles that are not in service. The facility wouldneed to be large enough to support the number of vehicles required to operate the SepulvedaTransit Corridor Project during peak periods. This number has been determined based on the modeand the length of the alignment, with faster, higher-capacity modes requiring fewer vehicles. Thefleet size that the MSF would be required to accommodate is included with each alternatives’description in Chapter 3.

According to Section 11 of the MRDC (Metro, 2014-2016), the MSF should have access from bothdirections of the guideway and be located near a station if possible. During the development of thealternatives, the availability of suitable, industrially-zoned land adjacent to the refined concepts wasreviewed, and the four locations illustrated in Figure 5-1 were identified:

µ Sepulveda at Nebraska Optionµ Van Nuys at Arminta Optionµ Metrolink at Woodman Option

During environmental review, additional MSF sites will be investigated.

Page 44: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report5 Supporting Facilities and Systems

5-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Figure 5-1. Potential Locations for a Maintenance and Storage Facility

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Page 45: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report5 Supporting Facilities and Systems

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-3

5.1 Sepulveda at Nebraska MSF OptionThe Sepulveda at Nebraska MSF option would be located between I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard,south of Nebraska Avenue and north of Olympic Boulevard. This 26-acre site could serve allalternatives, but it is not compatible with the Bundy-Veteran alignment option. This MSF would bebuilt below roadway level. Yard access for rail vehicles would be from the alignment under BentleyAvenue, and the yard leads would need to cross under Sepulveda Boulevard and the MWD SepulvedaFeeder. Roadway access would be from Olympic Boulevard at Pontius Avenue, with a secondaryaccess point from Sepulveda Boulevard near Missouri Avenue.

5.2 Van Nuys at Orange Line MSF OptionThe Van Nuys at Orange Line MSF option would be located east of Van Nuys Boulevard, between theMetro Orange Line and the Van Nuys Civic Center. This 25-acre site could serve the HRT 1 alternative,which would require a fleet of 87 vehicles. This MSF would be built below roadway level, with TyroneAvenue being maintained at its current level on a structure above the yard tracks. The Metro OrangeLine guideway would need to be elevated above the yard. The yard leads would be from thealignment under Van Nuys Boulevard on either side of the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station.Roadway access would be from Tyrone Avenue at Calvert Street, with a secondary access point fromBessemer Street west of Tyrone Avenue. This location would require the demolition of several City ofLos Angeles and State of California buildings and offices that are located on State and County landand would require the cooperation of all three jurisdictions.

5.3 Sepulveda at Orange Line MSF OptionThe Sepulveda at Orange Line MSF option would be located east of Sepulveda Boulevard and northof the Metro Orange Line. This 17-acre site could serve the HRT 2 alternative, which would require afleet of 87 vehicles. This MSF would be built below roadway level, with Victory Boulevard and ErwinStreet being maintained at their current levels on structures above the yard tracks. The yard leadswould be from the alignment under Sepulveda Boulevard on either side of the Metro Orange LineSepulveda Station. Roadway access would be from Erwin Street at Halbrent Avenue, with asecondary access point from Sepulveda Boulevard north of Victory Boulevard.

5.4 Metrolink at Woodman MSF OptionThe Metrolink at Woodman MSF option would be located south of the Metro and Union Pacific right-of-way, west of Hazeltine Avenue and east of Woodman Avenue. This 39-acre site could serve theHRT 3 alternative, which would require a fleet of 94 vehicles, and the MRT 1 alternative, which wouldrequire a fleet of 154 vehicles. The tail tracks of the alignment would lead into the yard. The yardtracks could be elevated or at ground level. Roadway access would be from Woodman Avenue northof Covelio Street, with a secondary access point from Hazeltine Avenue.

Page 46: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 47: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives Report6 References

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-1

6 REFERENCES23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450 Appendix A. 2019. Linking the Transportation Planning and

NEPA Processes.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2009. Long-RangeTransportation Plan.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2014-2016. Metro Rail DesignCriteria.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2019. Sepulveda Transit CorridorProject, Conceptual Engineering Drawings.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2019. Sepulveda Transit CorridorProject, Initial Screening Report.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2019. Sepulveda Transit CorridorProject, O&M Cost Estimates for Valley-Westside Refined Concepts.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. Regional Transportation Plan/SustainableCommunities Strategy. Adopted April 2016.

Page 48: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 49: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportAppendix A Station-to-Station Travel Times

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

APPENDIX A STATION-TO-STATION TRAVEL TIMES

Page 50: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Page 51: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportAppendix A Station-to-Station Travel Times

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-1

Station-to-Station Summaries Metrolink Van Nuys to UCLA Campus

VALLEY TO WESTSIDE TABLES - HRT & MRTHRT 1 Twin Bore Tunnel - Van Nuys Metrolink to UCLA Campus

BEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEED

METROLINK VAN NUYS METRO ORANGE VAN NUYS 1.99 0:02:46 43.1METRO ORANGE VAN NUYS VAN NUYS/VENTURA 2.09 0:02:40 47.1VAN NUYS/VENTURA UCLA CAMPUS 5.66 0:05:47 58.7TOTALS 9.74 0:11:13 52.1

HRT 2 Twin Bore Tunnel - Van Nuys Metrolink to UCLA CampusBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDVAN NUYS METROLINK METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA 2.40 0:03:11 45.3METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA SEPULVEDA/VENTURA 1.88 0:02:31 44.8SEPULVEDA/VENTURA UCLA CAMPUS 6.17 0:06:18 58.7TOTALS 10.45 0:12:00 52.2

HRT 2 Single Bore - Van Nuys Metrolink to UCLA CampusBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDVAN NUYS METROLINK METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA 2.37 0:03:08 45.4METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA SEPULVEDA/VENTURA 1.92 0:02:34 45.0SEPULVEDA/VENTURA UCLA CAMPUS 6.13 0:06:21 57.9TOTALS 10.42 0:12:03 51.9

HRT 3 Van Nuys Metrolink to UCLA CampusBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDVAN NUYS METROLINK SEPULVEDA/SHERMAN WAY 1.90 0:02:49 40.5SEPULVEDA/SHERMAN WAY METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA 1.31 0:02:10 36.2METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA SEPULVEDA/VENTURA 2.12 0:02:49 45.2SEPULVEDA/VENTURA UCLA CAMPUS 6.00 0:06:10 58.4TOTALS 11.33 0:13:58 48.7

MRT 1 - Van Nuys Metrolink to UCLA CampusBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDVAN NUYS METROLINK SEPULVEDA/SHERMAN WAY 1.91 0:03:14 35.4SEPULVEDA/SHERMAN WAY METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA 1.31 0:02:36 30.2METRO ORANGE SEPULVEDA SEPULVEDA/VENTURA 1.83 0:03:08 35.0SEPULVEDA/VENTURA UCLA CAMPUS 7.24 0:11:00 39.5TOTALS 12.28 0:19:58 36.9

Page 52: Conceptual Alternatives Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Conceptual Alternatives... · Conceptual Alternatives Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Conceptual Alternatives ReportAppendix A Station-to-Station Travel Times

A-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Station-to-Station Summaries South

SOUTH OF UCLA CAMPUS - HRT TABLESUCLA Campus to Expo/Bundy

BEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEED

UCLA CAMPUS WESTWOOD/UCLA 0.85 0:01:55 26.6WESTWOOD/UCLA SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) 1.02 0:01:52 32.6SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) EXPO/BUNDY 1.09 0:02:04 31.6TOTALS 2.95 0:05:51 30.3

UCLA Campus to Expo/SepulvedaBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDUCLA CAMPUS WESTWOOD/UCLA 0.71 0:01:38 25.9WESTWOOD/UCLA SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) 0.82 0:01:35 31.1SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) EXPO/SEPULVEDA 0.92 0:01:48 30.6TOTALS 2.45 0:05:01 29.3

SOUTH OF UCLA CAMPUS - MRT TABLESUCLA Campus to Expo/Bundy

BEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEED

UCLA CAMPUS WESTWOOD/UCLA 0.85 0:02:00 25.5WESTWOOD/UCLA SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) 1.02 0:02:02 30.0SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) EXPO/BUNDY 1.09 0:02:18 28.4TOTALS 2.95 0:06:20 28.0

UCLA Campus to Expo/SepulvedaBEGINNING END SEG. SEG. AVG.

STATION STATION DIST. TIME SPEEDUCLA CAMPUS WESTWOOD/UCLA 0.71 0:01:47 23.8WESTWOOD/UCLA SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) 0.82 0:01:47 27.6SANTA MONICA (SAWTELLE) EXPO/SEPULVEDA 0.92 0:02:05 26.5