Initial Screening Report

SEPULVEDA TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT Contract No. PS40442000

Initial Screening Report Task No. 2.5

Prepared for:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Prepared by:

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

Review Date Name Originator 9/12/2019 Elenna Salcido Checker 10/16/2019 Steven Greene Backchecker 10/17/2019 Elenna Salcido QA/QC Manager 10/31/2019 Zafer Müdar Project Manager 10/31/2019 Dennis Henderson

October 2019

Initial Screening Report Table of Contents Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Study ...... 1-1 1.2 Project Study Area ...... 1-2 1.3 Purpose of this Report ...... 1-2 2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 2-1 2.1 Study Area Characteristics ...... 2-1 Land Uses within the Study Area ...... 2-4 Demographics within the Study Area ...... 2-6 2.2 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions in the Study Area ...... 2-10 2.3 Travel Markets ...... 2-27 Productions and Attractions ...... 2-27 Market Areas ...... 2-29 Travel Market Growth ...... 2-34 2.4 Project Purpose and Need ...... 2-35 2.5 Goals and Objectives ...... 2-38 3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...... 3-1 3.1 Evaluation Process ...... 3-1 3.2 Evaluation Measures ...... 3-2 Improve Mobility...... 3-3 Improve Equity of Access...... 3-4 Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development ...... 3-5 Provide a Cost-Effective Solution ...... 3-5 Minimize Project Delivery Risk...... 3-5 4 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF INITIAL CONCEPTS ...... 4-1 4.1 Development Process for Initial Concepts ...... 4-1 Screening of Modes ...... 4-1 Screening of Termini, Alignment Segments and Configurations ...... 4-10 4.2 Initial Valley-Westside Transit Concepts ...... 4-14 Concept 1 ...... 4-16 Concept 2 ...... 4-18 Concept 3 ...... 4-20 Concept 4 ...... 4-22 Concept 5 ...... 4-24 Concept 6 ...... 4-26

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project i Initial Screening Report Table of Contents

4.3 Initial Screening ...... 4-28 Improve Mobility...... 4-28 Improve Equity of Access...... 4-31 Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development ...... 4-31 4.4 Identification of Refinements to Initial Concepts ...... 4-32 4.5 Development of Refined Concepts ...... 4-33 Heavy Rail Transit Concepts...... 4-33 Monorail/Rubber Tire Concept ...... 4-38 Station Locations Considered for Refined Concepts ...... 4-43 Maintenance and Storage Facility Locations ...... 4-44 4.6 Evaluation of Refined Concepts...... 4-46 Improve Mobility...... 4-46 Improve Equity of Access...... 4-49 Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development ...... 4-51 Selection of Concepts for Further Study ...... 4-53 5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF WESTSIDE-LAX CONCEPTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Development Process for Westside-LAX Initial Transit Concepts ...... 5-1 5.2 Westside-LAX Concepts ...... 5-2 Heavy Rail Transit Concepts...... 5-2 Monorail/Rubber Tire Concept ...... 5-8 Station Locations Considered for Westside-LAX Concepts...... 5-9 5.3 Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts ...... 5-10 Improve Mobility...... 5-10 Improve Equity of Access...... 5-13 Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development ...... 5-15 Selection of Concepts for Further Study ...... 5-15 6 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT ...... 6-1 6.1 Stakeholder Identification and Database Development ...... 6-1 6.2 Public Meetings ...... 6-2 Early Meetings ...... 6-2 Public Meetings – Round 1 ...... 6-2 Public Meetings – Round 2 ...... 6-9 Outreach at Community Events ...... 6-16

ii Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Table of Contents

6.3 Agency Coordination ...... 6-18 Agency Project Briefings ...... 6-19 Agency Coordination Meetings...... 6-20 6.4 Project Materials and Resources ...... 6-23 Collateral Materials ...... 6-23 Project Website ...... 6-24 Project Information Line ...... 6-24 Project Video...... 6-24 6.5 Media Relations ...... 6-24 7 CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER STUDY ...... 7-1 7.1 No Build ...... 7-1 2042 No Build ...... 7-1 2057 No Build ...... 7-2 7.2 HRT 1 ...... 7-3 Stations ...... 7-7 Supporting Facilities and Systems ...... 7-7 Operating Plans ...... 7-8 7.3 HRT 2 ...... 7-8 Stations ...... 7-10 Supporting Facilities and Systems ...... 7-10 Operating Plans ...... 7-11 7.4 HRT 3 ...... 7-11 Stations ...... 7-14 Supporting Facilities and Systems ...... 7-15 Operating Plans ...... 7-15 7.5 MRT 1 ...... 7-15 Stations ...... 7-18 Supporting Facilities and Systems ...... 7-19 Operating Plans ...... 7-19 7.6 Westside-LAX Segment ...... 7-19 8 REFERENCES ...... 8-1

Appendices

APPENDIX A INITIAL ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED ...... A-1 APPENDIX B INITIAL EVALUATION OF CONCEPTS ...... B-1

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project iii Initial Screening Report Table of Contents

Tables

Table 2-1. I-405 Peak Hour Total Volumes ...... 2-13 Table 2-2. I-405 Peak Hour HOV Volumes ...... 2-13 Table 2-3. Existing and Forecast Travel in the Sepulveda Transit Corridor...... 2-35 Table 2-4. Population and Employment of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Major Travel Markets ...... 2-35 Table 2-5. Performance Statistics for Rapid and Express Routes between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside ...... 2-37 Table 3-1. Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria ...... 3-2 Table 4-1. Transit Technology Suitability for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project ...... 4-10 Table 4-2. Performance of Initial Concepts on Mobility Measures ...... 4-29 Table 4-3. Daily Project Boardings by Connection Point to Metro Purple Line (2042) ...... 4-31 Table 4-4. Potential Station Locations Studied for Refined Concepts ...... 4-43 Table 4-5. Performance of Refined Concepts on Mobility Objectives ...... 4-48 Table 4-6. Performance of Refined Concepts on Equity of Access Objectives ...... 4-50 Table 4-7. Performance of Refined Concepts on Environmental and Community Objectives ...... 4-52 Table 4-8. Performance of Refined Concepts on Project Goals ...... 4-53 Table 5-1. Potential Station Locations Studied for Westside-LAX Concepts ...... 5-9 Table 5-2. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Mobility Objectives ...... 5-11 Table 5-3. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Equity of Access Objectives ...... 5-14 Table 5-4. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Environmental and Community Objectives ...... 5-16 Table 6-1. Print Advertising ...... 6-5 Table 6-2. Facebook Advertising ...... 6-6 Table 6-3. Published Articles ...... 6-7 Table 6-4. Elected Officials’ Social Media Mentions ...... 6-8 Table 6-5. Extended Coverage by Local Organizations ...... 6-12 Table 6-6. Facebook Advertising ...... 6-13 Table 6-7. Published Articles ...... 6-14 Table 6-8. Outreach at Community Events ...... 6-16 Table 6-9. Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings ...... 6-18 Table 6-10. Multi-Agency Project Briefings Attendees ...... 6-20 Table 7-1. Metro Transit System in 2042 ...... 7-2 Table 7-2. Additions to the Metro Transit System between 2042 and 2057 ...... 7-3

iv Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Table of Contents Figures

Figure 1-1. Study Area ...... 1-3 Figure 2-1. Boundaries of Communities and Incorporated Cities ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2. Grade through the Sepulveda Pass ...... 2-3 Figure 2-3. Existing Land Uses ...... 2-5 Figure 2-4. Population Density ...... 2-7 Figure 2-5. Job Density ...... 2-8 Figure 2-6. Zero-Car Households ...... 2-9 Figure 2-7. Sepulveda Pass Person Throughput ...... 2-10 Figure 2-8. SR 90 Screenline Person Throughput ...... 2-11 Figure 2-9. Freeway Mainline Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...... 2-12 Figure 2-10. I-405 Mainline AM Peak Average Travel Speeds ...... 2-14 Figure 2-11. I-405 Mainline PM Peak Average Travel Speeds ...... 2-15 Figure 2-12. AM Peak Period Average Arterial Speed ...... 2-16 Figure 2-13. PM Peak Period Average Arterial Speed...... 2-17 Figure 2-14. Weekend Midday Average Arterial Speed...... 2-18 Figure 2-15. Existing Bus Service ...... 2-20 Figure 2-16. Rail and Busway Projects in Planning or Construction ...... 2-21 Figure 2-17. Study Area Transit Service Frequency ...... 2-23 Figure 2-18. Daily Transit Boardings in the Study Area...... 2-24 Figure 2-19. Transit Service On-Time Performance (AM Period) ...... 2-25 Figure 2-20. Transit Service On-Time Performance (PM Period) ...... 2-26 Figure 2-21. Trip Productions and Attractions (2017) ...... 2-28 Figure 2-22. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through the Sepulveda Pass ...... 2-30 Figure 2-23. Primary Market Areas Using the Sepulveda Corridor ...... 2-31 Figure 2-24. Primary Market Areas of Trips through the Sepulveda Pass Screenline ...... 2-32 Figure 2-25. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through SR 90 Screenline ...... 2-33 Figure 2-26. Primary Market Areas of Trips through the SR 90 Screenline ...... 2-34 Figure 3-1. Process for Developing and Evaluating Initial Transit Concepts ...... 3-1 Figure 4-1. Heavy Rail Transit ...... 4-2 Figure 4-2. Commuter Rail Transit ...... 4-3 Figure 4-3. Light Rail Transit ...... 4-4 Figure 4-4. Maglev ...... 4-5 Figure 4-5. Monorail ...... 4-5 Figure 4-6. Gondola/Aerial Tramway ...... 4-6 Figure 4-7. Rubber Tire Train ...... 4-7 Figure 4-8. Cog Rail ...... 4-7

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project v Initial Screening Report Table of Contents

Figure 4-9. Personal Rapid Transit ...... 4-8 Figure 4-10. At-Grade Configuration ...... 4-11 Figure 4-11. Aerial Configuration ...... 4-12 Figure 4-12. Right-of-Way Constraints...... 4-13 Figure 4-13. Below-Grade Configuration ...... 4-14 Figure 4-14. Initial Valley-Westside Concepts ...... 4-15 Figure 4-15. Concept 1 (HRT) ...... 4-17 Figure 4-16. Concept 2 (HRT) ...... 4-19 Figure 4-17. Concept 3 (LRT) ...... 4-21 Figure 4-18. Concept 4 (LRT) ...... 4-23 Figure 4-19. Concept 5 (MRT) ...... 4-25 Figure 4-20. Concept 6 (HRT) ...... 4-27 Figure 4-21. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Loading (2042) ...... 4-30 Figure 4-22. HRT Refined Concepts ...... 4-34 Figure 4-23. HRT 1 through the San Fernando Valley ...... 4-35 Figure 4-24. HRT 1, 2, and 3 through the Westside ...... 4-36 Figure 4-25. HRT 2 through the San Fernando Valley ...... 4-37 Figure 4-26. HRT 3 through the San Fernando Valley ...... 4-38 Figure 4-27. Monorail/Rubber Tire Refined Concept ...... 4-39 Figure 4-28. MRT 1 through the San Fernando Valley ...... 4-40 Figure 4-29. MRT 1 through the Sepulveda Pass ...... 4-41 Figure 4-30. MRT 1 through the Westside ...... 4-42 Figure 4-31. Potential Locations for a Maintenance and Storage Facility ...... 4-45 Figure 4-32. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Loads with Refined Concepts ...... 4-46 Figure 5-1. HRT Overland Concept...... 5-3 Figure 5-2. HRT Sepulveda Concept ...... 5-4 Figure 5-3. HRT I-405 Concept ...... 5-5 Figure 5-4. HRT Centinela Concept ...... 5-6 Figure 5-5. Purple Line Extension Concept ...... 5-7 Figure 5-6. MRT I-405 Concept ...... 5-8 Figure 7-1. HRT 1 Alternative ...... 7-4 Figure 7-2. Typical Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration ...... 7-5 Figure 7-3. Typical Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration...... 7-6 Figure 7-4. HRT 2 Alternative ...... 7-9 Figure 7-5. HRT 3 Alternative ...... 7-12 Figure 7-6. Typical Aerial HRT Configurations ...... 7-13 Figure 7-7. MRT 1 Alternative...... 7-16 Figure 7-8. Typical Aerial MRT Configurations ...... 7-17

vi Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Abbreviations / Acronyms Abbreviations / Acronyms

AA Alternatives Analysis ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APM Automated People Mover AVO average vehicle occupancy AVTA Antelope Valley Transit Authority BRT bus rapid transit Caltrans California Department of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CTA Central Terminal Area EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EJ Environmental Justice FAA Federal Aviation Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gases HOT high-occupancy toll HOV high-occupancy vehicle HRT heavy rail transit I- Interstate LAWA Los Angeles World Airports LAX Los Angeles International Airport LOSSAN Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo LRT light rail transit LRTP Long-Range Transportation Plan Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metrolink Southern California Regional Rail Authority mph miles per hour MRDC Metro Rail Design Criteria MRT monorail and rubber tire MSF maintenance and storage facility MWD Metropolitan Water District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act P3 Public-Private Partnership

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project vii Initial Screening Report Abbreviations / Acronyms

PeMS Performance Measurement System PRT personal rapid transit SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SMMC Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy SR State Route UCLA University of California, Los Angeles USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers VA Veterans Affairs Valley San Fernando Valley VHT vehicle hours traveled VMT vehicle miles traveled

viii Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 1 Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has initiated the preparation of a Transit Feasibility Study and Technical Compendium for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project and has contracted with Sepulveda Mobility Partners as the Technical Contractor for provision of planning 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 the Sepulveda Corridor between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, including the Los Angeles International 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 and provide convenient connections to existing and planned transit lines. The alternatives developed in the study are intended to represent a range of rail transit modes, alignments, and station locations for addressing the identified transportation needs of the Sepulveda Corridor. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is included in Metro’s 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan (Metro, 2009), in the Measure R expenditure plan as the “San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection” (Metro, 2008), and in the Measure M expenditure plan as the “Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor” (Metro, 2016a). The Measure M Expenditure Plan provides for implementation of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project in two phases: 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 and evaluate fixed-guideway transit alternatives between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside of Los Angeles (Valley-Westside) and then evaluate extensions of those alternatives from the Westside to LAX. The study is being undertaken in coordination with two separate Metro efforts studying the implementation of ExpressLanes on Interstate 405 (I-405) between US 101 and I-10, the potential operation of bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the corridor, and delivery of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project through a public-private partnership (P3). At the completion of the study, a reduced number of alternatives will be recommended to the Metro Board of Directors for refinement and further study during a subsequent environmental review process. The environmental review of the Valley-Westside segment is currently anticipated to begin following Metro Board review and action at the end of this study. The Westside-LAX segment will be the focus of a separate environmental review process in the future. This Sepulveda Transit Feasibility Study is being conducted so that the study can be referenced during scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the next phase of the Project. The intent is for the results and decisions of this study to support the next phase environmental review by informing the purpose and need or goals and objectives; transit mode, termini, and general alignments for consideration; and the preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of unreasonable alternatives. To meet the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 450 – Linking the Transportation and NEPA Processes, the study is being conducted through input from an extensive public outreach effort and through close coordination with local, state, and federal agencies and by ensuring that the process for developing

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 1-1 Initial Screening Report 1 Introduction and screening of alternatives, the level of definition of the alternatives, and the types and level of analyses 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 centered on I-405, extending approximately 2 miles to the east and to the west. The northern limit is at Roscoe Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, and the southern limit is at LAX. The Study Area represents the area in which the transit concepts and ancillary facilities are expected to be located. 1.3 Purpose of this Report

This Initial Screening Report documents the process of developing, evaluating, and refining the initial transit concepts for the Valley-Westside and Westside-LAX segments of the Project. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the travel conditions in the Study Area and the travel markets served by the Sepulveda Corridor, concluding with a preliminary Purpose and Need statement for the Project. Chapter 3 presents the performance measures developed to evaluate and screen the transit concepts. Chapter 4 describes the development and evaluation of the initial transit concepts for the Valley-Westside segment, and Chapter 5 does the same for the extensions of those concepts to LAX. Chapter 6 summarizes the process of public input and coordination with public agencies and other stakeholders. Finally, Chapter 7 provides descriptions of the transit concepts recommended for more detailed analysis, including development of conceptual engineering plans. Through the subsequent conceptual engineering process, the transit concepts recommended for more detailed analysis in this report will be more fully developed into Project alternatives. The Project alternatives will be documented in a Conceptual Alternatives Report, which will include descriptions of all the features necessary to operate a transit system, such as operating plans, vehicle type and fleet size, and general sizes and locations of support facilities such as traction power substations and a maintenance and storage facility. Upon completion of the conceptual engineering plans for the Project alternatives, the design decisions, options, and outstanding issues associated with the development of the conceptual engineering plans will be documented in an Engineering Analysis Report. The conceptual engineering plans themselves will be included as an appendix to the Engineering Analysis Report. The Project alternatives included in the Engineering Analysis Report will undergo a final evaluation. The results of that evaluation, as well as documentation of additional public input and agency and stakeholder coordination, will be presented in the Final Feasibility Study. The Final Feasibility Study will recommend Project alternatives for the Valley-Westside segment to undergo environmental review following Metro Board review and action.

1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 1 Introduction

Figure 1-1. Study Area

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 1-3

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

2 PURPOSE AND NEED This chapter reviews the physical and demographic conditions in the Study Area to provide the basis for an understanding of the challenges to north/south movement through the Sepulveda Corridor. The demand for travel between many different origins and destinations is concentrated into a single corridor, leading to congestion and slow travel speeds for private vehicles and transit services. This understanding informs the development of the Purpose and Need for the Project, as well as specific objectives consistent with that Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need guides the development and evaluation of the transit concepts presented in later chapters. 2.1 Study Area Characteristics Geographic Division of Study Area The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Study Area encompasses The Project Study Area approximately 60 square miles on both sides of I-405 and includes portions of includes three distinct, five jurisdictions: the Cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, and yet interrelated, Inglewood, and unincorporated Los Angeles County. Figure 2-1 illustrates the geographic areas that communities and incorporated cities within the Study Area. These share common communities constitute three distinct, yet interrelated, geographic areas: the characteristics: the San San Fernando Valley (the Valley), the Westside, and the LAX area. Fernando Valley (the Valley), the Westside, The Valley, the northernmost part of the Study Area, is located entirely within and the LAX area. the City of Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley and is generally the portion of the Study Area located north of Mulholland Drive. It includes communities such as Encino, Sherman Oaks, and Van Nuys. Within the Study Area, the San Fernando Valley has a well-defined arterial grid, with major streets every half mile, lined largely with a combination of apartment buildings and businesses. The Valley portion of the Study Area is bisected by the Metro Orange line, which has three stations in the Study Area. The Ventura Freeway (US 101) provides east/west connections through the Valley. The Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor, in which both Amtrak and Metrolink provide passenger service, runs through the northern part of the Study Area. The Westside, the part of the Study Area generally between Mulholland Drive and the I-10 Freeway, includes the City of Los Angeles communities of Bel Air, Brentwood, West Los Angeles, and Westwood, as well as a part of the City of Santa Monica and unincorporated Los Angeles County. The Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) runs through the southern part of the Westside within the Study Area, and the Metro Expo Line includes three stations in the Study Area. The southernmost portion of the Study Area includes LAX and portions of the City of Los Angeles’ Mar Vista, Palms, and Westchester communities, as well as parts of the Cities of Culver City and Inglewood. The Metro Crenshaw/LAX Line, currently under construction, will connect the LAX area to the Metro Expo Line to the northeast at the Expo/Crenshaw Station about 4.5 miles outside of the Study Area, as well as to the South Bay via the Metro Green Line. I-405 runs for 22 miles from north to south through the Study Area, generally with four general purpose lanes in each direction in the Valley and five in the Westside and in the LAX area. It also has a single, continuous high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction throughout the Study Area. Between the Valley and Westside, I-405 traverses the Sepulveda Pass through the Santa Monica Mountains. The Pass is highly constrained, with steep hillsides on both sides, many of which have been cut back to accommodate the freeway and are retained by walls. As shown in Figure 2-2 on the Valley side of the Sepulveda Pass, I-405 has sustained grades of 5 percent, with sections greater than 6 percent.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-1 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-1. Boundaries of Communities and Incorporated Cities

Source: Jurisdictional Boundaries; City of Los Angeles Community Plans; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-2. Grade through the Sepulveda Pass

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-3 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Land Uses within the Study Area As shown in Figure 2-3, residential, commercial, government, industrial, cultural, recreational, and educational land uses are found throughout the Study Area. However, the different types of land uses are not distributed evenly across the Study Area. In particular, commercial (both retail and office) and industrial uses that support high levels of employment tend to be clustered in a limited number of geographic areas. The Study Area also includes several major regional attractions, most notably the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Getty Center, the Skirball Cultural Center, and LAX. This type of land use pattern can result in frequent travel by residents outside of their communities for work, leisure, or educational purposes. Single-family residences constitute the largest share (47.6 percent) of land within the Study Area and are distributed throughout the Study Area. Government-owned land and commercial land uses constitute 10.4 percent and 10.0 percent of the Study Area, respectively. Multi-family residences constitute 3.3 percent of all land uses within the Study Area, and are concentrated largely within the San Fernando Valley, Westwood, West Los Angeles, Palms, Mar Vista, northwest Culver City, and portions of Inglewood and unincorporated Los Angeles County (Marina del Rey). Industrial uses represent 4.5 percent of land and are concentrated largely along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor within the San Fernando Valley, along the Metro Orange Line, along the Expo line west of Sepulveda Boulevard, adjacent to Marina del Rey near LAX, and around the airport near LAX. While residential land uses predominate throughout the Study Area, the density of land uses varies. The southern portion of the Valley has higher density residential and commercial development along and near Ventura, Van Nuys, and Sepulveda Boulevards. The Westside features some areas of high- density housing and commercial activity along Wilshire Boulevard and in parts of Westwood, West LA, and Brentwood, while Bel Air and other parts of Brentwood and Westwood are primarily low and moderate density housing. UCLA, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles Medical Center (VA), and Westwood are all major activity centers. In general, the area south of I-10 does not have as much commercial or residential density as the Valley or Westside, although there are notable areas with higher densities, such as portions of Mar Vista, Palms, Playa Vista, Westchester, and western Culver City. South of the Marina Freeway (State Route [SR] 90) are two major housing and commercial centers, Playa Vista to the west and Fox Hills to the east. The most prominent center of activity in this area is LAX, which is surrounded by many airport-related land uses.

2-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-3. Existing Land Uses

Source: Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, Property Tax Assessment Roll, 2016; Terry A. Hayes Associates, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-5 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Demographics within the Study Area Patterns of population and employment density follow from the distribution of land uses: areas with high concentrations of residential land uses, particularly multi-family residential uses, have high population densities; similarly, areas with high concentrations of commercial land uses, particularly office uses, have high employment densities. Population and employment densities are significant in understanding travel patterns because many daily trips begin at people’s homes, and a substantial number of those trips (although not a majority) end at their places of employment, particularly during peak travel hours. When population centers and employment centers are in different areas, many people’s daily commutes will require them to travel between the two areas. Examining peak travel hours allows for an analysis of conditions when demand on a transportation system is greatest so that planned facilities can be adequately sized to meet that demand. Figure 2-4 shows the population density for the Study Area and the surrounding region. Several portions of the Study Area are densely populated, with the highest density located in parts of Westwood, West Los Angeles, and Brentwood on the Westside, where the population density exceeds 30,000 people per square mile. Within the Study Area, the Valley generally has population densities between 15,000 and 30,000 people per square mile, although Van Nuys and Panorama City directly north of the Study Area have residential densities exceeding 30,000 people per square mile. In the LAX area, population densities generally range from 5,000 to 15,000 people per square mile west of I-405, and up to 30,000 people per square mile east of I-405, with population densities below 5,000 people per square mile immediately surrounding LAX. Population densities below 5,000 people per square mile are also found in the Santa Monica Mountains. As illustrated in Figure 2-5, the greatest job concentrations in the Study Area are found in the Westside, where job densities are generally between 15,000 and 30,000 jobs per square mile, with some areas exceeding 60,000 jobs per square mile. Adjacent to, but outside of, the Westside portion of the Study Area, Century City and 20th Century Fox Studios have more than 60,000 jobs per square mile. The Valley and LAX areas are primarily characterized by low to medium job density in most areas. As evidenced by the population and employment densities illustrated in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, locations of residential and employment densities tend to be mismatched in and near the Study Area. In the Valley, population centers are much denser than employment centers, while the reverse is true on the Westside, particularly when considering the adjacent Century City and Beverly Hills areas immediately outside the Study Area. Only the LAX area has approximately equal population and employment densities, although at different locations within that part of the Study Area. This pattern of residences and job centers leads to increased and longer travel between communities where people live and where people work. Vehicle ownership is a key factor influencing transit ridership, as households without access to a personal vehicle are more likely to utilize transit. Figure 2-6 shows the percentage of zero-vehicle households throughout the Study Area. The Valley has the highest concentration of zero-vehicle households in the Study Area. Generally, 10 to 20 percent of households in the Valley do not have a vehicle, and there are several areas where more than 20 percent of households do not have a vehicle, such as along Van Nuys Boulevard and the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. In most areas of the Westside within the Study Area, less than 5 percent of households do not have personal vehicles; however, the VA and student housing adjacent to UCLA have the highest concentration of zero-vehicle households in the Study Area, with

2-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need over 20 percent without a vehicle. The LAX area does not have as high of concentrations of zero-vehicle households as the Westside or the Valley, with generally 5 to 10 percent of households without a vehicle.

Figure 2-4. Population Density

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 2017; Fehr & Peers, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-7 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-5. Job Density

Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-6. Zero-Car Households

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 2017; Fehr & Peers, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-9 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

2.2 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions in the Study Area The Sepulveda Corridor is the major north-south transportation corridor connecting the Valley, Westside, and LAX area. To provide a measure of Transit Mode Share the volume of daily travel through the corridor made by private vehicles Approximately 2 percent of and by transit, total daily person throughput was calculated at two north-south travel through locations, or “screenlines,” in the Sepulveda Corridor: across the the Sepulveda Pass occurs Sepulveda Pass just north of Getty Center Drive and just north of SR 90. by transit. The screenlines encompass both I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard. Person throughput is a metric that includes all people moving through the corridor, whether carried in private vehicles (as single occupants or in a carpool) or by transit. Figure 2-7 summarizes the daily person throughput at the screenline in the Sepulveda Pass. More than 412,000 people traverse the Pass daily, with approximately 404,000 in private vehicles and 8,000 using transit, resulting in a transit “mode share” of just under 2 percent.

Figure 2-7. Sepulveda Pass Person Throughput

LAX Municipal FlyAway Operators Private Vehicles Transit 3,090 1,812 404,130 7,944 Metro 3,042

Source: Metro; Municipal operators; LAWA; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Note: Person trips by private vehicle calculated by multiplying vehicle counts obtained from Caltrans 2018 Performance Measurement System (PeMS) and the Metro Arterial Performance Measurement Framework Countywide Baseline Conditions Analysis (Metro, 2017b) by average vehicle occupancy (AVO) reported in Caltrans District 7 2015 Managed Lanes Annual Report (2.23 in HOV lanes and 1.08 in other lanes).

2-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-8 summarizes the daily person throughput at the SR 90 screenline. More than 396,000 people cross this screenline daily, with approximately 388,000 in private vehicles and slightly under 8,000 using transit, resulting in a transit “mode share” of approximately 2 percent.

Figure 2-8. SR 90 Screenline Person Throughput

Municipal Operators Private Vehicles 4,686 Transit 388,308 7,878 LAX FlyAway 3,192

Source: Culver CityBus, LAWA; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Note: Person trips by private vehicle calculated by multiplying vehicle counts obtained from PeMS and the Metro Arterial Performance Measurement Framework Countywide Baseline Conditions Analysis (Metro, 2017b) by AVO reported in Caltrans District 7 2015 Managed Lanes Annual Report (2.23 in HOV lanes and 1.08 in other lanes).

2.2.1.1 Freeways and Roadways Figure 2-9 illustrates the average daily freeway traffic volumes in the Study Area. I-405 is heavily traveled throughout the Study Area, with particularly heavy volumes between Wilshire Boulevard and SR 90. Daily traffic volumes drop considerably north of US 101. The direction of the peak traffic demands varies over the course of the day, with increased demand for travel from the Valley and LAX areas to the Westside during the morning commute period and the reverse pattern during the evening commute period. Table 2-1 presents the total peak hour volumes on I-405 at representative locations throughout the Study Area, including both the general-purpose lanes and the HOV lanes. These volumes represent actual throughput volumes, which are often far below demand because of traffic congestion. Table 2-2 presents the peak hour volumes in the HOV lanes only, which better represents the pattern of traffic demand because the HOV lanes experience less congestion. HOV volumes are generally greater heading toward the Westside in the morning and away from the Westside in the evening, with the exception of near Century Boulevard in the LAX area.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-11

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-9. Freeway Mainline Average Daily Traffic Volumes

Source: PeMS, 2017; System Metrics Group, 2018

2-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Table 2-1. I-405 Peak Hour Total Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Sherman Way 4,630 3,210 6,180 6,110 Skirball Center Drive 7,170 9,130 8,160 8,720 Santa Monica Boulevard 11,480 8,610 6,920 6,560 Venice Boulevard 10,300 9,790 6,430 6,100 Howard Hughes Parkway 5,430 8,620 7,740 7,610 Century Boulevard 5,430 9,250 9,590 7,480 Source: PeMS; System Metrics Group, 2018

Table 2-2. I-405 Peak Hour HOV Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Sherman Way 250 600 1,360 1,290 Skirball Center Drive 990 1630 1,500 980 Santa Monica Boulevard 1,240 900 1,130 890 Venice Boulevard 1,450 1120 910 940 Howard Hughes Parkway 1,020 970 1,080 1,270 Century Boulevard 670 900 1,270 1,760 Source: PeMS; System Metrics Group, 2018

The high level of demand experienced on I-405 results in congestion and low travel speeds, as shown in Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11. Travelers to the Westside from the Valley and LAX areas experience the greatest delays: The average travel speed on I-405 during the morning peak is below 25 miles per hour (mph) southbound between Sherman Way and Skirball Center Drive and northbound between I-105 and Venice Boulevard. Travel Speeds During the evening peak, the northbound speed between Venice Boulevard During the morning peak and Sherman Way from the Westside into the San Fernando Valley is less hour, speeds are slowest than 25 mph. Southbound travel during the evening experiences its slowest heading toward the speeds between Wilshire Boulevard and Howard Hughes Parkway. Westside from the Valley and LAX. During the Slow travel speeds are not limited to freeways within the Study Area, as evening the pattern is many arterial streets in the Valley and on the Westside experience reduced reversed. speeds at all times of the day, as illustrated in Figure 2-12, Figure 2-13, and Figure 2-14.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-13

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-10. I-405 Mainline AM Peak Average Travel Speeds

Source: INRIX; System Metrics Group, 2018

2-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-11. I-405 Mainline PM Peak Average Travel Speeds

Source: INRIX; System Metrics Group, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-15 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-12. AM Peak Period Average Arterial Speed

Source: INRIX; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-13. PM Peak Period Average Arterial Speed

Source: INRIX; Fehr & Peers, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-17 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-14. Weekend Midday Average Arterial Speed

Source: INRIX; Fehr and Peers, 2018

2-18 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Some of these arterial streets serve regional destinations, such as the UCLA campus. Others are roughly parallel to freeways within the Study Area. Through the Santa Monica Mountains, both Sepulveda Boulevard and Beverly Glen Boulevard have faster northbound speeds during the morning peak hour and faster southbound travel speeds during the evening peak hour, reflecting the prevailing travel patterns. Within the Study Area in the Valley, southbound travel is slower than northbound on Van Nuys and Sepulveda Boulevard during the morning, and the pattern reverses in the evening. Almost all roadways on the Westside have speeds below 20 to 25 mph in the peak during the peak evening commute hour. Roadways near LAX have slightly faster speeds and less of a difference in directional speed.

2.2.1.2 Transit Service Existing conventional bus service within the Study Area consists of a broad range of services offered by both regional and municipal transit providers. Figure 2-15 displays existing bus routes in the Study Area operated by the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA), City of Santa Clarita Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver CityBus, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), Los Angeles World Airports’ LAX FlyAway, and Metro. In the Valley portion of the Study Area, service is provided primarily by Metro, with local service on major arterials and Rapid service provided on Ventura Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Van Nuys Boulevard. On the Westside, service is primarily provided by Metro and Big Blue Bus. Metro, Big Blue Bus, and Culver CityBus all provide transit service in the LAX area, while the LAX FlyAway provides transit service directly to the LAX central terminal area. There are multiple rail and busway lines existing, under construction, or planned within the Study Area. As depicted in Figure 2-16, the existing lines primarily serve east-west travel; there is no rail line or busway that directly connects the Valley, Westside, and LAX areas. Among these east-west lines are the existing Metro Orange Line (with planned improvements), an extension of the Metro Purple Line currently under construction, the existing Metro Expo Line, and the existing Metro Green Line. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, a planned north-south rail line in the San Fernando Valley between the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station, would connect the northern portion of the Study Area with the north San Fernando Valley. The Metro Crenshaw/LAX Line, under construction between the Expo Line at the Expo/Crenshaw Station and the Green Line near the Aviation/LAX Station, will add a north-south route to Metro’s rail system, connecting to LAX via the Los Angeles World Airports’ planned Automated People Mover (APM). A northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line to the Purple Line on Wilshire Boulevard and the Red Line at Hollywood/Highland is currently in the early phases of study. This proposed extension will connect the San Fernando Valley to LAX indirectly via a transfer to the Metro Red Line. All of these future north-south lines are largely outside the Study Area, only intersecting the Study Area at either its northern or southern ends.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-19 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-15. Existing Bus Service

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-20 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-16. Rail and Busway Projects in Planning or Construction

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-21 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Although a network of transit corridors with frequent service exists on both sides of the Sepulveda Pass, the link through the Sepulveda Pass is currently served by routes offering less frequent service or by express services that operate only during peak commuter periods, as shown in Figure 2-17. Most transit riders traveling between the Valley and the Westside or LAX likely need to transfer between a higher frequency east-west bus route to a lower frequency north-south route on at least one part of their trip. Figure 2-18 maps average daily boardings on bus services in the Study Area. Throughout the Study Area, boardings are greatest along corridors that have higher frequency service. Within the Valley, transit ridership is highest around the Metro Orange Line and north of the Orange Line, with ridership decreasing southward until Ventura Boulevard. Boardings for local transit in the Valley are concentrated along Van Nuys and Sepulveda Boulevards, with the greatest boardings along Van Nuys Boulevard. Van Nuys Boulevard has frequent transit service with headways of 15 minutes or less, while headways on Sepulveda Boulevard are between 16 and 30 minutes. Ventura Boulevard also has frequent bus service with headways of 15 minutes or less throughout the Study Area. On the Westside, the greatest concentrations of transit boardings are in Westwood and on the UCLA campus, where frequent headways are maintained throughout the day. The Metro Expo Line stations within the Study Area experience a large number of boardings each day. Olympic, Santa Monica, and Wilshire Boulevards, which all have transit services with headways of 15 minutes or less, also have many boardings. There are some areas of concentrated transit boardings between the Westside and LAX; however, the number of boardings are not as large as near UCLA in the Westside or Van Nuys Boulevard in the Valley. The greatest concentrations within this area occur along Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards, as well as in the area immediately adjacent to LAX. As throughout the Study Area, these are the corridors with the most frequent transit service for this area, all with headways of 15 minutes or less. The congestion on roadways and freeways in the Study Area affects transit service as well as privately operated vehicles, as there are no north-south rail or dedicated busway travel options in the Study Area, making travel times unpredictable and transit service unreliable. As shown in Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20, Metro bus services that currently operate on I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard between the Valley and the Westside are on time less than 50 percent of the time during the morning and evening peak periods, and significant delays are experienced by Metro local bus service within the San Fernando Valley. Metro’s Transit Service Policy (Metro, 2015) defines “on-time” as a bus arriving no more than one minute early or 5 minutes late at each time-point along a route.

2-22 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-17. Study Area Transit Service Frequency

Source: Metro and Municipal Operators, 2018, Fehr & Peers, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-23 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-18. Daily Transit Boardings in the Study Area

Source: Metro; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-24 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-19. Transit Service On-Time Performance (AM Period)

Source: Metro OTP data, February-November 2017; Big Blue Bus; Culver CityBus; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: Data not available for southbound Route 788. Data for BBB Routes 8, 14, 17, and R12 are daily only. Data for Culver CityBus Routes 6 and R6 are bidirectional, daily averages.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-25 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-20. Transit Service On-Time Performance (PM Period)

Source: Metro OTP data, February-November 2017; Big Blue Bus; Culver CityBus; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Notes: Data not available for southbound Route 788. Data for BBB Routes 8, 14, 17, and R12 are daily only. Data for Culver CityBus Routes 6 and R6 are bidirectional, daily averages.

2-26 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

2.3 Travel Markets The roadways and transit services within the Study Area serve a variety of travel markets, or pairs of areas with heavy travel demand between them. The analysis of travel markets provides the basis for development of transit improvements by identifying the most important activity centers and connections to serve. Some of the travel markets that use the Sepulveda Corridor are entirely within the Study Area, such as Van Nuys to UCLA; other markets have only one end within the Study Area, such as Hollywood to LAX; and still others have neither end within the Study Area but require travel through the Study Area, such as Santa Clarita to downtown Santa Monica. Productions and Attractions The analysis of travel markets typically begins with the classification of the “trip ends” associated with each trip into “productions” and “attractions.” Each trip is produced at one location, the location where it originates, and is “attracted” to another location, its destination. In general, residences produce trips, and other types of locations, such as places of employment or other commercial or social activity, attract trips. Pairs of trip ends with large numbers of trips between them constitute major travel markets. In 2017, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Study Area produced approximately 2.26 million trips and attracted approximately 3.04 million trips each day. Of the trips produced within the Study Area, approximately 47 percent left the Study Area, and, of trips attracted to the Study Area, approximately 61 percent originated from outside the Study Area. Because so much of the travel in the Study Area has an origin and/or destination outside the Study Area, a broader look at the region is required to understand the travel markets and demand served by the corridor. Figure 2-21 maps the daily trip end (both productions and attractions) in the Study Area and surrounding region in 2017, illustrating the wide distribution of productions and attractions within and outside the Study Area. In the San Fernando Valley, densities of trip ends are high near the communities of Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks, which have residential land uses and major commercial corridors. On the Westside, concentrations are in Westwood, Brentwood, and Culver City, which also have major commercial centers with some residential density. The biggest trip attractor in the Study Area, UCLA, is located on the Westside in Westwood. In the LAX area, concentrations of productions and attractions are in Mar Vista and Westchester, which are major residential areas, and Playa Vista and Howard Hughes Center, which are major commercial and employment centers. Outside the Study Area, activity centers such as Century City, Warner Center, the commercial areas of Santa Monica along the Expo Line corridor, and Beverly Hills show a significant concentration of attractions. Also outside of the Study Area, the communities of Panorama City, West Hollywood, Hollywood, Koreatown, Mid-City, Palms, and West Adams have a large mix of productions and attractions. The pattern of productions and attractions generally follows the land use patterns shown in Figure 2-3, with productions largely concentrated in residential areas, especially multi-family residential areas, and attractions in areas with commercial and industrial uses. However, certain exceptional land uses, such as UCLA and LAX, generate attractions far beyond other employment centers because people travel to them for reasons other than employment, such as educational or medical purposes in the case of UCLA, or long-distance travel in the case of LAX.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-27 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-21. Trip Productions and Attractions (2017)

Source: Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c

2-28 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Market Areas Determining the locations of trip productions and attractions helps identify important travel destinations Market Areas in the Study Area, but it does not fully explain travel The market areas of the Sepulveda Transit patterns in and through the Study Area. Trips in the Corridor are those communities or areas from Study Area could be short trips between nearby trip which trips through the corridor have their productions and attractions, or they could be longer origin or destination. trips between distant productions and attractions. Most travel could be along east-west corridors, or north-south corridors, or a mixture of the two. Identification of geographic travel “market areas” allows for an analysis of the types of trips made between productions and attractions. As shown in Figure 2-22, trips that travel through the Sepulveda Pass screenline described in Section 2.2 have origins and destinations spread throughout the San Fernando Valley, from the Ventura County Line to I-5, with a concentration of trip ends between I-405 and Van Nuys Boulevard in the communities of Van Nuys, Panorama City, and Sherman Oaks. South of the screenline, these trips have an especially dense concentration of origins and destinations throughout the entirety of the Westside that falls within the Study Area, as well as Santa Monica to the west and Century City and Beverly Hills to the east. Concentrations also remain significant through West Hollywood and Hollywood. Origins and destinations of these trips are less numerous south of I-10, except for concentrations in Playa Vista, Culver City, Palms, and in the immediate vicinity of LAX. Using data such as that illustrated in Figure 2-22, the 15 distinct market areas illustrated in Figure 2-23 were identified as the source of most trips in the Sepulveda Corridor. Of all trips through the Sepulveda Pass screenline, 91.6 percent both start and end within these 15 market areas. To simplify identification, these market areas are named after the major communities that they include; however, market area boundaries do not precisely match jurisdictional boundaries.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-29 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-22. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through the Sepulveda Pass

Source: StreetLight Data; Fehr & Peers, 2018

2-30 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-23. Primary Market Areas Using the Sepulveda Corridor

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Note: Market area names do not match exact jurisdictional boundaries.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-31 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

As illustrated by Figure 2-24, trips beginning or ending north of the Sepulveda Pass screenline are primarily going to or coming from the Brentwood/Westwood market area (including UCLA), constituting nearly one-third of those trips with origins or destinations north of the screenline. Conversely, the other end of trips with their origin or destination south of the screenline are spread throughout the San Fernando Valley, with three market areas in the Valley having shares ranging from 21 percent to 25 percent.

Figure 2-24. Primary Market Areas of Trips through the Sepulveda Pass Screenline Trips with an origin or destination north of the Pass Trips with an origin or destination south of the Pass have have the other end of their trip in… the other end of their trip in…

Source: Metro; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Note: Labels in bold indicate market areas located within the Study Area.

Of all trips traveling through the SR 90 screenline, 92.5 percent both start and end within the 15 market areas. As shown in Figure 2-25, relatively few trips through the SR 90 screenline have origins or destinations north of the Santa Monica Mountains; those that do are spread throughout the San Fernando Valley. As with trips through the Sepulveda Pass, origins and destinations are heavily concentrated on the Westside, within the Study Area, west to Santa Monica, and east to Beverly Hills. However, fewer origins and destinations extend east through West Hollywood and Hollywood as those trips through the Sepulveda Pass screenline do. South of I-10, origin and destination concentrations are in Palms and on both sides of I-405 south of Venice Boulevard, including Culver City. These concentrations increase in density southward into the LAX area and through the Cities of Inglewood, Hawthorne, and El Segundo. Farther south into the South Bay, origins and destinations become more spread out, akin to the pattern seen in the San Fernando Valley.

2-32 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Figure 2-25. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through SR 90 Screenline

Source: StreetLight Data; Fehr & Peers, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-33 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

As with the trips through the Sepulveda Pass screenline, a clear pattern of convergence on the Westside is apparent. As Figure 2-26 shows, 23 percent of trips with an origin or destination south of the SR 90 screenline have an origin or destination in the Brentwood/Westwood market area. However, unlike the trips through the Sepulveda Pass screenline, a substantial share of the trips through the SR 90 screenline are relatively local. Of the trips with an origin or destination north of the SR 90 screenline, 43 percent have the other end of the trip in Mar Vista, Westchester, or LAX. Among trips with an origin or destination south of the screenline, 23 percent have the other end in Mar Vista, Westchester, or LAX. The remaining trips are relatively dispersed throughout the market areas south of the Santa Monica Mountains.

Figure 2-26. Primary Market Areas of Trips through the SR 90 Screenline Trips with an origin or destination north of the screenline Trips with an origin or destination south of the screenline have the other end of their trip in… have the other end of their trip in…

Source: Metro; Fehr & Peers, 2018 Note: Labels in bold indicate market areas located within the Study Area

These patterns demonstrate the significance of the Westside for travelers using the corridor coming from both north and south of the Study Area, as well as within the Study Area itself. Trips through the Sepulveda Pass screenline have relatively few origins or destinations south of the SR 90 screenline, and trips through the SR 90 screenline have relatively few origins or destinations north of the Sepulveda Pass screenline. Travel Market Growth Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines recommend that future conditions be analyzed with a horizon year consistent with the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, which for Los Angeles County is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG currently uses a horizon year of 2040; however, the Measure M Expenditure Plan has multiple significant transit projects with a planned opening date in 2042. Metro and FTA agreed that 2042 should be used to ensure consistency in analysis across all current projects. Travel in 2057 is also analyzed because it is the last year in the Measure M Expenditure Plan with planned openings of major transit projects, including the Westside-LAX segment of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project.

2-34 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Travel to and from the Study Area is forecast to increase; productions and attractions by the Study Area are forecast to grow by approximately 17 to 18 percent from 2017 to 2042 and 24 to 25 percent from 2017 to 2057. Table 2-3 summarizes this anticipated growth.

Table 2-3. Existing and Forecast Travel in the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Growth Growth 2017 2042 2017-2042 2057 2017-2057 Productions 2.26 million 2.63 million 17% 2.80 million 24% Attractions 3.04 million 3.58 million 18% 3.80 million 25% Source: Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c

This increase is in part the result of expected population and employment growth. Table 2-4 summarizes the existing and forecast population and employment growth throughout the Sepulveda Transit Corridor’s major travel markets.

Table 2-4. Population and Employment of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Major Travel Markets Growth Growth 2017 2042 2017-2042 2057 2017-2057 Population 7,741,310 8,807,877 13.8% 9,447,803 22.0% Employment 3,370,911 4,058,268 20.4% 4,470,618 32.6% Source: Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c

2.4 Project Purpose and Need As evidenced by the travel patterns previously discussed, the Sepulveda Corridor provides a crucial transportation link across the Santa Monica Mountains and through the Westside of Los Angeles, connecting the heavy concentration of households in the San Fernando Valley with major employment and activity centers on the Westside, including such major travel destinations as Westwood, UCLA, Century City, and LAX. More broadly, the corridor serves trips from throughout western Los Angeles County and beyond. Section 2.3 presents an analysis of the origins and destinations of travel on I-405 and the adjacent roadways, including Sepulveda Boulevard, at two screenlines: a north screenline located in the Sepulveda Pass and a south screenline located north of State Route 90. With increasing population, employment, and travel, congestion on I-405 and other Study Area roadways is likely to increase and extend over longer periods of the day unless there is substantial investment in new system capacity. As congestion grows, San Fernando Valley residents will see their access to Westside travel destinations decline. While Metro is considering the conversion of the existing HOV lanes on I-405 to ExpressLanes, and possibly adding an ExpressLane in each direction, opportunities to add highway capacity are severely constrained by topographic conditions in the Santa Monica Mountains. Because existing and future travel demand in the corridor far exceeds the available highway capacity, the addition of highway lanes would increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions without providing a reliable travel option that is not subject to roadway congestion.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-35 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

As described in Section 2.2, transit service within the Study Area is primarily provided by Metro, LADOT, the City of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, and Culver CityBus. While there is a network of relatively frequent transit services within the Valley and within the Westside and LAX areas, transit connections between the Valley and the Westside are limited. Metro Rapid lines 734 and 788 currently connect the East San Fernando Valley to the Westside via the Sepulveda Pass. Route 734 begins at the Sylmar Metrolink commuter rail station in the north, traveling south on Truman Street and San Fernando Road, then south on Sepulveda Boulevard to serve North Hills and the Van Nuys Orange Line BRT station. It continues south on Sepulveda Boulevard through the Sepulveda Pass to Westwood, where it connects to the Expo Line at the Sepulveda Station. The route operates on weekdays, with 15- to 20-minute headways over a period of 18 hours per day. In the AM peak, a trip from Sylmar to the Expo Line Station is scheduled to take approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. Route 788 begins at Panorama Mall in the north, travels south on Van Nuys Boulevard to the Van Nuys Metrolink Station, and continues south to the Van Nuys Civic Center and the Sepulveda Orange Line Station. It enters I-405 at Victory Boulevard and continues through the Sepulveda Pass, and ends at the Expo Line/Sepulveda Station. The route operates only during peak periods on weekdays, with headways of 15 to 20 minutes. In the AM peak, a trip from Panorama Mall to the Expo Line is scheduled to take approximately 80 minutes. Although Metro Rapid buses have limited stops and are provided transit signal priority, scheduled speeds for these two Metro Rapid routes are generally slower than 15 mph, and on-time performance is below 50 percent. Metro’s local bus 234 also connects the East San Fernando Valley to the Westside. These local buses make numerous stops, and scheduled speeds are slow. Other Metro bus lines serve the San Fernando Valley and the Westside but do not provide service between Project Purpose these two areas. The purpose of the Project is to provide a LADOT’s Commuter Express Routes 573 and 574 also high-quality transit service that effectively serves the large and growing travel markets provide express service between the Valley and the between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. Route 573 serves the Westwood area, Westside, including the LAX area. while route 574 serves the LAX area. In the San Fernando Valley, these routes have multiple stops on Chatsworth Street and Balboa Avenue before turning east at US 101 and then south on I-405, crossing the Sepulveda Pass into the Westside. Route 573 has multiple stops in Westwood and Century City, and Route 574 has multiple stops in Westchester and the LAX area. Although the scheduled speed and on-time performance of these routes are better than those of the Metro Rapid routes, they are still not competitive with the automobile. Table 2-5 presents performance statistics for the Metro Rapid and LADOT Commuter Express routes through the Sepulveda Pass. Several factors contribute to the slow speeds and unreliable travel times on these routes—most notably that the buses operate in mixed traffic and are subject to roadway congestion. The routes are also slowed by the multiple stops they make in the Valley, Westwood, and LAX areas.

2-36 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

Table 2-5. Performance Statistics for Rapid and Express Routes between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside Passengers Load Factor Average Daily per Trip through Span of Peak Period Average On-time Load through through the Sepulveda Route Service Headway Speed Performance the Pass Pass Pass Rapid 734 18 hours per 15-20 <15 mph <50% on 1,160 24 0.42 day minutes time Rapid 788 Peak period 15-20 <15 mph <50% on 400 16 0.54 only minutes time Commuter Peak period 10-15 17 mph 73% on time 898 29 0.59 Express 573 only minutes Commuter Peak period 25-30 24 mph 65% on time 294 29 0.60 Express 574 only minutes Source: Source: Metro OTP data, February-November 2017 Note: Load = number of passengers in the vehicle

Metro has established passenger loading standards, the number of passengers in a vehicle at a given time, in its Transit Service Policy (Metro, 2015) to ensure that enough service capacity is provided on Metro Bus and Rail service. The standard is expressed as a ratio of the number of passengers to the number of seats on the transit vehicle (load factor). For services with headways of 11 to 20 minutes, the load factor standard is no more than 1.3 during peak periods and no more than 1.25 during off- peak periods. As shown in Table 2-5, load factors indicate that the Metro Rapid and LADOT Commuter Express routes that cross the Sepulveda Pass routes currently have enough capacity to accommodate higher ridership. The low utilization of Need for Effective Transit Service these routes likely reflects the slow speeds and poor For effective transit service, increased speed, reliability of the existing transit services resulting frequency, and reliability, as well as convenient connections to existing and from traffic congestion. planned transit corridors, are necessary. A Metro intends to extend the Purple Line to significant increase in ridership also creates a Westwood by 2027. This will enable people to travel need to increase capacity. from the San Fernando Valley to Westwood via a combination of the Orange Line, the Red Line, and the Purple Line. This route is indirect and will involve multiple transfers. A direct route between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, operating on a dedicated guideway to increase speed and reliability, would be more competitive with the automobile and attract more riders to transit. The southern part of the LAX area is currently served by the Metro Green Line, and it will be better served when the Crenshaw/LAX Line begins operations and when the planned light rail transit (LRT) extension to Torrance is constructed. A trip from the Valley to the LAX area will then be possible by taking the Metro Orange Line to the Metro Red Line, then transferring to either the Metro Expo and Crenshaw/LAX Lines or to the Metro Blue and Green Lines. Transfers have a negative effect on ridership; in Metro’s Transfers Design Guide (Metro, 2018c), time spent transferring between transit vehicles is considered 2.5 times more onerous than the equivalent amount of time spent traveling in

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-37 Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need a vehicle. With at least three transfers involved and requiring substantial out-of-way travel, such a trip by transit would not be competitive with the automobile For transit to effectively serve the large and growing travel market between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, including the LAX area, and to attract a significant number of new riders, there is a need to increase the speed, frequency, and reliability of transit service and provide convenient connections to existing and planned transit corridors. With a significant increase in ridership, there will also be a need to increase capacity. Measure M, which was passed by voters in November 2016, provides funds to expand the rail and rapid transit system. Core goals for transit are to accelerate rail construction; build new rail lines; enhance local, regional, and express bus service; and improve system connectivity. The Measure M Expenditure Plan (Metro, 2016a) anticipates that Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor improvements will be made in three phases: µ Phase 1 – ExpressLanes on I-405 between I-10 and US 101 – to be operating by 2026 µ Phase 2 – San Fernando Valley to Westside – by 2033 µ Phase 3 – Westside to LAX – by 2057 Measure R, passed in 2009, also included funding for a San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection transit capital project to be implemented by 2039. There is a need for Metro to fulfill the promises made to the voters in Measure M and Measure R.

2.5 Goals and Objectives Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) expresses a vision for public transportation as follows: The public transportation system in Los Angeles County will provide services over the next 30 years that provide faster, more convenient ways to travel without a car. In November 2015, the Metro Board adopted Performance Metrics Framework for Major Projects (Metro, 2017a) that included goals and objectives related to five broad themes: mobility, economy, accessibility, safety, and sustainability and quality of life. Metro’s 2018 Vision 2028 Strategic Plan (Metro, 2018a) includes two goals to provide high-quality mobility options that enable people to spend less time traveling and to enhance communities and lives through mobility and access to opportunity. The evaluation process for the Sepulveda Transit Feasibility Study will rely upon more detailed objectives that build upon the broad goals in the LRTP and Vision 2028 and reflect the Project’s Purpose and Need. The following key objectives are proposed to support Metro’s mobility-related goals of increasing transit ridership, speed, and convenience: µ Increase transit ridership by directly serving locations with the greatest potential for attracting new riders. This may include origins and destinations with higher density and/or origins and destinations of trips by those people with a higher propensity to travel by transit (e.g., low income, zero car households). µ Increase transit frequency and operating speeds. By minimizing point-to-point travel time for customers, transit can become more competitive with the automobile.

2-38 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 2 Purpose and Need

µ Reduce the need to transfer and/or the time spent transferring for the most common trips. Transfers have a negative effect on ridership. In Metro’s travel demand model, time spent transferring between transit vehicles is weighted 2.5 times as much as time spent traveling in a vehicle. µ Increase transit reliability. Reliable transit performance allows riders to plan their trip to arrive at their destination on schedule without building in extra travel time or “float” to compensate for an early or late transit vehicle µ Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated demand. The transit investment should provide a comfortable ride with enough space per passenger. µ Provide convenient connections between existing and planned transit lines. Convenient connections between the Project and the Orange Line, Purple Line, Expo Line, Crenshaw Line, and East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor will help reduce door-to-door travel time and attract new riders to transit. Metro’s other goals—including goals related to equity of access, protection of the environment, and support of community and economic development—are also relevant to the evaluation of transit concepts for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Federal regulations require the consideration of environmental factors if the results of the feasibility study are to be recognized in the subsequent NEPA and CEQA processes. The evaluation will also consider each concept’s cost, cost effectiveness, long-term return on investment, financial feasibility, and project delivery opportunities and risks.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 2-39

Initial Screening Report 3 Evaluation Methodology

3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the process by which the initial transit concepts were developed and evaluated for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. It also reviews the Project objectives and presents the performance criteria used in the evaluation of how well each transit concept satisfies those objectives.

3.1 Evaluation Process The screening of the initial transit concepts for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project was based on a traditional, iterative alternatives analysis evaluation process to identify and refine concepts that best address the Purpose and Need of the Project, using evaluation criteria derived from the goals and objectives of the Project. The evaluation process was applied sequentially to the initial transit concepts for the Valley-Westside segment and the Westside-LAX segment, since the Valley-Westside segment is planned to be constructed and open for service in 2033, while the Westside-LAX segment will open in 2057. Therefore, the traditional process of development and evaluation of transit concepts for the corridor was modified to reflect and support this sequence by first developing and evaluating Valley-Westside concepts and then developing and evaluating Westside-LAX concepts. Figure 3-1 illustrates this process, including the incorporation of input from public meetings conducted in September 2018 for the initial Valley-Westside concepts and in January and February 2019 for refined Valley-Westside concepts and the initial Westside-LAX concepts. Input will also be included from public meetings to be held in the summer of 2019 prior to completion of the Feasibility Study.

Figure 3-1. Process for Developing and Evaluating Initial Transit Concepts

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-1 Initial Screening Report 3 Evaluation Methodology

3.2 Evaluation Measures To evaluate the transit concepts, qualitative and quantitative performance measures were derived from the Project’s goals and objectives concerning mobility, equity, and ability to protect the environment and support community and economic development. At the initial screening stage, the measures rely on either qualitative or high-level quantitative data appropriate to the level of detail available about the transit concepts. For example, since detailed alignments and precise station locations have not yet been identified, ridership forecasts are based on general alignments and approximate station locations. Alignments considered during the initial evaluation cover roughly the same geographic extent and are capable of supporting the same number of stations. Similarly, the evaluation of potential for environmental and community impacts reflects general areas of concern, but it does not include information about potential impacts at individual locations. Table 3-1 presents the performance measures used in the evaluation of the transit concepts presented in this report. The left column of the table details the objectives derived from each Project goal, and the right column identifies the measures used to assess each concept’s performance relative to those objectives. The objectives associated with the goal of improving mobility are the key objectives identified in Chapter 2 based on the Project’s Purpose and Need.

Table 3-1. Goals, Objectives, and Evaluation Criteria Objectives Measures Goal: Improve Mobility 1.1 Increase transit ridership by directly serving ∂ Number of daily boardings origin and destinations with greatest potential for ∂ Number of new transit trips attracting new riders ∂ Average operating speeds 1.2 Increase transit frequency and operating ∂ Service frequencies speeds ∂ 1.3 Minimize need for transfers and/or time spent Number of transfers between major origin- transferring destination pairs 1.4 Increase on-time performance and reliability ∂ Percent of alignment in exclusive right-of-way 1.5 Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate ∂ Presence of rail junction anticipated demand ∂ Load at maximum load point 1.6 Provide convenient connections between ∂ Number and quality of connections to existing and existing and planned transit planned Metro rail and busway lines Goal: Improve Equity of Access 2.1 Improve accessibility for residential and ∂ 2042 population density (within ½ mile of stations) employment centers ∂ 2042 employment density (within ½ mile of stations) 2.2 Support transit-oriented communities (TOC) ∂ Number and size of planned high-density/mixed use policies developments (within ½ mile of stations) 2.3 Support First/Last Mile connections ∂ Number of connections to bicycle and quality 2.4 Investment in disadvantaged communities pedestrian facilities (within ½ mile of stations) ∂ Number of environmental justice (EJ) populations (within ½ mile of stations) ∂ Number of zero-car households (within ½ mile of stations) ∂ Transit-supportive characteristics (described in text)

3-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 3 Evaluation Methodology

Objectives Measures Goal: Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development 3.1 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ∂ Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction 3.2 Reduce air pollutant emissions ∂ Regional Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) reduction 3.3 Minimize effects to communities ∂ Potential for displacement 3.4 Minimize impacts to transportation network ∂ Potential for traffic and noise impacts 3.5 Minimize other environmental impacts ∂ Potential for visual impacts ∂ Estimated traffic lane miles to be removed ∂ Estimated parking lanes to be removed ∂ Estimated length of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be added or removed ∂ Environmental justice ∂ Other potential environmental impacts Goal: Provide a Cost-Effective Solution 4.1 Minimize cost to achieve benefits ∂ Not included in initial evaluation 4.2 Maximize long-term return on investment Goal: Minimize Project Delivery Risk 5.1 Minimize potential for cost increases and ∂ Not included in initial evaluation delays Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

The evaluation of initial concepts assesses each concept’s potential to improve mobility, improve equity of access, and protect the environment and support community and economic development. Measures related to cost-effectiveness were not evaluated for the initial concepts because Project cost estimates have not yet been completed. Evaluation of delivery risk was also not included in the initial evaluation because sufficient engineering has not yet been conducted to identify these risks. These goals will be included in the detailed evaluation of the refined concepts documented in the Final Feasibility Study. The following sections describe the performance measures listed in Table 3-1 in more detail. Improve Mobility The performance measures related to mobility assess ridership potential, operability and capacity limitations, and the number and quality of transfers for the initial transit concepts. Measures such as daily boardings and number of new transit trips indicate how many people would use the rail line; average operating speeds, service frequencies (the line’s headway), number of transfers between major origin-destination pairs, and number and quality of connections (how well the line connects to other existing or planned major transit lines) measure how convenient the line would be for riders; and percent of alignment in exclusive right-of-way, presence of rail junctions, and load (number of passengers at a given point on the line) at maximum load point (point at which there are the most passengers) measures the concepts’ ability to operate and serve riders reliably.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-3 Initial Screening Report 3 Evaluation Methodology

For the evaluation of number of transfers required to travel between major origin-destination pairs, the origins and destinations for the Valley-Westside segment were chosen based on the travel market analysis described in Section 2.3. These pairs were as follows: µ Van Nuys to UCLA µ West Valley to UCLA µ North Valley to UCLA µ Van Nuys to Century City µ West Valley to Century City µ North Valley to Century City µ Van Nuys to Santa Monica µ West Valley to Santa Monica µ North Valley to Santa Monica Improve Equity of Access The equity of access measures reflect population and employment, land use, and first/last mile characteristics within one-half mile of the proposed stations for each of the initial concepts. Important population characteristics include the size of the environmental justice (EJ) population and the number of zero-car households. EJ populations are defined as community populations that are more than 50 percent minorities or have a poverty level greater than the Los Angeles County average of 17.8 percent (2016). Metro’s Transit Oriented Communities Policy (Metro, 2018b) defines transit-oriented communities (TOC) as communities whose physical characteristics, such as the types and densities of developments, encourage transit use. A station location’s ability to support TOC was assessed using the following measures: µ Existing land use and development patterns support transit µ Availability of nearby vacant parcels or parcels with the ability to support more intense activity µ Major destinations or activity hubs within walking distance µ Planned development for new major destinations or activity hubs within walking distance µ Presence of major barriers to access the station from nearby neighborhoods µ Ability of station to contribute to a walkable neighborhood µ Impact of potential station access infrastructure on quality of built environment µ Planned or funded infrastructure projects near the station that improve access to transit and the quality of the public realm. µ Potential for the proposed station to be integrated into existing, future, or adjacent development to support ridership First/last mile connections, as defined in Metro’s First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines (Metro, 2014) include the beginning or end of an individual’s trip made primarily by public transportation. First/last mile elements include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant

3-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 3 Evaluation Methodology curb ramps, crosswalk upgrades, traffic signals, bus stops, carshare, bikeshare, bike parking, context- sensitive bike infrastructure, and signage/wayfinding. Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development The environment, community, and economic development measures assess the concepts’ potential to provide benefits, such as emissions reductions, and minimize impacts, such as increased noise or vibration. A variety of environmental benefits result from VMT and VHT reductions. VMT is the amount of travel, in miles, for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period, and VHT is the amount of travel, in hours, for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period. According to Metro’s Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and Implementation Plan (Metro, 2012b), reductions in VMT and VHT would result in benefits such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced emissions of pollutants, increased physical activity, and increased use of active transportation and transit. The measures related to displacements of residences or businesses and to potential construction, visual, and transportation impacts address the goal of supporting community and economic development. When displacement of residents and commercial establishments occur, they can be disruptive to social and economic activity within a community. Visual or physical barriers, even temporary ones during construction, can hinder movement and make an area a less attractive place to live or work. Environmental justice is also included under this goal. Avoiding the concentration of impacts in already disadvantaged communities prevents introducing new barriers to economic development within those communities. Other measures assess additional potential environmental impacts, such as potential impacts related to hazards, noise/vibration, and seismic concerns, and to historic, archaeological, and water resources. The measures of reductions in transportation facilities for other modes (automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian) assess the extent to which established travel patterns may be affected. Provide a Cost-Effective Solution The measures of cost and cost-effectiveness help identify a transit solution that is affordable and that maximizes the return on Metro’s investment. Cost and cost-effectiveness do not just consider the total dollars spent to build the project, but the continuing costs to operate and maintain the project after it is built, how much benefit riders get for the money spent, the lifespan of the components of the project, and any other unique circumstances of a concept that may affect these factors. Cost and cost-effectiveness measures are not included in the initial evaluation but will be considered during the detailed evaluation of the final concepts in the Final Feasibility Study. Minimize Project Delivery Risk Delivery risks are factors that could increase the cost or delay the completion of the project. Delivery risks include both engineering risk and process risks. Engineering risks are potential physical barriers to designing and building the project, such as conflicts with existing infrastructure. Process risks include reliance on approvals or decisions outside of the control of the project. This report discusses general engineering risks for the initial transit concepts; however, because engineering analysis has not yet been conducted, the risks are not included in the evaluation of the concepts. Engineering risks and other delivery risks will be considered in the detailed evaluation of the final concepts in the Final Feasibility Study.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 3-5

Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF INITIAL CONCEPTS This chapter describes the process of developing and evaluating an initial set of transit concepts for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, beginning with the identification of appropriate modes, design configurations, and termini. The evaluation criteria discussed in Chapter 3 were then applied to the initial transit concepts.

4.1 Development Process for Initial Concepts Screening of Modes The development of transit concepts began with the evaluation of various transit modes representing a range of reasonable alternatives for their applicability to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. Only technologies currently operated by urban transportation services that offer relatively high carrying capacity were considered. These technologies include heavy rail transit (HRT), commuter rail (both electrical/diesel multiple unit and locomotive-hauled), LRT, magnetic levitation (maglev), monorail, gondola/aerial tramway, rubber tire systems, cog rail, and personal rapid transit (PRT). The 2012 Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study (Metro, 2012a) found that travel demand in the corridor exceeded the capacity that BRT can be expected to provide. In the Sepulveda Corridor, BRT would be especially challenged in serving one of the major trip generators in the Study Area, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Traveling from southbound I-405 to UCLA’s Gateway Plaza requires traveling through 10 traffic signals along the 1-mile route through one of the most congested areas in Los Angeles, increasing travel times both for those destined to UCLA and for those continuing to other destinations. BRT could operate as a corridor-based bus at greater frequencies than existing services; however, maximum frequencies would be limited without a dedicated, fixed guideway. As combined bidirectional frequencies approach traffic signal cycle lengths (typically 120 seconds), transit signal priority becomes impractical, resulting in delays and “bunching” of buses. Bunching, in turn, impedes reliability, as the first bus in each bunch becomes overcrowded, leading to longer dwell times at each stop and a degraded passenger experience. BRT operating partially in mixed traffic and partially in HOV or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-405, similar to the Metro Silver Line, was determined not to be a reasonable alternative because it would not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. BRT would not offer a substantial increase in speed over existing transit services, some of which use the existing HOV lanes and still average less than 25 mph. Even with HOT lanes that may offer congestion-reduction benefits on the freeway, BRT vehicles would still encounter the same congestion as existing transit on arterials and when entering and exiting the freeway. Thus, BRT travel times would not be competitive with the private automobile, as BRT would operate in the same facilities as the private automobile, with door-to-door travel times increased by wait times and vehicle dwell times. Based on the conditions in the Study Area, only transit technologies that satisfy the following criteria were determined to be appropriate for consideration in the corridor: µ Proven in revenue operations on a line-haul system µ Able to support multiple stations serving a variety of origins and destinations

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-1 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

µ Able to sustain a speed of at least 45 mph between stations Figure 4-1. Heavy Rail Transit µ Able to accelerate and decelerate quickly between closely spaced stations µ Employ a vehicle design capable of quickly loading and unloading passengers µ Able to operate as an extension of an existing or planned transit technology within the Study Area or support an efficient transfer station design The following section describes each of the transit technologies initially considered for development of the transit concepts for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. Heavy Rail Transit Heavy rail is defined in the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2017) as a system with fully grade-separated rights-of-way, high-level platforms, and high-speed electric multiple-unit cars. An Source: Metro example of such a car is shown in Figure 4-1. These systems are commonly known as subways, metros, or rapid transit, and are the dominant transit mode in large metropolitan areas due to their high passenger volume capacity. The loading and unloading of passengers can occur more quickly than other transit modes due to level access and multiple double-stream doors. Metro’s Red and Purple Lines and San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit are examples of a heavy rail system. Traction power for heavy rail is most often drawn from a third rail (whereby current is delivered along a conductor rail that lies alongside the track), although overhead catenary systems are also in place in certain environments. Heavy rail systems must be completely separated from surrounding land uses where traction power is provided through a third rail. They are typically either elevated, in subway, or separated by fencing when running at grade. Most systems run six to ten cars per train, with each car typically capable of carrying up to 135 passengers comfortably. Top speeds can approach 80 mph.

4-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Commuter Rail Commuter rail is generally defined as a long-distance transit mode, and often shares track utilized by freight trains and occasionally relies on single-track segments. Commuter rail typically, and sometimes exclusively, caters to peak period travel demand and usually connects outlying areas to a downtown core. Figure 4-2 shows an example of a commuter rail train. Some systems also connect suburban population and employment centers to each another. Because of the long distances that commuter rail is designed to serve, passenger comfort is Figure 4-2. Commuter Rail Transit often emphasized, with rail cars designed to offer a seat for each passenger. Commuter rail vehicles will often have fewer and smaller doors than HRT vehicles to maximize the number of seats, which may require increased dwell times at stations with many boardings or alightings. Trains that operate in mixed traffic with freight must meet crashworthy standards set by the Federal Railroad Administration, causing commuter rail to often be heavier and have different operating characteristics than heavy rail transit. Source: Metro, 2017 Light Rail Transit Light rail transit operates with fewer cars than heavy rail and at generally lower speeds. Power is usually provided via overhead wire, as can be seen in Figure 4-3, which allows for at-grade crossings of the track by vehicles and pedestrians. LRT is a more versatile technology than heavy or commuter rail due to its capability to operate below, above, or at grade, and in mixed traffic with other vehicles. Some systems serve outlying suburban areas and travel long distances in dedicated rights-of-way then transition to urban environments in mixed traffic. Other systems operate in mixed traffic or partially dedicated rights-of-way in suburban areas and transition to fully separated tracks in denser areas. Metro’s Blue Line, Gold Line, Exposition Line, and Green Line are examples of conventional LRT systems operating with overhead wires. Technology exists to operate light rail systems without overhead wires, with power drawn from an additional rail placed on the ground.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-3 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-3. Light Rail Transit

Source: Metro, 2017

Train capacity of at-grade LRT is noticeably less than that of fully grade-separated HRT because of limitations on the number of cars per train that can be accommodated at platforms in urban areas with at-grade stations, which are constrained by the block lengths in the urban street grid. Maximum train lengths are typically no more than four cars, and often three or less. Although LRT projects under development abroad show the potential for the technology to operate with train car sets that are larger than existing systems in the United States, power distribution via overhead catenary becomes more technically challenging as train length increases. Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Magnetic levitation technology keeps a vehicle vertically separated from its track or riding surface by magnetic force, either attractive or repulsive. Maglev systems are operational only in Japan, South Korea, and China. An example of a maglev vehicle is shown in Figure 4-4.

4-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-4. Maglev

Source: Andreas Krebs, Flickr, 2002

Most maglev systems are designed for long distance and high-speed travel, with top speeds exceeding 300 mph. New systems in China have introduced the technology as an alternative to HRT, with systems that operate in urban environments at speeds of approximately 50 mph. Although maglev trains (both high and low speed) can accelerate quickly, can climb steep grades, and offer a comfortable passenger experience, construction costs and project risks can be significantly greater due to their technological complexity.

Monorail Figure 4-5. Monorail Monorail vehicles straddle or are suspended from a single rail, as shown in Figure 4-5. Although many monorail systems operate on an aerial beam, the mode is not exclusively elevated. Monorail tracks are narrower than conventional rail systems; the vehicles are wider than the track, allowing them to wrap securely around it. Monorail track systems are often more cost efficient than conventional systems of similar capacity and are nearly impossible to derail. Some aerial monorail tracks consist of two parallel rails separated by a gap, which reduces Source: Railway Gazette, 2016 the amount of light obstructed

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-5 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts compared to traditionally wider aerial guideways. The guideway structure also allows for better airflow, which reduces accumulation of pollution beneath the guideway. Top speed and line capacity (passengers per hour per direction) are generally lower for monorail than for heavy rail, making monorail capacity more comparable to light rail. In some circumstances, lower train capacity can be offset by increasing train frequency. There are public transit monorail systems in the United States and in other countries, including seven monorail systems in Japan. Gondola/Aerial Tramway Gondolas are aerial Figure 4-6. Gondola/Aerial Tramway tramways consisting of a continuous, aerial cable loop that transports a passenger cab circulating between two or more stations. Aerial tramways rely on two stationary cables for support and a third cable for propulsion. An example of an aerial tramway is shown in Figure 4-6. There are two commuter aerial tramways in the United States, in Portland and New York City, and they are used for urban transport in Mexico and Source: Doppelmayr, 2007 several countries in South America and Europe. Gondolas can navigate constraints such as steep grades and ground-level rights-of-way with winding curves; however, they have limited top speeds, possess significant capacity constraints, and are difficult to build transfer stations for with existing transit services. Rubber Tire Systems Rubber tire rail systems are like heavy rail systems, except that they feature rubber tires that run on rolling pads inside guide bars for traction instead of steel rails, as shown on Figure 4-7. Rubber-tired systems are most commonly used at airports in the United States, although larger rubber tire systems exist globally, such as in Montreal, Canada; Mexico City, Mexico; and Paris, France.

4-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-7. Rubber Tire Train

Source: Montreal Gazette, 2015

Rubber tire systems can provide smoother, quieter rides than steel wheel rail systems, and can operate at steeper grades. However, these systems experience higher energy consumption, additional operation and maintenance costs from frequent tire replacement, and a higher rate of particulate matter pollution from the tires.

Cog Rail Figure 4-8. Cog Rail Cog railways feature railcars with cog/pinion wheels and a toothed track that fit together to transport the vehicle using friction. The toothed track typically is located between two running rails. This type of railway is most common in mountainous terrain as it can overcome steep grades. An example of a cog rail vehicle ascending steep terrain is show on Figure 4-8. Most cog rail lines date back to the 19th century and are now used predominantly to transport tourists at a variety of mountain Source: Cremallera de Montserrat destinations across Europe.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-7 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Personal Rapid Transit PRT is a mode with small automated vehicles operating on fixed tracks, like those shown in Figure 4-9. The network topology facilitates point-to-point transportation as the user can bypass stations and go directly to the desired destination. Stops are designed to be off the main guideway, allowing through traffic to bypass stations unimpeded by vehicles stopped at a station. Vehicles generally have room for four to eight seated passengers with space for several more to stand.

Figure 4-9. Personal Rapid Transit

Source: ULTra Global PRT, 2013

The only active PRT system in the United States is in Morgantown, West Virginia, serves five stations on the campus of West Virginia University. Small PRT systems have been deployed more recently at London’s Heathrow Airport and in the Masdar City development in Abu Dhabi. These newer systems serve only three or fewer stations along routes shorter than 3 miles. Modern PRT systems use battery-powered electric vehicles that recharge at storage locations while awaiting a passenger call. Battery range tends to be limited due to the small size of the vehicles and the short distances they are intended to travel. Based on the review of transit technologies, four modes were selected for development of the initial transit concepts: µ Heavy Rail is a proven transit technology on line-haul systems around the world. It supports multiple stations, can sustain speeds over 45 mph, accelerates and decelerates quickly, and supports rapid loading and unloading of passengers due to the number of double-stream doors on vehicles. It could operate as an extension of an existing heavy rail line, and efficient station designs exist for transferring between heavy rail and other transit systems. µ Light Rail is a proven transit technology on line-haul systems around the world. It supports multiple stations, can sustain speeds over 45 mph, accelerates and decelerates quickly, and supports rapid loading and unloading of passengers due to the number of double-stream doors on vehicles. It could operate as an extension of an existing or planned light rail line, and efficient station designs exist for transferring between light rail and other transit systems.

4-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

µ Monorail is operated in a limited number of line-haul systems around the world. It supports multiple stations, can sustain speeds over 45 mph, and can accelerate and decelerate quickly. Monorail can support rapid loading and unloading of passengers with appropriate vehicle design, and efficient station designs exist for transferring between monorail and other transit systems. Monorail track systems and guideway also offer potential advantages compared to LRT and HRT. Monorails can also traverse steeper grades than steel wheel vehicles. µ Rubber tire systems are a proven transit technology on line-haul systems around the world, although they are far less common than steel wheel technologies. They support multiple stations, can sustain speeds over 45 mph, accelerate and decelerate quickly, and support rapid loading and unloading of passengers. Efficient station designs exist for transferring between rubber tire transit systems and other transit systems. Rubber tire systems offer potential benefits in the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, as they can traverse steeper grades than steel wheel vehicles. Because they offer similar benefits, it was determined that monorail and rubber tire (MRT) technology would be considered as one mode for the purpose of this study. The following modes were not considered further in the development of the initial transit concepts: µ Commuter Rail is a proven transit technology online-haul systems around the world. It supports multiple stations and can sustain speeds over 45 mph. Electric Multiple Unit and Diesel Multiple Unit commuter rail systems can also accelerate and decelerate quickly, and efficient station designs exist for transferring between commuter rail and other transit systems. Commuter rail systems do not typically support rapid loading and unloading of passengers due to vehicles designed to maximize seating capacity. Commuter rail also appears to offer no operational benefits compared to HRT or LRT in the Study Area. µ Maglev is in very limited use around the world, particularly as a transit technology. It can sustain speeds far over 45 mph, supports multiple stations, and can accelerate and decelerate quickly. However, its speed and acceleration advantages are of little practical value in the context of an urban transportation system with station spacing of 1 to 5 miles. Maglev systems are technically complex, while offering few if any benefits in the context of urban transportation. µ Gondola systems are in very limited use around the world, particularly as a transit technology. Their top sustained speed is below 30 mph, and support of multiple stations is very challenging as cabs must leave and reenter the guideway at each station. µ Cog rail is in operations in a limited number of line-haul systems around the world. It supports multiple stations, can support rapid loading and unloading of passengers with appropriate vehicle design, and efficient station designs exist for transferring between cog rail and other transit systems. Its top sustained speed however is below 30 mph. µ Personal Rapid Transit is in very limited use around the world, primarily in systems with few stations relatively close together. While the concept supports multiple stations, no system with more than five stations has been deployed. Modern PRT systems use small battery- powered vehicles with limited range that must recharge between uses, and their maximum speed is approximately 25 mph. Stations require individual berths for the loading of each vehicle, so the design of a station that facilitates transfers with a high-capacity LRT or HRT system such as those planned in the Study Area would be challenging.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-9 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-1 summarizes whether each of the transit technologies reviewed satisfies the criteria and whether they were considered in the development of the initial transit concepts.

Table 4-1. Transit Technology Suitability for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project n k n s o y 5 c t i o l i t i i 4 s l f e r t u d l f n s u e o a e a Q e o t a o n i p d l n t g t f S e H i p d x e C n e n - o l r i B n u e E n a r I e e l p l s d e S e n i s f o l n r P a n a t i f p s r a i a l b / l o / L o o t S o n f i l u a g n e P n , n t a t n p n / y n y o s e o d r e i i i a M i a a g g g ? t n t t t U T e u t a r s s s C n o o r / t S o o a n t a i t i l l e t s i s r g e r t P r x e t e n p o o p n d e l u s n n d e v E a o l r i e e i i l n n e o c S i O g r i i e x s c e e p i c r e d h h c h t e c i s h E n n R n c n h p a c e c a a p f p t e e c e a a f v o o e f e u t p o n

Mode I O S S C m A D S V L C o T E D O o T C C Heavy Rail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Either Planned Yes Commuter Rail Yes Yes Yes Some Possible1 Transfer No No Light Rail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Either Planned Yes Maglev Limited Yes Yes Yes Possible Transfer No No Monorail Limited Yes Yes Yes Yes Transfer Yes Yes Gondola Limited Difficult No Yes Possible Transfer No No Rubber Tire Yes Yes Yes Yes Possible Transfer Possible Yes Cog Rail Limited Yes No Yes Possible Transfer Possible No Personal Rapid Transit No Yes No Yes No No Possible No Bus Rapid Transit Yes Yes No2 Yes Yes Either No No Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 Notes: 1Although not typical in the United States, commuter rail cars can be designed with double-stream doors, allowing quicker passenger loading and unloading. 2While BRT vehicles can achieve speeds in excess of 45 mph, it would not be possible to sustain such speeds in the corridor without a dedicated guideway.

Screening of Termini, Alignment Segments and Configurations 4.1.2.1 Termini Considered and Eliminated Potential northern and southern termini for the Valley-Westside segment were reviewed along existing and planned high-capacity transportation facilities within the Study Area. The three northern termini considered were the Van Nuys, Sepulveda, and Woodley Metro Orange Line Stations, and the southern termini considered were the Westwood/Rancho Park, Sepulveda, and Bundy Metro Expo Line Stations. The significantly lower existing ridership of the Woodley Station and Westwood/Rancho Park Station compared to the other stations being considered as termini on their respective lines and the low density, residential nature of their surrounding land uses led these termini to be dismissed from consideration early in the alternative development process.

4-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.1.2.2 Alignment Segments Considered To facilitate the development of the initial concepts for the Valley-Westside segment, the area traversed by the segment was divided into three separate sections with distinct physical characteristics: µ San Fernando Valley: North of Valley Vista Boulevard µ Sepulveda Pass: Valley Vista Boulevard to Sunset Boulevard µ Westside: Sunset Boulevard to I-10 Alignments were identified within each section that followed roadway rights-of-way or connected potential termini directly. These alignment segments were screened based on major physical constraints and the ability to connect key activity centers. Major physical constraints were determined by comparing typical transit design configurations and alignments for the modes selected for development to existing right-of-way widths and the surrounding community or environment. Alignments that faced physical obstacles that did not have a feasible design solution, did not connect the key activity centers in the Study Area, or did not offer a benefit over other alternatives that more efficiently connected the same activity centers were not pursued in the initial transit concepts. Appendix A describes alignments not pursued as part of the initial concepts and describes in greater detail the reasons for not pursuing them. 4.1.2.3 Design Configurations Considered Design configuration is typically informed by the constraints and opportunities along an alignment. Some geographic features and community characteristics make utilizing an at-grade, aerial, or below- grade configuration more challenging. The design configurations considered for the initial Valley-Westside transit concepts included at- grade, aerial, and below grade: µ At-Grade Configuration – The 2012 Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study (Metro, 2012a) indicated travel demand would require frequencies greater than can be operated through at-grade roadway Figure 4-10. At-Grade Configuration crossings. In addition, at-grade configurations are not feasible for HRT or MRT because HRT’s third rail and MRT’s guideway beam cannot be placed within a roadway. Because of these considerations, at-grade configuration was only considered for stretches of the corridor where the alignment would not cross roadways, highways, or other fixed- guideway systems. An example of an at-grade configuration is displayed in Figure 4-10. Source: Metro

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-11 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

µ Aerial Configuration – An example of an aerial configuration is displayed in Figure 4-11. An aerial configuration was considered where the width of the public right-of-way could accommodate the placement of columns to support the guideway. Aerial configurations on the Westside were eliminated because the roadways in that area are generally not as wide as some of the roadways in other parts of the Study Area. As shown in Figure 4-12, between Wilshire Boulevard and I-10, the roadways of Bundy Drive, Barrington Avenue, Sawtelle Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, Veteran Avenue, Westwood Boulevard, and Overland Avenue all have lengthy sections where the publicly owned right-of-way is less than 100 feet across. Construction of an aerial guideway in these areas would require removal of travel lanes or extensive property acquisitions. An aerial configuration in the median of I-405 was ruled out because the I-405 ExpressLanes project is planned to be constructed in the median of I-405 between I-10 and US 101, and I-405 has no median north of US 101. Other reasons why this configuration was ruled out include the potential for sight distance obstructions from placing a series of columns in the median, which would violate Caltrans design and safety standards, and the presence of drainage infrastructure under the center of the freeway, which would conflict with column foundations. In addition, an aerial guideway in or adjacent to the I-405 right-of-way was ruled out south of the Getty Center because it would not be possible to serve the UCLA campus directly without crossing through residential neighborhoods or the National Cemetery.

Figure 4-11. Aerial Configuration

Source: Metro

4-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-12. Right-of-Way Constraints

Source: NavigateLA, 2018; Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-13 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

µ Below-Grade Configuration – A below-grade configuration was considered along segments where right-of-way constraints prohibited an aerial alignment without substantial acquisition of properties or other impacts. An example of a below-grade configuration is displayed in Figure 4-13. Figure 4-13. Below-Grade Configuration

Source: Metro

Transitioning from a below-grade configuration to an aerial configuration on Van Nuys Boulevard just north of the Santa Monica Mountains was also investigated. This was not pursued because of the limited right-of-way on Van Nuys Boulevard south of Chandler Boulevard, and particularly south of Ventura Boulevard, where Van Nuys Boulevard has its southern terminus.

4.2 Initial Valley-Westside Transit Concepts The screening of alignment sections and configurations described in Section 4.1 within the Valley and Westside resulted in the development of several HRT, LRT, and MRT concepts to undergo initial evaluation, including public review and comment. The initial alignment concepts, alternative termini, and general station locations are shown in Figure 4-14. The initial transit concepts all consisted of an alignment from the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, connecting the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to the Metro Purple Line and Expo Line via HRT, LRT, or MRT. They vary in termini, connection points, modes, and alignments, but all attempted to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need by serving the primary travel markets in the corridor. The termini for the initial transit concepts for the Valley-Westside segment included the Van Nuys Station and Sepulveda Station on the Metro Orange Line in the north and the Expo/Sepulveda Station and Expo/Bundy Station on the Metro Expo Line in the south. Transit concepts considered included both new lines for the Metro system and an extension of the Metro Purple Line to the north and south. Stations are a key component of the transit concepts under consideration. Their location and design must balance a variety of transportation, urban design, architectural, and engineering factors that govern their effectiveness and the overall effectiveness of the transit facility.

4-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-14. Initial Valley-Westside Concepts Concept 1 (HRT) Concept 2 (HRT) Concept 3 (LRT) Concept 4 (LRT) Concept 5 (MRT) Concept 6 (HRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-15 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 1 Concept 1, illustrated in Figure 4-15, is an approximately 10-mile HRT line entirely underground. Its northern terminus would be located at the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station, where it would connect with the southern terminus of the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor via transfer. South of the Santa Monica Mountains, Concept 1 would connect with the Metro Purple Line at the Westwood/UCLA Station or the Westwood/VA Station. The option connecting at the Westwood/VA Station would then continue to the Metro Expo Line at the Expo/Bundy Station. The option connecting at the Westwood/UCLA Station could continue to the Metro Expo Line at either the Expo/Sepulveda Station or the Expo/Bundy Station. Concept 1 would operate at 4-minute peak headways and 10-minute off-peak headways, consistent with other Metro HRT systems. Intermediate stations in the San Fernando Valley would be located on Van Nuys Boulevard at Ventura Boulevard and either Burbank Boulevard or Magnolia Boulevard. For purposes of ridership modeling, the station is assumed to be at Magnolia Boulevard. Intermediate station options on the Westside would be dependent on where the alignment connects to the Metro Purple Line. All alignment options would have an intermediate station option at Santa Monica Boulevard. The alignment options that connect to the Purple Line at Westwood/UCLA would include a station on the UCLA campus, while the alignment options that would connect at the Westwood/VA Station would not, as the track alignment does not allow a station on the UCLA campus.

4-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-15. Concept 1 (HRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-17 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 2 Concept 2 is an approximately 9- to 14-mile HRT line, either entirely tunnel or with an option of 3 to 5 miles of aerial guideway on Sepulveda Boulevard and Victory Boulevard or Sherman Way in the San Fernando Valley. As shown in Figure 4-16, its northern terminus would be located above or below the planned Victory Station or Sherman Way Station on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, with its connection to the Metro Orange Line at the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station. South of the Santa Monica Mountains on the Westside, alignment, connection, and terminus options would be the same as those in Concept 1. Intermediate station options in the San Fernando Valley would be on Sepulveda Boulevard at Ventura Boulevard and either Burbank Boulevard or Magnolia Boulevard. For purposes of ridership modeling, the station is assumed to be at Magnolia Boulevard. The alignment option that terminates at Sherman Way and Van Nuys Boulevard would have an additional station option at Sherman Way and Sepulveda Boulevard. Intermediate station options on the Westside would be the same as in Concept 1. Concept 2 would operate at 4-minute peak headways and 10-minute off-peak headways, consistent with other Metro HRT systems.

4-18 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-16. Concept 2 (HRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-19 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 3 Concept 3, as shown in Figure 4-17, is an approximately 10-mile extension of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor south through the Santa Monica Mountains and Westside to the Metro Expo Line that would transition to a tunnel south of the Metro Orange Line and remain entirely underground to the Metro Expo Line. As an extension of a planned LRT line, it would also be LRT. Service from the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station to Metro Expo Line would be operated at 5-minute peak headways, consistent with other Metro LRT systems. Another service from the Metro Orange Line to the Metro Expo Line would also be operated at 5-minute peak headways. With two services operating at 5-minute headways, the headway between the Metro Orange Line and Metro Expo Line would be 2.5 minutes. South of the Santa Monica Mountains on the Westside, alignment, connection, and terminus options would be the same as those in Concept 1. Intermediate stations in the Valley south of the Metro Orange Line would be on Van Nuys Boulevard at Ventura Boulevard and either Burbank Boulevard or Magnolia Boulevard. For purposes of ridership modeling, the station is assumed to be at Magnolia Boulevard. Intermediate station options on the Westside would be the same as in Concept 1.

4-20 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-17. Concept 3 (LRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-21 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 4 Concept 4, as shown in Figure 4-18, is an approximately 10-mile extension of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor south through the Santa Monica Mountains and Westside to the Metro Expo Line that would transition to a tunnel south of the Metro Orange Line and remain entirely underground to the Metro Expo Line. This LRT line would include a junction south of the Metro Orange Line. Half of the trains would travel on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor from Sylmar to the Westside, and the other half would travel from the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station to the Westside, with both ending at the Expo Line in the south. Each branch would operate at 5-minute headways during the peak period, resulting in a combined 2.5-minute peak headway between the Metro Orange Line and the Metro Expo Line. South of the Santa Monica Mountains on the Westside, alignment, connection, and terminus options would be the same as those in Concept 1. Intermediate stations in the Valley south of the Metro Orange Line would be the same as Concept 3. For purposes of ridership modeling, the station is assumed to be at Magnolia Boulevard. Intermediate station options on the Westside would be the same as in Concept 1.

4-22 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-18. Concept 4 (LRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-23 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 5 Concept 5, as shown in Figure 4-19, is an approximately 10- to 15-mile rubber tire or monorail train with 6 to 10 miles of aerial guideway through the Sepulveda Pass and on Sepulveda Boulevard and Sherman Way, Victory Boulevard, Burbank Boulevard, or Van Nuys Boulevard and 4 miles of tunnel. Its northern terminus would be at the planned Victory Station or Sherman Way Station on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, or the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station, which is the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor southern terminus. On the Westside, alignment, connection, terminus options, and headways would be the same as those in Concept 1. Intermediate station options in the San Fernando Valley would be the same as in Concept 2, without the additional option for a station at Burbank Boulevard for the alignment option terminating at the Metro Orange Line. Intermediate station options on the Westside would be the same as in Concept 1. Concept 5 is the only concept that proposes traversing the Santa Monica Mountains above ground rather than in a tunnel. Coming out of the Westside, the alignment would transition from a tunnel to an aerial configuration just north of the Getty Center Drive interchange on I-405 and use aerial structure and cut-and-fill throughout the Sepulveda Pass, adjacent to I-405. Once in the San Fernando Valley, the alignment would remain aerial.

4-24 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-19. Concept 5 (MRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-25 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Concept 6 Concept 6, as shown in Figure 4-20, is a 9- to 15-mile extension of the Metro Purple Line to the San Fernando Valley and the Metro Expo Line from its current planned terminus at the Westwood/VA Station. The alignment would tunnel through the mountains and remain in a tunnel to a terminus at the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station, or portal in the San Fernando Valley for an aerial alignment on Sepulveda Boulevard, terminating at the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor at the Sherman Way Station or Victory Station, as in Concept 2. The southern terminus would connect to the Metro Expo Line at the Expo/Bundy Station. For this concept, a wye (a three-way rail junction) would need to be constructed in Brentwood just west of the Westwood/VA Station to allow the operation of three routes: Valley (Metro Orange Line or East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor) to Westside (Metro Expo Line), Downtown to Valley, and Downtown to Westside. Each line would operate at 8-minute peak headways for a combined 4- minute peak headway on each branch of the lines. Intermediate station options in the San Fernando Valley would be the same as in Concept 2 for alignment options terminating at Sherman Way or Victory Boulevard and the same as in Concept 1 for alignment options terminating at the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station. On the Westside, an intermediate station would be at Santa Monica Boulevard.

4-26 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-20. Concept 6 (HRT)

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-27 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.3 Initial Screening The initial transit concepts were evaluated to determine the relative benefits and potential impacts of each concept using the performance measures described in Chapter 3. The purpose of the evaluation of the initial concepts is to screen lower performing concepts and to identify refinements of the higher performing concepts that can be carried into the final evaluation. This section presents a summary of the evaluation of the initial transit concepts, organized by the Project goals. The detailed evaluation of the initial concepts is provided in Appendix B. Improve Mobility Ridership forecasts were conducted for the year 2042. The 2042 transit network is assumed to include all projects identified as being completed by 2042 in the Measure M Expenditure Plan (Metro, 2016a). Although there were six basic initial concepts, options for termini and station locations within the basic concepts resulted in a total of 27 different end-to-end alignments. To simplify the presentation of the initial evaluation of objectives related to mobility, the results of only a single option for each concept are presented. Comparisons of ridership forecasts across the northern termini options revealed a simple pattern: the farther north the option’s terminus, the greater the ridership. Comparison of ridership forecasts across the southern terminus options revealed almost no difference between options that terminate at Expo/Bundy or Expo/Sepulveda. Therefore, this section presents mobility measures for each concept only for the option with the northernmost northern terminus and for a single southern terminus at the Expo Line. Table 4-2 presents the performance of the six initial concepts on the key measures of mobility for the options that include a connection to the Purple Line at the Westwood/UCLA Station. (As described later, options connecting at the Westwood/UCLA Station performed better than options connecting at the Westwood/VA Station.)

4-28 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-2. Performance of Initial Concepts on Mobility Measures Measure Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Daily boardings 119,000 134,000 134,000 137,000 110,000 108,000 New transit trips 48,000 57,000 50,000 57,000 42,000 44,000 Average operating speeds 42.7 mph 40.4 mph 39.5 mph 39.5 mph 30.9 mph 40.0 mph (ESFV branch) 37.7 mph (Sepulveda branch) Percent of alignment in 100% 100% Approximately Approximately 100% 100% exclusive ROW 53% 53% Peak hour load at maximum 6,672 7,216 7,797 7,908 5,592 6,694 load point Capacity at maximum load 12,000 12,000 4,800 4,800 12,000 12,000 point Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c; Connetics Transportation Group, 2018 Notes: LRT capacity based on a 3-car train running at a 5-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. HRT capacity based on a 6-car train running at a 4-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. MRT capacity assumed to be equivalent to HRT capacity. Capacity of Concepts 3 and 4 is greater (9,600 per hour) south of Metro Orange Line because of shorter headways; however, the peak load point occurs north of the Metro Orange Line. This table is a summary of Appendix Table B-1, highlighting key distinctions among concepts

At first glance, Concepts 2, 3, and 4 appear to have the best performance in terms of ridership (daily boardings and new transit trips). Concepts 3 and 4 do not require a transfer from the East San Fernando Valley Line. Concept 2 serves an additional corridor not already planned to have rail service (Sepulveda Boulevard), and it has an additional station at Sherman Way. Concepts 5 and 6 share these characteristics with Concept 2, but Concept 5, the monorail/rubber transit concept, is considerably slower, and Concept 6, the Purple Line extension, does not provide a station on the UCLA campus. However, as also shown in Table 4-2, the peak hour load on the two LRT concepts (Concepts 3 and 4) would exceed 4,800 passengers per hour, the capacity of a three-car LRT system operating at five- minute headways. While the LRT concepts would operate at a combined headway of 2.5 minutes south of the Metro Orange Line, the peak load point of these concepts occurs north of the Metro Orange Line, where the headway would be 5 minutes. Further inspection of the ridership forecasts revealed that demand on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor would be so great that it would increase the demand on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor near or beyond its planned capacity for all concepts, not just Concepts 3 and 4, as illustrated in Figure 4-21.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-29 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-21. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Loading (2042)

Capacity of a 3-car LRT train at 5- minute headways

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c

Sepulveda Transit Corridor concepts with a northern terminus at Sherman Way, north of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor southern terminus at Metro Orange Line, did not cause the same degree of loading of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. For these concepts, riders using the line to access the Sepulveda Transit Corridor would make the transfer at the first available opportunity at Sherman Way. However, additional analysis indicated that, with a future extension to LAX, all concepts would result in demand on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor in excess of its capacity. Because of the inability of the connecting service on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to accommodate the demand attracted by the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, none of the initial transit concepts would be able to fully address the Project’s Purpose and Need or serve the identified travel markets. Therefore, all the initial transit concepts were refined, as described in Section 4.5. However, the evaluation of the initial concepts with respect to other Project objectives yielded further insights that guided the refinement of the concepts. One additional insight from the initial evaluation was that, for all concepts, the Westwood/UCLA option performed significantly better than the Westwood/VA option, as shown in Table 4-3. The primary reason that the options connecting to the Westwood/UCLA Station performed so much better than those connecting to the Westwood/VA Station is that the former connection point allowed for an additional station on the UCLA campus, to the north, while the latter did not. Daily boardings at a potential UCLA campus station (excluding transfers) were by far the highest of any station location considered.

4-30 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-3. Daily Project Boardings by Connection Point to Metro Purple Line (2042) Connection Point Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Westwood/UCLA 119,000 134,000 122,000 137,000 110,000 Westwood/VA 90,000 102,000 93,000 104,000 83,000 Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c

Improve Equity of Access All concepts would have potential stations at the planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, Metro Orange Line Van Nuys or Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station, future Westwood/UCLA or Westwood/VA Station, and the Expo/Bundy Station or Expo/Sepulveda Station. Based on the initial evaluation, all concepts would have stations that serve high employment (over 16,000 jobs per square mile) and/or high population densities (over 22,000 persons per square mile) within one-half mile of the proposed station areas. In terms of transit-dependent populations, the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station would by far serve the largest number of low-income and minority residents (3,257 and 7,138, respectively) and zero-car households (591 households). Van Nuys/Ventura would also serve a high number of low- income and minority residents (720 and 1,635, respectively) and zero car households (170 households). In general, all other stations would serve similar transit-dependent populations (around 300 to 470 low-income and around 1,500 to 1,650 minority residents). Concepts with stations on Sepulveda Boulevard served the highest employment densities and significant population densities, while concepts with stations on Van Nuys Boulevard served the most potential minority, low-income, and zero-car household populations. Overall, neither Sepulveda nor Van Nuys served all potential riders and markets the best on every equity of access measure. All data pertaining to equity of access for initial concepts is detailed in Appendix Table B-2. Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Based on the initial assessment, all concepts would provide a significant amount of environmental benefits, with VMT reductions ranging from 727,000 to 1,135,000 and VHT reductions over 51,000. These benefits were most pronounced for concepts with faster travel times. In terms of potential impacts and effects, all concepts would need to address potential environmental concerns, including displacements, noise impacts, visual impacts, permanent traffic and parking impacts, and other physical changes to communities. Concepts with aerial or at-grade alignment options would likely have greater environmental impacts related to surface conflicts, such as visual, noise, vibration, and displacement compared to concepts with underground alignments. While the aerial alignment components of Concepts 2, 5, and 6 would all result in more potential right-of-way impact, the Concept 6 extension of the Metro Purple Line would have additional right- of-way and construction impacts because of its need for a wye. This wye, necessary for travel in all directions between the San Fernando Valley, Westside, and Downtown Los Angeles, would require additional right-of-way and greater construction impacts that other concepts would not. All data pertaining to protecting the environment and supporting community and economic development for initial concepts is detailed in Appendix Table B-3.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-31 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.4 Identification of Refinements to Initial Concepts The increased demand on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor beyond its planned capacity resulted in the need to revisit the initial concepts and make refinements to provide additional capacity to serve the travel markets to the north of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. One possibility considered was to increase capacity on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, consistent with its approval by the Metro Board of Directors as an at-grade LRT system. Capacity on a rail line can be increased by increasing the train frequency or using a longer trainset. With the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor's planned 5-minute headways in each direction, a train will cross east-west streets in the Valley every 2.5 minutes during peak hours, stopping cross traffic for the duration of the downtime of the crossing gates. More frequent service would result in more gate downtime, resulting in very little traffic signal time available for cross-traffic. While the LRT trains would have some degree of signal priority, they would inevitably be subject to some traffic signal delay, and increased frequency would allow for very little recovery time from a delay, degrading overall system reliability. For these reasons, modifying the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to support more frequent service was not pursued. Operating longer trainsets would require longer station platforms. Platforms on the East San Fernando Transit Corridor have been designed for 3-car trainsets, with a length of 270 feet. The typical distance between intersections on Van Nuys Boulevard in the Van Nuys area is approximately 300 feet, so longer platforms would require the permanent closure of additional intersections to cross traffic. In addition, even at locations without stations, trains longer than three cars would block some intersections while stopped at a traffic signal at an adjacent intersection. For these reasons, modifying the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to support longer trainsets was not pursued. Therefore, to serve the demand to access the Sepulveda Transit Corridor from the north, the initial concepts required refinements extending the Project farther north. This extension would allow passengers from the north San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, and Antelope Valley who might use the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor to access the Sepulveda Transit Corridor at a point farther north, alleviating passenger loads on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. However, this approach is only applicable to the HRT and MRT concepts. As Concepts 3 and 4 were southward extensions of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, it is not possible to extend them farther north. Therefore, the high demand on the corridor and the capacity constraints imposed by the headway and train-length limits of the at-grade configuration of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project preclude a refined version of Concepts 3 and 4 to address demand and capacity issues. As a result, these concepts were eliminated from further consideration, resulting in the elimination of LRT from consideration as a mode for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. Concept 6 performed relatively poorly in terms of ridership, as it did not provide an opportunity for a station on the UCLA campus. Additionally, the amount of right-of-way impact required to build a three-way junction west of the currently planned Purple Line terminus was anticipated to be significantly greater than that needed for any of the other concepts, while also not providing the decrease in VMT, VHT, or tunneling that other concepts with high potential right-of-way impacts provided. Because of the higher impacts and the lower ridership, this concept was not refined and was eliminated from consideration. Finally, because the option to connect to the Purple Line at the

4-32 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Westwood/VA Station performed poorly compared to the option to connect at the Westwood/UCLA Station across all concepts, this option was eliminated from consideration.

4.5 Development of Refined Concepts To address the Project’s Purpose and Need, Concepts 1, 2, and 5 were refined by extending the concepts farther north, the approach described in Chapter 4.4. As described in that chapter, it was determined that three concepts, Concepts 3, 4 and 6, would not be refined and would be eliminated from further consideration. The refined concepts were regrouped by mode, as illustrated in Figure 4-22. Concept 1 was refined and extended to become HRT 1, with a variation becoming HRT 2. Concept 2 was refined and extended to become HRT 3, and Concept 5 was refined and extended to become MRT 1. Because of the regional nature of the ridership and the relatively poor performance of the intermediate stations both in the Valley and in the Westside, the intermediate station options at Magnolia Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard were not considered as part of the refined concepts. Results of the ridership forecasts showed that the Magnolia Boulevard station option attracted relatively few riders; while the Santa Monica Boulevard station option did attract more ridership than Magnolia Boulevard, its proximity to the Santa Monica Fault Zone and to the major transfer stations at the Metro Purple Line and Expo Line to the north and south of it made it a suboptimal station. In particular, a station at Santa Monica Boulevard would be only approximately three-quarter mile from the Purple Line station on Wilshire Boulevard. Heavy Rail Transit Concepts Three HRT concepts are included in the set of refined initial concepts and are illustrated in Figure 4-22. All concepts have the same alignment options on the Westside, with a southern terminus at either the Expo/Bundy or Expo/Sepulveda Stations. In the San Fernando Valley, all the concepts have a northern terminus at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station. HRT 1 is an all-tunnel alignment under Van Nuys Boulevard. HRT 2 is also an all-tunnel alignment, but it transitions to Sepulveda Boulevard north of the Metro Orange Line. HRT 3 is in an aerial configuration in the Valley, and it also primarily serves Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley. All HRT concepts would operate 6-car trains at 4-minute peak headways. Off-peak headways would be 10 minutes. The following sections describe the HRT concepts in more detail.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-33 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-22. HRT Refined Concepts

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

4-34 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.5.1.1 HRT 1 As shown in Figure 4-23, in the Valley, HRT 1 would remain underground beneath or adjacent to Van Nuys Boulevard, with a northern terminus at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station on the Metrolink Ventura Line. There would not be intermediate stations between the Metro Orange Line and Metrolink Ventura Line. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor stations at Metrolink Van Nuys, Metro Orange Line, and Van Nuys Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard would be underground and serve regional transit trips through the San Fernando Valley and Westside, while the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor stations at the Metro Orange Line, Victory Boulevard, Vanowen Street, Sherman Way, and Metrolink Van Nuys would continue to serve local transit trips as planned.

Figure 4-23. HRT 1 through the San Fernando Valley

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-35 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

As shown in Figure 4-24, alignment options through the Westside would follow the same routes for all concepts. Connections to the Metro Rail system would be made at the Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station and the Expo Line/Sepulveda or Expo/Bundy Stations.

Figure 4-24. HRT 1, 2, and 3 through the Westside

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project would tunnel below the UCLA campus. A station would be centrally located on the campus, complementing the service that the Purple Line provides to Westwood Village and increasing access directly to the campus. The alignment would then continue south to connect to the Westwood/UCLA Station below the Metro Purple Line under Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue. Terminus at Expo/Sepulveda Station Under this option, the alignment would travel in a southwest direction from the Westwood/UCLA Station to parallel Sepulveda Boulevard and connect with the Expo/Sepulveda Station. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor station would be underground, while the Expo/Sepulveda Station is aerial, resulting in a two-level separation between stations.

4-36 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Terminus at Expo/Bundy Station Under this option, the alignment would travel in a southwest direction from the Westwood/UCLA Station under I-405 to Bundy Drive, and connect to the Expo/Bundy Station. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor station would be underground, while the Expo/Bundy Station is aerial, resulting in a two- level separation between stations. Because of the proximity of major transportation corridors, orientation of streets, and location of LAX relative to the Valley-Westside terminus, if the Valley- Westside segment terminates at the Expo/Bundy Station, there are limited alignment options to extend it to LAX compared to a terminus at the Expo/Sepulveda Station. 4.5.1.2 HRT 2 As shown in Figure 4-25, HRT 2 would remain underground in the San Fernando Valley, with a northern terminus at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. From Metrolink Van Nuys Station it would travel underground to Sepulveda Boulevard and remain under or parallel to the roadway. There would not be intermediate stations between the Metro Orange Line and Metrolink Ventura Line. As with HRT 1, all Sepulveda Transit Corridor stations for HRT 2 would be underground and serve regional transit trips through the San Fernando Valley and Westside, while the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor stations at the Metro Orange Line, Victory Boulevard, Vanowen Street, Sherman Way, and Metrolink Van Nuys would continue to serve local transit trips. Alignment options for this concept on the Westside would be the same as for HRT 1.

Figure 4-25. HRT 2 through the San Fernando Valley

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-37 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.5.1.3 HRT 3 As shown in Figure 4-26, HRT 3 would be in an aerial configuration at its connection to the Metrolink Ventura Line, traveling west toward Sepulveda Boulevard in the railroad right-of-way and turning south into the Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way, where it would remain aerial through most of the San Fernando Valley. The alignment would then enter a tunnel near the location where Sepulveda Boulevard crosses under I-405. There would be one intermediate station between the Metro Orange Line and Metrolink Ventura Line at Sepulveda Boulevard and Sherman Way. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor stations at Metrolink Van Nuys, Sepulveda Boulevard/Sherman Way, Metro Orange Line, and Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard would be aerial and serve regional transit trips through the San Fernando Valley and Westside, while the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor stations at the Metro Orange Line, Victory Boulevard, Vanowen Street, Sherman Way, and Metrolink Van Nuys would continue to serve local transit trips. Alignment options for this concept on the Westside would be the same as for HRT 1.

Figure 4-26. HRT 3 through the San Fernando Valley

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Monorail/Rubber Tire Concept As with the HRT concepts, the MRT concept would operate at 4-minute headways during peak periods and at 10-minute headways during off-peak periods. The number of cars required per trainset would depend on the design of the train. Rubber tire and monorail train cars vary in length depending upon the vendor; the length of MRT trainsets would be approximately the same as HRT trainsets. One MRT concept, MRT 1, was evaluated, with route options at its southern terminus, as with the HRT concepts. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4-27.

4-38 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-27. Monorail/Rubber Tire Refined Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-39 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

As shown in Figure 4-28, MRT 1 would be in an aerial configuration at its connection to the Metrolink Ventura Line, traveling west toward Sepulveda Boulevard in the railroad right-of-way and turning south into the Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way, where it would remain aerial through most of the San Fernando Valley. The alignment would remain above ground through the Sepulveda Pass. As with HRT 3, there would be one intermediate station between the Metro Orange Line and Metrolink Ventura Line at Sepulveda Boulevard and Sherman Way. The Sepulveda Transit Corridor stations at Metrolink Van Nuys, Sepulveda Boulevard/Sherman Way, Metro Orange Line, and Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard would be aerial and serve regional transit trips through the San Fernando Valley and Westside, while the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor stations at the Metro Orange Line, Victory Boulevard, Vanowen Street, Sherman Way, and Metrolink Van Nuys would continue to serve local transit trips.

Figure 4-28. MRT 1 through the San Fernando Valley

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

4-40 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

As shown in Figure 4-29, the alignment would continue above ground through the Sepulveda Pass, crossing I-405 and paralleling it to the west for the remainder of the above-ground alignment. The configuration through the Sepulveda Pass would be a combination of aerial structure and at-grade cut-and-fill, depending on the height and grade of the ground surface. The alignment would transition to a below-ground configuration with a tunnel portal just south of the I-405 and Getty Center Drive interchange, east of I-405.

Figure 4-29. MRT 1 through the Sepulveda Pass

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-41 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

As shown on Figure 4-30, the alignment south of the tunnel portal would continue southeast to the UCLA campus, where it would match the HRT concept alignments and configuration on the Westside.

Figure 4-30. MRT 1 through the Westside

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

4-42 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Station Locations Considered for Refined Concepts As described earlier in this chapter, the Magnolia Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard intermediate stations were eliminated from consideration for the refined concepts because of low ridership and design constraints. Table 4-4 summarizes the stations considered as part of the refined concepts.

Table 4-4. Potential Station Locations Studied for Refined Concepts 1 1 2 3 T T T T R R R R

Location H H H M Metrolink Van Nuys Station U U A A Sherman Way/Sepulveda Boulevard A A Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Station U Metro Orange Line/Sepulveda Station U A A Van Nuys Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard U Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard U A A UCLA Campus U U U U Westwood/UCLA U U U U Expo/Sepulveda O O O O Expo/Bundy O O O O Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 A = Aerial station O = Optional underground station dependent on alignment option chosen U = Underground station

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-43 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Maintenance and Storage Facility Locations All concepts would require a new maintenance and storage facility (MSF) to support the required fleet of vehicles. According to Section 11 of the Metro Rail Design Criteria (MRDC) (Metro, 2014- 2016), the MSF should have access from both directions of the guideway and be located near a station if possible. The facility would be a stand-alone facility capable of performing all levels of service and maintenance of the HRT or MRT vehicles. Typical maintenance functions that would take place at the facility include interior and exterior cleaning of the rail vehicles, scheduled service and inspection, heavy repair, interior and exterior painting of the rail vehicles, and wheel truing. The MSF would also include storage and maintenance 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 would need to be large enough to support the number of vehicles required to operate the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project during peak periods. This number will depend on the mode selected and the length of the alignment, with faster, higher-capacity modes requiring fewer vehicles. The required size of the facility will be determined following development of the operating plans for the final concepts. For initial screening purposes, an MSF of approximately 30 acres was assumed. All MSF sites may be considered for joint development opportunities. An MSF sufficient for the fleet needed to operate the Valley-Westside segment would have to be located along that segment, as it is planned to be operational many years before the Westside-LAX segment. For purposes of developing the refined transit concepts, the availability of suitable, industrially zoned land adjacent to the refined concepts was reviewed, and the three general locations identified in Figure 4-31 were identified: µ MSF location 1: Between I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard, south of Nebraska Avenue and north of Olympic Boulevard µ MSF location 2: Van Nuys Boulevard at Arminta Street µ MSF location 3: Metrolink at Woodman Avenue

4-44 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Figure 4-31. Potential Locations for a Maintenance and Storage Facility

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-45 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

4.6 Evaluation of Refined Concepts As with the evaluation of the initial concepts, the purpose of the evaluation of the refined concepts is to screen lower performing concepts and to identify further refinements of the higher performing concepts to develop the final concepts that will be carried into the final evaluation of this feasibility study. This section presents a summary of the evaluation of the refined transit concepts, organized by the Project goals. For each goal, each concept was assigned an overall score of High, Medium- High, Medium, Medium-Low, or Low based on its performance on that goal, relative to one another. A rating of “low” or “medium” does not necessarily mean a negative or mediocre outcome. In many instances, a rating less than “high” simply means that another alternative performs notably better on an objective. The detailed evaluation of the refined concepts is provided in Appendix B. Improve Mobility Because the primary reason for refining the initial concepts was to eliminate the forecast overcrowding on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, an evaluation of the demand on that project was conducted. As shown in Figure 4-32, that evaluation confirmed that the refined concepts avoid overloading the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. By allowing passengers traveling to the Westside to transfer to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor farther north, the refined concepts allow the East San Fernando Valley Corridor to remain below its capacity. Additionally, HRT 2, HRT 3, and MRT 1 would provide improved transit coverage in the San Fernando Valley by adding a transit line along Sepulveda Boulevard, covering areas that the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor and Metro Orange Line do not.

Figure 4-32. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Loads with Refined Concepts

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019; Metro Ridership Model, 2018

With the confirmation that the refined concepts have addressed the system impacts, the transit concepts were evaluated to determine the relative benefits and potential impacts of each concept using the performance measures described in Chapter 3.

4-46 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-5 compares how the four refined concepts perform on mobility measures. Because the forecasts showed very little difference in ridership between alignment options terminating at the Expo/Sepulveda and Expo/Bundy Stations, forecasts for the Expo/Sepulveda options are presented for purposes of comparing the performance of the concepts. The ridership forecasts indicate that HRT 3 would have the highest number of daily boardings and new transit trips (around 133,000 daily boardings and 54,600 new transit trips). The other HRT concepts would have around 121,000 to 123,000 daily boardings and 50,000 new transit trips. In comparison, MRT 1 would have 105,000 daily boardings and 40,000 new transit trips. Operability measures were also similar for all HRT concepts, as they would have similar speeds (46 to 48 mph) and travel times (15 to 18 minutes). All concepts require the same number of transfers between key origin-destination pairs and operate within capacity at their peak load. The three HRT concepts would likely have comparable connections to the East San Fernando Valley Line, which does not yet have final designs for either the Metrolink Van Nuys or Metro Orange Line Stations; however, HRT 1 would have two connection points to the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor, at the Metro Orange Line and Metrolink Van Nuys Stations, which would add convenience for transferring riders by dispersing transfer movements throughout the line and reducing potential crowding at an individual station platform. HRT 3 would have a slightly better connection to the planned aerial Metro Orange Line stations since it would require only one level change for transfers (aerial to aerial), compared to two for HRT 1 and HRT 2 (tunnel to aerial). Considering these factors, each HRT concept scores Medium-High overall in terms of mobility. As with ridership, MRT 1 also performed less well on some other mobility measures. It would have longer travel times and slower operating speeds than the HRT concepts. However, it would offer the same, slightly better connection to the Metro Orange Line that HRT 3 does. Overall, the MRT 1 concept received an overall score of Medium-Low for mobility.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-47 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-5. Performance of Refined Concepts on Mobility Objectives Objective HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 1.1 Increase transit 122,661 daily 120,095 daily 133,008 daily 105,482 daily ridership by directly boardings; boardings; boardings; boardings; serving O/Ds with 49,939 new transit 49,707 new transit 54,616 new transit 39,529 new transit greatest potential for trips trips trips trips attracting new riders Rating Medium-High Medium-High High Medium-Low 1.2 Increase transit 47.9 mph; 48.3 mph; 45.9 mph; 33.8 mph; frequency1 and 15 minutes travel 16 minutes travel 18 minutes travel time 26 minutes travel operating speeds2 time time time Rating High High High Medium 1.3 Minimize need 0 transfers – one 0 transfers – one 0 transfers – one O/D 0 transfers – one for transfers and/or O/D pair O/D pair pair O/D pair time spent 1 transfer – four O/D 1 transfer – four O/D 1 transfer – four O/D 1 transfer – four O/D transferring pairs pairs pairs pairs 2 transfers – four 2 transfers – four 2 transfers – four O/D 2 transfers – four O/D pairs O/D pairs pairs O/D pairs Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium 1.4 Increase on-time 100% in exclusive 100% in exclusive 100% in exclusive 100% in exclusive performance and ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions reliability Rating High High High High 1.5 Provide sufficient Peak load of 7,306 Peak load of 7,015 Peak load of 7,154 Peak load of 5,563 capacity to (capacity 12,000) (capacity 12,000) (capacity 12,000) (capacity 12,000) accommodate anticipated demand Rating High High High High 1.6 Provide Expo Line and Expo Line and Expo Line and East San Expo Line and ESFV convenient Orange Line stations Orange Line stations Fernando Valley Transit Transit Corridor connections between require two-level require two-level Corridor stations station require two- existing and planned transfer. All other transfer. All other require two-level level transfer. All transit rail-to-rail transfer rail-to-rail transfer transfer. All other rail- other rail-to-rail stations are one- stations are one- to-rail transfer stations transfer stations are level transfers. level transfers. are one-level transfers. one-level transfers. Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium MOBILITY Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium IMPROVEMENT FINDINGS Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Metro Travel Demand Model, 2017c; Connetics Transportation Group, 2018 Note: This table is a summary of Appendix Table B-4, highlighting key distinctions among concepts. 1Transit frequencies are constant across the refined alternatives, HRT 1, HRT 2, HRT 3, and MRT 1. 2Travel times shown are from Van Nuys Metrolink to Expo Line.

4-48 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Improve Equity of Access Table 4-6 compares how the four concepts perform on equity of access measures. Because station options on the Westside are the same for all concepts, differences in performance reflect differences among stations in the Valley, with the concept that directly serves Van Nuys Boulevard performing better than those that primarily serve Sepulveda Boulevard. Based on the stations served by each refined concept, HRT 1 would provide the greatest equity of access benefits by connecting to the Van Nuys/Ventura and the Metro Orange Line Van Nuys stations. These stations have both high employment and population densities (7,600 to 12,900 jobs per square mile and 12,800 to 22,600 persons per square mile), serve a significant number of low-income and minority residents (approximately 2,400 to 13,100 residents), and would be accessible to 170 to 710 transit-dependent households (zero-car owned households). The existing land uses and potential future type and density of development around transit can increase transit access by allowing more people to live and work near transit. Areas with land uses and development supportive of transit use are called TOC. The characteristics of these communities are described in Chapter 3. Overall, HRT 1 is more supportive of TOC than HRT 2, HRT 3, and MRT 1 because of the land uses and development potential around the different Metro Orange Line Stations that would be served by each alternative. Overall, the HRT 1 concept would score Medium-High under the equity of access goal.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-49 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-6. Performance of Refined Concepts on Equity of Access Objectives Objective HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 2.1 Improve High employment and High employment High employment High employment accessibility for population densities and population and population and population residential and at: Van Nuys/Ventura, densities at: densities at: densities at: employment Metro Orange Line Van Sepulveda/Ventura Sepulveda/Ventura Sepulveda/Ventura centers Nuys High employment High employment High employment densities at: densities at: densities at: Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Sepulveda Sepulveda Rating High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High 2.2 Support TOC Moderately to Highly Moderately Moderately Moderately policies supportive of TOC supportive of TOC supportive of TOC supportive of TOC policies at: Van policies at: policies at: policies at: Nuys/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Metro Orange Line Van Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Nuys Sepulveda Sepulveda Sepulveda Rating Medium-High Medium Medium Medium 2.3 Support Moderately supportive Less supportive of Less supportive of Less supportive of first/last mile of connections at: connections at: connections at: connections at: connections Van Nuys/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Sepulveda/Ventura, Metro Orange Line Van Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Nuys Sepulveda Sepulveda Sepulveda Rating Medium Low Low Low 2.4 Investment in Moderately to Highly Less to Moderately Less to Moderately Less to Moderately disadvantaged supportive for supportive for supportive for supportive for communities disadvantaged disadvantaged disadvantaged disadvantaged communities at: Van communities at: communities at: communities at: Nuys/Ventura, Metro Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Metro Orange Line Orange Line Van Nuys Sepulveda Sepulveda Sepulveda Rating Medium-High Medium-Low Medium-Low Medium-Low EQUITY OF Medium-High Medium Medium Medium ACCESS FINDINGS Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Fehr& Peers, 2018; Torti Gallas + Partners, 2018 Note: This table is a summary of Appendix Table B-5, highlighting key distinctions among concepts.

4-50 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

In comparison, the other HRT concepts and MRT 1 concept do not provide the same level of access to low-income and minority residents and transit-dependent households, with stations primarily along Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley. These stations would serve higher employment densities than the HRT 1 stations (13,300 to 22,000 jobs per square mile), but lower population densities (7,100 to 11,500 persons per square mile). They would also be limited in terms of first/last mile connections because Sepulveda Boulevard has less existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure than Van Nuys Boulevard, and serve a lower number of low-income and minority residents (approximately 1,800 to 2,000 residents) and transit-dependent households (70 to 120 households). Although HRT 2, HRT 3, and MRT 1 do not directly serve as many disadvantaged communities along Van Nuys Boulevard, the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor will provide those communities access to the Metro Rail system independent of any Sepulveda Transit Corridor concept. Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Table 4-7 compares how the four concepts perform on environmental measures and measures of support of community and economic development. The concepts that attract greater ridership perform better at reducing VMT and VHT. Overall, all HRT concepts would provide greater reductions in VMT and VHT than MRT 1, with reductions in VMT ranging from 960,000 to 1,045,000 and in VHT ranging from 67,000 to 72,200, with HRT 3 achieving the greatest reductions. In comparison, MRT 1 would have reductions in VMT of around 760,500 and in VHT of 52,500. The concepts that have above-ground segments have greater potential property acquisition, construction, and transportation impacts. HRT 1 and HRT 2 would score High overall since the alignments are entirely underground, limiting most potential impacts to station areas. HRT 3 scores Medium overall since a portion of the alignment would be aerial along Sepulveda Boulevard, potentially requiring more property acquisitions and increasing potential noise, vibration, parking, and construction impacts. MRT 1 scores Medium-Low overall on this goal with moderate air quality benefits and a greater potential for environmental impacts related to the aerial and at-grade segments of the alignment. MRT 1 has a greater potential for property acquisitions and greater potential for noise, vibration, parking, and construction impacts, not just in the San Fernando Valley as with HRT 3, but also through the Sepulveda Pass where it would be aerial adjacent to I-405.All of the concepts would have to avoid or relocate significant major utilities. A 96-inch water main owned by the Metropolitan Water District runs generally under Sepulveda Boulevard from just south of the Metro Orange Line all the way to the Expo Line and into the LAX area. Tunnel sections of all concepts would need to avoid this water main throughout their alignments, and columns supporting the aerial sections of HRT 3 and MRT 1 in the Valley would likely conflict with it in its current location. Major storm drains are also present under both Van Nuys and Sepulveda Boulevards in the Valley, with large storm drains under Van Nuys Boulevard from south of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station to the Santa Monica Mountains, and two large storm drains under Sepulveda Boulevard, one south of Ventura Boulevard and the other on either side of the Metro Orange Line. Smaller water mains, storm drains, and other utilities are also located along the alignments of each of the concepts.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-51 Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Table 4-7. Performance of Refined Concepts on Environmental and Community Objectives Objective HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 3.1 Reduce Vehicle Miles 968,515 VMT 959,549 VMT 1,044,835 VMT 760,499 VMT reduction Traveled (VMT) reduction reduction reduction Rating Medium-High Medium-High High Medium 3.2 Reduce air pollutant 67,911 VHT 66,701 VHT 72,204 VHT 52,540 VHT reduction emissions reduction reduction reduction Rating Medium-High Medium-High High Medium 3.3 Minimize effects to Limited property Limited property Greater property Greater property communities acquisition; acquisition; acquisition; acquisition; greater moderate moderate greater construction impacts to construction construction construction sensitive receptors and impacts; limited impacts; limited impacts to potential visual impacts visual impacts visual impacts sensitive near aerial segments receptors and potential visual impacts near aerial segments Rating Medium-High Medium-High Low Low 3.4 Minimize impacts to No traffic, No traffic, Up to 4.1 miles of Up to 4.1 miles of transportation network parking, bicycle, parking, bicycle, parking lanes to parking lanes to be or pedestrian or pedestrian be removed removed facility facility anticipated to be anticipated to be permanently permanently removed removed Rating High High Medium Medium 3.5 Minimize other Moderate level Moderate level of Moderate to Greater amount of environmental impacts of potential potential affects greater amount potential community affects due to due to of potential and environmental underground underground community and impacts and impacts to segments segments environmental EJ communities due to impacts and aerial segments impacts to EJ communities due to aerial segments Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low Low ENVIRONMENTAL AND High High Medium Medium-Low COMMUNITY FINDINGS Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Terry Hayes and Associates, 2018 Notes: This table is a summary of Appendix Table B-6, highlighting key distinctions among concepts.

4-52 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 4 Development and Screening of Initial Concepts

Selection of Concepts for Further Study Table 4-8 summarizes the overall ratings of the refined concepts on their performance on the goals related to mobility improvement, equity of access, and protecting the environment and supporting community and economic development. The three HRT concepts perform better than the MRT concept on mobility improvements, with HRT 3 having the greatest number of daily boardings, but HRT 1 and HRT 2 providing slightly faster travel times. Among the three HRT concepts, HRT 1 scores the highest on equity of access because it directly serves the Van Nuys Boulevard corridor. HRT 3 scores the lowest among the three HRT concepts on protecting the environment because of the potential impacts associated with its aerial sections in the Valley. All four refined concepts merit further study via the development of conceptual engineering plans: µ HRT 1 scores the highest overall and preserves an option on Van Nuys Boulevard in the Valley if the engineering challenges on Sepulveda Boulevard prove to be prohibitive. µ HRT 2 performs well and preserves a tunnel option on Sepulveda Boulevard if the engineering challenges on Van Nuys Boulevard prove to be prohibitive. µ HRT 3 performs well, with the highest daily project boardings, and its aerial section has the potential to provide a lower-cost alternative to the other HRT concepts. µ MRT 1 does not perform as well as the HRT alternatives, but its longer aerial section has the potential to provide a lower cost alternative to the HRT concepts. Chapter 7 describes the alternatives selected to be studied further in greater detail.

Table 4-8. Performance of Refined Concepts on Project Goals Goal HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 Mobility Improvement Medium-High Medium-High Medium-High Medium-Low Equity of Access Medium-High Medium Medium Medium Environmental and Community High High Medium Medium-Low Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 4-53

Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF WESTSIDE-LAX CONCEPTS This chapter describes the process of developing and evaluating initial transit concepts for the Westside-LAX segment of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. Westside-LAX concepts were developed as extensions of the Valley-Westside concepts to serve the major activity centers and travel markets in the southern part of the Study Area. After the concepts were developed, they were evaluated using the evaluation criteria discussed in Chapter 3.

5.1 Development Process for Westside-LAX Initial Transit Concepts Since Westside-LAX concepts developed as extensions of the refined Valley-Westside concepts would have to employ the same mode as the Valley-Westside concepts and have the southern terminus of the Valley-Westside concepts as their northern terminus, only HRT and MRT concepts connecting to the Expo/Bundy Station or the Expo/Sepulveda Station were considered as extensions. In addition, a concept extending the Purple Line was considered for the Westside-LAX segment. The Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station was identified as the logical southern terminus of the Westside-LAX concepts. The Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station will be served by the Automated People Mover currently under construction by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the City of Los Angeles department that operates at LAX. It is also planned to be served by two Metro LRT lines, the Green Line and the Crenshaw/LAX Line, so it will be a hub for transit activity in the LAX area. Consideration was given to connecting to another station on the APM. However, doing so would not provide a direct connection between the Sepulveda Transit Corridor and the Green Line and the Crenshaw/LAX Line, severely limiting the usefulness of the Project to those with origins or destinations east or south of LAX. In addition, connection to a different APM station would result in a situation in which non-airport transit passengers might use the APM to transfer between two Metro lines. The APM is partially funded by federal Passenger Facility Charges, and the regulations governing the use of Passenger Facility Charges require that ground access projects “must be for the exclusive use of airport patrons and airport employees” (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5500.1). Consideration was also given to a stop within the Central Terminal Area (CTA) of LAX. However, Metro’s and LAWA’s studies leading to the development and approval of the APM project ruled out concepts that would connect to the Crenshaw/LAX Line and serve the CTA directly. Therefore, concepts with a station in the CTA were not pursued. Westside-LAX concepts generally following the major north-south corridors of Centinela Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard, and I-405 were presented to the public at community meetings held in June 2018. In response to public comment, a concept following Overland Avenue was added for consideration. Since the refined Valley-Westside segment concepts all end in a tunnel configuration, and all of the arterial corridors to the south have extensive segments in which the right-of-way is not sufficient to allow construction of an aerial guideway without removal of travel lanes and/or substantial property impacts, an aerial configuration was only considered along I-405.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-1 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.2 Westside-LAX Concepts Six initial concepts were developed for the Westside-LAX segment of the Project. All concepts have a southern terminus at the planned Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station. Concepts that follow I-405 or Sepulveda Boulevard follow shorter paths to LAX and have three intermediate stations, while concepts that deviate to the west to Centinela Avenue or to the east to Overland Avenue to serve additional activity centers follow longer paths and have four intermediate stations. Heavy Rail Transit Concepts Five HRT concepts are included in the set of initial Westside-LAX concepts. As extensions of HRT lines, the HRT concepts would operate 6-car trains at 4-minute peak headways. Off-peak headways would be 10 minutes.

5.2.1.1 HRT Overland Concept As shown in Figure 5-1, the HRT Overland concept would connect to the Valley-Westside segment at the Expo/Sepulveda Station, transition to Overland Avenue, and then return to Sepulveda Boulevard before turning east to connect to the Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, remaining underground for its entire length. Intermediate stations would be located at Venice and Jefferson Boulevards on Overland Avenue, as well as at the Culver City Transit Center and near the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. The HRT Overland concept would terminate at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station.

5-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Figure 5-1. HRT Overland Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-3 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.2.1.2 HRT Sepulveda Concept The HRT Sepulveda Concept would connect to the Valley-Westside segment at the Expo/Sepulveda Station and continue under Sepulveda Boulevard before turning east to connect to the Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, remaining underground for its entire length, as shown in Figure 5-2. Intermediate stations would be located at Venice Boulevard, the Culver City Transit Center, and near the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. The HRT Sepulveda Avenue concept would terminate at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station.

Figure 5-2. HRT Sepulveda Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

5-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.2.1.3 HRT I-405 Concept The HRT I-405 concept would connect to the Valley-Westside Segment at the Expo/Sepulveda Station and then transition to an aerial alignment alongside I-405, as shown in Figure 5-3. It would transition back to an underground configuration south of SR 90. It would include an aerial station located by I-405 at Venice Boulevard and underground stations on Sepulveda Boulevard by Howard Hughes Center, and near the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. The HRT I-405 concept would terminate at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station.

Figure 5-3. HRT I-405 Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-5 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.2.1.4 HRT Centinela Concept As shown in Figure 5-4, the HRT Centinela concept has options for northern termini at either the Expo/Bundy or Expo/Sepulveda Station, depending on where the Valley-Westside segment terminates. It would transition to Centinela Avenue, and then return briefly to Sepulveda Boulevard before turning east to connect to the Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, remaining underground throughout its alignment. Intermediate stations would be located on Centinela Avenue at Venice Boulevard, Culver Boulevard, and Jefferson Boulevard (Playa Vista), as well as near the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. The HRT Centinela Avenue concept would terminate at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station. This is the only Westside-LAX concept that is compatible with a Valley-Westside segment that terminates at the Expo/Bundy station, as all other Westside-LAX concepts require a Valley-Westside segment terminating at Expo/Sepulveda.

Figure 5-4. HRT Centinela Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

5-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.2.1.5 Purple Line Extension Concept As shown in Figure 5-5, one HRT concept would extend the Purple Line west from the Westwood/VA Station, turning south along Bundy Avenue to the Expo/Bundy Station. South of the Expo/Bundy Station, it would follow the same alignment and serve the same stations as the HRT Centinela concept. The Purple Line Extension concept would terminate at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station. This concept is not compatible with a Valley-Westside segment that also terminates at the Expo/Bundy station.

Figure 5-5. Purple Line Extension Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-7 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Monorail/Rubber Tire Concept Because a primary motivation of the MRT concept is to reduce potential costs by remaining aerial for as much of the alignment as possible, only one MRT extension concept was developed, corresponding to the only aerial HRT concept for the Westside-LAX segment. As shown in Figure 5-6, the MRT I-405 concept would follow the same alignment and serve the same stations as the HRT I-405 concept, terminating at the future Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station. Like the HRT concepts, the MRT concept would operate at 4-minute headways during peak periods and at 10- minute headways during off-peak periods.

Figure 5-6. MRT I-405 Concept

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

5-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Station Locations Considered for Westside-LAX Concepts Table 5-1 summarizes the stations included in the Westside-LAX concepts. In addition to the intermediate station locations listed on Venice Boulevard, intermediate station locations on Washington Boulevard were considered. The locations on Venice Boulevard were included because of the greater existing transit demand and capacity on Venice Boulevard.

Table 5-1. Potential Station Locations Studied for Westside-LAX Concepts e a n 5 n a i d d 5 l 0 o L e n i 0 e 4 s v a 4 e - n l l l I i - n r t u p T e T T T T e r n p t R v R R R R e u x e

Location H O H S H H C P E M Expo/Sepulveda U U U O U Expo/Bundy O U Overland/Venice U Overland/Jefferson U Sepulveda/Venice U Culver City Transit Center U U I-405/Venice A A Howard Hughes Center U U Centinela/Venice U U Centinela/Culver U U Centinela/Jefferson U U Sepulveda/Manchester U U U U U U AMC/96th Street U U U U U U Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 A = Aerial station O = Optional underground station dependent on alignment option chosen U = Underground station

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-9 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

5.3 Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts The Westside-LAX concepts were evaluated in the same manner as the refined Valley-Westside concepts, using the evaluation criteria discussed in Chapter 3. This section presents a summary of the evaluation of the initial Westside-LAX concepts, organized by the Project goals. The detailed evaluation of the initial concepts can be found in Appendix B. Each rating displays how each concept performs in comparison to other Westside-LAX concepts for that evaluation category. As with the Valley-Westside evaluation, a rating of “low” or “medium” does not necessarily mean a negative or mediocre outcome. In many instances, a rating less than “high” simply means that another alternative performs notably better on an objective. Improve Mobility The Westside-LAX concepts were evaluated based on a comparison of ridership, operability, and the quality of transfers and connections to assess their potential to improve mobility in the corridor. Since the Westside-LAX segment is not scheduled to open until 2057, ridership forecasts were conducted for that year. As shown in Table 5-2, the Purple Line Extension concept is forecast to result in the greatest number of daily project boardings on the entire Project, with 282,130 daily boardings. However, since this concept consists of two disconnected segments, the Valley-Westside segment and the Purple Line Extension to LAX, riders using both segments would be forced to transfer at the Westwood/UCLA Station and would be required to board two trains to complete their journey. They are therefore counted twice in the reported daily boardings, so not all of the additional boardings represent a benefit to passengers. Passengers traveling on the Purple Line from areas such as Century City or Downtown Los Angeles would avoid a transfer, but overall system ridership would be reduced. In addition, the forced transfer for passengers using both segments is forecast to result in 90,500 daily transfers taking place at the Westwood/UCLA Station, producing considerably more congested conditions at that station than the concept with the next greatest amount of transfers, HRT Sepulveda with 64,600. The extension of the Metro Purple Line would also result in peak hour loads over the line’s capacity east of the extension (at Wilshire/La Brea and Wilshire/Fairfax). None of the other concepts are forecast to exceed their capacity during the peak hour on any point of the line. Excluding the Purple Line Extension, the HRT Sepulveda concept has the highest number of daily boardings (about 238,800) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, with approximately 119,000 of those riders using the Westside-LAX segment of the corridor. The other HRT concepts would all have similar daily boardings, between 229,800 and 234,600. The MRT I-405 concept would have the fewest daily boardings (around 192,300), generally due to the concept’s slower operating speeds and longer travel times. Because their alignments are shorter and straighter, HRT Sepulveda and HRT I-405 complete a trip from the Expo Line to the Airport Metro Connector about a minute faster than the other HRT concepts and two minutes faster than the MRT concept.

5-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Table 5-2. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Mobility Objectives HRT Centinela HRT HRT (from HRT Purple Line Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 Expo/Sepulveda)1 Extension MRT I-405 1.1 Increase transit 234,634 Daily Project 238,791 Daily Project 229,785 Daily Project 231,284 Daily Project 282,130 Daily Project 192,345 Daily ridership Boardings (115,898 Boardings (118,953 Boardings (109,137 Boardings (109,52 Boardings (122,756 Project Boardings use Westside-LAX use Westside-LAX use Westside-LAX use Westside-LAX use Westside-LAX (93,316 use segment) segment) segment) segment) segment) Westside-LAX segment) Rating Medium-High Medium-High Medium Medium Medium-High Medium-Low 1.2 Increase transit 42.0 mph; 44.5 mph; 42.2 mph; 40.8 mph; 40.7 mph; 36.2 mph; frequency and 11:39 minutes travel 10:30 minutes travel 10:48 minutes travel 11:25 minutes travel 11:29 minutes travel 12:36 minutes operating speeds time (Expo-LAX) time (Expo-LAX) time (Expo-LAX) time (Expo-LAX) time (Expo-LAX); travel time (Expo- 14:10 minutes travel LAX) time (Purple Line- LAX) Rating Medium High High Medium Medium Low 1.3 Minimize need No additional No additional No additional No additional Would require a No additional for transfers and/or transfers needed from transfers needed transfers needed transfers needed forced transfer from transfers needed time spent Valley-Westside-LAX from Valley- from Valley- from Valley- the Valley to from Valley- transferring Westside-LAX Westside-LAX Westside-LAX Westside-LAX Westside-LAX stations Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium 1.4 Increase on-time 100% exclusive 100% exclusive 100% exclusive 100% exclusive 100% exclusive 100% exclusive performance and ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions ROW/no junctions reliability Rating High High High High High High

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-11 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

HRT Centinela HRT HRT (from HRT Purple Line Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 Expo/Sepulveda)1 Extension MRT I-405 1.5 Provide sufficient 11,054 at peak load 11,200 at peak load 11,000 at peak load 10,915 at peak load 10,100 on Westside- 7,500 at peak load capacity to point (capacity point (capacity point (capacity point (capacity LAX segment peak point (capacity accommodate 12,000) 12,000) 12,000) 12,000) load point, 13,272 on 21,600) anticipated demand Purple Line peak load point (capacity 12,000) Rating High High High High High High 1.6 Provide Moderate connection Moderate Moderate Moderate Forced transfer at Moderate convenient from an underground connection from an connection from an connection from an Purple Line; connection from an connections to aerial station at the underground to underground to underground to Moderate underground to between existing Expo Line aerial station at the aerial station at the aerial station at the connection from an aerial station at the and planned transit2 Expo Line Expo Line Expo Line underground to Expo Line aerial station at the Expo Line Rating Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium MOBILITY FINDINGS Medium Medium-High Medium Medium Medium Medium-Low Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019 Notes: This table is a summary of Appendix Table B-7, highlighting key distinctions among concepts. 1The HRT Centinela Concept in the table presents the option via Sepulveda Boulevard with an Expo/Sepulveda Station. The option with an Expo/Bundy Station would have similar mobility analysis results but have a slightly higher travel time (11:29) and lower average speeds (40.2 mph). 2Based on rail-to-rail transfers.

5-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Considering all mobility factors, the HRT Sepulveda concept scored the highest, with an overall score of Medium-High. The HRT Centinela and HRT Overland concepts had moderate ridership, operational speeds, and travel times, scoring Medium in overall mobility. Since the Purple Line Extension requires a forced transfer and would create potential capacity issues at both stations and on trains, it received an overall score of Medium. With fewer project boardings and total daily transit trips, the MRT I-405 concept received an overall score of Medium-Low. Improve Equity of Access To understand the Project’s ability to serve the surrounding residential and employment centers, capitalize on transit supportive land uses, provide connections to transit-dependent communities, and connect with existing and planned first/last-mile connections, stations along the Westside-LAX concepts were evaluated. Because the Westside-LAX concepts are along three primary corridors (Centinela Avenue, I-405/Sepulveda Boulevard, and Overland Avenue), the concepts were grouped by corridor, and the evaluation was conducted for each of these corridors. Intermediate stations along each corridor at Venice Boulevard (Overland/Venice, Sepulveda/Venice, and Centinela/Venice) and Jefferson Boulevard (Overland/Jefferson, Culver City Transit Center, and Playa Vista) were evaluated. As shown in Table 5-3, the HRT Overland concept would provide the greatest equity of access benefits because of its intermediate stations at Overland/Venice and Overland/Jefferson. (Refer to Appendix B for more detailed analysis.) These stations are forecast to have 2057 employment densities of 16,000 to 24,000 jobs per square mile and population densities of 10,000 to 36,000 persons per square mile, greater than comparable stations on the other corridors. In particular, the Overland/Venice Station is surrounded by transit-supportive land uses, such as the medium residential density located within walking distance of existing commercial uses (including restaurants and grocery stores), and the existing zoning code allows for higher density. Furthermore, the station is located within walking distance of Sony Pictures Studios, a major employment center in the area. The Overland/Venice station would also serve a significant number of low income, minority, and zero-car households. Therefore, the HRT Overland concept received an overall score of Medium-High. In comparison, the stations on the Westside-LAX concepts along the Sepulveda, I-405, and Centinela corridors would not provide the same level of access. The stations on Venice Boulevard would generally serve moderate population densities (20,000 to 23,000 persons per square mile), and the stations on Venice Boulevard would generally serve moderate employment densities (12,000 to 16,000 persons per square mile). Land uses and first/last-mile connections are generally moderately supportive at the stations along all of the corridors, with varying land use patterns and station access opportunities. Only the stations at Overland/Venice and Centinela/Venice would serve substantial nearby minority population, low-income population, and zero-car households. As a result of the factors discussed, the HRT Sepulveda, HRT I-405, MRT I-405, HRT Centinela, and Purple Line Extension concepts received overall scores of Medium.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-13 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Table 5-3. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Equity of Access Objectives Objective HRT Overland HRT Sepulveda, HRT I-405, and MRT I-405 HRT Centinela1 and HRT Purple Line Extension 2.1 Improve High population and employment densities High population and low employment Very high population and low employment accessibility for at: densities at: Sepulveda/Venice densities at: Centinela/Venice residential and Overland/Venice Low population and high employment High population and employment densities at: employment centers Overland/Jefferson densities at: Centinela/Jefferson Culver City Transit Center Rating High Medium Medium-High 2.2 Support TOC Highly supportive of TOC policies at: Moderately supportive of TOC policies at: Highly supportive of TOC policies at: policies Overland/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Centinela/Venice Less supportive of TOC policies at: Culver City Transit Center Less supportive of TOC policies at: Overland/Jefferson Centinela/Jefferson Rating Medium Medium Medium 2.3 Support Moderately supportive of connections at: Moderately supportive of connections at: Moderately supportive of connections at: First/Last Mile Overland/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Centinela/Venice connections Overland/Jefferson Culver City Transit Center Less supportive of connections at: Centinela/Jefferson Rating Medium Medium Medium-Low 2.4 Investment in Highly supportive for disadvantaged Highly supportive for disadvantaged Highly supportive for disadvantaged disadvantaged communities at: communities at: communities at: communities Overland/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Centinela/Venice Less supportive for disadvantaged Less supportive for disadvantaged Moderately supportive for disadvantaged communities at: communities at: communities at: Overland/Jefferson Culver City Transit Center Centinela/Jefferson Rating Medium Medium-Low Medium EQUITY OF ACCESS Medium-High Medium Medium FINDINGS Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019 Notes: Station areas were evaluated to compare general differences among the alignments along Sepulveda/I-405, Centinela, and Overland. Detailed analyses presented in Appendix B. 1The Metro Expo Line terminus for the HRT Centinela concept does not affect the Equity of Access rating, as both Expo Line stations were determined to be relatively equal during the Valley-Westside evaluation.

5-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Table 5-4 compares how the Westside-LAX concepts perform on environmental measures and measures of support of community and economic development. Reductions in VMT and VHT were not calculated for the Westside-LAX concepts because they are extensions of different Valley- Westside concepts and therefore have different “No Build” baselines against which reductions would be measured. However, reductions in VMT and VHT are generally related to project boardings, discussed in Section 5.3.1, with greater numbers of boardings associated with greater reductions. As seen with the Valley-Westside concepts, the concepts that are entirely underground perform the best on measures of environmental impacts and community benefits, since they have lower potential for displacement, construction, transportation, noise, vibration, and historic impacts. Impacts to the surface, including displacements, noise, vibration, and traffic, would be limited to construction staging areas and station sites. However, the HRT Purple Line Extension and HRT Overland concepts would have potential environmental concerns related to passing through the Sawtelle and Inglewood oil fields and methane buffer zones. The HRT Purple Line Extension Concept would also have increased potential for historic impacts near the VA complex and seismic impacts passing through the Santa Monica and Topanga Fault Zones. Therefore, both of these concepts received overall ratings of Medium-Low, while the HRT Centinela and HRT Sepulveda concepts received overall ratings of Medium-High. The HRT I-405 and MRT I-405 concepts both have aerial alignments adjacent to I-405 that would likely require substantial property acquisition and result in impacts to the surrounding community, including sites sensitive to noise and vibration such as nearby recording studios and residences. It is also likely that these aerial alignments would result in increased traffic and noise impacts during construction, as all the construction would take place above ground. Other environmental concerns include archaeological and historic impacts, as well as potential seismic concerns associated with the aerial structures passing through two liquefaction zones. Given these potential environmental concerns, both concepts received an overall rating of Low. Selection of Concepts for Further Study The HRT Sepulveda concept performs slightly better than the other concepts on the initial evaluation measures, with the HRT Centinela and HRT Overland also performing well. HRT I-405 performs well on mobility measures, but it performs poorly on the environmental measures because of a high potential for displacement, construction, transportation, noise, vibration, and historic impacts. The Purple Line Extension requires a forced transfer at the Westwood/UCLA Station, resulting in many more transfers at that location, and it also results in demand in excess of capacity elsewhere on the Purple Line. Therefore, the HRT Sepulveda, HRT Centinela, and HRT Overland concepts should continue to be considered, but the HRT I-405 and Purple Line Extension concepts should not. The MRT I-405 concept does not perform as well as the HRT concepts on the mobility measures, and it also performs poorly on the environmental measures because of a high potential for displacement, construction, transportation, noise, vibration, and historic impacts. However, the MRT I-405 concept is the only extension of the Valley-Westside segment’s MRT 1, so it should remain under consideration.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-15 Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

Table 5-4. Performance of Westside-LAX Concepts on Environmental and Community Objectives HRT HRT HRT Purple Line Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 HRT Centinela Extension MRT I-405 3.3 Minimize Low potential for Low potential for High potential for Low potential for Low potential for High potential for effects to displacement impact; displacement impact; displacement impact displacement impact; displacement impact; displacement impact communities Moderate potential Moderate potential due to the amount of Moderate potential Moderate potential for due to the amount of for construction/noise for property acquisition for construction/noise property acquisition impact; Low potential construction/noise required; High construction/noise impact; Low potential required; High for visual impact impact; Low potential potential for impact; Low potential for visual impact potential for for visual impact traffic/noise impact for visual impact traffic/noise impact due to sensitive due to sensitive receptors along receptors along alignment, including alignment, including recording studios, recording studios, residences and the residences and the removal of travel removal of travel lanes; Moderate lanes; Moderate potential for visual potential for visual impact impact Rating Medium-High Medium-High Low Medium-High Medium-High Low 3.4 Minimize Lower potential for Lower potential for Moderate potential Lower potential for Lower potential for Moderate potential impacts to roadway impacts roadway impacts for roadway impacts roadway impacts roadway impacts given for roadway impacts transportation given underground given underground to frontage roads given underground underground segments to frontage roads network segments segments near I-405 due to segments near I-405 due to aerial segments aerial segments Rating High High Medium High High Medium

5-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 5 Development and Evaluation of Westside-LAX Concepts

HRT HRT HRT Purple Line Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 HRT Centinela Extension MRT I-405 3.5 Minimize other Moderate potential Moderate potential High potential for Moderate potential Moderate potential for High potential for environmental for archeological and for archeological, EJ archeological impact for archeological, EJ archeological impact; archeological impact impacts EJ impact; High and hazards impact; due to alignment and hazards impact; High potential for EJ due to alignment potential for hazards Unlikely historic passing through Low potential for due to significant passing through impact due to resource and identified historic resources construction at VA identified alignment passing noise/vibration archeological site and and noise/vibration complex; High archeological site and through oil fields and impact, as no historic multiple historic impact; Potential for potential for hazards multiple historic methane buffer zone; resources have been trade routes; seismic impact as a impact due to trade routes; Moderate potential located within close Moderate potential result of the alignment passing Moderate potential for historic impact due proximity to the for EJ and hazards proximity of two through oil fields and for EJ and hazards to six identified entirely underground impact; Low potential liquefaction zones methane buffer zone; impact; Low potential historical resources alignment; Potential for historic impact; and water resources Moderate potential for for historic impact; located near the for seismic impact as Moderate impact for impact, as a result of historic and Moderate impact for alignment; Low a result of the noise/vibration tunneling near the noise/vibration impact; noise/vibration potential for proximity of two impact; High Ballona Creek and High potential for impact; High noise/vibration liquefaction zones, potential for seismic Centinela Creek seismic impact due to potential for seismic impact; Moderate and water resources impact due to Channel alignment passing impact due to potential for seismic impact, as a result of alignment passing through landslide zone, alignment passing and water resources tunneling near the through two three liquefaction through two impact Ballona Creek and liquefaction zones; zones, and active fault liquefaction zones; Centinela Creek Low potential for zone; Moderate Low potential for Channel water resource potential for water water resource impact resource impact impact Rating Medium-Low Medium-High Low Medium-High Low Low ENVIRONMENTAL Medium-Low Medium-High Low Medium-High Medium-Low Low FINDINGS Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019 Note: Reductions in VMT and VHT were not calculated because the Westside-LAX concepts are extensions of different Valley-Westside concepts and therefore have different “No Build” baselines against which reductions would be measured.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 5-17

Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

6 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INPUT This chapter describes the process by which input from the public, public agencies, and other stakeholders has been incorporated into the development and evaluation of the transit concepts for the Project. Section 6.1 explains how community and public stakeholders throughout the Study Area (other than public agencies) were identified and compiled into a database at the beginning of the process. Section 6.2 describes the two rounds of public meetings that have been held to date, including the extensive notification and outreach effort that was undertaken to inform the public about the progress of the Project and opportunities to provide input. Section 6.3 details the coordination conducted with public agencies that have jurisdiction throughout the Study Area, including both multi-agency briefings and individual meetings, to allow concerns to be identified and addressed early in the process and to share data on resources that may affect the feasibility of the proposed transit concepts. Section 6.4 describes materials and resources about the Project and the status of the Feasibility Study that have been produced in both English and Spanish and how they have been made available to the public. Finally, Section 6.5 explains the outreach to print, broadcast, and social media related to the Project.

6.1 Stakeholder Identification and Database Development Comprehensive stakeholder identification efforts were initiated to coincide with the beginning of the Project outreach process. The size of the Study Area, the number of people who travel through it from outside the Study Area, and changing communications methods suggested the need for innovative methods to publicize the project and public meetings. Efforts began with the development of a comprehensive database for targeted emails, and the team capitalized on the propensity of users of social media to share content, so recipients were asked to forward the information to their memberships, affinity groups, neighbors, friends, and family to encourage widespread participation in the study. From this effort, a database was developed that included the following categories: µ Elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels µ Neighborhood Councils and other elected groups µ Homeowners associations and neighborhood organizations µ Chambers of Commerce, business improvement districts, and individual business leaders µ Community-based and civic organizations µ Key destinations and employers µ Transportation advocates and interest groups µ Print, broadcast, and electronic media (including community-based publications and blogs) µ Other interested groups and persons µ Individuals who attended public meetings or otherwise ask to be added to the database In total, the stakeholder list contained approximately 1,400 entries of people and groups in the Study Area. Additionally, to reach stakeholders who travel through the Study Area but may not live or work in it, Metro launched an online survey prior to the public meetings to gather information from the public

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-1 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input about their travels through the Study Area. This effort added more than 6,000 additional email addresses of those who not only live in the Study Area, but also those who work in it or commute through it. This brought the full database to approximately 7,500. The database was updated on an ongoing basis via requests to the Project hotline, on the website, written requests, and from sign-in sheets after each series of public or stakeholder meetings.

6.2 Public Meetings Two rounds of public meetings (for a total of six public meetings) at key study milestones, have been completed as part of the public outreach efforts as of the evaluation of the initial and refined Valley- Westside concepts. Meetings were held to coincide with each major project milestone; public comment informed the development and further refinement of the alternatives recommended for further study in the environmental review process for the Project. Early Meetings Prior to the public meetings, the Project team conducted briefings with Metro staff and key stakeholders in the Project area to introduce the Project and gather feedback. These briefings ensured that the key representatives for the corridor communities were aware of the Project and informed of the public meeting process in advance of the meeting announcements being released. This, in turn, helped establish relationships with key stakeholder representatives that further expanded public notification efforts, as these contacts could reach stakeholders that the team may otherwise not have reached. µ Meeting with Metro Board Deputies – March 5, 2018 µ Announcement at San Fernando Valley COG Transportation Committee – April 19, 2018 µ Briefing with UCLA planning and transportation staff – April 26, 2018 µ Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Subcommittee – May 9, 2018 µ Sherman Oaks Homeowners’ Association – May 16, 2018 Public Meetings – Round 1 The public meetings held in June 2018 began with a presentation by Metro staff that included the following topics: µ A description of the Project and its proposed phasing µ An overview of the Study Area and travel patterns µ A draft Purpose and Need statement µ Maps and descriptions of the initial Valley-Westside transit concepts µ A summary of recent and planned improvements in the Sepulveda Corridor µ A high-level description of the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the concepts µ A brief review of the study process, leading to future environmental review µ Contact information, including several options to send comments

6-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

The initial concepts presented included three HRT concepts (including an extension of the Purple Line from its planned terminus at the Westwood/VA Station), two LRT concepts, and one MRT concept. During the meetings, the public was invited to ask questions and to submit written comments. A summary of the comments received is presented in Section 6.2.2.2. All comments submitted will be documented and submitted to the Metro Board of Directors prior to any Board action on the Project. The public meetings were held as follows: µ Meeting 1: Westwood Westwood United Methodist Church 10497 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Thursday, June 7, 2018; 6:00-8:00pm 50 people signed in at this meeting, and 24 comment or question cards were received.

µ Meeting 2: Van Nuys Marvin Braude San Fernando Valley Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 91401 Saturday, June 9, 2018; 10:00am-12:00pm 91 people signed in at this meeting, and 52 comment or question cards were received.

µ Meeting 3: LAX Area The Proud Bird Proud Bird Restaurant 11022 Aviation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tuesday, June 12, 2018; 6:00-8:00pm 49 people signed in at this meeting, and 37 comment or question cards were received.

In addition, the meeting on June 12 was broadcast live on, and recorded and uploaded to, the Metro UStream page. The video recording was created to reach members of the public who were not able to attend a meeting in person and to increase the level of participation. The video recording was posted to Metro’s YouTube page. As of April 18, 2019, the video had been viewed 382 times.

6.2.2.1 Pre-Meeting Activities As part of the Project outreach, Metro invited the elected officials and staff within the Study Area to attend two identical elected staff roundtables. The purpose of these meetings was to provide an overview of the Project to participants, understand constituent issues, and solicit participant feedback and involvement in stakeholders and community engagement.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-3 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Elected Official Briefings Two briefings were hosted for local elected officials and their staff as follows: µ Monday, April 9, 2018; 10:30am to 12:00pm, Culver City Hall, Dan Patacchia Room, 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 Representatives from the following jurisdictions attended this briefing: ► Federal: Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein ► Federal: Office of Representative Ted Lieu, District 33 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom, District 50 ► City of Culver City: City Manager, Councilmembers, Transportation Department ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Paul Krekorian, District 2 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Mike Bonin, District 11 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Paul Koretz, District 5 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, District 7 ► City of Long Beach: Office of Mayor Robert Garcia µ Thursday, April 12, 2018; 10:30am to 12:00pm, Van Nuys State Office Building, 6150 Van Nuys Blvd, Van Nuys, CA 91401 Representatives from the following offices attended this briefing: ► Federal: Office of Representative Tony Cardenas, District 29 ► Federal: Office of Representative Brad Sherman, District 30 ► State: Office of Senator Bob Hertzberg, District 18 ► State: Office of Senator Henry Stern, District 27 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Dante Acosta, District 38 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian, District 46 ► County of Los Angeles: Office of Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, District 3 ► City of Santa Monica: Transportation Manager ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Paul Krekorian, District 2 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, District 3 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember David Ryu, District 4 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Nury Martinez, District 6 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, District 7 Representatives from the elected offices in attendance were provided recommendations on how to reach their constituents.

6-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Community Notices Delivery of Take-Ones A total of 27,375 informational flyers (take-ones) with information about the meetings in English and Spanish were distributed to Metro Divisions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15 and 18—the divisions where bus routes that operate in the Westside/Central, South Bay and San Fernando Valley areas are based. In addition, 100 take-ones were placed at the Metro Customer Center in Baldwin Hills, and 1,500 take- ones each were distributed to the municipal operators in Santa Monica and Culver City. Extended Outreach Extended outreach efforts included requesting support from elected offices, cities, and other key stakeholders to promote public meetings through their respective electronic communication tools, including websites, e-newsletters, social media sites, and membership e-blasts. Email An electronic version of the meeting notice, with a link to a Spanish translation, was distributed via e- blast on May 3, 2018, and reminders were sent on May 21 and May 31 in advance of the first meeting on June 7. In addition, an e-blast was sent following the meetings to 7,063 contacts to thank attendees for their participation, and to distribute the information shared at the public meetings. This included a link to the webcast video in both English and Spanish. Display Advertising Display advertisements were featured in three print publications, listed in Table 6-1, to advertise the public meetings to communities within the Project area. The advertisements, listed in Table 6-2, were in English and Spanish and were featured in local newspapers, newspaper websites, and on Facebook.

Table 6-1. Print Advertising Publication Communities Reached Date Circulation Daily Breeze South Bay 5/31/18 24,998 Hoy Los Angeles region 6/1/18 128,986 Daily News San Fernando Valley 6/4/18 21,028 Total Circulation 175,012 Source: Arellano Associates, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-5 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-2. Facebook Advertising Title Impressions Engagement Posting Date Range Project Video Ad 333,866 Video Views: 65,701 5/22/18-6/11/18 Ad Reach: 189,408 Frequency: 1.76 Reactions: 1,300 Comments: 223 Shares: 474 West LA Meeting Event Ad 62,970 Event Responses: 300 5/24/18-6/7/18 Ad Reach: 24,552 Frequency: 2.56 Reactions: 356 Comments: 54 Van Nuys Meeting Event Ad 65,658 Event Responses: 481 5/26/18-6/9/18 Ad Reach: 26,616 Frequency: 2.47 Reactions: 518 Comments: 91 LAX Meeting Event Ad 51,147 Event Responses: 215 5/29/18-6/12/18 Ad Reach: 20,696 Frequency: 2.47 Reactions: 306 Comments: 53 Total Impressions (approximate): 513,641 Ad Reach: 261,272 Source: Arellano Associates, 2018 Note: Ad Reach = Total unique people who saw the ad Frequency= How many times each person saw the ad

Media Metro distributed a media release ahead of the meetings, resulting in numerous articles published prior, during, and after the meeting series. Several public officials also shared the information on the upcoming meetings on their social media. Table 6-3 lists media articles about the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study.

6-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-3. Published Articles Date Publication Article 04/20/18 KPCC “Mad at the 405? Metro wants to hear about it” 06/04/18 NOHO Arts “Metro Wants to Hear from YOU about the Sepulveda Pass (The 405)” District 06/05/18 Los Angeles “Metro begins feasibility study, presentations on a train through the Daily News Sepulveda Pass connecting West LA with the San Fernando Valley” 06/06/18 NBC Los “Train Line Construction Recalls Yet Another 'Carmageddon'” Angeles 06/07/18 The Source “Rail concepts released for Sepulveda Transit Corridor project” 06/07/18 KTLA “Metro Officials Discuss Possible Solutions to Ease Traffic on Sepulveda Pass” 06/07/18 KPCC “The infamous Sepulveda Pass could get a rail line” 06/07/18 LA Sentinel “Metro to Hold Community Meetings for Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project in June” 06/07/18 KTLA “Proposed Metro Line on Sepulveda Pass Between Sherman Oaks and Westwood to be Discussed” 06/08/18 Los Angeles “LA Metro releases concepts for a rail line through, over, or under the Daily News Sepulveda Pass. Take your pick” 06/10/18 Breitbart “LA Metro Plans Sepulveda Pass Train for 2028 Summer Olympics” 06/11/18 RT&S “LACMTA evaluating six rail options for Sepulveda Transit Corridor” 06/12/18 Progressive “LA Metro unveils rail concept for Sepulveda Pass project” Railroading 06/12/18 City Watch “There’s Serious Talk of a Sepulveda Pass Rail Line again. How Serious is the Question?” 06/12/18 Curbed LA “Metro narrows down options for Sepulveda Pass transit line” 06/12/18 KPCC “METRO CONSIDERS SEPULVEDA PASS RAIL LINE” 06/12/18 The “L.A. Metro unveils plans to link San Fernando Valley with Westwood and Architect’s eventually LAX” Newspaper 06/13/18 Canyon News “Sepulveda Pass Proposed Metro Line” 06/19/18 The “L.A. is one step closer to bringing light rail to the San Fernando Valley” Architect's Newspaper 06/26/18 Urbanize.LA “Metro Doesn't Need to Tunnel Through the Sepulveda Pass” Source: Arellano Associates, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-7 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-4 lists elected officials’ social media mentions about the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study.

Table 6-4. Elected Officials’ Social Media Mentions Date Organization Distribution Method 6/11/18 Councilmember Mike Bonin Facebook Post 6/19/18 Mayor Eric Garcetti Facebook Post 6/29/18 Councilmember Mike Bonin E-blast Source: Arellano Associates, 2018

6.2.2.2 Summary of Public Comment at Community Update Meeting 1 Summary of Comments The three public meetings resulted in a total of 215 participants and 113 comments. During the meeting comments were documented via comment cards, question cards, and visual comment cards. In addition, interpreters were available for Spanish-speaking participants to facilitate their comment submittal. The most popular concepts based on stakeholder input were Concept 1 and Concept 2, both HRT. The concept commented upon the most was Concept 5, the monorail/rubber tire concept. While there was little opposition among comments to the different concepts, the concepts that received the least support were the LRT concepts, Concept 3 and LRT Concept 4. Many of the submitted comments were not about a specific preferred concept, but about general transit improvements and transportation needs, including demand for parking availability wherever future Metro construction takes place. There was also an interest in ensuring that bicycle needs were integrated into future Metro rail and bus service. Prior to the public meetings, 45 comments were received submitted via postal mail, email, and through the Project webpage. There was almost unanimous support to move forward with the study. Other key themes among the public feedback included budget concerns (for the Project overall and specific concepts), regional and transit connectivity, capacity of each concept, Project timing, integration with the Metro Purple Line, and the environmental review process. Comments Related to Purpose and Need Overall there was support for the Project and the need to provide an alternative to driving I-405 to travel between the Valley, the Westside, and LAX. Comments focused on the difficulty associated with traveling by car or bus on the Westside roadways due to extreme and often all-day congestion. Comments Related to Concepts More than 40 comments were received related to concepts and routes. Because the study was still in its early stages, with only initial concepts for the Valley-Westside segment, there was a wide range of comments about the possible routes the Project could take.

6-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Comments Related to Modes The most popular concepts based on stakeholder input were the HRT concepts, Concept 1 and Concept 2. Of the approximately 25 commenters who expressed a preference for a mode, 12 preferred HRT. Eight preferred LRT, and many of those cited the possibility of a direct connection from Sylmar to the Westside as their reason. Five supported Concept 5, the monorail/rubber tire concept. Because The Boring Company had publicized plans to construct high-speed travel tunnels in the Study Area, five stakeholders raised questions about how and if the Project would integrate with what was being proposed by The Boring Company. Comments Related to Stations Eight stakeholders specifically mentioned a station at UCLA in their comments; seven of these supported a station at UCLA, while one was concerned it would be too complicated. Six expressed a preference for an Expo/Bundy Station at the Metro Expo Line, and there was less support for Expo/Sepulveda. Four commenters specifically mentioned the possibility of a Getty Center Station. Other comments related to stations included recommendations to include more parking and to ensure transit-oriented development around stations, as well as frequent and convenient connectivity to other transit modes. Comments Related to Evaluation Criteria Because the concepts were still preliminary, there were not many specific concerns about construction and operations impacts at this phase. Comments Related to Scope of the Analysis There were some suggestions to extend the geographic scope of the analysis and physical boundaries of the Project as far north as the Antelope Valley and as far south as Torrance in order to capture commuters coming from those areas. Public Meetings – Round 2 The public meetings held in January/February 2019 served as an opportunity for Metro to update stakeholders on the Project since the last round of public meetings in June 2018 and present refined concepts for the Valley-Westside segment and initial concepts for the Westside-LAX segment. The public meetings began with a presentation by Metro staff that included the following topics: µ A description of the Project and its proposed phasing µ A description of the Study Area µ A summary of recent and planned improvements in the Sepulveda Corridor µ A draft Purpose and Need statement µ Maps and descriptions of the refined Valley-Westside transit concepts µ A summary of the evaluation of the refined Valley-Westside transit concepts µ Maps and descriptions of the initial Westside-LAX transit concepts µ A brief review of the study process, leading to future environmental review µ Contact information, including several options to send comments

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-9 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

The refined Valley-Westside concepts included three HRT concepts and one MRT concept. The LRT and Purple Line concepts were eliminated, and the proposed Project was extended north to the Van Nuys Metrolink station to relieve projected congestion on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. During the meetings, the public was invited to ask questions and to submit written comments. A summary of the comments received is presented in Section 6.2.3.2. All comments submitted will be documented and submitted to the Metro Board of Directors prior to any Board action on the Project. The second round of Community Update Meetings were held as follows: µ Meeting 1: Westwood Westwood Presbyterian Church 10822 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Wednesday, January 30, 2019; 6:00-8:00pm 114 people signed in at this meeting, and 45 comment or question cards were received. µ Meeting 2: Van Nuys Marvin Braude San Fernando Valley Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 91401 Saturday, February 2, 2019; 10:00am-12:00pm 126 people signed in at this meeting, and 57 comment or question cards were received. µ Meeting 3: LAX Area The Proud Bird Proud Bird Restaurant 11022 Aviation Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tuesday, February 5, 2019; 6:00-8:00pm 68 people signed in at this meeting, and 24 comment or question cards were received.

6.2.3.1 Pre-Meeting Activities Briefings for elected officials, their staff, and city agencies were held prior to the January/February 2019 community meetings, including a Metro board staff briefing on January 10, 2019, and two elected official briefings. Elected Official Briefings µ Monday, January 14, 2019; 1:30–3:00 pm, Brentwood Branch Library, 11820 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90049 Representatives from the following offices attended the January 14 briefing: ► Federal: Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein ► Federal: Office of Representative Ted Lieu, District 33 ► State: Office of State Senator Holly Mitchell, District 30 ► State: Office of State Senator Ben Allen, District 26 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove, District 54

6-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

► County of Los Angeles: Office of Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, District 3 ► City of Culver City: Transportation Department ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Paul Koretz, District 5 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Nury Martinez, District 6 µ Thursday, January 17, 2019; 11:00am–12:30pm, Marvin Braude Service Center, 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 91401 Representatives from the following offices attended this briefing: ► Federal: Office of Representative Tony Cardenas, District 29 ► State: Office of Senator Henry Stern, District 27 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Richard Bloom, District 50 ► State: Office of Assemblymember Luz Rivas, District 39 ► City of Culver City: Transportation Manager ► City of San Fernando: City Manager ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, District 3 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember David Ryu, District 4 ► City of Los Angeles: Office of Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, District 7 Community Notices Delivery of Take-Ones A total of 33,275 take-ones with information about the meetings in English and Spanish were distributed to Metro Divisions 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 18—the divisions where bus routes that operate in the Westside/Central, South Bay, and San Fernando Valley areas are located. In addition, 1,075 take-ones were placed at Metro Customer Centers, and 16,200 take-ones were distributed to the following transit operators: Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (2,000), Culver City Transit (2,700), UCLA’s BruinBus (1,000), Santa Clarita Transit (1,500), and Metrolink (9,000). Antelope Valley Transit also shared information about the meetings on the electronic displays on their buses. Extended Outreach Extended outreach efforts included requesting support from elected offices, cities, public facilities, and other key stakeholders to promote public meetings through their respective electronic communication tools, including websites, e-newsletters, social media sites, and membership e-blasts using a social media toolkit. Table 6-5 lists the extended coverage provided by local organizations.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-11 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-5. Extended Coverage by Local Organizations Date Organization Distribution Method 1/8/19 Westwood South of Santa Monica newsletter E-blast 1/19/19 Supervisor Sheila Kuehl E-blast 1/24/19 Bel-Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council Website Post 1/26/19 Councilmember Paul Koretz E-blast 1/29/19 Councilmember Mike Bonin Facebook Post 1/30/19 Councilmember Paul Koretz Facebook Post 1/30/19 West Los Angeles/Sawtelle Neighborhood Council Website Post and Facebook Post 1/30/19 Westside Neighborhood Council Calendar Post 1/30/19 Del Rey Neighborhood Council Website Post 1/31/19 Mayor Eric Garcetti Facebook Post 1/31/19 Councilmember Mike Bonin E-blast 1/31/19 Lake Balboa Neighborhood Council Facebook Post (shared Mayor Garcetti’s post) 2/1/19 Encino Neighborhood Council Website Post 2/1/19 Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council Newsletter 2/4/19 Councilmember Mike Bonin Facebook Post 2/4/19 Van Nuys Neighborhood Council Website Post Source: Arellano Associates, 2019

Email An electronic version of the meeting notice, with a link to a Spanish translation, was distributed via e- blast to 6,378 contacts included in the Project database. The initial save-the-date notice was sent on January 7, 2019, and reminders were sent on January 23, 29, 31, and February 4. In addition, an e- blast was sent following the meetings to 6,426 contacts thanking attendees for their participation and to distribute the information shared at the public meetings. This included a link to the Project video. Social Media The second round of Community Update Meetings was publicized via advertising on Facebook in both English and Spanish. Table 6-6 summarizes the advertisements on Facebook, including Spanish- language advertisements on Facebook.

6-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-6. Facebook Advertising Posting Type of Advertisement Impressions Engagement Date Range English Video 59,654 Video Views: 22,012 1/11/19-1/29/19 Ad Reach: 16,176 Frequency: 3.69 Reactions: 8 Comments: 2 Shares: 12 Spanish Video 100,400 Video Views: 16,297 1/14/19-1/29/19 Ad Reach: 50,783 Frequency: 1.98 Reactions: 562 Comments: 39 Shares: 264 Spanish Ad Linking to El Pasajero 180,886 Link Clicks: 3,149 1/29/19-2/5/19 Ad Reach: 77,614 Frequency: 2.23 Reactions: 93 Comments: 18 Shares: 6 West LA Meeting Event 48,257 Event Responses: 341 1/16/19-1/30/19 Ad Reach: 20,668 Frequency: 2.33 Reactions: 331 Comments: 33 Van Nuys Meeting Event 59,056 Event Responses: 540 1/19/19-2/1/19 Ad Reach: 25,040 Frequency: 2.35 Reactions: 520 Comments: 86 LAX Meeting Event 43,340 Event Responses: 280 1/22/19-2/5/19 Ad Reach: 19,848 Frequency: 2.18 Reactions: 238 Comments: 33 Total 491,593 Ad Reach: 210,129 Source: Arellano Associates, 2019 Note: Ad Reach= Total unique people who saw the ad Frequency= How many times each person saw the ad

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-13 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Media Metro distributed a media release before the January/February 2019 meetings. Numerous articles about the Project were published prior, during, and after the meeting series. Public officials including Supervisor Kuehl, Mayor Garcetti, Councilmember Bonin, and Councilmember Koretz shared information on the upcoming meetings on their social media. Table 6-7 lists media articles about the Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study.

Table 6-7. Published Articles Date Publication Article 1/29/19 Curbed Los Angeles “Rail line could ferry riders through Sepulveda Pass in 15 minutes, Metro says” 1/29/19 LAist “LA Metro Has A Plan To Get You From The Valley To The Westside in 15 Minutes” 1/29/19 Los Angeles Times “Valley to Westside in 20 minutes? Metro says it’s possible on a Sepulveda Pass line” 1/29/19 The Source “Here are the four new refined concepts for Sepulveda Transit Corridor” 1/29/19 Urbanize Los Angeles “Metro Refines its Options for a Sepulveda Pass Rail Line” 1/30/19 KTLA5 “Metro Says Possible Sepulveda Pass Line Could Whisk Commuters Between Valley, Westside in 15 Minutes” 1/31/19 ABC7 “Concepts for Sepulveda Pass project shown in continued effort to ease congestion on 405 Freeway” 1/31/19 City Watch LA “Good News! The ‘Holy Grail’ of LA’s Transit System IS Being Built!” 1/31/19 Daily Bruin “Plans for Sepulveda Pass rail station near UCLA are en route for completion by 2035” 1/31/19 Los Angeles Daily News “Van Nuys to the Westside by rail? Metro is sharpening its vision for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor” 1/31/19 Progressive Railroading “LA Metro to choose between heavy rail, Monorail for Sepulveda corridor” 2/1/19 ENR.com “Metro Releases Four Refined Concepts for Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project” 2/4/19 Angels Moving Forward “What I Learned at the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Community (Blog) Meeting” 2/7/19 City Watch LA “LA Politicians May Be Corrupt and Incompetent, but Metro…Is Doing Its Job!” 2/9/19 Los Angeles Daily News “Sherman Oaks homeowners to Metro: Sepulveda Corridor transit in the Valley must stay underground” 2/11/19 CityWatchLA “Take a Virtual Metro Ride Through the Sepulveda Pass” 2/12/19 Patch.com “Sherman Oaks Homeowners Oppose Above-Ground Transit Plans” 2/13/19 Canyon News “SOHA Insist Metro Stays Underground”

6-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Date Publication Article 2/13/19 Los Angeles Daily News “Monorails aren’t just for Disneyland anymore!” 2/18/19 Orange County Register “From Disneyland to China, the monorail is riding a new high. But would it work in LA?” Source: Arellano Associates, 2019

6.2.3.2 Summary of Public Comment at Community Update Meeting 2 More than 300 people attended the January/February 2019 community update meetings. Question and comment cards were completed by 126 people and submitted at the meetings or returned to Metro after the meetings. Comments Related to Purpose and Need Across all three public meetings, and in comments submitted via other means, there was support for the Project overall, excitement about fast travel times, and interest in seeing the Project completed as quickly as possible. In addition, there were comments about bicycle connectivity and Project costs and timing, as well as broader comments about Metro system improvements (including better transit connections, safety, and homelessness issues). Comments Related to Alternatives Interest remained in a convenient ride (such as a ride without needing to transfer) from the San Fernando Valley to LAX. Stakeholders also expressed interest in connectivity to other destinations in the Westside-LAX segment, including Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Airport, Culver City, and Playa Vista. Comments Related to Modes Of the 60 stakeholders who expressed a preference for a specific concept, 50 preferred HRT. Half (25) of those did not have a preference among the HRT concepts. One-quarter (15) of the stakeholders specifically supported HRT 1; five specifically supported HRT3; two supported HRT 1 or HRT 2; two supported HRT 2 or HRT 3; and one specifically supported HRT 2. Four stakeholders expressed continued support for LRT, primarily because it could provide a direct connection between the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor and Expo Lines without the need to transfer. Six stakeholders expressed support for the monorail option because of potentially lower costs, potentially faster construction speed, and the possibility of a station at the Getty Center. Comments Related to Stations There was support for a station at UCLA and interest in both the Expo/Sepulveda and Expo/Bundy Stations on the Metro Expo Line. Twelve comments requested a station between the Metro Purple Line and Expo Line, many mentioning Santa Monica Boulevard specifically. A similar number requested a stop or asked why there was no proposed stop at the Getty Center. There was also preference for a Centinela/Washington station option over Centinela/Venice in the Westside-LAX segment, likely because Centinela/Washington is seen as currently less congested and Culver City is developing along Washington. Additionally, there was interest in parking at stations, both in the Valley and on the Westside.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-15 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Comments Related to Alignments Overall, stakeholders supported the connection between the Valley and the Westside. However, there was also interest in connectivity to Santa Clarita and the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project. This included questions about possible changes to the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project to better integrate with Sepulveda. There were also concerns about above- ground options from Sherman Oaks and other areas. Comments Related to Evaluation Criteria Residents in the Sherman Oaks area expressed concerns regarding noise and vibration during construction and operation of an aerial system, while Bel-Air residents expressed concerns regarding tunneling. Outreach at Community Events To reach the widest and most diverse audience possible, announcements and presentations were made, and information booths were staffed, at a number of community and civic events throughout the Study Area to inform attendees of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project and the ways in which they could provide input. Table 6-8 lists these events and the type of outreach performed at them.

Table 6-8. Outreach at Community Events Date Event Location Type of Outreach 4/19/2018 San Fernando Valley Council of Governments Van Nuys Announcement Transportation Committee Meeting Announcement 4/28/2018 Festival of Colors Van Nuys Information Booth 5/9/2018 Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council’s Traffic Sherman Oaks Information Booth and Transportation Committee 5/9/2018 Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council Sherman Oaks Presentation Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Sub- Committee Meeting 5/16/2018 Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association Sherman Oaks Presentation 5/20/2018 Pick Pico Westwood/Rancho Information Booth Park 5/19- Marina Fest & Discover Marina Del Rey Marina Del Rey Information Booth 5/20/2018 5/24/2018 San Fernando Valley Council of Governments Van Nuys Announcement Special Board Meeting Announcement 5/31/2018 Metro Employee Transportation Coordinator Downtown Los Information Booth Workshop Angeles 6/10/2018 Balboa Strawberry Festival Encino Information Booth 6/24/2018 Summer SOULstice Santa Monica Information Booth 6/28/2018 Transit Coalition: Valley to Westside Transit Downtown Los Presentation Update Angeles

6-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Date Event Location Type of Outreach 7/10/2018 Valley Industry Commerce Association North Hollywood Presentation Transportation Committee 7/11/2018 Westside/Central Service Council Downtown Los Presentation Angeles 7/13/2018 South Bay Service Council Inglewood Presentation 7/19/2018 San Fernando Valley Council of Governments Van Nuys Presentation Transportation Committee 8/1/2018 San Fernando Valley Service Council Van Nuys Presentation 8/9/2018 RAND Corporation Rideshare Fair Santa Monica Information Booth 8/9/2018 Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils Sherman Oaks Presentation 8/11/2018 City of Santa Clarita - Concerts in the Park Santa Clarita Information Booth 8/25- Fiesta La Ballona Culver City Information Booth 8/26/2018 9/28/2018 Van Nuys Art Festival Van Nuys Information Booth 9/29/2018 Reseda Rising Artwalk and Night Market Reseda Information Booth 10/5/2018 Sherman Oaks Chamber of Commerce Sherman Oaks Panel Discussion Transportation Panel 10/6- Manhattan Beach Hometown Fair Manhattan Beach Information Booth 10/7/2018 10/15/2018 Sherman Oaks Chamber Street Fair Van Nuys/Sherman Information Booth Oaks 2/8/2019 South Bay Metro Service Council Inglewood Presentation 2/21/2019 San Fernando Valley Council of Governments Van Nuys Presentation Transportation Committee 2/28/2019 Metro NextGen Meeting Van Nuys Table 3/5/2019 Metro NextGen Meeting West Los Angeles Information Booth 3/6/2019 San Fernando Valley Metro Service Council Van Nuys Presentation 3/12/2019 Valley Industry Commerce Association North Hollywood Presentation Transportation Committee 3/13/2019 Westside/Central Metro Service Council Downtown Los Presentation Angeles 3/20/2019 Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association Sherman Oaks Information Booth Meeting 3/20/2019 Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association Sherman Oaks Staff at Meeting 4/6/2019 Festival of Colors Van Nuys Information Booth Source: Arellano Associates, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-17 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

6.3 Agency Coordination The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Feasibility Study is a transportation planning study that is being conducted prior to the formal initiation of NEPA scoping. Appendix A to Part 450 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes) specifies conditions under which studies, analyses, or conclusions from the transportation planning process can be incorporated into the project development/NEPA processes. A prerequisite for relying on a planning study such as this Feasibility Study is that the “transportation planning products in NEPA analysis are based on early and continuous involvement of environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.” Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes explains: Early participation in transportation planning provides environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies better insight into the needs and objectives of the locality. Additionally, early participation provides an important opportunity for environmental, regulatory, and resource agency concerns to be identified and addressed early in the process, such as those related to permit applications. Moreover, Federal, Tribal, State, and local environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies are able to share data on particular resources, which can play a critical role in determining the feasibility of a transportation solution with respect to environmental impacts. Therefore, throughout the development of the Feasibility Study, Metro and the Project team have provided notice to and met with relevant local, regional, state, and federal agencies. At all agency meetings, the Project team presented information on the Project and concepts to date, sought feedback, and discussed issues relevant to each agency’s jurisdiction that required clarification or coordination. Table 6-9 lists the agency coordination meetings that have occurred to date for the Project. The meeting minutes with greater detail are currently maintained in the Project files; they include information such as meeting attendees, questions raised, and future action items.

Table 6-9. Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings Agency Date Location Multi-Agency Briefing 6/13/18 Metro Headquarters University of California-Los Angeles 7/17/18 UCLA Campus Metropolitan Water District 1/3/19 MWD Headquarters California State Department of Transportation 1/9/19 Caltrans District 7 Offices Los Angeles Department of Transportation 1/24/19 LADOT Offices Multi-Agency Briefing 2/11/19 Metro Headquarters United States Army Corps of Engineers 2/12/19 USACE Headquarters Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy 2/22/19 King Gillette Ranch University of California-Los Angeles 3/4/19 UCLA Campus University of California-Los Angeles 3/20/19 UCLA Campus Southern California Regional Rail Authority 4/16/19 Metrolink Headquarters Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

6-18 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Agency Project Briefings The Project team held an initial multi-agency briefing on June 13, 2018, at Metro Headquarters. It was attended by representatives from LAWA, the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation, the FAA, and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The presentation provided an overview of the Project and Project Study Area, as well as a description of the initial concepts. The meeting discussed the utilization of future transit technologies, the relationship of the Valley- Westside and Westside-LAX segments, that environmental clearance will be separated for each phase, and that an environmental impact statement/environmental impact report will be prepared for the Project. The second multi-agency briefing was held on February 11, 2019. The meeting was held at Metro Headquarters, and a webinar was provided for conference call attendees. The presentation provided an overview and update on the Project, including transit concepts for both the Valley-Westside and Westside-LAX segments. The following topics were discussed at this second briefing: µ A potential station located at the Getty Center, and that MRT 1 is the concept most likely to allow a potential Getty Center Station, should one be constructed. µ A representative from LAWA inquired if park-and-ride facilities would be constructed in the Westside-LAX segment of the Project, and the team responded that the study will examine the possibility and need for any such facilities. µ The team clarified that a potential Public-Private Partnership would not preclude the need for the environmental process, and that the Metro Board of Directors will determine which alternatives will enter the environmental review process, which will precede any potential Public-Private Partnership. µ A representative from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power noted that major water transmission lines exist in the Study Area in addition to Metropolitan Water District (MWD) infrastructure. µ A representative from LAWA commented that if an alignment traveled under LAX, coordination with the FAA would be required. The agencies that attended either multi-agency briefing are listed in Table 6-10.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-19 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Table 6-10. Multi-Agency Project Briefings Attendees Agency Project Briefings Attended Antelope Valley Transit Authority 2/11/2019 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2/11/2019 California Department of Transportation 6/13/2018 2/11/2019 City of Culver City 2/11/2019 Environmental Protection Agency 2/11/2019 Federal Aviation Administration 6/13/2018 Los Angeles Department of City Planning 2/11/2019 Los Angeles Department of City Planning-Valley Division 2/11/2019 Los Angeles Department of Sanitation 6/13/2018 Los Angeles Department of Transportation 2/11/2019 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2/11/2019 Los Angeles World Airports 6/13/2018 University of California-Los Angeles 2/11/2019 Westside Cities Council of Governments 2/11/2019 Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Agency Coordination Meetings The Project team participated in a total of nine coordination meetings with seven different agencies between July 2018 and June 2019. Each meeting provided an overview of the Project and concepts studied to date, focusing on issues relevant to each individual agency.

6.3.2.1 Metropolitan Water District The Project team met with representatives from the MWD on January 3, 2019, at MWD Headquarters in Los Angeles. MWD maintains and operates significant water transmission infrastructure within the Project Study Area. Coordination with the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is necessary to determine potential impacts to this infrastructure. Much of the discussion focused on the Sepulveda Feeder, a 96- inch water transmission pipeline maintained and operated by MWD that runs under Sepulveda Boulevard and I-405 throughout much of the Study Area. MWD provided information concerning its planned relining project of the Sepulveda Feeder, which is anticipated to take place over 10 years. In follow-up correspondence, MWD indicated that the agency had not considered relocation of the pipeline because of the cost to do so. MWD also maintains and operates smaller water lines located on Santa Monica Boulevard, Ohio Avenue, and in the area near LAX. MWD stated that their agency generally requires that when a tunnel crosses one of their facilities, there must be a separation of approximately 150 percent of the diameter of the larger tunnel, which, in this case, would be the transit tunnel. This requirement is to avoid potential settlement of their pipeline. MWD and Metro also agreed that, even after MWD’s relining project is complete,

6-20 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input it would not be advisable to locate a transit station in proximity to the pipeline. Metro agreed to coordinate further with the agency. 6.3.2.2 California State Department of Transportation The Project team met with representatives from Caltrans on January 9, 2019, at Caltrans District 7 Headquarters in Los Angeles. Since all four concepts cross over or under US 101, and one concept is located in the Sepulveda Pass along the west side of I-405, coordination with Caltrans is necessary to determine potential impacts. Caltrans confirmed that the I-405 Comprehensive Operational Analysis that the Department prepared in 2018 represents the latest planning for the corridor by the Department. Caltrans also noted that Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding may be available for multi-modal projects in the corridor. Caltrans is examining operational improvements and ExpressLanes and is aiming to complete the implementation plans for these improvements by 2025 to support a Congested Corridors application under SB 1. Metro inquired if Caltrans has any planned improvements to US 101 near the I-405 interchange, and Caltrans stated that they do not. The Project team inquired whether Caltrans still maintains ownership of property near the Van Nuys Metrolink Station, as this facility could be utilized for a multi-modal or joint-use facility. In follow-up correspondence, Caltrans indicated that it continues to own the property; however, it is operated and maintained by the City of Los Angeles. Metro will coordinate further with Caltrans’ engineering teams when more detailed designs are available.

6.3.2.3 Los Angeles Department of Transportation The Project team met with representatives from LADOT on January 24, 2019, at LADOT offices in Los Angeles. LADOT maintains and has jurisdiction over the street right-of-way for the City of Los Angeles, and coordination with the Project team is necessary to determine potential impacts throughout the Study Area. This meeting served to help the Project team understand the Department’s expectation for the future cross section of Sepulveda Boulevard under Mobility Plan 2035. Sepulveda Boulevard is currently classified as a Boulevard II north of the I-405 crossing in the Valley, and as an Avenue III south of that point through the Sepulveda Pass. Sepulveda Boulevard is also included in the Tier 2 Near Term Bike Network. LADOT encouraged Metro to explore providing wider sidewalks at stations, consistent with Mobility Plan 2035. LADOT also noted that the Westside Mobility Plan adopted by the City Council includes a list of transportation enhancements for the area that could be partially funded by a development impact assessment fee. One such project is BRT along Sepulveda Boulevard. LADOT also noted that Community Plan updates are under development for the Study Area, and the City is developing guidance on requirements for evaluation of proposed lane reductions. 6.3.2.4 United States Army Corps of Engineers The Project team met with representatives from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on February 12, 2019, at USACE Headquarters in Los Angeles. The Project will cross the Los Angeles River either aerially or underground; however, locations of potential crossing of other USACE facilities are not fully known, and coordination is necessary to determine the location of USACE facilities. The USACE agreed to share data on facilities under its jurisdiction and noted that while a 404 permit would not be required for a tunnel crossing of the LA River, further consultation will be required to determine if a 408 permit is required. The USACE informed the Project team that use of USACE properties other than drainage facilities is coordinated by its Real Estate Unit through its Out

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-21 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Grant process. The USACE inquired if a single or multi-phase permit would be required, and the team responded that this will depend on which alternative is selected. 6.3.2.5 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy The Project team met with representatives from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC) on February 22, 2019, at the King Gillette Ranch. Three Project concepts would tunnel underneath the Santa Monica Mountains, and a fourth would have an aerial component next to I-405 through the Sepulveda Pass, which are all areas in which the SMMC has some jurisdiction. The SMMC informed the Project team that four wildlife crossings are located within the Study Area at Sepulveda Boulevard, Bel Air Crest Road, Skirball Center Drive, and Mulholland Drive, and that a wildlife corridor is located between Skirball Center Drive and Mulholland Drive on the west side of I-405. If the Project is determined to have an impact on wildlife crossings or the wildlife corridor, the SMMC recommended the construction of additional wildlife crossings and enhancements as potential mitigation measures. Additionally, a trailhead from Sepulveda Boulevard to Mission Canyon Park, west of I-405, is being developed and conflict with that trailhead should be avoided. The SMMC also informed the Project team that the Berggruen Institute may have some tunneling rights under the Santa Monica Mountains, and that any tunneling activities or deep piles for this Project along this potential easement would require further coordination with them. 6.3.2.6 University of California-Los Angeles The Project team held three meetings with representatives from UCLA. The Project will be constructed through the UCLA campus, and will construct a new station within the campus, which will require extensive coordination to determine potential impacts. The first meeting occurred on July 17, 2018, on the UCLA campus, and focused on how the six initial concepts could connect to the campus, as well as sites and equipment both on and adjacent to the campus that are sensitive to noise, vibrations, and electromagnetic fields. UCLA’s Southwest Campus Master Plan will launch within the next year, and potential coordination could be arranged between Metro and the Master Plan Team. UCLA commented Concept Six would make it difficult to place a station in the center of campus, which it prefers as a station location. A north/south alignment utilizing Gayley Avenue north of Le Conte Avenue would also make it more difficult to place a station near the center of campus. The Project team discussed potential station locations, and the UCLA representatives noted that a station portal near Pauley Pavilion would be less convenient for most students and employees, and that a portion of the existing pick-up/drop-off loop near the Luskin Conference Center may be repurposed for a station portal. UCLA also noted that direct access to parking structures P4 and P7 from Sunset Boulevard would need to be maintained, and that the university would be willing to provide plans displaying the underground footprint of existing parking structures. The UCLA representatives noted that the following locations are potentially sensitive sites and equipment: µ Engineering and medical facilities along Westwood Plaza µ Eye surgery facilities near Westwood Boulevard µ A cyclotron east of Westwood Boulevard µ Infrastructure crossing Westwood Boulevard to carry radioactive isotopes to the medical facility from the cyclotron µ Kaufman Hall and the Student Activities Center, which are two of the oldest buildings on campus

6-22 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

The second meeting with representatives from UCLA occurred on March 4, 2019, on the UCLA campus, and focused on potential UCLA station locations. UCLA informed the Project team that the University would likely be willing to accept greater potential construction impacts if it resulted in a more ideal station location. UCLA would prefer a station located within a central area of campus south of Bruin Plaza, as opposed to a location closer to Sunset Boulevard. The Project team met with representatives from UCLA again on March 20, 2019, and presented a revised station location consistent with comments raised by UCLA representatives at the March 4 meeting. UCLA commenced the Southwest Campus Master Plan effort on April 8, 2019, and will continue to coordinate with the Project team throughout this effort. 6.3.2.7 Southern California Regional Rail Authority The Project team met with representatives from the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) on April 16, 2019 at Metrolink Headquarters. Some of the Project concepts include segments located within Metrolink right-of-way, and all of the concepts as of the date of the meeting include a northern terminus at the Metrolink station in Van Nuys. As a regional rail authority, Metrolink also has an interest in rail connectivity throughout the counties it serves. Metrolink provided information about the agency’s plans to provide additional service under the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) Program. The agency’s goal is to provide frequent, bidirectional service on all of its corridors. Metrolink representatives suggested ways in which the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project could be integrated with Metrolink service, either through passenger connections or possibly even shared services if mutually compatible vehicles such as Electric Multiple Unit trains were used. If the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project were to reach the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line, it may be possible to co-locate a maintenance and storage facility. Metrolink agreed that it appeared to be feasible to locate an aerial guideway for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project in the agency’s right-of-way, although the agency noted that there are third- party fiber optic lines and leased buildings currently located within the right-of-way.

6.4 Project Materials and Resources Collateral Materials To inform and update stakeholders about the Project’s progress, the outreach team developed collateral materials for distribution through various channels and means of communication. All collateral materials are posted to the Project website and updated on an as-needed basis. The following collateral materials have been developed to date: µ Frequently Asked Questions provide stakeholders with a Project description and basic Project facts. µ A Fact Sheet includes a summary of background, Purpose and Need for the Project, a Project overview, and a schedule for the study period. µ A Project Map shows the Study Area.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 6-23 Initial Screening Report 6 Public and Agency Input

Project Website The Project website http://www.metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor serves as a central location where the public can go to obtain all Project-related information. The website includes the presentations and boards from the public meetings in English and Spanish. It also includes the Project Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions. The website also contains a “Contact Us” section where people can give their input to the study, ask questions, and have themselves added to the study database to be notified of future meetings and study progress. Project Information Line In addition to the other forms of communication made available to stakeholders, such as e-mail and the website, a Project telephone information line was set up for the public. This telephone line is available to English and Spanish speaking callers and is checked frequently. Calls and requests are returned promptly upon receiving a message. A log of all incoming calls, subject of the calls, and responses to the callers is being maintained. The project line is (213) 922-7375. Project Video A 2-minute video about the Project was developed to coincide with and reflect the content of the first public meetings. This video provides background on the study, its Purpose and Need, as well as explains the process. This video is posted on Metro’s website at http://www.metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor

6.5 Media Relations Prior to each series of public meetings, press releases were sent out to media outlets made up of regional and local print media, broadcast media, and online media, including blogs. Metro also posted articles to its own blogs (The Source and El Pasajero) and used Facebook advertising to publicize the meetings. Around key study milestones, there was generally a pronounced uptick in news stories. Because of the nature of online media and blogs, these stories generated significant online discussion from the public. Monitoring this “virtual” discussion allowed Metro to see how the public was reacting to Study developments in real time.

6-24 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

7 CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER STUDY This chapter describes the Valley-Westside concepts selected for further study as alternatives in the Final Feasibility Study for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. The selected alternatives include a No Build Alternative, three HRT alternatives, and an MRT alternative. The No Build Alternative will serve as the background transportation network for all alternatives and is the basis for the evaluation of the impacts of the build alternatives. This description of the alternatives includes the physical, operating, and policy assumptions for use in the engineering, environmental, travel forecasting, and financial technical analyses to be conducted in support of the detailed evaluation as part of the Final Feasibility Study. The assumptions are subject to change based on the results of the technical analyses. This chapter also describes the Westside-LAX concepts selected for further evaluation and documentation in the Final Feasibility Study.

7.1 No Build This alternative includes all existing and under construction highway and transit services and facilities, as well as the committed transit and highway projects scheduled to be operational by the given No Build year in the Measure R Expenditure Plan (Metro, 2008), the Measure M Expenditure Plan (Metro, 2016a), and the Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Southern California Association of Governments, 2016). Because the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project has two phases, Valley- Westside and Westside-LAX, there are two No Build years: 2042 for Valley-Westside and 2057 for Westside-LAX. 2042 No Build The FTA Capital Investment Grant Program recommends transit agencies evaluate future conditions using a 10- or 20-year horizon based on available socioeconomic forecasts from the local metropolitan planning organizations. SCAG, which is the metropolitan planning organization for Los Angeles County, has data available for the year horizon year 2040. However, because the Measure M Expenditure Plan has significant projects opening in 2042, Metro, in consultation with the FTA, determined 2042 to be a logical analysis year to provide consistent analyses across corridor studies. Metro developed 2042 socioeconomic data based on SCAG’s 2040 socioeconomic data. 7.1.1.1 Highway The only proposed major highway improvement in the vicinity of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor by 2042 is the addition of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on the I-405 Freeway between the US 101 and I-10 as part of the I-405 ExpressLanes Project. While the final configuration of the ExpressLanes Project has not been determined, it is assumed to include two HOT lanes in each direction for the purpose of this study. The I-405 ExpressLanes may also be used by Rapid and express transit services, as are other ExpressLanes in Los Angeles County. The highway system that is assumed under the No Build Alternative would be the same under all alternatives.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-1 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

7.1.1.2 Transit System As described in Chapter 2, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Area is served by AVTA, Santa Clarita Transit, Big Blue Bus, Culver CityBus, LADOT, LAX Flyaway, and Metro bus transit. Metro currently provides east-west fixed guideway bus and rail service in the San Fernando Valley, Westside, and LAX area with the Metro Orange, Expo, and Green Lines. Metro According to the Measure M Expenditure Plan (Metro, 2016a), by 2042, the Metro transit projects listed in Table 7-1. will be operational.

Table 7-1. Metro 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 Line LRT Claremont to Downtown Long Beach Gold Line Gold Line LRT Lambert Road to Downtown Santa Monica Station Expo Line Peck Road to Downtown Santa Monica Station East San Fernando Valley Transit LRT Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station to Metro Orange Line Van Corridor Nuys West Santa Ana Branch Line LRT Union Station to Artesia Orange Line BRT Del Mar Station to Chatsworth (extension of existing Orange Line) North San Fernando Valley Line BRT North Hollywood to Chatsworth (via Roscoe Boulevard and Nordhoff Boulevard) Vermont Corridor BRT Sunset Boulevard to 120th Street Source: Metro, 2016; Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019 Note: With the completion of the Regional Connector Project in Downtown Los Angeles, the Metro Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines will become two lines, one north-south and one east-west.

Los Angeles World Airports The No Build Alternative includes the LAX APM, currently under construction by LAWA. It will operate between the LAX Central Terminal Area and the Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Station, where it will connect to the Metro Rail system. 2057 No Build 7.1.2.1 Highway There are no additional highway projects in the 2057 No Build that are not part of the existing or 2042 transportation system.

7-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

7.1.2.2 Transit System In addition to the transit system described for the 2042 No Build, the projects described in Table 7-2. will be operational in 2057.

Table 7-2. Additions to the Metro Transit System between 2042 and 2057 Project Mode Expected Opening Year Project Description Crenshaw Line LRT 2047 Extension of Crenshaw/LAX Line from Northern Extension Crenshaw/Expo to Hollywood/Highland Lincoln Corridor BRT BRT 2047 Center running BRT on Lincoln Boulevard from the City of Santa Monica to AMC 96th Street Transit Center Green Line Eastern LRT 2052 Extension of Green Line from Norwalk Station to Extension Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Station Orange Line LRT LRT 2057 North Hollywood to Chatsworth LRT conversion Conversion (replaces BRT in this segment) Source: Los Angeles County Measure M Transportation Expenditure Plan

7.2 HRT 1 The proposed HRT 1, an entirely underground HRT line, and its associated facilities are illustrated on Figure 7-1. Both twin- and single-bore tunnel configurations, illustrated in Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3, respectively, should be considered for this alternative. While Metro’s existing rail tunnels are twin- bore, a single-bore tunnel would eliminate the need for mined cross-passages in the Santa Monica Mountains and may also provide opportunities for a smaller tunnel cross-section, potentially reducing the number and size of property easements required, and a smaller station construction footprint. HRT 1 would have a northern terminus at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station in the San Fernando Valley. From the Metrolink station it would head south in a tunnel under Van Nuys Boulevard and then continue in a tunnel under the Santa Monica Mountains toward UCLA and the Westside. At locations on Van Nuys Boulevard where access from the tunnel to the surface is required, such as station locations, the large storm drain also directly under the roadway would need to be avoided or relocated, as would other, smaller utilities along the alignment. The alignment on the UCLA campus will have to take into account the locations of campus utilities and of equipment sensitive to noise, vibration, and electromagnetic fields. In addition, deviations from MRDC standards governing horizontal curves may be required to allow a station centrally located on campus and a connection to the Metro Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station. Once on the Westside and south of the UCLA campus, HRT 1 would briefly travel under Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue to provide a connection with the Metro Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station. However, the footprint of twin-bore tunnels may prevent a twin-bore alignment from connecting to the Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station at Gayley Avenue because of right-of-way constraints at that location. The alignment would travel under the Purple Line before continuing south under Sepulveda Boulevard, or under a parallel roadway such as Bentley Avenue to avoid conflicts with the 96-inch water main under Sepulveda Boulevard described in Section 4.6.3.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-3 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-1. HRT 1 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

7-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-2. Typical Twin-Bore Tunnel Configuration

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-5 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-3. Typical Single-Bore Tunnel Configuration

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

7-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

HRT 1 would terminate at the Expo/Sepulveda Station on the Metro Expo Line because it provides the greatest flexibility for extensions into the Westside-LAX segment. In addition, the evaluation of the initial concepts identified no performance benefit associated with the longer option to the Expo/Bundy Station. However, the option to terminate at Expo/Bundy rather than Expo/Sepulveda should still be considered if additional constraints or benefits are identified as the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project progresses. Stations Stations on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor will primarily serve to connect existing and planned east- west lines on Metro’s fixed guideway system. Intermediate stations at major destinations or high ridership transit corridors will also be studied. In response to feedback received during the January/February 2019 meetings described in Chapter 6, an intermediate station at Santa Monica Boulevard should be considered. The following stations are proposed as part of HRT 1: µ Metrolink Van Nuys Station µ Metro Orange Line Van Nuys Station µ Van Nuys Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard µ UCLA Campus µ Westwood/UCLA Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard Station µ Expo/Sepulveda Station All stations would be underground. Underground stations have off-street entrances that include vertical circulation that bring patrons to a mezzanine level where the ticketing functions are located. Station platforms are accessed from the mezzanine level. The platform widths, and the widths of the stairs, escalators, and emergency exits, are determined by Project ridership and ADA required clearances. A station at Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard would have to avoid the Santa Monica Fault Zone. It would also have to avoid or relocate the 96-inch water main and other utilities located under Sepulveda Boulevard. Passenger connections to aerial or at-grade stations on other lines would be made by first coming to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. Passenger connections to the underground Purple Line station would be made entirely underground by a connection between the mezzanine levels of the two stations. Modifications to the Purple Line station would be required, whether the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Station is located at Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue. Supporting Facilities and Systems HRT 1 will require an MSF, traction power substations approximately every mile (including at stations), and a communications and signaling system. Traction power substations are adjacent to the track and power the “third rail” that propels the train. Communications and signaling buildings

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-7 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study house train control and communications for train operations in a central facility at each station. Each facility is located within the station site area, typically adjacent to a station platform. Sites for an MSF large enough to service and store the HRT fleet will be considered east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, north of Arminta Street and east of Van Nuys Boulevard, and parallel to I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard between Nebraska Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, as shown on Figure 7-1. The yard leads to an MSF option adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard on the Westside that would need to avoid conflict with the 96-inch water main under that roadway. Operating Plans 7.2.3.1 Headways and Span of Service HRT 1 would operate Monday through Friday from 4 am to 1 am (2 am on Friday) with peak headways at 4 minutes, off-peak at 10 minutes, and late night at 20 minutes. On Saturdays, HRT 1 would operate from 4 am to 2 am, and on Sundays and holidays from 4 am to 1 am. Headways would be every 10 minutes until 9 pm and every 20 minutes after 9 pm. 7.2.3.2 Supporting Bus Service It is expected that some Metro and municipal bus services would be modified to eliminate duplicative service and to support regional access to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor. AVTA, Santa Clarita Transit, and LADOT Commuter Express routes that currently operate during peak periods through the Sepulveda Pass to the Westside would be modified to operate on shorter headways but terminate at a Sepulveda Transit Corridor station in the Valley to allow passenger to transfer for a faster trip to the Westside. Metro Rapid and local bus routes that provide duplicative service through the Sepulveda Pass would be eliminated.

7.3 HRT 2 The proposed HRT 2, an entirely underground HRT line, and its associated facilities are illustrated on Figure 7-4. As with HRT 1, both single- and twin-bore tunnel configurations should be considered for this alternative. HRT 2 would have a northern terminus at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station in the San Fernando Valley. From the Metrolink station it would head southwest in a tunnel toward Sepulveda Boulevard. Once aligned with Sepulveda Boulevard, it would continue south under the roadway through the San Fernando Valley and under the Santa Monica Mountains toward UCLA and the Westside. Beginning south of the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station and throughout the Valley and Westside, the 96- inch water main under Sepulveda Boulevard would need to be avoided or relocated. Additionally, two major storm drains under Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley, one near the Metro Orange Line and one south of Ventura Boulevard, would need to be avoided or relocated. Other, smaller utilities along the alignment would also need to be avoided or relocated. The alignment on the UCLA campus and through the Westside to the Expo Line would be the same as HRT 1, and the same issues identified in the description of HRT 1 would need to be addressed.

7-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-4. HRT 2 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-9 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Stations Stations on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor will primarily serve to connect existing and planned east- west lines on Metro’s fixed guideway system. Intermediate stations at major destinations or high ridership transit corridors will also be studied. In response to feedback received during the January/February 2019 meetings described in Chapter 6, an intermediate station at Santa Monica Boulevard should be considered. The following stations are proposed as part of HRT 2: µ Metrolink Van Nuys Station µ Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard µ UCLA Campus µ Westwood/UCLA Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard Station µ Expo/Sepulveda Station All stations would be underground. Underground stations have off-street entrances that include vertical circulation that bring patrons to a mezzanine level where the ticketing functions are located. Station platforms are accessed from the mezzanine level. The platform widths, and the widths of the stairs, escalators, and emergency exits, are determined by Project ridership and ADA required clearances. A station at Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard would have to avoid the Santa Monica Fault Zone. It would also have to avoid or relocate the 96-inch water main and other utilities located under Sepulveda Boulevard. Passenger connections to aerial or at-grade stations on other lines would be made by first coming to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. Passenger connections to the underground Purple Line station would be made by a connection between the mezzanine levels of the two stations. Modifications to the Purple Line station would be required, whether the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Station is located at Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue. Supporting Facilities and Systems HRT 2 will require an MSF, traction power substations approximately every mile (including at stations), and a communications and signaling system. This sizing, spacing, and location requirements are the same for these facilities as under HRT 1. Sites for an MSF large enough to service and store the HRT fleet will be considered east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, north of Arminta Street and east of Van Nuys Boulevard, and parallel to I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard between Nebraska Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, as shown on Figure 7-4. The yard leads to an MSF option adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard on the Westside that would need to avoid conflict with the 96-inch water main under that roadway.

7-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Operating Plans The headways and span of service for HRT 2 would be the same as for HRT 1. It is expected that similar modifications would be made to Metro and municipal bus services under HRT 2 as under HRT 1.

7.4 HRT 3 The proposed HRT 3, a mixed aerial and underground HRT line, and its associated facilities are illustrated on Figure 7-5. As with HRT 1, both single- and twin-bore tunnel configurations should be considered for the tunnel sections of this alternative. For parts of the alignment that are in an aerial configuration, locations in the center of the roadway and on the side of the roadway should be considered. Typical aerial HRT configurations are illustrated in Figure 7-6. HRT 3 would have a northern terminus at an aerial station adjacent to the Metrolink Van Nuys Station in the San Fernando Valley. From the Metrolink station it would start in an aerial configuration, traveling west toward Sepulveda Boulevard in the railroad right-of-way and turning south into the Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way in the center of the roadway, where it would remain aerial through most of the San Fernando Valley. The alignment would enter a tunnel near the location where Sepulveda Boulevard crosses under I-405 and continue in a tunnel under the Santa Monica Mountains toward UCLA and the Westside, where it would remain in a tunnel. Placement of columns in the center of Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley would require relocation of the 96-inch water main under the roadway, the large storm drain near the Metro Orange, and any other, smaller utilities under the roadway. Placement of columns on the side of the roadway would likely require removal of on-street parking and could impact buildings and other structures that are not set back from the roadway right-of-way line. The alignment on the UCLA campus and through the Westside to the Expo Line would be the same as HRT 1 and HRT 2, and the same issues identified in the description of HRT 1 would need to be addressed.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-11 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-5. HRT 3 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

7-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-6. Typical Aerial HRT Configurations Center of Road

Side of Road

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-13 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Stations Stations on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor will primarily serve to connect existing and planned east- west lines on Metro’s fixed guideway system. Intermediate stations at major destinations or high ridership transit corridors will also be studied. In response to feedback received during the January/February 2019 meetings described in Chapter 6, an intermediate station at Santa Monica Boulevard should be considered. The following stations are proposed as part of HRT 3: µ Metrolink Van Nuys Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Sherman Way µ Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard µ UCLA Campus µ Westwood/UCLA Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard Station µ Expo/Sepulveda Station All stations in the Valley would be aerial, and all stations on the Westside would be underground. Underground stations have off-street entrances that include vertical circulation that bring patrons to a mezzanine level where the ticketing functions are located. Station platforms are accessed from the mezzanine level. Aerial station platforms are accessed either directly from ground level via vertical circulation elements at grade or from an intermediate concourse above grade through vertical circulation elements. The platform widths, and the widths of the stairs, escalators, and emergency exits, are determined by Project ridership and ADA required clearances. A station at Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard would have to avoid the Santa Monica Fault Zone. It would also have to avoid or relocate the 96-inch water main and other utilities located under Sepulveda Boulevard. Passenger connections from the aerial station at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station to the Metrolink station or to the East San Fernando Valley Station would be made by descending to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. The aerial station at the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station would be above the planned aerial station for the Orange Line. Passenger connections between the two lines would be made by means of vertical circulation directly connecting the platforms. Passenger connections from underground stations to aerial or at-grade stations on other lines would be made by first coming to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. Passenger connections to the underground Purple Line station would be made by a connection between the mezzanine levels of the two stations. Modifications to the Purple Line station would be required, whether the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Station is located at Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue.

7-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Supporting Facilities and Systems HRT 3 will require an MSF, traction power substations approximately every mile (including at stations), and a communications and signaling system. The sizing, spacing, and location requirements are the same for these facilities as under HRT 1 and HRT 2. Sites for an MSF large enough to service and store the HRT fleet will be considered east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, north of Arminta Street and east of Van Nuys Boulevard, and parallel to I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard between Nebraska Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, as shown on Figure 7-5. The yard leads to an MSF option adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard on the Westside that would need to avoid conflict with the 96-inch water main under that roadway. Operating Plans The headways and span of service for HRT 3 would be the same as for HRT 1 and HRT 2. It is expected that similar modifications would be made to Metro and municipal bus services under HRT 3 as under HRT 1 and HRT 2.

7.5 MRT 1 The proposed MRT 1, a mixed aerial, cut-and-fill, and underground monorail or rubber tire line, and its associated facilities are illustrated on Figure 7-7. As with the HRT alternatives, both single- and twin-bore tunnel configurations should be considered for the tunnel sections of this alternative. For parts of the alignment that are in an aerial configuration, locations in the center of the roadway and on the side of the roadway should be considered. Typical aerial MRT configurations are illustrated in Figure 7-8. MRT 1 would have a northern terminus at an aerial station adjacent to the Metrolink Van Nuys Station in the San Fernando Valley. From the Metrolink station it would start in an aerial configuration, traveling west toward Sepulveda Boulevard in the railroad right-of-way and turning south into the Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way in the center of the roadway, where it would remain aerial through the remaining part of its alignment in the San Fernando Valley. Placement of columns in the center of Sepulveda Boulevard in the Valley would require relocation of the 96-inch water main under the roadway, the two large storm drains near the Metro Orange Line and Ventura Boulevard, and any other, smaller utilities under the roadway. Placement of columns on the side of the roadway would likely require removal of on-street parking and could impact buildings and other structures that are not set back from the roadway right-of-way line. The alignment would cross over I-405 near the location where Sepulveda Boulevard crosses under I-405 in the Valley and continue along the west side of I-405 through the Sepulveda Pass. It would cross back over to the east side of the I-405 just north of the Getty Center, where it would enter a tunnel and continue toward UCLA and the Westside, after which it would remain in a tunnel. The alignment from the UCLA campus station through the Westside to the Expo Line would be the same as the HRT alternatives, and the same issues identified in the description of HRT 1 would need to be addressed. MRT 1 would terminate at the Expo/Sepulveda Station on the Metro Expo Line, without an option to terminate at the Expo/Bundy Station. The intent of the MRT alternative is to remain aerial to the extent possible, which may be feasible along I-405, near Sepulveda Boulevard.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-15 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-7. MRT 1 Alternative

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

7-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Figure 7-8. Typical Aerial MRT Configurations Center of Road

Side of Road

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-17 Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Stations Stations on the Sepulveda Transit Corridor will primarily serve to connect existing and planned east- west lines on Metro’s fixed guideway system. Intermediate stations at major destinations or high ridership transit corridors will also be studied. In response to feedback received during the January/February 2019 meetings described in Chapter 6, an intermediate station at Santa Monica Boulevard should be considered. The following stations are proposed as part of MRT 1: µ Metrolink Van Nuys Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Sherman Way µ Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Ventura Boulevard µ UCLA Campus µ Westwood/UCLA Station µ Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard Station µ Expo/Sepulveda Station All stations in the Valley would be aerial and all stations on the Westside would be underground. Underground stations have off-street entrances that include vertical circulation that bring patrons to a mezzanine level where the ticketing functions are located. Station platforms are accessed from the mezzanine level. Aerial station platforms are accessed either directly from ground level via vertical circulation elements at grade or from an intermediate concourse above grade through vertical circulation elements. The platform widths, and the widths of the stairs, escalators, and emergency exits, are determined by the Project ridership and ADA required clearances. A station at Sepulveda Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard would have to avoid the Santa Monica Fault Zone. It would also have to avoid or relocate the 96-inch water main and other utilities located under Sepulveda Boulevard. Passenger connections from the aerial station at the Metrolink Van Nuys Station to the Metrolink station or to the East San Fernando Valley Station would be made by descending to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. The aerial station at the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda Station would be above the planned aerial station for the Orange Line. Passenger connections between the two lines would be made by means of vertical circulation directly connecting the platforms. Passenger connections from underground stations to aerial or at-grade stations on other lines would be made by first coming to street level and then accessing the station on the other line. Passenger connections to the underground Purple Line station would be made by a connection between the mezzanine levels of the two stations. Modifications to the Purple Line station would be required, whether the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Station is located at Westwood Boulevard, Gayley Avenue, or Veteran Avenue.

7-18 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report 7 Concepts for Further Study

Supporting Facilities and Systems MRT 1 will require an MSF, power substations (including at stations), and a communications and signaling system. Because of the comparatively slower speeds of existing monorail and rubber tire systems, it is anticipated that more vehicles will be required for MRT 1 than for the HRT alternatives. This could mean a larger MSF site would be required for this alternative than for the HRT alternatives. Sites for an MSF large enough to service and store the HRT fleet will be considered east of the Metrolink Van Nuys Station, north of Arminta Street and east of Van Nuys Boulevard, and parallel to I-405 and Sepulveda Boulevard between Nebraska Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, as shown on Figure 7-7. The yard leads to an MSF option adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard on the Westside that would need to avoid conflict with the 96-inch water main under that roadway. Operating Plans The headways and span of service for MRT 1 would be the same as for the HRT alternatives. It is expected that similar modifications would be made to Metro and municipal bus services under MRT 1 as under the HRT alternatives.

7.6 Westside-LAX Segment As described in Chapter 5, the HRT Sepulveda, HRT Centinela, and HRT Overland concepts should continue to be considered. The HRT I-405 and Purple Line Extension concepts offer no benefits compared to these concepts and should not be considered further. The MRT I-405 concept, as the only extension of the Valley-Westside segment’s MRT 1, should also remain under consideration.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 7-19

Initial Screening Report 8 References

8 REFERENCES California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2015. 2015 Managed Lane Annual Report, District 7: Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. October. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). Available at http://pems.dot.ca.gov/ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2001. Order 5500.1, Passenger Facility Charge. August. INRIX, Inc. 2018. National Average Speed Database. Available at http://inrix.com/ 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 450 Appendix A. 2019. Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2008. Proposed One-Half Cent Sales Tax for Transportation: Expenditure; Plan 30 Years, Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 – 2039 (Measure R). Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2009. 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). November 2012a. Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). December 2012b. Metro Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and Implementation Plan. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro). 2014. First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2014-2016. Metro Rail Design Criteria. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2015. Transit Service Policy. October. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2016a. Los Angeles County Transportation Expenditure Plan: Outline of Expenditure Categories (Measure M). Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro). 2016b. FLM Planning and Implementation Policy. Board Motion 14.1. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2017a. Performance Metrics Framework for Major Projects. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2017b. Arterial Performance Measurement Framework Countywide Baseline Conditions Analysis. “Measure Up: Countywide Baseline Conditions Analysis.” Presentation at Metro Streets and Freeway Committee. October. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). November 2017c. Metro Travel Demand Model.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 8-1 Initial Screening Report 8 References

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro). 2018a. Metro Vision 2028 Strategic Plan. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro). 2018b. Metro Transit Oriented Communities Policy Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro). 2018c. Metro Transfers Design Guide, Improving Connections for a Seamless Trip. Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. 2016. 2016 Property Tax Assessment Roll. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. April. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 2017. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. United States Census Bureau. 2017. 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files: Table B08201, Table B19001, and Table S0101.

8-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated

APPENDIX A INITIAL ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED

Table A-1. Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes San Fernando Valley Interline with the LRT At-Grade X X ∂ Cannot cross Oxnard East San Fernando Street at-grade with Valley Line at required frequency Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Interline with the LRT X X X X ∂ Cannot operate trains East San Fernando Underground long enough or at Valley Line at frequent enough Metro Orange headways to satisfy Line/Van Nuys ridership demand ∂ Issues with operational reliability from interlining a street- running and fully grade-separated rail line Every other train LRT At-Grade X X ∂ Cannot cross Oxnard interlines with the Street at-grade with East San Fernando required frequency Valley Line at ∂ Branch to Metro Orange Sepulveda/Metro Line/Van Nuys or Orange Line does not branches to offer additional Sepulveda/Metro ridership benefits Orange Line Station in Metro Orange LRT X ∂ Branch to Line right-of-way Underground Sepulveda/Metro Orange Line does not offer additional ridership benefits

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-1 Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Along Van Nuys LRT At-Grade X X ∂ Requires at-grade Boulevard from crossing of roadways Ventura Boulevard with less than 5-minute to Burbank headways Boulevard ∂ Segments of Van Nuys Boulevard are not wide enough to accommodate at-grade alignment without continuous linear property takes along roadway ∂ No portal location out of the mountains without major property acquisitions LRT Aerial X ∂ Segments of Van Nuys Boulevard are not wide enough to accommodate at-grade alignment without continuous linear property takes along roadway ∂ No portal location out of the mountains without major property acquisitions Along Ventura LRT/HRT/MRT X ∂ Requires additional Boulevard from Aerial guideway without Sepulveda additional station Boulevard to Van area/activity center Nuys Boulevard connection benefits Along US 101 from LRT/HRT/MRT X ∂ Requires additional Sepulveda Aerial guideway without Boulevard to Van additional station Nuys Boulevard area/activity center connection benefits

A-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Along Sepulveda HRT/MRT X X ∂ Requires at least 2 Boulevard to the Aerial miles of additional Van Nuys guideway without Airport/LAX additional benefits not FlyAway Park-and- provided by other Ride via Saticoy alignment options Street ∂ East of the Van Nuys Airport, the width of public right-of-way on Saticoy Street is as narrow as 65 feet in multiple areas and is fronted by residences to the south, and cannot accommodate an aerial alignment without continuous linear property takes along roadway HRT/MRT X ∂ Requires at least 2 Underground miles of additional guideway without additional benefits not provided by other alignment options Along I-405 to the HRT/MRT X ∂ Requires at least 2 Van Nuys Aerial miles of additional Airport/LAX guideway without FlyAway Park-and- additional benefits not Ride via Saticoy provided by other Street alignment options

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-3 Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Along Hayvenhurst HRT/MRT X X X ∂ Metro Orange Line Avenue/Woodley Aerial Woodley Station is the Avenue – From lowest ridership Ventura Boulevard, Orange Line Station of across the the three in the study Sepulveda Basin to area the Van Nuys ∂ Requires placement of Airport/LAX columns in a flood- FlyAway Park-and- control basin Ride HRT/MRT X X ∂ Metro Orange Line Underground Woodley Station is the lowest ridership Orange Line Station of the three in the study area Along Burbank HRT X ∂ Requires additional Boulevard from guideway without Sepulveda additional station Boulevard to Van area/activity center Nuys Boulevard connection benefits Terminus at Victory LRT/HRT/ X X ∂ Eliminated after Boulevard to MRT ridership forecasting connect with East because of impacts on San Fernando the East San Fernando Valley Line1 Valley Transit Corridor’s LRT line capacity Terminus at LRT/HRT/ X X ∂ Eliminated after Sherman Way to MRT ridership forecasting connect with East because of impacts on San Fernando the East San Fernando Valley Line1 Valley Transit Corridor’s LRT line capacity

A-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Along west side of MRT X X ∂ Would impact the I-405 from Del (continuation Sherman Oaks Circle Gado Drive to US of alignment Historic District 101 through the pass) Along the median MRT X X ∂ Median of I-405 of I-405 from Del (continuation between US 101 and I- Gado Drive to US of alignment 10 planned for use by 101 through the ExpressLanes pass) Along the east side LRT/HRT/ X X X ∂ Insufficient room for of I-405 from MRT guideway/columns Ventura Boulevard between freeway to US 101 mainline, ramps, and associated structures from northbound on- ramps, and Sherman Oaks Galleria Along west side of LRT/HRT/ X X ∂ Would require I-405 from US 101 MRT placement of to Burbank structures in Sepulveda Boulevard Dam spillway Along median of LRT/HRT/ X X ∂ Locations with no I-405 from US 101 MRT inside shoulder in to Burbank either direction, so no Boulevard place to put columns Along east side of LRT/HRT/ X ∂ Impacts to two City of I-405 from US 101 MRT Los Angeles parks on to Burbank US Army Corps Boulevard property: Castle Park and Teichman Family Magnolia Park Along median of LRT/HRT/ X X ∂ Locations with no I-405 north of MRT inside shoulder in Burbank Boulevard either direction, so no place to put columns

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-5 Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Station at Metro LRT/HRT/ X ∂ Metro Orange Line Orange Line MRT Woodley Station is the Woodley Station lowest ridership Orange Line Station of the three in the Study Area Sepulveda Pass Along I-405 from LRT/HRT X ∂ Grades through Pass Getty Center to Del Aerial too steep for LRT/HRT Gado Drive per MRDC Along median of MRT X X ∂ Median of I-405 I-405 from Getty between US 101 and I- Center to Del Gado 10 planned for use by Drive ExpressLanes ∂ Columns in median would impact freeway drainage system ∂ Columns in median may restrict sight distance required on curves per Caltrans design and safety standards Along east side of Rubber Tire X X X ∂ Hillsides are steeper I-405 from Getty and less accessible Center to Del Gado than west side of Drive freeway Sunset Boulevard/ LRT/HRT X ∂ Requires longer tunnel UCLA to Van Nuys Underground than concepts with Boulevard, with an longitudinal ventilation intermediate without performance ventilation shaft benefits near I-405/Getty Center Drive interchange or Stone Canyon Reservoir

A-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Sunset Boulevard/ LRT/HRT X ∂ Requires longer tunnel UCLA to Sepulveda Underground than concepts with Boulevard, with an longitudinal ventilation intermediate without performance ventilation shaft benefits near I-405/Getty Center Drive interchange or Stone Canyon Reservoir Sunset Boulevard/ LRT/HRT X ∂ Requires longer tunnel UCLA to Underground without performance Hayvenhurst benefits Avenue and Woodley Avenue Sunset LRT/HRT X ∂ Requires longer tunnel Boulevard/VA to Underground than concepts with Van Nuys longitudinal ventilation Boulevard, with an without performance intermediate benefits ventilation shaft near I-405/Getty Center Drive interchange or Stone Canyon Reservoir Sunset LRT/HRT X ∂ Requires longer tunnel Boulevard/VA to Underground than concepts with Sepulveda longitudinal ventilation Boulevard, with an without performance intermediate benefits ventilation shaft near I-405/Getty Center Drive interchange or Stone Canyon Reservoir

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-7 Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Westside Along Westwood LRT/HRT/MRT X X ∂ Segments of Boulevard south of Aerial Westwood Boulevard Westwood/UCLA are less than 95 feet Purple Line Station wide, cannot accommodate at-grade alignment without continuous linear property takes along roadway Along Sepulveda LRT/HRT/MRT X X ∂ Segments of Sepulveda Boulevard south of Aerial Boulevard are less than Westwood/UCLA 95 feet wide, cannot Purple Line Station accommodate at-grade alignment without continuous linear property takes along roadway Westwood/VA LRT/HRT X X ∂ Requires track Purple Line Station Underground alignment to turn in a to the direction opposite of Expo/Sepulveda the eventual extension Station to LAX Westwood/VA LRT/HRT/MRT X X ∂ Metro Expo Line Purple Line Station Underground Westwood/Rancho to Westwood/ Park Station is the Rancho Park Expo lowest ridership Expo Line Station Line Station of the three in the study area Along west side of LRT/HRT/MRT X X ∂ Would require I-405 from Sunset Aerial narrowing of Church Boulevard to Lane, removal of on- Wilshire Boulevard street parking and mature trees between freeway and Church Lane

A-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Along median of LRT/HRT/MRT X X ∂ Median of I-405 I-405 from Sunset Aerial between US 101 and I- Boulevard to 10 planned for use by Wilshire Boulevard ExpressLanes Along east side of LRT/HRT/MRT X X X ∂ Right-of-way I-405/Sepulveda Aerial constrained by street Boulevard from widths, retaining walls, Sunset Boulevard bridges, and major to Wilshire utilities Boulevard Along Westwood LRT/HRT/MRT X X X X ∂ Right-of-way Boulevard from Aerial constrained by street Westwood/UCLA widths, structures, and Purple Line Station utility constraints to Westwood/ ∂ Metro Expo Line Rancho Park Expo Westwood/Rancho Line Station Park Station is the lowest ridership Expo Line Station of the three in the study area LRT/HRT/ X ∂ Metro Expo Line MRT Westwood/Rancho Underground Park Station is the lowest ridership Expo Line Station of the three in the study area Station at LRT/HRT/MRT ∂ Metro Expo Line Westwood/Rancho Westwood/Rancho Park Expo Line Park Station is the Station lowest ridership Expo Line Station of the three in the Study Area

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project A-9 Initial Screening Report Appendix A Initial Alignment Segments Considered and Eliminated - n f o o i - t t c t h c e l g e i n a r t i R n / l n g y d o s s t a t e t t n C n i n n i I n n r e n i i m o / o i i s e r a u a t n c t t r i r e o s o c a f t t e i m t n r f r t a r s s i i y n e u e u n m p n i g v a s f

Alignment Mode and p o o o o o n n m n n Segment/Option Configuration E C C E I I W O C I R P Notes Purple Line HRT X X X ∂ Eliminated after Extension from ridership forecasting Westwood/VA to because of poor Valley and Expo performance serving Line using a wye1 the corridor ∂ Benefits did not warrant the construction and right- of-way impacts required to build a wye underground Westwood/VA LRT/HRT/ X ∂ Eliminated after Station1 MRT ridership forecasting Underground because of poor ridership in comparison to connecting to the Westwood/UCLA Station and an on- campus UCLA station Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 Note: 1 Eliminated after evaluation of initial concepts began

A-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

APPENDIX B INITIAL EVALUATION OF CONCEPTS Valley-Westside Initial Concept Evaluation

Table B-1. Valley-Westside Initial Concepts – Improve Mobility Evaluation Measure Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Number of daily boardings 119,000 134,000 134,000 137,000 110,000 108,000 Number of new transit trips 48,000 57,000 50,000 57,000 42,000 44,000 Average operating speeds 42.7 mph 40.4 mph 39.5 mph 39.5 mph (Van Nuys) 30.9 mph 40 mph 37.7 mph (Sepulveda) Service frequencies 4 minutes 4 minutes 2.5 minutes (5 minutes on ESFV) 2.5 minutes (5 minutes on ESFV) 4 minutes 4 minutes Number of Van Nuys – UCLA 1 transfer 1 transfer 0 transfers 0 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer transfers West Valley – UCLA 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer between major O/D pairs: North Valley – UCLA 1 transfer 1 transfer 0 transfers 0 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer Van Nuys – Century City 2 transfers 2 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer 2 transfers 2 transfers West Valley – Century City 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers North Valley – Century City 2 transfers 2 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer 2 transfers 2 transfers Van Nuys – Santa Monica 2 transfers 2 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer 2 transfers 2 transfers West Valley – Santa Monica 2 transfers 2 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer 2 transfers 2 transfers North Valley – Santa Monica 2 transfers 2 transfers 1 transfer 1 transfer 2 transfers 2 transfers Percent of alignment in exclusive ROW 100% 100% ~53% ~53% 100% 100% Portion that interlines with ESFV Portion that interlines with ESFV would be in shared ROW would be in shared ROW Rail junction (junctions can decrease the reliability of a No junction No junction No junction Junction south of MOL No junction No junction service) Load at maximum load point (hourly capacity) 6,672 (capacity 12,000) 7,216 (capacity 12,000) 7,797 (capacity 4,800 n/o MOL) 7,908 (capacity 4,800 n/o MOL) 5,592 (capacity 12,000) 6,694 (capacity 12,000) Number and East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor 1-level transfer 1-level transfer Seamless Seamless 1-level transfer 1-level transfer quality of Metro Orange Line 2-level transfer 2-level transfer 1-level 1-level 2-level transfer 2-level transfer connections to existing and Metro Purple Line 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level 1-level 1-level transfer 1-level transfer planned Metro Metro Expo Line 2-level transfer 2-level transfer 2-level 2-level 2-level 2-level rail and busway lines Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 Notes: LRT capacity based on a 3-car train running at a 5-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. HRT capacity based on a 6-car train running at a 4-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. MRT capacity assumed to be equivalent to HRT capacity. Capacity of Concepts 3 and 4 is greater (9,600 per hour) south of Metro Orange Line because of shorter headways; however, the peak load point occurs north of the Metro Orange Line. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project terminus station is located north of the Orange Line and the locally preferred alternative does not consider the grade-separated Van Nuys station as part of the Metro Orange Line Improvement Project.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-1 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-2. Valley-Westside Initial Concept Stations – Improve Equity of Access Evaluation Van Nuys Boulevard/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Metro Orange Line/ Van Metro Orange Line/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Sherman Way Victory Boulevard Nuys Station Sepulveda Station Ventura Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/ Sepulveda Station 2042 future population density (within 22,585 persons/ sq. mile 22,548 persons/ sq. mile 17,176 persons/ sq. mile 7,129 persons/ sq. mile 12,809 persons/ sq. mile 11,480 persons/ sq. mile 5,584 persons/ sq. mile 9,803 persons/ sq. mile ½ mile of stations) 2042 future employment density 7,567 jobs/sq. mile 11,080 jobs/sq. mile 12,862 jobs/sq. mile 13,275 jobs/sq. mile 12,050 jobs/sq. mile 21,974 jobs/sq. mile 27,050 jobs/sq. mile 16,709 jobs/sq. mile (within ½ mile of stations) planned high-density/mixed use None within ½ mile of None within ½ mile of None within ½ mile of None within ½ mile of Encino-W. Sherman Oaks Sherman Oaks Galleria and Sawtelle, Santa Monica Westside Pavilion and (within ½ mile of stations) station area station area station area station area Encino-W. Sherman Oaks Sawtelle Transit-supportive Notes ∂ Site is surrounded by ∂ Station is located at ∂ Station is located at ∂ Site is surrounded by ∂ Site has existing high- ∂ Station located at ∂ Site is surrounded by ∂ Station is located at characteristics mostly industrial and existing Orange Line intersection with most low-to-medium density immediately intersection with mostly industrial and existing Orange Line commercial uses; station, connects to Orange Line Busway and density surrounding the transit existing Metro Expo Line commercial uses; station, connects to opportunity to Orange Line and Bike Bike Path ∂ Most of the commercial station Station opportunity to Orange Line and Bike redevelop, but may be Path ∂ Close to existing Park & uses along Ventura Blvd ∂ Existing major ∂ Surrounding is mainly redevelop, but may be Path unlikely ∂ Van Nuys Park & Ride Ride lot are one- and two-story commercial destination, Light Industrial with unlikely ∂ Van Nuys Park & Ride ∂ Existing mid-rise present future ∂ Adjacent Costco is a buildings both Retail and Office offices and commercial ∂ Existing mid-rise presents future residential building opportunity, but Public major draw, but is not ▶ Greater opportunity ∂ Large vacant parcel space; much existing residential building opportunity, but Public immediately adjacent to Facility zoning does not consistent with walkable for redevelopment within station area employment and immediately adjacent to Facility zoning does not proposed station area allow for development1 development and increasing density provides an opportunity commercial, but little proposed station area allow for development1 ∂ Strip commercial along ∂ Station Area is ∂ I-405 is a physical ∂ Large-format retail with for new development residential uses near ∂ Strip commercial along ∂ Station Area is Van Nuys Blvd is mostly immediately adjacent to barrier, separating surface parking are ∂ Because the Commercial station Van Nuys Blvd is mostly immediately adjacent to single-story; opportunity existing Industrial Uses, Station Area from prime redevelopment area is mostly built-out, ∂ Low-density retail and single-story; opportunity existing Industrial Uses, for redevelopment and but some may be Sepulveda Basin areas there is limited restaurants offer for redevelopment and but some may be increasing density redeveloped with Recreation Area to the ∂ Multiple gas stations opportunity for new opportunity for increasing density redeveloped with ∂ Large-format retail with Residential or Mixed- west and small buildings development redevelopment and ∂ Large-format retail with Residential or Mixed-Use surface parking are Use ∂ Station area is immediately ∂ Redevelopment is increased density, but surface parking are ∂ Industrial Uses and prime redevelopment ∂ Industrial Uses and immediately adjacent to surrounding proposed unlikely in the near zoning does not support prime redevelopment auto-oriented areas auto-oriented Industrial Uses station are possible future, as buildings are Mixed-use development areas Commercial corridor are ∂ Many parking lots or Commercial corridor are ∂ Auto-oriented locations to be occupied and successful ∂ Two large public ∂ Many parking lots or not conducive to TOC small buildings not conducive to TOC Commercial corridor is redeveloped into station ∂ Highway underpass facilities are located small buildings but are opportunities immediately but are opportunities not conducive to TOC portal creates barrier for within station area: immediately for future surrounding proposed for future but may present ∂ General Plan Land Use station area located Department of Power surrounding proposed redevelopment station could be redevelopment opportunity for supports high-density west of I-405 and Water and LA station could be ∂ Van Nuys Blvd south of redeveloped with ∂ Van Nuys Blvd south of redevelopment development on main ∂ Open plaza at corner of Sanitation redeveloped with Calvert St is mainly car station portal; direct Calvert St is mainly car ∂ Industrial Uses are not corridors surrounding Ventura and Sepulveda ∂ Part of the station area station portal; direct dealerships and auto- connection to Metrolink dealerships and auto- supportive of TOC and station is probably not big is within City of Santa connection to Metrolink oriented commercial and Amtrak Station oriented commercial would require rezoning ∂ Large amount of land enough to construct Monica and Amtrak Station uses possible uses for redevelopment remains Low Density station portal without ∂ I-10 limits pedestrian possible ∂ Civic uses within station ∂ County social services ∂ Civic uses within station ∂ Few options for portal and Very Low Density, demolition of one-story access to station from ∂ County social services area are community building is an anchor for area are community location without razing not suitable for bank building and two the south building is an anchor for anchors and provide ridership anchors and provide existing structures or redevelopment or levels of subterranean ∂ Expo Corridor Transit ridership destinations for transit ∂ Some medium-density destinations for transit developing on existing increasing density garage Neighborhood Plan ∂ Some medium-density riders, but limit future residential exists within riders, but limit future parking lots ∂ Specific Plan makes ∂ General Plan Land Use makes significant residential exists within development potential station area development potential ∂ General Plan designates minor changes to supports high-density changes to existing station area ∂ General Plan designates ∂ Most existing residential ∂ General Plan designates core of area as Industrial designation of development on main General Plan Land Use ▶ Most existing area immediately is low density area immediately Uses Community Commercial corridors surrounding and Zoning residential is low surrounding Station as surrounding station as and Neighborhood & station density

B-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Van Nuys Boulevard/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Metro Orange Line/ Van Metro Orange Line/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Sherman Way Victory Boulevard Nuys Station Sepulveda Station Ventura Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/ Sepulveda Station Industrial and Public ∂ Mix of Heavy, Light, and General Commercial ∂ Large amount land ∂ Industrial Parcels Industrial and Public Facilities1 Limited Industrial plus areas; does not remains Low Density, rezoned to Hybrid Facilities1 ∂ Mix of Light and Limited CM significantly change land not suitable for Industrial with three ∂ Mix of Light and Limited Industrial plus ∂ Some Residential Uses use from General Plan redevelopment or subcategories (New Industrial plus Commercial are allowed within ∂ Applicable Specific increasing density Industry, Jobs Emphasis, Commercial Manufacturing (CM) Industrial Land Use Plan(s): ∂ Applicable Specific and Residential Manufacturing (CM) ∂ Some Commercial and designation ▶ Ventura/Cahuenga Plan(s): Emphasis). 2.0 to 4.0 ∂ Some Commercial and Residential Uses are ▶ CM allows Limited C2 Boulevard Corridor ▶ Ventura/Cahuenga FAR (with bonus) Residential Uses are allowed within Industrial Uses (including R4) Specific Plan Boulevard Corridor ∂ Significant portion of allowed within Land Use designation and R3 Uses ▶ Specific Plan Specific Plan Low-Density land Industrial Land Use ▶ CM allows Limited C2 ▶ Limited Industrial designates Pedestrian ▶ Specific Plan makes rezoned to Medium- designation Uses (including R4) allows CM Uses, as Oriented Areas, minor changes to Density Residential and ▶ CM allows Limited C2 and R3 Uses described above Pedestrian designation of Neighborhood Uses (including R4) ▶ Limited Industrial ∂ Majority of land directly Development District Regional Commercial Commercial and R3 Uses Allows CM Uses, as surrounding station and Restricted Use and Community ▶ Allows multifamily Limited Industrial described above does not support Areas; prohibits drive- Commercial areas. development and Allows CM Uses, as ∂ Commercial Uses residential thru and auto-related Changes are ground-floor retail described above designated on Van Nuys development. uses; supportive of consistent with uses ∂ Commercial Uses Blvd ▶ Low Density and Very TOC development of TOC ▶ Some Low Density designated on Van Nuys ∂ Medium-Density Low Density ▶ Specific Plan remains outside 1/4- Blvd Residential Uses to the designation off major designates Ventura mile radius but within ∂ Medium-Density north of station corridors Blvd as a Pedestrian 1/2 mile of station Residential Uses to the ∂ Low-Density designation Oriented Area; ∂ Neighborhood north of station to the south of station prohibits drive-thru Commercial designated ∂ Low-Density designation on parcels not located and auto-related on Pico Blvd and part of to the south of station on major corridors uses; supportive of Olympic Blvd and Bundy on parcels not located TOC Street ∂ Applicable Specific on major corridors Plan(s): ∂ Major Public Facilities — ∂ Applicable Specific Department of Power ▶ Van Nuys CBD Plan(s): and Water and LA Community Design ▶ Van Nuys CBD Sanitation — located in Overlay District and 1 Community Design Streetscape Plan are station area Overlay District and supportive of ∂ West Los Angeles Streetscape Plan are pedestrian-friendly General Plan and Palms supportive of design and supportive – Mar Vista – Del Rey pedestrian-friendly of TOC2 General Plan have slight design and supportive differences in 2 ▶ Area of Van Nuys CBD of TOC corresponding zones for allows TFAR up to a 6 ▶ Area of Van Nuys CBD FAR maximum land use categories allows TFAR up to a 6 ∂ Applicable Specific FAR maximum Plan(s): ▶ West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-3 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Van Nuys Boulevard/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Metro Orange Line/ Van Metro Orange Line/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Sherman Way Victory Boulevard Nuys Station Sepulveda Station Ventura Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/ Sepulveda Station ∂ A portion of the 1/2- mile radius station area encompasses the City of Santa Monica ▶ Santa Monica General Plan Land Use element identifies “Transit Village” along the Metro Expo Line ∂ Land inside 1/2-mile radius Station Area adjacent to Expo is Mixed-Use Creative, combining entertainment-related commercial uses with a range of housing types Existing land use Medium High Medium Low Medium High Low Low and development patterns supports transit Nearby vacant or Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Low under-utilized parcels for redevelopment (L=Limited; H=Many, or High Potential) Major Low High High Medium Medium High Medium High destinations/activi ty Hubs within Walking Distance Planned Low High Medium Low Low Low Medium High development for new major destinations/activi ty hubs within walking distance Major barriers to High High High Low High Medium Medium Low access the station from nearby neighborhoods (L=Poor Access; H=Good Access)

B-4 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Van Nuys Boulevard/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Metro Orange Line/ Van Metro Orange Line/ Van Nuys Boulevard/ Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Sherman Way Victory Boulevard Nuys Station Sepulveda Station Ventura Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/ Sepulveda Station Ability of station High High High Medium High High Medium High to contribute to walkable neighborhood Impact of High Medium High High High Medium High High potential station access on quality of built environment (L=Negative; H=Positive) Planned or funded Medium High High High Medium Medium High High infrastructure projects near the station (L=Conflict; H=Collaboration) Potential for the Medium High High Medium Medium High High High proposed station to be integrated into existing, future, or adjacent development to support ridership Existing land use Medium High Medium Low Medium High Low Low and development patterns supports transit Number of connections to bicycle and Bike facilities: None; Bike facilities: Class I Bike facilities: Class I Bike facilities: Class I (0.9); Bike facilities: Class II (0.5); Bike facilities: None; Bike facilities: Class I Bike facilities: Class I quality pedestrian facilities (within ½ Pedestrian Connectivity (0.91)/Class II (0.11); (0.91)/Class II (0.53); Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity (0.85)/Class III (0.47); (0.99)/Class III (0.02); mile of stations) Score: 113.07 Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Score: 66.55 Score: 114.87 Score: 110.50 Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Score: 109.53 Score: 110.13 Score: 164.45 Score: 135.18 Number of low income and minority 2,239 Low-Income; 7,072 3,992 Low-Income; 9,152 3,257 Low-Income; 7,138 392 Low-Income; 1,423 720 Low-Income; 1,635 400 Low-Income; 1,647 300 Low-Income; 1,453 334 Low-Income; 1,807 residences (within ½ mile of stations) Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Number of zero-car households 416 zero car households 710 zero car households 591 zero car households 67 zero car households 170 zero car households 123 zero car households 51 zero car households 111 zero car households (within ½ mile of stations) Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Fehr& Peers, 2018; Torti Gallas + Partners, 2018 Notes: West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan funds new transportation projects, seeks to mitigate effects of new low-density residential development, and encourage public transit, alternative modes, and TDM measures; Requires review of transportation impacts and assesses applicable fees and/or credits; Supportive of developing TOC. Pedestrian Connectivity Score is determined by the density of through intersections (intersections of roadways that do not dead-end) per square mile. 1 If a public agency sells property, it may rezone to most consistent Land Use within 500 feet 2 Does not contain any changes or recommendations on Land Use

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-5 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-3. Valley-Westside Initial Concepts – Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Evaluation Measure Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction 838,000 VMT reduced 993,000 VMT reduced 1,040,000 VMT reduced 1,135,000 VMT reduced 727,000 VMT reduced 816,000 VMT reduced Regional vehicle hours traveled (VHT) reduction 60,000 VHT reduced 70,000 VHT reduced 74,000 VHT reduced 80,000 VHT reduced 51,000 VHT reduced 55,000 VHT reduced Potential for displacement Potential Impact Likely to Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely to Impact Likely to Impact Potential for traffic and noise impacts (construction) Potential Impact Likely to Impact Potential Impact Likely to Impact Likely to Impact Likely to Impact Potential for visual impacts Unlikely to Impact Potential Impact Unlikely to Impact Potential Impact Likely to Impact Likely to Impact Estimated traffic lane miles to be removed None None Permanent occupation of median Permanent occupation of median None None on Van Nuys Boulevard north of on Van Nuys Boulevard north of Burbank Boulevard Burbank Boulevard Estimated parking lanes to be removed None 5.88 miles None None 5.88 miles 5.88 miles Estimated length of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to None None None None None None be removed Other potential Archaeological and tribal Potential Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact environmental impacts cultural resources Environmental justice Unlikely to Impact Likely Impact Unlikely to Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Hazard and hazardous Likely Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Unlikely to Impact Unlikely to Impact materials Historic resources Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Operational noise and Potential Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact vibration Seismic resources Potential Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Water resources Potential Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Overall Medium potential of Higher potential of impacts Medium potential of impacts Medium potential of impacts Higher potential of impacts Higher potential of impacts impacts Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Terry Hayes and Associates, 2018

B-6 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Valley-Westside Refined Concept Evaluation

Table B-4. Valley-Westside Refined Concepts – Improve Mobility Evaluation Measure HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 Number of daily boardings 122,661 120,095 133,008 105,482 Number of new transit trips 49,939 49,707 54,616 39,529 Average operating speeds 47.9 mph 48.3 mph 45.9 mph 33.8 mph Service frequencies 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes Number of transfers between major O/D pairs: Van Nuys – UCLA 0 transfers 0 transfers 0 transfers 0 transfers West Valley – UCLA 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer North Valley – UCLA 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer Van Nuys – Century City 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer West Valley – Century City 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers North Valley – Century City 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers Van Nuys – Santa Monica 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer 1 transfer West Valley – Santa Monica 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers North Valley – Santa Monica 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers 2 transfers Percent of alignment in exclusive ROW 100% 100% 100% 100% Rail junction (junctions can decrease the reliability of a service) No junction No junction No junction No junction Load at maximum load point 7,306 (capacity 12,000) 7,015 (capacity 12,000) 7,154 (capacity 12,000) 5,563 (capacity 12,000) Number and quality of connections to existing Metrolink 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level transfer and planned Metro rail and busway lines East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 2-level transfer 2-level transfer Orange Line 2-level transfer 2-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level transfer Purple Line 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level transfer 1-level transfer Expo Line 2-level transfer 2-level transfer 2-level transfer 2-level transfer Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018 Notes: East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project terminus station is located north of the Orange Line and the locally preferred alternative does not consider the grade-separated Van Nuys station as part of the Metro Orange Line Improvement Project. HRT capacity based on a 6-car train running at a 4-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. MRT capacity assumed to be equivalent to HRT capacity.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-7 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-5. Valley-Westside Refined Concept Stations – Improve Equity of Access Evaluation Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Metro Orange Line/Sepulveda Van Nuys Boulevard/ Ventura Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Metrolink Van Nuys Station Station Station Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/Sepulveda Station 2042 future population density (within 6,253 persons/ sq. mile 17,176 persons/ sq. mile 7,129 persons/ sq. mile 12,809 persons/ sq. mile 11,480 persons/ sq. mile 5,584 persons/ sq. mile 9,803 persons/ sq. mile ½ mile of stations) 2042 future employment density 16,880 jobs/ sq. mile 12,862 jobs/sq. mile 13,275 jobs/sq. mile 12,050 jobs/sq. mile 21,974 jobs/sq. mile 27,050 jobs/sq. mile 16,709 jobs/sq. mile (within ½ mile of stations) Number and size of planned high- None with ½ mile of station None within ½ mile of station None within ½ mile of station Encino-W. Sherman Oaks Sherman Oaks Galleria and Sawtelle, Santa Monica Westside Pavilion and Sawtelle density/mixed use (within ½ mile of area area area Encino-W. Sherman Oaks stations) Transit- Notes ∂ Site is surrounded by mostly See Table B-2 See Table B-2 See Table B-2 See Table B-2 See Table B-2 See Table B-2 supportive industrial and commercial characteristics uses; opportunity to redevelop, but may be unlikely ∂ Existing mid-rise residential building immediately adjacent to proposed station area ∂ Strip commercial along Van Nuys Blvd is mostly single- story; opportunity for redevelopment and increasing density ∂ Large-format retail with surface parking are prime redevelopment areas ∂ Many parking lots or small buildings immediately surrounding proposed station could be redeveloped with station portal; direct connection to Metrolink and Amtrak Station possible ∂ County social services building is an anchor for ridership ∂ Some medium-density residential exists within station area ∂ Most existing residential is low density

B-8 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Metro Orange Line/Sepulveda Van Nuys Boulevard/ Ventura Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Metrolink Van Nuys Station Station Station Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/Sepulveda Station Existing land use and Medium Medium Low Medium High Low Low development patterns supports transit Nearby vacant or Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Low under-utilized parcels for redevelopment (L=Limited; H=Many, or High Potential) Major Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High destinations/activity hubs within walking distance Planned development Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium High for new major destinations/activity hubs within walking distance Major barriers to access Medium High Low High Medium Medium Low the station from nearby neighborhoods (L=Poor Access; H=Good Access) Ability of station to High High Medium High High Medium High contribute to walkable neighborhood Impact of potential High High High High Medium High High station access on quality of built environment (L=Negative; H=Positive) Planned or funded Medium High High Medium Medium High High infrastructure projects near the station (L=Conflict; H=Collaboration) Potential for the High High Medium Medium High High High proposed station to be integrated into existing, future, or adjacent development to support ridership

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-9 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Metro Orange Line/Van Nuys Metro Orange Line/Sepulveda Van Nuys Boulevard/ Ventura Sepulveda Boulevard/ Measure Metrolink Van Nuys Station Station Station Boulevard Ventura Boulevard Expo/Bundy Station Expo/Sepulveda Station Existing land use and High Medium Low Medium High Low Low development patterns supports transit Number of connections to bicycle and Bike facilities: None; Bike facilities: Class I Bike facilities: Class I (0.9); Bike facilities: Class II (0.5); Bike facilities: None; Bike facilities: Class I Bike facilities: Class I quality pedestrian facilities (within ½ Pedestrian Connectivity Score: (0.91)/Class II (0.53); Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: (0.85)/Class III (0.47); (0.99)/Class III (0.02); mile of stations) 74.84 Pedestrian Connectivity Score: 66.55 114.87 110.50 Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: 110.13 164.45 135.18 Number of low income and minority 471 Low-Income; 1,538 3,257 Low-Income; 7,138 392 Low-Income; 1,423 720 Low-Income; 1,635 400 Low-Income; 1,647 300 Low-Income; 1,453 334 Low-Income; 1,807 residences (within ½ mile of stations) Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Number of zero-car households (within 107 zero car households 591 zero car households 67 zero car households 170 zero car households 123 zero car households 51 zero car households 111 zero car households ½ mile of stations) Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Fehr& Peers, 2018; Torti Gallas + Partners, 2018 Notes: West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan funds new transportation projects, seeks to mitigate effects of new low-density residential development, and encourage public transit, alternative modes, and TDM measures; Requires review of transportation impacts and assesses applicable fees and/or credits; Supportive of developing TOC. Pedestrian Connectivity Score is determined by the density of through intersections (intersections of roadways that do not dead-end) per square mile. 1 If a public agency sells property, it may rezone to most consistent Land Use within 500 feet. 2 Does not contain any changes or recommendations on Land Use.

B-10 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-6. Valley-Westside Refined Concepts – Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Evaluation Measure HRT 1 HRT 2 HRT 3 MRT 1 Regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction 968,515 959,549 1,044,835 760,499 Regional vehicle hours traveled (VHT) reduction 67,911 66,701 72,204 52,540 Potential for displacement Limited amounts of property acquisition Limited amounts of property acquisition Partial or full acquisitions Partial or full acquisitions Potential for traffic and noise impacts (construction) Potential noise/vibration impacts limited to Potential noise/vibration impacts limited to Potential noise/vibration impacts along Potential noise/vibration impacts near station, laydown, and launch sites station, laydown, and launch sites entirety of aerial alignment, near sensitive sensitive uses such as residences, studios and uses such as residences, studios, and hospitals; potential traffic impacts from hospitals; potential traffic impacts from construction of aerial structures construction of aerial structures Potential for visual impacts Limited to above-ground elements Limited to above-ground elements Potential visual impacts for surrounding land Potential visual impacts for surrounding land uses and designated scenic roadways uses and designated scenic roadways Estimated traffic lane miles to be removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed Estimated parking lanes to be removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed Up to 4.1 miles Approximately 4.1 miles Estimated length of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed None anticipated to be permanently removed Other potential environmental Archaeological and tribal cultural Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact impacts resources Environmental justice Unlikely to Impact Unlikely to Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Hazard and hazardous materials Likely Impact Likely Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Historic resources Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Operational noise and vibration Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Likely Impact Seismic resources Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Likely Impact Water resources Potential Impact Potential Impact Potential Impact Unlikely to Impact Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018; Terry Hayes and Associates, 2018

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-11 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Westside-LAX Initial Concept Evaluation

Table B-7. Westside-LAX Initial Concepts – Improve Mobility Evaluation HRT HRT HRT Centinela Measure Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 (from Expo/Sepulveda) HRT Purple Line Extension MRT I-405 Number of daily boardings 234,634 238,791 229,785 231,284 282,130 192,345

Number of transit trips using Westside- 115,898 118,953 109,137 109,562 122,756 93,316 LAX segment Average operating speeds 42.0 mph 44.5 mph 42.2 mph 40.8 mph 40.7 mph 36.2 mph Service frequencies 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes 4 minutes Percent of alignment in exclusive ROW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Rail junction (junctions can decrease No junction No junction No junction No junction No junction No junction the reliability of a service) Load at maximum load point 10,821 at peak load point (capacity 10,954 at peak load point (capacity 7,579 at peak load point (capacity 10,701 at peak load point (capacity 10,042 on Westside-LAX segment peak 7,841 at peak load point (capacity 12,000) 12,000) 12,000) 12,000) load point, 13,241 on Purple Line peak 12,000) load point (capacity 12,000) Number and quality of connections to Moderate connection from an Moderate connection from an Moderate connection from an Moderate connection from an Forced transfer at Purple Line; Moderate Moderate connection from an existing and planned Metro rail and underground to aerial station at the underground to aerial station at the underground to aerial station at the underground to aerial station at the Expo connection from an underground to underground to aerial station at the Expo busway lines Expo Line Expo Line Expo Line Line aerial station at the Expo Line Line Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019 Notes: The HRT Centinela Concept in the table presents the option via Sepulveda Boulevard with an Expo/Sepulveda Station. The option with an Expo/Bundy Station would have similar mobility analysis results but have a slightly higher travel time (11:29) and lower average speeds (40.2 mph). The HRT Purple Line Extension Concept would require a forced transfer from Valley-Westside, then Westside-LAX. HRT capacity based on a 6-car train running at a 4-minute headway, with each car accommodating approximately 133 passengers. MRT capacity assumed to be equivalent to HRT capacity.

B-12 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-8. Westside-LAX Initial Concepts – Improve Equity of Access by Station Objectives Centinela/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Overland/Venice Culver City Transit Center Centinela/Jefferson Overland/Jefferson 2057 population density (within ½ mile of stations) 25,119 persons/ sq. mile 21,375 persons/ sq. mile 36,650 persons/ sq. mile 3,847 persons/ sq. mile 11,000 persons/ sq. mile 10,255 persons/ sq. mile 2057 employment density (within ½ mile of stations) 5,911 jobs/sq. mile 7,737 jobs/sq. mile 24,680 jobs/sq. mile 13,648 jobs/sq. mile 12,320 jobs/sq. mile 15,996 jobs/sq. mile Planned high-density/mixed use (within ½ mile of stations) None with ½ mile of station area None with ½ mile of station area None with ½ mile of station area Westfield Culver City None with ½ mile of station area None with ½ mile of station area Notes ∂ Site is surrounded by most ∂ Site is surrounded by most ∂ Site is surrounded by mostly ∂ Site is surrounded by ∂ Site is surrounded by ∂ Site is surrounded by low-to-medium density low-to-medium density medium-density residential commercial use with both commercial use with both commercial use with both residential residential with some of the with existing low-density retail and offices and an retail and offices and an retail and offices and an ∂ Existing commercial corridor existing low-density/zones zones creating possibility for existing transit hub. The existing transit hub. The existing transit hub. The development is mainly one- creating possibility for redevelopment as the zoning transit hub connects many transit hub connects many transit hub connects many and two-story development redevelopment as the zoning code allows for higher density Culver City and Metro Line Culver City and Metro Line Culver City and Metro Line which contributes to the code allows for higher density ∂ The station’s proximity to buses which would increase buses which would increase buses which would increase walkability of the ∂ Station is located at Sony Pictures Studios the reach of the station the reach of the station the reach of the station neighborhood intersection of Metro Line Bus provides a large employment ∂ The Westfield Culver City Mall ∂ The Westfield Culver City Mall ∂ The Westfield Culver City Mall ∂ Station area is at the Route and Culver City Bus base and strip commercial around and strip commercial around and strip commercial around intersection of Big Blue, Route ∂ One-story commercial lining the station especially on the station especially on the station especially on Culver City and Metro Line ∂ Highway underpass creates of Venice Blvd provides Sepulveda Blvd can prove as Sepulveda Blvd can prove as Sepulveda Blvd can prove as Bus Routes connecting riders barrier for access to the possible redevelopment attraction points for the site attraction points for the site attraction points for the site to a broader network Station Area from west of opportunities ∂ The commercial attractions ∂ The commercial attractions ∂ The commercial attractions ∂ School uses within station I-405 ∂ The site is near Metro Line around the station are auto- around the station are auto- around the station are auto- area are community anchors ∂ Auto-oriented commercial and Culver City Bus Routes oriented and the walkability oriented and the walkability oriented and the walkability and provide destinations for corridor is not conducive to ∂ Portal location could be of the existing neighborhood of the existing neighborhood of the existing neighborhood transit riders, but limit future Transit Oriented developed by razing existing is low is low is low development potential Communities, but may gas station or developing on ∂ Large-format retail with ∂ Large-format retail with ∂ Large format retail with ∂ Parcels surrounding station present opportunity for existing parking lots of low surface parking are prime surface parking are prime surface parking are prime are fully built-out with redevelopment density commercial redevelopment areas redevelopment areas redevelopment areas occupied commercial uses. ∂ One-story commercial lining ∂ Walkability of the existing ∂ No open sites for station ∂ No open sites for station ∂ No open sites for station Construction of station portal of Venice Blvd creates neighborhood is high as it has portal, but many parking lots portal, but many parking lots portal, but many parking lots will require some demolition possible redevelopment many restaurants, grocery or small bank buildings or small bank buildings or small bank buildings ∂ LA City Zoning Notes: opportunities stores, and neighborhood immediately surrounding immediately surrounding immediately surrounding ▶ General Plan designates ∂ Vacant site at the intersection serving retail that attracts proposed station could be proposed station could be proposed station could be area immediately creates an opportunity for residents redeveloped with station redeveloped with station redeveloped with station surrounding station as redevelopment and the ∂ LA City Zoning Notes: portal portal portal commercial and low-to- station portal ▶ General Plan Land Use is ∂ I–405 and Marina Freeway ∂ I–405 and Marina Freeway ∂ I–405 and Marina Freeway medium density residential ∂ Sites along I-405 immediately generally supportive of underpass is a physical underpass is a physical underpass is a physical ▶ Community Commercial south of Venice Blvd have Transit Oriented barrier, limiting walkability barrier, limiting walkability barrier, limiting walkability and General Commercial high visibility from freeway Communities and access from these areas and access from these areas and access from these areas Use zones allow R4 ∂ LA City Zoning Notes: ▶ General Plan designates to the station to the station to the station Residential Development ▶ General Plan designates area immediately ∂ Most existing residential ∂ Most existing residential ∂ Most existing residential up to 3 FAR and area immediately surrounding station as within the radius of the within the radius of the within the radius of the Commercial Development surrounding station as commercial and medium- station is low density station is low density station is low density up to 1.5 FAR commercial and low-to- to-high-density residential ∂ General Plan Land Use is ∂ General Plan Land Use is ∂ General Plan Land Use is ▶ Medium-Density Use zone medium density residential generally supportive of generally supportive of generally supportive of allows up to 3 FAR with a Transit Oriented Communities Transit Oriented Communities Transit Oriented Communities height limit of 45’ ∂ Regional Commercial Center ∂ Regional Commercial Center ∂ Regional Commercial Center zones do not allow residential zones do not allow residential zones do not allow residential

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-13 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Objectives Centinela/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Overland/Venice Culver City Transit Center Centinela/Jefferson Overland/Jefferson

▶ Very Low density ▶ General Commercial Use ▶ Community Commercial development and have a development and have a development and have a residential allows up to 0.6 zones allow R4 Residential and General Commercial height limit of 56’ height limit of 56’ height limit of 56’ FAR and a height limit of Development up to 3 FAR Use zones allow R4 ∂ General Corridor Commercial ∂ General Corridor Commercial ∂ General Corridor Commercial 36’ and is not supportive of and Commercial Residential Development zones allow for Mixed Use zones allow for Mixed Use zones allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development up to 1.5 FAR up to 3 FAR and and Live/Work development and Live/Work development and Live/Work development Communities ▶ Medium Use zone allows Commercial Development in line with its standards, with in line with its standards, with in line with its standards, with ∂ Culver City Zoning Notes: up to 3 FAR with a height up to 1.5 FAR a height limit of 56’ a height limit of 56’ a height limit of 56’ ▶ General Corridor limit of 45’ ▶ Medium and High-Density ∂ Very Low density residential ∂ Very Low density residential ∂ Very Low density residential Commercial zones allow for ▶ Very Low density Use zone allows up to 3 located to northern edge of located to northern edge of located to northern edge of Mixed Use and Live/Work residential allows up to 0.6 FAR, with medium density station area allows for 0.6 station area allows for 0.6 station area allows for 0.6 FAR development in line with its FAR and a height limit of development limited to 45’ FAR with a height limit of 26’ FAR with a height limit of 26’ with a height limit of 26’ for standards, with a height 36’ and is not supportive of tall for flat roofs and 30’ for for flat roofs and 30’ for flat roofs and 30’ for sloped limit of 56’ Transit Oriented ∂ Culver City Zoning Notes: sloped roofs and is not sloped roofs and is not roofs and is not supportive of ▶ Low-density residential Communities ▶ General Corridor supportive of Transit Oriented supportive of Transit Oriented Transit Oriented Communities allows for 0.6 FAR with a ∂ Culver City Zoning Notes: Commercial zones allow for Communities Communities ∂ Industrial parcels do not allow height limit of 26’ for flat ▶ General Corridor Mixed Use and Live/Work ∂ Industrial parcels do not allow ∂ Industrial parcels do not allow residential development and roofs and 30’ for sloped Commercial zones allow for development in line with residential development and residential development and have a height limit of 43’ roofs and is not supportive Mixed Use and Live/Work its standards, with a height have a height limit of 43’ have a height limit of 43’ of Transit Oriented development in line with its limit of 56’. Communities standards, with a height General Plan Land Use is ∂ West Los Angeles limit of 56’ generally supportive of Transportation Improvement ▶ Opportunity for Transit Oriented and Mitigation Specific Plan: redevelopment at the Communities ▶ Funds new transportation medium-density zone ▶ Opportunity for projects, seeks to mitigate where existing buildings redevelopment at the effects of new low-density are currently at low medium-density zone residential development, density. These zones allow where existing buildings and encourages public for 30’ height limit and 1 are currently at low transit, alternative modes, unit/1,500 square feet of density. These zones allow and TDM measures net lot area, up to a for 30’ height limit and 1 ▶ Requires review of maximum of 9 units unit/1,500 square feet of transportation impacts and ▶ Low-density two-family net lot area, up to a assesses applicable fees residential allows for 2 maximum of 9 units and/or credits units per parcel with a ▶ Low-density residential ▶ Supportive of developing height limit of 2 stories and allows for 0.6 FAR with a Transit Oriented 30’ height limit of 26’ for flat Communities ▶ West Los Angeles roofs and 30’ for sloped ∂ Coastal Transportation Transportation roofs and is not supportive Corridor Specific Plan: Improvement and of Transit Oriented Communities ▶ Funds specific Mitigation Specific Plan: transportation Funds new transportation improvements due to projects, seeks to mitigate transportation impacts effects of new low-density generated by the projected residential development, new commercial and and encourages public industrial development transit, alternative modes, within the corridor and TDM measures

B-14 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Objectives Centinela/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Overland/Venice Culver City Transit Center Centinela/Jefferson Overland/Jefferson

▶ Regulates phased ▶ Requires review of ∂ West Los Angeles development of land uses transportation impacts and Transportation Improvement to ensure that the assesses applicable fees and Mitigation Specific Plan: transportation and/or credits ▶ Funds new transportation infrastructure can Supportive of developing projects, seeks to mitigate accommodate such uses Transit Oriented effects of new low-density ▶ Promotes the reduction of Communities residential development, peak-hour trips by and encourages public promoting the increase of transit, alternative modes, work-related ridesharing and TDM measures and bicycling to keep ▶ Requires review of critical intersections from transportation impacts and overload and level of assesses applicable fees service to decrease. and/or credits Reduces commute trips by encouraging the development of affordable housing at or near job-site ▶ Ensures new developments include Transportation Demand Management programs that will serve these auto-dependency reduction goals ∂ Los Angeles Livable Boulevards Streetscape Plan: ▶ Aims to create pedestrian- friendly environments and enhance neighborhood identity ▶ A project located on a street segment identified in the Livable Boulevards Streetscape Plan may be required to provide Streetscape Plan improvements in the public right-of-way

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-15 Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Objectives Centinela/Venice Sepulveda/Venice Overland/Venice Culver City Transit Center Centinela/Jefferson Overland/Jefferson Transit-supportive Existing land use and development High High High Medium Medium Low characteristics patterns supports transit Nearby vacant or under-utilized Medium High Medium High High Medium parcels for redevelopment (L=Limited; H=Many, or High Potential) Major destinations/activity hubs Medium Medium High High High Medium within walking distance Planned development for new Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium major destinations/activity hubs within walking distance Major barriers to access the station High Medium High Medium Low Low from nearby neighborhoods (L=Poor Access; H=Good Access) Ability of station to contribute to High Low Medium Medium Medium High walkable neighborhood Impact of potential station access Medium High High Medium Medium High on quality of built environment (L=Negative; H=Positive) Planned or funded infrastructure High High Medium High Medium High projects near the station (L=Conflict; H=Collaboration) Potential for the proposed station High High High High High High to be integrated into existing, future, or adjacent development to support ridership Existing land use and development High High High Medium Medium Low patterns supports transit Number of connections to bicycle and quality pedestrian Bike facilities: Class II Bike facilities: Class I (0)/Class II Bike facilities: Class I (0)/Class II Bike facilities: Class I (0)/Class II Bike facilities: Class I (0)/Class II Bike facilities: Class I (0.7)/Class facilities (within ½ mile of stations) (0.75)/Class III (0.09)/Class IV (2.24)/Class III (0); (1.3)/Class III (0); (0.2)/Class III (0); (1.51); II (0)/Class III (0); (0.81); Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: Pedestrian Connectivity Score: 207.84 180.56 190.87 76.47 240.62 192.03 Number of low income and minority residences (within ½ 1,259 Low-Income; 5,958 1,258 Low-Income; 4,721 1,521 Low-Income; 6,122 132 Low-Income; 1,220 Minority 322 Low-Income; 1,444 Minority 59 Low-Income; 722 Minority mile of stations) Minority Residents Minority Residents Minority Residents Residents Residents Residents Number of zero-car households (within ½ mile of stations) 372 zero car households 270 zero car households 598 zero car households 31 zero car households 31 zero car households 104 zero car households Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019; Fehr& Peers, 2019; Torti Gallas + Partners, 2019

B-16 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Initial Screening Report Appendix B Initial Evaluation of Concepts

Table B-9. Westside-LAX Initial Concepts – Protect the Environment and Support Community and Economic Development Evaluation HRT HRT HRT Centinela Measure Overland Sepulveda HRT I-405 (from Expo/Sepulveda) HRT Purple Line Extension MRT I-405 Potential for displacement Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential for traffic and noise impacts (construction) Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential for visual impacts Unlikely to impact Unlikely to impact Moderate Unlikely to impact Unlikely to impact Potential impact Estimated traffic lane miles to be removed None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed Estimated parking lanes to be removed None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed Estimated length of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be None anticipated to be be removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed permanently removed Other potential Archaeological and tribal Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact environmental impacts cultural resources Environmental justice Potential impact Potential impact Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact Hazard and hazardous Likely impact Potential impact Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact materials Historic resources Potential impact Unlikely to impact Unlikely to impact Unlikely to impact Potential impact Unlikely to impact Operational noise and Unlikely to impact Unlikely to impact Potential impact Unlikely to impact Potential impact Potential impact vibration Seismic resources Potential impact Potential impact Likely impact Potential impact Likely impact Likely impact Water resources Potential impact Potential impact Unlikely to impact Potential impact Potential impact Unlikely to impact Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2019; Terry Hayes and Associates, 2019

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project B-17