LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

A Sepulveda alignment is fine north of the 10; south of the 10, not so much. Again, putting a subway next to a freeway is an urban design malpractice.

Sepulveda/Slauson is a wasteland... it's surrounded by nothing but strip malls. Howard Hughes Center is a mile away, and you have to walk under two freeway underpasses to get there. Culver Pointe is also not within walking distance, and the pedestrian experience from Slauson is miserable as well.

And to go back to your UCLA argument, it's deeply flawed. UCLA's station having the highest projected ridership should have absolutely nothing to do with what southward alignment is chosen. Why? Because a lot that traffic will be coming north from the SFV, east via the Purple/Expo/Crenshaw Lines, Santa Monica and West LA via the Expo Line, etc. It's true that UCLA students who live off-campus in the Palms area do so because of the location, but that's because there's currently no Purple or Sepulveda subway and living any farther away would be a terrible option (the bus probably takes 45 minutes to an hour, so even that is a less than ideal commute). Those two rail projects will be game-changers, and UCLA students will have plenty of other places to live off-campus that have easy rail access to campus. In other words, things can change/evolve/adapt. Who's to say UCLA won't build even more vertical housing within its campus?

Elevated configuration? You lost me there.

I take the 734 bus to and from the SFV to West LA for a commute. The bus from the Sepulveda Expo station to UCLA is about 15-20 minutes depending on traffic. 45 minutes? No way.

From Santa Monica Blvd to the Orange Line in the SFV, its about 45-60 minutes, believe it or not. I'd guess it's anothe 5-7 minutes to/from the Expo station. This isn't that bad when you figure it has to cross the damn mountain pass.

The 234 takes longer, but I think most people try to avoid that one lol.

This area is also served by the 788 bus. Thank God, because it takes some load off the 734.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Agreed. I think Centinela is BY FAR the best option as far as Westside-LAX alternatives are concerned, so any opinion to the contrary is extremely baffling to me (yes, I know differences in opinion are what make democracy great). But I just think that HRT 1 + Centinela via Expo/Bundy, along with the decision to extend the route up to the Metrolink ROW and add a station at SMB, is an extremely rare slam dunk on the part of Metro--an agency with questionable leadership and a history of bad decision making.

I don't think Bundy/Centinela is the strongest corridor for veerying 1 mile away and close to the beach. By that case we should take a strong look at Lincoln Blvd which would blow this and even Sepulveda out of the water for ridership and demand. I also see how the Metro Board is overspending and over committing to things that they have no funds for (Eastside Phase 2, WSAB, Foothill Gold Line, Electric Buses) and that is a problem that will put in jeopardy delivering such projects why having flexibility to the vertical HRT configuration is important to reign in on costs.

One key bit that you haphazardly throw away with the Sepulveda/Slauson location are those strip malls and who OWNS those strip malls. Many of which are starting to shift to more urbanized development master planning. But guess who is a big land owner around Sepulveda/Slauson, it's Westfield. Westfield who is looking at this in Warner Center for the old Promenade shopping mall next to the Orange Line BRT. And they have the Westfield Sherman Oaks Galleria on Ventura/Sepulveda.

Here's a link to the site that talks about that conversion there. If they are thinking of this here, there is a damn good chance they will do it around Westfield Culver City and neighboring land they own. Countering to some of the arguments you have made around Playa Vista and a Bundy/Centinela alignment. And walking around Playa Vista down Jefferson Blvd is just as miserable a pedestrian experience. Both will need linkage improvements to make them work either via pedestrian/bike and micro transit for both locations to aid in their success.

https://promenade2035.com/project.php

It's extremely critical that we get this corridor right, and I feel like my preferred alternatives as mentioned represent as close to a near-perfect route and configuration as one could ask for. There's nothing that serves the area west of the 405, south of the 10, and north of LAX--this is our only shot at rail being built there for the foreseeable future.

I have deep respect for WrightCONCEPT, but I often find myself at odds with his beliefs. I think the disconnect comes from us approaching these topics from different angles. He definitely thinks more about cost and politics, whereas I think almost purely in terms of urbanism and future potential.

I respect you strongly as well, and I think having the food for thought counter arguments is a lot of where this respect comes from. I come with facts that give most posters here time pause and think because there is a different applicability as to how this get completed and how it will operate.

A lot of urbanism in LA is about cost and politics so without this gauge, LA will be forever frustrating. This is a lens that posters neglect so often and often see these issues morphing its head and then query why nothing gets done. As I witnessed as part of many coalitions organizing around Transportation issues (from Transit Coalition and FriendsForExpo) this is the most important lens in making things happen.

BTW I will leave you this food for thought around the case for densification along the corridor and where the politics reared its ugly head... Did you know that there were 2 developments near the Expo/Bundy station that got opposed and prevented from construction for many years due to neighborhood concerns until finally the project got scaled down to this.

https://www.2preservela.org/westside...-mega-project/

Also around Mar Vista at a recent Planning Commissioner hearing near Venice/Centinela an infill development had its height reduced from 5 stories down to 3 due to neighborhood opposition that Councilmember Bonin agreed with the community on. So this is not the slam dunk of density and development that you believe it will be.

And to go back to your UCLA argument, it's deeply flawed. UCLA's station having the highest projected ridership should have absolutely nothing to do with what southward alignment is chosen. Why? Because a lot that traffic will be coming north from the SFV, east via the Purple/Expo/Crenshaw Lines, Santa Monica and West LA via the Expo Line, etc. It's true that UCLA students who live off-campus in the Palms area do so because of the location, but that's because there's currently no Purple or Sepulveda subway and living any farther away would be a terrible option (the bus probably takes 45 minutes to an hour, so even that is a less than ideal commute). Those two rail projects will be game-changers, and UCLA students will have plenty of other places to live off-campus that have easy rail access to campus. In other words, things can change/evolve/adapt. Who's to say UCLA won't build even more vertical housing within its campus?

Ridership on the bus service in the area which is significantly higher around Sepulveda/Venice. Yes Purple Line will make housing options change. However,What is the cost of said housing next to the Purple Line stations? Can a college student really afford it? I think they wont and will need to travel much farther which is a net benefit of the corridor however where these students are living NOW and in future will be key for ridership on this southern leg of this corridor for us to get the greatest bang for ridership to build the line. And it is possible that UCLA will go vertical on its campus but how would residents in the rich enclaves around UCLA will feel about this vertical profile?

That is a key fundamental reality that we have to grapple with that you open up another question and I think fundamentally highlights our difference in opinion.
You see it idealistically, where all the stars have to align.
I am looking at this pragmatically on the trends that are leading to how the stars will align.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I take the 734 bus to and from the SFV to West LA for a commute. The bus from the Sepulveda Expo station to UCLA is about 15-20 minutes depending on traffic. 45 minutes? No way.

From Santa Monica Blvd to the Orange Line in the SFV, its about 45-60 minutes, believe it or not. I'd guess it's anothe 5-7 minutes to/from the Expo station. This isn't that bad when you figure it has to cross the damn mountain pass.

The 234 takes longer, but I think most people try to avoid that one lol.

This area is also served by the 788 bus. Thank God, because it takes some load off the 734.

That 788 Bus was a project that my colleague Kymberleigh Richards and I worked diligently on for over 5 years on our respective Metro Service Councils to get operational resources saved and allocated to make that Express Bus happen because we saw the same things that the then Route 761 service on Van Nuys to Westwood was hamstrung by all the stops within the SFV but also through the Pass and a good chunk of riders wanted a faster more direct trip, if the service was provided then they would take it.

For Metro the 788 and Silver Line 910 and 950 routes were the only services that saw ridership increases in the bus network when many other lines were in decline because they are offering faster more reliable service!

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I take the 734 bus to and from the SFV to West LA for a commute. The bus from the Sepulveda Expo station to UCLA is about 15-20 minutes depending on traffic. 45 minutes? No way.

From Santa Monica Blvd to the Orange Line in the SFV, its about 45-60 minutes, believe it or not. I'd guess it's anothe 5-7 minutes to/from the Expo station. This isn't that bad when you figure it has to cross the damn mountain pass.

The 234 takes longer, but I think most people try to avoid that one lol.

This area is also served by the 788 bus. Thank God, because it takes some load off the 734.

But it takes 25-35 minutes at rush hour. With the Purple Line extension and this new subway corridor, a person living in Koreatown (much farther away) would be able to get to campus quicker than someone currently living in Palms and taking the bus, even though Palms is only 3 miles from campus. And this is conjecture, but I have to think that with UCLA getting its own dedicated subway station, they'll eventually build more vertical on-campus housing.

And even with the Sepulveda alignment, the station at Venice isn't within walking distance of the neighborhood's density. Palms also has a neighborhood that's nothing by SFH and it's a wealthy area, so increased density would be a major challenge.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But it takes 25-35 minutes at rush hour. With the Purple Line extension and this new subway corridor, a person living in Koreatown (much farther away) would be able to get to campus quicker than someone currently living in Palms and taking the bus, even though Palms is only 3 miles from campus.

And even with the Sepulveda alignment, the station at Venice isn't within walking distance of the neighborhood's density. Palms also has a neighborhood that's nothing by SFH and it's a wealthy area, so increased density would be a major challenge.

Which is why the route should follow Westwood and Overland the whole way. Also, we really need to start having stops more closely spaced than a whole mile.
Eg:
UCLA
Wilshire/Westwood
Santa Monica/Westwood
Olympic/Westwood
Westwood/Rancho Park
(Switch to elevated)
Overland/Rose
Venice/Overland
Overland/Jefferson
Green Valley
Howard Hughes
Sepulveda/Manchester
LAX Airport

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That 788 Bus was a project that my colleague Kymberleigh Richards and I worked diligently on for over 5 years on our respective Metro Service Councils to get operational resources saved and allocated to make that Express Bus happen because we saw the same things that the then Route 761 service on Van Nuys to Westwood was hamstrung by all the stops within the SFV but also through the Pass and a good chunk of riders wanted a faster more direct trip, if the service was provided then they would take it.

For Metro the 788 and Silver Line 910 and 950 routes were the only services that saw ridership increases in the bus network when many other lines were in decline because they are offering faster more reliable service!

Awesome. Yes, I notice the 788 is very popular.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But it takes 25-35 minutes at rush hour. With the Purple Line extension and this new subway corridor, a person living in Koreatown (much farther away) would be able to get to campus quicker than someone currently living in Palms and taking the bus, even though Palms is only 3 miles from campus. And this is conjecture, but I have to think that with UCLA getting its own dedicated subway station, they'll eventually build more vertical on-campus housing.

And even with the Sepulveda alignment, the station at Venice isn't within walking distance of the neighborhood's density. Palms also has a neighborhood that's nothing by SFH and it's a wealthy area, so increased density would be a major challenge.

Maybe, I usually don't take the 734 until after 6 or so and get to work before 7 am.

If there was only a 234 bus, I'd lose my mind haha.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

I don't think Bundy/Centinela is the strongest corridor for veerying 1 mile away and close to the beach. By that case we should take a strong look at Lincoln Blvd which would blow this and even Sepulveda out of the water for ridership and demand.

Centinela is 3 miles away from the beach; that's not close at all. "Walking distance" is defined as 0.5-mile/10 minutes.

And we need both this line and a Green Line extension up Lincoln. It's commonplace in other cities to have rail lines spaced 1-2 miles apart, and you don't need Manhattan-level density to justify it. Look at the station density in Outer London, which I think is very sprawl and actually not that dissimilar to LA when you really think about it. It's a bunch of little SFHs tightly crammed together (look at it from satellite and Streetview perspective).

Yes, local politics means that we have to spread out projects across the county. But it's clear that the ridership demand is within a very specific geography of LA (north of the 105, west of the LA River). The La Brea alternative for Crenshaw North projects 16,000 riders per mile, which is insane.

I also see how the Metro Board is overspending and over committing to things that they have no funds for (Eastside Phase 2, WSAB, Foothill Gold Line, Electric Buses) and that is a problem that will put in jeopardy delivering such projects why having flexibility to the vertical HRT configuration is important to reign in on costs.

I'm not opposed to elevated heavy rail, especially if it sets a precedent and opens the door for more elevated heavy rail configurations in other parts of the county. We actually really do need this to happen, since subway construction costs are outrageous. As I mentioned in a recent post, Vermont becomes 16 car lanes wide at Gage... and I think an elevated structure would actually improve the appearance of the street (and save a few billion dollars as well). North of Gage would be subway, so there's an argument that it's actually not about environmental racism.

But Metro hasn't even entertained the idea of elevated rail south of the Santa Monica Mountains, and it would no doubt face strict opposition from the get-go.

One key bit that you haphazardly throw away with the Sepulveda/Slauson location are those strip malls and who OWNS those strip malls. Many of which are starting to shift to more urbanized development master planning. But guess who is a big land owner around Sepulveda/Slauson, it's Westfield. Westfield who is looking at this in Warner Center for the old Promenade shopping mall next to the Orange Line BRT.

Westfield currently owns the strip malls with the Sprouts, Office Depot, BevMo!, Citibank, and Trader Joe's?

My point still stands that Howard Hughes Center and Culver Pointe are neither within walking distance, and the pedestrian experience from Slauson is miserable. Nobody who works there is going to want to take the train there, and then hail and Uber/Lyft every time. It's also unlikely that every employer would offer shuttle rides to their offices, and if they did, you'd have to run them very frequently (even more unlikely). Ultimately, they will still decide to drive.

A Jefferson/Centinela station already has the jobs within WALKING DISTANCE and the potential for even more.

Here's a link to the site that talks about that conversion there. If they are thinking of this here, there is a damn good chance they will do it around Westfield Culver City and neighboring land they own. Countering to some of the arguments you have made around Playa Vista and a Bundy/Centinela alignment. And walking around Playa Vista down Jefferson Blvd is just as miserable a pedestrian experience. Both will need linkage improvements to make them work either via pedestrian/bike and micro transit for both locations to aid in their success.

https://promenade2035.com/project.php

I never said Jefferson offered a great pedestrian experience. It's just nowhere near as terrible as having to walk under one or two freeway underpasses. And the fact that it's not a circuitous route, but a straight street makes it easier to navigate. When I mentioned Playa Vista, I was mostly referencing the jobs there. I'm well aware that most of the residents that live there wouldn't be within a 10-minute walk of the station.

A lot of urbanism in LA is about cost and politics so without this gauge, LA will be forever frustrating. This is a lens that posters neglect so often and often see these issues morphing its head and then query why nothing gets done. As I witnessed as part of many coalitions organizing around Transportation issues (from Transit Coalition and FriendsForExpo) this is the most important lens in making things happen.

Of course pragmatism is needed. But I also believe that we shouldn't automatically accept the constraints of the status quo, but instead challenge them. If it's "frustrating" as you say, why would you want to perpetuate the cycle? The local cultural/political infrastructure clearly isn't working, so we should change it.

BTW I will leave you this food for thought around the case for densification along the corridor and where the politics reared its ugly head... Did you know that there were 2 developments near the Expo/Bundy station that got opposed and prevented from construction for many years due to neighborhood concerns until finally the project got scaled down to this.

https://www.2preservela.org/westside...-mega-project/

Also around Mar Vista at a recent Planning Commissioner hearing near Venice/Centinela an infill development had its height reduced from 5 stories down to 3 due to neighborhood opposition that Councilmember Bonin agreed with the community on. So this is not the slam dunk of density and development that you believe it will be.

Increased density is a much easier sell if you have a subway. Also, what about shifting attitudes over generations? When this thing is completed, many Boomers will be either too old (or not around) to put up resistance.

Ridership on the bus service in the area which is significantly higher around Sepulveda/Venice. Yes Purple Line will make housing options change. However,What is the cost of said housing? Can a college student really afford it? I think they wont and will need to travel much farther which is a net benefit of the corridor however where these students are living NOW and in future will be key for ridership on this southern leg of this corridor for us to get the greatest bang for ridership to build the line. And it is possible that UCLA will go vertical on its campus but how would residents in the rich enclaves around UCLA will feel about this vertical profile?

What percentage of off-campus UCLA students currently live in Palms/Culver City area and take the bus regularly to campus?

The residential section between Gayley and Veteran is technically considered off-campus, and is already relatively dense. And while most of it isn't within 10-minute walking distance of a station at (let's assume) Westwood Plaza and Strathmore, almost all of it is within 15 minutes. UCLA could operate a frequent shuttle service that makes a big loop (Strathmore-Gayley-Veteran-Strathmore) to make walking an easier option.

That is a key fundamental reality that we have to grapple with that you open up another question and I think fundamentally highlights our difference in opinion. You see it idealistically, where all the stars have to align. I am looking at this pragmatically on the trends that is leading to how the stars will align.

I don't think pragmatism and idealism have to be mutually exclusive. I try and balance the two. But I think we need to stop treating all these rail projects as "congestion relievers" and instead view them as ways to change the transportation culture here. It's possible, but there isn't a critical mass of urban-minded thinkers in this city; we're still a really small minority faction, but it's definitely grown in the last 10 years.

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Quixote

And we need both this line and a Green Line extension up Lincoln. It's commonplace in other cities to have rail lines spaced 1-2 miles apart, and you don't need Manhattan-level density to justify it. Look at the station density in Outer London, which I think is very sprawl and actually not that dissimilar to LA when you really think about it. It's a bunch of little SFHs tightly crammed together (look at it from satellite and Streetview perspective).

We need this while whole areas don't have rail that need it, that is a non starter until we've built more of the network priority lines.

Plus different lines serve different commuting purposes on the London network so that would leave room for the urban placemaking AND congestion relief that you disregard in your argument further down. As I've been responding to the posts I would shift my order of priority to give Sepulveda-Overland a stronger nod than Bundy/Centinela.

Yes, local politics means that we have to spread out projects across the county. But it's clear that the ridership demand is within a very specific geography of LA (north of the 105, west of the LA River). The La Brea alternative for Crenshaw North projects 16,000 riders per mile, which is insane.

I'm not opposed to elevated heavy rail, especially if it sets a precedent and opens the door for more elevated heavy rail configurations in other parts of the county. We actually really do need this to happen, since subway construction costs are outrageous.

But Metro hasn't even entertained the idea of elevated rail south of the Santa Monica Mountains, and it would no doubt face strict opposition from the get-go.

It has on the Sepulveda alignment as an option.

Westfield currently owns the strip malls with the Sprouts, Office Depot, BevMo!, Citibank, and Trader Joe's?

They are leased to Westfield.

My point still stands that Howard Hughes Center and Culver Pointe are neither within walking distance, and the pedestrian experience from Slauson is miserable. Nobody who works there is going to want to take the train there, and then hail and Uber/Lyft every time. It's also unlikely that every employer would offer shuttle rides to their offices, and if they did, you'd have to run them very frequently (even more unlikely). Ultimately, they will still decide to drive.

A Jefferson/Centinela station already has the jobs within WALKING DISTANCE and the potential for even more... I never said Jefferson offered a great pedestrian experience. It's just nowhere near as terrible as having to walk under one or two freeway underpasses. And the fact that it's not a circuitous route, but a straight street makes it easier to navigate. When I mentioned Playa Vista, I was mostly referencing the jobs there.

So walking straight down Slauson or Sepulveda is circuitous? Nor will the current employers in the area will do these type of connections, if they place a stop in Jefferson/Centinela where do you think all of these other connections will be coming from? The Corporate Pointe, Sepulveda/Slauson which would have to walk under the 405 as you indicated to reach Jefferson/Centinela which then still means you would need to make these improvements whether a station is at Sepulveda/Slauson or Jefferson/Centinela which I have consistently stated.

...Of course pragmatism is needed. But I also believe that we shouldn't automatically accept the constraints of the status quo, but instead challenge them. If it's "frustrating" as you say, why would you want to perpetuate the cycle? The local cultural/political infrastructure clearly isn't working, so we should change it.

The difference is I'm not perpetuate the cycle, I am learning what works and what doesn't and adjust according to make these fundamental changes but make them where you can actually achieve them.

Look what happened to the bike/ped improvements that Councilmember Bonin pushed hard in two key areas of his district. He got backlash so hard that he practically rendered the improvements useless setting back the conversation to make incremental changes because the community doesn't trust his motives.

Increased density is a much easier sell if you have a subway. Also, what about shifting attitudes over generations? When this thing is completed, many Boomers will be either too old (or not around) to put up resistance.

I don't think pragmatism and idealism have to be mutually exclusive. I try and balance the two. But I think we need to stop treating all these rail projects as "congestion relievers" and instead view them as ways to change the transportation culture here. It's possible, but there isn't a critical mass of urban-minded thinkers in this city; we're still a really small minority faction, but it's definitely grown in the last 10 years.

But you're contradicting yourself within your own argument.

If you are saying that building this transportation corridor will be urban place and change making but reject and/or don't believe another corridor can do the same things and has higher current bus ridership to justify the investment of over $500-750M a mile for a subway.

That is where I find fault with the Centinela/Bundy argument because the same holds true and even stronger for Sepulveda and Sepulveda-Overland.

[Quixote]

I’m going to veer away from the Sepulveda project a little and do some general, though relevant ranting...

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

We need this while whole areas don't have rail that need it, that is a non starter until we've built more of the network priority lines.

I realize this. The only reason why we have substantial capital to build this Sepulveda line is because of Measure M, which itself is a testament to the spread-out, diverse, and segregated nature of LA County and the self-serving politics and regional interests that come along with it. The idea that finishing the subway to the sea or any rail project with the potential to move hundreds of thousands of people daily is mostly only beneficial to the communities it directly serves is ludicrous, but that’s the kind of piecemeal mentality/approach in this city and certainly the country in terms of the way transit projects are evaluated.

Even though it speeds up the Purple Line in time for the Olympics and provides major funding for two other important rail projects in Sepulveda and Crenshaw North, Move LA used way too much of a bottom-up approach. There’s such a thing as too much democracy, as this country is currently proving at the highest level. I don’t want to sacrifice rail projects in other parts of the county. But what I wanted with Measure M was less allocation for local return, operations, and of course highway improvements. Has it ever occurred to Metro that they could and should separate the Red/Purple Lines and make them fully automated systems that run at 2-minute peak headways (4 minutes off-peak) for 21-22 hours of the day? Assuming they did that to the Sepulveda line as well, extended Purple to SM, and made the Vermont corridor an extension of the Red Line, that’s probably at least 750,000 riders right there on just those three lines. And it would save Metro millions of dollars in operating expenses while maximizing ridership revenue (because you could also charge a premium fare on these premium service lines).

Factor in the other lines, improvements to Metrolink (an extremely underutilized and underinvested resource with huge potential, and that’s 1 million riders. Still a relatively small figure for a county of 10.1 million, but then you start to gain a stronger critical mass of regular transit riders that will in turn push for more projects of use rather than pork concession.

Plus different lines serve different commuting purposes on the London network so that would leave room for the urban placemaking AND congestion relief that you disregard in your argument further down. As I've been responding to the posts I would shift my order of priority to give Sepulveda-Overland a stronger nod than Bundy/Centinela.

Well yeah, that’s what I’m saying. I’ve seen people make the argument that Vermont rail is worthwhile partly because it would ease congestion on the Blue Line as an alternative (this was probably 10 years or so ago when the Blue Line was averaging 90,000 riders per weekday). But the reality is that Vermont rail would serve a different neighborhood than the Blue Line. At a macro level, they are the same neighborhood, but that’s just the car mentality completely distorting ideas of human scale and walkability. The best rail systems in the world are so great because of their station density, as that’s what makes them usable.

It has on the Sepulveda alignment as an option.

Right, one of the options is for an aerial viaduct in the middle of the 405, but not on Sepulveda itself. Selling the idea of an aerial viaduct along a street is much tougher for both the visual impact and the reduction of traffic lanes (not that I wouldn’t welcome a road diet).

So walking straight down Slauson or Sepulveda is circuitous? Nor will the current employers in the area will do these type of connections, if they place a stop in Jefferson/Centinela where do you think all of these other connections will be coming from? The Corporate Pointe, Sepulveda/Slauson which would have to walk under the 405 as you indicated to reach Jefferson/Centinela which then still means you would need to make these improvements whether a station is at Sepulveda/Slauson or Jefferson/Centinela which I have consistently stated.

Slauson to Howard Hughes via Sepulveda is a winding road, which adds to the walk time both physically and psychologically compared to walking along a straight line. Looking at it on Streeview, you have two extremely narrow sidewalks with power line poles in the middle of them. The one sidewalk becomes part of a 405 offramp. Then you have to cross under the 15-lane-wide 405 freeway before arriving and having to cross a huge intersection. Once you do that, it's a gradual uphill trek along another narrow "sidewalk" before you finally getting to the destination.

Corporate Pointe is like an Irvine office park with winding roads and parking lots separating the "sidewalk" from the building.

The bottom line is that the Sepulveda alignment wouldn't naturally serve these employment centers, because it would require employees to have to jump through lots of hoops. Some might be willing to pay for an Uber/Lyft ten times out of the week to bridge the last mile or two, but I think most would rather just drive.

If you are saying that building this transportation corridor will be urban place and change making but reject and/or don't believe another corridor can do the same things and has higher current bus ridership to justify the investment of over $500-750M a mile for a subway.

That is where I find fault with the Centinela/Bundy argument because the same holds true and even stronger for Sepulveda and Sepulveda-Overland.

But I don't think the Sepulveda alignment is "urban place-making" because it's completely hostile to pedestrians heavily biased toward commuters and not people who would also use it to get around town. The great thing about the Centinela alignment is that each station is surrounded by residential and/or commercial communities on all four sides for at least half a mile.

I think where we can meet in the middle is with a Westwood/Overland alignment. That way you're serving the entire commercial heart of Westwood*, the forthcoming Google campus at the Westside Pavilion, the denser section of Palms, a different section of core Culver City, and West LA College. That's the route I wanted and thought made the most sense before the Centinela option was introduced.

*Isn't the UCLA bus connection from Expo at Westwood and not Sepulveda?

[Quixote]

Does the Boring Company have any future in providing meaningfully effective transportation solutions here? I think it can, but the question is how and to what degree?

Report: Boring Co. Raises $120M
https://www.socaltech.com/report_bor...s-0078550.html

...

Earlier this year, the company received a contract to build a 0.83-mile tunnel with three stations at a cost of only $48 million.

Boring Company’s $48 million tunnel under Vegas will travel less than a mile
https://www.curbed.com/2019/5/22/186...s-vegas-tunnel

[IMBY]

So there's aspirations for the tunnel to link all the casino's???? Doesn't anyone know who's the "Boss" of public transit in Las Vegas: Lyft, Uber and the taxi unions. Ever wonder why there isn't a rail line from the Airport to downtown? Think! 9-10,000 taxi drivers in Las Vegas. Build it and? 4-5,000 less taxi drivers needed! The taxi unions, historically, have been big campaign donors to the Clark County Commissioners, and now Lyft and Uber as well.

I left Las Vegas last May and I was attending the meetings for their first light rail line from the Airport, down Maryland, to DT and UMC, it all seemed like a slam dunk deal. And, recently, I read that there'll be no light rail line, Bus Rapid Transit instead. Again, was the taxi unions behind that, you have to wonder, it being Las Vegas.

[Quixote]

Just playing around with Google Directions, it's clear that the UCLA station should be placed at either Strathmore / Westwood Plaza or the pick-up/drop-off zone next to the Engineering VI Lab Building. It best serves the entire campus and adjacent student residential neighborhood--bounded by Le Conte, Veteran, Hilgard, and Sunset--because almost everything within those boundaries would be within a 0.7-mile walk. This is where something like Elon Musk's tunnel pods could work if it could be built at a similar price.

Walk times vary from person to person. I personally am a fast walker and can walk a 0.7-mile distance that's mostly up a steel hill in 11-12 minutes (I did this before I got my driver's license), but Google estimates it at 16 minutes. On flat terrain, there's no doubt I could accomplish the same distance in 10 minutes or less.

How fast do you guys walk? Do you base "walking distance" more on the actual distance itself or the time it takes to travel that distance? I'd also love to hear from New Yorkers, Chicagoans, San Franciscans, etc.

[202_Cyclist]

I think the standard estimate for walking is three miles per hour-- one mile in twenty minutes. This, of course, will vary with weather, terrain, etc... The scooters that are everywhere on sidewalks in cities across the United States would be useful for the first/last mile issue at this distance.

[bzcat]

I'm a few days late but another vote for HRT1 + Centinela.

And just to correct a previous noted point, it takes me about 20 minutes (roughly 1.3 miles) to walk from Play Vista Drive to Campus Center Drive, which is basically the entire length the residential portion of Playa Vista. So a station at Jefferson/Centinela is well within the conventional walking distance of 80 or 90% of the residential population of Playa Vista.

But if HRT1 + Sepulveda is chosen, I can make peace with it. Sepulveda is the stronger bus corridor now but I think there are two reasons for this. One, it is connected to LAX transit center whereas Centinela ends at Playa Vista now. And two Big Blue Bus refuses to route the #14 bus to UCLA, despite relatively high density of UCLA students in the area, and forcing them to transfer to BBB1 on Santa Monica Blvd. If BBB14 ends at UCLA instead of Brentwood, I think you will see bus ridership on Centinela shoot up.

Going back to the Valley... HRT1 has two transfer stations to Van Nuys line, which is going to be very important. HRT3 has a single transfer station to Sepulveda line and it is going to be overwhelmed during peak hours.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Quixote

People are against replacing traffic lanes with bus lanes because there isn’t yet a developed network of rail lines with fast, reliable service. I would imagine most people in LA have cross-town commutes, which (rightfully) renders the bus an ineffective option based purely on time. And that’s not taking into account quality of service (reliability, “characters” aboard the bus, safety at night, etc.). Personally, I’d be open to taking the bus for only 1-2 miles to get to/from the nearest rail station. Any farther than that, and it’s diminishing returns at that point.

Count me as someone against replacing car lanes for bus lanes. The current rail options that do exist are mediocre not to mention the homeless stinking up the train and causing unsanitary conditions.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by bzcat

And just to correct a previous noted point, it takes me about 20 minutes (roughly 1.3 miles) to walk from Play Vista Drive to Campus Center Drive, which is basically the entire length the residential portion of Playa Vista. So a station at Jefferson/Centinela is well within the conventional walking distance of 80 or 90% of the residential population of Playa Vista.

Eh. I think people in LA are just so used to driving everywhere that even 0.5-mile/10-minute walk is a bit too far/long. Although it really depends on the built environment.

Going back to the Valley... HRT1 has two transfer stations to Van Nuys line, which is going to be very important. HRT3 has a single transfer station to Sepulveda line and it is going to be overwhelmed during peak hours.

Great point that I hadn't thought about. Also, HRT 3 precludes a logical extension farther north.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Eh. I think people in LA are just so used to driving everywhere that even 0.5-mile/10-minute walk is a bit too far/long. Although it really depends on the built environment.

The weather is absolutely perfect, all of the time, and most of the area is Kansas flat, yet people don't walk or ride their bikes in LA. Or ride the bus when you never have to wait in the rain and the bus system is better than virtually any other in the United States.

It makes no sense.

[LA21st]

As someone who took some Chicagoan's around to visit LA for a few hours (they've never been), I don't get the "nobody walks in LA" stuff. There were people walking and biking everywhere we went. The Chicagoans were def not saying, "Where's the pedestrians?".

There were people out and about even in places like Pacifc Palisades Village, and all over Brentwood's dense areas. It's such a outdated thing to say, imo.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by LA21st

As someone who took some Chicagoan's around to visit LA for a few hours (they've never been), I don't get the "nobody walks in LA" stuff. There were people walking and biking everywhere we went. The Chicagoans were def not saying, "Where's the pedestrians?".

There were people out and about even in places like Pacifc Palisades Village, and all over Brentwood's dense areas. It's such a outdated thing to say, imo.

That's true... lots of people walk in LA in their neighborhoods where road designs and built enviornment allow walking. But very few people will walk in suburban areas that has walled subdivision or cul de sac/closed loop roads with single entry/exit point and going to the store involves 2 or 3 mile detour. Once you are south of Imperial/105 freeway (give or take) and North of Sunset, the utility of walking becomes very challenged.

People walk when it is the easiest way to get around. And in a lot of metro area of LA that is true. But that's not true in large swath of SFV, SGV, South LA, and South Bay.