THE WILSHIRE CORRIDOR: RAIL AND ITS ALTERNATIVES Prepared By: Jacki Murdock Transportation and Environmental Planner December 13 th, 2012
Overview Characteristics of Wilshire Boulevard Overview of the Alternatives rail versus Peak- Hour BRT Benefits and Drawbacks of Alternatives Recommendations
The Issue Wilshire boulevard is a heavily congested corridor in Los Angeles Extremely dense high concentration of job and residences Jobs and residential density expected to grow 10-20% by 2035 Over 300,000 people travel into the Westside every day for work from areas throughout the County. 33,000 to 122,000 cars along the Westside of Wilshire Existing gridlock on Wilshire impedes mobility Any mode with a dedicated right of way would fundamentally change access from the populous Westside to Downtown LA and the greater region. Source: Metro Purple Line FEIR
Alternatives Under Consideration Alternatives Considered: Rail extension, full Bus Rapid Transit, Peak-hour BRT, light-rail, adding capacity Those alternatives requiring a dedicated on-street Right-of- Way were not considered due to political constraints Full BRT, light-rail, adding capacity Two alternatives under consideration: Funding the next phase of the Westside Subway extension along Wilshire Boulevard (the Purple Line) Shift funds to peak-hour Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Recommendation: The FTA should support expansion of the rail network along Wilshire
Rail and Peak-Hour BRT Rail Expansion 10 Miles Runs from existing Wilshire/Western Station to the VA Hospital Peak-Hour BRT 12. 9 miles Runs from Valencia to Centinela Does not run through Beverly Hills for 2.6 Miles Source: Metro Fact Sheet EIS/EIR 2011
Estimated Costs and Ridership Costs Metro Red Line: $.39/ Passenger mile Rapid and Local bus: $.63/ Passenger mile Metro Red Line: $1.96/ passenger boarding 720 Rapid Bus: $2.09/ passenger boarding Ridership Predicted Rail Expansion ridership: 48,000 average daily riders Bus ridership on 720 Rapid Bus: 41,000 n Peak-Hour BRT will increase ridership 15-20% Source: Metro Budget and Ridership Statistics
Benefits of Rail Expansion Reliability Most important aspect of transit service Dedicated ROW not subject to the fluctuations of traffic Speed 15 minutes from Western to Veteran s Hospital High Capacity Short headways Operating Costs Comparable to bus service operating costs Source: Litman 2006; Stanger 2000; Walker, 2012;
Benefits of Rail Network connectivity Metro has invested in developing a rail network this link would connect the Westside to rail Downtown and the San Fernando Valley Bi-directional traffic Less directional peaking more efficient service Politically feasible Voter supported through Measure R Source: Cervero and Guerra 2011
Drawbacks of Rail Expansion Capitol Costs $5.8 Billion Opportunity Costs Los Angeles local share of funding 60% Equity Overall, Metro s rail program has cut bus service However, funds for Purple Line dedicated by Measure R Inflexible Routes are fixed, cannot change with economic or demographic shifts Stops farther apart less ease of local access
Benefits of Peak-Hour BRT Increased reliability during the peak hour However, there are gaps in the line (no BRT in Beverly Hills for 2.6 miles) Time Savings Saves 12-15 min/trip, average trip would take 48 min. Cost-Effective Low capital costs (no purchase of ROW), operating costs competitive with subway, 15-20% increase in passengers Equity fewer opportunity costs, does not further commit LACMTA to rail expansion Source: LACMTA EIR, 2010
Drawbacks to Peak-Hour BRT Politically infeasible to expand this service to a full BRT lane Already a compromised project (No BRT along Beverly Hills) Reliability gains limited by an incomplete line Will work well until Beverly Hills- where it will bottleneck Significantly slower Lower capacity Headways are already operating at 2 minutes on the 720 during peak hour
In Conclusion Rail functions best along linear corridors with concentrated activity centers and residences (dense), driving is difficult Wilshire is dense, congested, linear, parking is expensive Reliability greater in rail over BRT Greater time savings Rail extension connects dense job and residential center to greater LA region Source: Cervero and Guerra 2011; Rubin,
In Conclusion Increase local feeder busses along Wilshire Consider eliminating the duplicative service of Peak-Hour BRT Pursue the rail extension along Wilshire over Peak- Hour BRT
References Litman, T. (2006). What s it Worth: Economic Evaluation For Transportation Decision-Making. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Cervero and Guerra. 2011. To T or Not to T: A Ballpark Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Urban Rail Transportation. Guerra, E. (2010). Valuing rail transit: Comparing capital and operating costs to consumer benefits. Working Paper, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Retrieved from http:// www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/59423 Metro. (2009). 2009 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Range Transportation Plan Technical Report. Richmond, Jonathan. 2005. Evaluating the Promise and Performance of Rail, in Transport of Delight: The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los Angeles. Akron: The University of Akron Press. Pages 32-90. Stanger, Richard. 2000. Influence of the Rail Program on Bus Transit in Los Angeles, Journal of Public Transportation, 3(2): 1-17.