Travel Markets Analysis Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Travel... · 2019-11-16 · Travel Markets Analysis Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor

Travel Markets Analysis Report

SEPULVEDA TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECTContract No. PS40442000

Travel Markets Analysis ReportTask No. 2.3.10

Prepared for:

Los Angeles CountyMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Prepared by:

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

In Association with:Fehr & Peers

Review

Date Name

Originator 4/24/18 Steven Greene

Checker 4/25/18 Don Emerson

Backchecker 4/25/18 Steven Greene

QA/QC Manager 4/30/18 Zafer Mudar

Project Manager 4/30/18 Dennis Henderson

April 2018

Travel Markets Analysis ReportTable of Contents

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project i

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

1.1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1-11.2 Project Study Area ........................................................................................................... 1-21.3 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................... 1-21.4 Methodology and Study Districts ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.4.1 StreetLight Data .................................................................................................. 1-21.4.2 Metro Travel Demand Model .............................................................................. 1-4

1.5 Differences Between StreetLight Data and Metro Model Data ......................................... 1-61.6 Study Area and Market Areas .......................................................................................... 1-6

2 EXISTING AND FORECAST DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRIP-MAKING ............................................... 2-12.1 Existing and Forecast Demographics ................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 2-12.1.2 Market Areas ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Existing and Forecast Trip-making .................................................................................. 2-102.2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 2-102.2.2 Market Areas .................................................................................................... 2-10

3 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................................................................... 3-13.1 Existing Travel in the Valley–Westside Section ................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Existing Travel Between North Region and Central Region ................................... 3-43.1.2 Existing Travel Between North Region and South Region ..................................... 3-7

3.2 Existing Travel in the Westside–LAX Section ..................................................................... 3-93.2.1 Existing Travel Between Central Region and South Region ................................. 3-123.2.2 Existing Travel Between North Region to South Region ..................................... 3-14

3.3 Criticality of Study Area to Primary Travel Markets ........................................................ 3-143.3.1 North Region to Central Region ......................................................................... 3-143.3.2 North Region to South Region ........................................................................... 3-143.3.3 Central Region to South Region ......................................................................... 3-16

3.4 Forecast Change in Size of Travel Markets ..................................................................... 3-163.5 Key Activity Centers Within the Study Area .................................................................... 3-18

3.5.1 UCLA Trips ......................................................................................................... 3-183.5.2 LAX Trips ........................................................................................................... 3-18

4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 4-14.1 Travel Activity in the Study Area ...................................................................................... 4-14.2 Considerations for Transit Concepts ................................................................................. 4-1

5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 5-1


ii Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

FiguresFigure 1-1. Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Study Area ........................................................... 1-3Figure 1-2. StreetLight Data Analysis Zones and Screenline Locations .......................................... 1-5Figure 1-3. Travel Market Regions and Areas............................................................................... 1-8Figure 2-1. Existing Population Density........................................................................................ 2-2Figure 2-2. Population Density (2042) ......................................................................................... 2-3Figure 2-3. Population Density (2057) ......................................................................................... 2-4Figure 2-4. Existing Job Density ................................................................................................... 2-5Figure 2-5. Job Density (2042) ..................................................................................................... 2-6Figure 2-6. Job Density (2057) ..................................................................................................... 2-7Figure 2-7. Trip Productions and Attractions (2017) .................................................................. 2-11Figure 2-8. Trip Productions and Attractions (2042) .................................................................. 2-12Figure 2-9. Trip Productions and Attractions (2057) .................................................................. 2-13Figure 3-1. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through North Screenline ...................................... 3-2Figure 3-2. Primary Market Areas of Trips Through North Screenline .......................................... 3-3Figure 3-3. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and

Brentwood/Westwood Area ...................................................................................... 3-5Figure 3-4. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and Century

City/Beverly Hills/ Hollywood Area ............................................................................ 3-6Figure 3-5. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and Mar

Vista/Westchester Area ............................................................................................. 3-8Figure 3-6. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through South Screenline .................................... 3-10Figure 3-7. Primary Market Areas of Trips Through South Screenline ........................................ 3-11Figure 3-8. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between South Region and

Brentwood/Westwood Area .................................................................................... 3-13Figure 3-9. Origins of Trips to UCLA ........................................................................................... 3-19Figure 3-10. Origins of Trips to LAX ............................................................................................. 3-20Figure 3-11. LAX Air Passenger Survey Trip Origins ...................................................................... 3-21


Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project iii

Tables

Table 2-1. Market Area Population (2017, 2042, and 2057) ........................................................ 2-8Table 2-2. Market Area Employment (2017, 2042, and 2057) ..................................................... 2-8Table 2-3. Market Area Population & Employment Density (2017, 2042, and 2057) ................... 2-9Table 2-4. Trip Ends (2017, 2042, and 2057)............................................................................. 2-14Table 2-5. Trip Ends Per Square Mile (2017, 2042, and 2057) ................................................... 2-14Table 3-1. Travel Market Share that Passes Through the North Screenline ............................... 3-15Table 3-2. Travel Market Share that Passes Through the South Screenline ............................... 3-15Table 3-3. Travel Market Growth Through the North Screenline .............................................. 3-16Table 3-4. Travel Market Growth Through the South Screenline .............................................. 3-17

Travel Markets Analysis ReportAbbreviations / Acronyms

iv Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

Abbreviations / Acronyms

FTA Federal Transit AdministrationGPS Global Positioning SystemI- InterstateLAX Los Angeles International AirportMetro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthoritySCAG Southern California Association of GovernmentsSR State RouteTAZ Transportation Analysis ZoneUCLA University of California, Los Angeles

Travel Markets Analysis Report1 Introduction

Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project 1-1

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

1.1 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Sepulveda Transit Feasibility Study and Technical Compendium is to conducttechnical investigations of feasible transit concepts for the Sepulveda Corridor, the methodology andresults of which are to be released for industry review. The technical analyses are to be conducted incoordination with a robust public outreach effort.

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project is included in Metro’s 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan,in the Measure R expenditure plan as the “San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection,” and inthe Measure M expenditure plan as the “Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor.” This study will evaluatefixed-guideway transit concepts between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside of Los Angeles(Valley-Westside) and extensions of those concepts from the Westside to Los Angeles InternationalAirport (Westside-LAX). This study will coordinate with two separate Metro efforts looking at theimplementation of ExpressLanes on Interstate 405 (I-405) between US 101 and I-10 and the potentialoperation of Bus Rapid Transit service in the corridor.

The study will identify and analyze fixed-guideway transit concepts that include various transitmodes, horizontal and vertical alignments, station locations, termini, support facilities, and operatingparameters. The intent of this study is to clarify the design features and overall feasibility of potentialfixed-guideway transit solutions based on new information gathered about the corridor environmentand integration with existing or planned Metro facilities. This effort will focus on three key areas:

µ Identification of termini and intermediate station locations that best integrate with theMetro transit system and maximize the transit market share based on a travel demandanalysis.

µ Development of a Basis of Design Report that guides the physical and operational integrationof the Project with Metro facilities (existing and planned).

µ Investigation and analysis of geotechnical and other risk factors affecting design,environmental clearance, construction, and operations for a fixed-guideway transit project,which will be packaged into a Technical Compendium to be released for industry review.

The study will include conceptual design to evaluate the feasibility of transit concepts extending fromthe San Fernando Valley to LAX. The study will evaluate the performance, cost, and risk associatedwith the concepts. It is expected that further technical refinement and analysis will be requiredsubsequent to this study to allow Metro to select a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Project.Throughout the study, Metro will provide briefings to stakeholder groups at key study milestones.


1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project

1.2 Project Study Area

Figure 1-1 shows the Study Area for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. It is generally centeredon I-405, extending approximately two miles to the east and to the west. The northern limit is atRoscoe Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley, and the southern limit is at LAX. The Study Arearepresents the area in which the transit concepts and ancillary facilities are expected to be located.The analysis of travel patterns will encompass all areas that contribute substantial travel activity tothe corridor.

1.3 Purpose of this Report

The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Area Definition Report (Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018)documents the existing land use, demographic, and environmental conditions within the Study Area.That report also evaluates the performance of the existing transportation system within the StudyArea. This Travel Markets Analysis Report builds on the findings of the Study Area Definition Reportand examines existing travel patterns within, through, to, and from the Study Area. It then assessesfactors that will affect travel demand in the Study Area in the future and identifies travel marketsthat could be served by the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. The analysis documented in thisreport will support the development of a preliminary Purpose and Need for the Sepulveda TransitCorridor Project, as well as the identification and development of alternative transit concepts.

1.4 Methodology and Study Districts

This report uses two primary data sources to evaluate existing travel patterns: StreetLight Data andthe Metro Travel Demand Model. Each source was used to analyze how people currently travelwithin the county, with an emphasis on trips that travel within, through, to or from the Study Area.As described below, StreetLight Data provides a detailed snapshot of current travel patterns usingdata obtained from travelers as they move through Los Angeles County. The Metro Travel DemandModel relates existing travel data to socioeconomic data about the region. It can be used to simulateexisting travel patterns and to forecast future travel patterns based on forecasts of futuresocioeconomic conditions. Together, these two data sources provide a robust understanding ofcurrent and future travel in the Study Area.

1.4.1 StreetLight Data

StreetLight Data is a private company that provides “Big Data” travel metrics using anonymizedGlobal Positioning System (GPS) data collected from smartphones, vehicle navigation systems, andwearable tech devices. This data source represents trips made by people traveling by any mode solong as they are using a device with location services enabled. StreetLight provides estimates oftravel between defined geographic zones averaged over time periods (e.g., the 6:00 to 9:00 A.M.commute peak) and days of the week (weekday or weekend). The StreetLight data analyzed in thisreport include 24-hour travel data for all weekdays from April through June 2017. A geographic zonecan range in size from a few hundred square feet to an entire city. Typically, smaller zones will beused in and near the area of interest, and larger zones will be used farther away from the area ofinterest. The data are presented as an origin-destination matrix showing the magnitude of travelbetween each pair of zones, as well as information on trip speed, duration, and length.



Figure 1-1. Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Study Area

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018



StreetLight data are reported by geographic zones created specifically for each analysis. In this study,Los Angeles County was divided into 117 StreetLight zones, based on Transportation Analysis Zones(TAZs) in the Metro Travel Demand Model. The Metro Travel Demand Model TAZs were aggregatedinto StreetLight zones in most cases, but zone boundaries were adjusted in some locations to bettercoincide with existing activity centers and transit stations due to the importance of the catchmentarea around a station in determining ridership at that station.

In addition to information about total travel between two zones, StreetLight can provide data on theamount of travel between origins and destinations that passes a particular point (or “screenline”) onits way (similar to a select link analysis in a travel demand model). The following screenlines wereselected because they represent the key corridor for north-south travel through the Study Area and,therefore, include travel markets that the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project could serve:

µ Sepulveda Pass Screenline► I-405 north of Bel Air Crest Road► Sepulveda Boulevard north of Bel Air Crest Road► Beverly Glen Boulevard north of Seabury Lane

µ LAX Area Screenline► I-405 north of State Route (SR) 90► Sepulveda Boulevard north of Jefferson Boulevard

Figure 1-2 shows the StreetLight zones and screenlines used for the analysis.

1.4.2 Metro Travel Demand Model

The Metro Travel Demand Model uses the traditional four-step process generally employed by travelforecasting models throughout the United States. The four steps are trip generation, trip distribution,mode choice, and network assignment. The model is validated to conditions in a base year, creating arepresentation of existing travel patterns derived from current socioeconomic data, travel data, andinformation about the existing transportation network. Using the relationships observed in the baseyear, the model forecasts future travel patterns based on projections of future socioeconomicconditions.

The current Metro Travel Demand Model was developed for the 2017/2018 update of the Long-Range Transportation Plan and is currently being recalibrated and validated with Metro’scomprehensive on-board survey data and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)person trip control totals by trip purpose. It is consistent with SCAG’s 2016-2040 RegionalTransportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies socioeconomic and transportation networkdata, with additional enhancements made to the network in Los Angeles County to be used insupporting Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts and Measure M projects in Los AngelesCounty. The model incorporates forecast socioeconomic data for 2042 (representing approximately a25-year planning horizon) and 2057 (representing Measure M build out).

The demand modeling process is implemented through a series of computer simulation modules,described in more detail in the 2014 Short Range Transportation Plan-Technical Document. Themodel has been recognized by the FTA as one of the top travel demand models in the nation forforecasting the performance and the transportation system user benefits of transit projects.



Figure 1-2. StreetLight Data Analysis Zones and Screenline Locations

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018



1.5 Differences Between StreetLight Data and Metro Model DataWhile both StreetLight data and the Metro Travel Demand Model trip tables discussed in this reportdescribe existing trip-making within the Study Area, differences between the two types of dataprovide different perspectives on current travel conditions. The most significant difference is that theMetro Travel Demand Model trip tables represent the demand for travel—the origins anddestinations of all trips that people want to make, regardless of what mode or route they end uptaking, or whether they make the trip at all. It simulates average weekday and average peak hourtravel demand in the forecast years. StreetLight data represent the origins, destinations, and routesof trips that people actually make, which are affected by the options available to them and theconditions of the transit and roadway system. For example, people may choose to defer some tripsto time periods when the roadways are less congested. Because the Sepulveda Transit CorridorProject has the potential to serve trips that are not currently being made and is intended to servetravel needs many years in the future, the travel demand model data can provide additional insightbeyond that provided by analyzing current travel patterns.

Another important difference between the StreetLight data and the Metro Travel Demand Modeldata is the sample of travel included in each data set. StreetLight data represent a sample of travelwithin Los Angeles County made by all modes, including automobile, transit, walking, and bicycling. Itreveals patterns in the travel by all of these modes, but it cannot provide an estimate of the totaltraveling population, or even of total travel along a particular route. In addition, although it is asample, it may not be a representative sample because it depends on travelers having devices withlocation services. Areas where a smaller share of the population has GPS devices may beunderrepresented, while areas with many infrequent visitors or that encourage use of locationservices for other reasons may be overrepresented. The Metro Travel Demand Model, in contrast, isdesigned to represent all trips within the entire six-county Southern California Association ofGovernments region made by automobile and transit, not just a sample. However, it does notexplicitly represent trips made by other modes, such as walking and bicycling.

1.6 Study Area and Market AreasTo facilitate comparisons between StreetLight data and Metro Travel Demand Model data, the 117StreetLight zones were aggregated to form 55 study districts, both within the Study Area and within thesurrounding region, as shown in Figure 1-2. The boundaries of these districts were informed by multipleexisting boundaries: U.S. Census tracts and block groups, Metro’s travel demand model TAZs, SCAG’sRegional Transportation Plan travel demand model TAZs, transit stop catchment areas, Metro ServiceCouncils, and districts created for the 2012 Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study.

The initial analysis of the travel markets, discussed in Chapter 3, identified three large regions withinLos Angeles County that would potentially be served by the Valley-Westside and the Westside-LAXsections of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. As illustrated in Figure 1-3, these regionscorrespond to the ends of each section of the corridor, and they each include one of the Study Area“subareas” described in the Study Area Definition Report (Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018):

µ The North Region corresponds to the north end of the Valley-Westside section, and includesthe “Valley Subarea” (the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area).



µ The Central Region corresponds to the south end of the Valley-Westside section and thenorth end of the Westside-LAX section, and includes the “Westside Subarea” (theBrentwood/Westwood area).

µ The South Region corresponds to the south end of the Westside-LAX section, and includesthe “LAX Subarea” (the Mar Vista/Westchester area).

For purposes of the analysis of travel patterns in this report, the three regions were divided into 15“market areas” that account for over 90 percent of the Los Angeles County trips in both the Valley-Westside and the Westside-LAX sections of the corridor. An additional five areas located betweenthe North and Central Regions account for the remaining trips.



Figure 1-3. Travel Market Regions and Areas

Source: Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018

Travel Markets Analysis Report2 Existing and Forecast Demographics and Trip-Making


2 EXISTING AND FORECAST DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRIP-MAKINGThe Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Area Definition Report (Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018)documents the existing and planned land uses and the existing demographics (population,employment, household incomes, zero-car households) within the Study Area. This chapter exploresanticipated changes in the demographics of the Study Area and the region, as well as how thosechanges will affect trip-making within and through the Study Area.

2.1 Existing and Forecast Demographics2.1.1 Study Area

According to the Metro Travel Demand Model, the total population of the Study Area depicted inFigure 1-1 was approximately 604,000 in 2017. The population is expected to grow to 700,000 in2042 and to 758,000 in 2057. As shown in Figure 2-1, most of the Study Area has a populationdensity of greater than 5,000 people per square mile, excluding the Santa Monica Mountains andinstitutional uses such as the Sepulveda Basin and LAX. Several areas are considerably denser, suchas parts of Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, Brentwood, West Los Angeles, the University of California, LosAngeles (UCLA) area, Palms, Mar Vista, and Venice. As shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, thepopulation distribution in the vicinity of the Study Area is expected to remain relatively stablethrough 2042 and 2057.

In 2017, there were approximately 480,000 jobs in the Study Area. By 2042, this number is expectedto grow to 569,000, and by 2057, it is expected to grow to 622,000. As shown in Figure 2-4, theBrentwood/Westwood Area contains the greatest concentrations of jobs in the Study Area, at UCLAand in Brentwood, West Los Angeles, and Westwood. Notably, the Brentwood/Westwood Area islocated between other major regional job centers such as Santa Monica, Century City, and theBeverly Hills area. These other employment centers are or will be served by the Metro Expo Line andthe Metro Purple Line extension. As shown in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6, the distribution ofemployment in the vicinity of the Study Area is expected to remain relatively stable through 2042and 2057.

2.1.2 Market Areas

Since the Study Area is a narrow band centered on I-405, a major regional transportation corridor,much of the travel in the Study Area is generated in the surrounding region. Every day, many peopletravel into, out of, or through the Study Area for employment, commercial activity, and recreation.Therefore, an understanding of existing and future population and employment in the areas adjacentto the Study Area will help inform an understanding of the travel markets and their futuredevelopment. Table 2-1 presents the population of each market area in 2017, including thepercentage of low-income households, as well as population forecasts for 2042 and 2057. Table 2-2presents the number of jobs in each market area in 2017, as well as forecast number of jobs for 2042and 2057. Table 2-3 presents the population and employment density of each market area in 2017,2042, and 2057.



Figure 2-1. Existing Population Density

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 2016; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Figure 2-2. Population Density (2042)

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 2016; Metro Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Figure 2-3. Population Density (2057)

Source: US Census American Community Survey, 2016; Metro Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Figure 2-4. Existing Job Density

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



Figure 2-5. Job Density (2042)

Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014; Metro Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Figure 2-6. Job Density (2057)

Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2014; Metro Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Table 2-1. Market Area Population (2017, 2042, and 2057)

Market Area2017

Population

% LowIncome

Households2042

PopulationGrowth

2017-20422057

PopulationGrowth

2017-2057North County 715,794 24% 1,007,059 41% 1,181,807 65%North Valley 687,907 27% 766,417 11% 813,523 18%West Valley 379,165 27% 442,577 17% 480,624 27%Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 189,528 34% 218,067 15% 235,193 24%East Valley 256,177 34% 295,809 15% 319,584 25%Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 551,028 30% 599,658 9% 628,831 14%Santa Monica/Venice Area 112,814 28% 125,205 11% 132,639 18%Brentwood/Westwood Area 149,456 28% 176,081 18% 192,060 29%Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 524,515 47% 621,596 19% 679,840 30%Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 352,677 47% 427,935 21% 473,097 34%Mar Vista/Westchester Area 240,779 29% 277,448 15% 299,447 24%Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 357,112 50% 403,869 13% 431,923 21%El Segundo/ Hawthorne/Westmont Area 492,442 43% 541,960 10% 571,668 16%South Bay 732,957 24% 793,114 8% 829,205 13%Gateway Cities 1,998,959 34% 2,111,082 6% 2,178,362 9%

Source: Metro Travel Demand ModelNotes: A low-income household is defined as one having an income of less than $35,000, in 2011 dollars.Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in the Brentwood/Westwood Area.

Table 2-2. Market Area Employment (2017, 2042, and 2057)

Market Area 2017 Jobs 2042 JobsGrowth

2017-2042 2057 JobsGrowth

2017-2057North County 199,411 288,250 45% 341,542 71%North Valley 214,263 260,502 22% 288,232 35%West Valley 163,802 204,697 25% 229,240 40%Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 113,192 134,183 19% 146,777 30%East Valley 102,373 121,940 19% 133,665 31%Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 369,850 450,725 22% 499,254 35%Santa Monica/Venice Area 80,056 91,067 14% 97,674 22%Brentwood/Westwood Area 213,417 248,621 16% 269,740 26%Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 384,247 450,642 17% 490,472 28%Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 114,587 142,976 25% 160,003 40%Mar Vista/Westchester Area 135,142 165,037 22% 182,969 35%Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 77,534 118,170 52% 142,556 84%El Segundo/ Hawthorne/Westmont Area 147,778 185,393 25% 207,963 41%South Bay 326,781 380,840 17% 413,270 26%Gateway Cities 728,478 815,225 12% 867,261 19%

Source: Metro Travel Demand ModelNote: Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in the Brentwood/Westwood Area.



Table 2-3. Market Area Population & Employment Density (2017, 2042, and 2057)

Market Area

2017Population

Density

2017Employment

Density

2042Population

Density

2042Employment

Density

2057Population

Density

2057Employment

DensityNorth County 285 80 402 115 471 136North Valley 4,672 1,455 5,205 1,769 5,525 1,958West Valley 7,123 3,077 8,314 3,845 9,028 4,306Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 7,324 4,374 8,427 5,186 9,089 5,672East Valley 9,654 3,858 11,148 4,595 12,044 5,037Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 5,723 3,841 6,228 4,681 6,531 5,185Santa Monica/Venice Area 11,438 8,116 12,694 9,233 13,447 9,903Brentwood/Westwood Area 5,569 7,952 6,561 9,264 7,156 10,051Century City/Beverly Hills/HollywoodArea

20,202 14,800 23,942 17,357 26,185 18,891

Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 16,167 5,253 19,617 6,554 21,687 7,335Mar Vista/Westchester Area 8,784 4,930 10,122 6,021 10,924 6,675Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 14,632 3,177 16,548 4,842 17,697 5,841El Segundo/ Hawthorne/WestmontArea

11,605 3,483 12,772 4,369 13,473 4,901

South Bay 6,087 2,714 6,586 3,163 6,886 3,432Gateway Cities 8,690 3,167 9,178 3,544 9,470 3,770




2.2 Existing and Forecast Trip-makingThe Metro Travel Demand Model forecasts travel patterns by identifying “trip ends”: productions(where a trip begins, often a residence) and attractions (where a trip terminates, often anemployment location, a school, or a store). Areas with more trip productions and attractions willgenerate more travel on the region’s transportation network. This section addresses the trip ends inthe Study Area and in the market areas.

2.2.1 Study Area

In 2017, the Study Area produced approximately 2.26 million trips and attracted approximately 3.04million trips each day. Of the trips produced within the Study Area, approximately 47 percent left theStudy Area. Of the trips attracted to the Study Area, approximately 61 percent came from outsidethe Study Area. Figure 2-7 shows the daily trip productions and attractions in each Metro TravelDemand Model TAZ in the Study Area in 2017. As can be seen in the figure, there are high densitiesof trip ends near Metro Orange Line stations in the San Fernando Valley, including Warner Center,Sepulveda Boulevard, and Van Nuys Boulevard. In the Westside, there are concentrations near eachof the Metro Purple Line extension stations, except for the Westwood/VA Station. Largeconcentrations are also near Metro Expo Line stations, particularly from Culver City west to theterminus in Santa Monica. In the LAX area, concentrations are in Mar Vista, Playa Vista, and theHoward Hughes Center.

By 2042, the Study Area is forecast to produce approximately 2.63 million trips and attractapproximately 3.58 million trips each day, an increase of approximately 17 percent and 18 percentover 2017, respectively. By 2057, the Study Area is forecast to produce approximately 2.80 milliontrips and attract approximately 3.80 million trips each day, an increase of approximately 24 percentand 25 percent over 2017, respectively. The share of trips leaving and entering the Study Area isforecast to increase only very slightly, by one percent over 2017 rates.

Figure 2-8 shows the daily trip productions and attractions forecast in each TAZ in the Study Area in2042, and Figure 2-9 shows the daily trip productions and attractions forecast in each TAZ in theStudy Area in 2057.

2.2.2 Market Areas

As discussed in Chapter 3, because the Study Area is defined as a relatively narrow corridor along amajor regional transportation facility, the majority of travel through the Study Area has at least onetrip end outside the Study Area. Therefore, the trips produced and attracted by the adjacent marketareas contribute substantially to the amount of travel within the Study Area. Table 2-4 presents thenumber of daily trip ends generated by each market area in 2017, as well as the number forecast tobe generated in 2042 and 2057. Table 2-5 presents the number of daily trip ends generated by eachmarket area per square mile.



Figure 2-7. Trip Productions and Attractions (2017)

Source: Metro Travel Demand Model











Table 2-4. Trip Ends (2017, 2042, and 2057)

Market Area 2017 Trip Ends 2042 Trip EndsGrowth

2017-2042 2057 Trip EndsGrowth

2017-2057North County 4,368,121 5,949,222 36% 6,883,314 58%North Valley 4,030,925 4,605,704 14% 4,925,408 22%West Valley 2,698,246 3,122,940 16% 3,359,632 25%Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 1,522,199 1,723,058 13% 1,829,952 20%East Valley 1,737,467 1,963,889 13% 2,085,856 20%Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 4,533,046 5,301,028 17% 5,616,875 24%Santa Monica/Venice Area 1,145,988 1,291,513 13% 1,337,324 17%Brentwood/Westwood Area 2,108,021 2,453,886 16% 2,581,576 22%Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 4,652,360 5,457,453 17% 5,745,044 23%Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 2,080,452 2,592,944 25% 2,817,652 35%Mar Vista/Westchester Area 1,665,140 2,036,340 22% 2,183,322 31%Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 1,775,903 2,275,212 28% 2,506,068 41%El Segundo/ Hawthorne/Westmont Area 2,727,571 3,303,728 21% 3,542,961 30%South Bay 4,829,251 5,595,507 16% 5,858,447 21%Gateway Cities 11,892,680 13,480,142 13% 13,959,731 17%

Source: Metro Travel Demand ModelNotes: Trip ends = model productions + model attractions. Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in theBrentwood/Westwood Area.

Table 2-5. Trip Ends Per Square Mile (2017, 2042, and 2057)

Market Area2017 Trip Ends per

Square Mile2042 Trip Ends per

Square Mile2057 Trip Ends per

Square MileNorth County 1,742 2,373 2,745North Valley 27,377 31,281 33,452West Valley 50,686 58,664 63,110Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 58,826 66,589 70,720East Valley 65,476 74,009 78,605Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 47,082 55,058 58,339Santa Monica/Venice Area 116,185 130,939 135,583Brentwood/Westwood Area 78,545 91,432 96,190Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 179,192 210,202 221,279Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 95,371 118,864 129,165Mar Vista/Westchester Area 60,746 74,288 79,650Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 72,765 93,224 102,683El Segundo/ Hawthorne/Westmont Area 64,281 77,859 83,498South Bay 40,103 46,466 48,649Gateway Cities 51,703 58,605 60,690

Source: Metro Travel Demand ModelNotes: Trip ends = model productions + model attractions. Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in theBrentwood/Westwood Area.

Travel Markets Analysis Report3 Existing and Future Travel Patterns


3 EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL PATTERNSThe Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Area is centered on I-405, a major regional transportationfacility. To identify existing travel patterns in the corridor, two screenlines were created—one in theValley–Westside section and one in the Westside–LAX section, as described in Section 1.4.2 andillustrated in Figure 1-2. StreetLight data were analyzed to determine the origins and destinations ofall trips passing through those screenlines. This process resulted in the identification of the marketareas that contribute significantly to the travel demand in the corridor. Additional analyses werethen conducted using both StreetLight data and Metro Travel Demand Model data to investigateexisting and future travel between market areas.

Because StreetLight data serve as the primary basis for understanding current travel patterns andMetro Travel Demand Model data form the basis for forecasting future travel patterns, thecorrelation between the two data sources was calculated to confirm the consistency of the twosources. The number of trips reported by StreetLight between each pair of market areas wascompared to the person-trips between the same two markets areas in the model trip tables. Thecorrelation coefficient was determined to be greater than 0.95, providing high confidence in thecomparability of the data.

3.1 Existing Travel in the Valley–Westside SectionFigure 3-1 shows the density of trip origins and destinations for travelers who pass through the northscreenline (in the Santa Monica Mountains). Based on traffic counts and bus load data (documentedin the Study Area Definition Report (Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018)), these origins anddestinations represent approximately 412,000 daily trips that pass through the screenline, of whichless than two percent are currently made via transit. In the North Region, most trip origins anddestinations are spread relatively evenly throughout the San Fernando Valley, from the VenturaCounty Line to I-5, although there is a concentration of trip ends between I-405 and Van NuysBoulevard. In the Central Region, trip origins and destinations are concentrated between SantaMonica and Beverly Hills, with an especially intense concentration in UCLA and Westwood. There aresome trip origins and destinations in the West Hollywood and Mid-City areas, but very few farthereast, including Downtown Los Angeles. In the South Region, trip origins and destinations arerelatively evenly distributed, with concentrations in Playa Vista and in the immediate vicinity of LAX.

Figure 3-2 presents a graphical summary of trips through the north screenline by market area. Of theapproximately 412,000 daily trips through this screenline, 91.6 percent have both their origin anddestination within one of the 15 market areas, including 2.0 percent of trips that are internal to theBrentwood/Westwood Area.



Figure 3-1. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through North Screenline

Source: StreetLight Data; Fehr & Peers, 2018



Figure 3-2. Primary Market Areas of Trips Through North Screenline




The trips through the north screenline represent two large travel markets: the North Region to theCentral Region and the North Region to the South Region. The following sections describe thesetravel markets in more detail.

3.1.1 Existing Travel Between North Region and Central Region

According to the StreetLight data, trips between the North and Central Regions constitute the largestshare of travel through the northern section of the Study Area, representing 54.8 percent of the totaltravel through the north screenline. The travel patterns observed in the StreetLight data reflectdispersed origins and destinations in the San Fernando Valley combined with more concentratedactivity centers on the Westside.

The largest single share of trips between the North and Central Regions take place between theNorth Region and the Brentwood/Westwood Area, illustrated in Figure 3-3. These trips represent27.5 percent of the total travel through the north screenline according to the StreetLight data. TheSan Fernando Valley is the largest source of trips between the North Region and theBrentwood/Westwood Area, including trips to/from the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area (7.9 percent),the North Valley (5.9 percent), the West Valley (5.4 percent), and the East Valley (3.8 percent).

Trips between the North Region and the Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area constitute thesecond largest share of travel through the northern section of the Study Area, illustrated in Figure 3-4. The Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area will be served by the Purple Line Extension. Thesetrips represent 10.8 percent of the total travel through the north screenline. The San Fernando Valleyis also the largest source of trips between the North Region and the Century City/BeverlyHills/Hollywood Area, including trips to/from the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area (3.5 percent), as wellas the North Valley (2.2 percent), the West Valley (3.2 percent), and the East Valley (0.9 percent).

Trips between the North Region and the Santa Monica/Venice Area constitute the third largest shareof travel through the northern section of the Study Area. Santa Monica is served by the Metro ExpoLine. These trips represent 9.3 percent of the total travel through the north screenline. Tripsbetween the San Fernando Valley and the Santa Monica/Venice Area include trips to/from the VanNuys/Sherman Oaks Area (2.3 percent), as well as the North Valley (2.0 percent), the West Valley (1.9percent), and the East Valley (1.4 percent).

Trips between the North Region and the Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area constitute the fourthlargest share of travel through the northern section of the Study Area. The Palms/Culver City/Mid-City area is served by the Metro Expo Line. These trips represent 7.2 percent of the total travelthrough the north screenline. Trips between the San Fernando Valley and the Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area include trips to/from the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area (21 percent), as well as the NorthValley (1.7 percent), the West Valley (1.8 percent), and the East Valley (0.8 percent).



Figure 3-3. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and Brentwood/Westwood Area




Figure 3-4. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area




3.1.2 Existing Travel Between North Region and South Region

The north section of the Sepulveda Corridor also serves some travel markets between the North andthe South Regions, although these markets are not as large as the travel markets between the Northand Central Regions. Together, these markets constitute 34.8 percent of the total travel through thenorth screenline according to the StreetLight data. As with the North Region to Central Region travelpatterns, the travel patterns among these markets reflect dispersed origins and destinations in theSan Fernando Valley and surrounding areas combined with a few concentrated activity centers in theMar Vista/Westchester Area and surrounding areas. However, because of the greater distancesseparating these markets, the absolute number of trips is smaller.

The largest market between the North Region and the South Region consists of trips to and from theMar Vista/Westchester Area. These trips represent 19.5 percent of the total travel through the northscreenline, illustrated in Figure 3-5. Trips between the San Fernando Valley and this region includetrips to/from the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area (4.8 percent), as well as the North Valley (4.5percent), the West Valley (3.7 percent), and the East Valley (2.9 percent).

The second largest market between the North Region and the South Region consists of trips to andfrom the El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area. These trips represent 5.9 percent of the totaltravel through the north screenline. Trips between the San Fernando Valley and this region includetrips to/from the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area (1.2 percent), as well as the North Valley (1.6percent), the West Valley (1.4 percent), and the East Valley (0.7 percent). The ElSegundo/Hawthorne/Westmont area is served by the Metro Green Line.

The third largest market between the North Region and the South Region consists of trips to andfrom the South Bay. These trips represent 5.0 percent of the total travel through the northscreenline. Trips between the San Fernando Valley and this region include trips to/from the VanNuys/Sherman Oaks Area (1.1 percent), as well as the North Valley (1.4 percent), the West Valley (1.2percent), and the East Valley (0.5 percent).



Figure 3-5. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between North Region and Mar Vista/Westchester Area




3.2 Existing Travel in the Westside–LAX SectionFigure 3-6 shows the density of trip origins and destinations for travelers who pass through the southscreenline (north of SR 90). Based on traffic counts and bus load data (documented in the Study AreaDefinition Report (Sepulveda Mobility Partners, 2018)), these origins and destinations representapproximately 396,000 daily trips that pass through the screenline, of which approximately twopercent are currently made via transit.

Relatively few trips through the south screenline have origins or destinations in the North Region, andthose that do are spread throughout the San Fernando Valley and adjacent areas. In the Central Region,trip origins and destinations are concentrated between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, similar to thepattern for trips from the North Region to the Central Region. However, there are more trip origins anddestinations extending to the east through West Hollywood and Hollywood. In the South Region, thegreatest concentration of trip origins and destinations is in the Mar Vista/Westchester Area, withadditional concentrations in Playa Vista, Culver City, and Inglewood.

Figure 3-7 presents a graphical summary of trips through the south screenline by market area. Of theapproximately 396,000 daily trips through this screenline, 92.5 percent have both their origin anddestination within one of the 15 market areas, including 22.9 percent of trips that are internal to theSouth Region. Unlike the north screenline, the south screenline is located in a dense, urban area, so asubstantial share of trips through the screenline are internal to the region in which it is located.

The trips through the south screenline represent two travel markets: the Central Region to the SouthRegion and the North Region to the South Region. The following sections discuss these markets in moredetail.



Figure 3-6. Origins and Destinations of Trips Through South Screenline




Figure 3-7. Primary Market Areas of Trips Through South Screenline




3.2.1 Existing Travel Between Central Region and South Region

Trips between the Central Region and the South Region constitute the largest share of existing travelthrough the southern section of the Study Area, representing 48.4 percent of the total travel throughthe south screenline. The Study Area corridor captures a smaller share of the total market in thesouth compared to the north because there are many other routes available in the south than thosethat pass through the south screenline. In addition, the northwest-to-southeast orientation of I-405in the south makes it less attractive as a direct route for north-south trips.

The largest single share of trips between the Central Region and the South Region occur between theSouth Region and the Brentwood/Westwood Area, as illustrated in Figure 3-8. These trips represent23.4 percent of the total travel through the south screenline. Primary sources of trips between theSouth Region and the Brentwood/Westwood Area include trips to/from the Mar Vista/WestchesterArea (9.1 percent), the El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area (4.7 percent), the Inglewood/SouthLos Angeles Area (1.9 percent), the South Bay (4.6 percent), and Gateway Cities (3.1 percent).

Trips between the Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area and the South Region constitute the second-largest share of travel through the southern section of the Study Area. These trips represent 9.6percent of the total travel through the south screenline. Primary sources of trips between thePalms/Culver City/Mid-City Area and the LAX Area/South Bay include trips to/from the MarVista/Westchester Area (5.7 percent), the El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area (1.8 percent), andthe South Bay (1.2 percent).

Trips between the Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area and the South Region constitute thethird-largest share of travel through the southern section of the Study Area. These trips represent 6.3percent of the total travel through the south screenline. Primary sources of trips between theCentury City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area and the South Region include trips to/from the MarVista/Westchester Area (2.6 percent), the El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area (1.3 percent), andthe South Bay (1.2 percent).



Figure 3-8. Primary Market Areas of Trips Between South Region and Brentwood/Westwood Area




3.2.2 Existing Travel Between North Region to South Region

These travel markets are the same markets as described in Section 3.1.2.

3.3 Criticality of Study Area to Primary Travel MarketsThe previous sections have assessed the size of the primary travel markets through the Study Area.This section addresses the distinct question of how critical the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Areais to each of those markets. Criticality is defined as the share of a travel market that travels throughthe Study Area to complete a trip from an origin to a destination. For example, if only one routeexists between two locations (e.g., a bridge connecting an island to the mainland), then 100 percentof the travel between those two locations will use that route, which would be considered critical forthat travel market. In contrast, if many different routes exist between two locations, then only asmall share of the travel between the two locations may use any single route, none of which wouldbe critical.

Criticality is independent of the size of a travel market. In the example of a bridge connecting anisland to the mainland, the route is likely critical to residents of the island; however, if the island issmall or lightly populated, the travel market served by the bridge will be small.

To evaluate criticality, the percentage of all trips between each of the 15 market areas that travelthrough the Study Area was calculated using StreetLight data. For the north and south screenlines,the number of observed trips traveling through that screenline en route between each pair of marketareas was divided by the total number of trips traveling between the same pair of market areas byany route. The resulting percentages indicate how critical the Study Area corridor is to each travelmarket. Table 3-1 presents the share of trips between each pair of market areas that travel throughthe north screenline, and Table 3-2 presents the share of trips between each pair of market areasthat travel through the south screenline.

3.3.1 North Region to Central Region

As shown in Table 3-1, the Study Area transportation facilities are very important for trips betweenthe North Region and the Central Region. Among trips between the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Areaand the Brentwood/Westwood Area, 71.7 percent travel through the north screenline. Among otherpairs of market areas in the two subregions, the share of trips passing through the north screenlineranges as high as 94.8 percent for trips between the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area and the SantaMonica/Venice area. For trips with an origin or destination farther east, the share of trips passingthrough the north screenline is lower, as US 101 and the Metro Red Line provide alternative high-capacity routes.

3.3.2 North Region to South Region

As shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, the Study Area transportation facilities are also very important fortrips between the North Region and the South Region. Among trips between the Van Nuys/Sherman OaksArea and the Mar Vista/Westchester Area, 93.4 percent travel through the north screenline, and 53.0percent travel through the south screenline. For trips between the North Region and other parts of theSouth Region, the share of trips passing through the north screenline ranges as high as 86.7 percent fortrips between the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area and the South Bay, and through the south screenline ashigh as 85.4 percent, for trips between the West Valley and the South Bay.



Table 3-1. Travel Market Share that Passes Through the North Screenline

Market Area Nor

thCo

unty

Nor

thVa

lley

Wes

tVal

ley

Van

Nuy

s/Sh

erm

anO

aks

Area

East

Valle

y

Glen

dale

/Bur

bank

/Pa

sade

naAr

ea

Brentwood/Westwood Area 88.5% 83.4% 75.5% 71.7% 70.3% 57.6%

Santa Monica/Venice Area 93.1% 86.7% 77.9% 94.8% 79.9% 43.3%

Century City /Beverly Hills/ Hollywood Area 11.3% 11.4% 27.7% 22.9% 2.6% 1.1%

Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 48.5% 35.8% 68.2% 65.3% 15.9% 2.4%

Mar Vista/Westchester Area 92.8% 88.6% 88.6% 93.4% 71.1% 21.2%

Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 29.8% 19.6% 45.5% 50.0% 7.5% 0.0%

El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area 77.0% 59.3% 85.0% 78.5% 32.0% 0.0%

South Bay 61.8% 50.2% 87.3% 86.7% 31.9% 0.0%

Gateway Cities 8.4% 7.0% 25.2% 26.2% 1.5% 0.0%

Source: StreetLight Data; Fehr & Peers, 2018Note: Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in the Brentwood/Westwood Area.

Table 3-2. Travel Market Share that Passes Through the South Screenline

Market Area Mar

Vist

a/W

estc

hest

erAr

ea

Ingl

ewoo

d/So

uth

Los

Ange

lesA

rea

ElSe

gund

o/Ha

wth

orne

/W

estm

ontA

rea

Sout

hBa

y

Gate

way

Citie

s

North County 71.0% 22.2% 72.4% 61.2% 8.3%

North Valley 60.7% 13.3% 56.0% 49.6% 6.7%

West Valley 54.2% 23.0% 79.5% 85.4% 25.2%

Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 53.0% 29.5% 71.1% 82.9% 20.5%

East Valley 46.5% 5.6% 30.7% 31.1% 1.7%

Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 20.1% 0.7% 3.9% 2.0% 0.3%

Brentwood/Westwood Area 19.9% 34.9% 67.4% 77.9% 54.6%

Santa Monica/Venice Area 5.6% 10.9% 15.7% 26.9% 22.6%

Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 17.3% 0.7% 9.6% 14.3% 2.8%

Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 11.3% 0.6% 8.4% 12.7% 2.8%

Source: StreetLight Data; Fehr & Peers, 2018Note: Part of the City of Santa Monica is included in the Brentwood/Westwood Area.



3.3.3 Central Region to South Region

As shown in Table 3-2, the Study Area transportation facilities are also very important for tripsbetween the Central Region and the South Region. Among pairs of market areas in the two regions,the share of trips passing through the south screenline ranges as high as 77.9 percent for tripsbetween the South Bay and the Brentwood/Westwood Area. Because trips between these tworegions have alternative routes, such as Lincoln and La Cienega Boulevards, the share of tripstraveling through the Study Area is somewhat lower than for the other primary travel markets.

3.4 Forecast Change in Size of Travel MarketsAs discussed earlier, StreetLight data provide information on travel patterns but not on the absoluteamount of travel, nor does it forecast growth in travel markets. The Metro Travel Demand Modelprovides estimates of the total travel demand among market areas under existing conditions and inthe future. Table 3-3 shows the forecast growth rate between 2017 and 2042 in the travel marketsthat pass through the north screenline, and Table 3-4 shows the forecast growth rate between 2017and 2042 in the travel markets that pass through the south screenline. (Growth rates between 2017and 2057 follow the same pattern.)

Table 3-3. Travel Market Growth Through the North Screenline

Market Area Nor

thCo

unty

Nor

thVa

lley

Wes

tVal

ley

Van

Nuy

s/Sh

erm

anO

aksA

rea

East

Valle

y

Glen

dale

/Bur

bank

/Pas

aden

aAr

eaBrentwood/Westwood Area 29.1% 10.5% 11.6% 10.4% 9.1% 22.5%

Santa Monica/Venice Area 30.9% 9.6% 11.3% 9.9% 10.3% 24.0%

Century City /Beverly Hills/ Hollywood Area 31.7% 19.0% 23.8% 22.2% 15.1% 23.8%

Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 39.6% 25.1% 26.2% 24.2% 20.2% 29.2%

Mar Vista/Westchester Area 45.1% 25.4% 26.3% 22.0% 20.3% 30.6%

Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area 64.2% 35.5% 36.1% 34.6% 31.3% 27.7%

El Segundo/Hawthorne/Westmont Area 51.4% 26.4% 30.1% 22.2% 23.1% 26.7%

South Bay 51.5% 24.8% 23.7% 22.5% 18.4% 24.2%

Gateway Cities 34.3% 19.7% 20.8% 20.5% 15.2% 18.0%




Table 3-4. Travel Market Growth Through the South Screenline

Market Area Mar

Vist

a/W

estc

hest

erAr

ea

Ingl

ewoo

d/So

uth

LosA

ngel

esAr

ea

ElSe

gund

o/Ha

wth

orne

/W

estm

ontA

rea

Sout

hBa

y

Gate

way

Citie

s

North County 45.1% 64.2% 51.4% 51.5% 34.3%

North Valley 25.4% 35.5% 26.4% 24.8% 19.7%

West Valley 26.3% 36.1% 30.1% 23.7% 20.8%

Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Area 22.0% 34.6% 22.2% 22.5% 20.5%

East Valley 20.3% 31.3% 23.1% 18.4% 15.2%

Glendale/Burbank/Pasadena Area 30.6% 27.7% 26.7% 24.2% 18.0%

Brentwood/Westwood Area 19.0% 20.3% 20.0% 19.5% 15.8%

Santa Monica/Venice Area 13.8% 18.8% 16.8% 15.3% 14.9%

Century City/Beverly Hills/Hollywood Area 26.0% 23.8% 25.7% 29.2% 23.9%

Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area 22.4% 28.6% 33.3% 28.4% 24.5%


The fastest growing travel markets shown in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 are those including NorthCounty (in the North Region) and those including the Inglewood/South Los Angeles Area andadjacent areas (in the South Region). North County, while fast growing, has the lowest populationand employment density of the market areas, and it also contributes a relatively small share of tripsthrough the Sepulveda corridor. Thus, even with substantial growth, it will remain a smaller potentialmarket area in terms of trips than areas in the San Fernando Valley to its south.

The fast-growing markets in the South Region will be served, at least in part, by the Crenshaw/LAXLine that is currently under construction. The South Bay market area is geographically one of thelargest market areas, with among the lowest number of trips per square mile. It also has the lowestpercentage of low-income households of any of the market areas. These factors may make thismarket less supportive of fixed guideway transit.



3.5 Key Activity Centers Within the Study AreaTwo major activity centers within the Study Area generate a large number of trips in the SepulvedaCorridor: UCLA and LAX. This section describes the origins of trips to each of these two key activitycenters based on StreetLight data.

3.5.1 UCLA Trips

Figure 3-9 illustrates the origins of trips to UCLA. The extremely high density of trips in the immediatevicinity of the university likely represents walking and bicycling trips from Westwood Village andstudent residential areas nearby. The majority of trips to UCLA have origins in the Westside/CentralLos Angeles region, from Santa Monica to Koreatown, as well as south to Palms and Culver City. Inaddition, some trips to UCLA have origins in the San Fernando Valley, particularly Sherman Oaks.

3.5.2 LAX Trips

Figure 3-10 illustrates the origins of trips to and from LAX based on StreetLight data. Figure 3-11,taken from a 2015 survey of air passengers conducted by Los Angeles World Airports, presents theorigins of passenger trips. The StreetLight data reflect many more trips to LAX that have origins in theareas directly east of the airport, in South Los Angeles and adjacent areas. It is likely that many of thetrips from the areas to the east, as well as some of those from the areas immediately north andsouth of the airport, represent airport employee trips. In addition, it is possible that many of theshort trips immediately adjacent to the airport represent public and private shuttles, service vehicles,and other airport-serving functions.

Beyond the immediate vicinity of the airport, the origins of trips to LAX are widely dispersed across alarge area south of the Santa Monica Mountains, extending south to Torrance and east to the MetroBlue Line. Trip origins generally become more dispersed as distance from LAX increases. Other thantrips originating at the Van Nuys FlyAway, the San Fernando Valley does not have a largeconcentration of LAX trip origins.



Figure 3-9. Origins of Trips to UCLA




Figure 3-10. Origins of Trips to LAX




Figure 3-11. LAX Air Passenger Survey Trip Origins

Source: Final Report: Los Angeles International Airport 2015 Air Passenger Survey Results and Findings

Travel Markets Analysis Report4 Conclusions


4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Travel Activity in the Study AreaIn the North Region, origins and destinations are dispersed across a wide area from the VenturaCounty Line on the west to I-5 on the east. There are some concentrations of activity, includingseveral near several Metro Orange Line stations, particularly Sepulveda and Van Nuys.

In the Central Region, origins and destinations are concentrated in distinct centers of activity locatedin the Brentwood/Westwood Area (including UCLA and Westwood), the Century City/BeverlyHills/Hollywood Area, the Palms/Culver City/Mid-City Area, and the Santa Monica/Venice Area. Manyof the areas with the most intense concentrations of activity will be served by the Purple Lineextension, and others are already served by the Metro Expo Line.

In the South Region, there are concentrations of activity, such as LAX, the Howard Hughes Center,Playa Vista, and Mar Vista, but many other origins and destinations are widely distributed. Theactivity centers in this region are generally not served by Metro Rail. While there are a substantialnumber of trips between the North region and the South Region, LAX itself is a much largerdestination for the Central Region and other parts South Region than for the North Region.

4.2 Considerations for Transit ConceptsBecause of the dispersed nature of the origins and destinations in the North Region, this region willrequire good connectivity to the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, both via other transit lines and via othermodes. Therefore, connections to the Metro Orange Line and other existing and planned transit lineswill be an important consideration. The planned East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Projectserves the area of the San Fernando Valley that generates the most trips through the Study Area, so aconnection between that line and the Sepulveda Transit Corridor that minimizes the need or timerequired to transfer will be critical. Further analysis will be required to determine the effect of Parkand Ride facilities on potential ridership in the San Fernando Valley region.

In the Central Region, good connectivity of the Sepulveda Transit Corridor to the Purple Lineextension will be critical to facilitate passenger movements to concentrations of activity near itsstations. The area around the planned Purple Line Westwood/UCLA Station has a much greaterintensity of activity than the area around the planned Westwood/VA Station, so a connection to theWestwood/UCLA Station would reduce the amount of passenger transfer activity required. Aconnection to the Westwood/UCLA Station would also facilitate a potential station location at UCLA,the biggest single source of trips in the area. Connectivity to the Purple Line will also facilitate toother activity centers served by that line, such as Century City and Beverly Hills.

Also in the Central Region, the Palms/Culver City/Mid-City area and the Santa Monica/Venice areacontain substantial activity concentrations. Although neither is as large a trip attractor as theBrentwood/Westwood Area, a connection from the Sepulveda Transit Corridor to the Metro ExpoLine would provide access to both areas.

In the South Region, it will be a challenge to identify an alignment that serves either the HowardHughes Center and Fox Hills or Playa Vista and Mar Vista, as it is unlikely that a primarily north-southalignment will be able to serve all of these activity centers. The Howard Hughes Center is in thecenter of the Study Area, while Playa Vista and Mar Vista are on the Study Area’s western edge. The

Travel Markets Analysis Report4 Conclusions


ability to serve these areas may also be affected by the selection of the southern terminus of theValley-Westside section, as the Expo/Bundy station is closer to Playa Vista, while the Expo/Sepulvedaand Westwood/Rancho Park stations are closer to the Howard Hughes Center. If the alignmentserves Playa Vista and Mar Vista, a further challenge would be to develop a single alignment thatcould serve them both and have good first/last mile access. As in the North Region, consideration ofPark and Ride facilities will require further analysis.

Finally, since the Central Region and parts of the South Region are the largest sources of trips to LAX,providing good connectivity to LAX from these regions should be an important consideration. Theexisting Green Line and the proposed extension will facilitate access from the South Region to theStudy Area.

Travel Markets Analysis Report5 References


5 REFERENCESLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2009. Long Range

Transportation Plan

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2018. Metro Travel DemandModel (2017, 2042, 2057 trip tables)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). November 2012. Sepulveda PassCorridor Systems Planning Study Final Compendium Report

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). July 2014. Short RangeTransportation Plan

Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA). February 2016. Final Report: Los Angeles International Airport2015 Air Passenger Survey Results and Findings

Sepulveda Mobility Partners. March 2018. Sepulveda Transit Corridor Study Area Definition Report

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). April 7, 2016. 2016-2040 RegionalTransportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies

United States Census Bureau. 2016. American Community Survey 2016

Documents

Travel Markets Analysis Reportmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/sfv-405/images/Travel... · 2019-11-16 · Travel Markets Analysis Report 1 Introduction 1-2 Sepulveda Transit Corridor