405 Sepulveda Pass HO/T Lanes

[Plutonic Panda]

Scoping has begun for yet another Sepulveda pass project for the 405 which do not address the bottlenecks at the 10 or 101 interchanges.

There five alternatives being considered:

Alternative 1
Existing Conditions - No Build​
No changes​
No additional travel lanes or ramp improvements would be installed as part of this alternative​
No property acquisition anticipated

Alternative 2
Convert HOV to one (1) ExpressLane
Convert existing HOV to one ExpressLane in each direction with standard (12 ft) lane widths​
Standard lane and shoulder widths
No property acquisition anticipated

Alternative 3
Convert HOV to two (2) ExpressLanes
Convert existing HOV to two ExpressLanes in each direction ​
Non-standard lane and shoulder widths​
Potential property acquisition anticipated

Alternative 4
Convert HOV to two (2) ExpressLanes
Convert existing HOV to two ExpressLanes in each direction ​
Standard lane (12 ft) and shoulder widths​
Property acquisition anticipated

Alternative 5
Add an additional HOV lane
Add additional HOV lane in each direction ​
Non-standard lane and shoulder widths​
Potential property acquisition anticipated

Project schedule:

Timeline
The project is in the planning stages and initiating environmental review to study potential ExpressLanes alternatives on the I-405 Sepulveda Pass. The environmental review phase is expected to conclude by fall 2023, with ExpressLanes operation anticipated in advance of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic and Paralympic Games.*

Scoping meeting and online public comment link:

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/88d93c10a2164de89349bbcd30bcf6b2

Project website:

https://www.metro.net/projects/i405-expresslanes/

[Plutonic Panda]

I fully support alternative four but given how opposed many be to building proper infrastructure in this country I won't die on that hill. I'd settle for alternatives 3 or 5. Alternative two won't do anything and no build is just absurd, IMO.

[pderocco]

I wonder if they'll turn the Getty Center Dr interchange into a simple diamond, eliminating one of the lights on Sepulveda. It looks like they originally intended to do that, but changed plans some time during the last round of widening.

[SeriesE]

As you said, the problem is at the US-101 and I-10 interchanges. Alternative 1 it is and then move the money to rebuild those interchanges.

[Plutonic Panda]

As you said, the problem is at the US-101 and I-10 interchanges. Alternative 1 it is and then move the money to rebuild those interchanges.

I just can't believe with the amount of money they've poured into nearby highways they never once even looked at fixing the 101 interchange. It's nuts.

[heynow415]

I fully support alternative four but given how opposed many be to building proper infrastructure in this country I won't die on that hill. I'd settle for alternatives 3 or 5. Alternative two won't do anything and no build is just absurd, IMO.

"No Build" is required as one of the project alternatives for analysis under CEQA.  It serves as a baseline to which the other project alternatives can be compared.  No Build could end up being the "environmentally superior alternative" but it would be pretty rare for an entity to select that as the Preferred Alternative if it's already determined that something needs to be done (hence the development of the project alternatives in the first place).

[pderocco]

I just can't believe with the amount of money they've poured into nearby highways they never once even looked at fixing the 101 interchange. It's nuts.

They did, back in 2006-7, widening and lengthening the NB 405 approach substantially, and it helped a fair amount but not enough.

[Plutonic Panda]

I just can't believe with the amount of money they've poured into nearby highways they never once even looked at fixing the 101 interchange. It's nuts.

They did, back in 2006-7, widening and lengthening the NB 405 approach substantially, and it helped a fair amount but not enough.

I meant an entire reconstruction and design of the interchange. Knowing California it'd be over a billion dollars and take 10 years. Has there been any interchange project to date costing north of a billion? I remember when I was shocked at the high five being 250 million.

[Occidental Tourist]

As you said, the problem is at the US-101 and I-10 interchanges. Alternative 1 it is and then move the money to rebuild those interchanges.

I just can't believe with the amount of money they've poured into nearby highways they never once even looked at fixing the 101 interchange. It's nuts.

I wonder if they've done some sort of analysis and figured the cost-benefit of redoing the 101 and 10 interchanges wouldn't improve traffic enough to justify the cost given the upstream and downstream traffic from both.

I would think it would be worthwhile to get rid of the 270 degree ramp from the 101 north to the 405 south as well as fix the poorly-curved ramp and lane merges on the transition road from the 405 south to the 101 north.  I've always wondered if you could improve the ramp curve on the latter interchange by running that transition road higher up the face of the dam while at the same time fixing the Haskell avenue ramp merge issues.  There may be engineering or jurisdictional issues that would prevent that, but it seems like a relatively cheap fix for that part of the interchange.

[cahwyguy]

I would think it would be worthwhile to get rid of the 270 degree ramp from the 101 north to the 405 south as well as fix the poorly-curved ramp and lane merges on the transition road from the 405 south to the 101 north.  I've always wondered if you could improve the ramp curve on the latter interchange by running that transition road higher up the face of the dam while at the same time fixing the Haskell avenue ramp merge issues.  There may be engineering or jurisdictional issues that would prevent that, but it seems like a relatively cheap fix for that part of the interchange.

There are two significant problems related to redoing the 101 interchange that will result in barely any improvements:

1) Right of way. There is really no way to expand or work the area without significant impact and property acquisitions, which will not happen. You're bumping up against the Galleria, a hotel, significant residences, and a flood control basis. No room to work.

2) The interchange cannot be shut down -- the impact for anything longer than a day or two would be too great. In particular, you can't close transition ramps, meaning it would be impossible to build new better transition ramps.

In short, no place to expand, and you can't close what is there while you rebuild. That means that interchange work is not going to happen. (There are similar problems, by the way, in downtown LA).

If I was to predict anything here, other than that any solution is going to F-up my commute while it is being built, is that they will go with the solution that requires the least right of way acquisition. That will be either Alternative 2 or 3. Given the recent widening work, and the effort for utility relocation that mess required, they aren't going to do more.

[Plutonic Panda]

Final scoping Public comment period was today and this was my final comment:

"I-405 Sepulveda Pass ExpressLanes

I like the two proposed HOT lanes in each direction with standard shoulder widths.

What I wish is that the toll lanes would be elevated so there could be 3 elevated toll lanes each way or depressed similar to the I-635 rebuild in Dallas.

I'd also suggest looking at other improvements such as addressing the interchange at the 101 and completely modernizing it by redesigning and reconstructing it to remove the left exits/entrance onto the 101 which back ups onto the 405.

Preferably Sepulveda would be six lanes in some areas with protected bike lanes and sidewalks for added mobility options.

Another issue is capacity needs to be added to I-10 from I-405 to I-110 as it is greatly needed and the lack of capacity causes traffic congestion which backs up onto the 405.

Sepulveda also needs to pass underneath Wilshire to remote the traffic light there for through traffic with a dedicated turnaround and free flowing lane for EB Santa Monica BLVD traffic to SB Sepulveda.

The Sunset boulevard back ups are absolutely insane and more coordination needs to be had with the city to add bus lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks where possible. There should be a flyover ramp for WB Sunset BLVD traffic trying to use NB and SB 405. The lights at Sunset are horribly timed.

Church Ln needs to be extended south to connect to Wilshire. Montana needs to be extended west to connect with Barrington.

Some of the canyon roads need to connect with the valley to allow for local traffic to move through and avoid having to travel to extremely congested arterials and backtrack.

Simply adding a couple toll lanes will do little to really make a decent impact on the real issue in this area which is poorly designed infrastructure and a lack of alternative transportation options and a disconnected street grid network.

I really hope these things are considered."

Some other things like E line improvements around USC could greatly speed up travel times between DTLA and Santa Monica potentially inducing more ridership. A purple line extension to the ocean along with northern Crenshaw line will open a new world of mobility opportunities for west LA coupled with the Sepulveda subway(which is hopefully chosen).

[Plutonic Panda]

There are two significant problems related to redoing the 101 interchange that will result in barely any improvements:

1) Right of way. There is really no way to expand or work the area without significant impact and property acquisitions, which will not happen. You're bumping up against the Galleria, a hotel, significant residences, and a flood control basis. No room to work.

2) The interchange cannot be shut down -- the impact for anything longer than a day or two would be too great. In particular, you can't close transition ramps, meaning it would be impossible to build new better transition ramps.

In short, no place to expand, and you can't close what is there while you rebuild. That means that interchange work is not going to happen. (There are similar problems, by the way, in downtown LA).

I understand that would be the general sentiment in todays political world but it's a shame as there are serious problems that need to be fixed. Metro needs to look long and hard at making potentially unpopular choices like lane closures in the short term for long term benefits.

It seems me that any property impacts to the galleria could be avoided with more sophisticated engineering and higher ramps to go over the 101 instead of under it. This of course will also eventually need to be met with a solution to lack of capacity on the 101 which is the same situation the 10 faces. At least if the interchange is fixed then that conversation can begin afterwards.

I am extremely skeptical that simply adding toll lanes is going to do much to lessen traffic congestion here and I can't see how metro doesn't know this. The section of the 405 from the 101 to I-5 is one of the better flowing segments in the valley. There's a current project on the 101 to replace the concrete median and increase it's height which might cut down on rubbernecking so we'll see.

Redoing the 101/405 just seems like a complete no brainer to me. That has got to be done at some point.

[cahwyguy]

Metro needs to look long and hard at making potentially unpopular choices like lane closures in the short term for long term benefits.

Fixing the interchange is more than lane closures. Because of the configuration, you likely have to completely rebuild where the 101 goes over the 405. The means closing the 101. Not simple lane closures. That will not happen.

So, yup, any fix they do will ultimately fail. It will take other solutions, such as are being proposed for the corridor, including the transit options under the hill. Take a look at https://www.metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor/ . When they finally get that extended and connected to the E/Green Line and LAX, that will move quite a few commuters to rail (I know, if I'm still working by then (ha!), I'd explore it). That, and the changes from virtual work, may make it such at the band-aids will be sufficient. We shall see.

But the solution is not always to build more roadways, much as we roadgeeks might like it.

[Plutonic Panda]

I understand the solution is not to build always build more roadways but building more roadways is part of the solution. They're planning a massive HRT Subway(I'm not even to mention the monorail hopefully that dies a painful slow death). So more is being done than just roadway improvements.

I agree with you on two things. One is that I doubt metro goes for any proposal that requires any significant expansion of the freeways footprint. So if the new lane is added by restriping the lanes it will almost certainly result in substandard shoulder widths. I also agree that redoing the 101 interchange will cause massive disruptions and will be a pain in the ass.

But I've also proposed more than roadway improvements as I've presented ideas like bike and bus lanes added to Sepulveda. Our two main passes, the Sepulveda and Cahuenga, don't even have dedicated pedestrian walkways though them. They are broken up and some require you to walk in the street as in the case with the Cahuenga pass. It's horrible.

But nonetheless metro is proposing this "improvement"  which will certainly be in the hundreds of millions of dollars range which that money could go to improving Sepulveda. I don't mean to be combative with you here but I don't get the argument that one hand we can't disrupt the roadways to drivers because it's too important but then turn around and say we're too dependent on driving and need alternatives.

Are you saying that we need to wait until viable alternatives are present such as mass transit and the like to modernized and rebuild the 101 interchange or that it won't ever happen because the disruptions will always be too much? Because if it's the latter I just flat out disagree. Especially in today where we have prefabricated road building techniques, why is this interchange not possible to redesign and rebuild?

[cahwyguy]

I understand the solution is not to build always build more roadways but building more roadways is part of the solution. They're planning a massive HRT Subway(I'm not even to mention the monorail hopefully that dies a painful slow death). So more is being done than just roadway improvements.

I agree with you on two things. One is that I doubt metro goes for any proposal that requires any significant expansion of the freeways footprint. So if the new lane is added by restriping the lanes it will almost certainly result in substandard shoulder widths. I also agree that redoing the 101 interchange will cause massive disruptions and will be a pain in the ass.

But I've also proposed more than roadway improvements as I've presented ideas like bike and bus lanes added to Sepulveda. Our two main passes, the Sepulveda and Cahuenga, don't even have dedicated pedestrian walkways though them. They are broken up and some require you to walk in the street as in the case with the Cahuenga pass. It's horrible.

But nonetheless metro is proposing this "improvement"  which will certainly be in the hundreds of millions of dollars range which that money could go to improving Sepulveda. I don't mean to be combative with you here but I don't get the argument that one hand we can't disrupt the roadways to drivers because it's too important but then turn around and say we're too dependent on driving and need alternatives.

Are you saying that we need to wait until viable alternatives are present such as mass transit and the like to modernized and rebuild the 101 interchange or that it won't ever happen because the disruptions will always be too much? Because if it's the latter I just flat out disagree. Especially in today where we have prefabricated road building techniques, why is this interchange not possible to redesign and rebuild?

You'll see disruption, but not DISRUPTION. They will widen where they can, and narrow lane widths. But they are not going to close down the interchange, which is what is needed to do a rebuild. They are not going to be grabbing more right of way, given all the problems they had with the initial grab for the HOV widening -- from the environmental work on the hills, to utility relocation, to the local landowners in Bel Air and Encino. I read your proposals, and they are not going to double-deck it either. The space for the bents would take out too much roadway in the center, plus there is the significant earthquake risk in the pass due to the faults in the area and on both sides. There's also the issue with double decking of where you get the land for it to return to ground level -- that's just not there. Nature, urban development, and previous construction have them boxed in. So there will be disruption, but it won't be massive.

I say this as someone who has commuted the pass (pre-COVID) and will commute the pass (post-COVID) for over 35 years from the SF Valley to El Segundo for work.

The only solutions will be to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. That means transit solutions (and the monorail is probably DOA -- it will be a subway, as they did for the Red Line), and increasing the density of people in the vehicles. That also means getting past COVID, as COVID works against density and transit. So it will take time.

There are never easy answers, and the solution is always complicated. A possibly better solution would be an additional pass road as originally planned, but I think the right of way acquisition would not be possible (either for the Route 14 Reseda routing, or the Route 170 Laurel Canyon Routing).

[SeriesE]

I would think it would be worthwhile to get rid of the 270 degree ramp from the 101 north to the 405 south as well as fix the poorly-curved ramp and lane merges on the transition road from the 405 south to the 101 north.  I've always wondered if you could improve the ramp curve on the latter interchange by running that transition road higher up the face of the dam while at the same time fixing the Haskell avenue ramp merge issues.  There may be engineering or jurisdictional issues that would prevent that, but it seems like a relatively cheap fix for that part of the interchange.

There are two significant problems related to redoing the 101 interchange that will result in barely any improvements:

1) Right of way. There is really no way to expand or work the area without significant impact and property acquisitions, which will not happen. You're bumping up against the Galleria, a hotel, significant residences, and a flood control basis. No room to work.

2) The interchange cannot be shut down -- the impact for anything longer than a day or two would be too great. In particular, you can't close transition ramps, meaning it would be impossible to build new better transition ramps.

In short, no place to expand, and you can't close what is there while you rebuild. That means that interchange work is not going to happen. (There are similar problems, by the way, in downtown LA).

If I was to predict anything here, other than that any solution is going to F-up my commute while it is being built, is that they will go with the solution that requires the least right of way acquisition. That will be either Alternative 2 or 3. Given the recent widening work, and the effort for utility relocation that mess required, they aren't going to do more.

Better rip the band aid now than to suffer with this forever. They can start by closing the left entrances onto US 101, then build the through lanes in the middle. Then rebuild connector ramps taking over the outside parts of US-101 that won't be used anymore.

[djsekani]

I understand the solution is not to build always build more roadways but building more roadways is part of the solution. They're planning a massive HRT Subway(I'm not even to mention the monorail hopefully that dies a painful slow death). So more is being done than just roadway improvements.

I agree with you on two things. One is that I doubt metro goes for any proposal that requires any significant expansion of the freeways footprint. So if the new lane is added by restriping the lanes it will almost certainly result in substandard shoulder widths. I also agree that redoing the 101 interchange will cause massive disruptions and will be a pain in the ass.

But I've also proposed more than roadway improvements as I've presented ideas like bike and bus lanes added to Sepulveda. Our two main passes, the Sepulveda and Cahuenga, don't even have dedicated pedestrian walkways though them. They are broken up and some require you to walk in the street as in the case with the Cahuenga pass. It's horrible.

But nonetheless metro is proposing this "improvement"  which will certainly be in the hundreds of millions of dollars range which that money could go to improving Sepulveda. I don't mean to be combative with you here but I don't get the argument that one hand we can't disrupt the roadways to drivers because it's too important but then turn around and say we're too dependent on driving and need alternatives.

Are you saying that we need to wait until viable alternatives are present such as mass transit and the like to modernized and rebuild the 101 interchange or that it won't ever happen because the disruptions will always be too much? Because if it's the latter I just flat out disagree. Especially in today where we have prefabricated road building techniques, why is this interchange not possible to redesign and rebuild?

You'll see disruption, but not DISRUPTION. They will widen where they can, and narrow lane widths. But they are not going to close down the interchange, which is what is needed to do a rebuild. They are not going to be grabbing more right of way, given all the problems they had with the initial grab for the HOV widening -- from the environmental work on the hills, to utility relocation, to the local landowners in Bel Air and Encino. I read your proposals, and they are not going to double-deck it either. The space for the bents would take out too much roadway in the center, plus there is the significant earthquake risk in the pass due to the faults in the area and on both sides. There's also the issue with double decking of where you get the land for it to return to ground level -- that's just not there. Nature, urban development, and previous construction have them boxed in. So there will be disruption, but it won't be massive.

I say this as someone who has commuted the pass (pre-COVID) and will commute the pass (post-COVID) for over 35 years from the SF Valley to El Segundo for work.

The only solutions will be to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. That means transit solutions (and the monorail is probably DOA -- it will be a subway, as they did for the Red Line), and increasing the density of people in the vehicles. That also means getting past COVID, as COVID works against density and transit. So it will take time.

There are never easy answers, and the solution is always complicated. A possibly better solution would be an additional pass road as originally planned, but I think the right of way acquisition would not be possible (either for the Route 14 Reseda routing, or the Route 170 Laurel Canyon Routing).

I'd settle for at the bare minimum widening the ramp from NB 405 to SB 101 (two lanes through the merge with one dropping off at the Van Nuys exit) and constructing a flyover from NB 101 to SB 405 to replace that godawful loop ramp. Still probably unlikely for reasons, but I can dream.

As to the main subject of HOT lanes, any option that involves further widening of that freeway is dead on arrival. LA residents don't feel that they got their money's worth from the last widening.

[Plutonic Panda]

I would think it would be worthwhile to get rid of the 270 degree ramp from the 101 north to the 405 south as well as fix the poorly-curved ramp and lane merges on the transition road from the 405 south to the 101 north.  I've always wondered if you could improve the ramp curve on the latter interchange by running that transition road higher up the face of the dam while at the same time fixing the Haskell avenue ramp merge issues.  There may be engineering or jurisdictional issues that would prevent that, but it seems like a relatively cheap fix for that part of the interchange.

There are two significant problems related to redoing the 101 interchange that will result in barely any improvements:

1) Right of way. There is really no way to expand or work the area without significant impact and property acquisitions, which will not happen. You're bumping up against the Galleria, a hotel, significant residences, and a flood control basis. No room to work.

2) The interchange cannot be shut down -- the impact for anything longer than a day or two would be too great. In particular, you can't close transition ramps, meaning it would be impossible to build new better transition ramps.

In short, no place to expand, and you can't close what is there while you rebuild. That means that interchange work is not going to happen. (There are similar problems, by the way, in downtown LA).

If I was to predict anything here, other than that any solution is going to F-up my commute while it is being built, is that they will go with the solution that requires the least right of way acquisition. That will be either Alternative 2 or 3. Given the recent widening work, and the effort for utility relocation that mess required, they aren't going to do more.

Better rip the band aid now than to suffer with this forever. They can start by closing the left entrances onto US 101, then build the through lanes in the middle. Then rebuild connector ramps taking over the outside parts of US-101 that won't be used anymore.

+10000

[kernals12]

Have they seriously considered putting another deck on the 405?

I'd suggest they put 4 HOT lanes with interchanges at the Ventura, Santa Monica, and Century Freeways

[skluth]

Have they seriously considered putting another deck on the 405?

I'd suggest they put 4 HOT lanes with interchanges at the Ventura, Santa Monica, and Century Freeways

California doesn't have a great history with decked highways, e.g., Loma Prieta Earthquake. I don't think there's much political support for it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Full scoping summary report has been released:

"
Status
The environmental review process was initiated with a 60-day scoping process in summer 2021. A total of 663 scoping comments were received, covering a variety of topics including the proposed alternatives, environmental topics, nearby projects, support for transit, ExpressLanes operations and equity.   

View our video update in English and Spanish and the full scoping report to learn more. 

Since the completion of scoping, Metro and Caltrans are continuing to advance technical studies in preparation for the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). 

A Project Report, Concept of Operations and a Traffic & Revenue Study are also being prepared.   "

Documents available from the status section of the project homepage:

https://www.metro.net/projects/i-405-expresslanes-project/

Future updates:

What's Next?
Metro and Caltrans are continuing to advance technical studies in preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) release. We appreciate your patience as we continue to review and consider each comment.

To keep you informed of the project and any significant updates, Metro will continue distributing this series of quarterly e-newsletters. Please look for the next e-newsletter in summer 2022!

Feel free to forward this email to friends and neighbors and encourage them to sign up to our email list.

Coordination with Nearby Projects
The project team continues to coordinate with nearby projects also in the planning phase, including the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, I-405 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan and Metro's Traffic Reduction Study. Click on the nearby project of interest to learn more.

Project Spotlight
I-405 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP)

Metro is developing a qualified CMCP for the I-405 within LA County in order to position eligible transportation projects for upcoming state grant funding opportunities through the SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP).

I-405 CMCP

Sepulveda Transit Corridor
Traffic Reduction Study

The Draft I-405 CMCP is expected to be released on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 with a 31-day public comment period and virtual community meetings. Please sign-up to be notified once the Draft I-405 CMCP is available for review and other project updates.