Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
12
Las ~en~~3es Cvunty Qrie C.~ir~bv~y (~faza ~3~.~:?a.~~~̂ < T.:I
~' Metr~pa~iYan ~rarrspartaEion Ac~th~irity Lt~s ~+r7~~1~~~, rA i3~a~~~-.a~~z rryretr~.net
I~Ietr+C~REVISED
PLANNING AND PRC}GRAMMING C+DMNIITTEE.d~PRli~ 18, 212
SUBJECT; METRO► GREEN LINE Tt) ~.AX
ACTON: APPRCIVE RENAMING PRC}JE~T
RECOMMENDATIOhI
A. Apprt~ve renaming the Metro Greer Line to LRX tc~ "Airpt~rt Metro connector"; and
B. ~c~ive and file the Metra Green Line to LAX Alternatives Ana{ysis (AA} Report..
Attachment A contains the Executive Summary. The full AA Report is available upon
request; ar at .m~tra~.~e#~ ree►~finet~~ The Build alternatives recarnmended for
advancement to the environrt~ental review process are based on the AA Report as
well as additional consultation with Los Angeles World Airports LAWA~
ISSUE
In NC~3rGh 2017 ,the Board approved a cantr~ct with the Joint Venture team,
Cannecti~AX, to complete the AA, Draft Environmental Impact St~tement/~ep~rt (Draft
EfS/EIR) anal Ge~nceptual Engineering (CE) for the Metro Green Line tt~ L~iX (Prc~jeet).
This report provides ~n update on the AA process, tour cc~ordinatic~n with other agencies
such ~s Lc,s Angeles World Airports (WAWA}, and the alt~rn~fiives being advanced to
the environmental review phase. In additir~n, we are recommending the Project name
be changed to "Airpr~rt Metre ~c~nnector" to clarify that it will evaluate a bread range of
sQlutians that provide a ct~nn~ctic~n between the Metro Fail system (including both the
Metre green Line and future Crenshaw/LA>C Line) and Los Angeles fnternation~l Airpart
(LAX).
DICUSSIN
This Measure R praj~c~ has 2OQ million (2008 $) in the constrained dement cif the
2009 Lang Rangy Tr~nsportaticrn ~'I~n (LRTP} with a revenue operation date of 2028,
America Fast ~"orward accelerates this date to 2018. The actual opening date is
contingent upon a funding contrib~atia€~ from ~.AWA andlc~r ether sources. The study
area is approxirr~ately flour square miles and is bounded by Manchester Avenue to the
n+arth, La Cienega to the ~~st, imperial Highway fic~ the soufih and the LAX terrnina~s to
the west (Attachment B).
Alternatives An~lYsis PhaseAs the initial phase in the project development process, the AA process invc~ives
identifying a wide range of alternatives that can reasonably achieve the Project's goal cif
connecting fihe growing Metro Rai# system t~ LAX. Exte~s~ve research Qf other airport
transit systems deterr~sned that a transit connection to LAX could take several forms:
• Direct Light Raii Transit {LRT} Branch: Extends iNetro Green Line to LAX
terminals. (Metro goes to Airpr~rt).
• Circulator: New transit system that serves LAX t~rminafs and extends to a new
station at the inters~cfiion of Av~ati~n and ~enfury Bou6ev~rds fc~r passenger
transfers taifrc~m the Metro Raii station planned as pert cif fhe Crenshaw/LAX
project. (Airport go~;s to fVletra).
• Intermediate LRT and Circulator: Metro (LRT} and Airport {Circulator) meet at
station located between Aviation B~ulsvard and LAX terminals (M~tro and Airport
meet in the middle).
• Modified i~RT Trunk: Shits main rail line {Trunk} toward LAX Terrt°►inafs —bothMetro Green and GrenshawlLAX lines serve LAX terminals. The Gren5hawlLAX
project would be constructed as originally designed and er~vironmer~tal~y cleared.
(Metro goes through the Airport}.
The AA phase used atwo-stage screening process. For Stage I, the feasibility cif the
various alignments and transit modes was ~valuatecf for each ofi the four connectir~n
types. In addition to LRT, Autc~rnated Peop(e Mover (APM}, and Bus Rapid Transit
(ART} modes rrvere also considered. ~t the ~or~clusian cif the Stage I screening, 27
alternatives were carried into the ;toga li evaluation.
The stage II screening focused an understanding how the alternatives compared to one
mother in terms of basic characteristics, performance and capita! costs. Factors such
as tl~e nurt~ber ref transfiers, number of level ch~n~es, travel time savings, ridership, walk
distance tca terminals and preliminary planning level capital cost estimates were
identified fflr each a#ternative. e thin structured the infarmatiar~ to evaluate certain
trade-offs among the connection types as well as individual alternatives and design
v~riat€ores.
Comrraunity OutreachAt the beginning of the AA process, w~ organized a Technical Advisory Committee
{TAC} that includes repr s~nt~tives from federal, state end ic~cal agencies. The
purpose of the TAC is to rbtain technical feedback, throughout the planning process, on
fhe alternatives under consider~fiion.
Our ~utrea~h tc~ the genera{ pubic end st~k~hc~l er groups has also begin robust. Five
Community Wr~rkshaps wire held during the AA phase. Mtge than 3fl0 stakeholders
atter~d~d the wc~rksht~ps end provided input an the different ways for connecting the
Metro Rai! system with LAX. 'vVe also held meetings with over 20 stak~ho(d~r groups,
including business groups, airline industry groups, Eoc~l government assaci~tions and
Metro Green Line to LAX Page 2
neighborhood groups. Other social media such as a Projecf web page, Project video,
Facebook page end Twitter feeds were also used tc~ distribute information and to
receive stakeholder snput. In general; stakeholders preferred alternatives car design
opt~c~ns that pravided fewer trensf~rs ~r~d more reliable travel times. Inside the LAX
terminal area, many stakeholders suggested tf~at the design options with fewer than
three stations include pedestrian enhancements, such ~s moving walkways, to make
the longer average walk distance tolfrarn terminals mare man~ge~ble far passengers
with ft~gg~ge.
Alternatives Advanced to Draft EI~fEIRBased an the technical analysis ~ntt stakeholder input, ~r-e-e flour alte~r~ativ sire
proposed to advance tc~ the draft environmental review phase (shaven in Attachment C):
• Direct LRT Branch -- extends the Metro Green line to LAX terminals with one
potential stafic~n Ic~catecf near W. 98~" StreeUAvion Drive and two to three statir~ns
in the SAX terminal area;• Circulator {APM) —new transit systert~ with twc~ to three stations in the LAX
terminal area, one potential statEan near W. ~8t" StreetlAvion Drive and one
station at Aviation and Century Boulevards fc~r transfer to Metrca Rail;
Modified LRT gunk (Through LAX) — provides direct service for both the Metro
Green and CrenshawtLAX lies with c~n~ pt~fier~tial st~tior~ near W. 6th
Street/Avion Drive {Lot C) and erne below grade station in the LAX terminal area
potentially Ic~cated just east cif the Theme Building; and
Circulator ~BRT~ — elevated busw~~r along ~8t~' Street between Aviation and
5epulveci~ Boulevards. West of Sequlveda Boulevard the BRT service would
tr~nsitic~n to mixed-f(ow operation along the existing loop raadwayr inside the LAX
terminal area with st4t~s at al! eight terminals.
The AA FZeport recommended the first three alternatives listed abQVe for advancement
to the Draft EIS/SIR ~ha~e. However, WAWA requested that the BR`f alternative be
included in the environmental process to be cc~nsi~t~nt with same alternatives being
considered in their Specific Pfau Amendment Study (SPAS). We will discuss with
LAWA a fiin~ncial contribution tc~ suppcsrt the casts associated with eva€uatinq and
designir~q this alt~rn~tive durine~ the envire~nmental reuiew process.
During the Draft EISIE(R phase, appropriate phased im lementatit~n c~ptians ma r also
be explored for the #wee four alternatives.
Metro Green Line to LAX Page 3
-~+~e-ts~ s~~ j+pct-~e-~~~~ay~--~~~ges~+a~
Century Boulevard alignment (for LRT, BRT and APM modes) — public inp~€t
suggested that there i~ a general preference for tha 98th Street alignment for both
the Direct I~RT Branch and Circulator {APM) alternatives. This option has tl~e
potential for visual impacts tc~ the existing Century Boulevard corridor landscape
as well as negatively affecting traffic circulation and vehicular access to local
businesses. Furtherrnare, for the Direct LRT Branch alternative, an additian~l
transfer with a Icing walk would be involved between the Metro Green and the
Cr~nshawl~AX Lines reducing the ~~tractiveness cif this alignment option. This
situation is caused by the need for a second station associated with the Metro
Green Line turning west onto Century Beat~levard before reaching the new
Crenshaw/LAX station planned at the northwest cr~rner of Aviation and Century
Boulevards,
~nvirr~nmental Review ProcessThe Draft EISlEIR will be prepared in comp{iance wit# both the National Environmental
Policy Act (IV~~'A} end California Environrr~enta! t~uality Aet (C~QA). Alst~ during this
phase, we will continue to refine Gr~nceptual designs and update capital and operating
cost estimates. Due to the Project's close proximity to LAIC, it is anticipated that both the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Aviation Adrrrinistratian {FAA) will be
Lead Agencies for the federaC environmental review process. They vrere both involved
during the AA phase. It i~ anticipated that FTA and FAA wiEl e~e~ute a Memorandum of
tJndersfianding {MC7U} that will outline roles and respflnsibiiities for each agency,
ex~lusiore t~f funding commitments. Dependent upc~rt further FTA ar~d FAA discussir~n,
we may be a party to tF~e MC9U. For CEQA, we wil! be the lead agency in cac~rdination
with other state anc~ loco! agencies.
Air~c~rt Pl~nr~inq forts!n late 20014, the Lc~s Angeles City Council approved the LAX Master Plan, a strategic
prcagram +~f projects intended to modernize the airport. Include! in the [ulster Plan and
relevant to our Study are twc~ AP1~1 systems. APM1 would connect the L~1X terminals to
the Metre Ore n L~n~ at ~n I~termc~dal Transportation Center (ITC} near Imperial
Highway. APM2 would connect the LAX terminals to a proposed Ground Transportatit~n
Center at the northeast corner of Aviation and Century Boulevards.
Fallowing approval of the LAX Master P{an, a number of lawsuits were fiiCed that resulted
in a legal settlement requiring LAWA tc~ canc~uct a sep~r~te Specific Play Amendment
Study (~!'AS} for ~ subset of LAX Master Plan projects, knt~wn as "Yellow Light"
prQject~, 9n 20tJ8, LAWA initiated the SPAS prc~c~ss to evaluate the "Yellow Light°,
projects as required in the settlement agreement that included runway, terminal and
ground access improvements. The APM2 project was designated as one of the "l~ell~w
Light" projects. As part of SPAS, LAVVA is considering alternatives to the APM2 system
that cr~~ld ceannect the airport to the Metro ail system at Aviatirsn and Century
Baul~vards. The goal raf LAWA's planning effiort is to update the LAX Specific Pian
through a Pragr~m-level EIR. Individual projecfis would be ~nvironrnentally cleared for
Metro Green Line tca LAX Paga
advancement to construction thre~ugh a subsequent Project-level E1R. The Draft EIR for
the SPAS is scheduled to be released in Summer 2012. It is anticspated thafi once the
final SPAS EIR is certified, WAWA will prepare an EIS for the SPAS andlor initiate the
project-level environmental cle~ranc~ prace~s for a prc~ject(s~ within the SPAS.
Concurrent with the SPAS update pr`e~c~ss, LAWA has pursued the development of
projects nc~f disputed as part of the settlement agreement ("Green Light" projects)
through project-level Elf~s. A project-level EIR for the APM1 system {one of the "Green
Light" projects) to the Metre Green Lire and the ITC has not yet been initiated. See
Attachment D for images of bath APM systems.
Car~rdination with LAWAWith parallel planning efforts underway and Project alternatives that involve the use o~
airport property, coordination witf~ ~l~Vl(A has been ar~cf will continue to be a top priority
during all phases of project development. The LAX Mister Flan (incleading SPAS} and
this Project are considered complementary planning efforts that could potentially
expedite the identification and ~e~~luation of an "fiirport Metrn Connector" beneficial to
both airport users and users of the regianal transp~r~ation system. Although the Metro
Green Line to SAX and airport planning efforts are prc~~eeding in parallel, these
separate, but coordina#ed planning efforts are not dependent on ane another. Metro ar€d
LAWA can continue to coordinate during the envirc~nmer~t~[ clearance process, arrd
beyond, regardless of the alterna~s`ves evaluated rar advanced as part of each respective
planning process. Depending hc~wev~r, upr~n the ~Iternative ultimately selected, c ur
environmental pracess and envirr~nrx7ental reviews that follow the LAX Master Plan
{including SPAS} may either continue can separate paths car be combined into a jcaint
environmental clearance process. A timeline for both pManning efforts is provided in
Attachment E.
Fundin±~The Measure R dollars currently available partially fund the alternatives under
consi~~ra#ian. for the alker~ativ~s advanced tQ the Draft EIS/EIR phase, preliminary
capifial cast estimates range between $54~ million to X1.2 biftion {2010 do9lars), liven
the significant funding shrartfall asscaciatec€ with the alternatives, ether sources of funding
will need to be identified during the Draft EISl~IF~ phase in order for any potential
aEt~rnative to advance beyr~nd the draft environmental clearance phase and be selected
as the Lc~caily Preferred Alternative (LPA}. Although LAWA is considered the principal
funding partner for this Project, ether non-traditianal federal, state and :private funding
sources, such as Federal FAA and Public Priv~t~ Partnerships, wsll also be explored
dur~n~ the }raft EISIEiR phase.
DETERMII+~ATIAN OF SAFETY IMPACT
T~er~ is no impact on safety related to renaming the project. As the planning study
mc~v s ~ntc~ the nviranmental review phase, al4 alter~ativ~es will be evaluated far their
impacts tc~ safety and will be designed to comply with safety requirements contained
Mefra Green Line to LA3C Page 5
within our design guidelines, LAWA and AAA design guidelines, policies and relevant
regulations.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY 12 budget contains $4.6 million to carnplete the AA and initiate the DraftE!S/SIR, including community outreach. Funding is in~~uded in cast center 4330 (South
Bay Area Team), ~rojec~ 460303 (Metro Green Line to LAX Prc~ject~. Since this is amulfi-year project, the Cyst Center Manager and Executive Directa~ of Ca~antywidePlanning will be responsible for budgeting casts in future years.
Impact to BudgetThe source t~f funds is Measure R Transit Capit~i 35°!o Funds. No ether sources of
funds were considered because the Measure R do(I~rs are designated fay the MetaGreen Line to LAX project. These funds are not available for use on bus and railt~perat~ng and capital projects.
• ~
The Board has several options it could consider with regard t4 renaming the project
~nc(ud~r~g retaining Meta C~r~en Ling tp LA)C ar names otf~~r than Airport MetaConnector. These options are not recommended as the current name is not inclusive t~f
the various ~Iternatives being considered to connect the .airport to tie regional transit
system. Airport NEetra Cc~nnectc~r is rnc~r~ descriptive of the Project's goal,
Upon Bard approval cif the name change, we will incorpr~rate it into all project
materiels. Also, we will coordinate with FTA and FAA to initiate the federaCenvironmental clearance process, A~ the study progresses, we will provide periodic
updates to the Baird.
■ i . ~ ''.'
~. Metro Green dine to LAX Aiternatiues Analysis Report — Executive Surrrm~ry
B. Project Study Area (vlap~. AI#erna#fives Advanced to Draft EIS/EIR - REVISED
D. LAX 1~9aster Plan — ground Transportatiflr~ Pr+ajects~. Parallel Planning Efforts —Key Milestone Timeline
Prepared by: Cory Zelrr~er, Tr~nspt~rtation P4anning Manager
Brc~nwen Trice, Senior Camrnunity Relations C3fficer
Raderick Diaz, ~irectt~rRene Berlin, Executive C}f~~er
(~rtetro Green Line to LAIC ~~qes
!l~~~~~i~~~~7~~1/~Martha Welborne, FAIAExecutive Director, Countywide Planning
ri.
Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer
Metro Green Line to LAX Page 7
Metro Greers Line tc~ LAXPhase t —AAf DEIS(QEiR Alterr~atives Analysis - Executive Surr~ma
Metro Green Li n~ to LAX
,, ,
Alternatives Analysis ReportE ~utiv~ Summary
n ~ssaciation with:
Hatch Mott 11MacDonaldLea+ EI {iott
Fehr ~ PeersLeigh#on
Terror A. Hayes Associates lnc.
Epic Land Solutions
Ted TanakaVCA Er~gine~rs, Inc.
D'E.eon Cansulting EngineersC+~ast SurveyingCityworks Design
~~~e
M~~t't?
Metro Green Line to iAXPhase I -- AAf DAIS/HEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
~ r • • ~ `.. y r •
AA ...................Alterna#fives AnalysisAPM ...............Automated People Mover
BRT .................Bus Rapid TransitCEQA ..............Califarnia Environmental Quality Act
~TA .................~entral Terminal AreaEIR ..................Envirr~nmenta( Impaet ReparG
EIS ..................En~irc~r~mental Impact Statement
FA~......,._._......Federai Aviation Adrrainistration
~~°A .................Federal Transit Administration
LAWA .............Los Angeles l~/orld Airports
LAX........,_.......Los ,Angeles international Airpr~rt
LRT .................Light Rai(Tran~it~R`~P ...............Long Range Transportation Plan
MAP ...............Million Annua( Passengers
Metro .............Los Angeles County Metropo€itan Transportation Authority
m~h ................Miles per HourNEPA ..............National Environments[ Policy Act
PRT .................Persor~al Rapid TransitRC~W ...............I2ight-of-Way
SCAG.......~......Southern California Association QfGavernrnents
SEIR ................Supplements! Envirc~nrr,ental Impact Report
TSM ................Transp~rtatic~rt Systems Management
Page i i
Metro
Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA/DErS/DEIR A9ternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
• ~aa6 Air Passenger Survey final Report. dos Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles, CA,
December 20t~6
zaog L.on~ Flange Transpc~rtatioia Phan, Lfls Angeles County Transportation Authority, Lc~s
Angeles, CA, Zfl49.
+ Airports Council International, Airparts Council International. Airports ~ounei(
International, Montreal, Canada, C~ctc~ber 2011.
• Crenshaw/LAX Corridar Project Overview Fact Sheet. Metro V~/ebsite. dos ~,ngeles ~c~unty
Transportation Authority, ~c~s Angeles, CA, July 2011.
Expo~itios~ Transit Corridor Phase i Project Overy+ew Fact Sheet, ~vletrQ Website. Los
Angeles County Transpar~ation Authority, Las Angeles, CA, January 2411.
• Exposition Transit C~rridar Phase 2. Metro tNe~rsite. Los Angeles County Transportation
Authority, Los Angeles, CA, January 2tJi 1.
• Federal TransportatEOn Improvement Program, southern California Association of
Governrr~ents. Lc~s Angeles, CA, ZC311.
LAX Bradley West Praje~t Draft Environmental lmp~ct Report. Los Angeles World
Airports, Los Angeles, CA, Nlay 2049.
• Metro Corridcars Base Model with SAX Enhancement Versdon 6.0. Conr~ectLAX, Los
Angeles, CA, 20QS, 2011, 2012.
• Metro Mcsde Chnice Model. Los Angeles Caun~y Transportation Authority, Los Angeles,
CA, 2010.
• Regional Tr~nsportatic~n Improvement Pr~sgrar~. 5authern Cadifarnia Association of
Governments. Los Angles, CA, 2x08 — 2(ll l .
• South Bay Metro Green Line Extension Overview Fact Sheet. Metre Website. Los Angeles
County Transportation Authority, Lc~s Angeles, ~A, Fet~ruary 2011.
Fage ii
~1IIE:tCQ
Metro Green Llne to LAXPhase I — AA/DEkSJDE1R
4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
The Los Angeles bounty Metropt~litan Transportation Authority (Metro) has initiated an
Alternatives Analysis AAA) /Draft Es~vironmenta( Crr~pact Statement J Draft Environmental
Impact Repart (Draft EIS/EBR~ for the Metro Green Line tc~ Los Angeles Internatit~nal Airport
(LAX) project. The Draft E15/E(R is being prepared to comply with the National
Enviranmenta( Poficy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (~EQA). The
focus cif this study is to plan, design and envirc~nrnentalfy assess a fixed guideway transit
connection b~twieen Metrt~'s regional rail system and LAX. Partial funding for a fixed
guideway connection to LAX is provided through Measure R, which includes X200 million
(2Q08 dollars) far a M~trc~ Green Lire to LAX project.
This study will exarrrine potential connections between the ivletro Rail system and LAX. The
Project Study Area is bounded by Manchester Avenue ~o the north, La Cienega Boulevard to
the east, Imperiaf Highway to the scauth and the LAX air cargo area tc~ the west, and includes
pe~rtions of the Cities of Los Angeles and Inglewood. An overview ofthe Project Study Area is
shown in Figure {}.1.
An AA is the first step of a process that is required to complete the planning, environmental
assessment, design ant! cc~nstruct7on cif alarge-scale transit project. The foil AA Report
E~egans with the Purpose acrd Need, sumw~nariz~d in Section 0.2. The Purpose and feed
analyzes the travel markets and existing transportation conditions within the Project Study
Area and details a range of project objectives designed t~ address specific mcability problems.
Sectie+n fl.3 summarizes the Pre#imin~ry Definition c~fAl~ernatives, which characterizes the
transit alternatives that could potential€y cor-~ns~t the Metro Rail system to the abrport. The
two-stage screening process discussed in Section 0.4, examines all modal, route and station
combinations to determine feasibility and corr°~pare performance between alternatives. The
purpose eaf the screening process is to narrc~vr dawn the number Qf alternatives that are
ultimately advanced to the draft environmental review process, the next step in project
deve(c~pmen~.
Page 1
Metre
Metro Green Line to LAXPrase i — AA{OE6S/DEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
Figure 0.1. Project Study Area — Overview__
a~, q
~9 z
~IkFhV.^.N~T~fi AYFa .. m. a a, ez ~ as «,.~̂ ~ .e ~ m « ., w. ,..» .. » Po :~ w .. r . ° g" k~:~ .~ ., m .. u w m m ~ ~u m » ,~ ~ ae ra a °' •a •> ~" p4Ak„~iES ~Y.~ t
0~, .LOS ~N~ELE
INGl.EWOOD
e F.NEzCfl rYE ~.+.: d
A Q
....ffi
%'PW 9T — 4
S g
~ ~ ~u q'. ,, .h~~ LcllS~J.'~.Y SIY':9 ~e
~..r?d":fit W~* ~a
tlb
O.. } Y
1~ ~
_t ~i (w(lAi+.
Metro Prn:e L.ne fo L.AX SYady 3acaa `. °1~f~F
23~XfSEfily ~ _ .~
PlanneetMelra ~r€~nshawrLAX hansiE arntkir' - ~
J~fl9r'1 ~ i,
~.. »~= %~Fefecs Green k.~ce Planned h esaNnrst ~~; ~y J e
,Q Meira Green & CrensharriLA7f line ~ •, "„ • "'" ,~tF~Ui bW~~° _ " "` •. ~ - « . » ~ ~ ~ . M « .. « ». ra ~, .... + »~
and Stztian ~S?~aracl~ ~` .Iii ~ ~IR~I
?~€a~n¢ensnce Facf~rty eFtarmed) j ~ S?;aUI1CM7 c
V II t iS ti 25 f15 - Q~i
~---~~~+~iitey ~ A3R: }~ti'NTkAR~v
SOtirCB: COnnectLA~{, 2011
LAX is iacated in sQUthwest ~.os Angeles County. It vas tine sixth ~r~siest airport irs the u+or(d,
accommodating 59 rrsillion annual passengers {MAP} in ZC110 (Airports ~o~ncil International,
2411; Lc~s Angeles World Airpt~rts (LAWA~, 2CJ11). fJn the national I~vel, LAX is the third
busiest airport in the U.S. By 202t~, 78.9 MAR are pr€~jected to pass through ~,X (LAWA,
2011 ~. Acc~rdin~ to the 2C}06 LAX Air Passenger Survey, cane percent of air passengers ride
transit to LAX (bus and/or rail). About mine percent of airport employees travel to LAX via
pubic transit (bus, rail, and the LAWA-run FIy~4way shuttle} (Metro, 2t}09; Conne~tLAX, 2Q1~}.
The Purpose and Need c{e~nes the transportation and mobility problems in the Project Study
Area and identifies project objectives that address these deficiencies. Four project objectives
that address these deficiencies are described in this section,
Fage 2
11I1+etP0
Metro green Line to LAXPhase 1 — AA/L~EISIDElR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
0.2.1. Objective #1: Provide a reliable, fast, and convenient connection for passengers
traveling between the LAX area and the regional transit system
The transportation facilities serving air passengers and airport employees destined to and
from LAX is characterized by localized traffic cangestic~n, ~sr~predictabie trip times, and
inconvenient transit connections requiring mu(tipie transfers. Given the time-critical nature
of air travel and the volume of employees traveling to and from LAX at vario€as times
throughout the day, there is a need for system ~mprQVements that can provide reliable, Fast
and convenient travel tc~ LAX.
Twc~ majr~r freeways serve the Project Study Area and its immediate vicinity: 7-4075, running
slightly east of the eastern be~rder r~~the Project Study Area, and I-1 flS, running alr~ng the
southern border cif the Prr~ject Stud y Area. The Project Study Area experiences a substantial
am~t~nt cif traffic attributable bath to trips to LAX, as well as traffic passing through the area
that is not attributable to airport trips. congestion can the I-4d5 freeway, and to a lesser extent
the I-~05 freeway, adds subst~ntia} delay and unpredictability tQ travel t€mes to/from LAX.
Due to ample roadway capacity, arterials operate we11 within and adjacent try the Project 5tuc#y
Area, with the exceptican of some localized hc~tspets ofcongestian can arteria €s appraacl~ing
the Centro! Terminal Area (CTA). The CTA itself experiences significant congestion during
peak Might arrival and departure periods°
~"ransit service in the Project Study Ares is provided by ~vletro and seven municipal bus
operators. WitF~ the exception of the FEyAway, all other transit ~~anneetions to LAX currently
require at least one transfer to a LAWA-run shuttle at the LAX City Bus tenter or the
Aviation f LAX ~tatEan tc~ access the CTA. This is because public transit buss da not operate
in the CTA. CJf the transit lines in the vicinity cif the CTA, the Metro Green Line has the
highest ridership due ~o its reliable, high-speed service along a dedicated right-of way. In
general, the competitiveness of existing transit is strongly aifect~d by unpredictable travel
times can 4ines serving the LAX area.
Sec~i~n 2.3.7 of the AA report compares ~r+p performance by transit and private vehicle for six
origins in Southern California, a1I terminating at the CTA. C~ver~ll, trove! by private vehicle to
and from LAX is faster than transit, but more costly. 1n most cases, transit trips require one
to twc~ transfers, which add to travel time and impair customer convenience.
x.2.2. t7bje~tive #2: Integrate with exis#ing and fu#ure transit c~onnection~ and airport
facilities.
The Project Study Area is positioned at the nexus of several existing gar planned Metro Rail
lines. The fc~lle~wircg existing and future lanes wiEl greatly "smprc~ve the overall interconnectivity
r~fthe r~gi~nal tr~r~sportatian network and better serve airport-bound passengers:
~ Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor: The Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor pry}ect ss a planned
8.5 mile light rail line that will extend from the Exposition (Expo) Line at the intersection of
Exposition and Crenshaw Boulevards to the Metr~a Green Line via the Harbor Subd€vision
and terminate in Redonda Beach. As the alignment heads south from the Expo Line
ccannectinn, it wi(f connect to the Metro Green Line and provide a Metro Rail station
nearer to the airport at the intersection ofAviatic~n and Century Bou{evards.
Page 3
MetrC~
Metro Green Line to LAXPhase ! -- AA/QEIS/DEI R Alternatives Analysis — Executive Surr~mary
• Metro Green Line and South Bay Extensian: The fVletro Rail system includes the Metor
Green Line, which currently operates between ~Jorwalk and forth Redondo Beach. The
Metro Green Line includes a station that is located approximately 2.5 mites from the LAX.
Metra +s currently conducting tie envir~nrnental review fc~r the South Bay Metro Green
Line Extension project, which will extend the Nletrr~ green Line from the existing Marine
Station south into the Sauth Bay. The Crenshaw f LAX Transit Corridor would be the major
transit service along the South Spy extension.
+ Expos►tion transit Corridor Phase 1: Phase 1 of the Expo Transit Corridor project rs an 8.6mile extensit~r~ t~Ethe Metra Rail systern frcarr~ the 7th Street/Metre tenter Statian in
downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. This line is scheduled tcs open in 2012.
Expasition Transit Corridor Phase 2: Phase 2 of the Expca Transit ~arridc~r project will
extend C.6 mAles westward from the Culver City Station (Phase i) tc, Santa Monica.
t?.2~3. ab~ective #3: Satisfy the surface transpt~rtatic~n and travel demands ~f the high
volume of passengers connecting to LAX.
Passengers and employees who travel to and frc~rr~ the area daily constitute a large share of
the travel demand in the Presject Study Area. ~orthe purpe~ses of this analysis, trove! tc~ the
Project Study Area is divided into three markets, which are summarized in Table 0.1.
Table {7.1, Travel Markets to Prvje~t Study Area, ?014
Number of Dai[yTotal Daily Trips
Market Subarkets ~.r&~s to Project StudyArea
Air passengers, ~ 52,385
1. Regional travel to/frc~rn CTAresident and visitor
Employees 33,218
2. Eton-regional gave[ tcaJfram CTA and Air passengers, ~~1,191
~~~'~~~ E
the Airport C}istrict resident and visitor
3. Regional travel to/~rorr~ Airport ~_^ ~mplcayecs 2Q,$15Ctistrict ~
Source: (Metro, 21709; C~snnectLAX, 3Q12).
There are a tcatal cif 1 Q7,609 daily trips tQ the Prc~j~et Study Area {Metre, 2039; ConnectLAX,
2012). Eighty percent ofthe tr~tal daily trips is regional travel toJfrom the C3A. This marl~et
constitutes the majority caf trips and is considered the primary travel market. ~ieeause cif the
large trap volumes and their convergence at the CTA, this market wcauld be best served by a
high-uolume dedicated fixed guideway link that connects Metro RaiE to the airport.
The remainder cif trips is comprised Q{ two markets: regional travel to/from the Airport
Qistrict (19 percent) artd non-regional travel from the CTA tQ the Airport E7istrict (cane
percentj. Regional travel to/from the Airport district is characterized by work trips tts +~ff-
airport businesses dispersed throughout the Airport District. Nan-regic~nai travel from the
CTA to the airport is characterized by frequent, short-distance crave! tc~Jfrorr~ the CTA try
Ic~catians thr~ughaut the Airps~rt District. These markets are considered tc~ be secondary.
With the exception of the dense Century Boulevard corridor, these markets ire best served by
Page 4
~ ~
Metro Green Line t~ LAXPhase I — AA/f~EIS(DEIR Alternatives Analysi$ — Executive Summary
a small scale, network based shuttle system because of the dispersed r~ature of off-airpcsr±
destinations.
4.2.4. Objective 4: kncrease tie share oftransit trips to and from LAX and reduce sirpolluti+~n with minim~i impact on airport facilities and surrounding communities.
Despite unpredictable travel times to LAX due to traffic congestion end other factors, the
majority ofair passengers, airpork employees, and Airport Qistrict employees travel tc~ the
Project Study Area by private vehicle. This is because the other mode options are nflr~-
cornpetitive with the automobile, especialEy fc~r air passengers. The overwhelmingly higFt
share cif auto trips results in traffic cc~ngestian, affecting the duality t~f life for surr€~unding
residential communities in terms afair quality, ncsise, and pedestrian safety. The made
shares of the primary and secan~{arytravei markets are summarized below.
According try the 24 6 LAX Air P~ss~nger Survey, the primary rr~ode aftravei far both resident
and visitor air passengers is prsvate vehie{e. Seventy-one percent of residents and 35 percent
of visitors access LA)C via private ~uto~raobile. The secondary mode cif travel fQr residents is
on-caP( shuttles/vans {e.g., SuperShuttle) and taxis, which aecs~unt for eight percent ofall
resident air traveler trips to LAIC. Public transit to the airpt~rt currently accounts for one
percent of air passenger trips tc~ I~X (LAWA, 20t~6}.
The rr~ajority of airport employes drive afane to work in private vehkles X73 percent}. The
second most-commonly used mode c~ftransportation to work sites is carpooling (15 percent),
folic~wed by transit (9 percent). Local buses end the Metrr~ green Line capture 13 percent and
nine percent ofairpart employees urho ride transit, respectively. Ofthe airport employees
wh9 rode transit, nine percent ride local buses and 13 percent ride the ~tEetro Green Line.
Lilo airpt~rt employees, the major'sty of Airport District empl~ayees drive atone to work in
private vehicles (73 p~rcentj. Although the market for non-regional trove€ to/from the Airport
Distrect represents a smaller proportion oftatal trips to the Project 5tueiy Area, these trips
contribute much ofthe traffic in the CTA. Private vehicles represent approximately half ofafl
vehicles in the CTA, with taxicabs and various shutt{es acccaunting fQr rraast of the rather
vehicles (WAWA, 20{19).
0.~. PRELI~[I~ARY G~EFINITICjIt! C?~ ALTERNATlV~S
The purpose of the Preliminary C~efinitian of Alternatives section is tc~ introduce the
alternatives, ineluc6ing rracades ~r~cl off grad on-airport routes that will be carried forward into
alternatives screening as part oFth~ Metrra Green Lane to SAX Project. The alternatives being
considered would provide transit service between the CTA and the existing and planned Metre
Rail systerrr. Alternatives for this project consider existing ar~d future cc~nditir~ns in and
around the airport, and are inforrr~ed by transit connections +n t~peratian at other major
ai wports.
Page 5
@~t"O
Mero Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA,/CJEIS/C1EIR
0.3.1. E~relirriinary Alternatives
4.3.~f.1. I'~c~ build Alternative
Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summa
The Flo Build Alternative represents the Project Study Area in the year 2{}35, if the 1Vietro
Green fine to LAX project is not built, and includes funded transportation improvements
specified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 20118 Regianal
Transportation Plan and the financially-cc~nstr~a~ned element cif Metre's 20C~~ Lang Rang
Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Exiting and funded major transportation facilities included ire the No Build Alternative are:
• Freeways (Current] — ~nterstates 405 ar~d 105
• Faxed Guideway (Current] —Metro Green Line {Light Rail Transit {LRT})
• Fixed-Guideway Projects {Future Near-Term] —Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridcsr
(LRT)
Fixed-Guideway Projects {Future Long-Term) —South Bay Metro Gr~~n L€ne Extension
(LRT~
In addition, the Project Study Area is served by a bus network operated by C`rAetrc~ and a uariety
of municipal operators including Beach Cities Transit, Culver CityBus, Torraroce Transit and
Santa Monica Brg Blue Bus. Several routes serve the LAX City Bus Center, located on 96tH
Street between Vicksburg Avenue and Avion drive.
The Project Study Area i~ alst~ served by LAWA FlyAway buses and airport shutt9es. The
FlyAway is an airport express bus service that operates between LAX and Van Nuys, Los
Angeles Union Station, Westw~c~d and Irvine. Tire airport also operates five Shutt€e lines that
transport airport passengers and employees between the CTA and various off-site facilities. It
is assumed thafi Shuttle G, which eurrentfy operates between the Metre Green Line
Aviation/LAX statiarr and CTA, wil! be shortened to serve the CrenshawJLAX Station at
Aviation and Century ~ouievar-ds, once that project is op~rat~t~nal in 2C9~ 8. The other airport
shuttle services described above are assumed to remain unchanged in the year 2C}35.
0.3x2. Transportation aysterns Management Aiternattve
Thy Transpr~rtation Systems Management (TS NI} A(terraative consists of operatior~a!
improvements to current transit facilities and services that pr9duce the greatest benefits from
existing infrastructure, v~ith minimal eapita! expend'€tune. These include transportation system
upgrades such as in#ersection imprc~vement~, minor roadway widenings, bus route
restructuring, more frequent bus senricex expander# use caf high-capacity buses, and traffic
sign~lizatic,n improvements.
1"he TSM Alternative would be an enhancement of the proposed LAX G shuttle between the
CTA and the Aviaticsrs fC~ntury Metrca Crenshaw jIAX Transit Corridor Station, The headway of
the shuttle would be increased frorr~ the current 32 to 15-minutes to five-minutes during the
peak perEt~d. A~t~iti~analiy, tl~e LAX City Bus Center, which is currently (t~cated ot~ 96`~ Street
Page 6
M~~t'4
Meted Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA(L~EISJDEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Surr~ma
between Vicksburg Avenue and Avian Drive, would be relocated to a site directly adjacent to
the planned pviation~Century Station. The r~focation o~the bus center wou6d allow ft~r
improved connectivity between local bus service, regional rail service and the CTA. The TSM
Alternatiue would attempt to resemble passeroger service provided by the Bu+ld Alternative(s),
but at a lower cyst.
0.33. Build Alternatives — Genera( Connectic,n Types
Buifd Alternatives are considered in four eategc~ries based upon the general type bf
connection they offer.
Alternatives that are in the Direct LRT Branch class would ~ "
extend the N1e#ra light rail system (Metro Green Line and/or
Metro Crensha~r~LAX Transit Cr~rridor~ into the CTA. (t v~rauld
provide some Metro passengers with a direct connection to theCTA without requiring a #ransfer, As seen in ether major airports throughout the country with
a direst rail cc~nrr~ction, such as Portland International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma lnternationai
Airport, end San Frar~ciscc~ (ntern~ticanal Airport, this alternative may operate with a sdngle
station inside the ETA, or with multPpfe stations serving multiple terminals. Passengers
would walk varying distances to reach their final terming! destination. To shorten walking
distances, pedestrian bridges and moving sidewalks may be utilizes! where appropriate. Two,
three-, four-, fv~-, and eight-station loop cc~nfiguratiar~~ are aEso being considered, which
would reduce walking distances, but may cause greater impacts to the CTA's existing
infrastructure.
Sind the C?ire~t LRT Branch Alternative is an extension of the existing ~lietra light rail system,
the mode caption is limited to LRT (tF~~ Automated People Mover (APM} and Bus Rapid
Transit (BRTj modes wrau{d require a transfer}. Modes are discussed further in the fallowing
section.
a.~.~.~. c~~t~,i~~~r
Alternatives in tF~~ Circulator class wc~ufd ~csnsist ofa rt wsystem cr~nnecting the CTA to the approved A~riation/ Century
Station, as part of the Metro Crenshaw/LAK Transit Corridor
project. As seen in rather rt~ajar airpar~s t~ra~ag}~out thecountry with a circulator tcannectifln, such as JFK International Airport and Phe~enix Sky
Harbor lnternatir~na( Airport, this system would operate separately from the existing Metre
Rail system anc~ +,vould require passengers to transfer at Aviation/Century. Gener-alfy, these
systems serve two primary functions 1 }circulate passengers and employees t~ multiply
terminals, 2) ccannect to off~irp~rt ~acrlities such as rental cars, long-term parking, employee
parking and regional rai! stations. This system would operate inside the CTA and would have
stations located in close proximity t~ terminals.
Page 7
~~~~~
Metro Green Line tc~ SAX
Phase i — AA~[7EfS~aE(R ,4iternatives Analysis — Executive Surnr~~ary
A circulator system could be rail (APM} or bus {BRT) because it would not need to be
interc~per~ble witF~ the existing Metro Rail system. Trains operating on the Crenshaw/LAX and
Metro Green Lines would not operate can this system. This +,vould ailc~w the system to operate
at more frequent headways durEng pear airport travek times, which da not cc~rrespor~d with
pea~C Metro Raiff travel times. The differgr~g peaks at L~tX are due to the varial~~e nature of
flight scheduling.
These circulator systems, which operate at many af`the largest airports in the country, are
typically airport-funded and airport-owr~~d.
0.3.3.3. Intermediate LRT and Circulator
Alternatives that are in the Intermediate LRT and CircuEator
class combine elements from the Direct LRT branch and
Circulator Alternatives. As seen in other major airportsthroughr~ut the eourrtry with this type cif systerr°~, such asMiami Intern~tiona[ Airpork, the Metro Rail system would branch r~fftc~ an intermediate aff-
airport station closer and be rntare canveni~nt to airpti~t operations than the Aviation~'Century
Station. A circulator system {APM or BRT) would provide service between t€~e intermediate
st~tifln and the airport.
t}.3.3.4. Modified LRT ~'runk
Altern2tives in the Modified LRT Trunk clays wraufd car~sist t~f
an alignment west of the approved Metres Crenshaw/LAX dine.The Crenshaw/LAX line would e built ~s environment°liy
cleared and designed. The alignment would have a single
statiara ire the airpr~rt. As seen in other major airports
thr~ught~ut the country with this type cif system, such as ~
Minneapolis St Paul International Airport, this alternative
w€~uld provide a(I Metro Green and Crenshaw~LAX passengers with more convenient access
tc~ the airport. This crptic~n may be accompanied by a cireulatbr system to facilitate access to
the airport terminal destination from the single station.
Since the ~ladified LRT Trunk Alternative is an extension afthe existing Metrr~ light rail
system, the only feasible mods is LRT. The operational characteristics would be ca~sistent
with ~hcase of the existing Metre Rail system.
These modes are considered as all r~r part of the alternative.
0.3.4.1. Bus Rapid Transit (8RT}
BRT inccsrparates specialized buses operating can a dedECated right-crf=way {ROW} with
en€~anced stations to provide a higher level of service than is typical c~fstandard bus trans+t
Nage 8
t~"Q
Metro Green Grne to LAXPhase I -- AA(DEIS/DEER
serv~ee, but at a much lower capital investmentthan a rail service. An example cif BRT in LosAngeles County is the Metro Urange Line. Someelevated sections of b~sway may be cor~sider~dpart c~fthis mode.
Alternatives Analysis - Executive Summary
~s
BRT typically serves local trips and offers highee _:.~
frequency, faster speeds and better reliability ~+~~~ !~ ~,,.. _,' •"`compared tc, traditic~n~l bus lines. Improvedservice and crperatir~nal effigy°ser~cy gars beattributed to several BRT features. BRT typ;caliy ". ~ ~~°operates at higher frequencies and with greater speeds and improved reliability cif service,
which are facilitated by exclusive guideway facilities. BRT may afsn include preferentaa!
treatment of buses ~t signalized icntersections, including the extension of green time or
aeCuativr~ of khe green light upon detection of an appraaching bus. Low-east infrastructure
like b~€s turnouts, boarding islands and curb realignments further enhance the BRT service.
The BRT mode's configuration can vary thraughout the Project Study Area taking into account
existing physics! eorrstr~ints.
BRT would be considered for the CireuEator, Intermediate LRT and Circ~aiator, and some cif the
Modified C.R~ Trunk Alternatives.
0.3.4.2. Light Rail Transit ~LRT)
LRT eansists of an electric railway with passenger rail ears that operate ~t moderate speeds
anc3 have apassenger-carrying capacity greater than buses. LRT has the ability to utilize
infrastructure associated with ather rail lines already in operation in the corridor sueh as the
Metre Green and Crenshaw/LAS Lines. Exarroples rsf LRT lines 'sn ~c~s Angeles include the
existing ~1/letro Blue, Green and Gold Lines and the ~~( ,,
Expo Line, which is scheduled to begin operationi n 2012,
~'Frequency 4f service is genera €!y high (1{?-m€nutsheadways or less during peak travel periods) and> ;~if operating can a dedicated RfltX~', ft offers greeter
speeds and reliability khan buses Even with ~ ~~~ ~ ~ !
sht~rter distances between stations, LRT pan r~~ch *~
speeds ~fup to 65 miles per hour (mph) partly `~~
because electric motors can accelerate marequickly than internal combus[ion engsnes.However, speedy often decrease with frequent stations, crossings and in-street segments.
Electric car's also emit rya local pollutants and generate fees noise than internal ccsmbustic~n
vehieles.
LRT would be considered for three of the four Build Alternatives {C7ireet, intermediate LRT and
Circulator and Modified LRT Trun6c}.
Page 9
MetfO
Metro Green Line to LAX
Phase I — AA(DEIS~DEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary
4,3.4.3. Automated People Mover
APM systems caperate with autorr~ated (driverless) wehides that are capable of operating at
speeds of 30 try 5Q mph depending can the technalagy and alignment. The vehicles pravide ~
high level of reliability, passenger comfort and safety. ARN1 systems can be divided into twa
primary groups:
• Cable-Propelled — mediur~n /large opacity vehicles that are driven by a high sped cable
with a variety of possible suspension systems.
• 5elf-Propelled —large capacity vek~ie(es with a variety of pcsssibEe suspension systerr~s,
(includes monorail). Self propelled APM aehicles are typically powered by way of an
electrified third rail.
Both eabie and se{f propelled vehicles carp be
supported in several ways, including rubber
tires, steel wheels, air levitation, or magnetic
levitation. Steering and guidance use center
guide beams, running rails, guidance surfaces
~r rails that are integrated into guideway
sidewalls or the center c~fthe running surface.
APM systems are capably of muitipie vehicle
train consists up to four vehicles der train.
APM vehicles have mostly standing area with
limited seating around the perimeter c~ftl~e
vehieie. APM vehicle passenger capacity is
estimated to be roughly 4~ passengers per
APM vehicle.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT} is ~ form c~fAPM and could be consic{ered wherever APM is
considered depending upc,n rapacity requirements caf the market to be served.
APM systems can b~ considered fr~r circulator elerner~ts as park ref the Circulator, Intermec{iate
~.R~ and Circulator°, and Modified LRT Trunk with Circulatflr alteratives,
Page TO
Me#ro
~etrc~ Green Ling t~s LAXPhase I AA/C?EISjQ'EIR Alternatives AnaEysis ExeGUtive Summary
{ "• r `•
~"he rr~ut~s b~it~g consitfered ft~r the ~~ild Alternatives are split inta twc~ general areas: aff-
airport (east cif Sep~alve~ia Boulevard) and on-air c~r~ (vest cif Sepulveda Be~ulevard). A
summary ~f the possible align Brats are lister! b~lcs~,r and spawn ire Figure tJ.2 and Figure 0.3.
A complete dis~ussic~n rsfthe possibly routes can 6~ found in the A~kternatives Analysis Repc~r~,
~, • ~ .. ,.
• Century Bcau~evard r 96th Street
1994 St~p~ferr~er~tai EIR (SEIR~ 96Y~, Street 6~~rth
• 98`x' Street • Airport E3c~~al~v~rd
s ~8`r' Street l~fc~r-th • Through !AX (c~f~air ac~rt afi~nment}
Figure 0.2. t7ff-Air e~rt csut~n options — t)verview
Source: Can~ec~tt_A~C, 2012
Rage 11
r
Metro Green Line to LAX
Phase I - AA/DEISipEIR
On-Airp+~rt
• Loop Alignments (3 to 8 stations)
Long Loop
Short Loop
T 9(T
Alternatives Analysis - Ex~c~Cive Summery
• Center Way Alignrnen~t (1 ~to 2
statiar7s)
• Through LAS Alignment (1 Station}
figure 0.3. tanfAirporC Routing Qptions -Overview
>Ft
T2 ~.
7~§ u~i
R̂ d1)h"L4 YJFti`~
ara r vEtv1ERY~A~> sr~ ~ ,
WORD WAY ~~
,~ x ~ ~~'i: a
C?w
78 aT7
T4 E~
7TH
Piannad.
~~"r
Source; Conn~LtLAX, 2(}12
{~.4. SC~2EENIhlG QF ALTERIVATiVES
T ae screening prc~eess is divided into two stages. Stage I ~v~9uates the feasibility of modes
and alignment options fir each ofthe Build AEternatives. Opticans that would result in
si nsfic~nt issues {fatal flaw} will not advanee tea the Stage 19 screening; evaluation. As shown
in Figure 0.4, Build Alter~ratives are made up c~ftwo components: modal and alignment
options. {off-airprrt and can-airp~art). These two compr~nents are the focus of the Stage
screening that will support the development of the package) alternatives to be carried farward
into Stage il.
0.4.1. Stagy I screening
The evaltaation criteria for 5~ag~ I screening included:
• Physical fit and car~structability Average Travel Time
+ Conflicts with Runway Protectican Zane • host
Page 12
`J
Metra Green Line to LAXPhase k— AA/DEIS/QE~R Alternatives An~l}~sis — Executive Summary
Based an the results of the Stage I screening, 27 packaged alternatives were carried forward tc~
be evaluated further in Stage II. ~"he 27 pac(~aged alternatives were selected based on the
Stage I screening criteria, which emphasizes feasibility of the modes and routes for the
options within each Qf the four connection types described in Section d,3.3. A eamplete
discussion of the Stage I screening process can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Report.
Figure t}.4, Alternative ~c~mpe~r~ents
~,
QC~~' Example:
,, Light Rai;
~^
Un-t~~rport~~ Example:
~'- 98'" tJc~rth
Alignment . __- _
(off-A~rp~rt ~, Center 1X~'ay -Z Station Aerial
Source: ConrsectLAX, 2012
i~.4.2. Stage II Screening
~It~~"~~t'~
C)irett LRT Branch
(I~RTj~?8th N~r-t!~ alignment/Center V(/ay
-~ 2 ~~~tzc~n Aerial)
Several performanee measures were developed tt~ assess the pros and cons of each
alternative. These measures include ridership, capital cast, travel tirri~, passenger
convenience, compatibility with ether plansJfacilities, and constructabiiifiy. In addition to
these performance rrieasures, comr-nun~ty aceeptabi(ty was also considered based on
comments received at the public meetings held in February/March 2012.
The performance of each of the 27 paekaged alternatives, as cfi~aracteri~ed by the Stage
quantitative performance measures, is provided below in Table G1.2.
Qage 13
I~et
r~ Green din
e to
Irk
Rhas~
I — AA f ~i E
I S/C? E
1 R
t~lternatives An
alys
is — Exe
cuti
v€ Summary
Table 0.2,
11 Per
form
ance
Summary
Clay
s~A
1~er
natr
v+~
I~+l
oc#e
Qff '
Airp
ort
Rout
e.
{~'~
°-Air
p+ar
kSt
atio
nsAverage
`Tra
nsfe
rs
Aver
age
Vewtfcal Lev
elChan es
Av~w
age
Tavel Time
rein
Ride
rshi
pGa
st mi
llio
ns~
~Lt
~wHi
gh
-1LRT
98th N
'>2 Aerial
i~.7
2.0
29.7
5,3Q
t~~5
4~$654
B-2
LFt'f
98th
~t
2Tunne)
{~.7
2.0
29.0
5.,300
X970
$1,T
6t~
B, Dir
ect LRT
8-3
LRT
9$th ~
!3 Aerial
q.7
2.C1
28.7
5,400
$97Q
$1,161
Bran
chB-
4LRT
Centur+;
2 Ae
rial
~}.7
3.3
31.$
4,9{7t?
$470
t~56
0
6-5
LRT
Cent
tary
2Tur
snel
C3.7
3.3
31.1
5,{}4{}
$9t7
t7$1,f38~
B -6
LRT
Century
3 Aerial
fl.7
3.3
30.8
5,ltlt!
$90l
3$1
,OSq
C-1
APM
98th
2 ~4
eria
l1.
t74.~
32,2
4,6t~f7
$62t
}~7
4Q
C-2
APM
98th
'2 Tunnel
1.4?
4.0
3l 5
4,6C
}0$1,040..
$1,25U
C-3
APM
98fih
3Aerial
t.t~
4th
31.2
4,7{?Q
$l,t
}f>(
}$1
,271
7
-4BRT
9$th
8 At-Grade
1.(}
1.{?
34.3
5,at}t~
$110
7$13Q
~. Ci
rcul
akar
~-5
APM
~~:ntury
2 Aerial
l.fl
4.t}
317.
[1~,
90Q
$6t~0
~72i~
C-fi
API~
ICentury
2T'u
nnel
1.13
4.~
---
--29.5
4,90Q
_
$1,020
$1,220
C-7
APM
Century
3 Aer
ia(
1.0
4.~
29.2
S,ft
f3~}
__.__
$1;~3{?
$1,24
C-8
_PRT
~eniury
8 At-Grade
l:{I
1.4
33.6
5,10{7
$120
$140
1.1'
LRT~APM
98th N
2 Aer
ia[
1.7
4.0
33..7
3,9U
Ct$6$4
X820
y-2
LRT/APM
98th P
12 Tunnel
7.7
4.0
33 0
4,QC?~
X1,1
40$x
,370
1-3
LRl"/APM
9$tk~
t~!3 Aer
ia9
1.7
4.(~
32.7
4,(IQt3
$l,l
lt~
$1,3
3{?
I, Intermediate LRT
~-~1
LRT/BRT
98th N
$ At-grade
1:7
1.4
35.5
~,34
~ti
$32Q
$38Q
and Gir
eul~
tt~r
{-S
I.RTfAPM
1994
SEIR
Z Aer
ial
1.7
5.3
36.3
3,6f7U
$640
$77fl
1 -6
LRT/
AP(~
I19
94 SEI
R2 Tunnel
1,7
5.3
35.6
3,7Q
~51,09Q
$1,3
iQ
1-7
LRTJAPM
X994
SEI
R3 Aerial
l.7
5:3
35.2
3,70Q
$1,07
$1,280
$Lf
ZT;j
BRT
1994
SEE
R$ At -~rad~
1.7
2.3
3~+,
14,
Q[7t
7$2
8Q$3
4(}
T-1
LRT
Th~u~h
1 Tunnel
(?,5
2.t~
24.9
6,lO
Cl$9
41$1
,~3Q
T. @r
4adi
fied
LRT'
T-2
LRTfAPM
,&ir
~c~r
k BI
2 Ae
rial
1,t}
4.C1
31.1_.._
4,11}0
$1,20
$1,224
Truk
1'-3
Lf~T
fAPM
Airp
ort BI
2 Tunnel
1.0
4:0
317.4
4,7Qfl
$1,22(}
$1,4
5
T-~#
E.F~"1`jAPM
Air~t~tt Bi
3 A~riai
1.~}
4.Ct
3C~.
14,$tJ~
$1,17
1,4t
70
T-5
LRT/BRT
~irp
a~t BI
8 At-grade
l.4
1.0
__..._
..33
.15,
1 QO
~48Q
$581
3
Page
74
Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I - AA/dE15; DEIR Alternatives An~fysis — Executive Summary
The information in Viable 4.2 provides an averuiew of the performance afall alternatives
against each ofthe quantitative Stage II screening criteria. !n addition, a tradeoff analysis was
performed t~ complete the Stage I( screening. This approach aiic~wed for a better
understanding of the following key trade-off areas:
s Passenger convenience * C7n-airport configuration
Direct LRT Branch vs. Modified LRT • Off airport configuration
Trunk
The fr~llt~wing sections discus the results of the tr°ode-at~ar~a9ysis as infi~rmed y the
perfarrr~ance ofthe alternatives shown in Table 0.2
Q.4.2.3. Passenger Convenience {by Alternative and Alternative {ass)
The trade-off analysis far passenger ct~nvenier~ce is provided below. This analysis provides a
comparison csfthe f€~ur alternative classes (i.e., Direst LRT Branch, Circulator, Intermediate
LRT and Circulator, and tvt~adifieci LRT i rank} in terms cif the overa(1 experience for passengers
traveling to(from the airpcart. The performance measures used to evaluate passenger
cr~nvenience are: the average nus~rcber of transfers, the average number cif vertical lave!
changes, the average travel time, and ridership. The five prirr~ary eonc{usians of this trade-off
analysis are:
* Ridership for air passengers and employees increases as travel times and number of
transfers decrease
• Direct LRT Branch ar~d Modifsed LR~f Trunk have fewest transfers, shflrtest travel times
and higF~~st ridership fc~r airport passengers
• Circu{atc~r (APMJBRT) ridership is slightly lower, since a!! Metro Rail passengers transfer
Intermediate LRT and Circu(atcsr Alternakive has most transfers and level changes, anu the
lowest ridership
AI! alternatEVes, except the BRT Circulator, would require funding in excess of the $200
mi1{ion availably from Metre
fl,4.2.2. [~ire~t LRT Branch vs. Modred LRT` TrunEc Alterrrativ~s
The trade-cafFanalysis for tie Direct LRI~ Br~rsch vs. Mt~dified LRT ~°runk alternative classes is
provided below. Thy performance measures used to compare these two alternative classes
against each ether are: the average travel time, ridership, capital cost, and constructability
issues where the project would interface with existing and pEanned Metro facilities. The five
primary conclusions of this trade-cuff analysis are:
Because the Madi~ed LE2T Trunk Alternative (Throug~t LAX) has a shorter travel time,
ridership is higher than the Qirect LRT Branch Alternative for airport ~,assengers
The M~difed LRT Trunk Alternative increases travel time by 2 minutes far non-air~aort
bound passengers between Expo {CrenshawJLAX Corridor} and South Bay (Redondo
Beach)
_.Pa e 15
~C~t"C}
M3e~tra Green Line ~o LAXPhase I AA/DEIS!DElR APternatrves Analysis — Executive
• The singly statirn for the Modi{ied LRT Trunk Alternative in the terminal area requires a
long walk {0.3 to 0.4 miles) ar ts°ansfer to a circulator (e.g., bias, moving wa6kway, shuttle)
to reach western terminals (7errrtinal 3, Terrrrinal 4, 1°flm Bradley {nternatiernal germinal)
• Cc~nstructability issues:
o Parallels portion of Crenshaw f LAX Lsne that is scheduled fbr° construction (in 2013)
o Requires a camplex cannection to existing Metro Green Line in E! Segundo that ~nrould
have operations impacts during canstructian
• E3c~th alternatives would require f~ncfing in excess of the ~2t}0 rr~illion available from Metro
0.4.2.3. C?n-Airport C~nfagurat~on
The trade-off analysis for the cc~nfiguratian within the CTA is provided below. This analysis
carrapares four c~rr-airport options that vary by number ofstatic~ns, vertical alignment, and
made of access. The performance measures used to evaluate these an-airport options
against cane anather are:
capital cost
• Average travel time to terminal
• Average walk distance to terminal
• Potential visual impacts to the Theme Building
The three primary conclusions of this trade-flff analysis are:
• For LRT and APM, the 2 station aerial optean
~_> Costs approximately $450 rnilkion Eess than the 2 statian subway and 3 statit~n aerial
optians
o Runs adjacent to the Theme Builr~ing, leading tt~ potential visual irrtpacts
The 3 station aerial loop option provides the shortest walk distances to terminals arrrong
the rail alignments, but extra time to travel around the locap leads to comparable total
trave4 times (walk +ride) tc~ terrrainals
BRT is the least costly {the only on-airport c~ptie,n that has shorter walking distances than
the rail (LRT and APM} cc~rifigurations, but...
~; Involves the longest total travel times {walk +ride) to airport terminals
~~ Is subject tcs airport randway congestion
fl,4..4, flff-Airpcsrt Configuration
The trade-off ar~alysis far the config~ratic~r~ outside o~the CTA is pr~avided below. This
analysis compares four c~ffairport captions that vary by made c~faccess {i.~., ~.RT or Circulatc~r~
and alignment (i.e., 98`" Street, 9$`" Street North, or Century Bou6evard). The perforrrtance
measures used tr evaluate these off-airpork r~ptions against one another are: the average
number csf vertical level changes, the average travel time, the capital cast, and potential visuak
imp~ets to landscaping, art treatments and businesses. The three primary conclusions afthis
trade-offanalysis are:
• century Boulevard LRT
Page 16
~@tPA
Metro Green Line #o LAXPhase I — AA/DEISj DEIR Alternatives Analysis -- Executive Surr'imary
o Requires a second station at Aviation fC~ntury
~j Results in transfers, additional level changes, longer walks and (anger travel times
• for both LRT and APM, tf~e aerial structure along Century Bou9evard may result iri:
o Visual impacts to landscaping end art treatments
o Potential impacts to traffic circulation and access to businesses
• Ail alternatives would require funding in ~xeess afthe $20t} million availab{e from Metrts
O,S. PUBLlC OUTREACH
Following introduction cif the project to the public in August 2t}i 1, the team engaged rn
ongoing outreach tc~ inform stakehafders about the project and gather feedback, using online
and traditional methflds, including advertising, se~cia) media, e-blasts, online survey, colla#eral
distribr~tion and press releases. Project meetings and briefings were held with an array of
stal~eholder groups including agency and legislative representatives, neighborhood cnuncils,
chambers of commerce, business improvement districts, transportation arganizatians and
committees.
During the first round of community workshops held in August 2011, stakeholders were
introduced ~c~ the project and provided a generaP e~verview cif the AA prt~cess. Sta6ceho{der and
Community Worlcs~rop meetings took place as follows:
~ August 10, 20111 - Technsca! F~dviscary Cc~n7r~°iittee (agency stal~eholde~s} at the Flight Path
Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, C~ 90045
• August 17, 2011 ~ Briefing to legislative ~tal<eholders at Metro Headquarters, One Gateway
Plaza, Las Angeles, CA 901712
Three community workshops on August 23, 25 and 30, 2C?11 at the following Iflcations:
c~ Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, CA 9~f~45
o Metre Headquarters, Plaza bevel Lobby, One gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
o Veterans' Memorial Complex, 4117 C}verland Ave., Culver City, CA 90230
In Februaryf March 2J12, a second round of crarrtmun~ty workshops were held to present the
results csf the alternatives screening prticess, with the goal affurther narrowing the number of
alternatives tc~ be str~died during the draft environmental review process. Attendees at the
comrrtunity wrrkshc~ps had the oppcsrtunity tc~ Darn about the alt~rnativ~s under
cansideratic~n and tc~ discuss the tradeoffs (travel time, east, convenience, wal(c distance,
ridership) between them. Stakeholder and Comrraunity Workshop meetings took place, as
fallcaws:
• February 2$, 2012 - Technical Advisr~ry Committee (agency stakeholders) and legislative
stakeholders at the Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles,
CA 9(}045
• February 29, 2012 -Open House at 1Jnic,n Station/Gateway Transit Center, One Gateway
Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 940i 2
* Two eomm~nifiy workshops on March 1 c~. 7, 202 at the fallowing Cc~cations:
Page 17
Metro
Metra Green Line to LAX
Phase I — AAI~E15/DEIR Alcernatiues Analysis -- Executive Summary
c? Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Irrrperia) Highway, Los Angeles, CA 90445
c~ Union Station Historic Ticketing Concourse, 800 ~lorth Alameda Street, Los Angeles,
~A X0012
In addition to the ca~nmunitpworkshops, r,umeraus project briefings were provided t~
stakeholder groups thrau~hout Los Angeles County,
Stakeholder ~rreferences revealed during meetings and in written cc+mmentary incEUde the
following cc~nnectian types and alignments;
Connection types: Stakeha€ders appeared to favor alternatives that extended Metro ART
into the airport through either the Mr~dified LRT Trunk and Direct LRT Branch, although
the Modified LRT Tr~ar~k ,vas preferred between the two. A number of stakeholders did
a(so support the Circulator (APM) alternative.
• Alignment in the terrrsina~ area: Two station (aerial or tunnel} and three-statian hoop
• Alignrr~ent outside the airport: 98`h Street
A,li feedback received from (oval end regional stakehc~iders are integral to the alternatives
screening process.
Sased on the two-stage scre~rring process arad public ~r~put discussed above, the follawir~g
alternatives will b~ carried forward to be studied in detail in the Draft E!S/EIR:
• No ~ui1d — Existing transit and highway plans and prs~grammed impravement~ through
the year 2035.
* Transpflrtat~~n Systems ~+lanag~ment (TaiVl~ —Lower cast capital and aperativnal
improvennents to roadways designed to improve bus speeds along existing roadways from
the Avi~tion,~Century Station tc~ LAX.
• Direct LR7` branch Alternative —As sawn in Figure ~,5, this alternative would directly
cc~rtnect the tVletra Green Line end possibly Crer~shaw,jLAX passengers to the CTA from
the planned Metro RaiP station located at Aviatican and Century Boulevards. There are two
arias were optional statian cc~nfiguratior~s will require additional study: Lat C and the
CTA. "his alternatsve was selected to move forward for further consideration in the Draft
EIS/EIF2 because it offers a Barad balance between cost and passenger convenience.
St~kehaiders cited fewer transfers and coi°npetitive travel times for most passengers as key
advantages fear this alternative.
• Circulator Alternative — As shown in Figure 0.6, this alternative is an airport APM system
that connects airport facilities with the M~~ro Rail station planned at Aviation and Century
Baulev~rds. There are two stataon ct~nfiguratic~n opti~ans inside the CTa that will require
additior~a! study. This alternative was selected to move forward ~c~r f~crther cnnsider~tid~
€n the Craft E(SJEIR because 'st offers operational flexibility related try service and vehicle
specifications tailored to the unique needs of the ~irpart enuironrn~nt. A central
connection point to the LRT system and perceptions that this service could r~perate more
Page 18
$r
Metro Green Line to LAX
Phase i — AAlC~E15/DEIR l~lternatives Ana€ysis — Executive Summary
frequently to math the internal airport demand were cited as attractive features of this
alternative.
• Modified ART Trunk Alternative (Through LAX — As shown in Figure Q.7, this alternative
routes Metro Rail under the airport with rsne c~nirally located station, which will connect
both the Metro Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines directly to the airport. This alternative was
selected to n~c~ve fcsrward for further ~c~rasideratic~n in the Qraft E!S f EER because it results
Gn the fastest and highest-ridership potential of all the alternatives. Thy ability to offer
direct, one-seat ride ~e~nneetions with the lowest travel time and fewest transfers was cited
by stakeholders as features they fr~und attractive in thES aiterr~ative.
Figure d.~, direct LRT Branch Alterrnative
C15 ANGELES
1
' ~"m3
Maintenance Facitiry_{Rtdn~edy
•« •.
A~~Ia€icon/CenEury(Planned}
..~.....__a__._. ~
T~rm9natAreaeta#ion _~I17f!~~~~~III~~~IIJ4l ~~E and Route Options _,~_ '" i~ I ~. ~
~, _ _ :,_..__ `:~'~
Planned c...»-- .". "' ~ _. -`
~ v:.ee«~rrera.«t~.n:ionrene3 r `~,,:,-_,_,.,~»--:~t"'_
r*-~.nq ~:w~ a 1 n _ i.
~' ~.ym
Pceem~a~Na~t7~ern LOn ien .o ;.-,^ ~" - -R
'. M11esO ft.er2.baw, u4)SL '. ,. ~~ :5 '..~~,.
a !~;1 7 ono 29tYA p9 - ~ ~ --
Source: ~onnec#LAX, 2012
Page 19
~~~rt?
Metro Green Line to L4X
Phase I _ AA,'DEISr`DEIR
LAX
Alternatives Ana3ysis -- Executive Suen
t
Metro Crenshaw/LAXLine {Planrtedl
Afiaintenance Faci~it~-(Ptanned)
Aatentiat Lot ~~te~a ~tatiasv
... ~~~~°
-_- <.~~,..e, -
Termina! A; ea Stationand Route {Dpiions
---. , ~>
_.._, . F<-:. 3 ~ _. ..
1 ~t ~Ptanaetl ~- <'
c:~;t~z a ro r,M,~ s _ ma \ ~~—rr q
E~_- ~ _ _ _~ _ J
r ~ ...~~
Source: CcrnnectLAX, 2012
Figure 0.7. Through LAX Alternative
j ~ Potential i~at CArea Station i
__ .. yarn.+ -~.r.~--~-_ ._
—;TmE i
~ws
LJS
e_
a_k
Termini: Ae~aStation
a i~ ~ _ ~R F~
~R.
~ ti ~ ~ -~E - ~ z~~.. .~.
t _ ~,. _ _. ° .. ~:: a__ ~
...Planned _
wc~ec~a:.nwr E
T('rvug~ ..qY l~.~9ntneM& a~~
rr~~t StallM p~r,iy~;tpp"' ~ +. r.
~~ P ;,~..,: a,.7net Fo«;ai S~SG~iJ?\iJV K
J 50 .X,e <.,Ofi ~ r r
.~ ~....~,.e~ N
Source: ~onnectLAX, 2dt2
Page 20
~~~~~
Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA/DE95,iDEl R Alternatives AnaEysis — Executive Surt~mary
0.7. FUNDING
The alternatives being advanced to the Draft EISJEIR phase have preliminary capital cost
estimates ranging frnrn $S40 try $1,27a million {201(} ~), Because current funding of $200
rniliion (20018 $), identified in Metro's 2009 LRTP, is insufficient to cover the full cast of the
Build Alternatives being advanced, additic~na) funding opportunities from local, state, federal
and airpc~r-~ sources wiH be ex~ir~red during the Graft EISJEIR phase.
Tl~e three Build Alternatives (~ireet LRT branch, Circu#atnr and Thr~~gh LAX A(tern~tives},
along witF~ the IVo Build and TSM Alternatives, will be carried forward into the Drab E!S/EiR
phase. The focus of the Draft E!S/EIR phase is. to identify potentia6 environr-nental impacts
resulting from the implementation of the project alternatives. Several other activities will
proceed in parallel, including advanced conceptual engineering, refinement of capital and
caperating cost estimates, and identi~icatifln cif potential funding sources. The Draft EISJEIR
is scheduled to be completed and available fir public review in Spring 2{113.
Page 21
M~'°~r0
ATTACHMENT B
Project study Ar
ea.~.~
r _~
~e~.~ _
_ _ ____
_ ~_~
_.~. ..__~~
__ _
_ _ _
~~
i Ilfl ~ ~
°`
M ~
~ ~
_ s
~c~e~
.~t,~~
+~
~:~ ~ ~
:a as a
K ~ a
a+ ~;
.o ~
~a ~
~ MANCHESTERAVM ~ ~. ,~ ~
~ —
~. +~ V: ~. ~ .
.~,
~,. ~ ~ a,:
.v
~». w
o ~ ,~
au u
a ~
~sr
wr w ~ n~'~i~~~
° ~ANGHE~
~
L~t
via
€.w~
s~cN
~sr~
~ P~' ~.
sra~
o.ra
~~vo
_,ARp(JR VI7J =
.E ST
~
.~
~._
~
{~.
~$.
_ .r
. ..
- ~
~
~
~'~
96TH
ST
a.
s.~
~~" ~-~
- ~
x
T
~'Ei~TUi2v E3L
'~G
~3
'
~
K ~
~
~~~V~~~
~
' <: ~
`
~ ~'`
~
~
CE LAYER YiC+~~`
._
_...
~,'_
'
W °~~~.
I ~''1
~
~
~L:~,
i -
`t~t
~ ~
d
._..a-
~ ..-
~ z
,~
~_ .:.
a._
x _
--~:_
,..
,~ _ .,
~ _
_.
~,_,r~
~...._.
.°'
__f
~,,,_x
~ a..
~
_ ~
~ ~
~~,
,.«.
_ i
_ ~t
Metro Green Li
ne t~ l~AX Study Area
~"-`
'
'~ u`
Exis
ting
~:
~~,
- _~
~ ~~
~ ~~
~; ~
rf~letro Green Li
ne & St~
tian
Ptannd
Arens
avv~lL~X Transit Cir
ri ~r
n IMPERIAL HWY
ap
} q
,,r
~ ~
fec
ms
v. va ~ ~. m ~ vr
e w ea
~m
aa
, ~
a..
ur ~"~~~'~m,
%~/'./~f,%~ Maintenance Fae~lity (P
la~n~d} ~
~ 425
Q5
i ~~,~vE~iUQ
~~.
,,..
.~.._.
.~~_ --
- Mi
es ~
kIR
~{ ~
T~#
€~
METRO Gf2EEN LINE Tt~
LAX
\; ]_N BtS
T
Ite
five
s Ax
duar
~c~d
ta► C
~ra~
fi ~ , /E[
: Ph
+~
~EV~sE
~►ATTAC M M E t~
tT'
!
'" r
Lime (Pt
anrt
~d}
Main°
.en~
r,c~
F~~ilit~
(€~~a7tY~~#}
.•
r~r~.
t.~~
_ _
~s 4_~_
_ ''
6..=;g
~
~. t:
'-.
,,1 ,
Term
inal
Are
a StaUOn
~._.
:
and Route Options
..
,'
~ ~_
_.....
..,~ ~
~ ~ i
.w.....- .
....~ _.
~`.~
kY~
t nl 41' e ..
h.,..~.
3~'cte to Nartlx l n c!or. ro
,,~
~.. ~
...-
~ q,
Me4n Csr~txha~wl.OXF.nn
~~~ f fi
~ ~. \,
..._.,-~
-~'
t t
I~Illllt
I~I~wF.c.: LY ,?
l
.~..-.,^~ S
,66,
_...
~ - ~t c_,
.r-_...
M~~°RO GREEN L.fNE T SAX
Qt~i~l~:t~ ~..~~ ~~'
~t"i
~4
~T~rough LAX}
ik R.N
~IMl
~ i0
4N Fr.. .<
. ,:
t~Uf.K:YY 4VU
Pote
ntia
l Lat C
°~""
°
Area
Sta
tion
M. -
z~_
~.
_.,
,°~
,N.
5.
~ y
~`,~;
th:.
,~
~`'~
Terminal Ares
~`St
atio
n
~~t
sk~,~
~ ~ ~
_,: ~-
I li n
i j~ A
~ ~~o~~:.
(
S ti
i.~~
'%,~
3 E
1
,...
.~
r
...~
-
~
.Y
`~
e _
d
~,
_
Pkan
ned
~Ut
a`~: i~w+'
Q
Thro
ugh U1 %
ACrg
rtc~
a, to
}{"k.
~'ts
i I
i $(a
ttOP
ty
~^^~
Pate t~.
,urr
r{Po Ka
i ~~ ~~~~
~3
9
54".
` i (
Y7R
i OQO
Aj'
-. ~
~MI~MYI Fr
PI 7Y
Page ~. C
rf
:vNb
„4ri
ki'e
^
~- _._m-
__
t
Alt rn~
iv~e Advanced ~c~ Daft EI' 1
E~ Ph ~e
~ 1 I
" U ~ ~
'~C1'f {,~k
P''
PA~t
~o ~r~~t~h~va1LAX
~-~r
~~ t~'
4anr
~ed}
Ma~~lk~na~~~ Fac)lit}r
t~L~
r~rt
~ez~
?
,.
_
Aviai~QnlCentury
tP~a
nrte
cf~
.uezwrvaexr
E-;
_...
_~ 7
t._~..~
_: __: 1
REVISED
ATTACHMENT +C
F~Gifi2tltt3t Lot G
~
•.f~.``
Area ~Ia6o~
~
y~
~Y~
s'=.. , c
~~Rt
l&i~
reen
it tw we8
ssv
~_.--..y~
_ ~•
:r
v,~r
Klas
; ~
~j
Er
Paei !~f 2
IVIETRtJ GREEt+i Lll~i~ 7CJ! LAX
,~T"TA~HlVIENT
Lei i!~la~t~r Plan ~~It~rt~a#i re D~. ~ x _ ~ ..
~ ----~ ~~r~~o~, ~x m.~~,
~~~~ r'
f~. Master Plan ~~#it~ nit ~~ ~~ .•
r
r •! .~,i~ t~.
.~
~• • - - ~;
J~rne 20
'1• Qmplete Draft
I
-• -
•
i
spring 20'
13•ompite ~in
~l ~IF~.
:t~~`~°"~CM'N~~~`
Spring 2~~
1~4
• •
•~• '
•;.
•
•
~~C
~Iitie h1EF~A Pr
cac~
s~
~