Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzz.zoc...

Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzz.zoc

Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA gooi2-z95z metro.net

MetroREVISED

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEEJUNE 18, 2014

CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEEJUNE 19, 2014

SUBJECT: AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR

ACTION: APPROVE REVISED SET OF ALTERNATIVES

RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve:1. Alternative A2 — 96th Street Connection as the Locally Preferred Alternative to

be further evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR);2. Accommodations to the Crenshaw/LAX Line to provide grading and other site

preparation work so as not to preclude the 96th Street Station. Staff will returnto the July Board meeting for approval of the Crenshaw/LAX projectDesign/Build contract modification for this work. The accommodations wouldbe funded by the Airport Metro Connector (AMC); and

3. Eliminate from further consideration Alternative B — Through IntermodalTransportation Facility (ITF) Connection and Alternative C1 —Stub-endConnection at the Central Terminal Area (CTA) East. In January 2014, theBoard eliminated Alternatives C3 and C4 (Through LAX) from furtherconsideration in the environmental review process;

B. Continue to consider Alternatives Al and A3 as viable alternatives should the LosAngeles World Airport's (LAWA) Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) adopt apreferred Automated People Mover (APM) alternative that is not consistent withAlternative A2. A BOAC decision is anticipated in December 2014. Attachment Acontains maps of all the alternatives;

C. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to increase the Contract ModificationAuthority specific to Contract No. PS114330-2636, Airport Metro Connector, withSTV/PB ConnectLAX Joint Venture, in the amount of $600,000, to addressunanticipated technical analysis that may arise during preparation of the Draft EIRand as part of coordination with LAWA and the Crenshaw/LAX project. AttachmentsB and C contain the Procurement Summary and Contract Modification/ChangeOrder Log respectively; and

D. Receive and file the Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Reportcompleted in cooperation with LAWA. Attachment D contains the ExecutiveSummary. The full report is available upon request or atwww. metro. net projects/lax-extension.

ISSUE

Through various Board motions in June 2013, October 2013, and January 2014, staffwas directed to include the Through ITF Alternative (Alternative B) in the environmental

document (June 2013); analyze relocating LAWA's ITF over the Crenshaw/LAXSouthwest Maintenance Facility - including determining the feasibility of a Metro light railstation at Aviation/96th Street (October 2013); and provide a written report to the Boardthat evaluates and presents the findings regarding projected ridership, time savings andcost to airport and non-airport passengers, as well as the feasibility and constructabilityissues and costs for Alternatives C3 and C4 — Through LAX (January 2014).Attachment E contains the June, October and January Board motions. Board approvalof the recommendations resulting from the Supplemental Analysis Study, completed inclose cooperation with LAWA, as well as authorization to increase the ContractModification Authority, is being requested. The Board is also being asked to receive andfile the Supplemental Analysis Report.

DISCUSSION

BackgroundAt the June 2013 Board meeting, staff was directed to include the Through ITFAlternative (Alternative B) in the environmental review phase. At the October 2013Board meeting, staff presented the Technical Refinement of Alternatives report and

recommended six alternatives be advanced to the environmental review phase. Withthe approved set of alternatives, staff from Metro and LAWA met in November 2013with representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the FederalTransit Administration (FTA) to discuss the start of the environmental review process for

the AMC project. During this meeting, all agencies involved agreed that Metro wouldlead the State environmental review process required by the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives and that LAWA wouldlead the CEQA process for the Automated People Mover (APM) alternatives.

In January 2014, prior to starting the CEQA process, staff returned to the Board and

recommended that Alternatives C2, C3, and C4 be eliminated from furtherconsideration. During the January Board meeting, LAWA's Executive Directorconfirmed the Airport's commitment to build an APM system as part of the groundtransportation program at LAX. The Board approved eliminating these threeAlternatives, but directed the CEO to provide a written report that further evaluatedAlternatives C3 and C4.

During the initial planning for the written report, staff identified the need to updatecertain information from the October 2013 Technical Refinement Study, and expanded

the supplemental analysis to also include the alternatives recommended for theenvironmental review phase. As ridership was absent from the October 2013 Technical

Refinement Study, staff worked closely with LAWA to confirm the assumptions and

methodology for the ridership model in order to develop updated ridership estimates for

all alternatives evaluated in the Supplemental Analysis Report. For the purposes of the

Airport Metro Connector Page 2

Supplemental Analysis, LAWA staff provided the best available information regardingthe APM alignment for each AMC alternative.

Supplemental Analysis ReportThe alternatives in the Supplemental Analysis Report are organized according to whereMetro Rail connects to LAX facilities. Attachment F indicates the possible connectionpoints. Listed below are the four connection locations and the associated alternatives:

1. Crenshaw/LAX Corridor — Aviation/Century Stationo

Alternative A1: Aviation/Century Connection (via 98th Streets —new APMsystem travels along 98t" Street with a connection to Metro at the futureCrenshaw/LAX Aviation/Century station, currently under construction. TheAPM alignment continues east to connect to LAWA's proposedConsolidated Rental Car Center (ConRAC). This APM alignment andconnection to Metro Rail was evaluated as part of LAWA's Specific PlanAmendment Study (2013).

o

Alternative A3: Aviation/Century Connection (via 96t" Streets —new APMsystem travels north of 96th Street, crosses over the Crenshaw/LAX Line,serves LAWA's proposed ConRAC, and then connects back to Metro Railat the Aviation/Century station.

2. Crenshaw/LAX Corridor — 96th Street Stationo

Alternative A2: 96t" Street Connection —new APM system travels north of96th Street and connects to Metro Rail'at a new, at-grade LRT station nearAviation Boulevard and 96th Street. The APM alignment continues east toconnect to LAWA's proposed ConRAC.

3. LAX Intermodal Transportation Facility (ITF)o

Alternative B: Through ITF Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are shifted to the west to connect with the APM at the ITFalong Airport Boulevard between 96th and 98th Streets.

4. LAX Central Terminal Area (CTA)o

Alternative C1: Branch Connection to CTA via ITF —half of theCrenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line trains would branch at AviationBoulevard and connect directly to the ITF and CTA. Metro passengerswould exit the LRT station in the CTA to reach nearby terminals or transferto the APM to reach terminals further west.

Previously Eliminated Alternativeso

Alternative C3: Direct CTA Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are re-routed via an underground loop to pass beneath theCTA with a station at the ITF and western CTA. Metro passengers wouldexit the LRT station in the CTA to reach nearby terminals or transfer to theAPM to reach terminals further east.

o

Alternative C4: Direct CTA Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are re-routed via an underground loop to pass beneath theCTA with a station at the ITF, CTA East and CTA West. Metropassengers would have direct rail access to all terminals at LAX.


The following five performance measures were used to evaluate the alternatives:• Cost and Financial Feasibility• Passenger Convenience and Ridership• Compatibility with Metro and LAWA Programs• Engineering and Physical Feasibility• Operational Feasibility

Table 1 summarizes the cost differences between the alternatives. The capital cost ofthe APM alternatives (provided by LAWA) are very similar and range from a low of $1.4billion to a high of $1.6 billion ($2014). The capital cost of the LRT alternatives differsignificantly and range from a low of $0.1 billion to connect via the Al and A3Alternatives, to $1.7 billion for the B Alternative and between $2.0 billion and $3.8 billionfor the C Alternatives. Since the total AMC system would integrate LAWA's APMsystem with the AMC LRT, the costs of the total investment including both APM andLRT components would range from a combined total cost of $1.6 billion to $5.2 billion in2014 dollars. It should be noted that at this point in the analysis discussions have nottaken place on funding assignments between Metro and LAWA. This discussion isongoing as LAWA has not made final decisions on their Ground Transportation Programincluding the APM.

Table 1: Capital Cost ($ 2014)

Alternative LAX APM Metro LRT* Total Cost

Al $1.5 B $0.1 B $1.6 B

A2 $1.5B $0.2B $1.7B

A3 $1.6 B $0.1 B $1.7 B

B $1.4 B $1.7 B $3.1 B

C1 $1.4B $2.0B $3.4B

C3 $1.4 B $3.5 B $4.9 B

C4 $1.4B $3.8B $5.2B

Includes $64 million contribution to Southwest Maintenance Facilityand cost of accommodations to Crenshaw/LAX to not precludepotential APM interface

Table 2 summarizes the 2035 forecasted ridership of each alternative. As indicated, theridership potential for the APM is very robust, with forecasts between 51,580 and54,780 average daily boardings at the proposed APM stations. This is largely due tothe frequent, reliable and luggage-friendly service provided 24 hours a day, 365 days ayear between the CTA, ITF and ConRAC. APM service could provide significant relief


to traffic congestion in the CTA by redirecting traffic to areas outside of the CTA wherepassengers could board the APM for the short trip to one of two stations in the CTA.

Boardings at stations along Metro's Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines are forecasted tototal between 68,340 and 71,970 average daily boardings (airport and non-airportpassengers). However, the number of riders destined for LAX range between 1,450

(Alternative B) to 3,040 (Alternative C4) daily boardings on Metro Rail. This suggeststhat although the Metro Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines have high ridership, they are

not expected to attract high ridership to LAX as compared to other modes of airportaccess.

Trips destined for the airport by transit are forecasted to account for approximately 9%of total trips to the airport. Of these transit trips, approximately 8% would be carried bythe LAX Flyaway bus service and 1-2%would be carried by Metro Rail, Metro Bus, andMuni Bus. Of the remaining airport-bound trips, 33% would be carried bytaxis/shuttles/limos and approximately 57% would continue to drive to the airport.

The Supplemental Analysis Report found no significant differences in ridership among

the various alternatives. Compared to Alternative A2 (the recommended LocallyPreferred Alternative), Alternatives B and C1 would result in a net loss of Metro Railridership, as they would involve less frequent LRT service and some out-of-direction

travel-for Crenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line riders nat destined for the airport. As

indicated in Table 2, Alternative B would result in a loss of 2,290 boardings (3%) andAlternative C1 would result in a loss of 840 boardings (1 °/o) on Metro Rail, as compared

to Alternative A2.

Table 2: Daily Boardings (2035)

Alternative APMLRT

AirportPassengers*

LRTNon-AirportPassengers*

Change in TotalLRT BoardingsCompared to~**

Al 54,770 1,620 69,430 +420 (+0.6%)

A2 53,700 1,790 68,840 -

A3 54,780 1,640 69,510 +520 (+0.7%)

B 53,370 1,450 66,890 -2,290 (-3%)

C1 53,270 2,000 67,790 -840 (-1 %)

C3 51,930 3,040 68,810 +1,220 (+2%)

C4 51,580 3,300 68,670 +1,340 (+2%)

* Includes both Crenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line boardings** Includes both Airport and Non-Airport boardings


Table 3 provides additional detail for the total walk times of passengers accessing theairport via Metro Rail. This includes the walk times between the LRT train and the APMtrain, as well as the walk times between the APM or LRT stations in the CTA and theterminals themselves. The C Alternatives provide the shortest walking distances, asfewer rail passengers must transfer to the APM to reach their terminal as the LRTstations are located directly in the CTA in similar locations as the proposed APMstations. Among Alternatives A and B, Alternative A2 provides the shortest walkingdistance when transferring between the LRT and APM, while Alternative B requires thegreatest amount of walking due to the distance between the LRT and APM stations atthe ITF due to design requirements and physical constraints associated with each of thesystems. Metro's station location was designed to utilize Airport Boulevard for thestation construction and avoid tunneling beneath the hotels along Century Boulevard.LAWA's aerial APM station was designed to maximize access/egress at the ITF, whilestill allowing the APM to be extended east, just north of 96th Street, to the futureConRAC.

During preparation of the Supplemental Analysis Report, the transfer walk time wasestimated at 7.4 minutes based on information provided by LAWA. However, at the May5, 2014 LAWA BOAC meeting, an alternative plan was presented that moved the APMstation closer to Metro Rail that reduced the transfer walk time by approximately 1.4minutes. This latest transfer walk time is being evaluated along with a new LRToperating plan that splits the Metro Green Line service from Norwalk between the ITFand South Bay. The results will be available at the June Committee and Boardmeetings.

Additional travel time information for all alternatives can be found in Attachment G.

Table 3: Walk Times/Convenience Factor (minutes)

AlternativeTransfer Walk Time

LRT ~ APMAverage Walk Time from

CTA Station -~ LAX Terminals Total

Al 5.5 4.6 10.1

A2 4.1 4.6 8.7

A3 4.5 4.6 9.1

B* 6.0 4.6 10.6

C1 ** 4.5 5.3 8.2

C3** 6.3 5.9 8.1

C4 0 6.7 6.7

*7.4 minutes for transfer walk time and 12.0 minutes for the total walk time were usedfor ridership forecasting, based on information provided by LAWA.**Not all passengers transfer.


Alternative Recommended for Environmental ReviewAlternative A2 is recommended as the Locally Preferred Alternative to be further

evaluated during preparation of the Draft EIR. Alternative A2 was identified in response

to an October 2013 Board motion requesting staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating

LAWA's ITF above or adjacent to Metro's future Southwest Maintenance Facility. As

part of this feasibility analysis, a new connection between LAWA's APM and Metro Rail

was also evaluated at the location near 96th Street and Aviation Boulevard. After

completing the feasibility analysis, staff did not recommend relocating the ITF over

Metro's future rail yard due to physical constraints and obstructed line of sight within the

rail yard. However, staff did confirm that a new, at-grade LRT station could be built #o

provide an alternate connection point for LAWA's proposed APM alignment just north of

96th Street.

The station at 96t" Street is an additional station and is not intended to replace the

Aviation/Century station that is currently under construction as part of the

Crenshaw/LAX project. Although these stations are less than one-half mile apart, it is

believed that each serves an independent purpose. Forecasted ridership shows that

the additional 96th Street Station would have approximately 1,700 daily hoardings

(2035) and the Aviation/Century Station would maintain approximately 3,700 daily

hoardings (2035). The 96th Street station would serve as the gateway to LAX, whereas

the Aviation/Century Station would better serve the businesses along Century

Boulevard. The construction of the 96th Street Station would not preclude a future

extension west to Lincoln or Sepulveda Boulevards (Coastal Corridor). A preliminary

review indicates this future extension could occur along Manchester Boulevard.

For the environmental clearance process, LAWA would lead preparation of the EIR for

the APM system and Metro would lead the EIR for the new, at-grade station near 96tH

Street and Aviation Boulevard. The preparation of these environmental reviews would

be coordinated to continue to ensure that assumptions remain consistent.

Accommodations to not preclude this station will need to be incorporated into the

Crenshaw/LAX project while it is under construction. Upon Board approval, the

Crenshaw/LAX project team will negotiate the required change order with Walsh Shea

Corridor Constructors and return to the Board in July 2014 for approval of the contract

modification. The modification will be funded by the AMC project.

Should LAWA not support Alternative A2 as the preferred alternative, Metro would

discontinue preparation of the Draft EIR and coordinate with LAWA on a possible APM

connection at the Aviation/Century station (Alternatives Al or A3). LAWA's decision on

a preferred APM alignment is expected by December 2014.

Alternatives Contingent upon LAWA's Preferred APM Configuration

Alternative Al was evaluated as part of LAWA's SPAS and was previously Metro's

preferred alignment as it provides a direct connection to the Aviation/Century station,

currently under construction, and does not require the construction of an additional LRT

station at 96t" Street. Furthermore, a bus plaza was environmentally cleared as part of


the Crenshaw/LAX EIS/EIR to provide a consolidated bus-rail interface at this station.

However, following the release of the October 2013 Technical Refinement Study, LAWA

informed staff that the preferred alignment for the APM is now being considered just

north of 96th Street. Metro staff was informed that the change in alignment was

necessary to allow for future roadway improvements along both 98th and 96th Streets,

including extending both roadways east across Aviation Boulevard to connect with the

future ConRAC site.

Although Alternative A3 connects the APM at the future Aviation/Century station, this

alignment provides Metro Rail passengers with a less direct connection to the CTA as it

would require riders to travel through the ConRAC prior to accessing the CTA.

Furthermore, the completion of Alternative A3 is contingent upon LAWA'simplementation of the ConRAC program.

Should Alternatives Al or A3 be selected as LAWA's preferred APM alternative, LAWA

would lead the preparation of the EIR for the APM system and Metro would coordinate

with LAWA on the design and construction of the connection at the Aviation/Century

station. Metro and LAWA have previously funded modifications to the Aviation/Century

station in order to not preclude roadway improvements and a potential connection to an

APM station. The AMC project provided the funding for the Board approved

modifications affiliated with the APM connection and, at the Board's direction, would

provide additional funding, as appropriate, to accommodate further changes to the

Aviation/Century station as well as the construction of the actual connection. All

modifications related to the connection with LAWA's APM system would continue to be

coordinated with the Crenshaw/LAX project team.

Alternatives Recommended for Elimination from Further AnalysisThe alternatives connecting at the ITF or CTA (B and C1, respectively) do not provide

significantly greater ridership to offset their much higher capital cost. Both alternatives

would have a negative impact on overall Metro ridership, as the rerouting of transit

service from Aviation Boulevard would add travel time and delay to the majority of Metro

passengers passing through the airport area on these lines, but are not destined for the

airport. For airport bound passengers, the travel time to the CTA is better for Alternative

A2 than for Alternatives B and C1, even though Alternatives B and C1 locate the LRT

station closer to the CTA or actually in the CTA, respectively. The difference is due to

greater walking distances between the Metro Rail Station and the ITF APM station for

Alternatives B and C1.

Other challenges facing Alternatives B and C1 include capacity constraints associated

with operating multiple rail lines through closely spaced railroad junctions and limited

capacity at certain terminal stations. Although these constraints do not make the

alternatives infeasible, they do present limitations in terms of increasing the frequency

of rail service in the future as well as accommodating future expansion of the Metro Rail

system.


Alternatives B and C1 were developed with the goal of providing improved rail access toLAX, however, the analysis revealed that the majority of passengers riding theCrenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Lines are not destined for the airport and that othermodes, such as the LAX FlyAway, still provide a better level of service for accessing theLAX terminals.

Contract Modification AuthoritySince award of the contract in May 2011, five contract modifications, excluding theBoard approved Alternative B — Through ITF, have been executed using ContractModification Authority. These modifications covered supplemental data collection,design and analysis. Staff is requesting Board authorization to increase the ContractModification Authority by $600,000 to address unanticipated technical work that mayarise during preparation of the Draft EIR, further coordination with LAWA and theCrenshaw/LAX Project, and any additional analysis directed by the Board.

DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT

There is no impact on the safety of our employees or patrons.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The FY15 adopted budget includes $2 million in Project 460303 (Metro Green Line toLAX) which will cover_the costs of the contract modification. Since this is a multi-yearcontract, the cost center manager and the Chief Planning Officer, Countywide Planning,will be accountable for budgeting in future years.

Impact to BudgetThe funding for this project is from Measure R Transit Capital 35% Funds. These fundsare earmarked for this project and as such, are not eligible for bus and rail capital oroperating expenses.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Board could decide not to adopt Alternative A2 as the Locally Preferred Alternativeand direct staff to continue analyzing all Alternatives (except C3 and C4 since the Boardpreviously eliminated them) prior to or during preparation of the Draft EIR. This is notrecommended as the information presented in the Supplemental Analysis Reportsupports elimination of Alternatives B and C1.

NEXT STEPS

Staff will return to the Board in July with a request to modify the Walsh Shea CorridorConstructors contract for the 96t" Street station accommodations to the Crenshaw/LAXLine. Staff will initiate the EIR for the 96t" Street station and will also continue workingwith LAWA as it determines the preferred APM alignment and connection to Metro Rail.


ATTACHMENTS

A. Maps of AlternativesB. Procurement SummaryC. Contract Modification/Change Order LogD. Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report — Executive SummaryE. June 2013, October 2013 and January 2014 Board motionsF. Potential APM/LRT Connection PointsG. Travel Time for Airport Bound Passengers from Furthest CTA Station

Prepared by: Cory Zelmer, Transportation Planning Manager (213) 922-1079David Mieger, Deputy Executive OfFcer (213) 922-3040Rick Meade, Deputy Executive OfFcer (213) 922-7917Renee Berlin, Managing Executive Officer (213) 922-3035


Bryan Pen ingtonExecutive irector, Engineering andConstruction

Martha Wel orne, AIAChief Planning Officer


ATTACHMENT Ato

ivc r i — r~viau~i uvci i~ui y ~.vi ii i~~.uvi i ~Alternative Al

,. ,~ !OS ANGELES ~~ ~

1

,,,~a..,.a ~

__.~_—_---~—~-~

--~

~nx ~~,~,u._ ~

1a '• 1•...__.'

_ ~o e c~ ~ry

tf..~ m.~~~o ~o.~. ~ ~..__.J'_~~~ _..._-_..... ~~~--~.~ 1

INGLEW00~

Alternative A2 — 96th Street ConnectionAttemative A2

LOS ANGELES , /- —. _...

_. _.__ J

~~' INGLEWO~D

1~~a~~~ ~______~ ~a~a~~~~ .~_~~~ ~~

~~.,Y~d~ ~ _ a,v, s„~ ~

(Recommended as Locally Preferred Alternative)

VG /'1J —

Alternative A3~

nnection (via 96tH

L~SAN~ELES w' ~

~~1 INGtEWOOD

s,~ ~,EO~~~M.En'

~/ •gym.* 1 ~ —1

.~

l~ Tr 'rr

,. 1

~~d~.~o~.~~a~ ~ f

Project Al~emalive ~~ J ~ ~ -~ ~~s~'-'' ~ ~ \

~~ Aery Rw~pr Mwab n~ ~—'~ '~_-~~ 1.---- __ ""1 j

j_~J~--^ `


ATTACHMENT A (cont.)Recommended to be Eliminated from Further Consideration

Alternative B — Throuah ITF ConnectionAlternative Bt':

„F~a~~e«;o~ L~SANGELES ,~~*, ~__ s

INGLEWOOD■

~~x~o~Nac,~ - ~ aWESi[}}ESTEF PKVIY

ARWRVif~E ST' TYIItIlI

g1 Tunnel

~~ y~TM~ Mrlal i

9H1N ~ aB

C~ c~n~ar e~vo ~ ~ -~

Q~.

Under Construction

Crensnaw:lAX Lineb5latnn '^ TunnN" • ""

Project Alternative ~~.------_"Light Rai(AtignmeM 65Ution ~, _,~~~ ~--'~

l._._._-_--'rgrvun gnmen

pummeled People MOVer 1ARA1&51aUOn lPerial Alignmenll '~ ~-~ ~ ~5,.~ '

' ~ Exact AGgnmenlmbe Determined '~~ ~

• ~L 1o ~ ~ soo ~~ ~zaro N ~~ O ~ ,key

Alternative C1 —Stub-end Connection at C

LOS ANGELES ~~"~Alternative Cl ''re.m~~wico~~~~oo_

~ftT ~aMh ~, GTA Salon,'

~a~a.LINCOLN BLtD r

~'ESRHESiE~NtMr PBOR VR4E Sf'

Alf~B~fi.•~

_~-----` coca .

n.~'°; '~~~ Caver

=̀ -----"~ ssix sr

-___._ S

~•

Cut 8 ➢~. ~r

~ z

wrx sr

~~ 1Win Ban ♦ ~Tunn b

CEN1~gY BLn

iNGLEW000

t ~ '

,,',~~•..~~•~I,,,

Under Construction ~ i

p ca~snaw,wc u~~ a sa~a~ N~- -

Pro'ect Aftarnafire ~'Light Ra lAlgnment&Station ~....---^-~ ~..---IUnd¢rgraund Al~gnmenll ,ter„ ~ !~"" _.". ,_^'...---~

Automa~etl PeopteMwer fAPMI` ~ \ ~„~.—~'"~ `~ ~'

&Stet on lAertal Alignmenll t...--^'^""~j~~f ( ,

~......~ EXactAPM N'gnment lobe DOterm~nea~~

`~~fLl`j—~ t .`~ r ~

o~ ~o~~,a~ zo~ a ~~_~~ Feet


ATTACHMENT A (cont.)

Eliminated from Further Consideration by the Metro Board in January 2014

Alternative C3 — Through LAX, One StationAttemative C3 At-Grade INGLEW000 ~Terminal Wnnectlon-

lliro~gh LflT II CTA StalioN ~~. •o ~LOSANGELES ,.BNa,

Twin BOra ~~r Cut& ge¢ia—~~---~ Tunnels Corer xn~sr

6

rerx sr

~}~ c~xnum s~.vo

,_.. ~ ~

.

~ .~

~~------"~y~ ~Existing j !

~~ Metry Green line &Station ~ ~~~~HwY ■ ~MOCPoa~;~vnUnder Construction i ~I~

trenshawlLAX Line d Sw~bn ; T"~in Bon _ _ ~~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~Tunnels Cut 6 ~~

Project Altemative I Coverlight Rail Nignmen~ 6 51atfon ~

AulomateC PeoPk MOVer ~ ~~nVE Cutd m65tatian lAerial AlignmeMl ~ ~

~ Alignment to be DNermined ~wr ,EL SEGUNOO s ARE ~0~5~0 1000 2.~U i ¢ N

- -- Feef ~ ~

Alternative C4Terminal GOnnMion-

Through LRr IZ CTA Slations~ ",

~~

Existing

~~ He1r06reln Lin¢&Slalion

Under ConstructionCrenshaw/Lq%Line851a~ion

Project AlternativeLI9ht Rail Alignment& SUlion

~—y~ Aumma~eA People MoverV & 5lahon fMrial Algnmentl

' ~ ~ ~ APM AOgnment T80

0500 1000 IAOU— Feet

rough LAX, Two StationsAt-Grade INGlEW00D

■1 ~ _~__~ ~

~~~~ 111

IMPEPopL MVV I' W'EPIAINM

ora ~~ri~~ ~~~~~~~As Cut 8 ~ ~~

Cover

~~ «- .. Ae~l m

EL SEGUND~ Q °E1pIRF


ATTACHMENT B

PROCUREMENT SUMMARY

AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR

1. Contract No.: PS114330-26362. Contractor: STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture3. Mod. Work Description: Increased Scope4. Work Description: Professional A&E Services5. The followin data is current as of : Ma 8, 20146. Contract Completion Status:

Bids O ened N/A Financial StatusContract Awarded 03/24/11 Contract Award

Amount$4,751,273

NTP 04/15/11 Total ofModificationsapproved

$1,474,333

Orig. Complete Date 12/15/12 PendingModifications(including thisaction

$600,000

Current Est. CompleteDate

12/31/14 Current ContractValue (with thisaction

$6,825,606

7. Contract Administrator:Samira Ba hdikian

Telephone Number:213 922-1033

8. Project Manager:Cory Zelmer

Telephone Number:(213) 922-1079

A. Procurement Background

This proposed increase in contract modification authority in the amount of $600,000

is to address unanticipated technical analysis that may arise during preparation of

the Draft EIR and as part of coordination with LAWA and the Crenshaw/LAX project.

Contract modifications will be processed in accordance with Metro's approved

Acquisition policy and procedure for contract modifications.

On March 24, 2011, Contract No. PS114330-2636, formerly known as the Metro

Green Line to LAX, was awarded to STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture in the firm

fixed price contract amount of $4,751,273 for professional services to complete the

Alternatives Analysis (AA), Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R),

and Conceptual Engineering (CE) for the Metro Green Line to LAX project.


ATTACHMENT B (cont.)

Attachment C shows that six modifications have been issued to date to increase the

level of effort.

B. CosUPrice Analysis

The Contractor's cost proposal for any modification will be evaluated and the final

negotiated amount will comply with all requirements of Metro's Acquisition policy and

procedures, including fact-finding, clarifications, negotiations and cost analysis todetermine a fair and reasonable price before the contract modification is executed.

C. Small Business Participation

STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture made a 29.10% Disadvantaged Business

Enterprise Anticipated Level of Participation (DALP) commitment. STV/PB-

ConnectLAX Joint Ventures' DALP participation' is 21.84%. STV/PB-ConnectLAX

Joint Venture was contacted to address their current participation. STV/PB-

ConnectLAX Joint Venture indicated that due to an extension of the initial planning

phase, there has been less DALP participation to date; however, Terry A. Hayes &

Associates' DALP participation will increase as the project transitions from initial

planning to environmental activities beginning in July 2014.

SMALL BUSINESSSMALL

COMMITMENTDBE 29% BUSINESS DBE 21.84%

PARTICIPATION ~

DBE Subcontractors Commitment %Current ~Participation

1. Cit works Desi n 0.71 % 0.00%

2. Coast Surve in ,Inc. 3.44% 7.07%

3. D'Leon Consultin En . Cor 1.75% 0.64%

4. Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 3.13% 0.00%

5. Ted Tokio Tanaka Architects 2.29% 0.00%

6. Ter A. Ha es &Associates, LLC 11.40% 2.82%

7. VCA En ineers, Inc. 6.31% 8.18%Total: 29.10% 21.84%

'Current Participation =Total Actual Amount Paid-to-Date to Subs =Total Actual Amount Paid-to-Date to Prime


ATTACHMENT C

Contract Modification/Change Order Log

Contract ModificationsOri final Contract 05/31/11 $4,751,273

1 Supplementary Data Collection, Design 08/28/12 $759,116and Environmental Analysis andextension of period of erformance.

2 Correction of Contract Amount 10/25/12 $0

3 Extension of Period of Performance 05/16/13 $0

4 Inclusion of Through Intermodal 10/24/13 $567,813Transportation Facility Alternative inthe Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Report (EIS/R) and extensionof eriod of performance

5 Supplemental Statement of Work for 12/10/13 $139,906Elements 1 and 2

6 Additional Analysis required within 01/29/14 $7,498Pro'ect Stud Area

7 Pendin Board Approval $600,000Total $6,825,606


ATTACHMENT D - REVISED

Airport Metro Connector

Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR

Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary

June 9, 2014

~~•

CONNECT

ATV inc ! PB ArnPri~as Ins.

In Association with:

Hatch Mott MacDonaldLea+Elliott

Fehr &PeersLeighton

Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.Epic Land Solutions

Ted TanakaVCA Engineers, Inc.

D'Leon Consulting EngineersCoast SurveyingCityworks Design

Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report

Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Airport Metro Connector (AMC) Project is a collaboration between the Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Los Angeles WorldAirports (LAWA) to identify a reliable and convenient connection for passengers andemployees traveling between Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Metro Rail.This report presents the results of a supplemental analysis that evaluates and comparesfour types of potential transit connection points between LAX and Metro's regional railsystem:

• Extend an Automated People Mover (APM) from LAX to Metro Rail atAviation/Century (Alternatives Al and A3) (see Figure 1);

• Extend an APM from LAX to Metro Rail at 96th Street (Alternative A2) (see Figure1);

• Connect an APM and Metro Rail at a midpoint location referred to as the IntermodalTransportation Facility (ITF) (Alternative B) (see Figure 2); and

• Extend Metro Rail into the LAX Central Terminal Area (Alternatives C1, C3 and C4)(see Figure 3 and Figure 4).

In April 2012, the Metro Board received the Metro Green Line to LAX AlternativesAnalysis (AA), which identified six alternatives to move forward into the DraftEnvironmental document and approved changing the name of the Project to the AirportMetro Connector. In June 2013, the Metro Board directed staff to include the ThroughITF Alternative (Alternative B) in the environmental review phase. In October 2013, theMetro Board received the AMC Technical Refinement Study of Alternatives Report,which refined the alternatives based on new information regarding LAWA's futuredevelopment plans and analyzed them based on refined policy and forecastingassumptions.

Following the presentation of the Technical Refinement Study in October 2013, theMetro Board requested a feasibility study for relocating the ITF to the plannedCrenshaw/LAX Southwestern Yard, including a station in the vicinity of 96th Street. Thisnew 96th Street Station, referred to as Alternative A2 in this Supplemental AnalysisReport, was developed because it provided an alternative connection point for an APMalignment just north of 96th Street. The feasibility of the Southwestern Yard ITFrelocation is discussed in Section 3.4.8.

In January 2014, staff recommended the elimination of Alternatives C2, C3, and C4(Metro Rail extensions "Through LAX" under the terminals and runways), andadvancement of Alternatives A, B, and C1 into the environmental review process. TheMetro Board approved the elimination of Alternatives C2, C3, and C4, but requested aSupplemental Analysis Report for Alternatives C3 and C4 to present findings regardingridership, passenger convenience, time savings and cost to airport and non-airportbound passengers, as well as feasibility and constructability issues and costs.

Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR


This report responds to the Board direction and was completed in coordination withLAWA using the best available information at the time for LAWA's proposed groundtransportation improvements including APM alignment, ITF, and CONRAC.




Figure 1: Alternatives A1, A2 and A3Alternative At

<. ~OSANGELES a~

~I INGLEW00~

.~n.~~~ tea„., I

`~-~ j~pax

<<~~~~,~ ~

- - z ---- iUnd C f coon -.'

~ C cna ~ix s~ma~ _- I ~Protect Alternative ~ J .. — ~ - '

„a,~ ~a~aaP~eM~.,s~ ~c ~ ~~ m ~- ~~ 1Ati9nmenn }

~o ~ _ z.o~ H ~< ~ ~ ' ` ~ - 1'—'~ _-- 1_ -- F.m~ r-~ a

CrenshawlLAX Line ~ ~

Maintenance FacilityNew MetroIIg~Station

~ CONRAC

ITF

'cu+wa~

APMiLAWA1 ~~-p'WA~ AviationlCentury'

;~: Metro Green &CrenshawlLAX Lines

A AtternaNpve A3~, LOS ANGEi.ES ~~~ ~ ~~a~~o~;~e~~~ ~

~~„m nc o.

~~1 INGLEW~OD1

•1 `

~~ ~~o

~.

~---~-,yaw. „~w~ _~ _--__

Prod tAlt live ~~..=C~ ~ r.

0 M rd Slat on~ ~ /'~~_ ~~^ q<rw AG9nmenn ee ~~ ~~~ f

Etx~N' be here `JSnmen o f

D ~ s~-_.. r— - ____~



Figure 2: Alternative B


Alternative B ' ~y ~ ~ITF Connection i LVS ~NGE~ES J~c~ '

3

INGLEWQOD

Maintenance Facility

.. ~

UnderConstrudion ! al

Crenshaw/LAXLine &Station ~' ~ ~TunnetN + ■:

ProjedAtternative J~~ ~-~--~" •—,~t—~ light Rail Alignment 8 Station°t_t°~ (Underground Alignment) r~--_f_-.J ~,,.-.-----' ~~_

"'...-- -----"~ ̀1

Automated People Mover tAPMI ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~&Station (Aerial Alignmen0 ~ -

~ ~ f_, Fnact Alignment ro 6e ~eterm d I~~ ~'~`j ~~~ t

0 500 10~ 2.000 (~` ~ p7 ~\'` ~~~ (r~• Feet t• ~~+„

_"_" r---

`-`"`~.-----'_'""~-----"""}

"'" aJt

Figure 3: Alternative C1

Alternative Ct ', p (~Cc ~'°Terminal Connection - I ~O`~ ~~uC~G~ .~~~ '

LRT Brench p CTA Ste4oN #

11

LINCOLN 9lYD ' At-Grade

}

l~Si AP.B~R VITAE 5f'Y~,~.—., CFIESTER PKWY /~B~Id~

~---~"'"'~ } ~ 96TN ST ~ y'

~ CUB F~ V ~~ ~Cover

reTNST ~... neria!

r j Twin Bore' S ~ ~ITunn Is

CENTURY BL`~:i

~ t

~~ •. ~~~ v

UnderConstruchon ~

Ge~shawlLAX line &Station N ~ _ • ~~1~J

Project Alternative ! _____~—,--°-^"-- ~— ~ I _Light Rait Alignment & 5tation f(~~ 1~.--~~

1...--̂ ^~,.~._.-

r~

(Underground Alignment) - ̂ ~..,, "'l ~ ~ i

Automated People Mover {qpA{) \ ~ ~`,.,,..,,-----^"~'~ {-`.` 85tation (Aortal A(ignmenq emu'_ t~~~

t~ Exact APM Alignment to be Determined

0 500 7.000 2.000 -~ ~ .------^~"""~~~1

fir_ __--~ Feet }

...._-.- i ~ _




Figure 4: Alternatives C3 and C4 (Previously Eliminated)

Alternative C3 i a~-comae 1NGLEW000 ~'Terminal Connection-

Through LRT t1 C7A Station) ! IN('ALN BLVD

r______ --------~~ LOS ANGELES ne~a~~~

Nrin Bore Cut & Cut 8 ~__„ perWlTunnels ~°Vef Cover .~ vsn{sr

~-._-~-_~_v- 98TH 5T

~~

~Ax `~ a CENTURY 8LY0

~~ ~ ~ ~.

° ~1~ ~~ ~~ ~o~ ~

~~__-~oting I. '

~~ Metes Green Line &Station:MPEPoAL HWY IMPEf71Al HWY

UftdO~ r,O115tNC~lO~

CrenshawllAX Line & Station i Twin 80re _ _ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~

~ TunneEs Cut& '~Project Alterrtaiive Cover

fight Rail AtignmeM 8 Station

~—y~ Automated People Mover ! ~+P~ AVE CUt & ~_Zr &Station (Aerial Atignmentl +Ae[iat

~~ ~ Atigmmentlo6eDetermined ~~r ELSEGUNDO _ ~~~~o soo ~.000 z.~o ~ (~J~ Feet , ;~

Alternative C4 a,~-credo INGLEWOODTerminal Connection-

tiNCOw au~oThrough LRT t2 CTA Stations) ~ ~~ ~` Aerial AerialLUS ANGELES COVef

~u ~~ ~~ YbTH 5T •

+ COl'E~ ~. m 9$TH ST

'f g AenaL+Twin Bore . – cernurrre~w~ Tunnels

~~t~c"-

,; _ ~

J__------~ ~-- _ - ___-~ ~ 1

Existing

~~ Metm Green Line & Slatian ~~iIMPERIAL HWY 6 ~ MPEFIALHWT

Under Construction ■ ~'.CrenshawlLAX dine &StaEioni

T~'``~n Bofe ~_~~i~~~ s~~l~'Tunnels Cui & ~

Project Alternative -' CoverLight Rail Alignment &Station i

Automated People Mwer ~~ ~~JE Cut 6&Station (Aerial Alignmenll ~ ref Aer~l

~ APM AlignmentTBO EL SE6UND0 - °~'`o ~soo ~.000 z.000 .~ ~ ~~~-- Feet ~



Evaluation of Alternatives


The evaluation of alternatives in this Supplemental Analysis Report focuses on five keyevaluation criteria: Cost and Financial Feasibility, Passenger Convenience andRidership, Compatibility with Metro and LAWA Program Goals, Engineering/PhysicalFeasibility, and Operational Feasibility. These performance measures build on thoseused in the 2013 Technical Refinement Study and the 2012 AA Report. Metro staffcoordinated with LAWA to develop and define the evaluation criteria, which are detailedin Table 1.

Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures

Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures

Cost and Financial Total capital cost of APM

Feasibility Total capital cost of Light Rail Transit (LRT)

• Total operating and maintenance cost of APM

• Total operating and maintenance cost of LRT

Passenger Number of transfers

Convenience and Number of level changes

Ridership •Average Walk Time

• Travel time for airport destined passengers

• Metro Rail boardings

• APM boardings

• Transit mode share

• Baggage check-in at ITF for Alternative B only

Compatibility with •Airport's current and future projects

Metro and LAWA Metro's current and future projects

Programs Construction schedule compatibility

Engineering/Physical Impacts to LAX operations

Feasibility • Parking garage foundations (in Central Terminal Area)

• Roadway columns, foundations and structures

• Utilities

•

Geotechnical, hazardous materials and soils

• Air spaces/Runway Projection Zones

Operational Feasibility Systemwide operations feasibility

The supplemental analysis produced several findings that, taken together, provide asufficient basis for understanding the relative performance of alternatives and comparethe benefits and costs.



Cost


There are significant variations in project costs (see Table 2). Alternatives Al and A3have minimal Metro LRT project cost, as they involve only modifications to theAviation/Century Station to accommodate a potential APM connection and do notrequire environmental clearance by Metro. The Metro project cost for Alternative A2involves the environmental clearance, design, and construction of a new station at

96tH

Street, associated land acquisition costs, costs to Crenshaw/LAX line to accommodatethe station, and costs affiliated with the modifications to the Crenshaw/LAXSouthwestern Yard. By contrast, Alternatives B, C1, C3 and C4 —which involveunderground tunnels, track work, elevated structures, junctions, stations and supportingsystems —range between $1.7 billion and $3.8 billion ($2014).

Table 2: Capital Cost

Alternative Capital Cost ($ 2014)

Connection Types ~~~v LRT ~~_~~ APM Total~e

Aviation Century ------------

A1 Connection $1.6 Billionvia 98t~ Street ~~' w-

A~ 96`h Street$1 .7 Billion

Connection

Aviation Century i ,-

A3 Connection - $1 J Billionvia CONRAC ---~--

B ITF Connection $3.1 Billion.... -- __

---- _~

~~ ' ' ~ $3.4 Billion

Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection ----- --- --

C3 One Station — $4.9 Billion'.Through LRT - -

CTA ConnectionC4 Two Stations — ;$5.2 Billion

Through LRT - -- - -


Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I - AA/DEIS/DEIR

Ridership


The type and location of the transit connection to LAX has a minimal effect on LAX-bound transit ridership, even when passenger convenience factors are considered (seeTable 3). While the forecasting indicated that those alternatives providing a directconnection into the LAX CTA (Alternatives C1, C3 and C4) yield higher airport-boundridership, the overall increase is marginal and offset by ridership loss for non-LAXbound Metro passengers.

Table 3: Total Metro Daily Boardings (2035)

AlternativeNon-Airport Destined (2035) Airport Destined (2035)

Connection Types Total

Aviation Century

Al Connection ~ ~ 1,620 71,050via 98t~ Street

A~ 96th Street~' ~ 1,790 70,630

Connection

Aviation Century

A3 Connection ~ 1 ,640 71 ,1 50

via CONRAC

B ITFConnection

: • ~ x,450 68,340

Cl A Connection • 1 2,000 69,790~;

Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection -+

C3 One Station - ~ ~ ;, f 3,(~4t' 71,850Through LRT f

CTA Connection

~t~, Two Stations - ~ 3,300 71,970Through LRT




The ridership potential for the APM is very robust (see Table 4), with forecasts between

51,580 and 54,780 average daily boardings at the proposed APM stations. This is

largely due to the frequent, reliable, and luggage-friendly service provided 24 hours a

day, 365 days a year, between the CTA, ITF, and CONRAC. APM service could provide

significant relief to traffic congestion in the CTA by redirecting traffic to areas outside of

the CTA where passengers could board the APM for the short trip to one of two stations

in the CTA.

Table 4: Daily Boardings on the APM System

AlternativeAPM System Boardings (2035)

Connection Types Total

Aviation Century

Al Connection 54,770

via 98th Street

A~ 96tH Street53,700

Connection

Aviation Century

A3 Connection 54,780

via CONRAC

BITF

53,370Connection

~~ 53,270

Previously Eliminated Alternatives —for informational purposes only

CTA Connection

C3 One Station — 51,930

Through LRT

CTA Connection

C4 Two Stations — 51 ,580

Through LRT



Cost Per Transit Trip


The cost per Metro transit trip to the Airport is calculated by dividing the annualized LRT

capital and operating costs by the total number of Metro Rail trips to the Airport. The

substantial difference in the cost per Metro transit trip to the Airport is a result of the

large disparity in costs between Alternatives A, B and C in comparison to relative

benefits (see Table 5). This results in a range from a low of $12 per Metro transit trip for

Alternatives Al and A3 to a high of $233 per Metro transit trip for Alternative C4.

Table 5: Summary of LRT Cost and RidershipPublic Transit Airport Daily Non-Airport Bound

Alternative Metro Rail Capital Cost per Metro Mode Share to Boardings on Daily Boardings on

Cost Transit Trip to the LAX Metro Green and Metro Green and

Connection Types ($ 2014 billions) Airport (Air Passenger) Crenshaw~LAX Crenshaw~LAX

2035 Lines (2035) Lines 2035

Aviation Century

A~ Connection $0.1 $12 1.1 % 1,620 69,430via 98'h Street

A2 96LhStreet ~QZ $19 1.2% 1,790 68,840Connection

Aviation Century

A3 Connection $0.1 $12 l.l% 1,640 69,510

via CONRAC

B%~ ITF Connection $1.7 $197 1.0% 1,450 66,890

~~ ~~~~ $181 1.3% 2,000 67,790

Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection

C3 One Station - $3.5 $23~ 1.9% 3,040 68,810

Through LRT

CTA Connection

C,4 Two Stations - $3.8 $233 2.1% 3,300 68,670

Through LRT

*Assumes an operating plan for Metro Rail where the Crenshaw/LAX and Metro

Green lines split service between the ITF and Aviation/Century.



Operability


The operability of the service plans for Alternatives B and C1 is severely limited bysystem capacity constraints outside the immediate study area. These capacityconstraints, specifically at the LAX/Aviation junction and the Redondo Beach terminal,could result in recurring train conflicts that render the overall operations of AlternativesB and C1 questionable. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the operating plans forAlternatives B and C1, respectively.

Figure 5: Alternative B Operating Plan Figure 6: Alternative C1 Operating Plan

Conceptual Operations Map ~0`

ITF Con RAC

❑3

uxi uxi

A LT BJJ

JM~ r., 5~.~.o--. '~ He~Arr

... Retic,ea «.cF 'tA3

~ Erpo.• v a e.

Conceptual Operations Map ~C'

BOO irF

ConRAC

L'~

lA% 2 lAX 1

X11

ALT C7ir.

~ ~....... xo .00• .x;,

i+n.~ o.e, i`o., ~ 01010

ITF Baggage Processing Sensitivity Analysis

Putting a Metro station at the ITF featuring baggage check-in has little effect on the

share of transit trips to LAX in Alternative B (see Table 6), as the benefit associated

with baggage check-in applies to only 28 percent of total air passengers bound for LAX.

It should be noted that international passengers were not assumed to have access to

the remote baggage check-in service per Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

requirements. The analysis showed that the remote baggage check-in is primarily

enjoyed by those air travelers who park and fly.

Table 6: Metro Rail and APM Boardings with Baggage Processing

Transit Metro Green, Crenshaw/LAXAPM Daily

Change in

Alternative B Mode Lines Daily BoardingsBoardings

APM Daily

Airport Non-AirportShare goardings

No BaggageCheck

1.0% 1,450 66,890 53,370 n/a

Baggage Check 1.0% 1,450 66,890 55,070 1,700


Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report

Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR Executive Summary

Conclusion

Table 7 provides a qualitative assessment of how each alternative performs against keyevaluation factors.

Table 7: Summary of Findings

High - O Low

AlternativeConnection Types LRT Cost

Compatibility

With Metro

Compatibility

with LAX Plans &Metro Rail

OperationalEffectiveness

pro ramg Operations Feasibility

~~

Aviation Century

Connection~ ~ ~~

via S8t~ Street

A~ 96i~ Street

Connection

A3ConnectionAviation Century

via CONRAC

B ITF Connection ~~1~,1 ~ . C

C~CTA`Connection ~-

LRT ~~ ~ ~~ ~~— Branch

Previously Eliminated Alternatives —for informational purposes onlyCTA Connection

C3 One Station -

/-~

\ ~~ ~ \~~~

Through LRT.~

CTAConnection

~,L~. Two Stations -

~-~

~ ~

.~

~~~

~

~~ ~~

Through LRT


June 27, 2013 Board Motion

MTA Board MeetingJune 27, 2013

ATTACHMENT E

Relating #o Item 73

MOTION BYDIRECTORS VILLARAIGOSA, KATZ, KNABE AND WILSON

WE MOVE THAT THE MTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADOPT AND DIRECT THE CEOTO DO THE FOLLOWING:

A. Adopt as policy a rail alignment alternative that connects the existingCrenshaw/LAX and Green Line alignments to the ITF;

B. Include the rail ITF connection to the Airport Metro Connector EnvironmentalImpact Report &Study (EIS/EIR); and authorize up to $600,000 in Airport MetroConnector Measure R 35% funds;

C. Determine construction cost of project as described above;D. Conduct amodeling/ridership analysis to determine passenger and employee

ridership in coordination with LAWA;E. Explore and recommend a financial plan to fully fund the Airport Metro Connector

which includes but is not limited to the following sources:a. Eligible airport revenuesb. Federal Transit Administration and/or Federal Aviation Administration

eligible fundsc. Transit Oriented Development &Property leasesd. Public Private Partnerships

F. By the September 2013 Board Meeting, in cooperation with LAWA, transmit theFederal Aviation Administration a formal request to allow initiation of the EIS/EIRand report to the Board in October 2013 the results of the request.

ATTACHMENT E (cont.)October 24, 2013 Board Motions

MTA Board Meeting Relating to Item 18-A

October 24, 2013

MOTION BYDIRECTOR DUBOIS

To include a quick feasibility study of the ITF [Intermodal Transportation Facility] at the

maintenance center.

MTA Board MeetingOctober 24, 2013

Relating to Item 18-B

MOTION BYDIRECTORS KNABE, BONIN, AND O'CONNOR

Airport Metro Connector

Measure R was passed in 2008, with over two-thirds support of voters in Los Angeles

County, and provides funds for a promised transit connection to Los Angeles

International Airport (LAX). Today, five years later, as we contemplate the alternatives

for maximizing transit connectivity to LAX, the convenience to our transit riders, many of

whom will be making the airport connection, must remain among Metro's highest

priorities. Therefore, it is important to have the CEO report to both our Construction

Committee and Planning and Programming Committee on a monthly basis so Airport

Metro Connector alternatives that are deemed viable by the Board are not precluded by

circumstances under Metro's control, such as unresolved coordination, planning, or

project sequencing issues during the immediate and near term efforts to construct the

adjacent (Crenshaw/LAX) Line.

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE THAT THE MTA BOARD:

Instruct the CEO to report back to the Board on a monthly basis, at a minimum through

both the Construction and Planning and Programming Committees as a standing item,

on the status of coordinating efforts between Metro's Construction and Planning teams,

and regarding coordination with Los Angeles World Airports, in order to maintain both

viability and efficient connectivity for the Airport Metro Connector and theCrenshaw/LAX Transit projects.


January 23, 2014 Board Motion

MTA Board MeetingJanuary 23, 2014

ATTACHMENT E (cont.)

Relating to Item 15

Item 15: RECEIVED status report on the Airport Metro Connector (AMC) and the

ongoing coordination between Metro and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA).

This report also provides an update on the revised set of alternatives recommended for

advancement to the environmental review process.

APPROVED RIDLEY-THOMAS AND KNABE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED

BY BONIN that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO to provide a written report to

the Board~'̂ ~~ that evaluates and presents findings regarding projected ridership, time

savings and cost to airport and non-airport bound passengers, as well as feasibility and

constructability issues and costs for Alternatives C3 and C4, as shown in the Airport

Metro Connector Technical Refinement Study of Alternatives (October 2013).


Potential APM/LRT Connection Points

~aS ~NGEL~S

--" ~ ~~- - 't

_-- _°" ,~t#

- _ _ - '~

ATTACHMENT F

I1

ri~rsx!v:~,u..i

c -x,n-,r QM ~

t ~•

9STH Sf

~.

,.:~ +- ::. R111IH+SU4

O

~ APM Route Under Study ~,,....--~--" - ~ ~;r~-- ~ __ _. _ _. _.

• Potential Metro RaillAPM 'S ~ ~a - p _,,..,.....- ~ ~ _ _ - ~- I'


ATTACHMENT G

Travel Time for Airport Bound Passengersto Furthest CTA Station

~ra~\~*Qo

Gte~

F'~°~

~a~~~o

Fto'~`

air~e

d°~edoc~

F'~o'~`

.3

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Minutes (in-vehicle +walk time)

At the May 5, 2015 LAWA BOAC meeting, an alternative plan was presented for the

ITF and the APM station serving the ITF.** Previously eliminated from consideration by the Metro Board in January 2014


Date post:	28-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzz.zoc...

Documents