Metro Harbor Subdivision Appendix D Stage I...

Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Novmeber 2009 Alternatives Analysis Report – Final Appendix D – Stage I (Initial) Analysis – Detailed Evaluation Tables

Page D-1

APPENDIX D – STAGE I (INITIAL) ANALYSIS – DETAILED EVALUATION TABLES D. HEADING 1 Detailed evaluation tables for the Stage I Initial Screening are included in the following appendix. For descriptions of the routing / terminus options evaluated, see Section 3.2.4 of the Alternatives Chapter. The following tables and results of the Stage I screening are summarized in Section 3.3.

D.1. NORTHERN ROUTING / TERMINUS OPTIONS The routing / terminus options evaluated for the northern section of the Study Area in the Stage I Screening are summarized in Table D.1 and shown in Figure D.1.

Table D.1. Northern Routing / Terminus Options

Terminus Option Routing Option Description

Alameda Street Washington Boulevard > Alameda Street > Metro Gold Line

Metro Blue Line / Alameda Street

Metro Blue Line > Union Pacific Tracks > Alameda Street > Metro Gold Line

Santa Fe Avenue Washington Boulevard > Santa Fe Avenue > Metro Gold Line

Los Angeles River Los Angeles River > LAUS Run-Through Tracks or Existing LOSSAN Corridor

Los Angeles Union Station

Metro Blue Line / Alameda Corridor / Los

Angeles River

Metro Blue Line > Alameda Corridor > Los Angeles River > LAUS Run Through Tracks or Existing LOSSAN Corridor

7th Street / Metro Center Metro Blue Line to 7th Street / Metro Center

Metro Blue Line

Metro Blue Line Slauson Station

Terminate at Metro Blue Line Slauson Station

Terminate at Slauson/Long Beach

Slauson Avenue / Pacific Boulevard

Slauson Boulevard > Pacific Boulevard >

Downtown Huntington Park Union Pacific / Randolph

Avenue Union Pacific Tracks / Randolph Avenue > Pacific Boulevard


Page D-2

Figure D.1. Northern Routing / Terminus Options (Initial)

Source: AE LLC, STV Incorporated


Page D-3

D.1.1. Alameda Street to LAUS Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Alameda Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for LRT-compatible modal options and local service only due to on-street operations

Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations along Alameda St and many grade crossings along the ROW through Vernon

• Improvement over existing on-street bus operations and Metro Blue Line connection to LAUS

• Allows for direct / interlined service to north and east via Metro Gold Line Transit Accessibility • Connect to Little Tokyo / Arts District and LAUS

• Provides more direct service to LAUS than current Metro Blue Line alignment • Opens up potentially large ridership base because of close proximity to growing

residential neighborhoods adjacent to Alameda St

• Vernon employment base is not concentrated and can’t be served easily from the ROW

Regional Connectivity

• Connect to Metro Gold Line, Red Line, and Purple Line and Metrolink lines at LAUS • LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area • Use of the ROW through Vernon duplicates Metro Blue Line service

Environmental Effects/Safety

• Minimal property displacements and relocations because ample width on Alameda St • Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various

intersections, especially on Alameda St where there is heavy truck traffic; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts because alignment is mainly at-grade and runs through an industrial area, but grade separations could have some impacts

• Over 20 at-grade crossings present on the ROW from Metro Blue Line Slauson station to the end of the Metro-owned ROW

Physical Fit • Difficult fit through Vernon, as Metro-owned ROW is only 15’ wide and there are existing freight operations in the Malabar Yard area of Vernon

• New flyover off Alameda Corridor / Washington Blvd is needed at north end of ROW Community Acceptability

• Stakeholder support the Alameda St alignment, including LADOT, for its ample width and proximity to activity centers

• Alameda St is close to growing residential populations and could offer potential TOD opportunities

Recommendation: Eliminate the Alameda Street option for the following reasons:

• Vernon’s employment base is not concentrated and cannot be served easily from the ROW.

• The use of the ROW through Vernon duplicates Metro Blue Line service between Slauson Avenue and Washington Boulevard.


Page D-4

D.1.2. Metro Blue Line / Alameda Street to LAUS Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Metro Blue Line / Alameda Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Potentially faster operations along the Metro Blue Line because there are fewer grade crossings compared to the ROW through Vernon



• Provides more direct service to LAUS than current Blue Line alignment • Opens up potentially large ridership base because of close proximity to growing

residential neighborhoods adjacent to Alameda St


• Connect to Metro Gold Line, Red Line, and Purple Line and Metrolink lines at LAUS • LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area • Allows diversion of Blue Line trains to LAUS via Alameda St, reducing capacity

constraints on Washington Blvd and Flower St

• Potential operating constraints involved with interlining with the Metro Blue Line Environmental Effects/Safety

• Minimal property displacements and relocations because ample width on Alameda St • Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various

intersections, especially on Alameda St where there is heavy truck traffic; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts because alignment is mainly at-grade and runs through an industrial area, but grade separations could have some impacts

Physical Fit • At-grade or aerial configuration feasible because of ample width on Alameda St • New connections required at Slauson Ave / Metro Blue Line and in Washington Blvd

/ Alameda St area

Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Alameda St alignment, including LADOT, for its ample width and proximity to activity centers

• Alameda St is close to growing residential populations and could offer potential TOD opportunities

Recommendation: Carry forward the Metro Blue Line / Alameda Street option for local service. Northern terminus of option will be at Little Tokyo/Arts District station (1st/Alameda) because of operational constraints. See Section 4.1 for additional detail.


Page D-5

D.1.3. Santa Fe Avenue to LAUS Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Santa Fe Avenue Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations, the narrow width and curvature of Santa Fe Ave and many grade crossings along ROW through Vernon



• Santa Fe Ave offers limited ridership potential because it is far from many downtown activity centers

• Vernon employment base is not concentrated and can’t be served easily from the ROW


• Connect to Metro Gold Line, Red Line, and Purple Line and Metrolink lines at LAUS • LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area • Use of the ROW through Vernon duplicates Metro Blue Line service


• Property displacements very likely on Santa Fe Ave because of narrow width

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Santa Fe Ave where there is heavy truck traffic; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Visual impacts from aerial configuration

• Over 20 at-grade crossings present on ROW from Metro Blue Line Slauson station to the end of Metro-owned ROW

Physical Fit • Difficult fit through Vernon, as Metro-owned ROW is only 15’ wide and there are existing freight operations in Malabar Yard area of Vernon

• New flyover of Alameda Corridor / Washington Blvd needed at north end of ROW • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration along ROW, except for flyover at

north end of ROW and potential grade separations at major intersections and in an aerial configuration along Santa Fe Ave


• Stakeholders do not support the Santa Fe Ave alignment because it is narrow and far away from major downtown destinations

Recommendation: Eliminate the Santa Fe Avenue option for the following reasons:

• Santa Fe Avenue area offers limited ridership potential because it is far from many downtown activity centers.

• Vernon’s employment base is not concentrated and cannot be served easily from ROW. • The use of the ROW through Vernon duplicates Metro Blue Line service between Slauson

Avenue and Washington Boulevard.

• Santa Fe Avenue is narrow and the introduction of fixed guideway service will likely cause property displacements and visual impacts, especially if an aerial structure is constructed.

• Stakeholders do not support the Santa Fe Avenue alignment because it is narrow and far from downtown destinations.


Page D-6

D.1.4. Los Angles River to LAUS Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Los Angeles River Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal options • Suitable for regional or express service due to limited stop locations along the LA

River

Travel Time • Low speeds through Vernon due to many grade crossings but high speeds along the LA River because the Corridor is fully grade-separated


Transit Accessibility • Connect to LAUS; provide a more direct connection for regional services • Regional or express service would only stop at major destinations; a lack of potential

riders along the LA River and service to Vernon’s dispersed employment base are irrelevant


• Connect to Metro Gold Line, Red Line, and Purple Line and Metrolink lines at LAUS • LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area

and freight-compatible modal options can interline with existing Metrolink lines

• Use of ROW through Vernon parallels but does not duplicate locally-oriented Metro Blue Line service


• Minimal property displacements and relocations • Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various

intersections, especially on the ROW; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts because alignment is mainly at-grade, with exception of flyover, and runs through an industrial area

• Over 20 at-grade crossings present on ROW from Metro Blue Line Slauson station to the end of the Metro-owned ROW

• Potential impacts to Los Angeles River revitalization efforts Physical Fit • Difficult fit through Vernon, as Metro-owned ROW is only 15’ wide and there are

existing freight operations in the Malabar Yard area of Vernon

• The freight-compatible options could utilize the two existing LOSSAN Corridor tracks along the river, but it is likely that at least one additional track will be needed due to operational constraints. Required capacity could be obtained by using BNSF tracks along the Corridor which are currently used for storing empty rail cars.

• New flyover off Alameda Corridor / Washington Blvd needed at north end of the ROW • Can generally be built in at-grade configuration along the ROW and LA River, except

for flyover at north end of the ROW and potential grade separations at major intersections along the ROW

• LRT-compatible modal options require new tracks along the LA River, possible use of existing BNSF tracks currently used for storage


• Stakeholders support the LA River Corridor alignment as regional / express option because of minimal community impacts

Recommendation: Carry forward the Los Angeles River option for regional and express service.


Page D-7

D.1.5. Metro Blue Line / Alameda Corridor / Los Angeles River to LAUS Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Metro Blue Line / Alameda Corridor / Los Angeles River Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal options • Suitable for regional service or express service due to limited stop locations along the

LA River

Travel Time • Shorter travel times because avoids grade crossings in Vernon and the LA River Corridor is fully grade-separated


Transit Accessibility • Connect to LAUS; provide a more direct connection for regional services • Regional or express service would only stop at major destinations; a lack of potential

riders along the LA River is irrelevant


• Connect to Metro Gold Line, Red Line, and Purple Line and Metrolink lines at LAUS • LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area

and freight-compatible modal options can interline with existing Metrolink lines

• Allows diversion of Metro Blue Line trains to LAUS via the LA River, reducing capacity constraints on Washington Blvd and Flower St

• Lack of operational capacity on Metro Blue Line Tracks Environmental Effects/Safety

• Minimal property displacements and relocations • Requires few grade separations and could impact existing and future LOS at some

intersections

• Minimal visual impacts because alignment is mainly at-grade through an industrial area

• Potential impacts to Los Angeles River revitalization efforts Physical Fit • Can generally be built in at-grade configuration along the Metro Blue Line and LA

River Corridor

• New connections required at Slauson / Metro Blue Line and in the Alameda Corridor area

• Freight-compatible modal options to utilize UP tracks adjacent to the Metro Blue Line • LRT-compatible modal options require new tracks along the LA River; possible use of

existing BNSF tracks currently used for storage


• The Alameda Corridor is used by all freight traffic to reach the Ports of LA and Long Beach, which are some of the busiest in the U.S. and major economic drivers; the northern Corridor is especially constrained by heavy freight use and it would likely be infeasible to operate along this branch

• Stakeholders support the LA River Corridor alignment because of minimal community impacts

Recommendation: Eliminate the Metro Blue Line / Alameda Corridor / Los Angeles River option for the following reasons:

• The Alameda Corridor is used by all freight traffic to reach the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are some of the busiest in the U.S. and major economic drivers; the northern Corridor is especially constrained by heavy freight use and it would likely be infeasible to operate along this branch.


Page D-8

D.1.6. Metro Blue Line to 7th Street/Metro Center Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Metro Blue Line to 7th Street/Metro Center Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for LRT and local service only because technology and service must match that of the Metro Blue Line. Emissions issues for SPR mode at underground 7th / Metro Center station.

Travel Time • Travel times are equal to that of the Metro Blue Line • Allows for direct and interlined service to 7th St / Metro Center via the Blue Line (with

capacity enhancements)

Transit Accessibility • Connect to 7th St / Metro Center Regional Connectivity

• Connect to Metro Red Line, Purple Line, Harbor Transitway, and the planned Expo Line under construction and Regional Connector at 7th / Metro Center

• LRT can interline with most existing and future transit lines in the Study Area • With the addition of the Expo Line service, there is no additional capacity along

Flower St


• Minimal property displacements and relocations • No further grade separations required along the Corridor • Minimal visual impacts

Physical Fit • At-grade configuration • New connection required at Slauson / Metro Blue Line; may require new tracks /

junction


• Stakeholders do not support the Metro Blue Line alignment because of capacity constraints at Washington Blvd / Flower St

Recommendation: Eliminate the Metro Blue Line option to a terminus at 7th Street/Metro Center for the following reasons:

• With the addition of the Expo Line service, there is no additional capacity along Flower Street.

• Stakeholders do not support the Blue Line alignment because of capacity constraints at Washington Boulevard and Flower Street.


Page D-9

D.1.7. Metro Blue Line Slauson Station Terminus Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Metro Blue Line Slauson Station Terminus Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal options • Suitable for local service only because the Metro Blue Line Slauson station is not a

regional destination

Travel Time • Lengthens travel time because of forced transfer to the Metro Blue Line to continue north or south

Transit Accessibility • Metro Blue Line Slauson Station is not a major activity / transportation center • A forced transfer at the Metro Blue Line Slauson Station is required to access

downtown Los Angeles

• Opens up potential ridership base because station is in proximity of transit-dependent residencies along the Slauson Corridor


• Connects directly to the Metro Blue Line and indirectly to the Red and Purple Lines and the planned Exposition Line and Regional Connector

• LRT and SPR can interline with most existing and future transit lines Environmental Effects/Safety

• Minimal property displacements and relocations • No further grade separations required along the Corridor • Minimal visual impacts

Physical Fit • At-grade station configuration Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support the Metro Blue Line Slauson Station as a standalone terminus because it is not a major destination

Recommendation: Carry forward the Metro Blue Line Slauson Station as a potential terminus for an initial Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) for local service.


Page D-10

D.1.8. Slauson Avenue / Pacific Boulevard to Downtown Huntington Park Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Slauson Avenue / Pacific Boulevard Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for LRT-compatible modal options and local service due to on-street operations

Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations along Slauson Ave and Pacific Blvd • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations

Transit Accessibility • Connects to downtown Huntington Park, an area with limited express transit connectivity (only bus currently)

• Opens up potentially large ridership base because of proximity to transit dependent residencies along the Slauson Corridor and in Huntington Park


• Alignment south into Huntington Park along Pacific Blvd does not allow for through service to LAUS


• Significant property displacements and relocations to preserve heavily used traffic lanes and parking on Pacific Blvd

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Pacific Blvd; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Significant visual impacts because the alignment runs through the heart of downtown Huntington Park

Physical Fit • Passenger service on ROW must share two tracks with infrequent freight operations because width is only 30’ – 49’; temporal separation required

• Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration except for grade separations at major intersections


• Stakeholders do not support the Pacific Blvd alignment because of community impacts

• Slauson Ave is close to residential populations and could offer potential TOD opportunities

Recommendation: Eliminate the Slauson Avenue / Pacific Boulevard option for the following reasons:

• The alignment south into Huntington Park along Pacific Boulevard does not allow for through service to LAUS.

• The introduction of fixed guideway service would require significant property displacements and relocations to preserve heavily used traffic lanes and parking on Pacific Boulevard.

• The introduction of fixed guideway service would cause significant visual impacts because the alignment runs through the heart of downtown Huntington Park;

• Stakeholders do not support the Pacific Boulevard alignment because of community impacts.


Page D-11

D.1.9. Union Pacific / Randolph Avenue to Downtown Huntington Park Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Union Pacific / Randolph Avenue Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connects to downtown Huntington Park, an area with limited express transit

connectivity

• Opens up potentially large ridership base because of proximity to transit dependent residencies along the Slauson Corridor and in Huntington Park


• Alignment south into Huntington Park along Pacific Blvd does not allow for through service to LAUS


• Minimal property displacements and relocations, except on a small portion of Pacific Blvd

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Pacific Blvd

• Fewer visual impacts Physical Fit • Generally at-grade except for grade separations at major intersections Community Acceptability

• UP is typically unwilling to negotiate the purchase of operating rights or ROW along their property

Recommendation: Eliminate the Union Pacific / Randolph Avenue option for the following reasons:

• The alignment south into Huntington Park does not allow for through service to LAUS. • The routing option would require the purchase of operating rights or ROW from Union

Pacific. D.1.10. Summary of Northern Routing / Terminus Options to be Carried Forward Two northern routing / terminus options meet the Stage I screening criteria and will be carried forward for further analysis:

• Metro Blue Line / Alameda Street – Suitable for LRT-compatible modal options and local service. Northern terminus at 1st/Alameda due to capacity issues between there and LAUS (See Section 4.1 for more detail)

• Los Angeles River – Suitable for all modal options and regional/express service. Northern terminus at LAUS.

An initial MOS to the Slauson Metro Blue Line station will also be examined. These options, which will be carried forward into Stage II Evaluation and conceptual engineering, are shown in Figure D.2.


Page D-12

Figure D.2. Northern Routing / Terminus Options Carried Forward



Page D-13

D.2. LAX TERMINUS / ROUTING OPTIONS The routing / terminus options evaluated for the LAX section of the Study Area in the Stage I Screening are summarized in Table D.2 and shown in Figure D.3.

Table D.2. LAX Routing / Terminus Options

Terminus Option Routing Option and Description

Century/Aviation Station on ROW at Century/Aviation

Century Boulevard

98th Street

LAX CTA

Arbor Vitae Street


Page D-14

Figure D.3. LAX Area Routing / Terminus Options (Initial)



Page D-15

D.2.1. Harbor Subdivision ROW with Station at Century / Aviation Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Station on ROW at Century / Aviation Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal and service options

Travel Time • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connects to potential LAX transportation center in the Manchester Square area; could

provide more direct service to airport

• Forced transfer to LAWA’s planned APM to travel to the LAX CTA Regional Connectivity

• Connects to planned Crenshaw Transit Corridor, planned LAWA APM, and other services at potential transportation center at Century / Aviation

• LRT-compatible modal options can interline with the Crenshaw Transit Corridor Environmental Effects/Safety

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections on ROW; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Potential visual impacts Physical Fit • Can be built in an at-grade configuration along ROW because of ample width (50’ –

84’) except for potential grade separations at major intersections

• Aerial station configuration at Century Blvd / Aviation Blvd Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Harbor Subdivision ROW / station option as cost effective alternative to the options that run into the LAX CTA

Recommendation: Carry forward the Harbor Subdivision ROW option with a station at Century Boulevard / Aviation Boulevard for local and regional service. It is a cost effective connection to the major transit center planned for Century Boulevard / Aviation Boulevard.


Page D-16

D.2.2. Century Boulevard to CTA Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Century Boulevard Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal options and express service • Only a high-quality express service with one-seat ride to terminal justifies the cost of

traveling into the CTA (local and regional alternatives can use LAWA APM to access CTA)

Travel Time • Shorter travel times due to express nature of service • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations

Transit Accessibility • Connect to LAX CTA; provide direct service • Opens up potentially large ridership base because of close proximity to commercial

development, hotels and office buildings


• LRT-compatible modal options can interline with the Crenshaw Transit Corridor if LRT is selected as the LPA

• Will provide parallel but not duplicate service to the planned LAWA APM Environmental Effects/Safety

• Possible use of LAWA-owned ROW south of Century Blvd (dependent on LAX Master Planning activities)

• Few impacts expected, as alignment south of Century Blvd mainly runs through airport-related industrial and service areas

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an aerial or underground configuration along Century Blvd and within the CTA

• Aerial configuration would have too wide a turning radius to circulate within the CTA; only a stub-end configuration is feasible


• Stakeholders support the further examination of alignments that travel into the CTA

Recommendation: Off-corridor alignments that travel into the CTA face many constraints; only a premium service with the shortest possible travel time would justify the cost of a connection to the CTA. Therefore, the alignments that travel into the CTA are only suitable for the proposed express service. The extra time it would take for passengers using the local and regional services to connect to the CTA via LAWA’s APM is less significant given longer travel times. Therefore, the Century Boulevard option will be carried forward for the express service alternative, as being representative of the other potential CTA alignments - 98th Street and Arbor Vitae Street - until the LAX Master Planning activities are completed. Century Boulevard was chosen as a representative of all the potential CTA alignments because the Corridor has been examined in previous planning studies.


Page D-17

D.2.3. 98th Street to CTA Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria 98th Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility




Transit Accessibility • Connect to LAX CTA; provide direct service • Farther from commercial development, hotels and office buildings


• LRT-compatible modal options can interline with Crenshaw Transit Corridor if LRT is selected as the LPA

• Will provide parallel but not duplicate service of the planned LAWA APM Environmental Effects/Safety

• Potential property displacements and relocations along 98th St and in CTA if aerial configuration is constructed

• Potential visual, noise impacts along 98th St if aerial configuration constructed Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an aerial or underground configuration along 98th St and

within the CTA

• Aerial configuration would have too wide a turning radius to circulate within the CTA; only a stub-end configuration is feasible

• Potential capacity constraints if the APM is also constructed on 98th St • Subterranean storm drain could constrain an underground configuration along 98th

St


• Stakeholders support the further examination of alignments that travel into the CTA via Century Blvd, 98th St or Arbor Vitae St

Recommendation: Only carry forward the Century Boulevard option for the Express Alternative, as LAX Master Planning activities are ongoing. Reexamine 98th Street option when master planning has progressed further.


Page D-18

D.2.4. Arbor Vitae Street to CTA Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Arbor Vitae Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility




Transit Accessibility • Connects to LAX CTA; could provide more direct service • Limited potential ridership; Arbor Vitae St could impede ridership for non-LAX trips

originating from the north


• LRT-compatible modal options can interline with Crenshaw Transit Corridor if LRT is selected as the LPA

• Will provide parallel but not duplicate service to the planned LAWA APM • Arbor Vitae St could provide a connection to the Westside north of LAX


• Minimal visual impacts because underground configuration is required for Arbor Vitae St option

Physical Fit • Only trenched or underground configurations are feasible on Arbor Vitae St because of potential interference with runway flight path communications

• Underground configurations feasible in CTA • Aerial configuration would have too wide a turning radius to circulate within the CTA;

only a stub-end configuration is feasible


• Stakeholders support further examination of alignments that travel into the CTA via Century Blvd, 98th St or Arbor Vitae St

Recommendation: Only carry forward the Century Boulevard option for the Express Alternative, as LAX Master Planning activities are ongoing. Reexamine Arbor Vitae Street Option when master planning has progressed further. D.2.5. Summary of LAX Routing / Terminus Options to be Carried Forward None of the routing / terminus options proposed to serve the potential transportation center in the Manchester Square area and the LAX CTA can be screened from further analysis given the uncertainty presented by the LAX Master Planning process. However, only the Harbor Subdivision ROW option with a station at Century Boulevard / Aviation Boulevard and the Century Boulevard alignment into the CTA will be carried forward for the Stage II Evaluation. The Century Boulevard option will be carried forward as a representative of all the potential CTA alignments (98th Street and Arbor Vitae Street). The CTA alignments are only cost effective for the Express Alternative, as the high cost to enter the CTA is best justified by a premium, one-seat ride service. Lower-speed local and regional alternatives will serve the airport via the Century Boulevard / Aviation Boulevard station and the LAWA APM. The Harbor Subdivision option with a station at Century Boulevard / Aviation Boulevard and the Century Boulevard option are illustrated in Figure D.4.


Page D-19

Figure D.4. LAX Routing / Terminus Options Carried Forward



Page D-20

D.3. CENTRAL ROUTING / TERMINUS OPTIONS The routing / terminus options evaluated for the central section of the Study Area in the Stage I Screening are summarized in Table D.3 and shown in Figure D.5.

Table D.3. Central Routing / Terminus Options

Terminus Option Routing Option Description

Harbor Area Harbor Subdivision ROW Through service along Harbor Subdivision to Harbor area

Hawthorne Boulevard

Manhattan Beach Boulevard > Hawthorne Boulevard > Del Amo Fashion Center Central Torrance

Madrona Avenue Madrona Avenue > Madrona Marsh Nature Preserve


Page D-21

Figure D.5. Central Area Routing / Terminus Options (Initial)



Page D-22

D.3.1. Harbor Subdivision ROW to Harbor Area Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Harbor Subdivision ROW Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility • Suitable for all modal options and local or regional service

Travel Time • Low speeds in Lawndale because of residential uses and grade crossings • Improvements over existing on-street bus operations

Transit Accessibility

• Connects to planned transit centers in South Bay, including South Bay Galleria / planned Redondo Beach Regional Transit Center and the planned Torrance Regional Transit Center

• Opens up potential ridership base because of proximity to residential areas in Lawndale and pockets of commercial and high-density residential development in Redondo Beach and north Torrance


• Connect to Metro Green Line at Aviation Blvd / LAX or Redondo Beach station and the planned regional transit centers in Redondo Beach and Torrance

• Provides option of through service south to Harbor area • LRT and SPR can interline with Metro Green Line


• Potential property displacements and relocations from 190th St to Torrance Blvd • Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various

intersections; Improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Visual and noise and vibration impacts for residential uses • Approximately seven at-grade crossings present on ROW from Manhattan Beach

Blvd to 190th St

Physical Fit

• Metro-owned ROW is only 15’ wide from 190th St to Torrance Blvd because BNSF reserve access easements between 50’ and 84’ wide; additional ROW would need to be purchased

• Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections


• Stakeholders support the Harbor Subdivision ROW as an alternative to off-corridor options that would have more significant community impacts

• Harbor Subdivision ROW could offer potential TOD opportunities around Manhattan Beach Ave / Inglewood Ave

• Concerns about community impacts to residents in Lawndale Recommendation: Carry forward the Harbor Subdivision ROW option for local and regional alternatives.


Page D-23

D.3.2. Hawthorne Boulevard to Central Torrance Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Hawthorne Boulevard Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to low speeds in Lawndale because of residential uses, grade crossings and on-street operations

Transit Accessibility • Does not connect to the planned Redondo Beach or Torrance Regional Transit Centers, or possibly can connect to one if only a short section of Hawthorne Blvd is used



• Connect to Metro Green Line at Aviation Blvd / LAX or Redondo Beach station and potentially connect to local transit services at the planned regional transportation centers in Redondo Beach and Torrance

• LRT and SPR can interline with Metro Green Line • Hawthorne Blvd is a dead-end terminus if utilized south of 190th St; no through

service possible due to large single-family residential neighborhoods and narrow existing transportation corridors to south and east of Del Amo Fashion Center


• Significant property displacements and relocations because of aerial configuration on Hawthorne Blvd

• Requires removal of left-hand turn lanes and grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Hawthorne Blvd; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Significant visual impacts because of aerial configuration on Hawthorne Blvd

• Noise and vibration impacts if operates on ROW through Lawndale • Approximately seven at-grade crossings present on ROW from Manhattan Beach Blvd

to 190th St

Physical Fit • Will run on aerial structure in median of Hawthorne Blvd Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support the Hawthorne Blvd alignment because the aerial configuration is inconsistent with recently completed corridor enhancement and will cause significant community impacts

• Potential TOD opportunities around Manhattan Beach Blvd / Inglewood Ave Recommendation: Eliminate the Hawthorne Boulevard option for the following reasons:

• The alignment does not connect to Redondo Beach or Torrance Regional Transit Centers, or possibly can connect to one if only a short section of Hawthorne Boulevard is used.

• Hawthorne Boulevard is a dead-end terminus if utilized south of 190th Street (if routed to Del Amo Fashion Center) and does not offer through service due to large single-family residential neighborhoods and narrow existing transportation corridors to south and east of Del Amo Fashion Center.

• Aerial configuration would cause significant property / visual impacts on Hawthorne Blvd. • Stakeholders do not support the Hawthorne Boulevard alignment because the aerial

configuration is inconsistent with recently completed corridor enhancement and will cause significant community impacts.


Page D-24

D.3.3. Madrona Avenue to Central Torrance Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Madrona Avenue Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to low speeds in Lawndale because of residential uses, grade crossings and on-street operations

Transit Accessibility • Connect to the planned Redondo Beach Regional Transit Center and adjacent to the Madrona Marsh Nature Preserve; could provide more direct routes to these locations

• Does not connect to proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center



• Connect to Metro Green Line at Aviation Blvd / LAX or Redondo Beach station and connect to local transit services at the planned regional transit center in Redondo Beach

• LRT and SPR can interline with Metro Green Line • Madrona Ave is a dead-end terminus; no through service possible due to large single-

family residential neighborhoods and narrow existing transportation corridors to south and east of Del Amo Fashion Center


• Significant property displacements and relocations along Madrona Ave

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Significant visual, noise and vibration impacts for residential neighborhoods on Madrona Ave

Physical Fit • At-grade or aerial configuration feasible along Madrona Ave Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support the Madrona Ave alignment because of significant community impacts

• Potential TOD opportunities around Manhattan Beach Blvd / Inglewood Ave

Recommendation: Eliminate the Madrona Avenue option for the following reasons:

• The alignment does not serve the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center. • Madrona Avenue is a dead-end terminus and does not offer through service south due to

large single-family residential neighborhoods and narrow existing transportation corridors.

• In-street guideway would cause significant property, visual and noise impacts • Stakeholders do not support the Madrona Avenue alignment because of significant

community impacts. D.3.4. Summary of Central Routing / Terminus Options to be Carried Forward Only the Harbor Subdivision ROW option meets the Stage I Screening criteria and will be carried forward for further study. The Hawthorne Boulevard and Madrona Avenue options are screened out as they would cause significant impacts to surrounding communities, miss important planned regional transit centers, and not allow for through service to the Harbor


Page D-25

area. The alignment along the ROW is suitable for both LRT-compatible and Freight-compatible modal options, and is illustrated in Figure D.6.

Figure D.6. Central Routing / Terminus Options Carried Forward



Page D-26

D.4. SOUTHERN ROUTING / TERMINUS OPTIONS The routing / terminus options evaluated for the southern section of the Study Area in the Stage I Screening are summarized in Table D.4 and shown in Figure D.7.

Table D.4. Southern Routing / Terminus Options

Terminus Option

Routing Option Description

Gaffey St / 7th St Normandie Ave > Gaffey St > 7th St

Gaffey St / Harbor Blvd Normandie Ave > Gaffey St > Gibson Blvd > Harbor Blvd

I-110 I-110 > Harbor Transitway

Avalon Blvd Avalon Boulevard

San Pedro

MacFarland Ave MacFarland Ave > BNSF

Sepulveda / Willow Sepulveda Blvd > Willow St > Metro Blue Line

Pacific Coast Highway BNSF Tracks > Pacific Coast Highway > Metro Blue Line

Anaheim Street Anaheim St > Metro Blue Line

Long Beach

Alameda Corridor / Shoreline Alameda Corridor > Shoreline Dr > Ocean Blvd


Page D-27

Figure D.7. Southern Area Routing / Terminus Options (Initial)



Page D-28

D.4.1. Gaffey Street / 7th Street to San Pedro Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Gaffey Street / 7th Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations

Transit Accessibility • Connect to Kaiser Hospital and downtown San Pedro, locations with limited express transit

• Kaiser Hospital as an activity center requires a station but is not populous enough to justify a terminus location


• Connect to existing Waterfront Red Car Line in downtown San Pedro


• Minimal property displacements and relocations on Normandie Ave and Gaffey St because ample width and potential use of ROW along Gaffey St from Westmont Dr to the waterfront

• Significant property displacements and relocations on 7th St because of narrow width

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Normandie Ave and 7th St; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts if at-grade and more significant impacts if aerial configuration is constructed

• Potential noise and vibration impacts through small residential areas adjacent to Gaffey St

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections, or an aerial configuration because of ample width on Normandie Ave and Gaffey St

• 7th St requires an at-grade configuration because of narrow width (an aerial structure would be difficult to construct and cause major traffic and visual impacts and ridership would not be great enough to justify an underground alignment)

• New connections required to access ROW along Gaffey St Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Normandie Ave / Gaffey St alignment • Stakeholders do not support 7th St because its narrow width would cause significant

community impacts

Recommendation: Eliminate the Gaffey Street / 7th Street option for the following reasons:

• Stakeholders do not support 7th Street because it is narrow and fitting a new guideway would cause significant community impacts, property displacements and relocations.


Page D-29

D.4.2. Gaffey Street / Harbor Boulevard to San Pedro Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Gaffey Street / Harbor Boulevard Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations, but shorter travel times along John Gibson Blvd and Front St because fewer grade crossings

• Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connect to Kaiser Hospital and downtown San Pedro, locations with limited express

transit

• Kaiser Hospital as an activity center requires a station but is not populous enough to justify a terminus location

• John Gibson Blvd / Harbor Blvd alignment serves Caltrans park-and-ride and the Ports O’ Call village


• Connect to existing Waterfront Red Car Line in downtown San Pedro


• Minimal property displacements and relocations because ample width on Normandie Ave and Gaffey St and potential use of ROW along Gaffey St from Westmont Dr to the waterfront and along John Gibson and Harbor Blvds

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Normandie Ave and Harbor Blvd; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts if at-grade and more potential impacts if aerial configuration is constructed

• Potential noise and vibration impacts through small residential areas adjacent to Gaffey St

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections, or an aerial configuration along Normandie Ave and Gaffey St because of ample width

• New connections required to access ROW along Gaffey St Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Normandie Ave / Gaffey St / John Gibson Blvd / Harbor Blvd alignment

Recommendation: Carry forward the Gaffey Street / Harbor Boulevard option for local service. Southern terminus option will be at Cruise Terminal station (SR-47/Harbor) because of urban design and engineering constraints. See Section 4.5 for additional detail.


Page D-30

D.4.3. I-110 to San Pedro Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria I-110 Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for LRT-compatible or freight-compatible modal options and local or regional transit service

Travel Time • Shorter travel times because I-110 corridor is fully grade separated and ROW along John Gibson Blvd and Front St has few at-grade crossings

• Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connect to PCH Park-and-Ride, Harbor College, downtown San Pedro areas with

express transit service

• PCH Park-and-Ride and Harbor College as activity centers merit a station but these destinations are not significant enough to justify a terminus location

• Stations along I-110 are difficult to access and noisy Regional Connectivity

• Connect to local bus lines at PCH Park-and-Ride and the Waterfront Red Car Line in downtown San Pedro


• Minimal property displacements and relocations if alignment can be constructed within the I-110 ROW

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Harbor Blvd; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minimal visual impacts if at-grade or aerial configuration is constructed • Minimal vibration and noise impacts

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade or aerial configuration on I-110 and in an at-grade configuration along the ROW adjacent to John Gibson Blvd, Front St and Harbor Blvd, except for potential grade separations at major intersections

• Potential capacity constraints along I-110 ROW Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the I-110 / Harbor Transitway / John Gibson Blvd / Harbor Blvd alignment because of minimal community impacts

Recommendation: Carry forward the I-110 option for local and regional service. Southern terminus option will be at Cruise Terminal station (SR-47/Harbor) because of urban design and engineering constraints. See Section 4.5 for additional detail.


Page D-31

D.4.4. Avalon Boulevard to Wilmington and San Pedro Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Avalon Boulevard Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations on Avalon Blvd but higher speeds possible on Harry Bridges Blvd, John Gibson Blvd and Front St because few at-grade crossings along the waterfront

• Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connect to Wilmington waterfront and downtown San Pedro, areas with limited

express transit

• Wilmington is not a large enough activity center / destination to justify direct service (or a terminus at the waterfront)

• Provides circuitous route to downtown San Pedro

• Provides transit access to transit-dependent residential population in Wilmington Regional Connectivity

• Connect to the proposed extension of the Waterfront Red Line Car Line at the Wilmington waterfront and the existing Waterfront Red Car Line in downtown San Pedro


• Significant property displacements and relocations on Avalon Blvd because of narrow width

• Fewer property displacements along Harry Bridges Blvd, John Gibson Blvd and Harbor Blvd

• Requires removal of parking and left turn lanes in addition to grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially on Avalon Blvd and Harbor Blvd; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Significant visual, noise and vibration impacts on Avalon Blvd

• Only two at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave to Avalon Blvd

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections

• New connection needed to the ROW adjacent to Harry Bridges Blvd Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support the Avalon Blvd alignment because of narrow width and community impacts

Recommendation: Eliminate the Avalon Boulevard option for the following reasons:

• Wilmington is not a large enough activity center / destination to justify direct service. • The alignment provides a circuitous route to downtown San Pedro. • Avalon Boulevard is narrow and introduction of transit guideway would cause significant

property, visual, noise and vibration impacts.

• Stakeholders do not support the Avalon Boulevard alignment because of narrow width and community impacts.


Page D-32

D.4.5. McFarland Avenue to Wilmington and San Pedro Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria MacFarland Avenue Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for LRT-compatible or freight-compatible modal options and local or regional service

Travel Time • Low speeds on ROW adjacent to McFarland Ave because of narrow ROW width and close proximity to residential uses

• Higher speeds possible on Harry Bridges Blvd, John Gibson Blvd and Front St because few existing grade crossings

• Improvement over existing on-street bus operations Transit Accessibility • Connect to Wilmington waterfront and downtown San Pedro, areas with limited

express transit

• Wilmington is not a large enough activity center / destination to justify direct service (or a terminus at the waterfront)

• Provides circuitous route to downtown San Pedro

• Limited ridership potential because McFarland Ave ROW is difficult to access


• Connect to the proposed extension of the Waterfront Red Line Car Line at the Wilmington waterfront and the existing Waterfront Red Car Line in downtown San Pedro


• Significant property displacements on ROW adjacent to McFarland Ave because of narrow width

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially adjacent to McFarland Ave and Harbor Blvd; Improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minor visual impacts but significant noise and vibration impacts adjacent to McFarland Ave near residential uses

• Six at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave to the BNSF Corridor

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections

• New connection needed to the ROW adjacent to Harry Bridges Blvd Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support the McFarland Ave / BNSF alignment because of narrow width and community impacts

• May be difficult to obtain operating rights from BNSF for the non-Metro owned ROW through the active freight yard

Recommendation: Eliminate the McFarland Avenue option for the following reasons:

• Wilmington is not a large enough activity center / destination to justify direct service. • The alignment provides a circuitous route to downtown San Pedro. • Limited ridership potential because ROW adjacent to McFarland Ave is difficult to access. • Alignment is narrow and the introduction of fixed guideway service would cause property,

noise and vibration impacts.

• Lack of stakeholder support • May be difficult to obtain operating rights from BNSF


Page D-33

D.4.6. Sepulveda Boulevard / Willow Street to Long Beach Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Sepulveda Boulevard / Willow Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility


Travel Time • Longer travel times due to on-street operations • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations • Allows for direct / interlined service south via Metro Blue Line

Transit Accessibility • Connect to Long Beach; could provide more direct service from the west • Connect to the Long Beach Transit Mall • Opens up potential ridership base because of proximity to residential neighborhoods

in Long Beach


• LRT and SPR can connect and interline with Metro Blue Line • Operating constraints involved with interlining with the Metro Blue Line


• Potential property displacements and relocations along Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St • Requires the reconfiguration of streets and grade separations and will impact existing

and future LOS along Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St and especially at various intersections; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Potential visual impacts and noise and vibration impacts on Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St

• Six at-grade crossings present on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave to Wilmington Ave

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration along Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St with the taking of one lane or parking in each direction. This would impact traffic and it may be difficult to obtain a lane from the City of Los Angeles or Long Beach.

• Aerial configuration can minimize ROW takes, but has larger visual impact Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St / Metro Blue Line alignment, especially with a terminus at the existing Willow Blue Line station.

Recommendation: Carry forward the Sepulveda Boulevard / Willow Street option for local service. Southern terminus of option will be at Willow Metro Blue Line station (Willow/Long Beach) because of operating constraints south to Long Beach. See Section 4.1 for additional detail.


Page D-34

D.4.7. Pacific Coast Highway to Long Beach Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Pacific Coast Highway Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility



Transit Accessibility • Connect to Long Beach; could provide more direct service from the west • Connect to Long Beach Transit Mall • Opens up potential ridership base because of proximity to residential neighborhoods

in Long Beach


• LRT and SPR can connect and interline with Metro Blue Line • Potential operating constraints involved with interlining with the Metro Blue Line


• Potential property displacements and relocations along PCH • Requires the reconfiguration of streets and grade separations and will impact existing

and future LOS along PCH and especially at various intersections; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Potential visual impacts and noise and vibration impacts on PCH • Six at-grade crossings present on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave

to the BNSF Corridor

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration along Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St with the taking of one lane or parking in each direction. This would impact traffic and it may be difficult to obtain a lane from the City of Los Angeles or Long Beach.

• Aerial configuration can minimize ROW takes, but has larger visual impact Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the PCH / Metro Blue Line alignment as an alternative to off-corridor options that utilize the Alameda Corridor

Recommendation: Carry forward the Pacific Coast Highway option for local service. Southern terminus of option will be at PCH Metro Blue Line station (PCH/Long Beach) because of operating constraints south to Long Beach. See Section 4.1 for additional detail.


Page D-35

D.4.8. Anaheim Street to Long Beach Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Anaheim Street Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility



Transit Accessibility • Connect to downtown Long Beach; could provide more direct service from the west • Connect to the Long Beach Transit Mall




• Significant property displacements and relocations because of narrow width of Anaheim St

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections on Anaheim St where there is heavy truck traffic; Improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Substantial visual impacts on Anaheim St

• Six at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave to the UP Corridor

Physical Fit • Harbor Subdivision ROW width is approximately 100’ from Redondo Beach to Watson Yard; LRT-Compatible modal options would operate adjacent to freight

• Likely financially and operationally infeasible to add additional tracks and ROW to the Alameda Corridor

• Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration, except for potential grade separations at major intersections

• New connection to Metro Blue Line needed at Anaheim St Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders do not support Anaheim St / Pacific Ave / Metro Blue Line alignment because it will cause significant community impacts due to narrow ROW widths along Anaheim St

• May be difficult to obtain operating rights for non-Metro owned ROW, although BNSF is typically more willing to enter negotiations and the Alameda Corridor Authority may permit use of the Alameda Corridor because it is less constrained in this portion of the Corridor as it is split and operates through large industrial parcels

Recommendation: Eliminate the Anaheim Street option for the following reasons:

• Anaheim Street is narrow; a new guideway would cause significant property and visual impacts.

• Likely financially and operationally infeasible to add additional tracks and ROW to the Alameda Corridor

• Stakeholders do not support the Anaheim Street / Pacific Avenue / Metro Blue Line alignment because its narrow width will cause significant community impacts.


Page D-36

D.4.9. Alameda Corridor / Shoreline Drive to Long Beach Routing Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Alameda Corridor / Shoreline Drive Routing Option Performance

Modal Compatibility

• Suitable for all modal options and regional service only because there are limited stop locations for a local alternative

Travel Time • Shorter travel times because of relatively fewer grade crossings • Improvement over existing on-street bus operations • LRT and SPR allow for direct / interlined service south via Metro Blue Line

Transit Accessibility • Connects to downtown Long Beach; could provide more direct service from the west • Connects to the Long Beach Transit Mall




• Minimal property displacements and relocations because of ample width on Shoreline Dr and Ocean Blvd

• Requires grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at various intersections, especially along Ocean Blvd; Improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Potential visual impacts for at-grade configuration; more significant impacts for aerial configuration

• Six at-grade crossings on the Harbor Subdivision ROW from Normandie Ave to the UP Corridor

Physical Fit • Can generally be built in an at-grade configuration for LRT-compatible modal options, except for potential grade separations at major intersections, and as an aerial configuration for freight-compatible modal options

• New connection to Metro Blue Line needed at Transit Mall Community Acceptability

• Stakeholders support the Shoreline Dr / Ocean Blvd alignment because of ample width and few community impacts for the at-grade configuration; concerns over visual impacts of aerial configuration

• May be difficult to obtain operating rights for non-Metro owned ROW. Recommendation: Eliminate the Alameda Corridor / Shoreline Drive option. Operational investigation found that it would not be possible to use the existing Alameda Corridor tracks. Additional ROW through this area for separate tracks is not available because of dense industrial and refinery land uses. See Section 4.1 for additional detail. D.4.10. Summary of Southern Routing / Terminus Options to be Carried Forward Four routing / terminus options in the southern portion of the Corridor meet the Stage I screening criteria and will be carried forward for further analysis. These alignments are illustrated in Figure D.8.

• San Pedro Terminus: ○ Normandie / Gaffey (also known as Gaffey Street / Harbor Boulevard) – Suitable for

LRT-compatible modal options and local service. Southern terminus at Cruise Terminal station due to urban design issues between there and downtown San Pedro (See Section 4.5 for more detail)


Page D-37

○ I-110 – Suitable for all modal options and local and regional service. Southern terminus at Cruise Terminal station due to urban design issues between there and downtown San Pedro (See Section 4.5 for more detail)

• Long Beach Terminus: ○ Sepulveda / Willow – Suitable for LRT-compatible modal options and local service.

Southern terminus at Willow Metro Blue Line station due to operational constraints between there and downtown Long Beach (See Section 4.1 for more detail).

○ Pacific Coast Highway – Suitable for LRT-compatible modal options and local service. Southern terminus at PCH Metro Blue Line station due to operational constraints between there and downtown Long Beach (See Section 4.1 for more detail).

Kaiser Hospital, the PCH Park-and-Ride / Harbor College and the Wilmington waterfront were initially considered as potential termini in the southern portion of the Corridor. Although Kaiser Hospital and the PCH Park-and-Ride / Harbor College are important activity centers, they are not appropriate locations for the termination of transit service as they would not serve the larger regional San Pedro Harbor destination. Instead, the Normandie / Gaffey and I-110 options will continue to downtown San Pedro via John Gibson Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard and Kaiser Hospital and the PCH Park-and-Ride / Harbor College will be carried forward as intermediate station locations. The Wilmington waterfront will not be carried forward as a terminus option, as both options serving Wilmington were eliminated from further analysis.


Page D-38

Figure D.8. Southern Routing / Terminus Options Carried Forward



Page D-39

D.5. MODAL OPTIONS Six modal alternatives were considered in the Stage I evaluation. They are:

• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

• Modes which can run on Light Rail Tracks (LRT-Compatible): ○ Light Rail Transit (LRT) ○ Self-Propelled Railcars (SPR)

• Modes which can run on Freight Tracks (Freight-Compatible): ○ Self-Propelled Railcars (SPR) ○ Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) ○ Commuter Rail Transit (CRT)

The evaluations for these alternatives are contained in the following tables.


Page D-40

D.5.1. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Modal Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria BRT Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produces only slightly lower travel times (end-to-end, dwell, transfer and in-vehicle and average) compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative and similar travel times to the TSM Alternative; lower travel times are unlikely because constraints prohibit BRT from operating on a dedicated guideway for long sections

Transit Accessibility • Able to serve major activity / transportation centers via on-street operation if necessary

• Minimal travel time savings between O-D pairs because constraints prohibit BRT from operating on a dedicated busway for the entire length of the Corridor

• Limited ability to attract new riders because of a lack of major travel time improvement


• Able to connect to existing transit lines via on-street operations if necessary • Ability to interline with the planned Metro Crenshaw Corridor if BRT is the LPA • Unable to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional rapid

transit system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations because of on-street operations and required expansion of Metro bus maintenance facilities

• Efficient service will require grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at many intersections throughout the Corridor; improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Minimal visual and noise / vibration impacts • Significant safety concerns in mixed bus / freight train corridors; buses typically do

not operate in freight corridors under any circumstances

Physical Fit • On-street operations are required to preserve freight rail access north of LAX where the ROW is only 30’ as temporal separation is infeasible because there are freight track maintenance issues associated with imbedding tracks in a busway; extensive on-street operations make BRT comparable to the TSM Alternative

• Dedicated busways will be difficult to fit in the existing street cross sections of the Harbor area, where extensive street operations are required; BRT is comparable to the TSM Alternative with on-street operations without a dedicated busway


• Did not emerge as a preferred modal option throughout the early scoping process

Recommendation: Eliminate the BRT modal option for the following reasons:

• The mode cannot interline with most existing and planned transit lines and facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional rapid transit system.

• A BRT running way would create safety, operational issues and conflicts with freight trains and their customers. The preliminary analysis has shown that BRT would not offer transit benefits relative to the significant investment involved due to slow “at grade” speeds when crossing a number of the Corridor’s 96 grade separations and/or the narrow segments of the Corridor that cannot accommodate the width of BRT lanes, and required clearances between BRT lanes and freight tracks.

• On-street operations are required to preserve freight rail access north of LAX where the ROW is only 30’ as temporal separation is infeasible because there are freight track


Page D-41

maintenance issues associated with embedding tracks in a busway; extensive on-street operations make the BRT option comparable to the TSM Alternative.

• Dedicated busways will be difficult to fit in the existing street cross sections of the Harbor area, where extensive street operations are required; without a dedicated busway, BRT is comparable to the TSM Alternative.

D.5.2. LRT-Compatible Modal Options D.5.2.1. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Modal Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria LRT Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produces lower travel times (end-to-end, dwell, transfer and in-vehicle and average) compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative, especially if LRT operates on a dedicated guideway

• Provides greater speeds and reliability Transit Accessibility • Able to serve major activity / transportation centers via on-street operation if

necessary

• Time savings between O-D pairs • Ability to attract new riders with travel times savings


• Able to connect to existing transit lines via on-street operations if necessary • Ability to interline with most existing Metro rail lines (except the Metro Red / Purple

Lines)

• Ability to interline with the planned Metro Crenshaw Corridor if LRT is LPA; inability to interline with Crenshaw Corridor if BRT is LPA

• Ability to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional rapid transit system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations because of potential on-street operations and required substations and new or expanded maintenance facilities

• Efficient service will require grade separations and will impact existing and future LOS at many intersections throughout the Corridor; Improved grade crossing technology can mitigate some impacts

• Potential visual impacts because of overhead catenary system but minimal noise / vibration impacts

• Regulatory issues in shared LRT / freight train corridors • No emissions – electrically powered

Physical Fit • Inability to preserve freight rail access north of LAX where ROW is 30’; requires the temporal separation of passenger and freight operations


• Emerged as a preferred modal alternative during the early scoping process

Recommendation: Carry forward the LRT modal option.


Page D-42

D.5.2.2. LRT-Compatible Self-Propelled Railcar (SPR) Modal Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria LRT-Compatible SPR Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produces lower travel times (end-to-end, dwell, transfer and in-vehicle and average) compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative

• Provides greater reliability • Slower acceleration and deceleration

Transit Accessibility • Able to serve major activity / transportation centers via on-street operation if necessary

• Time savings between O-D pairs • Ability to attract new riders with travel time savings


• Able to connect to existing transit lines via on-street operations if necessary • May be able to use existing Metro LRT lines • May be able to use the planned Metro Crenshaw Corridor if LRT is LPA • Ability to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional rapid

transit system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations because of potential on-street operations and required maintenance facility (but potential utilization of existing Metrolink maintenance facilities)


• Minor visual impacts because no catenaries are required but potential noise / vibration impacts

• Regulatory issues in SPR / freight train corridors • Less vulnerable to single point-of-failure outages than Commuter Rail because of

multiple engines

• Fuel-powered engines produce emissions as compared to zero-emission, electrically-powered modal options

Physical Fit • Inability to preserve freight rail access north of LAX where ROW is 30’; requires the temporal separation of passenger and freight operations


• Minimal support for LRT-compatible SPR in the early scoping process because of little knowledge of SPR technology in Southern California

• Concerns about emissions in the Harbor / Ports area Recommendation: Carry forward the LRT-compatible SPR modal option.


Page D-43

D.5.3. Freight-Compatible Modal Options D.5.3.1. Freight-Compatible Self-Propelled Railcar (SPR) – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria Freight-Compatible SPR Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produces lower end-to-end, in-vehicle and average travel times and longer dwell and transfer times compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative

• Provides greater speeds and reliability • Slower acceleration / deceleration

Transit Accessibility • Can only connect to major activity / transportation centers via dedicated guideways; extensive on-street operation not feasible



• Can only connect to existing transit lines via dedicated guideways • Inability to interline with most existing or planned Metro transit lines • Ability to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional

Metrolink transit system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations if built on elevated guideway or if a new maintenance facility is required (but potential utilization of existing Metrolink maintenance facilities)


• Minor visual impacts, unless elevated guideway constructed but potentially significant noise / vibration impacts

• Fewer safety concerns in shared freight-compatible SPR / freight train corridors because of FRA compatibility

• Less vulnerable to single point-of-failure outages than commuter rail because of multiple engines

• Fuel-powered engines produce emissions as compared to zero-emission, electrically-powered modal options

Physical Fit • Ability to preserve freight rail access in all parts of the Corridor; passenger service can operate with freight


• Minimal support for freight-compatible SPR in early scoping process due to little knowledge of SPR technology in Southern California

• Concerns about emissions in the Harbor / Ports area Recommendation: Carry forward the freight-compatible SPR modal option.


Page D-44

D.5.3.2. Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Modal Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria EMU Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produce lower end-to-end, in-vehicle and average travel times and longer dwell and transfer times compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative

• Provide greater speeds and reliability Transit Accessibility • Can only connect to major activity / transportation centers via dedicated guideways;

on-street operation not feasible



• Can only connect to existing transit lines via dedicated guideways • Inability to interline with existing and planned Metro transit lines • Ability to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the regional

Metrolink transit system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations because of required substations and maintenance facilities and if built on an elevated guideway


• Potential visual impacts because of overhead catenary system and if constructed on an elevated guideway; potential noise / vibration impacts

• Fewer safety concerns in shared EMU / freight train corridors because of freight-compatibility

• No emissions – electrically powered Physical Fit • Ability to preserve freight rail access in all parts of the Corridor; passenger service can

operate with freight


• General support for EMU during the early scoping process

Recommendation: Carry forward the EMU modal option.


Page D-45

D.5.3.3. Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) Modal Option – Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria CRT Modal Option Performance

Travel Time • Produces lower end-to-end, in-vehicle and average travel times and longer dwell and transfer times compared to the Metro Rapid Lines in the No Build Alternative

• Provides greater reliability and speeds Transit Accessibility • Can only connect to major activity / transportation centers via dedicated guideways;

on-street operation not feasible



• Can only connect to existing transit lines via dedicated guideways • Inability to interline with existing and planned Metro transit lines • Ability to facilitate a one-seat ride between multiple branches of the Metrolink transit

system


• Potential ROW takes and relocations if built on elevated guideway or if a new maintenance facility is required (but potential utilization of existing Metrolink maintenance facilities)


• Minor visual impacts, unless elevated guideway constructed; significant noise / vibration impacts

• Fewer safety concerns in shared CRT / freight train corridors because of freight-compatibility

Physical Fit • Ability to preserve freight rail access in all parts of the Corridor; passenger service can operate with freight


• Emerged as a preferred modal option during the early scoping process • Some concerns about compatibility of CRT with local community standards

Recommendation: Carry forward the CRT modal option. D.5.3.4. Summary of Modal Options Table D.5 summarizes the modal options that will be carried forward and eliminated from further study per the Stage I Screening process.

Table D.5. Harbor Subdivision Modal Options Carried Forward and Eliminated

Weight Options Carried Forward Options Eliminated

LRT-Compatible • Light Rail Transit • Self-Propelled Railcar

• Bus Rapid Transit

Freight-Compatible

• Self-Propelled Railcar • Electric Multiple Unit • Commuter Rail Transit

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Metro Harbor Subdivision Appendix D Stage I...

Documents