WESTSIDE EXTENSION TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDYmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/... ·...

WESTSIDE EXTENSIONTRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY

Project No. PS-4350-2000

Task 3.4Final Initial AlternativesScreening Report (20c)

Prepared for:

Prepared by:Parsons Brinckerhoff

444 South Flower StreetSuite 3700

Los Angeles, California 90071

July 14, 2008

Final Initial Alternatives Screening ReportTable of Contents

W E S T S I D E E X T E N S I O N T R A N S I T C O R R I D O R S T U D YJuly 14, 2008 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1-1

2.0 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................2-12.1 No Build Alternative................................................................................................... 2-12.2 TSM Alternative ......................................................................................................... 2-22.3 Wilshire Boulevard Based HRT Subway Alignments................................................ 2-32.4 Santa Monica Boulevard Based HRT Subway Alignments........................................2-32.5 Combined Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard based HRT Subway

Alignments................................................................................................................. 2-62.6 HRT, LRT and Monorail Elevated Alignments.......................................................... 2-72.7 BRT Alignments ........................................................................................................ 2-8

3.0 INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................3-13.1 Screening Process ...................................................................................................... 3-13.2 Screening Information............................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Goal A: Mobility Improvement.....................................................................3-53.2.2 Goal B: Transit – Supportive Land Use Policies and Conditions ............... 3-383.2.3 Goal C: Cost-Effectiveness.......................................................................... 3-433.2.4 Goal D: Project Feasibility .......................................................................... 3-483.2.5 Goal E: Equity ............................................................................................. 3-593.2.6 Goal F: Environmental Considerations ...................................................... 3-593.2.7 Goal G: Public Acceptance ......................................................................... 3-75

3.3 Input During Screening........................................................................................... 3-813.3.1 Public Input................................................................................................. 3-813.3.2 Meetings with Key Stakeholders.................................................................. 3-81

3.4 Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration ................................................. 3-813.4.1 Transit Modes.............................................................................................. 3-813.4.2 Transit Alignments...................................................................................... 3-843.4.3 Alternative-Specific Issues........................................................................... 3-90

4.0 ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION ..................................4-14.1 Use of FTA Project Justification Criteria ................................................................... 4-14.2 No Build ..................................................................................................................... 4-14.3 TSM............................................................................................................................4-24.4 Heavy Rail Alternatives .............................................................................................. 4-44.5 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative .................................................................................... 4-8


W E S T S I D E E X T E N S I O N T R A N S I T C O R R I D O R S T U D YJuly 14, 2008 Page ii

List of TablesTable 3-1. Three Key Issues to Address in Screening Analysis..........................................................3-5

Table 3-2. Peak Period Travel Times (minutes) between Major Origin-Destination Pairs................ 3-6

Table 3-3. Average End-to-End Transit Operating Speeds (mph) .................................................... 3-10

Table 3-4. Percentage of Transit Alignment Operating in Mixed Flow Traffic................................ 3-12

Table 3-5. Number of Transfers between Select Origin-Destination Pairs...................................... 3-13

Table 3-6. Typical Transit Capacity by Mode.................................................................................... 3-16

Table 3-7. Provide Sufficient Transit Capacity ................................................................................. 3-17

Table 3-8. Transit Ridership............................................................................................................. 3-19

Table 3-9. Population and Population Density within ½ Mile of the Alignment............................. 3-24

Table 3-10. Employment and Employment Density within ½ Mile of the Alignment..................... 3-27

Table 3-11. Competitive Speeds ....................................................................................................... 3-36

Table 3-12. Enhancing Linkages and Major Trip Attractors/Generators Within the Corridor........ 3-37

Table 3-13. Number of High Density Mixed Use Activity Centers Within ½ Mile of Each Alignment.................................................................................................................................. 3-41

Table 3-14. Number of High Opportunity Areas for Redevelopment Within ½ Mile of EachAlignment ................................................................................................................ 3-42

Table 3-15. Cost-Effectiveness.......................................................................................................... 3-44

Table 3-16. Financial Feasibility....................................................................................................... 3-49

Table 3-17. Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 3-55

Table 3-18. Construction Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-58

Table 3-19. Equity............................................................................................................................. 3-60

Table 3-20. Estimated ROW Impact................................................................................................. 3-63

Table 3-21. Impacts to Traffic Circulation in Lane Miles................................................................. 3-66

Table 3-22. Estimated Visual and Noise Impacts............................................................................. 3-70

Table 3-23. Emergency Exits and Evacuation................................................................................... 3-72

Table 3-24. Vehicle/Transit/Pedestrian Conflicts ............................................................................ 3-74

Table 3-25. Impacts on Sensitive and Protected Environmental Resources .................................... 3-76

Table 3-26. 2030 Estimated Reduction in VMT................................................................................ 3-78

Table 3-27. Public Involvement........................................................................................................ 3-80

Table 3-28. Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration ....................................................... 3-82

Table 3-29. Summary of Reasons Alternatives were Dropped from Consideration ........................ 3-93


W E S T S I D E E X T E N S I O N T R A N S I T C O R R I D O R S T U D YJuly 14, 2008 Page iii

List of FiguresFigure 3-1. Evaluation Framework..................................................................................................... 3-1

Figure 3-2. Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria........................................................................ 3-4

Figure 3-3. Average End-to-End Transit Operating Speeds (mph) between Union Station(Downtown) and 4th/Wilshire (Santa Monica)........................................................ 3-11

Figure 3-4. Estimated Maximum Capacity of New EW Transit Service Assuming 18 trains per houror 30 buses per hour ................................................................................................ 3-18

Figure 3-5. Daily New Transit Trips (As compared to No Build) ..................................................... 3-20

Figure 3-6. Change in Urban Rail Boardings (As compared to No Build)....................................... 3-21

Figure 3-7. “New Stations” Urban Rail Boardings........................................................................... 3-22

Figure 3-8. 2005/06 and 2030 Population within ½ mile of Alignment .......................................... 3-25

Figure 3-9. 2005/06 and 2030 Average Population Density per Square Mile within ½ mile of theAlignment ................................................................................................................ 3-25

Figure 3-10. Population and Employment Densities Drive Ridership............................................. 3-26

Figure 3-11. 2005/06 and 2030 Employment within ½ mile of Alignment ..................................... 3-28

Figure 3-12. 2005/06 and 2030 Average Employment Density per Square Mile within ½ mile ofAlignment ................................................................................................................ 3-28

Figure 3-13. Age Distribution - Age 18 and Under (2000 Census) .................................................. 3-30

Figure 3-14. Age Distribution - Age 65 and Older (2000 Census).................................................... 3-31

Figure 3-15. 2005 Low Income Households .................................................................................... 3-32

Figure 3-16. 2030 Low Income Households .................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 3-17. Public Transportation Commuters (2000 Census) ...................................................... 3-34

Figure 3-18. Zero Car Households (2000 Census)........................................................................... 3-35

Figure 3-19. Number of Direct Connections within 1/8 mile walk to other lines, NS bus routes, etc.3-39

Figure 3-20. Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Cost ($ Billions, 2008)......................................... 3-45

Figure 3-21. Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Cost ($ Billions, YOE) ......................................... 3-45

Figure 3-22. Cost-Effectiveness (Compared to No Build) in $ per Hour ......................................... 3-46

Figure 3-23. Transit User Benefits (Daily Hours) ............................................................................ 3-47

Figure 3-24. Safety Element Exhibit A - Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and Fault Rupture StudyAreas ........................................................................................................................ 3-51

Figure 3-25. Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills + Hollywood Quadrangles (CDMG, 1999)....... 3-52

Figure 3-26. Regional Geologic Map................................................................................................ 3-53

Figure 3-27. Methane and Methane Buffer Zones; City of LA, DPW, Bureau of Engineering........ 3-54

Figure 3-28. Length of Alignment in Areas Potentially Containing Methane ................................. 3-56

Figure 3-29. Number of Low Income Households within ½ Mile of Alignment, present............... 3-61

Figure 3-30. Estimated Right of Way Impact Based on Proposed Alternative Footprint................. 3-64

Figure 3-31. Impact to Traffic Lanes by Elevated and BRT Alignments .......................................... 3-67

Figure 3-32. Traffic Lanes Removed or Impacted (in Lane Miles)................................................... 3-68


W E S T S I D E E X T E N S I O N T R A N S I T C O R R I D O R S T U D YJuly 14, 2008 Page iv

Figure 3-33. Parking Lanes Removed or Impacted (in Lane Miles)................................................. 3-68

Figure 3-34. Estimated Number of Cultural Resources Directly Impacted ..................................... 3-77

Figure 3-35. Estimated Year 2030 Daily Reduction in VMT (Region) Compared to No Build ........ 3-79

Figure 3-36. Carrying Capacity by Mode.......................................................................................... 3-82

Figure 3-37. Typical Cross Section: Elevated LRT............................................................................ 3-85

Figure 3-38. Typical Cross Section: Elevated HRT........................................................................... 3-86

Figure 3-39. Typical Cross Section: Monorail Station Platform....................................................... 3-87

Figure 3-40. Wilshire/Fairfax Elevated Station Photo Simulation ................................................... 3-88

Figure 4-1. No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 4-3

Figure 4-2. TSM Alternative............................................................................................................... 4-5

Figure 4-3. Alternative 1 - Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway .......................................... 4-6

Figure 4-4. Alternative 11 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway................4-7

Figure 4-5. Alternative 14 - Wilshire Boulevard/Fairfax Centers HRT Subway.................................4-9

Figure 4-6. Alternative 16 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined Centers HRT Subway withtransfer at Hollywood/Highland.............................................................................. 4-10

Figure 4-7. Alternative 17 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards BRT At Grade .............................. 4-12

Final Initial Alternatives Screening Report1.0 – Introduction

W E S T S I D E E X T E N S I O N T R A N S I T C O R R I D O R S T U D YJuly 14, 2008 Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The evaluation process for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study includes threesteps: 1) screening evaluation, 2) detailed evaluation, and 3) New Starts evaluation aspresented in the Analysis Methodology Report, Task 2.5. This initial screening reportpresents the screening measures information. The screening process starts with arepresentative set of alternatives as presented in Chapter 2, covering a range of alignmentand modal alternatives. Once the screening process is complete, alternatives will bereduced to a reasonable set of No Build, Transportation System Management (TSM), andBuild alternatives to carry forward into more detailed definition, travel demand modeling,conceptual engineering and comparative assessment (evaluation steps 2 and 3). Duringthe screening step, alternatives are analyzed at a planning level of detail. Chapter 3presents the screening data results by each of the seven major project goals. A discussionof the eliminated alternatives closes out this section. The alternatives selected for furtherstudy are described in Chapter 4.0.

Final Initial Alternatives Screening Report2.0 – Alternatives Development


2.0 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

As a result of the early scoping process conducted during October 2007, a total of 17representative build alternatives were developed for initial screening. The alternativesdefinitions are presented in more detail in the Preliminary Definition of AlternativesReport, Task 3.1. A summary version of the alternative descriptions is provided below.In addition to the No Build and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternatives,there are 17 alternatives presented in five major categories:

Wilshire Boulevard based Heavy Rail Transit (HRT) Subway alignments

Santa Monica Boulevard based HRT Subway alignments

Combined Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway alignments

HRT, Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Monorail elevated alignments

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alignments

2.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative includes all existing highway and transit services and facilitiesand the committed highway and transit projects in the current Metro Long-RangeTransportation Plan that are under construction and environmentally cleared, and thecurrent Southern California Association of Governments’ 2004 Regional TransportationPlan.

Proposed Major highway improvements impacting the Westside Transit corridorbetween now and 2030 only include completing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes onInterstate 405 (I 405) Freeway between US 101 and I-105 Freeway.

From a rail transit perspective, the Westside study area will continue to be served by thePurple and Red Metro Rail Lines along the eastern and northeastern edges of the studyarea. Additional rail service committed in 2030 (2001 Metro Long Range TransportationPlan, Baseline) includes 1. Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension: from Union Station toEast LA; 2. Exposition LRT Line: from 7th/Metro to Culver City; and 3. LAX PeopleMover: from the Aviation/LAX station of the Green Line to the LAX main terminal (to befunded by others).

A rich network of local, express and Metro Rapid bus routes will also continue to beprovided. Of particular note are the Metro Rapid bus route additions and modificationsfor:

Santa Monica Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 704)

Culver City Bus Rapid 6 (operated by Culver City Bus)

Torrance Transit Rapid 3 (operated by Torrance Transit)

Manchester Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 715)

San Fernando - Lankershim Metro Rapid Bus (Line 724)



Olympic Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 728)

Pico Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 730)

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Rapid 7 (operated by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus)

Reseda Metro Rapid Bus (Line 741)

Central Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 753)

Long Beach Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 760)

Atlantic Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 762)

Garvey Avenue – Chavez Metro Rapid Bus (Line 770)

San Fernando South Metro Rapid Bus (Line 794)

Wilshire Boulevard Metro Rapid Express Bus (Line 920)

These routes will offer an increased high quality of service in 2030 for purposes ofalternative comparison.

2.2 TSM Alternative

The TSM Alternative enhances the No Build Alternative and improves upon the existingMetro Rapid Bus service and local bus service in the Westside study area. This alternativeemphasizes more frequent service to reduce delay and enhance mobility. Although thefrequency of service is already very good, service frequency is proposed to be improvedbetween 2 and 10 minutes during peak periods on selected routes.

A number of local bus routes will see frequency enhancements over the No Build duringthe peak period. These routes include:

Sunset Boulevard (short line (SL) Westwood) (Line 2)

Santa Monica Boulevard SL (Line 4)

Beverly Boulevard SL (Line 14)

West Third Street Limited (Line 16)

Wilshire Boulevard-Westwood (Line 20)

Vermont Avenue SL (Line 204)

Western Avenue SL (Line 207)

In addition to the local bus routes described above, a series of Metro Rapid Bus routeswill also be enhanced as part of the TSM Alternative. These routes include:



Vermont Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 754)

The TSM Alternative is further described and illustrated in Section 4.3.



2.3 Wilshire Boulevard Based HRT Subway Alignments

Of the 13 alternatives in the HRT subway category, three are focused primarily alongWilshire Boulevard. They are Alternatives 1, 12 and 14 and are described briefly below.

Alternative 1 – Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station to 4thStreet and Wilshire Boulevard in SantaMonica underground with 11 stations.

The alignment is generally under WilshireBoulevard with a direct connection at theWilshire/Western Station.

This alternative has a portal section between Wilshire/Crenshaw and theWilshire/Western Metro Purple Line Station. This is common to all alternatives.

Alternative 12 – Wilshire Boulevard/BeverlyBoulevard Centers HRT Subway

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station to4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in SantaMonica underground with 11 stations.

This alignment is generally under WilshireBoulevard to La Brea Avenue, continues under La Brea Avenue to Beverly Boulevard,stays under Beverly Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard, continues under SantaMonica Boulevard, transitions to Wilshire Boulevard and continues under WilshireBoulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

Alternative 14 – Wilshire Boulevard/Fairfax Centers HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station to4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in SantaMonica underground with 12 stations.

This alignment is generally under WilshireBoulevard to Fairfax Avenue, continuesunder Fairfax Avenue to south of BeverlyBoulevard, to Beverly Drive and SantaMonica Boulevard, continues under Santa Monica Boulevard, transitions to WilshireBoulevard and continues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

2.4 Santa Monica Boulevard Based HRT Subway Alignments

Of the 13 alternatives in the HRT subway major category, five (plus a station approachoption) are focused primarily along Santa Monica Boulevard. They are Alternatives 4, 6, 7(and 7A), 8 and 13 and are depicted below.



Alternative 4 – Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway with Universal Cityand Hollywood/Highland Red Line Connections

This alternative extends from the MetroRed Line at both the Universal City andHollywood/ Highland Stations to 4th Streetand Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monicawith nine stations.

This underground alignment transitionsfrom the Metro Red Line to WestHollywood at Fairfax Avenue and SantaMonica Boulevard, continues under Santa Monica Boulevard to Century City,transitions to Wilshire Boulevard and continues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4thStreet in Santa Monica.

Alternative 6 - Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Highland Red Line Connection

This alternative extends from the Metro RedLine at the Hollywood/Highland Station to4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in SantaMonica with 10 stations.

This underground alignment transitionsfrom the Metro Red Line atHollywood/Highland, continues underHighland Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard, under Santa Monica Boulevard toCentury City, transitions to Wilshire Boulevard and continues under WilshireBoulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

A new underground transfer station in the vicinity of Hollywood/Highland isincluded to transfer to/from the Red Line.

Alternative 7 - Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Highland Red Line Connection/ Galaxy North

This alternative extends from the MetroRed Line at the Hollywood/HighlandStation to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica with ninestations.

This underground alignment transitionsfrom the Metro Red Line atHollywood/Highland, to Santa MonicaBoulevard at Fairfax Avenue north of the Galaxy shopping center, continues underSanta Monica Boulevard to Century City, transitions to Wilshire Boulevard andcontinues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

Continuing east-west service to Santa Monica to/from the existing Metro Red Line isprovided by a direct connection.



Alternative 7A - Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway with Hollywood/Highland Red Line Connection/ Galaxy South

This alternative extends from the MetroRed Line at the Hollywood/HighlandStation to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica with ninestations.

This underground alignment transitionsfrom the Metro Red Line atHollywood/Highland, to Santa MonicaBoulevard at Fairfax Avenue south of the Galaxy shopping center, continues underSanta Monica Boulevard to Century City, transitions to Wilshire Boulevard andcontinues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.


Alternative 8 - Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Vine Red Line Connection

This alternative extends from the MetroRed Line at the Hollywood/Vine Stationto 4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard inSanta Monica with nine stations.

This underground alignment transitionsfrom the Metro Red Line atHollywood/Vine to Santa MonicaBoulevard at Fairfax Avenue, continues under Santa Monica Boulevard to CenturyCity, transitions to Wilshire Boulevard and continues under Wilshire Boulevard to4th Street in Santa Monica.


Alternative 13 – Santa Monica/San Vicente/Wilshire Boulevards HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the MetroRed Line at the Hollywood/HighlandStation to 4th Street and Wilshire Boulevardin Santa Monica with 10 stations.

The alignment extends from theHollywood/Highland Metro Red LineStation under Santa Monica Boulevard, SanVicente Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevardto 4th Street in Santa Monica.




2.5 Combined Wilshire Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard based HRTSubway Alignments

Of the 13 alternatives in the HRT subway major category, five represent maximumcoverage alternatives utilizing both the Wilshire and Santa Monica corridors. The five areAlternatives 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16. They are shown below.

Alternative 9 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway (Alt 1 +Alt 4)

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/ Western Station andfrom the Metro Red Line at both theUniversal City and Hollywood/ HighlandStations to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica undergroundwith 13 stations.

See alternative 1 and 4 bulleted summaries above for more detail.

Alternative 10 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway (Alt 1 +Alt 7)

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/ Western Station andfrom the Metro Red Line at the Hollywood/Highland Station to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica undergroundwith 13 stations.

See alternative 1 and 7 bulleted summariesabove for more detail.

Alternative 11 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway (Alt 1 +Alt 6)

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station andfrom the Metro Red Line at theHollywood/Highland Station without a RedLine direct connection to 4th Street andWilshire Boulevard in Santa Monicaunderground with 14 stations.




Alternative 15 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined Centers HRT Subway(Alt 13 + Alt 14)

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station andfrom the Metro Red LineHollywood/Highland Station to 4th Streetand Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monicaunderground with 14 stations.

See alternative 13 and 14 bulletedsummaries above for more detail.

Alternative 16 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined Centers HRT Subway(Alt 13 + Alt 14) with transfer at Hollywood/Highland

This alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station andfrom the Metro Red LineHollywood/Highland Station to 4th Streetand Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monicaunderground with 14 stations and atransfer at the Hollywood/HighlandStation.


2.6 HRT, LRT and Monorail Elevated Alignments

A total of three elevated configurations (Alternatives 2, 3 and 5) are proposed forscreening. For each alternative, three modes are common: HRT, LRT and Monorail.

Alternative 2 – Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT ElevatedThis HRT alternative extends from theMetro Purple Line Wilshire/WesternStation to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica with 11stations.

The alignment is elevated above WilshireBoulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard,above Santa Monica Boulevard to WestwoodBoulevard, above Westwood Boulevard to Wilshire Boulevard and above WilshireBoulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

To transition from subway to elevated, the alignment requires a major portal betweenthe existing Wilshire/Western Metro Purple Line Station and the proposedWilshire/Crenshaw Station.



Alternative 3 – Wilshire Boulevard Alignment LRT/Monorail ElevatedThis alternative extends from the MetroPurple Line Wilshire/Western Station to4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in SantaMonica elevated with 12 stations.

The alignment is elevated above WilshireBoulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard,above Santa Monica Boulevard toWestwood Boulevard, above WestwoodBoulevard to Wilshire Boulevard and above Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street in SantaMonica.

To transition from subway to elevated, the alignment requires a physical transferbetween the existing Wilshire/Western Metro Purple Line Station and the proposedWilshire/Western elevated station.

Alternative 5 – Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT, LRT, Monorail ElevatedThis alternative extends from the MetroRed Line Hollywood/ Highland Stationelevated to Wilshire Boulevard and 4thStreet in Santa Monica with 10 stations.

The alignment heads south from theHollywood/Highland Station aboveHighland Avenue to Santa MonicaBoulevard, above Santa Monica Boulevard to Westwood Boulevard, above WestwoodBoulevard to Wilshire Boulevard and then above Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street inSanta Monica.

2.7 BRT Alignments

The BRT alternative consists of a specially operated dedicated peak period curb lanepredominantly along Santa Monica Boulevard with two branches, one to 4th Street indowntown Santa Monica with 13 stations and the second along Santa Monica Boulevardto Westwood Boulevard with nine stations. The BRT alternative also includes a similarlyoperated Wilshire Line from the end of the Metro Purple Line along Wilshire Boulevardto Ocean Avenue, with a turn-around along Ocean Avenue back to 5th Street andColorado Avenue in downtown Santa Monica with 15 stations.

Alternative 17 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards BRT At GradeThis alternative predominantly usesWilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards onstreet with physical transfers at theWilshire/Western Metro Purple LineStation and Hollywood/Highland MetroRed Line Station providing service todowntown Santa Monica on both Wilshireand Santa Monica Boulevards.



This alternative operates with three separate lines: Wilshire Boulevard to downtownSanta Monica (Line 1); Santa Monica Boulevard to downtown Santa Monica (Line 2);and Santa Monica Boulevard to Westwood Boulevard and downtown Westwood (Line3) as a branch of Line 2.

Line 1 has 15 stops, Line 2 has 13 stops and Line 3 has nine stops.

Final Initial Alternatives Screening Report3.0 – Initial Screening of Alternatives


3.0 INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter contains an overview of the screening process for the alternatives evaluationplus the performance measures used and their relationship to the prescribed study Goalsand Objectives. In addition, this chapter presents the screening measure results for eachof the seven major Goals.

3.1 Screening Process

The universe of alternatives for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor will beidentified, evaluated, and narrowed to the most promising few in three steps asillustrated in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1. Evaluation Framework



Step 1 Screening: The screening process starts with a broad set of alternativescovering a range of alignment and modal alternatives and reduces it to a reasonableset of No Build, Transportation System Management (TSM), and Build alternatives tocarry forward into more detailed definition, travel demand modeling, conceptualengineering and comparative assessment. During the screening step, alternatives areanalyzed at a planning level of detail.

Step 2 Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives: The alternatives evaluation step involves amore detailed definition, assessment, and comparison of the shortlist of alternativesemerging from the screening analysis. The detailed evaluation of alternatives isconducted at a conceptual engineering level of analysis, relying on more specificperformance measures as well as Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance tosupport the Metro staff recommendation of the alternatives to carry forward.

Step 3 New Starts Evaluation: Final refinement, evaluation and documentation of therationale used to select the recommended alternatives, using required templates forsubmission to FTA.

The first step (screening) involves an evaluation of a large number of possible transitcorridors, alignments and modes at a conceptual level. Each of the subsequent stepsconsiders a smaller number of alternatives at a greater level of detail. As the number andrange of alternatives narrow through the course of the study, the level of detail increases.

The screening analysis focuses on answering key questions or concerns that prove to bedistinguishers among major choices. Some of the key questions include:

Vertical Alignment/Degree of Right-of-Way Separation

Transit Mode/Technology

Horizontal Alignment

Evaluation factors associated with each of these key questions are identified in thefollowing section.

This helps ensure that the bulk of the study effort as well as public scrutiny and review isdevoted to the most promising alternatives and transportation improvements. In thismanner, the various transportation proposals under consideration continue to evolve asthe Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study progresses. The alternatives not carriedforward at the conclusion of each step are carefully documented in terms of the reasonsfor why they were not considered further.

3.2 Screening Information

Specific goals and objectives have been structured to capture the priorities for mobilityimprovement and transit performance that have been raised and discussed bytransportation planning agencies, community leaders, and concerned citizens andstakeholders for the past several years.

The established goals and objectives for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor addressthe major considerations related to making choices among different transportation



alternatives such as effectiveness, impacts, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, andequity.

For the Westside Extension Transit Corridor, seven goals have been identified and aredescribed as follows:

Goal A – Mobility Improvement: The primary purpose of the project is to improvepublic transit service and mobility in the Westside Extension Transit Corridor. Toevaluate the goal of Mobility Improvement, the analysis will examine how well eachalternative improves the ability of residents and employees to reach desired destinationsthrough the provision of high quality, convenient, and reliable east-west transit servicethroughout the Corridor.

Goal B – Transit Supportive Land Use Policies and Conditions: A major aspect ofthis goal is to locate transit alignments and stations in areas with existing land usesconducive to transit use or in those areas which have the greatest potential to developtransit supportive land uses.

Goal C – Cost-Effectiveness: This goal ensures that both the capital and operating costsof the project are commensurate with its benefits.

Goal D – Project Feasibility: The fourth goal is that the project be financially feasible,in other words, that funds for the construction and operation of the alternative be readilyavailable in the sense that they do not place undue burdens on the sources of thosefunds. This goal also includes minimizing the risk associated with project construction.

Goal E – Equity: This goal evaluates project solutions based on how well costs andbenefits are distributed fairly across different population groups with particular emphasison serving transit dependent communities.

Goal F – Environmental Considerations: The sixth goal, Environmental Benefits, is todevelop solutions which minimize impacts to environmental resources and communitieswithin the study area.

Goal G – Public Acceptance: This goal aims to develop solutions that are acceptable toa reasonable portion of the public with special emphasis on residents and businesseswithin the study area.

Performance measures have been identified to measure the achievement of the goals andobjectives according to a set of evaluation criteria as documented in the AnalysisMethodology Report, Task 2.5 and as shown in Figure 3-2. The screening results byGoal and Objective within each Goal using the specific evaluation criteria andperformance measures is provided in the following report sections.

As discussed in the previous section, three key issues should be addressed in the screeninganalysis. The evaluation criteria and performance measures needed to respond to each ofthese are listed in Table 3-1. As the Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures arediscussed in the following sections, these key issues should be kept in mind.



Figure 3-2. Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria



Table 3-1. Three Key Issues to Address in Screening Analysis

Vertical Alignment /Degree of Right-of-Way Transit Mode / Technology Horizontal Alignment

Travel TimesTrip ReliabilityTransit CapacitySafety & SecurityRight-of-Way ImpactsNatural & Cultural ResourcesTraffic & CirculationAvailable Right-of-Way sufficient toprevent undue noise and visualimpacts on adjacent structuresLocal SupportCommunity AcceptanceConstructability/ConstructionImpactsCost-Effectiveness

Transit CapacitySystem ConnectivityTrip ReliabilityRidershipCost-EffectivenessSafety & SecurityTravel Times

Ridership PotentialSystem ConnectivityConstructability / ConstructionImpactsTransit Supportive Land UsesEconomic BenefitLocal SupportCommunity Acceptance

3.2.1 Goal A: Mobility Improvement

The purpose of mobility improvement is to improve the ability of residents andemployees to reach desired destinations through the provision of high quality,convenient, and reliable east-west transit service through the corridor.

Objectives for mobility improvement include:

Reduce transit travel times

Improve trip reliability

Provide sufficient transit capacity to meet 2030 transit demand and beyond(expandability)

Maximize potential transit ridership

Enhance linkages to the transportation system as well as major tripattractors/generators within the corridor

3.2.1.1 Objective 1: Reduce Transit Travel TimesReducing transit travel times is one of the objectives of mobility improvement. TravelTime Savings is a criterion used to address this objective. Screening measures used toevaluate travel time savings include (a) analyzing peak period travel times between majororigin-destination (OD) pairs (min) and (b) average end-to-end transit operating speeds(mph).

As seen in Table 3-2 below, the Combined HRT Subway has more instances of fasterpeak period travel times between major OD pairs than the other alternatives. TheWilshire Boulevard HRT Subway group of alternatives follows with the second most



Table 3-2. Peak Period Travel Times (minutes) between Major Origin-Destination Pairs

PERFORMANCE MEASURESfor Initial Screening (Task 3.4) ALTERNATIVES

Elevated*

BRT Wilshire HRT Santa Monica HRT Combined HRTWilshire

HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 1 a Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) – Between Del Mar Station (Gold Line) and:

Century City 80 92 92 80 48 54 48 48 54 61

Santa Monica/San Vicente(WeHo)

72 83 83 64 60 50 50 60 65 57

Wilshire/Beverly (BH) 78 90 90 65 46 68 46 46 52 74

Wilshire/Westwood (UCLA) 82 94 94 75 50 56 50 50 57 64

4th/Wilshire (Santa Monica) 112 129 129 91 57 63 57 57 65 71

Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) – Between Pershing Square Station (Red Line) and:

Century City 48 55 55 47 20 26 20 20 26 33


49 56 56 37 35 23 23 35 37 29




Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) – Between Florence Station (Blue Line) and:

Century City 60 69 69 74 41 47 41 41 47 54


69 79 79 57 53 43 43 53 58 50






Table 3-2. Peak Period Travel Times (minutes) between Major Origin-Destination Pairs (continued)


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) - Between Reseda Station (Orange Line) and:

Century City 72 83 83 66 66 45-52 45-52 66 74 54


83 95 95 57 77 41-48 41-48 77 85 50

Wilshire/Beverly (BH) 80 92 92 71 64 58-65 58-65 64 72 67

Wilshire/Westwood (UCLA) 59 68 68 71 68 47-54 47-54 68 77 57

4th/Wilshire (Santa Monica) 97 112 112 86 75 54-61 54-61 75 84 64

Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) - Between Covina Station (Metrolink) and:

Century City 94 108 108 92 67 73 67 67 73 80


99 114 114 87 79 69 69 79 84 76




Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) - Between Wilshire/Western Station (Purple Line) and:

Century City 35 40 40 34 10 29 10 10 12 34


30 35 35 30 22 26 22 22 22 30






Table 3-2. Peak Period Travel Times (minutes) between Major Origin-Destination Pairs (continued)


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) (minutes) - Between North Hollywood Station (Red Line) and:

Century City 58 67 67 35 39 14-21 14-21 39 45 23


51 59 59 26 51 10-18 10-18 51 56 19




* Removes 2 lanes of traffic



instances of faster peak period travel times between major OD pairs. The at-grade BRTalternative has the most instances of slower peak period travel times.

As seen in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3, on average the fastest end-to-end transit operatingspeeds (mph) is about the same for the Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subway, Santa MonicaBoulevard HRT Subway and the Combined HRT Subway groups of alternatives at 32mph. The at-grade BRT alternative is the slowest at 16 mph, and the Wilshire BoulevardLRT Elevated Monorail and the Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorailalternatives were the second fastest at 27 mph.

3.2.1.2 Objective 2: Improve Trip ReliabilityImproving trip reliability is another objective of mobility improvement. Trip reliability isthe criteria used to address this objective. Screening measures used to evaluate traveltime savings include analyzing (a) the percentage of transit alignment operating in mixedflow traffic by type of operation (completely grade separated, transit pre-emption, transitpriority, no transit priority); as well as, considering (b) the number of transfers betweenmajor origin-destination (OD) pairs. It can be assumed transit reliability decreases as aresult of transfers.

Trip time reliability describes how much the travel time for a particular trip may varyfrom day to day. This variability is due in most part to the levels of congestion on theroute, with high levels of congestion generally making trip times more variable. Anadditional factor in reliability is transfers, which are typically assumed to decrease transitreliability. As seen in Table 3-4, the percentage of transit alignment operating in mixedflow traffic was analyzed by type of operation (completely grade separated, transit pre-emption, transit priority, no transit priority). The percentage of transit alignmentoperating in mixed flow traffic by operation type is zero in the HRT, monorail, and LRTalternatives because they are all grade separated. Thus, it is inferred that thesealternatives have higher transit reliability than that of the at-grade BRT alternative, whichoperates in 100 percent mixed-flow traffic. Higher transit reliability means that theeffectiveness and efficiency of the facility is maximized due to on-time performance.

As seen in Table 3-5, there are fewer instances of transfers with the Combined HRTSubway alternative based on the selected OD pairs. The Santa Monica Boulevard HRTSubway is not too far behind in fewer transfers. The Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subwayhas more possible transfers and about three times those in the Combined HRT Subwaygroup of alternatives. The Wilshire Boulevard Elevated LRT/Monorail and the SantaMonica Boulevard LRT/Monorail alternatives have almost five times more than thetransfers in the Combined HRT Subway.



Table 3-3. Average End-to-End Transit Operating Speeds (mph)


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 1 b

Avg end to end transit operatingspeed in mph (Between UnionStation/Downtown and4th/Wilshire, SM)

14 12 12 16 32 33 32 33 29 33 34 33 32 32 32 32 32 32 27 27


Note: Some alternatives (6, 11, 16, 3, 5) require transfer(s) to travel between Union Station and Santa Monica



Figure 3-3. Average End-to-End Transit Operating Speeds (mph)between Union Station (Downtown) and 4th/Wilshire (Santa Monica)



Table 3-4. Percentage of Transit Alignment Operating in Mixed Flow Traffic


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 2 a% of transit alignmentoperating in mixed flowtraffic by operation type

100 100 100 0 0 0 00

(transfer)0 0 0 0 0

0(transfer)

00

(transfer)0

0(transfer)

0(transfer)




Table 3-5. Number of Transfers between Select Origin-Destination Pairs


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 2 b Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between Del Mar Station (Gold Line) and :

Century City 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2




Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between Pershing Square Station (Red Line) and :

Century City 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1


0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1




Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between Florence Station (Blue Line) and :

Century City 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2


1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2







Table 3-5. Number of Transfers between Select Origin-Destination Pairs (continued)


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between Reseda Station (Orange Line) and:

Century City 1 1 1 2 2 1-2 1-2 2 3 2


2 2 2 2 3 1-2 1-2 3 4 2

Wilshire/Beverly (BH) 2 2 2 3 2 2-3 2 2 3 3



Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between Covina Station (Metrolink) and:

Century City 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2


1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2




Transit Peak Period Travel Time (AM Peak) - Between Wilshire/Western Station (Purple Line) and:

Century City 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2







Table 3-5. Number of Transfers between Select Origin-Destination Pairs (continued)


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

Transfers Required (AM Peak) - Between North Hollywood Station (Red Line) and:

Century City 1 1 1 1 1 0-1 0-1 1 2 1


1 1 1 1 2 0-1 0-1 2 3 1







3.2.1.3 Objective 3: Provide sufficient transit capacity to meet 2030 transit demand andbeyond (expandability)Providing sufficient transit capacity to meet 2030 transit demand and beyond is anotherobjective of mobility improvement. Transit capacity is the criteria used to address thisobjective. Screening measures used to evaluate expandability include (a) estimating(maximum) capacity of new east-west transit service (e.g., transit vehicle capacity -maximum person throughput per hour); as well as (b) assessing the potential forexpandability beyond 2030 (e.g., station facility capacity limitations; on-street lanecapacity limitations; mode/technology/alignment conducive to future system expansion).

As seen in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-4, the greatest estimated (maximum) capacity of neweast-west transit service is among the Wilshire HRT Subway, the Santa MonicaBoulevard HRT Subway and the Combined HRT Subway groups of alternatives. Theestimated capacity for these groups of alternatives is 18,000 passengers per hour in onedirection. These alternatives also have the potential for expandability beyond 2030,depending on future system expansion and routing.

The Wilshire LRT Elevated Monorail and the Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorailalternatives have a lower estimated east-west capacity with 9,000 passengers per hour in onedirection each. Additionally, the potential for expandability beyond 2030 is moderate. TheBRT has the least estimated capacity with 3,000 passengers per hour in one direction and amoderate potential for future expandability. The maximum future capacity of a BRT systemis 6,000 passengers per hour per direction (based on headways of one bus per minute).

Table 3-6. Typical Transit Capacity by Mode

Transit ModeCapacity

(passengers per hour, one direction)

HRT 18,000

LRT 9,000

Monorail 9,000

BRT 3,000

3.2.1.4 Objective 4: Maximize potential transit ridershipMaximizing potential transit ridership is another objective of mobility improvement.Ridership is the criteria used to address this objective. Screening measures used to evaluateexpandability include (a) estimating the number of residents/population density within 1/2mile of proposed alignment; (b) estimating the number of jobs/employment density within1/2 mile of proposed alignment; as well as (c) evaluating the ability of transit services toprovide competitive speeds to the automobile for key origin-destination pairs (average peakperiod speeds). Table 3-8, Figure 3-5, Figure 3-6, and Figure 3-7 illustrate the forecastedridership for each alternative by showing the change in daily transit trips as compared tothe No Build alternative, the change in urban rail boardings as compared to the No Buildalternative, and the number of “new stations” urban rail boardings.



Table 3-7. Provide Sufficient Transit Capacity


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria Toda

y

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 3 a

Estimated maximum capacity (inthousands) of new EW transitservice (Passengers per hour)(Assuming 18 trains per hour or30 buses per hour)

N.A 3 3 3 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 8.1 to 9 8.1 to 9

A 3 bPotential for capacity expansionbeyond 2030

L L L Md H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Md Md


** L = Low; M = Medium; Md = Moderate; H = High



Figure 3-4. Estimated Maximum Capacity of New EW Transit ServiceAssuming 18 trains per hour or 30 buses per hour



Table 3-8. Transit Ridership


Elevated*

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

Daily New Transit Trips (DeltaNo Build) in hundreds ofthousands

N.A. 2.47 11.62 38.58 37.40 39.95 34.00 23.20 29.50 30.70 33.67 50.92 41.94 43.10 43.41 39.54 38.58 27.00 22.14

Change in Urban Rail Boardings(Delta No Build) in hundreds ofthousands

N.A. -0.17 7.84 96.26 93.02 97.81 69.66 68.19 71.64 75.15 79.29 111.1 101.7 96.08 102.6 97.43 96.26 81.89 62.94

“New Stations” Urban RailBoardings in hundreds ofthousands

0 0 0 71.12 70.40 73.35 56.74 54.13 55.50 56.96 62.31 82.35 75.77 69.44 77.68 71.30 71.11 67.48 51.02




Figure 3-5. Daily New Transit Trips (As compared to No Build)



Figure 3-6. Change in Urban Rail Boardings (As compared to No Build)



Figure 3-7. “New Stations” Urban Rail Boardings



4a. PopulationOne of the densest areas in Los Angeles County, population forecasts for the proposedWestside Extension study area show an increase in population density within a 1/2 mileof the proposed alignments. By the year 2030, the population of Los Angeles County isprojected to increase by roughly 22 percent. Population within the Project Study Area(PSA) is projected to increase by 11 percent.

Population concentrated within a 1/2 mile of the proposed alternatives makes up asignificant share of density within the PSA as a whole. The population density of the PSAin 2005 was roughly 13,300 persons per sq mile, that number is projected to increase toalmost 14,700 by the year 2030. In comparison, projections for the year 2030, suggest thatpopulation densities within a 1/2 mile of proposed alternatives range between 13,800 and18,500 residents per sq mile. This suggests that the alternatives under evaluation willcapture some of the highest population densities within the PSA, if not throughout thecounty as a whole.

Of all the alignments under evaluation, by the year 2030, Alternatives 1, 7, 7a and 13would capture some of the highest levels of population densities (over 18,000 people besquare mile respectively). The one BRT alternative under evaluation, Alternative 17, isprojected to capture the lowest level of population density within the PSA. Table 3-9,Figure 3-8, and Figure 3-9 provide a comparison of current and projected population andpopulation density for each alternative under evaluation within the PSA. Figure 3-10illustrates the link between population and employment density and ridership.

4b. EmploymentThe PSA captures a significant share of regional employment. There are a number ofemployment centers within the PSA, specifically near Mid-Wilshire, Hollywood, CenturyCity, Westwood, and Santa Monica. In 2005, the number of employees in the PSAconstituted 10 percent of all employment within L.A. County. By the year 2030, the PSAwill grow to include approximately an additional 82,000 employees.

Looking closer at density, it is easy to identify which alternatives capture the largest shareof employment. Over the next 25 years employment is projected to grow in the PSA,constituting a need for greater transit service. In 2005, employment density within thePSA was about 12,600 employees per square mile. By 2030, this number is expected toincrease to almost 14,800. The Alternatives which are projected to capture the highestlevels of growth in employment density, over 21,000 employees per square mile, withinthe PSA are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8, 13, and 14 as shown in Table 3-10, Figure 3-11, andFigure 3-12.

Demographics of a CorridorWith public transportation improvements, all alternatives will serve transit dependentpopulations within the corridor. With a number of significant educational, health andemployment centers linked by the Metro Rail system, these alternatives will connectthese centers to this regional network, which would provide access to riders whopreviously lacked commute choices.



Table 3-9. Population and Population Density within ½ Mile of the Alignment


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 4 a Population/Pop density within1/2 mile of each alignment (in thousands)

2005/6 Population within1/2 mile of Alignment

N.A. N.A 305 195 201 204 180 179 176 187 196 276 271 275 274 277 202 202 185

2030 Population within 1/2mile of Alignment

N.A. N.A 336 216 222 225 197 197 193 205 215 305 3 303 302 302 223 223 203

2005/6 Average PopulationDensity per Square Milewithin 1/2 mile ofAlignment

N.A. N.A 12.5 16.5 15.3 16.2 14.9 15.8 16.6 16.1 16.5 14.8 16.3 16.1 16.3 16.3 16.0 16.0 15.8

2030 Average PopulationDensity per Square Milewithin 1/2 mile ofAlignment

N.A. N.A 13.8 18.3 17.0 17.9 16.3 17.3 18.2 17.7 18.1 16.3 18.0 17.7 18.0 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.3




Figure 3-8. 2005/06 and 2030 Population within ½ mile of Alignment

Figure 3-9. 2005/06 and 2030 Average Population Densityper Square Mile within ½ mile of the Alignment



Figure 3-10. Population and Employment Densities Drive Ridership



Table 3-10. Employment and Employment Density within ½ Mile of the Alignment


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 4 a Employment/Employment Density within 1/2 mile of Each Alignment (in thousands)

2005/6 Employment within1/2 mile of Alignment

N.A. N.A 332 221 209 235 2 204 198 208 236 289 286 293 286 293 236 236 214

2030 Employment within1/2 mile of Alignment

N.A. N.A 387 258 245 274 235 239 233 244 276 338 335 342 334 334 275 275 251

2005/6 AverageEmployment Density perSquare Mile within 1/2mile of Alignment

N.A. N.A 13.6 18.7 16.0 18.7 16.5 18.0 18.7 17.9 19.8 15.5 17.2 17.1 17.1 17.2 18.7 18.7 18.2

2030 Average EmploymentDensity per Square Milewithin 1/2 mile ofAlignment

N.A. N.A 15.9 21.9 18.7 21.8 19.4 21.1 22.0 21.0 23.3 18.1 20.1 20.0 19.9 19.7 21.9 21.8 21.4




Figure 3-11. 2005/06 and 2030 Employment within ½ mile of Alignment

Figure 3-12. 2005/06 and 2030 Average Employment Densityper Square Mile within ½ mile of Alignment



The following series of maps illustrates characteristics associated with transit dependentpopulations including: age distribution, low income households, individuals who reportusing public transportation to work, and the number of vehicles per household.

Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14: Age Distribution- the young and elderly frequently usepublic transportation. The following maps illustrate the concentration of residents(Figure 3-13) under the age of 18 and (Figure 3-14) over the age of 65.

Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16: Low Income Households- lower income household are morelikely to rely on public transportation as a primary mode of transportation. (Figure 3-15)2005 and (Figure 3-16) 2030.

Figure 3-17: Public Transportation Commuters- the census identifies individuals whoreport using public transportation as their primary mode of transportation to work.

Table 3-10 and Figure 3-18: Zero Car Households- the census provides data onhouseholds that report not owning a vehicle, these households are more likely to rely onpublic transportation as the primary mode of travel.

4c. Competitive SpeedsAuto travel speeds were calculated for 2030 AM peak period using the Metro TravelDemand Model. As Table 3-11 indicates, the Wilshire Boulevard, Santa MonicaBoulevard, Combined and Monorail alternatives all had much higher speeds than autowithout a transfer, while the No Build and TSM alternatives had comparable speeds withthe auto for westbound and eastbound speeds for specified origin-destination points. Aspreviously shown in Figure 3-3, average operating speeds for each alternative depend ontransfers, horizontal alignment, and mode.

3.2.1.5 Objective 5: Enhance linkages to the transportation system as well as major tripattractors/generators within the corridorEnhancing linkages to the transportation system as well as major trip attractors andgenerators within the corridor is another objective of mobility improvement. Systemconnectivity is the criteria used to address this objective. Screening measures used toevaluate linkages to the transportation system include evaluating: (a) the extension ofexisting Metro service (e.g., one seat ride); (b) the number of direct connections (within1/8 mile walk) to designated transfer points/transit nodes (Metro Red or Purple Lines,major north-south bus routes); (c) the number of transfers required to access regionalrail service (Metrolink, Amtrak); and (d) the number of direct connections (within 1/8mile walk) to key activity centers within the corridor study area.

As shown Table 3-12, the Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subway alternative has the highestability of one seat service through the corridor. The Santa Monica Boulevard HRTSubway and the Combined HRT Subway alternatives have the second highest ability ofone seat service through the corridor with one alignment each having a medium ratingfor one seat rides. The BRT, Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail and the SantaMonica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail have the lowest ability of one seat rides withratings of medium.



Figure 3-13. Age Distribution - Age 18 and Under (2000 Census)



Figure 3-14. Age Distribution - Age 65 and Older (2000 Census)



Figure 3-15. 2005 Low Income Households



Figure 3-16. 2030 Low Income Households



Figure 3-17. Public Transportation Commuters (2000 Census)



Figure 3-18. Zero Car Households (2000 Census)



Table 3-11. Competitive Speeds


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 4 cAbility for transit to be competitivewith the auto in speed for key ODpairs

C C C S S S S T S S S S S T S S S T T


** C = Comparable Speed to Auto, Transfers Req.; S = Much Higher Speed than Auto, No Transfer; T = Much Higher Speed than Auto, Transfers Req.



Table 3-12. Enhancing Linkages and Major Trip Attractors/Generators Within the Corridor


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

A 5 aAbility of alts to continue a one seatride

L L M H H H H M H H H H H M H H H M M

A 5 bNumber of direct connectionswithin 1/8 mile walk to other lines,NS bus routes, etc

12 12 12 7 7 8 5 5 5 5 6 11 10 10 11 11 7 7 5

A 5 cNumber of transfers required toaccess regional rail - Metrolink,Amtrak

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

A 5 dNumber of direct connections to keyactivity centers within 1/8 mile walk

10 10 10 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 8 10 10 10 12 12 7 7 7


** L = Low; M = Medium; Md = Moderate; H = High



With twelve connections, the BRT alternative has the highest number of directconnections within, 1/8 mile walk, to other designated transit nodes and key activitycenters, as shown in Table 3-12 and Figure 3-19. The Combined HRT Subway alternativehas the second highest number of direct transit node connections and key activitycenters. At less than half the direct transit node connections and key activity centers ofthe BRT alternative is the Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway alternative.

The Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway and the Combined HRT Subway groups ofalternatives require the least number of transfers to access Metrolink commuter rail andAmtrak intercity rail service. The at-grade BRT, Wilshire Boulevard LRT ElevatedMonorail and the Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternatives require themost number of transfers to access regional rail service, as shown in Table 3-12.

3.2.2 Goal B: Transit – Supportive Land Use Policies and Conditions

The purpose of transit – supportive land use policies and conditions is to locate stationsin areas with existing, or potential to develop, transit supportive land use polices andconditions.

One of the objectives for this goal is to provide transit service to areas with transit-supportive land uses and policies. Transit supportive land uses is a criteria used toaddress this objective. A screening measure used to evaluate transit supportive land usesis analyzing the number of existing high density / mixed use activity centers within 1/2mile of the proposed alignment (e.g., universities, major retail centers, employmenthubs).

Another objective is to integrate with local redevelopment plans and policies. EconomicBenefit is a criterion used to address this objective. A screening measure used toevaluate the economic benefit is analyzing the number of "high opportunity areas" forredevelopment within 1/2 mile of the proposed alignment. High opportunity areas aredefined as locations where major commercial activity and mixed uses occur.

3.2.2.1 Objective: Economic BenefitThis section provides a comparative analysis of the characteristics of each alternative forthe Westside Extension Transit Corridor. The characteristics used to conduct thecomparative analysis for the economic benefit include existing land use types along thecorridor, the intensity of commercial development creating a number of high opportunityareas for development, the existing development areas represented within eachalignment, and the incentives and policies in place that promote transit orienteddevelopment along the alignment and even more specifically at potential stationlocations. Table 3-14 summarizes the research and analysis of land use plans, generalplans, specific plans, community plans, and redevelopment plans from the Cities of LosAngeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and West Hollywood, where some portions of theproposed alternatives lie.



Figure 3-19. Number of Direct Connections within 1/8 mile walk to other lines, NS bus routes, etc.



The Westside Extension Transit Corridor is located in a part of Los Angeles County thatis built-out predominantly with a mixture of mid-high density uses. The Corridor is verydensely populated with residents and employment. There are few areas where newdevelopments can occur.

Mixed Use Activity CentersMixed use activity centers create a focal point for activity and visual interest. These areasprovide an opportunity for people to walk and interact. Activity centers feature a mixtureof land uses all in proximity, including higher density residential condominiums,townhomes and apartments, and retail uses to allow for pedestrian travel. Theyphysically connect to adjacent neighborhoods and to parks and open space, and theyoften include internal public spaces. As shown in Table 3-13, the Combined HRTSubway group of alternatives has the greatest number of existing high density mixed useactivity centers with 14 to 17 within a 1/2 mile walk. The Santa Monica Boulevard HRTSubway group of alternatives has the second largest number existing high density mixeduse activity centers with 12 to 13. The Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subway group ofalternatives and the Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail and the Santa MonicaBoulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternatives have the lowest number of existing highdensity mixed use activity centers with 9 to 12 high density mixed use activity centers.

High Opportunity AreasHigh opportunity areas are defined as locations where major commercial activity andmixed uses occur. For the Westside Extension Transit Corridor, the following areas wereidentified as high opportunity areas for new or redevelopment that can be supportive bymass transit. They include:

the Hollywood area including Highland Avenue from Hollywood to Santa MonicaBoulevards,

the area in close proximity to Santa Monica and San Vicente Boulevards,

the area in close proximity to Fairfax Avenue and 3rd Street (the Grove),

the area in proximity to Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue,

the Civic uses at Wilshire Boulevard and La Brea Avenue,

Century City in proximity to Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards,

the area in proximity to Westwood and Santa Monica Boulevards,

Westwood at Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards, and

Downtown Santa Monica.

Transit Oriented DevelopmentAs shown in Table 3-14, Cities within the study area maintain specific Transit OrientedDevelopment (TOD) provisions or are receptive to TOD provisions as defined in theirgeneral plans, community plans or specific plans. There are two City of Los AngelesCommunity Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Redevelopment Areas served by the proposedgrade-separated alternatives, the Wilshire Center/Koreatown area and the Hollywoodarea. The Redevelopment Plans set forth an array of goals promoting business retention



Table 3-13. Number of High Density Mixed Use Activity Centers Within ½ Mile of Each Alignment


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

B 1 aNumber of high density mixed useactivity centers within 1/2 mile ofeach alignment

17 17 17 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 14 14 14 17 17 9 9 12

Note: Mixed Use Activity Centers are feature a mixture of land uses such as residential and commercial, and typically provide retail uses that encourage pedestrian travel.




Table 3-14. Number of High Opportunity Areas for Redevelopment Within ½ Mile of Each Alignment


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

B 2 aNumber of high opportunityareas for redevelopment within1/2 mile of each alignment

N.A. N.A. N.A. W W W H H H H HWH

WH

WH

WH

W’H

W W H

Note: All Cities within Study Area maintain specific TOD provisions or are receptive to TOD provisions as defined in their general plans, community plans or specific plans


** W: City of Los Angeles CRA Redevelopment Area in Wilshire Center/Koreatown;H: City of Los Angeles CRA Redevelopment Area in Hollywood;



and expansion, attracting new businesses and developing public improvements. Keyaspects of these plans related to TOD include pedestrian and transit improvements,urban design guidelines encouraging economic development, and expanding housing.

The Wilshire Center/Koreatown Recovery Redevelopment Project Area encompasses1,207 acres and is generally bounded by Fifth Street on the north, 12th Street on thesouth, Hoover Street on the east, and Eastern Avenue and Wilton Place on the west. Italso includes the Vermont Avenue Corridor to the Hollywood Freeway and WesternAvenue to Melrose Avenue. The 1,107-acre Hollywood Redevelopment Project isgenerally bounded by Franklin Avenue on the north, Serrano Avenue on the east, SantaMonica Boulevard and Fountain Avenue on the south and La Brea Avenue on the west.The grade separated alternatives would serve these areas. Both areas are currentlypartially served by high capacity public transit via the Metro Red and Purple Lines, andhave demonstrated transit oriented development adjacent to transit stations.

3.2.3 Goal C: Cost-Effectiveness

The purpose of cost-effectiveness is that the costs of the project, both capital andoperating, be commensurate with its benefits.

The objective for this goal is to provide solutions with benefits commensurate with theircosts. Cost-effectiveness is a criterion used to address this objective. Screeningmeasures used to evaluate cost-effectiveness include (a) rough order of magnitude capitalcost; (b) estimated capital cost per (route) mile; (c) rough order of magnitude operationsand maintenance costs; and (d) estimated annualized cost per hour of transit system userbenefit for selected representative alternatives.

As part of the effort to identify viable alternatives for evaluation rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates were developed. The goal of these estimates is to provide a costbasis for continued planning and programming of the corridor. No effort was made todivide out costs by agency responsibility or financial funding resource.

Hence, these cost estimates represent an early snapshot of what it might cost in current2008 dollars, as well as Year of Expenditure dollars.

As shown in Table 3-15, Figure 3-20, and Figure 3-21, the Combined HRT Subwaygroups of alternatives has the highest rough order of magnitude capital cost; the BRTalternative has the lowest capital cost. Figure 3-22 illustrates the cost-effectiveness of thealternatives; the blue overlay indicates the range of cost-effectiveness necessary tocompete for federal funds. Cost-effectiveness is calculated by dividing the transit systemproject cost by the transit system user benefits. The FTA New Starts program evaluatesprojects across the country using the cost-effectiveness measure. Figure 3-23 illustratesthe transit user benefits in daily hours.



Table 3-15. Cost-Effectiveness


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ecti

ve

Mea

sure

Criteria

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

C 1 aOrder of MagnitudeCapital Cost($ Billions, 2008)

$0.00 $0.08 $0.27 $5.481 $5.71 $5.84 $6.44 $5.16 $5.53 $5.29 $5.90 $9.00 $7.52 $7.78 $7.69 $7.48 $3.75 $3.20 $2.88

C 1 aOrder of MagnitudeCapital Cost($ Billions, YOE)

$0.00 $0.12 $0.40 $8.05 $8.38 $8.58 $9.46 $7.58 $8.13 $7.77 $8.67 $13.23 $11.05 $11.43 $11.29 $10.99 $5.51 $4.70 $4.23

C 1 bCapital Cost PerRoute Miles($ Millions, 2008)

$0 N.A. $10 $456 $439 $459 $473 $452 $485 $449 $482 $447 $419 $433 $455 $443 $299 $239 $241

C 1 bCapital Cost PerRoute Miles($ Millions, YOE)

$0 N.A. $15 $670 $645 $674 $694 $664 $712 $659 $708 $656 $615 $636 $669 $651 $439 $350 $354

C 1 cOrder of MagnitudeAnnual O&M Cost($ Millions, 2008)

$153 $179 $160 $280 $288 $288 $303 $250 $316 $308 $323 $363 $288 $288 $303 $303 $280 $261 $212

C 1 d

Cost per hour oftransit system userbenefits for selectedrepresentativealternativescompared to NoBuild (CEI)

N.A. $34 $6 $31 $34 $33 $46 $57 $45 $41 $43 $40 $37 $38 $39 $39 $24 $31 $32




Figure 3-20. Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Cost ($ Billions, 2008)

Figure 3-21. Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Cost ($ Billions, YOE)



Figure 3-22. Cost-Effectiveness (Compared to No Build) in $ per Hour

Range to be competitive forFederal New Starts Funding



Figure 3-23. Transit User Benefits (Daily Hours)



The Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway group of alternatives has the highestestimated capital cost per (route) mile. The Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway groupof alternatives has the highest estimated annualized cost per hour of transit system userbenefit.

3.2.4 Goal D: Project Feasibility

The purpose of project feasibility is to demonstrate that the project alternative can beconstructed, is operationally sound, and is financially viable. The objectives are to providetransportation solutions that are financially feasible and to minimize risk associated withproject construction.

3.2.4.1 Objective 1: Provide transportation solutions that are financially feasible.Provide transportation solutions that are financially feasible is one of the objectives ofproject feasibility. Financial feasibility is one of the criteria used to address this objective.Screening measures used to evaluate travel time savings include: (a) assessment of therelative eligibility of the alternative for Federal New Starts Funding; (b) level ofconsistency with the goals of Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan and Boardfinancial direction.

As seen in Table 3-16 below, the BRT has a relatively high eligibility opportunity for NewStarts funding. Both the Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subway and the Combined HRTSubway groups of alternatives have relatively medium eligibility opportunities for NewStarts funding. Moreover, Alternative 2 in the Wilshire Boulevard set of alternativescould be shifted to a low eligibility opportunity for New Starts funding if traffic lanesneed to be replaced. The Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway alternative has relativelylow eligibility for New Starts funding. The Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorailand the Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternatives have a low eligibilityopportunity for New Starts funding, if traffic lanes need to be replaced. Only the at-gradeBRT alternative is consistent with the Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)and financial direction. None of the rail alternatives are currently included in the 2001LRTP Constrained Financial Plan or the baseline 2008 Draft LRTP.

3.2.4.2 Objective 2: Minimize risk associated with project constructionProvide transportation solutions that are financially feasible is one of the objectives ofproject feasibility.

Constructability / Construction Impacts versus projected cost savings is another criterionused to minimize risk associated with project construction. Screening measures used toevaluate travel time savings include: (a) amount of anticipated incursion into geotechnicalhigh risk areas or potentially hazardous areas; (b) level of potential impacts to proximateland uses due to construction (e.g., right of way, soil removal, safety).

The following geotechnical/geologic screening measures were evaluated for the amountof anticipated incursion into geotechnical high risk areas or potentially hazardous areas:



Table 3-16. Financial Feasibility


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ecti

ve

Mea

sure

Criteria

No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

D 1 aRelative eligibilityof alts for newstarts funding**

L L VH M M M L L L L L M M M M M L to M ^ L to M ^ L to M ^

D 1 b

Consistency withMetro's LRTP andfinancialdirection***

C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

* Removes 2 lanes of traffic** L = Low; M = Medium; H = High; vh = Very High*** C = Consistent; N = No^If traffic lanes must be replaced, then increase to Medium.



1. Alquist-Priolo: Length of alignment crossing Alquist-Priolo special fault-rupturestudy zones.

2. Faults: Number of fault crossings.

3. Liquefaction: Length of alignment crossing areas with potential for liquefactionand/or earthquake-induced ground movement.

4. Methane: Length of alignment crossing zones with potential Methane risk.

Evaluations were performed by way of matching the scale of, and overlaying on top of the17 alternative alignments. Following is a series of geologic-hazard maps and the variousalignment overlay maps that were used:

Figure 3-24. Safety Element Exhibit A - Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and FaultRupture Study Areas.

Figure 3-25. Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills + Hollywood Quadrangles(CDMG, 1999); PB, 2007.

Figure 3-26. Regional Geologic Map - from PB’s Draft Geotech Evaluation andTunneling Technology Recommendations, Chapter 3, Subsurface Conditions, Figure 4.

Figure 3-27. City LA Planning Department, March 1994 – Council File No. 89-2104.Methane and Methane Buffer Zones; City of LA, DPW, Bureau of Engineering,3/31/2004.

As a result of this analysis, several conclusions were reached. In terms of Aquist-Priolo fault-rupture study zones and number of fault crossings, there are no significant differencesbetween the 17 alternatives. The exception to this would be Alternatives 4 and 9, which wouldnecessarily cross the Hollywood fault north of the Hollywood/Highland Station. The mostsignificant differences appear to be in terms of encountering potential methane, followed byareas with potential for liquefaction or earthquake-induced ground movements. It shouldalso be noted that methane zones are not mapped in the cities of Beverly Hills and WestHollywood, so there may be methane present in these areas, but it is not included in thisanalysis. Future studies would need to address site specific conditions. Since the alternativealignments have different lengths, comparisons in terms of geologic hazards per mile(relative hazards) are also meaningful. Liquefaction mainly affects the elevated alignmentalternatives. It has little, if any, impact on the subway alternatives. Methane and othersubsurface conditions mainly affect the subway alternatives. It has minor impact on theelevated alternatives during foundation construction.

As shown in Table 3-17 and Figure 3-28, the group of rail alternatives with the highestnumber of hazards (in terms of known fault crossings) is the Santa Monica BoulevardHRT Subway and the Combined HRT Subway. Based on data obtained to date, thegroup of rail alternatives with the highest number of hazards per mile (within areaspotentially containing methane) is the Combined HRT Subway followed by the WilshireBoulevard HRT Subway. Note that the BRT alternative has the most alignment withinareas potentially containing methane, however, because of the nature of the mode (notunnels or aerial structures, few foundations), the analysis was focused on theunderground rail alternatives.



Figure 3-24. Safety Element Exhibit A - Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and Fault Rupture Study Areas

Note: Red lines indicate Alquist Priolo

Ref: Safety Element Exhibit A – Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones and Fault Rupture Study Areas City LA Planning Department, March 1994 –Council File No. 89-2104



Figure 3-25. Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverly Hills + Hollywood Quadrangles (CDMG, 1999)

Ref: PBQ&D, 2007, Draft Geotech Evaluation and Tunneling Technology Recommendations, Chapter 3, Figure 4.



Figure 3-26. Regional Geologic Map

Note: Red lines indicate Liquefaction

Ref: Seismic Hazard Zones, Beverley Hills + Hollywood Quadranges (CDMG, 1999); PBQ&D, 2007, Draft Geotech Evaluation and TunnelingTechnology Recommendations, Chapter 3, Figure 4



Figure 3-27. Methane and Methane Buffer Zones; City of LA, DPW, Bureau of Engineering



Table 3-17. Hazards


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

D 2 aNumber of Fault Crossings -Alquist-Priolo Fault

0 0 6 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

D 2 aLength of Alignment (miles) -Potential Methane**

0 0 8.9 5.5 7.0 6.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.3 3.2 6.0 6.0 5.8 6.9 6.8 6.2 6.0 3.0


** Note that presence of methane will have more impact on subway construction than aerial alternatives.



Figure 3-28. Length of Alignment in Areas Potentially Containing Methane



The second screening measure of Constructability / Construction Impacts versusprojected cost savings is the level of potential impacts to proximate land uses due toconstruction (e.g., right of way, soil removal, safety).

In the following methodology, the impacts were identified and evaluated by the followingcriteria:

1. Land Uses located within ¼ mile of the project corridor alignment(s)

2. Land Uses impacted by soil removal at segment endpoints (below-grade)

3. Land Uses impacted by ROW along alignments (at/above-grade)

4. Noise and vibration impacts to sensitive land uses from construction

Noise and vibration estimates were made from data collected from similar projects.

The following maps were used for this evaluation:

1. Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) (Figure 3.5-1, Existing Land UseWithin The Study Area) for the Wilshire Corridor

2. Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study Project Site report, Westside Land Use Map

3. Yahoo Maps

4. Google Earth

All alternatives would have similar positive impacts of having existing transit supportiveland uses along the alignments. All below grade alternatives would have a similar level ofland use impact in locations where soil is removed from the tunnels, and these impactswould be major compared to alternatives that are at/above-grade.

All at/above grade alternatives would have a similar level of land use impact regardingacquisition and use of Rights of Way. These impacts would be considered majorcompared to below grade alternatives due to the anticipated higher number ofacquisitions of traffic lanes and adjacent parcels. Impacts would occur to a variety ofsensitive public, open space, and residential land uses.

There would be no airborne noise and a minimal amount of vibration due to theconstruction of the subway portions of the line. Vibration is expected to be felt in onlythe most noise sensitive land uses located adjacent to the selected right of way nearelevated alternatives. Noise impacts to land uses along alignments would be greatest forelevated lines since noise from tunnel construction would not be noticeable except nearportals.

As shown in Table 3-18 below, all of the groups of alternatives have similar potentialconstruction impacts to proximate land uses.



Table 3-18. Construction Impacts


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

D 2 bPotential construction impacts toproximate land uses**

0 0 N.A. SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI


** SI = Similar Impacts



3.2.5 Goal E: Equity

The purpose of equity ensures costs and benefits are distributed fairly across differentpopulation groups, with particular emphasis on serving transit dependent communities.

One of the objectives of equity is to improve transit services available to transit dependentcommunities; especially access to job opportunities is one of the objectives of equity.Mobility for Transit Dependents is a criterion used to address this objective. A screeningmeasure used to evaluate mobility for transit dependents assesses the number of lowincome households within 1/2 mile of proposed alignment (existing and future). Figure3-18 illustrates the households that report no owning a vehicle in the 2000 census (ZeroCar Households)

A second objective is to provide solutions that distribute both economic andenvironmental costs and benefits fairly across different population groups. Equity is acriterion used to address this objective. Screening measures used to evaluate theeconomic benefit include: (a) direct impacts (e.g., potential displacements, amount ofconstruction impacts) categorized by local jurisdiction / community; and (b) the numberof residents within 1/2 mile walking distance of proposed alignment by major ethnicgroups/minority populations.

As shown in Table 3-19 and Figure 3-29 below, the alternatives with the highest numberof current low income households (HH) within 1/2 mile of each alignment are theCombined HRT Subway alternatives with approximately 26,000 HH. The alternativeswith the lowest number of low income HH are the Santa Monica Boulevard alternativeswith 17,000 HH.

Local jurisdiction/communities directly impacted by displacements or construction includethe City of Santa Monica, City of Beverly Hills, City of West Hollywood, City of LosAngeles, and Los Angeles County. Table 3-19 shows which jurisdiction / communitycorrespond with the appropriate alternative. Additionally, the table also indicates thepopulation distribution for major ethnic groups / minority populations in each alternative.

3.2.6 Goal F: Environmental Considerations

The purpose of environmental considerations is to develop solutions which protectenvironmental resources and communities within the study area.

Objectives for environmental considerations include:

Minimize the displacement of homes and businesses.

Minimize impacts to the traffic and circulation system.

Minimize impacts to the character of the community.

Provide for the safety and security of pedestrians and transit users.

Minimize impacts on sensitive and protected environmental resources.

Reduce, not add to, tailpipe emissions / non-renewable fuel consumption.



Table 3-19. Equity


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

E 1 aNumber of low incomeHH within 1/2 mile ofeach alignment - present

39.8 39.8 39.8 18.7 19.7 18.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.0 18.7 18.7 17.1

E 2 a Local jurisdiction/communities directly impacted - displacements, construction

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM

City ofSM City of SM

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH

City ofBH City of BH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofLA (7)

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (8)

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofWH

City ofLA (7)

City ofLA (7)

City ofWH

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (8) LAC LAC LAC

City ofLA (4)

City ofLA (4)

City ofLA (4)

City ofLA (4)

City ofLA (4)

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (8)

City ofLA (9)

City ofLA (9)

LACounty

LACounty

City of LA(4)

LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC LAC

Total jurisdictions/communities 12 12 12 10 11 11 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12 13 13 10 10 8

E 2 b Number of residents within 1/2 mile by ethnic group/minority populations

E 2 b Black 15,123 15,123 15,123 9,836 9,639 9,781 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,276 11,390 11,390 11,390 11,279 11,279 9,836 9,836 4,200

E 2 b Amer Indian/Eskimo 1,030 1,030 1,030 521 635 554 407 407 407 407 364 720 720 720 694 694 521 521 407

E 2 b Asian 47,951 47,951 47,951 35,528 35,582 35,358 17,814 17,814 17,814 17,814 18,536 38,356 38,356 38,356 38,620 38,620 35,528 35,528 17,814

E 2 b Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 354 354 354 208 229 210 120 120 120 120 125 249 249 249 241 241 208 208 120

E 2 b Other-Non-Hispanic 1,201 1,201 1,201 750 744 690 592 592 592 592 641 862 862 862 807 807 750 750 592

E 2 b 2+Races Non-Hispanic 13,180 13,180 13,180 7,977 7,830 7,713 6,818 6,818 6,818 6,818 7,203 9,679 9,679 9,679 9,450 9,450 7,977 7,977 6,818

E 2 b Hispanic 47,041 47,041 47,041 21,837 24,447 22,012 14,340 14,340 14,340 14,340 14,216 27,021 27,021 27,021 27,048 27,048 21,837 21,837 14,340

* Removes two lanes of trafficAbbreviations: City of SM =City of Santa Monica; City of BH = City of Beverly Hills; City of WH = City of West Hollywood; City of LA = City of Los Angeles; LAC = Los Angeles County.



Figure 3-29. Number of Low Income Households within ½ Mile of Alignment, present



3.2.6.1 Objective 1: Minimize the displacement of homes and businessesRight-of-way (ROW) Impacts is a criterion used to address minimizing the displacementof homes and businesses. A screening measure used to evaluate ROW impacts is toestimate the level of right-of-way impact based on the proposed footprint of thealternatives.

As shown in Table 3-20 and Figure 3-30, the Combined HRT Subway group ofalternatives has the greatest estimated ROW impact based on proposed alternativefootprint of between 780,000 and 840,000 square feet. The Wilshire Boulevard HRTSubway group of alternatives requires between 660,000 and 720,000 square feet, and theSanta Monica Boulevard HRT Subway group of alternatives requires between 540,000and 600,000 square feet. The Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail and the SantaMonica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternatives have an impact of approximately690,000 square feet.

3.2.6.2 Objective 2: Minimize impacts to the traffic and circulation systemTraffic and Circulation is a criterion used to address how to minimize impacts to thetraffic and circulation system. Screening measures used to evaluate these impactsinclude: analyzing (a) the lane-miles of traffic lanes removed or impacted; as well as (b)the lane-miles of parking lanes removed.

Lane Miles of Traffic Miles ImpactedAssumptions for minimizing impacts to the traffic and circulation system using lane-miles traffic lane removal or impacts as a measure include post construction evaluation,the subway does not require removal of traffic lanes, and the subway does not impacttraffic lanes. There were several assumptions for elevated track impacts, such as;

2 travel lanes impacted or removed between the intersections of Wilshire/Westernand Wilshire/Santa Monica (5.8 mi)

No impact or removal of travel or parking lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard betweenthe intersections of Wilshire/Santa Monica and Santa Monica/Westwood

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Westwood andWilshire/Westwood (0.75 mi)

2 travel lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Westwood and Wilshire/Federal(1.05 mi)

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Federal andWilshire/4th (3.15 mi)

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Hollywood/Highland and SantaMonica/Highland (0.75 mi)

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Highland andSanta Monica/Doheny (3.15 mi)

No impact or removal of travel or parking lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard betweenthe intersections of Santa Monica/Doheny and Santa Monica/Civic Center Drive



Table 3-20. Estimated ROW Impact


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 1 aEstimated ROW impact based onproposed alt footprint (thousands ofsquare feet)

None Mn 1,335 660 660 720 540 540 540 540 600 780 780 780 840 840 694 694 681

* Removes two lanes of trafficMn = Minimal



Figure 3-30. Estimated Right of Way Impact Based on Proposed Alternative Footprint



2 travel lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Civic Center Drive andWilshire/Santa Monica (0.8 mi)

Assumptions for BRT impacts are:

2 travel lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Western andWilshire/Barrington (9.2 mi)

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Barrington andWilshire/4th (4.1 mi)


2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Highland andSanta Monica/4th (7.6 mi)


As shown in Table 3-21, Figure 3-31, and Figure 3-32, the BRT has the greatest impact totraffic lanes. The Wilshire Boulevard Elevated HRT and the Wilshire Boulevard ElevatedLRT/Monorail have the same amount of impact to traffic lanes. The Santa Monica BoulevardHRT Subway and the Combined HRT Subway alternatives have no traffic lanes impact afterconstruction.

Lane Miles of Parking Lanes ImpactedAssumptions for minimizing impacts to the traffic and circulation system using lane-miles of parking lanes removed include post construction evaluation, and the subwaydoes not require removal of parking lanes. There were several assumptions for elevatedtrack impacts, such as;


2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Federal andWilshire/4th (3.15 mi)


2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Highland andSanta Monica/Doheny (3.15 mi)

Assumptions for BRT impacts are:

2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Wilshire/Barrington andWilshire/4th (4.1 mi)




Table 3-21. Impacts to Traffic Circulation in Lane Miles


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 2 aLane miles of traffic lanes removedor impacted

0 0 44.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.5 21.5 19.3

F 2 bLane miles of parking lanesremoved or impacted

0 0 26.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.8 7.8 15.6

* Removes two lanes of traffic



Figure 3-31. Impact to Traffic Lanes by Elevated and BRT Alignments



Figure 3-32. Traffic Lanes Removed or Impacted (in Lane Miles)

Figure 3-33. Parking Lanes Removed or Impacted (in Lane Miles)



2 travel or parking lanes between the intersections of Santa Monica/Highland andSanta Monica/4th (7.6 mi)


As shown in Table 3-21 and Figure 3-33, the BRT has the greatest impact to parkinglanes. The Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail has second greatest impact toparking lanes. The Wilshire Boulevard Elevated HRT and the Wilshire BoulevardElevated LRT/Monorail have the same amount of impact to traffic lanes. There is noimpact to parking lanes with the Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway and theCombined HRT Subway groups of alternatives.

3.2.6.3 Objective 3: Minimize impacts to the character of the communityVisual / Noise and Vibration is a criterion used to address how to minimize impacts tothe character of the community. Screening measures used to evaluate these impactsinclude: (a) estimating the level of visual impact to the surrounding neighborhoods /community; and (b) estimating the level of potential noise and vibration impact.

Visual ImpactsAs shown in Table 3-22, there is low visual impact to the surrounding neighborhoods andcommunity in the at-grade BRT alternative. Moderate levels of visual impacts exist in theWilshire Boulevard HRT Subway, Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway, and CombinedHRT Subway groups of alternatives. Visual impacts for underground alternatives includestations and associated structures. The Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail andthe Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail have very high visual impacts to thesurrounding neighborhoods and community. Visual impacts for aerial alternativesinclude columns, guideways, stations, and associated operations structures.

Noise and Vibration ImpactsA determination of a noise impact for this project was based on the criteria defined in theFTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA ReportDOT-T-95-16, April 1995). The FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noiseexposure using a sliding scale. Although more transit noise was allowed inneighborhoods with high levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noiseexposure were allowed with increasing levels of existing noise. The FTA Noise ImpactCriteria group noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories:

Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose.

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includesresidences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be ofutmost importance.

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. Thiscategory includes schools, libraries, churches and active parks.



Table 3-22. Estimated Visual and Noise Impacts


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 3 aEstimated level of visual impacts tosurrounding neighborhoods

None None L Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md VH VH VH

F 3 bPotential noise & vibration impact -Operational Impacts

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 728*** 728*** 700***

* Removes two lanes of traffic** L = Low; Mn = Minimal, Md = Moderate; H = High, VH = Very High*** Total amount of acreage, 2 hospitals and 5 schools



DNL1 was used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For othernoise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings(Categories 1 and 3), the maximum 1-hour Leq during the facility’s operating period wasused.

There would be no airborne noise and a minimal amount of vibration due to operation ofthe subway portions of the line on noise sensitive land uses in the area of the projectproposed alignments. While the vibration is expected to be felt in only the most noisesensitive land uses located adjacent to the selected right of way, there is the potential forsome buildings, such as concert halls, recording studios and theaters, which are verysensitive to vibration, and which fall outside of the three noise sensitive categories, toexist along one or more of the proposed routes.

Depending upon the total number of operations per day, and the existing ambient noiselevel in the area of the project, there is the potential for “impacts” and the possibility for“severe impacts” (as defined by the FTA Noise Impact Criteria) at noise sensitive land-uses along the elevated portions of the proposed routes.

As shown in Table 3-22, there are no potential noise and vibration operational impacts inthe BRT, Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subway, Combined HRT Subway groups ofalternatives; as well as the majority of the Wilshire HRT Subway. Alignment 2 in theWilshire Boulevard HRT Subway alternative, as well as the Wilshire Boulevard LRTElevated Monorail and the Santa Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail have potentialnoise and vibration operation impact to about 700 acres, 2 hospitals and 3 schools.

3.2.6.4 Objective 4: Provide for the safety and security of pedestrians and transit usersSafety and Security is a criterion used to address how to provide for the safety andsecurity of pedestrians and transit users. Screening measures used to evaluate theseimpacts include: (a) the ability to provide emergency exits and evacuation; as well asanalyze (b) the extent of new vehicular/transit or pedestrian/transit conflicts associatedwith right-of-way that is not fully protected.

Emergency Exits and EvacuationAs shown in Table 3-23, the ability to provide for emergency exits and evacuation ismoderate in the Wilshire Boulevard HRT Subway, Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subwayand Combined HRT Subway groups of alternatives. The ability to provide for emergencyexits and evacuation is high in the Wilshire Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail and theSanta Monica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternatives, while it is not applicable inthe at-grade BRT alternative.

1 DNL: Day-Night Sound Level: based on sound levels measured in relative intensity of sound, or decibels (dB), on the “A”weighted scale (dBA). The “A” weighted scale most closely approximates the response characteristics of the human ear tosound. The higher the number on the scale, the louder is the sound. DNL represents noise exposure events over a 24-hourperiod. To account for human sensitivity to noise between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., noise events occurring duringthese hours receive a “penalty” when the DNL is calculated. Each nighttime event is measured as if ten daytime eventsoccurred.



Table 3-23. Emergency Exits and Evacuation


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 4 aAbility to provide for emergencyexits and evacuation

N.A. N.A. N.A. Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md Md H H H

* Removes two lanes of traffic** L = Low; Mn = Minimal; Md = Moderate; H = High; VH = Very High



Extent of Conflicts with Right-of-WayAs shown in Table 3-24, the extent of new vehicular/transit or pedestrian/transit conflictsassociated with right-of-way that is not fully protected is low in all of the alternativesexcept for the at-grade BRT alternative. In this alternative, the extent is low to moderate.

3.2.6.5 Objective 5: Minimize impacts on Sensitive and Protected EnvironmentalResourcesNatural and Cultural Resources is a criterion used to address how to provide for thesafety and security of pedestrians and transit users. A screening measure used toevaluate these impacts is to estimate the number of cultural or natural resources directlyimpacted by implementation/operation of the proposed alternative (e.g., cemeteries,schools, parks and recreational facilities, known historic or archaeological resources,water resources).

On December 20, 2007 URS staff archaeologist (Laurie Solis, M.A.) conducted anarchaeological sites inventory search at the South Central Coastal Information Center atCalifornia State University Fullerton, for the presence of known archaeological resourcesidentified along the proposed project alignments, as well as within 500 feet of theproposed alignments. For historic resources (structures), a thorough search of the City ofLos Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument List from the City of Los Angeles, Departmentof City Planning, the National Register of Historic Places (for individual structures anddistricts), and the California Register of Historical Resources, was conducted to identifythe number of listed historic properties and districts along the proposed alignments. Forpublic parks, recreation areas, refuges, and historic sites (also known as Section 4(f)properties2) and properties containing human remains, the above sources were utilizedas well as the most recent Thomas Guide maps for the proposed alignments. Forpaleontological resources, the USGS Dibblee, Los Angeles and Hollywood quadrangle,which illustrates the known subsurface stratum and their potential to yield fossildeposits, were utilized.

Section 106 (6 U.S.C. 470s) of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federalagencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties(including cultural and natural resources) and afford stakeholders the opportunity tocomment on such undertakings

While all alternatives would have some impacts to cultural and natural resources (Section1063), Alternatives 9, 10, and 11 would have the greatest impacts. These impacts wouldinclude, but are not limited to, impact to historic structures through noise and vibrationimpacts during construction, as well as destabilization from underground excavation;disturbance to known and as yet unknown archaeological resources of a historic andprehistoric age; paleontological impacts to Pleistocene age terrestrial deposits, especiallythat excavation which will traverse along Wilshire Boulevard within the Miracle Milesection of the City; and disturbance to human remains including those without formalburials, especially the proposed routes which are in the vicinity of the Los Angeles

2 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 3033 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 6 U.S.C. 470s



Table 3-24. Vehicle/Transit/Pedestrian Conflicts


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 4 bExtent of vehicle/transit/ pedestrianconflicts that are not fully protected

Md Md L-M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L


** L = Low; Mn = Minimal; Md = Moderate; H = High; VH = Very High



National Cemetery and Westwood Memorial Park in Westwood. As alternatives arestudied further, alignments will be designed to avoid these burial grounds.

In addition, there may be a number of historic period structures that have not undergoneformal evaluation for historic significance. In order to assess this, formal evaluationwould need to be undertaken, which may increase the number of historic propertiesaffected by the project.

The estimated number of cultural or natural resources directly impacted for eachgrouping of alternatives is shown below in Table 3-25 and Figure 3-34.

3.2.6.6 Objective 6: Reduce, Not Add To, Tailpipe Emissions / Non-Renewable FuelConsumptionAir Quality / Sustainability is a criterion used to address how to provide for the safety andsecurity of pedestrians and transit users. A screening measure used to evaluate theseimpacts is to estimate the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the study areabased on selected representative alternatives.

Vehicle miles traveled is a common measurement used in evaluating transportationprograms. An increase in VMT in the city generally indicates a heavy reliance on motorvehicles. This reliance on motor vehicles can worsen air quality, contribute to water andsoil pollution, and reflect increased road congestion. Generally, traffic traveling at slowerspeeds, caused by congestion, emits greater levels of pollutants per mile driven.

As shown in Table 3-26 and Figure 3-35, the estimated Year 2030 daily reduction in VMT(region) compared to No Build is greatest in the Santa Monica Boulevard HRT Subwaygroup of alternatives. The Combined HRT Subway and the Wilshire Boulevard HRTSubway group of alternatives follow at a close second and third respectively. The SantaMonica Boulevard LRT Elevated Monorail alternative has the lowest estimate of Year2030 daily reduction in VMT.

3.2.7 Goal G: Public Acceptance

The purpose of public acceptance is to develop solutions that are acceptable to areasonable portion of the public with special emphasis on residents and businesseswithin the study area.

The objective for this goal include developing public support of private and publicstakeholders; attaining support of elected officials representing participatingjurisdictions; and developing solutions which enhance and are sensitive to quality of lifeissues for communities in the study area. Criteria used to address these objectivesinclude public, local and community support. A screening measure used to evaluatepublic acceptance is through input from scoping / workshops. Public acceptance resultsthus far are summarized in Table 3-27, and are discussed further in Section 3.3 and theScoping Report, Task 3.3.



Table 3-25. Impacts on Sensitive and Protected Environmental Resources


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 5 aEstimated Number of Cultural or NaturalResources Directly Impacted

N.A. N.A. 65 45 43 36 62 58 63 59 47 78 78 78 65 65 45 45 59

F 5 aCity of LA Historic Cultural Monument(HCM)

N.A. N.A. 22 11 9 6 28 28 28 28 17 30 30 30 22 22 11 11 28

F 5 aCity of LA Historic Period Overlay Zone(HPOZ)

N.A. N.A. 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 1

F 5 a California Historic Landmark (CaHL) N.A. N.A. 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3

F 5 aNational Register of Historic Places(NRHP)

N.A. N.A. 5 2 4 1 3 3 7 3 3 7 7 7 5 5 2 2 3

F 5 a Archeological Resource (AR) N.A. N.A. 22 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 22 22 22 22 22 18 18 18




Figure 3-34. Estimated Number of Cultural Resources Directly Impacted



Table 3-26. 2030 Estimated Reduction in VMT


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Monorail

SantaMonica

LRT,Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

F 6 a

Estimated Year 2030 DailyReduction in VMT (Region)Compared to No Build (inthousands)

N.A. 52 84 244 251 263 106 198 370 300 205 434 329 282 236 249 244 195 67




Figure 3-35. Estimated Year 2030 Daily Reduction in VMT (Region) Compared to No Build



Table 3-27. Public Involvement


Elevated*


HRT

WilshireLRT,

Mono-rail

SantaMonica LRT,

Monorail

Goa

l

Obj

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

Criteria No

Bui

ld

TSM

17 1 12 14 4 6 7 8 13 9 10 11 15 16 2 3 5

G 1 a Amount of public support L L L H H H Md Md Md Md Md H H H H H L L L

G 2 a Amount of local support L L L H H H Md Md Md Md Md H H H H H L L L

G 3 a Amount of community acceptance L L L H H H Md Md Md Md Md H H H H H L L L


** L = Low; Md = Moderate; H = High



3.3 Input During Screening

3.3.1 Public InputThe early scoping process followed for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor studyincluded both early identification of prospective participants and early notification for allmeetings. The intention was to both inform and solicit feedback on what transitimprovements should be studied and how transit improvements should be evaluated.The official notification process began with an early scoping notice published in FederalRegister Volume 72 No. 189 on Monday October 1, 2007 (Appendix A). The officialscoping comment period was initially scheduled to extend until November 1, 2007, butwas extended until November 7, 2007, at the request of several stakeholders. The generalpublic and agency representatives were given opportunities to attend public meetings andprovide verbal plus written comments. In addition those wishing to provide commentscould view project information on Metro’s website and respond in writing or by email.

The overwhelming majority of comments received supported the need for a transitimprovement in the Westside Extension Transit Corridor. The Wilshire subwayalignment was the most favored route and mode. A number of commenters favored theSanta Monica route but many also said that Metro should consider a project that wouldinclude both the Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards routes in a single project. Inmany cases, where the public supported both the Wilshire and the Santa Monicaalignments, most thought that the Wilshire alignment should take precedence. Limitedsupport was voiced for aerial/monorail, light rail or bus rapid transit modes, withopposition to each of these modes expressed as well.

A second round of public meetings took place on January 31 – February 6, 2008. The 17alternatives were introduced to the community at three public meetings, and attendeeswere invited to comment on the alignments.

3.3.2 Meetings with Key Stakeholders

Meetings have been organized with elected officials, key stakeholders, communitygroups, and other interested parties throughout the Alternatives Analysis process in orderto keep them up to date, and to solicit input on the proposed alternatives and screening.

3.4 Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration

Following technical analysis, public input, and data analysis, five Build alternatives inaddition to the No Build and TSM alternatives were identified for further study. Thirteenalternatives were dropped from consideration based upon a number of factors. Thesefactors are discussed below in the transit mode and alignment sections (Sections 3.4.1and 3.4.2). A summary of why each alternative was dropped is discussed in Section 3.4.3.

3.4.1 Transit Modes

Travel demand identified in the ridership analysis (Section 3.2.1.4) justifies selection ofthe highest capacity system (defined in Section 3.2.1.3). Systems must be sized for thehigh capacity peak period loading along the Wilshire and Santa Monica alignments.



Table 3-28. Alternatives Dropped from Further Consideration

Alternatives Dropped Screened List of Alternatives

2 No Build

3 TSM

4 1

5 11

6 14

7 16

7a 17

8

9

10

12

13

15

LRT, monorail, and BRT technologies provide less capacity than HRT, and cannotaccommodate the forecasted demand. Figure 3-36 illustrates the operating characteristicsof these modes. This figure assumes a common number of vehicles or trains per hour.The ridership analysis consistently demonstrated a need for a mode that could provide acapacity of more than 700 passengers per train set.

Figure 3-36. Carrying Capacity by Mode



HRTLos Angeles is familiar with the technology behind the Metro Red and Purple Lines, andthe HRT alternatives continue the use of this technology. HRT would require theexpansion of the existing Metro HRT Yard, or development of a new yard somewherealong the existing or proposed alignment. As HRT would be a continuation of theexisting system, no transfer would be needed at the Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Westernstation.

A direct connection at the Hollywood/Highland station would be convenient forpassengers from the San Fernando Valley, however it may impact train operationsthroughout the system. A transfer station at this location may result in a minor drop inridership; however, train operations in a push-pull configuration would be superior inthat a higher number of trains could operate on the Santa Monica Boulevard alignment.As described in Section 3.2.1.3, HRT is the highest capacity system of those studied, andhas most potential for future capacity expansion.

LRTWith three existing systems in operation in Los Angeles, LRT is a familiar technology.However, with several LRT lines under construction and others being studied, existingmaintenance yards are reaching capacity. A new maintenance yard would be needed onthe Westside to support an elevated LRT on Wilshire Boulevard.

Because this technology differs from the HRT currently terminating at the Metro PurpleLine Wilshire/Western station, a transfer is needed at this location, which may impactridership and travel times. LRT capacity is not as high as HRT, and may be unable toaccommodate the forecasted ridership within the Westside Transit Corridor.

MonorailWhile new to the Los Angeles region, monorails are in operation in Las Vegas andoverseas. This completely new technology requires the construction of a dedicatedmaintenance facility (estimated to be approximately 15 acres in size) on the Westside.The unfamiliar technology would require additional training and less cross-utilization ofMetro train operators.

Because this technology differs from the HRT currently terminating at the Metro PurpleLine Wilshire/Western station, a transfer is needed at this location, which may impactridership and travel times. The capacity of a monorail system is similar to that of LRT.

BRTBRT is the lowest cost mode studied, however, it is not on an exclusive right-of-way.Therefore, the ridership and travel time savings are lower than the rail alternatives.

Because this technology differs from the HRT currently terminating at the Metro PurpleLine Wilshire/Western station, a transfer is needed at this location, which may impactridership and travel times. The system capacity of BRT is significantly lower than that ofHRT, LRT, or monorail systems. BRT systems typically have lower capital costs thanfixed rail guideways.



SummaryHRT was identified as the preferred mode for further study because it has the capacity tomeet the anticipated ridership demand, as well as limiting the number of transfers. BRTwas selected for further study due to its comparatively lower cost.

3.4.2 Transit Alignments

3.4.2.1 Vertical Alignment IssuesElevated AlignmentsWhile aerial structures can be less costly to build in low density areas with available right-of-way than subway tunnels, there are a number of factors within the Westside ExtensionTransit Corridor which make aerial alignment alternatives undesirable for this studyarea:

Column placement would require the removal of 2-3 traffic lanes. This results inmajor traffic impacts and runs counter to the project objective to add capacity to thecorridor.

In order to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the removal of 2-3 traffic lanes,right-of-way would need to be purchased on one or both sides of the alignment. Thiscost is prohibitive, additionally; existing buildings and land uses would be impacted.

Land use impacts are high in station areas (for stations and ancillary operationsstructures) and for traffic mitigation.

There are visual, noise & vibration, and shadow impacts along with potential impactsto sightlines of historic structures.

An engineering analysis developed several conclusions regarding aerial alignmentsand the three proposed technologies. Aerial guideways and stations for HRT, LRTand monorail are very similar. There are no significant differences in sizes or costswhen designing a system using similar aerial US systems as guidance. Typical crosssections of elevated LRT and HRT systems are shown in Figure 3-37 and Figure 3-38.A typical cross section of an elevated monorail platform and station area is shown inFigure 3-39.

Cities that have fully aerial systems or systems with aerial segments include LosAngeles (the western portion of the Metro Green Line LRT and the Chinatownportion of the Metro Gold Line LRT), Las Vegas (fully aerial Monorail system), andthe San Francisco Bay Area (portions of the BART HRT system). The aerial LRTsegments in Los Angeles are located in medium density commercial areas. Theaerial Monorail system in Las Vegas is located approximately one block off the“Strip,” maintaining a separation between pedestrian environments and the elevatedstructure. Land use adjacent to the Las Vegas Monorail is commercial / industrial.Aerial portions of BART are primarily located in the East Bay and south of downtownSan Francisco along freeway corridors.

Analysis of the aerial portions of these systems does not recommend their use in thedense, highly urban corridors such as Wilshire or Santa Monica Boulevards. A photosimulation, shown in Figure 3-40, illustrates a potential elevated monorail station atthe densely developed intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue.



Figure 3-37. Typical Cross Section: Elevated LRT



Figure 3-38. Typical Cross Section: Elevated HRT



Figure 3-39. Typical Cross Section: Monorail Station Platform



Figure 3-40. Wilshire/Fairfax Elevated Station Photo Simulation

Subway AlignmentsIn suburban and low density urban areas, subway alignments can be less cost-effective than at-grade or elevated alignments, however, in higher density, high landprice areas, often tunneling can be the most cost-effective option.

Land use impacts are high in station areas (for stations and ancillary operationsstructures) and for traffic mitigation.

While Metro endeavors to tunnel under public streets, the nature of the City’s layoutand of train system design requiring wide radius curves means that occasionallytunneling occurs under private property.

SummaryIn this corridor, an underground alignment is recommended as it has fewer land use,visual, historical, and noise impacts over an elevated alignment. This is due to theimpacts an elevated alignment would have on adjacent buildings (some historical), visual,shadow, noise, excessive land acquisition, traffic, and mitigations needed.



3.4.2.2 Horizontal Alignment IssuesSanta Monica Boulevard Alignments

Stand alone Santa Monica Boulevard subway alternatives (Alternatives 4, 6, 7, 7a, 8,and 13) do not perform as well as stand alone Wilshire Boulevard and the combinedWilshire/Santa Monica subway alternatives.

The transfer station at Hollywood/Highland provides superior connections toexisting rail lines, resulting in improved train frequencies. It allows the option ofadding a station at Santa Monica/La Brea, and it avoids most of the tunneling undersensitive and historic residential areas. This applies to the combined Wilshire/SantaMonica alternatives as well.

To support cost-effectiveness, Santa Monica HRT subway alignments may need toserve the Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center area instead of following a lower densityalignment through Beverly Hills along Santa Monica Boulevard. This required somemodifications to Alternatives 9, 10, and 11.

Wilshire Boulevard AlignmentsHigh ridership and travel time savings offsets relatively high costs resulting in anoverall good cost-effectiveness performance. High costs may require phaseddevelopment of this alternative due to funding limitations.

Alternative 1 does not provide direct service to Farmer’s Market/The Grove or CedarsSinai/Beverly Center, but generally minimizes tunneling beneath private property.These centers are within approximately ½ mile of Wilshire Boulevard.

Alternative 12 does not serve major activity centers of LACMA, Farmer’s Market/TheGrove, and misses the preferred City of Beverly Hills station located at theintersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Beverly Drive.

Alternative 14 requires reconfiguration due to the inability to locate stations atLACMA and Farmer’s Market/The Grove on tight turns. This can be designed butrequires some alignments under residential and commercial properties on largeradius turns.

The Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council requested, during the public commentperiod, that the Wilshire/Crenshaw station be reconsidered. After reviewingridership forecasts, population and employment density forecasts, and area land uses,this station will be shown as an optional station pending further planning.

Combination Santa Monica / Wilshire Boulevards AlignmentsHigh ridership and travel time savings offsets relatively high costs resulting in anoverall good cost-effectiveness performance. High costs may require phaseddevelopment of a combination alternative due to funding limitations.

The transfer station at Hollywood/Highland provides superior connections toexisting rail lines, resulting in improved train frequencies. It allows the option ofadding a station at Santa Monica/La Brea, and it avoids most of the tunneling underresidential areas. This applies to the Santa Monica Boulevard alternatives as well.

To support cost-effectiveness, combined Santa Monica/Wilshire HRT subwayalignments need to serve Cedars Sinai/Beverly Center area instead of following a



lower density alignment through Beverly Hills on Santa Monica Boulevard. Thisrequired some modifications to Alternatives 9, 10, and 11.

Alternatives 9, 10, and 11 do not serve the major activity centers of LACMA andFarmer’s Market/The Grove, and require slightly more tunneling under residentialareas.

Alternatives 15 and 16 require reconfiguration due to the inability to locate stations atLACMA and Farmer’s Market/The Grove on tight turns. This can be resolved, butrequires some alignments under residential and commercial properties on largeradius turns.

The Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council requested, during the public commentperiod, that the Wilshire/Crenshaw station be reconsidered. After reviewingridership forecasts, population and employment density forecasts, and area land uses,this station will be shown as an optional station pending further planning.

WestwoodWestwood Homeowners have requested that additional alignments be consideredbetween Century City and Westwood. This affects all HRT subway alignments.

SummaryOverall, the Wilshire Boulevard alternatives performed better than the Santa MonicaBoulevard alternatives in nearly every category. The majority of public input alsosupported the Wilshire Boulevard alternatives over a stand-alone Santa Monica Boulevardalignment. The Combined Santa Monica/Wilshire Boulevards alignment also performedwell and was supported by the community. As such, the preferred horizontal alignmentsfor further study were the Wilshire Boulevard alignments and the Combined SantaMonica/Wilshire Boulevards alignments.

3.4.3 Alternative-Specific Issues

Each of the dropped alternatives is identified within this section along with the specificissues, discussed in the previous sections, which led to their elimination.

Alternative 2: Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT ElevatedThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

Elevated alternatives have substantive environmental and land use impacts

This alternative has good ridership, but is not as cost-effective because of thepotential for extensive land acquisition

Alternative 3: Wilshire Boulevard Alignment LRT/Monorail ElevatedThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:


LRT/Monorail alternatives lack required capacity and expansion capability



Alternative 4: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway with Universal Cityand Hollywood/Highland Red Line ConnectionsThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

Direct connections at the Universal City and Hollywood/Highland stations createbranching of HRT lines and may negatively impact train operations throughout thesystem.

Santa Monica Boulevard stand alone alignments have lower ridership and are lesscost-effective

Alternative 5: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT, LRT, Monorail ElevatedThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:


LRT/Monorail alternatives lack required capacity and expansion capabilities


Alternative 6: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Highland Red Line ConnectionThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

A direct connection at the Hollywood/Highland station creates branching of HRTlines and may negatively impact train operations throughout the system.


Alternative 7: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Highland Red Line Connection/Galaxy NorthThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:



Alternative 7a: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway withHollywood/Highland Red Line Connection/Galaxy SouthThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:





Alternative 8: Santa Monica Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway with Hollywood/VineRed Line ConnectionThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

A direct connection at the Hollywood/Vine station creates branching of HRT linesand may negatively impact train operations throughout the system.


Alternative 9: Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway (Alt. 1 +Alt. 4)This alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

Direct connections at the Universal City and Hollywood/Highland stations createbranching of HRT lines and may negatively impact train operations throughout thesystem

This alternative has good ridership, but is not as cost-effective as other combinedalternatives

Alternative 10: Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway (Alt. 1 +Alt. 7)This alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

A direct connection at the Hollywood/Highland station creates branching of HRTlines and may negatively impact train operations throughout the system

The Santa Monica Boulevard portion of this alternative travels through a lowerdensity part of Beverly Hills, resulting in lower ridership than other combinedalternatives

Alternative 12: Wilshire/Beverly Boulevards Centers HRT SubwayThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:

Key elements from this alignment (specifically an adaptation of the routing offWilshire to serve the Grove/Farmer’s Market and Cedars Sinai) are part of themodified Alternative 14, which was deemed to be a better alternative to carry forwardfor further study

Alternative 13: Santa Monica/San Vicente/Wilshire Boulevards HRT SubwayThis alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:





Alternative 15: Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined Centers HRT Subway(Alt. 13 + Alt. 14)This alternative was dropped from consideration based on the following:


Key elements from this alignment (specifically an adaptation of the routing offWilshire to serve the Grove/Farmer’s Market and Cedars Sinai) are part of themodified Alternative 16, which was deemed to be a better alternative to carry forwardfor further study

Table 3-29. Summary of Reasons Alternatives were Dropped from Consideration

Alt.Operations(Branching)

EnvironmentalIssues

Land UseIssues Low Capacity

LowRidership/

New TransitTrips

Less CostEffective

2 X X X X

3 X X X X X

4 X X X

5 X X X X X

6 X X X

7 X X X

7a X X X

8 X X X

9 X X

10 X X X

12*

13 X X X

15* X

*Key elements of Alternatives 12 and 15 are found in Alternatives 14 and 16, respectively.

Final Initial Alternatives Screening Report4.0 –Alternatives Advanced for Detailed Evaluation


4.0 ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR DETAILED EVALUATION

4.1 Use of FTA Project Justification Criteria

The Westside Extension Corridor Study is the first step in a multi-step process toimplement a major transit improvement for this part of the Los Angeles region. This firststep, also known as Alternatives Analysis, is being conducted following strict guidelinesestablished by the FTA. The basic steps being followed include:

Alternatives Analysis

EIS/EIR and Preliminary Engineering

Final Engineering

Construction

Revenue Service

The successful completion of the Westside AA will allow Metro to evaluate a range ofalternative transit improvements for the Westside Extension Transit Corridor and torecommend alternatives to carry forward that can best accommodate population growthand transit demand and be compatible with land use and future developmentopportunities.

4.2 No Build

As stated in Section 2.1, the No Build Alternative includes all existing highway and transitservices and facilities and the committed highway and transit projects in the currentMetro Long-Range Transportation Plan that are under construction and environmentallycleared, and the current Southern California Association of Governments’ 2004 RegionalTransportation Plan. There were no changes made to the No Build Alternative asoriginally defined.

Proposed major highway improvements impacting the Westside Transit corridorbetween now and 2030 only include the addition of a new high occupancy vehicle (HOV)lane on I-405 Freeway between US 101 and I-105 Freeway.

From a rail transit perspective, the Westside study area will continue to be served by thePurple and Red Metro Rail Lines along the eastern and northeastern edges of the studyarea. Additional rail service committed in 2030 (2001 Metro Long Range TransportationPlan, Baseline) includes 1. Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension: from Union Station toEast LA; 2. Exposition LRT Line: from 7th/Metro to Culver City; and 3. LAX PeopleMover: from the Aviation/LAX station of the Green Line to the LAX main terminal (to befunded by others).

A rich network of local, express and Metro Rapid bus routes will also continue to beprovided. Of particular note are the Metro Rapid bus route additions and modificationsfor:




Culver City Bus Rapid 6 (operated by Culver City Bus)

Torrance Transit Rapid 3 (operated by Torrance Transit)

Manchester Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 715)

San Fernando - Lankershim Metro Rapid Bus (Line 724)


Pico Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 730)

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Rapid 7 (operated by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus)

Reseda Metro Rapid Bus (Line 741)

Central Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 753)

Long Beach Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 760)

Atlantic Boulevard Metro Rapid Bus (Line 762)

Garvey Avenue – Chavez Metro Rapid Bus (Line 770)

San Fernando South Metro Rapid Bus (Line 794)

Wilshire Boulevard Metro Rapid Express Bus (Line 920)

These routes will offer an increased high quality of service in 2030 for purposes ofalternative comparison. Refer to Figure 4-1.

4.3 TSM

As defined in Section 2.2, the TSM Alternative builds upon the No Build Alternative byenhancing the existing Metro Rapid Bus service and local bus service in the Westsidestudy area. No changes were made to the TSM Alternative as originally defined. Thealternative emphasizes more frequent service to reduce delay and enhance mobility.Although the frequency of service is already very good, service frequency is proposed tobe improved between 2 and 10 minutes during peak periods on selected routes.

A number of local Metro bus routes will see frequency enhancements over the No Buildduring the peak period. These routes include:

Sunset Boulevard (short line (SL) Westwood) (Line 2)

Santa Monica Boulevard SL (Line 4)

Beverly Boulevard SL (Line 14)

West Third Street Limited (Line 16)

Wilshire Boulevard-Westwood (Line 20)

Vermont Avenue SL (Line 204)

Western Avenue SL (Line 207)



Figure 4-1. No Build Alternative



In addition to the local bus routes described above, a series of Metro Rapid Bus routeswill also be enhanced as part of the TSM Alternative. These routes include:



Vermont Avenue Metro Rapid Bus (Line 754)

Refer to Figure 4-2.

4.4 Heavy Rail Alternatives

Four HRT subway alternatives and several alignment options were identified for furtherstudy based on their performance and results during the screening process. Thesealternatives are described below.

Attributes common to all HRT alternativesAll alternatives have a portal section between Wilshire/Crenshaw and theWilshire/Western Metro Purple Line Station to accommodate a possible Crenshawat-grade alignment.

Based on comments received from the public, the Wilshire/Crenshaw station will beoptional and studied further.

Several underground alignment options between Wilshire/Beverly andWilshire/Westwood stations remain for further study.

A station at Wilshire/Federal Way was proposed during public comment as analternative commuter hub to a Wilshire/Westwood park and ride station, so as toavoid requiring passengers using I-405 to travel too far on surface streets to reach thestation.

Alternative 1 – Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station to 4thStreet and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica underground with 10 stations, 1optional station, and 1 proposed station. Refer to Figure 4-3.

The alignment is generally under Wilshire Boulevard with a direct connection at theWilshire/Western Station.

Alternative 11 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station andfrom the Metro Red Line at the Hollywood/Highland Station without a Red Linedirect connection to 4th Street and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica undergroundwith 13 stations, 2 proposed new stations, and 2 optional stations. Refer to Figure 4-4.

Public input received during community meetings, and positive preliminary analysisresults, led to adding a proposed new station at Santa Monica/La Brea.



Figure 4-2. TSM Alternative



Figure 4-3. Alternative 1 - Wilshire Boulevard Alignment HRT Subway



Figure 4-4. Alternative 11 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined HRT Subway



There are two alignment options in the Beverly Center area:

Option 11A follows San Vicente from Santa Monica Boulevard down to LaCienega Boulevard, where it curves south and then west to meet the WilshireBoulevard alignment. Stations in this area would include Santa Monica/SanVicente and a Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area station. An optional station atWilshire/Robertson would replace a station at Wilshire/La Cienga.

Option 11B follows La Cienega from Santa Monica Boulevard, past the BeverlyCenter, and curves west at Wilshire Boulevard. Stations include SantaMonica/Fairfax and a Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area station. An optionalstation at Wilshire/Robertson would replace a station at Wilshire/La Cienga.

Alternative 14 – Wilshire Boulevard/Fairfax Centers HRT SubwayThis alternative extends from the Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station to 4thStreet and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica underground with 11 stations, 2optional stations, and 1 proposed station. Refer to Figure 4-5.

This alignment is generally under Wilshire Boulevard to Fairfax Avenue, continuesunder Fairfax Avenue to Beverly Boulevard, continues under Beverly Boulevard, staysunderground to La Cienega Boulevard, continues under La Cienega Boulevard,transitions to Wilshire Boulevard and continues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4thStreet in Santa Monica.

Alternative 16 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined Centers HRT Subwaywith transfer at Hollywood/Highland

This alternative extends from the Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station andfrom the Metro Red Line Hollywood/Highland Station to 4th Street and WilshireBoulevard in Santa Monica underground with 14 stations, 2 optional stations, 2proposed new stations, and a transfer at the Hollywood/Highland Station. Refer toFigure 4-6.

The Santa Monica Boulevard portion of the alignment transitions south under LaCienega, past the Beverly Center, and curves west at Wilshire Boulevard. TheWilshire alignment and the Santa Monica alignment meet at approximately BeverlyBoulevard, with a station located just south of the junction.

This alignment is generally under Wilshire Boulevard to Fairfax Avenue, continuesunder Fairfax Avenue to south of Beverly Boulevard, stays underground to LaCienega Boulevard, continues under La Cienega Boulevard, transitions to WilshireBoulevard and continues under Wilshire Boulevard to 4th Street in Santa Monica.

Public input received during community meetings, and positive preliminary analysisresults, led to adding a proposed new station at Santa Monica/La Brea.

4.5 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative

As described in Section 2.7, the BRT alternative consists of a specially operated dedicatedpeak period curb lane predominantly along Santa Monica Boulevard with two branches,one to 4th Street in downtown Santa Monica with 13 stations and the second along SantaMonica Boulevard to Westwood Boulevard with nine stations. The BRT alternative alsoincludes a similarly operated Wilshire Line from the end of the Metro Purple Line along



Figure 4-5. Alternative 14 - Wilshire Boulevard/Fairfax Centers HRT Subway



Figure 4-6. Alternative 16 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards Combined CentersHRT Subway with transfer at Hollywood/Highland



Wilshire Boulevard to Ocean Avenue, with a turn-around along Ocean Avenue back to5th Street and Colorado Avenue in downtown Santa Monica with 15 stations.

Alternative 17 – Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards BRT At GradeThis alternative predominantly uses Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards on streetwith physical transfers at the Wilshire/Western Metro Purple Line Station andHollywood/Highland Metro Red Line Station providing service to downtown SantaMonica on both Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards. Refer to Figure 4-7.

This alternative operates with three separate lines: Wilshire Boulevard to downtownSanta Monica (Line 1); Santa Monica Boulevard to downtown Santa Monica (Line 2);and Santa Monica Boulevard to Westwood Boulevard and downtown Westwood (Line3) as a branch of Line 2.

Line 1 has 15 stops, Line 2 has 13 stops and Line 3 has nine stops.



Figure 4-7. Alternative 17 - Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards BRT At Grade

Date post:	22-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

WESTSIDE EXTENSION TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDYmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/... ·...

Documents