12

Las ~en~~3es Cvunty Qrie C.~ir~bv~y (~faza ~3~.~:?a.~~~̂ < T.:I

~' Metr~pa~iYan ~rarrspartaEion Ac~th~irity Lt~s ~+r7~~1~~~, rA i3~a~~~-.a~~z rryretr~.net

I~Ietr+C~REVISED

PLANNING AND PRC}GRAMMING C+DMNIITTEE.d~PRli~ 18, 212

SUBJECT; METRO► GREEN LINE Tt) ~.AX

ACTON: APPRCIVE RENAMING PRC}JE~T

RECOMMENDATIOhI

A. Apprt~ve renaming the Metro Greer Line to LRX tc~ "Airpt~rt Metro connector"; and

B. ~c~ive and file the Metra Green Line to LAX Alternatives Ana{ysis (AA} Report..

Attachment A contains the Executive Summary. The full AA Report is available upon

request; ar at .m~tra~.~e#~ ree►~finet~~ The Build alternatives recarnmended for

advancement to the environrt~ental review process are based on the AA Report as

well as additional consultation with Los Angeles World Airports LAWA~

ISSUE

In NC~3rGh 2017 ,the Board approved a cantr~ct with the Joint Venture team,

Cannecti~AX, to complete the AA, Draft Environmental Impact St~tement/~ep~rt (Draft

EfS/EIR) anal Ge~nceptual Engineering (CE) for the Metro Green Line tt~ L~iX (Prc~jeet).

This report provides ~n update on the AA process, tour cc~ordinatic~n with other agencies

such ~s Lc,s Angeles World Airports (WAWA}, and the alt~rn~fiives being advanced to

the environmental review phase. In additir~n, we are recommending the Project name

be changed to "Airpr~rt Metre ~c~nnector" to clarify that it will evaluate a bread range of

sQlutians that provide a ct~nn~ctic~n between the Metro Fail system (including both the

Metre green Line and future Crenshaw/LA>C Line) and Los Angeles fnternation~l Airpart

(LAX).

DICUSSIN

This Measure R praj~c~ has 2OQ million (2008 $) in the constrained dement cif the

2009 Lang Rangy Tr~nsportaticrn ~'I~n (LRTP} with a revenue operation date of 2028,

America Fast ~"orward accelerates this date to 2018. The actual opening date is

contingent upon a funding contrib~atia€~ from ~.AWA andlc~r ether sources. The study

area is approxirr~ately flour square miles and is bounded by Manchester Avenue to the

n+arth, La Cienega to the ~~st, imperial Highway fic~ the soufih and the LAX terrnina~s to

the west (Attachment B).

Alternatives An~lYsis PhaseAs the initial phase in the project development process, the AA process invc~ives

identifying a wide range of alternatives that can reasonably achieve the Project's goal cif

connecting fihe growing Metro Rai# system t~ LAX. Exte~s~ve research Qf other airport

transit systems deterr~sned that a transit connection to LAX could take several forms:

• Direct Light Raii Transit {LRT} Branch: Extends iNetro Green Line to LAX

terminals. (Metro goes to Airpr~rt).

• Circulator: New transit system that serves LAX t~rminafs and extends to a new

station at the inters~cfiion of Av~ati~n and ~enfury Bou6ev~rds fc~r passenger

transfers taifrc~m the Metro Raii station planned as pert cif fhe Crenshaw/LAX

project. (Airport go~;s to fVletra).

• Intermediate LRT and Circulator: Metro (LRT} and Airport {Circulator) meet at

station located between Aviation B~ulsvard and LAX terminals (M~tro and Airport

meet in the middle).

• Modified i~RT Trunk: Shits main rail line {Trunk} toward LAX Terrt°►inafs —bothMetro Green and GrenshawlLAX lines serve LAX terminals. The Gren5hawlLAX

project would be constructed as originally designed and er~vironmer~tal~y cleared.

(Metro goes through the Airport}.

The AA phase used atwo-stage screening process. For Stage I, the feasibility cif the

various alignments and transit modes was ~valuatecf for each ofi the four connectir~n

types. In addition to LRT, Autc~rnated Peop(e Mover (APM}, and Bus Rapid Transit

(ART} modes rrvere also considered. ~t the ~or~clusian cif the Stage I screening, 27

alternatives were carried into the ;toga li evaluation.

The stage II screening focused an understanding how the alternatives compared to one

mother in terms of basic characteristics, performance and capita! costs. Factors such

as tl~e nurt~ber ref transfiers, number of level ch~n~es, travel time savings, ridership, walk

distance tca terminals and preliminary planning level capital cost estimates were

identified fflr each a#ternative. e thin structured the infarmatiar~ to evaluate certain

trade-offs among the connection types as well as individual alternatives and design

v~riat€ores.

Comrraunity OutreachAt the beginning of the AA process, w~ organized a Technical Advisory Committee

{TAC} that includes repr s~nt~tives from federal, state end ic~cal agencies. The

purpose of the TAC is to rbtain technical feedback, throughout the planning process, on

fhe alternatives under consider~fiion.

Our ~utrea~h tc~ the genera{ pubic end st~k~hc~l er groups has also begin robust. Five

Community Wr~rkshaps wire held during the AA phase. Mtge than 3fl0 stakeholders

atter~d~d the wc~rksht~ps end provided input an the different ways for connecting the

Metro Rai! system with LAX. 'vVe also held meetings with over 20 stak~ho(d~r groups,

including business groups, airline industry groups, Eoc~l government assaci~tions and

Metro Green Line to LAX Page 2

neighborhood groups. Other social media such as a Projecf web page, Project video,

Facebook page end Twitter feeds were also used tc~ distribute information and to

receive stakeholder snput. In general; stakeholders preferred alternatives car design

opt~c~ns that pravided fewer trensf~rs ~r~d more reliable travel times. Inside the LAX

terminal area, many stakeholders suggested tf~at the design options with fewer than

three stations include pedestrian enhancements, such ~s moving walkways, to make

the longer average walk distance tolfrarn terminals mare man~ge~ble far passengers

with ft~gg~ge.

Alternatives Advanced to Draft EI~fEIRBased an the technical analysis ~ntt stakeholder input, ~r-e-e flour alte~r~ativ sire

proposed to advance tc~ the draft environmental review phase (shaven in Attachment C):

• Direct LRT Branch -- extends the Metro Green line to LAX terminals with one

potential stafic~n Ic~catecf near W. 98~" StreeUAvion Drive and two to three statir~ns

in the SAX terminal area;• Circulator {APM) —new transit systert~ with twc~ to three stations in the LAX

terminal area, one potential statEan near W. ~8t" StreetlAvion Drive and one

station at Aviation and Century Boulevards fc~r transfer to Metrca Rail;

Modified LRT gunk (Through LAX) — provides direct service for both the Metro

Green and CrenshawtLAX lies with c~n~ pt~fier~tial st~tior~ near W. 6th

Street/Avion Drive {Lot C) and erne below grade station in the LAX terminal area

potentially Ic~cated just east cif the Theme Building; and

Circulator ~BRT~ — elevated busw~~r along ~8t~' Street between Aviation and

5epulveci~ Boulevards. West of Sequlveda Boulevard the BRT service would

tr~nsitic~n to mixed-f(ow operation along the existing loop raadwayr inside the LAX

terminal area with st4t~s at al! eight terminals.

The AA FZeport recommended the first three alternatives listed abQVe for advancement

to the Draft EIS/SIR ~ha~e. However, WAWA requested that the BR`f alternative be

included in the environmental process to be cc~nsi~t~nt with same alternatives being

considered in their Specific Pfau Amendment Study (SPAS). We will discuss with

LAWA a fiin~ncial contribution tc~ suppcsrt the casts associated with eva€uatinq and

designir~q this alt~rn~tive durine~ the envire~nmental reuiew process.

During the Draft EISIE(R phase, appropriate phased im lementatit~n c~ptians ma r also

be explored for the #wee four alternatives.

Metro Green Line to LAX Page 3

-~+~e-ts~ s~~ j+pct-~e-~~~~ay~--~~~ges~+a~

Century Boulevard alignment (for LRT, BRT and APM modes) — public inp~€t

suggested that there i~ a general preference for tha 98th Street alignment for both

the Direct I~RT Branch and Circulator {APM) alternatives. This option has tl~e

potential for visual impacts tc~ the existing Century Boulevard corridor landscape

as well as negatively affecting traffic circulation and vehicular access to local

businesses. Furtherrnare, for the Direct LRT Branch alternative, an additian~l

transfer with a Icing walk would be involved between the Metro Green and the

Cr~nshawl~AX Lines reducing the ~~tractiveness cif this alignment option. This

situation is caused by the need for a second station associated with the Metro

Green Line turning west onto Century Beat~levard before reaching the new

Crenshaw/LAX station planned at the northwest cr~rner of Aviation and Century

Boulevards,

~nvirr~nmental Review ProcessThe Draft EISlEIR will be prepared in comp{iance wit# both the National Environmental

Policy Act (IV~~'A} end California Environrr~enta! t~uality Aet (C~QA). Alst~ during this

phase, we will continue to refine Gr~nceptual designs and update capital and operating

cost estimates. Due to the Project's close proximity to LAIC, it is anticipated that both the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Aviation Adrrrinistratian {FAA) will be

Lead Agencies for the federaC environmental review process. They vrere both involved

during the AA phase. It i~ anticipated that FTA and FAA wiEl e~e~ute a Memorandum of

tJndersfianding {MC7U} that will outline roles and respflnsibiiities for each agency,

ex~lusiore t~f funding commitments. Dependent upc~rt further FTA ar~d FAA discussir~n,

we may be a party to tF~e MC9U. For CEQA, we wil! be the lead agency in cac~rdination

with other state anc~ loco! agencies.

Air~c~rt Pl~nr~inq forts!n late 20014, the Lc~s Angeles City Council approved the LAX Master Plan, a strategic

prcagram +~f projects intended to modernize the airport. Include! in the [ulster Plan and

relevant to our Study are twc~ AP1~1 systems. APM1 would connect the L~1X terminals to

the Metre Ore n L~n~ at ~n I~termc~dal Transportation Center (ITC} near Imperial

Highway. APM2 would connect the LAX terminals to a proposed Ground Transportatit~n

Center at the northeast corner of Aviation and Century Boulevards.

Fallowing approval of the LAX Master P{an, a number of lawsuits were fiiCed that resulted

in a legal settlement requiring LAWA tc~ canc~uct a sep~r~te Specific Play Amendment

Study (~!'AS} for ~ subset of LAX Master Plan projects, knt~wn as "Yellow Light"

prQject~, 9n 20tJ8, LAWA initiated the SPAS prc~c~ss to evaluate the "Yellow Light°,

projects as required in the settlement agreement that included runway, terminal and

ground access improvements. The APM2 project was designated as one of the "l~ell~w

Light" projects. As part of SPAS, LAVVA is considering alternatives to the APM2 system

that cr~~ld ceannect the airport to the Metro ail system at Aviatirsn and Century

Baul~vards. The goal raf LAWA's planning effiort is to update the LAX Specific Pian

through a Pragr~m-level EIR. Individual projecfis would be ~nvironrnentally cleared for

Metro Green Line tca LAX Paga

advancement to construction thre~ugh a subsequent Project-level E1R. The Draft EIR for

the SPAS is scheduled to be released in Summer 2012. It is anticspated thafi once the

final SPAS EIR is certified, WAWA will prepare an EIS for the SPAS andlor initiate the

project-level environmental cle~ranc~ prace~s for a prc~ject(s~ within the SPAS.

Concurrent with the SPAS update pr`e~c~ss, LAWA has pursued the development of

projects nc~f disputed as part of the settlement agreement ("Green Light" projects)

through project-level Elf~s. A project-level EIR for the APM1 system {one of the "Green

Light" projects) to the Metre Green Lire and the ITC has not yet been initiated. See

Attachment D for images of bath APM systems.

Car~rdination with LAWAWith parallel planning efforts underway and Project alternatives that involve the use o~

airport property, coordination witf~ ~l~Vl(A has been ar~cf will continue to be a top priority

during all phases of project development. The LAX Mister Flan (incleading SPAS} and

this Project are considered complementary planning efforts that could potentially

expedite the identification and ~e~~luation of an "fiirport Metrn Connector" beneficial to

both airport users and users of the regianal transp~r~ation system. Although the Metro

Green Line to SAX and airport planning efforts are prc~~eeding in parallel, these

separate, but coordina#ed planning efforts are not dependent on ane another. Metro ar€d

LAWA can continue to coordinate during the envirc~nmer~t~[ clearance process, arrd

beyond, regardless of the alterna~s`ves evaluated rar advanced as part of each respective

planning process. Depending hc~wev~r, upr~n the ~Iternative ultimately selected, c ur

environmental pracess and envirr~nrx7ental reviews that follow the LAX Master Plan

{including SPAS} may either continue can separate paths car be combined into a jcaint

environmental clearance process. A timeline for both pManning efforts is provided in

Attachment E.

Fundin±~The Measure R dollars currently available partially fund the alternatives under

consi~~ra#ian. for the alker~ativ~s advanced tQ the Draft EIS/EIR phase, preliminary

capifial cast estimates range between $54~ million to X1.2 biftion {2010 do9lars), liven

the significant funding shrartfall asscaciatec€ with the alternatives, ether sources of funding

will need to be identified during the Draft EISl~IF~ phase in order for any potential

aEt~rnative to advance beyr~nd the draft environmental clearance phase and be selected

as the Lc~caily Preferred Alternative (LPA}. Although LAWA is considered the principal

funding partner for this Project, ether non-traditianal federal, state and :private funding

sources, such as Federal FAA and Public Priv~t~ Partnerships, wsll also be explored

dur~n~ the }raft EISIEiR phase.

DETERMII+~ATIAN OF SAFETY IMPACT

T~er~ is no impact on safety related to renaming the project. As the planning study

mc~v s ~ntc~ the nviranmental review phase, al4 alter~ativ~es will be evaluated far their

impacts tc~ safety and will be designed to comply with safety requirements contained

Mefra Green Line to LA3C Page 5

within our design guidelines, LAWA and AAA design guidelines, policies and relevant

regulations.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

The FY 12 budget contains $4.6 million to carnplete the AA and initiate the DraftE!S/SIR, including community outreach. Funding is in~~uded in cast center 4330 (South

Bay Area Team), ~rojec~ 460303 (Metro Green Line to LAX Prc~ject~. Since this is amulfi-year project, the Cyst Center Manager and Executive Directa~ of Ca~antywidePlanning will be responsible for budgeting casts in future years.

Impact to BudgetThe source t~f funds is Measure R Transit Capit~i 35°!o Funds. No ether sources of

funds were considered because the Measure R do(I~rs are designated fay the MetaGreen Line to LAX project. These funds are not available for use on bus and railt~perat~ng and capital projects.

• ~

The Board has several options it could consider with regard t4 renaming the project

~nc(ud~r~g retaining Meta C~r~en Ling tp LA)C ar names otf~~r than Airport MetaConnector. These options are not recommended as the current name is not inclusive t~f

the various ~Iternatives being considered to connect the .airport to tie regional transit

system. Airport NEetra Cc~nnectc~r is rnc~r~ descriptive of the Project's goal,

Upon Bard approval cif the name change, we will incorpr~rate it into all project

materiels. Also, we will coordinate with FTA and FAA to initiate the federaCenvironmental clearance process, A~ the study progresses, we will provide periodic

updates to the Baird.

■ i . ~ ''.'

~. Metro Green dine to LAX Aiternatiues Analysis Report — Executive Surrrm~ry

B. Project Study Area (vlap~. AI#erna#fives Advanced to Draft EIS/EIR - REVISED

D. LAX 1~9aster Plan — ground Transportatiflr~ Pr+ajects~. Parallel Planning Efforts —Key Milestone Timeline

Prepared by: Cory Zelrr~er, Tr~nspt~rtation P4anning Manager

Brc~nwen Trice, Senior Camrnunity Relations C3fficer

Raderick Diaz, ~irectt~rRene Berlin, Executive C}f~~er

(~rtetro Green Line to LAIC ~~qes

!l~~~~~i~~~~7~~1/~Martha Welborne, FAIAExecutive Director, Countywide Planning

ri.

Arthur T. LeahyChief Executive Officer

Metro Green Line to LAX Page 7

Metro Greers Line tc~ LAXPhase t —AAf DEIS(QEiR Alterr~atives Analysis - Executive Surr~ma

Metro Green Li n~ to LAX

,, ,

Alternatives Analysis ReportE ~utiv~ Summary

n ~ssaciation with:

Hatch Mott 11MacDonaldLea+ EI {iott

Fehr ~ PeersLeigh#on

Terror A. Hayes Associates lnc.

Epic Land Solutions

Ted TanakaVCA Er~gine~rs, Inc.

D'E.eon Cansulting EngineersC+~ast SurveyingCityworks Design

~~~e

M~~t't?

Metro Green Line to iAXPhase I -- AAf DAIS/HEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

~ r • • ~ `.. y r •

AA ...................Alterna#fives AnalysisAPM ...............Automated People Mover

BRT .................Bus Rapid TransitCEQA ..............Califarnia Environmental Quality Act

~TA .................~entral Terminal AreaEIR ..................Envirr~nmenta( Impaet ReparG

EIS ..................En~irc~r~mental Impact Statement

FA~......,._._......Federai Aviation Adrrainistration

~~°A .................Federal Transit Administration

LAWA .............Los Angeles l~/orld Airports

LAX........,_.......Los ,Angeles international Airpr~rt

LRT .................Light Rai(Tran~it~R`~P ...............Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP ...............Million Annua( Passengers

Metro .............Los Angeles County Metropo€itan Transportation Authority

m~h ................Miles per HourNEPA ..............National Environments[ Policy Act

PRT .................Persor~al Rapid TransitRC~W ...............I2ight-of-Way

SCAG.......~......Southern California Association QfGavernrnents

SEIR ................Supplements! Envirc~nrr,ental Impact Report

TSM ................Transp~rtatic~rt Systems Management

Page i i

Metro

Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA/DErS/DEIR A9ternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

• ~aa6 Air Passenger Survey final Report. dos Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles, CA,

December 20t~6

zaog L.on~ Flange Transpc~rtatioia Phan, Lfls Angeles County Transportation Authority, Lc~s

Angeles, CA, Zfl49.

+ Airports Council International, Airparts Council International. Airports ~ounei(

International, Montreal, Canada, C~ctc~ber 2011.

• Crenshaw/LAX Corridar Project Overview Fact Sheet. Metro V~/ebsite. dos ~,ngeles ~c~unty

Transportation Authority, ~c~s Angeles, CA, July 2011.

Expo~itios~ Transit Corridor Phase i Project Overy+ew Fact Sheet, ~vletrQ Website. Los

Angeles County Transpar~ation Authority, Las Angeles, CA, January 2411.

• Exposition Transit C~rridar Phase 2. Metro tNe~rsite. Los Angeles County Transportation

Authority, Los Angeles, CA, January 2tJi 1.

• Federal TransportatEOn Improvement Program, southern California Association of

Governrr~ents. Lc~s Angeles, CA, ZC311.

LAX Bradley West Praje~t Draft Environmental lmp~ct Report. Los Angeles World

Airports, Los Angeles, CA, Nlay 2049.

• Metro Corridcars Base Model with SAX Enhancement Versdon 6.0. Conr~ectLAX, Los

Angeles, CA, 20QS, 2011, 2012.

• Metro Mcsde Chnice Model. Los Angeles Caun~y Transportation Authority, Los Angeles,

CA, 2010.

• Regional Tr~nsportatic~n Improvement Pr~sgrar~. 5authern Cadifarnia Association of

Governments. Los Angles, CA, 2x08 — 2(ll l .

• South Bay Metro Green Line Extension Overview Fact Sheet. Metre Website. Los Angeles

County Transportation Authority, Lc~s Angeles, ~A, Fet~ruary 2011.

Fage ii

~1IIE:tCQ

Metro Green Llne to LAXPhase I — AA/DEkSJDE1R

4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

The Los Angeles bounty Metropt~litan Transportation Authority (Metro) has initiated an

Alternatives Analysis AAA) /Draft Es~vironmenta( Crr~pact Statement J Draft Environmental

Impact Repart (Draft EIS/EBR~ for the Metro Green Line tc~ Los Angeles Internatit~nal Airport

(LAX) project. The Draft E15/E(R is being prepared to comply with the National

Enviranmenta( Poficy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (~EQA). The

focus cif this study is to plan, design and envirc~nrnentalfy assess a fixed guideway transit

connection b~twieen Metrt~'s regional rail system and LAX. Partial funding for a fixed

guideway connection to LAX is provided through Measure R, which includes X200 million

(2Q08 dollars) far a M~trc~ Green Lire to LAX project.

This study will exarrrine potential connections between the ivletro Rail system and LAX. The

Project Study Area is bounded by Manchester Avenue ~o the north, La Cienega Boulevard to

the east, Imperiaf Highway to the scauth and the LAX air cargo area tc~ the west, and includes

pe~rtions of the Cities of Los Angeles and Inglewood. An overview ofthe Project Study Area is

shown in Figure {}.1.

An AA is the first step of a process that is required to complete the planning, environmental

assessment, design ant! cc~nstruct7on cif alarge-scale transit project. The foil AA Report

E~egans with the Purpose acrd Need, sumw~nariz~d in Section 0.2. The Purpose and feed

analyzes the travel markets and existing transportation conditions within the Project Study

Area and details a range of project objectives designed t~ address specific mcability problems.

Sectie+n fl.3 summarizes the Pre#imin~ry Definition c~fAl~ernatives, which characterizes the

transit alternatives that could potential€y cor-~ns~t the Metro Rail system to the abrport. The

two-stage screening process discussed in Section 0.4, examines all modal, route and station

combinations to determine feasibility and corr°~pare performance between alternatives. The

purpose eaf the screening process is to narrc~vr dawn the number Qf alternatives that are

ultimately advanced to the draft environmental review process, the next step in project

deve(c~pmen~.

Page 1

Metre

Metro Green Line to LAXPrase i — AA{OE6S/DEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

Figure 0.1. Project Study Area — Overview__

a~, q

~9 z

~IkFhV.^.N~T~fi AYFa .. m. a a, ez ~ as «,.~̂ ~ .e ~ m « ., w. ,..» .. » Po :~ w .. r . ° g" k~:~ .~ ., m .. u w m m ~ ~u m » ,~ ~ ae ra a °' •a •> ~" p4Ak„~iES ~Y.~ t

0~, .LOS ~N~ELE

INGl.EWOOD

e F.NEzCfl rYE ~.+.: d

A Q

....ffi

%'PW 9T — 4

S g

~ ~ ~u q'. ,, .h~~ LcllS~J.'~.Y SIY':9 ~e

~..r?d":fit W~* ~a

tlb

O.. } Y

1~ ~

_t ~i (w(lAi+.

Metro Prn:e L.ne fo L.AX SYady 3acaa `. °1~f~F

23~XfSEfily ~ _ .~

PlanneetMelra ~r€~nshawrLAX hansiE arntkir' - ~

J~fl9r'1 ~ i,

~.. »~= %~Fefecs Green k.~ce Planned h esaNnrst ~~; ~y J e

,Q Meira Green & CrensharriLA7f line ~ •, "„ • "'" ,~tF~Ui bW~~° _ " "` •. ~ - « . » ~ ~ ~ . M « .. « ». ra ~, .... + »~

and Stztian ~S?~aracl~ ~` .Iii ~ ~IR~I

?~€a~n¢ensnce Facf~rty eFtarmed) j ~ S?;aUI1CM7 c

V II t iS ti 25 f15 - Q~i

~---~~~+~iitey ~ A3R: }~ti'NTkAR~v

SOtirCB: COnnectLA~{, 2011

LAX is iacated in sQUthwest ~.os Angeles County. It vas tine sixth ~r~siest airport irs the u+or(d,

accommodating 59 rrsillion annual passengers {MAP} in ZC110 (Airports ~o~ncil International,

2411; Lc~s Angeles World Airpt~rts (LAWA~, 2CJ11). fJn the national I~vel, LAX is the third

busiest airport in the U.S. By 202t~, 78.9 MAR are pr€~jected to pass through ~,X (LAWA,

2011 ~. Acc~rdin~ to the 2C}06 LAX Air Passenger Survey, cane percent of air passengers ride

transit to LAX (bus and/or rail). About mine percent of airport employees travel to LAX via

pubic transit (bus, rail, and the LAWA-run FIy~4way shuttle} (Metro, 2t}09; Conne~tLAX, 2Q1~}.

The Purpose and Need c{e~nes the transportation and mobility problems in the Project Study

Area and identifies project objectives that address these deficiencies. Four project objectives

that address these deficiencies are described in this section,

Fage 2

11I1+etP0

Metro green Line to LAXPhase 1 — AA/L~EISIDElR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

0.2.1. Objective #1: Provide a reliable, fast, and convenient connection for passengers

traveling between the LAX area and the regional transit system

The transportation facilities serving air passengers and airport employees destined to and

from LAX is characterized by localized traffic cangestic~n, ~sr~predictabie trip times, and

inconvenient transit connections requiring mu(tipie transfers. Given the time-critical nature

of air travel and the volume of employees traveling to and from LAX at vario€as times

throughout the day, there is a need for system ~mprQVements that can provide reliable, Fast

and convenient travel tc~ LAX.

Twc~ majr~r freeways serve the Project Study Area and its immediate vicinity: 7-4075, running

slightly east of the eastern be~rder r~~the Project Study Area, and I-1 flS, running alr~ng the

southern border cif the Prr~ject Stud y Area. The Project Study Area experiences a substantial

am~t~nt cif traffic attributable bath to trips to LAX, as well as traffic passing through the area

that is not attributable to airport trips. congestion can the I-4d5 freeway, and to a lesser extent

the I-~05 freeway, adds subst~ntia} delay and unpredictability tQ travel t€mes to/from LAX.

Due to ample roadway capacity, arterials operate we11 within and adjacent try the Project 5tuc#y

Area, with the exceptican of some localized hc~tspets ofcongestian can arteria €s appraacl~ing

the Centro! Terminal Area (CTA). The CTA itself experiences significant congestion during

peak Might arrival and departure periods°

~"ransit service in the Project Study Ares is provided by ~vletro and seven municipal bus

operators. WitF~ the exception of the FEyAway, all other transit ~~anneetions to LAX currently

require at least one transfer to a LAWA-run shuttle at the LAX City Bus tenter or the

Aviation f LAX ~tatEan tc~ access the CTA. This is because public transit buss da not operate

in the CTA. CJf the transit lines in the vicinity cif the CTA, the Metro Green Line has the

highest ridership due ~o its reliable, high-speed service along a dedicated right-of way. In

general, the competitiveness of existing transit is strongly aifect~d by unpredictable travel

times can 4ines serving the LAX area.

Sec~i~n 2.3.7 of the AA report compares ~r+p performance by transit and private vehicle for six

origins in Southern California, a1I terminating at the CTA. C~ver~ll, trove! by private vehicle to

and from LAX is faster than transit, but more costly. 1n most cases, transit trips require one

to twc~ transfers, which add to travel time and impair customer convenience.

x.2.2. t7bje~tive #2: Integrate with exis#ing and fu#ure transit c~onnection~ and airport

facilities.

The Project Study Area is positioned at the nexus of several existing gar planned Metro Rail

lines. The fc~lle~wircg existing and future lanes wiEl greatly "smprc~ve the overall interconnectivity

r~fthe r~gi~nal tr~r~sportatian network and better serve airport-bound passengers:

~ Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor: The Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor pry}ect ss a planned

8.5 mile light rail line that will extend from the Exposition (Expo) Line at the intersection of

Exposition and Crenshaw Boulevards to the Metr~a Green Line via the Harbor Subd€vision

and terminate in Redonda Beach. As the alignment heads south from the Expo Line

ccannectinn, it wi(f connect to the Metro Green Line and provide a Metro Rail station

nearer to the airport at the intersection ofAviatic~n and Century Bou{evards.

Page 3

MetrC~

Metro Green Line to LAXPhase ! -- AA/QEIS/DEI R Alternatives Analysis — Executive Surr~mary

• Metro Green Line and South Bay Extensian: The fVletro Rail system includes the Metor

Green Line, which currently operates between ~Jorwalk and forth Redondo Beach. The

Metro Green Line includes a station that is located approximately 2.5 mites from the LAX.

Metra +s currently conducting tie envir~nrnental review fc~r the South Bay Metro Green

Line Extension project, which will extend the Nletrr~ green Line from the existing Marine

Station south into the Sauth Bay. The Crenshaw f LAX Transit Corridor would be the major

transit service along the South Spy extension.

+ Expos►tion transit Corridor Phase 1: Phase 1 of the Expo Transit Corridor project rs an 8.6mile extensit~r~ t~Ethe Metra Rail systern frcarr~ the 7th Street/Metre tenter Statian in

downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. This line is scheduled tcs open in 2012.

Expasition Transit Corridor Phase 2: Phase 2 of the Expca Transit ~arridc~r project will

extend C.6 mAles westward from the Culver City Station (Phase i) tc, Santa Monica.

t?.2~3. ab~ective #3: Satisfy the surface transpt~rtatic~n and travel demands ~f the high

volume of passengers connecting to LAX.

Passengers and employees who travel to and frc~rr~ the area daily constitute a large share of

the travel demand in the Presject Study Area. ~orthe purpe~ses of this analysis, trove! tc~ the

Project Study Area is divided into three markets, which are summarized in Table 0.1.

Table {7.1, Travel Markets to Prvje~t Study Area, ?014

Number of Dai[yTotal Daily Trips

Market Subarkets ~.r&~s to Project StudyArea

Air passengers, ~ 52,385

1. Regional travel to/frc~rn CTAresident and visitor

Employees 33,218

2. Eton-regional gave[ tcaJfram CTA and Air passengers, ~~1,191

~~~'~~~ E

the Airport C}istrict resident and visitor

3. Regional travel to/~rorr~ Airport ~_^ ~mplcayecs 2Q,$15Ctistrict ~

Source: (Metro, 21709; C~snnectLAX, 3Q12).

There are a tcatal cif 1 Q7,609 daily trips tQ the Prc~j~et Study Area {Metre, 2039; ConnectLAX,

2012). Eighty percent ofthe tr~tal daily trips is regional travel toJfrom the C3A. This marl~et

constitutes the majority caf trips and is considered the primary travel market. ~ieeause cif the

large trap volumes and their convergence at the CTA, this market wcauld be best served by a

high-uolume dedicated fixed guideway link that connects Metro RaiE to the airport.

The remainder cif trips is comprised Q{ two markets: regional travel to/from the Airport

Qistrict (19 percent) artd non-regional travel from the CTA tQ the Airport E7istrict (cane

percentj. Regional travel to/from the Airport district is characterized by work trips tts +~ff-

airport businesses dispersed throughout the Airport District. Nan-regic~nai travel from the

CTA to the airport is characterized by frequent, short-distance crave! tc~Jfrorr~ the CTA try

Ic~catians thr~ughaut the Airps~rt District. These markets are considered tc~ be secondary.

With the exception of the dense Century Boulevard corridor, these markets ire best served by

Page 4

~ ~

Metro Green Line t~ LAXPhase I — AA/f~EIS(DEIR Alternatives Analysi$ — Executive Summary

a small scale, network based shuttle system because of the dispersed r~ature of off-airpcsr±

destinations.

4.2.4. Objective 4: kncrease tie share oftransit trips to and from LAX and reduce sirpolluti+~n with minim~i impact on airport facilities and surrounding communities.

Despite unpredictable travel times to LAX due to traffic congestion end other factors, the

majority ofair passengers, airpork employees, and Airport Qistrict employees travel tc~ the

Project Study Area by private vehicle. This is because the other mode options are nflr~-

cornpetitive with the automobile, especialEy fc~r air passengers. The overwhelmingly higFt

share cif auto trips results in traffic cc~ngestian, affecting the duality t~f life for surr€~unding

residential communities in terms afair quality, ncsise, and pedestrian safety. The made

shares of the primary and secan~{arytravei markets are summarized below.

According try the 24 6 LAX Air P~ss~nger Survey, the primary rr~ode aftravei far both resident

and visitor air passengers is prsvate vehie{e. Seventy-one percent of residents and 35 percent

of visitors access LA)C via private ~uto~raobile. The secondary mode cif travel fQr residents is

on-caP( shuttles/vans {e.g., SuperShuttle) and taxis, which aecs~unt for eight percent ofall

resident air traveler trips to LAIC. Public transit to the airpt~rt currently accounts for one

percent of air passenger trips tc~ I~X (LAWA, 20t~6}.

The rr~ajority of airport employes drive afane to work in private vehkles X73 percent}. The

second most-commonly used mode c~ftransportation to work sites is carpooling (15 percent),

folic~wed by transit (9 percent). Local buses end the Metrr~ green Line capture 13 percent and

nine percent ofairpart employees urho ride transit, respectively. Ofthe airport employees

wh9 rode transit, nine percent ride local buses and 13 percent ride the ~tEetro Green Line.

Lilo airpt~rt employees, the major'sty of Airport District empl~ayees drive atone to work in

private vehicles (73 p~rcentj. Although the market for non-regional trove€ to/from the Airport

Distrect represents a smaller proportion oftatal trips to the Project 5tueiy Area, these trips

contribute much ofthe traffic in the CTA. Private vehicles represent approximately half ofafl

vehicles in the CTA, with taxicabs and various shutt{es acccaunting fQr rraast of the rather

vehicles (WAWA, 20{19).

0.~. PRELI~[I~ARY G~EFINITICjIt! C?~ ALTERNATlV~S

The purpose of the Preliminary C~efinitian of Alternatives section is tc~ introduce the

alternatives, ineluc6ing rracades ~r~cl off grad on-airport routes that will be carried forward into

alternatives screening as part oFth~ Metrra Green Lane to SAX Project. The alternatives being

considered would provide transit service between the CTA and the existing and planned Metre

Rail systerrr. Alternatives for this project consider existing ar~d future cc~nditir~ns in and

around the airport, and are inforrr~ed by transit connections +n t~peratian at other major

ai wports.

Page 5

@~t"O

Mero Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA,/CJEIS/C1EIR

0.3.1. E~relirriinary Alternatives

4.3.~f.1. I'~c~ build Alternative

Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summa

The Flo Build Alternative represents the Project Study Area in the year 2{}35, if the 1Vietro

Green fine to LAX project is not built, and includes funded transportation improvements

specified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 20118 Regianal

Transportation Plan and the financially-cc~nstr~a~ned element cif Metre's 20C~~ Lang Rang

Transportation Plan (LRTP).

Exiting and funded major transportation facilities included ire the No Build Alternative are:

• Freeways (Current] — ~nterstates 405 ar~d 105

• Faxed Guideway (Current] —Metro Green Line {Light Rail Transit {LRT})

• Fixed-Guideway Projects {Future Near-Term] —Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridcsr

(LRT)

Fixed-Guideway Projects {Future Long-Term) —South Bay Metro Gr~~n L€ne Extension

(LRT~

In addition, the Project Study Area is served by a bus network operated by C`rAetrc~ and a uariety

of municipal operators including Beach Cities Transit, Culver CityBus, Torraroce Transit and

Santa Monica Brg Blue Bus. Several routes serve the LAX City Bus Center, located on 96tH

Street between Vicksburg Avenue and Avion drive.

The Project Study Area i~ alst~ served by LAWA FlyAway buses and airport shutt9es. The

FlyAway is an airport express bus service that operates between LAX and Van Nuys, Los

Angeles Union Station, Westw~c~d and Irvine. Tire airport also operates five Shutt€e lines that

transport airport passengers and employees between the CTA and various off-site facilities. It

is assumed thafi Shuttle G, which eurrentfy operates between the Metre Green Line

Aviation/LAX statiarr and CTA, wil! be shortened to serve the CrenshawJLAX Station at

Aviation and Century ~ouievar-ds, once that project is op~rat~t~nal in 2C9~ 8. The other airport

shuttle services described above are assumed to remain unchanged in the year 2C}35.

0.3x2. Transportation aysterns Management Aiternattve

Thy Transpr~rtation Systems Management (TS NI} A(terraative consists of operatior~a!

improvements to current transit facilities and services that pr9duce the greatest benefits from

existing infrastructure, v~ith minimal eapita! expend'€tune. These include transportation system

upgrades such as in#ersection imprc~vement~, minor roadway widenings, bus route

restructuring, more frequent bus senricex expander# use caf high-capacity buses, and traffic

sign~lizatic,n improvements.

1"he TSM Alternative would be an enhancement of the proposed LAX G shuttle between the

CTA and the Aviaticsrs fC~ntury Metrca Crenshaw jIAX Transit Corridor Station, The headway of

the shuttle would be increased frorr~ the current 32 to 15-minutes to five-minutes during the

peak perEt~d. A~t~iti~analiy, tl~e LAX City Bus Center, which is currently (t~cated ot~ 96`~ Street

Page 6

M~~t'4

Meted Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA(L~EISJDEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Surr~ma

between Vicksburg Avenue and Avian Drive, would be relocated to a site directly adjacent to

the planned pviation~Century Station. The r~focation o~the bus center wou6d allow ft~r

improved connectivity between local bus service, regional rail service and the CTA. The TSM

Alternatiue would attempt to resemble passeroger service provided by the Bu+ld Alternative(s),

but at a lower cyst.

0.33. Build Alternatives — Genera( Connectic,n Types

Buifd Alternatives are considered in four eategc~ries based upon the general type bf

connection they offer.

Alternatives that are in the Direct LRT Branch class would ~ "

extend the N1e#ra light rail system (Metro Green Line and/or

Metro Crensha~r~LAX Transit Cr~rridor~ into the CTA. (t v~rauld

provide some Metro passengers with a direct connection to theCTA without requiring a #ransfer, As seen in ether major airports throughout the country with

a direst rail cc~nrr~ction, such as Portland International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma lnternationai

Airport, end San Frar~ciscc~ (ntern~ticanal Airport, this alternative may operate with a sdngle

station inside the ETA, or with multPpfe stations serving multiple terminals. Passengers

would walk varying distances to reach their final terming! destination. To shorten walking

distances, pedestrian bridges and moving sidewalks may be utilizes! where appropriate. Two,

three-, four-, fv~-, and eight-station loop cc~nfiguratiar~~ are aEso being considered, which

would reduce walking distances, but may cause greater impacts to the CTA's existing

infrastructure.

Sind the C?ire~t LRT Branch Alternative is an extension of the existing ~lietra light rail system,

the mode caption is limited to LRT (tF~~ Automated People Mover (APM} and Bus Rapid

Transit (BRTj modes wrau{d require a transfer}. Modes are discussed further in the fallowing

section.

a.~.~.~. c~~t~,i~~~r

Alternatives in tF~~ Circulator class wc~ufd ~csnsist ofa rt wsystem cr~nnecting the CTA to the approved A~riation/ Century

Station, as part of the Metro Crenshaw/LAK Transit Corridor

project. As seen in rather rt~ajar airpar~s t~ra~ag}~out thecountry with a circulator tcannectifln, such as JFK International Airport and Phe~enix Sky

Harbor lnternatir~na( Airport, this system would operate separately from the existing Metre

Rail system anc~ +,vould require passengers to transfer at Aviation/Century. Gener-alfy, these

systems serve two primary functions 1 }circulate passengers and employees t~ multiply

terminals, 2) ccannect to off~irp~rt ~acrlities such as rental cars, long-term parking, employee

parking and regional rai! stations. This system would operate inside the CTA and would have

stations located in close proximity t~ terminals.

Page 7

~~~~~

Metro Green Line tc~ SAX

Phase i — AA~[7EfS~aE(R ,4iternatives Analysis — Executive Surnr~~ary

A circulator system could be rail (APM} or bus {BRT) because it would not need to be

interc~per~ble witF~ the existing Metro Rail system. Trains operating on the Crenshaw/LAX and

Metro Green Lines would not operate can this system. This +,vould ailc~w the system to operate

at more frequent headways durEng pear airport travek times, which da not cc~rrespor~d with

pea~C Metro Raiff travel times. The differgr~g peaks at L~tX are due to the varial~~e nature of

flight scheduling.

These circulator systems, which operate at many af`the largest airports in the country, are

typically airport-funded and airport-owr~~d.

0.3.3.3. Intermediate LRT and Circulator

Alternatives that are in the Intermediate LRT and CircuEator

class combine elements from the Direct LRT branch and

Circulator Alternatives. As seen in other major airportsthroughr~ut the eourrtry with this type cif systerr°~, such asMiami Intern~tiona[ Airpork, the Metro Rail system would branch r~fftc~ an intermediate aff-

airport station closer and be rntare canveni~nt to airpti~t operations than the Aviation~'Century

Station. A circulator system {APM or BRT) would provide service between t€~e intermediate

st~tifln and the airport.

t}.3.3.4. Modified LRT ~'runk

Altern2tives in the Modified LRT Trunk clays wraufd car~sist t~f

an alignment west of the approved Metres Crenshaw/LAX dine.The Crenshaw/LAX line would e built ~s environment°liy

cleared and designed. The alignment would have a single

statiara ire the airpr~rt. As seen in other major airports

thr~ught~ut the country with this type cif system, such as ~

Minneapolis St Paul International Airport, this alternative

w€~uld provide a(I Metro Green and Crenshaw~LAX passengers with more convenient access

tc~ the airport. This crptic~n may be accompanied by a cireulatbr system to facilitate access to

the airport terminal destination from the single station.

Since the ~ladified LRT Trunk Alternative is an extension afthe existing Metrr~ light rail

system, the only feasible mods is LRT. The operational characteristics would be ca~sistent

with ~hcase of the existing Metre Rail system.

These modes are considered as all r~r part of the alternative.

0.3.4.1. Bus Rapid Transit (8RT}

BRT inccsrparates specialized buses operating can a dedECated right-crf=way {ROW} with

en€~anced stations to provide a higher level of service than is typical c~fstandard bus trans+t

Nage 8

t~"Q

Metro Green Grne to LAXPhase I -- AA(DEIS/DEER

serv~ee, but at a much lower capital investmentthan a rail service. An example cif BRT in LosAngeles County is the Metro Urange Line. Someelevated sections of b~sway may be cor~sider~dpart c~fthis mode.

Alternatives Analysis - Executive Summary

~s

BRT typically serves local trips and offers highee _:.~

frequency, faster speeds and better reliability ~+~~~ !~ ~,,.. _,' •"`compared tc, traditic~n~l bus lines. Improvedservice and crperatir~nal effigy°ser~cy gars beattributed to several BRT features. BRT typ;caliy ". ~ ~~°operates at higher frequencies and with greater speeds and improved reliability cif service,

which are facilitated by exclusive guideway facilities. BRT may afsn include preferentaa!

treatment of buses ~t signalized icntersections, including the extension of green time or

aeCuativr~ of khe green light upon detection of an appraaching bus. Low-east infrastructure

like b~€s turnouts, boarding islands and curb realignments further enhance the BRT service.

The BRT mode's configuration can vary thraughout the Project Study Area taking into account

existing physics! eorrstr~ints.

BRT would be considered for the CireuEator, Intermediate LRT and Circ~aiator, and some cif the

Modified C.R~ Trunk Alternatives.

0.3.4.2. Light Rail Transit ~LRT)

LRT eansists of an electric railway with passenger rail ears that operate ~t moderate speeds

anc3 have apassenger-carrying capacity greater than buses. LRT has the ability to utilize

infrastructure associated with ather rail lines already in operation in the corridor sueh as the

Metre Green and Crenshaw/LAS Lines. Exarroples rsf LRT lines 'sn ~c~s Angeles include the

existing ~1/letro Blue, Green and Gold Lines and the ~~( ,,

Expo Line, which is scheduled to begin operationi n 2012,

~'Frequency 4f service is genera €!y high (1{?-m€nutsheadways or less during peak travel periods) and> ;~if operating can a dedicated RfltX~', ft offers greeter

speeds and reliability khan buses Even with ~ ~~~ ~ ~ !

sht~rter distances between stations, LRT pan r~~ch *~

speeds ~fup to 65 miles per hour (mph) partly `~~

because electric motors can accelerate marequickly than internal combus[ion engsnes.However, speedy often decrease with frequent stations, crossings and in-street segments.

Electric car's also emit rya local pollutants and generate fees noise than internal ccsmbustic~n

vehieles.

LRT would be considered for three of the four Build Alternatives {C7ireet, intermediate LRT and

Circulator and Modified LRT Trun6c}.

Page 9

MetfO

Metro Green Line to LAX

Phase I — AA(DEIS~DEIR Alternatives Analysis — Executive Summary

4,3.4.3. Automated People Mover

APM systems caperate with autorr~ated (driverless) wehides that are capable of operating at

speeds of 30 try 5Q mph depending can the technalagy and alignment. The vehicles pravide ~

high level of reliability, passenger comfort and safety. ARN1 systems can be divided into twa

primary groups:

• Cable-Propelled — mediur~n /large opacity vehicles that are driven by a high sped cable

with a variety of possible suspension systems.

• 5elf-Propelled —large capacity vek~ie(es with a variety of pcsssibEe suspension systerr~s,

(includes monorail). Self propelled APM aehicles are typically powered by way of an

electrified third rail.

Both eabie and se{f propelled vehicles carp be

supported in several ways, including rubber

tires, steel wheels, air levitation, or magnetic

levitation. Steering and guidance use center

guide beams, running rails, guidance surfaces

~r rails that are integrated into guideway

sidewalls or the center c~fthe running surface.

APM systems are capably of muitipie vehicle

train consists up to four vehicles der train.

APM vehicles have mostly standing area with

limited seating around the perimeter c~ftl~e

vehieie. APM vehicle passenger capacity is

estimated to be roughly 4~ passengers per

APM vehicle.

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT} is ~ form c~fAPM and could be consic{ered wherever APM is

considered depending upc,n rapacity requirements caf the market to be served.

APM systems can b~ considered fr~r circulator elerner~ts as park ref the Circulator, Intermec{iate

~.R~ and Circulator°, and Modified LRT Trunk with Circulatflr alteratives,

Page TO

Me#ro

~etrc~ Green Ling t~s LAXPhase I AA/C?EISjQ'EIR Alternatives AnaEysis ExeGUtive Summary

{ "• r `•

~"he rr~ut~s b~it~g consitfered ft~r the ~~ild Alternatives are split inta twc~ general areas: aff-

airport (east cif Sep~alve~ia Boulevard) and on-air c~r~ (vest cif Sepulveda Be~ulevard). A

summary ~f the possible align Brats are lister! b~lcs~,r and spawn ire Figure tJ.2 and Figure 0.3.

A complete dis~ussic~n rsfthe possibly routes can 6~ found in the A~kternatives Analysis Repc~r~,

~, • ~ .. ,.

• Century Bcau~evard r 96th Street

1994 St~p~ferr~er~tai EIR (SEIR~ 96Y~, Street 6~~rth

• 98`x' Street • Airport E3c~~al~v~rd

s ~8`r' Street l~fc~r-th • Through !AX (c~f~air ac~rt afi~nment}

Figure 0.2. t7ff-Air e~rt csut~n options — t)verview

Source: Can~ec~tt_A~C, 2012

Rage 11

r

Metro Green Line to LAX

Phase I - AA/DEISipEIR

On-Airp+~rt

• Loop Alignments (3 to 8 stations)

Long Loop

Short Loop

T 9(T

Alternatives Analysis - Ex~c~Cive Summery

• Center Way Alignrnen~t (1 ~to 2

statiar7s)

• Through LAS Alignment (1 Station}

figure 0.3. tanfAirporC Routing Qptions -Overview

>Ft

T2 ~.

7~§ u~i

R̂ d1)h"L4 YJFti`~

ara r vEtv1ERY~A~> sr~ ~ ,

WORD WAY ~~

,~ x ~ ~~'i: a

C?w

78 aT7

T4 E~

7TH

Piannad.

~~"r

Source; Conn~LtLAX, 2(}12

{~.4. SC~2EENIhlG QF ALTERIVATiVES

T ae screening prc~eess is divided into two stages. Stage I ~v~9uates the feasibility of modes

and alignment options fir each ofthe Build AEternatives. Opticans that would result in

si nsfic~nt issues {fatal flaw} will not advanee tea the Stage 19 screening; evaluation. As shown

in Figure 0.4, Build Alter~ratives are made up c~ftwo components: modal and alignment

options. {off-airprrt and can-airp~art). These two compr~nents are the focus of the Stage

screening that will support the development of the package) alternatives to be carried farward

into Stage il.

0.4.1. Stagy I screening

The evaltaation criteria for 5~ag~ I screening included:

• Physical fit and car~structability Average Travel Time

+ Conflicts with Runway Protectican Zane • host

Page 12

`J

Metra Green Line to LAXPhase k— AA/DEIS/QE~R Alternatives An~l}~sis — Executive Summary

Based an the results of the Stage I screening, 27 packaged alternatives were carried forward tc~

be evaluated further in Stage II. ~"he 27 pac(~aged alternatives were selected based on the

Stage I screening criteria, which emphasizes feasibility of the modes and routes for the

options within each Qf the four connection types described in Section d,3.3. A eamplete

discussion of the Stage I screening process can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Report.

Figure t}.4, Alternative ~c~mpe~r~ents

~,

QC~~' Example:

,, Light Rai;

~^

Un-t~~rport~~ Example:

~'- 98'" tJc~rth

Alignment . __- _

(off-A~rp~rt ~, Center 1X~'ay -Z Station Aerial

Source: ConrsectLAX, 2012

i~.4.2. Stage II Screening

~It~~"~~t'~

C)irett LRT Branch

(I~RTj~?8th N~r-t!~ alignment/Center V(/ay

-~ 2 ~~~tzc~n Aerial)

Several performanee measures were developed tt~ assess the pros and cons of each

alternative. These measures include ridership, capital cast, travel tirri~, passenger

convenience, compatibility with ether plansJfacilities, and constructabiiifiy. In addition to

these performance rrieasures, comr-nun~ty aceeptabi(ty was also considered based on

comments received at the public meetings held in February/March 2012.

The performance of each of the 27 paekaged alternatives, as cfi~aracteri~ed by the Stage

quantitative performance measures, is provided below in Table G1.2.

Qage 13

I~et

r~ Green din

e to

Irk

Rhas~

I — AA f ~i E

I S/C? E

1 R

t~lternatives An

alys

is — Exe

cuti

v€ Summary

Table 0.2,

11 Per

form

ance

Summary

Clay

s~A

1~er

natr

v+~

I~+l

oc#e

Qff '

Airp

ort

Rout

e.

{~'~

°-Air

p+ar

kSt

atio

nsAverage

`Tra

nsfe

rs

Aver

age

Vewtfcal Lev

elChan es

Av~w

age

Tavel Time

rein

Ride

rshi

pGa

st mi

llio

ns~

~Lt

~wHi

gh

-1LRT

98th N

'>2 Aerial

i~.7

2.0

29.7

5,3Q

t~~5

4~$654

B-2

LFt'f

98th

~t

2Tunne)

{~.7

2.0

29.0

5.,300

X970

$1,T

6t~

B, Dir

ect LRT

8-3

LRT

9$th ~

!3 Aerial

q.7

2.C1

28.7

5,400

$97Q

$1,161

Bran

chB-

4LRT

Centur+;

2 Ae

rial

~}.7

3.3

31.$

4,9{7t?

$470

t~56

0

6-5

LRT

Cent

tary

2Tur

snel

C3.7

3.3

31.1

5,{}4{}

$9t7

t7$1,f38~

B -6

LRT

Century

3 Aerial

fl.7

3.3

30.8

5,ltlt!

$90l

3$1

,OSq

C-1

APM

98th

2 ~4

eria

l1.

t74.~

32,2

4,6t~f7

$62t

}~7

4Q

C-2

APM

98th

'2 Tunnel

1.4?

4.0

3l 5

4,6C

}0$1,040..

$1,25U

C-3

APM

98fih

3Aerial

t.t~

4th

31.2

4,7{?Q

$l,t

}f>(

}$1

,271

7

-4BRT

9$th

8 At-Grade

1.(}

1.{?

34.3

5,at}t~

$110

7$13Q

~. Ci

rcul

akar

~-5

APM

~~:ntury

2 Aerial

l.fl

4.t}

317.

[1~,

90Q

$6t~0

~72i~

C-fi

API~

ICentury

2T'u

nnel

1.13

4.~

---

--29.5

4,90Q

_

$1,020

$1,220

C-7

APM

Century

3 Aer

ia(

1.0

4.~

29.2

S,ft

f3~}

__.__

$1;~3{?

$1,24

C-8

_PRT

~eniury

8 At-Grade

l:{I

1.4

33.6

5,10{7

$120

$140

1.1'

LRT~APM

98th N

2 Aer

ia[

1.7

4.0

33..7

3,9U

Ct$6$4

X820

y-2

LRT/APM

98th P

12 Tunnel

7.7

4.0

33 0

4,QC?~

X1,1

40$x

,370

1-3

LRl"/APM

9$tk~

t~!3 Aer

ia9

1.7

4.(~

32.7

4,(IQt3

$l,l

lt~

$1,3

3{?

I, Intermediate LRT

~-~1

LRT/BRT

98th N

$ At-grade

1:7

1.4

35.5

~,34

~ti

$32Q

$38Q

and Gir

eul~

tt~r

{-S

I.RTfAPM

1994

SEIR

Z Aer

ial

1.7

5.3

36.3

3,6f7U

$640

$77fl

1 -6

LRT/

AP(~

I19

94 SEI

R2 Tunnel

1,7

5.3

35.6

3,7Q

~51,09Q

$1,3

iQ

1-7

LRTJAPM

X994

SEI

R3 Aerial

l.7

5:3

35.2

3,70Q

$1,07

$1,280

$Lf

ZT;j

BRT

1994

SEE

R$ At -~rad~

1.7

2.3

3~+,

14,

Q[7t

7$2

8Q$3

4(}

T-1

LRT

Th~u~h

1 Tunnel

(?,5

2.t~

24.9

6,lO

Cl$9

41$1

,~3Q

T. @r

4adi

fied

LRT'

T-2

LRTfAPM

,&ir

~c~r

k BI

2 Ae

rial

1,t}

4.C1

31.1_.._

4,11}0

$1,20

$1,224

Truk

1'-3

Lf~T

fAPM

Airp

ort BI

2 Tunnel

1.0

4:0

317.4

4,7Qfl

$1,22(}

$1,4

5

T-~#

E.F~"1`jAPM

Air~t~tt Bi

3 A~riai

1.~}

4.Ct

3C~.

14,$tJ~

$1,17

1,4t

70

T-5

LRT/BRT

~irp

a~t BI

8 At-grade

l.4

1.0

__..._

..33

.15,

1 QO

~48Q

$581

3

Page

74

Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I - AA/dE15; DEIR Alternatives An~fysis — Executive Summary

The information in Viable 4.2 provides an averuiew of the performance afall alternatives

against each ofthe quantitative Stage II screening criteria. !n addition, a tradeoff analysis was

performed t~ complete the Stage I( screening. This approach aiic~wed for a better

understanding of the following key trade-off areas:

s Passenger convenience * C7n-airport configuration

Direct LRT Branch vs. Modified LRT • Off airport configuration

Trunk

The fr~llt~wing sections discus the results of the tr°ode-at~ar~a9ysis as infi~rmed y the

perfarrr~ance ofthe alternatives shown in Table 0.2

Q.4.2.3. Passenger Convenience {by Alternative and Alternative {ass)

The trade-off analysis far passenger ct~nvenier~ce is provided below. This analysis provides a

comparison csfthe f€~ur alternative classes (i.e., Direst LRT Branch, Circulator, Intermediate

LRT and Circulator, and tvt~adifieci LRT i rank} in terms cif the overa(1 experience for passengers

traveling to(from the airpcart. The performance measures used to evaluate passenger

cr~nvenience are: the average nus~rcber of transfers, the average number cif vertical lave!

changes, the average travel time, and ridership. The five prirr~ary eonc{usians of this trade-off

analysis are:

* Ridership for air passengers and employees increases as travel times and number of

transfers decrease

• Direct LRT Branch ar~d Modifsed LR~f Trunk have fewest transfers, shflrtest travel times

and higF~~st ridership fc~r airport passengers

• Circu{atc~r (APMJBRT) ridership is slightly lower, since a!! Metro Rail passengers transfer

Intermediate LRT and Circu(atcsr Alternakive has most transfers and level changes, anu the

lowest ridership

AI! alternatEVes, except the BRT Circulator, would require funding in excess of the $200

mi1{ion availably from Metre

fl,4.2.2. [~ire~t LRT Branch vs. Modred LRT` TrunEc Alterrrativ~s

The trade-cafFanalysis for tie Direct LRI~ Br~rsch vs. Mt~dified LRT ~°runk alternative classes is

provided below. Thy performance measures used to compare these two alternative classes

against each ether are: the average travel time, ridership, capital cost, and constructability

issues where the project would interface with existing and pEanned Metro facilities. The five

primary conclusions of this trade-cuff analysis are:

Because the Madi~ed LE2T Trunk Alternative (Throug~t LAX) has a shorter travel time,

ridership is higher than the Qirect LRT Branch Alternative for airport ~,assengers

The M~difed LRT Trunk Alternative increases travel time by 2 minutes far non-air~aort

bound passengers between Expo {CrenshawJLAX Corridor} and South Bay (Redondo

Beach)

_.Pa e 15

~C~t"C}

M3e~tra Green Line ~o LAXPhase I AA/DEIS!DElR APternatrves Analysis — Executive

• The singly statirn for the Modi{ied LRT Trunk Alternative in the terminal area requires a

long walk {0.3 to 0.4 miles) ar ts°ansfer to a circulator (e.g., bias, moving wa6kway, shuttle)

to reach western terminals (7errrtinal 3, Terrrrinal 4, 1°flm Bradley {nternatiernal germinal)

• Cc~nstructability issues:

o Parallels portion of Crenshaw f LAX Lsne that is scheduled fbr° construction (in 2013)

o Requires a camplex cannection to existing Metro Green Line in E! Segundo that ~nrould

have operations impacts during canstructian

• E3c~th alternatives would require f~ncfing in excess of the ~2t}0 rr~illion available from Metro

0.4.2.3. C?n-Airport C~nfagurat~on

The trade-off analysis for the cc~nfiguratian within the CTA is provided below. This analysis

carrapares four c~rr-airport options that vary by number ofstatic~ns, vertical alignment, and

made of access. The performance measures used to evaluate these an-airport options

against cane anather are:

capital cost

• Average travel time to terminal

• Average walk distance to terminal

• Potential visual impacts to the Theme Building

The three primary conclusions of this trade-flff analysis are:

• For LRT and APM, the 2 station aerial optean

~_> Costs approximately $450 rnilkion Eess than the 2 statian subway and 3 statit~n aerial

optians

o Runs adjacent to the Theme Builr~ing, leading tt~ potential visual irrtpacts

The 3 station aerial loop option provides the shortest walk distances to terminals arrrong

the rail alignments, but extra time to travel around the locap leads to comparable total

trave4 times (walk +ride) tc~ terrrainals

BRT is the least costly {the only on-airport c~ptie,n that has shorter walking distances than

the rail (LRT and APM} cc~rifigurations, but...

~; Involves the longest total travel times {walk +ride) to airport terminals

~~ Is subject tcs airport randway congestion

fl,4..4, flff-Airpcsrt Configuration

The trade-off ar~alysis far the config~ratic~r~ outside o~the CTA is pr~avided below. This

analysis compares four c~ffairport captions that vary by made c~faccess {i.~., ~.RT or Circulatc~r~

and alignment (i.e., 98`" Street, 9$`" Street North, or Century Bou6evard). The perforrrtance

measures used tr evaluate these off-airpork r~ptions against one another are: the average

number csf vertical level changes, the average travel time, the capital cast, and potential visuak

imp~ets to landscaping, art treatments and businesses. The three primary conclusions afthis

trade-offanalysis are:

• century Boulevard LRT

Page 16

~@tPA

Metro Green Line #o LAXPhase I — AA/DEISj DEIR Alternatives Analysis -- Executive Surr'imary

o Requires a second station at Aviation fC~ntury

~j Results in transfers, additional level changes, longer walks and (anger travel times

• for both LRT and APM, tf~e aerial structure along Century Bou9evard may result iri:

o Visual impacts to landscaping end art treatments

o Potential impacts to traffic circulation and access to businesses

• Ail alternatives would require funding in ~xeess afthe $20t} million availab{e from Metrts

O,S. PUBLlC OUTREACH

Following introduction cif the project to the public in August 2t}i 1, the team engaged rn

ongoing outreach tc~ inform stakehafders about the project and gather feedback, using online

and traditional methflds, including advertising, se~cia) media, e-blasts, online survey, colla#eral

distribr~tion and press releases. Project meetings and briefings were held with an array of

stal~eholder groups including agency and legislative representatives, neighborhood cnuncils,

chambers of commerce, business improvement districts, transportation arganizatians and

committees.

During the first round of community workshops held in August 2011, stakeholders were

introduced ~c~ the project and provided a generaP e~verview cif the AA prt~cess. Sta6ceho{der and

Community Worlcs~rop meetings took place as follows:

~ August 10, 20111 - Technsca! F~dviscary Cc~n7r~°iittee (agency stal~eholde~s} at the Flight Path

Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, C~ 90045

• August 17, 2011 ~ Briefing to legislative ~tal<eholders at Metro Headquarters, One Gateway

Plaza, Las Angeles, CA 901712

Three community workshops on August 23, 25 and 30, 2C?11 at the following Iflcations:

c~ Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles, CA 9~f~45

o Metre Headquarters, Plaza bevel Lobby, One gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012

o Veterans' Memorial Complex, 4117 C}verland Ave., Culver City, CA 90230

In Februaryf March 2J12, a second round of crarrtmun~ty workshops were held to present the

results csf the alternatives screening prticess, with the goal affurther narrowing the number of

alternatives tc~ be str~died during the draft environmental review process. Attendees at the

comrrtunity wrrkshc~ps had the oppcsrtunity tc~ Darn about the alt~rnativ~s under

cansideratic~n and tc~ discuss the tradeoffs (travel time, east, convenience, wal(c distance,

ridership) between them. Stakeholder and Comrraunity Workshop meetings took place, as

fallcaws:

• February 2$, 2012 - Technical Advisr~ry Committee (agency stakeholders) and legislative

stakeholders at the Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Imperial Highway, Los Angeles,

CA 9(}045

• February 29, 2012 -Open House at 1Jnic,n Station/Gateway Transit Center, One Gateway

Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 940i 2

* Two eomm~nifiy workshops on March 1 c~. 7, 202 at the fallowing Cc~cations:

Page 17

Metro

Metra Green Line to LAX

Phase I — AAI~E15/DEIR Alcernatiues Analysis -- Executive Summary

c? Flight Path Learning Center, 6661 W. Irrrperia) Highway, Los Angeles, CA 90445

c~ Union Station Historic Ticketing Concourse, 800 ~lorth Alameda Street, Los Angeles,

~A X0012

In addition to the ca~nmunitpworkshops, r,umeraus project briefings were provided t~

stakeholder groups thrau~hout Los Angeles County,

Stakeholder ~rreferences revealed during meetings and in written cc+mmentary incEUde the

following cc~nnectian types and alignments;

Connection types: Stakeha€ders appeared to favor alternatives that extended Metro ART

into the airport through either the Mr~dified LRT Trunk and Direct LRT Branch, although

the Modified LRT Tr~ar~k ,vas preferred between the two. A number of stakeholders did

a(so support the Circulator (APM) alternative.

• Alignment in the terrrsina~ area: Two station (aerial or tunnel} and three-statian hoop

• Alignrr~ent outside the airport: 98`h Street

A,li feedback received from (oval end regional stakehc~iders are integral to the alternatives

screening process.

Sased on the two-stage scre~rring process arad public ~r~put discussed above, the follawir~g

alternatives will b~ carried forward to be studied in detail in the Draft E!S/EIR:

• No ~ui1d — Existing transit and highway plans and prs~grammed impravement~ through

the year 2035.

* Transpflrtat~~n Systems ~+lanag~ment (TaiVl~ —Lower cast capital and aperativnal

improvennents to roadways designed to improve bus speeds along existing roadways from

the Avi~tion,~Century Station tc~ LAX.

• Direct LR7` branch Alternative —As sawn in Figure ~,5, this alternative would directly

cc~rtnect the tVletra Green Line end possibly Crer~shaw,jLAX passengers to the CTA from

the planned Metro RaiP station located at Aviatican and Century Boulevards. There are two

arias were optional statian cc~nfiguratior~s will require additional study: Lat C and the

CTA. "his alternatsve was selected to move forward for further consideration in the Draft

EIS/EIF2 because it offers a Barad balance between cost and passenger convenience.

St~kehaiders cited fewer transfers and coi°npetitive travel times for most passengers as key

advantages fear this alternative.

• Circulator Alternative — As shown in Figure 0.6, this alternative is an airport APM system

that connects airport facilities with the M~~ro Rail station planned at Aviation and Century

Baulev~rds. There are two stataon ct~nfiguratic~n opti~ans inside the CTa that will require

additior~a! study. This alternative was selected to move forward ~c~r f~crther cnnsider~tid~

€n the Craft E(SJEIR because 'st offers operational flexibility related try service and vehicle

specifications tailored to the unique needs of the ~irpart enuironrn~nt. A central

connection point to the LRT system and perceptions that this service could r~perate more

Page 18

$r

Metro Green Line to LAX

Phase i — AAlC~E15/DEIR l~lternatives Ana€ysis — Executive Summary

frequently to math the internal airport demand were cited as attractive features of this

alternative.

• Modified ART Trunk Alternative (Through LAX — As shown in Figure Q.7, this alternative

routes Metro Rail under the airport with rsne c~nirally located station, which will connect

both the Metro Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines directly to the airport. This alternative was

selected to n~c~ve fcsrward for further ~c~rasideratic~n in the Qraft E!S f EER because it results

Gn the fastest and highest-ridership potential of all the alternatives. Thy ability to offer

direct, one-seat ride ~e~nneetions with the lowest travel time and fewest transfers was cited

by stakeholders as features they fr~und attractive in thES aiterr~ative.

Figure d.~, direct LRT Branch Alterrnative

C15 ANGELES

1

' ~"m3

Maintenance Facitiry_{Rtdn~edy

•« •.

A~~Ia€icon/CenEury(Planned}

..~.....__a__._. ~

T~rm9natAreaeta#ion _~I17f!~~~~~III~~~IIJ4l ~~E and Route Options _,~_ '" i~ I ~. ~

~, _ _ :,_..__ `:~'~

Planned c...»-- .". "' ~ _. -`

~ v:.ee«~rrera.«t~.n:ionrene3 r `~,,:,-_,_,.,~»--:~t"'_

r*-~.nq ~:w~ a 1 n _ i.

~' ~.ym

Pceem~a~Na~t7~ern LOn ien .o ;.-,^ ~" - -R

'. M11esO ft.er2.baw, u4)SL '. ,. ~~ :5 '..~~,.

a !~;1 7 ono 29tYA p9 - ~ ~ --

Source: ~onnec#LAX, 2012

Page 19

~~~rt?

Metro Green Line to L4X

Phase I _ AA,'DEISr`DEIR

LAX

Alternatives Ana3ysis -- Executive Suen

t

Metro Crenshaw/LAXLine {Planrtedl

Afiaintenance Faci~it~-(Ptanned)

Aatentiat Lot ~~te~a ~tatiasv

... ~~~~°

-_- <.~~,..e, -

Termina! A; ea Stationand Route {Dpiions

---. , ~>

_.._, . F<-:. 3 ~ _. ..

1 ~t ~Ptanaetl ~- <'

c:~;t~z a ro r,M,~ s _ ma \ ~~—rr q

E~_- ~ _ _ _~ _ J

r ~ ...~~

Source: CcrnnectLAX, 2012

Figure 0.7. Through LAX Alternative

j ~ Potential i~at CArea Station i

__ .. yarn.+ -~.r.~--~-_ ._

—;TmE i

~ws

LJS

e_

a_k

Termini: Ae~aStation

a i~ ~ _ ~R F~

~R.

~ ti ~ ~ -~E - ~ z~~.. .~.

t _ ~,. _ _. ° .. ~:: a__ ~

...Planned _

wc~ec~a:.nwr E

T('rvug~ ..qY l~.~9ntneM& a~~

rr~~t StallM p~r,iy~;tpp"' ~ +. r.

~~ P ;,~..,: a,.7net Fo«;ai S~SG~iJ?\iJV K

J 50 .X,e <.,Ofi ~ r r

.~ ~....~,.e~ N

Source: ~onnectLAX, 2dt2

Page 20

~~~~~

Metro Green Line to LAXPhase I — AA/DE95,iDEl R Alternatives AnaEysis — Executive Surt~mary

0.7. FUNDING

The alternatives being advanced to the Draft EISJEIR phase have preliminary capital cost

estimates ranging frnrn $S40 try $1,27a million {201(} ~), Because current funding of $200

rniliion (20018 $), identified in Metro's 2009 LRTP, is insufficient to cover the full cast of the

Build Alternatives being advanced, additic~na) funding opportunities from local, state, federal

and airpc~r-~ sources wiH be ex~ir~red during the Graft EISJEIR phase.

Tl~e three Build Alternatives (~ireet LRT branch, Circu#atnr and Thr~~gh LAX A(tern~tives},

along witF~ the IVo Build and TSM Alternatives, will be carried forward into the Drab E!S/EiR

phase. The focus of the Draft E!S/EIR phase is. to identify potentia6 environr-nental impacts

resulting from the implementation of the project alternatives. Several other activities will

proceed in parallel, including advanced conceptual engineering, refinement of capital and

caperating cost estimates, and identi~icatifln cif potential funding sources. The Draft EISJEIR

is scheduled to be completed and available fir public review in Spring 2{113.

Page 21

M~'°~r0

ATTACHMENT B

Project study Ar

ea.~.~

r _~

~e~.~ _

_ _ ____

_ ~_~

_.~. ..__~~

__ _

_ _ _

~~

i Ilfl ~ ~

°`

M ~

~ ~

_ s

~c~e~

.~t,~~

+~

~:~ ~ ~

:a as a

K ~ a

a+ ~;

.o ~

~a ~

~ MANCHESTERAVM ~ ~. ,~ ~

~ —

~. +~ V: ~. ~ .

.~,

~,. ~ ~ a,:

.v

~». w

o ~ ,~

au u

a ~

~sr

wr w ~ n~'~i~~~

° ~ANGHE~

~

L~t

via

€.w~

s~cN

~sr~

~ P~' ~.

sra~

o.ra

~~vo

_,ARp(JR VI7J =

.E ST

~

.~

~._

~

{~.

~$.

_ .r

. ..

- ~

~

~

~'~

96TH

ST

a.

s.~

~~" ~-~

- ~

x

T

~'Ei~TUi2v E3L

'~G

~3

'

~

K ~

~

~~~V~~~

~

' <: ~

`

~ ~'`

~

~

CE LAYER YiC+~~`

._

_...

~,'_

'

W °~~~.

I ~''1

~

~

~L:~,

i -

`t~t

~ ~

d

._..a-

~ ..-

~ z

,~

~_ .:.

a._

x _

--~:_

,..

,~ _ .,

~ _

_.

~,_,r~

~...._.

.°'

__f

~,,,_x

~ a..

~

_ ~

~ ~

~~,

,.«.

_ i

_ ~t

Metro Green Li

ne t~ l~AX Study Area

~"-`

'

'~ u`

Exis

ting

~:

~~,

- _~

~ ~~

~ ~~

~; ~

rf~letro Green Li

ne & St~

tian

Ptannd

Arens

avv~lL~X Transit Cir

ri ~r

n IMPERIAL HWY

ap

} q

,,r

~ ~

fec

ms

v. va ~ ~. m ~ vr

e w ea

~m

aa

, ~

a..

ur ~"~~~'~m,

%~/'./~f,%~ Maintenance Fae~lity (P

la~n~d} ~

~ 425

Q5

i ~~,~vE~iUQ

~~.

,,..

.~.._.

.~~_ --

- Mi

es ~

kIR

~{ ~

T~#

€~

METRO Gf2EEN LINE Tt~

LAX

\; ]_N BtS

T

Ite

five

s Ax

duar

~c~d

ta► C

~ra~

fi ~ , /E[

: Ph

+~

~EV~sE

~►ATTAC M M E t~

tT'

!

'" r

Lime (Pt

anrt

~d}

Main°

.en~

r,c~

F~~ilit~

(€~~a7tY~~#}

.•

r~r~.

t.~~

_ _

~s 4_~_

_ ''

6..=;g

~

~. t:

'-.

,,1 ,

Term

inal

Are

a StaUOn

~._.

:

and Route Options

..

,'

~ ~_

_.....

..,~ ~

~ ~ i

.w.....- .

....~ _.

~`.~

kY~

t nl 41' e ..

h.,..~.

3~'cte to Nartlx l n c!or. ro

,,~

~.. ~

...-

~ q,

Me4n Csr~txha~wl.OXF.nn

~~~ f fi

~ ~. \,

..._.,-~

-~'

t t

I~Illllt

I~I~wF.c.: LY ,?

l

.~..-.,^~ S

,66,

_...

~ - ~t c_,

.r-_...

M~~°RO GREEN L.fNE T SAX

Qt~i~l~:t~ ~..~~ ~~'

~t"i

~4

~T~rough LAX}

ik R.N

~IMl

~ i0

4N Fr.. .<

. ,:

t~Uf.K:YY 4VU

Pote

ntia

l Lat C

°~""

°

Area

Sta

tion

M. -

z~_

~.

_.,

,°~

,N.

5.

~ y

~`,~;

th:.

,~

~`'~

Terminal Ares

~`St

atio

n

~~t

sk~,~

~ ~ ~

_,: ~-

I li n

i j~ A

~ ~~o~~:.

(

S ti

i.~~

'%,~

3 E

1

,...

.~

r

...~

-

~

.Y

`~

e _

d

~,

_

Pkan

ned

~Ut

a`~: i~w+'

Q

Thro

ugh U1 %

ACrg

rtc~

a, to

}{"k.

~'ts

i I

i $(a

ttOP

ty

~^^~

Pate t~.

,urr

r{Po Ka

i ~~ ~~~~

~3

9

54".

` i (

Y7R

i OQO

Aj'

-. ~

~MI~MYI Fr

PI 7Y

Page ~. C

rf

:vNb

„4ri

ki'e

^

~- _._m-

__

t

Alt rn~

iv~e Advanced ~c~ Daft EI' 1

E~ Ph ~e

~ 1 I

" U ~ ~

'~C1'f {,~k

P''

PA~t

~o ~r~~t~h~va1LAX

~-~r

~~ t~'

4anr

~ed}

Ma~~lk~na~~~ Fac)lit}r

t~L~

r~rt

~ez~

?

,.

_

Aviai~QnlCentury

tP~a

nrte

cf~

.uezwrvaexr

E-;

_...

_~ 7

t._~..~

_: __: 1

REVISED

ATTACHMENT +C

F~Gifi2tltt3t Lot G

~

•.f~.``

Area ~Ia6o~

~

y~

~Y~

s'=.. , c

~~Rt

l&i~

reen

it tw we8

ssv

~_.--..y~

_ ~•

:r

v,~r

Klas

; ~

~j

Er

Paei !~f 2

IVIETRtJ GREEt+i Lll~i~ 7CJ! LAX

,~T"TA~HlVIENT

Lei i!~la~t~r Plan ~~It~rt~a#i re D~. ~ x _ ~ ..

~ ----~ ~~r~~o~, ~x m.~~,

~~~~ r'

f~. Master Plan ~~#it~ nit ~~ ~~ .•

r

r •! .~,i~ t~.

.~

~• • - - ~;

J~rne 20

'1• Qmplete Draft

I

-• -

•

i

spring 20'

13•ompite ~in

~l ~IF~.

:t~~`~°"~CM'N~~~`

Spring 2~~

1~4

• •

•~• '

•;.

•

•

~~C

~Iitie h1EF~A Pr

cac~

s~

~