DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVESmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/green_line_lax/... · cities in the...

Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

Page 3-1

3. Definition of Alternatives

2

3. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes the development of the Build Alternatives evaluated in this SAA, and defines them by their characteristics such as alignments, stations served, and operations.

3.1. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 3.1.1. Alternatives Previously Considered This SAA is the latest evaluation based on a series of analyses and recommendations of Build Alternatives for the Harbor Subdivision corridor. In 2008-2009, an AA was conducted for the entire 35 mile corridor, which includes 26.4 miles owned by Metro, stretching from approximately Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in the north to the community of San Pedro and City of Long Beach in the south. The Metro Board of Directors approved the AA report in late 2009, which recommended a Phased Implementation Strategy identifying the Green Line Extension to Torrance as the highest-priority project. As a result, the Green Line Extension to Torrance was recommended for further environmental review. Metro initiated a Draft EIS/EIR in 2010, which continued through 2012 examining the preferred alternative from the 2008-2009 AA study, as well as a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative. Further information about the alternatives previously considered in both the AA and the environmental analysis are below. 3.1.2. Alternatives Analysis, 2008-2009 Examining a transit corridor as regionally significant as the 35-mile Harbor Subdivision resulted in the identification of 25 initial alternatives to evaluate, including a No Build Alternative. These alternatives included a number of alignments and termini locations. Vehicle modes studied included: BRT, LRT, LRT-compatible self-propelled railcar, freight-compatible self-propelled railcar, electric multiple unit rail, and diesel multiple unit commuter rail. The AA performed a Stage I screening process which ruled out alternatives which were evaluated to be infeasible or ineffective for reasons based on travel time, transit accessibility, regional connectivity, environmental effects, safety, physical constraints, and community acceptability. For example the Stage I process screened out the BRT mode due to safety and operational issues associated with sharing the corridor with freight trains, grade crossing concerns, narrow ROW in some sections, and the lack of substantial travel time benefits over existing transit service. This Stage I screening process was carried out under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Program Guidelines.

Four alternatives passed this screening and were evaluated in a Stage II analysis based on transportation system performance, cost effectiveness, environmental benefits/impacts, and community acceptability. Based on the results of the Stage II Comparative Evaluation,


Page 3-2


2

alternatives and segments were prioritized into the phased implementation strategy listed below and shown in Figure 3.1. Priority I:

Local South Alternative: Metro Green Line to Torrance TC Priority II (not in rank order):

Regional Alternative: LAUS to Vermont/I-110

Local North Alternative: Metro Blue Line to Crenshaw Boulevard Priority III (not in rank order):

Local South Alternative: Torrance TC to San Pedro via I-110

Local South Alternative: Torrance TC to Long Beach via Sepulveda / Willow

Regional Alternative: Vermont / I-110 to San Pedro

Express Alternative: LAUS to LAX

Given its strong performance in the Stage II evaluation and its ability to meet the objectives of the AA, the Metro Green Line Extension to the Torrance TC was identified as the highest priority Build Alternative with LRT as the preferred mode to move into the Draft EIS/EIR phase of study. The implementation of other Priority II and Priority III projects will largely be dependent upon the availability of additional funding and the implementation of other committed transportation investments. The Metro Board approved the AA in December 2009, and directed the preparation of a Draft EIS/EIR for the Local South Alternative from the LAX area to the Torrance TC, as well as the Priority II Regional Alternative between the LAX area and the Torrance TC. Additional information on the identification, development, and screening of project alternatives under the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor AA Study can be found in the AA. For further detail on the alternatives evaluated in the Stage II analysis, refer to Appendix A: Alternatives Previously Considered.


-3


2

Figure 3.1. 2009 AA Phased Implementation of Recommended Build Alternative

Source: STV, Metro, 2009


Page 3-4


2

3.1.3. Environmental Analysis, 2010-2012 Metro initiated an EIS/EIR in 2010 to move forward to the next stages of project development. The environmental analysis evaluated the Priority I Local South Alternative and Priority II Regional Alternative identified in the 2009 AA Phased Implementation Strategy. The Local South Alternative was renamed the Light Rail Alternative, and the Regional Alternative was renamed the Freight Track Alternative. Both are described below:

Light Rail Alternative: This alternative extended the Metro Green Line south along the existing Metro ROW using LRT vehicles. The alignment traveled from the current Metro Green Line terminus at Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to a new terminus station at the Torrance TC. This alternative added up to four new stations, considered a phased implementation where LRT service would be extended only to the planned Redondo Beach TC, and considered maintenance and storage facility options.

Freight Track Alternative: This alternative traveled at-grade along upgraded freight tracks between the LAX area and the Torrance TC, utilizing freight-compatible self-propelled or commuter rail vehicles.

Extensive community outreach informed the selection of alternatives for environmental analysis. In addition to scoping and stakeholder meetings, the project team conducted 11 community workshops in Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, with a total of 620 attendees who provided 533 comments. In 2011, the Freight Track Alternative was eliminated from further environmental analysis, as ridership and operations analysis showed it did not meet project objectives. Additionally, during outreach to corridor cities, stakeholders established a preference for the Light Rail Alternative option that did not include the station at Hawthorne/190th. The potential benefits of this station were limited by land constraints, poor access, and lack of utility and operating efficiency due to the station’s proximity to another station planned at the Redondo Beach TC. As a result, the station at Hawthorne/190th was eliminated from further consideration. The environmental analysis was paused in 2012 after the failure of Measure J. Figure 3.2 displays the Light Rail Alternative as it was reviewed in the environmental analysis conducted in 2010-2012. Several other alternatives and options arose during the environmental outreach process, but were rejected from further study for a number of reasons. Among these included an LRT alignment along Hawthorne Boulevard, which had also been previously studied and rejected in the 2009 AA study. This Hawthorne Boulevard option had been eliminated in both the AA and environmental phases of study for similar reasons: no direct connections to planned transit centers; greater environmental impacts related to traffic, acquisitions, aesthetics; and economic impacts; and higher costs. For further information on all of the alternative and alignment options considered and rejected in the environmental analysis, refer to Appendix A: Alternatives Previously Considered.


Page 3-5


2

Figure 3.2. Light Rail Alternative, 2010-2012 Environmental Analysis

Source: STV, 2013


Page 3-6


2

3.1.4. SAA Alternatives Refinement, 2016-2017 In November 2016, Los Angeles County voters passed Measure M, which included funding for the Proposed Project. At this time, Metro began an outreach process to stakeholders and cities in the South Bay to identify any major new changes or concerns since the project was paused in 2012 to incorporate those concerns in an update of the environmental analysis. Cities and stakeholders engaged during this period include:

City of Lawndale South Bay Association of Realtors

City of Redondo Beach South Bay Bicycle Coalition

City of Torrance South Bay Council of Governments

Community Organizations South Bay Galleria/Forest City

North Redondo Beach Business Association South Bay Service Council

South Bay Association Chambers of Commerce

Torrance Chamber of Commerce

This renewed outreach resulted in the identification of several stakeholder concerns including:

Noise/vibration Visual impacts

Traffic/parking Bike facilities

Crossing safety/grade separations Property Values

Connections to commercial areas and other major destinations

Pedestrian wayfinding and station integration to communities

To address these concerns, Metro agreed to conduct a SAA, expanding the range of alternatives under consideration beyond the single LRT Alternative proposed within the Metro ROW. This SAA allows Metro to also update existing conditions of the Project Area, which have changed since environmental analysis began in 2010. Metro also renamed the Proposed Project the Green Line Extension to Torrance for consistency with Measure M. Throughout 2017, the Metro project team used multiple iterations of feedback from cities and stakeholders to guide the selection of additional light rail alternatives for consideration. As a result, the Metro project team proposed various alignment and design options between the existing Redondo Beach Station and the Torrance TC. The additional alignments include two along Hawthorne Boulevard, which were previously considered but rejected in both the 2009 AA study and the 2010 environmental analysis phase. Based on the iterative outreach process, four Build Alternatives were included for further analysis in the SAA. These four Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative, are described in Section 3.2. The LRT Alternative from the environmental analysis has been refined and is most similar to Alternative 1 of the SAA.


Page 3-7


2

3.2. ALTERNATIVES This section provides a detailed description of the alternatives under consideration. These alternatives were guided by the 2009 AA, detailed environmental analysis between 2010 and 2012, and feedback from outreach efforts to cities and stakeholders from 2016 to 2018. The Build Alternatives under consideration in this SAA would be extensions of the existing Metro Green Line, which serves communities between Norwalk and Redondo Beach. Each alternative would begin at the current terminus of the Metro Green Line at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and connect to the Torrance TC currently under construction. Alternatives under consideration include:

Alternatives within the existing Metro ROW (Alternatives 1 & 2) for the entire length of the extension, and

Alternatives that travel down the median of Hawthorne Boulevard for various lengths (Alternatives 3 & 4) before rejoining the Metro ROW.

Each alternative would share the same alignment approximately south of 190th Street and terminate at a station serving the Torrance TC. An overview of the Build Alternatives alignments is shown in Figure 3.3.


Page 3-8


2

Figure 3.3. SAA Project Area and Build Alternatives

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-9


2

3.2.1. No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative serves as a basis of comparison for the transportation improvements proposed in all Build Alternatives. This provides a benchmark to define mobility barriers in the Project Area and identifies the result of transportation developments based on existing policies and plans without committing to major capital improvements. The No Build Alternative describes the Project Area in the year 2040 if the Proposed Project is not built, and includes funded transportation improvements specified in the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS and the financially constrained element of Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Existing and funded transportation infrastructure improvements included in these documents are:

Freeways (Current) – Interstates 405 and 105 and State Route 91

Fixed Guideway (Current) – Metro Green Line (LRT)

Bus Service (Current) – Metro, Beach Cities Transit, Gardena Municipal Bus, Los Angeles World Airports, Lawndale BEAT, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and Torrance Transit

Fixed Guideway Projects (Under Construction) – Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor (LRT)

Other Projects (Under Construction) – Torrance TC

Fixed Guideway Projects (Planned) – Metro’s AMC, LAWA’s APM, other rail projects identified in the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS and Metro LRTP outside the Project Area

Other Projects (Planned) – Various freeway and arterial roadway upgrades, expansions to the Metro Rapid Bus system, and the Redondo Beach TC

No additional LRT tracks or stations would be added to the Metro Green Line south of its existing terminus at the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station as part of the No Build Alternative. The Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and several stations to the north would receive 90-foot platform extensions as part of a separate project to support three-car train service on the Metro Green Line and Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor. Figure 3.4 displays the No Build Alternative.


Page 3-10


2

Figure 3.4. No Build Alternative – Overview

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-11


2

3.2.1.1. Operations Conceptual Operating Plan A change to existing Metro Green Line operations is anticipated upon completion of the separate Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project in 2019 and AMC in 2023. These projects will add LRT tracks and new stations between the Metro Expo Line at the Expo/Crenshaw station and the Metro Green Line Aviation/LAX Station. The current operating assumption is that the existing Metro Green Line operations would be substantially changed once the Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project is completed, as shown in Figure 3.5. Instead of connecting Norwalk to Redondo Beach, Metro Green Line trains would be rerouted to connect Norwalk and the Expo/Crenshaw station at the north end of the Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project. A new spur line would be established in the South Bay (referred to in this document as the South Bay Spur), connecting the LAX area to the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station in the No Build Alternative. The Aviation/Century station would serve as the interim transfer station, until the opening of the AMC Station and LAX APM in 2023, at which point the AMC Station would serve as the main transfer point between lines in the LAX area. For the purposes of understanding the long-term effects and conditions of a major transportation project, a forecast year was chosen to compare Build Alternatives to a No Build Alternative. In this SAA, the forecast year is 2040. This SAA considers demographic, land use, transportation, and other conditions through the year 2040 to understand the long-term regional context of the Proposed Project. Although the Proposed Project is anticipated to begin operations approximately in 2030, operations are not anticipated to change between 2030 and 2040. Therefore, operating plans throughout this document are shown in 2040. Service Hours and Headways Under the No Build Alternative, service hours of the Metro Green Line would remain similar to current hours, with trains running from approximately 4:00 AM to 1:00 AM. By 2030, headways on the Metro Green Line are expected to be approximately 6 minutes during peak periods (from 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 7:00 PM), and 12 minutes during the midday period (from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). The service frequency would be reduced to every 18 minutes during the early morning and late night periods (from 4:00 to 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM to 1:00 AM). Weekends and holidays would also have reduced service hours. Travel Time The total travel time on the South Bay Spur between the planned AMC Station in the north and the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station in the south would be approximately 13 minutes.


Page 3-12


2

Figure 3.5. No Build Alternative – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-13


2

LRT Vehicles LRT vehicles on the Green Line Extension to Torrance would be designed for Automatic Train Operations and compatible with those currently used on existing Metro light rail lines. These vehicles are typically six-axle, double ended and articulated, and can be combined in trains up to three cars in length. The LRT would operate at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour, and would carry approximately 200 seated passengers on a three-car train. The LRT vehicles would be configured with a driver’s cab at either end so that the train could run in either direction without the need to turn around. Under the No Build Alternative, the South Bay Spur operating between the planned AMC Station in the north and existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station in the south would require 29 LRT vehicles available for maximum service (VAMS), including spares, for three-car train service at 6 minute headways during peak periods for maximum service.


Page 3-14


2

3.2.2. Alternative 1: ROW Overcrossing Alternative 1: ROW Overcrossing would follow the existing Metro ROW for the length of the Proposed Project. When crossing Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Avenue, this alternative would be in an aerial configuration, serving an elevated station at that intersection. Figure 3.6 displays the alignment of Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is most similar to the Light Rail Alternative evaluated in the 2010 environmental analysis.


Page 3-15


2

Figure 3.6. Alternative 1 – ROW Overcrossing – Overview

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-16


2

3.2.2.1. Alignment Alternative 1: ROW Overcrossing would begin at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, where the existing tracks and station are aerial. The existing station platform, which is currently configured for two-car trains, would be extended by 90 feet to support three-car train service. This platform extension would be completed as part of a separate project. The aerial alignment would travel within the existing Metro ROW, running parallel to and west of the existing freight tracks. Just west of Inglewood Avenue, the aerial alignment would cross over to the east side of the freight tracks within the existing Metro ROW. The alignment would then cross over Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard on an aerial structure. In the 2010 environmental analysis phase, analysis was conducted for Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which determined a grade separation would be required, based on Metro’s Grade Crossing Safety Policy. The existing freight track crossings at Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard would remain at-grade. An aerial LRT station would be located at Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. The adjacent land uses in this segment are primarily light industrial and commercial. South of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the aerial alignment would continue to follow the existing Metro ROW, crossing over 159th Street, 160th Street, 161st Street, and 162nd Street; these streets would remain open to traffic. The existing freight track crossings at these streets would remain at-grade. Figure 3.7 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south.

Figure 3.7. Alternative 1 Typical Cross-Section, Manhattan Beach Boulevard to 162nd Street

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018


Page 3-17


2

The aerial alignment would return to at-grade near 166th Street and would run parallel to the existing freight tracks. The alignment would cross 170th Street at-grade, then would cross over Artesia Boulevard on a new bridge adjacent to the existing railroad bridge. The existing Metro ROW is 100 feet wide north of 170th Street, but it narrows to 70 feet between 170th Street and Artesia Boulevard. The adjacent land uses throughout this area are low-density residential. Within this segment, there are opportunities to add active transportation pathways, landscaping or parking along Condon Avenue. These design options would be explored in later phases of design, and have not been precluded at this phase. Figure 3.8 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south.

Figure 3.8. Alternative 1 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to 170th Street


Continuing south, the alignment would cross Grant Avenue on a bridge adjacent to the existing railroad bridge. The freight tracks would be shifted west within the Metro ROW. A station would be located within the Metro ROW adjacent to the planned Redondo Beach TC. The alignment would then cross 182nd Street at-grade and then cross Hawthorne Boulevard and 190th Street on aerial structures adjacent to the existing railroad bridges over these roads. The land uses in this area are primarily low-density residential and parks or open spaces, with some commercial and light industrial located on the east side of the Metro ROW between Grant Avenue and 182nd Street. South of 190th Street, the Metro ROW narrows to 15 feet of the total railroad ROW, and additional ROW width would need to be acquired from the BNSF Railway to fit in the light rail tracks. Another constraint in this area is there are several freight spurs and sidings, which BNSF uses to serve customers on both sides of the corridor. In order to accommodate the LRT alignment, existing freight tracks on the east side of the railroad ROW would be removed, and the freight tracks on the west side of the railroad ROW would be shifted further west. The alignment would pass under the existing Prairie Avenue and Del Amo Boulevard roadway


Page 3-18


2

bridges. The land uses in this area are primarily industrial and manufacturing. Figure 3.9 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south.

Figure 3.9. Typical Cross-Section, Prairie Avenue to Del Amo Boulevard


South of Del Amo Boulevard, the alignment would rise onto retained fill and an aerial structure would be needed to allow the freight track on the east side of the corridor to cross under the alignment, maintaining BNSF operations on the east. The alignment would continue south on a low retained fill and end at a terminus station adjacent to the Torrance TC, just west of where the Metro ROW meets Crenshaw Boulevard. 3.2.2.2. Stations Alternative 1 proposes three new stations. The stations would all follow Metro’s Systemwide Station Design Criteria, and share common elements such as canopy design, signage, communications equipment, fare collection equipment, shelters, and safety and security systems. All the stations are proposed as a center-platform configuration, allowing passengers to access trains from either direction from the same platform. The station platforms would be capable of accommodating three-car trains, and would allow level-boarding and full accessibility to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Metro station design guidelines allow elements of variability to respond to the character of the surrounding community and promote a sense of place, safety, and walkability. Further details about each station and the areas they serve are provided in this section.


Page 3-19


2

Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station This aerial station (shown in Figure 3.6) would be located in Lawndale at the northeast corner of the Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Inglewood Avenue intersection. The aerial station would be accessible through vertical circulation elements such as stairs, escalators, and elevators. The primary pedestrian access plaza would be located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Condon Avenue, with pedestrian access and wayfinding also available on Inglewood Avenue. The Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station would primarily serve the commercial corridor along Inglewood Avenue, as well as the businesses located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard in the same vicinity. The station would also serve the residential areas on the south side of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, including neighborhoods in both Lawndale and Redondo Beach. Redondo Beach TC Station This at-grade station would be located at the planned Redondo Beach TC (shown in Figure 3.6). The Redondo Beach TC would be located just south of the intersection of Grant Avenue and Kingsdale Avenue on the east side of the Metro ROW, south of the Target. The station would be accessible by a ramp and pedestrian pathways from the TC parking and bus plaza. The TC would be a regional hub for local and regional bus line, and also include parking for TC bus patrons, and a kiss-and-ride drop-off/pick-up area. This station would serve the cluster of large-scale commercial businesses located between the Metro ROW and Hawthorne Boulevard. This includes the South Bay Galleria, a regionally significant commercial center which is planned for redevelopment as a mixed-use project with higher intensities of use. Clear pedestrian wayfinding would be provided from the station to allow for easy access to the Galleria. The station would also serve the adjacent residential communities in both Redondo Beach and Torrance. Torrance TC Station This at-grade station would serve the future Torrance TC, which is currently under construction. The Torrance TC itself will be located on the triangular parcel at the intersection of the Metro ROW and Crenshaw Boulevard. The station would be accessible by pedestrian pathways and crosswalks from the TC bus plaza and parking areas. The Torrance TC will be a hub for local and regional bus lines, and also provide parking and a kiss-and-ride drop-off/pick-up area. A Metro parking lot would also be located at the Torrance TC. This station would serve the commercial and light industrial job centers surrounding the TC, as well as the residential neighborhoods south of the station. As this station would be the new terminus of the Metro Green Line, it would likely serve the markets further south in the South Bay, where potential riders could access the regional transit hub via park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride, or bus.


Page 3-20


2

Station Distances The distances between the proposed stations would be as follows:

Redondo Beach (Marine) Station – Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station – 0.6 miles

Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station – Redondo Beach TC Station – 1.4 miles

Redondo Beach TC Station – Torrance TC Station – 2.5 miles

3.2.2.3. Operations Conceptual Operating Plan Under Alternative 1, South Bay Spur LRT operations (described further in Section 3.2.1.1) would be extended south of Redondo Beach (Marine) Station along the Metro ROW, terminating at the Torrance TC Station. Conceptual operating plans for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be identical. An overview of this operating scheme for both Alternatives 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 3.10.


Page 3-21


2

Figure 3.10. Alternatives 1 and 2 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-22


2

Service Hours and Headways All Build Alternatives would operate seven days per week, including holidays. Service hours would be similar to the existing Metro Blue, Green, Gold, and Expo lines, with trains running from approximately 4:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Weekday service would operate at an average of every 6 minutes during peak periods (from 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 7:00 PM) and an average of every 12 minutes during the midday period (from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM). The service frequency would be reduced to every 18 minutes during the early morning and late night periods (from 4:00 to 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM to 1:00 AM). Weekends and holidays would also have reduced service hours. After the start of operations, service hours, frequencies, and train lengths would be adjusted according to demand. Figure 3.11 below displays the service hours and headway frequencies for all Build Alternatives.

Figure 3.11. Weekday Service Hours & Headways

Source: STV, 2018

Travel Time Under Alternative 1, the light rail extension would be 4.5 miles long, and it would take approximately 7.1 minutes for LRT vehicles to travel from the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to the Torrance TC Station. All LRT vehicles are assumed to have similar station dwell times to load and unload passengers. Figure 3.12 displays the travel time and distances for the full length of the light rail extension under Alternative 1, broken out by segments between stations. As the key operations assumptions for Alternatives 1 and 2 were identical, this travel time estimate applies to both alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 would feature grade separations or railroad gates (with full preemption) at all crossings. The total South Bay Spur travel time between the planned AMC Station in the north and the Torrance TC Station in the south would be approximately 20.5 minutes.

Weekday Headway for LRT Extension

Time

Late

Nig

ht

Late

Nig

ht

Late

Nig

ht

Eve

nin

g

6:00 AM 12:00 PM12:00 AM

6

AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak

12:00 AM6:00 PM

0

He

adw

ay (

min

)

12

18

24


Page 3-23


2

Figure 3.12. Alternatives 1 and 2 – Travel Time

Source: STV, 2018

LRT Vehicles LRT vehicles on the Proposed Project would be designed for Automatic Train Operations and compatible with those currently used on existing Metro light rail lines. These vehicles are typically six-axle, double ended and articulated, and can be combined in trains up to three cars in length. The LRT would operate at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour, and would carry approximately 200 seated passengers on a three-car train. The LRT vehicles would be configured with a driver’s cab at either end so that the train could run in either direction without the need to turn around. Vehicle requirements would be identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. Under both alternatives, the continuous light rail line operating between the planned AMC Station in the north and Torrance TC Station in the south would require 37 LRT VAMS, including spares, for three-car train service at 6 minute headways during peak periods for maximum service. This would be eight more LRT vehicles than the 29 required for the same level of service under the No Build Alternative.


Page 3-24


2

3.2.3. Alternative 2: ROW Undercrossing Alternative 2: ROW Undercrossing would follow the existing Metro ROW for the length of the Proposed Project. When crossing Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Avenue, this alternative would be in a below-grade configuration, serving a below-grade station at that intersection. The alignment of Alternative 2 is displayed in Figure 3.13.


Page 3-25


2

Figure 3.13. Alternative 2 – ROW Undercrossing – Overview

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-26


2

3.2.3.1. Alignment Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2: ROW Undercrossing would begin at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, where the existing tracks and station are aerial. The existing station platform, which is currently configured for two-car trains, would be extended by 90 feet to support three-car train service. This platform extension would be completed as part of a separate project. The aerial alignment would travel within the existing Metro ROW, running parallel to and west of the existing freight tracks. Between Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and Inglewood Avenue, the light rail tracks would descend into a trench. Just west of Inglewood Avenue, the below-grade alignment would cross under to the east side of the freight tracks within the existing Metro ROW. The alignment would then cross under Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard in a trench configuration. In the 2010 environmental analysis phase, analysis was conducted at Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which determined a grade separation would be required, based on Metro’s Grade Crossing Safety Policy. The existing freight track crossings at Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard would remain at-grade. A station would be located at Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard within a trench. The adjacent land uses in this segment are primarily light industrial and commercial. South of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, the below-grade alignment would continue to follow the existing Metro ROW, crossing under 159th Street, 160th Street, 161st Street, and 162nd Street; these streets would remain open to traffic. The existing freight track crossings at these streets would remain at-grade. Figure 3.14 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south.

Figure 3.14. Alternative 2 Typical Cross-Section, Manhattan Beach Boulevard to 162nd Street



Page 3-27


2

The below-grade alignment would return to at-grade near 166th Street. South of 166th Street, the Alternative 2 alignment would be identical to Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, within this segment, there are opportunities to add active transportation pathways, landscaping or parking along Condon Avenue. These design options would be explored in later phases of design, and have not been precluded in this phase. Section 3.2.2.1 describes where the alignment is the same, Figure 3.14 shows the typical cross section for between 166th Street and 170th Street, and Figure 3.8 shows the typical cross-section between 190th Street and the Torrance TC Station. 3.2.3.2. Stations Alternative 2 proposes three new stations. The stations would all follow Metro’s Systemwide Station Design Criteria, and share common elements such as canopy design, signage, communications equipment, fare collection equipment, shelters, and safety and security systems. All the stations are proposed as a center-platform configuration, allowing passengers to access trains from either direction from the same platform. The station platforms would be capable of accommodating three-car trains, and would allow level-boarding and full accessibility to comply with the ADA. Metro station design guidelines allow elements of variability to respond to the character of the surrounding community and promote a sense of place, safety, and walkability. Further details about each station and the areas they serve are provided in this section. Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station This station (shown in Figure 3.13) would be located in Lawndale at the northeast corner of the Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Inglewood Avenue intersection, within a trench. The below-grade station would be accessible through vertical circulation elements such as stairs, escalators, and elevators. The primary pedestrian access plaza would be located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard and Condon Avenue, with pedestrian access and wayfinding also available on Inglewood Avenue. The Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station would primarily serve the commercial corridor along Inglewood Avenue, as well as the businesses located along Manhattan Beach Boulevard in the same vicinity. The station would also serve the residential areas on the south side of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, including neighborhoods in both Lawndale and Redondo Beach. Redondo Beach TC Station The station serving the Redondo Beach TC in Alternative 2 would be identical to the one described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for a description of this station. Torrance TC Station The station serving the Torrance TC in Alternative 2 would be identical to the one described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for a description of this station.


Page 3-28


2

Station Distances The distances between the proposed stations would be identical to the distances under Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for the station distances. 3.2.3.3. Operations Conceptual Operating Plan The conceptual operating plan for Alternative 2 would be identical to that of Alternative 1, described in Section 3.2.2.3 and depicted in Figure 3.10. Service Hours and Headways The service hours and headways of Alternative 2 would be identical to those of Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for a full description. Travel Time The travel time and station dwell assumptions for Alternative 2 would be the same as in Alternative 1, described in Section 3.2.2.3 and depicted in Figure 3.12. LRT Vehicles The vehicle requirements in Alternative 2 would be the same as in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for more details.


Page 3-29


2

3.2.4. Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 190th Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 190th would start within the existing Metro ROW, and would leave the Metro ROW to parallel I-405 between Inglewood Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard. The alignment would then travel along Hawthorne Boulevard between 162nd Street in Lawndale and 190th Street in Torrance before rejoining the Metro ROW. Alternative 3 would serve a different set of stations than in Alternatives 1 and 2. Figure 3.15 displays the alignment of Alternative 3.


Page 3-30


2

Figure 3.15. Alternative 3 – Hawthorne to 190th – Overview

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-31


2

3.2.4.1. Alignment Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 190th would begin at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, where the existing tracks and station are aerial. The existing station platform, which is currently configured for two-car trains, would be extended by 90 feet to support three-car train service. This platform extension would be completed as part of a separate project. The aerial alignment would travel within the existing Metro ROW until just west of Inglewood Avenue. From there, the light rail tracks would turn east, crossing over the existing freight track and crossing over Inglewood Avenue on an aerial structure immediately south of the southbound I-405 on- and off-ramps. The aerial alignment would run parallel to I-405, west of the freeway within the existing California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW and/or public or private ROW. At the southbound on- and off-ramps for Hawthorne Boulevard, the alignment would turn south to travel within the median of Hawthorne Boulevard. South of 162nd Street, the alignment would descend on a retained fill structure to at-grade and cross 166th Street. The retained fill structure would require 164th Street to be closed to cross-traffic. The land uses throughout this area include light industrial, commercial, and single- and multi-family residential. Immediately south of 166th Street, the alignment would serve an at-grade station. The alignment would continue south in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard and cross 169th Street, Redondo Beach Boulevard, and Artesia Boulevard at-grade. Figure 3.16 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south. The at-grade alignment would require closing the east side crossing from 171st Street into the current median parking on Hawthorne Boulevard and removal of landscaping and on-street parking spaces. Further analysis is required to determine the feasibility of an at-grade crossing at Redondo Beach Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard, based on the Metro Grade Crossing Safety Policy. This future analysis would also have to take into consideration the Southern California Edison power lines south of Artesia Boulevard, which could potentially conflict with an aerial grade separation at the crossing.


Page 3-32


2

Figure 3.16. Alternative 3 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to Artesia Boulevard


South of Artesia Boulevard, the alignment would serve an at-grade station between Artesia Boulevard and 177th Street. The right-of-way of Hawthorne Boulevard narrows from 170 feet to 140 feet, and additional right-of-way would be required on the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard to accommodate the light rail tracks in the median while maintaining the existing traffic lane configurations. The full extent of the roadway widening would occur from north of Artesia Boulevard to south of 186th Street, and would require coordination with Caltrans. Continuing south, the alignment would cross 177th Street at-grade, and pass 179th Street and 180th Street, which would be closed to cross-traffic. Figure 3.17 shows the typical cross section between Artesia Boulevard and 182nd Street, looking south.

Figure 3.17. Alternative 3 Typical Cross-Section, Artesia Boulevard to 182nd Street



Page 3-33


2

South of 182nd Street, the alignment would ascend to an aerial structure to cross over 186th Street and rejoin the Metro ROW south of 190th Street. This aerial structure would travel through what is currently a car dealership, with potential property impacts. The land uses along the alignment between Hawthorne/162nd Street and the Metro ROW at 190th Street are commercial and low-density residential. After rejoining the Metro ROW south of 190th Street, the alignment of Alternative 3 would be identical to that of Alternative 1, described in Section 3.2.2.1. 3.2.4.2. Stations Alternative 3 proposes three new stations. The stations would all follow Metro’s Systemwide Station Design Criteria, and share common elements such as canopy design, signage, communications equipment, fare collection equipment, shelters, and safety and security systems. The station platforms would be capable of accommodating three-car trains, and would allow level-boarding and full accessibility to comply with the ADA. Metro station design guidelines allow elements of variability to respond to the character of the surrounding community and promote a sense of place, safety, and walkability. Further details about each station and the areas they serve are provided in this section. Hawthorne/166th Station This at-grade station (shown in Figure 3.15) would be located in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard immediately south of 166th Street. The station would feature side platforms, offset across an existing signalized mid-block pedestrian crosswalk between 167th Street and 168th Street, which would be shifted slightly south. The southbound platform would be located on the west side of the median of Hawthorne Boulevard north of the shifted mid-block pedestrian crosswalk. The northbound platform would be located on the east side of the median of Hawthorne Boulevard, south of the pedestrian crosswalk. This station would be located in the heart of the Hawthorne Boulevard commercial corridor in Lawndale, serving surrounding businesses and Lawndale’s residential communities on either side of the commercial corridor. South Bay Galleria Station This at-grade station (shown in Figure 3.15) would be located in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard approximately halfway between Artesia Boulevard and 177th Street, featuring a center platform. This station would be located in Redondo Beach, along the border with Torrance. This station would primarily serve the commercial centers present along Hawthorne Boulevard. This includes the cluster of large-scale retail commercial land uses along Hawthorne Boulevard, stretching from Artesia Boulevard in the north to 182nd Street in the south. This cluster contains the regionally significant South Bay Galleria, which is planned for


Page 3-34


2

redevelopment as a mixed-use project with higher intensities of use. This station would also serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Torrance TC Station The station serving the Torrance TC in Alternative 3 would be identical to the one described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for a description of this station. Station Distances The distances between the proposed stations would be as follows:

Redondo Beach (Marine) Station – Hawthorne/166th Station – 1.5 miles

Hawthorne/166th Station – South Bay Galleria Station – 0.7 miles

South Bay Galleria Station – Torrance TC Station – 2.3 miles 3.2.4.3. Operations Conceptual Operating Plan Under Alternative 3, South Bay Spur LRT operations (described further in Section 3.2.1.1) would be extended south of Redondo Beach (Marine) Station along the Metro ROW. The alignment would travel outside the existing Metro ROW from east of Inglewood to 190th Street before rejoining the Metro ROW to terminate at the Torrance TC Station. An overview of this operating scheme is shown in Figure 3.18. Service Hours and Headways The service hours and headways of Alternative 3 would be identical to those of Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for a full description.


Page 3-35


2

Figure 3.18. Alternative 3 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-36


2

Travel Time Under Alternative 3, the light rail extension would be 4.5 miles, and it would take approximately 9 minutes for LRT vehicles to travel from the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to the Torrance TC Station. The travel time would be slightly variable based on traffic signal cycles in the at-grade portion of the alignment along Hawthorne Boulevard, which would feature at-grade crossings, potentially without signal priority, and other design considerations which would reduce maximum operating speeds in that segment. All vehicles are assumed to have similar station dwell times to load and unload passengers. Figure 3.19 displays the travel time and distances for the full length of the light rail extension under Alternative 3, broken out by segments between stations. The total travel time between the planned AMC Station in the north and the Torrance TC Station in the south would be approximately 22 minutes.

Figure 3.19. Alternative 3 – Travel Time

Source: STV, 2018

LRT Vehicles The type of LRT vehicles proposed under Alternative 3 would be the same as those described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for more details. Under Alternative 3, the continuous light rail line operating between the planned AMC Station in the north and Torrance TC Station in the south would require 40 LRT VAMS, including spares, for three-car train service at 6 minute headways during peak periods for maximum service. This would be 11 more LRT vehicles than the 29 required for the same level of service under the No Build Alternative.


Page 3-37


2

3.2.5. Alternative 4: Hawthorne to Artesia Alternative 4: Hawthorne to Artesia would start within the existing Metro ROW, and would leave the Metro ROW to parallel I-405 between Inglewood Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard. The alignment would travel along Hawthorne Boulevard between 162nd Street and Redondo Beach Boulevard in Lawndale. The alignment would turn west along Redondo Beach Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard before turning south to rejoin the Metro ROW at Artesia Boulevard. Alternative 4 would serve a different set of stations than the other alternatives. Figure 3.20 displays the alignment of Alternative 4.


Page 3-38


2

Figure 3.20. Alternative 4 – Hawthorne to Artesia – Overview

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-39


2

3.2.5.1. Alignment Alternative 4: Hawthorne to Artesia would begin at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, where the existing tracks and station are aerial. The existing station platform, which is currently configured for two-car trains, would be extended by 90 feet to support three-car train service. This platform extension would be completed as part of a separate project. The aerial alignment would travel within the existing Metro ROW until just west of Inglewood Avenue. From there, the alignment would turn east, crossing over the existing freight track and crossing over Inglewood Avenue on an aerial structure immediately south of the southbound I-405 on- and off-ramps. The aerial alignment would run parallel to I-405, west of the freeway within Caltrans ROW and/or public or private ROW. At the southbound on- and off-ramps for Hawthorne Boulevard, the aerial alignment would turn south to travel within the median of Hawthorne Boulevard. The alignment would serve an elevated station at 166th Street. The land uses throughout this area include light industrial, commercial, and single- and multi-family residential. Figure 3.21 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking south.

Figure 3.21. Alternative 4 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to Artesia Boulevard


The aerial alignment would turn southwest to follow Redondo Beach Boulevard and west along Artesia Boulevard within the median. The aerial structure within the median would potentially result in the removal of on-street parking. Figure 3.22 shows the typical cross section for this area, looking east.


Page 3-40


2

Figure 3.22. Alternative 4 Typical Cross-Section, Artesia Boulevard


The alignment would turn south on a sharp curve to rejoin the Metro ROW where it crosses Artesia Boulevard. The alignment would travel on a low retained fill, east of and adjacent to the existing freight tracks within the Metro ROW. Further south, the alignment would cross over Grant Avenue on a new railroad bridge parallel to the existing freight track bridge. Between Grant Avenue and 182nd St, the alignment would serve a station located within the Metro ROW adjacent to the planned location of the Redondo Beach TC. The remainder of the alignment would be identical to that of Alternatives 1 and 2, described in Section 3.2.2.1. 3.2.5.2. Stations Alternative 4 proposes three new stations. The stations would all follow Metro’s Systemwide Station Design Criteria, and share common elements such as canopy design, signage, communications equipment, fare collection equipment, shelters, and safety and security systems. All the stations are proposed as a center-platform configuration, allowing passengers to access trains from either direction from the same platform. The station platforms would be capable of accommodating three-car trains, and would allow level-boarding and full accessibility to comply with the ADA. Metro station design guidelines allow elements of variability to respond to the character of the surrounding community and promote a sense of place, safety, and walkability. Further details about each station and the areas they serve are provided in this section.


Page 3-41


2

Hawthorne/166th Station This aerial station (shown in Figure 3.20) would be located in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard immediately south of 166th Street on an elevated center platform. Vertical circulation would provide access to existing crosswalks at 166th Street, and mid-block between 167th Street and 168th Street, for pedestrians to cross Hawthorne Boulevard to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. This station would be located in the heart of the Hawthorne Boulevard commercial corridor in Lawndale, serving not only the surrounding businesses, but also the residential Lawndale communities surrounding the commercial corridor. Redondo Beach TC Station The station serving the Redondo Beach TC in Alternative 4 would be identical to the one described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for a description of this station. Torrance TC Station The station serving the Torrance TC in Alternative 4 would be identical to the one described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.2 for a description of this station. Station Distances The distances between the proposed stations would be as follows:

Redondo Beach (Marine) Station – Hawthorne/166th Station – 1.5 miles

Hawthorne/166th Station – Redondo Beach TC Station – 1.1 miles

Redondo Beach TC Station – Torrance TC Station – 2.4 miles 3.2.5.3. Operations Conceptual Operating Plan Under Alternative 4, South Bay Spur LRT operations (described further in Section 3.2.1.1) would be extended south of Redondo Beach (Marine) Station along the Metro ROW. The alignment would travel outside the existing Metro ROW from east of Inglewood to Artesia before rejoining the Metro ROW to terminate at the Torrance TC Station. An overview of this operating scheme is shown in Figure 3.23. Service Hours and Headways The service hours and headways of Alternative 4 would be identical to those of Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for a full description.


Page 3-42


2

Figure 3.23. Alternative 4 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018


Page 3-43


2

Travel Time Under Alternative 4, the light rail extension would be 5 miles, and it would take approximately 8.5 minutes for LRT vehicles to travel from the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to the Torrance TC Station. All vehicles are assumed to have similar station dwell times to load and unload passengers. Figure 3.24 displays the travel time and distances for the full length of the light rail extension under Alternative 4, broken out by segments between stations. The total travel time between the planned AMC Station in the north and the Torrance TC Station in the south would take approximately 21.5 minutes. Major factors affecting travel time for Alternative 4 include a half-mile longer total route length compared to other Build Alternatives, speed restrictions along Artesia Boulevard, and operational constraints from the sharp curve between Artesia Boulevard and the Metro ROW.

Figure 3.24. Alternative 4 – Travel Time

Source: STV, 2018

LRT Vehicles The type of LRT vehicles proposed under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described in Alternative 1. Refer to Section 3.2.2.3 for more details. Under Alternative 4, the continuous light rail line operating between the planned AMC Station in the north and Torrance TC Station in the south would require 40 LRT VAMS, including spares, for three-car train service at 6 minute headways during peak periods for maximum service. This would be 11 more LRT vehicles than the 29 required for the same level of service under the No Build Alternative.

DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVESmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/green_line_lax/... · cities in the...

Documents

Transcript of DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVESmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/green_line_lax/... · cities in the...