Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Green Line Extension to Torrance

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis June 29, 2018 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Green Line Extension to Torrance

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

June 29, 2018

In Association with:

The Robert Group Cityworks Design Epic Land Solutions KOA Corporation

Page i Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1-1 2. Purpose and Need ...... 2-1 2.1. Project History ...... 2-3 2.2. Project Area Overview ...... 2-4 2.2.1. Metro ROW Characteristics ...... 2-4 2.2.2. Project Area Freeways / Arterials ...... 2-6 2.2.3. Project Area Transit Network ...... 2-6 2.3. Population and Employment ...... 2-10 2.4. Land Uses and Activity Centers ...... 2-13 2.5. Travel Markets ...... 2-15 2.6. Transportation System Performance ...... 2-16 2.7. Project Need ...... 2-20 2.8. Project Purpose, Goals and Objectives...... 2-21 3. Definition of Alternatives ...... 3-1 3.1. Development of Alternatives ...... 3-1 3.1.1. Alternatives Previously Considered...... 3-1 3.1.2. Alternatives Analysis, 2008-2009 ...... 3-1 3.1.3. Environmental Analysis, 2010-2012 ...... 3-4 3.1.4. SAA Alternatives Refinement, 2016-2017 ...... 3-6 3.2. Alternatives ...... 3-7 3.2.1. No Build Alternative ...... 3-9 3.2.2. Alternative 1: ROW Overcrossing ...... 3-14 3.2.3. Alternative 2: ROW Undercrossing ...... 3-24 3.2.4. Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 190th ...... 3-29 3.2.5. Alternative 4: Hawthorne to Artesia ...... 3-37 4. Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 4-1 4.1. Alternative Analysis Methodology ...... 4-1 4.1.1. Evaluation Criteria ...... 4-1 4.1.2. Rating System ...... 4-3 4.2. Goal 1: Improve Mobility ...... 4-4 4.2.1. Travel Time/Reliability ...... 4-4 4.2.2. System Connectivity ...... 4-5 4.2.3. Ridership ...... 4-7 4.2.4. Change in VMT ...... 4-8 4.2.5. Accessibility ...... 4-9 4.3. Goal 2: Minimize Environmental Impacts ...... 4-10 4.3.1. Air Quality ...... 4-12 4.3.2. Climate Change ...... 4-13 4.3.3. Communities and Neighborhoods ...... 4-14 4.3.4. Construction Effects ...... 4-15 4.3.5. Cumulative Effects ...... 4-16

Page ii Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

4.3.6. Displacement and Relocations ...... 4-17 4.3.7. Ecosystems and Biological Resources ...... 4-19 4.3.8. Energy ...... 4-19 4.3.9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ...... 4-20 4.3.10. Growth-Inducing Considerations ...... 4-20 4.3.11. Hazardous Waste and Materials ...... 4-21 4.3.12. Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resources ...... 4-21 4.3.13. Noise and Vibration ...... 4-22 4.3.14. Parklands and Community Facilities ...... 4-24 4.3.15. Safety and Security ...... 4-26 4.3.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) ...... 4-28 4.3.17. Transportation ...... 4-28 4.3.18. Visual Resources and Aesthetics ...... 4-30 4.3.19. Water Resources ...... 4-31 4.3.20. Summary of Environmental Considerations ...... 4-33 4.4. Goal 3: Ensure Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility ...... 4-34 4.4.1. Capital Costs ...... 4-34 4.4.2. Operations & Maintenance Costs ...... 4-35 4.4.3. Cost Per Rider ...... 4-36 4.4.4. Financial Feasibility ...... 4-37 4.5. Goal 4: Support Local and Regional Land Use Plans and Policies ...... 4-39 4.5.1. Accessibility ...... 4-39 4.5.2. Land Use Consistency ...... 4-39 4.5.3. Economic and Fiscal Effects ...... 4-39 4.6. Goal 5: Ensure Equity...... 4-41 4.7. Summary of Comparative Analysis ...... 4-43 5. Public and Agency Outreach ...... 5-1 5.1. Early Engagement Activities ...... 5-2 5.1.1. Stakeholder Database ...... 5-2 5.1.2. Fact Sheet ...... 5-2 5.1.3. Project Information Telephone Line ...... 5-2 5.1.4. Project E-mail Box ...... 5-2 5.1.5. Project Web Page ...... 5-3 5.2. Agency Consultation Meetings ...... 5-4 5.3. Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-5 5.3.1. First Round of Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-5 5.3.2. Second Round of Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-6 5.4. Community Tours ...... 5-8 5.5. Community Meetings ...... 5-10 5.5.1. Community Meeting Notices ...... 5-10 5.5.2. Community Meeting Dates and Locations ...... 5-12 5.5.3. Community Meeting Format and Materials ...... 5-14 5.5.4. Community Meeting Comments ...... 5-15 5.6. Summary of All Comments Received...... 5-16

Page iii Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Project Area ...... 2-2 Figure 2.2. Existing At-Grade Crossings in Project Area ...... 2-5 Figure 2.3. Project Area – Existing Transit Network ...... 2-7 Figure 2.4. Related Projects ...... 2-9 Figure 2.5. Population Density – 2012 ...... 2-11 Figure 2.6. Employment Density – 2012 ...... 2-12 Figure 2.7. Land Uses ...... 2-14 Figure 2.8. Peak Period Congestion in Project Area ...... 2-16 Figure 2.9. Roadways with PM Peak LOS E or F (2040) ...... 2-18 Figure 3.1. 2009 AA Phased Implementation of Recommended Build Alternative ...... 3-3 Figure 3.2. Light Rail Alternative, 2010-2012 Environmental Analysis ...... 3-5 Figure 3.3. SAA Project Area and Build Alternatives ...... 3-8 Figure 3.4. No Build Alternative – Overview ...... 3-10 Figure 3.5. No Build Alternative – Operating Plan (2040) ...... 3-12 Figure 3.6. Alternative 1 – ROW Overcrossing – Overview ...... 3-15 Figure 3.7. Alternative 1 Typical Cross-Section, Manhattan Beach Boulevard to 162nd St ... 3-16 Figure 3.8. Alternative 1 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to 170th Street ...... 3-17 Figure 3.9. Typical Cross-Section, Prairie Avenue to Del Amo Boulevard ...... 3-18 Figure 3.10. Alternatives 1 and 2 – Operating Plan (2040) ...... 3-21 Figure 3.11. Weekday Service Hours & Headways ...... 3-22 Figure 3.12. Alternatives 1 and 2 – Travel Time ...... 3-23 Figure 3.13. Alternative 2 – ROW Undercrossing – Overview ...... 3-25 Figure 3.14. Alternative 2 Typical Cross-Section, Manhattan Beach Boulevard to 162nd St . 3-26 Figure 3.15. Alternative 3 – Hawthorne to 190th – Overview...... 3-30 Figure 3.16. Alternative 3 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to Artesia Boulevard ...... 3-32 Figure 3.17. Alternative 3 Typical Cross-Section, Artesia Boulevard to 182nd Street ...... 3-32 Figure 3.18. Alternative 3 – Operating Plan (2040) ...... 3-35 Figure 3.19. Alternative 3 – Travel Time ...... 3-36 Figure 3.20. Alternative 4 – Hawthorne to Artesia – Overview ...... 3-38 Figure 3.21. Alternative 4 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to Artesia Boulevard ...... 3-39 Figure 3.22. Alternative 4 Typical Cross-Section, Artesia Boulevard ...... 3-40 Figure 3.23. Alternative 4 – Operating Plan (2040) ...... 3-42 Figure 3.24. Alternative 4 – Travel Time ...... 3-43 Figure 4.1. Travel Times by Alternative ...... 4-4 Figure 4.2. Anticipated System Connectivity (2040) ...... 4-6 Figure 4.3. Daily Ridership ...... 4-7 Figure 4.4. Change in VMT (Daily) by Alternative ...... 4-8 Figure 4.5. Access to Transit and to Key Destinations by Alternative ...... 4-9 Figure 4.6. Alternatives and Potential Resource Areas ...... 4-11 Figure 4.7. Potential LRT At-Grade Crossings...... 4-27 Figure 4.8. Capital Costs (2017 $ Millions) by Alternative ...... 4-34 Figure 4.9. O&M Costs (2017 $ Millions) by Alternative ...... 4-36

Page iv Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

Figure 4.10. Annual Cost Per Rider (2017 $) by Alternative ...... 4-37 Figure 4.11. Census Tracts with EJ Populations ...... 4-42 Figure 5.1. Proposed Project Web Page ...... 5-3 Figure 5.2. Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-7 Figure 5.3. Community Tours ...... 5-9 Figure 5.4. Areas Targeted for Community Meeting Notices ...... 5-11 Figure 5.5. Community Meeting Locations ...... 5-13 Figure 5.6. Community Meetings ...... 5-15

TABLES

Table 2.1. AM Peak Period Average Transit Speeds – Key Project Area Transit Lines ...... 2-8 Table 2.2. Project Area Population – 2012 and 2040 ...... 2-10 Table 2.3. Project Area Employment – 2012 and 2040 ...... 2-10 Table 2.4. Existing Land Uses within Project Area ...... 2-13 Table 2.5. PM Peak Period Performance of Key Project Area Roadways – 2012 and 2040 .... 2-17 Table 2.6. Existing Transit Travel Times for Select Trips in the Project Area ...... 2-19 Table 2.7. Project Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria ...... 2-21 Table 4.1. Evaluation Rating System ...... 4-3 Table 4.2. New Riders ...... 4-8 Table 4.3. Parcels Potentially Affected Per Build Alternative & Land Use* ...... 4-18 Table 4.4. Parcels Potentially Affected Per City* ...... 4-18 Table 4.5. Educational Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives ...... 4-24 Table 4.6. Parks and Recreational Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives ...... 4-25 Table 4.7. Other Community Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives ...... 4-25 Table 4.8. Annual Capital Cost per New Rider (2017 $) ...... 4-37 Table 4.9. Funding Sources...... 4-38 Table 4.10. Summary of Build Alternative Elements ...... 4-43 Table 4.11. Evaluation Criteria Comparison...... 4-44 Table 5.1. Stakeholder Database Summary ...... 5-2 Table 5.2. Agency Consultation Meetings ...... 5-4 Table 5.3. First Round of Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-5 Table 5.4. Second Round of Stakeholder Meetings ...... 5-6 Table 5.5. Summary of Community Tours ...... 5-8 Table 5.6. Community Meetings...... 5-12 Table 5.7. Summary of Community Meeting Comments ...... 5-15 Table 5.8. Summary of Preferences for Alternatives ...... 5-16

Page v Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS

AA ...... Alternatives Analysis ADA ...... American Disabilities Act AMC ...... Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Center APE ...... Area of Potential Effects APM ...... Automated People Mover AVH ...... Annual Vehicle Hours AMV ...... Annual Vehicle Miles BRT ...... Bus Rapid Transit CalSTA ...... California State Transportation Agency Caltrans ...... California Department of Transportation CEQA...... California Environmental Quality Act CRHR ...... California Register of Historical Resources EIR ...... Environmental Impact Report EIS ...... Environmental Impact Statement EJ ...... Environmental Justice FTA ...... Federal Transit Administration GHG ...... Greenhouse Gas GLET ...... Green Line Extension to Torrance GTrans ...... Gardena Transit I ...... Interstate LADOT ...... Los Angeles Department of Transportation LAUS ...... Los Angeles Union Station LAX ...... Los Angeles International Airport LAWA ...... Los Angeles World Airports LEP ...... Limited English Proficiency LOS ...... Level-of-Service LPA ...... Locally Preferred Alternative LRT ...... Light Rail Transit LRTP ...... Long Range Transportation Plan Metro ...... Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Mi ...... Miles Min ...... Minutes mph ...... Miles per Hour NEPA ...... National Environmental Policy Act NOx ...... Nitrogen Oxide NRHP ...... National Register of Historic Places OCS ...... Overhead Catenary System O&M ...... Operations and Maintenance PPP ...... Public Participation Plan Project Area ...... Green Line Extension to Torrance Project Area ROW ...... Right-of-Way RTP ...... Regional Transportation Plan

Page vi Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

SAA ...... Supplemental Alternatives Analysis SCAG ...... Southern California Association of Governments SCS ...... Sustainable Communities Strategy SR ...... State Route TC ...... Transit Center TPSS ...... Traction Power Substation TSM ...... Transportation System Management VAMS ...... Vehicles Available for Maximum Service VHT ...... Vehicle Hours Traveled VMT...... Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC ...... Volatile Organic Compounds

Page vii Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 1. Introduction 2 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. STUDY BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) proposes to extend the existing Metro Green Line, which utilizes Light Rail Transit (LRT) vehicles, from its terminus at the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to Torrance. This project is known as the Green Line Extension to Torrance Project (Proposed Project).

In 2017, Metro initiated a Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAA) for the Proposed Project, which would have a planned opening year of 2030 and an analysis horizon year of 2040. The intent of the SAA is to build upon previous studies that have taken place in the corridor over the past ten years, including an Alternatives Analysis (AA) in 2009 and extensive environmental analysis in 2010, and to refine and recommend alternatives to be considered in future environmental studies.

1.2. REPORT PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE

This report presents the results of the analysis, which evaluated and compared several alternatives to extend the current Metro Green Line to Torrance. Chapter 2: Purpose and Need discusses transportation conditions and mobility problems present in the Project Area which would benefit from the implementation of the Proposed Project. This chapter also describes existing and future land use, demographic, transportation, and other conditions, and establishes the goals and objectives of this project. Chapter 3: Definition of Alternatives discusses the background and development of the alternatives presented, and describes the alignments, stations, and operations. Chapter 4: Evaluation of Alternatives compares the performance of the proposed alternatives, based on the project goals and objectives. Chapter 5: Public and Agency Outreach summarizes the public outreach efforts undertaken as part of this SAA, and the responses received from the public and stakeholders.

Appendix A: Alternatives Previously Considered provides additional details on alternatives and design options examined and rejected in earlier stages of project development. Appendix B: Public and Agency Outreach provides additional details on the public and stakeholder outreach conducted as part of the SAA, including materials presented and comments received. Appendix C: Conceptual Design Plans includes the conceptual engineering plans for each of the alternatives. Appendix D: Urban Design Report includes conceptual station area plans and cross-sections.

1.3. NEXT STEPS

The result of the SAA will be used to inform the Metro Board’s decision on which preferred alternative(s) to carry forward for environmental review. Environmental review is anticipated to begin in early 2019.

Page 1-1 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need 2. PURPOSE AND NEED

This chapter characterizes the transportation and mobility problems and identifies project goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria to improve these problems for the Green Line Extension to Torrance Project Area (Project Area) shown in Figure 2.1.

The Project Area follows the Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way (Metro ROW) along a 4.5-mile north-south corridor from the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Metro Green Line Station to the Torrance Transit Park and Ride Regional Terminal (referred to as the Torrance Transit Center (TC) in this report, which is a separate project being constructed by the City of Torrance.) The Project Area includes portions of the cities of Lawndale, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. The boundaries of the Project Area form roughly a one-mile buffer around the Metro ROW, with the borders generally following city limits and/or major roadways. A one-mile buffer is generally the size of area in which potential benefits, effects, and ridership of a major transportation project are likely to be focused. The planned South Bay Regional Intermodal Transit Center (referred to as the Redondo Beach TC in this report) is also located within the Project Area in Redondo Beach. The Redondo Beach TC is a separate project being planned by the City of Redondo Beach.

The Project Area currently faces a number of interrelated land use and transportation issues. Major arterial roadways are congested throughout much of the day. Consequently, bus routes in the South Bay experience slow travel speeds and a high variation in travel times. There are numerous transit operators in the Project Area, but poor connections between local and regional systems. Additionally, there is a lack of high-quality, frequent transit services that connect to key destinations and employment centers locally and outside the Project Area. A more convenient and reliable connection between the Metro rail system and South Bay communities would reduce transit travel times and provide a viable alternative to driving.

The main purpose of the proposed improvements is to provide a reliable, high-frequency transit service and improve mobility in southwestern Los Angeles County by enhancing the regional transit network in the South Bay. Metro aims to provide more direct connections to regional destinations and between key transit hubs/routes; provide an alternative mode of transportation for commuters who currently use congested arterial roadways and freeways; improve transit accessibility and connectivity for residents of communities along the corridor; and encourage a mode shift to transit, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Page 2-1 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.1. Project Area

Source: STV, Metro, 2018

Page 2-2 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.1. PROJECT HISTORY

Metro purchased the Harbor Subdivision from the precursor to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway in the early 1990s. It currently carries limited freight traffic through the Project Area. A number of studies have been completed over the past 30 years examining the potential for transit service along all or portions of the Harbor Subdivision. The most recent studies are described below. Chapter 3 describes the development of alternatives from 2009 to present in greater detail.  Metro Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis (AA) Study (2009) – Metro completed an AA study evaluating various transit options for the Harbor Subdivision in 2009. The study included alignment options utilizing the 26-mile Metro- owned Harbor Subdivision right-of-way (Metro ROW) between downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as various modal options such as LRT, bus rapid transit (BRT), self-propelled railcar, electric multiple unit vehicles, and commuter rail transit. More details about other modes and alternatives examined in the AA are found in Appendix A. The Green Line Extension to the Torrance TC emerged as the highest-priority project, with LRT as the preferred mode. In December 2009, the Metro Board of Directors approved the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.  South Bay Metro Green Line Extension Draft EIS/EIR (2010 to 2014) – Metro held scoping meetings for the South Bay Metro Green Line Extension EIS/EIR in 2010, and began conducting environmental analysis on the alternatives recommended in the 2009 AA. Several alternatives and alignment options were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR, but they were rejected from further study for a number of reasons. Alternatives and options rejected from further study included the Freight Track Alternative, several LRT alignment options, and several maintenance facility options. Refer to Appendix A for more details. After the failure of Measure J in November 2012, the project was put on hold because of uncertainty over funding.  Green Line Extension to Torrance SAA (Spring 2017 to Present) – Measure M was passed in November 2016, which provided an additional source of funding for the project. In spring 2017, Metro reinitiated the project with this SAA, which renamed the project as the Green Line Extension to Torrance Project. With the elimination of the Freight Track Alternative in 2011, the Project Area was reduced to focus on the area potentially affected by the LRT Alternative. The revised Project Area boundaries focus on the 4.5-mile segment of the Metro ROW from the existing Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to the proposed Torrance TC. This SAA study focuses on soliciting feedback from corridor cities and stakeholders to refine and update alternatives previously identified in the 2009 AA and 2010-2014 Draft EIS/EIR. Its goal is to gain consensus on revised alternatives for the Proposed Project, ultimately leading to presentation to and approval by the Metro Board of a path forward.

Page 2-3 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.2. PROJECT AREA OVERVIEW

2.2.1. Metro ROW Characteristics

The majority of the Metro ROW is between 70 and 100 feet wide in the Project Area, which would accommodate the construction of two new LRT tracks in addition to the existing freight tracks. In the south end of the Project Area in Torrance, from approximately 190th Street to Crenshaw Boulevard, the Metro-owned ROW is only approximately 15 feet wide. Within the Project Area, the Metro ROW crosses multiple streets, with eight existing at-grade railroad crossings (shown in Figure 2.2), located at Inglewood Avenue, Manhattan Beach Boulevard, 159th Street, 160th Street, 161st Street, 162nd Street, 170th Street, and 182nd Street. The remaining street crossings are grade separated from the existing railroad tracks in the Metro ROW.

Page 2-4 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.2. Existing At-Grade Crossings in Project Area

Source: STV, Metro, 2018

Page 2-5 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.2.2. Project Area Freeways / Arterials

The Project Area is served by extensive freeway and arterial roadway systems, as shown in Figure 2.1. Interstate 405 (I-405) runs north-south through the entire Project Area east of the Metro ROW, State Route (SR) 91 bisects the Project Area in an east-west direction along Artesia Boulevard, and SR-107 (Hawthorne Boulevard) runs north-south through the Project Area in Lawndale and Torrance. Major arterial roadways in the Project Area are generally located one mile apart and include the following:

East-West North-South  Rosecrans Avenue  Aviation Boulevard  Manhattan Beach Boulevard  Inglewood Avenue  Artesia Boulevard  Anza Avenue  190th Street  Hawthorne Boulevard  Del Amo Boulevard  Prairie Avenue  Torrance Boulevard  Madrona Avenue  Crenshaw Boulevard  Van Ness Avenue

2.2.3. Project Area Transit Network

Local bus service is the predominant form of transit in the Project Area, with some express and rapid buses offering limited service throughout the Project Area. Transit service providers within the Project Area include Metro and five municipal bus operators: Beach Cities Transit, Torrance Transit, Lawndale BEAT, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and Gardena Transit (GTrans). Figure 2.3 shows the existing transit service network in the Project Area, and Table 2.1 describes the routes.

Page 2-6 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.3. Project Area – Existing Transit Network

Source: STV, Metro, Municipal Bus Operators, 2018

Page 2-7 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Table 2.1. AM Peak Period Average Transit Speeds – Key Project Area Transit Lines

Peak Hour Operator and Route Route Headways Metro Green Line Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to Norwalk Station, via Metro ROW 15 min Metro 710 South Bay Galleria to Wilshire/Western Station, via Redondo Beach Boulevard 15 min Metro 740 South Bay Galleria to Expo Crenshaw Station, via Hawthorne Boulevard 21 min Metro 40 South Bay Galleria to Downtown Los Angeles, via Hawthorne Boulevard 17 min Metro 125 Plaza El Segundo to Norwalk Station, via Rosecrans Avenue 32 min Metro 126 Hawthorne Station to Manhattan Beach, via Manhattan Boulevard 65 min Metro 130 South Bay Galleria to Cerritos, via Artesia Boulevard 42 min Metro 210 South Bay Galleria to Hollywood/Vine Station, via Crenshaw Boulevard 20 min Metro 211/215 Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to South Bay Galleria, via Prairie Avenue 41 min Metro 344 Harbor Gateway Center to Palos Verdes, via Hawthorne Boulevard 36 min Beach Cities Transit Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to Redondo Beach Pier, via Hawthorne 30 min 102 Boulevard Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to Downtown Los Angeles, via Manhattan GTrans 1X 40 min Beach Boulevard South Bay Galleria to Martin Luther King, Jr. Transit Center at Compton GTrans 3 20 min Station, via Redondo Beach Boulevard GTrans 4 Lawndale to Harbor Gateway Transit Center, via Hawthorne Boulevard 52 min Lawndale BEAT Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to South Bay Galleria, via Prairie Avenue 40 min Express LADOT Commuter Space Park/Aviation to Sylmar Metrolink Station, via Aviation Blvd 60 min Express 574 Torrance 1 Del Amo Fashion Center to Harbor Freeway Station, via Torrance Boulevard 41 min Torrance 2 Del Amo Fashion Center to Harbor Freeway Station, via Anza Avenue 65 min Torrance 3 Redondo Beach Pier to Downtown Long Beach, via Carson Street 24 min Torrance Rapid 3 Redondo Beach Pier to Downtown Long Beach, via Carson Street 47 min Torrance 4 Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles, via Torrance Boulevard 95 min Torrance 5 Torrance Airport to Crenshaw Station, via Van Ness Avenue 57 min Torrance 6 Del Amo Fashion Center to Artesia Station, via Torrance Boulevard 46 min Torrance 8 Del Amo Mall to LAX Transit Center, via Aviation Boulevard 30 min Torrance 10 Torrance Airport to Crenshaw Station, via Crenshaw Boulevard 56 min Source: STV, Metro, Municipal Bus Operators, 2018

Page 2-8 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Related projects within and near the Project Area include:  Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project: a new light rail line opening in 2019 which would link the South Bay to LAX, destinations in Inglewood, and Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles via the Metro Expo Line.  Airport Metro Connector 96th Street Transit Center Project (AMC): a planned station on the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, opening in 2023, which would allow for transfers between Metro Rail and the APM.  LAWA Automated People Mover (APM): Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is constructing an APM, scheduled to open in 2023, which would connect Metro Rail to terminals and other airport facilities.  Redondo Beach TC: a transit center planned by the City of Redondo Beach, which would serve as a regional bus hub and potentially connect to the Proposed Project.  Torrance TC: a transit center under-construction by the City of Torrance. It would link Metro Rail to points beyond its proposed terminus via bus lines.

These projects as well as other related projects within the region are shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4. Related Projects

Source: STV, Metro, 2018

Page 2-9 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.3. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 shows the population and employment for 2012 (actual) and 2040 (projected) for the Project Area and urban Los Angeles County (excluding the County’s sparsely developed mountainous western and northern areas). Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 show the population and employment density, respectively. As shown in the table, the Project Area has high concentrations of both housing and jobs, with over 101,000 residents and over 58,000 jobs in 2012. Within the Project Area, Lawndale and Redondo Beach have 50% more residents than jobs, with jobs mostly clustered around the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and South Bay Galleria areas. Torrance has about the same number of residents as jobs throughout the Project Area, with employment concentrated around the Del Amo Fashion Center and Old Town Torrance areas.

According to the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), population and employment within the Project Area are projected to grow by 8% and 21%, respectively, by 2040. The residential and employment densities are currently higher than those of urban Los Angeles County. This, combined with projected rates of growth in the Project Area, suggest an increasing need for mobility options to meet future transportation demand.

Table 2.2. Project Area Population – 2012 and 2040 Year 2012 Year 2040 Area Area Density Density % Change (mi2) Population Population (People/ mi2) (People/mi2) Project Area 10.8 101,606 9,391 109,946 10,161 8% Urban LA County 1,283 9,173,616 7,150 10,431,500 8,130 14% Source: STV, AECOM, Metro, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2018

Table 2.3. Project Area Employment – 2012 and 2040 Year 2012 Year 2040 Area Area Density Density % Change (mi2) Employment Employment (Jobs/mi2) (Jobs/mi2) Project Area 10.8 58,442 5,401 70,681 6,532 21% Urban LA County 1,283 3,994,721 3,114 4,865,508 3,793 22% Source: STV, AECOM, Metro, SCAG, 2018

Page 2-10 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.5. Population Density – 2012

Source: STV, Metro, AECOM, 2018

Page 2-11 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.6. Employment Density – 2012

Source: STV, Metro, AECOM, 2018

Page 2-12 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.4. LAND USES AND ACTIVITY CENTERS

Existing land uses for the Project Area are described in Table 2.4 and shown in Figure 2.7. As shown in Table 2.4, residential uses comprise nearly one-half of the Project Area, with about 30% of the Project Area containing single-family residences. These are mostly concentrated within the cities of Lawndale and Redondo Beach, with residential neighborhoods directly abutting the existing Metro ROW. There are some medium- to high-density residences, mostly located in Redondo Beach. Commercial uses comprise approximately 14% of the Project Area, and are concentrated at the north end of the Project Area near the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, around the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach, and along the length of Hawthorne Boulevard. A quarter of the Project Area is industrial, most of which is located within Torrance, with the largest use being the Torrance Refinery, which is directly adjacent to the existing Metro ROW.

Table 2.4. Existing Land Uses within Project Area

Space / Density

Land Use Density - - Other Vacant Utilities Industrial Recreation Mixed Use Residential Residential Institutions Commercial Low High Open Transportation / Public Facilities / Percent of 29% 15% 14% 25% 7% 4% 1% 3% 1% 1% Project Area Source: STV, SCAG, 2018

There are multiple major activity centers within and adjacent to the Project Area. They include, from north to south: LAX, employment centers in El Segundo and Inglewood, the South Bay Galleria and Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center in Redondo Beach, and the Del Amo Fashion Center, Old Town Torrance, and other commercial and industrial centers in Torrance.

Overall, the presence of major regional commercial and industrial centers along with projected population growth indicate opportunities for providing high-capacity and more reliable transit service within the Project Area.

Page 2-13 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.7. Land Uses

Source: STV, Metro, SCAG, 2018

Page 2-14 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.5. TRAVEL MARKETS

There are four major travel markets in and around the Project Area based on an analysis of travel patterns:  I-405 Corridor Travel Market – This regional travel market includes medium to long distance commute trips within the South Bay, to other regions in Los Angeles County, and to Orange County. Between LAX and Long Beach, the Metro ROW generally parallels the I- 405 freeway, where there is currently no regional transit service between the south end of the Project Area and LAX.  South Bay North-South Local Travel Market – This local north-south travel market generally serves trips between Torrance and LAX. This travel market overlaps with the I- 405 Corridor, but it is treated separately because the trips use major north-south arterial roadways instead of the freeway. These local trip distances are shorter compared to trips using I-405.  South Bay Regional Travel Market – This regional travel market includes trips between the South Bay, downtown Los Angeles, and points further to the north and east.  LAX Travel Market – This travel market includes trips to and from LAX throughout the Los Angeles Basin. According to LAWA, LAX served over 80 million passengers in 2017, and is home to tens of thousands of jobs. The number of passengers is expected to increase by up to 100 million annual passengers by 2040, according to SCAG. The majority of passengers access the airport via automobile, as there are currently gaps in local and regional transit connections to LAX.

A preliminary travel market analysis was conducted, showing that existing travel patterns suggest a strong demand for transit service in the Project Area. The analysis showed there are approximately 500,000 trips that start from within the Project Area in the morning peak period. Only one-third of these trips stay within the Project Area, with more people traveling towards the southern part of the Project Area during the morning peak period. This is likely due to the higher concentration of jobs in the central and southern Project Area around the South Bay Galleria, Del Amo Fashion Center, and commercial and industrial areas of Torrance.

Out of the total number of trips that start within the Project Area, the majority (over 310,000) are destined for locations outside of the Project Area throughout the rest of Los Angeles County. Additionally, nearly 400,000 trips enter the Project Area during the morning peak period. Overall, this indicates a robust regional trip market. Evening peak period trips are typically the reverse of morning trips, as travelers head home after work.

Page 2-15 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.6. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Highway and Arterial System Performance

For years, the Los Angeles metropolitan area has been ranked among the most traffic congested areas in the country; according to the most recent Texas Transportation Institute in 2015 Urban Mobility Report, the Los Angeles area was ranked second worst in the country for congestion. The freeways and arterial roadways within the Project Area are no exception to the region’s congested conditions. The I-405 freeway experiences high traffic volumes not only during peak commute periods (as shown in Figure 2.8), but also throughout the day, as it provides access to LAX and other regional destinations with large amounts of activity during non-traditional peak travel hours. Major arterial roadways in the Project Area also experience heavy peak period traffic and congestion (as shown in Figure 2.8). Table 2.5 shows the projected changes in PM peak period congestion and speed from 2012 to 2040 for the I-405 freeway and key arterials in the study area (evening roadway performance is typically worse than in the morning). Travel time is projected to increase on the major arterials within the Project Area, with the greatest deterioration occurring on the I-405 freeway; the change in PM peak period speeds is shown in Table 2.5.

Figure 2.8. Peak Period Congestion in Project Area

Left: I-405 looking north (Lawndale) Right: Manhattan Beach Boulevard looking west towards Inglewood Avenue (Lawndale) Source: STV, 2018

Page 2-16 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Table 2.5. PM Peak Period Performance of Key Project Area Roadways – 2012 and 2040 2012 2040 % Change Travel Travel Roadway Segment Direction Speed Speed Travel Time Time Speed (mph) (mph) Time (Min:Sec) (Min:Sec)

Century Blvd to EB 14:27 32 16:12 29 12.1% -10.8% I-405 Western Ave WB 16:48 28 17:51 27 6.2% -5.9%

Sepulveda Lincoln Blvd to NB 16:34 20 16:42 20 0.8% -0.8% Blvd Artesia Blvd SB 17:12 19 17:29 19 1.7% -1.7%

Aviation Rosecrans Ave to NB 08:44 19 08:45 19 0.1% -0.1% Blvd Pacific Coast Hwy SB 08:55 18 08:56 18 0.2% -0.2%

Inglewood Century Blvd to NB 16:33 18 16:42 18 0.9% -0.9% Ave 190th St SB 16:48 18 16:50 18 0.1% -0.1%

Hawthorne Century Blvd to NB 23:58 21 24:20 20 1.5% -1.5% Blvd Sepulveda Blvd SB 23:47 21 24:05 21 1.2% -1.2%

Crenshaw I-405 to NB 09:26 19 09:33 18 1.2% -1.2% Blvd Sepulveda Blvd SB 09:23 19 09:27 19 0.8% -0.8%

Rosecrans Sepulveda Ave to EB 05:19 16 05:19 16 0.1% -0.1% Ave I-405 WB 04:51 18 04:53 18 0.6% -0.6%

Sepulveda Blvd to EB 08:31 21 08:42 21 2.1% -2.0% Artesia Blvd I-405 WB 08:39 21 08:39 21 0.0% 0.0%

Prospect Ave to EB 12:28 21 12:44 21 2.2% -2.2% 190th St Western Ave WB 11:56 22 12:12 21 2.2% -2.2% Source: STV, AECOM, Metro, 2018

Increased congestion and reduced speeds will increase the vehicle delay throughout the Project Area. The performance of roadway segments can be described based on level-of- service (LOS), which is a measurement of how much traffic the street is carrying versus what the street is designed to accommodate. A letter ranging from A (free-flow operations) to F (congested operations) is assigned to the resulting LOS. Many arterial roadways within the Project Area currently operate at LOS E or F, and they are also expected to operate at the same poor levels of E or F by 2040, shown in Figure 2.9. Some of the roadway segments that are projected to operate at LOS E or F in 2040 include I-405 throughout the entire Project Area, and portions of Inglewood Avenue, Artesia Boulevard, Redondo Beach Boulevard, and Hawthorne Boulevard.

Page 2-17 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Figure 2.9. Roadways with PM Peak LOS E or F (2040)

Source: STV, AECOM, Metro, 2018

Page 2-18 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

Transit System Performance

The Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, which is the current southern terminus of the Metro Green Line, has over 2,200 daily combined boardings and alightings. There are several Metro bus routes with high ridership in the Project Area, such as Metro Route 40 on Hawthorne Boulevard, which carries an average of over 20,000 riders daily. However, the rest of the Project Area is served by municipal transit systems, many of which offer connections to the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station, but serve smaller service areas. Table 2.1 shows the existing peak hour headways and travel times of major bus routes throughout the Project Area.

The municipal bus systems within the Project Area typically operate only within and/or just outside city limits, although some Torrance Transit lines provide limited express service to destinations such as downtown Los Angeles. Additionally, the municipal systems in the Project Area tend to have long headways of 30 to 45 minutes (e.g., Beach Cities Transit) or run limited peak hour service during weekdays. Some municipal transit routes provide services throughout the day on weekends only (e.g. Lawndale BEAT). Because of the limited coverage and operating hours of municipal transit systems within the Project Area, transfers between lines are necessary, as well as difficult, for riders who are traversing multiple South Bay communities. Table 2.6 displays travel times by transit and by driving between six sample origin and destination points within the Project Area and to other regional destinations.

Table 2.6. Existing Transit Travel Times for Select Trips in the Project Area Difference Difference Transit Driving Distance Required Between Between Origin Destination Travel Travel Time (miles) Transfers Transit and Transit and Time (min) (min) Driving (min) Driving (%) Bartlett Senior Citizens LAX City Bus 11 1 79 22 57 260 % Center Center (Torrance) Torrance City Space 6 1 63 15 +23 to 49 320% Hall Park/Aviation Del Amo Redondo Fashion Beach City 4 1 42 12 +33 to 44 250% Center Hall South Bay Old Town 5 1 39 14 +16 to 39 178% Galleria Torrance Del Amo Lawndale City Fashion 4 1 31 15 +9 to 32 107% Hall Center LAX City Bus Lawndale 7 1 56 15 +5 to 28 260% Center Source: Google Maps, 2018

Long transit travel times make transit a less favorable mode of travel, and the projected increase in congestion will further exacerbate this mobility issue.

Page 2-19 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.7. PROJECT NEED

The Project Area currently faces a number of interrelated land use and transportation issues. Due to highly congested traffic conditions on many of the arterial roadways during peak hours, bus routes in the South Bay experience slow travel speeds and variable travel times. There is a lack of connectivity between local bus routes in the Project Area to the regional transit system and to major activity centers. Multiple transfers are often necessary between local and regional bus routes, which creates a poor rider experience and increases overall trip time. For most riders traveling from within the Project Area to regional destinations such as LAX or downtown Los Angeles, transit is simply not an efficient or reliable mode. The transportation problem in the Project Area is summarized below.  Heavy Traffic Congestion – In the Project Area and much of the rest of Los Angeles County, growth in traffic volumes has outpaced available roadway capacity. While High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on the I-405 freeway provide reduced travel times for carpools, mainline freeway lanes are subject to congestion throughout the day. The Project Area arterial roadways also perform poorly during the morning and evening commute peak hours. According to the 2016 SCAG RTC/SCS, the regional average daily person-hours of delay on arterials, freeways, expressways and high occupancy vehicle lanes in SCAG counties is expected to increase by more than 50 percent from 3.6 to 5.4 million hours between 2012 and 2040.  Poor Transit Travel Times and Schedule Reliability – Limited coverage of bus routes and infrequent service increase travel times and often necessitate transfers between lines, adding additional challenges for riders. While this issue could be addressed by improving frequency of service, bus travel speeds are ultimately constrained by prevailing roadway traffic conditions in the Project Area. With local arterial roadway and freeway performance expected to deteriorate in the future, transit travel times are expected to increase through 2040 and transit on-time performance is anticipated to be less reliable through 2040.  Poor Regional Transit Connections –There are six transit operators serving the Project Area, but many of the municipal routes operate with limited frequency or are community circulators, and they do not serve the demand for regional transit service. Transferring between the multiple municipal services can also be challenging and confusing for riders, because of poor schedule coordination and differences in fares.  Poor Transit Connections to Major Activity Centers – Several major activity centers are located in the Project Area, including regional commercial destinations such as the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach. These activity centers attract trips from communities within the Project Area as well as the broader region, but transit accessibility to these centers is poor.

Page 2-20 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 2. Purpose and Need

2.8. PROJECT PURPOSE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The previous 2009 AA Study defined objectives for the project, with a focus on mobility improvements. This SAA builds upon and refines the previous study’s objectives and evaluation criteria. The goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria are shown in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7. Project Goals, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria Project Goals Project Objective Evaluation Criteria  Introduce high-frequency transit service options  Travel Time/Reliability  Enhance and connect with the regional transit network  System Connectivity  Provide an alternative mode of transportation for  Ridership 1. Improve Mobility commuters, and serve local and regional trips  Encourage a mode shift to transit  Change in VMT  Improve transit accessibility for residents of  Accessibility communities along the corridor  Minimize negative environmental and community  Environmental topics 2. Minimize Environmental Impacts effects  Provide environmental and community benefits  Environmental topics  Capital Costs 3. Ensure Cost Effectiveness and  Ensure costs are financially feasible  Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs Financial Feasibility  Financial Feasibility  Provide a cost-effective project  Cost Per Rider  Serve major activity centers and regional destinations  Accessibility 4. Support Local and Regional Land Use  Support and is consistent with local and regional plans  Land Use Consistency Plans and Policies  Support and encourage opportunities for local  Economic and Fiscal Effects economic development, projects, plans, and jobs  Provide benefits to transit-dependent and minority 5. Ensure Equity  Environmental Justice populations

Page 2-21 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 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 3-1 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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.

Page 3-2 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.1. 2009 AA Phased Implementation of Recommended Build Alternative

Source: STV, Metro, 2009

Page 3-3 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-4 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.2. Light Rail Alternative, 2010-2012 Environmental Analysis

Source: STV, 2013

Page 3-5 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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  Torrance Chamber of Commerce 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  Pedestrian wayfinding and station major destinations 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 3-6 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-7 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.3. SAA Project Area and Build Alternatives

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-8 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-9 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.4. No Build Alternative – Overview

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-10 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-11 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.5. No Build Alternative – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-12 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-13 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-14 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.6. Alternative 1 – ROW Overcrossing – Overview

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-15 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-16 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

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 3-17 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

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 3-18 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-19 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-20 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.10. Alternatives 1 and 2 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-21 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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

Weekday Headway for LRT Extension

24

18

12

Headway (min) Headway 6

Late NightLate NightLate AM Peak Mid-Day PM Peak Evening NightLate 0 12:00 AM 6:00 AM 12:00 PM 6:00 PM 12:00 AM Time

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.

Page 3-22 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-23 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-24 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.13. Alternative 2 – ROW Undercrossing – Overview

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-25 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

Page 3-26 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-27 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-28 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-29 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.15. Alternative 3 – Hawthorne to 190th – Overview

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-30 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-31 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.16. Alternative 3 Typical Cross-Section, 166th Street to Artesia Boulevard

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

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

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

Page 3-32 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-33 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-34 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.18. Alternative 3 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-35 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-36 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-37 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.20. Alternative 4 – Hawthorne to Artesia – Overview

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-38 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

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 3-39 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.22. Alternative 4 Typical Cross-Section, Artesia Boulevard

Source: STV, Cityworks Design, 2018

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 3-40 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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 3-41 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 2 Figure 3.23. Alternative 4 – Operating Plan (2040)

Source: STV, 2018

Page 3-42 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 3. Definition of Alternatives 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.

Page 3-43 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

4.1.1. Evaluation Criteria

The SAA evaluation methodology consists of a comparative performance evaluation of the four Build Alternatives defined in Chapter 3. The Build Alternatives are compared against one another using evaluation criteria which are reflective of the overall Purpose and Need Statement and measure the Build Alternatives’ ability to address project goals as defined in Chapter 2. The evaluation criteria described in Chapter 2 have been grouped by project goal.

Community input is not an evaluation criterion, but it is an important factor in the decision- making process, as it takes into account public and stakeholder preferences and concerns regarding the project and its alternatives. Chapter 5 summarizes the types of community outreach performed as part of developing this SAA, as well as the public input received through open houses and other outreach activities. All public comments received are summarized in Appendix B: Public and Agency Outreach.

Goal 1: Improve Mobility

Goal 1includes evaluation criteria that measure potential improvements to the regional transportation system. The evaluation criteria in this category are as follows:  Travel Time/Reliability: introduce high-frequency transit service options  System Connectivity: provide high quality connections to transportation hubs and existing or planned transit lines  Ridership: change in ridership as a result of the Proposed Project  Change in VMT: encourage a mode shift to transit, reducing VMT  Accessibility: improve accessibility to transit and provide more direct connections to regional destinations

Page 4-1 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Goal 2: Minimize Environmental Impacts

There would be potential environmental benefits and effects associated with implementing a new transit service. The alternatives are evaluated based on the following environmental topics which serve as the evaluation criteria for Goal 2.  Air Quality  Climate Change  Communities and Neighborhoods  Construction Effects  Cumulative Effects  Displacement and Relocations  Ecosystems and Biological Resources  Energy  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Growth-Inducing Effects  Hazardous Materials and Waste  Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resources  Noise and Vibration  Parklands and Community Facilities  Safety and Security  Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)  Transportation  Visual Resources and Aesthetics  Water Resources

Goal 3: Ensure Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility

Goal 3 includes evaluation criteria that measure and compare the relative costs and benefits of each Build Alternative. The evaluation criteria in this category are as follows:  Capital Costs: costs related to design and construction of the Proposed Project, including elements such as guideways, vehicles, and support system facilities  Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs: costs associated with the day-to-day operations of the transit system including labor, vehicle maintenance, fuel, and parts/supplies  Cost Per Rider: annualized costs divided by annual ridership  Financial Feasibility: Availability of funding sources to carry out all construction phases

Page 4-2 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Goal 4: Support Local and Regional Land Use Plans and Policies

Goal 4 analyzes the relationship between the alternatives and their surrounding contexts, in addition to the land use plans of local and regional agencies to determine the Proposed Project’s compatibility with its potential surroundings. Its evaluation criteria include:  Accessibility: improve accessibility to transit and provide more direct connections to regional destinations (also evaluated under Goal 1: Improve Mobility)  Land Use Consistency: consistency with existing land use plans and the potential to add a new physical barrier to existing communities  Economic and Fiscal Effects: short-term economic effects of construction and long-term economic development potential as a result of adding LRT service

Goal 5: Ensure Equity

Goal 5 identifies the location of socioeconomically disadvantaged populations near the Proposed Project. This goal is designed to prepare a basis for analyzing potential disproportionately high and adverse effects from the Proposed Project on environmental justice (EJ) communities, defined as populations over 50 percent minority, low-income, or limited English proficiency (LEP). This analysis complies with federal and state law and guidance to ensure disadvantaged populations are able to participate in the benefits of public projects. The SAA identifies the location of EJ communities, and a full analysis of any disproportionately high and adverse effects would occur in the next phase of the project.

4.1.2. Rating System

The alternatives were evaluated based on the evaluation criteria described above, and an overall score was determined for each of the project goals. As described previously, Community input was not scored, but it was taken into consideration throughout the decision-making process and summarized in Chapter 5. The scores are represented with Harvey Balls as shown in Table 4.1. An empty Harvey Ball represents the lowest performance, in terms of the alternative’s ability to meet the Proposed Project’s goals and objectives, while a full Harvey Ball represents the highest performance.

Table 4.1. Evaluation Rating System Low Performance Medium Performance High Performance Rating ○ ◑ ●

After the alternatives were assigned Harvey Ball scores for each of the project goals, the scores were summarized and an overall score (based on the “low”, “medium”, and “high” ratings) was assigned to each alternative. No weighting was applied to the results.

Page 4-3 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.2. GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY

This section describes the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria identified for Goal 1: Improve Mobility.

4.2.1. Travel Time/Reliability

Travel time and reliability are important factors in determining the performance of a new transit investment. Short travel times and reliable frequency of service may encourage a shift to transit. Travel times for each alternative are illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1. Travel Times by Alternative

Source: STV, 2018

All Build Alternatives would operate with the same headways (assumed to be 6 minutes during peak hours in 2040). Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the shortest travel times and highest reliability, as they would operate within the dedicated Metro ROW and would not be delayed by any at-grade crossings (which would be gated). Alternative 4 would have a similar level of travel time reliability as 1 and 2, as it would be on an aerial structure along I-405 and Hawthorne, Redondo Beach, and Artesia Boulevards and would be within dedicated Metro ROW otherwise. However, the travel time of Alternative 4 would be higher due to the extra distance traveled along Redondo Beach Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard to reconnect with the Metro ROW from Hawthorne Boulevard.

Alternative 3 would have the longest travel time and lowest reliability due to variable travel times in the at-grade part of the alignment along Hawthorne Boulevard. In this segment, there would not be crossing gates or signal preemption at the signalized intersections, and therefore the trains would wait for east-west cross-traffic for variable amounts of time.

Page 4-4 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.2.2. System Connectivity

Poor connections to transit has been identified as a transportation deficiency in the Project Area. Alternatives that provide connections to transportation hubs and existing or planned transit lines can greatly improve mobility throughout the region.

All Build Alternatives would serve the proposed Torrance TC, and would allow for a connection north to LAX and the Metro Expo Line, once the Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project is completed. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would serve the planned Redondo Beach TC, but Alternative 3 would not connect to the proposed transit hub. Figure 4.2 displays the proposed alternatives as they relate to the existing transit network and planned transit centers.

While many of the same lines are expected to serve both the proposed South Bay Galleria Station and the proposed Redondo Beach TC Station, the latter would offer advantages for transfers. The station at Redondo Beach TC would offer more comfortable amenities for transferring passengers such as a passenger waiting area, public restrooms, and an information center. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would serve the Redondo Beach TC, while Alternative 3 would not.

Page 4-5 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Figure 4.2. Anticipated System Connectivity (2040)

Source: AECOM, STV, Metro, Municipal Bus Operators, 2018

Page 4-6 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.2.3. Ridership

Ridership estimates predict how many people would use the LRT service provided by an alternative, and if people might use the new transit investment instead of a private vehicle. The SAA estimates are derived from a holistic regional transportation model called the Metro Travel Demand Model, which was updated with land use and trip table data from the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS. This model projected ridership based on socioeconomic and transportation characteristics, the market share of various transportation modes, and the routing of trips in the Project Area over the highway and transit networks.

The version of the Metro model used for this study was validated regionally as part of recent studies, including the Crenshaw/LAX Northern Extension Feasibility Study and the Los Angeles and San Bernardino Inter-County Transit and Rail Connectivity Study. The Project Area transit routes and corridor level transit boarding comparisons were estimated based on observed boardings from 2011 Metro surveys and 2012 Metro ridership statistics.

Figure 4.3 displays projected daily ridership on the extension, between Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and the Torrance TC Station. While travel times for Alternatives 3 and 4 are projected to be longer, they would provide service to more key destinations and to a greater pool of residents living along the Hawthorne Boulevard commercial corridor. Nevertheless, the difference in ridership between Alternatives 3 and 4 compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 is very small, at about 3%.

Figure 4.3. Daily Ridership

Source: AECOM, 2017; STV, 2018

Page 4-7 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Ridership projections also measure how many new riders are expected to use the Proposed Project instead of a private automobile. New riders per Build Alternative are displayed in Table 4.2. While Alternative 3 would have more total riders as shown in Figure 4.3, it would attract fewer total new riders to using transit. This is due to the expected use of the Proposed Project under Alternative 3 by existing riders of bus lines along Hawthorne Boulevard. These riders already use public transit and as a result, Alternative 3 would attract fewer total new riders. However, ridership projections are still generally similar across Build Alternatives.

Table 4.2. New Riders Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 New Riders (Daily) 4,570 4,570 4,400 4,590 New Riders (Annual) 1.45 million 1.45 million 1.40 million 1.46 million Source: AECOM, 2017; STV, 2018

4.2.4. Change in VMT

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the number of miles driven by all cars within an area daily. A change in VMT is closely related to ridership projections and can be used to determine the effect of a new transportation investment on the use of private vehicles in a given area. Reductions in VMT generally are a result of people switching from driving to transit. Therefore, alternatives that attract more new riders would result in greater reductions in VMT. Anticipated reductions in daily VMT for all Build Alternatives, compared to the No Build Alternative, are displayed in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4. Change in VMT (Daily) by Alternative

Source: AECOM, 2017; STV, 2018

Page 4-8 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Based on anticipated ridership projections as discussed in Section 4.2.3, all Build Alternatives are expected to result in a reduction in VMT compared to the No Build Alternative. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 are expected to have very similar reductions in VMT. Alternative 3 is expected to have the lowest reduction in VMT. This is due to more of the projected ridership on Alternative 3 being from existing transit riders who have shifted from using buses along Hawthorne Boulevard to using the new LRT service, as opposed to new riders who would be shifting from private vehicle use to transit use (which is more prevalent for Alternatives 1, 2, and 4).

4.2.5. Accessibility

Improving transit accessibility is another important system performance criterion. Introducing high-quality transit within the communities along the corridor as well as providing direct connections to key destinations is expected to increase transit ridership. The major destinations served by each Build Alternative and number of residents within a half-mile buffer of proposed station locations are displayed in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5. Access to Transit and to Key Destinations by Alternative

Source: STV, 2018

To compare how the alternatives would perform in regards to providing residents new access points to transit, the population within a half-mile buffer of the proposed station areas was examined. As all alternatives would end at the Torrance TC Station and the population densities around the Redondo Beach TC and South Bay Galleria stations are similar, the only

Page 4-9 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 differentiator between alternatives was the proposed station in the north: Manhattan Beach /Inglewood Station for Alternatives 1 and 2, and Hawthorne Boulevard/166th Station for Alternatives 3 and 4. The analysis showed that nearly twice as many residents live within a half-mile of the proposed Hawthorne Boulevard/166th Station than the Manhattan Beach /Inglewood Station. Therefore, Alternatives 3 and 4 would potentially provide transit access to more residents.

In terms of access to key destinations, Alternatives 1 and 2 would serve the commercial area near the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also accommodate a pathway in the Metro ROW for public use, which would improve the active transportation network in the Project Area and connect to proposed Metro Rail stations.

Alternative 3 would serve a larger commercial corridor along Hawthorne Boulevard from approximately 162nd Street to Artesia Boulevard, as well as the regional commercial center anchored by the South Bay Galleria. Alternative 4 would serve the Hawthorne Boulevard commercial area only between 162nd Street and Artesia Boulevard. Pathways would not be accommodated in the designs for Alternatives 3 or 4.

4.3. GOAL 2: MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section describes the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria identified for Goal 2: Minimize Environmental Impacts, using the topics listed in Section 4.1.1.

This section performs a preliminary analysis of environmental benefits and impacts of the Proposed Project with a high-level analysis that provide a basis of comparison between alternatives. This section helps inform what potential environmental effects could be caused by each of the alternatives being considered. The alternative(s) that emerge from this SAA and that are advanced for the environmental clearance process would undergo more detailed environmental impact analysis consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Several environmental topics examine potential effects within a half-mile or quarter-mile radius of proposed alternatives. Figure 4.6 displays these resource study areas.

Page 4-10 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Figure 4.6. Alternatives and Potential Resource Areas

Source: STV, 2018

Page 4-11 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.1. Air Quality

Overview Air quality is closely tied to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel combustion engines, VMT, and construction-related activity. Airborne pollutants are regulated by various federal, state and regional agencies through implementation of emission standards, ambient air quality thresholds, and regulatory requirements.

Potential Effects Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no short-term increases in emissions as there would be no new construction activities for an extension of LRT service into the South Bay. All Build Alternatives would likely result in short-term, temporary increases in emissions as a result of construction activities (including construction of bridges, retaining walls, stations, tracks, systems, and use of diesel-fueled or gasoline-powered construction equipment and trucks). Potential localized effects include temporary increases in emissions such as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx).

Alternative 1 would likely have the least negative construction-related effects on air quality due to a shorter construction phase and fewer emissions. Alternative 1 is expected to have the shortest construction timeframe because it would not require excavations for a trench as in Alternative 2, and would not require as much roadway preparation and aerial structure construction as in Alternatives 3 and 4.

During operations, potential emissions increases are possible as a result of the increased likelihood of idling vehicles at at-grade crossings. Alternatives 1 and 2 have two at-grade crossings, and Alternative 4 has one at-grade crossing, where increased traffic queuing could occur. Alternative 3 would have six at-grade crossings along Hawthorne Boulevard, but as the existing traffic signal phases are expected to remain the same as existing conditions; cross- traffic queuing is not expected to change substantially. Alternative 3 would also have four crossing closures, which would close access to cross-traffic at locations along Hawthorne Boulevard, though right-turn movements would be allowed. These four crossing closures associated with Alternative 3 could result in traffic rerouting during operation of the project. Though generally similar, Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would likely result in better air quality conditions compared to Alternative 3 due to its high number of at-grade crossings.

Potential Benefits The No Build Alternative would not result in reductions in projected regional VMT. For all Build Alternatives, there would likely be long-term reductions in mobile source emissions as a result of reductions in regional VMT. As shown in Figure 4.4, Alternatives 1 and 2 have the greatest potential daily VMT reductions, and thus are expected to provide the greatest potential environmental benefits from reduced emissions, followed by Alternative 4 and Alternative 3. Refer to Section 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 for additional information on the model used to derive ridership and VMT reduction.

Ambient population growth would result in an increase in VMT under the No Build Alternative. The Proposed Project would provide a benefit compared to the No Build Alternative, by introducing an electric-powered LRT alternative to driving; it would help to

Page 4-12 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 reduce future increases in automobile traffic and related air quality effects from GHG-emitting vehicles.

4.3.2. Climate Change

Overview Climate change is a global environmental issue that refers to any substantial change in measures of climate including temperature, precipitation, or wind which extends for a period (decades or longer) of time. Climate change is a result of both natural factors, such as volcanic eruptions, anthropogenic, or human-made factors including changes in land use and burning of fossil fuels. This section briefly discusses the potential increase in GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed alternatives, and the potential for GHG emissions to cause a cumulatively considerable effect on climate change. These criteria are consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s guidance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines1, and California planning documents designed to evaluate and mitigate climate change effects such as Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375.

Potential Effects Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no new construction or operational activities for an extension of LRT service into the South Bay. For All Build Alternatives, the construction sources for which GHG emissions are calculated include operating diesel-fueled construction equipment and gasoline-powered haul and delivery trucks, which require different levels of use based on the constraints of construction sites. Construction activities for Alternatives 1 and 2 are expected to occur mostly within the existing Metro ROW, while Alternatives 3 and 4 would require more construction in public roadways. Since Alternatives 3 and 4 may face greater ROW constraints within the public roadways during construction, this could create construction scenarios which require longer durations of activity from GHG-emitting construction vehicles, potentially resulting in greater overall GHG emissions. As a result, Alternatives 3 and 4 may have greater effects on climate change during construction.

The project-related operational sources of GHG emissions include indirect emissions from off-site electricity generation required to power the LRT vehicles, as well as the energy demands of the proposed stations. Direct GHG emission sources during operation include regional traffic, station landscaping, motor vehicle emissions associated with transit rider parking activities, and circuit breaker leakage from traction power substations (TPSS).

Under all Build Alternatives, potential increases in GHG emissions from new offsite electricity generation to power trains and supporting systems would likely be offset by the reduction in GHG emissions due to projected reductions in VMT compared to the No Build Alternative. As described in Section 4.3.1, Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely have greater daily VMT reductions compared to Alternatives 3 and 4, as shown in Figure 4.4.

1 Interim California Environmental Quality Act Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008.

Page 4-13 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2

Potential Benefits Ambient population growth would result in an increase in VMT under the No Build Alternative. The Proposed Project would provide a benefit compared to the No Build Alternative, by introducing an electric-powered LRT alternative to driving; it would help to reduce future increases in automobile traffic and related air quality effects from GHG-emitting vehicles.

4.3.3. Communities and Neighborhoods

Overview Transit projects can potentially result in changes to the physical layout of an area, its demographics, land uses, and the sense of neighborhood in communities. A community is defined as a population rooted in one place, where the daily life of each member involves contact with and dependence on other members, whereas a neighborhood is usually a sub- area within a larger community. Communities and neighborhoods can be delineated by physical barriers such as highways, waterways, or open space. This analysis addresses potential changes to communities and neighborhoods by examining division of communities and disruption of access.

Potential Effects Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the residential communities considered are those on either side of the Metro ROW, from approximately Inglewood Avenue to Hawthorne Boulevard. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, residential communities considered are those on either side of Hawthorne Boulevard, from approximately the Metro ROW to Freeman Avenue/Amie Avenue. All residential communities considered in this section are located approximately between Manhattan Beach Boulevard and 190th Street. None of the Build Alternatives are expected to result in a change of demographics in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no potential for new physical barriers as there would not be an extension of LRT service into the South Bay. The existing Metro ROW with its active freight operations currently functions as a physical barrier and would remain under the No Build Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 would utilize the existing ROW, but it would change how the corridor functions by introducing additional trains, potentially increasing the division of the neighborhood. As described in Section 4.3.1, Alternative 3 would include several crossing closures, and has the potential to introduce a physical barrier along Hawthorne Boulevard. Alternative 4 would also travel down Hawthorne Boulevard, as well as Redondo Beach Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard, but as it would be an aerial alignment with no crossing closures, it would likely not introduce new physical barriers that would disrupt access.

Alternative 3 would affect circulation and access for communities and neighborhoods, as a result of the proposed crossing closures that restrict east-west access across Hawthorne Boulevard. The proposed closures would occur at 164th Street (east and west access), 171st Street (west access), 179th Street (east and west access), and 180th Street (east and west access). While right-turn movements would still be allowed, these crossing closures could block access to community assets, including the commercial and retail uses along Hawthorne

Page 4-14 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Boulevard.

Potential Benefits The Proposed Project’s goals and objectives include, among others, enhancing the regional transit network and improving transit accessibility for residents of communities along the corridor. As described in Chapter 3, a potential pedestrian/bicycle pathway could be accommodated along the Metro ROW under Alternatives 1 and 2. This pathway would support the goals of enhancing the regional transit network and improving transit accessibility, as it would connect directly to at least one proposed station. Alternatives 3 and 4 would not include potential pathways.

4.3.4. Construction Effects

Overview Spatial requirements of staging areas and construction-related effects on transportation must be considered in the evaluation of the Proposed Project. For alignments within the Metro ROW, there would generally be enough space to accommodate construction without requiring additional land, and few transportation-related effects on the surrounding community. Construction effects would also depend on the length of the construction staging period and the type of activity required to build certain project elements.

Potential Effects Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no new construction activities for an extension of LRT service into the South Bay. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be located within the existing Metro ROW, where sufficient land is available for construction use throughout most of the corridor. More construction effects may occur near the proposed Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station, as construction activities would involve large workforces and potentially utilize on-street parking for construction activities. Furthermore, construction activities could affect operations of bus routes, such as Metro Line 126 on Manhattan Beach Boulevard, potentially requiring temporary rerouting and relocation of bus stops in the area.

Since large portions of Alternatives 3 and 4 are located within public roadways, temporary ROW may be needed for construction activities. This would likely result in greater negative construction effects compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 due to potential travel lane reconfiguration along Hawthorne Boulevard (and Artesia and Redondo Beach Boulevards under Alternative 4). Additionally, construction along street ROW may require temporary closures of sidewalks and roadways that would potentially affect pedestrian and other active transportation access along Hawthorne Boulevard (and Artesia and Redondo Beach Boulevards under Alternative 4). Construction activities within the public roadways could also result in temporary increased traffic delays, rerouting of bus service (Metro Lines 40, 210, 211/215, and 344, Garden Transit Route 3, Torrance Transit Route 8, and Beach Cities Route 102), and reduced street access for automobiles.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would likely result the widening of the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard south of Artesia Boulevard to accommodate the LRT station and tracks while maintaining a lane configuration similar to existing conditions. Construction activities for this

Page 4-15 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 road widening, which would only occur under Alternative 3, would likely also result in traffic and bus delays in that section of Hawthorne Boulevard during construction.

Finally, as discussed in Section 4.3.1, Alternative 1 would likely have the shortest construction timeframe, at approximately four years. The trench for Alternative 2 would require an additional estimated six months and additional activity for earthmoving, for a total of four and a half years. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require an estimated 4 and a half years and 5 years, respectively, due to the additional aerial structures and preparation of Hawthorne Boulevard for LRT service. Longer construction timeframes may result longer periods of activity which could result in noise or GHG emissions from construction equipment and vehicles.

4.3.5. Cumulative Effects

Overview Cumulative effects refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental considerations. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects; whereas the cumulative effect is the change in the environment from the incremental effect of the Proposed Project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, projects taking place over a period of time.

The Proposed Project is considered in the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, which evaluates potential transportation projects out to the year 2040. The Proposed Project is included in SCAG’s list of projects and environmental analysis.

Potential Effects Other projects in the Project Study Area include the proposed Redondo Beach TC, the planned redevelopment of the South Bay Galleria, and the under-construction Torrance TC. Overall, potential environmental effects that could occur as a result of the Proposed Project would need to be analyzed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects such as these when the project undergoes CEQA/NEPA environmental clearance at a future date. At this time, there is no differentiating factor regarding potential cumulative effects among the Build Alternatives.

Page 4-16 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.6. Displacement and Relocations

Overview Build Alternatives that require limited property acquisitions and relocations would have fewer potential effects over those that may require more substantive land takes and/or relocations. Minimizing acquisitions and relocations helps maintain the existing character of corridor- adjacent communities. This analysis identified parcels that may be affected using a combination of aerial photography, assessor parcel maps and records, and preliminary conceptual engineering drawings of the proposed alignments and stations. Parcel boundaries that touch the proposed alignment and/or stations were considered potentially affected properties. This analysis does not distinguish between full and partial property acquisitions, nor does it distinguish between temporary and permanent acquisitions; this level of analysis would be completed in future environmental documents.

Potential Effects Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no potential for displacements or relocations as there would be no extension of LRT service into the South Bay. Alternatives 1 and 2, which primarily are located within the existing Metro ROW, would have fewer property effects compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. The effects would mainly be focused in station and junction areas, but also would occur along some portions of the Metro ROW where it is constrained. Alternatives 3 and 4, which have large portions located outside the Metro ROW, would require larger amounts of ROW acquisitions from the adjacent commercial, industrial, utility, and residential properties, particularly in the segment along I-405 between Inglewood Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard. Alternative 3 would require ROW acquisitions along Hawthorne Boulevard south of Artesia Boulevard and near 190th Street, while Alternative 4 would require ROW acquisitions along Redondo Beach and Artesia Boulevards.

Furthermore, intersections identified for possible grade separations, such as where Hawthorne Boulevard intersects Redondo Beach and Artesia Boulevards, may also require additional ROW acquisitions. A more detailed grade-separation analysis during future environmental clearance is recommended. Table 4.3 shows the potential parcels affected for each Build Alternative by land use type, while Table 4.4 shows the number of parcels potentially affected by city.

Page 4-17 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Table 4.3. Parcels Potentially Affected Per Build Alternative & Land Use* Land Use Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Parcels affected due to track alignment Commercial 0 0 23 16 Industrial 1 1 5 4 Utility 1 1 1 1 Residential 3 3 4 8 Sub-total 5 5 33 29 Parcels affected due to station location Commercial 1 1 0 1 Industrial 7 7 1 2 Utility 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 8 8 1 3 Total 13 13 34 32 Source: STV, AECOM, Epic Land Solutions, 2018 *This analysis does not distinguish between full and partial property acquisitions or temporary and permanent acquisitions; this level of analysis would be completed in future environmental documents.

Table 4.4. Parcels Potentially Affected Per City* City Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 City of Lawndale 6 6 18 20 City of Redondo Beach 6 6 2 11 City of Torrance 1 1 14 1 Total 13 13 34 32 Source: STV, AECOM, Epic Land Solutions, 2018 *This analysis does not distinguish between full and partial property acquisitions; this level of analysis would be completed in future environmental documents.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar numbers of properties potentially affected, as the majority of parcels potentially affected are located in the segment where their alignments are identical. This identical segment is where the alignment runs parallel to the I-405 freeway between Inglewood Avenue and Hawthorne Boulevard. South of Redondo Beach Boulevard, both alternatives would result in a similar number of property effects, but in different locations. Alternative 4 would affect parcels along Redondo Beach Boulevard due to the proposed track alignment, while Alternative 3 would affect parcels along Hawthorne Boulevard due to the proposed track alignment and road widening to maintain existing lane configurations south of Artesia Boulevard while accommodating new LRT service in the median.

Page 4-18 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.7. Ecosystems and Biological Resources

Overview This section looks at the potential short-term and long-term negative effects to ecosystems and biological resources, such as species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitats or any effects to wetlands protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An ecosystem is defined as the interaction between plants, animals, microorganisms (i.e., biological resources) and the physical environment in which they live, all of which function together as a unit.

Potential Effects All the Build Alternatives would be located within a highly developed and urbanized area, and potential biological resources are limited to a few small parks and vacant parcels. The potential for occurrences of sensitive plant and wildlife species is relatively small because the Project Area is so urbanized. However, the Proposed Project could affect biological resources during construction if any vegetation clearing is required, especially during the breeding season for sensitive wildlife and native birds.

Previous CEQA-related documentation along the corridor has identified the vacant parcels for the planned Torrance TC as the most likely location for potential negative effects on biological resources. However, this transit center is a separate project, with its own CEQA clearance and construction schedule. Construction preparation activities, including site grading, took place at this location in 2017. Metro has coordinated with the City of Torrance to provide land to Metro to jointly mitigate potential biological effects identified in previous environmental analysis at the Torrance TC site, thus reducing the Proposed Project’s potential for negative effects on biological resources.

Given the highly urbanized character of the Project Area, short-term and long-term negative effects to the ecosystem and biological resources are anticipated to be low for all Build Alternatives, and would be able to be addressed with best management practices if needed.

4.3.8. Energy

Overview Energy use for each alternative is made up of a number of components, including stations, vehicle operations, vertical profile changes, and the number of at-grade crossings that could cause stop-and-go scenarios. Determining the effects of transportation energy consumption focuses on conserving energy with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption. Build Alternatives that would potentially result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy; substantially increase the consumption of electricity, natural gas, gasoline, diesel or other non-renewable energy types; place a significant demand on local or regional energy supply; or require substantial additional energy, would result in the greatest potential effects to transportation energy consumption. Potential Effects

Page 4-19 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Alternative 3 would have the most at-grade crossings and vertical profile transitions. These conditions could result in greater energy usage to operate LRT vehicles along this alignment, and more energy consumption effects compared to the other alternatives.

Potential Benefits The operation of electric LRT vehicles could incrementally add to the regional electricity demand, but the Build Alternatives would also remove motor vehicle miles from the region through increased transit ridership compared to the No Build Alternative. This could result in a net savings in operational energy consumption, thus benefitting the region. Section 4.2.4 describes the change in daily VMT per Build Alternative.

4.3.9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

Overview Geology, soils, and seismicity are factors that often determine design criteria for the development of transit improvements, particularly when grade separation structures are involved. Alternatives would have effects if they expose people or structures to negative effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction and landslides.

Potential Effects Within the Project Area, there are no known fault zones; there are a number of faults within a few miles away, with the closest, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately four miles away.2 An earthquake along this fault zone could cause strong ground shaking and associated seismic effects in the Project Area, which could disrupt operations; effects would be equal across all Build Alternatives.

Regarding liquefaction, there is a relatively shallow historical water table near the Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station area that could potentially affect all Build Alternatives. However, it is important to note that liquefaction is not known to have occurred in this area,3 and the soils consist of sands that do not appear to be susceptible; nevertheless, potential negative effects per liquefaction and ground failure (such as lateral spreading) are possible.

Negative effects during construction are also possible across all Build Alternatives in terms of subsidence and setline, notably if soil settlement of earth materials is disturbed or relocated during construction. Additionally, negative effects related to expansive soils during both construction and operation are possible for all Build Alternatives, as the north end of the Project Area is underlain by soils of the Placentia Association, which may contain montmorillonite clay which has a significant expansion potential. Other soil units in the area include clayey or silty horizons that may also have expansive characteristics.

4.3.10. Growth-Inducing Considerations

2 Distances measured from proposed Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station. 3 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2011.

Page 4-20 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Overview Growth-inducing considerations include changes in demographic characteristics within the Project Area as a result of the Proposed Project. This includes examining the indirect consequences, or secondary effects, which may occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the future. Secondary effects may include changes in land use, economic vitality, and population density.

Potential Effects As the Project Area is heavily developed and urbanized, the Build Alternatives would potentially have few growth-inducing effects along their respective corridors. LRT service would not extend into undeveloped areas that could be subject to substantial growth directly as a result of the new LRT service. The existing demographic characteristics would likely not change substantially as the Build Alternatives would not directly or indirectly influence the rate, location, amount, or type of growth within the Project Area.

While the Proposed Project is not anticipated to induce growth on its own, it would be compatible with, and complement, the existing growth plans of local jurisdictions.

4.3.11. Hazardous Waste and Materials

Overview Hazardous waste and materials considerations include current and historical land uses and known or potential hazardous materials release sites. If stations or structures are located within or directly adjacent to areas that are contaminated by hazardous materials, there would be a potential for a negative effect. Potential effects would be analyzed as part of the environmental review phase, and related mitigations would be included in that analysis.

Potential Effects Negative effects are most likely to occur during construction of the Proposed Project, as opposed to operation. All Build Alternatives have the potential to encounter hazardous waste and materials issues during construction. There are numerous historical and current land uses within the Project Area with the potential to create hazards to the public or environment during construction. These land uses include treated wood waste from the existing freight line within the Metro ROW, underground storage tanks from gas stations along Hawthorne Boulevard, underground pipelines that run parallel to and cross the Metro ROW, and various oil and chemical refineries located east of the ROW between 190th Street and the Torrance TC.

Alternative 2 may result in the most potential for encountering hazardous waste and materials due to its excavation requirements to construct the trench segment in the Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station area. This land is in an existing freight corridor, which could have contaminants in the soil. For all Build Alternatives, project-related effects would be analyzed as part of the environmental document to be prepared in the next phase of project development.

4.3.12. Historical, Archeological, and Paleontological Resources

Overview

Page 4-21 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 This section assesses the potential for negative effects on cultural resources, defined below:  Historic Resources: Buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Generally any resource more than 50 years old has the potential to be considered a historic resource.  Archeological Resources: Remnants of human activity from an earlier time.  Paleontological Resources: Remnants of prehistoric plants and animals (e.g. fossils).

Various federal, state, and local regulations establish criteria to determine a proposed project’s potential for adverse effects, which include physical destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource, as well as changes in the resources significance or integrity.

Potential Effects The significance evaluation was based on the National Register of Historic Places4 (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources5 (CRHR) eligibility criteria. A half-mile buffer of each Build Alternative was analyzed, shown in Figure 4.6, which determined that there are no eligible historic built environment resources listed under the NRHP or CRHR within this buffer area. Ground-disturbing construction activities have the potential to encounter previously unknown subsurface archeological and paleontological resources and human remains. Operation of the Proposed Project would likely not affect archaeological or paleontological resources.

4.3.13. Noise and Vibration

Overview Noise and vibration considerations are subject to criteria set forth by federal, state, and local regulations and are assessed based on their potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors, such as single-family residences, apartments, and condominiums where people normally sleep. Construction activities could generate short-term temporary noise and vibration effects on sensitive receptors. Long-term negative effects on sensitive receptors are most closely tied to train noise and grade crossing devices. Ground-borne vibration associated with vehicle movements is usually the result of uneven interactions between wheels and tracks, such as train wheels running over a joined rail. Alternatives with at-grade crossings may likely be subject to noise and vibration effects related to railroad crossing warning devices.

Potential Effects The No Build Alternative would not result in any new construction or operations of LRT trains within the South Bay, and therefore would not result in new noise and vibration effects in the Project Area. All Build Alternatives could cause short-term negative noise and vibration effects during construction for activities such as guideway track-laying and station construction, particularly for those locations near sensitive land uses such as residential and recreational uses.

4 https://www.nps.gov/nr/ 5 http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/

Page 4-22 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2

During operations, Alternatives 1 and 2 may cause negative noise and vibration effects along the alignment through the City of Lawndale south of Inglewood Avenue, with is surrounded by single-family residences. Additionally, several sensitive receptors (Pacific Crest Cemetery, El Nido Park, and two senior housing developments between Artesia Boulevard and 190th Street) are located immediately adjacent to the Metro ROW, and are potentially subject to effects associated with Alternatives 1, 2, and 4.

While Alternative 3 has the most at-grade crossings and associated railroad crossing warning devices, these crossings are along Hawthorne Boulevard and are generally not located adjacent to sensitive land uses. Although there are approximately 5 blocks of low-density residential housing in Torrance directly fronting the east side of Hawthorne Boulevard, this is significantly less residential housing fronting a proposed alignment than under Alternatives 1, 2, or 4. Therefore, during operation, Alternative 3 would likely have the lowest potential for noise and vibration effects on sensitive receptors.

Potential Benefits Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the existing freight track in the Metro ROW would be shifted to accommodate LRT service. As part of this process, the freight track would be replaced with new tracks. As technology has improved since the installation of the existing freight tracks, the new freight tracks could result in fewer noise effects from the passage of freight trains.

Page 4-23 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.14. Parklands and Community Facilities

Overview Transit improvements typically have the potential to enhance accessibility to parklands and community facilities, particularly for those individuals who are transit-dependent. However, the physical features associated with the operation of the transit improvements can also have adverse effects from the acquisition of physical property or the disruption to users of parklands and other community facilities and services. The analysis focuses on the Proposed Project’s potential for negative effects related to a need to add to, physically alter, or provide new parklands or community facilities. Potential effects related to other environmental resources, such as visual quality, air quality, noise and vibration, etc., are addressed in their respective sections.

Potential Effects A quarter-mile buffer of each Build Alternative was analyzed, shown in Figure 4.6. The educational, parks, and other community facilities within this study area are shown in Table 4.5, Table 4.6, and Table 4.7, respectively. However, only resources immediately adjacent to the alignments were evaluated for effects. The No Build Alternative would not result in any new construction or LRT operations activities in the South Bay, and therefore would not affect the parklands and community facilities identified.

Table 4.5. Educational Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives Alternative Name Location 1 2 3 4 R. K. Lloyde High School 4951 Marine Ave, Lawndale     Lawndale High School 14901 Inglewood Ave, Lawndale     Jane Addams Middle School 4535 W. 153rd Pl, Lawndale   Finley Family Home Care 4560 W. 156th St, Lawndale     Salpie’s Day Care 4578 W. 160th St, Lawndale     Vicky’s Child Care 4626 W. 164th St, Lawndale   Environmental Charter High School 16315 Grevillea Ave, Lawndale     William Green Elementary School 4520 168th St, Lawndale     South Bay Adult School Edison 3401 Inglewood Ave, Redondo     Center Beach 1100 Lilienthal Ln., Redondo Washington Elementary School    Beach Adams Middle School 2600 Ripley Ave, Redondo Beach    Beach Cities Child Development 850 S. Inglewood Ave, Redondo    Center Beach Total Educational Facilities 11 11 8 11 Source: AECOM, 2018; Google Earth, 2016

Page 4-24 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Table 4.6. Parks and Recreational Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives Alternative Name Location 1 2 3 4 Charles B. Hopper Park 4418 W. 162nd St., Lawndale   Columbia Park 4045 190th St., Torrance     Dan McKenzie Community Garden 4324 160th St, Lawndale   El Nido Park 18301 Kingsdale Ave., Torrance     850 Inglewood Ave., Redondo Franklin Community Center     Beach 807 Inglewood Ave., Redondo Franklin Park     Beach Pequeno Park 180th St & Regina Ave, Torrance  William Green Park 4558 W. 168th St., Lawndale     Total Parks and Recreational 5 5 8 7 Facilities Source: AECOM, 2018; Google Earth, 2016

Table 4.7. Other Community Facilities within 1/4 Miles of the Alternatives Alternative Name Location 1 2 3 4 Centinela Baptist Church 4724 W. 152nd St, Lawndale     Lawndale Foursquare Church 4560 W. 154th St, Lawndale     Lawndale Wesleyan Church 4455 W. 168th St, Lawndale     Pacific Crest Cemetery 2701 182nd St, Redondo Beach    Journey Covenant Church 2761 W. 190th St, Redondo Beach    Good Community Church of 19950 Mariner Ave, Torrance     Torrance Life Covenant Church 312 Maple Ave, Torrance     Total Other Community Facilities 7 7 5 7 Source: AECOM, 2018; Google Earth, 2016

There are only two resources located immediately adjacent to Alternatives 1, 2, and 4: El Nido Park and Pacific Crest Cemetery in Redondo Beach. Construction and operation of Alternatives 1, 2, or 4 would likely take place fully within the Metro ROW at these locations, and no acquisition of these resources is anticipated. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase the use of these resources to the point of necessitating alteration or expansion. There are no resources located immediately adjacent to Alternative 3. Therefore, negative effects are not anticipated for any of the Build Alternatives.

Page 4-25 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.15. Safety and Security

Overview This section analyzes the relative safety and security of each Build Alternative, focusing on potential for increased pedestrian and/or bicycle safety risks, adverse safety conditions, and emergency response times. Build Alternatives that minimize risk of vehicular collisions, pedestrian incidents, and conflicts with train service would likely have fewer potential safety and security effects. At-grade crossings would likely present safety and security concerns due to increased interactions of trains with autos, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Potential Effects The No Build Alternative would not result in any change in collision risks or emergency service response times from existing conditions. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 may contribute to increased response times for emergency service providers. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, potential increased response times from emergency service providers could occur as a result of lowered gates at the two at-grade crossings at 170th Street and at 182nd Street. These streets are currently crossed at-grade by the existing freight rail service within the Metro ROW. Under Alternative 3, there would be six LRT at-grade crossings along Hawthorne Boulevard, which would be signalized, but emergency response times could increase due to uncertainty when emergency vehicles pass through intersections with LRT tracks or an approaching train.

Alternative 4 has one at-grade crossing at 182nd Street at-grade, and therefore the lowest potential to cause adverse safety conditions or increase emergency response times. Figure 4.7 displays the location of at-grade crossings by alternative.

Potential Benefits Due to the presence of law enforcement on the Metro rail system, law enforcement presence could increase in areas of service by the Proposed Project. This would particularly be a contrast to existing conditions under Alternatives 1 and 2, as the Metro ROW is currently less accessible to law enforcement patrol compared to Hawthorne Boulevard.

Page 4-26 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Figure 4.7. Potential LRT At-Grade Crossings

Source: STV, 2018

Page 4-27 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.16. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f)

Overview Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 focuses on the preservation of publically owned parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites, and includes the preservation of their aesthetic integrity. Section 6(f) of the United States Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 provides protection to parklands, recreation areas, historic areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges that were acquired or developed with grants provided by the Act.

Potential Effects For this analysis, an Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined as a quarter-mile radius around the alignments and stations. There are multiple Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) parks and public lands located within the APE of each Build Alternative. As stated in Section 4.3.12, there were no historic or archeological resources identified within a half-mile of the alternatives. This SAA-level analysis focuses on resources that are immediately adjacent or within close proximity to the alternative alignments and stations.

There is one Section 4(f) resource, El Nido Park, in Redondo Beach, which would be located immediately adjacent to Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Construction and operation of Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would likely take place fully within the Metro ROW near this resource, and no direct temporary or permanent use of this resource is anticipated. However, there would be potential negative effects during construction related to noise and aesthetics. Two other Section 4(f) resources, Charles B. Hopper Park and Dan McKenzie Community Garden (also a Section 6(f) resource), are located within the vicinities of Alternatives 3 and 4. These resources are roughly 200-feet and 500-feet away, respectively, from the alignments, and there would likely not be a temporary or permanent use of the resource. However, additional analysis would be needed in future environmental documents to determine the indirect proximity impacts and Section 4(f) and 6(f) findings.

4.3.17. Transportation

Overview This section includes a discussion of potential effects on transit services based on ridership estimates, traffic considerations based on at-grade crossings and estimated VMT changes, street closures, potential turning restrictions, on- and off-street parking effects, and potential conflicts with pedestrians or cyclists at at-grade crossings.

Potential Effects The No Build Alternative would not result in any new at-grade crossings, changes in projected regional VMT, street closures, turning restrictions, or effects on parking. There may be changes in transit services under the No Build Alternative, as the separate Redondo Beach TC and Torrance TC projects would still be constructed and may result in changes in bus routes and ridership in the Project Area. As discussed in Section 4.2.3, ridership estimates vary only slightly between Build Alternatives. There is not a significant difference between the alternatives, and, therefore, ridership effects on transit services would be similar among the Build Alternatives.

Page 4-28 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would have a greater opportunity to connect to the proposed Redondo Beach TC, as a station is proposed at the TC. Alternative 3 would not directly connect to the Redondo Beach TC, but it would provide a new station adjacent to the South Bay Galleria near Hawthorne Boulevard/176th Street, which could provide new transit access to residents and businesses located along Hawthorne Boulevard.

Crossing closures may result in negative effects on circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. Alternatives 1, 2, or 4 do not propose any crossing closures, but propose one left-hand turning restriction out of a private commercial driveway. Alternative 3 may include up to four crossing closures along Hawthorne Boulevard.

At-grade LRT crossings may result in delays to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. As discussed in earlier sections, Alternative 3 would have the most at-grade crossings (six) as well as the lowest reduction in VMT. As shown in Figure 4.4, Alternative 3 would have a smaller reduction in VMT because its ridership is estimated to draw from existing transit users of buses along Hawthorne Boulevard, resulting in fewer new riders shifting from private vehicle use to transit use. Therefore, Alternative 3 could potentially result in the largest negative effects on traffic conditions, bus services, and conflicts with pedestrians or cyclists. Alternative 4 would potentially have the fewest traffic effects compared to all other Build Alternatives due to a large portion of the alignment operating on an aerial structure and only having one at-grade crossing.

Alternatives 1 and 2, which would operate within the Metro ROW, would have the fewest effects to on- and off-street parking. In contrast, Alternative 3 would operate at-grade along Hawthorne Boulevard, likely removing the existing center median parking stalls between the I- 405 freeway and Redondo Beach Boulevard. The amount of median parking removed under Alternative 3 is estimated at approximately 85 spaces. Curbside parking conditions along Hawthorne Boulevard are not expected to be affected under Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 is anticipated to allow a certain amount of median parking to remain under the proposed aerial structure in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard. However, the Alternative 4 alignment may affect curbside parking conditions along Redondo Beach and Artesia Boulevards. The amount of median parking removed under Alternative 4 is estimated at approximately 100 spaces.

Metro parking would be provided adjacent to the Torrance TC. However, no park-and-ride facilities would be provided at the other stations for all alternatives. Therefore, parking effects related to stations would be similar for all Build Alternatives, and further analysis would be required in future environmental documents to determine effects on available, nearby on- street parking.

Potential Benefits Ambient population growth would result in an increase in traffic congestion under the No Build Alternative. The Proposed Project would provide a benefit compared to the No Build Alternative, by introducing an alternative to driving; it would help to reduce future increases in automobile traffic.

Page 4-29 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.18. Visual Resources and Aesthetics

Overview This section considers potential changes to the visual character, and effects related to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality of surrounding communities during construction and operation. The largest visual and aesthetic issues would likely be encountered where aerial structures are required and where the alignment transitions between an aerial profile and at-grade. The degree of visual and aesthetic effects is also based on adjacent land uses, with residential areas or parklands more likely to experience a degradation in visual quality compared to industrial land uses.

Potential Effects Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no extension of LRT service into the South Bay so there would not be the potential for changes to visual or aesthetic conditions. During construction, all Build Alternatives would have the potential to degrade the visual quality within the Project area, as a result of temporary lighting and construction materials. For Alternatives 1 and 2, mature trees currently located within the Metro ROW in the city of Lawndale would potentially be removed during construction; however the greenway is not a designated visual resource.6

During operation, all alternatives would have the potential to contrast with the existing environment by adding new visual elements. Potential aesthetic effects would be the same where the four Build Alternative alignments are identical, which is immediately south of the existing aerial Redondo Beach (Marine) Station and between 190th Street and the Torrance TC. In these areas, there are no unique or protected visual resources, and the primary land uses are industrial, commercial, and vacant. The addition of the Proposed Project in these areas would likely not contrast with the existing environment. However, for all alternatives, the addition of the electrically powered LRT mode may have negative aesthetic effects due to the need to include an overhead contact system (OCS) and TPSSs for propulsion. OCS poles are generally 25 feet tall, typically located between the two LRT tracks, and spaced 90 to 170 feet apart. In some locations, poles may be located on both sides of the tracks. The TPSSs, which are enclosed structures, are spaced along the alignment, typically integrated into the station footprints with access via the station parking lot or additional maintenance roadways.

Alternative 1 would be an aerial alignment from the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to 166th Street, where it would transition to at-grade. Adjacent properties may have a view of the elevated structure, including the structure on retained fill which supports the alignment’s transition from an aerial to an at-grade configuration. These adjacent properties include the following land uses: transportation/utilities, industrial, commercial, and vacant parcels north of Manhattan Beach Boulevard; and sensitive uses, including low and medium/high density residential to the south to Artesia Boulevard. While the aerial structure and OCS system are unlikely to contrast with the existing environment north of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, they

6 This greenway is not specifically protected by any applicable local general plans, planning and zoning codes, or other regulations.

Page 4-30 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 may contrast with and potentially degrade the existing environment south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard, where land uses are residential.

Alternative 2 may have potential visual and aesthetic effects where the alignment transitions from an aerial configuration to a below-grade configuration at the proposed Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station. The same areas described above for Alternative 1 in this station area may experience visual and aesthetic effects.

Alternative 3 would be an aerial alignment from the Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to before 166th Street, where it would transition to at-grade within Hawthorne Boulevard. Land uses along this segment include low and medium/high density residential along I-405, and commercial uses abutting Hawthorne Boulevard. The aerial structure traveling between residential areas and I-405 would parallel a major highway, but still may create a visual environment which contrasts to the existing views in that area. Between approximately 166th Street and 182nd Street, the at-grade LRT tracks would replace existing parking and landscaping in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard, which would also be a contrast to the existing conditions.

The aerial structure proposed south of 182nd Street, where the alignment transitions back to an aerial alignment in the median of Hawthorne Boulevard, is also likely to contrast with the existing commercial environment. Land uses in this area include commercial, low density residential, public facilities/institutions (Philip Magruder Middle School), and open space/recreation (Torrance Community Gardens and Columbia Regional Park), which may be affected by temporary lighting and materials related to construction activities.

Alternative 4 would have similar effects as Alternative 3 from Redondo Beach (Marine) Station to 166th Street. However, the alignment would remain aerial along Hawthorne Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard, and transition to at-grade between Artesia Boulevard and Grant Avenue. As the adjacent land uses along Hawthorne Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard are primarily commercial and low density residential, an aerial structure is likely to contrast with the existing visual environment in those areas.

Potential Benefits Although some existing landscaping may be removed during construction, Alternatives 1 and 2 would establish a landscape buffer in the Metro ROW between adjacent housing and rail structures. This buffer could include newly planted trees, bushes or other flora which would contribute to the aesthetic of the area.

4.3.19. Water Resources

Overview Water resources include municipal water supply, flood zones (i.e., geographic limits anticipated to be inundated by surface water during certain intensity storm events), surface water and drainage patterns, and groundwater and drainage basins that act as runoff management systems to contain surface runoff and flood events. These parameters include both the water as a resource and the engineering features that direct, detain, or otherwise affect water drainage.

Page 4-31 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2

Potential Effects The Project Area is urbanized and consists of mostly impervious surfaces with drainage structures, allowing little percolation of surface water. No Waters of the United States cross the alignments or station areas. Project design and construction would incorporate best management practices with regard to water runoff quality during construction and operation. Water use for any of the Build Alternatives is anticipated to be minimal and there would be no substantial effects to municipal water supply or treatment facilities.

The area is adjacent to the western boundary of the Metro ROW at the Torrance TC has a one percent annual chance for flooding (100-year floodplain) according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Map database. However, tracks for the Proposed Project would be constructed at approximately the same elevation or in certain locations raised above the existing freight track, which is already above the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the new track alignments would be above the 100-year floodplain.

The Project Area is outside of current seiche and tsunami potential inundation areas, according to the State of California Department of Conservation. The land in the Project Area is generally of low relief, and therefore is not susceptible to mudflows.

Potential Benefits Under Alternatives 1 and 2, construction in the Metro ROW would result in upgraded water filtration and stormwater management systems. Recent upgrades to these systems would be an improvement compared to existing conditions, which do not process potentially contaminated water for treatment as well as a new system would.

Page 4-32 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.3.20. Summary of Environmental Considerations

While this SAA includes a high-level environmental analysis that is largely qualitative, it identified several environmental topics that show that each alternative would have various effects, mainly differentiated by location of the proposed alignment and surrounding land uses. The effects of Alternatives 1 and 2 would primarily occur in residential areas along the Metro ROW. The effects of Alternative 3 would primarily occur in commercial areas along Hawthorne Boulevard. The effects of Alternative 4 would occur partially in commercial areas along Hawthorne Boulevard and partially in residential areas along the Metro ROW.

Some of the key differentiating environmental topics include the following: Community and Neighborhoods, which would depend on the introduction of potential physical barriers; Displacement and Relocations, the potential magnitude of which would depend on whether the alignment would be located within the Metro ROW or on Hawthorne Boulevard; Safety and Security, which would depend on the locations of at-grade crossings; and Construction, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, and Visual Resources and Aesthetics, which would all have varying effects on different communities, depending on the location and configuration of the alignment.

In terms of potential benefits, key differentiating environmental topics include Air Quality, Communities and Neighborhoods, Safety and Security, and Transportation. Regarding Air Quality, all Build Alternatives would result in a reduction of GHG emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. Regarding Communities and Neighborhoods, Alternatives 1 and 2 would accommodate a pathway in the Metro ROW for public use. Regarding Safety and Security, Alternatives 1 and 2 would introduce a law enforcement presence along the Metro ROW, which is currently not as accessible to law enforcement as existing roadways such as Hawthorne Boulevard. Regarding Transportation, all Build Alternatives would contribute to reducing traffic congestion in the Project Area compared to the No Build Alternative.

Page 4-33 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.4. GOAL 3: ENSURE COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

This section describes the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria identified for Goal 3: Ensure Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility.

4.4.1. Capital Costs

Capital costs include labor and goods required for one-time construction such as LRT tracks, aerial structures, trenches, additional train vehicles, utility relocation, electrical power facilities, safety features, and other structures which support LRT service. The capital costs of each Build Alternative vary based on major elements such as length of track, additional vehicles required, aerial or trench structures, and other facilities. Capital costs were calculated for each alternative in 2017 dollars. Figure 4.8 compares the capital costs of each Build Alternative.

Figure 4.8. Capital Costs (2017 $ Millions) by Alternative

Source: STV, 2018

Alternative 1 would have the lowest projected capital costs, as a result of it being located within Metro ROW and being mostly at-grade, with the exception of the aerial overcrossing at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Inglewood Boulevard. Alternative 2 would be nearly identical to Alternative 1, but the trench undercrossing and below-grade station at Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Inglewood Avenue would have higher construction costs, compared to the aerial option in Alternative 1. Alternative 3 is expected to cost more than Alternative 1, because of the longer length of aerial guideway needed, as well as greater potential ROW acquisition costs. While the majority of Alternative 3 is proposed to be at-grade, additional analysis would be required for the Hawthorne Boulevard and Artesia Boulevard crossings to determine if they

Page 4-34 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 would need to be grade separated, which could then raise the cost by $220M. Finally, Alternative 4 is expected to cost the most, because a large portion of the alignment would be on an aerial guideway, and it would have high potential ROW acquisition costs.

4.4.2. Operations & Maintenance Costs

O&M costs include costs incurred annually to continue providing LRT service after construction is complete. These costs include items like operator salaries, materials for vehicle maintenance, monitoring and maintenance of tracks, fare collection equipment, communications and electric facilities, administrative costs, and other similar requirements. Developing reliable O&M cost estimates is a key requirement for any major transit investment. Reliable cost estimates contribute to an accurate and useful cost effectiveness evaluation and can establish a baseline for budgeting. Operation and maintenance costs vary based on factors such as:  Vehicle Operations: Activities including transportation administration and support, revenue vehicle movement control, scheduling of operations, revenue vehicle operations, ticketing and fare collection, and system security.  Vehicle Maintenance: Activities including inspection, maintenance, vehicle servicing and repairs, and related materials and supplies.  Facility Maintenance: Activities including administration, repair of buildings, grounds, and equipment, operation of electric and communications systems, maintenance of structures, roadway, track, station buildings, and similar facilities.  General Administration: Activities related to transit service development, injuries and damages, safety, personnel administration, legal services, finance and accounting, planning, customer services, and other similar services.

Differentiating factors which may determine variations in O&M costs in the above categories generally include the length of the proposed alternative, the travel times, and the vehicle fleet requirements. For example, longer route lengths may result in additional vehicles required to maintain consistent headways, as well as higher costs related to infrastructure maintenance.

Page 4-35 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Figure 4.9 displays the annual O&M costs of each Build Alternative compared to projections of 2040 Metro Green Line operations requirements under the No Build Alternative.

Figure 4.9. O&M Costs (2017 $ Millions) by Alternative

Source: STV, 2018

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the lowest O&M costs because they would have the lowest vehicle requirements and the shortest travel times. Alternative 3 would require more vehicles than Alternatives 1 and 2, and would have a longer travel time, which would result in a higher vehicle fleet requirement and O&M cost. Alternative 4 would have similar vehicle requirements and travel time as in Alternative 3, but has a higher overall O&M cost due to its longer route length. Alternative 3 could require grade separations along Hawthorne Boulevard after further traffic and operations analysis. If so, O&M costs for Alternative 3 would likely be lower due to the shorter running times of a grade separated alignment.

4.4.3. Cost Per Rider

Cost per rider is a measure of cost effectiveness that relates project costs to ridership. By comparing costs to ridership, this evaluation criteria creates a broader picture of the cost/benefit comparison. Cost per rider metrics are also key data used in funding efforts such as grant applications. This SAA examines cost per rider in two ways. The first method utilizes FTA’s formula for annualized cost per rider and divides annualized capital costs and annual O&M costs by total anticipated annual riders on the Proposed Project. This includes total ridership on the proposed extension only, but includes riders who may already use Metro Rail or public transit. The results of this cost per rider calculation method are shown in Figure 4.10.

Page 4-36 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Figure 4.10. Annual Cost Per Rider (2017 $) by Alternative

Source: STV, 2018

By this method of examining cost per rider, Alternative 1 would have the lowest cost per rider due to lower capital and O&M costs. Alternative 2 would have a higher cost per rider compared to Alternative 1, because of the higher capital costs of constructing the trench segment in the Manhattan Beach Boulevard/Inglewood Avenue area. While Alternative 3 would have the highest ridership, its higher capital and O&M cost results in a cost per rider that is higher than in Alternative 2. Finally, Alternative 4 would have the highest cost per rider, because of its high combined capital and O&M costs.

The second method of comparing costs and ridership examines total capital costs and new riders. This method compares the utility of the up-front investment of capital costs for construction against the benefit of encouraging new riders of public transit, which are defined as future riders of the Proposed Project projected to shift from trips by private automobile use to trips by Metro Rail via the Proposed Project. If only considering capital costs and new riders on the project, Alternative 1 would still have the lowest cost per rider, but Alternative 3 would perform slightly better than Alternative 2 as shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8. Annual Capital Cost per New Rider (2017 $) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Capital Cost (million) $890 $1,090 $1,000 $1,120 Annual New Riders (million) 1.45 1.45 1.40 1.46 Capital Cost per New Rider $614 $753 $717 $769 Source: STV, AECOM, 2018

4.4.4. Financial Feasibility

Page 4-37 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Funding for the Proposed Project is currently based on Metro expenditure plans from sources such as Measure R and Measure M. The funding assumptions in Measure M for the Proposed Project were based on an alignment utilizing the Metro ROW. All Alternatives, except for Alternative 1, exceed the $891 million (2015 $) allocated to the Proposed Project in Measures R and M, and they would require additional funding.

In 2018, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) released grant awards which included a set-aside for the Proposed Project for schedule acceleration. Consequently, these funds will help fill the funding gap associated with the Year of Expenditure (2026 $) escalation associated with the Project Cost. The existing and potential funding sources of the Proposed Project are described in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9. Funding Sources Funding Funds Allocated to Description Source Proposed Project Measure R is an incremental half-cent sales tax passed by LA County voters in 2008. Measure R funding is collected over $272 million Measure R thirty years and dedicated to a variety of countywide transportation investments including rail expansion, local (2015 dollars) street improvements, etc. Measure M is an incremental half-cent sales tax passed by LA County voters in 2016. Measure M funding is collected over forty years and dedicated to a variety of countywide $619 million Measure M transportation investments including rail and rapid transit (2015 dollars) expansion, local street improvements, and other infrastructure and mobility improvements. The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) is a CalSTA grant program funded by gas tax revenues under Senate Bill 1, as well as cap-and-trade funds. In 2018, TIRCP $231 million TIRCP released a series of grant decisions, including over $1 billion (2018 dollars) assigned to Metro for various projects between 2018 and 2028, including the Proposed Project. Another new program created by SB 1 is the Local Partnership Program (LPP). The purpose of this program is to provide SB 1 LPP local and regional transportation agencies that have passed $19.7 million Formula sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed (2018 dollars) Funds transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of $200 million annually to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. Source: Metro, 2016; CalSTA, 2018

Page 4-38 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.5. GOAL 4: SUPPORT LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES

This section describes the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria identified for Goal 4: Support Local and Regional Land Use Plans and Policies.

4.5.1. Accessibility

Accessibility refers to the number of residents served by proposed stations of the Proposed Project. This evaluation criteria is defined and evaluated under Goal 1: Improve Mobility in Section 4.2.5, but contributes to the evaluation of Goal 4.

4.5.2. Land Use Consistency

Overview The land use assessment considers consistency with existing land use plans and policies, and whether the Proposed Project would physically divide an established community. The relevant plans include the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, and the general plans for the cities of Redondo Beach, Lawndale, and Torrance.

Potential Effects The Proposed Project is included within the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, and the cities’ general plans include policies that include transit-supportive land uses and promote transit and multimodal transportation. However, Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely be inconsistent with the land use plans in all cities, as the general plans do not take into account a LRT line on Hawthorne, Redondo Beach, or Artesia Boulevards. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not be consistent with Redondo Beach’s plan for the proposed Redondo Beach TC, as it would not serve that corridor.

All Build Alternatives have the potential to change existing community circulation and access, as discussed in Section 4.3.3. Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the number of trains that currently pass through the existing Metro ROW, while Alternative 3 would be located within the median of Hawthorne Boulevard, with several crossing closures and at-grade crossings. Alternative 4 would have relatively the least negative effect related to physical division of existing communities, as the alignment would be aerial and grade-separated where it is located within public ROW, with no crossing closures on Hawthorne Boulevard.

4.5.3. Economic and Fiscal Effects

Overview The section examines the potential economic effects and benefits due to construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Construction activities could have negative effects on local businesses, because of changes in access or decreased visibility. As a result, longer construction timelines are assumed to have greater potential effects on nearby businesses.

However, in the long-run, transit investments can spur economic development or redevelopment of the surrounding community under certain conditions. Generally, those

Page 4-39 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 alternatives that provide many stations and points of access in areas suitable for redevelopment (such as corridor-adjacent industrial or commercial land uses) present the greatest opportunities for economic development.

Economic Effects of Construction Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no new construction activities for an extension of LRT service into the South Bay that could have an effect on local businesses. For Alternatives 3 and 4, during construction, there would likely be short-term, temporary negative effects on local businesses, as the alignments are located within the medians of public roadways and existing commercial corridors. Alternative 3 would take approximately four and a half years to construct, while Alternative 4 would take approximately five years to construct. Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely have fewer temporary construction-related negative economic effects than Alternatives 3 and 4, as they are located within the Metro ROW and adjacent to fewer businesses than Alternatives 3 and 4. Additionally, Alternative 1 would have the shortest construction schedule, estimated at four years, while Alternative 2 is estimated to be constructed over four and a half years.

Long-Term Economic Development Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no extension of LRT service into the South Bay that would create economic development potential or new access to transit via LRT. Alternatives 3 and 4 would serve the existing commercial corridor along Hawthorne Boulevard. Alternative 3 would include a station directly adjacent to the South Bay Galleria, which was approved by the Redondo Beach Planning Commission in the spring of 2018 for review by the City Council.7 The project would add a hotel with up to 150 rooms, up to 300 residential apartment homes, and up to 50,000 square feet of office space. The project would include retail, dining, and entertainment square footage as well. Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely have fewer long-term benefits and less potential for economic development compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. The land uses adjacent to Alternatives 1 and 2 are likely not conducive for redevelopment; throughout Lawndale, land uses primarily consist of single-family residential housing, while Redondo Beach generally contains residential, commercial, and open space land uses along the proposed alignment.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would potentially serve a site adjacent to the planned Redondo Beach TC along the Metro ROW which is planned for redevelopment, and would be a separate project from the South Bay Galleria redevelopment project. Generally, Alternative 3 would directly serve the greatest area with potential for economic development, while Alternatives 1 and 2 would directly serve the smallest area with potential for economic development. Alternative 4 would serve an area with potential for economic development along Hawthorne Boulevard north of Artesia Boulevard, but would serve an area with little potential for economic development after rejoining the Metro ROW at Artesia Boulevard. Under all Build Alternatives, construction activities are likely to result in the creation of jobs in the region as a result of spending throughout the construction supply chain. Indirect benefits

7 “South Bay Galleria Improvement Project Final EIR and Public Hearing.” Accessed 2018. https://www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planning/south_bay_galleria_draft_eir.asp

Page 4-40 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 may also occur to nearby businesses due to spending by workers at establishments directly or indirectly connected to construction the Proposed Project.

4.6. GOAL 5: ENSURE EQUITY

Overview Goal 5: Ensure Equity is measured based on an EJ analysis which follows guidance from the US Department of Transportation and Caltrans to comply with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; and Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency. Additionally, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Caltrans guidance ensures that the goals of Title VI are carried out by transportation agencies implementing public participation programs in California, regardless of the availability of federal funding. The Proposed Project would also be consistent with the Metro Equity Platform Framework.

An EJ community is defined as an area consisting of a population at least 50 percent minority, low-income, or LEP. The first step in an EJ analysis is to determine if an EJ community is located within the Project Area, which was completed for this SAA. The next step, which would occur in the next phase of the project, would be to determine if potential negative effects would adversely affect an EJ population at a disproportionately high and adverse rate when compared to the general population or other appropriate comparison group. The Metro Equity Platform Framework would guide this evaluation in the next phase of the project. Potential effects on EJ populations may include ecological, cultural or historic resources, human health, economic or social.

Environmental Justice Communities in the Project Area EJ communities within the Project Area were estimated using Census tract data within a half- mile buffer from alignment centerlines. An EJ community was defined as if at least 50 percent of the population within a census tract consists of minority populations, populations below the poverty level, or LEP populations. Under all Build Alternatives, the surrounding communities include census tracts with populations that exceed the 50 percent threshold for minority or poverty level, qualifying them as EJ communities, even though there were no census tracts with LEP populations above the 50 percent threshold. Figure 4.11 shows the census tracts with EJ populations. Future environmental clearance documents would need to conduct a more detailed analysis to determine if these EJ communities would bear disproportionately high and adverse effects of the Proposed Project.

Page 4-41 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Potential Environmental Justice Benefits All new proposed stations under all Build Alternatives would be located in an EJ community. As a result, all Build Alternatives would provide new benefits of enhanced mobility and regional access to minority and/or low-income populations.

Figure 4.11. Census Tracts with EJ Populations

Source: STV, 2018, American Community Survey, 2016

Page 4-42 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 4.7. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Table 4.10 summarizes key project elements compared across the four Build Alternatives.

Table 4.10. Summary of Build Alternative Elements Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: ROW ROW Hawthorne to Hawthorne to Overcrossing Undercrossing 190th Artesia 9 min Travel Time 7 min 7 min (variable based on 8.5 min stoplights) • Inglewood Ave • Inglewood Ave • Hawthorne Blvd • Hawthorne Blvd Destinations Destinations Commercial Commercial Connections to • Redondo Beach • Redondo Beach • South Bay • Redondo Beach Destinations TC TC Galleria TC • Torrance TC • Torrance TC • Torrance TC • Torrance TC Potential Bike/ Ped Paths   X X $1,000M - Capital Cost $890M $1,090M $1,120M $1,220M1 New Annual Riders 1.45 million 1.45 million 1.40 million 1.46 million Capital Cost/ $614 $753 $717 $769 New Rider2 Fully Funded  X X X At-Grade Crossings 2 2 6 1 Crossing Closures - - 4 - Parking Removed - - 85 spaces 100 spaces 1 $1,220M is the capital cost estimate for Alternative 3 if grade separation analysis in the next phase of project development determines grade separations are required at Redondo Beach Blvd and Artesia Blvd. 2 Capital Cost/New Rider was calculated by dividing the total capital cost of each Build Alternative by the projected annual new riders of each Build Alternative. New riders are defined as how many new riders are expected to use the Proposed Project instead of a private automobile. Source: STV, 2018

Page 4-43 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 Based on the analysis and evaluation as described previously in this chapter, each Build Alternative received a Harvey Ball score for each project goal, as well as an overall rating, as shown below in Table 4.11. The overall ratings only apply to the evaluation criteria described in this chapter. Community input is considered in addition to these ratings for selection of an alternative(s) to advance to the next phase of project development.

Table 4.11. Evaluation Criteria Comparison Alternative 2: Alternative 4: Alternative 1: Alternative 3: Project Goals ROW Hawthorne to ROW Overcrossing Hawthorne to 190th Undercrossing Artesia 1. Improve Mobility ● ● ◑ ◑ 2. Minimize Environmental Impacts ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ 3. Ensure Cost Effectiveness and Financial ● ◑ ◑ ○ Feasibility 4. Support Local and Regional Land Use Plans ◑ ◑ ● ◑ and Policies 5. Ensure Equity ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ Overall Ratings High Medium Medium Medium/Low Source: STV, 2018

The Build Alternatives’ performance in regards to achieving the project goals are summarized below: 1. Goal 1: Improve Mobility: Alternatives 1 and 2 scored high due to their travel times, system connectivity, reductions in VMT, and ability to accommodate a potential pathway in the Metro ROW. Alternatives 3 and 4 received medium scores due to their longer travel times, but greater accessibility to nearby residents. 2. Goal 2: Minimize Environmental Impacts: Each alternative received a medium score due to varying potential effects under different environmental topics. While certain alternatives performed better under certain environmental topics, the opposite was true for other topics examined. In some cases, all alternatives would likely result in environmental effects, but they would affect different areas, such as residential or commercial land uses. For example, Alternatives 1 and 2 would have fewer anticipated effects from construction and operations, as they would operate within the Metro ROW, but greater potential noise and vibration effects in areas with sensitive receptors. Each Build Alternative would result in visual effects, but Alternatives 1 and 2 would affect primarily residential areas, Alternative 3 would affect primarily commercial areas, and Alternative 4 would affect both.

Page 4-44 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 2 As another example, Alternative 3 would result in the smallest VMT reduction, but would also result in the greatest economic development potential. 3. Goal 3: Ensure Cost Effectiveness and Financial Feasibility: Alternative 1 scored high due to its lowest capital cost and the current availability of funding. Alternative 2 received a medium score due to its high capital cost, but low O&M cost. Alternative 3 received a medium score due to its high O&M cost but medium cost per rider performance. Alternative 4 scored lowest due to its high capital cost, high O&M cost, and high cost per 4. rider performance. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would all require additional funding. Goal 4: Support Local and Regional Land Use Plans and Policies: Alternatives 1 and 2 received a medium score, as they would utilize existing Metro ROW and are consistent with existing local land use and zoning plans. Alternative 3 received a high score due to its ability to provide greater long-term economic development potential and accessibility, as it would serve the existing Hawthorne Boulevard commercial corridor for a longer distance (to 190th Street) than the other Build Alternatives, thereby providing greater access to existing and future commercial opportunities. However, Alternative 3 does not align with existing land use and zoning plans as well as Alternatives 1 and 2 and creates a new barrier along Hawthorne Boulevard due to proposed crossing closures. Alternative 4 received a medium score due to similar, but lower, economic development potential and accessibility benefits as Alternative 3. Also, similar to Alternative 3, it is inconsistent with local land use and zoning plans, as it would require additional public ROW, and it would be grade-separated along Hawthorne Boulevard. 5. Goal 5: Ensure Equity: Each alternative received a medium score, as the presence of EJ communities is approximately the same. Complete analysis of any disproportionately high and adverse effects would occur in the next phase of project development.

As previously discussed, community input was not scored based on evaluation criteria, but will inform the selection of alternatives for consideration in the environmental review phase of the Proposed Project. Community input is described in Chapter 5.

Page 4-45 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach 5. PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH

Metro initiated an outreach and public engagement strategy that engaged and informed stakeholders, and encouraged them to provide input on the project. This process included a wide range of opportunities for feedback that were designed to be transparent and inclusive. Since April 2017, the Metro team met regularly with the local cities, key stakeholders, and the public within the Project Area. Throughout the year-and-a-half SAA process, Metro held a total of 27 stakeholder meetings and four community meetings, with the goal of informing the public about the proposed alternatives, gathering input, and hearing community concerns.

In addition, Metro conducted three tours in March 2018 with residents from the Project Area and South Bay elected officials; the tours visited portions of the Metro Gold and Expo Lines, both of which are existing LRT lines, which gave the community an opportunity to view similar transit projects while interfacing one-on-one with the Metro team. The timeframe of each type of outreach activity is listed below:  Agency Consultation Meetings: May 2017 – May 2018  All Stakeholder Meetings: May 2017 – February 2018  Gold Line and Expo Line Redondo Beach Community Tour: March 24, 2018  Gold Line and Expo Line Elected Official Tour: March 28, 2018  Gold Line and Expo Line Lawndale Community & Elected Official Tour: March 31, 2018  Lawndale Community Meeting: April 17, 2018  Redondo Beach Community Meeting: April 19, 2018  Torrance Community Meeting: April 26, 2018  Lawndale Community Meeting: May 22, 2018

Throughout this stakeholder engagement effort, the Metro team gathered feedback about the technical aspects of the proposed alternatives and station options, along with general comments regarding the project funding, ridership, and preferred alternative selection process. Common topics which were mentioned in comments received included, but were not limited to: noise/vibration, safety, connectivity, visual impacts, property impacts, grade crossings, future development, funding acceleration, additional alternatives, and station options. These concerns will be further considered in greater detail during the subsequent environmental review process.

This chapter documents the outreach activities completed during the SAA study. All outreach materials, including notification mailers and press releases, presentations, and boards for the community meetings are included for reference in Appendix B: Public and Agency Outreach.

Page 5-1 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.1. EARLY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

5.1.1. Stakeholder Database

The Metro team developed a stakeholder database of over 1,000 contacts to initiate and coordinate communication with the communities in and around the Project Area. The stakeholder database for the project consisted of community leaders and key stakeholders in and around the Project Area, including agencies, neighborhood and community groups, civic clubs, industries, businesses, interfaith centers, elected officials, and the media. The database was managed in an Excel spreadsheet to store information, as well as in MailChimp to track correspondence. The database was updated throughout the duration of the study with new contacts from the project website, stakeholder meetings, and community meetings. Table 5.1 summarizes the stakeholders contacted via the database.

Table 5.1. Stakeholder Database Summary Stakeholders Quantity Community Stakeholders 1,124 Elected Officials 28 Total 1,152 Source: The Robert Group, 2018

5.1.2. Fact Sheet

The Metro team prepared a fact sheet that was provided to attendees at various outreach events, including Agency Consultation Meetings. The fact sheet was updated throughout the duration of the study to provide the most current information on the project background, goals, history, next steps, as well as the project web page and contact information. The fact sheet included information in both English and Spanish; see Appendix B.

5.1.3. Project Information Telephone Line

The project information telephone line was set up and monitored regularly by the Metro team. The information telephone line, (213) 922-4004, was published in all communication materials prepared for the Proposed Project. A total of 25 inquiries were received via the information line. Most of these inquiries did not comment directly on the project, and those with comments were asked to send comments in writing.

5.1.4. Project E-mail Box

Comments submitted via the project email address, [email protected], were documented and logged into a master spreadsheet for project consideration. A total of 17 comments were received via email (see Appendix B).

Page 5-2 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.1.5. Project Web Page

The project web page, http://www.metro.net/projects/greenlineextension, was used as an avenue for notifying stakeholders about the community meetings, providing a resource for project information (meeting presentation, fact sheet, and meeting notices), accessing comment forms, and providing contact information. The web page is shown in Figure 5.1. Metro received 127 comments through the web page via Wufoo (see Appendix B). The majority of comments were received after the start of the 2017 SAA process, but prior comments received through the website were also considered.

Figure 5.1. Proposed Project Web Page

Source: Metro, 2018

Page 5-3 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.2. AGENCY CONSULTATION MEETINGS

Seven agency consultation meetings were conducted between May and September 2017, and one meeting was conducted in May 2018. At these meetings, Metro provided a presentation to the agencies that included an overview of the project, a description of the alternatives under consideration, the timeline, and next steps.

As shown in Table 5.2, the agency meetings included staff from the corridor cities and other public and governmental organizations in the South Bay or other segments of the existing Metro Green Line.

Table 5.2. Agency Consultation Meetings Meeting Date Agencies May 10, 2017 City of Lawndale staff May 19, 2017 City of Redondo Beach staff June 1, 2017 City of Torrance and Torrance Transit staff June 26, 2017 City of Lawndale staff July 12, 2017 South Bay Cities Council of Governments August 14, 2017 South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Transportation Committee September 13, 2017 South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Infrastructure Working Group May 10, 2018 Metro Gateway Cities Service Council Source: The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

Agencies were asked to provide input and feedback on the following topics:  Alternatives within Metro ROW and Hawthorne Boulevard, as well as station options and grade separation options  Recent land use and transportation developments that may influence the Proposed Project  Future land use and transportation projects that may influence the Proposed Project  Identification of key stakeholders to include in the SAA outreach process  Recommendations for successful public outreach activities

The following key takeaways were received from the agencies:  Alternatives outside of Metro ROW – City of Lawndale requested Metro to explore other corridor alternatives, including Hawthorne Boulevard, to serve the commercial corridor and address concerns or residents living along the Metro ROW.  Environmental impact concerns – The Proposed Project should address concerns about environmental effects along the Metro ROW, namely regarding noise and vibration, preservation of green/recreational space, and residential and commercial property issues.  Desired design options – The Proposed Project should examine a variety of different design options, including cut-and-cover tunnels, trench and semi-trench alignments, at- grade alignments with mitigations (such as sound walls), and aerial alignments.

Page 5-4 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

 Interest in multi-modal connections – The addition of bicycle paths along the Metro ROW should be included, and would be viewed favorably by local bicycle advocates.

5.3. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

Metro conducted two rounds of stakeholder meetings in fall 2017 and in early 2018. Prior to these meetings, the Metro team refined the alternatives based on the feedback received during the agency consultation meetings. The stakeholder meeting attendees included elected officials, local residents, community-based organizations, transit/bicycle advocates, business groups, and chambers of commerce.

5.3.1. First Round of Stakeholder Meetings

The first round of stakeholder meetings were conducted between September 12 and December 16, 2017. At these meetings, Metro provided a presentation that included an overview of the project, a description of the alternatives under consideration, the timeline, and next steps. Table 5.3 provides a list of these meetings.

Table 5.3. First Round of Stakeholder Meetings Meeting Date Stakeholders September 12, 2017 South Bay Association Chamber of Commerce September 14, 2017 South Bay Bicycle Coalition October 3, 2017 South Bay Association of Realtors October 11, 2017 Torrance Chamber of Commerce, Government Affairs Committee October 12, 2017 North Redondo Beach Business Association October 13, 2017 Metro South Bay Service Council October 26, 2017 South Bay Galleria, Forest City, QIC December 16, 2017 City of Redondo Beach Council District 3 Community Meeting Source: The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

The following key takeaways were received from the first-round of stakeholder meetings:  Environmental impact concerns – The Proposed Project should address concerns along the Metro ROW about potential property impacts and impacts to property values; loss of parking; noise and vibration; safety; preservation of landscaping and/or green/recreational space; traffic; and construction impacts.  Desired design options – The Proposed Project should examine a variety of different design options, including cut-and-cover trench and semi-trench alignments, at-grade alignments with mitigations (such as sound walls), and aerial alignments.  Interest in multimodal connections and regional connectivity – The Proposed Project should include multi-modal opportunities along the Metro ROW. Multi-modal

Page 5-5 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

opportunities could include protected bike paths along the Metro ROW, with connections to existing paths, and more pedestrian walkways. The Proposed Project should provide a one seat ride to the Metro AMC 96th Street Transit Station that will connect to LAWA’s APM system.  Cost and funding options – Some of the stakeholder groups discussed options to accelerate the Proposed Project, especially in time for the 2028 Olympics, and expressed concerns with how funding for the Proposed Project will be formulated.  Station design and access – The Proposed Project should consider potential station designs, locations, and how patrons will access the stations, especially at the Redondo Beach TC and Torrance TC.

5.3.2. Second Round of Stakeholder Meetings

The second-round of stakeholder meeting activities were conducted between January 8 and February 16, 2018. At these meetings, Metro provided a presentation that included a summary of the feedback received during the prior agency consultation meetings and the first-round of stakeholder meetings; an overview and comparison of the four Alternatives developed based on stakeholder feedback; and next steps. Table 5.4 provides a list of these meetings. Figure 5.2 shows the presentation and group discussion at some of the stakeholder meetings.

Table 5.4. Second Round of Stakeholder Meetings Meeting Date Stakeholders January 8, 2018 South Bay Cities Council of Governments, Transportation Committee January 9, 2018 South Bay Association Chamber of Commerce January 10, 2018 Torrance Chamber of Commerce, Government Affairs Committee January 11, 2018 North Redondo Beach Business Association January 11, 2018 City of Lawndale staff January 11, 2018 South Bay Bicycle Coalition January 12, 2018 “Right of Say” community group January 25, 2018 City of Torrance and Torrance Transit staff January 25, 2018 South Bay Cities Council of Government, Board of Directors February 6, 2018 South Bay Association of Realtors February 7, 2018 City of Redondo Beach staff February 16, 2018 Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce Source: The Robert Group, 2018

Page 5-6 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

Figure 5.2. Stakeholder Meetings

Source: The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

The following key takeaways were received from the second-round of stakeholder meetings:  General support for the project – Most stakeholders saw a need for the Proposed Project but had issues with some of the alternatives, preferred one alternative over another, and/or had questions regarding specific property/visual impacts related to each alternative.  Project-related concerns – Stakeholders voiced concerns over costs, the length of the project timeline, station locations, residential/property impacts, safety, parking, traffic, and differences between the alternatives.  Identification of future funding sources – Stakeholders expressed interest in receiving more information on the source of future funding, particularly for the more expensive alternatives.  Opportunities for neighborhood improvements – Some of the agencies and stakeholders expressed interest in neighborhood improvements for all alternatives, including transit oriented development (TOD), multi-modal and pedestrian access, and green space.  Concerns related to alternatives – Some local residents expressed concerns over using the Metro ROW as it runs through a residential area, whereas others were concerned about property and traffic impacts related to the proposed alternatives along Hawthorne Boulevard.

Page 5-7 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.4. COMMUNITY TOURS

Community tours were scheduled to offer South Bay residents and elected officials an opportunity to see first-hand examples of the currently operating Metro Expo and Gold Lines, and how they integrate with the surrounding communities. Tours were offered for residents of Lawndale and Redondo Beach on March 24 and March 31, 2018 and for elected officials on March 28, 2018.

Door-to-door flyers were utilized to invite the community to the tours and were delivered to approximately 3,500 project stakeholders on March 3, March 9, and March 12, 2018. The flyers informed the community of the community tours and the request for input on the project. A copy of the flyer is provided in Appendix B.

A total of 73 residents and elected officials attended the tours, as shown in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5. Summary of Community Tours Date Tour Attendees March 24, 2018 City of Redondo Beach Residents 29 March 28, 2018 South Bay Elected Officials 8 City of Lawndale Residents & Elected March 31, 2018 36 Officials Total 73 Source: The Robert Group, 2018

During the tours, Metro provided informational packets to the tour attendees, which included agendas, presentations, fact sheets, and information on the Metro system (included in Appendix B).

The Metro team engaged with the tour attendees along the tour route, as shown in the photos in Figure 5.3. The tours highlighted LRT elements such as grade crossings, soundwalls, landscaping, and trench alignments, as well as the context of LRT integration with communities of varying types and sizes. Participants were encouraged to attend the community meetings in April 2018, and to share the information provided with the rest of their community.

Page 5-8 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

Figure 5.3. Community Tours

Source: The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

The following key takeaways were received from the community tour participants:  General support of Metro rail projects – Most of the attendees expressed interest in and general approval of the Metro Gold and Expo Line elements viewed on the tour, especially relating to integration with the local communities, mitigated environmental impacts, such as sound walls, safety features, and accessibility, and TOD. Some attendees expressed opposition to the Proposed Project.  Environmental impact concerns – Some attendees voiced concerns about impacts to residential neighborhoods, such as noise/vibration, grade crossings, safety, visual impacts, and property values.  Interest in future tour opportunities – Many attendees expressed a desire to participate in future tours offered by Metro.

Page 5-9 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.5. COMMUNITY MEETINGS

Four community meetings were held in spring 2018 to provide updates to the community, and to solicit feedback.

5.5.1. Community Meeting Notices

Targeted outreach was conducted to stakeholders via direct mail, door-to-door flyers, email (e-blasts), and social media and posts leading up to the community meetings.

5.5.1.1. Direct Mail

Informational mailers were mailed to 15,681 project stakeholders on April 9, April 11, and May 11, 2018. The mailers informed the community of the community meetings and the request for input on the Proposed Project alternatives. The information was provided in both English and Spanish. The areas where mailers were sent are shown in Figure 5.4. A copy of the direct mailers is provided in Appendix B.

5.5.1.2. Email Notifications

A total of five email notices (e-blasts) were sent out prior to the community meetings utilizing the project database with email addresses of over 1,100 stakeholders. Following the community meetings, an additional “thank you” email notice was sent out to stakeholders who attended with a reminder of the opportunity to submit comments. The email provided a link to the project website and the methods to provide public comments. A copy of the email notification is provided in Appendix B.

5.5.1.3. Flyers

Community meeting flyers were delivered door-to-door to approximately 8,500 project stakeholders on April 10, April 12, April 13, April 18, May 17, and May 18, 2018. The flyers informed the communities of the dates and locations of the community meetings and the request for input on the project. As with other notification materials, the information was provided in bilingual format. The areas where flyers were delivered are shown in Figure 5.4. A copy of the flyer is provided in Appendix B.

Page 5-10 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

Figure 5.4. Areas Targeted for Community Meeting Notices

Source: STV, The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

Page 5-11 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.5.1.4. Social Media

Facebook was used to promote the community meetings by posting meeting information and sending reminder notices to followers. Metro Marketing published ads on Facebook targeted to the residents of Torrance, Lawndale, and Redondo Beach from April 10 to April 26, 2018. Approximately 125,309 people were reached with the ad; and the campaign was viewed 337,113 times overall. On the Facebook page, 1,095 people responded that they were interested or planning to attend the event;

5.5.2. Community Meeting Dates and Locations

Table 5.6 describes the dates, locations, and approximate attendance at the four community meetings, which were attended by local residents and elected officials. The locations of all community meetings are shown in Figure 5.5. Two meetings were held in Lawndale. This was because Metro revised the meeting format in response to feedback received from the first community meeting in Lawndale on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, where a formal public comment period after the presentation was not scheduled. In order to provide an additional avenue for comment, a formal comment period was added for the meetings held in Redondo Beach and Torrance. Metro then held a second meeting in Lawndale to provide an equal opportunity to Lawndale residents to make public comments.

Table 5.6. Community Meetings Meeting # Meeting Date/Time Location # of Attendees 1 April 17, 2018, 6-8PM Leuzinger High School, Lawndale, CA 88 Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center, 2 April 19, 2018, 6-8PM 135 Redondo Beach, CA 3 April 26, 2018, 6-8PM Torrance Cultural Arts Center, Torrance, CA 104 4 May 22, 2018, 6-8PM Jane Addams Middle School, Lawndale, CA 89 Source: The Robert Group, 2018

Page 5-12 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

Figure 5.5. Community Meeting Locations

Source: STV, Metro, 2018

Page 5-13 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

5.5.3. Community Meeting Format and Materials

The format of the community meetings consisted of an open house, a PowerPoint presentation given by Metro staff, a public comment period following the presentation, and then additional time for open house discussions. All attendees received the project fact sheet, a comment card, and a Metro contact information card upon signing in at the meetings. The sign-in sheets from each community meeting are provided in Appendix B. A dedicated space was provided in each of the community meetings to fill out the comment cards; the cards are included in Appendix B. Spanish translation services were provided to attendees.

In the open house portion at the beginning and end of each meeting, community members could view informational materials at their own pace and speak with Metro team representatives. Poster boards were set up around the room that showed overview maps of the alternatives, preliminary evaluation results, and information about related projects and regional context. Flip charts were available by the poster boards for attendees to write comments. Large roll plot maps of the alternatives were displayed in the center of the room, and participants were encouraged to provide written comments on sticky notes and place them directly on the maps. The Metro team was present at the poster boards and roll plots to answer questions related to the technical aspects of the Proposed Project. The community meeting materials are included in Appendix B.

During the PowerPoint presentation portion of each meeting, Metro described the project overview, project history, evaluated alternatives and comparisons, and next steps. After the presentation, members of the public were invited to fill out comment cards and provide verbal comments. Speakers were required to fill out a speaker card, and comments were limited to two minutes. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is included in Appendix B.

For all meetings, photographs were taken to capture the nature and volume of community engagement and participation, as shown in Figure 5.6.

Page 5-14 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

Figure 5.6. Community Meetings

Source: The Robert Group, Metro, 2018

5.5.4. Community Meeting Comments

Table 5.7 summarizes the number of comments received at each meeting. At all four meetings, the majority of community members did not express direct opposition to the Proposed Project, but rather voiced concerns or provided feedback on specific alternative(s).

Table 5.7. Summary of Community Meeting Comments # of Public # of Comment # of Comments Meeting Date Location (Speaker) Cards Received Received on Roll Plot Comments April 17, 2018 Lawndale 30 N/A 34 April 19, 2018 Redondo Beach 65 18 69 April 26, 2018 Torrance 18 15 54 May 22, 2018 Lawndale 32 28 31 Source: The Robert Group, 2018

Page 5-15 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

During the public comment period after the presentation, community members commented on topics that included preference of alternatives, noise and vibration concerns, property and residential impacts, safety, crime, homelessness, loss of trees and/or landscaping, cost concerns, quality of life, and suggestions for additional alternatives and station locations. In addition to community members, representatives from the City of Lawndale, City of Redondo Beach, and South Bay Cities Council of Governments also provided public spoken comments.

5.6. SUMMARY OF ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED

Throughout the duration of the SAA study, a total of 580 comments were collected via email, the project website, letters, public comments, sticky notes, flip charts, comment cards, and through the phone line. Comments received before May 31, 2018 were included in this chapter of the SAA. Comments received after that date will be considered by Metro staff, but are not included in the SAA. All comments are included in Appendix B.

A breakdown of the number of comments collected via each method are included below:  17 comments via email  127 comments via a comment form on the project website (Wufoo)  2 comments via written letters  25 calls via the information phone line;  206 written and public comments at the community meetings  188 comments via sticky notes at the community meetings  15 comments via flip charts at the community meetings

Not all comments received expressed a preference for a specific alternative. All comments received throughout the SAA study that included statements and rankings in favor of specific alternatives were categorized by alternative, as well as general alignments if mentioned in the absence of a specific alternative. Table 5.8 summarizes these comments.

Table 5.8. Summary of Preferences for Alternatives Alternative Comments in Favor Comments in Favor* Alternative 1 40 11 Alternative 2 8 Alternative 3 118 34 Alternative 4 8 * These comments received did not express a preference for a specific alternative, but generally favored either the Metro ROW or Hawthorne Boulevard alignments. Source: The Robert Group, 2018

Page 5-16 Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternatives Analysis 5. Public and Agency Outreach

The following key takeaways were received from the public outreach process:  General Support of the Proposed Project: Stakeholders and agencies generally agreed the project is needed to improve mobility in the South Bay area and to enhance the regional transit network.  Environmental Impact Concerns: ○ Aesthetics: Residents are concerned about potential visual impacts to surrounding areas as a result of proposed alternatives (i.e., aerial design elements proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4). ○ Traffic: Stakeholders are concerned circulation impacts will occur near station locations, such as the Manhattan Beach/Inglewood Station and Redondo Beach TC Station. ○ Noise and Vibration: Residents who live adjacent to the Metro ROW and Hawthorne Boulevard alignments are concerned about potential noise and vibration impacts. ○ Property Impacts: Property owners along the proposed alignments are concerned the project will require acquisition of their property. ○ Property Values: Residents that live near the proposed alignments are concerned the introduction of LRT service will decrease the value of their property. ○ Safety: Design elements considered in the project should prioritize the prevention of pedestrian and bicyclist accidents, particularly near the proposed undercrossing in Alternative 2. ○ Security: Design elements considered in the project should prevent graffiti and other crime-related activities.  Alternative Preferences: Alternatives 1 and 3 are the most favored out of the four alternatives.  Station Locations: A number of attendees provided comments on preferred station locations, or questioned the need for specific stations. For example, 14 comments received questioned the utility of a station in Lawndale. The community showed limited support for a Lawndale Station at Manhattan/Inglewood due to its proximity to Redondo Beach/Marine Station, impact to business, lack of parking and traffic concerns. The community expressed similar concerns for a station at Hawthorne/166th Street and its proximity to South Bay Galleria Station.  Next Steps: Agencies, stakeholders, and the public want more certainty and detail on the Proposed Project’s impacts related to property acquisitions, traffic, noise and vibration impacts, and related mitigations.

Page 5-17