PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This chapter documents the development of the Recommended Alternative(s) for the PEROW/WSAB Corridor. A wide range of possible transportation alternatives was identified based on past corridor studiesandinconsultationwithelectedofficials,stakeholders,cityandagencystaff,andthecommunity duringtheprojectinitiationphase.Theresultingtransitoptionswereevaluatedandrefinedthrougha threeͲstepscreeningprocesstoidentifytheRecommendedAlternative(s)thatbestmeetsthemobility needs and goals for transit improvements in the Corridor. The first two screening efforts were documentedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAAInitialScreeningReportcompletedinJuly2011.Thefinal levelofevaluationoftheFinalAlternativesisdocumentedinthisAAreport. 2.1 Previous Study Efforts
Startingin1996,numerousstudieshaveidentifiedtheneedforimprovedtravelconnectionsbetween LosAngelesandOrangecounties,includingthereuseofallorportionsofthePEROW/WSABCorridorfor transit purposes once again. The studies concluded that travel between the two counties, as well as withinthestudyarea,wasconstrainedandstronglyinneedofcapacityimprovements.Asillustratedin Figure2.1,themostrecentstudiesevaluatingreuseoftheCorridorare: y WestOrangeCountyProjectDefinitionStudy(2003)–ThisOCTAstudyevaluatedpotentialrail optionsinthewesternportionofOrangeCounty.Thefinalstudyrecommendationproposeduse oftheOrangeCountyportionofthePEROW/WSABRightͲofͲWay(ROW)withaLightRailTransit (LRT)system. y OrangelineHighSpeedMagneticLevitationProject(2005Ͳ2006)–TheOrangelineDevelopment Authority(OLDA),ajointpowersagency,preparedpreliminaryplanningandengineeringreports forahighspeedmagneticlevitation(maglev)systembetweenthecitiesofPalmdaleandSanta AnausingvariousalignmentsincludingthePEROW/WSABROW. y OrangeandLosAngelesIntercountyTransportationStudy(2008)–ThisjointstudybyOCTAand Metroevaluatedalternativesforimprovingtransportationinfrastructureandservicesbetween the two counties, including possible reuse of the PEROW/WSAB ROW with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT),LRT,andothertransitserviceoptions.Thestudydemonstratedtheneedforandfeasibility oftransitsystemimprovementsalongtheROW. y CentralCountyCorridorMajorInvestmentStudy(2010)–ThisOCTAstudyassessedtheneedfor transportationimprovementsincentralOrangeCounty.Oneproposedtransitproject,identified for further study, recommended reuse of the Orange County portion of the PEROW/WSAB CorridorforStreetCarorBRTservice. y SantaAnaͲGardenGroveFixedGuidewayCorridorStudy(2009ͲPresent)–TheCityofSantaAna is evaluating the feasibility of Street Car service connecting the Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (SARTC), the Lacy Neighborhood, downtown Santa Ana, and the Civic Center area.Future expansion of the system from the Civic Center area would use the PEROW/WSABROWtoextendservicetoBristolBoulevardinSantaAnaasaPhaseIterminus, June29,2012 2-1
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.1–PreviousStudiesinCorridorStudyArea
June29,2012 2-2
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
and then to Harbor Boulevard in Garden Grove as a Phase II terminus. Proposed system informationfromthisstudyhasbeenreflectedinthisAAstudy. TheWestSantaAnaBranchcorridorwasidentifiedintheMeasureRtransportationsalestaxprogram approved by Los Angeles County voters in November 2008. A future project was included in the Recommended Plan portion of Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Adopted in October 2009, Metro’s 2009 LRTP was forwarded to SCAG, and a future project placeholder was includedinthe2008RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)andisincludedinthedraft2012RTP. 2.2 Screening and Selection Process
DuringtheAAefforts,transportationalternativeswereidentifiedandevaluatedthroughathreeͲstep screening process incorporating technical and environmental analysis, along with community and stakeholder input. The screening efforts were based on project goals identified based on feedback received from the public, stakeholders, and the project’s Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during project initiation efforts as documented in the PEROW/WSAB Corridor AA Evaluation Methodology Report. In addition, the resulting goals and evaluation criteria reflected the project’sPurposeandNeed,aspresentedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAAPurposeandNeedReport. Theresultingmajorgoalsarepresentedbelowinthefollowingfivemaincategoriescorrespondingto thefederalprojectevaluationcategories: 1.PublicandStakeholderSupport y Provideadesirablesolutiontothecommunityandstakeholders. 2.MobilityImprovements yProvideanothertraveloption. yConnecttotheregionaltransitsystem. yServebothcommunityandregionaltrips. yIncreaseaccesstoandfromCorridordestinationsandactivitycenters. yProvideafasttravelspeed. yProviderelatedpedestrianandbicyclefacilities. 3.CostͲEffectiveness yProvideacostͲeffectivesolution. 4.LandUse/EconomicPlans y Provide station location and spacing that supports local economic development and revitalizationplansandgoals. 5.EnvironmentalandCommunityImpacts y Identify a project that results in no or minimal environmental impacts to adjacent communities. Using the project goals, a detailed set of evaluation criteria with related performance measures was developedtoprovidethepublicanddecisionͲmakerswithcomparativeinformationonthebenefitsand impacts,aswellasthedifferencesbetweenthealternatives.Eachevaluationphaserefinedtheresults ofthepreviouseffortusingincreasinglydetailedengineering,operational,andenvironmentalanalysis, June29,2012 2-3
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final alongwithcontinuedpublicinput.ThescreeningprocessfollowedthethreeͲstepprocesssummarized belowandillustratedinFigure2.2: 1. ConceptualAlternativesScreening–AsetofnineConceptualAlternatives,representingawide range of possible technologies, was identified during the project initiation process based on public and stakeholder input and previous studies. Alternatives were evaluated based on a “meetsͲdoesnotmeet”levelofpolicyandtechnicalassessment,alongwithstakeholderinput. ThiseffortledtotheidentificationofeightInitialAlternatives. 2. Initial Screening – The Initial Alternatives were assessed based on a comparative initial evaluation of technical and environmental benefits and impacts, along with additional stakeholderandpublicfeedback.ThisevaluationstepresultedintheidentificationoftheFinal Alternativeswhichincludedfourbuildoptionsofferingnewtransitsolutions,alongwiththeNo BuildandTransportationSystemManagement(TSM)alternatives. 3. FinalScreening–TheFinalAlternativeswerestudiedandevaluatedbasedonconceptualͲlevel engineeringandrelatedtechnicalandenvironmentalinformation,alongwithstakeholderand publicinput,toidentifyaRecommendedAlternative(s). Figure2.2–ScreeningProcess
TheRecommendedAlternative(s)willbepresentedtotheSCAGRegionalCouncilandMetroandOCTA Boards. The final AA recommendation may be included by SCAG action in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and by Metro and OCTA Board actions in their respective LRTPs.As the owners of the PEROW/WSAB ROW, Metro and OCTA have the option to move the Recommended Alternative(s)forwardintothepreliminaryengineeringdesignandenvironmentalreviewphase.
June29,2012 2-4
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.2.1 Conceptual Set of Alternatives
AsdocumentedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAAInitialScreeningReport,ConceptualAlternativeswere identifiedfrompreviousstudies,andinconsultationwithelectedofficials,stakeholders,cityandagency staff through briefings and advisory committee meetings, and with the public through a series of six communitymeetings.TheConceptualSetofAlternativesincludedeightbuiltoptions: y BRT–Twoalternatives,includingStreetͲRunningandHOVLaneͲRunningBRTalternatives; y Urban Rail – Three rail options, including Street Car, LRT, and Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) service;and y HighSpeedService–ThreeHighSpeedService(HSS)options,includingCommuterRailService, ConventionalSteelWheelHighSpeedRail,andMagneticLevitationHighSpeedService. During the first screening phase, the alternatives were evaluated on a “meetͲdoes not meet” level assessmentoftechnicalviability,purposeandpolicyfit,andpublicsupport.Theconceptualscreening effortidentifiedeachoption’sabilitytoaddressthelocallyͲdefinedgoals,andtheidentifiedPurposeand Need.Acomparativesummaryoftheconceptualscreeningeffortwaspreparedbasedonthefollowing criteriaandfactors: y Public Support – Input was solicited through a series of elected official and stakeholder briefings,ProjectSteeringCommitteeandTACmeetings,andsixcommunitymeetings. y TripTypes–Eachalternative’stripͲservingcapabilitywasassessedbasedonwhetheritcould servebothlocalandregionaltripsbasedonstationspacing,resultingoperationalspeeds,and SouthernCaliforniaexperience. y Speed – As identified by Corridor stakeholders and the public, the two criterion used to determine whether an alternative would provide improved travel speed were: the average MetroBlueLinetravelspeedof25milesperhour(mph)astheonetransitlinemostpeople werefamiliarwith;andtheaveragepeakperiodtravelspeedfortheIͲ5Freeway(35mphor less)inandadjacenttothestudyarea. y StationSpacing–ManyCorridorcitieshaveadoptedtransitͲsupportiveeconomicdevelopment and revitalization plans supporting for their proposed station areas. Alternatives with more frequentstationspacingwereseenasprovidingahigherlevelofsupportforlocaldevelopment goalsthanthosewithwiderspacingrequiredduetooperationalparameters. y ServiceCapacityandFlexibility–Anticipatedridershiplevelswereidentifiedbasedonprevious Corridor Study Area studies and compared to the passenger capacity provided by typical vehicles for each of the proposed alternatives. CostͲeffective service flexibility was identified basedontheabilityofeachofthetypicalvehiclestobereconfiguredtoservepeakandnonͲ peakservices.Forexample,LRTservicecanbescaledfromasinglecartoathreecartrainto matchoperationalneeds. y CompatibilitywithCurrentTransitOperations–Compatibilitywasassessedbasedonwhether therewasanexistingtransitserviceprovider,withpreviousoperationalexperience,thatcould June29,2012 2-5
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed alternative, or whether a new service entity wouldberequiredwitharelatedlearningcurve. y Fit with Freight Rail Operations – Freight rail operations fit was assessed based on the alternative’s ability to share the existing freight rail rightͲofͲways (ROWs) from terminus of PEROW/WSAB ROW north to downtown Los Angeles based on FRA rulings and requirements relatedtosharedͲoperationsandcrashͲcompliantvehicles. AcomparativesummaryoftheconceptualscreeningresultsarepresentedinTable2.1.Reflectingthe initiallevelofassessment,alternativeswereidentifiedaseithermeeting(yesor9)ornotmeeting(no ory)theidentifiedgoalsandcriteria.Insomecases,insufficientinformationwasavailableatthisstage intheplanningprocess,andareasthataredependentonfactors,suchasthefinalstationspacing,the type of vehicle selected, and operational decisions ultimately made, were identified as requiring additionalinformation(à).Forexample,ifthedecisionweremadetooperatetheBRTAlternativeina dedicatedROW,itwouldbecapableofprovidingfastertravelservicethanastreetͲrunningalternative. Table2.1–SummaryofConceptualScreeningResults
Criteria ConceptualAlternatives BRT STCR LRT DMU CR HSS
Community/stakeholdersupportand/orinterest y 9 9 9 y 9
Servescommunityandregionaltrips 9 y 9 9 y y
Providesfasttravelservice à à 9 9 9 9
Stationspacingsupportslocaleconomic 9 9 9 9 y y development/revitalizationgoals AccommodatespeakandnonͲpeakserviceneeds 9 9 9 9 y y
Compatiblewithcurrenttransitsystems/plans 9 à 9 y 9 à/y1
Compatiblewithfreightrailoperations y à à à 9 à Notes:STCR–StreetCar;CR–CommuterRail;andHSS–HighSpeedServiceoptions,ConventionalSteelWheelHighSpeed RailAlternativeandMagneticLevitationHighSpeedServiceAlternative. 9YesyNoàDependentonstationspacing,vehicleselected,andoperationaldecisions. 1 The first symbol (à) represents the finding for the Conventional Steel Wheel High Speed Rail Alternative; the secondsymbol(y)isfortheMagneticLevitationHighSpeedServiceAlternative. Theresultinginformationwaspresentedforstakeholderandpublicinputthroughaseriesofbriefings, meetings,andworksessions.Sixcommunitymeetingswereheldatlocationsthroughoutthestudyarea and a summary of the outreach efforts and results is presented in Chapter 6.0, Public Input of this report.OnJuly14,2010,theProjectSteeringCommitteerecommendedthedeletionoftheCommuter RailAlternativeandfurtherstudyoftheremainingsevenbuildalternativesdescribedbelow.
June29,2012 2-6
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.2.2 Initial Set of Alternatives
TheInitialSetofAlternativesincludedthesevenbuildoptions,whichprovideanewtransitsolution, listedbelow.Duringthisphase,theNoBuildandTransportationSystemManagement(TSM)options werenotevaluated,buttheprojectstobeincludedintheNoBuildAlternative,andalistofpossible CorridorprojectstobeincludedintheTSMAlternative,werepresentedforpublicdiscussion. 1.BusAlternative yBRT – Provide high speed bus service operating in dedicated lanes along the PEROW/WSAB ROW, and connecting north to the Metro rail system in downtown Los Angeles via either freeway high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or streetͲrunning operations; and connecting southfromthePEROW/WSABCorridorviastreetͲrunningoperationsthroughdowntownSanta AnatotheSARTC. 2.UrbanRailAlternatives y Street Car – Build a communityͲoriented rail system similar to that being considered by the citiesofSantaAnaandGardenGrove. y LRT – Build a LRT rail system similar to the Gold and Blue Lines operated by Metro in Los AngelesCounty. y DMU – Build a selfͲpowered, clean diesel DMU rail system similar to the Sprinter service operatedbytheNorthCountyTransitDistrictinSanDiegoCounty. 3.HighSpeedServiceAlternatives yConventionalSteelWheelHighSpeedRail–Implementhighspeedrailservicesimilartothe servicebeingplannedbytheCaliforniaHighSpeedRailAuthority,andoperatedbyAmtrakin theeasternU.S.andbyothersthroughoutEuropeandAsia. yMagneticLevitationHighSpeedService–Providehighspeedmaglevservicesimilartosystems operatinginAsia. Initial Screening Efforts and Results The Initial Set of Alternatives was evaluated based on an initial assessment of technical and environmental benefits and impacts to identify the alternatives that best met the project goals and identified Corridor Purpose and Need, were technically viable, and had stakeholder and community support. At this level of evaluation, technical analysis was based on orderͲofͲmagnitude information identifiedfromsimilarexistingtransitprojectsinSouthernCaliforniaandotherlocationsaspresentedin Table2.2. Conceptualdefinitionsofthebuildalternativesweredevelopedtosupportthisphase’sanalyticalefforts and included: the horizontal alignment, or how each option would travel through the PEROW/WSAB Corridor; the vertical alignment, or whether the alternative would operate atͲgrade, aboveͲgrade, or belowͲgrade; and conceptual station locations identified in working sessions held with the Corridor cities. June29,2012 2-7
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.2–ExistingTransitSystemsusedforInitialScreeningEfforts
PEROW/WSABROWCorridor LocalorOtherPeerSystem InitialSetofAlternatives
BusRapidTransit(BRT) MetroOrangeLine StreetCar PortlandStreetCar LightRailTransit(LRT) MetroGoldandBlueLines DieselMultipleUnit(DMU) NCTDSprinterSystem ConventionalSteelWheelHighSpeedService CaliforniaHSR MagneticLevitationHighSpeedService Asianmaglevsystems The Initial Set of Alternatives was assessed based on a comparative analysis of technical and environmental benefits and impacts to support informed decisionͲmaking on a final set of the most viable alternatives for further study. The resulting alternative definition information, along with technicalandenvironmentalanalyses,ispresentedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAAInitialScreening Report.Whileafullsetofevaluationcriteriawasusedtoassessthealternatives,Table2.3presentsa summary of the Initial Screening results based on the following key goals and criteria that were identifiedbystakeholdersandthepublic: 1.PublicandStakeholderSupport y Provideadesirablesolutiontothecommunityandstakeholders. 2.MobilityImprovements yServebothcommunityandregionaltrips. yMaketransitaviablealternative–attractsandservesahighlevelofdailyridership. 3.CostͲEffectiveness yProvide a costͲeffective solution – balances project costs with expected benefits; resulting constructionandoperatingcostsarebalancedbystrongridership(costͲeffectiveness). 4.LandUse/EconomicPlans y Providestationspacingthatsupportslocaleconomicdevelopmentandrevitalizationplans. 5.ProjectFeasibility yFitwithcurrentlocaltransitsystemoperationsorplans. yHasstateandfederallyapprovedvehicles,andisoperationalintheU.S. 6.EnvironmentalandCommunityImpacts yMinimizethenumberofpropertiestobeacquired. yResultinairqualitybenefits. June29,2012 2-8
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.3–InitialScreeningResultsSummary
Criteria BRT StreetCar LRT DMU HSS SteelWheel Maglev Serves:Localtrips 9 9 9 9 Regionaltrips 9 9 9 9 9 Providessupportfor * 9 9 * * * localplans Requiresminimal Lessthan10 Lessthan10 10Ͳ25 10Ͳ25 Morethan Morethan propertyacquisition 125 125 Hasairqualitybenefits Yes Yes Yes No** Yes Yes Fitswithlocaltransit 9 9 9 No No No systemplans HasStateandFederally approvedvehiclesand 9 Stateno 9 9 9 Notyet U.S.operatingsystem 9 9 9 9 9 Notyet Rangeofconceptual 19,200Ͳ 26,000Ͳ 26,000Ͳ 26,000Ͳ 2,400Ͳ 2,400Ͳ dailyridership 32,400 39,000 57,600 57,600 4,800 4,800 Conceptualcosttobuild $0.6Ͳ2.21 $1.3Ͳ4.01 $1.6Ͳ4.21 $1.2Ͳ4.11 $4.9 $5.9 ($2010,billions) Conceptualannualcost $20Ͳ50 $10Ͳ40 $10Ͳ50 $10Ͳ50 $460Ͳ920 $580Ͳ1,150 perrider Notes:** Provennationallyand/orinternationally **Someregionalbenefits 1 A range of construction costs was identified reflecting atͲgrade operations at the low end and gradeͲseparated (subway)atthehighend;aerialoperationswouldfallmidͲrange.AsinglecostisprovidedfortheHSSalternativesas MaglevoperationsrequireandSteelWheelsystemsworkbestwithgradeͲseparatedoperations. InitialScreeningresultswerepresentedtoanddiscussedthrough:briefingsheldwithelectedofficials and stakeholders from each Corridor Study Area city; public presentations to community and stakeholdergroups;sixcommunityworkshops;andstudyadvisorycommitteebriefings,includingfive TAC meetings, and three Steering Committee meetings. During advisory committee meetings held in MarchandAprilof2011,thefollowingrecommendationsweredevelopedbytheTACandapprovedby theSteeringCommittee: 1. Removethefollowingthreealternativesfromfurtherstudy: y DMUOption;and y HighSpeedServiceAlternatives,includingboththeConventionalSteelWheelHighSpeed RailandMagneticLevitationHighSpeedServiceoptions. 2. AddaLowSpeedMagneticLevitationAlternativetothestudy.
June29,2012 2-9
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.2.3 Final Set of Alternatives
OnApril27,2011,thefollowingFinalAlternativeswereapprovedbytheSteeringCommitteeforfurther study: 1. NoBuildAlternative 2. TransportationSystemManagement(TSM)Alternative 3. BRTAlternative–StreetͲRunningandHOVLaneͲRunningoptions 4. StreetCarAlternative 5. LRTAlternative 6. LowSpeedMagneticLevitationAlternative. 2.3 Definition of Final Alternatives
TheFinalAlternativeswerestudiedandevaluatedbasedonconceptualͲlevelengineeringandoperating design and technical information, including capital and operating cost estimates, ridership forecast modelinginformation,landuseanddevelopmentsupport,environmentalimpactanalysis,andotherAA studyͲrelated evaluation efforts. The study results are documented in the following chapters and summarized in Chapter 7.0, Comparison of Alternatives. This section describes the Final Set of Alternativesindetail. FortheNoBuildandTSMalternatives,thefollowinginformationispresentedbelow: yNoBuildAlternative–ThisoptionincludedidentifiedCorridortransportationprojectsthathave approvedlocal,county,state,andfederalfunding.NoBuildincludedprojectsbeyondthestudy areathatwillexpandtheregionaltransitsystemandmayhavebenefitsforCorridortravel. y TSMAlternative–Thisoptionaddressedthesamemobilityneedsasthebuildalternativesby maximizingtheuseandeffectivenessoftheexistingtransportationsystem.TSMincludedallof theNoBuildAlternativeprojects,alongwithasetoflowercapitalcosttransitandarterialsystem projectsidentifiedwithMetroandOCTAforLosAngelesandOrangecountiesrespectively. Forthefourbuildalternatives,theBRT,StreetCar,LRT,andLowSpeedMagneticLevitationoptions,the followingalternativeͲspecificinformationwasdevelopedandispresentedbelow: y AlternativeDescription–anoverviewofeachproposedalternative’smodalinformation; y OperationalDescription–aconceptualdescriptionofthehorizontalandverticalalignments,and stationlocations;and y DesignandOperationalIssues–Aspartofthiseffort,thealternativeswereexaminedtoidentify engineering, operational, and environmental issues to be resolved during possible future preliminaryengineeringandenvironmentalreviewefforts.
June29,2012 2-10
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
The description of the build alternatives was divided into three alignment sections for analytical purposesandtoreflectdifferentcoordinationrequirementsandpossiblephasingdecisions: 1. Northern Connection Area – consists of the approximately 12Ͳmile long study area extending northfromthePEROW/WSABCorridorterminusinParamountnorthtodowntownLosAngeles. PossiblealignmentswereexploredtoUnionStationintheareafromtheMetroBlueLineonthe westtoseveralactiveandinactiverailroadROWsadjacenttotheLosAngelesRiverontheeast. 2. PEROW/WSABArea–includesthePEROW/WSABROWnow ownedby MetroandOCTA.Itis approximately20mileslong,with12milesofthealignmentlocatedinOrangeCounty,andthe remainingeightmilesinLosAngelesCounty. 3. Southern Connection Area – consists of an approximately two mile long area extending southeast from the southern PEROW/WSAB ROW terminus at Raitt Street in Santa Ana east throughthecity’sciviccenteranddowntownareastotheSARTC. 2.3.1 No Build Alternative
TheNoBuildAlternativerepresentscompletion ofCorridortransportationimprovementswhichhave committed local, county, state, and federal funding as identified in constrained plans of the adopted MetroandOCTALRTPs.Thisoptionwasusedforcomparisonpurposestoassesstherelativebenefits andimpactsofconstructinganewtransitprojectintheCorridorStudyAreaversusimplementingonly currentlyplannedprojects.Inadditiontoprovidingacomparativebasisforthebuildoptions,theNo BuildAlternativewasidentifiedasapreferredalternativebysomeOrangeCountycitiesandcommunity members. Currently planned projects in the Corridor Study Area have been identified from transportation tax measureprogramsapprovedbyvotersinLosAngelesCounty(MeasureR)andOrangeCounty(Measure M2),adoptedMetroandOCTALRTPs,andtheSCAGRTPandRegionalTransportationImprovementPlan (RTIP). The adopted 2008 RTIP and amendments incorporate approved transportation programs and projectswithcommitted,available,orreasonablyavailableresources.Themajorapprovedhighwayand transitprojectslocatedinthestudyareaarepresentedinTable2.4andillustratedinFigures2.3and2.4. The adopted Metro 2009 LRTP includes a future West Santa Ana Branch project for the Los Angeles County section of the PEROW/WSAB ROW, and the OCTA 2010 LRTP includes the Santa AnaͲGarden GroveFixedGuidewayProjectutilizingaportionoftheOrangeCountysectionoftheROW. Table2.4–ApprovedTransportationImprovementsinCorridorStudyArea(2035)
ProjectName ProjectDescription FreewayImprovements IͲ5 Construction of mixedͲflow and HOV lanes, reconfiguration of interchanges,andwideningofbridges IͲ405 ConstructionofmixedͲflowlanesandHOVconnectors,interchange improvements,andwideningofbridges
June29,2012 2-11
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.3–ApprovedHighwayProjectsinCorridorStudyArea(2035)
June29,2012 2-12
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.4–ApprovedTransportationImprovementsinCorridorStudyArea(2035)
ProjectName ProjectDescription FreewayImprovements IͲ605 ConstructionofHOVconnectorsandimprovementstointerchanges. IͲ710 ConstructionofmixedͲflowandtruckͲonlylaneandimprovementsto interchanges. SRͲ22 Construction of HOV lanes, improvements to interchanges, and lengtheningofbridges. SRͲ55 Constructionofadditionaltravellanes. SRͲ91 Provisionofmixedflowlane. ArterialImprovements LosAngelesCounty $1.5billionforvariousarterialprojects. OrangeCounty $2.0billionforvariousarterialprojects. TransitProjects RegionalConnector DowntownLosAngelesLRTconnectionbetweenUnionStationand TransitCorridor 7th/MetroCenter. SantaAnaͲGardenGrove New fixed guideway project providing regional rail feeder service FixedGuideway betweentheSARTCandHarborBoulevard. LongBeachTransit IncreaseservicefrequencyonbusroutesconnectingLongBeachwith OrangeCounty. In addition to the corridorͲspecific projects identified above other regional transportation system projectsanticipatedtobeimplementedby2035,thefollowingtransit,commuterrailservice,andgoods movement projects will expand and enhance the regional transit system and may have benefits for PEROW/WSABCorridortravel: 1. California High Speed Rail Project (CHSR) – Palmdale to Los Angeles (Union Station) and Los AngelestoAnaheimsegments; 2.LosAngelesCountyLRTPProjects yExpositionTransitCorridor,Phases1and2 yCrenshaw/LAXTransitCorridor yMetroGreenLinetoLAX ySouthBayMetroGreenLineExtension yWestsideSubwayExtension yBNSFGradeSeparationimprovementsintheGatewayCitiessubregion. 3. OrangeCountyLRTPProjects yAnaheimFixedGuidewayProject yMetrolinkStationandHighFrequencyServiceImprovements yDevelopmentofRegionalGatewaysrelatedtoCHSTservice. June29,2012 2-13
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.5–ApprovedTransitSystemProjects(2035)
June29,2012 2-14
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.3.2 Transportation System Management Alternative
TheTransportationSystemManagement(TSM)Alternativeaddressesthesamemobilityneedsasthe buildalternativesbymaximizingtheuseandeffectivenessoftheexistingtransportationsystem.This alternative provides a lower capital cost set of mobility improvements, and does not include the constructionofthebuildalternativesidentifiedinthisAAstudy.TSMprovidesacomparisontomeasure the resulting mobility improvements from implementing a major transit improvement compared to maximizing the use of the existing transportation system. The TSM alternative includes all of the projectsincludedintheNoBuildAlternative,plusthetransitandarterialsystemimprovementprojects identifiedforimplementationby2035withMetroandOCTAstaffpresentedinTable2.5andFigure2.5. TheTSMAlternativeispresentedas:aCoreServiceProjectrepresentingbusserviceprovidingaservice alignmentsimilartothebuildalternatives,whichincludestheUnionStationͲLosCerritosCenterservice inLosAngelesCounty,andtheKatellaAvenueBRTServiceinOrangeCounty;andaCorridorSystem optionwhichincludestheCorridorͲwideTSMimprovementprojectspresentedinTable2.5. Table2.5–TransportationSystemManagement(TSM)AlternativeProjects(2035)
Project Description LosAngelesCounty BusServiceImprovements Provide new limited stop bus line serving y Alldayweekdayandweekendservice Corridortravel yUnionStation–LosCerritosCenter(transferpoint betweenMetroandOCTAbussystems) Extend transit signal priority system to 31 intersections along Soto Street, Firestone Boulevard, and supportnewbusservice LakewoodBoulevard ProvideLongBeachTransitservicetoGreen y Alldayweekdayandweekendservice Line yGreenLineLakewoodStation–DowntownLongBeach OtherModalImprovements Bicycle/PedestrianPathalongWSABROW Class1BicyclePath(8miles) OrangeCounty BusServiceImprovements EnhanceOCTABRTservicewith: y Weekdayservice onthreelines: yTransitsignalpriority ͲWestminsterBoulevard–17thStreet yQueuejumpers ͲBristolStreet–CollegeBoulevard yRealͲtimemessaging ͲHarborBoulevard ProvidethreenewOCTABRTlines y Weekdayservice onthreelines: ͲBeachBoulevardBRT ͲKatellaAvenueBRT ͲEdingerAvenueBRT ProvideexpressbusserviceonSRͲ22(Long y Weekdayservice BeachTransit) ySouthCoastMetro–LongBeachTransitMall/BlueLine ProvideexpressbusserviceusingIͲ405HOV y Weekday,peakperiodonlyservice Lanes(LongBeachTransit) ySouthCoastPlaza–WardlowBlueLineStationviaIͲ405
June29,2012 2-15
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.5–TSMAlternativeProjects(2035)
June29,2012 2-16
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.5–TransportationSystemManagement(TSM)AlternativeProjects(2035)
Project Description OrangeCounty OtherModalImprovements Bicycle/PedestrianPathalongPEROW Class1BicyclePath(10.5miles)fromCoyoteCreekBikePath –CountyLinetoRaittStreet BicycleLanesalongCityStreets Class2BicycleLanes(4.5miles)fromRaittStreet–SARTC HighwayImprovements Optimize arterial and intersection Improvementsalongsixcorridors: operations at 21 intersections along six yKatellaAvenuetoIͲ5(fourintersections) majorstreetsadjacenttothePEROW/WSAB yHarborBoulevardtoSRͲ22(twointersections) Corridor that form travel corridors yWestminsterBlvd./17thStreettoIͲ5(twointersections) connectingtofreewaysystem yWestminsterBlvd./17thStreettoSRͲ22(fourintersections) y1stStreettoSRͲ22andIͲ5(fourintersections) yEdingerAvenuetoIͲ405andIͲ5(fiveintersections) 2.3.3 Bus Rapid Transit Alternative
TheBRTAlternativeisdefinedashighcapacity,highspeedbusservicerunningindedicatedlaneswhere possiblesimilartotheMetroOrangeLineoperatedintheSanFernandoValleyportionofLosAngeles County, or with signal priority similar to the Metro Rapid service operating in Los Angeles County. RunningindedicatedlanesonaformerrailroadROW,theMetroBRTsystemhasanaveragespeedof22 mph,withtopspeedsof35mph.ThissystemoperatingonadedicatedrightͲofͲwayusesvehiclesthat are60Ͳfootarticulatedbuseswithaseatedcapacityof57passengersandatotalcapacityof74riders. Operational Description Two Corridor BRT operational scenarios were identified and evaluated. While both options have the PEROW/WSABROWandtheconnectionsouththroughSantaAnacitystreetsincommon,theproposed connectionnorthfromthePEROW/WSABROWterminusinParamounttodowntownLosAngelesdiffers asillustratedinFigure2.6: yHOVLaneͲRunningOption–ThisalternativewouldoperateinHOVlanesalongtheIͲ105andIͲ 110freewaystothecurrentterminusoftheIͲ110/HarborTransitwayat23rdStreetandcontinue instreetͲrunningoperationsnorthboundonFigueroaStreetandsouthboundonFlowerStreet. Servicewouldterminateatthe7th/MetroCenterStationprovidingatransfertotheMetroRed, Purple, and Blue lines today, and the Gold Line in the future with completion of the Regional ConnectorandtheExpositionLine.Inaddition,thisoptionwouldinterfacewiththeMetroGreen LineLakewoodBoulevardStation.Thisservicewouldbeoperatedin45footbusessimilartothe MetroSilverLine. y StreetͲRunningOption–Thislimitedstopservicealternativewithsignalpriorityimprovements wouldleavethePEROW/WSABROWtorunnorthonLakewoodBoulevardtointerfacewiththe MetroGreenLineLakewoodBoulevardStation,andthencontinuenorthinstreetͲrunningroute
June29,2012 2-17
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.6–BRTAlternative:NorthernAlignmentAlternatives
June29,2012 2-18
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
alongFirestoneBoulevard,LongBeachBoulevard,SlausonAvenue,andSotoStreet,withastop at the Metro Gold Line Soto Street Station, and then along Cesar Chavez Avenue to Union Station. This option would provide a transfer to the Metro Red and Gold lines, the Metrolink commuterrailsystem,andAmtrakintercityrailservice.TheStreetͲRunningAlternativewouldbe operatedin40footbusessimilartoMetroRapidservice. AtthesouthernendofthePEROW/WSABCorridor,bothBRToptionswouldleavetheROWtooperate onSantaAnacitystreetsalongoneoftwoalternativeroutesillustratedinFigure2.7: yHarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTC–AfterleavingtheHarborBoulevardStationlocatedonthe PEROW/WSABCorridor,whereriderscouldtransfertothefutureSantaAnaStreetCarsystem, thisservicealignmentwouldtravelsouthonHarborBoulevard,turneaston1stStreet,andnorth on a realigned Santiago Street to the SARTC where passengers could transfer to Street Car, Metrolink,andAmtrakservices,alongwithOCTAandinternationalbusservices. yWestminster Boulevard/17th Street/Main Street – After leaving the Harbor Boulevard Station locatedonthePEROW/WSABCorridor,thisservicealignmentwouldtraveleastonWestminster Boulevard/17thStreet,southonMainStreettointerfacewiththefuturestreetcarsystem,and continuetotheSARTCviaSantaAnaBoulevard. Vertical Configuration Both BRT alternatives were proposed to operate atͲgrade in all corridor segments. While gradeͲ separation is possible, BRT service is typically implemented atͲgrade to provide a less costly, more quickly implemented transit system alternative. The Metro Orange Line was built atͲgrade with the system expansion currently under construction incorporating some gradeͲseparated sections to facilitateinterfacewiththeMetrolinksystematChatsworthStationandreducetrafficimpacts.Future possibleengineeringandenvironmentaleffortsmayidentifytheneedforgradeͲseparatedsectionsto improvesystemoperationsandminimizetrafficandotherimpacts. Service Configurations TheBRTalternativeswouldoperateinthreeserviceconfigurationsasillustratedinFigure2.8: y DedicatedlaneslocatedgenerallyinthecenterofthePEROW/WSABROWbetweenParamountin LosAngelesCountyandSantaAnainOrangeCounty; y StreetͲrunning operations located curbside, as illustrated in Figure 2.8, with signal priority connectingnorthfromthePEROW/WSABROWterminustoUnionStation,southfromtheROW terminusinSantaAna,andthroughtheciviccenteranddowntownareastotheSARTC;and y Freeway HOV lane operations connecting north from the PEROW/WSAB ROW terminus with serviceoperatingintheHOVlaneslocatedintheIͲ105andIͲ110Freeways. June29,2012 2-19
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.7–BRTAlternative:SouthernAlignmentAlternatives
June29,2012 2-20
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.8–TypicalBRTOperationalCrossͲSections PEROW/WSABCorridor
HarborBoulevard
WestminsterBoulevard/17thStreet
MainStreet
June29,2012 2-21
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Stations TheproposedBRTstationsarepresentedinTable2.6anddescribedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAA StationConceptsReport.Stationswereidentifiedthroughthefollowingefforts:1)workingsessionswith theaffectedstudyareacities;and2)initialdiscussionswithMetroandOCTAserviceplanningstaff.The proposed stations were located to interface with other Corridor transportation services and serve existing activity centers and future development and economic strategy plans. The BRT HOV LaneͲ Running Alternative has a total of 22 proposed stations, while the StreetͲRunning Alternative has 27 stationswithfivemorestationsintheNorthernConnectionArea.Inthissection,theStreetͲRunning AlternativeinitiatesservicefromUnionStationandhassixstationsalongSotoStreetandLongBeach Boulevard, and two on Firestone Boulevard before interfacing with the Metro Green Line Lakewood BoulevardStation.TheHOVLaneͲRunningAlternativebeginsserviceatthe7th/MetroCenterStation andservesthefourexistingHarborTransitwaystationsandGreenLineLakewoodBoulevardStation. Table2.6–BRTAlternatives:ProposedStations
StreetͲRunningAlternative HOVLaneͲRunningAlternative NorthernConnectionArea City Station City Station LosAngeles UnionStation LosAngeles 7th/MetroCenter MetroGoldLineSotoStation SotoSt./WhittierBlvd. SotoSt./OlympicBlvd. Vernon SotoSt./VernonAve. HarborTransitwayStations HuntingtonPark PacificBlvd./SlausonAve. 37thSt./USC PacificBlvd./FlorenceAve. Slauson/HarborFreeway SouthGate LongBeach/FirestoneBlvds. Manchester Firestone/AtlanticBlvds. HarborFreeway Downey Firestone/LakewoodBlvd. Downey GreenLineLakewoodStation GreenLineLakewoodStation PEROW/WSABCorridor(commontobothalternatives) Bellflower LakewoodBlvd. Bellflower LakewoodBlvd. BellflowerBlvd. BellflowerBlvd. Cerritos 183rdSt./GridleyRd. Cerritos 183rdSt./GridleyRd. Artesia PioneerBlvd. Artesia PioneerBlvd. Cerritos BloomfieldAve. Cerritos BloomfieldAve. Cypress CypressCollege Cypress CypressCollege Anaheim KnottAve. Anaheim KnottAve. Stanton BeachBlvd. Stanton BeachBlvd. GardenGrove MagnoliaSt. GardenGrove MagnoliaSt. BrookhurstSt. BrookhurstSt. EuclidSt. EuclidSt. GardenGrove/ HarborBlvd. GardenGrove/ HarborBlvd. SantaAna SantaAna
June29,2012 2-22
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.6–BRTAlternatives:ProposedStations
SouthernConnectionArea(commontobothalternatives) HarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTC SantaAna HarborBlvd./1stSt. SantaAna HarborBlvd./1stSt. 1stSt./FairviewSt. 1stSt./FairviewSt. 1stSt./BristolSt. 1stSt./BristolSt. SARTC SARTC Westminster/17thStreet/MainStreet/SARTC SantaAna 17thSt./BristolSt. SantaAna 17thSt./BristolSt. MainSt./CivicCenterDr. MainSt./CivicCenterDr. SARTC SARTC Station Parking Based on initial work sessions with the Corridor cities, existing and proposed BRT station parking opportunitieswereidentifiedandarepresentedinTable2.7.Severalcitiesviewedthisalternativeas upgradedbusserviceanddidnotseetheneedtoprovideparking.ItshouldbenotedthatfortheMetro OrangeLine,parkingisprovidedatfiveofthe13BRTͲonlystationswiththenumberofspacesranging from270to1,205reflectingthestation’sroleandadjacentlanduses.Anyfutureplanninganddesign effortswouldincludemoredetailedparkingdemandanalysisandworksessionswithCorridorcitiesto identifytheoptimallocationandnumberofparkingspaces. Table2.7–BRTAlternatives:ProposedStationParking
City Station Alternative Notes LosAngeles UnionStation Street Existing surface and structured parking; no new parkingproposed. Slauson/HarborTransitway HOV Existing160surface spaces. Manchester/Harbor HOV Existing127surfacespaces. Transitway HarborFreeway HOV Existing253surfacespaces. Downey GreenLineLakewood HOV Existing 545 surface spaces; spillͲover parking in Boulevard adjacentresidentialneighborhoods. Cypress CypressCollege Both Proposedfuturestationareaparkingstructurefor collegeandstationparking. Stanton BeachBoulevard Both Proposed as part of future station area developmentplans. SantaAna HarborBoulevard Both Future Street Car Station with surface parking. Additionalparkingrequiredforthisproject. SARTC Both Existing surface and structured parking. Master plan prepared for future Street Car station and parking. Additional parking required for this project. Notes: Street – BRT StreetͲRunning Alternative; HOV – BRT HOV LaneͲRunning Alternative; Both – station serves both BRT alternatives. June29,2012 2-23
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
2.3.4 Guideway Alternatives
Threeofthebuildalternativeswouldoperateonaguidewayeitherasteelrailoraconcreteguideway: yStreet Car Alternative – This alternative reflects building a communityͲoriented rail system similartothatbeingconsideredbySantaAnaandGarden,andinoperationinPortlandandother U.S.cities.StreetcarsystemsareelectricallyͲpoweredthroughanoverheadelectricalcatenary systemsupportedbytractionpowersubstations.Currently,theSantaAnaͲGardenGroveStreet CarsystemplansonusingtheSiemensS70StreetCarasthePortlandStreetCarisnotapproved foroperationbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC).Theselectedvehicleis79feet in length and has 60 seats plus standee room. While the Portland Street car vehicles have a typicaloperatingspeedof8.5to15mphinmixedflowconditions,withamaximumspeedof40 mphinadedicatedROW,theproposedOrangeCountyStreetCarvehiclecanoperateatupto55 mphinadedicatedROW. yLightRailTransit(LRT)Alternative–TheLRTAlternativewouldbesimilartotheMetroGoldand Blue Lines currently operated by Metro in Los Angeles County. While primarily designed to operate atͲgrade, LRT service can be built in aerial and underground configurations where necessary, and are electricallyͲpowered through an overhead electrical catenary system supported by traction power substations. Metro’s atͲgrade LRT systems operate in either a streetͲrunning configuration, where the trains operate along with vehicular traffic and are controlledbythesametrafficcontrols,orinadedicatedrightͲofͲwaywheretrainscanoperateat speedsofupto55mph.LRTsystemsMetroLRTvehiclesare90feetinlength,andoperatedin consists of two to three vehicles with a peak period threeͲcar train seated capacity of 228 passengersandatotalcapacityof400riders. yLow Speed Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Alternative – This option would be similar to the Linimo System operating in Nagoya, Japan. System and operational needs require low speed maglev service to be run in a gradeͲseparated configuration. Low speed maglev systems are electricallyͲpoweredthroughsystemofmagnetsthatsuspendandguidethevehiclesandalinear inductionmotorforpropulsionsupportedbytractionpowersubstations.TheLinimoSystemhas a maximum speed of 62 mph, with the current 5.6Ͳmile, nine station system operating at an average speed of 22.4 mph. The vehicles are designed as an integrated three car train approximately135feetlongwithaseatedcapacityof104ridersandtotalcapacityof248. Operational Description All three guideway alternatives have the PEROW/WSAB Area and the Northern Connection Area alignment options in common as illustrated in Figure 2.9, while there are variations in the Southern Connection Area that are discussed below.The operational challenges and differences between the alignmentsarepresentedinmoredetailinSection2.3.5.FortheNorthern ConnectionArea,awide range of alignment alternatives was identified and reviewed with Metro, LADOT, and the affected CorridorcitiestoidentifythefollowingfouralignmentsforconceptualͲlevelengineeringandevaluation.
June29,2012 2-24
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
AllfouralternativeswouldusetheSanPedroSubdivision,nowownedbythePortsofLongBeachand LosAngeles,toconnectnorthfromthePEROW/WSABROWterminusinParamounttoUnionStation. InitialconversationswiththeportsidentifiedaninterestinsellingtheSanPedroSubdivisionROWfor continuedtransportationusebyanotherpublicentity.UtilizationofthisrailroadROWwouldrequire provision of freight trackage, along with any new transit system, to accommodate service to the remainingcustomersandprovideemergencytravelforAlamedaCorridorfreightactivity. TherearetwosetsofoptionsfortheconnectionnorthfromthePEROW/WSABROWtoUnionStation, eitheroperatingalongtheeastorwestbankoftheLosAngelesRiverasillustratedinFigure2.9: yEast Bank Alternative – This alignment alternative would operate north along the San Pedro SubdivisiontotraveloveraBurlingtonNorthernͲSantaFe(BNSF)atͲgradecrossingandacorner of BNSF’s Hobart Intermodal Yard to where the ROW intersects with the Union Pacific (UP)Ͳ ownedROWusedforfreight,Metrolink,andAmtrakoperations.ItwouldsharetheUPROWfor a short distance to where the ROW, now owned by Metro and operated by Metrolink, turns northtorunalongtheeastbankoftheLosAngelesRiver,andcrosstheriverintoUnionStation. y West Bank Alternative – This alignment alternative would operate north along the San Pedro SubdivisiontoeitheroperatealongthewestbankoftherivernorthalongtheMetroͲownedand MetrolinkͲoperated ROW to reach Union Station, or turn west to operate along the former railroad ROW in the median of Randolph Street and operate north along several street and railroadROWoptionstoUnionStation. BothalternativesinitiallyhadsubͲoptionswithminoralignmentvariations.Basedonagencyinputand engineering constraints, the East Bank Alternative was reduced to one option, while the West Bank Alternativehadthreeviableoptionsidentifiedforfurtherstudy: yWestBank1–Underthisalignmentalternative,theconnectiontoUnionStationwouldoperate in its own ROW along the west bank of the Los Angeles River to just beyond the Redondo JunctionwhereitwouldsharetheMetroͲownedandMetrolinkͲoperatedROWwithMetrolink andAmtrakservice. yWestBank2–ThisalignmentalternativewouldturnwesttooperateinthemedianofRandolph Street,formerlyaBNSFrailroadROWnowownedbyUP,throughHuntingtonParkandthenturn northtooperateinthemedianofPacificBoulevard,aformerstreetcarROWuntilitintersects with the MetroͲowned Harbor Subdivision. It would follow the Harbor Subdivision ROW in a bridgeovertheRedondoJunction,andthenoperatenorthalongthewestbanksimilartoWest Bankoption1toreachUnionStation. y West Bank 3 – This alternative follows the same alignment as West Bank 2, but rather than turningtooperatealongthewest bankoftheLosAngelesRiver,it continuesnorthalongthe HarborSubdivision,andthenundercitystreetsandprivatepropertyinacombinationofaerial and underground configurations to daylight south of Metro Gold Line Eastside Little Tokyo StationwhereitutilizestheexistingatͲgradeMetroGoldLinetrackstoreachUnionStation.
June29,2012 2-25
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.9–GuidewayAlternatives:NorthernConnectionAreaAlignmentAlternatives
June29,2012 2-26
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
FortheSouthernConnectionArea,twoalignmentalternativeswereidentifiedinworkingsessionswith SantaAnaandOCTAstaff.Considerationwasgiventotheengineeringandoperationalfitwithfuture Street Car system plans. At the city’s request, the PEROW/WSAB Corridor project would leave the former PE ROW at Harbor Boulevard to operate on Santa Ana city streets along one of the two alternativeroutesillustratedinFigure2.10.TheLowSpeedMaglevAlternativewouldhaveaterminal stationattheHarborBoulevardStreetCarStationwherepassengerswouldtransfertotheStreetCar systemtotraveltodowntownSantaAnaandtheSARTC. TheStreetCarandLRTalternativeswouldoperateononeoftwoalignmentoptions: yHarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTC–AfterleavingtheHarborBoulevardStationlocatedonthe formerPEROW,thisoptiontravelssouthonHarborBoulevard,turnseaston1stStreet,andthen runsnorthonarealignedSantiagoStreettoaterminusattheSARTCwherepassengerswould transfertoStreetCar,Metrolink,andAmtrakservices,andOCTAandinternationalbusservices. yWestminster Boulevard/17th Street/Main Street – After the Harbor Boulevard Station, this alignmentwouldtraveleastonWestminsterBoulevard/17thStreet,southonMainStreet,where theroutewouldturnsouthtointerfacewiththefutureStreetCarMainStreetStation.StreetCar andLRTpassengerswouldtransfertotheSantaAnaStreetCarsystemtoreachtheSARTC. Vertical Configurations TypicalcrossͲsectionsforthethreeguidewayalternativesareillustratedinFigures2.11,2.12,and2.13. TheLowSpeedMaglevAlternativewasdesignedandevaluatedasatotallygradeͲseparatedsystemdue to operational requirements, while the Street Car and LRT options were evaluated in two vertical configurations,asshowninFigures2.14,2.15,and2.16: yCombination of atͲgrade and gradeͲseparated operations based on Corridor fit and physical requirements, engineering best practices, and the Metro Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit;and y EntirelygradeͲseparatedoperatingineitheranaerialorundergroundconfiguration. Thiswasdonetobracketbenefits,impacts,costs,traveltimes,andresultingridershiptounderstandthe tradeͲoffs between the two possible vertical configurations. During any subsequent preliminary engineering and environmental review efforts, the decision on whether to grade separate LRT, and possiblyStreetCar,serviceinLosAngelesCountywouldbeguidedbyMetro’sGradeCrossingPolicyfor LRT, which provides a structured process for making gradeͲseparated versus atͲgrade operation decisions. During Initial Screening, consideration of building the system entirely in a subway configurationwasdeletedfromfurtherconsiderationduetotwomainfactors:significantcapitalcost and the Corridor’s high water table which ranges from approximately two to 20 feet below surface, resulting in costly construction impacts, as well as concerns about dealing with contaminated water from years of railroad operations along the ROW. The significant subway construction costs were identifiedasnotbeingcostͲeffectivegiventheprojectedridership. June29,2012 2-27
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.10–GuidewayAlternatives:SouthernConnectionAreaAlignmentAlternatives
June29,2012 2-28
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Service Configurations Theguidewayalternativeswouldoperateinfourservicealignments: y DedicatedROWalongthePEROW/WSABROWbetweentheCityofParamountinLosAngeles CountyandtheCityofSantaAnainOrangeCounty; y Railroad ROWͲrunning operations connecting north from the PEROW/WSAB ROW terminus utilizingseveralactiveandinactiverailroadROWsalongeithertheeasternorwesternsideofthe LosAngelesRiver,theMetroͲownedHarborSubdivision,orthemedianofRandolphStreet; yStreetͲrunningoperationsconnectingnorthalongPacificBoulevard,orsouthfromtheCorridor ROWterminustoeitherinterfacewiththefutureStreetCarProject,oroperatealongthestreets ineitheratͲgradeoraerialoperationsthroughtheSantaAnaciviccenteranddowntownareato theSARTC;and, y Underground operations under city streets and public and private property in the Northern Connection Area generally from the Harbor Subdivision north to the existing Metro Gold Line LittleTokyoStation. Stations TheproposedstationsfortheguidewayalternativesaresummarizedinTable2.8,presentedinTable 2.9,anddescribedinthePEROW/WSABCorridorAAStationConceptsReport.Stationslocationswere identified through the following efforts: 1) working sessions with the affected study area cities and agencies;and2)initialdiscussionswithMetroPlanningandRailOperationsstaffregardingthenorthern connectionalignmentoptionsfortheguidewayalternatives;and3)discussionswithSantaAnaͲGarden Grove Fixed Guideway project staff. The stations were located to interface with other Corridor transportation services and serve existing activity centers and future development and economic strategyplans.FuturestationarealanduseplanningandoperationalanalysismayrefinetheGuideway stationrecommendations. Allofthethreeguidewayalternativeswouldhavesimilarstationswiththreeexceptions: • The Street Car Alternative has two more stations in the PEROW/WSAB Area than the other options.StationswereaddedatcityrequestatKnottAvenueinAnaheimandMagnoliaStreetin GardenGrove. • TheLRTAlternativehasonemorestationthantheLowSpeedMaglevAlternativeasastationwas addedatcityrequestatKnottAvenueinAnaheim. • The Low Speed Maglev Alternative operates from Union Station to the proposed Harbor BoulevardstationwherepassengerswouldtransfertothefutureSantaAnaͲGardenGroveStreet Carsystem;thisalternativehasnostationsintheCityofSantaAna. IntheNorthernConnectionArea,thestationlocationsvarybasedonthefouralignmentalternatives withalloftheoptionsinitiatingservicefromUnionStation,andhavinganewMetroGreenLinestation locatedtoprovideatransfertotheMetroGreenLinefromtheproposedoperationalongtheSanPedro
June29,2012 2-29
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.11–TypicalStreetCarOperationalCrossͲSections PEROW/WSABCorridor
StreetCar–AtͲGradeCenterͲRunning 1stStreet
StreetCar–AtͲGradeCurbͲRunning MainStreet
StreetCar–AtͲGradeCurbͲRunning WestminsterAvenue/17thStreet
StreetCar–AtͲGradeCurbͲRuning
June29,2012 2-30
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.12–TypicalLRTOperationalCrossͲSections CesarChavezAvenueBridge
PacificBoulevard
RandolphStreet
PEROW/WSABCorridor
June29,2012 2-31
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.13–TypicalLowSpeedMaglevOperationalCrossͲSections LosAngelesRiver
PacificBoulevard
SaltLakeAvenue
PEROW/WSABCorridor
June29,2012 2-32
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.14–VerticalConfigurations–NorthofthePEROW/WSABCorridor
June29,2012 2-33
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.15–VerticalConfigurationsonthePEROW/WSABCorridor
June29,2012 2-34
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.16–VerticalConfigurationsSouthofthePEROW/WSABCorridor
Subdivision ROW and with three stations in common along the ROW serving Huntington Park, South Gate,andDowney.TheEastBankAlternativehastwoadditionalstations,withoneservingtheeastern jobsͲrich portion of Vernon and the adjacent residential neighborhoods in Maywood, and a second servingEastLosAngelesonSotoStreetsouthofOlympicBoulevard.WestBankAlternative1,running along the west bank of the Los Angeles River, has one additional station serving the same eastern portion of Vernon. West Bank Alternatives 2 and 3 turn west to operate in the median of Randolph StreetthroughHuntingtonPark,andthennorthalongPacificBoulevard,providingaPacificBoulevard StationservingthenorthernedgeofthevibrantPacificBoulevardcommercialcorridor,andaVernon AvenueStationlocatedoneblockfromVernon’sciviccenterarea.WestBankAlternative3istheonly
June29,2012 2-35
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final option providing an 7th Street/Alameda Street Station serving the evolving Central City East arts community,andalsomayprovideaLittleTokyostation. Table2.8–GuidewayAlternatives:NumberofStations
Area/Alignment StreetCar LightRail LowSpeed Alternative Transit Maglev NorthernConnectionArea
EastBank 6 6 6
WestBank1 5 5 5
WestBank2 6 6 6
WestBank3 7 7 7
PEROW/WSABArea 13 12 11
SouthernConnectionArea 4 4 0
Total
EastBank 23 22 17
WestBank1 22 21 16
WestBank2 23 22 17
WestBank3 24 23 18 AssummarizedinTable2.8,thenumberofstationsfortheStreetCarAlternativerangesfrom22to24, fortheLRTAlternativefrom21to23,andfortheLowSpeedMaglevAlternativefrom16to18.While havingtheshortestalignmentlength,theWestBank3AlignmentAlternativehasthehighestnumberof stationsreflectingadditionalstopsinHuntingtonParkservingPacificBoulevardandindowntownLos Angeles serving the Central City East area.The West Bank 1 Alignment Alternative has the lowest numberofstationsduetoservingfewercities;itprovidesnostationsbetweenLeonis/Districtineastern VernonandUnionStation,whiletheEastBankAlignmenthasanEastLosAngelesstationandtheWest Bank2AlignmentprovidesanadditionalHuntingtonParkstationatPacificBoulevard. Table2.9–GuidewayAlternatives:ProposedStations
City Station EastBank WestBank WestBank WestBank Alternative Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3 SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV NorthernConnectionArea LosAngeles UnionStation 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 SotoSt. 99 9 7thSt./AlamedaSt. 9 99 Vernon Leonis/DistrictBlvds. 99 9 99 9 VernonAve. 99 9 9 99 Huntington PacificBlvd. 99 9 9 99 Park GageAve. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 SouthGate FirestoneBlvd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Downey GardendaleSt. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Note:SC–StreetCarAlternative;LRT–LightRailTransitAlternative;MLV–LowSpeedMaglevAlternative. June29,2012 2-36
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.9–GuidewayAlternatives:ProposedStations
City Station EastBank WestBank WestBank WestBank Alternative Alternative1 Alternative2 Alternative3 SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV SC LRT MLV PEROW/WSABCorridor Paramount GreenLine(new) 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 ParamountBlvd./ 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 RosecransAve. Bellflower BellflowerBlvd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Cerritos 183rdSt./GridleyRd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Artesia PioneerBlvd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Cerritos BloomfieldAve. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Cypress CypressCollege 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Anaheim KnottAve. 99 99 99 9 9 Stanton BeachBlvd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Garden MagnoliaSt. 9999 Grove BrookhurstSt. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 EuclidSt. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Garden HarborBlvd. 99 9 99 9 99 9 9 99 Grove/ SantaAna SouthernConnectionArea SantaAna HarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTCAlternative HarborBlvd./1stSt. 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ 1stSt./FairviewSt. 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ 1stSt./BristolSt. 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ SARTC 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ WestminsterBoulevard/17th Street/MainStreetAlternative WestminsterBlvd./ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ 17thSt./BristolSt. MainSt./Civic 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 99 ͲͲ 9 9 ͲͲ CenterDr. Note:SC–StreetCarAlternative;LRT–LightRailTransitAlternative;MLV–LowSpeedMaglevAlternative. Station Parking BasedoninitialworksessionswiththeCorridorcities,existingandproposedguidewaystationparking opportunitieswereidentifiedandarepresentedinTable2.10.Anyfutureplanninganddesignefforts would quantify the parking demand resulting from the provision of Corridor guideway service. For example,fortheMetroGoldLine,parkingisprovidedatnineof21stationswiththenumberofspaces rangingfrom43to290,withthetwoterminalstationshaving413(Atlantic)and1,010(SierraMadre Villa) spaces, reflecting the station’s role and adjacent land uses. Detailed discussions would be held with Corridor cities to identify the fit of station area parking with surrounding land uses and future developmentplans.
June29,2012 2-37
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.10–GuidewayAlternatives:ProposedStationParking
City Station Alternative Notes LosAngeles UnionStation All Existingsurfaceandstructuredparking;nonew parkingproposed. SouthGate FirestoneBoulevard All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Downey Green Line Lakewood MOS2 Existing 545 surface parking spaces; beyond Blvd.Station capacity with spillͲover parking in adjacent residentialareas. Paramount Green Line Station All Small station site in residential neighborhood; (new) someparkingmaybeprovided. Bellflower BellflowerBlvd. All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Cerritos 183rdSt./GridleyRd. All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Artesia PioneerBlvd. All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Cerritos BloomfieldAve. All Existing surface parking for Target; future parking structure for station, Target, and retail uses.1 Cypress CypressCollege All Proposed future station area parking structure forcollegeandstationparking. Stanton BeachBlvd. All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Garden BrookhurstSt. All Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Grove EuclidSt. All Futuredowntownparkingstructuremayinclude 1 stationparking. Garden HarborBlvd. All FutureStreetCarstationoneastsideofHarbor Grove/ Blvd.withsurfaceparking.Thisproject’sstation SantaAna and parking to be either coͲlocated or sited on westsideofHarborBoulevard.1 SantaAna SARTC SC,LRT Partoffuturestationareadevelopmentplans.1 Notes: All–allthreeguidewayalternatives;SC–StreetCarAlternative;andLRT–LightRailTransitAlternative. 1Initialcityinteresttoincludetransitsystemparkinginfuturedevelopmentplans. 2MOS–MinimumOperableSegmentstationiftheprojectwasbuiltinsegments. 2.3.5 Alignment Alternative Challenges
WhilereuseoftheformerPEROWofferstheuniqueopportunitytoimplementtransitservicealonga dedicated20ͲmileROWforapproximately60percentoftheproposedprojectlength,introductionofa newhighcapacitytransitsystemwouldhavebothbenefitsforandimpactsonexistingcommunitiesand transportationinfrastructure.BeyondthededicatedROW,therearesignificantchallengestoproviding transit service connecting north through downtown Los Angeles and south through downtown Santa AnatoservetheCorridor’smajorresidential,employment,andculturalcenters.Thissectionpresents an overview of the construction, operational, and jurisdictional constraints and challenges related to
June29,2012 2-38
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final implementing the alignment alternatives considered in this AA study. It should be noted that the resultingassessmentisbasedontheapproximatelyfivepercentAAͲlevelofengineeringdesignwork. Northern Connection Area InthisportionoftheCorridorStudyArea,theBRTandguidewayalternativeswouldhavesignificantly differentoperatingalignments.TheBRTalternativeswouldoperateontheCorridor’shighwaysystem: theHOVLaneͲRunningOptionwouldrunprimarilyintheHarborTransitwayandIͲ105HOVlanes,while the StreetͲRunning Alternative would operate entirely within city streets.The guideway alternatives wouldrunprimarilywithintheROWofinactiveandactiverailroadROWs,someownedbyMetroand othersbyfreightrailroads,withsomecitystreetoperationsinthecitiesofVernonandLosAngeles.BRT operation on railroad ROWs was not considered as the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), under whose jurisdiction freight operations fall, typically prohibits bus operations with freight operations. ImplementationchallengesandconstraintsarediscussedbelowandillustratedinFigure2.17. The two BRT alternatives follow different routes to reach downtown Los Angeles and have different interfacepointswiththeurbanandregionalrailsystem:theHOVLaneͲRunningAlternativewouldstart andendatthe7th/MetroCenterStationprovidingaccesstotheexistingMetroRed,Purple,andBlue lines today, and the Gold Line in the future with completion of the Regional Connector and the ExpositionLine;andtheStreetͲRunningAlternativewouldinterfacewithUnionStationwithconnections to the Metro Red and Gold lines, regional Metrolink system, and intercity Amtrak system. The BRT AlternativeswouldhavethefollowingchallengesinthisportionoftheCorridor: 1. IͲ110/HarborTransitway/HOVLaneCapacity Ì TheBRTHOVͲLaneRunningAlternativewouldoperatesouthfromthe7th/MetroCenterStation alongstreetsintheCityofLosAngelestoentertheIͲ110/HarborTransitway,andwouldserve thefourexistingTransitwaystations.ItwouldthenrunintheIͲ105HOVlanestotheLakewood Boulevard exit to provide a transfer to the Metro Green Line and travel south on Lakewood BoulevardtoaccessthePEROW/WSABROW.Basedonaninitialassessment,thereappearstobe sufficientstationandtravellanecapacitytoaccommodatetheproposedpeakhourservice.BRT travelspeedsandtimesmaybeconstrainedontheIͲ105intheeastbounddirectionduringthe morningpeakperiodandwestboundintheeveningpeakperiod. 2. InterfacewithMetroGreenLine Ì Both BRT alternatives would provide a transfer to the Metro Green Line at the Lakewood Boulevard Station. The viability of the HOV LaneͲRunning Alternative serving the three other Green Line stations between the Harbor Transitway and Lakewood Boulevard Station was assessedataconceptuallevel.Providingaccesstothesestationswasnotrecommendeddueto the circuitous and often congested freeway and street system access and egress travel paths, whichwouldhaveanegativeimpactontraveltimesandridership. 3. OperatingonCityStreets Ì The BRT StreetͲRunning Alternative would operate south from Union Station on city streets, including Soto Street, Slauson Avenue, Pacific Boulevard, Long Beach Boulevard, Firestone June29,2012 2-39
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Boulevard,andLakewoodBoulevardinthecitiesofLosAngeles,Vernon,HuntingtonPark,South Gate, Downey, Paramount, and Bellflower. A majority of these streets are heavily congested duringbothpeakperiods,andcurrentbusserviceexperiencessignificantlyreducedtravelspeeds andincreasedtraveltimes.Bustraveldelaysoccurevenwiththebussignalprioritysystemon SotoStreetwithintheCityofLosAngeles.Addingmorebusservicetothesecongestedstreets wouldaddtothecapacityandspeedchallenges.Evenwithlimitedstopsandextensionofthe bussignalprioritysystem,thisproposedalternativemaynotresultinimprovedtraveltimesas demonstratedbytheformerMetroRapid751SotoStreetservice. AlloftheguidewayalternativeswouldhavethesegmentfromtheendofthePEROW/WSABCorridor ROWinParamountnorthtoRandolphStreetinHuntingtonParkincommon,andthenwouldoperateon oneoffourrouteoptionsconnectingnorthtoUnionStation.Travelinthiscommonsegmentwould occuralongtheSanPedroSubdivisionnowownedbythePortsofLongBeachandLosAngeles. InitialconversationswiththePortsidentifiedaninterestinsellingthisrailroadROWfortransportation use by Metro. Purchased from the Union Pacific (UP) as part of a portsͲarea railroad purchase agreement,UPwouldhavethefirstrighttoreacquiretheROW.Inaddition,thisROWwasidentified underanAlamedaCorridorTransportationAuthority(ACTA)agreementasprovidingemergencyfreight servicerouteto/fromportsareaincaseofimpairedAlamedaCorridoroperations.Basedonaninitial reviewoftheACTAagreement,useoftheSanPedroSubdivisionwouldrequireprovisionofafreight track along with the new transit system’s needs. Any subsequent planning and engineering, efforts wouldrequiremoredetailedlegalresearchandagencydiscussions,suchaswiththeFRAandtheCPUC concerning the joint use of a freight ROW by passenger guideway service. The Street Car and LRT alternativeswouldsharetheROW,eitherphysicallyortemporally(withtimeseparation),whiletheLow Speed Maglev Alternative would operate above the ROW.While FRA guidance has been provided locallyonsharedLRTͲfreightuseofaROW,noguidancehasbeenprovidedonsharedStreetCarͲfreight operations,andgiventhelightervehiculardesignmaynotbepossible. NorthfromtheSanPedroSubdivisionwhereitcrossesRandolphStreetinHuntingtonPark,thereare fourrouteoptionsprovidingservicetoUnionStation: East Bank Alignment Alternative – This alignment would continue north along the San Pedro SubdivisiontotraveloveraBurlingtonNorthernͲSantaFe(BNSF)railroadcrossingnorthofBandini Boulevard,andruninanaerialconfigurationacrossaportionofBNSF’sHobartIntermodalYardto wheretheROWintersectswithaUPͲownedROW.ThisheavilyͲutilizedROWconnectsLosAngeles and points east such as Riverside, and serves freight and Metrolink and Amtrak passenger rail service,andmayaccommodatefutureCaliforniaHSRservice.Thenewtransitlinewouldsharethe UPROWforashortdistancetowheretheROW,nowownedbyMetroandoperatedbyMetrolink, turnsnorthtotravelalongtheeastbankoftheLosAngelesRiver,andthencrossesovertheriverto enterintoUnionStation.
June29,2012 2-40
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
WestAlignmentAlternative–ThisalignmentwouldturnwesttooperateinaformerrailroadROW locatedinthemedianofRandolphStreet.TheWestBankAlternativehasthreesubͲoptions: y TheWestBank1alternativerunsalongthewestbankoftheriverfirstinthebankedgeareathat appearsvacantandthenwouldsharetheMetroͲownedROWtoUnionStationwithMetrolink andAmtrakservices. y TheWestBank2optionoperatesinthemedianofRandolphStreetthroughHuntingtonPark, and turns north to operate in the median of Pacific Boulevard to the MetroͲowned Harbor Subdivision.ItwouldusethisROW,crossingovertheRedondoJunction,andoperatenorthalong theLosAngelesRiverinaroutesimilartotheWestBank1Option. y TheWestBank3alternativefollowsthesameinitialrouteasWestBank2northalongPacific Boulevard, but continues north on a combination of the Harbor Subdivision, city streets, and privatepropertyinanaerialandundergroundconfigurationtodaylightsouthoftheMetroGold LineLittleTokyoStation.Currently,thisoptionisproposedtousetheexistingGoldLinetracksto reachUnionStation. Inadditiontothecoordinationrequirementswithmultiplerailroads,passengerserviceagencies,and state and federal agencies, implementation of the guideway alternatives would have the following challenges: A.NewMetroGreenLineStation Ì Cost and Green Line service interruptions – A new station would be required to provide a connectiontotheGreenLineforanewtransitsystemoperatingontheSanPedroSubdivision. ConstructionofanewstationonaheavilyͲusedurbanraillinewouldbechallenging.Previous MetroplanshadlookedatanotherGreenLinestationinthevicinityoftheIͲ710,andthiswould bealogicallocationgiventheopportunityofprovidingahighͲcapacityconnectiontoandfrom downtownLosAngelesandthedenselyͲpopulatedGatewayCitiessubregionandOrangeCounty. A conceptual cost has been identified and included in the capital cost estimates. While a contingencyfactorhasbeenapplied,thiscostmayincreaseduringpossiblefutureengineering andenvironmentalworkduetoconditionsandrequirementsnotknownduringAAdesignwork. ÌFitwithfreewaymedianandoperationalimpacts–WiththeMetroGreenLineoperatinginthe median of the IͲ105 Freeway, expansion of the median to accommodate a new station, along withtheresultingimpactsonfreewayoperationsatthiscomplicatedsystempointwheretheIͲ 105FreewayinterfaceswiththeIͲ710Freeway,wouldbechallenging.ConceptualͲlevelstation plans were developed and discussed in an initial meeting with California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)staff.Caltransidentifiedtherequirementthatthefinalstationdesign mustmaintainthecurrentnumberoffreewaylanes;theconceptualstationplansdidfitwithin theexistingROWwithshiftingoffreewaylanes.Addingastationatthislocationmaydisrupt freewayoperationsduringconstruction,andmitigationplanswouldneedtobedeveloped.
June29,2012 2-41
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.17–ImplementationChallengesandConstraints
June29,2012 2-42
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Ì Newstationaccess–TheSanPedroSubdivisionpassesovertheIͲ105FreewayandtheGreen Line in a singleͲtrack bridge. It would have to be rebuilt to provide sufficient width to accommodatenewguidewayserviceandpassengerplatformsandcirculationelementsproviding accesstothenewGreenLinestation,alongwithreplacementofthefreightrailtrack. B.SanPedroSubdivisionownedbyPortsofLongBeachandLosAngeles Ì Subdivisionavailability–WhilethePortshaveexpressedinitialinterestinsellingtheROWforthe project, this alignment currently is part of an ACTA agreement to provide emergency freight serviceandUPhasthefirstrighttorepurchasetheROW. Ì Freightrailcompatibilityissues–WhiletheSanPedroROWcurrentlyprovidesservicetoasmall number of customers, any use of the ROW must be designed to accommodate freight rail operations and maintenance along with new passenger rail use unless the ACTA agreement is revocableorhasatimeframethatwillexpire. Ì Approvals required – Any operational change to the San Pedro Subdivision, especially the introductionofpassengerrailservice,wouldrequireclosecoordinationwithandtheapprovalof thePorts,UP,FRAandCPUC. C. Operateoninactiveoractiverailroadlines Ì UPagreementrequired–FortheWestBank2and3alternatives,reuseoftheinactiverailroad ROWlocatedinthemedianofRandolphStreetwouldrequireanagreementbyUPtovacateas thereisinsufficientroomforbothpassengerandfreightrailserviceinportionsoftheROW. D.InterfacewiththeBNSFandUPRailroadsandthefutureCHSTsystemforEastBankAlternative Ì BNSFagreementrequired–FortheEastBankAlternative,theROWwouldinterfacewithaBNSFͲ ownedcrossingandBNSF’sHobartIntermodalYard.ApprovaloftheBNSFtocrosstheirfacilities wouldberequired. Ì UPagreementrequired–TheproposedEastBankalignmentwouldoperateinand/orabovean UPͲownedROW,knownastheSanGabrielLine,thataccommodatesbothfreightandMetrolink passengerrailservice.Thetrackageinthissegmentishighlyutilizedandnearingcapacity,and adding new service in this area will be challenging. Sharing the freight ROW would require approvalbytheFRAandCPUC. Ì Fit with future CHST system – One of CHST alignments providing connecting service south to AnaheimisproposedalongthisportionoftheUPROW.Futuretransitsystemplansmayneedto considerthephysicalfitwiththehighspeedsystem. E.OperateonMetroͲownedtrackswithUPfreightandMetrolinkpassengerrailservice Ì FitwithcurrentROWusage–TheEastBankAlternativewouldoperateontheROWalongthe eastern bank of Los Angles River owned by Metro and operated by Metrolink. This heavilyͲ utilizedsetoftracksprovidesaccessforMetrolinkpassengerrailserviceintoUnionStationand freight rail access to UP’s Intermodal Yards. Sufficient track capacity appears available, but passengerrailservicemaynotbeoperationallyviable. June29,2012 2-43
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
F. AccessintoUnionStation Ì ConstrainedUnionStationcapacity–UnionStationtrackageandpassengerplatformsarebeyond capacity due to the current and future levels of Metro Gold Line, Metrolink, and Amtrak passengertrainactivity.ItalsoisproposedtoserveasahubforthefutureCHSTsystem,which would push Union Station beyond its physical capacity and may require provision of a second track level. Train access through Union Station’s “throat” is also beyond capacity due to the limitednumberoftracksandthecurvingalignmentwhichrestrictsoperatingspeeds. Ì ReplaceLos AngelesRiverBridge–Theexistingrailroadbridge crossingthe LosAngelesRiver, whilesufficienttohandlecurrentMetrolinkactivity,wouldrequireretrofittingorreplacementto accommodate increased usage by a project resulting from this AA study. Revisions to or replacementofthebridgewouldrequirecoordinationwithanumberofagenciesandentities, includingtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)duetothecrossingoftheLosAngelesRiver. G. WestBankOperationalViabilityandAccessConstraints Ì WestBankAlternatives1Access–BasedonAAͲlevelengineeringandsiteanalysiswork,theWest Bank 1 alignment would be precluded by an existing system of high tension electrical towers. Thereisinsufficientroomalongtheriver’swestbankedgetoaccommodateanewtransitsystem withoutsignificantpropertytakes. Ì WestBankAlternatives2Access–Asnotedabove,thisalternativewouldrequireUP’sagreement to vacate the Randolph Street ROW. While not used for freight rail service, it does provide a connectiontoatrackalongtheMetroBlueLinethatiscurrentlyusedtostoreemptyrailcars. Access into Union Station would be via a potentially expensive crossing of the heavilyͲutilized RedondoJunction.ItthenwouldshareaROWalongthewestbankoftheLosAngelesRiverused byMetrolinkandAmtrakoperations,alongwiththeMetroRedLinemaintenanceandstorage facility.ThisalternativewouldconnectintoUnionStationthroughtheconstrainedtrackthroat. Ì West Bank Alternatives 3 Access – Similar to West Bank Alternative 2, this alternative would requireUP’sagreementtovacateoperationsinthemedianofRandolphStreet.Travelingnorth, boththeWestBank2and3alignmentalternativeswouldtravelalongPacificBoulevard,aformer Red Car route, where they would connect with and operate along the MetroͲowned Harbor Subdivision.TheWestBank3alternativewouldruninacombinationofaerialandunderground operationsthatwoulddaylightsouthoftheMetroGoldLineLittleTokyoStationwhereitwould usetheexistingatͲgradeGoldLinetrackstoaccessUnionStation.Theproposedconfiguration would require refining to address daylighting impacts on Alameda Street, interface with the futureRegionalConnector,andwhethertheMetroGoldLinetrackshavesufficientcapacityto accommodateadditionaltraffic. H.AssessCityTrafficImpacts Ì WhethertheproposedtransitsystemoperatesatͲgradeorinagradeͲseparatedconfiguration, introduction of a highͲcapacity transportation system would impact city street operations. As discussedinChapter3.0,atͲgradesystemsmayresultinimpactsrequiringmitigation,including lossoftrafficcapacityandonͲstreetparkingandtrafficflowimpacts.ImpactsfromaboveͲgrade
June29,2012 2-44
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
systemsmayincludelossofstreetcapacity,leftͲturnlanes,andonͲstreetparkingduetocolumn placement. I. FreewayCrossings Ì In this portion of the Corridor, the proposed guideway alignments would cross under or over threefreeways–theUSͲ101,IͲ10,andIͲ710–inadditiontotheIͲ105aspreviouslydiscussed. TheStreetCarandLRTalternativeshavebeendesignedtooperateunderthethreefreeways:for the USͲ101 and IͲ10 on streets and/or rail ROWs; and under the IͲ710 in an existing undercrossing;allhavesufficientwidthandheighttoaccommodateatͲgradeoperations.Both modal alternatives would run in a new bridge over the IͲ105 as discussed above. Due to the gradeͲseparated operational requirements of the Low Speed Maglev Alternative, all of the alignmentoptionswouldrequirestructuresoverthisarea’sfreeways.Whiletheotherfreeway crossingswouldbeapproximately16.5feettothebottomoftheguidewaystructure,theIͲ105 crossing would be significantly higher (approximately 50 feet to the bottom edge) due to the needtonotonlybeabovethefreewayenvelope,butalsoabovetheexistingfreightrailbridge andfreightoperations. PEROW/WSAB Area In this portion of the Corridor, all of the proposed alternatives were designed to operate along the MetroandOCTAownedformerPEROW.WhiletheROWwidthof75to195feetprovidesmorethan sufficient space to accommodate the average 28Ͳfoot width required for atͲgrade operations or placementofcolumns,severalcitieshavestronglyrequestedthattheBRTalternativenotrunonthe ROW,butalongadjacentcitystreets.ReuseofthisROWoffersauniqueopportunitytoimplementa highͲcapacitytransitprojectwithtravelspeedandtimebenefits,butduetothepredominantadjacent landusebeingresidentialinthissection,anyprojectwouldalsoresultinnoiseandvibration,visualand privacy, safety, and circulation impacts requiring mitigation as discussed in Chapter 4.0. In the PEROW/WSAB Area, all of the alternatives would have the major challenges discussed below and illustratedinFigures2.17and2.18: J. AddressWaterCrossingIssues Ì InallportionsoftheCorridor,theproposedalignmentswouldcrossandinterfacewithawide variety of rivers, creeks, and flood channels. In Los Angeles County, the proposed alignments cross the Los Angeles River twice, the San Gabriel River, and the Coyote Creek Flood Control Channelatthecountyline.Inaddition,aportionoftheROWisusedforafloodchannelinthe southernportionofLosAngelesCounty.InOrangeCounty,theproposedROWcrossestheSanta AnaRiverandanumberoffloodchannels.Existingbridgesareprimarilysingletrackandwould havetobewidenedorreplacedtoaccommodateanewhighͲcapacitytransitsystem.Basedon an initial field and record review of the possible crossings, there appears to be no insurmountableengineeringissues;anyconstructionwouldrequireinputfromandapprovalof theUSACEandcountyfloodcontrolagencies. June29,2012 2-45
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
K. EncroachmentsontheROW Ì Use encroachments – A constraints analysis performed for the PEROW/WSAB ROW identified publicandprivateencroachmentsontotheformerPEROW.TheencroachmentsinLosAngeles CountyincludeseveralcommercialusesortheirparkinglocatedontheROW,andintheCityof Paramount,MetrohasleasedlandforanoillinethatrunsalongtheROWtoprovideserviceto the Paramount Petroleum Facility. In addition, there is a pedestrian bridge over the ROW connectingportionsofParamountHighSchoolthatarelocatedonoppositesidesoftheROW.In Orange County, there have been several major ROW encroachments that have occurred with OCTA’s concurrence. A portion was sold to the City of Garden Grove for a commercial developmentprojectandrelatedparking,withaerialrightsreservedforafuturetransitproject; theCityofBuenaParkhastwosmallparkslocatedontheROW;andOCTAusesaportionofthe ROWfortemporarybusstoragepurposes.IntheCityofSantaAna,residential,commercialand industrialpropertieshavebeenbuiltontheROWasitentersthedowntownareaovertheyears. Except for the Santa Ana development, none of the encroachments appear to preclude implementationofafutureproject;theywillneedtobeconsideredasmoredetaileddesignand operationalplansaredeveloped. Ì Utility Issues – As part of the ROW constraints analyses, existing utilities were identified and located. There are a significant number of underground utilities, typically under the streets crossing the ROW, as well as major overhead utility lines crossing or running along the ROW. Minimizingimpactstoexistingutilitieswouldneedtobeconsideredinfutureengineeringplans. L. FreewayCrossings Ì InthisportionoftheCorridor,theproposedsystemalignmentswouldcrossunderoroverthree freeways–theSRͲ91,IͲ605andSRͲ22.TheBRT,StreetCar,andLRTalternativesweredesigned tooperateunderthefreeways:theSRͲ91andIͲ605freewayshaveexistingundercrossingsthat provide sufficient width and height to accommodate atͲgrade operations; and the alignments wouldcirculateunderaSRͲ22bridge.ItshouldbenotedthatfutureplanscallfortheROWtobe usedforvehicularoffͲrampsfromtheSRͲ22ontotheROWtoprovidecirculationintotheCityof SantaAna.Inthatcase,allproposedalternativeswouldberequiredtocrossabovetheSRͲ22. DuetothegradeͲseparatedoperationalrequirementsoftheLowSpeedMaglevAlternative,allof thisoption’salignmentswouldrequirestructuresoverareafreeways.Basedonthehighnumber of adjacent residential uses, this alternative’s freeway crossings would have significant visual impacts. The Low Speed Maglev Alternative’s freeway crossings require a structural transition fromaguidewaystructure16.5feetabovetheROWtoone16.5feetabovearaisedfreeway surface.Inthisarea,theresultingstructureswouldbeapproximately40feettobottomofthe structurecrossingovertheIͲ605,and50feettocrosstheSRͲ22,ora23.5to33.5foottransition. In all freeway crossing locations, there is insufficient space for the provision of integrated pedestrianandbicyclefacilities,andalternativeroutingwouldberequired. June29,2012 2-46
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Figure2.18–ImplementationChallengesandConstraints
June29,2012 2-47
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
M.AssessCityTrafficImpacts Ì StreetsystemImpacts–Asstatedabove,introductionofahighͲcapacitytransportationsystem improvement would have impacts to city street operations. AtͲgrade systems may result in impacts to traffic capacity and flow, and the removal of onͲstreet parking. GradeͲseparated systems may result in the loss of street capacity, leftͲturn lanes, and onͲstreet parking due to columnplacement. Ì Challenges of diagonal street crossings – The ROW runs at a diagonal between the cities of ParamountinLosAngelesCountyandSantaAnainOrangeCountywith56roadwaycrossings alongits20Ͳmilelength–approximatelythreecrossingspermile.Ofthetotalcrossings,46of thestreetsareclassifiedasprimaryorsecondaryarterials,whiletheremainderisidentifiedas localorcollectorstreets.ThehighestnumberofcrossingsoccursintheCityofGardenGrove(21), followedbytheCityofBellflower(six),andthenthecitiesofParamount,Cerritos,Artesia,and Stanton(fiveeach).Aninitialassessmentoftrafficimpactsresultingfromimplementationofa new highͲcapacity transit system wasprepared and an overview of the results is presented in Chapter3.0.Theassessmentincludedareviewoftheexistinggeometriclayoutandnumberof lanes to identify conceptual impacts. The ROW passes through only two intersections – Paramount Boulevard/Rosecrans Avenue in Paramount and Gridley Road/183rd Street on the borderofthecitiesofCerritosandArtesia–alloftheothercrossingsoccurmidwaythroughthe impactedroadwaysegment. Aerialoperationstypicallyresultinminorornotrafficimpacts,withonlysomeimpactscoming from the system’s structural design where it crosses over intersected roads. Due to span constraints, wider street widths may require placement of an intermediate column in the roadway.Outriggerstructuresaretypicallyusedandallowmaximumlengthof220feet.While aerial structures minimize traffic impacts, the support elements do have physical and visual impacts on adjacent communities. AtͲgrade transit systems, whether BRT, Street Car, or LRT, would require gates and sound equipment, and possibly signalization, to allow for the safe crossing of transit vehicles. While transit vehicle are in the roadway for a short time (5Ͳ10 seconds),thegatecrossingbellsmayhavenoiseimpactsonadjacentlandusesunlessmitigated. Duringanysubsequentpreliminaryengineeringandenvironmentalreviewefforts,thedecision onwhethertogradeseparatefuturetransitserviceinLosAngelesCountywouldbeguidedby Metro’sgradeseparationpolicy. Southern Connection Area InthisportionoftheCorridor,amajorityofthealternativeswouldoperatealongoneoftwoalignment options connecting south to the SARTC. The exception is the Low Speed Maglev Alternative, which would end at Harbor Boulevard with passengers transferring to the Santa AnaͲGarden Grove Fixed Guideway Project to complete their trip. As illustrated in Figure 2.18, the BRT, Street Car, and LRT alternativeswouldleavetheformerPEROWtooperateononeoftwoalternativeroutes: HarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTCAlternativewouldleavetheCorridorROWafterafutureHarbor Boulevard Station to travel south on Harbor Boulevard, east on 1st Street, and then north on a June29,2012 2-48
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
realignedSantiagoStreettotheSARTC. Westminster Boulevard/17th Street/Main Street Alternative would serve the future Harbor BoulevardStationandthentraveleastonWestminsterBoulevard/17thStreet,andsouthonMain StreetwhereriderswouldtransfertofutureSantaAnaͲGardenGroveStreetCarsystemtotravelto theSARTC. IntheSouthernConnectionArea,allofthealternativesarecurrentlyproposedtooperateinanatͲgrade configurationwiththefollowingimplementationchallengesandconstraints: N.AssessCityTrafficImpacts Ì Both alignment alternatives would have the impacts on city street operations with similar impacts to those discussed above for atͲgrade operations. The Westminster Boulevard/17th Street/MainStreetAlignmentwasidentifiedashavingahigherleveloftrafficimpactswith90 percentofthealignment’sintersectionshavinggeometricimpactscomparedto50percentofthe HarborBoulevard/1stStreet/SARTCAlignment’sintersections.Therewouldbesignificanttraffic impactsonMainStreetthroughdowntownSantaAnaduetoaconstrainedstreetROWwidth– onlytwothroughlanesineachdirectioncomparedtothreethroughlanesforalloftheother streetsinthealignmentoptions. O.AddressImpactsonSensitiveLandUsesandCulturalResources Ì Implementation of highͲcapacity transit service along both alignment alternatives would have impactsonadjacentresidentialneighborhoodsandretaildevelopment;thoughlanduseplansdo identifyfuturedevelopmentopportunitiesalong1standSantiagoStreets.Inaddition,therearea largenumberofhistoricandculturalresourceseligibleforand/orlistedontheNationalRegister, state,andlocalhistoricresourcelistsintheciviccenteranddowntownareasofSantaAna.The narrowMainStreetsegmentoftheWestminsterBoulevard/17thStreet/MainStreetAlternativeis linedwithasignificantnumberofhistoricbuildings. 2.3.6 Final Screening Evaluation Criteria
The Final Set of Alternatives were studied and evaluated based on conceptualͲlevel engineering and operatingdesign,stationlocation,capitalandoperatingcostestimates,ridershipforecastmodeling,and communityandenvironmentalimpactanalysis.TheresultingcomparativeanalysisofthealternativeͲ specific technical information, along with public and stakeholder input, will provide the public and decisionͲmakers with the basis to identify the recommended alternative, or phasing of alternatives, whichaddressesCorridormobilityneedsandcapacityrequirementsintheyear2035andbeyond.The recommended evaluation criterion was based on: local goals identified during Project Initiation involvementefforts,applicablecriteriaofpossibleimplementingandfundingagencies,andfindingsof the Corridor Mobility Problem and Need analysis. The identified criteria are intended to reflect the broadrangeofbenefitsandimpactsthatmayberealizedbytheimplementationofaproposedtransit project.
June29,2012 2-49
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
TheresultingPEROW/WSABCorridorcriteriaaregroupedinthefollowingfivecategoriesandpresented withrelatedperformancemeasuresinTable2.11: 1. PublicandStakeholderSupport–thelevelofcommunity,stakeholder,andjurisdictionalsupport fortheproject. 2.MobilityImprovements–theleveltowhichtheprojectimproveslocalandregionalmobilityand accessibilitybyminimizingcongestion,increasingtravelreliability,andimprovingaccesstoand fromkeyactivitycentersanddestinations. 3.CostͲEffectiveness/Financial Feasibility – how the project costs are balanced with expected benefits,andhowtheprojectfundingneedsfitswithinavailablefundingresources. 4.LandUseandEconomicDevelopment–howtheprojectsupportslocalandregionallanduseand developmentplansandpolicies 5.EnvironmentalBenefitsandImpacts–theextenttowhichtheprojectprovidesadditionaltravel capacity,whileminimizingenvironmentalandcommunityimpacts,andbalancingdistributionof benefits,impacts,andcostsbymode,householdincome,andrace/ethnicity. Table2.11–FinalScreeningEvaluationCriteria
Criteria PerformanceMeasures 1.PublicandStakeholderSupport yProvideadesirablesolutiontothecommunityand stakeholders. yHavecity/jurisdictionalsupport. 2.MobilityImprovements yImprovetravelspeedsandreducetraveltimes. yProvideconnectionstotheregionalrailsystem. yIncreaserangeoftransportationoptions. yServecurrentandfuturetravelgrowthandpatterns. yServebothcommunityandregionaltrips. yMaketransitaviablealternativeasmeasuredbyresulting ridershipandnewriders. y Increase access to and from Corridor activity centers and destinations. yIncreaseservicefortransitdependentCorridorresidents. yProvideimprovedcrossͲcountylinetransitservice. yProvideanintegratedpedestrianandbicyclesystem. 3.CostͲEffectiveness/Sustainability y Balance project costs with expected benefits – resulting construction and operating costs are balanced by strong ridership(costͲeffectiveness). yIdentifytransportationalternativesthatarefinancially sustainablewithidentifiedresources. 4.LandUse/EconomicPlans yProvidestationspacingthatsupportslocaleconomic developmentandrevitalizationplansandjobstrategies. yServeareaswithtransitsupportivelandusepolicies.
June29,2012 2-50
PacificElectricROW/WestSantaAnaBranchCorridor AlternativesAnalysisReport AlternativesAnalysis Final
Table2.11–FinalScreeningEvaluationCriteria
Criteria PerformanceMeasures 5.ProjectFeasibility yFitwithcurrentlocaltransitsystemoperationsorplans. yHasstateandfederallyapprovedvehicles,andis operationalintheU.S.
6.EnvironmentalBenefitsandImpacts yMinimizeenvironmental/communityimpacts y Improve air quality by reducing tailpipe and Greenhouse Gasemissions yMinimizethenumberofpropertiestobeacquired. yAssessenvironmentaljusticeimpacts
The comparative analysis of the Final Set of Alternatives is presented in the following chapters and summarizedinChapter7.0,ComparisonofAlternativesandRecommendations.
June29,2012 2-51