Executive Summary Part1 of 3

8/3/2019 Executive Summary Part1 of 3

1/9

Page ES-1Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact ReportRegional Connector Transit Corridor

IntroductionThe Regional Connector Transit Corridor project (Regional Connector) is a vital public transit infrastructureinvestment that would enhance investments already made in the existing Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority (Metro) Rail system. It would link four distinct travel corridors covering over 80 milesacross Los Angeles County through the center of downtown Los Angeles. Metro has envisioned this connectionfor nearly two decades beginning in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Figure ES-1 shows the regional Metro Rail linesexpected to be in operation by the year 2035, and how the Regional Connector would serve as a central link

between them.

Executive Summary

Burbank

Universal City

NorthHollywood

West Los Angeles

San Fernando Valley

UCLA/Westwood

Hollywood

Mid-Wilshire

Santa Monica

CulverCity

LAX Center

SouthLos Angeles

Huntington Park

South Gate

HighlandPark

East Los Angeles

Pasadena

San Gabriel Valley

El Monte

Montebello

Norwalk

Whittier

Compton

Foothill Extensionto Azusa (eventually

Montclair)

RegionalConnector

Eastside ExtensionPhase 2

Crenshaw-Prairie

Expo Phase 1to Culver City

Westside Extension to Westwood

Expo Phase 2to Santa Monica

Metro Orange Line

MetroPurpleLine

Metro Red Line

Metro Gold Line

El Monte Busway

Metro Green Line

Metro Blue Line

HarborTransitway

South Bay MetroGreen Line Extension

Redondo Beach

Metro Gold Line toEast Los Angeles

LAX GreenLine Extension

Existing Metro Rail Linesand Station

Existing Metro Transitwaysand Station

Metro Rail Line UnderConstruction and Station

Proposed Regional Connector

Metro Rail Lines Under Study

3 Miles

Figure ES-1: Existing and Proposed Regional Metro Rail Lines (2035)


2/9

Page ES-2

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact ReportRegional Connector Transit Corridor

The Regional Connector would serve communities across the region, allowinggreater accessibility while also supporting population and employment growth indowntown Los Angeles. The proposed Regional Connector would directly link 7thStreet/Metro Center Station (the Metro Blue Line terminus and Metro Expo Lineterminus) located at 7th and Figueroa Streets, to the Metro Gold Line near LittleTokyo/Arts District Station at 1st and Alameda Streets. The project would include

new stations downtown and would allow continuous train operations betweenLong Beach and Montclair and rom East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valleyto Santa Monica without the need to transer. It would also provide passengerswith direct trains into the heart o the business and civic districts, whereas theMetro Gold Line currently passes along the edge o downtown. The ollowingmap (Figure ES-2) illustrates the present gap in the light rail network betweenthe Metro Blue and Gold Lines. They are currently connected by only the heavyrail Metro Red and Purple Lines requiring two transers.

The project area is the largest regional employment center in Los AngelesCounty, and is densely developed with multi-amily residences, industrialand public lands, commercial and retail establishments, government oce

buildings, and high-rise oce towers. The corridor crosses several distinctcommunity areas within downtown including the dense urban core o theFinancial District; the residential high rises and regional entertainment centerso Bunker Hill; the Civic Center with a concentration o ederal, state, and localgovernment oces; residential and retail uses in the historic structures o theHistoric Core; and the culturally unique, mixed-uses o Little Tokyo and theArts District. Figure ES-2 shows the general locations o these neighborhoods.

In addition to mobility benets, the location o the Regional Connectorproject has the potential to improve the livability o the entire Los AngelesCounty region. The Regional Connector project lls the missing link in theLos Angeles rail network and, by virtue o its location, would aord the region

with signicant transportation, economic, land use, and environmentalbenets. The analysis presented in this document shows that improvedmobility to and through downtown Los Angeles has the potential to boosteconomic development and improve social justice by providing better accessto employment, educational opportunities, and cultural activities. Improvedtransit connectivity would increase transit ridership which would alsogenerate environmental benets through reduced vehicle trips, less roadwaycongestion, and improved air quality.

In June 2008, Metro included the Regional Connector Transit Corridor projectin its Drat Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a rail project in theTier 1 Ununded Strategic Plan. Measure R identied $160 million or theRegional Connector. Additional unding will need to be secured to buildand operate the line. This is consistent with the Regional TransportationPlan (RTP) which was approved by the Southern Caliornia Association oGovernments (SCAG) in May 2008.

The Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Drat Environmental ImpactStatement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was made availableto identied stakeholders, agencies, and the general public or review andcomment or a 45-day review period rom September 3, 2010 throughOctober 18, 2010. On October 28, 2010, the Metro Board o Directors voted

The project area is

the largest regional

employment center

in Los Angeles

County


3/9


4/9

Page ES-4

Executive Summary


to designate the Fully Underground LRT Alternative without the Flower/5 th/4thStreet station as the Locally Preerred Alternative (LPA). However, the projectdesign would not preclude construction o a station at this location as auture, separate project.

Based on comments received on the Drat EIS/EIR and input received rom

community meetings held during preparation o this Final EIS/EIR, renementswere made to the LPA to reduce or avoid previously identied impacts. Therenements to the LPA were analyzed where potential dierences in impactsrom the Drat EIS/EIR were identied. Some portions o the Drat EIS/EIRpertaining to these renements were recirculated or a 45-day public reviewbetween July 22, 2011 and September 6, 2011. No changes to the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) impact ndings or Caliornia EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) impact determinations were identied as a result o rene-ments to the LPA or other developments since publication o the SupplementalEA/Recirculated Drat EIR Sections.

The remainder o this Executive Summary describes the purpose and needo the project, a description o the alternatives studied in this EIS/EIR, asummary comparison o the alternatives, a summary o the adverse and/or signicant environmental impacts o the LPA, and inormation regardingavoidance, minimization and mitigation measures.

Purpose and NeedPurposeThe purpose o the proposed build alternatives, including the LPA, is toimprove transit travel time and provide more reliable transit service. Theproject would improve the regions public transit service and mobility byconnecting the light rail service o the Metro Gold Line to the Metro Blue Line

and the Metro Expo Line (currently under construction). This link would servecommunities across the region, allowing greater accessibility while servingpopulation and employment growth in downtown Los Angeles. Thus, theRegional Connector would benet both riders moving through the downtownarea and those whose destination is in the downtown area.

The Regional Connector is planned with the goal o improving travel times,reducing transers, reducing trac congestion, improving air quality, andcreating a sustainable light rail transit system that serves people throughoutthe region as well as in downtown Los Angeles. The vision is to connect thespokes o the regional system and provide a one-seat ride (a trip with notransers) rom Long Beach to Montclair and rom East Los Angeles and the

San Gabriel Valley to Santa Monica.

NeedIn evaluating the mobility and travel conditions within the project area, severalissues emerged that revealed a need to provide improved transit connectionsand service within and across downtown Los Angeles. These needs include:

y Growth in population and employment will continue to draw both local andregional residents to the project area creating demand or transit services.

The purposeof the proposed

build alternatives,

including the LPA,

is to improve

transit travel time

and provide more

reliable transit service


5/9

Page ES-5

Executive Summary


y Transit system expansions to the radial network centered on downtownLos Angeles will continue to unnel riders into the unconnected corecreating concerns related to Metro Red and Purple Line capacity orconnecting riders, crowded station platorms, and regional systemschedule reliability.

y Transit dependent populations within the project area and along theexisting light rail lines include low-income households, signicant elderlypopulations, and a high percentage o zero car households.

y Travel demand data highlights the congested nature o the downtowncore, the high percentage o commuters that come rom outside o theproject area, and the built up nature o the project area that preventsexpansion o the road network.

y Transit usage requires multiple transers or cross-town trips or both localand regional riders thereby increasing travel times.

y Local land use plans and policies, including the adopted City o Los AngelesGeneral Plan Framework Element, Central City Community Plan, andDowntown Design Guidelines and Modied Street Standards, supportincreased transit alternatives, linking the regional system through downtown,and transit and pedestrian-riendly design in downtown communities.

Project CorridorThe project would link the regional destinations o Long Beach to Montclairand East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley to Santa Monica without theneed to transer. The project area is located in downtown Los Angeles. It isbounded on the west by State Route (SR) 110 (Harbor Freeway); on the northby US 101 (Hollywood Freeway); on the south by 7th and 9th Streets; and on theeast by Alameda Street between 7th and 4th Streets and the Los Angeles River

between 4th Street and US 101 (Figure ES-2).

Description of Alternatives Studied inthe Draft EIS/EIRThe Alternatives Analysis (AA) process identied and screened 36 potentialtransportation alternatives in light o the projects purpose and need, goals,and objectives. The AA process included initial technical analyses andcommunity and public agency eedback gathered at meetings and publicworkshops. Alternatives considered in the AA represent the ull spectrum oreasonable means o achieving the goals and objectives o the project. TheAA evaluated the potential alternatives based on their environmental impacts,eciency, nancial easibility, eectiveness, and equity. From the AA eort,alternatives emerged which were analyzed urther in the Drat EIS/EIRand were conrmed and rened based on the public scoping process andcommunity input received.

All proposed light rail transit (LRT) build alternatives studied in the Drat EIS/EIR would begin underground at the existing Metro Blue Line (and utureMetro Expo Line) platorm at the 7 th Street/Metro Center Station. The tracks

See Figure ES-2 on page ES-3

The AA processincluded initial

technical analyses

and community

and public agency

feedback

Growth in

population and

employment will

continue to draw

both local andregional residents

to the project area

creating demand

for transit services


6/9

Page ES-6

Executive Summary


would extend in a northeastern direction to a new junction with the MetroGold Line near Alameda Street. Three build alternatives were analyzed in theDrat EIS/EIR and are urther described below.

In addition to the LRT alternatives, a No Build Alternative and a TransportationSystem Management (TSM) Alternative were also studied in the Drat EIS/EIR. The No Build and TSM Alternatives demonstrate how the regionaltransportation system would unction i the proposed project was notimplemented, and serve as benchmarks or measuring the potential impactso the build alternatives.

No Build AlternativeThe No Build Alternative is the uture scenario without the TSM or any o theproposed build alternatives. The No Build Alternative does not include anymajor service improvements or new transportation inrastructure beyond whatis listed in Metros 2009 LRTP. Figure ES-3 illustrates the transit lines thatcurrently serve the project area.

By the projection year o 2035, the Metro Expo Line to Santa Monica, MetroPurple Line to Westwood, Metro Crenshaw Line, Metro Green Line to theSouth Bay and LAX, and the Metro Gold Line to Azusa (which will ultimatelyrun to Montclair) and the San Gabriel Valley will have opened, and a numbero bus routes will have been reorganized and expanded to provide connectionswith these new rail lines. The transit network within the project area wouldotherwise be largely the same as it is now.

Transportation System Management AlternativeThe TSM Alternative includes all o the provisions o the No Build Alternative,plus two new express shuttle bus lines linking the 7th Street/Metro Center andUnion Stations. These buses would run requently, just a ew minutes apart,

especially during peak hours. Enhanced bus stops would be located every twoto three blocks to maximize coverage o the area surrounding the routes. Railservice would remain the same as or the No Build Alternative.

Build AlternativesAn LRT system consists o electric trains powered by overhead wires, typicallyoperating in an urban transit setting. LRT uses conventional steel tracks,which have the fexibility to be placed in exclusive surace right-o-way, intunnels, on elevated viaducts, in street medians, or in mixed fow trac lanes.This allows light rail trains to operate in a variety o environments. From theAA eort, two build alternatives emerged which were analyzed urther in theDrat EIS/EIR. These alternatives are:

y At-Grade Emphasis LRT Alternative

y Underground Emphasis LRT Alternative

Metro undertook a unique and intense community engagement process toshape and compose the Drat EIS/EIR. Based on this extensive public outreacheort, the Fully Underground LRT Alternative evolved to more adequatelyaddress the community o Little Tokyos concerns regarding potential impactso the other build alternatives. The Metro Board o Directors voted in February2010 to add the Fully Underground LRT Alternative to the Drat EIS/EIR analysis.




7/9


8/9


9/9

PageES-9

FinalEnvironmentalImpactState

ment/EnvironmentalImpactReport

ExecutiveSummary

FigureES-5:LRTAlignmentsandStationsStudied

intheDraftEIS/EIR

Documents

Executive Summary Part1 of 3