FINAL OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS REPORT Urban Greening Plan for Park and Ride Lots and Station Areas

Metropolitan Transportation Authority | April 2015

AC

KN

OW

LED

GM

ENTSLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Mr. Diego Cardoso

Ms. Laura Cornejo

Mr. Jacob Lieb

Ms. Katie Lemmon

Ms. Rohini Banskota

Mr. Zach Riley

TreePeople

Ms. Edith de Guzman

Global Green

Mr. Walker Wells

Maroon Society

Dr. Aaron Celious

Prepared for Metropolitan Transportation Authority by

Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

Mr. David Lee

Mr. Noah Albers

Mr. Eugene Ng

Mr. Matthew Adams

Photography by

Mr. David Lee

Funding provided by Proposition 84 to Improve the Sustainability and Livability of California’s Communities, through the Strategic Growth Council’s Urban Greening for Sustainable Communities grant program.

2

TAB

LE O

F C

ON

TEN

TS

3

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................5

2.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................8

2.1 Data Selection and Collection ................................................................8

2.2 Data Extent, Weighting, Normalization, and Scoring ..............................9

2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................16

2.4 Utilization ...........................................................................................17

2.5 Air Quality ..........................................................................................20

2.6 Urban Forestry ....................................................................................21

2.7 Connectivity ........................................................................................22

2.8 CalEnviroScreen .................................................................................24

3.0 Results ..........................................................................................................25

3.1 Geographic Maps ...............................................................................25

3.2 Line Maps ..........................................................................................40

4.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................91

4.1 Greening and Ridership Strategies ......................................................91

5.0 Case Studies ...............................................................................................102

5.1 Overall Opportunity and Water Resources—Washington Station ........102

5.2 Utilization—LAC+USC Medical Center ...............................................104

5.3 Urban Forestry—San Pedro St Station ...............................................105

5.4 Connectivity—Future Irwindale Station ................................................ 106

5.5 Parking Utilization—Slauson Station .................................................... 107

5.6 Transit-Oriented Development—Del Mar Station ................................. 108

6.0 Bibliography .............................................................................................. 109

6.1 Literature ......................................................................................... 109

6.2 GIS Data Source .............................................................................. 114

Appendices ................................................................................................ 116

A Station Overview Map ...................................................................... 117

B Station Area Characteristics ............................................................. 118

C Existing Conditions Scoring Results per Station ................................. 120

D Raw Opportunity Scoring Results per Station ..................................... 124

E Final Opportunity Scoring Results per Station ................................... 128

4

The station areas with the highest opportunities for greening in Los Angeles County are located in central Los Angeles near downtown, southern Los Angeles, and Long Beach, on the Silver Line, Blue Line, Green Line, existing Purple Line, and the eastern reach of the Expo Line. For the 0.5-mile buffer, the Silver Line has the highest percentage of stations (all stations, 100%), with final overall opportunity scores above zero. For the 3-mile buffer, the Blue and future Regional Connector Lines have the highest percentage of stations (all stations, 100%), with final opportunity scores above zero.

Greening and ridership strategies are provided for each category analyzed based on previous research studies and implementation of sustainable transportation practices from other cities and countries. These recommendations cover station-specific physical improvements (e.g., storm water harvesting and recycled water use, solar panels for shading and to produce energy, and bike lockers to promote multi-modal transportation) to policy changes that involve coordination with other agencies (e.g., work with city planners to coordinate new bike lanes or bus stops/routes, work with city and county officials to modify zoning requirements to reduce incentives for driving).

Case studies are included for the station areas with the highest opportunity for greening in each category and for the overall opportunity score for the 0.5-mile buffer. The Washington Station on the Blue Line has the highest overall opportunity score and the highest opportunity score in the Water Resources category. The LAC+USC Medical Center Station on the Silver Line has the highest opportunity score in the Utilization category. The highest opportunity score for the Urban Forestry category belongs to the San Pedro St Station on the Blue Line. In the Connectivity category, the future Irwindale Station on the Gold Line Extension has the highest opportunity score. The Slauson Station is also included because this station has the lowest parking utilization measure score in the Utilization category, and alternative uses for parking lots was determined to be an important factor during focus group and outreach surveys as a possible way to increase ridership. The Del Mar Station is included as a comparison case study because it scores highly across most categories for existing conditions and therefore has one of the lowest overall greening opportunity scores.

This Opportunity Analysis serves as a building block in the Urban Greening Plan to identify areas for greening and provide recommendations for future greening activities. The incorporation of this Opportunity Analysis in future greening and placemaking toolkits will help determine which park and ride lots and station areas have a greater opportunity for greening relative to other locations, and will help lead to a more sustainable transportation system in Los Angeles.

An Urban Greening Grant from the Strategic Growth Council was received by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and its project partners, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and TreePeople, and the Metro Board adopted a resolution to develop an Urban Greening Plan for Park and Ride Lots and Station Areas (Urban Greening Plan) on December 15, 2011. The Urban Greening Plan includes three components to help create a sustainable transportation system and improve ridership: the Opportunity Analysis, the Research and Outreach, and the Urban Greening Plan developed from the results of the first two components.

The first component, the Opportunity Analysis presented in this document, uses existing geographic and environmental data to analyze the conditions of station areas and park and ride lots and identifies factors that inform the opportunity for greening and areas suitable for greening efforts. This Opportunity Analysis Report provides maps, analysis, and recommendations for greening at park and ride lots and station areas. This report analyzes stations on six current light rail lines (Blue, Expo, Gold, Green, Red, and Purple), two bus rapid transitways (BRTs; Orange and Silver), and two future light rail lines (Crenshaw and Regional Connector) for a total of 135 current and future station areas across Los Angeles County.

The analysis considers six categories (Water Resources, Utilization, Air Quality, Urban Forestry, Connectivity, and CalEnviroScreen, which serves as a proxy for hazards and health), with multiple measures in each category, to evaluate the existing conditions and the opportunity for greening. Two different areal extents are used to evaluate the station areas, a 0.5-mile buffer that represents areas that are walkable to each station, and a 3-mile buffer that represents the distance that is important for first/last mile strategies and a distance that can be reached by bicycle. For each station area and areal extent, a final opportunity score is calculated as the difference between the raw opportunity score and existing conditions score, resulting in relative scores for greening opportunities. Final opportunity scores that are greater than zero indicate a higher potential for greening, whereas scores less than zero indicate less opportunities for greening.

The final greening opportunity scores are presented in geographic maps and line maps for each buffer extent. The geographic maps depict the overall opportunity score and the final opportunity scores for each station in each category and are mapped across the entire study area to visualize potential geographic correlation of the scores. The line maps depict the overall opportunity score and the scores in each category for each station by transit line, and depict differences between the existing condition scores and the raw opportunity scores. EXEC

UTI

VE

SUM

MA

RY

5

The Opportunity Analysis component provides the basis for developing greening and placemaking strategies that may be implemented for station areas and park and ride lots in the Urban Greening Plan. This analysis is based on existing geographic and environmental data regarding the conditions of station areas and park and ride lots, and the results identify factors that inform the opportunity for greening, provide maps of these factors, and identify areas suitable for greening efforts.

This Opportunity Analysis Report considers six categories (Water Resources, Utilization, Air Quality, Urban Forestry, Connectivity, and CalEnviroScreen, which serves as a proxy for hazards and health), with multiple measures in each category, and evaluates differences between the existing conditions and the opportunity for greening within each station area to determine the areas with the highest potential for greening. This report is organized into seven sections: Introduction, Methodology, Results, Recommendations, Case Studies, Bibliography, and Appendices.

In addition to providing an opportunity score to help implement greening strategies for station areas and park and ride lots, the data and methodology used in this report can be used by Metro to analyze station locations for future lines. Data from the categories listed above, future available data, and public outreach results can be correlated with ridership numbers to determine what underlying conditions may lead to increased ridership, which could inform decisions to expand or construct new lines and stations. Furthermore, analysis for this report can be reviewed in future years to determine the effectiveness of the improvements to station areas and park and ride lots as a result of implementing these greening strategies and the Urban Greening Plan.

Background and Purpose

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) serves as the transportation agency in one of the largest counties in the country. More than one-fourth of California’s residents (over 10 million people) are located within Los Angeles County and Metro’s 1,433-square-mile service area. Metro is unique in its ability to enhance the well-being of residents; support the economy; and effect positive change on the environment by planning, building, and operating an efficient and effective transportation system that reduces traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled.

Metro is continuing to work toward a more sustainable transportation system, and is pursuing the Urban Greening Plan for Park and Ride Lots and Station Areas (Urban Greening Plan). Metro and its project partners, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and TreePeople, received an Urban Greening Grant from the Strategic Growth Council, and the Metro Board adopted a resolution to develop the Urban Greening Plan on December 15, 2011. The development of this plan will build on and advance the objectives established in the Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy and Implementation Plan, adopted in December 2012. The Urban Greening Plan will work on first/last mile strategies to increase access to stations and improve ridership. It will also provide tools to implement and encourage local incorporation of station area enhancement techniques that will help to minimize any negative environmental impacts from transportation projects.

The Urban Greening Plan is made up of three components that are interrelated and integral to the success of the final plan:

1) Opportunity Analysis—environmental and demographic data analysis for station areas and park and ride lots in Los Angeles County to prioritize areas based on need, readiness for investment, and redevelopment potential for greening

2) Research and Outreach—focus groups or charrettes and a rider/market demand survey

3) Urban Greening Plan—County-wide Forum, Technical Advisory Committee, Greening Toolkit, Placemaking Toolkit, and a draft and final Urban Greening Plan 1

.0

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N

6

1.0

IN

TRO

DU

CTI

ON

Section 1.0, Introduction, describes the project’s background, purpose, and location. Section 2.0, Methodology, provides a description of the data selection, the weighting and scoring factors, and the individual categories chosen for the analysis. Section 3.0, Results, summarizes the outcome of the analysis in an overall geographic extent and for each individual transit line. Section 4.0, Recommendations, provides a toolkit of greening strategies to reduce environmental impacts at station areas and increase ridership. Section 5.0, Case Studies, provides examples of stations with high greening opportunities, a station with low greening opportunities for comparison, and detailed descriptions of these station areas. Section 6.0, Bibliography, lists all resources that were reviewed in the preparation of this report. The Appendices provide data tables generated in the analysis completed for each individual station score, for each category.

Location and Study Area

This report analyzes data collected within the 1,433-square-mile service area within Los Angeles County, where Metro operates more than 2,000 peak-hour buses on an average weekday and 79.1 miles of rail service. The Metro rail system consists of two subway lines (Purple and Red) and four light rail lines (Blue, Expo, Gold, and Green) connecting Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles, Culver City, Hollywood, North Hollywood, Pasadena, Norwalk, El Segundo, and places in between. In addition, Metro has two (Orange and Silver Lines) bus rapid transit ways (BRTs) that provide transportation to the San Fernando Valley, El Monte, and Gardena. The station areas and park and ride lots analyzed in this report include stations located along the six rail lines and the two BRTs. Future stations on the Expo, Purple, and Gold Lines extending to Santa Monica, Westwood, and Azusa, respectively; a future Crenshaw Line connecting the Expo and Green Lines through Inglewood; and a future Regional Connector linking the Little Tokyo / Arts District Station with the 7th Street / Metro Center Station through downtown Los Angeles were also analyzed. In total, stations along ten lines (six existing rail lines, two future rail lines, and two BRTs) were analyzed. The map on the following page, Station and Metro Line Extents, illustrates the stations and study area analyzed for this report.

7

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*#* #*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

Culver City

LAX

Gardena

Long Beach

LosAngeles

PasadenaAzusa

Norwalk

El Monte

Hollywood

San Fernando Valley

SantaMonica

Q:\1661\Metro_Urban_Green\ArcProjects\OpportunityAnalysis_v2\Line_Extents.mxd

Source: SEI, ESRI, LA Co., Metro

LEGEND

Station Points by Line

!( Blue

!( Expo

#* Future Expo

!( Gold

#* Future Gold

!( Green

!( Orange

!( Purple

#* Future Purple

!( Red

!( Silver

#* Future Crenshaw

#*Future RegionalConnector

Metro Line

Expo

Blue

Future Expo

Gold

Future Gold

Green

Orange

Purple

Future Purple

Red

Silver

Future Crenshaw

Future RegionalConnector

0 2 4 6 8 10Miles

Station and Metro Line Extents

8

2.1 Data Selection and Collection

Station areas and park and ride lots were analyzed for the eight rail lines (six existing and two future) and two bus rapid transit (BRT) lines, including future stations extending or connecting existing lines (Table 2-1, Stations Analyzed).

TABLE 2-1 STATIONS ANALYZED

Line TypeExisting Stations

Future Stations

Total Stations* Stations Analyzed*

Blue Rail 22 0 22 20

Expo Rail 12 7 19 18

Gold Rail 21 6 27 27

Green Rail 14 0 14 13

Orange BRT 18 0 18 17

Purple Rail 8 7 15 9

Red Rail 14 0 14 13

Silver BRT 10 0 10 8

Crenshaw Rail 0 7 7 7

Regional Connector Rail 0 3 3 3

NOTE: *The Total Stations column represents the total number of stations on each line. However, because some stations are used by multiple lines, shared stations are assigned to only a single line in order to avoid duplication in the analysis. Therefore, this results in having fewer unique Stations Analyzed than the Total Stations for seven of the ten lines.

At the time of this analysis, not all future station locations have received final approval for their exact address. Therefore, some locations and their associated scores may change slightly when the future station design is complete. Any stations shared by multiple lines were analyzed only once in order to prevent duplicate analysis at the same physical station. For example, Union Station is a connector for the Gold, Red, Purple, and Silver Lines, and therefore could potentially be analyzed four separate times. However, for this report, Union Station was analyzed only once and represented as part of the Gold Line. Appendix A, Station Overview Map, provides the unique identification numbers assigned to each station, the location of the stations, and a table with the corresponding station names. A total of 135 unique station areas were analyzed for this study.

Data for the analyses were selected to represent a number of distinct categories that characterize the greenness of a station. In coordination with Metro and TreePeople, six categories related to ridership and environmental factors were selected for each station area: 1) Water Resources; 2) Utilization; 3) Air Quality; 4) Urban Forestry; 5) Connectivity; and 6) CalEnviroScreen (burden score). The analyses for the first five categories utilized available spatial data supplied by Metro. The sixth category is based on the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 tool (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2014), which identifies

Summary

The methodology for the Opportunity Analysis was modified after the completion of the initial Existing Conditions Report to include results from the second component of the Urban Greening Plan (Research and Outreach, using focus groups and surveys) and ongoing coordination with Metro, TreePeople, and Global Green. This section describes the updated methodology. The initial methodology can be found in the Existing Conditions Report (Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2015).

The focus group results indicated that community members were interested in reducing heat around parking lots by using greening strategies such as shade and permeable pavement (which could also reduce splashing and puddles during rain events). Focus groups also considered storm water management to be an important greening strategy. The focus group members were very interested in alternative uses for the parking lots (e.g., uses for education/job fairs, entertainment, vendors, etc.). The community outreach survey results indicated that 25% of the community members believed it was important to reduce heat at parking lots, while 74% believed that storm water management was important. Of the heat-reducing strategies, solar panel roofs and trees were the preferred options. Of the storm water management strategies, having vegetation instead of pavement and the use of swales were the preferred options. In addition to greening strategies, community members believed that decreasing fares, access to more destinations, and more frequent trains/buses would attract more riders.

Based on these results and coordination with Metro, TreePeople, and Global Green, weighting strategies were revised to increase the importance of the Utilization and Connectivity categories and decrease the importance of the Air Quality category. Furthermore, the importance of certain measures within the scoring categories related to water resources, alternative uses of parking lots, heat-reducing strategies, and the ability to access more destinations were increased.

This report analyzes the existing conditions of each station area and the opportunity for greening. The existing conditions analysis provides a baseline score characterizing the existing greenness of a station in the six different categories. The raw opportunity scores are calculated based on the potential for greening using measures within the six categories, which will be described in Sections 2.3 through 2.8. The final opportunity scores are calculated as the difference between the raw opportunity scores and the existing conditions score per station, resulting in a score for the relative opportunity per station. Stations with scores greater than zero have more opportunities for greening, whereas stations with scores below zero have less opportunity for greening, as they exhibit better existing conditions when compared with other stations.

2.0

M

ETH

OD

OLO

GY

9

2.2 Data Extent, Weighting, Normalization, and Scoring

Data Extent

The analysis within the station area buffers was conducted at two different extents depending on the measure used (see Step 3 of the diagram, p. 14). One extent analyzed data only contained within Metro-owned parcels and public, non-Metro-owned rights-of-way (ROWs) (e.g., streets), excluding privately owned parcels, whereas the other extent analyzed data within the entire buffer area. Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs were selected for analysis because Metro has the ability to directly affect the future use of these properties and can use them to implement greening strategies to improve the nearby station areas. Analysis of entire buffer areas is important for categories such as Air Quality and CalEnviroScreen. The Extent Analyzed column in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 describes the extent that was used within the buffer for the analysis of each measure. The acreages for 0.5- and 3-mile Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs for all station areas can be found in Appendix B, Station Area Characteristics.

Weighting

Updates to the weighting of the six categories were decided in collaboration with Metro, TreePeople, and Global Green and reflect findings from Metro’s surveys and focus groups on urban greening:

1) Water Resources: 15% of the total score

2) Utilization: 25% of the total score

3) Air Quality 5% of the total score

4) Urban Forestry 15% of the total score

5) Connectivity 25% of the total score

6) CalEnviroScreen 15% of the total score

communities that are the most burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects. The specific measures comprising each category were selected in coordination with Metro, TreePeople, and Global Green (see Step 1 of the diagram, p. 14). The existing conditions and raw opportunity scores were calculated using all categories and measures. In a few instances, the existing condition and raw opportunity scores were the same because implementing greening strategies would not be able to directly change the existing conditions. Table 2-2, Existing Conditions Data, provides a description of the scoring and summarizes the data used in the existing conditions analysis, the value of each measure used, the spatial extent used to evaluate the measure, and the updated weight of each measure and category. Table 2-3, Opportunity Analysis Raw Data, provides a description of the scoring and summaries the data used in the Opportunity Analysis raw scoring, the value of each measure used, the spatial extent used to evaluate the measure, and the weight of each measure and category.

Two different buffer areas were analyzed (see Step 2 of the diagram, p. 14) because the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) established a formal policy on the eligibility of pedestrian and bicycle improvements for FTA funding and specifies that all pedestrian improvements within 0.5 mile and all bicycle improvements within 3 miles of a public transportation stop or station have a physical and functional relationship to public transportation (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 2011). A 0.5-mile buffer was used to represent areas that are walkable for each station. A 3-mile buffer was used to represent the distance that is important for first/last mile strategies and to represent a reasonable distance that can be reached by bicycle. The 0.5-mile buffer analysis produced more station-specific results than the 3-mile buffer analysis as there was less overlap between station areas. Park and ride lots associated with the rail stations were situated near the station locations and were within the 0.5- or 3-mile buffer. Therefore, in coordination with Metro and TreePeople, it was decided that a separate analysis was not needed for park and ride lots since they are located within the buffer area of the station with which they are associated.

10

The categories associated with ridership and station usage (Utilization and Connectivity) were weighted slightly higher than the categories associated with the environment (Water Resources, Air Quality, Urban Forestry, and CalEnviroScreen). The factors measured by the Utilization and Connectivity categories can lead to increased ridership and decreased vehicle use. The associated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would have a greater effect on creating a sustainable transportation system than the environmental categories. Although air quality is important for community health, the Air Quality category was weighted the lowest because improvements are needed on a much larger scale than station area extents, and greening strategies implemented at the station area level are unlikely to provide a direct and perceptible positive impact on air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Within each category, measures were weighted based on the outcomes from the public outreach surveys and focus groups, with higher weights assigned to measures related to water resources, alternative uses of parking lots, heat-reducing strategies, the ability to access more destinations, and the potential for Metro to make improvements.

The Weight column in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 depicts the weight for each category and measure used in the analyses. Sections 2.3 through 2.8 provide further detail on each data category.

Normalization

Normalizing the data values for each measure by area and/or population was undertaken to provide values relative to the normalization factor and is described in Sections 2.3 through 2.8 for each measure (see Step 4 of the diagram, p. 14). Data values normalized by area used the total acreage in the station area based on the Extent Analyzed columns in Tables 2-2 Existing Conditions Data, and 2-3 Opportunity Analysis Raw Data. Data values normalized by population used the total population within the station area. The total population within the station area was calculated by multiplying the percentage of each census tract by the 2010 population for each tract, and summing the values of all tracts within the station area. The total population within the 0.5- and 3-mile buffers for all station areas can be found in Appendix B. The normalization of data values is important because using total values for some measures could lead to results with higher error. For example, if two stations (A and B) have the same number of riders, they would receive the same score if the values were not normalized by population. However, if Station A has a population to draw from that is larger than Station B, Station B would receive a higher existing condition score because it has a higher ridership per person. Station A would receive a higher raw opportunity score because it has a lower ridership value per person and has more opportunity to gain new riders from the larger population.

11

Scoring

Each station was assessed on a 100-point scale for both existing conditions and raw opportunity score. A ranked scoring approach was used to score each station for each measure (see Step 5 of the diagram, p. 15). Since there are 135 unique station areas, each station area was ranked from 1 to 135, from the best-performing station area for each measure to the worst-performing. The ranks were based on the Value column (after normalization) and ranked based on the Scoring Description column in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. The top-ranked station area received the maximum number of points for the measure. Every station area ranked lower received a slightly lower score than the previously ranked station area, based on a defined interval derived from the total points available for the measure (see Step 6 of the diagram, p. 15). The interval used was calculated by dividing the number of points per measure by the total number of station areas. The score per station area is then determined by subtracting the interval from the score of the previously ranked station area (see Step 7 of the diagram, p. 15). The scoring results for each station and within each category for the existing conditions can be found in Appendix C, Existing Conditions Scoring Results per Station, and for the raw opportunity scores in Appendix D, Raw Opportunity Scoring Results per Station.

Scoring Example: Top Three Scores for Tree Canopy

The Tree Canopy measure in the Urban Forestry category has a maximum possible score of 10 points. The top three stations with the highest average Tree Canopy cover within the 0.5-mile buffer area are Southwest Museum (6.88% cover), South Pasadena (5.02%), and Warner Center (4.84%). The interval for the ranked scoring is 0.074 (10 maximum points ÷ 135 station areas). Therefore, the station area with the highest average percentage of tree canopy cover, Southwest Museum, is given 10.00 points, the maximum number of points for that measure. South Pasadena and Warner Center are given 9.93 points and 9.85 points, respectively, with each score being one interval less than the previous score.

If the values for a measure are the same for each station area, then station areas with the same values are given an average rank depending on the total number of station areas with the same value. This average rank translates to each station area receiving the same score for the measure. For example, the Bike Locker measure in the Utilization category has 23 stations with no bike racks/lockers. The original ranks for the stations are 113 through 135. Since the values are equivalent for these stations, the average rank (124) is used so that each of these station areas can be given the same score. The scoring for each measure is then added to produce a total score for each station area.

The final opportunity score is calculated as the difference between the raw opportunity score and the existing conditions score. Because there are measures that receive the same score in the existing conditions analysis and the raw opportunity score, the final opportunity score illustrates the difference in measures and categories that can be affected by the implementation of greening strategies. The Air Quality and the CalEnviroScreen categories have the same existing conditions and raw opportunity scores; therefore, these scores are cancelled out in the calculation of the final opportunity score since localized greening strategies are unlikely to have a direct and perceptible positive impact on air quality within the South Coast Air Basin and on socioeconomics, respectively. The Water Resources, Utilization, Urban Forestry, and Connectivity categories and the Overall Opportunity use the final opportunity score to determine potential for greening at each station. Stations with scores that are greater than zero have more opportunities for greening, whereas stations with scores that are less than zero have less opportunity for greening, as they exhibit better existing conditions when compared with other stations. Appendix E, Final Opportunity Scoring Results per Station, details the scores for each category and each station.

12

TABLE 2-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA

Measure Value Extent Analyzed Weight Scoring Description Water Resources

15%

Percent Impervious Surface Average percentage

3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

10 Lower percentage, higher score

Impaired Water Body/Stream

Distance to nearest impaired water body

3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Farther distance, higher score

Soils Infiltration capacity 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Higher infiltration, higher score

Utilization

25%

Rail Utilization Boardings (total weekly per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

4 Higher boardings, higher score

Parking Capacity Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

4 Higher number, higher score

Parking Utilization Percent utilization (per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

6 Higher percentage, higher score

Electric Plug-In Stations Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Higher number, higher score

Bike Lockers Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Higher number, higher score

Metro-owned Parcels and Public Right-of-Way

Acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 6 Larger acreage, higher score

Air Quality

5%

Ozone Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Lower average value, higher score

PM2.5 Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Lower average value, higher score

Urban Forestry

15%

Parks Acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 5 Larger acreage, higher score

Tree Canopy Average percentage 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

10 Higher percentage, higher score

TABLE 2-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA

Connectivity

25%

Total Bike Routes Distance in miles 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

3 Longer distance, higher score

Bike Routes Leading to Stations

Distance within 300-foot buffer 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 3 Longer distance, higher score

Bus Stops Count 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

5 Higher number, higher score

Accessibility Index Average index score (from Sustainability Report)

3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Higher average, higher score

Vacant Lots Total acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Smaller acreage, higher score

Points of Interest Count 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 5 Higher count, higher score

Great Streets Distance in miles 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 3 Longer distance, higher score

Vehicle Miles Traveled Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Lower average, higher score

CalEnviroScreen

15%

CalEnviroScreen Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 15 Lower average, higher score

Measure Value Extent Analyzed Weight Scoring Description

13

TABLE 2-3 OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS RAW DATA

TABLE 2-3 OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS RAW DATA

Measure Value Extent Analyzed Weight Scoring Description

Water Resources

15%

Percent Impervious Surface Average percentage 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

10 Higher percentage, higher score

Impaired Water Body/Stream

Distance to nearest impaired water body

3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Same as existing conditions

Soils Infiltration capacity 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Same as existing conditions

Utilization

25%

Rail Utilization Boardings (total weekly per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

4 Lower boardings, higher score

Parking Capacity Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

4 Lower number, higher score

Parking Utilization Percent utilization (per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

6 Lower percentage, higher score

Electric Plug-In Stations Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Lower number, higher score

Bike Lockers Count (total per station) 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

2.5 Lower number, higher score

Metro-owned Parcels and Public Right-of-Way

Acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 6 Same as existing conditions

Air Quality

5%

Ozone Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Same as existing conditions

PM2.5 Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2.5 Same as existing conditions

Urban Forestry

15%

Open Space (Zoning) Acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 5 Larger acreage, higher score

Tree Canopy Average percentage 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

10 Lower percentage, higher score

Connectivity

25%

Total Bike Routes Distance in miles 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

3 Shorter distance, higher score

Bike Routes Leading to Stations

Distance within 300-foot buffer 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 3 Shorter distance, higher score

Bus Stops Count 3-mile and 0.5-mile Metro parcels and public right-of-way

5 Lower number, higher score

Accessibility Index Average index score (from Sustainability Report)

3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Same as existing conditions

Vacant Lots Total acreage 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Larger acreage, higher score

Points of Interest Count 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 5 Lower count, higher score

Great Streets Distance in miles 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 3 Same as existing conditions

Vehicle Miles Traveled Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 2 Higher average, higher score

CalEnviroScreen

15%

CalEnviroScreen Average values 3-mile and 0.5-mile buffer 15 Same as existing conditions

Measure Value Extent Analyzed Weight Scoring Description

14

1. Measure

2. Station Area

3. ExtentMetro-owned Parcels or Public ROWs

Full Buffer

!(

!(

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

LEGEND

Bus Stop

3-Mile Buffer

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

0.5-Mile Buffer

!(

!(

!(

!(

4. Normalizationby Area Extent (Urban Forestry / Tree Canopy) by Population (Utilization / Rail)

Measures are typically determined by raw environmental and geographic data. For example, the Bus Stops measure starts with a count of existing bus stops within the extent of the analysis.

Two buffer areas were analyzed for each station area for each measure. The 0.5-mile buffer represents a walkable distance, whereas the 3-mile buffer represents a reasonable bicycling distance.

Applicable measures may then be normalized based on the area. For example, Tree Canopy cannot occur over water; therefore, for this measure, the amount of tree canopy was divided by the land area. Two areas with the same tree canopy cover would result in different opportunity scores if one area had a larger land area because the larger area would allow for more potential trees to be planted.

Applicable measures may also be normalized based on the population within the buffer. For example, in the case of the Rail Utilization measure, the number of riders was divided by the population. Two areas with the same number of riders would result in different opportunity scores if one area had a greater population density because the higher density would allow for more potential riders.

Within each of the 0.5- and 3-mile buffers, two possible extents were analyzed: 1) the Metro-owned parcels or public ROWs extent to represent areas that Metro has influence over, or 2) the entirety of the full buffer for measures that cannot be controlled by Metro, such as air quality, parks, points of interests, and VMT.

15

6. Rank Interval 7. Score

1

2

3

5

Rank Score

4.96

4.92

= Interval

= 0.04

Weight

Total Stations

5 Points

135

The point interval between each rank is determined by the weight of the specific measure divided by the total number of stations.

In this example, the top-ranking station has the maximum score of 5 for this particular measure, with each subsequently lower rank receiving a score that is lower by the previously determined interval amount, which in this case is 0.04.

5. Station Rank by Value

1

2

3

= 1.4

= 1.3

= 0.9

ValueRank

Stations were ranked from the highest to the lowest normalized value, as applicable, for each measure.

16

geospatial data set (California Water Resources Control Board 2010) was used to determine the location of impaired water bodies. The values for this measure were calculated within the entire buffer area extent. A greater distance to an impaired water body resulted in a higher station score. Since the distance to an impaired water body cannot be changed, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

2.3.3 Soil Infiltration Capacity

The Soil Infiltration Capacity measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (1/6 of the Water Resources category). Soil infiltration capacity is an important measure for water resources as greater infiltration can increase groundwater recharge rates and decrease runoff. Soil data mapped in 2004 available on the Los Angeles County GIS portal and utilized in the 2006 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual were used in this analysis. TreePeople determined that there are three soil types (Santa Monica Mountains, Upper Los Angeles River, and Upper San Gabriel River) that could not be tied to infiltration rates due to insufficient data on soil texture. Since all three of these soil types were located outside of the 0.5-mile buffer area used for this study, it was decided that the scores for soil infiltration capacity would only be calculated in the 0.5-mile buffer using the extent of Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs. The same soil infiltration capacity score per station area was used for the 3-mile buffer analysis in order to avoid using areas containing insufficient data. In order to determine infiltration rates for each soil type, the soil type was overlaid with a percentage slope using a National Elevation Dataset (NED) digital elevation model (DEM) with a resolution of 1/3 arc-second (approximately 10 meters) (U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program 2014). An infiltration value was assigned to each soil type and slope. Infiltration values less than 0.3 inch per hour (in/hr) were determined to be unsuitable for infiltration, values of 0.3–1.0 would be moderately suitable, and values greater than 1.0 would be highly suitable (de Guzman 2014). There were no soil type and slope combinations that exceeded 1.0 in/hr; therefore, combinations with a value of less than 0.3 were given an intermediate score of 0, and values between 0.3 and 1.0 were assigned a value of 1. An average value was calculated for each station area, and the station areas were then ranked from the highest (more suitable for infiltration) to the lowest (less suitable for infiltration) average values. The existing condition and raw opportunity scores were the same for this measure as the soil type and slope would likely not change with the implementation of greening strategies; therefore, this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

Summary

The Water Resources category comprises 15% of the total score. Greening strategies for water resources are important for improving the water quality of receiving waters and reducing the potential for downstream flooding by decreasing urban runoff; increasing water supply by infiltration and/or capture techniques; and conserving water by using storm water, recycled water, or gray water irrigation or low-flow toilets. Initial data considered for the analyses pertaining to water resources for station areas included percent impervious surface, runoff coefficient, use of recycled water or gray water, soil type, percolation and/or infiltration rates, runoff flow directions, presence of storm water management or storm water harvesting techniques, distance to impaired water bodies, and existing groundwater augmentation. Available data resulted in three measures that were analyzed for this report: 1) Percent Impervious Surface, 2) Distance to Impaired Water Body, and 3) Soil Infiltration Capacity.

2.3.1 Percent Impervious Surface

The Percent Impervious Surface measure comprises 10% of the total score (2/3 of the Water Resources category). The amount of impervious surface is an important measure for water resources as impervious surfaces increase runoff that leads to flooding, limit soil infiltration to support vegetation and recharge groundwater, and decrease runoff water quality. In addition to affecting water resources, impervious surfaces can increase heat and reduce opportunities for growing vegetation. The values for impervious surface for this study were determined by using a 30-meter raster data set of impervious surface percentages (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2011), which were then averaged over the buffer areas within the Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs extent. This measure serves as a proxy for storm water conservation/retention and for heat-reducing strategies, which were important to community members during focus group and outreach surveys. A higher average percentage of impervious surfaces within a station area extent resulted in a higher raw opportunity score, as there is more opportunity to implement greening strategies to convert impervious surfaces to pervious surfaces.

2.3.2 Distance to Impaired Water Body

The Distance to Impaired Water Body measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (1/6 of the Water Resources category). The distance to an impaired water body is important to water resources because it provides a measure of the existing condition of water quality near a station area, as well as the potential to affect that water body. The 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters

2.3

W

ATE

R R

ESO

UR

CES

17

Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 2009). These benefits increase as ridership increases; in the case of bus transit, the 32% reduction assumes that the bus, on average, has only 25% of its seats occupied. The use of public transit also results in decreased congestion, which in turn results in further reductions in CO2 emissions from cars stuck in traffic. In 2013, Metro displaced approximately 475,269 metric tons of CO2 equivalent by shifting transit modes from automobiles to public transit, not including the effects of decreased congestion, while only generating 462,272 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, for a net reduction of 12,997 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014).

The average number of weekly boarders, or riders, was used as the value for this measure (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). In coordination with Metro and TreePeople, it was determined that values for future stations would be the average of all existing stations on the same line. For the future Crenshaw Line stations, the average weekly boardings from the Expo and the Green Lines were used, as this future line will run between those existing lines. For the future Regional Connector Line, the average weekly boardings from the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines were used, as this future line will create a connection from the Expo and Blue Lines to the Gold without having to transfer to the Red or Purple Lines. Using the average based on data from existing lines result in an estimated number of riders for the future stations, and avoids a score of zero for future stations. The score for this measure was normalized by population because the number of riders that a station has potential access to within the station area is an important factor in the scoring. Stations with a lower number of riders per person would have a greater potential to increase ridership because there is a larger population to draw from.

Summary

The Utilization category comprises 25% of the total score. The Utilization category covers both ridership and station amenities. Utilization is one of the most important factors in operating a sustainable transit system. Higher rates of ridership imply fewer vehicle miles traveled, which directly results in reduced air pollution and traffic, and potentially promotes local business opportunities, thereby improving the local economy. Initial data considered for the analyses pertaining to utilization of station areas include the number of bike racks/lockers, station and park and ride lot parking capacity and utilization, ridership (daily boardings), amount of solar panels or other alternative energy, green roofs, type of lighting, electric plug-in availability, number of low-flow toilets, amount of porous concrete, percentage of recycled materials used, and seating (number of benches/chairs per station). Available data resulted in five measures that were analyzed for this report: 1) Rail and Transit Way Utilization, 2) Parking Capacity, 3) Parking Utilization, 4) Electric Plug-In Stations, and 5) Bike Locker/Rack Capacity. As a result of the second component of the Urban Greening Plan (Research and Outreach, using focus groups and surveys) and ongoing coordination with Metro, TreePeople, and Global Green, a sixth measure, Metro-owned Parcels and Public Right-of-Way, was added to the Utilization category because this measure is important for determining Metro’s ability to implement greening strategies or add new transit lines.

2.4.1 Rail and Transit Way Utilization

The Rail and Transit Way Utilization measure comprises 4% of the total score (16% of the Utilization category). This measure determined the ridership levels for each station. Maximizing ridership helps Metro decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by shifting transit modes away from privately owned automobiles, yielding economic and environmental benefits. By taking public transportation instead of driving a car, a two-worker household can save an average of $6,251 per year (ICF International 2007). A single person who commutes alone by automobile an average distance of 20 miles round trip can reduce his or her carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 20 pounds per day, or more than 2 metric tons per year, by converting to public transportation (Science Applications International Corporation 2007). In 2013, CO2 made up 82.4% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities in the United States, and transportation accounted for 33.8% of these CO2 emissions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015). As measured on a per-passenger-mile basis, public transit emits only a small fraction of the CO2 that would be produced by a single-occupancy vehicle. For example, in the United States, heavy rail transit produces about 75% less GHG emissions per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy automobile, light rail transit produces 57% less, and bus transit produces 32% less (U.S. Department of

2.4

U

TILI

ZA

TIO

N

18

the utilization is tied to each station’s parking lot. Stations containing parking lots with the lowest parking lot utilization received the highest opportunity scores, because these lots have the potential to accommodate more riders with cars or can use the parking lot for alternative uses (e.g., job fairs, farmers markets) as suggested by community members. Stations with no parking received the lowest opportunity scores because lots cannot be used if they do not exist. Since parking utilization is station specific, it does not change between the 0.5-mile buffer and the 3-mile buffer; therefore, scores for this measure are the same for each buffer area.

2.4.4 Electric Plug-In Stations

The Electric Plug-In Stations measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (10% of the Utilization category). The rationale for including this measure in the Utilization category is that it incentivizes electric vehicle travel to stations, and charging stations provide added value to electric vehicle drivers who use public transit. The increased use of electric vehicles helps to reduce local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This measure was normalized by population, as larger populations would also have a proportionately larger number of potential electric vehicle owners. The values used were the total number of electric plug-in spaces available per station per person (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). Similar to the Rail and Transit Way Utilization measure, scores for future stations with parking lots were based on the average number of electric plug-in spaces over the entire existing line, with the future Crenshaw Line stations using the average from the Expo and Green Lines. There were only a few stations that had electric vehicle plug-in stations, so the majority of stations received the same raw opportunity score for this category, due to the lack of electric vehicle charging stations across all lines.

2.4.2 Parking Capacity

The Parking Capacity measure comprises 4% of the total score (16% of the Utilization category). This measure is important because the ability to park personal vehicles at a station provides an option for riders who are not able to bike or walk to a station. The values used for each existing station were the 2014 total number of parking spaces available in park and ride lots associated with a station (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). The values used for future stations were provided by Metro using the data available at the time of this analysis. Station characteristics may change once the future stations are completed. The number of parking spaces available for each station is represented in Appendix B. This measure was normalized by the station area extent of Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs because station areas with fewer parking spaces per acre have greater potential to build additional lots.

2.4.3 Parking Utilization

The Parking Utilization measure comprises 6% of the total score (24% of the Utilization category). This measure is an important component of the Utilization category, as it reflects how much each parking lot/structure is used, presumably to access transit. The values used for each existing station were the 2014 average parking utilization percentage per station that contained lots/structures (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). The utilization of parking lots per station is represented in Appendix B. Similar to the Rail and Transit Way Utilization measure, scores for future stations were based on the average parking utilization values over the entire existing line at stations that had parking lots, with the future Crenshaw Line stations using the average from the Expo and Green Lines. The future Regional Connector stations are not expected to have parking lots/structures and were given a utilization percentage of zero. This measure was not normalized by area or population because

19

2.4.5 Bike Locker/Rack Capacity

The Bike Locker/Rack Capacity measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (10% of the Utilization category). The total number of bike lockers and racks available at stations is an important measure for the Utilization category as this measure promotes the use of emissions-free travel to and from Metro stations (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). The increased use of bicycles helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and improve community health. This measure was normalized by population, as larger populations would also have a larger number of potential bike riders. The values used were the total number of bike locker and bike rack spaces available per station per person. Similar to the Rail and Transit Way Utilization measure, scores for future stations were based on the average number of bike lockers and bike racks over the entire existing line, with the future Crenshaw Line stations using the average from the Expo and Green Lines, and the future Regional Connector line using the average from the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines. Stations with a lower number of bike lockers and rack spaces per person received a higher station score, as the opportunity to increase capacity for bikes could lead to increased ridership and utilization of stations.

2.4.6 Metro-owned Parcels and Public Right-of-Way

The Metro-owned Parcels and Public Right-of-Way measure comprises 6% of the total score (24% of the Utilization category). The total acreage of Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs is important for assessing Metro’s ability to implement greening strategies or add new transit lines. Although this measure is part of the Utilization category, it can also affect other categories, and is therefore used to normalize a number of other measures in the analyses. This measure is normalized by the size of the total station area buffer because a higher acreage of available land increases the opportunity available to implement greening strategies within the buffer zone of a station area. The existing conditions score and the raw opportunity scores are the same for this measure as having more available land is beneficial for both scores. Because the existing conditions and raw opportunity score are the same, this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score in this category, but did factor into the normalization of many measures in other categories. Raw scores specifically for this measure may be used during the implementation of greening strategies to find areas with the most Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs.

20

2.5.2 PM2.5

The PM2.5 measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (half of the Air Quality category). Sources of PM2.5 include motor vehicles, power plants, industrial processes, and combustion processes. Exposure to PM2.5 can aggravate heart and lung disease. The PM2.5 measure is based on the annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (average over quarterly means), over a three-year period (2009 to 2011), as found within the CalEnviroScreen data set (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2014). The PM2.5 value for each station area was averaged over the entire buffer area for each station. Station areas with lower average values resulted in a higher station score. Since PM2.5 concentration is not likely to be affected by implementation of greening strategies at the station area extent, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

Summary

The Air Quality category comprises 5% of the total score. There are six common air pollutants, including particulate matter (PM), ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Of the six pollutants, PM and ozone are the most widespread health threats. There are two types of regulated PM: PM10 (particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less) and PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less). Exposure to PM10 can lead to damaging effects on breathing and lung tissue, cancer, and premature death, but the smaller PM2.5 is more likely to reach the lower respiratory tract and result in adverse health effects. Exposure to ozone reduces lung function and causes respiratory inflammation, leading to symptoms such as chest pain, coughing, nausea, and congestion. Therefore, improvements in air quality are beneficial to the health of communities and allow the region to achieve air quality goals. Analysis of air quality requires a larger extent approach and cannot be bound to census tracts or small areas. However, for the purposes of this report, air quality measures were analyzed for the entire station buffer area per station. Initial data considered for the existing conditions analysis pertaining to air quality included ozone concentration, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, carbon dioxide concentrations, van pool or rideshare availability, and vehicle miles traveled. Available data resulted in two measures that were analyzed for this report: 1) Ozone and 2) PM2.5.

2.5.1 Ozone

The Ozone measure comprises 2.5% of the total score (half of the Air Quality category). Ozone irritates and inflames the respiratory system, and increased ozone levels can exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. The Ozone measure is based on the daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration over the California 8-hour standard (0.070 parts per million), averaged over three years (2009 to 2011), as found within the CalEnviroScreen data set (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2014). The ozone value for each station area was averaged over the entire buffer area for that station. Station areas with lower average values resulted in a higher station score. Since ozone concentration is not likely to be affected by implementation of greening strategies at the station area extent, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

2.5

A

IR Q

UA

LITY

21

The Open Space measure comprises 5% of the total raw opportunity score (1/3 of the Urban Forestry category). The Open Space measure is based on the amount of land zoned as Open Space and is derived from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) countywide zoning data (SCAG 2009), available on the Los Angeles County GIS data portal. The Open Space measure is important to the Urban Forestry category because it represents potential opportunity to create parks or plant trees. Similar to the existing conditions Parks measure, this measure was normalized by both area and population. Stations with a greater total acreage of open space per acre per person received a higher raw opportunity score.

2.6.2 Tree Canopy

The Tree Canopy measure comprises 10% of the total score (2/3 of the Urban Forestry category). The amount of tree canopy coverage is an important measure in the Urban Forestry category as greater tree canopy coverage can help improve air quality and reduce heat by providing shade and evaporative cooling, which are important to community members. In addition, trees provide aesthetically pleasing landscapes within urban settings. The Tree Canopy measure was based on a 30-meter raster data set of tree canopy coverage percentages (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2011), and the value was averaged over the buffer areas located within Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs. A lower average percentage of tree canopy cover within a station area resulted in a higher raw opportunity score as the station area would have a greater potential to implement greening strategies to increase tree canopy cover.

Summary

The Urban Forestry category comprises 15% of the total score. Greening strategies related to urban forestry can reduce impervious surfaces, decreasing urban runoff and increasing soil infiltration and groundwater recharge; improve air quality through the planting of vegetation and trees; improve aesthetic values of station areas; provide destination points for travelers in the form of green space and gardens; and decrease heat by providing shade and evaporative cooling. Initial data considered for the analyses pertaining to urban forestry and urban ecology included tree canopy cover, native vegetation percentage, vegetation species and locations at station areas, bioswale locations, and parks. Available data resulted in two measures that were analyzed for this report: 1) Parks and Open Space and 2) Tree Canopy.

2.6.1 Parks and Open Space

This measure required different treatment for existing conditions and raw opportunity because existing conditions analyzed existing green space and raw opportunity analyzed potential green space. The Parks measure is used just for scoring the existing conditions, whereas the Open Space measure is used just for scoring the raw opportunity.

The Parks measure comprises 5% of the total existing conditions score (1/3 of the Urban Forestry category). Parks are an important measure in the Urban Forestry category because they improve water resources and air quality through reduced impervious surfaces and increased vegetation. In addition, parks can serve as a destination for Metro riders. This measure is normalized by area and population within the station area. Only using total acreage of parks can lead to misleading analysis in station areas near the coast because buffers can extend over the ocean. Normalizing by population provides an underlying environmental justice factor of parks per person. Station areas with greater acreages of parks resulted in a higher existing conditions station score (Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal 2014).

2.6

U

RB

AN

FO

RES

TRY

22

area around a station; therefore, no normalization by area or population was used for this measure. Stations with a lower total length received a higher raw opportunity score as these stations would have greater potential to create routes leading directly to the station. Since the length of bike routes leading to stations is station specific, it does not change between the 0.5-mile buffer and the 3-mile buffer; therefore, scores for this measure are the same for each buffer area.

2.7.3 Bus Stops

The Bus Stops measure comprises 5% of the total score (20% of the Connectivity category). The Bus Stops measure is important to connectivity as it assesses the ease of using alternative transportation in the vicinity of a station area and the ability to continue trips via bus transfers to further destinations, an important factor to community members. This measure was normalized by the area of Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs and by population. Normalizing by area is important because fewer bus stops per area would allow the potential for adding more stops within a station area. Normalizing by population is important because a larger population would provide a proportionate increase in the number of potential bus riders, leading to increased need for transit. The total number of bus stops per acre per person was used to score each station area. Stations with a lower value received a higher raw opportunity score (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014).

2.7.4 Accessibility Index

The Accessibility Index measure comprises 2% of the total score (8% of the Connectivity category). The Accessibility Index measure is obtained from the 2012 Metro Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy & Implementation Plan (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2012) and is derived from residential density and employment centrality data. The accessibility index assigns census tracts a value of 2 through 10; the value is a sum of the residential density value (1 through 7) and employment centrality value (1 through 3). This index was weighted based on analysis conducted for the sustainability policy, which indicated that residential density is more influential in reducing vehicle miles traveled than employment centrality. The values for the Accessibility Index measure were averaged over the entire station area buffer. Station areas with a higher average value resulted in higher station scores. Since the accessibility index cannot be changed through implementation of greening strategies, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

Summary

The Connectivity category comprises 25% of the total score. As a key feature of sustainable transportation systems, increased connectivity improves access and mobility for local communities. The ability to reach stations from one’s home or to access destinations for work, school, errands, or entertainment is an important factor in increasing ridership (as noted in the community outreach surveys and focus groups) and decreasing the use of personal vehicles. Initial data considered for the analyses pertaining to connectivity included total bike routes, bike routes leading to stations, bus stops, sidewalk widths and continuity, speed limit data, points of interest (destinations), residential density, open space areas, vacant lots, presence of City of Los Angeles–defined Great Streets in the station area, and vehicle miles traveled. Eight measures resulted from the available data: 1) Total Bike Routes, 2) Bike Routes Leading to Stations, 3) Bus Stops, 4) Accessibility Index, 5) Vacant Lots, 6) Points of Interest, 7) Great Streets, and 8) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

2.7.1 Total Bike Routes

The Total Bike Routes measure comprises 3% of the total score (12% of the Connectivity category). The amount of total bike routes is important to assessing the ease of using alternative transportation in the vicinity of a station area (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2014). This measure is normalized by station area extent and population. Normalizing the total length of bike routes by the area of Metro-owned parcels and public ROWs is important because a lower value leads to greater opportunities to add bike routes. Normalizing by population is important because a larger population would likely have a proportionally greater number of potential bike riders who would use these routes. Stations with a lower total length of bike routes per area per person received a higher raw opportunity score.

2.7.2 Bike Routes Leading to Stations

The Bike Routes Leading to Stations measure comprises 3% of the total score (12% of the Connectivity category). This measure is important because it assesses the connectivity of bike routes to stations and evaluates the ability to reach a station from a bike route. For this measure, a 300-foot buffer was created around each station point, and the total length of bike routes within this buffer was analyzed. A 300-foot buffer was chosen as a reasonable distance to walk a bike from a bike route to a station. The 300-foot buffer is a relatively small

2.7

C

ON

NEC

TIV

ITY

2.7.7 Great Streets

The Great Streets measure comprises 3% of the total score (12% of the Connectivity category). The Great Streets measure is based on the Los Angeles Great Streets Initiative (City of Los Angeles 2013), which is intended to develop streets that activate public spaces, provide economic revitalization, increase public safety, enhance the local culture, and support great neighborhoods. The Great Streets Initiative creates gathering places where people can travel by car, public transit, bike, or foot. The Great Streets measure uses the locations of the first 15 selected Great Streets (City of Los Angeles 2014) to determine the total length of Great Streets located within the entire station area buffer. This measure is normalized by total station area to reflect the length of Great Streets per area in order to account for smaller 3-mile buffer land areas around stations located near the coast. Station areas with a greater total length of Great Streets resulted in a higher station score. Since the total length of Great Streets cannot be changed and is only a City of Los Angeles mandate, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

2.7.8 Vehicle Miles Traveled

The VMT measure comprises 2% of the total score (8% of the Connectivity category). VMT directly results in air pollution and potentially results in collisions and fatalities. The VMT measure is based on data from the Metro Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy & Implementation Plan (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2012), and the value for each station area is averaged over the entire buffer area for that station. Stations with higher average values received a higher raw opportunity score, as these stations have a greater potential to implement greening strategies to decrease VMT.

2.7.5 Vacant Lots

The Vacant Lots measure comprises 2% of the total score (8% of the Connectivity category). The Vacant Lots measure is important to the Connectivity category because empty lots or buildings near stations can result in safety concerns for riders and potentially reduce ridership. Vacant lots also indicate a lack of destinations in the area. However, vacant lots can also provide an opportunity to create destinations or be used for parking or green space. The Los Angeles County parcel data use code (Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor 2014) was employed to determine the total acreage of vacant lots, which was then normalized by the entire station area extent. Station areas with a higher total acreage of vacant lots per acre of station area resulted in a higher raw opportunity score.

2.7.6 Points of Interest

The Points of Interest measure comprises 5% of the total score (20% of the Connectivity category). The Points of Interest measure is an important factor in the Connectivity category because riders use Metro to travel to destinations for work, school, errands, and entertainment, as mentioned by community members. The Locations/Points of Interest dataset from the Los Angeles County Location Management System (LMS) (Los Angeles County 2014) was used to map the points of interests located within the entire station area buffer. This measure was normalized by area, as a larger area can accommodate a greater number of points of interest. Points of interest in the data such as electrical substation, lifeguard towers, automatic traffic counters, communication towers, freeway exits, bridges, tunnels, and heliports were removed from the dataset prior to analyses, as these are not likely locations to be visited by Metro riders. Station areas with a lower number of points of interest per area resulted in a higher raw opportunity score.

23

24

For the purposes of the analyses, the CalEnviroScreen score was averaged over the entire station area buffer to determine a score for that station. Station areas with lower values based on the CalEnviroScreen tool resulted in a higher station score for this analysis. Some census tracts contained null values for population characteristic scores (e.g., census tract for Los Angeles International Airport), leading to a CalEnviroScreen score of zero for some station areas and misrepresenting station areas as being the least burdened. In these instances, the average population characteristic scores from the census tracts adjacent to the tract with null values were used. Since the CalEnviroScreen score takes into account many socioeconomic and environmental factors, the value cannot be substantially affected through implementation of local greening strategies within station areas. Therefore, the raw opportunity score remained the same as the existing conditions score, and this measure did not factor into the final opportunity score.

Summary

The CalEnviroScreen category comprises 15% of the total score. The CalEnviroScreen category is based on the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 tool, which identifies communities that are the most burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. The CalEnviroScreen model includes two components representing pollution burden (exposures and environmental effects) and two components representing population characteristics (sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors). The pollution and population characteristics are scored out of a total of 10 points based on a number of factors, and are multiplied together to calculate a total CalEnviroScreen score out of 100 points. A higher score from CalEnviroScreen 2.0 indicates higher pollution burden for a community. Detailed information on the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 methodology and results can be found within the tool, which is available at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment website (2014).

2.8

C

ALE

NV

IRO

SCR

EEN