los angeles county one gateway plaza zi3.gzz.zoc...
TRANSCRIPT
Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza zi3.gzz.zoc
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA gooi2-z95z metro.net
MetroREVISED
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEEJUNE 18, 2014
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEEJUNE 19, 2014
SUBJECT: AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR
ACTION: APPROVE REVISED SET OF ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve:1. Alternative A2 — 96th Street Connection as the Locally Preferred Alternative to
be further evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR);2. Accommodations to the Crenshaw/LAX Line to provide grading and other site
preparation work so as not to preclude the 96th Street Station. Staff will returnto the July Board meeting for approval of the Crenshaw/LAX projectDesign/Build contract modification for this work. The accommodations wouldbe funded by the Airport Metro Connector (AMC); and
3. Eliminate from further consideration Alternative B — Through IntermodalTransportation Facility (ITF) Connection and Alternative C1 —Stub-endConnection at the Central Terminal Area (CTA) East. In January 2014, theBoard eliminated Alternatives C3 and C4 (Through LAX) from furtherconsideration in the environmental review process;
B. Continue to consider Alternatives Al and A3 as viable alternatives should the LosAngeles World Airport's (LAWA) Board of Airport Commissioners (BOAC) adopt apreferred Automated People Mover (APM) alternative that is not consistent withAlternative A2. A BOAC decision is anticipated in December 2014. Attachment Acontains maps of all the alternatives;
C. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to increase the Contract ModificationAuthority specific to Contract No. PS114330-2636, Airport Metro Connector, withSTV/PB ConnectLAX Joint Venture, in the amount of $600,000, to addressunanticipated technical analysis that may arise during preparation of the Draft EIRand as part of coordination with LAWA and the Crenshaw/LAX project. AttachmentsB and C contain the Procurement Summary and Contract Modification/ChangeOrder Log respectively; and
D. Receive and file the Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Reportcompleted in cooperation with LAWA. Attachment D contains the ExecutiveSummary. The full report is available upon request or atwww. metro. net projects/lax-extension.
ISSUE
Through various Board motions in June 2013, October 2013, and January 2014, staffwas directed to include the Through ITF Alternative (Alternative B) in the environmental
document (June 2013); analyze relocating LAWA's ITF over the Crenshaw/LAXSouthwest Maintenance Facility - including determining the feasibility of a Metro light railstation at Aviation/96th Street (October 2013); and provide a written report to the Boardthat evaluates and presents the findings regarding projected ridership, time savings andcost to airport and non-airport passengers, as well as the feasibility and constructabilityissues and costs for Alternatives C3 and C4 — Through LAX (January 2014).Attachment E contains the June, October and January Board motions. Board approvalof the recommendations resulting from the Supplemental Analysis Study, completed inclose cooperation with LAWA, as well as authorization to increase the ContractModification Authority, is being requested. The Board is also being asked to receive andfile the Supplemental Analysis Report.
DISCUSSION
BackgroundAt the June 2013 Board meeting, staff was directed to include the Through ITFAlternative (Alternative B) in the environmental review phase. At the October 2013Board meeting, staff presented the Technical Refinement of Alternatives report and
recommended six alternatives be advanced to the environmental review phase. Withthe approved set of alternatives, staff from Metro and LAWA met in November 2013with representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the FederalTransit Administration (FTA) to discuss the start of the environmental review process for
the AMC project. During this meeting, all agencies involved agreed that Metro wouldlead the State environmental review process required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives and that LAWA wouldlead the CEQA process for the Automated People Mover (APM) alternatives.
In January 2014, prior to starting the CEQA process, staff returned to the Board and
recommended that Alternatives C2, C3, and C4 be eliminated from furtherconsideration. During the January Board meeting, LAWA's Executive Directorconfirmed the Airport's commitment to build an APM system as part of the groundtransportation program at LAX. The Board approved eliminating these threeAlternatives, but directed the CEO to provide a written report that further evaluatedAlternatives C3 and C4.
During the initial planning for the written report, staff identified the need to updatecertain information from the October 2013 Technical Refinement Study, and expanded
the supplemental analysis to also include the alternatives recommended for theenvironmental review phase. As ridership was absent from the October 2013 Technical
Refinement Study, staff worked closely with LAWA to confirm the assumptions and
methodology for the ridership model in order to develop updated ridership estimates for
all alternatives evaluated in the Supplemental Analysis Report. For the purposes of the
Airport Metro Connector Page 2
Supplemental Analysis, LAWA staff provided the best available information regardingthe APM alignment for each AMC alternative.
Supplemental Analysis ReportThe alternatives in the Supplemental Analysis Report are organized according to whereMetro Rail connects to LAX facilities. Attachment F indicates the possible connectionpoints. Listed below are the four connection locations and the associated alternatives:
1. Crenshaw/LAX Corridor — Aviation/Century Stationo
Alternative A1: Aviation/Century Connection (via 98th Streets —new APMsystem travels along 98t" Street with a connection to Metro at the futureCrenshaw/LAX Aviation/Century station, currently under construction. TheAPM alignment continues east to connect to LAWA's proposedConsolidated Rental Car Center (ConRAC). This APM alignment andconnection to Metro Rail was evaluated as part of LAWA's Specific PlanAmendment Study (2013).
o
Alternative A3: Aviation/Century Connection (via 96t" Streets —new APMsystem travels north of 96th Street, crosses over the Crenshaw/LAX Line,serves LAWA's proposed ConRAC, and then connects back to Metro Railat the Aviation/Century station.
2. Crenshaw/LAX Corridor — 96th Street Stationo
Alternative A2: 96t" Street Connection —new APM system travels north of96th Street and connects to Metro Rail'at a new, at-grade LRT station nearAviation Boulevard and 96th Street. The APM alignment continues east toconnect to LAWA's proposed ConRAC.
3. LAX Intermodal Transportation Facility (ITF)o
Alternative B: Through ITF Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are shifted to the west to connect with the APM at the ITFalong Airport Boulevard between 96th and 98th Streets.
4. LAX Central Terminal Area (CTA)o
Alternative C1: Branch Connection to CTA via ITF —half of theCrenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line trains would branch at AviationBoulevard and connect directly to the ITF and CTA. Metro passengerswould exit the LRT station in the CTA to reach nearby terminals or transferto the APM to reach terminals further west.
Previously Eliminated Alternativeso
Alternative C3: Direct CTA Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are re-routed via an underground loop to pass beneath theCTA with a station at the ITF and western CTA. Metro passengers wouldexit the LRT station in the CTA to reach nearby terminals or transfer to theAPM to reach terminals further east.
o
Alternative C4: Direct CTA Connection —the Crenshaw/LAX and MetroGreen Lines are re-routed via an underground loop to pass beneath theCTA with a station at the ITF, CTA East and CTA West. Metropassengers would have direct rail access to all terminals at LAX.
Airport Metro Connector Page 3
The following five performance measures were used to evaluate the alternatives:• Cost and Financial Feasibility• Passenger Convenience and Ridership• Compatibility with Metro and LAWA Programs• Engineering and Physical Feasibility• Operational Feasibility
Table 1 summarizes the cost differences between the alternatives. The capital cost ofthe APM alternatives (provided by LAWA) are very similar and range from a low of $1.4billion to a high of $1.6 billion ($2014). The capital cost of the LRT alternatives differsignificantly and range from a low of $0.1 billion to connect via the Al and A3Alternatives, to $1.7 billion for the B Alternative and between $2.0 billion and $3.8 billionfor the C Alternatives. Since the total AMC system would integrate LAWA's APMsystem with the AMC LRT, the costs of the total investment including both APM andLRT components would range from a combined total cost of $1.6 billion to $5.2 billion in2014 dollars. It should be noted that at this point in the analysis discussions have nottaken place on funding assignments between Metro and LAWA. This discussion isongoing as LAWA has not made final decisions on their Ground Transportation Programincluding the APM.
Table 1: Capital Cost ($ 2014)
Alternative LAX APM Metro LRT* Total Cost
Al $1.5 B $0.1 B $1.6 B
A2 $1.5B $0.2B $1.7B
A3 $1.6 B $0.1 B $1.7 B
B $1.4 B $1.7 B $3.1 B
C1 $1.4B $2.0B $3.4B
C3 $1.4 B $3.5 B $4.9 B
C4 $1.4B $3.8B $5.2B
Includes $64 million contribution to Southwest Maintenance Facilityand cost of accommodations to Crenshaw/LAX to not precludepotential APM interface
Table 2 summarizes the 2035 forecasted ridership of each alternative. As indicated, theridership potential for the APM is very robust, with forecasts between 51,580 and54,780 average daily boardings at the proposed APM stations. This is largely due tothe frequent, reliable and luggage-friendly service provided 24 hours a day, 365 days ayear between the CTA, ITF and ConRAC. APM service could provide significant relief
Airport Metro Connector Page 4
to traffic congestion in the CTA by redirecting traffic to areas outside of the CTA wherepassengers could board the APM for the short trip to one of two stations in the CTA.
Boardings at stations along Metro's Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines are forecasted tototal between 68,340 and 71,970 average daily boardings (airport and non-airportpassengers). However, the number of riders destined for LAX range between 1,450
(Alternative B) to 3,040 (Alternative C4) daily boardings on Metro Rail. This suggeststhat although the Metro Green and Crenshaw/LAX Lines have high ridership, they are
not expected to attract high ridership to LAX as compared to other modes of airportaccess.
Trips destined for the airport by transit are forecasted to account for approximately 9%of total trips to the airport. Of these transit trips, approximately 8% would be carried bythe LAX Flyaway bus service and 1-2%would be carried by Metro Rail, Metro Bus, andMuni Bus. Of the remaining airport-bound trips, 33% would be carried bytaxis/shuttles/limos and approximately 57% would continue to drive to the airport.
The Supplemental Analysis Report found no significant differences in ridership among
the various alternatives. Compared to Alternative A2 (the recommended LocallyPreferred Alternative), Alternatives B and C1 would result in a net loss of Metro Railridership, as they would involve less frequent LRT service and some out-of-direction
travel-for Crenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line riders nat destined for the airport. As
indicated in Table 2, Alternative B would result in a loss of 2,290 boardings (3%) andAlternative C1 would result in a loss of 840 boardings (1 °/o) on Metro Rail, as compared
to Alternative A2.
Table 2: Daily Boardings (2035)
Alternative APMLRT
AirportPassengers*
LRTNon-AirportPassengers*
Change in TotalLRT BoardingsCompared to~**
Al 54,770 1,620 69,430 +420 (+0.6%)
A2 53,700 1,790 68,840 -
A3 54,780 1,640 69,510 +520 (+0.7%)
B 53,370 1,450 66,890 -2,290 (-3%)
C1 53,270 2,000 67,790 -840 (-1 %)
C3 51,930 3,040 68,810 +1,220 (+2%)
C4 51,580 3,300 68,670 +1,340 (+2%)
* Includes both Crenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Line boardings** Includes both Airport and Non-Airport boardings
Airport Metro Connector Page 5
Table 3 provides additional detail for the total walk times of passengers accessing theairport via Metro Rail. This includes the walk times between the LRT train and the APMtrain, as well as the walk times between the APM or LRT stations in the CTA and theterminals themselves. The C Alternatives provide the shortest walking distances, asfewer rail passengers must transfer to the APM to reach their terminal as the LRTstations are located directly in the CTA in similar locations as the proposed APMstations. Among Alternatives A and B, Alternative A2 provides the shortest walkingdistance when transferring between the LRT and APM, while Alternative B requires thegreatest amount of walking due to the distance between the LRT and APM stations atthe ITF due to design requirements and physical constraints associated with each of thesystems. Metro's station location was designed to utilize Airport Boulevard for thestation construction and avoid tunneling beneath the hotels along Century Boulevard.LAWA's aerial APM station was designed to maximize access/egress at the ITF, whilestill allowing the APM to be extended east, just north of 96th Street, to the futureConRAC.
During preparation of the Supplemental Analysis Report, the transfer walk time wasestimated at 7.4 minutes based on information provided by LAWA. However, at the May5, 2014 LAWA BOAC meeting, an alternative plan was presented that moved the APMstation closer to Metro Rail that reduced the transfer walk time by approximately 1.4minutes. This latest transfer walk time is being evaluated along with a new LRToperating plan that splits the Metro Green Line service from Norwalk between the ITFand South Bay. The results will be available at the June Committee and Boardmeetings.
Additional travel time information for all alternatives can be found in Attachment G.
Table 3: Walk Times/Convenience Factor (minutes)
AlternativeTransfer Walk Time
LRT ~ APMAverage Walk Time from
CTA Station -~ LAX Terminals Total
Al 5.5 4.6 10.1
A2 4.1 4.6 8.7
A3 4.5 4.6 9.1
B* 6.0 4.6 10.6
C1 ** 4.5 5.3 8.2
C3** 6.3 5.9 8.1
C4 0 6.7 6.7
*7.4 minutes for transfer walk time and 12.0 minutes for the total walk time were usedfor ridership forecasting, based on information provided by LAWA.**Not all passengers transfer.
Airport Metro Connector Page 6
Alternative Recommended for Environmental ReviewAlternative A2 is recommended as the Locally Preferred Alternative to be further
evaluated during preparation of the Draft EIR. Alternative A2 was identified in response
to an October 2013 Board motion requesting staff to evaluate the feasibility of relocating
LAWA's ITF above or adjacent to Metro's future Southwest Maintenance Facility. As
part of this feasibility analysis, a new connection between LAWA's APM and Metro Rail
was also evaluated at the location near 96th Street and Aviation Boulevard. After
completing the feasibility analysis, staff did not recommend relocating the ITF over
Metro's future rail yard due to physical constraints and obstructed line of sight within the
rail yard. However, staff did confirm that a new, at-grade LRT station could be built #o
provide an alternate connection point for LAWA's proposed APM alignment just north of
96th Street.
The station at 96t" Street is an additional station and is not intended to replace the
Aviation/Century station that is currently under construction as part of the
Crenshaw/LAX project. Although these stations are less than one-half mile apart, it is
believed that each serves an independent purpose. Forecasted ridership shows that
the additional 96th Street Station would have approximately 1,700 daily hoardings
(2035) and the Aviation/Century Station would maintain approximately 3,700 daily
hoardings (2035). The 96th Street station would serve as the gateway to LAX, whereas
the Aviation/Century Station would better serve the businesses along Century
Boulevard. The construction of the 96th Street Station would not preclude a future
extension west to Lincoln or Sepulveda Boulevards (Coastal Corridor). A preliminary
review indicates this future extension could occur along Manchester Boulevard.
For the environmental clearance process, LAWA would lead preparation of the EIR for
the APM system and Metro would lead the EIR for the new, at-grade station near 96tH
Street and Aviation Boulevard. The preparation of these environmental reviews would
be coordinated to continue to ensure that assumptions remain consistent.
Accommodations to not preclude this station will need to be incorporated into the
Crenshaw/LAX project while it is under construction. Upon Board approval, the
Crenshaw/LAX project team will negotiate the required change order with Walsh Shea
Corridor Constructors and return to the Board in July 2014 for approval of the contract
modification. The modification will be funded by the AMC project.
Should LAWA not support Alternative A2 as the preferred alternative, Metro would
discontinue preparation of the Draft EIR and coordinate with LAWA on a possible APM
connection at the Aviation/Century station (Alternatives Al or A3). LAWA's decision on
a preferred APM alignment is expected by December 2014.
Alternatives Contingent upon LAWA's Preferred APM Configuration
Alternative Al was evaluated as part of LAWA's SPAS and was previously Metro's
preferred alignment as it provides a direct connection to the Aviation/Century station,
currently under construction, and does not require the construction of an additional LRT
station at 96t" Street. Furthermore, a bus plaza was environmentally cleared as part of
Airport Metro Connector Page 7
the Crenshaw/LAX EIS/EIR to provide a consolidated bus-rail interface at this station.
However, following the release of the October 2013 Technical Refinement Study, LAWA
informed staff that the preferred alignment for the APM is now being considered just
north of 96th Street. Metro staff was informed that the change in alignment was
necessary to allow for future roadway improvements along both 98th and 96th Streets,
including extending both roadways east across Aviation Boulevard to connect with the
future ConRAC site.
Although Alternative A3 connects the APM at the future Aviation/Century station, this
alignment provides Metro Rail passengers with a less direct connection to the CTA as it
would require riders to travel through the ConRAC prior to accessing the CTA.
Furthermore, the completion of Alternative A3 is contingent upon LAWA'simplementation of the ConRAC program.
Should Alternatives Al or A3 be selected as LAWA's preferred APM alternative, LAWA
would lead the preparation of the EIR for the APM system and Metro would coordinate
with LAWA on the design and construction of the connection at the Aviation/Century
station. Metro and LAWA have previously funded modifications to the Aviation/Century
station in order to not preclude roadway improvements and a potential connection to an
APM station. The AMC project provided the funding for the Board approved
modifications affiliated with the APM connection and, at the Board's direction, would
provide additional funding, as appropriate, to accommodate further changes to the
Aviation/Century station as well as the construction of the actual connection. All
modifications related to the connection with LAWA's APM system would continue to be
coordinated with the Crenshaw/LAX project team.
Alternatives Recommended for Elimination from Further AnalysisThe alternatives connecting at the ITF or CTA (B and C1, respectively) do not provide
significantly greater ridership to offset their much higher capital cost. Both alternatives
would have a negative impact on overall Metro ridership, as the rerouting of transit
service from Aviation Boulevard would add travel time and delay to the majority of Metro
passengers passing through the airport area on these lines, but are not destined for the
airport. For airport bound passengers, the travel time to the CTA is better for Alternative
A2 than for Alternatives B and C1, even though Alternatives B and C1 locate the LRT
station closer to the CTA or actually in the CTA, respectively. The difference is due to
greater walking distances between the Metro Rail Station and the ITF APM station for
Alternatives B and C1.
Other challenges facing Alternatives B and C1 include capacity constraints associated
with operating multiple rail lines through closely spaced railroad junctions and limited
capacity at certain terminal stations. Although these constraints do not make the
alternatives infeasible, they do present limitations in terms of increasing the frequency
of rail service in the future as well as accommodating future expansion of the Metro Rail
system.
Airport Metro Connector Page 8
Alternatives B and C1 were developed with the goal of providing improved rail access toLAX, however, the analysis revealed that the majority of passengers riding theCrenshaw/LAX and Metro Green Lines are not destined for the airport and that othermodes, such as the LAX FlyAway, still provide a better level of service for accessing theLAX terminals.
Contract Modification AuthoritySince award of the contract in May 2011, five contract modifications, excluding theBoard approved Alternative B — Through ITF, have been executed using ContractModification Authority. These modifications covered supplemental data collection,design and analysis. Staff is requesting Board authorization to increase the ContractModification Authority by $600,000 to address unanticipated technical work that mayarise during preparation of the Draft EIR, further coordination with LAWA and theCrenshaw/LAX Project, and any additional analysis directed by the Board.
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
There is no impact on the safety of our employees or patrons.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY15 adopted budget includes $2 million in Project 460303 (Metro Green Line toLAX) which will cover_the costs of the contract modification. Since this is a multi-yearcontract, the cost center manager and the Chief Planning Officer, Countywide Planning,will be accountable for budgeting in future years.
Impact to BudgetThe funding for this project is from Measure R Transit Capital 35% Funds. These fundsare earmarked for this project and as such, are not eligible for bus and rail capital oroperating expenses.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Board could decide not to adopt Alternative A2 as the Locally Preferred Alternativeand direct staff to continue analyzing all Alternatives (except C3 and C4 since the Boardpreviously eliminated them) prior to or during preparation of the Draft EIR. This is notrecommended as the information presented in the Supplemental Analysis Reportsupports elimination of Alternatives B and C1.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will return to the Board in July with a request to modify the Walsh Shea CorridorConstructors contract for the 96t" Street station accommodations to the Crenshaw/LAXLine. Staff will initiate the EIR for the 96t" Street station and will also continue workingwith LAWA as it determines the preferred APM alignment and connection to Metro Rail.
Airport Metro Connector Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
A. Maps of AlternativesB. Procurement SummaryC. Contract Modification/Change Order LogD. Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report — Executive SummaryE. June 2013, October 2013 and January 2014 Board motionsF. Potential APM/LRT Connection PointsG. Travel Time for Airport Bound Passengers from Furthest CTA Station
Prepared by: Cory Zelmer, Transportation Planning Manager (213) 922-1079David Mieger, Deputy Executive OfFcer (213) 922-3040Rick Meade, Deputy Executive OfFcer (213) 922-7917Renee Berlin, Managing Executive Officer (213) 922-3035
Airport Metro Connector Page 10
Bryan Pen ingtonExecutive irector, Engineering andConstruction
Martha Wel orne, AIAChief Planning Officer
Airport Metro Connector Page 10
ATTACHMENT Ato
ivc r i — r~viau~i uvci i~ui y ~.vi ii i~~.uvi i ~Alternative Al
,. ,~ !OS ANGELES ~~ ~
1
,,,~a..,.a ~
__.~_—_---~—~-~
--~
~nx ~~,~,u._ ~
1a '• 1•...__.'
_ ~o e c~ ~ry
tf..~ m.~~~o ~o.~. ~ ~..__.J'_~~~ _..._-_..... ~~~--~.~ 1
INGLEW00~
Alternative A2 — 96th Street ConnectionAttemative A2
LOS ANGELES , /- —. _...
_. _.__ J
~~' INGLEWO~D
1~~a~~~ ~______~ ~a~a~~~~ .~_~~~ ~~
~~.,Y~d~ ~ _ a,v, s„~ ~
(Recommended as Locally Preferred Alternative)
VG /'1J —
Alternative A3~
nnection (via 96tH
L~SAN~ELES w' ~
~~1 INGtEWOOD
s,~ ~,EO~~~M.En'
~/ •gym.* 1 ~ —1
.~
l~ Tr 'rr
,. 1
~~d~.~o~.~~a~ ~ f
Project Al~emalive ~~ J ~ ~ -~ ~~s~'-'' ~ ~ \
~~ Aery Rw~pr Mwab n~ ~—'~ '~_-~~ 1.---- __ ""1 j
j_~J~--^ `
Airport Metro Connector Page 12
ATTACHMENT A (cont.)Recommended to be Eliminated from Further Consideration
Alternative B — Throuah ITF ConnectionAlternative Bt':
„F~a~~e«;o~ L~SANGELES ,~~*, ~__ s
INGLEWOOD■
~~x~o~Nac,~ - ~ aWESi[}}ESTEF PKVIY
ARWRVif~E ST' TYIItIlI
g1 Tunnel
~~ y~TM~ Mrlal i
9H1N ~ aB
C~ c~n~ar e~vo ~ ~ -~
Q~.
Under Construction
Crensnaw:lAX Lineb5latnn '^ TunnN" • ""
Project Alternative ~~.------_"Light Rai(AtignmeM 65Ution ~, _,~~~ ~--'~
l._._._-_--'rgrvun gnmen
pummeled People MOVer 1ARA1&51aUOn lPerial Alignmenll '~ ~-~ ~ ~5,.~ '
' ~ Exact AGgnmenlmbe Determined '~~ ~
• ~L 1o ~ ~ soo ~~ ~zaro N ~~ O ~ ,key
Alternative C1 —Stub-end Connection at C
LOS ANGELES ~~"~Alternative Cl ''re.m~~wico~~~~oo_
~ftT ~aMh ~, GTA Salon,'
~a~a.LINCOLN BLtD r
~'ESRHESiE~NtMr PBOR VR4E Sf'
Alf~B~fi.•~
_~-----` coca .
n.~'°; '~~~ Caver
=̀ -----"~ ssix sr
-___._ S
~•
Cut 8 ➢~. ~r
~ z
wrx sr
~~ 1Win Ban ♦ ~Tunn b
CEN1~gY BLn
iNGLEW000
t ~ '
,,',~~•..~~•~I,,,
Under Construction ~ i
p ca~snaw,wc u~~ a sa~a~ N~- -
Pro'ect Aftarnafire ~'Light Ra lAlgnment&Station ~....---^-~ ~..---IUnd¢rgraund Al~gnmenll ,ter„ ~ !~"" _.". ,_^'...---~
Automa~etl PeopteMwer fAPMI` ~ \ ~„~.—~'"~ `~ ~'
&Stet on lAertal Alignmenll t...--^'^""~j~~f ( ,
~......~ EXactAPM N'gnment lobe DOterm~nea~~
`~~fLl`j—~ t .`~ r ~
o~ ~o~~,a~ zo~ a ~~_~~ Feet
Airport Metro Connector Page 13
ATTACHMENT A (cont.)
Eliminated from Further Consideration by the Metro Board in January 2014
Alternative C3 — Through LAX, One StationAttemative C3 At-Grade INGLEW000 ~Terminal Wnnectlon-
lliro~gh LflT II CTA StalioN ~~. •o ~LOSANGELES ,.BNa,
Twin BOra ~~r Cut& ge¢ia—~~---~ Tunnels Corer xn~sr
6
rerx sr
~}~ c~xnum s~.vo
,_.. ~ ~
.
~ .~
~~------"~y~ ~Existing j !
~~ Metry Green line &Station ~ ~~~~HwY ■ ~MOCPoa~;~vnUnder Construction i ~I~
trenshawlLAX Line d Sw~bn ; T"~in Bon _ _ ~~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~Tunnels Cut 6 ~~
Project Altemative I Coverlight Rail Nignmen~ 6 51atfon ~
AulomateC PeoPk MOVer ~ ~~nVE Cutd m65tatian lAerial AlignmeMl ~ ~
~ Alignment to be DNermined ~wr ,EL SEGUNOO s ARE ~0~5~0 1000 2.~U i ¢ N
- -- Feef ~ ~
Alternative C4Terminal GOnnMion-
Through LRr IZ CTA Slations~ ",
~~
Existing
~~ He1r06reln Lin¢&Slalion
Under ConstructionCrenshaw/Lq%Line851a~ion
Project AlternativeLI9ht Rail Alignment& SUlion
~—y~ Aumma~eA People MoverV & 5lahon fMrial Algnmentl
' ~ ~ ~ APM AOgnment T80
0500 1000 IAOU— Feet
rough LAX, Two StationsAt-Grade INGlEW00D
■1 ~ _~__~ ~
~~~~ 111
IMPEPopL MVV I' W'EPIAINM
ora ~~ri~~ ~~~~~~~As Cut 8 ~ ~~
Cover
~~ «- .. Ae~l m
EL SEGUND~ Q °E1pIRF
Airport Metro Connector Page 14
ATTACHMENT B
PROCUREMENT SUMMARY
AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR
1. Contract No.: PS114330-26362. Contractor: STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture3. Mod. Work Description: Increased Scope4. Work Description: Professional A&E Services5. The followin data is current as of : Ma 8, 20146. Contract Completion Status:
Bids O ened N/A Financial StatusContract Awarded 03/24/11 Contract Award
Amount$4,751,273
NTP 04/15/11 Total ofModificationsapproved
$1,474,333
Orig. Complete Date 12/15/12 PendingModifications(including thisaction
$600,000
Current Est. CompleteDate
12/31/14 Current ContractValue (with thisaction
$6,825,606
7. Contract Administrator:Samira Ba hdikian
Telephone Number:213 922-1033
8. Project Manager:Cory Zelmer
Telephone Number:(213) 922-1079
A. Procurement Background
This proposed increase in contract modification authority in the amount of $600,000
is to address unanticipated technical analysis that may arise during preparation of
the Draft EIR and as part of coordination with LAWA and the Crenshaw/LAX project.
Contract modifications will be processed in accordance with Metro's approved
Acquisition policy and procedure for contract modifications.
On March 24, 2011, Contract No. PS114330-2636, formerly known as the Metro
Green Line to LAX, was awarded to STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture in the firm
fixed price contract amount of $4,751,273 for professional services to complete the
Alternatives Analysis (AA), Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R),
and Conceptual Engineering (CE) for the Metro Green Line to LAX project.
Airport Metro Connector Page 15
ATTACHMENT B (cont.)
Attachment C shows that six modifications have been issued to date to increase the
level of effort.
B. CosUPrice Analysis
The Contractor's cost proposal for any modification will be evaluated and the final
negotiated amount will comply with all requirements of Metro's Acquisition policy and
procedures, including fact-finding, clarifications, negotiations and cost analysis todetermine a fair and reasonable price before the contract modification is executed.
C. Small Business Participation
STV/PB-ConnectLAX Joint Venture made a 29.10% Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Anticipated Level of Participation (DALP) commitment. STV/PB-
ConnectLAX Joint Ventures' DALP participation' is 21.84%. STV/PB-ConnectLAX
Joint Venture was contacted to address their current participation. STV/PB-
ConnectLAX Joint Venture indicated that due to an extension of the initial planning
phase, there has been less DALP participation to date; however, Terry A. Hayes &
Associates' DALP participation will increase as the project transitions from initial
planning to environmental activities beginning in July 2014.
SMALL BUSINESSSMALL
COMMITMENTDBE 29% BUSINESS DBE 21.84%
PARTICIPATION ~
DBE Subcontractors Commitment %Current ~Participation
1. Cit works Desi n 0.71 % 0.00%
2. Coast Surve in ,Inc. 3.44% 7.07%
3. D'Leon Consultin En . Cor 1.75% 0.64%
4. Epic Land Solutions, Inc. 3.13% 0.00%
5. Ted Tokio Tanaka Architects 2.29% 0.00%
6. Ter A. Ha es &Associates, LLC 11.40% 2.82%
7. VCA En ineers, Inc. 6.31% 8.18%Total: 29.10% 21.84%
'Current Participation =Total Actual Amount Paid-to-Date to Subs =Total Actual Amount Paid-to-Date to Prime
Airport Metro Connector Page 16
ATTACHMENT C
Contract Modification/Change Order Log
Contract ModificationsOri final Contract 05/31/11 $4,751,273
1 Supplementary Data Collection, Design 08/28/12 $759,116and Environmental Analysis andextension of period of erformance.
2 Correction of Contract Amount 10/25/12 $0
3 Extension of Period of Performance 05/16/13 $0
4 Inclusion of Through Intermodal 10/24/13 $567,813Transportation Facility Alternative inthe Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Report (EIS/R) and extensionof eriod of performance
5 Supplemental Statement of Work for 12/10/13 $139,906Elements 1 and 2
6 Additional Analysis required within 01/29/14 $7,498Pro'ect Stud Area
7 Pendin Board Approval $600,000Total $6,825,606
Airport Metro Connector Page 17
ATTACHMENT D - REVISED
Airport Metro Connector
Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
June 9, 2014
~~•
CONNECT
ATV inc ! PB ArnPri~as Ins.
In Association with:
Hatch Mott MacDonaldLea+Elliott
Fehr &PeersLeighton
Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.Epic Land Solutions
Ted TanakaVCA Engineers, Inc.
D'Leon Consulting EngineersCoast SurveyingCityworks Design
Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report
Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Airport Metro Connector (AMC) Project is a collaboration between the Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Los Angeles WorldAirports (LAWA) to identify a reliable and convenient connection for passengers andemployees traveling between Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Metro Rail.This report presents the results of a supplemental analysis that evaluates and comparesfour types of potential transit connection points between LAX and Metro's regional railsystem:
• Extend an Automated People Mover (APM) from LAX to Metro Rail atAviation/Century (Alternatives Al and A3) (see Figure 1);
• Extend an APM from LAX to Metro Rail at 96th Street (Alternative A2) (see Figure1);
• Connect an APM and Metro Rail at a midpoint location referred to as the IntermodalTransportation Facility (ITF) (Alternative B) (see Figure 2); and
• Extend Metro Rail into the LAX Central Terminal Area (Alternatives C1, C3 and C4)(see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
In April 2012, the Metro Board received the Metro Green Line to LAX AlternativesAnalysis (AA), which identified six alternatives to move forward into the DraftEnvironmental document and approved changing the name of the Project to the AirportMetro Connector. In June 2013, the Metro Board directed staff to include the ThroughITF Alternative (Alternative B) in the environmental review phase. In October 2013, theMetro Board received the AMC Technical Refinement Study of Alternatives Report,which refined the alternatives based on new information regarding LAWA's futuredevelopment plans and analyzed them based on refined policy and forecastingassumptions.
Following the presentation of the Technical Refinement Study in October 2013, theMetro Board requested a feasibility study for relocating the ITF to the plannedCrenshaw/LAX Southwestern Yard, including a station in the vicinity of 96th Street. Thisnew 96th Street Station, referred to as Alternative A2 in this Supplemental AnalysisReport, was developed because it provided an alternative connection point for an APMalignment just north of 96th Street. The feasibility of the Southwestern Yard ITFrelocation is discussed in Section 3.4.8.
In January 2014, staff recommended the elimination of Alternatives C2, C3, and C4(Metro Rail extensions "Through LAX" under the terminals and runways), andadvancement of Alternatives A, B, and C1 into the environmental review process. TheMetro Board approved the elimination of Alternatives C2, C3, and C4, but requested aSupplemental Analysis Report for Alternatives C3 and C4 to present findings regardingridership, passenger convenience, time savings and cost to airport and non-airportbound passengers, as well as feasibility and constructability issues and costs.
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
This report responds to the Board direction and was completed in coordination withLAWA using the best available information at the time for LAWA's proposed groundtransportation improvements including APM alignment, ITF, and CONRAC.
Airport Metro Connector Page 20
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
Figure 1: Alternatives A1, A2 and A3Alternative At
<. ~OSANGELES a~
~I INGLEW00~
.~n.~~~ tea„., I
`~-~ j~pax
<<~~~~,~ ~
- - z ---- iUnd C f coon -.'
~ C cna ~ix s~ma~ _- I ~Protect Alternative ~ J .. — ~ - '
„a,~ ~a~aaP~eM~.,s~ ~c ~ ~~ m ~- ~~ 1Ati9nmenn }
~o ~ _ z.o~ H ~< ~ ~ ' ` ~ - 1'—'~ _-- 1_ -- F.m~ r-~ a
CrenshawlLAX Line ~ ~
Maintenance FacilityNew MetroIIg~Station
~ CONRAC
ITF
'cu+wa~
APMiLAWA1 ~~-p'WA~ AviationlCentury'
;~: Metro Green &CrenshawlLAX Lines
A AtternaNpve A3~, LOS ANGEi.ES ~~~ ~ ~~a~~o~;~e~~~ ~
~~„m nc o.
~~1 INGLEW~OD1
•1 `
~~ ~~o
~.
~---~-,yaw. „~w~ _~ _--__
Prod tAlt live ~~..=C~ ~ r.
0 M rd Slat on~ ~ /'~~_ ~~^ q<rw AG9nmenn ee ~~ ~~~ f
Etx~N' be here `JSnmen o f
D ~ s~-_.. r— - ____~
Airport Metro Connector Page 21
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Figure 2: Alternative B
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
Alternative B ' ~y ~ ~ITF Connection i LVS ~NGE~ES J~c~ '
3
INGLEWQOD
Maintenance Facility
.. ~
UnderConstrudion ! al
Crenshaw/LAXLine &Station ~' ~ ~TunnetN + ■:
ProjedAtternative J~~ ~-~--~" •—,~t—~ light Rail Alignment 8 Station°t_t°~ (Underground Alignment) r~--_f_-.J ~,,.-.-----' ~~_
"'...-- -----"~ ̀1
Automated People Mover tAPMI ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~&Station (Aerial Alignmen0 ~ -
~ ~ f_, Fnact Alignment ro 6e ~eterm d I~~ ~'~`j ~~~ t
0 500 10~ 2.000 (~` ~ p7 ~\'` ~~~ (r~• Feet t• ~~+„
_"_" r---
`-`"`~.-----'_'""~-----"""}
"'" aJt
Figure 3: Alternative C1
Alternative Ct ', p (~Cc ~'°Terminal Connection - I ~O`~ ~~uC~G~ .~~~ '
LRT Brench p CTA Ste4oN #
11
LINCOLN 9lYD ' At-Grade
}
l~Si AP.B~R VITAE 5f'Y~,~.—., CFIESTER PKWY /~B~Id~
~---~"'"'~ } ~ 96TN ST ~ y'
~ CUB F~ V ~~ ~Cover
reTNST ~... neria!
r j Twin Bore' S ~ ~ITunn Is
CENTURY BL`~:i
~ t
~~ •. ~~~ v
UnderConstruchon ~
Ge~shawlLAX line &Station N ~ _ • ~~1~J
Project Alternative ! _____~—,--°-^"-- ~— ~ I _Light Rait Alignment & 5tation f(~~ 1~.--~~
1...--̂ ^~,.~._.-
r~
(Underground Alignment) - ̂ ~..,, "'l ~ ~ i
Automated People Mover {qpA{) \ ~ ~`,.,,..,,-----^"~'~ {-`.` 85tation (Aortal A(ignmenq emu'_ t~~~
t~ Exact APM Alignment to be Determined
0 500 7.000 2.000 -~ ~ .------^~"""~~~1
fir_ __--~ Feet }
...._-.- i ~ _
Airport Metro Connector Page 22
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
Figure 4: Alternatives C3 and C4 (Previously Eliminated)
Alternative C3 i a~-comae 1NGLEW000 ~'Terminal Connection-
Through LRT t1 C7A Station) ! IN('ALN BLVD
r______ --------~~ LOS ANGELES ne~a~~~
Nrin Bore Cut & Cut 8 ~__„ perWlTunnels ~°Vef Cover .~ vsn{sr
~-._-~-_~_v- 98TH 5T
~~
~Ax `~ a CENTURY 8LY0
~~ ~ ~ ~.
° ~1~ ~~ ~~ ~o~ ~
~~__-~oting I. '
~~ Metes Green Line &Station:MPEPoAL HWY IMPEf71Al HWY
UftdO~ r,O115tNC~lO~
CrenshawllAX Line & Station i Twin 80re _ _ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~
~ TunneEs Cut& '~Project Alterrtaiive Cover
fight Rail AtignmeM 8 Station
~—y~ Automated People Mover ! ~+P~ AVE CUt & ~_Zr &Station (Aerial Atignmentl +Ae[iat
~~ ~ Atigmmentlo6eDetermined ~~r ELSEGUNDO _ ~~~~o soo ~.000 z.~o ~ (~J~ Feet , ;~
Alternative C4 a,~-credo INGLEWOODTerminal Connection-
tiNCOw au~oThrough LRT t2 CTA Stations) ~ ~~ ~` Aerial AerialLUS ANGELES COVef
~u ~~ ~~ YbTH 5T •
+ COl'E~ ~. m 9$TH ST
'f g AenaL+Twin Bore . – cernurrre~w~ Tunnels
~~t~c"-
,; _ ~
J__------~ ~-- _ - ___-~ ~ 1
Existing
~~ Metm Green Line & Slatian ~~iIMPERIAL HWY 6 ~ MPEFIALHWT
Under Construction ■ ~'.CrenshawlLAX dine &StaEioni
T~'``~n Bofe ~_~~i~~~ s~~l~'Tunnels Cui & ~
Project Alternative -' CoverLight Rail Alignment &Station i
Automated People Mwer ~~ ~~JE Cut 6&Station (Aerial Alignmenll ~ ref Aer~l
~ APM AlignmentTBO EL SE6UND0 - °~'`o ~soo ~.000 z.000 .~ ~ ~~~-- Feet ~
Airport Metro Connector Page 23
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Evaluation of Alternatives
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
The evaluation of alternatives in this Supplemental Analysis Report focuses on five keyevaluation criteria: Cost and Financial Feasibility, Passenger Convenience andRidership, Compatibility with Metro and LAWA Program Goals, Engineering/PhysicalFeasibility, and Operational Feasibility. These performance measures build on thoseused in the 2013 Technical Refinement Study and the 2012 AA Report. Metro staffcoordinated with LAWA to develop and define the evaluation criteria, which are detailedin Table 1.
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Performance Measures
Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures
Cost and Financial Total capital cost of APM
Feasibility Total capital cost of Light Rail Transit (LRT)
• Total operating and maintenance cost of APM
• Total operating and maintenance cost of LRT
Passenger Number of transfers
Convenience and Number of level changes
Ridership •Average Walk Time
• Travel time for airport destined passengers
• Metro Rail boardings
• APM boardings
• Transit mode share
• Baggage check-in at ITF for Alternative B only
Compatibility with •Airport's current and future projects
Metro and LAWA Metro's current and future projects
Programs Construction schedule compatibility
Engineering/Physical Impacts to LAX operations
Feasibility • Parking garage foundations (in Central Terminal Area)
• Roadway columns, foundations and structures
• Utilities
•
Geotechnical, hazardous materials and soils
• Air spaces/Runway Projection Zones
Operational Feasibility Systemwide operations feasibility
The supplemental analysis produced several findings that, taken together, provide asufficient basis for understanding the relative performance of alternatives and comparethe benefits and costs.
Airport Metro Connector Page 24
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Cost
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
There are significant variations in project costs (see Table 2). Alternatives Al and A3have minimal Metro LRT project cost, as they involve only modifications to theAviation/Century Station to accommodate a potential APM connection and do notrequire environmental clearance by Metro. The Metro project cost for Alternative A2involves the environmental clearance, design, and construction of a new station at
96tH
Street, associated land acquisition costs, costs to Crenshaw/LAX line to accommodatethe station, and costs affiliated with the modifications to the Crenshaw/LAXSouthwestern Yard. By contrast, Alternatives B, C1, C3 and C4 —which involveunderground tunnels, track work, elevated structures, junctions, stations and supportingsystems —range between $1.7 billion and $3.8 billion ($2014).
Table 2: Capital Cost
Alternative Capital Cost ($ 2014)
Connection Types ~~~v LRT ~~_~~ APM Total~e
Aviation Century ------------
A1 Connection $1.6 Billionvia 98t~ Street ~~' w-
A~ 96`h Street$1 .7 Billion
Connection
Aviation Century i ,-
A3 Connection - $1 J Billionvia CONRAC ---~--
B ITF Connection $3.1 Billion.... -- __
---- _~
~~ ' ' ~ $3.4 Billion
Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection ----- --- --
C3 One Station — $4.9 Billion'.Through LRT - -
CTA ConnectionC4 Two Stations — ;$5.2 Billion
Through LRT - -- - -
Airport Metro Connector Page 25
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I - AA/DEIS/DEIR
Ridership
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
The type and location of the transit connection to LAX has a minimal effect on LAX-bound transit ridership, even when passenger convenience factors are considered (seeTable 3). While the forecasting indicated that those alternatives providing a directconnection into the LAX CTA (Alternatives C1, C3 and C4) yield higher airport-boundridership, the overall increase is marginal and offset by ridership loss for non-LAXbound Metro passengers.
Table 3: Total Metro Daily Boardings (2035)
AlternativeNon-Airport Destined (2035) Airport Destined (2035)
Connection Types Total
Aviation Century
Al Connection ~ ~ 1,620 71,050via 98t~ Street
A~ 96th Street~' ~ 1,790 70,630
Connection
Aviation Century
A3 Connection ~ 1 ,640 71 ,1 50
via CONRAC
B ITFConnection
: • ~ x,450 68,340
Cl A Connection • 1 2,000 69,790~;
Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection -+
C3 One Station - ~ ~ ;, f 3,(~4t' 71,850Through LRT f
CTA Connection
~t~, Two Stations - ~ 3,300 71,970Through LRT
Airport Metro Connector Page 26
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
The ridership potential for the APM is very robust (see Table 4), with forecasts between
51,580 and 54,780 average daily boardings at the proposed APM stations. This is
largely due to the frequent, reliable, and luggage-friendly service provided 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year, between the CTA, ITF, and CONRAC. APM service could provide
significant relief to traffic congestion in the CTA by redirecting traffic to areas outside of
the CTA where passengers could board the APM for the short trip to one of two stations
in the CTA.
Table 4: Daily Boardings on the APM System
AlternativeAPM System Boardings (2035)
Connection Types Total
Aviation Century
Al Connection 54,770
via 98th Street
A~ 96tH Street53,700
Connection
Aviation Century
A3 Connection 54,780
via CONRAC
BITF
53,370Connection
~~ 53,270
Previously Eliminated Alternatives —for informational purposes only
CTA Connection
C3 One Station — 51,930
Through LRT
CTA Connection
C4 Two Stations — 51 ,580
Through LRT
Airport Metro Connector Page 27
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Cost Per Transit Trip
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
The cost per Metro transit trip to the Airport is calculated by dividing the annualized LRT
capital and operating costs by the total number of Metro Rail trips to the Airport. The
substantial difference in the cost per Metro transit trip to the Airport is a result of the
large disparity in costs between Alternatives A, B and C in comparison to relative
benefits (see Table 5). This results in a range from a low of $12 per Metro transit trip for
Alternatives Al and A3 to a high of $233 per Metro transit trip for Alternative C4.
Table 5: Summary of LRT Cost and RidershipPublic Transit Airport Daily Non-Airport Bound
Alternative Metro Rail Capital Cost per Metro Mode Share to Boardings on Daily Boardings on
Cost Transit Trip to the LAX Metro Green and Metro Green and
Connection Types ($ 2014 billions) Airport (Air Passenger) Crenshaw~LAX Crenshaw~LAX
2035 Lines (2035) Lines 2035
Aviation Century
A~ Connection $0.1 $12 1.1 % 1,620 69,430via 98'h Street
A2 96LhStreet ~QZ $19 1.2% 1,790 68,840Connection
Aviation Century
A3 Connection $0.1 $12 l.l% 1,640 69,510
via CONRAC
B%~ ITF Connection $1.7 $197 1.0% 1,450 66,890
~~ ~~~~ $181 1.3% 2,000 67,790
Previous) Eliminated Alternatives —for informational ur oses onlCTA Connection
C3 One Station - $3.5 $23~ 1.9% 3,040 68,810
Through LRT
CTA Connection
C,4 Two Stations - $3.8 $233 2.1% 3,300 68,670
Through LRT
*Assumes an operating plan for Metro Rail where the Crenshaw/LAX and Metro
Green lines split service between the ITF and Aviation/Century.
Airport Metro Connector Page 28
Airport Metro ConnectorPhase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR
Operability
Supplemental Analysis ReportExecutive Summary
The operability of the service plans for Alternatives B and C1 is severely limited bysystem capacity constraints outside the immediate study area. These capacityconstraints, specifically at the LAX/Aviation junction and the Redondo Beach terminal,could result in recurring train conflicts that render the overall operations of AlternativesB and C1 questionable. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the operating plans forAlternatives B and C1, respectively.
Figure 5: Alternative B Operating Plan Figure 6: Alternative C1 Operating Plan
Conceptual Operations Map ~0`
ITF Con RAC
❑3
uxi uxi
A LT BJJ
JM~ r., 5~.~.o--. '~ He~Arr
... Retic,ea «.cF 'tA3
~ Erpo.• v a e.
Conceptual Operations Map ~C'
BOO irF
ConRAC
L'~
lA% 2 lAX 1
X11
ALT C7ir.
~ ~....... xo .00• .x;,
i+n.~ o.e, i`o., ~ 01010
ITF Baggage Processing Sensitivity Analysis
Putting a Metro station at the ITF featuring baggage check-in has little effect on the
share of transit trips to LAX in Alternative B (see Table 6), as the benefit associated
with baggage check-in applies to only 28 percent of total air passengers bound for LAX.
It should be noted that international passengers were not assumed to have access to
the remote baggage check-in service per Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
requirements. The analysis showed that the remote baggage check-in is primarily
enjoyed by those air travelers who park and fly.
Table 6: Metro Rail and APM Boardings with Baggage Processing
Transit Metro Green, Crenshaw/LAXAPM Daily
Change in
Alternative B Mode Lines Daily BoardingsBoardings
APM Daily
Airport Non-AirportShare goardings
No BaggageCheck
1.0% 1,450 66,890 53,370 n/a
Baggage Check 1.0% 1,450 66,890 55,070 1,700
Airport Metro Connector Page 29
Airport Metro Connector Supplemental Analysis Report
Phase I — AA/DEIS/DEIR Executive Summary
Conclusion
Table 7 provides a qualitative assessment of how each alternative performs against keyevaluation factors.
Table 7: Summary of Findings
High - O Low
AlternativeConnection Types LRT Cost
Compatibility
With Metro
Compatibility
with LAX Plans &Metro Rail
OperationalEffectiveness
pro ramg Operations Feasibility
~~
Aviation Century
Connection~ ~ ~~
via S8t~ Street
A~ 96i~ Street
Connection
A3ConnectionAviation Century
via CONRAC
B ITF Connection ~~1~,1 ~ . C
C~CTA`Connection ~-
LRT ~~ ~ ~~ ~~— Branch
Previously Eliminated Alternatives —for informational purposes onlyCTA Connection
C3 One Station -
/-~
\ ~~ ~ \~~~
Through LRT.~
CTAConnection
~,L~. Two Stations -
~-~
~ ~
.~
~~~
~
~~ ~~
Through LRT
Airport Metro Connector Page 30
June 27, 2013 Board Motion
MTA Board MeetingJune 27, 2013
ATTACHMENT E
Relating #o Item 73
MOTION BYDIRECTORS VILLARAIGOSA, KATZ, KNABE AND WILSON
WE MOVE THAT THE MTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADOPT AND DIRECT THE CEOTO DO THE FOLLOWING:
A. Adopt as policy a rail alignment alternative that connects the existingCrenshaw/LAX and Green Line alignments to the ITF;
B. Include the rail ITF connection to the Airport Metro Connector EnvironmentalImpact Report &Study (EIS/EIR); and authorize up to $600,000 in Airport MetroConnector Measure R 35% funds;
C. Determine construction cost of project as described above;D. Conduct amodeling/ridership analysis to determine passenger and employee
ridership in coordination with LAWA;E. Explore and recommend a financial plan to fully fund the Airport Metro Connector
which includes but is not limited to the following sources:a. Eligible airport revenuesb. Federal Transit Administration and/or Federal Aviation Administration
eligible fundsc. Transit Oriented Development &Property leasesd. Public Private Partnerships
F. By the September 2013 Board Meeting, in cooperation with LAWA, transmit theFederal Aviation Administration a formal request to allow initiation of the EIS/EIRand report to the Board in October 2013 the results of the request.
ATTACHMENT E (cont.)October 24, 2013 Board Motions
MTA Board Meeting Relating to Item 18-A
October 24, 2013
MOTION BYDIRECTOR DUBOIS
To include a quick feasibility study of the ITF [Intermodal Transportation Facility] at the
maintenance center.
MTA Board MeetingOctober 24, 2013
Relating to Item 18-B
MOTION BYDIRECTORS KNABE, BONIN, AND O'CONNOR
Airport Metro Connector
Measure R was passed in 2008, with over two-thirds support of voters in Los Angeles
County, and provides funds for a promised transit connection to Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX). Today, five years later, as we contemplate the alternatives
for maximizing transit connectivity to LAX, the convenience to our transit riders, many of
whom will be making the airport connection, must remain among Metro's highest
priorities. Therefore, it is important to have the CEO report to both our Construction
Committee and Planning and Programming Committee on a monthly basis so Airport
Metro Connector alternatives that are deemed viable by the Board are not precluded by
circumstances under Metro's control, such as unresolved coordination, planning, or
project sequencing issues during the immediate and near term efforts to construct the
adjacent (Crenshaw/LAX) Line.
WE, THEREFORE, MOVE THAT THE MTA BOARD:
Instruct the CEO to report back to the Board on a monthly basis, at a minimum through
both the Construction and Planning and Programming Committees as a standing item,
on the status of coordinating efforts between Metro's Construction and Planning teams,
and regarding coordination with Los Angeles World Airports, in order to maintain both
viability and efficient connectivity for the Airport Metro Connector and theCrenshaw/LAX Transit projects.
Airport Metro Connector Page 32
January 23, 2014 Board Motion
MTA Board MeetingJanuary 23, 2014
ATTACHMENT E (cont.)
Relating to Item 15
Item 15: RECEIVED status report on the Airport Metro Connector (AMC) and the
ongoing coordination between Metro and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA).
This report also provides an update on the revised set of alternatives recommended for
advancement to the environmental review process.
APPROVED RIDLEY-THOMAS AND KNABE SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED
BY BONIN that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO to provide a written report to
the Board~'̂ ~~ that evaluates and presents findings regarding projected ridership, time
savings and cost to airport and non-airport bound passengers, as well as feasibility and
constructability issues and costs for Alternatives C3 and C4, as shown in the Airport
Metro Connector Technical Refinement Study of Alternatives (October 2013).
Airport Metro Connector Page 33
Potential APM/LRT Connection Points
~aS ~NGEL~S
--" ~ ~~- - 't
_-- _°" ,~t#
- _ _ - '~
ATTACHMENT F
I1
ri~rsx!v:~,u..i
c -x,n-,r QM ~
t ~•
9STH Sf
~.
,.:~ +- ::. R111IH+SU4
O
~ APM Route Under Study ~,,....--~--" - ~ ~;r~-- ~ __ _. _ _. _.
• Potential Metro RaillAPM 'S ~ ~a - p _,,..,.....- ~ ~ _ _ - ~- I'
Airport Metro Connector Page 34
ATTACHMENT G
Travel Time for Airport Bound Passengersto Furthest CTA Station
~ra~\~*Qo
Gte~
F'~°~
~a~~~o
Fto'~`
air~e
d°~edoc~
F'~o'~`
.3
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Minutes (in-vehicle +walk time)
At the May 5, 2015 LAWA BOAC meeting, an alternative plan was presented for the
ITF and the APM station serving the ITF.** Previously eliminated from consideration by the Metro Board in January 2014
Airport Metro Connector Page 35