Meeting_Body
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
JULY 26, 2018
Subject
SUBJECT: CRENSHAW NORTHERN EXTENSION
Action
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
RECEIVE AND FILE the Crenshaw Northern Extension Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study Report (Attachment D).
Issue
ISSUE
The Crenshaw Northern Extension is a Measure M project with a groundbreaking date of Fiscal Year (FY) 2041, project completion date of FY2047 and a funding allocation of $2.24 billion (2015$). A Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study has been completed, which yielded five potential alignment alternatives. Targeted stakeholder and elected officials outreach regarding the Study outcomes has been undertaken to date, which provided valuable feedback. A key outcome of the Study was the finding that all the alternatives studied exceed the funding allocation, some by approximately double. Broader public/stakeholder outreach is needed to obtain input on these five alignments, along with potential additional technical study, to prepare the project for subsequent environmental review.
Staff will return in September with a work plan of next steps, in consultation with cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood, essential local partners for this project.
Background
BACKGROUND
A northern extension of the Crenshaw Line was first identified as a part of planning studies for the Crenshaw/LAX Line project in 2009. Studies at that time considered an extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line north of the Expo Line, to the Metro Purple Line on Wilshire Boulevard, with the potential to ultimately extend farther north to the Metro Red Line in Hollywood via West Hollywood. Funding for the extension was not identified at the time and therefore the northern terminus of the Crenshaw/LAX Project was set at the Exposition/Crenshaw Station; further studies of the northern extension were deferred.
In February 2016, the Crenshaw Northern Extension was included in the Chief Executive Officer’s “Operation Shovel Ready Initiative” list of projects for advancement through early stages of project planning. The Crenshaw Northern Extension Feasibility Study was initiated in May 2016. Following the passage of the Measure M in November 2016, it was further expanded to include an Alternatives Analysis. The study defines and analyzes four potential alignment alternatives that could extend the Crenshaw Line northward from the Metro Expo Line to the Metro Purple Line on Wilshire Boulevard and onto the Metro Red Line in Hollywood, as well as one alignment alternative that would extend from the Expo Line to the Red/Purple Line Wilshire/Vermont Station with a connection to Hollywood via transfer to the existing Metro Red Line, but would not serve West Hollywood.
DISCUSSION
Alternatives for the Crenshaw Northern Extension
Five alternative alignments (Attachment A) identified in the Feasibility Study/Alternatives Analysis were based on previous planning studies for the Crenshaw Line:
1) La Brea Alternative: This route extends the Crenshaw Line 6.5 miles from the Crenshaw/Expo Station to the future Wilshire/La Brea Purple Line Station and the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station via Crenshaw, Venice and San Vicente Boulevards and La Brea and Highland Avenues. This route directly serves the Mid-City Shopping Complex, the Miracle Mile corridor and the La Brea retail corridor. It also provides a station at La Brea/Santa Monica in the City of West Hollywood. It is adjacent to lower density, single family neighborhoods.
• Rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate: $3.0 billion
• Vertical profile: 3.2 miles (49%) subway, 3.3 miles (51%) aerial
2) Fairfax Alternative: This route extends Crenshaw Line 8.1 miles from the Crenshaw/Expo Station to the future Wilshire/Fairfax Purple Line Station and the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station via Crenshaw, Venice and San Vicente Boulevards, Fairfax Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard and Highland Avenue. This route directly serves the Mid-City Shopping Complex, Los Angeles County Museum of Art/Museum Row, Miracle Mile, Park La Brea, the Grove/Farmer’s Market shopping complex, CBS Television City as well as the Fairfax District and approximately one mile of Santa Monica Boulevard and two stations in the city of West Hollywood.
• ROM cost estimate: $4.7 billion
• Vertical profile: 6.4 miles (79%) subway, 1.0 mile (12%) at-grade and 0.7 mile (9%) aerial
3) La Cienega Alternative: This route extends the Crenshaw Line 9.2 miles from the Crenshaw/Expo Station to the future Wilshire/La Cienega Purple Line Station and the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station along Crenshaw, Venice, San Vicente, La Cienega and Santa Monica Boulevards, and Highland Avenue. It directly serves the Mid-City Shopping Complex, Beverly Center Shopping District, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the La Cienega retail corridor and approximately 1.9 miles of Santa Monica Boulevard and three stations in the city of West Hollywood.
• ROM cost estimate: $4.4 billion
• Vertical profile: 5.1 miles (56%) subway, 2.7 miles (29%) aerial, 1.4 (15%) miles at-grade
4) San Vicente Alternative: This route extends the Crenshaw/Line 9.5 miles from the Crenshaw/Expo Station to the future Wilshire/La Cienega Purple Line Station to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line Station along Crenshaw, Venice, San Vicente and Santa Monica Boulevards, and Highland Avenue. It directly serves the Mid-City Shopping Complex, Beverly Center Shopping District, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Pacific Design Center, West Hollywood Library/Park and approximately 2.5 miles of Santa Monica Boulevard and three stations in the city of West Hollywood.
• ROM cost estimate: $4.3 billion
• Vertical profile: 5.2 miles (55%) subway, 2.9 miles (30%) aerial, 1.4 miles (15%) at-grade
A fifth alignment, which would not directly connect to Hollywood/Highland nor serve the city of West Hollywood, was added to the study because it offers the shortest connection to both the Red and Purple Lines at the Wilshire/Vermont Station:
5) Vermont Alternative: This route extends Crenshaw Line 4.8 miles from Crenshaw/Expo to the existing Wilshire/Vermont Red/Purple Line Station along Crenshaw and Olympic Boulevards, and Vermont Avenue. It serves the Olympic Boulevard retail corridor in Koreatown.
• ROM cost estimate: $3.6 billion
• Vertical profile: 4.8 miles (100%) subway
Although the Vermont Alternative is the shortest, it would only extend as far north as the Wilshire/Vermont Station, where riders would transfer to the Metro Red Line to reach the northern terminus of the study corridor at the Hollywood/Highland Station. This alignment would not connect through or directly serve West Hollywood and would not serve the Mid-City area as broadly as the other four alternatives.
Performance of Alternatives - Ridership
All five study alternatives demonstrate high ridership potential. The alternatives, except the Vermont Alternative, would result in a regional, north-south light rail transit link through a congested corridor, providing access to major activity centers and areas of high population and employment density. Ridership projections range from 77,700 project boardings for the Vermont Alternative to between 87,000 and 90,000 project boardings for the La Brea, Fairfax, La Cienega and San Vicente Alternatives.
All alternatives would result in greatly reduced transit travel times compared with existing conditions. Current peak period transit travel times between the Expo/Crenshaw Station and Hollywood/Highland Station are approximately 45 minutes and include at least one transfer. Estimated end-to-end travel times on the alternatives range from 12.4 minutes on the La Brea Alternative to 19 minutes on the San Vicente Alternative and nearly 27 minutes on the Vermont Alternative, which requires a transfer at Wilshire/Vermont to complete the trip to Hollywood/Highland. The average travel time savings experienced for each rider on the project alternatives ranges from 17 minutes and 18 minutes per project trip on the Vermont and La Brea Alternatives, respectively, to 20 minutes per project trip on the San Vicente or La Cienega Alternatives.
Of the four alternatives that connect to Hollywood/Highland, the longer western alternatives along San Vicente and La Cienega provide access to a greater number of high density activity centers than the eastern alignments such as La Brea. This is because of the land uses and higher number of residents and jobs within a ½ mile radius surrounding proposed stations along the longer alignments. For example, the San Vicente and La Cienega corridor stations would serve approximately 60,000 residents and 70,000 jobs within a ½ mile radius, while the La Brea corridor stations would only serve approximately 25,000 residents and 16,000 jobs.
Performance of Alternatives - Cost
The capital cost of each alternative is largely a function of its vertical profile, length and number of stations. Due to the high densities and levels of congestion throughout the Study Area, any new fixed guideway transit would likely need significant segments of subway tunneling and/or aerial, grade separated guideway to operate effectively and safely within the Study Area. As shown in Attachment B, costs are greater than the funding allocation in Measure M, which assumes a mix of funding sources. This is a significant outcome of the Study, which guides how to proceed further into the planning, design and environmental review process. Attachment C provides a comparison table of the key performance metrics.
Determination_of_Safety_Impact
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
These actions will not have any impact on the safety of our customers and/or employees because this Project is at the study phase and no capital or operational impacts result from this Board action.
Financial_Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The FY 2018-19 budget includes an initial $500,000 in Cost Center 4350 (Systemwide Team 2), Project 475558 (Crenshaw Northern Extension) to begin the draft environmental study of the Crenshaw Northern Extension project upon identification of the preferred corridor alternatives by the Board.
Impact to Budget
The source of funding for this project is Measure M 35%. As these funds are earmarked for the Crenshaw Northern Extension project, they are not eligible for Metro bus and rail capital and operating expenditures.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Board may determine to receive and file the Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study and decline to conduct any further work, absent a realistic delivery and funding strategy to deliver the project earlier than FY2047. This is not recommended because the city of West Hollywood has proposed an Early Project Delivery Strategy to consider and in 2016, Metro committed to conducting a study and environmental review.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
There has been a long-standing interest among West Hollywood local elected officials and stakeholders to accelerate the delivery of the Crenshaw Northern Extension. Within the provisions allowed under Measure M, Metro staff has committed to exploring a viable path forward to accelerate the project, consistent with adopted Board policy: Early Project Delivery Strategy. A significant finding emerging out of the Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Study done to date is the fact that the cost of all five alternatives exceed Measure M funding allocations, some by approximately double. Any potential acceleration strategy at this juncture would have to address that factor, either through mitigating cost, securing new revenue, or a hybrid of both.
To better target project delivery options and a funding strategy, there is a need to conduct broad public outreach and potential further technical study to prepare for a next stage of environmental review. Staff will consult with the cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood to develop a strategy of next steps and attendant schedules for the next stage analyses. Metro staff is targeting to return to the Board in September, contingent on the city consultative process.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Map of Crenshaw Northern Extension Alternatives
Attachment B - Capital Costs: Range of Alternatives
Attachment C - Alternatives Performance Table
Attachment D - Crenshaw Northern Extension Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Report Executive Summary
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Alex Moosavi, Transportation Planning Manager (213) 922-2661
David Mieger, Executive Officer (213) 922-3040
Manjeet Ranu, Senior Executive Officer (213) 418-3157
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Therese McMillan, Chief Planning Officer (213) 922-7077
