Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Similar documents
Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

KANSAS CITY STREETCAR

North Shore Alternatives Analysis. May 2012

Proposed Program of Interrelated Projects

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study Public Meetings

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. Information Session, October 10, 2017

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

Needs and Community Characteristics

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

Central City Line Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Amendment Public Hearing. July 24, 2014

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Medlock Area Neighborhood Association (MANA) February 15, 2016

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

Clifton Corridor Transit Initiative. Briefing to Great Lakes Community February 11, 2016

Draft Results and Open House

Tempe Streetcar. March 2, 2016

August 2, 2010 Public Meeting

Northeast Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Public Involvement Round 2 Input on Alternatives for Further Study

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. TAC Briefing December 4, 2013

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Community Advisory Committee. October 5, 2015

Detailed Screening Results and Selection of Locally Preferred Alternative. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

BROWARD BOULEVARD CORRIDOR TRANSIT STUDY

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

Chapter 7: Travel Demand Analysis. Chapter 8. Plan Scenarios. LaSalle Community Center. Image Credit: Town of LaSalle

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

Troost Corridor Transit Study

Tier 2 Screening and Selection522. of the Short List Alternatives KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis

Draft Results and Recommendations

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Dallas CBD Second Light Rail Alignment (D2)

Executive Summary. Phase 2 Evaluation Report. Introduction

West Broadway Reconstruction/LRT Design. March 19, 2015

TIER TWO SCREENING REPORT

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Policy Advisory Committee Meeting February 12, 2014

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

Sound Transit East Link: Bus/LRT System Integration Study

Valley Metro: Past, Present and Future. September 11, 2014

Overview of Transit Funding and Planning in the PACTS Region

West Broadway Transit Study. Community Advisory Committee September 17, 2015

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Initial Screening Analysis

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

US 29 Bus Rapid Transit Planning Board Briefing. February 16, 2017

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

West Broadway Transit Study. Minnesota APA Conference Charles Carlson, Metro Transit Adele Hall, SRF Consulting September 24, 2015

Project Scoping Report Appendix B Project Web Site. APPENDIX B Project Web Site

West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Informational Briefing Gateway Cities Service Council April 13, 2017

CTA Blue Line Study Area

What is the Connector?

Alternatives Analysis Summary Report

VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Status of Plans March Presented by CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Federal Way Link Extension

HIGHWAY 28 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN

An Asset Management Plan for Transit And Access Transit Fleet

Proposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1

D2 - CBD Second Alignment

I-10 West AA/EIS Pre-Screening and Tier 1 Analysis Results. Public Meeting. Wulf Grote, Director Project Development Rick Pilgrim, Project Manager

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Report (Volume I)

We Want Your Input! Review the design alternatives and tell us what s important to you in the design of these areas of the approved BRT Network:

Tier 3 Screening and Selection. of the Recommended Alternative KISSIMMEE CORRIDOR. June Downtown CRA. US 192 Alternatives Analysis

MetroExpress Improvements

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

HDR Engineering. HART North / South. Tampa Bay Applications Group Meeting May 14, 2009

S.1 Introduction. ES-1 Final December 2008

Parking Management Element

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

I-405 and SR 522/NE 145th Bus Rapid Transit. Elected Leadership Groups Meeting November 30, 2018

NEW HAVEN HARTFORD SPRINGFIELD RAIL PROGRAM

Point A Point B Point C Point D. Fulton County Board of Commissioners and Mayors Meeting December 14, 2017

Metro Green Line to LAX Alternatives Analysis. March 2012

7 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Attachment 5. High Speed Transit Planning Study REPORT SUMMARY. Prepared by: City of Edmonton Transportation Planning Branch. Stantec Consulting Ltd.

NET TOLL REVENUE REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM. South Bay Service Council

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting

VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT

THE WILSHIRE CORRIDOR: RAIL AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. Prepared By: Jacki Murdock Transportation and Environmental Planner

Mountain View Automated Guideway Transit Feasibility Study Community Meeting September 25, 2017

King of Prussia Rail Project Frequently Asked Questions - Archive Version: Summer 2016

I-20 EAST TRANSIT INITIATIVE Tier 1 and Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DART Priorities Overview

Alternatives Analysis Findings Report

THE WAY WE MOVE LRT FOR EVERYONE

Welcome. Green Line in Your Community

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

New McNicoll Bus Garage Public Open House

Green Line Long-Term Investments

TIER ONE SCREENING REPORT

Transcription:

Restoration of Historic Streetcar Services in Downtown Los Angeles Early Scoping Meeting for Alternatives Analysis (AA) May 17, 2011

Introduction Key players Local lead agency: Metro Federal lead agency: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Key partners Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc. City of Los Angeles

Introduction How has the streetcar project evolved?!"#$$"%&#'(#)*$%"')#+,+-&"$.'/#)0'123453'(6&--+-,'$7)#"8' 9&8"'8":.+$8'&-.'(:;6+%'+-(:"'<$6($.'8<&($'"<$'%)##+.)#'&-.'.$=$6)(' 8"#$$"%&#'&6"$#-&>=$8'?$"#)'%)0(+6$.'&-.'#$@-$.'8"#$$"%&#'&6"$#-&>=$8';&8$.')-'%)--$%>)-8'")' &%>=+"A'%$-"$#8B'.$0),#&(<+%8B'$%)-)0+%'.$=$6)(0$-"'()"$->&6B'$"%C'?$"#)'8%#$$-$.'DEF'8"#$$"%&#'&6"$#-&>=$8'&-.'+.$->@$.'&6"$#-&>=$8'")';$' 8":.+$.'+-'"<$'36"$#-&>=$8'3-&6A8+8'G33H' 36"$#-&>=$8'3-&6A8+8'G33H'

Introduction Alternatives Analysis (AA) builds on previous efforts to restore historic streetcar services Study/Initiative 1995, South Park Development Strategies and Design Guidelines Results Concept of streetcar in South Park introduced, no specific route proposed 2006, Red Car Trolley Feasibility Study 5 alternatives 2008, Broadway Streetcar Workshop 6 alternatives (specific to Broadway) 2009, 7 Stakeholder Meetings 7 rounds of alignments resulted in 3 options 2010, 2 Options 2 options

Introduction Why are we studying the streetcar again? Must follow prescribed process to be eligible for Federal funding First step in FTA Project Development process What does the Alternatives Analysis (AA) do? Identifies the problems/deficiencies Develops alternatives Develops evaluation criteria Applies criteria to evaluate alternatives Makes recommendation

AA Process 9:#()8$'&-.'I$$.'J'3(#+6'KLMM' N=&6:&>)-'1#+"$#+&'J'3(#+6'KLMM' O-+>&6'!%#$$-+-,'J'?&A'KLMM' P+-&6'!%#$$-+-,'J'Q:-$'KLMM' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.'36"$#-&>=$'J'Q:6A'KLMM'

Planning Process 36"$#-&>=$8'3-&6A8+8' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.' 36"$#-&>=$' N-=+#)-0$-"&6'R)%:0$-"&>)-' 3.=&-%$.'1)-%$(":&6'N-,+-$$#+-,' 9#$6+0+-&#A' N-,+-$$#+-,'&-.'P+-&6' R$8+,-''

Streetcar 101 What is a streetcar? Fixed-guideway electric rail system Operates in mixed traffic Can be articulated for tight radii turns Compatible with on-street parking Shares lanes and stops with buses Safe in high pedestrian areas Can be low floor with multiple doors Bicycles accommodated on board Capacity ranges from 80 to 130 passengers/vehicle

Streetcar 101 Operates safely in mixed environments Operates safely in pedestrian zones Compatible with on-street parking Shares stops with buses

Purpose and Need What is the purpose and need? Restore historic streetcar service Connect activity centers and districts Improve surface transit circulation Support population and employment growth Serve transit-dependent populations Support economic revitalization Support alternative modes of travel within downtown 9:#()8$'&-.' I$$.' O-+>&6'!%#$$-+-,' P+-&6'!%#$$-+-,' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.' 36"$#-&>=$'

Initial Screening What is initial screening? Fatal flaw analysis Ranks the alternatives high, medium, or low Uses qualitative evaluation criteria Mobility and accessibility Ridership potential Capacity Capital and operating costs System compatibility Expandability Plans and guidelines Community support 9:#()8$'&-.' I$$.' O-+>&6'!%#$$-+-,' P+-&6'!%#$$-+-,' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.' 36"$#-&>=$'

Final Screening What is final screening? More detail analysis on the 2 or 3 alternatives Intended to recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative Uses quantitative evaluation criteria Rider benefits Operating characteristics Cost estimates System configuration Design Environmental Land use and economic development Community support 9:#()8$'&-.' I$$.' O-+>&6'!%#$$-+-,' P+-&6'!%#$$-+-,' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.' 36"$#-&>=$'

Final Screening More detail on quantitative evaluation criteria Rider benefits Design Connectivity Operational constraints Travel time Physical constraints Ridership Right-of-way Populations served Environmental Operating characteristics Property impacts Frequency and hours of service Environmental justice Capacity Historic resources Special events Parklands or other Section 4(f) resources Type of vehicle Traffic Cost estimates Noise and vibration Capital costs Contamination O&M costs Land use and economic development System configuration Proximity to activity centers System compatibility Economic development Expandability Plans and guidelines Non-motorized connections Community support

Locally Preferred Alternative What is the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)? LPA is the single, recommended alternative for the project Will be approved by Los Angeles City Council; must be approved by Metro Board LPA concludes the AA process Next step is environmental documentation 9:#()8$'&-.' I$$.' O-+>&6'!%#$$-+-,' P+-&6'!%#$$-+-,' 5)%&66A'9#$/$##$.' 36"$#-&>=$'

Alternatives Alternatives Being Considered No-Build Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Build Alternatives

No-Build Alternative No-Build Alternative Includes existing and programmed improvements No action scenario used as a point of comparison

TSM Alternative Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative Includes transportation service improvements that make the existing transportation system more efficient Bus service and frequency Transit priority treatments Upgraded passenger amenities Do not require major capital investment

Build Alternatives Build Alternatives Reintroduce streetcar service Multiple alternatives will be developed Primary corridor: Union Station, Bunker Hill, Broadway, and South Park

Corridor: Union Station, Bunker Hill, Broadway, and South Park

Build Alternatives Segment A: North of 5 th St Key topics: Steep grade on Grand Ave and 1 st St Out of direction travel (loop versus spur) Vertical circulation issues associated with General Thaddeus Kosciuszko Way option Coordination with Regional Connector Connection to Union Station

Segment A: North of 5 th St

Build Alternatives Segment B: Between 5 th St and 9 th St Key topics: Broadway is assumed for southbound track Hill St and Olive St are primary options for northbound track

Segment B: Between 5 th St and 9 th St

Build Alternatives Segment C: South of 9 th St Key topics: Pico Blvd and 11 th St are primary options for westbound track At-grade crossing of Blue Line at Pico Blvd Coordination with convention center and stadium Coordination with streetscape improvements on Figueroa St and 11 th St

Segment C: South of 9 th St

Conclusion Provide written comments by May 31, 2011: Email: streetcarservice@metro.net Information Line: (213) 922-3000 Mail: Metro, c/o Historic Streetcar Service, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2, Los Angeles, CA 90012 For more information, please visit the project website: www.metro.net/streetcar