mta 01-06 expo deir item

8/14/2019 MTA 01-06 Expo DEIR Item

1/28


2/28

Do

The Exposition project shall be separated from Wilshire BoulevardBRT s a stand-alone project for purposes of final environmentalclearance;Areas of supplementalmitigation (AttachmentC), including a possibletunnel segmentat USC/Exposition ark, shall be assessed following anexpanded community utreach program and considered for inclusion inthe Preliminary Engineering (PE)/Final EIS/EIRat the time when heBoard approves the PE contract.

Initiate procurementof Preliminary Engineering for the Exposition LRT romDowntown os Angeles to Venice/Robertson as a necessary componentof theFinal EIS/EIR with a minimum perable segment as described above inRecommendation C.

ISSUEIn June 1999, the Boardawarded contract for three phases of altematives analysisand environmental clearance in the Mid-City/WestsideTransit Corridor. Thesestudies are necessary n order to make he project eligible for necessary state andfederal grant funding, in accordancewith the California EnvironmentalQuality Act(CEQA) nd the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The first phase of the work was the Mid-City/WestsideRe-evaluation/MajorInvestment Study (MIS). The MISStudy was completed in February 2000 andbrought to the Board or consideration. At that time, the Boardnarrowed he rangeof alternatives and authorized the initiation of the secondphase of the work, the DraftEIS/EIR.The Draft EIS/EIR s now omplete, and the adoption of a Locally PreferredAlternative is a necessary action prior to the commencementf workon the thirdphase, which s the Final EIS/EIR. Adoptionof the Locally Preferred Alternative(LPA)will identify a transit mode nd alignmentfor the project.In order to complete he Final EIS/EIR or the ExpositionCorridor Transit Project, itwill be necessary to procure and complete Preliminary Engineering (PE). PEalready underway or the Wilshire BRT roject. In order not to delay the WilshireBRT roject, staff is recommendinghat the Wilshire BRT roject be addressed in aseparate Final EIS/EIR ather than combined n the same Final EIS/EIRwith theExposition Corridor. This way he Wilshire project can proceed more expeditiouslythan wouldbe possible if it were linked to the Expositionproject.

Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor


3/28


4/28

exclusive lane during the AM nd/or PM ush hour, whenparking is generallyprohibited. Staff is recommendinghat testing and permanent mplementation ofpeak period transit lanes wouldonly be undertaken with concurrence and cooperationof the affected city or county urisdictions.Along he Exposition Corridor, the Board could adopt the Bus Rapid Transit mode sthe Locally Preferred Alternative. BRT as not been recommendedecause of thehigh ridership that is projected for the Exposition ine. In order to meet idershipforecasts, bus frequencies approachingone bus every 1.6 minutes wouldbe required.Such requencies wouldovertax the abilities of traffic signals to provide prioritysignalization. Furthermore, ight rail transit could handle wice the capacity of theBRT ystem with peak period maximumrequencies (headways) that would onlyrequire one train every five minutes. These lower frequencies wouldallow bettersignalization of intersections and reduce the number f transit vehicles that wouldpass by sensitive residential, institutional and parkland uses along the route.The Board could defer selection of an LPA.However, his action woulddelay theproject schedule, increase cost and, particularly in the case ofWilshire BRT, ncreasethe risk of losing Federal Fixed Guideway unds earmarked or Los Angeles County.

FINANCIAL IMPACTAdoptionof the LPA nd the preparation of final environmental eports andpreliminary engineering for the Wilshire BRTwill not have an impact to the MTAFY02Budgetas the consultant contracts for these activities were previouslyapproved and funded by the Board.Adoption f the LPA or the Exposition Corridor will enable staff to prepare anFEIS/EIR nd to initiate the procurement f a PEconsultant for this project. Theseactivities will require funding not currently in the FY02Budget. Staff will analyzethe LongRangePlan to determineappropriate funding sources for these activitiesand report back to the Board prior to the mid-year budget adjustment on suchopportunities.Funding or construction of the Wilshire BRT nd someportion of the fullExposition LRT o Santa Monicaare included in the adopted MTA ong RangeTransportationPlan, subject to the availability of anticipated Federal and Statefunding sources. The DEIS/EIR stimates the cost of the 24-hour Wilshire BRTobe $354 million (in 1999 dollars). The recommendedroject in Attachmentreduces these costs to $212 million by reducing the amountof lane reconstructionand by specifying 45-60 buses, instead of the previously specified double-articulated vehicles. Additionally, no replacement arking s called for, since little orno displacementof on-street parking is anticipated with the peak-houronly exclusivelane.



5/28

The cost of the Exposition LRT o Venice/Robertson s estimated to be $309 million(in 1999 dollars). These costs do not include a tunnel segmentat USC/ExpositionPark, whichwouldadd an additional $120million to the costs for the ExpositionLRT roject unless additional funding, potentially including private funding, issecured. The funding programmedor the Exposition Transit Corridor is currently inlater years of the MTAs RTP e.g. F09 o F14). MTAtaff will investigate thepossibility of moving omeof the Exposition Corridor funding to earlier years of theLRTP ithout impacting the funding availability for the Wilshire, Eastside or SanFemandoValley projects. Furthermore, the identification of a minimumperablesegment or the Exposition LRT roject maymake t possible to start work on theExposition project sooner than wouldbe the case if the MTA aited until earlier yearfunding is available for the entire segment o Venice/Robertson.

BACKGROUNDThe preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR, ogether with the required circulation, publichearings, public participation and review, ensures that all significant transportationand environmental impacts are considered and analyzed.There has been a comprehensive community utreach program conducted throughoutthe developmentof the Draft EIS/EIR. The MTAonducted three formal PublicHearings in accordance o Federal and State environmental aw that were attended bymore than 500 people. More han 50 meetings were held during the preparation ofthe DEIS/EIRwith business and residential groups. AttachmentD summarizes hecommunity utreach including a summary f the public testimony submitted at thepublic hearings and throughout the comment eriod.A comprehensivewritten response to public commentswill be incorporated in theFinal EIS/EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP).The MMP illincorporated in the project budget and implemented uring construction of theadoptedproject.

NEXTSTEPSAssumingBoard adoption of the Draft EIS/EIR and selection of the LPA,MTAtaffand consultants will prepare the Final EIS/EIR or the Wilshire BRT roject. TheFinal approvalof the Locally Preferred Alternative as the "project" to be carried outby the MTA ill not occur until the Final SEIS/SEIRs completedand certified bythe Board and approved by the FTA hrough a Record of Decision.For the ExpositionCorridor project, it will be necessary to procure and conductPreliminary Engineering before the Final EIS/EIRcan be completed. Staff willbegin the procurement process and bring a recommendedE contract to the Boardfor approval to award. There is an existing consultant contract to prepare the

5Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor


6/28

FEIS/EIR or the combinedWilshire/Expo Corridor. A stand-alone Expositionproject would equire an amendmento this contract to allow for the additional workrequired to prepare two separate FEIS/EIRdocuments. This amendmentwould alsobe brought back to the Board or approval.

ATTACHMENTS: A)B)C)D)

Mapof Mid-City/WestsideTransit Corridor Locally PreferredAltemative (LPA) and Planned Metro Rapid ConnectionsWilshire BRTLocally Preferred Alternative: Phased Implementation& Generalized Cost ComponentsExposition LRTLocally Preferred Alternative: CommunityOutreach/SupplementalMitigation to be prepared as part ofPreliminary Engineering/Final EIS/EIRSummaryof Public Outreach & Comments

Prepared by: David Mieger, Project Manager



7/28


8/28


9/28

Attachment BWilshire BRTLocally Preferred Alternative (LPA)Phased Implementation & Generalized Cost Components

AttachmentB

LPAComponent

Wilshire BoulevardHigher Capacity Busesw/Multiple Doors EnhancedRapid BusStations Enhanced ignal Priority Fare VendingOff Vehicle Peak Lane Demonstration&Testing CurbLane Reconstructionfor either Mixed loworPeak Period Operation(+/- 3 miles) DowntownMetro RapidBus Division Peak Period Curb Lane MedianAdjacent or 24Hour LaneReconstruction

TOTAL COST

P~SEIWILSHIRE BRTPeakPeriodCurb Lane

X

xxXX

xX

$212million$354-$363millionin DEIS/EIR

ULTIMATEWILSHIRE BRTCurb Lane orMedianAdjacent

X

X

~ Replace urrent 40 RapidBuseswith 45 or 60 buses.2 Reconstruction f curb lane to accommodateither mixed-flowr peak periodbus transit operation. Theneed for curb lanereconstruction s only in the segmentromWilshire/Westemo Wilshire/SanVicente.Curb ane is in good ondition or bus9erationswestof Wilshire/San icente.Subject o approval yeachcity/jurisdiction.4 Ultimate uture project would onsiderpossible ntroductionof double-articulated uses which re approximately5 in length5 UltimateBRT edian-adjacentr 24-hour anes would nly be implementedf approved y eachcity/jurisdiction at a futuredate.


10/28


11/28

Attachment CAttachment C

Exposition LRTLocally Preferred Alternative (LPA)CommunityOutreach/Supplemental Mitigation

To be conducted during Preliminary Engineering/Final EIS/EIRAreas of supplementalmitigation analysis are recommendedor inclusion in the nextphase of the Exposition LRTPreliminary Engineering and Final Environmental ImpactStatement/Report. The need for this effort was identified in the DEIS/EIR nder thesection entitled Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved. Several communitymeetings were held that addressed these issues, however dditional work is required tofully address community nd agency concerns. Areas identified for supplementanalysisinclude the following:

Non- RevenueTrack Alternatives(Exposition Right-of-WayetweenHill Street and Central Avenue)The recommendedxposition Light Rail line will require a non-revenue rack connectionto the LongBeachBlue Line. This connector is necessary to get rail vehicles to storageand maintenance acilities that are located along the LongBeachBlue Line route.Residents and community rganizations in the area south of Downtownos Angeleshave expressed opposition to the use of the Exposition right-of-way in the segmentbetweenMapleAvenue nd San Pedro. In addition, high levels of pedestrian activity inthe vicinity of several churches and schools that serve this communityre a concern.These groups have asked the MTAo evaluate alternative routes.Alternatives that have been identified for consideration include the following: Use of WashingtonBoulevard and the current Long Beach Blue Line alignment toprovide access to storage yard. This wouldeliminate the need for the non-revenueconnector but wouldadd more trains to the existing LongBeachBlue Line onWashingtonBoulevard, which is close to capacity. The City of Los AngelesDepartmentof Transportation has expressed opposition to adding more trains toWashingtonBoulevardduring periods of high traffic congestion because ofimpacts to traffic. It maybe possible to use the Washington oulevard rackduring late night or off-peak periods.

Use of Jefferson Boulevard o connect to LongBeachBlue Line/storage yard.This route wouldrequire the non-revenueconnector to detour off of the MTAowned ight-of-way. Identification of alternative rail storage sites that would educeor eliminate theneed for a non-revenue onnector. This would nvolve the identification ofstorage tracks along the revenuesegmentof the line where rains could be storedwhen hey are not in service. Maintenance f trains could be undertaken atexisting Metro Blue Line or Metro GreenLine MaintenanceFacilities with train


12/28

Attachment Cmovementsaking place during late night or weekend eriods. The ability ofexisting maintenance acilities to accommodateurther service wouldneed to beevaluated.

USC/Exposition Park Tunnel Design OptionThe University of Southern California and other Exposition Park stakeholders haverequested consideration of a subway/tunnel segment between Figueroa and Vermont.Studies completed n the early !990s had indicated the need for a grade separation atExposition/Figueroa to mitigate traffic impacts. The present DEIS/EIR oes not indicatethe need for such a grade separation, based on the reduced raffic impacts of the presentdowntownonnector route, which ollows Hill Street, rather than FlowerStreet.Nonetheless, the impacts of the abovegroundLRT re considered by stakeholders in thearea to be too severe to be supportable as an at-grade system on Exposition Boulevard. Inparticular, advocates for a tunnel solution on ExpositionBoulevard ite special eventssuch as the Los Angeles Marathon nd other major Coliseum porting events as situationswhereat-grade transit service wouldneed to be curtailed if it wereat-grade.The DEIS/EIRdentified the additional costs of subway n this segment o be $120million. Funding or this project enhancement as not been identified in present fundingplans. Stakeholders have recommendedhat further value engineering studies beconducted o determine if the cost of the subway ption could be reduced. Also, duringthe time that these engineering studies are conducted, t has been suggested hatadditional funding opportunities be explored, including the possibility of a shared parkingfacility between he MTAnd Exposition Park which could be used by transit patronsduring weekday eriods and by the park uses during evenings, weekends nd specialevents. Given he high level of development ctivity in the area, there are several areas inwhichMTAransit planning and design maybenefit if it is coordinated with effortsunderwayat USC nd Exposition Park.

Light Rail Proximity Impacts to Homes,Schools, Parks & ChurchesCommunityroups, agencies and residents living along the right-of-way in JeffersonPark, Crenshaw,BaldwinHills and East Culver City have expressed concern about theoperation of light rail trains in close proximity o homes, chools, churchesand parks.These concerns have focused on property values, pedestrian safety, noise &vibration andsafety &security.Supplementalmitigation measuresare possible that wouldaddress pedestrian safety andtransit proximity issues. The LRT roject could include fencing and soundwalls alongsegments of the route. Depressed segments oftrackway could be introduced that wouldprovide short retaining walls to screen the wheels and undercarriages of LRT ehiclesthereby reducing noise from the trains. Special designs could be implementedodesignate pedestrian crossings of the trackway. A parallel bike path maybe designed in


13/28

Attachment C

such a way o provide continuous separation between he bikewayand the transitway.Near areas of pedestrian activity, signalized pedestrian crossings could be employedoprotect pedestrians from both cars and transit vehicles. Transit speeds will be evaluatedto determine f speeds should be reduced n certain areas to achieve higher safety and/orreduced noise impacts.The recommendedommunity utreach effort would establish small groups ofstakeholders in each of the station areas and line segments o workwith MTAtaff andconsultants to develop olutions to these issues.


14/28

Attachment D

Attachment DMID-CITY/WESTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR DEIS/EIR

Summary of Public Outreach & Comments

Three public hearings were held on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/EIR)for the Mid-City/WestsideTransit Corridor Study. Meetings were held on the following dates andlocations:Monday, May 7, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.Petersen AutomotiveMuseum,Connor Pavilion6060 Wilshire Blvd.,

Los Angeles 90036

Wednesday, May9, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.West Angeles Church,Crystal Room3045 CrenshawBlvd.,Los Angeles 90016

Tuesday, May15, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.Veterans AdministrationHospital, Room128111301Wilshire Blvd.,Los Angeles 90073

Attendance at each meeting was as follows: May7 th- 150 May 9th - 80 May15th 300 Total 530As of June 8, 2001, over 300 comments ave been received. Public comments being received untilJune 15, 2001 and additional commentseceived by the close of the official comment eriod will beincluded in the complete record of comments.


15/28

Summaryf Public TestimonyAttachmentD

Summaryof Comments CommentsSupportWilshire BRTwith Qualifications 33

Preserve xisting natureof miraclemile includingmediansUseCurb LanesDedicatedane during rush houronlyMedian djacentpreferredMinimal nvasion of medianMiddle f Wilshire,not curbsideConcernboutosing half of all left turn pockets.

OpposeWilshire BRTDevelop SubwayDedicatedus anes nefficientOpposesrticulated busesImpacts edestrianriendly MiracleMileUsedouble deckedbusesConcernedboutDecreasing apacity of WilshireSeverly mpact raffic andparkingUncertain f effectivenessSupport Exposition BRTOpposeExposition BRT

Oppose nything on ExpoOpposeail near schoolsSupportExpositionLRTwith Qualifications

Nodiversion off ROWMitigate or SafetyGradeSeparatedMitigate or NoiseElevatedIncreaseproperty valuesUseVeniceROWnd go all the waydowno LincolnProvide atients better accesso hospitalsConcernedbout ack of park & rideConcernedbout impacts o Washington lvd.Subwayat USC

71

314

173

Mid-City/Westside orridorEnvironmentalClearanceAttachmentD As of 6/8/01


16/28


Summaryof Comments CommentsGrade eparated t ArlingtonWhywo options to Santa Monica?Whynot go to LAX?Concern t Bergamonttation, scale backpark & rideif interferes with Bergamontpening s a culturaldestinationStudy unnel at USC,- pposesonstructionofsoundwalls nd crossing gates hat wouldcreatevisualbarriers.ProvideSufficient parkingat Park& RideConsidergrade separation at CrenshawConsider nd urn option romS. Hill St. to N.Washingtono create a direct connectionrom LongBeacho Santa Monica.

OpposeExposition LRTOppose nything on ExpoOpposeExpo Non-revenueSegmentOpposeDiversion off ROWProposedMonorailOpposesransportation use of ExpoOpposeLRT on SepulvedaConcerned bout safety & noiseUse ifferent alignmentOpposeonstruction f parking ot at east ofSepulvedaWill affect businessLeave rees and add benchesKeepgreen

84

Mid-CityhNestside orridorEnvironmentalClearanceAttachmentD As of 6/8/01


17/28

AttachmentDSummary f CommunityOutreach

RTAATechnical Studies Community utreachTheBoardauthorized the RTAA tudy n 1998. MTA eld three community orkshopso provide input onThis study dentified the amountf funding RTAA tudy.available for newprojects between 999-2004andestablished frameworkor further fixediguideway roject developmentn the Mid-City/WestsideArea. Thestudy included apreliminaryevaluationof fixed guidewayalternatives in the corridors and ecommendedthat a MIS evel of analysisbe conductedo~rovidemorenformation s to the choices.

TechnicalStudiesTheMTAnitiated the MIS or the Mid-City/Westside ransit Corridor StudyObjective:1. Provide igh capacity ransit service o theWestside;2. Develop igh capacity ransit system t arelatively owcost;3. Build uponsuccesses f RapidBuscurrentlyoperatingn the Wilshire/VVhittier orridor;and4. Develop igh capcity system hatincorporatesmany f the elementsound n theCuritiba rapid bus system,whichhas many fthe componentsnvisioned o rthe Mid-City/Westside ransit Corridor.

CommunityOutreachThe irst task was o assemble nddocumenthealternatives previouslyconsidered ver he years. Inaddition, communityutreach or the MIS ncluded10roundtablemeetingshroughout he corridor attendedby15-40 communitymembers. riefing were also conductedwithelected fficials and ity staff.

Cor~do~a~DEIS/EIR echnicalStudiesDEIS/DEIR ocumentshe environmentalimpactsof the Wilshire BRT,Exposition BRTand Exposition LRT ystems.

CommunityOutreachOutreach ndeducational ocus groupscontinuedduringthis phaseo inform he communityt large of thepreparationand eleaseof the Draft EIS/EIR.Meetingswereheld within the affected neighborhoodslongWilshire Blvd. and he Exposition ROW. hecommunityparticipatedandgavenput during he following meetings.

Mid-City/Westside orridorEnvironmentalClearanceAttachmentD


18/28

AttachmentDSummary f CommunityOutreach

Five public scopingmeetings. 3 Public hearingsattended y over 500people.Publichearingswere ocated at the following ocations: PetersenAutomotiveMuseumn Wilshire Blvd. in the Mid-Cityarea, WestAngelesChurch f Godn Christ onCrenshaw/Exposition,nd he VeteransAdminstrationHospital on Wilshire Blvd. in Westwood. 50 meetingswith communityased rganizations. Briefingswith Mid-City/Westsidelected fficials andstaffmembers.Distribution of Project nformation ndpublic notices weredisseminatedhrough: Combinedailingof notices & lyers distributed to morethan 2000households,businessesand communityorganizations. Uploaded roject webpageon MTA eb ite whichoffered DEIS/EIRor view or download. Provided EIS/EIRor reviewat 22 ocal libraries. Distribution of information amplets n MetroRapidBuses n Wilshire Blvd. Publishedmeeting otices n LATimes,La Opinion,TheSentinel, KoreaTimes, Downtownews,Culver CityChronicle, L.A. Business ournal, the Wave, antaMonicaMirror andLarchmont hronicle or community eetingsandpublic hearings.

Mid-City/Westside orridorEnvironmentalClearanceAttachmentD


19/28

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEEJune 21, 2001

ITEM #49

MetropolitanTransportation

AuthorityOneGateway laza

LosAngeles,CA90012-2952

SUBJECT: MID-CITY/WESTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDORACTION: ACCEPT DRAFT EIS/EIR AND ADOPT LOCALLY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Attached is an update to Attachment D of the above Board Report. The closing datefor the Public CommentPeriod was June 15, 2001 and the attached summary ofpublic comments updates this summary o include comments received after thedistribution of the board reports.


20/28

Attachment D

Attachment D(Updated on June 18,2001)

MID-CITY/WESTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR DEIS/EIRSummary of Public Outreach & Comments

Three public hearings were held on the Draft Environmental mpact Statement/Report (DEIS/EIR)for the Mid-City/WestsideTransit Corridor Study. Meetings were held on the following dates andlocations:Monday, May7, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.Petersen AutomotiveMuseum,Connor Pavilion6060 Wilshire Blvd.,Los Angeles 90036

Wednesday, May 9, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.West Angeles Church,Crystal Room3045 CrenshawBlvd.,Los Angeles 90016

Tuesday, May15, 20015:00-8:00 p.m.Veterans AdministrationHospital, Room 28111301Wilshire Blvd.,Los Angeles 90073

Attendance at each meeting was as follows: May7th- 150 May 9th - 80 May15 th 300 Total 530

As of June 15, 2001, 1,040 written and verbal comments ave been received. In addition, 16petitions have been received with more than 4,700 signatures. The official Public comment eriodended on June 15th, however ome upplemental etters are still being received that were postmarkedby the final day of the comment eriod. All commentswill be incorporated into the Final EIS/EIR,where each a response to each concern or commentwill be provided in writing. A summary f thecommentss provided on the following pages.


21/28


Summary of CommentsSupport Wilshire BRTPrefer Wilshire to Expo Commentrom ExpoPropertyOwners)

Must oincidewith parking eform n residential areasPreserve xisting natureof miraclemile including mediansUse Curb LanesDedicatedane during rush hour onlyMedian djacentpreferredMinimal nvasion of medianMiddleof Wilshire, not curbside

Oppose Wilshire BRTDevelop Subwaydedicated us anes nefficientOpposesrticulated busesImpacts edestrianriendly MiracleMileUse double deckedbusesConcernedbout Decreasing apacity of WilshireSeverlympact raffic andparkingUncertain f effectiveness

Comments137

124

Support Exposition BRT 332pposeExposition BRTOppose nything on ExpoOpposeail near schools480upport Exposition LRTNo diversion off ROWMitigate or SafetyGrade Separated

Mitigate or NoiseElevatedIncreaseproperty valuesUseVeniceROWnd go all the waydowno LincolnProvide atients better accesso hospitalsConcernedbout ack of park & rideConcernedbout impacts o Washington lvd.

Mid-City/Westside orridorEnvironmentalClearanceAttachmentD Page of 2 As of 6/15/01


22/28

Summary f Public TestimonyAttachment D

Summary of Comments CommentsSubway at USCGrade separated at ArlingtonWhy wo options to Santa Monica?Whynot go to LAX?Concern t Bergamont tation, scale back park & ride ifinterferes with Bergamont peningas a cultural destinationStudy tunnel at USC,opposesconstruction of soundwallsand crossing gates that wouldcreate visual barriers.Provide Sufficient parking at Park & RideConsider grade separation at CrenshawConsider2nd turn option from S. Hill St. to N. Washingtonocreate a direct connection from Long Beach o Santa Monica.

Oppose Exposition LRTOpposeanything on ExpoOppose Expo Non-revenue SegmentOpposeDiversion off ROWProposed MonorailOpposesransportation use of ExpoOppose LRT on SepulvedaConcernedabout safety & noiseUse different alignmentOppose onstruction of parking lot at east of SepulvedaWill affect businessLeave trees and add benchesKeep green

264

Mid-City/Westside CorridorEnvironmental ClearanceAttachment D Page2 of 2 As of 6/15/01


23/28

Summary f Petitions

OpposeWilshire BRT

Postcards (Stop the Wilshire BRT)

The Diplomat CondominiumAssociation(Letter with petitions attached).

Tour Wilshire (Cover etter with~etitions/letters as attachments).

~Bla r House HomeownersssociationI(Letter with signaturesattached).

Wilshire Center Business ImprovementCorporation - Miracle Mile ResidentialAssociationIndividually signed etters, including unitnumber.

Singed etition.

Attachment D

To the MTABoard: Listen to the Community Stopthe Wilshire BRT! The Wilshire Communitys uited=n saying YES o the Metro Rapid Bus and NO othe Wilshire BRT!Our newly revitalizedcommunities ant afford the damagehe WilshireBRTwill do to IocPetition against the proposedWilshire Bus RapidTransit (BRT) by the Metropolitan TransportationAuthority and the city of loss AngelesDepartmentof Transportation.am a resident of The La Tour Wilshire ResidentialCommunity t 10380 Wilshire Boulevard, Los

Angeles, CA 90024. I amopposed o yourproposed MTAWilshire Bus Rapid Transit Project.Weare vigorously opposed o the proposed newdedicated bus anes on the Wilshire Corridor.Traffic in this area is already badly congestedduring certain periods of the dayand willdeteriorate even urther with the openingof the 3new esidential buil

STOP he BRT!am a resident of The Westford ocated at 19750

Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024. I amopposed o your proposed MTAWilshire RapidTransit Project.

267

93

65

152

54

21Petition against the proposedWilshire Bus RapidTransit (BRT) by the Metropolitan TransportationAuthority and the city of loss AngelesDepartmentof Transportation. 19

Support or Exposition ight Rail Transit

Postcards (Los Angeles County NeedMore Rail Now!)

Friends for Expo

Los Angeles Needs More Rail Now! L.A.s MTA sconsidering what to do with the abandonedail linein the middle of the Exposition Boulevard from theBlue Line at USC o Santa Monica. M.T.A.s board,whichyoucurrently chair, will decideeither 1) toI support the Expo Line from Santa Monica odowntown .A.! Weneed fast, comfortable,exhaust-free,high-capacity ight rail as analternative to traffic and or livable communities.

6O

2,605Mid-CityNVestsideCorridorEnvironmental ClearanceAttachment D As of 6/15/01


24/28


25/28

CAPITOl- OFFICESTATE CAPITOL, ROOM 4032SACRAMENTO, CA 95814TEL (916) 445-1353FAX 9 ~ 6) 324-4823DISTRICT OFFICE}095! WEST PICO BLVD. SUITE 2(::)2LOS ANGELES, CA 90064TEL (31 O) 441-9084FAX (310) 441 0724

June 21, 2001

SENATORSHEILA JAMES KUEHLTWENTY-THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT

CHAIRNATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE COMMITTEE

COMMITTEES:AGRICULTURE AND WATERRESOURCES,EIUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEWI---N VlRON M ENT~. QUALITYHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE,JUDICIARYLABOR AND INDUSTRIALRELATIONSSELECT COMMITTEES:CHAIR, INTERNATIONAL TRADPOLICY AND STATE LEGISLATICHAIR, SCHOOL SAFETYDEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIESAND MENTAL HEALTHHEALTHFORESTRYGENETICS, GENETICTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLICPOLICYINVESTIGATE PRICEMANIPULATION OF THEWHOLESALE ENERGY MARKETJOINT COMMITTEE ON THE A

Jose Legaspi, ChairMembers f the CommitteeMTA lanning and ProgrammingCommitteeOne GatewayPlazaLos Angeles, CA90012Re{ Agenda tem 49 relating to the Mid-City/Westside ransit CorridorDear Chair Legaspi and CommitteeMembers:I amwriting this time to expressmy trong support or the adoption f Light Rail Transit(LRT)as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) or the Exposition Corridor romdowntownosAngelesall the way o SantaMonica. amhappy o see that staff is recommendingight rail forthe corridor, although am,of course, disappointedhat the recommendations for building theline only to Venice/Robertsonwith a MinimalOperableSegment MOS)o Exposition Park.I stronglybelieve that building ight rail alongthe ExpositionRightof Ways the right thing todo. A first-class transit systemmust nclude an efficient link betweenSantaMonica nddowntownA.I also believe that there is widespreadupport or light rail on Exposition. Byand arge, my onstituentsare in supportandvery excited about he project.The taff reportmentions,without oing nto detail, that there is insufficient funding o buildlight rail to SantaMonica.f that is the case, I would sk that youcarefully considerhow o bestspend unds for the entire Mid-City/WestsideransitCorridor.Althoughhere is certainly aneedfor improvingransit on Wilshire, taking a lane froman alreadycongestedmajorthoroughfares extremelyproblematic. wantyou to knowhat I havenot heardof any supportfor adoptingBus RapidTransit(BRT) or the WilshireCorridor.I amconcernedhat staffrecommendinghat wetie up 200 million dollars pending successful demonstration roject thatwouldbe followed by the implementationf a 24-hourdedicated ane, if wecan get the approvalof the affected cities. Thatsa big if, for a project hat has little demonstratedupport romconstituents, businesses, cities or elected officials alongthe route. Indeed, havereceivedmanycalls in strongoppositiono the prospect f closing a lane to traffic.

Representinghecities of Agouraills, Bevery ills, Calabasas,iddenills, Malibu, antaMonica, est ollywoodndWestlakeillage nd hecommunitiesf Bel Air, BrentwCanogaark,Encino, ollywood,t. Olympus,acificPalisades, hermanaks, tudio ity, Tarzana, opanga,est osAngeles, est ills, WestwoodndWoodlandills.


26/28

Page 2MTA lanning and Programming Committee 6/21/01

I am happy to do whatever I can to help secure increased funding and government pprovals orany other things that will help movehe Expo ight rail forward. Building ight rail toVenice/Robertsons certainly a goodstart but I believe we can do more. The estimatedcompletiondate for building light rail to Venice/Robertsons 2114. It is very important hat yousupport a full length project connecting Santa Monica nd downtown Aor we could risk losingthe project to a limboof indefinite postponement.Because o manynterests are at stake, I continue o listen to all of myconstituents, carefullyweighevery consideration, base mydecisions on what I believe is best for the greater good, andworkwith other elected officials to achieve a unified voice. In this way,I hope to makemybestcontribution.

Please join me. The construction of workablepublic transit for the Westside s long overdue andI urge you to support light rail for Expo.Thankyou for your consideration.Sincrely,

SHEILA JAMES KUEHLSenator, 23~ District


27/28

49MOTION BY DIRECTOR PAM OCONNOR AND BEATRICE PROOMTA PLANNING AND PROGRAMMINGCOMMITTEEJune 21, 2001

49

WESTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR INTENT TO CONSTRUCTEXPOSITION LIGHT RAIL TO SANTA MONICAA viable rapid transit systemconnecting he western portion of Los AngelesCountyo other parts of the county s critical for a well-functioning regionaleconomyand a sustainable environment.

There s significant transit ridership demandlong the Exposition Right-of-Way orridor to justify the need or service by light rail.

The MTAs considering adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative for theExposition Corridor that is shorter than the defined end-point in SantaMonicabecauseunding s not available at this time to adopt the entire line.

Theextension of the Exposition Corridor project to the end point in SantaMonica s identified as a funding priority in the AdoptedMTA ong RangeTransportation Plan.

We, THEREFORE,OVEhat the MTAestablish the vision and intent toconstruct light rail to SantaMonicaand actively work o accelerate the flowof federal, state and ocal funds to complete his project as soonaspossible without compromisingother funding sources for MTA doptedprojects.


28/28

Motionby SupervisorYvonneB. BurkeI remain uite concernedver the issues of Environmentalustice reflected inthe mitigation andsafety ssuesalong he Exposition orridor.I amparticularly concernedver the lack of gradeseparationat congestedintersectionsand amespeciallyconcernedver the fact that there s norecommendationor any gradeseparationof intersections until La CienegaBoulevard.Some f the intersections analyzedalong Exposition Boulevard aveworselevels of servicewith the proposedight rail project. Due o the right of way ndphysicalconstraints, it appearshat the only feasible mitigation measureshouldbe gradeseparation t impactedntersections, specifically at ExpositionandVermont,Exposition and Western,and Exposition and La Brea.Also, I wouldike for MTAtaff to expandhe study o include ntersectionsalongparallel routes on Jefferson and Adamso the north andMartin Luther King andVernon o the south. FoshayMiddle School, DorseyHigh School, WestAngelesCathedraland he Mosquere amonghe schools and churches hat will beaffected along he corridor. Traffic at Crenshaw,a Breaandother heavilytravelednorth-south orridors will be impacted y delaysat the Expostionight-of-way ntersections.I believe t is incumbentn his Boardo include n its approval f a LocallyPreferredAlternative or a light rail project alongExpositionRight-of-waycommitmento preserve ndprotect the residential integrity of all thecommunitiesn that corridor. While havesupportedhe BoardPolicy for a routedeviation to bypass he communities f CheviotHills and West-of-Westwood,ecannotgnore the fact that thesesame onditionsexist along he easternportionof the right-of-way hat weare consideringoday. Wemust reat al_[I of theneighborhoodsnd communities long the corridor in a consistent manner.In our experience ith the BlueLine, wehaveseenhow ostly andvirtuallyimpossiblet is to go back etrofit grade eparationsn areaswherehey havebeeneft out. TheExpositionCorridor traverses ar more esidential communitiesthat the Blue Line, wecannotmakehe samemistake wice.I, THEREFORE,OVEhe this Board nstruct staff to include in its subsequentMitigation Analysis he need or grade eparations t the intersections describedabove nd urther analysis on the parallel routes discussed bove.

mta 01-06 expo deir item

Documents