Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's)

Background
Current Study Process
Transit Modes/Technologies/Alignments
Study Schedule
Community Participation
Connectivity
Grade Separations and Safety
Environmental Impacts to be Evaluated

Background

1. What are the boundaries of the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor and why is the area being studied?

The Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor study area extends approximately 10 miles from Wilshire Boulevard on the north to El Segundo Boulevard on the south. The study area is north-south oriented and includes portions of five local government jurisdictions: the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo, as well as portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County, California. The study area is generally defined as the area extending north to Wilshire Boulevard, east to Arlington Avenue, south to El Segundo Boulevard, and west to Sepulveda Boulevard/La Tijera Boulevard/La Brea Avenue.

The Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor currently has high densities of population and employment and substantial numbers of transit-dependent persons. Population and employment is forecast to grow by 18 and 20 percent, respectively, by 2030. The forecasted growth in travel in the corridor will increase congestion and delay on the existing roadway system. The corridor currently has poor connections to the Metro rail transportation system. The existing Metro Rapid Bus routes, which connect to the regional rail system, are constrained by existing traffic congestion and increased demand for transit service. Improved transit services are needed to connect corridor residents and employees with Metro’s regional transportation network, including existing and planned Metro rail lines and Metro Rapid corridors, thereby improving mobility and access to regional activity centers. Unless improvements are made, mobility will decline as population and employment continue to grow in the future.

Current Study Process

2. What is an Alternatives Analysis (AA)?

An AA identifies and analyzes the range of potential transit improvements within the study area in order to support a decision on a transit investment that meets stated goals and objectives for the corridor. For the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Project, the AA is combined with the formal environmental analysis, such that it is published in combination with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as an AA/EIS/EIR. An initial set of alternatives is developed at the on-set of the AA and is refined during a step that is called Scoping, at which time, the alternatives are presented to the public and agencies for review and comment. In addition to the alternatives proposed, other transit alternatives identified during scoping, public and agency comments and suggestions are evaluated for potential inclusion in the AA/EIS/EIR. Following scoping, a screening of all the alternatives will be conducted and alternatives are eliminated based on a review against purpose and need, project goals and objectives, and evaluation criteria developed for the project. A shorter list of alternatives will then be analyzed in more detail and documented in the AA/EIS/EIR.

3. What is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)?

An EIS is a document that is prepared, as determined by the National Environmental Policy Act, for projects involving federal action or funding where there may be significant impacts to the environment. The EIS identifies the potential social, economic, transportation, and environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the “build” alternatives selected for evaluation in comparison to the No-Build Alternative and an enhanced bus alternative, referred to as the Transportation Systems Management (TSM). The purpose of an EIS is to provide a full and open evaluation of environmental issues associated with project alternatives, as well as to inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse impacts and enhance the quality of the environment. It will also identify measures to mitigate any adverse effects identified.

The evaluation of impacts is summarized in a Draft EIS document, which is circulated for public and agency comment over a 45-day period. Public hearings are held to present the results documented in the Draft EIS and to formally record all comments. A Final EIS is then prepared to update and document comments received during circulation of the Draft and any changes made as a result of those comments. Before finalizing the Draft document, a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is identified and recommended. The final document must be approved by the federal government in order to move to the next step in the project development process. The Final EIS will identify and compare the impacts of the LPA to the No-Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS.

4. What is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?

An EIR is an informational document which provides public agencies and the general public with detailed information about the effects that a proposed project are likely to have on the environment. In addition, an EIR lists the ways in which these environmental effects might be minimized and whether there are any alternatives to avoid the effects of the proposed project.

Many projects in California that require discretionary approvals are required to prepare an EIR, which assesses the physical impacts of a project to the environment. In California, references are usually made to a project’s AA/EIS/EIR, rather than simply to its AA/EIS. This is because California has state level requirements, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for projects that may have significant effects on the environment. The state level requirements for an EIR are similar in content and purpose to the federal requirements for an EIS and, therefore, the two efforts are typically coordinated and combined into a single document.
5. Is the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor project funded?

The proposed project is included in the baseline of the current Metro Long-Range Transportation Plan and the current Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan. Both agencies are updating their plans and this project continues to be reflected in both plans’ funded elements.

Transit Modes/Technologies/Alignments

6. What transit modes and transit technologies are being considered?

A technology assessment was conducted to determine the type of transit service suitable for operation within the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor. Based on a review of a range of technologies, it was determined that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) are the most practical transit technologies that meet the purpose and need and are cost effective. These technologies are also generally compatible with other modes in existence, under construction, or being considered by Metro for other corridors. These two technologies were selected to carry forward into the AA/DEIS/DEIR for evaluation against rapid bus under the No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives. The TSM Alternative represents a lower cost approach to improving transit services. It represents the best that can be done to improve mobility without the more costly fixed facilities of the BRT or LRT alternatives.

7. What routes or alignments are under consideration? How will the preferred alignment and mode be selected? How will a final decision be made?

Alignments under consideration have alternative beginning and end points or termini. The alternative northern termini for the initial transit alignment alternatives include Wilshire Boulevard/Crenshaw Boulevard and the future Exposition Line at Crenshaw Boulevard. During Scoping, comments suggested the inclusion of another alternative for the northern terminus at Wilshire Boulevard / La Brea Avenue. The alternative southern termini include Aviation Boulevard/Century Boulevard, Metro Green Line Aviation Station, Metro Green Line Hawthorne Station, and Hawthorne Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard.

Different streets are considered for the transit alignments. Between Wilshire Boulevard and Exposition Boulevards, potential alignments may follow Crenshaw Boulevard or a combination of La Brea Avenue, San Vicente Boulevard, Venice Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard. Between Exposition Boulevard and 67th Street, alignment options focus on the Crenshaw Boulevard corridor. South of 67th Street, alignments were considered on various segments of Crenshaw Boulevard, Florence Avenue, Aviation Boulevard, La Brea Avenue, Hawthorne Boulevard, and Prairie Avenue. The Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way is also under consideration between Florence Avenue and the Metro Green Line Aviation/LAX Station.

The preferred transit alignment and mode will be selected based on the results of the evaluation of alternatives against purpose and need, the goals and objectives established for the project, and comments received from the public and agencies during circulation of the AA/DEIS/DEIR. Generally, the preferred alternative is the mode and alignment that produces the most benefits, is cost effective and affordable, while minimizing impacts to the community. The final decision on the project to be implemented will be made by the Metro Board of Directors following circulation of the Final EIS/EIR.

Schedule

8. What is the schedule for the Crenshaw Prairie Transit Corridor study/project?

The Notice of Intent for the AA/EIS and Notice of Preparation for the EIR were published in September and October 2007. Scoping meetings were held in October 2007. Analyses of public and agency scoping comments were completed in January 2008. Analysis to support screening of alternatives has begun, and four public meetings to review the project status and alternatives to move into the draft environmental document are scheduled for late February 2008. The environmental analysis and preparation of the AA/EIS/EIR will begin in Spring 2008 and extend through the beginning of 2009. The AA/EIS/EIR is scheduled for circulation to the public and agencies for review and comment in the Spring of 2009. Public hearings to present the results of the environmental analysis and to record comments are scheduled for early spring 2009. The adoption of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) by the Metro Board, which would include a preferred transit alignment and mode, is scheduled for late spring 2009. With adoption of an LPA and approval by the Federal Transit Administration to enter preliminary engineering, preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) would begin in the summer of 2009.

The Final EIS/EIR is scheduled for completion in late spring 2010, followed by the approval of a Notice of Determination from the Metro Board, a Record of Decision from FTA, and a request to enter Final Design in the summer of 2010. Given funding availability, construction could begin either subsequent to completion of Final Design or could be undertaken concurrently, if a design-build approach is adopted.

Community Participation

9. How do the results of the community’s input during the public scoping process get incorporated into the study, and how do they get transmitted back to the community?

All community input received during the public scoping process is recorded in the project comment database, reviewed by the project team and considered in the technical evaluation of alternatives and alignments. Comments are documented in the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report, the Executive Summary of which will be posted on the webpage metro.net/crenshaw. As new information regarding the progress of the study is published, the public will note that alternatives have been revised or eliminated, based on technical evaluation and input received. At appropriate stages of the project, public meetings will be convened to provide the community with education and information and to obtain additional input that could be instrumental in shaping the project. The project team is also available to attend and make presentations.

10. How can I stay involved in the study process and provide my input?

Throughout the study process, a number of communication tools will be utilized to provide project status to the public. The project webpage metro.net/crenshaw will be updated as new information becomes available. Public meetings will be announced on the webpage and advertised via e-mail, local newspapers and fliers. A newsletter with project news and updates will be published in the Spring of 2008.
The Metro team is also available to provide presentations and transit line tours to community organizations. If you are interested in presentations or tours, please contact the project team via e-mail crenshaw@Metro.net; project telephone information line: 213-922-2736, or via e-mail submitted through the website metro.net/crenshaw.

11. How will the general public be involved in the review process for the AA/EIS/EIR document?

Once the AA/DEIS/DEIR is completed and approved by the Federal Transit Administration, it will be circulated for a 45 day public review period and public hearings will be held to receive and record comments. Following the review of the AA/DEIS/DEIR and public hearings, comments will be addressed in the preparation of the FEIS/FEIR.

Connectivity

12. What is meant by “connectivity”, and why is it important in transportation planning for Crenshaw?

“Connectivity” refers to the ability of a given traveler to “connect” to various transportation facilities and thereby access a broader range of trip origins and destinations. For example, interchanges and on/off ramps are provided along freeways to allow travelers access to the local street network or to other freeways. Similarly, stations are provided along rail transit lines to allow travelers to “connect” from local bus routes or automobiles to other major rail transit lines.

“Connectivity” is key to an effective transportation system. In the particular context of the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor, a predominantly north-south corridor, connections to east-west transit routes such as the existing Metro Green Line and Exposition Light Rail Transit Line (currently under construction) would provide access to the many destinations along those routes.

13. Will the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Line provide a direct connection to the Expo Line and Metro Green Line or will a transfer be required? What about the Metro Purple Line?

The purpose of the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Study is to improve mobility in the corridor and access to regional activity centers. The Crenshaw-Prairie corridor potentially provides a connection with existing transit lines, such as the Metro Green Line, and transit lines under development, such as the Exposition Light Rail Transit Line. Some of the alternatives under consideration include direct connections to either or both these lines. Transfer connections to the Purple Line and the Wilshire corridor are also included as part of several of the alternatives.

Grade Separations and Safety

14. What does “grade separation” mean?

There are three general “grade” levels:

At-grade or ground level, i.e. the same level as adjacent roadways and land-uses
Above-grade or above ground, i.e. higher than the level of adjacent roadways and land-uses
Below-grade or below ground, i.e. lower than the level of adjacent roadways and land-uses

Transportation facilities are considered “grade separated” when they are at different grade levels from one another. For example, a rail line is “grade separated” from the roadway if the rail line is above or below the existing roadway. Bridges, tunnels, and trenches are used to achieve grade separation. Grade separation of two transportation facilities is typically undertaken to separate conflicting traffic or pedestrian movements so they do not impede or delay one another, thereby enhancing operations and improving safety. It is also undertaken in cases where there is not enough right-of-way or no right-of-way to accommodate the proposed facility.

15. What factors determine whether a rail project is built at street level (at-grade), below ground (below-grade), and/or aerial (above-grade)?

A variety of factors are considered when selecting between street level (at-grade), below ground, or aerial (above grade) configurations. These factors include a range of mobility, environmental, community, and cost considerations such as travel times, trip reliability, transit capacity, safety and security, right-of-way impacts, natural and cultural resources, traffic and circulation, visual and aesthetics impacts, noise and vibration impacts, community acceptance, construction impacts, as well as cost-effectiveness.

16. How will pedestrian safety, especially near schools, be addressed?

Appropriate pedestrian crossing control devices for at-grade crossings are critical for rail system safety. In addition to standard cross-walk markings, control devices for pedestrian crossings include flashing light signals, signs, markings along the outside of the rail line, curbside pedestrian barriers, pedestrian automated gates, swing gates, bedstead barriers, and crossing channelization. The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Revised Second Edition, available online at the following address http://www.ite.org/bookstore/gradecrossing/, describes these devices in greater detail. Metro policies related to grade separations along exclusive rights-of-way will also be applied.

Environmental Impacts To Be Evaluated

17. What types of environmental impacts are analyzed in an EIS/EIR, and what are some “types of questions” that will be asked and answered in the preparation of the environmental analysis?

The environmental analysis will evaluate the environmental, transportation, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of a proposed transit project and project alternatives. The impacts to be evaluated and examples of the types of questions that will be answered in the EIS/EIR include:

Purpose and Need (e.g., what are the underlying reasons that transportation improvements are needed in the corridor?)
Traffic and parking (e.g., what is the impact of on traffic congestion of any alignment that follows streets in the corridor? What methodology is used to assess that impact? Will there be any impact to existing parking spaces?)
Land use (e.g., is the project consistent with existing land uses and land use plans and policies? Are there any potentially significant land use changes resulting from implementation of the proposed Project?)
Property acquisition/displacement/relocation (e.g., how will the need, if any, for property acquisition be determined?)
Parklands/recreation areas and cultural resources (e.g. how will access and preservation issues be addressed?)
Visual and aesthetic impacts (e.g., what will the station’s catenary wires and trains look like? Will any of the mature trees in the parkway of sidewalks be removed? What happens with medians that have recently been landscaped?)
Noise and vibration impacts (e.g., what kind of noise is generated by the trains or buses?)
Natural Resources and Hazards (e.g., how will air quality, wetlands, water resources, geology/soils, and hazardous materials be evaluated?)
Energy Use (e.g., what are the energy consumption characteristics associated with each of the alternatives?)
Safety and Security (e.g., what are the safety and security impacts associated with each alternative?)
Construction Impacts (e.g., what will happen to our streets when construction starts? Will there be street closures, lane closures, and detours, etc?)