Urban and Regional Planning Senior Project - Improving Local Transportation in the SGV

Improving Local Transportation in the San Gabriel Valley

URP 462 Senior Project Final Report Winter 2018

Downtown Arcadia

Arcadia Civic Center Westfield Santa Anita West Arcadia Downtown Temple City Baldwin Halifax

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

Santa Anita Lower Azusa

PROPOSED EMERALD BRT SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CONNECTOR

Lambert Ramona Downtown El Monte El Monte Garvey Durfee Peck Rio Hondo College EMERALD LINE TO WHITTIER GOLD LINE EXTENSION

Prepared By: Austin Phung Urban & Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Project Advisor: Dr. Richard Willson, FAICP

2

Abstract

As the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) embarks on its unprecedented major transit

investment program that will transform the county’s transit system, some communities have flexed their political power to prioritize certain transit projects. As a result, funding has been allocated to projects desired politically rather than by merit. This project identifies gaps in transit service by exploring existing and proposed transit service as well as the travel patterns, and demographics of the San Gabriel Valley. Although Measure M does not outline any funding for additional capital transit projects in the San Gabriel Valley beyond the Gold Line extensions, 260 million dollars have been allocated to undefined BRT projects in the county. The purpose of this project is to conceptualize a BRT solution in a corridor conducive to transit to provide connections with other major transit lines and facilitate local transit trips to serve the 1.5 million residents in the SGV. This project culminates with recommendations on a BRT solution to enhance transit service in the SGV. The proposed alignment would connect major light rail and BRT lines including two sections of the Gold Line light rail line, and provide connections with the Silver Line BRT and other bus lines at the El Monte Bus Station.

3

4

Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Transit in American Cities ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17 The Connection between Transit and Equity. ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Bus Rapid Transit Systems and its Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Approaches to Bus Rapid Transit Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Approach .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Origin and Destination Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Transit Suitability Index Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 32 BRT Route Proposal .................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

5

List of Figures

Figure 1: Current and Proposed Transit Lines ..........................................................................................................................................8 Figure 2: Existing North-South Transit Service ......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Transit Suitability Index Equation ...........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 4: Top Employment Destinations in the Study Area ...................................................................................................................29 Figure 5: Top Housing Destinations in the Study Area .........................................................................................................................30 Figure 6: Direction of Commutes from El Monte ...................................................................................................................................31 Figure 7: Direction of Commutes from Pasadena ..................................................................................................................................31 Figure 8: Population Density ...................................................................................................................................................................33 Figure 9: Employment Density ................................................................................................................................................................35 Figure 10: Median Household Income ...................................................................................................................................................37 Figure 11: Automobile Ownership ..........................................................................................................................................................39 Figure 12: Transit Suitability Index .........................................................................................................................................................41 Figure 13: Transit Suitability Index - Corridor Analysis ..........................................................................................................................43 Figure 14: Proposed Rail and BRT System in SGV .................................................................................................................................44 Figure 15: BRT Proposal ..........................................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 16: Center-running transit lane on Huntington Drive ................................................................................................................47 Figure 17: Side-running transit lane on Lower Azusa Rd .......................................................................................................................47 Figure 18: Current and Future Transit Lines Map with Proposed BRT .................................................................................................50

6

List of Tables

Table 1: Frequency of North-South Transit Lines ...................................................................................................................................13 Table 2: Frequency of Core Transit Lines ................................................................................................................................................14 Table 3: Bus Rapid Transit Systems in the U.S. .....................................................................................................................................20 Table 4: Data Sources ..............................................................................................................................................................................26

7

8

Introduction

The future of public transportation in the San Gabriel Valley (SGV) took a huge step forward with the recent passage of

Measure M in 2016, a voter initiative to increase sales taxes for transportation projects within LA County. The measure joins three existing sales taxes (Prop A, C, & Measure R) and generates over 3.1 billion dollars annually in combined revenue. On its own, Measure M provides an additional 860 million dollars in 2017 dollars for major highway and transit capital projects, bus and rail operations, local transportation projects, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and maintenance. Over the next 40 years, Measure M will provide more than 9 billion dollars to the San Gabriel Valley (LA Metro, 2017).

LA Metro seeks to increase transit commute mode share in the county through $9 billion worth of capital improvement projects funded by countywide sales taxes, however, huge gaps still exist within the current and planned rail and bus rapid transit network in the San Gabriel Valley.

In the near term, Measure M calls for two light rail projects in the urban fringe areas of the Valley (Figure 1). The Foothill Light Rail Extension and the Eastside Extension both run predominately east-west from Downtown Los Angeles and are both expected to be completed within the next ten years. The Foothill Light Rail Extension will serve affluent, low-density neighborhoods located near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The line has six stations along a 12.3-mile alignment that runs through the cities of Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair. From Pomona to Claremont, it will operate along the existing Metrolink commuter rail line, and share three station locations. The Foothill Light Rail Extension is the first Measure M project under

9

Figure 1: Current and Proposed Transit Lines

Basemap: ESRI

10

construction and will be completed in 2025. Meanwhile, the Eastside Extension to South El Monte will operate along State Route 60, the site of a former landfill, several large golf courses, the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area and the Montebello Mall. The 6.9-mile project may break ground as soon as 2029 and be completed as soon as 2035.

Far into the future, Metro’s Long Range Transportation Plan outlines an additional unfunded Silver Line light rail on an eastwest alignment through dense neighborhoods in the center of the valley. Studies have also been completed for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects through the heart of the valley on Valley Boulevard and the Ramona-Badillo Corridor. Again, the proposed BRT lines will run in a similar east-west fashion, through major commercial corridors surrounded neighborhoods with higher population density. No implementation timeline is currently available for the Silver Line Light Rail and the BRT lines on Valley Boulevard and the Ramona-Badillo Corridor.

Although future transit expansion plans will improve public transit in the San Gabriel Valley, an oversight exists due to the lack of north-south connections to facilitate travel within the western region of the San Gabriel Valley. The study area for this project is bounded by the existing Gold Line to the north, the proposed Gold Line to the south, and core transit bus lines which include Metro Rapid BRT on Atlantic and Fair Oaks Avenue service to the west and a core Foothill Transit line on Azusa Avenue in the east. The study area stretches thirteen miles across the western SGV and contains the cities of Alhambra, San Gabriel, Monterey Park, Rosemead, Pasadena, San Marino, Temple City, Arcadia, El Monte, South El Monte, Montebello, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, Industry West Covina, La Puente, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

11

Within the study area, all current and proposed rail and BRT services will operate on an east-west alignment throughout the valley, with a focus on bringing passengers into Downtown Los Angeles (Figure 1). Downtown Los Angeles is the largest employment center in the county, and the transit system has been built as a hub and spoke system to serve the central business district. The hub and spoke model of the transit system overlook travel within the SGV region. Large gaps currently exist between frequent transit service and only one light rail line and three rapid bus lines serve the two million residents in the valley. Consequently, local commutes within the San Gabriel Valley are lengthy and are not competitive with automobile travel times. For example, the most flexible commute by public transit between the two most populous cities in the study area, Pasadena and El Monte would entail riding the Metro Silver Line BRT west into Downtown Los Angeles before transferring to the Metro Gold Line light rail back into the SGV instead of a direct local bus. Both options will take approximately forty-five minutes, however, the frequency of the Silver and Gold Lines provides greater flexibility and serves as the only option during evenings.

While there are existing bus routes that provide connections to rail and BRT, few provide the same level of service (Figure 2).

An analysis of the current headways shows that all north-south service in the study area is very infrequent. There are fourteen local bus lines that traverse the valley on north-south arterials. Weekday peak-hour service ranges between every 20 to 60 minutes while mid-day service ranges between 30 to 60 minutes (Table 1). The average headway for north-south service during peak hour is 38. 1 minutes and 49.6 during the day. Moreover, many north-south lines do not operate weekday evenings after 8 pm. Weekend service is near non-existent, with many lines not operating or running with headways of up to 60 minutes. In comparison, core transit

12

Figure 2: Existing North South Transit Service

Basemap: ESRI

13

lines provide frequent service all day and run as often as every 4 – 8 minutes at peak, and several core lines operate 24/7 (Table 2).

The average headway for core transit service during peak hour is 13.1 minutes and 17.7 minutes during the day. The disparity between headways is problematic, particularly when over half of Metro passengers transfer at least once during their trip (LA Metro, 2018).

Current north-south transit service mostly provides lifeline service with infrequent headways and does not sufficiently serve the western San Gabriel Valley. The headways are a relic from a time when rapid transit had not expanded into the SGV. As the Metro Rail and BRT system expanded, local bus service did not expand in frequency or span to meet the hours of the new light rail and BRT lines. This has exacerbated the first and last mile challenges to Metro stations. Moreover, rail ridership for many stations along current light rail and BRT lines in the San Gabriel Valley depend on expensive commuter parking lots due to the lack of frequent connecting transit services. To increase transit mode-share, frequent transit must be available to a greater number of residents in the valley. Measure M does not outline any funding for additional capital transit projects in the San Gabriel Valley beyond the Gold Line extensions, but 260 million dollars have been allocated to undefined BRT projects in the county. The project will examine the need, and feasibility of BRT to facilitate local trips within the San Gabriel Valley.

14

Table 1: Frequency of North-South Transit Lines (Minutes)

Weekday Saturday Provider Line

Peak Day Eve Day Eve Metro 176

45 45 No Service No Service No Service

266

25-35 40 60 40-45 40-45

267

30 30 No Service 60 No Service

268

30 50 60 50-60 No Service

487

25 45 60 60 60

489

20 No Service No Service No Service No Service

577

40-45 45 60 No Service No Service Foothill Transit 185

30 60 60 30-60 No Service

269

30 60 60 60 No Service

270

60 60 No Service 60 No Service

272

60 60 No Service 60 No Service Montebello Bus 20

40 40 40 20 30

30

45-50 50 50 60-65 60-65 Norwalk Transit 7

20-60 60 No Service 60 No Service Note: Peak hours are from 6am-9am and 4pm-7pm Source: Los Angeles Metro, Foothill Transit, Montebello Bus Lines, Norwalk Transit.

Sunday Day Eve No Service No Service 35-40 50-60 60 No Service 50-60 No Service 60 60 No Service No Service No Service No Service 30-60 No Service 60 No Service 60 No Service 60 No Service 30 30 60-65 60-65 No Service No Service

15

Table 2: Frequency of Core Transit Lines (Minutes)

Weekday Provider Line

Peak Day Metro Gold

7 12

Silver 24/7 4-8 15

70 24/7 10-15 15

76 24/7 12-15 16

260

10-20 15-20

762

15-30 30

770

10-15 15 Foothill Transit Silver Streak 24/7 7-15 15

187

15 20

188

15 20

280

15 20

486

12 15 Note: Peak Hours are from 6am-9am and 4pm-7pm Source: Los Angeles Metro, Foothill Transit,

16

Eve 20 20-60 15-60 30-60 30-60 35-70 30 30-60 20-30 20-30 30 30

Saturday Day 12 15 16 15-20 16 No Service 20 30 30 30 30 30

Eve 20 20-60 16-60 30-60 30-60 No Service No Service 30-60 30 30 30 30

Sunday Day Eve 12 20 15 20-60 12-15 20-60 15-20 30-60 15-20 30-60 No Service No Service No Service No Service 30 30-60 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Literature Review

To better understand the scope of the issue, this section reviews a variety of relevant studies and literature. The following

sections explain the importance of transit service and the type of investments that are highly desired by transit users and provide the greatest benefit. It is followed by the introduction and definition of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and its impact on ridership attraction. It concludes with several case studies on existing Bus Rapid Transit systems across the country.

Transit in American Cities Americans make over 10 billion trips by public transit every year and it accounts for five percent of the commute mode share in the United States (BTS, 2017). Across the country, 2,500 local government agencies oversee a variety of modes including commuter rail, subway, light rail, streetcar, transit and trolley buses, and ferryboats. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, buses and rail transit carry the majority of transit users and accounted for 47.3% and 46.6% of public transit trips respectively in 2014. The country currently invests approximately $16.5 billion annually on capital projects (BTS, 2017). The amount of funding that is being invested in transit shows the commitment of the government in providing transit service in American cities.

In the book, Sustainable Transportation Planning: Tools for Creating Healthy, Vibrant and Resilient Communities, Tumlin summarizes the need to invest in transit instead of letting everyone drive their own cars. Reasons for continued investment in transit include productivity, environment, economic, financial, equity, and health benefits. Cities see increased productivity when transit

17

provides a more efficient way to move people, and from the estimated $4 in economic development for every $1 invested in transit.

The environment also benefits since transit could reduce carbon emissions by 20 pounds per person per day. Transit also benefits individuals by enhancing financial stability, equity, and health by not owning an automobile.

The Connection between Transit and Equity.

Transit access in cities has measurable impacts on the wellbeing of its residents. In a recent study titled Mobility, Economic

Opportunity, and New York City Neighborhoods, researchers, Sarah Kaufman et al. discovered evidence that positively links transit access to employment levels, travel modes and incomes. Conversely, “reduced transit access is correlated with higher rates of unemployment…” which “…perpetuate issues of income inequality and traffic congestion, limiting both economic and physical mobility for many in the city’ (Kaufman). The study concludes with recommendations to the city, which include Bus Rapid Transit systems as a solution to quickly improve access and connections to the rail network.

In Jarrett Walker’s book, Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives, Walker analyzes the needs of transit users and aspects of transit service. The needs and demands of passengers can be summarized in seven points: transit must serve origin and destination, at the right time, within a certain amount of time, with a fair fare, in a safe environment, with trustworthy service and the freedom to change plans. By design, BRT can meet five or more of those points including can providing service at right times, quickly, safely, reliably and frequent enough to support trips in short

18

notice. Further analysis of the seven elements reveals that “frequency and span are fundamental features of transit systems that feel empowering, such as subways you may have ridden in dense cities of Europe or East Asia, systems on which the whole city seems content to rely [on]� (Walker). While both span and frequency could be delivered by regular bus service, other elements to increase speed and capacity are found in BRT systems.

Bus Rapid Transit Systems and its Impacts

In areas where capital costs of rail infrastructure cannot be afforded due to the expense, Bus Rapid Transit systems can serve

as the backbone of public transit in lieu of traditional rail systems. Beginning in the 1920s, streetcar systems were shut down and replaced by buses due to the rapid suburbanization and the trend towards automobile ownership (Weinstock). At that time, some traffic experts began advocating for exclusive bus lanes and the first bus lanes were implemented in Downtown Chicago streets in 1939. As traffic congestion grew, busways were installed across cities, sometimes on top of the former streetcar lines. Los Angeles, CA opened the first busway in the United States in 1973 from Downtown LA to El Monte Station. Busways were an early BRT prototype that consisted only of dedicated bus lanes that allowed for high-speed buses, and lack many of the new standard features of BRT. The term, Bus Rapid Transit, was not defined until 1974 when Curitiba, Brazil opened the first true BRT system in the world.

Due to varying levels of infrastructure implementation for BRT lines, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has published The BRT Standard, a comprehensive evaluation tool that strictly defines BRT lines. The BRT Standard identifies five

19

essential elements that must be present: dedicated right-of-way, busway alignment that reduces vehicle conflict, off-board fare collection, intersection treatments, and platform-level boarding. Other features offered with BRT service includes frequent service with at least fifteen-minute head throughout the day and special branding.

Bus Rapid Transit systems also attract more ridership than improvements in conventional bus service. An analysis of BRT in Seattle by Steward et al. established that BRT “is more effective in attracting riders in places where transit use is less common or in areas where the initial improvement in service frequency and span was more substantial.� In that scenario, implementation of BRT resulted in up to 61% increase in ridership. Gains in ridership were immediate after implementation and continues to grow annually.

Various reasons were cited, ranging from BRT being more capable of attracting choice riders, to inducing new trips by time savings.

This suggests that latent demand for transit service could be fulfilled by BRT systems. Studies have also been done on the relationship between transit modes and user rating. In a study conducted by Alasdair Cain and Jennifer Flynn, ridership attraction was measured for different transit modes. Results of the study found that Metro Orange Line BRT provided similar user satisfaction rates as the Metro Gold Line light rail system for a third of the cost.

Further research into patronage of Bus Rapid Transit conducted by David A. Hensher and Zheng Li found that frequency of BRT service, after socioeconomics, is the primary driver of bus rapid transit systems. The researchers examined forty-six BRT systems from fifteen countries and suggested that a 100% increase in frequency could increase ridership by 30% while holding other factors

20

constant. “Improved frequency has an important role in promoting patronage by reducing wait time, and dwelling time, and consequently reducing uncertainty and anxiety.�

Approaches to Bus Rapid Transit Implementation

Many cities around the world have implemented Bus Rapid Transit systems. In fact, BRT systems can be found in every

developed continent. They have particularly been popular in South America and Asia due to the low capital investment required and the ability to build quickly. Los Angeles County has a variety of BRT lines in operation since the opening of the El Monte Busway in 1973 and is seeking to build additional BRT lines to augment their Metro Rail system. Under the Los Angeles County Bus Rapid Transit and Street Design Improvement Study by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a different set of criteria for BRT lines is established. This local definition of BRT is categorized by its alignment, which includes mixed arterial running, fixedguideway, and freeway-based BRT lines.

Other high-ranking BRT systems found in the U.S. include Cleveland, Eugene, and Las Vegas. In the surveyed BRT systems, travel time improved between 27% to 42% and ridership increased 25% to 60% (Table 3). Overall, the surveyed BRT systems received high-rankings by riders due to faster travel times, increased reliability, and convenience.

21

Table 3: Bus Rapid Transit Systems in the United States

22

Los Angeles, CA

Los Angeles, CA

Cleveland, OH

Eugene, OR

Las Vegas, NV

Name

Metro Orange Line

Metro Rapid

HealthLine

Emerald Express

MAX

Type

Full BRT

BRT Lite

Full BRT

Full BRT

Full BRT

Opening Year

2005

2000

2008

2007

2004

System Length

14.2 mi

328 mi

7.1 mi

16 mi

4.5

Average Bus Speeds Ridership

18 mph

12.5 mph

27% reduction

42% reduction

25,000/Day

n/a

12,600/day

Project Cost

$349.6 million

$900 million

17 mph (30% reduction) 16,000/day (60% Increase) $200 million

$200 million

9,800/day (25% increase) 2$0 million

Cost/Mile

$25 million

$3 million

$7 million

$12.5 million

$2.5

Key Characteristics

• Dedicated Rightof-way • Passenger Information Displays • Off-Board Fare Collection • Unique Branding

• Peak-Hour Bus• Median-Aligned Only Lanes Dedicated BusOnly Lanes • At-Level Boarding • Unique Branding • At-Level Boarding • Off-Board Fare Collection • Unique Branding

• Median-Aligned Dedicated BusOnly Lanes • At-Level Boarding • Off-Board Fare Collection • Unique Branding

• Median-Aligned Dedicated BusOnly Lanes • At-Level Boarding • Off-Board Fare Collection • Unique Branding

Conclusion

Overall, review of relevant literature has provided context and background on public transit and its role in the functionality of American cities. Investment in public transit provides benefits that can be enjoyed by more than just transit passengers; cities are able to function more productively, efficiently, and sustainably. Transit has also been positively linked to social impacts and furthering equity in our society by providing access to jobs, education, and other necessities. An overview of BRT systems determined that the greatest desire for transit users is frequency. However, BRT is able to attract higher ridership than conventional frequent bus service due to faster travel times, increased reliability, and convenience.

23

24

Methods

Approach

The project employs an exploratory research method with a design-based inquiry to analyze gaps within the existing transit

service and determine the feasibility and effectiveness of a bus rapid transit line in the Western San Gabriel Valley. In this approach, transit headway data forms the backbone of the analysis and defines the study area, while geographic and population characteristics are used to study the propensity and suitability of transit ridership. Case studies provide an overview of various types of BRT systems and their respective amenities and elements. The particular focus of this portion of the project is to guide the holistic design of a BRT system from the alignment and station spacing to special treatments to prioritize buses.

Data Collection

The project relies heavily on Census data for demographic data and General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) for transit agency

data (Table 4). GTFS data is published by transit agencies and contains information on bus stops, bus routes, schedule data, frequency, stop times, and other related transit information. GTFS data was collected through each transit agency’s website. The primary transit service provider in the Western San Gabriel Valley is LA Metro which provides GTFS data at this site: https://developer.metro.net. The U.S. Census provides valuable demographic data in the study area. For consistency, all demographic data was retrieved from 2015 at the block group level. Various Census tables were used including: Total Population for population density, Means of Transportation to Work for transit mode share and Household income to identify areas with higher

25

rates of poverty. (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml) In addition, SCAG has a collection of socioeconomic data including employment which was used for employment density (http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx)

Table 4 Data Sources

Transit Data Transit Agencies GTFS Data US Census

Geographic Data

Population Characteristics

Population Density

Median Household Income Auto Ownership

Employment Density

SCAG

Analysis

The first segment of the project examines the travel patterns within the study area. An analysis of origins and destinations

was conducted using the U.S. Census’s Longitudinal Employment-Housing Dynamics database (LEHD). Directional data was recorded to determine travel patterns within the study area and the demand for local transit service.

The next phase of the project analyzed the suitability of BRT by surveying existing and proposed transit service and demographic and employment data. Spatial analysis of population and transit data was completed through GIS. The process would follow an approach used by LA Metro, the county transportation agency which developed a Transit Suitability Index (TSI) to analyze potential BRT corridors (Los Angeles County Bus Rapid Transit and Street Design Improvement Study, 2013). The TSI was compiled

26

using median household income, population density, employment density, and auto ownership (Figure 3). Characteristics of high value include high population and employment density, low median household income and auto ownership. Each variable is normalized and then compounded to create the TSI. The TSI consists of six levels and highlights corridors and neighborhoods that are well-suited for additional investment in transit services.

Figure 3: Transit Suitability Index Equation High

Population Density

+

High

High

Employment Density

Median Household Income

+

High

Auto Ownership

Transit Suitability Index

=

Low

Low

Low

Low

+

High

Low

Source: Los Angeles Metro

A two-prong approach is necessary to comprehensively develop a BRT alignment. Local travel direction data supports the direction chosen for the alignment but does not account for land use and demographic implications. Meanwhile, the TSI examines

Methodology

various demographic variables, and land use implications to determine neighborhoods that are suitable for transit service. The TSI High

High

High

High

High

cannot be used to determine a BRT corridor alone due to the lack of analysis of commute information and travel direction. Together,

Transit Median the TSI along with directional commute patterns assisted the development of the final phase of the project which involves designing Auto Employment Population Suitability Household Ownership Density Density Index Income

+

Low

+

+

Low

Low

=

Low

Low

27

the BRT alignment. The alignment was recommended based on the transit suitability index. Guiding principles of the corridor was based on a high score on the TSI, connections to other major transit lines, and the ability to facilitate local trips within the San Gabriel Valley.

28

Analysis The following sections explain the analysis of the project in several pieces in order of the project. The first section analyzes origin and destination data and directional commute patterns. Next, the four variables from the TSI was analyzed to compile the Transit Suitability Index for the San Gabriel Valley. It is then followed by recommendations on a BRT alignment.

Figure 4: Top Employment Destinations in Study Area

Origin and Destination Analysis

Origin and destination data were first

analyzed to gauge commute patterns to support any directional element of the BRT alignment. An analysis of employment destination data for residents in the study area found that employment centers were well distributed around the study area. The City of Los Angeles ranked first as an employment destination, with over 19.4% of study area’s population commuting from the San Gabriel Valley. Over 34.2% of residents who lived Map: U.S. Census, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic https://lehd.ces.census.govs

29

within the study area also worked within, demonstrating a significant amount of local commuter traffic and confirms the need for improved local transit within the region (Figure 4). Of the top ten employment destinations, seven out of the top ten cities were located within the study area. The top seven cities for employment in the study area include Pasadena, Industry, El Monte, Arcadia, Alhambra, Monterey Park, and West Covina.

Housing for those employed in the study area was also well distributed around the study area. Over 29% of employees lived within the study area (Figure 5). Top eight cities for

Figure 5: Top Housing Destinations in Study Area

housing for employees in the study area include Pasadena, El Monte, West Covina, Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Arcadia, Rosemead, and Monterey Park.

In both home and work location analysis, the cities of El Monte, Arcadia, Pasadena, Alhambra, Monterey Park, and West Covina were regionally significant. The Cities of Industry had higher concentrations of jobs than housing while Baldwin Park had higher concentrations of housing.

Map: U.S. Census, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic https://lehd.ces.census.govs

30

Figure 6: Direction of commutes from EL Monte

In addition, further analysis on the direction of local commuters (within 10 miles) was explored. El Monte and Pasadena were selected based on their high ranking as a housing destination. Data for the City of El Monte indicated that commuters traveled in all directions (Figure 6). Although the most frequently traveled direction by employees is west (20.6%), a greater majority (69.4%) traveled in a northerly or southerly direction which includes north, northwest, northeast,

Figure 7: Direction of commutes from Pasadena

south, southeast, and southwest. Westbound commutes are well served with the Metro Silver Line, which provides service into Los Angeles, and other Metro Rapid service. In contrast, north-south transit service is highly under-served in the city.

Local buses with infrequent headways serve workers commuting north or south. In the City of Pasadena, most commuters traveled southwest to Downtown Los Angeles (24.1%) or west Source: U.S. Census, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic https://lehd.ces.census.govs

31

towards employment centers in Glendale or Burbank (17.9%). The major employment destinations are already well served by the Metro Gold Line which provides service Downtown Los Angeles and a Metro Express Line 501 which provides service to Glendale and Burbank. In the near future, Metro plans to fully convert the 501 line into a BRT line with Measure M funding. Another third of commuters travel south and southeasterly directions. While the highest travel demand from Pasadena is well served by light rail or bus rapid transit, 29% of local commuters going south or southeast have limited transit options. Overall, the origin and destination, and trip direction analysis show high numbers of local commuters and the need for improved service within the San Gabriel Valley.

Transit Suitability Index Analysis

Next, an analysis of demographics at the census block group level was performed. The Transit Suitability Index identified

census block groups that are well-suited for additional transit investments. In combining various factors including population density, employment density, income levels and auto-ownership, the TSI highlights areas with the highest likelihood of demand for transit service. A spectrum of colors from dark green to yellow and red signify each variable’s conduciveness to transit. The neighborhoods with the highest demand for additional transit services are shown in yellow, orange and red while areas with lower demand are shown in varying shades of green. This section shows the elements of the index individually, and then as a composite.

The first component of the index is population density (Figure 8). An analysis of population density found that while many existing and proposed routes run through a mix of low and highly populated areas in the valley, many other neighborhoods in El

32

Figure 8: Population Density

! ! !

!

! Foothill Gold Line

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Valley BRT Silver Line

!

!

!! !

Eastside Gold Line

Transit Suitability Index Population Density

!

Metro Station

Population Density

Future BRT / LRT (Studied)

1 (Low)

3

5

Metro Gold Line

2

4

6 (High)

Metro Silver Line Core Bus Network/BRT

0

0.5

1

2

3

ÂŻ

4 Miles

33

Monte and Temple City are not well served. There is considerably high population density distributed throughout Temple City that is not served by the core transit lines. Meanwhile, the alignments of the Foothill Gold Line and Eastside Gold Line are both located in mostly low-density neighborhoods along the hills.

The second component of the index is employment density (Figure 9). Most corridors with significantly higher employment density are well served by the existing and proposed transit network, with the exception of a few blocks in Temple City and South El Monte.

34

Figure 9: Employment Density

! ! !

!

! Foothill Gold Line

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Valley BRT Silver Line

!

!

!! !

Eastside Gold Line

Transit Suitability Index Employment Density

!

Metro Station

Employment Density

Future BRT / LRT (Studied)

1 (Low)

3

5

Metro Gold Line

2

4

6 (High)

Metro Silver Line

Core Bus Network/BRT

0

0.5

1

2

3

ÂŻ

4 Miles

35

The third component of the index analyzes household median income and the concentration of households below the median (Figure 10). Households below the median income are concentrated in the center of the San Gabriel Valley and in the City of Irwindale, which has extremely low population density. The City of El Monte also has high concentrations of households with income below the median and only certain areas in El Monte are well served by transit.

36

Figure 10: Median Household Income

! ! !

!

!

Foothill Gold Line

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Valley BRT Silver Line

!

!

!! !

Eastside Gold Line

Transit Suitability Index Median Household Income

!

Metro Station

Median Household Income

Future BRT / LRT (Studied)

1 (High)

3

5

Metro Gold Line

2

4

6 (Low)

Metro Silver Line Core Bus Network/BRT

0

0.5

1

2

3

ÂŻ

4 Miles

37

Lastly, an exploration of households without automobiles found higher dispersal across the study area (Figure 11). The Cities of Pasadena, El Monte, and South El Monte had the greatest clusters of households without automobile ownership.

38

Figure 11: Auto Ownership

! ! !

!

!

Foothill Gold Line

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Valley BRT Silver Line

!

!

!! !

Eastside Gold Line

Transit Suitability Index Auto Ownership

!

Metro Station Future BRT / LRT (Studied)

1

3

5

Metro Gold Line

2

4

6

Metro Silver Line Core Bus Network/BRT

ÂŻ

Auto Ownership

0

0.5

1

2

3

4 Miles

39

The results of the four variables studied were subsequently combined to form the final piece of analysis. The completed Transit Suitability Index is comprised of the four variables, and display census block groups and the demand for transit service (Figure 12). Existing and planned rail and BRT service was mapped out throughout the process to show areas that are already wellserved or have projects in the pipeline.

40

Figure 12: Transit Suitability Index

! ! !

!

!

Foothill Gold Line

! !

!

!

!

!

!

Valley BRT Silver Line

!

!

!! !

Eastside Gold Line

Transit Suitability Index Census Block Group Analysis

!

Metro Station Future BRT / LRT (Studied)

1

3

5

Metro Gold Line

2

4

6

Metro Silver Line Core Bus Network/BRT

ÂŻ

TSI

0

0.5

1

2

3

4 Miles

41

Sequentially, an analysis of suitable corridors was performed. The TSI screen was overlaid on the existing street grid to guide the selection of a corridor (Figure 13). As evidenced by the TSI Corridor Analysis map, many neighborhoods in northern El Monte, South El Monte, and Temple City exhibit traits for high transit demand that are unmet by existing and planned services.

Development of route required scrutiny of TSI scores as well as roadway types that are suitable for buses. In this scenario, residential streets and highways were avoided while major thoroughfare with TSI scores above three (yellow-green) was preferred. Alignments with major destinations such as hospitals, schools, and commercial centers were also preferred.

42

Figure 13: Transit Suitability Index – Corridor Analysis

43

Based on the findings, it is recommended that the Bus Rapid Transit line should operate in a north-south corridor to fill in the gaps of the transit system. Prime corridors include Rosemead Boulevard, or Baldwin Avenue, Lower Azusa Road, and Santa Anita or

Metro Rail & Busway with Measure M Transit Projects

North Peck Road, and South Peck Road. Arcadia Gold Line Station was selected as the northern terminus due to its close proximity to the major commercial hub and hospital. A deviation to El Monte Station was made to provide convenient transit connections to the San Fernando busiest bus station in the state of California. Finally, Rio Hondo College was chosen as the other terminus station instead of a Gold

Figure 14: Proposed BRT and existing Rail and BRT lines

Line Station due to the initial interest from the community to extend Chatsworth

a M ad Ar re ca di Vi a lla M on ro vi a Du ar te /C ity Ir w of in Ho da Az le pe us a AP Do U/ w nt Ci Gl tr ow en us do n Sa Co ra n lle Di La m ge as Ve rn Po e m on a Cl ar em on M t on tc la ir

EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR

the Gold Line from its current proposed Peck Road terminus.

were unsuccessful due to the high construction cost of light rail.

ORANGE LINE BRT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONVERSION TO LIGHT RAIL

LA

Hyde Park

tr al C

ro L lin A k

Ramona Downtown El Monte El Monte

Little Tokyo/Arts Dist

Garvey

GOLD LINE EASTSIDE RAIL EXTENSION

Durfee Peck Rio Hondo College EMERALD LINE TO GOLD LINE

EASTSIDE

Willowbrook/

et ro Fe lin k Sp

Bl

y

Lambert

Florence

103rd St/ Watts Towers

n

or Fw

ho rn e/ Le sh aw nno x

/9 6t h L

AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR

Amtrak & Metrolink LAX FlyAway

Firestone

Sh A X ut tle G

Westchester/Veterans LAX

Slauson Manchester

Downtown Inglewood

Av ia tio n

PACIFIC OCEAN

io n/

Vernon

Slauson

SOUTH LA

Fairview Heights

Union Station

Be ac h

Leimert Park

Washington

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CONNECTOR

ri ng s

VERMONT BRT CORRIDOR

PROPOSED EMERALD BRT

Chinatown

San Pedro St

37th St/ USC

Martin Luther King Jr

on t/ s

TRANSIT EXTENSION FROM WESTWOOD TO LAX METRO CONNECTOR

LAX BRT CONNECTOR

44

Grand/LATTC

17 th

Do w

connections to six other major transit lines. Named after the local

Santa Anita Lower Azusa

Lincoln/Cypress

Los Angeles River

nt ow

northern and proposed southern portions of the Metro Gold line, with

Heritage Sq

Li t Ar tle ts Tok Di yo Pi M st / co ar ri / ct ia Al ch is o iP la za

n Sa St nt a /S M M 26 on C th ic a St /B Ex er po ga /B m ot un Ex dy po /S ep W ul es ve tw da oo Pa d/ Ra lm nc s ho Cu Pa lv rk er Ci ty La Ci en eg Ex a/ po Je /L ffe a rs Br Fa on ea rm da le Ex po /C re Ex ns po ha /W w e Ex st er po n /V er Ex m on Je p Pa o ffe t r rs k / on US /U C SC

Historic Broadway 7th St/Metro Ctr Pershing Pico Square LATTC/Ortho Institute DOWNTOWN

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

Ga rf ie M ld ar ke tp M l on ace te Sa bel lo nt a An ita

PURPLE LINE EXTENSION TRANSIT PROJECT SECTION 3

Halifax

Southwest Museum

Ca lS ta t M et e

within the San Gabriel Valley (Figure 14). The proposed line will link the

GOLD LINE RAIL EXTENSION FOOTHILL TO CLAREMONT

Baldwin

M ed ic

CENTRAL LA

Downtown Temple City

Highland Park

al k tr /S ak an & M ta

SEPULVEDA PASS UNDERGROUND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

South Pasadena

LA C+ US C

CRENSHAW LINE NORTHERN EXTENSION

and proposed transit lines to form a connected rail and BRT network

SANTA MONICA

West Arcadia

Los Angeles River

The proposed BRT line will weave through the spokes of existing

WESTSIDE

Westfield Santa Anita

al k

Del Mar

So to In di an a Ea Ma ra st LA vill a Ci vi c At Ct r la At nt la ic nt /W ic hi tti e Ci r Gr ta ee de nw l Ro oo se d m ea No d rw La al k m be rt

BRT Route Proposal

Arcadia Civic Center

Fillmore

Bl

Warner Ctr

Memorial Park

ORANGE LINE BRT CONNECTOR TO GOLD LINE RAIL

w oo d

Sherman Way

Ca no ga De So to Pi er W es ce tw Co Ta oo lle m d/ ge pa VA W H es Re os tw pi se ta oo da l d/ Ba UC Ce lb LA oa nt ur W y Ci oo ty dl /C ey W o ils ns Se te hi p ul re lla ve /R tio da od Va n eo W n ils Nu hi ys re W /L oo a dm C W ie an ils ne Va hi ga lle re y /F Co ai La lle rf ur ge W ax el ils Ca hi re ny /L on a No Br W ils rt ea h hi Ho re Un lly /W iv w es er oo W sa te H d ils rn ol lC ly No hi ity w r rm e/ /S oo Ho tu d/ an lly di Hi di o w gh e Ci oo Ho la ty d/ lly nd V Ve Ve Ve w in W r r r o e m m m ils od o o o hi /W nt nt nt W re /B /S /S es es /V un an ev te tla er er ta rn se ke m ly t M on /M on t ac ic a Ar Gr th ur a Bu nd Pa A nk v rk A Ci er rt vi Hi s/ c Gr C ll Paand tr/ rk

Ultimately, efforts to extend the Gold line to serve the college campus Roscoe

Si er r

La ke

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY

Nordhoff

Al le n

Amtrak & Metrolink

Metro Rail

Emerald Necklace watershed, the Emerald BRT line will link the Foothill Gold Line to the Silver Line, Eastside Gold Line, and Metro Rapid lines. The proposed Emerald BRT line will operate on a fourteen-mile corridor, starting at the existing Arcadia Gold Line Station, running west on Huntington Drive with stations at the Arcadia Civic Center, and Westfield Santa Anita Mall (Figure 15). The alignment then turns south on Baldwin Ave, stopping in West Arcadia, Downtown Temple City to serve local commercial districts and residential. The alignment then turns east on Lower Azusa Ave, before turning south on Peck Road, serving a mix of commercial and residential uses with six stations. It then deviates westward to Downtown El Monte and the El Monte Station to provide connections with the Silver Line and other local and express buses. Continuing south, the alignment will serve the City of South El Monte, connecting with the Eastside Gold Line Extension at Peck Road before terminating at Rio Hondo College in Whittier. In total, eighteen stations are proposed in the fourteen-mile corridor, resulting in a station spacing of approximately 0.78 miles.

45

Figure 15: BRT Proposal Allen

Lake

Memorial

Sierra Madre Villa

46

Pa n e rfe

isq

to

ns SR-60

Rio Hondo College

Azusa

Lark Ellen

ui

LA PUENTE Su

Peck

Cameron

ce d

Glendora

5

I-60

ic

er

nc

Durfee

Vincent

cif

M

Du

Pe

Rosemead

Irwindale

Pu en te

Pa

a

Atlantic/Whittier

I-10

Garvey

SOUTH EL MONTE

Santa Anita Montebello

WEST COVINA

Fr a

Marketplace

Garfield

EL MONTE

El Monte

Badillo

Azus

Atlantic

Garfield

Atlan tic

MONTEREY PARK

San Gabriel

Garvey

Ramona

wi

ROSEMEAD

Lambert

Downtown El Monte

na Ramo

rk

sa

Lower Azu Valley

BALDWIN PARK

Lower Azusa

ck

sion

Arrow Hwy

Santa Anita

Baldwin

Mis

ALHAMBRA

TEMPLE CITY Halifax

IRWINDALE

et

Main

Downtown Temple City

Irwindale

ld

SAN GABRIEL

Duarte

k Live Oa

Peck

Las Tunas

Monrovia Myrtle

ARCADIA Baldwin

Duarte

Rosemead

San Gabriel

Del Mar

South Pasadena

West Arcadia

Santa Anita

n

ingto Hunt

SAN MARINO

DUARTE

I-210

Arcadia Civic Center

I-605

California

Filmore

Azusa Downtown

Huntington

Westfield Santa Anita

Ba

PASADENA

Del Mar

AZUSA

MONROVIA

Arcadia

Colorado

Park

The implementation of BRT along the selected corridor will drastically change the communities in which it serves. Features

of the BRT system should be consistent with existing BRT routes, a key feature being dedicated transit lanes. Figures 16 and 17 envision what corridors look like now and after implementation of the dedicated lanes for BRT service. Based on average BRT speeds seen in case studies of seventeen miles per hour for full BRT systems, the estimated runtime from end to end is forty-nine minutes.

Figure 16: Center-running transit lane on Huntington Drive.

Although the BRT will not directly follow an existing route, similar

routes would take over sixty-nine minutes excluding time to transfer between buses. With

.

Figure 17: Side-running transit lane on Lower Azusa Road

the implementation of BRT, travel

times along the

corridor would decrease by more

than thirty

percent.

47

48

Conclusion

Getting around LA County will soon be easier, thanks to an unprecedented amount of local funding for transportation

improvements. An astounding 2% of LA County sales taxes, which generates over 3 billion dollars a year, is dedicated to improving roads, sidewalks, and public transit. Although the county has a considerate stream of funding for transit enhancements, sales tax revenue is gradually collected. Due to the enormous expenses of rail infrastructure and a decades-long waitlist for funding, some of the most needed rail lines are not funded until thirty to forty years after the initial passing of Measure M. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has acknowledged this issue and is actively seeking other innovative funding sources such as public-private partnerships. Other near-term solutions include a 260 million dollar competitive grant program for Bus Rapid Transit projects in various LA County regions. BRT provides transit service that is comparable to rail and attracts higher ridership compared to traditional bus service. With a lower cost per mile, BRT could be implemented quickly and provide near-term solutions to fill gaps in existing the existing transit network.

An analysis of the current transit network and travel demands was conducted. The greatest share of commuters predominately traveled east-west in the region, as did most of the region’s bus and rail network. Existing transit service serves this travel market well; six transit lines already provide frequent and fast service, with four additional transit lines in the works.

Furthermore, much of the current and proposed system was designed to facilitate east-west travel into Downtown Los Angeles.

Conversely, the majority of San Gabriel Valley commuters traveled within the San Gabriel Valley in a northerly or southerly direction.

49

Figure 18: Current and Future Transit Lines with Proposed BRT

Metro Rail & Busway with Measure M Transit Projects

Unfortunately, north-south travel within the region has been overlooked by the existing and proposed

San Fernando

transit system. The full build-out of transit lines will a M ad Ar re ca di Vi a lla M on ro vi a Du ar te /C ity Ir w of in Ho da Az le pe us a AP Do U/ w nt Ci Gl tr ow en us do n Sa Co ra n lle Di La m ge as Ve rn Po e m on a Cl ar em on M t on tc la ir

EAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Chatsworth

ORANGE LINE BRT IMPROVEMENTS AND CONVERSION TO LIGHT RAIL

Grand/LATTC 37th St/ USC

Martin Luther King Jr

SOUTH LA

Fairview Heights

Si er r tr

al C

Amtrak & Metrolink LAX FlyAway

Rosecrans

Compton

Harbor Gateway Transit Ctr

Artesia

Carson

GREEN LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE TRANSIT CENTER

Pacific Coast Hwy

El Monte

Little Tokyo/Arts Dist

BRT lines together and provide connections

Ga rf ie M ld ar ke tp M l on ace te Sa bel lo nt a An ita

Garvey

GOLD LINE EASTSIDE RAIL EXTENSION

Durfee Peck Rio Hondo College

between separate lines to form a true transit

EMERALD LINE TO GOLD LINE

EASTSIDE

Del Amo

GREEN LINE TO NORWALK METROLINK STATION WEST SANTA ANA TRANSIT LIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR

network in the San Gabriel Valley. Named after the local Emerald Necklace watershed, the Emerald BRT

Metro Rail Red Line

North Hollywood to Union Station

Purple Line

Wilshire/Western to Union Station

line will link the Foothill Gold Line to the Silver Line,

Blue Line

Downtown LA to Long Beach

Expo Line

GATEWAY CITIES

Downtown LA to Santa Monica

Green Line

Wardlow Willow St

SOUTH BAY

The proposed BRT line will weave the rail and

Downtown El Monte

et ro Fe lin k Sp

103rd St/ Watts Towers Willowbrook/ Rosa Parks

Mariposa

Redondo Beach

Lambert Ramona

ro L lin A k

Union Station

Florence

El Segundo Douglas

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CONNECTOR

Be ac h La Bl ke w oo d No Bl rw al k No rw a Am lk tr /S ak an & M ta

/9 6t h

Sh A X ut tle G

Ha w

/L

Av ia tio n

Aviation/Century Aviation/Century

AX

AIRPORT METRO CONNECTOR

Av ia tio n L

LAX

PROPOSED EMERALD BRT

Firestone

th o Cr rne /L en e sh aw nno Ve x r At mo he nt ns /

Westchester/Veterans

Vernon Slauson

Manchester

Downtown Inglewood

Lincoln/Cypress

ri ng s

Hyde Park

Slauson

Ha rb or Fw Av y al on

LAX BRT CONNECTOR

Washington

Santa Anita Lower Azusa

Chinatown

Los Angeles River

VERMONT BRT CORRIDOR

San Pedro St

the SGV.

Halifax

SAN GABRIEL VALLEY

Heritage Sq

Redondo Beach to Norwalk

Gold Line

Artesia

Eastside Gold Line, and Metro Rapid lines (Figure

East Los Angeles to Azusa

Metro Busway

Pacific Coast Hwy Anaheim St

Orange Line

Torrance

Chatsworth to North Hollywood

San Pedro

Pacific Pacific Av

5th St

Downtown Long Beach

1st St

Downtown Los Angeles with limited connectivity in

GOLD LINE RAIL EXTENSION FOOTHILL TO CLAREMONT

Baldwin

Southwest Museum

So to In di an M a Ea ar st av LA ill a Ci vi c At Ct la At r nt la ic nt /W ic hi tti er Ci Gr ta ee de nw l Ro o od se m ea No d rw La al k m be rt

LA

nt ow

TRANSIT EXTENSION FROM WESTWOOD TO LAX METRO CONNECTOR

Highland Park

Li t Ar tle ts Tok Di yo st / ri ct

Historic Broadway 7th St/Metro Ctr Pershing Pico Square LATTC/Ortho Institute DOWNTOWN

Downtown Temple City

Ca lS ta t M et e

PURPLE LINE EXTENSION TRANSIT PROJECT SECTION 3

Leimert Park

PACIFIC OCEAN

West Arcadia

South Pasadena

M ed ic

CENTRAL LA

17 th

Do w

SANTA MONICA

Westfield Santa Anita

LA C+ US C

CRENSHAW LINE NORTHERN EXTENSION

n Sa St nt a /S M M 26 on C th ic a St /B Ex er po ga /B m ot un Ex dy po /S ep W ul es ve tw da oo Pa d/ Ra lm nc s ho Cu Pa lv rk er Ci ty La Ci en eg Ex a/ po Je /L ffe a rs Br Fa on ea rm da l e Ex po /C re Ex ns po ha /W w es Ex te po rn /V er Ex m on Je p Pa o ffe t rk rs /U on SC /U SC

WESTSIDE

Del Mar

Los Angeles River

SEPULVEDA PASS UNDERGROUND TRANSIT CORRIDOR

result in six rail and BRT lines that form a spoke from

Arcadia Civic Center

Fillmore

Pi M co ar /A ia lis ch o iP la za

Warner Ctr

Memorial Park

ORANGE LINE BRT CONNECTOR TO GOLD LINE RAIL

Lo ng

Sherman Way

Ca no ga De So to Pi er W es ce tw Co Ta oo lle m d/ ge pa VA W Ho es Re sp tw s ed ita oo a l d/ Ba UC Ce lb LA oa nt ur W y Ci oo ty dl /C ey W o ils ns Se te hi pu re lla lv /R ed tio od Va a n eo W n ils Nu hi ys re W /L oo a dm Ci W an en ils Va eg hi lle a re y /F Co ai La lle rf ur ge W ax el ils Ca hi re ny /L on a No Br W ils rt ea h hi Ho re Un l /W l iv yw es er oo W sa te Ho d il rn lC lly No shi ity w rm re/ /S oo Ho tu d/ an lly di Hi di o w g e Ci oo hl Ho ty an d/ lly Vi d Ve Ve Ve w ne W rm rm rm oo ils d/ on on on hi W W t/ t/ t/ re es es Su Sa Be /V te tla nt ns ve er rn a ke et rl m M y on /M on t ac ic a Ar Gr th ur a Bu nd Pa nk Av rk Ci er Art H s v Gr ic C ill / a Pa nd tr/ rk

Roscoe

La ke

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY

Nordhoff

Al le n

Amtrak & Metrolink

18). Routing of the BRT line was developed through

Silver Line

San Pedro to El Monte Street Service in Downtown LA and San Pedro

Regional Rail

the Transit Suitability Index which analyzed

Amtrak

amtrak.com

Metrolink

metrolinktrains.com

LAX Shuttle (free)

For more information, go to metro.net/theplan.

50

lawa.org

MAY MAY 22001 61 7

Subject totoChange Subject Change

17-2139MM ©2017 LACMTA

Airport Shuttle LAX FlyAway

lawa.org/flyaway

Basemap: LA Metro

demographic factors to determine the need for transit at a corridor-level. The proposed Emerald BRT line will operate on a fourteenmile corridor, beginning at the existing Arcadia Gold Line Station. The alignment will serve many population destinations in Arcadia including the Arcadia Civic Center, Methodist Hospital, and Westfield Santa Anita. Next, the alignment descends southbound and runs through central Temple City and El Monte, serving a mix of commercial and residential uses. It then deviates westward to Downtown El Monte and the El Monte Station to provide connections with the Metro Silver Line, and other local, rapid and express buses. Continuing south, the alignment will serve the City of South El Monte, connecting with the Eastside Gold Line Extension at Peck Road before terminating at Rio Hondo College in Whittier. Eighteen stations are proposed in the corridor, resulting in a station spacing of approximately 0.78 miles. Future extensions of the line could bring the BRT line south to Uptown Whittier and the Eastside Gold Line in Whittier.

Analysis of travel patterns and demographic data supports the need for a north-south BRT connector. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority should continue to study transit improvements and Bus Rapid Transit to augment their major east-west transit lines. Adding a core north-south BRT service would create a connected Metro Rail and BRT network within the San Gabriel Valley and better serve areas that already have existing rail and BRT service.

51

52

References

Bin, Mo. "Mapping Potential Metro Rail Ridership in Los Angeles County." Cartographic Perspectives no. 72 (May 2012): 5-25.

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2017). Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2016. (Rep.) Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Cain, Alasdair, and Jennifer Flynn. “Examining the Ridership Attraction Potential of Bus Rapid Transit: A Quantitative Analysis of Image and Perception.� Journal of Public Transportation 16, No 4 (2013): 63-82.

Galicia, Luis David, and Ruey Long Cheu. "Geographic information system-system dynamics procedure for bus rapid transit ridership estimation." Journal Of Advanced Transportation 47, no. 3 (April 2013): 266-280. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.

Hensher, D., & Li, A. (2012). Ridership drivers of bus rapid transit systems. Transportation, 39(6), 1209-1221.

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. (2014). The BRT Standard (Rep.) Kaufman, S., Moss, M. L., Tyndall, J., & Hernandez, J. (2014). Mobility, Economic Opportunity and New York City Neighborhoods.

SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2598566 Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., and Gast, J. (2003). Bus Rapid Transit Synthesis of Case Studies. (Rep.) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2013). Los Angeles County Bus Rapid Transit and Street Design Improvement Study (Rep.)

53

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2009). Long Range Transportation Plan (Rep.) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2017). North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Technical Study (Rep.) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2018). Metro Transfers Design Guide (Rep.) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2017). Vermont BRT Technical Study (Rep.) National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2016). Transit Street Design Guide. New York: Island Press.

Stewart, Orion T., et al. 2017. The Causal Effect of Bus Rapid Transit on Changes in Transit Ridership. Journal of Public Transportation, 20 (1): 91-103.

Tumlin, J. (2012). Sustainable Transportation Planning: Tools for Creating Vibrant, Healthy, and Resilient Communities. Hoboken: J. Wiley.

Walker, J. (2014). Human Transit How Clearer Thinking Can Enrich our Communities and Lives. Washington: Island Press.

Wang, Kyungsoon, and Myungje Woo. "The relationship between transit rich neighborhoods and transit ridership: Evidence from the decentralization of poverty." Applied Geography. Volume 86. (September 2017): 147-206. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost.

Weinstock, A., Hook, W., Replogie, M., Cruz, R. (2011). Recapturing Global Leadership in Bus Rapid Transit: A Survey of Select US. Ciities (Rep.) Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

54

55

56