SR-417-010 (7)ATTACHMENT~E~
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
March 2000
Prepared for:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Prepared by:
KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC.
1453 Third Street, Suite 400
Santa Monica, California 90401
(310) 458-9916
In Association With:
BRIAN L. COCHRAN ASSOCIATES
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Ref: 1142
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the identification and evaluation of alternative measures addressing
the study objectives for the City of Santa Monica's Coastal Parking and Circulation Study. The
purpose of this report is to provide information to enable the community to participate in the
development of the recommended measures and to document all of the measures that were
evaluated. This report is intended as a resource tool for continued use by City staff and the
community at large as selected measures move forward through the approval and
implementation process.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the study, as delineated by the City of Santa Monica and expanded
upon during community outreach, were to:
1.Increase efficiency of beach area parking through possible revisions to beach and Pier
parking lot charges, including rates and methods of collection. The City wanted to explore
ways to better utilize the available capacity during the summer in the Southern Beach lots and
in all the lots during the non-summer season.
2.Improve circulation in the coastal area, particularly around the Santa Monica Pier. The City
wanted to explore ways to improve access around the Pier and PCH area through physical
improvements in the vicinity of the Pier.
3.Improve on-street residential parking in the coastal area.
4.Integrate the coastal circulation and parking improvements with other efforts currently
underway on Main Street and in Downtown.
5.Reduce coastal traffic congestion and neighborhood impacts by creating incentives
encouraging visitors to park in easy and accessible parking areas during peak periods.
6.Maintain sufficient revenues to enable adequate beach maintenance and capital
reinvestment by minimizing revenue losses to the beach fund, which is dedicated by law to
operate, maintain, and improve beach facilities.
STUDY AREA
The Santa Monica Coastal study area was defined as the area generally bounded by the
Pacific Ocean on the west, Pacific Coast Highway (north of the Santa Monica Pier) and Ocean
Avenue/Neilson Way (south of the Santa Monica Pier) on the east, and the Santa Monica City
boundaries on the north and south. The study area contains the Santa Monica Pier parking lot
and 15 Santa Monica State Beach parking lots, which are managed by the City of Santa
Monica.
STUDY PROCESS
The study consisted of five tasks:
~Task 1- Collect and Develop Background Information
~Task 2 - Conduct Community Outreach
~Task 3 - Develop Alternative Measures
~Task 4 - Circulate Recommendations
~Task 5 - Finalize Recommendations
Community outreach was a key component of the study. The outreach program focused on
two primary points in the study process: gathering initial input from the community regarding
parking and circulation concerns (Task 2); and obtaining input regarding potential
recommendations of the study (Task 4). To date, the following outreach has occurred:
~Community Workshops - An initial evening community workshop was held on December 10,
1998. Its purpose was to gather observations, ideas, and comments regarding existing
parking and circulation in the beach and Pier area.
A second round of evening workshops was held on April 14 and April 29, 1999. The purpose
of these workshops was to present and discuss the draft alternative measures evaluated in the
Task 3 technical report entitled Santa Monica Coastal Parking and Circulation Study, Report
on Identification and Evaluation ofAlternative Measures (April 1999). Comments and
suggestions received from the community at these workshops lead to the investigation of
further alternatives in the study.
An additional evening workshop was then held on September 13, 1999. The purpose of this
workshop was to present draft study recommendations under consideration by City staff and to
gather community feedback.
~Interest Group Meetings - A number of focused meetings were held with specific interest
groups including the Santa Monica Pier Restoration Corporation, the Santa Monica Pier
Tenants Association, the Main Street Merchants Association, and the Ocean Park Community
Organization.
~ Intercept Interviews - People were interviewed in the metered lot between Main Street and
Neilson Way to develop data on why beachgoers park in Main Street lots. The survey was
conducted on a warm weekend day in January, 1999. The principal reason beachgoers gave
for parking in the Main Street area is that it costs less than parking at the beach. Most of those
responding indicated they would park at the beach if the beach lots fees were comparable to
Main Street parking lot fees.
~Beach City Survey - Ten other cities along the southern and central California coast (from
San Clemente to Santa Cruz) and Los Angeles County were surveyed regarding operation of
their beach area parking, especially rate structures. The survey found a wide variety of
techniques (attended and metered parking) and rates (flat and tiered/hourly charges) up and
down the coast.
REPORT FORMAT
The purpose of this report is to document the evaluation of alternative measures identified to
address the main study objectives. Alternatives analyzed in this report were identified through
a variety of ineasures, including suggestions by members of the public either at community
workshops held in December 1998, April 1999, and September 1999, subsequent
correspondence, discussions with City staff, and/or alternatives developed by the consultant
team.
The report describes and analyzes a series of individual alternatives and related measures.
Various individual parking rate measures are also packaged into potential alternative
comprehensive rate scenarios for testing. Each alternative is evaluated against the study
objectives. Some alternatives meet some of the objectives but not others. Implementation
alternatives will ultimately be selected based upon the priority of the study objectives.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
The following summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the study.
Off-Street Parking Measures
The basic objectives of the study relative to coastal off-street parking are objectives 1, 4, 5,
and 6. Additional objectives identified through the community outreach program are:
~Short term parking rates to facilitate beachgoers and bike-path uses.
~Competitive rates with Main Street meters to attract beachgoers into beach lots.
~Low weekday rates on Pier in support of Pier business.
The beach and Pier lots were divided into three zones to support the above objectives. The
zones are as follows:
~Central Zone - Defined as 1150 PCH, 1440 PCH, 1550 PCH, Pier, 1640 Appian, 1670
Appian, and 1750 Appian lots. These lots are the most sought after and the rate structure
alternatives were designed to encourage beachgoers to consider parking in the less congested
areas. Also, if a pier ramp is implemented, it may be necessary for the Pier lot and the
1440/1550 lot rates to be the same. Finally, although operated by separate City departments,
the City considers it desirable to implement the same rate system at the Pier lot as at adjacent
beach lots so as to lessen visitor confusion and simplify operation of the lots.
~ Northern Zone - Defined as 445 PCH, 530 PCH, 810 PCH, 930 PCH, 950 PCH, 1030 PCH,
and 1060 PCH lots. These lots are generally far enough away from the Pier vicinity that
people are parking in these locations for a beach experience rather than a pier experience.
~Southern Zone - Defined as 2030 Barnard and 2600 Barnard lots. These lots often have
excess capacity and a goal of the study is to establish rates that will encourage people to
utilize these facilities.
iv
Off-street parking measures were evaluated in the following categories:
~ Rates
-Flat rate pyramid
-Tiered rates
-Separate short-term parking supply
-Reduced rates during morning or evening hours
-Validation program for Pier restaurant patrons
~ Fee Collection Methods
-Pay-on-entry
-Pay-at-exit
-Meters
-Honor box
-Pay-and-display
-Pay-by-space
~Other Measures
-Enlarge 1440 PCH lot to south
-1550 PCH parking structure
-Relocate Pier employee parking to remote location with shuttle
-Enlarge 1440 PCH lot to west
Parkinq Rate Scenarios and Revenue Implications
The above parking rate measures were combined into a series of rate scenarios through
varying rate structures by location, by seasons, and by combining long-term flat rates with
short-term rates. This was done in order to fully understand the impact of each scenario in
relation to the study objectives.
The following off-street parking rate scenarios were developed and evaluated with the intent of
addressing the above objectives:
~Flat Rate - Various versions of modified flat rates implementing a pyramid rate concept (i.e.,
higher rates in the vicinity of Pier and lower rates at outlying lots, as well as higher rates during
peak summer season and lower rates during shoulder and winter months to encourage greater
utilization).
~Tiered Rate - A tiered rate system, allowing reduced fees for short-term stay. Implemented
in all lots and all seasons.
v
~Separate Short-Term Parking Supply - Various versions of implementing short-term rates in
the 2030 and 2600 Barnard lots through set-aside of short-term spaces in a separate area of
the lots, in combination with a flat rate pyramid at all other locations.
~Reduced Rates During Morning and/or Evening Hours - Modified versions of flat rates where
rates are reduced for entry in early morning and late afternoon hours.
Access and Circulation Measures
Another objective of the study relative to access and circulation is to improve circulation in the
coastal area, and to reduce congestion and residential impacts particularly around the Santa
Monica Pier area. Although the objectives focus on circulation improvements in the vicinity of
the Pier, measures have also been identified at other locations. The following circulation
alternatives were evaluated for both vehicular and non-motorized (e.g., pedestrian,
bicycle/skate) circulation systems:
~ Pier ramp (4 options)
~Pier bridge widening and seismic retrofit project
~ New Pier pedestrian bridge (north)
~ New Pier pedestrian bridge (south)
~Improved pedestrian connections between Pier and 1550 PCH lot
~Santa Monica Beach Trail Project Phase II
~Service roadway along south side of Pier
~ Pier bridge one-way
~ Pier bridge closed to vehicular traffic
~ Improvements at 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH
~Improvements at 1150 PCH lot driveway
~Improvements at 445 PCH lot driveway
~Flyover ramp from Santa Monica Freeway/PCH to 1440/1550 PCH lot
~ Flyover ramp from PCH to 1150 PCH lot
~Coast visitor traveler information system
On-Street Parking Measures
Another objective of the study is to improve on-street residential parking in the coastal area. In
response to this objective, residential streets in the coastal area were evaluated to identify
locations where additional on-street parking supply could potentially be provided. The study
area for this analysis included all streets located in the area bounded by Ocean
vi
Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, the Promenade on the west, the Santa Monica Pier on the
north, and the City limits on the south. Aerial photographs and fieldwork were reviewed to
identify potential locations where sufficient pavement or right-of-way width is available to
develop additional parking, either parallel parking on a street where none presently exists or
diagonal parking on streets where more room is available.
Although the study objective focuses on on-street residential parking improvements, many of
the measures identified could potentially be utilized by the general public as well as residents.
The following are the alternatives analyzed in this report:
~Barnard Way parallel parking, Hollister Avenue to Fraser Avenue
~Barnard Way median parking, Ocean Park Boulevard to 2600 Barnard lot entrance
~Bay Street parallel parking, Promenade to Appian Way
~Bicknell Street angled parking, Ocean Avenue to Neilson Way
~Neilson Way nighttime parallel parking, Pico Boulevard to Marine Street
~Pico Boulevard angled parking, Appian Way to Ocean Avenue
~Seaside Terrace parallel parking, Promenade to Appian Way
~Modify street sweeping restrictions - various streets
~Eliminate Ocean Avenue overnight parking restrictions, Seaside Terrace to Pico Boulevard
~Ocean Avenue median parking, Pico Boulevard to Bicknell Avenue
~Ocean Park Boulevard yellow zone, Barnard Way to Neilson Way
Impacts on Other Areas
Coastal area parking issues impact adjacent areas and these issues are addressed to some
degree in this study. Since measures implemented in one area can have a direct impact on
other areas, it is necessary to integrate the recommendations of this study with the efforts
underway for Main Street and Downtown. The Main Street Merchants Association has
requested that the City consider parking solutions directly tied to Main Street, such as
reconfiguring Lot 9 to add 33% more spaces, arranging additional parking resources through
leases with private providers, providing a revised TIDE route with longer hours, and providing a
late night "on-call" shuttle. Another issue that is related to coastal parking but is also being
considered separately from this study is Pier/beach user parking in downtown Santa Monica.
Santa Monica Place is seeking to address this concern through attended parking. All these
efforts must be considered in total instead as separate individual efforts.
vii
COST IMPLICATIONS
A range of cost and revenue impacts were assessed in association with the coastal parking
and circulation alternatives analyzed:
~For example, the parking rate scenarios analyzed produced parking revenue impacts to the
beach and Pier funds ranging from a loss of $622,000 to a gain of $118,000 per year. In
addition, revenue collection equipment can cost as much as $65,000 per lot plus costs for lot
or access reconfiguration and possibly added staffing costs (depending on the types of options
chosen).
~The range of revenue impacts are important considerations with regard to the annual
revenue required to fund beach maintenance and beach improvements. The City of Santa
Monica maintains and operates Santa Monica Beach, and parking revenues accruing to the
Beach Fund are dedicated to this purpose.
~Capital improvements are estimated to cost as much as $220,000 per signal on the Pacific
Coast Highway, $360,000 for changeable message signs, and a range of $750,000 to $1.2
million for design and construction of a vehicular ramp from the Pier to the parking lot below.
~By comparison, with a few exceptions, most of the various measures identified to enhance
on-street parking are relatively low-cost as most consist primarily of signing and striping
changes.
viii
I. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the identification and evaluation of alternative measures addressing
the study objectives for the City of Santa Monica's Coastal Parking and Circulation Study. The
purpose of this report is to provide information to enable the community to participate in the
development of the recommended measures and to document all of the measures that were
evaluated. This report is intended as a resource tool for continued use by City staff and the
community at large as selected measures move forward through the approval and
implementation process.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The initial primary objectives of the study, as delineated by the City of Santa Monica at the
outset of the study and discussed at the initial community workshop held in December 1998,
were to:
1.Increase efficiency of beach area parking through possible revisions to beach and Pier
parking lot charges, including rates and methods of collection. The City wanted to explore
ways to better utilize the available capacity during the summer in the Southern Beach lots and
in all the lots during the non-summer season.
2.Improve circulation in the coastal area, particularly around the Santa Monica Pier. The City
wanted to explore ways to improve access around the Pier and PCH area through physical
improvements in the vicinity of the Pier.
3.Improve on-street residential parking in the coastal area.
Three additional objectives were added to this list either at the December 1998 workshop or
through subsequent community outreach:
I-1
4.Integrate the coastal circulation and parking improvements with other efforts currently
underway on Main Street and in Downtown.
5.Reduce coastal traffic congestion and neighborhood impacts by creating incentives
encouraging visitors to park in easy and accessible parking areas during peak periods.
6.Maintain sufficient revenues to enable adequate beach maintenance and capital
reinvestment by minimizing revenue losses to the beach fund, which is dedicated by law to
operate, maintain, and improve beach facilities.
A number of additional sub-objectives and issues were identified through the community
outreach process. Many of the measures developed and analyzed in this study are in
response to issues identified by community members and interest groups. Trade-offs will be
required in cases where all of the objectives are not consistent with one another.
STUDY AREA
The Santa Monica Coastal study area was defined as the area generally bounded by the
Pacific Ocean on the west, Pacific Coast Highway (north of the Santa Monica Pier) and Ocean
Avenue/Neilson Way (south of the Santa Monica Pier) on the east, and the Santa Monica City
boundaries on the north and south. As shown in Figure I-1, the study area contains the Santa
Monica Pier parking lot, which is managed by the City of Santa Monica Resource Management
Department, and 15 Santa Monica State Beach parking lots, which are managed by the City of
Santa Monica Community and Cultural Services Department.
STUDY PROCESS
The study consisted of five tasks:
~Task 1- Collect and Develop Background Information
~Task 2 - Conduct Community Outreach
~Task 3 - Develop Alternative Measures
~Task 4 - Circulate Recommendations
~Task 5 - Finalize Recommendations
I-2
I-3
Figure I-1 (FIGURE I-1 NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM)
I-4
Background Data
In Task 1, basic background data describing the existing coastal parking and circulation
system was compiled and summarized in a document entitled Santa Monica Coastal Parking
and Circulation Study, Technical Memorandum No. 1, Existing Parking and Circulation
Conditions in the Santa Monica Coastal StudyArea (March 1999). Key tables from the
technical memorandum describing the beach and Pier lots, on-street parking spaces available
in the coastal area, utilization and duration data for the coastal parking lots, and existing
parking revenues are included in Appendix A to this report for reference.
Community Outreach
Community outreach was a key component of the study. The outreach program focused on
two primary points in the study process: gathering initial input from the community regarding
parking and circulation concerns (Task 2); and obtaining input regarding potential
recommendations of the study (Task 4). To date, the following outreach has occurred:
~Community Workshops - An initial evening community workshop was held on December 10,
1998. Its purpose was to gather observations, ideas, and comments regarding existing
parking and circulation in the beach and Pier area.
A second round of evening workshops was held on April 14 and April 29, 1999. The purpose
of these workshops was to present and discuss the draft alternative measures evaluated in the
Task 3 technical report entitled Santa Monica Coastal Parking and Circulation Study, Report
on Identification and Evaluation ofAlternative Measures (April 1999). Comments and
suggestions received from the community at these workshops lead to the investigation of
further alternatives in the study.
An additional evening workshop was then held on September 13, 1999. The purpose of this
workshop was to present draft study recommendations under consideration by City staff and to
gather community feedback.
Summaries of the community comments received throughout the course of the study are
included in Appendix B to this report.
~Interest Group Meetings - A number of focused meetings were held with specific interest
groups including the Santa Monica Pier Restoration Corporation, the Santa Monica Pier
I-5
Tenants Association, the Main Street Merchants Association, and the Ocean Park Community Organization.
~ Intercept Interviews - People were interviewed in the metered lot between Main Street and
Neilson Way to develop data on why beachgoers park in Main Street lots. The survey was
conducted on a warm weekend day in January, 1999. The principal reason beachgoers gave
for parking in the Main Street area is that it costs less than parking at the beach. Most of those
responding indicated they would park at the beach if the beach lots fees were comparable to
Main Street parking lot fees.
~Beach City Survey - Ten other cities along the southern and central California coast (from
San Clemente to Santa Cruz) and Los Angeles County were surveyed regarding operation of
their beach area parking, especially rate structures. The survey found a wide variety of
techniques (attended and metered parking) and rates (flat and tiered/hourly charges) up and
down the coast.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to document the evaluation of alternative measures identified to
address the main study objectives. Alternatives analyzed in this report were identified through
a variety of ineasures, including suggestions by members of the public either at community
workshops held in December 1998, April 1999, and September 1999, subsequent
correspondence, discussions with City staff, and/or alternatives developed by the consultant
team.
The report describes and analyzes a series of individual alternatives and related measures.
Various individual parking rate measures are also packaged into potential alternative
comprehensive rate scenarios for testing. Each alternative is evaluated against the study
objectives. Some alternatives satisfy some of the objectives but not others. Implementation
alternatives will ultimately be selected based upon the priority of the study objectives.
I-6
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
Chapters II, III, IV, and V of this report present analyses of a series of alternative measures
related to the three primary study objectives listed above, respectively. Both Chapters II and III
are related to off-street parking objective, with Chapter II presenting a discussion of individual
measures and Chapter III summarizing the results of parking revenue analyses conducted for
a series of potential parking revenue scenarios, combining elements of the rate structure and
fee collection methods discussed in Chapter II. Chapters IV and V analyze potential measures
related to circulation and on-street parking improvements, respectively. Each chapter includes
a brief introduction, followed by a series of sheets containing, for each measure as
appropriate, a description of the measure, background information, benefits, issues/impacts
and implementation costs.
I-7
II. OFF-STREET PARKING MEASURES
As identified by the City at the outset of the study, a basic objective of the study relative to
coastal off-street parking is to increase the efficiency of beach area parking through possible
revisions to beach and Pier parking lot charges, including rates and methods of collection.
The following pages present analyses of a number of alternative measures which have been
identified in response to this objective. Although the objective speaks mainly to revisions to
parking lot charges and methods of collection, additional alternatives related to supply have
also been identified. Themes emerging from the community outreach process which produced
additional parking "sub-objectives" for this study were the parking needs of short-term bike-
path users and beachgoers, providing reduced-rate weekday parking opportunities at the Pier
in support of restaurants there, and attracting beachgoers away from Main Street parking lots.
Higher parking rates in the Pier area with lower rates moving away from the Pier was also
suggested.
In addition to those community issues, background data collection documented the excess
capacity in the parking lots in the Southern Zone of the beach area. It is the City~s desire to
more fully utilize these lots and make them more accessible to the public. The City would also
like to make the parking resources more attractive to the public during the non-summer
seasons.
Thus, off-street parking measures are arrayed in the following categories:
~ Rates
~ Fee collection methods
~Other measures
II-1
The following off-street parking measures are evaluated herein:
~ Rates
-A-1:FIat rate pyramid
-A-2:Tiered rates
-A-3:Separate short-term parking supply
-A-4:Reduced rates during morning or evening hours
-A-5:Validation program for Pier restaurant patrons
~ Fee Collection Methods
-A-6:Pay-on-entry
-A-7: Pay-at-exit
-A-8: Meters
-A-9:Honor box
-A-10:Pay-and-display
-A-11:Pay-by-space
~Other Measures
-A-12:Enlarge 1440 PCH lot to south
-A-13:1550 PCH parking structure
-A-14:Relocate Pier employee parking to remote location with shuttle
-A-15:Enlarge 1440 PCH lot to west
Potential parking rate scenarios consisting of combinations of various rate structure and fee
collection methods at different parking lots, seasons, days of week, and/or times are analyzed
further in Chapter III. A discussion of the methodology used to estimate impacts on beach and
Pier parking revenues associated with different rate scenarios is also contained in Chapter III.
An interview survey of beachgoers was conducted at Main Street parking lots on a warm
weekend day in January, 1999. The purpose of this survey was to develop data on why
beachgoers park in Main Street lots, with the intent of developing alternative rate structures
that would attract them to beach lots. The complete report on this survey may be found in
Santa Monica Coastal Parking and Circulation Study, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Summary
of Community Outreach Results (Existing Conditions and Concerns) (April 1999).
The principal reason beachgoers gave for parking in the Main Street area is that it costs less
than parking at the beach. Most of those responding indicated they would park at the beach if
the beach lots fees were comparable to Main Street parking lot fees. The Main Street
Merchant Association's desire for a rate structure that will attract beachgoers away from Main
I I-2
Street meters aligns with the needs of short-term bike-path users and beachgoers. It also fits
well with the excess capacity existing in the Southern lots and the City~s hope to fully utilize
those lots.
Ten other cities along the southern and central California coast (from San Clemente to Santa
Cruz) and Los Angeles County were surveyed regarding operation of their beach area parking,
especially rate structures. The survey found a wide variety of techniques (attended and
metered parking) and rates (flat and tiered/hourly charges) up and down the coast. Survey
results are summarized in Appendix C~ Beach City Parking Rates.
I I-3
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Rates
Measure:Flat Rate Pyramid
Measure #:A-1
Description: Modify parking rates to increase flat rates at Pier and Pier-adjacent lots and
reduce flat rates in outlying lots.
Background: The Pier and adjacent beach areas historically are the highest visited areas
along the Santa Monica coast. As a result, the Pier parking lot and the adjacent lots are the
most heavily utilized lots in the coastal system, with relatively high demand levels on summer
weekends and many summer weekdays. The Pier lot, in particular, often reaches capacity
during peak demand periods on both weekends and weekdays throughout the summer. This
has been particularly true since the opening of Pacific Park and the UCLA Discovery Center in
the spring of 1996.
The 2030 and 2600 Barnard lots, on the other hand, represent a tremendously underutilized
parking resource. They contain over 2,400 parking spaces combined and yet, even on peak
summer weekends, rarely reach capacity (for example, utilization data provided by the City for
Sunday, August 30, 1998, indicates that the two lots had a combined peak utilization of about
66% at 3 PM, with over 800 spaces remaining unoccupied).
The following table summarizes the existing rates at all the Pier and beach lot locations:
Summer [a] Shoulder [a] Winter [a]
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Pier lot $5 $7 $4 $6 $3 $6
1150/1440/1550 PCH $6 $7 $6 $7 $5 $6
All Other Beach Lots $6 $7 $6 $7 $5 $5
Notes:
a. Beach lots: Summer = April to October; Winter = November to March; no shoulder months.
Pier lot: Summer = June to September; Winter = November to April; shoulder = May, October.
Benefits:
~High utilization of Pier and Pier-adjacent lots during peak periods suggest that the market
may support raising the parking fee for these premium locations without a significant drop in
demand.
~Increased utilization of the outlying lots and southern lots, in particular, could increase
visitation to the coastal area as a whole.
I I-4
~Lower rates in the outlying lots will create incentives to reduce congestion in Pier area.
~Lower rates in southern lots could attract beachgoers from Main Street lots.
Issues/Impacts:
~Requires shuttle bus system (e.g., existing summer Tide Pier/Beach shuttle) to transport
visitors between the southern lots and the Pier to be effective.
~Ability to encourage short-term Pier visitors to park in southern lots may be limited since time
to wait for and ride shuttle to/from Pier would represent a higher proportion of their total stay.
~Although the Pier is a premium destination, may not realistically be able to raise flat rate at
Pier without providing some type of short-term rate relief for Pier restaurant patrons, at least on
non-summer weekdays.
~May require equalizing the fees charged in the Pier lot and the 1550/1440 lots, particularly if
the two are operated together with a connecting Pier ramp (see measure B-1).
~Raising Pier and Pier-adjacent fees during off-season months may not be appropriate given
lower demands during this period.
Revenue Implications: See Chapter III for various scenarios.
Implementation Costs: Unless combined with a pay-on-exit/validation program for short-term
rate relief (which would incur costs associated with conversion to pay-on-exit, see measure A-
7), minimal cost to implement as could utilize existing pay-on-entry fee collection system. Also
other costs would incur associated with the revenue loss of various scenarios.
I I-5
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Rates
Measure:Tiered Rates
Measure #:A-2
Description: Modify parking rates from a single flat rate to a tiered rate system, allowing
reduced fees for short-term stays (e.g., up to 90 minutes or two hours). See measures A-7, A-
10, and A-11 for related discussion of alternatives regarding collection methods for tiered fees.
Background: Currently, flat rates are charged in the Pier parking lot and each of the beach
parking lots. These rates range from $5 to $7 in the beach parking lots and from $3 to $7 in
the Pier parking lot depending upon time of year and day of week, and as such are geared to
longer-term beachgoers. Concerns have been expressed, both during the initial community
outreach program conducted as part of this study and directly to City staff, that charging
relatively high flat rates limits use of the coastal parking system by potential short-term visitors
(e.g., those wishing to skate on the bike path for a half hour or those wishing to eat at a
restaurant on the Pier).
This has numerous potential implications:
~ Potential short-term bike path users and beachgoers have expressed concerns that they are
unwilling to pay the current rates and therefore either park elsewhere or do not visit the beach
as frequently as they might otherwise.
~Restaurants on the Pier have expressed concerns that their patronage is suppressed,
particularly during off-peak periods, by high parking fees.
~Merchants in the Main Street area have expressed concerns that short-term bike path users
and beachgoers are parking in Main Street parking lots to avoid higher fees at the beach
parking lots, utilizing spaces which could otherwise potentially be occupied by patrons of Main
Street stores and restaurants. This concern is supported by data from the Main Street
Commercial District Parking Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, 1997), which found that
approximately 6% (Thursdays) and 11 %(Sundays) of respondents to intercept surveys
conducted in the Main Street area in 1996 indicated that their primary destination was
beach/recreational uses. A supplemental survey conducted as part of this study of bike path
users and beachgoers parking in Main Street Lot 9 concluded that the main reason bike path
users and beachgoers park in the Main Street area is that it costs less than parking at the
beach. Most of those responding indicated that they would park at the beach if the beach
parking lots were comparable in parking fees to the Main Street area.
I I-6
~Anecdotal evidence suggests that short-term bike path users and beachgoers not parking in
the coastal parking lots also affect other nearby areas, including residential streets and the
downtown area. User survey data collected as part of the Downtown Parking Management
Program study (Kaku Associates, 1998) in the six downtown public parking structures and the
Santa Monica Place garages in August 1997 indicates that 9% of respondents on weekdays
and 10% on Saturday listed beach/park or Pier as their primary trip purpose.
Benefits:
~Making short term parking available at a lesser rate would make it more affordable for those
customers who plan on staying a limited amount of time. The income lost by not receiving the
all day flat fee charge could be partially off-set by an increase in lot utilization.
~Providing reduced rates for short-term stays would alleviate demands currently placed on
surrounding areas (residential streets, Main Street, downtown) by short-term beach visitors.
~As compared to separate short-term supply (measure A-3), tiered parking could potentially be
instituted in any of the lots, depending upon the fee collection methodology employed. For
example, attendant pay-on-exit may be appropriate for larger lots (see measure A-7) and
automated collection methods such as pay-and-display or pay-by-space may be more cost-
effective at smaller lots (less than 200 spaces) (see measures A-10 and A-11).
Issues/Impacts:
~Instituting tiered parking rates in the larger lots would require switching from pay-on-entry to
pay-on exit. See measure A-7 for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages relative to
this fee collection method.
~Pay-and-display or pay-by-space systems should be considered to collect tiered parking
rates in the smaller lots (e.g., under 200 spaces) in lieu of staffing these lots with exit cashiers.
See measures A-10 and A-11 for a discussion of advantages and disadvantages relative to
these fee collection methods.
~Short-term durations based on the survey data collected by the City in August 1998. This
data indicates that the current average length of stay in the coastal parking system is 2.2 hours
on summer weekends and 2.0 hours on summer weekdays, with 38% and 43% of all entering
vehicles on summer weekends and weekdays, respectively, staying for less than 90 minutes.
Further analysis of the duration data suggests that about 15% (summer weekend) and 18%
(summer weekday) of the vehicles present in the lots at a given time are short-term (less than
90 minutes) parkers.
Revenue Implications: See Chapter III.
Implementation Costs: See measures A-7, A-10, and A-11 for costs associated with various
tiered fee collection methods.
I I-7
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Rates
Measure:Separate Short-Term Parking Supply
Measure #:A-3
Description: Set aside a certain number of spaces in the existing coastal parking lots for
short-term parkers (e.g., up to 90 minutes or two hours), and continue to charge flat fees at the
remaining spaces. Provide a separate entrance and exit such that users of the short-term
parking would not pass through the flat fee collection control point for the main portion of the
lot. Install meters, pay-and-display, or pay-by-space machines in the segregated short-term
portion of each lot in which short-term set asides are implemented (see measures A-8, A-10,
and A-11 for further discussion of ineters, pay-and-display, and pay-by-space fee collection
systems).
Although the precise number could vary and may be affected by physical or financial
constraints, analysis indicates that up to 15% of spaces could potentially be set aside in
segregated area(s) for short-term use. This figure was established based on an analysis of
existing length of stay and demand patterns, with the intention of ensuring that sufficient
spaces are available beyond the number of current short-term parkers in the lots at a given
time on typical days to enable increased use of the lots by latent demands (and yet not setting
the number so high that spaces are taken away from existing long-term parkers on peak days
when a lot reaches capacity). Another alternative is to set aside a fixed amount from a portion
of a southern lot (where there is available capacity) in an area that is easily convertible to
meters.
Background: See measure A-2 for a background discussion regarding implications of the
current flat fee system vis-a-vis potential short-term coastal visitors.
Benefits:
~Making short term parking available at a lesser rate would make it more affordable for those
customers who plan on staying a limited amount of time. In Alternative (a), the income lost by
not receiving the all day flat fee charge could be partially off-set by an increase in lot utilization.
~Providing reduced rates for short-term stays would alleviate demands currently placed on
surrounding areas (residential streets, Main Street, downtown) by short-term beach visitors.
Issues/Impacts:
~Only a small percentage of spaces at any given location should be physically set aside for
short-term use. Given the need to develop a separate access system for the short-term
spaces and physical constraints at the smaller coastal lots, the feasibility of this measure
would be limited to selected larger lots. A review of physical limitations and access conditions
at the lots suggests that the following lots are potential candidates:
I I-8
-810 PCH - Set aside spaces at northern or southern end of lot and develop a new driveway
onto PCH.
-1150 PCH - Set aside spaces south of the existing turnaround area accessed from the
southern end of the turnaround area. Alternatively, or in addition, dedicate existing spaces
within the turnaround area (about 25 spaces, or approximately 5% of existing spaces in the lot)
as short-term.
-1550 PCH - Set aside spaces in southeastern corner of lot (near beach maintenance facility)
and develop separate access from the existing 1550 PCH Appian Way driveway prior to the
existing fee collection point.
-1640 Appian - Set aside the entire lot (approximately 75 spaces) for short-term parking,
serving the Pier and beach promenade areas.
-1750 Appian - Develop a new driveway onto Appian Way at southern end of the lot and
either: (1) set aside short-term spaces at the southern end of the lot accessed via the new
driveway; or (2) set aside short-term spaces at the northern end of the lot accessed via the
existing driveway (with the remaining spaces accessed via the new driveway).
-2030 Barnard - Either: (1) convert the separate northern portion of the lot between Bicknell
Street and Bay Street to short-term use and develop a new driveway onto Bicknell Street prior
to the existing fee collection point; (2) set aside spaces in the southern portion of the lot and
develop a new driveway onto Barnard Way; or (3) a combination of both. The first option
would provide short-term spaces close to the southern end of the Promenade improvements,
and would accommodate about 135 spaces (approximately 9% of the existing 2030 lot total)
and would limit flexibility for future adjustments since it a physically separate part of the lot.
The second option would permit relatively easy future expansion or contraction of the area set
aside for short-term use based on successfulness of the measure and could permit placement
of the short-term spaces near Perry's, but would incur initial cost and aesthetic impact to
construct new driveway through landscape area between the 2030 lot and Barnard Way. The
third option would provide more short-term spaces and would better distribute the short-term
spaces along the beach, but would incur greater costs due to the need to develop new access
driveways and reconfigure the lot at two locations.
-2600 Barnard - Either: (1) convert the separate northern portion of the lot between the
entrance driveway and Perry's to short-term use and develop a new driveway onto the existing
2600 Barnard driveway prior to the existing fee collection point; (2) set aside spaces in the
middle of the lot and develop a new driveway onto Barnard Way; or (3) a combination of both.
The first option would provide short-term spaces close to Perry's, but would accommodate only
about 68 spaces (approximately 8% of the existing 2600 lot total) and would limit flexibility for
future adjustments since it a physically separate part of the lot. The second option would
permit relatively easy future expansion or contraction of the area set aside for short-term use
based on the successfulness of the measure, but would incur initial cost and aesthetic impact
to construct new driveway through landscape area between the 2600 lot and Barnard Way.
The third option would provide more short-term spaces and would better distribute the short-
term spaces along the beach, but would incur greater costs due to the need to develop new
access driveways and reconfigure the lot at two locations.
I I-9
~Total number of parking spaces in the affected lots would be reduced due to development of
separate access points and reconfiguration of lots to accommodate the set-aside short-term
area.
Revenue Implications: See Chapter III for various scenarios.
Implementation Costs: The physical changes needed would require an outlay of capital for
construction of new accessways, reconfiguration of the lots, and possible installation of fencing
separating the short-term and long-term portions of the lots. Also see measures A-8, A-10,
and A-11 for equipment costs associated with meters, pay-and-display, or pay-by-space fee
collection methods.
Capital costs to implement this measure in the 2030 or 2600 Barnard lots are estimated to cost
up to $150,000 per lot, depending upon the layout within each lot.
Related Measures: Essentially, providing a segregated area for short-term parkers within
some or all of the larger lots is an alternative to tiered rates collected on exit (measure A-2) to
implement short-term rates in these lots. Under either measure, short-term tiered rates could
be instituted in smaller lots with collection by meters, automated pay-and-display, or pay-by-
space methods.
II-10
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Rates
Measure:Reduced Rates During Morning or Evening Hours
Measure #:A-4
Description: Reduce flat rates charged on entry in morning or late afternoon/evening hours to
encourage greater use of beach facilities during these periods. As an example, a$3.00 flat
rate could be charged for vehicles entering before 10:00 AM and after 5:00 PM (with the
exception of the Central Zone lots, which have high levels of activity in evening hours).
Alternatively, reduce flat rates charged on entry during late night periods (e.g., after 10 PM) at
the Pier lot to encourage greater visitation to the Pier during these periods.
Background: Although the current pay-on-entry flat rates vary by time of year and weekday
versus weekend, on any given day in a given lot the same rate is charged during the entire
time the lot is open. During the initial community outreach conducted as part of this study,
comments were made that reduced rates during non-peak times of the day could encourage
greater short-term visitation during these periods. See measure A-2 for a background
discussion regarding implications of the current flat fee system vis-a-vis potential short-term
coastal visitors.
Benefits:
~Providing reduced rates during morning and evening periods would permit casual use of the
beach and/or bike path during low demand periods.
~Increased visitation at various Los Angeles County beach lots after implementation of a
similar system in the past was sufficient to offset the reduced fee level, increasing both usage
and revenue.
Issues/Impacts:
~ In order to maintain control over the revenues, it will be necessary to print different
sequences of parking tickets which have the parking rate superimposed in bold type on the
ticket.
~In many of the flat rate scenarios tested in Chapter III, the candidate rates are already
reduced significantly. This measure would make sense in a scenario with high flat rates.
~ 15% of vehicles using the coastal parking system on summer weekends were assumed to
enter before 10 AM (20% on summer weekdays). 10% of vehicles using the system (outside
of the Pier and 1440/1550 lots) on summer weekends were assumed to enter after 5 PM (20%
on summer weekdays). These estimates were based on analysis of the summer 1998
utilization survey and revenue data provided by the City. Similar percentages were assumed
to apply for non-summer (non-summer survey data is not available).
II-11
~Generally, it was assumed that lowered rates during morning and evening hours would lead
to a 50% increase over existing levels of vehicles entering during these periods as latent
demands are drawn into the system.
Revenue Implications: See Chapter III for various scenarios.
Implementation Costs: Minor. Auditing expenses will increase slightly.
II-12
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Rates
Measure:Validation Program for Pier Restaurant Patrons
Measure #:A-5
Description: Institute a validation program for patrons of restaurants located on the Pier. The
validation program would reduce the fee paid by restaurant patrons.
Background: There is no validation program at present in the Pier lot. During the initial
community outreach conducted as part of this study, restaurant owners commented that high
parking fees in the coastal parking system affect their patronage, particularly during non-peak
periods.
Benefits:
~Providing a validation program for restaurant patrons could encourage greater use of the
restaurants, particularly during non-peak periods.
Issues/Impacts:
~A critical issue regarding any validation program is identifying who would pay for the value of
the discount given. Typically, validation stickers are sold to merchants, thus passing all or a
portion of the discount on to the merchant. Alternatively, the City could, under certain
conditions, offer the validation stickers to merchants at no cost, in essence reducing the
parking fee unilaterally for those with a validation with associated reductions in parking
revenue borne by the City. However, a partial City subsidy of restaurant patrons by the City
could be in violation of Coastal Commission requirements regarding equal access to the
beach. Thus, a validation program in the Pier lot would likely require that the cost of the
subsidy be borne entirely by the merchants.
~At present, the Pier lot is operated as a pay-on-entry system. Validation programs, under
this system, are limited to merchants reimbursing their customers for all or a portion of their
parking fees. Customers and merchants prefer not to have the customer pay the money up
front.
~As a result, a validation program for Pier patrons may require institution of a pay-at-exit
system at the Pier lot (and at the adjacent 1440/1550 PCH lot if the two are linked together via
Pier ramp Option 1- see measures A-8 and B-1). The pay-on-exit system allows the customer
to park, receive a validation, and exit the lot either without paying a fee or paying a reduced
rate (depending on the level of the validation discount).
II-13
Revenue Implications: Revenue implications to the City Pier parking fund would depend
upon the level of the validation discount given and the portion of the discount which would be
paid by merchants versus the City. Data regarding existing and anticipated restaurant
patronage levels would be needed to further estimate revenue losses.
Related Measures: Would likely require implementation of pay-at-exit system (measure A-7)
and could reduce available spaces to accommodate a queue within the paid area.
II-14
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measure:Pay-on-Entry
Measure #:A-6
Description: Cashiers are stationed at the entrances and collect a flat fee from each
customer. A sequentially numbered parking ticket is issued at the time of payment; the stub is
placed on the vehicle dash and the contract portion is given to the patron. "Spike units" are
placed on all of the exits that allow for vehicles to exit the parking lot, but keep cars from
entering the facility.
Background: Pay-on-entry is presently used at the Pier parking lot and at the 530 PCH, 950
PCH, 1030 PCH, 1060 PCH, 1440/1550 PCH, 1640 Appian, 2030 Barnard, and 2600 Barnard
beach lots during all hours when these lots are in operation. It is also used at the 445 PCH,
810 PCH, 930 PCH, and 1150 PCH lots except during off-peak times when honor boxes are
used.
Benefits:
~Capital costs are minimal. The only capital costs are for entrance signage, spike units, and
booths (at larger lots).
~Labor costs are significantly less than pay-at-exit since the cashiers can leave as soon as the
customers are finished entering the lot.
Issues/Impacts:
~ Pay-on-entry does not allow patrons to pay by the length of time they are parking.
~Validation programs, under this system, are limited to merchants reimbursing their customers
for all or a portion of their parking fees. Customers and merchants prefer not to have the
customer pay the money up front.
II-15
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measure:Pay-at-Exit
Measure #:A-7
Description: A pay-at-exit system would require ticket dispensers and barrier gates at each
parking lot entrance and a booth, barrier gate, and fee computer at each parking lot exit. The
parker would pull a time-stamped parking ticket from the ticket dispenser, which would activate
the barrier gate and allow the vehicle to enter the parking lot. When the parker was ready to
exit the lot he/she would drive to the exit booth and present the ticket to the cashier who would
enter the ticket into the fee computer to determine the charge. After the customer paid, the
cashier would create a transaction on the fee computer, which would activate the barrier gate
at the exit.
Background: Pay-at-exit is not presently used at any of the Santa Monica coastal parking
lots.
Benefits:
~This system allows the customer to be charged on an incremental basis for the actual time
spent in the parking lot. For instance, the parking rate could be set at $2.00 per hour with a
$7.00 daily maximum. The short term customer would be rewarded with a lower parking rate
while the long term customer would be penalized by paying a higher rate. Such a system
encourages use by patrons who wish to park for only a small amount of time.
~The pay-at-exit system is compatible with validation programs. Pier tenants or beach
businesses could pay for all or a part of their customers' parking through a validation program.
The pay-on-exit system allows the customer to park, receive a validation, and exit the lot
without paying a fee or, in some instances, paying a reduced rate.
Issues/Impacts:
~Labor costs increase substantially. One or more cashiers per lot have to remain until virtually
all the patrons have exited. Since the customer is paying on the way out, every vehicle left on
the lot at closing represents lost income.
~Capital costs are significant. Equipment costs for each entrance lane can range from
approximately $9,200 to $20,900 (depending on whether the system is on- or off-line, machine
readable, etc.) and each exit lane can range from $23,200 to $34,100. Actual bid prices would
likely be noticeably lower than these estimated list prices.
II-16
~A small percent of patrons may not have enough money to pay for their parking when they
exit the facility, which requires the issuance, monitoring, and collection of "promise to pay"
forms. This occurrence can cause a queue of vehicles waiting to exit the lot.
~Installation of control equipment and booths at exit lanes, and the possible need to increase
the number of exit lanes depending upon exiting volumes, would require reconfiguration of the
parking lot and result in a reduction in the number of spaces.
Implementation Costs: Capital costs for installation of equipment at entrance and exit lanes
and booths at exit lanes, as well as associated costs to reconfigure the lot to accommodate
these lanes. Added operational costs associated with increased staffing levels.
II-17
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measure:Meters
Measure #:A-8
Description: Meters are used in some beach cities (see Appendix C) to provide automated
collection and/or short-term parking opportunities. Standard mechanical meters require no
electric or battery power to operate, and cost about $300 each, installed. They provide no
audit trail, and are prone to being tampered with by collection personnel. In addition, their
wind-up clocks are inaccurate, and they jam with some frequency, requiring heavy
maintenance.
The newer generation of parking meters are electronic, and have several advantages over the
mechanical models. First, they are auditable to the extent that it is possible to tell how much
money has been deposited since the last collection. Their quartz clocks keep accurate time,
and they have few moving parts so they are less susceptible to jamming. They are not much
more expensive than mechanical meters, costing about $350 installed. Given the numerous
advantages at a similar cost (they may even be cheaper, given the maintenance differential),
they are preferable to standard meters.
Background: Meters are not presently used in any of the Santa Monica coastal parking lots.
Benefits:
~ Parking meters are familiar. Everyone knows how they work, and therefore they require little
explanatory signage.
~Electronic meters are very reliable, since they have few moving parts.
~Meters are decentralized; if one breaks down, it only affects that meter and that space.
~Advantages of ineters relative to multi-space (pay-and-display or pay-by--space) systems:
-Because they have movable parts, pay-by-space and pay-and-display units have a potential
for breakdown. Experience at facilities using these systems, however, has not indicated
problems with reliability.
-A broken multi-space unit affects multiple spaces. This is only a minor problem because a
patron can use another machine (in the case of pay-by-space, the machines would have to be
linked); it simply means patrons may have to walk a little farther.
-Multi-space systems are more expensive than meters.
II-18
-Because they are less familiar to most people, these systems require more signage than
meters.
Issues/Impacts:
~Neither mechanical nor electronic meters have change-making capability or credit card
capacity. This is a major disadvantage.
~Enforcement efforts, which would generate parking ticket income, may have a negative effect
on customer service/public relations.
~Meters are an eyesore. Aesthetically, multi-space systems are a significant improvement.
~Though electronic meters have some audit capacity, it is not very advanced. They can be
tampered with by collection personnel more easily than other collection systems.
~Disadvantages of ineters relative to multi-space (pay-and-display or pay-by--space) systems:
-Multi-space systems can give change and accept credit cards. They also issue receipts,
which aids in situations where a ticket is contested.
-Multi-space systems have significantly better audit functions, making tampering by collection
personnel difficult. This can considerably augment revenue.
-The new on-line systems will also notify a central office automatically when they are low on
change or malfunctioning.
-Multi-space systems are significantly less intrusive visually.
-Multi-space systems are easy to re-program for different rate structures.
-In the case of pay-by-space, they are significantly easier to enforce. Rather than look at each
meter, enforcement personnel can obtain one list from any pay station that lists all unpaid
spaces.
~Requires enforcement personnel and related costs.
Implementation Costs: Approximately $300 per meter for standard mechanical meters;
approximately $350 per meter for electronic meters.
II-19
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measure:Honor Box
Measure #:A-9
Description: Honor boxes are rectangular metal boxes containing slots to individual
compartments within the box. Each compartment is numbered. Each parking space on the lot
is numbered. After parking, the customer places a flat fee in bills or coin in the numbered slot
that corresponds to the numbered parking space. The fee can be set in time increments or it
can be for all day.
Honor lots are usually monitored by parking personnel who place payment envelopes on
vehicles who have not paid. The language on the envelope directs the patron to place his/her
payment in the envelope and place it in the "envelope slot" in the honor box. Frequently, the
customer is also given the option of mailing the envelope, with the payment, to the main
parking office. A list of violators who have previously received envelopes is kept by the
parking attendant. When he/she comes across a vehicle who has not paid and has previously
been given an envelope (which was ignored), the attendant arranges to have the vehicle
towed from the lot.
Background: Currently, honor boxes are used at a number of the smaller beach lots along
PCH (445 PCH, 810 PCH, 930 PCH, and 1150 PCH) for fee collection during off-season
and/or off-peaks when an attendant is not present.
Benefits:
~Capital costs are minimal.
~The cost of monitoring the lots and collecting the money is substantially less than staffing
them with cashiers during slow times.
Issues/Impacts:
~The patrons receive nothing to prove that they have paid for their parking. This can lead to
public relations problems since it is easy for the customer to pay the wrong slot or the
attendant to make a mistake. (For these reasons, most cities find it unwise to issue parking
citations for honor box violations.)
~Revenue control, from the attendant or supervisor collecting the box until the money is
reported to the city, is almost non-existent.
~Under ideal circumstances, with proper monitoring, loss from non-payment will usually be
approximately 15% of revenues.
~Lack of an attendant present in the lot can raise concerns regarding security.
II-20
~Enforcement efforts, which would generate parking ticket income, may have a negative effect
on customer service/public relations.
Implementation Costs: Minimal capital costs to purchase and install honor boxes.
II-21
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measu re: Pay-And-Display
Measure #:A-10
Description: Pay-and-display machines are a form of multi-space parking meter. A pay-and-
display machine (or several machines, depending on facility size) is located at a convenient
place on the parking lot. After parking their car, a patron goes to the machine and pays for the
amount of time they want to stay, much as one would do at a parking meter. Unlike parking
meters, though, these machines can accept bills and, depending on the machine, credit cards.
Once the patron has paid, the machine generates a receipt with an expiration time. The
patron returns to his or her car and places the receipt on their dashboard. Enforcement
personnel patrolling the lot look for expired receipts on dashboards.
Background: Pay-and-display machines are currently used at the 1670 and 1750 Appian
Way lots. However, they are presently being used to collect flat daily fees, not incremental
fees for a chosen length of stay.
Benefits:
~Pay-and-display is a cost effective system. Machines cost somewhere in the range of
$14,000 to $17,000 (installed), and two machines can service a lot of approximately 160
spaces, depending on the layout of the lot. (A second machine is always a good idea, even in
a small lot, for backup purposes.) Pay-and-display lots have no staffing costs other than
collection and maintenance.
~Labor costs could be substantially reduced.
~The machines are flexible, allowing patrons to pay incrementally for only the amount of time
they need with a variety of cash/credit options. Parking rates based on time increments would
allow more flexibility in pricing.
~Hours of operation could be extended without substantially increasing costs.
~ Enforcement is much more straightforward than under the honor box system, since patrons
are issued receipts. The machine itself keeps a record of transactions, too, for auditing
purposes.
~Additional income would be generated from parking violations.
~Problems created by cars queuing up at entrances or exits at peak times are eliminated.
II-22
Issues/Impacts:
~Like other pay-on-entry systems, pay-and-display does not allow for validations. Patrons
would have to be reimbursed by merchants.
~As with any unattended system, enforcement must be carried out regularly or else revenue
collection suffers. If enforcement is sporadic at any time (off-season, etc.), word will get
around that it is not really necessary to pay at the facilities.
~Enforcement efforts, which would generate parking ticket income, may have a negative effect
on customer service/public relations.
~Lack of an attendant present in the lot may raise concerns regarding security.
Pay-and-Display Versus Pay-by-Space:
~ Pay-by-space is more efficient in a facility where pedestrians will all be exiting in the same
direction, as one or two machines at that exit will service everybody. This can also speed up
the time it takes to ~feed ~ the meter, since people don ~t have to walk back into the facility as
they would with pay-and-display.
~In a facility or parking system where a significant proportion of the patrons are likely to be
repeat patrons, pay-by-space is faster, since it speeds up transaction time (patrons do not
have to return to their cars with tickets for the dashboard) and enforcement time (personnel do
not have to inspect every vehicle). It can also handle more cars per machine, since machines
do not have to be placed particularly close to the cars.
~ However, in situations where many of the patrons are likely to be unfamiliar with the system,
pay-and-display is more user friendly, even though it requires a return trip to the car. Leaving
a receipt on the dashboard is a more familiar concept to most people, and does not require
people to remember their space number as pay-by-space does. Pay-by-space requires more
signage, and when people do not read the signage and have to return to their cars and start
the process over, it adds to transaction time (and may frustrate patrons).
~Pay-by-space is more expensive to install. The machines themselves are only slightly more
expensive, but the major differential is in the cost of preparing lines of communication. It is a
good idea to link the machines together in the event that one goes down (and so that patrons
do not have to return to a particular machine when another is closer), and this adds to the cost
of installation. Since pay-and-display machines do not need to be linked (any machine can be
used for any transaction), they are significantly cheaper to install.
~One other disadvantage of pay-by-space is that mistakes are more likely. Patrons can
remember their space number incorrectly (especially if they return to the machine after a
period of time to "feed" it) or punch in the wrong number without noticing. This means they
might add to another patron's time, but wind up getting a ticket on their own car.
Implementation Costs: Approximately $14,000 to $17,000 per machine for purchase and
installation. No staffing costs other than collection and maintenance.
II-23
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Fee Collection
Measure:Pay-By-Space
Measure #:A-11
Description: Pay-by-space is very similar to pay-and-display, except that transaction
information is stored in the machine, rather than on the dashboard. Each space in the lot is
marked with a number, and patrons pay at the machine according to their space number.
Once they have paid, the patrons do not have to return to their car with a receipt (though they
are issued one). Instead, the machine keeps track of which spaces are paid and which are
not; enforcement personnel have access to the machine's list of paid and unpaid spaces to
see which cars on the lot should be ticketed.
Background: Pay-by-space machines are not presently used in any of the Santa Monica
coastal parking lots.
Benefits:
~Pay-by-space has the same advantages as the pay-and-display unit (see measure A-10),
and prices are about the same.
~One advantage over pay-and-display is that patrons do not have to return to their car, unless
they forget to look at their space number in the beginning. People who read the instructional
signage, or are familiar with the lots, will experience a quicker transaction at a pay-by-space
facility.
~ Pay-by-space is easier to enforce since the officer does not have to inspect each individual
vehicle for a ticket. He/she simply goes to the machine to determine which spaces that have
vehicles parked in them are in violation.
Issues/Impacts:
~This system has the same disadvantages as the pay-and-display system (see measure A-
10).
~In addition to the pay-and-display disadvantages listed previously, the pay-by-space system
requires the parker to remember his/her space number when paying the machine.
Pay-and-Display Versus Pay-by-Space: See discussion in measure A-10.
Implementation Costs: Approximately $14,000 to $17,000 per machine for purchase and
installation. No staffing costs other than collection and maintenance.
II-24
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Increase Supply
Measure:Enlarge 1440 PCH Lot to South
Measure #:A-12
Description: Increase the capacity of the 1440 PCH lot by paving the existing vacant area to
the south (between the existing lot and the beach maintenance facility). It is estimated that
over 100 additional spaces could be provided.
Background: The Pier and adjacent beach areas historically are the highest visited areas
along the Santa Monica coast. As a result, the Pier parking lot and the adjacent 1550 PCH
beach parking lot are two of the most heavily utilized lots in the coastal system, with relatively
high demand levels on summer weekends and many summer weekdays. The Pier lot, in
particular, often reaches capacity during peak demand periods on both weekends and
weekdays throughout the summer. This has been particularly true since the opening of Pacific
Park and the UCLA Discovery Center in the spring of 1996.
The area currently bounded by the 1440 PCH lot on the north, the PCH/Appian Way ramp on
the east, the beach maintenance facility on the south, and the Promenade on the west, is
presently a vacant dirt lot. A few cars occasionally park in this area on an informal basis as
overflow to the 1440 and 1550 PCH lots.
Benefits:
~Would provide additional parking serving the premium beach and Central Zone.
~If any of the Pier ramp options is pursued (measure B-1), this measure would provide more
than enough new spaces to replace the spaces lost in the Pier or 1550 PCH lots to
accommodate the ramp.
Issues/Impacts:
~Added parking capacity in the 1440/1550 PCH lots would generate additional inbound and
outbound traffic on peak days when the existing lots approach capacity. This would increase
volumes somewhat on City streets serving as access to the 1550 PCH lot (such as Appian
Way) and at the 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH (see measure B-10 regarding potential actions to
improve conditions at the 1440 PCH exit onto PCH).
~An option was investigated under which the beach maintenance facility would be relocated
elsewhere and the 1440 PCH lot would be expanded into the area currently occupied by the
maintenance facility. It is estimated that over 80 new spaces could be provided in this area
(beyond those which could be gained in the dirt lot). However, no suitable location has been
identified to which the maintenance facility could be relocated and, even if a location could be
found, relocation costs would likely be very high.
II-25
Revenue Implications: To the extent that all or a portion of the spaces gained are net new
spaces in the coastal parking system (i.e., after deduction for space losses due to the Pier
ramp), utilization of the net new spaces on peak demand days would generate new revenue
for the beach fund.
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost of approximately $275,000 (assuming
approximately 35,000 square feet at a unit cost of $6 per square foot, plus 30% for
engineering/design and contingency).
II-26
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Increase Supply
Measure:1550 PCH Parking Structure
Measure #:A-13
Description: Construct a parking deck over all or a portion of the existing 1550 PCH parking
lot to increase the capacity of the lot. Upwards of 1,000 new spaces could be provided if a
deck were to be constructed over the entire lot, although smaller versions could also be
constructed.
Background: The Pier and adjacent beach areas historically are the highest visited areas
along the Santa Monica coast. As a result, the Pier parking lot and the adjacent 1550 PCH
beach parking lot are two of the most heavily utilized lots in the coastal system, with relatively
high demand levels on summer weekends and many summer weekdays. The Pier lot, in
particular, often reaches capacity during peak demand periods on both weekends and
weekdays throughout the summer. This has been particularly true since the opening of Pacific
Park and the UCLA Discovery Center in the spring of 1996.
Benefits:
~Would provide additional parking serving the premium beach and Central Zone.
~Could provide sufficient additional parking to allow closure of the Pier parking lot.
~If any of the Pier ramp options is pursued (measure B-1), this measure would provide more
than enough new spaces to replace the spaces lost in the Pier or 1550 PCH lots to
accommodate the ramp.
Issues/Impacts:
~ Unclear whether demand exists to support a substantial number of net new spaces (would
require further demand studies).
~Significantly increased parking capacity on a 1550 lot deck would generate substantial
additional inbound and outbound traffic on peak days when the existing lots approach
capacity. This would increase traffic volumes and congestion on City streets serving as access
to the 1550 PCH lot (such as Appian Way) and at the 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH (see
measure B-10 regarding potential actions to improve conditions at the 1440 PCH exit onto
PCH).
~Access improvements would be required into and out of the 1550 lot and would require
further study.
~Potentially significant environmental impacts (aesthetics, views, etc.) would require further
study.
II-27
~Parking deck would be in violation of City ordinance if any portion of the structure were
seaward of 1921 mean high tide line (roughly bisecting the carousel building).
~Parking deck and associated access improvements would require a high capital outlay.
~Provision of substantial increased parking capacity in Central Zone is inconsistent with City
and study objective to increase efficiency and improve utilization of existing available capacity
in the coastal parking system through management techniques and rate changes.
Revenue Implications: To the extent that all or a portion of the spaces gained are net new
spaces in the coastal parking system (i.e., after deduction for space losses due to the Pier
ramp), utilization of the net new spaces on peak demand days would generate new revenue
for the beach fund.
Implementation Costs: Construction costs for above-grade parking structures (ground plus
one level) can range from $5,000 to $8,000 per space, depending upon soil conditions,
ramping, etc. Thus, depending on the size of the parking deck to be provided, estimated
construction costs could range from $2,500,000 (500 total spaces at $5,000, providing 250
new spaces) to $16,000,000 (2,000 total spaces at $8,000, providing 1,000 new spaces).
II-28
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Employee Parking
Measure:Relocate Pier Employee Parking to Remote Location With Shuttle
Measure #:A-14
Description: Relocate Pier employee parking to a remote location on summer weekends and
shuttle employees to the Pier.
Background: At present, the City issues free parking permits to each of the Pier's 24 tenants
and to City staff and Police Department employees on the Pier (about 50 to 60 passes in total).
These passes allow the employees to park in the Pier lot during non-summer months and in
the 1550 PCH lot in summer months. Other employees of Pier businesses purchase $22
monthly passes allowing parking in the 1550 PCH lot.
Utilization survey data obtained from the City for August 1998 indicates that the number of
vehicles displaying permits in the Pier and 1440/1550 lots on the surveyed Sunday varied
between 40 and 75 throughout the critical midday period.
Benefits:
~Would make additional spaces available in the 1550 PCH lot for Pier and beach visitors on
peak summer weekend days when the lot reaches capacity.
Issues/Impacts:
~Shuttling employees between remote locations and the Pier would incur ongoing operational
costs and inconvenience employees. The degree of cost and inconvenience would depend
upon where the remote parking is provided and the shuttle distance required.
~Alternative locations could include:
-Santa Monica College - Santa Monica College currently has approximately 2,000 on-campus
parking spaces, including 664 in Structure A and 840 in Structure C(the remainder are in
various smaller surface lots). These spaces are underutilized on weekends.
-Santa Monica Airport - Approximately 450 spaces exist in two shuttle lots at the Santa Monica
Airport currently used as off-campus parking for Santa Monica College. These spaces are
underutilized on weekends.
-Santa Monica Civic Auditorium - The Civic Auditorium lot currently contains approximately
875 spaces. These spaces are underutilized on most weekends, although the lot is
occasionally fully utilized by weekend large events at the Auditorium.
-2030 and/or 2600 Barnard Way beach lots - The two Barnard Way beach lots are presently
underutilized, with utilization data from the City for August 1998 indicating that as over 500
II-29
spaces in the 2030 lot and about 275 spaces in the 2600 lot are unoccupied at peak times on
summer weekends.
Each of these locations (with the possible exception of the Civic Auditorium lot on Auditorium
large event days) thus has more than enough spaces available to accommodate the number of
permit vehicles observed in the Pier and 1440/1550 lots. However, the college and airport lots
are quite far from the Pier (roughly two and four miles, respectively), requiring lengthy and
more costly shuttles.
If Pier employees were to park in the 2030 Barnard Way lot, they could potentially ride the
existing summer Tide Pier/Beach shuttle. This may require operational modifications to the
shuttle such as extending its hours of operation to encompass employee shifts.
Revenue Implications: Could increase beach fund revenue by allowing more Pier/beach
visitors to park in the 1550 PCH lot on peak summer weekends.
Implementation Costs: Use of parking facilities at Santa Monica Airport or Santa Monica
College would incur significant shuttle costs and, at the latter, could also incur costs to lease
the spaces since they are not owned by the City. Shuttle costs for use of the Civic Auditorium
lot would be lower due to the shorter travel time involved. Use of the Southern Zone lots could
result in increased operating costs for the existing Tide Pier/Beach shuttle, although this would
be less than the cost of providing a new shuttle to one of the other locations.
II-30
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Off-Street Parking - Increase Supply
Measure:Enlarge 1440 PCH Lot to West
Measure #:A-15
Description: Increase the capacity of the 1440 PCH lot by expanding the lot westerly into the
adjacent beach area. It is estimated that up to 750 additional spaces could be provided,
depending upon how much beach area were to be utilized.
Background: The Pier and adjacent beach areas historically are the highest visited areas
along the Santa Monica coast. As a result, the Pier parking lot and the adjacent 1550 PCH
beach parking lot are two of the most heavily utilized lots in the coastal system, with relatively
high demand levels on summer weekends and many summer weekdays. The Pier lot, in
particular, often reaches capacity during peak demand periods on both weekends and
weekdays throughout the summer. This has been particularly true since the opening of Pacific
Park and the UCLA Discovery Center in the spring of 1996.
The existing beach area westerly of the 1440 PCH lot and the adjoining residential properties
to the north is very wide. The existing 1440 lot is roughly 470 feet in length, while the adjacent
1550 PCH lot extends roughly 500 feet further westward (at its northern edge near the 1440
lot) towards the ocean than does the 1440 lot. If the 1440 lot were to be extended into this
area as far west as the 1550 lot currently extends, it is estimated that up to 750 new parking
spaces could be provided. Any lesser number of spaces could also be provided if a lesser
westward extension were to be constructed.
Benefits:
~Would provide additional parking serving the premium beach and Central Zone.
~If any of the Pier ramp options is pursued (measure B-1), this measure would provide more
than enough new spaces to replace the spaces lost in the Pier or 1550 PCH lots to
accommodate the ramp.
Issues/Impacts:
~Significantly increased capacity in the 1440/1550 PCH lots would generate substantial
additional inbound and outbound traffic on peak days when the existing lots approach
capacity. This would increase traffic volumes and congestion on City streets serving as access
to the 1550 PCH lot (such as Appian Way) and at the 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH (see
measure B-10 regarding potential actions to improve conditions at the 1440 PCH exit onto
PCH).
~Loss of beach area may violate Coastal Commission policies regarding maintenance of
existing beach areas. Coastal Commission approval would be required.
II-31
~Potentially significant environmental impacts (aesthetics, views, loss of beach area, etc.)
would require further study.
~Provision of substantial increased parking capacity in Central Zone is inconsistent with City
and study objective to increase efficiency and improve utilization of existing available capacity
in the coastal parking system through management techniques and rate changes.
~Would require relocation of existing bike path adjacent to 1440 PCH lot.
Revenue Implications: To the extent that all or a portion of the spaces gained are net new
spaces in the coastal parking system (i.e., after deduction for space losses due to the Pier
ramp), utilization of the net new spaces on peak demand days would generate new revenue
for the beach fund.
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost of as much as approximately $1,800,000
(assuming approximately 235,000 square feet at a unit cost of $6 per square foot, plus 30% for
engineering/design and contingency) if the maximum extension and number of spaces were to
be constructed. Costs would be less if a lesser enlargement were to be constructed.
I I-32
III. PARKING RATE SCENARIOS AND REVENUE IMPLICATIONS
In the previous chapter, various measures regarding alternative parking rate structures and
methods of fee collection were discussed. In this chapter, these measures are combined into
a series of rate scenarios which modify flat rate structures by location and seasons, modify
variable rates, and combine flat rates with short-term variable rates. These scenarios are
developed in order to accomplish the various objectives identified by the City and the
community and analyze the implications on revenue.
A basic objective of the study relative to coastal off-street parking is to better utilize beach area
parking through possible revisions to beach and Pier parking lot charges, including rates and
methods of collection. The rate scenarios test the following:
~Increase Central Zone summer rates to reduce congestion and encourage visitors to park in
outlying lots.
~Reduced rates in southern lots to reduce congestion in Pier area and better utilize excess
capacity.
~Reduced non-summer rates to utilize excess capacity.
~ Reduced rates during shoulder and winter weekdays at Pier to encourage lunch business.
~Reduced short-term parking rates to potentially allow and encourage greater short-term
beach and bike path use as well as relieving Main Street and other nearby areas.
The following off-street parking rate scenarios were developed with the intent of addressing
the above objectives and are evaluated herein:
III-1
~A1: Flat Rates - Scenarios 1, 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 1 e, 1 f, 1 g, 1 h, 1 i, 1 j, 1 k, 1 I, 1 m, 1 n, 10, 1 p-
Various versions of modified flat rates implementing a pyramid rate concept (i.e., higher rates
in the vicinity of Pier and lower rates at outlying lots, as well as higher rates during peak
summer season and lower rates during shoulder and winter months to encourage greater
utilization).
~A2: Tiered Rates - Scenarios 2, 2a, 2b, 2c - Various versions of tiered-rate systems,
allowing reduced fees for short-term stays maxing out at the long-term rate level. Requires
switch to pay-on-exit system for affected lots.
~A3: Separate Short-Term Parking Supply - Scenarios 3, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, 3i, 3j, 3k, 31,
3m, 3n - Various versions of implementing short-term rates through set-aside of short-term
spaces in separate areas of the 2030 and/or 2600 Barnard lots (Scenarios 3 through 31) or by
setting aside the entire 1640 Appian lot (Scenarios 3m and 3n), in combination with various flat
rate pyramid options in long-term portions of affected lots and at all other locations.
~A4: Reduced Rates Durinq Morninq and/or Eveninq Hours - Scenarios 4, 4a, 4b, 4c -
Modified versions of flat rates where rates are reduced for entry during early morning and late
afternoon hours (Scenarios 4 through 4b), or during late night hours at the Pier (Scenario 4c).
Critical assumptions underlying each of the rate scenarios and the estimation of associated
revenue impacts include the following:
~Potential rate changes are grouped by zones, defined as follows (and illustrated in Figure III-
1):
-Central Zone defined as 1150 PCH, 1440 PCH, 1550 PCH, Pier, 1640 Appian, 1670 Appian,
and 1750 Appian lots.
-Northern Zone defined as 445 PCH, 530 PCH, 810 PCH, 930 PCH, 950 PCH, 1030 PCH, and
1060 PCH lots.
-Southern Zone defined as 2030 Barnard and 2600 Barnard lots.
~Seasonal definitions are assumed to be equalized between the Pier lot and the beach lots.
For most scenarios, the definitions are as follows:
-Summer defined as June to September.
-Shoulder defined as April, May, and October.
-Winter defined as November through March.
(Exceptions include: Scenario 3m, which tests a slightly different seasonal definition wherein
summer rates end September 15 and shoulder rates begin September 16; Scenario 3n, which
ends summer weekday rates after Labor Day; and Scenarios 1 I, 1 n, 2, 3b, 4a, and 4c, which
use existing seasonal definitions.)
III-2
Figure III-1 (FIGURE III-1 IS NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)
III-3
~Rates are assumed to be equalized between the Pier lot and the beach lots in the Central
Zone.
~Annual parking revenue estimates include the 10% City parking tax revenues accruing to the
City General Fund.
REVENUE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
The following describes the basic approach to the estimation of changes to beach and Pier
parking revenue associated with measures modifying rates and/or rate structures:
~City of Santa Monica revenue data for the Pier and beach lots for the period from November
1997 to October 1998 was used as the basis for the analysis. This period was used since it is
the most recent period for a complete summer/winter cycle (as defined by the beach lot rates)
available, and a comparison with revenue collected for the similar period in the previous year
indicated that revenues were almost equivalent (only slightly less) during the most recent year.
~The revenue data used in the analysis included transient (tickets sold) and honor box/pay-
and-display box parking income, and included 10% parking tax revenue accruing to the
General Fund as well as parking revenues accruing to the Beach or Pier funds. Miscellaneous
income (e.g., filming fees) was not included in the analysis.
~The revenue analysis was conducted for the following time periods:
-Summer weekend
-Summer weekday
-Shoulder weekend
-Shoulder weekday
-Winter weekend
-Winter weekday
~The existing definitions of summer versus winter are as follows:
-Beach lots: Summer = April through October; Winter = November through March; No
shoulder months.
-Pier lot: Summer = June through September; Winter = November through April; Shoulder
months = May and October.
~The modified definitions of summer versus shoulder versus winter tested as part of most of
the scenarios are as follows:
III-4
-Beach lots and Pier lot: Summer = June through September; Winter = November through
March; Shoulder = April, May and October.
(Exceptions include: Scenario 3m, which tests a slightly different seasonal definition wherein
summer rates end September 15 and shoulder rates begin September 16; Scenario 3n, which
ends summer weekday rates after Labor Day; and Scenarios 1 I, 1 n, 2, 3b, 4a, and 4c, which
use existing seasonal definitions.)
~Existing revenues were aggregated to the above categories for each individual lot.
~The effect of changing rates and/or rate structures was then estimated by applying a series
of ratios to the existing revenue data. The effect of simply changing the flat rate charged, for
example, was estimated by applying a factor equivalent to the ratio of the new rate over the old
rate to the revenue collected (since the change would apply to all paying vehicles). A
sensitivity factor was also applied to account for potential demand elasticity for different rate
levels.
Estimating the effect of implementing short-term rates or different rates at different times of the
day involved a few additional steps. First, the existing revenue was split into that portion
generated by parkers who will not be affected by the rate change (i.e., long-term parkers or
parkers entering during the unaffected hours) versus the portion generated by parkers who will
be affected by the rate change. Ratios of the new rate over the existing rate paid were then
applied only to the affected portion of the revenue. For tiered rates, separate ratios were
applied for the different rate periods (e.g., 0-30 minutes, 31-60 minutes, 61-90 minutes).
Again, a sensitivity factor was also applied to incorporate potential demand elasticity for
different rate levels.
~ Estimation of the proportion of parkers affected by short-term rate changes was based on the
duration survey data collected by the City in August 1998. This data indicates that the current
average length of stay in the coastal parking system is 2.2 hours on summer weekends and
2.0 hours on summer weekdays, with 38% and 43% of all daily entering vehicles on summer
weekends and weekdays, respectively, staying for less than 90 minutes. Further analysis of
the duration data suggests that about 15% (summer weekend) and 18% (summer weekday) of
the vehicles present in the lots at a given time are short-term (less than 90 minutes) parkers.
This data may be conservative (it should be noted that higher average lengths of stay would
result in less of a revenue reduction).
~Checks were made to ensure that demand elasticity assumptions were not unreasonably
high. These included checks against the capacity of the affected lots to accommodate an
increase in parkers and estimation of the potential number of beachgoers or bike path users
currently parking in the downtown or Main Street areas.
The latter was estimated based on user survey and parking utilization data from the Downtown
Parking Management Program study (Kaku Associates, 1998) and the Main Street Commercial
District Parking Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, 1997). The Downtown Parking Management
Program user survey in the six downtown public parking structures and the Santa Monica
Place garages in August 1997 indicated that 9% of respondents on weekdays and 10% on
Saturday listed beach/park or Pier as their primary trip purpose. Similarly, the Main Street
III-5
Commercial District Parking Study user survey conducted in 1996 found that approximately 6%
(Thursdays) and 11 %(Sundays) of respondents indicated that their primary destination was
beach/recreational uses. When applied to the utilization data from these studies, this suggests
that as many as 380 (summer weekday) to 440 (summer weekend) of the vehicles parked in
the downtown public and Santa Monica Place garages and in the Main Street public lots and
curbside parking during the mid-afternoon peak period could have been Pier or beach visitors.
Not all of these visitors would necessarily shift to the coastal parking system even if reduced
rates were implemented (for example, it is unrealistic to expect that all short-term visitors
currently making use of the first two hours free offered in the downtown area would shift).
However, this does represent a potential pool of latent coastal demand already parking in the
downtown and Main Street areas, let alone potential latent demands related to those parking
elsewhere or not presently coming to the beach at all.
ANALYSIS OF RATE SCENARIOS
Table III-1 presents the results of the analysis of the various rate scenarios tested herein,
including for each a brief description of the scenario, benefits and impacts/issues, and
estimated implications relative to annual parking fund revenues and implementation costs.
The scenarios are arrayed in the table in accordance with the primary objective they were
designed to address, although it should be noted that many of the scenarios have aspects
which address more than one objective.
Table III-2 summarizes the revenue analysis for the various rate scenarios by parking lot, while
Figure III-2 presents a bar chart of the net revenue gains or losses for each scenario. Finally,
Table III-3 presents the results of an evaluation conducted for each of the alternative
measures against a series of evaluation criteria as defined in Table III-4. The revenue gain or
loss estimates are for parking-generated revenues only, including the 10% City parking tax
revenues but not including miscellaneous income. As many of the scenarios combine various
elements (for example, various short-term set-aside scenarios may include long-term flat rate
pyramid variations at other lots), it should be recognized that the revenue gain/loss estimates
for each scenario reflect the combined effect of each of the changes included in the scenario.
Subsequent to preparation and analysis of the various alternative rate scenarios evaluated in
Tables III-1, III-2 and III-3 and Figure III-2, twenty-seven additional scenarios were developed
III-6
and evaluated based on community input in January and February of 2000 regarding
alternative means of implementing short-term set-asides in the southern lots (2030 and 2600
Barnard). The 27 additional scenarios consist of various permutations of the number of
spaces set-aside (68 versus 152 versus 360), maximum length of stay permitted in the short-
term spaces (90 minutes versus two hours versus three hours), and flat rate charged in the
remaining long-term sections of the two lots ($3 versus $5 versus $7 year-round). The results
of this evaluation for the 27 additional scenarios are presented in Table III-5.
III-7
Table III-1 (17 Pages)
III-8
Table III-2 (6 Pages)
III-9
Figure III-2 (2 Pages) (FIGURE III-2 NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)
III-10
Table III-3
III-11
Table III-4
III-12
Table III-5
III-13
IV. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION MEASURES
As identified by the City at the outset of the study, the primary objective of the study relative to
access and circulation is to improve circulation in the coastal area, particularly around the
Santa Monica Pier.
The following pages contain analyses of a number of ineasures which have been identified to
address this objective. Although the objective focuses on circulation improvements in the
vicinity of the Pier, measures have also been identified at other locations. The circulation
alternatives analyzed herein include improvements to both vehicular and non-motorized (e.g.,
pedestrian, bicycle/skate) circulation systems.
Initial community outreach identified a concern with the traffic conditions brought about by the
Pier parking lot being filled to capacity, resulting in extreme congestion in the vicinity of the
Colorado Avenue and Ocean Avenue intersection. The community suggested that ways be
sought to allow traffic to move between the Pier lot and the nearby beach lots.
The following access and circulation measures are evaluated herein:
~B-1:Pier ramp (3 options)
~B-2:Pier bridge widening and seismic retrofit project
~B-3:New Pier pedestrian bridge (north)
~B-4:New Pier pedestrian bridge (south)
~B-5:Improved pedestrian connections between Pier and 1550 PCH lot
~B-6:Santa Monica Beach Trail Project Phase II
~B-7:Service roadway along south side of Pier
~B-8:Pier bridge one-way
~B-9:Pier bridge closed to vehicular traffic
~B-10:Improvements at 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH
~B-11:Improvements at 1150 PCH lot driveway
~B-12:Improvements at 445 PCH lot driveway
~B-13:Flyover ramp from Santa Monica Freeway/PCH to 1440/1550 PCH lot
~B-14:Flyover ramp from PCH to 1150 PCH lot
~B-15:Coast visitor traveler information system
IV-1
The general locations of these measures are illustrated on Figure IV-1. Table IV-1 presents
the results of an evaluation conducted for each of the alternative measures against a series of
evaluation criteria as defined in Table IV-2.
IV-2
Figure IV-1 (FIGURE IV-3 NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)
IV-3
Table IV-1
IV-4
Table IV-2
IV-5
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:Pier Ramp
Measure #:B-1
Description: Vehicle ramp connecting the Pier deck to the adjacent 1550 PCH lot. Four
conceptual options have been identified and investigated:
1.Ramp through Pier deck
2."T" from side of Pier
3.Angled from Pier bridge
4.Parallel to Pier deck
Conceptual schematic drawings of the four options are included in Appendix D. Table IV-3
compares the four options.
Background: The Pier parking lot currently reaches capacity on most summer weekend days
and many summer weekdays. At such times, a"parking full" sign is posted at the top of
entrance to the Pier at the Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection, creating confusion
and congestion as visitors attempting to access the Pier are unsure how to proceed. Pier
tenants have also indicated that this impacts business as a portion of the turned-away visitors
leave the area altogether and do not find their way back to the Pier. The 1550 and 1440 PCH
lots (1,188 spaces combined) are immediately adjacent to the Pier on the north and do not
reach capacity nearly as frequently as the Pier lot.
Ingress to the 1550 and 1440 PCH lots can currently be obtained from Appian Way or PCH
southbound (via Appian Way) only. The Pier lot is accessed via the Pier bridge only.
Benefits:
~Reduces frequency of need to "close" Pier parking supply, reducing confusion and related
traffic back-ups at the Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection and alleviating impacts on
Pier business activity.
~Flexibility for operation of Pier and 1550 PCH lot parking supply.
~Option 1 would allow vehicles exiting the Pier lot to exit onto PCH southbound/Santa Monica
Freeway eastbound via the 1550 and 1440 PCH lots. This could reduce outbound traffic
volumes on City streets (survey data from Pier/Beach Access Study [Meyer Mohaddes
Associates, 1997] indicates that approximately 80% of all beach and Pier visitors utilize the
Santa Monica Freeway to access the coastal area).
~Providing vehicular ingress to 1550 PCH lot from downtown and (indirectly) from Santa
Monica Freeway directly from Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue via Pier would reduce
IV-6
demands on Appian Way and would reduce motorist confusion caused by the circuitous routes
necessary to access the lot (i.e., Seaside Terrace or Pico Boulevard to Appian Way).
~To the extent that the Pier ramp connection encourages potential Pier/beachgoers/bike path
users to come to and/or remain in the area during peak periods when the Pier bridge would
otherwise previously have been closed to traffic, would increase parking revenues in the 1550
PCH lot.
Issues/Impacts:
~Would increase inbound trips on the Pier bridge as visitors would use it as a route to access
the 1550 PCH lot.
~ Each of the Pier ramp options would result in a loss of parking in either the Pier or 1550 PCH
lots to accommodate the ramp (estimated at 20 to 35 spaces depending upon the alternative).
Unless these spaces were to be replaced, this could violate Coastal Commission requirements
to maintain coastal access and parking (however, see measure A-12 for a potential means to
replace the lost spaces by adding capacity to the 1440 PCH lot).
~ Under Pier ramp Option 1, vehicles utilizing the ramp will have already entered the Pier lot
fee area. Currently, Pier parking revenues accrue to the City's Pier fund, while 1550 PCH
parking revenues (as do revenues from all of the beach lots) accrue to the City's beach
maintenance fund. Since motorists would be able to use the ramp either to access the 1550
PCH lot for parking (e.g., as overflow parking for the Pier lot or simply because they used the
Pier bridge to access the 1550 lot) or to travel through the 1550 and 1440 lots to exit onto
PCH, there would be a need to track where each vehicle which entered the Pier lot actually
parked so that the parking revenue can be credited to the proper fund. Three alternatives
have been identified:
-Agreement - The two departments would execute an agreement which would base the split
on previous years income statistics from the Pier Lot and the 1550 Lot and/or actual counts
taken of the number of vehicles parking on the Pier Lot on certain designated survey days
throughout the year. This would be the simplest and cheapest method to implement and is
recommended.
-Pay-on-Entry - If the existing pay-on-entry system is maintained in the Pier and 1550 PCH
lots, an alternative solution could be as follows. The Pier cashier would time stamp all parking
tickets issued at the Pier entrance. A second cashier would be placed at the bottom of the
ramp leading to the 1550 Lot. He/she would take the parking ticket from any patron who had
not parked on the Pier and issue that individual a 1550 Lot ticket. He/she would then clock out
the Pier Lot ticket. The 1550 Parking Manager would invoice the Pier Lot for any tickets that
had been issued by the Pier cashier and clocked out by the 1550 cashier within 15 minutes of
the time the Pier cashier issued the ticket.
-Pay-on-Exit - If the Pier and 1550 PCH lots were to be converted to a pay-on-exit system, an
alternative solution could be as follows. Barrier gates with magnetic stripe ticket dispensers
would be placed at the entrances to the Pier lot and the 1550 Lot. Barrier gates, attendant
booths, and fee computers would be placed at the exits to the Pier lot and the 1550 and 1440
Lots.
IV-7
Customers entering the Pier lot and parking in the Pier lot who wish to exit through the 1550
and 1440 lots to PCH would use their magnetic stripe parking ticket to access a barrier gate at
the bottom of the proposed ramp connecting the Pier lot to the 1550 lot to exit. After passing
through to the 1550 lot, they would proceed to the 1550 or 1440 lot exits to pay for their
parking. If the Pier lot was full (or the customer wished to access the 1550 lot via the Pier lot
entrance) he/she would proceed down the proposed ramp immediately after entering the Pier
lot and would use the parking ticket to access the barrier gate at the bottom of the ramp to
access the 1550 and 1440 lots.
All income from parkers exiting via the 1550 or 1440 lot cashier within a ten minute time period
from having entered the 1550 lot from the Pier lot ramp would be automatically credited to the
Pier Lot. All income from parkers entering the Pier lot and accessing the barrier gate at the
bottom of the ramp to park in the 1550 or 1440 lot would be credited to the 1440/1550 lots.
Capital costs for a sophisticated on-line revenue control system to accommodate the parking
plan offered above would be substantial.
~Under Pier ramp Options 2, 3, and 4 wherein the ramp would separate from the Pier access
road before the Pier lot entrance (where the Pier cashier is stationed), there would be no
problem with separating the income. However, cashier(s) will have to be placed on the ramp
to collect parking fees from all vehicles entering the 1550 lot from the ramp. During busy times
staffing the ramp should not require additional personnel since cashiers from the existing main
entrance can be shifted to the bottom of the ramp. However, during slow periods when there
is only one cashier working the 1550 lot, the number of cashiers would have to be doubled to
cover both entrances.
See Table IV-3 for further issues/impacts associated with the individual options.
Revenue Implications: The Pier ramp would allow increased utilization of the 1440/1550 lots
on peak days when the Pier lot is full but the 1440/1550 lots are not. New revenue could
therefore be generated for the beach fund to the extent that a portion of the additional parkers
in the 1550 lot are new users drawn into the system (as opposed to Pier visitors currently
parking in other nearby beach lots, such as those along Appian Way, when the Pier parking is
"closed").
Related Measures: 1440 PCH exit improvements (measure B-10); replacement parking
(measure A-12); improved pedestrian connections to the Pier (measures B-5/B-6); Pier bridge
widening and seismic retrofit project (measure B-2).
Implementation Costs: Preliminary estimated capital cost for Pier ramp, including design,
construction management, and contingencies:
~Option 1 - $750,000
~Option 2 - $1,000,000
~Option 3 - $1,200,000
~Option 4 - $1,100,000
These costs include estimated costs for fee collection equipment assuming a pay-on-entry
system. Under Option 1, if a pay-on-exit system were to be implemented and the split of
IV-8
revenue between the Beach and Pier funds was not accomplished via an agreement,
additional capital costs would be incurred associated with implementation of the on-line
revenue control system described above previously. Additional staffing costs would also be
incurred to staff the new entrance to the 1550 lot.
In addition, estimated costs of related measures include the following:
~ 1440 PCH exit improvements (measure B-10) -$170,000
~Replacement parking (measure A-12) -$275,000 if entire area paved (about 100 spaces);
$100,000 to $140,000 if only enough spaces provided to replace losses due to Pier ramp and
1440 exit improvements (35 to 50 spaces)
IV-9
Table IV-3
IV-10
Table IV-3, Page 2
IV-11
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular and Pedestrian
Measure:Pier Bridge Widening & Seismic Retrofit Project
Measure #:B-2
Description: Widen the Pier bridge to: (1) provide widened sidewalks on both the north and
south sides of the bridge, bicycle lanes, and two traffic lanes in a total cross-section of 50 feet;
and (2) seismically retrofit the Pier bridge structure. This improvement is under separate study
by the Beach Improvement Group (BIG) and has been programmed for implementation by the
City of Santa Monica.
Background: The existing Pier bridge provides substandard narrow sidewalks with a high
curb and does not have bicycle lanes. This leads to pedestrian/vehicular conflicts as
pedestrians often walk in the traffic lanes. The slope of the sidewalks does not meet ADA
standards. The Pier bridge is also in need of seismic retrofit.
Pedestrian/vehicular conflicts also currently occur at the foot of the Pier bridge as pedestrians
cross the Pier access road between the sidewalk along the north side of the Pier and Pier
bridge and the uses on the south side of the access road (e.g., the carousel and Ash Grove
buildings).
Benefits:
~Reduces pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the Pier bridge.
~ Improves seismic safety of Pier bridge.
Issues/Impacts:
~Would not improve sidewalk slope to meet ADA standards; however, structure would still be
in compliance with ADA requirements as it is grandfathered.
~Measures such as striping a crosswalk and installing warning signage on the Pier bridge may
also be considered to address the pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at the foot of the Pier bridge.
~An option is under consideration under which no sidewalk would be provided on the north
side of the bridge and instead an even wider sidewalk would be placed on the south side only,
with the intent to reduce pedestrian crossings at the foot of the Pier bridge. This option would
be required if Pier ramp Option 4 were to be pursued (see measure B-1).
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost: $2,100,000 (source: City of Santa Monica,
May 1999).
IV-12
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Pedestrian
Measure:New Pier Pedestrian Bridge (North)
Measure #:B-3
Description: As an alternative to the Pier bridge widening & seismic retrofit project (measure
B-2), construct a new separate pedestrian bridge parallel to the north side of the existing Pier
bridge. The existing Pier bridge would be modified to remove the existing sidewalks and
provide wider vehicular traffic lanes and/or bicycle lanes, and would be seismically retrofit. The
pedestrian bridge would terminate in a helix at the foot of the Pier bridge opposite the carousel
building which would connect to both the Pier deck and the 1550 PCH lot at-grade. This
improvement is under study by the Beach Improvement Group (BIG).
Background: The existing Pier bridge provides substandard narrow sidewalks with a high
curb and does not have bicycle lanes. This leads to pedestrian/vehicular conflicts as
pedestrians often walk in the traffic lanes. The slope of the sidewalks does not meet ADA
standards. The Pier bridge is also in need of seismic retrofit.
Pedestrian/vehicular conflicts also currently occur at the foot of the Pier bridge as pedestrians
cross the Pier access road between the sidewalk along the north side of the Pier and Pier
bridge and the uses on the south side of the access road (e.g., the carousel and Ash Grove
buildings).
Benefits:
~Minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the Pier bridge.
~ Improves seismic safety of Pier bridge.
~New pedestrian bridge and helix would meet ADA requirements.
~Helix would also provide a new pedestrian connection between the Pier deck and the
adjacent 1550 PCH lot.
Impacts:
~Would increase pedestrian activity at the foot of the Pier bridge between the helix and the
carousel building, increasing vehicular/pedestrian conflicts.
~Helix structure would require relocation of 1550 PCH lot access road and fee collection
booths, likely leading to a loss of parking spaces in the 1550 PCH lot.
~Pedestrian bridge structure would block views northward from vehicle bridge and could block
views of carousel building from Palisades Park.
IV-13
~Helix structure would block views northward from carousel building.
~Aesthetic impacts of new bridge and helix structure.
~Helix structure could be viewed as new structure seaward of 1921 mean high tide line in
violation of City ordinance.
Implementation Costs: See City of Santa Monica BIG Pier bridge study.
IV-14
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Pedestrian
Measure:New Pier Pedestrian Bridge (South)
Measure #:B-4
Description: As an alternative to the Pier bridge widening & seismic retrofit project (measure
B-2), construct a new separate pedestrian bridge parallel to the south side of the existing Pier
bridge. The existing Pier bridge would be modified to remove the existing sidewalks and
provide wider vehicular traffic lanes and/or bicycle lanes, and would be seismically retrofit. The
pedestrian bridge would terminate in a helix approximately above the UCLA Discovery Center
at the eastern edge of the Pier deck, connecting to the Pier deck. This improvement has been
suggested as an alternative to the improvements under study by the Beach Improvement
Group (BIG).
Background: The existing Pier bridge provides substandard narrow sidewalks with a high
curb and does not have bicycle lanes. This leads to pedestrian/vehicular conflicts as
pedestrians often walk in the traffic lanes. The slope of the sidewalks does not meet ADA
standards. The Pier bridge is also in need of seismic retrofit.
Pedestrian/vehicular conflicts also currently occur at the foot of the Pier bridge as pedestrians
cross the Pier access road between the sidewalk along the north side of the Pier and Pier
bridge and the uses on the south side of the access road (e.g., the carousel and Ash Grove
buildings).
Benefits:
~Minimizes pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the Pier bridge.
~ Improves seismic safety of Pier bridge.
~New pedestrian bridge and helix would meet ADA requirements.
~Pedestrian bridge would provide access to the existing pedestrian walk along the carousel
building and the adjacent Ash Grove building without vehicular conflict.
~Existing ramps between the Pier deck and the Promenade would be used to obtain
pedestrian access between the pedestrian bridge and the Promenade.
~Entire structure would be easterly of the 1921 mean high tide line, thus not violating City
ordinance.
IV-15
Issues/Impacts:
~Helix structure may require bridging over a portion of the Promenade and would require
further study.
~Limited horizontal clearance between the Pier bridge and existing buildings along the east
side of Promenade would require further study.
~Vertical clearance over PCH ramps and proposed stormwater treatment facility would require
further study.
~Pedestrian bridge structure would block views southward from vehicle bridge.
Implementation Costs: See City of Santa Monica BIG Pier bridge study.
Related Measures: Independently, the Lobster Restaurant has offered to the City use of the
existing vehicle easement between the restaurant and the Pier bridge for a pedestrian plaza.
As part of this offer, the restaurant would allow vehicle access to the adjacent apartment
building to occur through the restaurant's parking lot on Ocean Avenue, making elimination of
the vehicle connection between the PCH ramps and Ocean Avenue possible. The new plaza
could serve as the terminus of the new pedestrian bridge. An issue related to this suboption is
a potential deed restriction on the use of the easement for non-vehicular use.
IV-16
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Pedestrian
Measure:lmproved Pedestrian Connections Between Pier and 1550 PCH Lot
Measure #:B-5
Description: Improve pedestrian connections between the Pier and the adjacent 1550 PCH
lot. Three options have been identified:
1.Reconfiguration and improved controls at the intersection of the bike path and the pedestrian
crossing between the 1550 PCH lot and the North Pier entrance. These improvements are
part of the Santa Monica Beach Trail Phase II project described as measure B-6.
2.If Pier ramp Option 2 were to be pursued (see measure B-1), a sidewalk could potentially be
provided along the new Pier ramp structure across the maintenance road with a ramp down to
the 1550 PCH lot.
3.If a new pedestrian bridge parallel to the north side of the Pier bridge were to be pursued
(see measure B-3), a pedestrian connection between the Pier deck and the 1550 PCH lot
would be provided in the proposed helix structure.
Background: Existing pedestrian access between the Pier deck and the 1550 PCH lot is
obtained either: (1) via the existing North Pier entrance stairs west of the Boathouse
Restaurant and boardwalk, crossing the bike path in an informal, uncontrolled manner; or (2)
via stairs and ramps from the Promenade at the eastern end of the Pier deck. The first route
requires crossing the bike path, while the second route requires crossing the access road to
the 1550 PCH lot.
Large numbers of pedestrians cross the bike path as they travel from the 1550 lot to the North
Pier entrance or the beach. Cyclists and skaters emerge from the tunnel under the Pier and
must immediately stop or swerve to avoid large groups of pedestrians, often with young
children, crossing the bike path. If any of the Pier ramp alternatives is pursued (see measure
B-1), additional Pier visitors will be directed to the 1550 PCH lot, increasing the need for good
pedestrian connections between the lot and the Pier.
Benefits ~
~Option 1- The community survey prepared as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
found reducing conflicts and expanding capacity on the bike path as one of the highest
priorities for open space improvements. Options 2 and 3 would not eliminate
bicycle/pedestrian conflicts at the at-grade crossing of the bike path and the pedestrian route
IV-17
between the North Pier entrance and the 1550 lot, and safety improvements should be
implemented at this location regardless of whether other options are pursued. See measure
B-6 for further discussion of benefits of the Phase II Beach Trail Project.
~Options 2 and 3- Ramp would be ADA compliant.
Issues/Impacts:
~Option 1- Existing North Pier entrance stairs do not provide ADA access.
~Option 2- Only viable if Pier ramp Option 2(measure B-1) were to be implemented.
Aesthetic impacts of new structure connected to side of Pier. Could impact parking supply in
the 1550 lot. Places pedestrian path in close proximity to vehicular path on Pier ramp.
Encourages more pedestrian/vehicular conflict as pedestrians would attempt to cross the Pier
access road from the new structure to the carousel and Ash Grove buildings.
~Option 3- Only viable if new pedestrian bridge were to be constructed north of the Pier
bridge (measure B-3).
~Options 2 and 3- Could be viewed as new structure seaward of 1921 mean high tide line in
violation of City ordinance.
Implementation Costs:
~Option 1 - See measure B-6.
~Option 2- Increase over estimated cost for Pier ramp Option 2(measure B-1).
~Option 3- Included in cost estimate for new north Pier pedestrian bridge (measure B-3).
IV-18
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Bicycle/Skate
Measure:Santa Monica Beach Trail Project - Phase II
Measure #:B-6
Description: Construct Phase II of the Santa Monica Beach Trail Project, including the
following elements:
~Construction of a new path for bikes and skates from the North Pier entrance to the 1400
PCH block. The existing trail along the edge of the 1550 lot would be used for pedestrians
and be realigned to connect to the pedestrian promenade at the 1440 lot.
~ Installation of a barrier fence along the 1550 lot edge to direct pedestrians to a new entry
plaza and identified crossing location away from the Pier tunnel. Bollards and pavement
coloring would identify the crossing; scoring in the bike path and signage would notify users of
the approaching intersection.
~ Extend the wooden boardwalk (installed as part of the Phase I improvements on the south
side of the Pier for connection to the BIG project) along the west side of the service road under
the Pier to connect to the North Pier entrance. This would provide a pedestrian connection
beneath the Pier separated from the bike path and the service road.
~Construct an additional concrete bike path under the Pier east of the exiting bike path. Since
expansion of the path under the Pier is constrained by the 20' distance between the Pier piles,
the only way to gain the 20' width that has been approved for the path south of the Pier is to
create two one-way paths beneath the Pier. The new path would be one-way northbound and
connect to the proposed new path on the north side of the Pier. The existing path under the
Pier would become one-way southbound.
If Pier ramp Option 1 is pursued (see measure B-1), the new northbound bike path under the
Pier would need to be located in the next bay to the east of the existing bike path (the bay
currently containing the crane storage garage). If Pier ramp Option 1 is not pursued, the
second bike path could potentially be located in one of the other bays.
Background: The area north of the Pier, including the bike path under the Pier, the
pedestrian connection between the 1550 PCH lot and the North Pier entrance, and the path
around the 1550 PCH lot, is an intense activity zone. Large numbers of pedestrians cross the
bike path as they travel from the 1550 lot to the North Pier entrance or the beach. Cyclists and
skaters emerge from the tunnel under the Pier and must immediately stop or swerve to avoid
large groups of pedestrians, often with young children, crossing the bike path.
As part of the Beach Improvement Group (BIG) improvement project along the Promenade to
the south of the Pier, the existing bicycle path is being widened from Bay Street to the Pier.
IV-19
Several alternative designs have been prepared for the Beach Trail Phase II project by the
design team for the improvements to the south. The Phase II project has been submitted for
consideration under the City's capital improvement program for construction in fiscal year
2000-2001.
Benefits:
~The community survey prepared as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan found
reducing conflicts and expanding capacity on the bike path as one of the highest priorities for
open space improvements.
~Providing separated pedestrian walk and bike path around the 1550 lot and providing
separated pedestrian walk beneath the Pier will reduce conflicts and improve pedestrian
safety.
~Forcing pedestrians (via fencing) to upgraded pedestrian/bike path crossing, along with
signage and measures to reduce bike path speeds, will improve safety of the crossing.
~Locating the second bike path in the next bay east of the existing bike path would allow
removal of the plank wall between the two bike paths, providing a more open feeling beneath
the Pier for users of the bike paths.
Issues/Impacts:
~Locating the second bike path in the next bay east of the existing bike path would require
relocation of the crane storage area currently located in that bay. Two potential locations for
the relocated crane have been identified: (1) at the beach maintenance facility located on the
northwest corner of Appian Way and the 1550 PCH lot access road; or (2) beneath the Pier
bridge across from the maintenance facility, accessed from the 1550 PCH lot access road.
~Locating the second bike path in bays further to the east (if Pier ramp Option 1 is not
pursued) may require reconfiguration of a portion of the 1550 PCH lot and would require
relocation of the Pier lumberyard beneath the Pier.
Implementation Costs: A capital cost estimate of $930,000 has been submitted to the City's
capital improvement program (source: City of Santa Monica).
IV-20
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:Service Roadway Along South Side of Pier
Measure #:B-7
Description: Construct a service roadway along the south side of the Pier between the
Promenade and the bike path. The service roadway would be constructed as a plank roadway
to match the Pier and minimize aesthetic impacts, and would be accessed from the
Promenade in the vicinity of the 1640 Appian Way lot.
Background: Portions of the area beneath the Pier are currently used as storage in support
of various Pier maintenance activities. Currently, these areas are accessed via doors located
at-grade along the maintenance road and 1550 PCH lot access road adjacent to the north side
of the Pier. Limited headroom beneath the carousel building and the adjacent Ash Grove
building restrict full access beneath the Pier to the two bays between the Ash Grove building
and the existing crane storage garage adjacent to the bike path. The Pier carpenter has
suggested that provision of service access doors along the south side of the Pier would
improve flexibility for use of the space. This flexibility would become more important if Pier
ramp Option 1(see measure B-1) and the second bike path beneath the Pier (see measure B-
6) were to be pursued. Providing access doors along the south side of the Pier would require
a service roadway.
Benefits ~
~ Provides additional flexibility for use of space beneath the Pier for various Pier maintenance
and storage activities.
~If Pier ramp Option 1(measure B-1) and the second bike path beneath the Pier (measure B-
6) were to be pursued, full access from the north side of the Pier to the area beneath the Pier
would be limited to one bay, which would also need to serve as the relocated lumberyard
access. Service access beneath the Pier from the south side, although not an absolute
requirement, would increase flexibility for access to the available area beneath the Pier.
~Service roadway could potentially function as a pedestrian walkway providing access from
the Promenade to the beach along the south side of the Pier during times of day when not
used for service access.
Issues/Impacts:
~The service roadway would be located in an area which is currently sand, and could
therefore be viewed as representing a loss in beach area.
IV-21
~The service roadway could be constructed either: (1) as a plank roadway to match the Pier
and minimize aesthetic impacts; or (2) using a rubberized asphalt surface to make the surface
softer given proximity to the volleyball courts. Both options thus have advantages and
disadvantages.
~The service roadway would require shifting the existing volleyball courts between the Pier
and the lifeguard station southward towards the lifeguard station. It is estimated that provision
of a 16' roadway (12' at the constrained points next to the gazebo overlooks towards the
western end of the Pier) would leave only about 8' between the service roadway and the
northern back line of the volleyball courts if they remain in their current location. However,
approximately 24' is available between the southern back line of the volleyball courts and the
lifeguard station, suggesting that about 16' could be provided on either side of the volleyball
courts if the courts were to be shifted southward. Further research would be required with
representatives of the volleyball court users to determine whether this distance is sufficient.
~May be difficult to enforce time-of-day restrictions (e.g., limited to early morning) on use of
service road, leading to potential conflicts with pedestrians on the Promenade and
volleyball/beach users.
Implementation Costs: Cost to construct plank or rubberized asphalt roadway on top of sand.
Minor cost to install access doors along south side of Pier.
IV-22
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular and Pedestrian
Measure:Pier Bridge One-Way
Measure #:B-8
Description: Convert the Pier bridge to one-way westbound traffic flow, serving inbound
vehicular traffic to the Pier only. Outbound vehicular traffic would be accommodated through
the 1550 PCH lot via the proposed Pier ramp (Options 1 or 2) (see measure B-1).
Background: The Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue/Pier bridge intersection is a high activity
area, with the confluence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Ocean Avenue and
accessing the Pier bridge creating congestion during peak periods. Converting the Pier bridge
to one-way inbound traffic has been suggested as a means to reduce conflicts at the
intersection by eliminating one approach to the intersection.
Benefits:
~Would reduce conflicts at the Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection by eliminating
one approach to the intersection.
Issues/Impacts:
~Forcing all traffic exiting the Pier parking lot to travel through the 1550 PCH lot would
increase traffic levels at the 1440 PCH exit onto PCH and at the 1550 PCH exit onto Appian
Way. The latter would lead to increased outbound traffic along Appian Way.
~The proposed Pier ramp would be one-way inbound and, given physical limitations, would
not be designed to carry service vehicles. Thus, two-way service access would still be
required over the Pier bridge.
~The proposed Pier ramp may need to be closed at times during the storm season when
portions of the bike path and the 1550 PCH lot currently flood.
Implementation Costs: Minor signage and striping costs.
Related Measures: Requires implementation of Pier ramp Options 1 or 2(measure B-1) (note
that neither Pier ramp Options 3 nor 4 would provide an exit route from the Pier parking lot to
the 1550 PCH lot). Pier ramp Option 2 would require establishing a procedure for confirming
that Pier lot patrons exiting via the 1550 PCH lot have already paid a parking fee in the Pier lot.
IV-23
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Pedestrian
Measure:Pier Bridge Closed to Vehicular Traffic
Measure #:B-9
Description: Close the Pier bridge to general vehicular traffic. The Pier bridge would be used
for non-motorized access and potentially service, transit, and emergency access only.
Background: The Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue/Pier bridge intersection is a high activity
area, with the confluence of vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Ocean Avenue and
accessing the Pier bridge creating congestion during peak periods. Closing the Pier bridge to
general vehicular traffic has been suggested as a means to reduce conflicts at the intersection
and to reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the Pier bridge and deck.
Benefits:
~Would reduce conflicts at the Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection by essentially
eliminating one vehicle leg at the intersection.
~Would minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts on the Pier bridge and Pier deck.
Issues/Impacts:
~Would eliminate access to the Pier parking lot, requiring closure of the lot and loss of its 268
spaces. These spaces are in a premium location serving the Pier. Also, a reduction in the
number of public parking spaces serving the coastal area may violate Coastal Commission
requirements to maintain coastal access and parking.
~Closure of the Pier parking lot would result in a loss of revenue to the Pier fund (the Pier lot
currently generates approximately $1.2 million dollars per year in parking revenues).
~Visitor traffic to the Pier would be required to utilize either PCH southbound (a small
percentage) or Appian Way from either Ocean Avenue and Seaside Terrace or Pico Boulevard
to access the 1550 PCH lot (over 90% based on survey data from the Pier/Beach Access
Study), increasing traffic volumes along Appian Way and potentially increasing turning
volumes at the Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue and other intersections.
~Visitor traffic exiting the Central Zone from the 1550 PCH lot would increase traffic levels at
the 1440 PCH exit onto PCH and at the 1550 PCH exit onto Appian Way. The latter would
lead to increased outbound traffic along Appian Way.
~Would preclude ability to construct Pier ramp to the 1550 PCH lot (measure B-1).
Implementation Costs: Minor signage and striping costs. Additional costs could be incurred
to upgrade pedestrian facilities on the Pier bridge.
IV-24
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:lmprovements at 1440 PCH Lot Exit Onto PCH
Measure #:B-10
Description: Geometric and operational improvements at the 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH.
Potential improvements include:
~Install a half traffic signal. The half signal would control southbound traffic on PCH only,
facilitating right-turns out of the 1440 PCH lot driveway. Northbound PCH traffic would not be
affected. The signal would be demand-actuated to minimize impacts on PCH through traffic.
~Reconfigure the 1440 lot exit to provide two exit lanes onto PCH at the signal.
~Provide additional advance overhead signs directing motorists on southbound PCH into the
correct lanes for Appian Way and Beach/Pier Parking (1550 PCH lot) versus Ocean Avenue
versus the Santa Monica Freeway. One potential location for such signage could be on the
existing pedestrian bridge over PCH just north of the 1440 PCH lot driveway.
~Paint a solid white lane divider stripe from the gore point where the PCH ramp splits from the
Appian Way aisle entrance back partway to the 1440 PCH lot driveway. Lane markings could
also be installed designating the purpose of each lane (e.g., "Beach/Pier Parking/Appian
Way", "Ocean Avenue Only").
The existing 1550 PCH lot exit onto Appian Way would remain.
Background: The 1440 PCH lot exit onto PCH is one of only two means to exit the 1440 and
1550 PCH lots and is the only exit onto PCH. The exit is restricted to right-turns only due to
the presence of a raised median barrier on PCH and the proximity of the exit to the McClure
Tunnel. Exiting vehicles attempting to get onto the Santa Monica Freeway through the
McClure Tunnel must cross the PCH traffic lane destined for the PCH ramps to Ocean Avenue
(i.e., State Route 187) and Appian Way and then enter a fast-moving stream of vehicles on
PCH. During peak periods, this creates congestion within the lot, with queues of exiting
vehicles experiencing delays as they wait for an acceptable gap in PCH traffic. This is further
confirmed by capacity analyses, which indicate poor levels of service (LOS) of F and long
delays for stop-controlled vehicles exiting the lot onto PCH during peaks.
On peak beach days, queues on the PCH/Ocean Avenue ramp and Appian Way can also
block the exit. Advance signage explaining the choices to southbound PCH motorists at the
Appian Way/Ocean Avenue ramps/McClure Tunnel split is inadequate (existing advance
signage is located on the second pedestrian bridge over PCH about one-quarter mile to the
north, with no additional signage until beyond the gore point of the split, not allowing sufficient
IV-25
reaction time for motorists). This leads to confusion and last minute lane changing
approaching the split.
High exiting delays during peaks can cause some motorists to exit the 1550 PCH lot via the
Appian Way exit, leading to increased traffic on Appian Way and other City streets. Also,
exiting volumes at the 1440 lot exit could increase if one of the Pier ramp options (measure B-
1) and/or increasing the parking supply in the 1440 PCH lot (measure A-12) were to be
pursued.
Benefits:
~Survey data from the Pier/Beach Access Study indicates that approximately 80% of Santa
Monica coastal visitors access the area via the Santa Monica Freeway. Improvements to
facilitate exits from the 1550 and 1440 PCH lots onto southbound PCH/eastbound Santa
Monica Freeway would increase the ability of these visitors to directly access their ultimate
route, thus reducing demands on alternative routes (e.g., Appian Way, Seaside Terrace,
Ocean Avenue, Colorado Avenue, and others) reached via the Appian Way exit from the 1550
PCH lot.
~ Improvements would increase capacity for and reduce delays experienced by motorists
exiting at the 1440 PCH lot exit. Preliminary capacity analyses (based on estimated peak lot
outflows since summer hourly count data is not presently available) indicate that the
PCH/driveway intersection would operate at good levels of service (LOS C) with the signal on
peak days, even assuming exiting volumes were to increase due to motorists shifting from the
Appian Way exit in reaction to the reduced delays at the 1440 PCH exit, implementation of the
Pier ramp (measure B-1), and increasing the parking supply in the 1440 PCH lot (measure A-
12).
~Improvements would reduce hazards at the 1440 PCH lot exit caused by frustrated exiting
motorists turning into gaps which are too small.
~Would also improve egress from the 1550/1440 lots for tour and school buses transporting
groups to the Pier. These buses park in the 1550 lot and currently use Appian Way and Pico
Boulevard for access. Facilitating exits directly onto PCH would provide an alternative egress
for these buses, alleviating Appian Way.
~A preliminary signal warrant analysis indicates that a signal would satisfy the Caltrans
Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant during summer weekdays and weekends. (This
analysis was based on the Caltrans Estimated Average Daily Traffic [ADT] warrant, using 1996
peak month ADT data from Caltrans for PCH and daily car counts from the August 1998
duration surveys conducted for the City of Santa Monica for daily exiting volumes. Additional
analyses, including warrant analyses based on actual summer exiting traffic counts and review
of accident records, would be required if this improvement is pursued further.)
~The second and third elements of the proposed improvements (e.g., additional advance
signing, divider striping, and lane markings) are intended to simplify traffic flow and minimize
weaving and "cutting in line" which occurs during peak beach days by better guiding motorists
on southbound PCH into the proper lane prior to the Appian Way/Ocean Avenue/Santa
Monica Freeway split.
IV-26
Issues/Impacts:
~Design and implementation of any improvements at this location will require coordination with
Caltrans.
~Caltrans currently operates long signal cycles (approximately two minutes) on PCH, with the
majority of green time given to PCH through traffic. Vehicle queuing will therefore occur on
exit aisles within the lot during the driveway red phase. To maximize use of the available
green time for the exiting vehicles, the lot should be reconfigured to provide two exit lanes
separate from parking aisles. Preliminary analyses indicate that this will likely require
relocating the exit driveway from its existing location just south of the pedestrian bridge over
PCH to the northernmost edge of the 1440 PCH lot. It is estimated that approximately 15
parking spaces would be lost. (Enlarging the 1440 PCH lot [measure A-12] would offset this
loss.)
~If a pay-on-exit fee collection system were to be implemented (measure A-8), additional
queuing area would be needed between the exit booths and the signal, potentially further
impacting lot configuration and space count.
~The traffic signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the signal at the
PCH/California lncline intersection and, if implemented, the proposed signal at the PCH/1150
lot driveway (see measure B-11). Caltrans and the County of Los Angeles are currently
proposing implementation of a state-of-the-art multijurisdictional advanced traffic management
system along PCH from the McClure Tunnel in Santa Monica to Trancas Canyon in Malibu,
involving traffic signal monitoring, control and synchronization capabilities, real-time
management of traffic information, incident response capabilities, and interjurisdictional data
exchange. This system would facilitate such coordination.
~ It is proposed that both the 1440 lot exit phase itself and the green time allocated to the exit
phase be demand-actuated. Given that the 1440 lot exit is primarily utilized on peak summer
afternoons (with the heaviest use on weekends), this would minimize the effect of the
proposed new half signal on peak southbound PCH weekday morning commute traffic flows.
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost: $170,000, including half signal, interconnect,
signage, striping, parking lot exit lane reconfiguration, engineering/design and contingency.
IV-27
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:lmprovements at 1150 PCH Lot Driveway
Measure #:B-11
Description: Geometric and operational improvements at the 1150 PCH lot driveway onto
PCH. Options for potential improvements include:
1.Install a traffic signal. The signal would allow left-turns into and out of the driveway, with a
separate phase for northbound left-turns into the lot. To optimize signal operation, the
driveway would likely be configured to provide ins and outs at the same location. The signal
would be demand-actuated to minimize impacts on PCH through traffic.
2.Alternatively, install improved signage identifying the separate entrance and exit driveways.
Under both options, encourage Caltrans to replace and maintain missing tubular markers in
PCH median.
Background: The 1150 PCH lot is the first location along northbound PCH after traffic exits
the McClure Tunnel where a left-hand turn can be made from PCH into a beach parking lot.
As such, a significant volume of left-turns as well as U-turns for motorists attempting to head
back southerly on PCH to access adjacent land uses or the Appian Way/1550 PCH lot area
occur at this location. The lot is also one of the larger lots in the Santa Monica beach parking
system, with 487 parking spaces.
The lot currently has separate entrance and exit driveways, with the exit driveway located
approximately 100 feet south of the entrance driveway. A turnaround area is located within the
lot permitting vehicles (e.g., U-turns) to travel between the entrance and exit driveways without
entering the pay area of the lot. Flexible tubular markers have been placed in the PCH median
to reinforce the double yellow line prohibiting left-turns and U-turns prior to the turn pocket at
the lot entrance, although a number of the markers are currently missing.
Benefits:
~A traffic signal (Option 1) would improved safety and reduce delay for vehicles turning into
and out of the 1150 PCH lot.
~Breaks in the southbound PCH traffic flow created by the signal (Option 1) would facilitate
turns into and out of residential properties along PCH south of the 1150 PCH lot.
IV-28
~Improved signage more clearly delineating the entrance versus exit driveways (Option 2)
would help to ensure that motorists do not turn into the 1150 PCH lot exit.
IV-29
~Replacement and maintenance of missing tubular markers would help to ensure that
motorists do not turn too early and do not turn into the lot exit.
~ If pay-on-exit were to be implemented in the 1150 PCH lot (see measure A-7), the traffic
signal would permit two exit lanes to be turned onto PCH.
Issues/Impacts:
~Design and implementation of any improvements at this location will require coordination with
Caltrans.
~A preliminary signal warrant analysis indicates that a signal (Option 1) would satisfy the
Caltrans Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant, but only on peak summer weekends. (This
analysis was based on the Caltrans Estimated Average Daily Traffic [ADT] warrant, using 1996
peak month ADT data from Caltrans for PCH and daily car counts from the August 1998
duration surveys conducted for the City of Santa Monica for daily exiting volumes. Additional
analyses, including warrant analyses based on actual summer exiting traffic counts and review
of accident records, would be required if this option is pursued further.)
~Caltrans currently operates long signal cycles (approximately two minutes) on PCH, with the
majority of green time given to PCH through traffic. Vehicle queuing will therefore occur on
exit aisles within the lot during the driveway red phase. If a pay-on-exit fee collection system
were to be implemented (measure A-7), additional queuing area would be needed between the
exit booths and the signal, potentially impacting lot configuration and space count.
~The traffic signal (Option 1) should be interconnected and coordinated with the signal at the
PCH/California lncline intersection and, if implemented, the proposed half signal at the
PCH/1440 lot exit (see measure B-10). Caltrans and the County of Los Angeles are currently
proposing implementation of a state-of-the-art multijurisdictional advanced traffic management
system along PCH from the McClure Tunnel in Santa Monica to Trancas Canyon in Malibu,
involving traffic signal monitoring, control and synchronization capabilities, real-time
management of traffic information, incident response capabilities, and interjurisdictional data
exchange. This system would facilitate such coordination.
~As an alternative to fully stopping northbound traffic on PCH during the driveway exit signal
phase (Option 1), an option could potentially be investigated to provide an acceleration lane in
the median to allow left-turning vehicles to accelerate to speed before merging into the
northbound PCH traffic flow. However, this would require further investigation of design
geometrics and safety issues associated with the merge into the left-side northbound lanes.
Implementation Costs:
~Option 1- Estimated capital cost: $220,000, including signal, interconnect, parking lot
driveway reconfiguration, engineering/design and contingency.
~Option 2 - Estimated capital cost: $1,000.
IV-30
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:lmprovements at 445 PCH Lot Driveway
Measure #:B-12
Description: Installation of a half traffic signal. The signal would allow left-turns into the
driveway, with a separate phase for northbound left-turns into the lot. To optimize signal
operation, the driveway would likely be configured to provide ins and outs at the same location.
The signal would be demand-actuated to minimize impacts on PCH through traffic.
Background: The 445 PCH lot is located next to the 415 PCH (Sand and Sea) site at which
the City of Santa Monica is proposing to construct a public recreational facility potentially
including meeting facilities, banquet facilities, a National Park Service visitor center, and active
and passive recreational areas. The parking lot currently contains 168 marked spaces, and its
capacity would be increased under the City's proposal. The Back on the Beach Restaurant is
currently located in a corner of the parking lot and would remain under the City's proposal.
Benefits:
~ Improved safety and reduced delay for vehicles turning into and out of the 445 PCH lot.
~Breaks in the southbound PCH traffic flow created by the signal would facilitate turns into
and out of beach parking lots and residential properties along PCH south of the 445 PCH lot.
Issues/Impacts:
~Design and implementation of any improvements at this location will require coordination with
Caltrans.
~A preliminary signal warrant analysis indicates that existing traffic volumes would not satisfy
Caltrans warrants. Including estimated future traffic increases generated by the proposed 415
PCH recreational facilities and expanded parking lot, projected summer volumes may satisfy
the Caltrans Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant. (This analysis was based on the
Caltrans Estimated Average Daily Traffic [ADT] warrant, using 1996 peak month ADT data
from Caltrans for PCH, daily car counts from the August 1998 duration surveys conducted for
the City of Santa Monica for daily exiting volumes, and rough estimates of traffic increases
associated with the 415 PCH recreational proposal. Additional analyses, including warrant
analyses based on actual summer exiting traffic counts and review of accident records, would
be required if this improvement is pursued further.)
~Any traffic signal at this location should be interconnected and coordinated with the signals at
the PCH/California lncline intersection and the PCH/Entrada/Chautauqua intersection.
Caltrans and the County of Los Angeles are currently proposing implementation of a state-of-
the-art multijurisdictional advanced traffic management system along PCH from the McClure
Tunnel in Santa Monica to Trancas Canyon in Malibu, involving traffic signal monitoring,
IV-31
control and synchronization capabilities, real-time management of traffic information, incident
response capabilities, and interjurisdictional data exchange. This system would facilitate such
coordination.
~As an alternative to a half signal, an option could potentially be investigated to provide an
acceleration lane in the median to allow left-turns out, accelerating to speed prior to merging
into the northbound PCH traffic flow. However, this would require further investigation of
design geometrics and safety issues associated with the merge into the left-side northbound
lanes.
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost: $160,000, including half signal, interconnect,
parking lot driveway reconfiguration, engineering/design and contingency.
IV-32
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:Flyover Ramp from Santa Monica Freeway/PCH to 1440/1550 PCH Lot
Measure #:B-13
Description: Construct a flyover off-ramp from westbound Santa Monica Freeway/northbound
PCH directly into the 1440/1550 PCH lots. Given horizontal and vertical constraints through
the McClure Tunnel, the ramp would begin north of the tunnel, bridge over the PCH mainline,
and come down in the 1440 PCH lot.
Background: Survey data indicates that approximately 80% of coastal visitors arrive via the
Santa Monica Freeway from the east. Currently, access to the Central Zone and the 1550
PCH lot from the westbound freeway is indirect, requiring exiting the freeway at Lincoln
Boulevard or 4th Street and traveling via Colorado Avenue or Pico Boulevard to Ocean
Avenue (and thence onto the Pier bridge to access the Pier lot or via Appian Way to access
the 1550 PCH lot). Alternatively, some motorists proceed further north on PCH and make U-
turns at the 1150 PCH lot to travel back on southbound PCH to the Appian Way/1550 PCH lot
exit.
Benefits:
~Improved accessibility of 1550 PCH lot, increasing convenience for Central Zone visitors.
~Complete separation of and elimination of conflicts between inbound left-turn traffic and
opposing southbound PCH through traffic.
~Reduced traffic on City streets along existing access routes to Pier and 1550 PCH lot.
~Reduced demand for U-turns on PCH at 1150 PCH lot.
Issues/Impacts:
~Given limited space along PCH, provision of sufficient room for bringing the new ramp off
between the PCH northbound lanes and the existing Ocean Avenue on-ramp would require
either: (1) shifting the existing on-ramp from Ocean Avenue substantially eastward into the
Palisades bluff area; (2) shifting the entire PCH mainline westward into the 1440 PCH lot area;
or (3) a combination of both. The feasibility of the first is unknown given concerns regarding
bluff stability and need for retaining walls. The second would lead to a loss of parking spaces
in the 1440 PCH lot and could also require right-of-way acquisition and demolitions along the
west side of PCH north of the 1440 PCH lot. These issues would require substantial further
preliminary design and feasibility studies if the ramp concept were to be pursued.
IV-33
~Bringing the ramp down into the 1440 PCH lot would result in the loss of a substantial
number of parking spaces.
~ Design and implementation of such an improvement would trigger the full Caltrans project
development process, including preparation of a Project Study Report, Project Report,
environmental documentation, and PS&E.
Implementation Costs: Costs would be dependent on the results of feasibility studies into
issues such as those raised above. Such detailed technical studies are beyond the scope of
this study. However, it is anticipated that such a ramp could cost in excess of ten million
dollars, not including right-of-way acquisition.
IV-34
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:Flyover Ramp from PCH to 1150 PCH Lot
Measure #:B-14
Description: Construct a flyover off-ramp from northbound PCH directly into the 1150 PCH
lot.
Background: Survey data indicates that approximately 80% of coastal visitors arrive via the
Santa Monica Freeway from the east. This results in a significant volume of left-turns into the
1150 PCH lot from northbound PCH on peak beach days. Given high volumes and speeds on
PCH, this leads to delays for inbound vehicles and creates safety concerns.
Benefits:
~Improved accessibility of 1150 PCH lot, increasing convenience for beach visitors.
~Complete separation of and elimination of conflicts between inbound left-turn traffic and
opposing southbound PCH through traffic.
Issues/Impacts:
~Given limited space along PCH, bringing the new ramp off of the PCH northbound lanes
would require either: (1) constructing the ramp in the Palisades bluff area along the east side
of PCH; (2) shifting the entire PCH mainline westward into the 1150 PCH lot area; or (3) a
combination of both. The feasibility of the first is unknown given concerns regarding bluff
stability and need for retaining walls. The second would lead to a loss of parking spaces in the
1150 PCH lot and would likely also require right-of-way acquisition and demolitions along the
west side of PCH both north and south of the 1150 PCH lot. These issues would require
substantial further preliminary design and feasibility studies if the ramp concept were to be
pursued.
~Bringing the ramp down into the 1150 PCH lot would result in the loss of a substantial
number of parking spaces.
~ Design and implementation of such an improvement would trigger the full Caltrans project
development process, including preparation of a Project Study Report, Project Report,
environmental documentation, and PS&E.
Implementation Costs: Costs would be dependent on the results of feasibility studies into
issues such as those raised above. Such detailed technical studies are beyond the scope of
this study. However, it is anticipated that such a ramp could cost in excess of ten million
dollars, not including right-of-way acquisition.
IV-35
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:Circulation Improvements - Vehicular
Measure:Coast Visitor Traveler Information System
Measure #:B-15
Description: Real-time interactive traveler information system to supplement the existing fixed
signage program. The system would include video surveillance via closed circuit television
cameras (CCTV), detection of parking entrance and exits at the Pier, 1550/1440 PCH lots, and
potentially Appian Way lots via magnetic loops in the pavement, and motorist information via
electronic changeable message signs (CMS) and local highway advisory radio (HAR). The
system would be controlled by the City traffic management center.
Potential CMS locations could include on the I-10 freeway westbound off-ramp approaching
Fourth Street (providing information to motorists as they exit the freeway and approach a key
decision point at Fourth Street), on westbound Colorado Avenue approaching Ocean Avenue
(indicating that motorists can proceed onto the Pier bridge when parking is still available in the
Pier lot and, if the Pier ramp is implemented, the 1440/1550 PCH lots or alternative turn left at
Ocean Avenue), and on southbound Ocean Avenue approaching Seaside Terrace (indicating
that motorists can turn right when parking is still available in the 1440/1550 PCH or Appian
Way lots or alternatively proceed to the Southern Zone lots).
CCTV surveillance cameras would be installed at strategic locations to monitor congestion on
Ocean Avenue, Colorado Avenue, the Pier bridge entrance, the I-10/Fourth Street off-ramp,
the Pier and 1550 lots, and possibly other locations. The cameras would be used to identify
vehicle queues, back-ups through intersections, congestion at the Pier entrance, parking lot
occupancy, and incidents and other traffic problems. A minimum of three cameras are
suggested including one on the I-10/Fourth Street off-ramp, one at the Ocean
Avenue/Colorado intersection, and one monitoring 1550 PCH lot and possibly Pier lot
occupancy.
Highway advisory radio would be implemented in the downtown area, with signs informing
motorists to tune in to the appropriate frequency for real-time information regarding traffic
conditions and routing suggestions.
Background: Significant congestion currently occurs in the vicinity of the Ocean
Avenue/Colorado Avenue intersection on peak days, particularly when the Pier lot fills up and
the Pier bridge is closed to traffic. Even if a Pier ramp is implemented (measure B-1), there will
still be peak periods when both the Pier and the 1550 PCH lot are full. Congestion also occurs
along Seaside Terrace and Appian Way. One of the goals of the study is to encourage
greater utilization of the Southern Zone lots, which are currently substantially underutilized.
IV-36
Benefits:
~Real-time changeable message signage and highway advisory radio would be used to direct
Pier and beach visitors to the south beach lots when the Pier and 1550 lots are full.
~Providing real-time information to motorists regarding parking availability and routing in
advance of key decision points would reduce confusion and congestion at critical locations.
~Directing motorists to alternative parking locations may encourage visitors who would
otherwise leave the area or park elsewhere (i.e., Main Street or downtown) to park in the south
lots.
~The system could also be used to inform motorists of changing conditions and alternate
parking during special events at the Civic Center, Civic Auditorium, Cirque du Soleil, etc.
Issues/Impacts:
~Will require communication linkages between the in-field equipment (e.g., CMS, CCTV, loop
detectors) and the control center at City Hall. Choices could include hard-wire interconnect or
leased transmission lines.
Implementation Costs: Estimated capital cost for initial system: $360,000. Estimated
operational costs: $15,000 per year (not including traffic management center labor costs).
IV-37
V. ON-STREET PARKING MEASURES
As identified by the City at the outset of the study, the third objective of the study is to improve
on-street residential parking in the coastal area.
In response to this objective, residential streets in the coastal area were evaluated to identify
locations where and means by which additional on-street parking supply could potentially be
provided. The study area for this analysis included all streets located in the area bounded by
Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, the Promenade on the west, the Santa Monica Pier
on the north, and the City limits on the south. Aerial photographs and fieldwork were reviewed
to identify potential locations where sufficient pavement or right-of-way width is available to
develop additional parking, either parallel parking on a street where none presently exists or
diagonal parking on streets where more room is available.
The following pages present analyses of a number of locations which were identified in this
task. Although the study objective focuses on on-street residential parking improvements,
many of the measures identified could potentially be utilized by the general public as well as
residents, depending upon whether additional spaces are metered or restricted to residential
permit use only.
In initial community outreach, beach area residents and visitors alike expressed the desire for
more on-street spaces to be made available at more times of the day. For example, morning
street-sweeping restrictions near the beach lots in the Southern Zone keep visitors from
coming to the beach for exercise or dog-walking. Overnight parking restrictions on Ocean
Avenue remove parking spaces there from use by residents of the beach area.
The following on-street parking measures are evaluated herein:
~G1:Barnard Way parallel parking, Hollister Avenue to Fraser Avenue
~G2:Barnard Way median parking, Ocean Park Boulevard to 2600 Barnard lot entrance
V-1
~G3:Bay Street parallel parking, Promenade to Appian Way
~G4:Bicknell Street angled parking, Ocean Avenue to Neilson Way
~G5:Neilson Way nighttime parallel parking, Pico Boulevard to Marine Street
~G6:Pico Boulevard angled parking, Appian Way to Ocean Avenue
~G7:Seaside Terrace parallel parking, Promenade to Appian Way
~G8:Modify street sweeping restrictions - various streets
~G9:Eliminate Ocean Avenue overnight parking restrictions, Seaside Terrace to Pico
Boulevard
~G10:Ocean Avenue median parking, Pico Boulevard to Bicknell Avenue
~G11: Ocean Park Boulevard yellow zone, Barnard Way to Neilson Way
The locations of these measures are illustrated on Figure V-1. Table V-1 presents the results
of an evaluation conducted for each of the alternative measures against a series of evaluation
criteria as defined in Table V-2.
V-2
Figure V-1 (FIGURE V-1 NOT AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY)
V-3
Table V-1
V-4
Table V-2
V-5
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Barnard Way Parallel Parking - Hollister Avenue to Fraser Avenue
Measure #:C-1
Description: Provide parallel parking along one side of Barnard Way between Hollister
Avenue and Fraser Avenue (see Figure V-1). If provided along the east side (e.g., intended
for residential permit use), it is estimated that approximately 20 spaces could be provided.
More than 20 spaces could be provided if along the west side (e.g., intended for bike
path/beachgoer use).
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Barnard Way between Hollister Avenue and Fraser Avenue has two travel lanes plus a raised
median in approximately 30 feet from Hollister Avenue to Hart Avenue, increasing to almost 40
feet south of Hart Avenue. Currently, no stopping is allowed at any time.
Benefits:
~On-street spaces in this section of Barnard Way would provide additional parking adjacent to
residential areas and the beach.
~If provided along the east side, could be utilized as additional residential permit parking. If
provided along the west side, could be utilized as additional general public use.
~If provided as metered parking, would increase short-term parking opportunities nearthe
beach and would increase meter revenues to the City.
Issues/Impacts:
~This section of Barnard Way is used by motorists accessing the beach parking lots along
Barnard Way. Added parking maneuvers could slow traffic flows.
~Would require removal of existing raised median island.
Implementation Costs: Capital costs would be incurred to remove the existing median island
plus costs for striping, signage, and meter installation (if provided as metered parking).
Preliminary capital cost estimate: $28,000 (without meters); $35,000 (with meters).
V-6
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Barnard Way Median Parking - Ocean Park Boulevard to 2600 Barnard Lot
Entrance
Measure #:C-2
Description: Provide parallel parking in the median along the northbound side of Barnard
Way between Ocean Park Boulevard and the 2600 Barnard beach parking lot entrance
driveway (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that approximately 12 spaces could be provided.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Barnard Way between Ocean Park Boulevard and the 2600 Barnard lot driveway has two
through travel lanes plus a painted median and a southbound right-turn lane (serving the
parking lot entrance) in approximately 50 feet. Currently, no stopping is allowed at any time.
Benefits:
~On-street spaces in this section of Barnard Way would provide additional parking adjacent to
residential areas and the beach.
~If provided as metered parking, would increase short-term parking opportunities nearthe
beach and would increase meter revenues to the City.
Issues/Impacts:
~Median parking would require construction of a raised median island separating the parking
stalls from the southbound traffic flow and providing a refuge for motorists getting into and out
of their cars. This would require narrowing the existing travel lanes.
~Median parking, although used in Santa Monica (e.g., 4th Street south of Pico Boulevard) is
not common and could confuse visitors.
~Would increase mid-block pedestrian crossings.
~This section of Barnard Way is used by motorists accessing the beach parking lots along
Barnard Way. Median parking maneuvers could slow traffic flows leaving the 2600 Barnard lot
and traveling towards Ocean Park Boulevard.
V-7
Implementation Costs: Capital costs would be incurred to construct a new median island
(including landscaping) plus costs for striping, signage, and meter installation (if provided as
metered parking). Preliminary capital cost estimate: $52,000 (without meters); $56,000 (with
meters).
V-8
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Bay Street Parallel Parking - Promenade to Appian Way
Measure #:C-3
Description: Provide parallel parking along both sides of Bay Street between the Promenade
and Appian Way (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that approximately 11 spaces could be
provided.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Bay Street between the Promenade and Appian Way has two travel lanes in approximately 40
feet. Currently, no stopping is allowed at any time.
Benefits ~
~On-street spaces in this section of Bay Street would provide additional parking immediately
adjacent to the Promenade and nearby residential and lodging uses.
~If provided as metered parking, would increase short-term parking opportunities nearthe
beach and would increase meter revenues to the City.
Issues/Impacts:
~This block of Bay Street has traditionally terminated in a dead-end at the Promenade, and
use of the block for parking would have required parkers to turn around in limited room at the
dead-end. However, the Beach Improvement Group (BIG) Promenade improvements currently
under construction include provision of a cul-de-sac at the foot of Bay Street. Motorists could
thus use the new cul-de-sac to turn around, making on-street parking spaces in this block of
Bay Street practical.
Implementation Costs: Minor cost for striping and signage plus cost for meter installation (if
provided as metered parking). Preliminary capital cost estimate: $1,300 (without meters);
$5,200 (with meters).
V-9
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Bicknell Street Angled Parking - Ocean Avenue to Neilson Way
Measure #:C-4
Description: Provide angled parking along both sides of Bicknell Street between Ocean
Avenue and Neilson Way (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that a total of approximately 16
spaces could be provided, a net increase of about 3 over the 13 existing spaces in this block.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Bicknell Street between Ocean Avenue and Neilson Way has two travel lanes with parallel
parking on both sides (13 permit spaces) in approximately 56 feet.
Benefits:
~Angled spaces in this section of Bicknell Street would provide additional parking in a
residential zone.
Issues/Impacts:
~This block of Bicknell Street is used by motorists accessing the beach parking lots along
Barnard Way via the signal at Neilson Way and Bicknell Street. Additional parking maneuvers
into and out of angled parking spaces could slow traffic flows on the block.
~Angled parking reduces sight distances for vehicles exiting driveways between angled
parking stalls and for motorists pulling out of angled parking stalls.
Implementation Costs: Minor cost for striping and signage. Preliminary capital cost estimate:
$6,000.
V-10
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Neilson Way Nighttime Parallel Parking - Pico Boulevard to Marine Street
Measure #:C-5
Description: The City of Santa Monica has a programmed project to reconfigure Neilson Way
between Pico Boulevard and Marine Street (see Figure V-1) to provide: (1) a raised median
island with left-turn pockets at major intersections; (2) two travel lanes in each direction during
daytime hours; and (3) parallel parking along both sides during nighttime hours between 8 PM
and 8 AM by restricting travel use of the curb lanes (over 200 overnight spaces estimated).
This project was implemented by the City in 1999 on a temporary basis, with final installation
pending identification of enhanced crosswalk locations and completion of separate sewer
upgrade projects.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Prior to the temporary installation, Neilson Way between Pico Boulevard and Marine Street
provided four through travel lanes (two in each direction) in approximately 48 feet with no turn
lanes at intersections and no stopping allowed at any time.
Benefits:
~On-street spaces along Neilson Way provide additional parking near the Main Street
commercial district to the east and adjacent residential zones and the coastal area to the west
during evening and overnight hours.
Issues/Impacts:
~Does not provide new parking spaces during daytime and early evening hours.
Implementation Costs: See City of Santa Monica CIP.
V-11
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Pico Boulevard Angled Parking - Appian Way to Ocean Avenue
Measure #:C-6
Description: Provide angled parking along the north side of Pico Boulevard between Appian
Way and Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that a total of
approximately 11 spaces could be provided on the north side, a net increase of about 3 over
the 8 existing spaces in this block.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Pico Boulevard between Appian Way and Ocean Avenue has two travel lanes with a raised
median island and parallel parking on both sides (12 metered spaces) in approximately 60
feet.
Benefits:
~Angled spaces in this section of Pico Boulevard would provide additional parking near the
beach and Promenade and adjacent to lodging and residential uses.
Issues/Impacts:
~This block of Pico Boulevard is used by motorists accessing the beach parking lots and
lodging and residential uses along Appian Way. Additional parking maneuvers into and out of
angled parking spaces could slow traffic flows on the block.
~Angled parking reduces sight distances for vehicles exiting driveways between angled
parking stalls and for motorists pulling out of angled parking stalls.
~Would require removal of existing 16' raised median island.
Implementation Costs: Capital costs would be incurred to remove the existing median island
plus costs for striping, signage, meter relocation, and meter installation. Preliminary capital
cost estimate: $23,000.
V-12
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Seaside Terrace Parallel Parking - Promenade to Appian Way
Measure #:C-7
Description: Provide parallel parking along the south side of Seaside Terrace between the
Promenade and Appian Way (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that approximately 5 spaces
could be provided.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Seaside Terrace between the Promenade and Appian Way has two travel lanes in
approximately 30 feet. Currently, no stopping is allowed at any time.
Benefits:
~On-street spaces in this section of Seaside Terrace would provide additional parking
immediately adjacent to the Promenade and nearby residential uses.
~If provided as metered parking, would increase short-term parking opportunities nearthe
beach and would increase meter revenues to the City.
Issues/Impacts:
~Motorists attempting to access the new parking spaces would need to travel to the end of
Seaside Terrace and turn around at the 1640 Appian Way parking lot driveway next to the
Promenade. This would impede access to the 1640 Appian parking lot on peak beach days.
Implementation Costs: Minor cost for striping and signage plus cost for meter installation (if
provided as metered parking). Preliminary capital cost estimate: $1,000 (without meters);
$3,000 (with meters).
V-13
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Modify Street Sweeping Restrictions - Various Streets
Measure #:C-8
Description: Change existing daily street sweeping restrictions to alternate sides of the street
every other day (e.g., Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday) at various
on-street parking locations in the coastal area potentially including sections of Appian Way,
Arcadia Terrace, Bay Street, Ocean Avenue, Pacific Terrace, and Pico Boulevard (see Figure
V-1).
In the absence of the daily street sweeping restrictions, however, mechanisms may also need
to be implemented to discourage overnight stays adjacent to the beach. Overnight parking
restrictions (e.g., parking prohibition between 9 PM and 6 AM similar to current prohibition
along the east side of Barnard Way south of the 2600 Barnard parking lot entrance) or
changing the street sweeping itself to overnight hours (e.g., between 3 and 5 AM) would
restrict the use of these spaces for overnight parking by residents. Alternatively, a residential
permit parking overlay could potentially be implemented to restrict use of the spaces during
overnight hours to residents displaying permits only.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
At present, 163 of the 216 metered spaces have a posted restriction prohibiting parking from 7
to 9 AM daily for street sweeping, consisting of the following:
~ 109 spaces - Ocean Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Hollister Avenue
~19 spaces - Bay Street between Appian Way and Ocean Avenue
~ 12 spaces - Pico Boulevard between Appian Way and Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way
~9 spaces - Appian Way between Pico Boulevard and Bay Street
~7 spaces - Pacific Terrace between the Promenade and Appian Way
~7 spaces - Arcadia Terrace between the Promenade and Appian Way
The only on-street spaces available to the general public in the area without these restrictions
are 46 metered spaces along Ocean Avenue between Seaside Terrace and Pico Boulevard, 7
metered spaces along Barnard Way between Ashland Avenue and Hill Street, 6 unrestricted
spaces on Ocean Park Boulevard, and 1 unrestricted space on Bay Street near Neilson Way.
Thus, the effect of the restrictions is that there are very few on-street spaces available to the
general public in the vicinity of the beach between 7 and 9 AM.
V-14
Benefits:
~Permitting use of a portion of the on-street metered spaces between 7 and 9 AM would
provide short-term parking for persons who wish to visit the beach and/or use the bike path
during early morning hours.
~Residents parked overnight in affected spaces would not be forced to move their vehicle by 7
AM.
Issues/Impacts:
~Could affect cleanliness of streets in vicinity of beach if street sweeping frequency is
reduced.
~Needs to be coordinated with street maintenance department.
Implementation Costs: Capital cost to modify parking restriction signage. Could reduce
ongoing City street sweeping costs if street sweeping frequency is reduced. Preliminary
capital cost estimate: $9,600, assuming all streets were modified.
V-15
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Eliminate Ocean Avenue Overnight Parking Restrictions - Seaside Terrace to
Pico Boulevard
Measure #:C-9
Description: Eliminate existing overnight street parking prohibitions along Ocean Avenue
between Seaside Terrace and Pico Boulevard (see Figure V-1). Consider replacing the
overnight prohibitions with a residential permit parking overlay restricting the spaces to use by
residents displaying permits during overnight hours only.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
At present, 18 of the 46 metered spaces along Ocean Avenue between Seaside Terrace and
Pico Boulevard have a posted restriction prohibiting parking from 8 PM to 7 AM (i.e.,
overnight). The remaining 28 of the spaces have no such overnight restriction.
Benefits:
~Allowing use of the 18 currently prohibited spaces by residential permit overnight would
provide additional overnight parking for residents of the area to the west of Ocean Avenue.
Implementation Costs: Minor capital cost to modify parking restriction signage. Preliminary
capital cost estimate: $2,800.
V-16
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Ocean Avenue Median Parking - Pico Boulevard to Bicknell Avenue
Measure #:C-10
Description: Provide parallel parking along the west side of the island median on Ocean
Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Bicknell Avenue (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that
approximately 27 spaces could be provided.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
Ocean Avenue between Pico Boulevard and Bicknell Avenue provides two travel lanes and a
parking lane (17 metered spaces on the west side) in the southbound direction, approximately
40 feet in width from curb to the island median.
Benefits:
~On-street spaces in this section of Ocean Avenue would provide additional parking nearby
lodging and residential uses.
~If provided as metered parking, would increase short-term parking opportunities nearthe
beach and would increase meter revenues to the City.
Issues/Impacts:
~Median parking would require extending existing raised median island to the west, near the
intersection of Ocean Avenue and Pico Boulevard, into the travel lane. This allows the travel
lane to convert into a parking lane. Resulting in one travel lane in the southbound direction
between Pico Boulevard and Bicknell Avenue. This may be included in the Phase I Crosswalk
Enhancement Study.
~Median parking, although used in Santa Monica (e.g., 4th Street south of Pico Boulevard) is
not common and could confuse visitors.
~Would increase mid-block pedestrian crossings.
~This section of Ocean Avenue is used by motorists accessing the beach parking lots along
Barnard Way. Median parking maneuvers could slow traffic through this area.
V-17
Implementation Costs: Capital costs would be incurred to extend median island plus costs
for striping, signage, and meter installation (if provided as metered parking). Preliminary
capital cost estimate: $7,200 (without meters); $16,200 (with meters).
V-18
SANTA MONICA COASTAL PARKING AND CIRCULATION STUDY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Category:On-Street Parking
Measure:Ocean Park Boulevard Yellow Zone - Barnard Way to Neilson Way
Measure #:C-11
Description: Shorten the existing yellow zone along south side of Ocean Park Boulevard
midway between Barnard Way and Neilson Way to provide additional parking spaces for
general use (see Figure V-1). It is estimated that approximately 4 spaces could be provided.
Background: On-street parking in the area bounded by the Santa Monica Pier on the north,
the City limits on the south, Ocean Avenue/Neilson Way on the east, and the beach on the
west is heavily utilized and serves multiple competing demands, including those of residents,
lodging guests, commercial patrons and employees, beachgoers, and bike path users.
Approximately 437 on-street spaces exist in this area, including 198 residential permit spaces,
216 metered spaces, 3 handicap spaces, 14 loading zone spaces, and 6 unrestricted spaces.
At present, a yellow zone allowing commercial loading only between 9 AM and 6 PM every day
except Sunday is in place along a portion of the south side of Ocean Park Boulevard between
Barnard Way and Neilson Way. The zone is roughly 200 feet in length and is used by moving
vans and contractor vehicles accessing the adjacent Sea Colony condominiums.
Benefits:
~Shortening the yellow zone by roughly 100 feet would permit creation of about 4 new parking
spaces in a residential area while leaving room for 2 vehicles in the loading zone.
Implementation Costs: Minor capital cost for signage and striping. Preliminary capital cost
estimate: $2,000.
V-19
APPENDICES NOT AVAILABLE ELECTONICALLY
APPENDIX A
EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY, UTILIZATION, AND REVENUE DATA
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING COMMUNITY OUTREACH
APPENDIX C
SURVEY OF BEACH CITIES
APPENDIX D
CONCEPTUAL PIER RAMP OPTIONS