SR-506-003-04 (16)
J'i .. e e /IB
5tJtp --PO 3 -0 sL OCT 2
Santa ~10nica, Cal1fornia, October 16, 19808 t980
To: Mayor and City Council
From: City Staff
Subject: Proposed Left Turn Lanes on 4th Street
Introduction
This report reVlews the trafflc flow situation on 4th Street between Broadway
and Arlzona Avenue and recommends Counc1l d1rect Staff to remove parking meters
and lnstall left turn lanes.
Background
At the September 23, 1980, City Council Meeting (Item SD), Staff was dlrected
to reVlew the traff1C flow on 4th Street, cons1der remov1ng parking meters and
1nstall left turn lanes between Broadway and Arizona.
In 1967, Clty Councll consldered a plan to remove the parklng meters and install
left turn lanes on 4th Street between Colorado and Callforn1a Avenues. The plan
they adopted excluded sectlons of parklng meters between Broadway and Arlzona
Avenue. At the November g, 1971, City Council Meeting, Council reafflrmed thelr
commitment to leave the 25 on-street parklng spaces between Broadway and Arizona.
In February. 1977. Staff recommended Councll remove the 25 on-street parking
spaces due to increased congestion. City Council tabled the item indefln1tely
at that t1me.
Fourth Street has a curb to curb width of 52 feet. To provide for two lanes of
trafflc and one parking lane would require 56 feet curb to curb. The proposed
two lanes of trafflc and left turn lanes may be facllitated wlthin the existlng
52 foot wi dth.
Fourth Street between Broadway and Arlzona has 21 parklng spaces and one loadlng
zone on the east slde of the street and 4 parking spaces on the west slde.
//$
rO-C1 " 2 .nM
-~ ~- -~- ---------
... . e e
To: Mayor and Clty Council -2- October 16, 1980
Between Mall Court East and 4th Court~ from Broadway to Arizona Avenue, there
are 998 off-street parklng spaces directly serv1ng these two blocks of 4th
Street. There are 50 on-street parking meters between the Mall and 5th Street
on Arizona, Broadway, and Santa Monica Boulevard. There are an addltional 1395
off-street parklng spaces in the area that indirectly serves the subject location
(1000 from Santa Monica Place and 395 from Private Lots).
In 1977, Staff stated that left turn lanes would greatly facllitate the flow of
traffic and reduce congestlon on 4th Street. The average daily traffic on 4th
Street was 13,620 vehtc1es per day 1n 1977, and 26,575 vehicles per day ln Octo-
ber, 1980. ThlS indlcates that since 1977 there has been a 95 percent increase
in traffic on 4th Street. Staff has observed continued congestion on 4th Street
from Colorado Avenue north to Arlzona Avenue. The congestion may be attributed
to Santa Monlca Place and the bottleneck created by two lanes funnellng down to
one between Broadway and Arizona.
Staff has met wlth representatives of some of the affected propertles and has
notifled the property owners and buslnessmen on 4th Street between Broadway and
Arlzona that this ltem wl11 be dlscussed at the City Councl1 meeting of October
28, 1980.
Recommendation
It is recommended that City Councll 1nstruct Staff to remove all on-street
parking between Broadway and Arlzona Avenue and lnsta11 two travel lanes and
left turn lanes 1n each direct10n.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Ray Da vis
Attachment: Proposed Pl an
- --~--- -- --- -
. 5CJ~-Ot!J3-o$'. 9.13
May 14, 1991
Ms Mayor, honorable members of the City Council,
My name is Russell Shaver and I live at 2673 33rd St., in the Sunset Park
part of Santa Monica.
I have appeared on many occasions before the Council discussmg my
concerns about the growing traffic problems in Santa Monica. Traffic
congestion hanns Santa Monica, its businesses and residents, in many ways.
But for the most part I am here tonight because of the unacceptable levels
of traffic in out residential neighborhoods, and all that this means for the
safety of my children, the comfort and safety of the residents of my
neighborhood, and the overall quality of life of all Santa Monica residents.
I attended the traffic methodology workshop and listened to the debate
among the three experts. They seemed to agree on one point. It really
doesn't matter which methodology the City selects so long as the only issue
is estimating the traffic congestion at selected intersections. But I want to
impress upon you that an intersection's level of service (LOS) is not the
issue which this Council needs to consider. The major issue is what
measures should the City undertake (and at what cost) to improve the
traffic situation across Santa Monica. In this light, I encourage the Council
to endorse and select the HeM (or "delay") methodology. The following
points substantiate this recommendation.
Point One: Santa Monica should embrace two distinct objectives for
decisions on traffic improvement measures: (1) Improving the flow of
traffic along Santa Monica's major streets ("arterials"), and (2) Decreasing
the flow of traffic (and in particular "cut-through" traffic) in residential
neighborhoods of Santa Monica.
It is important for Santa Monica to improve the flow of traffic along its
major streets (the "arterials"). Only through such improvements can we
continue to attract businesses and maintain a healthy business environment
in Santa Monica. WIthout shoppers from outside our borders, many of our
busmesses would wither and die. Ready access by consumers to these
businesses is important for the financial health of the City. In addition,
crowded and slow-moving arterials encourage traffic to find alternate
routes through the City, routes which all-too-often lead to unwanted traffic
intrusions into our residential neighborhoods. Measures such as street light
synchronization, restripmg streets, even widening some streets should all
be considered.
1
~
. .
Simultaneously, it is equally important for Santa Monica to protect its
residential neighborhoods against intrusive "cut-through" traffic. The
more familiar objective of getting traffic to move better along the arterials
is in important ways different from this objective. The residents want to
reduce the volume and speed of traffic flowing along their residential
streets, not seek ways to make it flow better and faster. They are looking
for measures to impede traffic flow, as this will discourage (and thus
reduce) cut-through traffic. Traffic barriers or other means to delay and
impede traffic all deserve serious consideration.
Pomt Two:, The City should select and use that measure which best meets
the needs of designing traffic plans for both objectives. In my view only
one methodology directly aids both. All three will support the first
measure, although the delay methodology will best help the design of a
comprehensive traffic signal management plan. But only the delay
methodology can be used directly to design and assess neighborhood traffic
protection measures.
PQint Three: Nothing was said about the second objective at the
Workshop. Why then do I assert that only the delay methodology is
relevant? I believe that the logic is straightforward. Please image that you
are in your car and about to leave your home to drive to work. What
determines the route that you will take? The number of possible paths to
your working place is almost infinite, but you probably only consider a
couple. The determining factor for most people is the route that requires
the least amount of time. This "least time" route is not fixed for all time;
most people periodically change their route to work to see whether an
alternative route might be better (i.e., faster). As traffic conditions
change, people find better routes, avoiding the new delays along their
original route.
Please note that the congestion of intersections wasn't an important
consideration. As evidenced every weekday at 23rd and Ocean Park blvd.,
people will bear a substantial delay at anyone intersection so long as the
overall route is the least time path.
To assess how changing conditions are likely to change driving patterns--
essential for neighborhood protection planning and important for
understanding how to improve traffic flow within the City as wen~-only
the delay methodology gives us the needed time-sensitive information. Of
course, we also need a traffic network model and an understanding of the
origins and destinations of the drivers (the so~called OD matrix). And we
..,
----- ----- --- -
-- - - ------
. .
need people trained in using such models. Without such people, models,
and the data needed to run them, we will be stuck wIth the type of traffic
analysis that populates all our past EIRs.
Point Four: There was some discussion of differing costs for the
different methodologies at the Workshop. This discussion was flawed for
two reasons. One, costs were portrayed as a burden on the CIty. I note
that most of the costs will be borne by the developers when they carry out
their EIRs. It is upon them that we will impose most of the burdens of
collecting the extra data that appear needed for accurate assessments of
delays at intersections. And two, there was an inadequate discussion of the
value of the extra data for all three methods. Reliable traffic congestion
and traffic flow assessments cost money, but they are of equal importance
for all three of the measures discussed.
I am reminded of the old adage, "Penny wise and pound foolish! II
Irrespective of the method finally selected, I urge you to insist on
collecting and maintaining an adequate traffic data base. The initial draft
of the Citywide Traffic study suggested that $171 million would be needed
to prevent further serious deterioration of traffic flow within Santa
Monica. The costs of using the best methodology to evaluate traffic
improvement measures are trivial by comparison. We cannot afford to
make mistakes because of lack of attention to data collection. Nor should
we settle for a second-best method, considering the SIze of the stakes.
Recommendation. Let's do this one right!
(1) Select the delay methodology and get on with collecting the data.
(2) Call on the people of Santa Monica to help. It should be possible
to amass a collection of traffic counters from the concerned public,
volunteers that would save the city money and time.
(3) Identify and obtain a suitable traffic network flow model (the
licensing cost should be at most a few thousand dollars, and it should be
capable of running on a PC or MAC). An OD matrix was generated for
the CItywide Traffic study and should be usable for this pwpose.
(4) Set up a committee of traffic "consultants" and concerned
citizens to monitor and critique application of the model and data to
specific traffic studies. While this would be generally useful, it would be
particularly valuable for identifying of reSIdentIal concerns when
addressing neighborhood traffic protection planning.
'J