SR-11-E (10)
--....
~
e
e
Santa Monica, California, January 16. 1978
TO. Mayor and City Council
II ~
FROM: City Staff
JAN 2 4 1976
SUBJECT: Central Area Circulation Feasibility Analysis
SD
FE B 1 4 1978
Introduction
This report transmits the Santa Monica Central Area Circulation Feasibility
Analysis and recommends that the City Council schedule/hold a public hearing
and proceed with the implementation of the recommended transportation system.
Background
In May, 1973, the City Council established a reserve fund pursuant to the
provisions of the Transportation Act of 1971, as amended (58 325) and authorized
the staff to file an application for the implementation of a transportation
system within the Central Business District. The reserve fund has since accrued
approximately $6 mill Ion In capital fund to be used for transportation
systems
In August, 1976, the Council retained Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., transportation
planners and traffic engineers; Kahn, Kappe, Lotery, Boccato, planners and urban
designers, and Keyser Marston ASSOCIates, urban economists to analyze the
transportation needs and system feasibility for implementing a transportalon
system within the Central Business District.
Discussion
The Central Area Circulation Feasibility Analysis describes the current trans-
portation condItions and the 1990 transportation problems and needs, and ~ ~
recommends alternative improvement programs.
FE B 1 4 1978
JI ~
JAN 2 4 '978
4
e
e
TO. Mayor and City Council
-2-
January 16, 1978
The analysis reveals that the traffic problems in 1990 would not be so serIous
that an elaborate transportation system would be required to solve them. In
order to maxImize the benefits to be derived by the proposed new retail center
and to improve the mobilIty and convenience of pedestrians and shoppers on Santa
Monica MalJ in developing the potential of downtown Santa Monica as a regionaJ
center, however, a transportation system serving the Mall will be required.
To this end, twelve alternative systems were considered and four systems were
carefully evaluated. The criteria used in the evaluation process included system
accessibility including parking access; system travel times and patronage,
environmental and urban design qualities; right-of-way requirements, view
opportunities; capital and operating costs, and fiscal benefits.
It was concluded after the evaluation process that either an automated gUideway
transit system or a cableway (horizontal elevator) transportation system on t~e
Mall will best w.eet the transportation needs of the Central Business District.
The four alternatIves carefully considered In the evaluation process included:
l. Second-level moving sidewalk,
2. Second-level automated guideway system;
3. Grade-level tram system; and
4. Cableway system at second-level.
Alternative l--El~vated Moving Sidewalk
Alternative I is an elevated moving sidewalk along the length of the Santa Monica
Mall from Wilshire Boulevard to Santa Monica Place at Broadway which would include
five stations.
e
-
TO: Mayor and City Council
-3-
January 16, 1978
There would be discontinuities In the system at the three central stations to
allow passengers to get on and off the mOVIng sidewalk. Continuing passengers
would dtse~bark from the systeM, cross the station and reboard at the next
section.
An elevator and escalator would be provided at each station. The station and
moving sidewalk would be covered but not enclosed. The speed would be constant
at approximately two mph
The capital cost of this alternative is estimated at $9.990,000. Included In
this figure is $1,350,000 for connection of the existing parking structures to
the system. The operating and maintenance costs of the system are estimated at
$780,000 annually.
Alternative 2--Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)
AlternatIve 2 is an AGT shuttle system along the Mall Two unmanned vehicles
shuttle back and forth in opposite directions along an elevated linear track.
The system IS fully automated. Double tracking occurs over an approximately
300 foot section to allow the cars to pass one another. There would be four
stations one station at mid-block between Wilshire and Arizona to serve the
parking garages between Arizona and Wilshire corridor, a second station to
serve the parking garages between Arizona and Santa Monica; a third station
between Santa Monica and Broadway to serve adjacent parking structures and the
Santa Monica Boulevard corridor; and the fourth station within Santa Monica Place.
The average speed of each car would be about 10 mph. Each vehicle could make
approximately 13 round trips an hour over the approximately 2,000 foot track.
Therefore, the average waiting time should be about 2.5 minutes
6.'
e
e
TO: Mayor and City Council
-4-
January 16, 1978
The capital cost of this alternative 15 estimated at 54,520,000. This figure
includes $1,350,000 for connection of the system to the parking structures.
The operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $200,000 annually.
Alternative 3--Trams
Alternative 3 consists of five trams, custom-built minibuses or a sMall rail
system. serving the Mall at grade level.
The trams along the Mall would provide five minute headways. One tram could
make three round trips per hour, with an average speed of 2.3 mph. It was
assumed that existing maintenance facilities and personnel would be used.
The capital cost of this alternative IS estimated at $1,600.000 for rubber-tired
tram system, and approximately $3,600.000 for a rail system. This figure Includes
Sl.350,000 for a connection of the system to the parking structures. The
operating and maintenance costs of this alternative would be $310,000.
Alternative 4--Cableway (Horizontal Elevator)
Alternative 4 utilizes a moving way system consisting of cars towed along a
gUideway via a cable within the guideway structure. The system along the Mall
is envisioned to be an elevated "horizontal elevator.1I There would be two cars.
each on its own guideway and pulled by cables
The cars would travel in
opposite directions as In Alternative 2 with a station configuration similar to
Alternative 2. This system would not be controlled by COMputer and uses elevator
technology.
The costs of this system are identical to Alternative 2; $4,520,000 for capital
costs and $200.000 annually for operating and maintenance.
.
e
e
.
TO
Mayor and City Council
~5-
January 16. 1978
Recommendation
The staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the following implementation
steps:
I. Designate February 28. 1978. for a publIc hearing and possIble actIon.
2. Refer the report to the Planning Commission and the Transportation
Co~mittee of the Chamber of Commerce for review and comment
Prepared by: John Jalilj
Jack HutchIson
Stan Scho 11
JJ'JH.SS:mh