The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-400-001-01F:\CMANAGER\Staff Reports\WSCOG.doc Council Meeting: December 9, 2003 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM City Staff ~ ~a `~Qil~ DEC - ~ 200~ Santa Monica, CA SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Approving in Concept the Westside Cities Mobility Study and Support of Advocacy on B~~half of the Westside Cities Transportation Needs Introduction This report requests City Council adoption of ~~ resolutic~n (Attachment A) conceptually approving the Westside Cities Mobility Study ~and Support of Advocacy on Behalf of the Westside Cities Transportation Needs, Backqround Initiated by the Westside Summit Cities (a Co~aricil of Gowernments consisting of Santa Monica; Beverly Hills, Culver City, and West Hollywood ir~ formation), the Westside Mobility Study takes a multi-jurisdictional approach to identifying and meeting regional transportation needs, The study, jointly funded and directed by all four cities, focuses on practical short term and long term transportation solutions ranging from improved transit stops, to improved arterial efficiency to construction of up to two regional rail lines, including Exposition Light Rail to Santa Monica. It provides an Action Plan, including funding considerations, to guide work with the C;ity of Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, State and Federal officials and agencies to realize study goals. This staff report recommE;rids adoption of a resolution in support of 1 °~~ - g zo the study goals, initiates exploration of potential solutions to Westside transportation problems, and outlines an action plan for future advocacy. Fiscal Realitv A majority of the potential transportation improvE;ments needed on the Westside are ve.ry expensive. Obtaining funding for such enhancements will require analytical studies, years of work ~nd political leadership To realize any of these transportation enhancements desired by the Westside Cities, revenue sources will need to be identified and secured, Transportation improvements sought on the We:~tside are large capital projects (rail street and road improvements). At this time, given the state of our economy, all future transportation improvements are beyond the financial abilities of the COG cities, the MTA or the State, In reality, transportation funding for existing, on-going operations - to the MTA for transit, to cities for street maintenance and to our local Culver City and Santa Monica bus lines for services - is barely enough to maintain current service levels and, in some cases, is shrinking, Funding for capital improvements is also severely limited The Westside Cities must strongly support the MTA in addressing the shortfall in financing for public transit and city streets by sec:uring new resources Since sources would have to be developed countywide, regionwide or statewide, immediate actions should be taken to build coalitions to continue and expand the multimodal transportation 2 system Santa Monica City Council supported SB 314 (Murray) which authorizes a 0.5% sales tax for six years to fund transportation improvements in Los Angeles County. Exposition Light Rail to Santa Monica is a specified project in the bill SB314 was signed into law, Chapter 785. The MTA is currently considering the optimal time to place the measure before the voters Planning for regional transportation must continue while funds are sought. Transportation projects take years to design and obtain consensus. Entities with plans in place secure the available mc~nies. The Westside Cities need to be "ready to go" when funding is available. The region has lost ground on major projects, creating a relatively large discrepancy on funded or complE~ted major transportation projects as compared to other parts of the Los Angeles County. Discussion At the October 24, 2003 meeting, the Westside COG (in formation) supported seeking conceptual approval of the study by each of the City Councils and prioritized an implementation effort for the 2004 COG work program Previously, each of the City Councils approved preparation of the Mobility study and the selection of Kaku Associates as the consultant. Discussion was held at the Westside Summit meetings of August 8, 2002, October 7, 2002, January 3, 2003, May 9, 2003 and September 26, 2003 where comments and suggestions guided the preparation of the study. 3 The Westside Mobility Study provides a sub-regional view of travel behavior, allowing for solutions that move beyond individual city boundaries. It addresses areas in need of immediate roadway and transit improvements while also identifying locations for long term transportation solutions. The Mobility Stud~y will also help the Westside Cities concentrate on practical and cost effective solutions, such as multimodal facilities, capacity expansion, better transit linkages, inceritives for mixed-use development, regional light rail and other public transportation strategies. Further, it will provide an action plan for work with officials and agencies at the federal, state and local level. Attachment B is the Mobility Study. As the beginning of an Action Plan, Table ES-1 identifies significant transportation improvement:~ that address needs in each of the COG cities. As part of the planning process, the cities developed four combined applications for MTA grant funding in the followirig areas: realtime motorist parking information system demonstration; Santa Monic<~ Boulevard streetscape enhancements; Westside community transit information security centers; Westside cities pedestrian rapid bus and bike linkage toolkit. Santa Monica staff has identified required matching funds in the event that MTA f~anding is available and these projects are selected. Conclusion The Westside Mobility Study represents a regional, inter-jurisdictional approach to transportation planning that recognizes the importance of coordination of goals and 4 strategies to address issues of regional importance. It will guide future transportation improvements on the Westside to advance the area's economic vitality. This report and the preparation of a list of potential long-term transportation improvements is meant to give staff direction on how and where to proceed in the next phase of the transportation efforts of the Westside COG. It identifies the level of commitment; dedication and leadership that will be needed to move projects forward when one or more are agreed upon. Thereafter staff will identify next steps and collaborative efforts to be approved by the COG. Budqet/Financial Impact There is no immediate budget impact from adoption of the resolution or conceptual approval of the study. As part of the planning process, staff applied jointly with the other Westside Cities for MTA Call for Project grant funding and will return to Council if projects are selected for funding. The Exposition Light Rail project is an ongoing advocacy effort to secure federal, state or MTA regional funding. Recommendation Staff respectfully requests that the City Council adopt a resolution conceptually approving the Westside Mobility Study, including support for advocacy of the Westside Cities' transportation needs. 5 Prepared By: Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager for Government Relations Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development Stephanie Negriff, Director of Transit Services, Big Blue Bus Suzanne Frick, Director, Planning and Community Development Attachments: A) Resolution B) Mobility Study: 1 - Table of Contents 2 - Executive Summary 3 - Pu rpose 4- Analysis of Existing Conditions 5- Collaborative Ideas for Westside Transportation Improvement 6- Collaborative Grant Applications for Short Term Solutions 7- What is Funded and What is Not 8 - Immediate Action Recommendations 6 WESTSIDE MOBILITY STUDY ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT REPORT October 2003 Prepared for: WESTSIDE CITIES Prepared by: KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1453 Third Street, Suite 400 Santa Monica, California 904Q1 (314) 458-9916 Ref: 1553 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ~ Purpose ................................................................................................................ 8 Analysis of Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation of Existing Transportation Conditions ..................................................... 10 Collaborative Ideas for Westside Transportation Improvement ................................................. 25 Top Priority Needs ......................................................................................................... 25 Quality of Life Improvements ......................................................................................... 26 Possible, Practical and Cost-effective Solutions ....................................................... 28 Order-of-Magnitude Costs ........................................................................................ 32 Collaborative Grant Applications for Short Term Solutions ........................................................ 34 FY 03 Call for Projects Applications .............................................................................. 34 Real Time Motorist Parking Information System Demonstration ................................... 35 Santa Monica Boulevard Streetscape Enhancements .................................................. 36 Westside Community Transit Information Security Centers .......................................... 40 Westside Cities' Pedestrian, Rapid Bus and Bike Linkage Toolkit ................................ 41 What is Funded and What is Not ............................................................................................... 60 Equity in Allocation Of Resources To Westside ....................................................... 60 Fiscal Reality ........................................................................................................... 67 Immediate Action Recommendations ......................................................................................... 69 City Council Resolution{s) ........................................................................................ 69 Plan for Cooperative Action with City of Los Angeles ............................................... 70 Plan for Advocacy and Cooperative Action with MTA ............................................... 70 Plan for Advocacy for State and Federal Funding .................................................... 71 LIST OF FIGURES NO. ES-1 Regional Rail Transit Network--Existing and Funded vs. Unfunded .......................... 3 1 Westside Mobility Study Area ........................................................................................ 11 2 Major Activity Centers ................................................................................................... 12 3 Population Density ........................................................................................................ 14 4 Employment Density ..................................................................................................... 15 5 Arterial Street Hot Spots - AM Peak Hour ................................................................... 16 6 Arterial Street Hot Spots - PM Peak Hour ................................................................... 17 7 Arterial Street Hot Spots - AM and PM Peak Hours .................................................. 18 8 Hot Spot Locations ....................................................................................................... 20 9 Poor Transit Service Conditions ................................................................................... 23 10 Proposed "Grand Boulevards" ....................................................................................... 27 11 Priority Corridors for Improvement ................................................................................ 29 12 Real-Time Motorist Parking Information System Demonstration ................................... 37 13 Santa Monica Boulevard Streetscape Enhancement .................................................... 39 14 Transit Information 8~ Security Center - Flush with Face of Building ............................. 42 15 Transit Information 8~ Security Center - Projecting from Face of Building .................... 43 16 Bus Stop P~ototype - View of Typical Bus Stop ............................................................ 47 17 Bus Stop Prototype - Transverse Elevation .................................................................. 48 18 Bus Stop Prototype - Longitudinal Elevation ................................................................. 49 19 Bus Stop Prototype - Kit of Parts .................................................................................. 50 20 Urban Condition - Retail ............................................................................................... 51 21 Urban Condition - Retail with Setback .......................................................................... 52 22 Urban Condition - Office Building ................................................................................. 53 23 Urban Condition - Gas Station ...................................................................................... 54 24 Urban Condition - Parking Lot ...................................................................................... 55 25 Application of Linkage Toolkit - Santa Monica Boulevard and Doheny Drive ............... 56 26 Application of Linkage Toolkit - Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard....... 57 27 Application of Linkage Toolkit - Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard ....................... 58 28 Application of Linkage Toolkit - Sepulveda Boulevard and Venice Boulevard .............. 59 29 Regional Bus Transit Network--Existing and Funded vs. Unfunded ......................... 62 30 Regional Rail Transit Network--Existing and Funded vs. Unfunded .......................... 63 LIST OF TABLES NO. ES-1 Ideas for Significant Transportation Improvements ....................................................... 4 ES-2 Existing Metro Rail System ............................................................................................ 5 ES-3 Existing Metro Rail System ............................................................................................ 6 1 Ideas for Significant Transportation Improvements ....................................................... 31 2 Existing Metro Rail System ................:........................................................................... 64 3 Major Regional Projects Planned by MTA ..................................................................... 65 4 Westside's Share of Major Capital Investments in Regional Transportation ............ 66 WESTSIDE MOBILITY STUDY DRAFTREPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Initiated by the Westside Cities, a Council of Governments (COG) in formation, the Westside Mobility Study takes a multijurisdictional approach to addressing regional transportation needs. The study, jointly funded and directed by all four cities, is focused on practical short-term and longer-term transportation solutions ranging from improved transit stops and improved arterial efficiency to construction of up to two regional rail lines as well as funding considerations. The short-term component concluded with the submittal of MTA Call for Projects funding applications. The long-term major transportation initiatives identified by participating elected officials, the staff team and Kaku Associates will take years of work, political leadership and identification of new revenue sources to match scarce federal and state funding. Figure ES-1 is a stark reminder of how the Westside has not secured its fair share of regional transportation resources over the years. Table ES-1 is a list of long-term projects that carries a large price tag. Even during times of large state and federal outlays for transportation, all could not realistically be funded. At this time, all future transportation improvements are beyond the financial abilities of cities, the MTA, the state or even the federal government; all are facing multi-million-dollar deficits. In reality, transportation funding for existing, on-going operations, to the MTA for transit, to cities for street maintenance and to Culver City and Santa Monica bus lines for services, is barely enough to maintain current service levels and, in some cases, is shrinking. Funding for capital improvements is also severely limited. Fully funding Westside mobility improvements will require the creation of new revenue sources. The following are obsenrations of this study: 1 • Improvements to roadways (e.g., traffic signals) and transit systems will help traffic flow but will not solve the traffic congestion problems or have enough impact to maintain the economic viability of the Westside. . With present fiscal constraints, it will be a challenge even to maintain current funding levels for street maintenance and bus systems. Any expansion would require new revenue sources to be developed countywide, regionwide or statewide. • Significant improvements to transportation require large capital outlays preceded by analytical/technical studies and years of concerted effort to secure a share of limited public funds or the Westside will continue to lose ground to communities who are ready to go when funding becomes available. • The Westside should advocate for creation of new revenue sources to meet unmet needs and for its fair share of the limited transportation funding, making the argument that major regional transit improvements are warranted by the Westside's levels of congestion, employment generation, economic contribution, and inequity in past regional investments on the Westside compared to other sub-regions in the County. For discussion purposes, the report categorizes the projects into tiers that could provide a framework on how to proceed with the implementation phase of the Mobility Plan. Tables ES-2 and ES-3 illustrate the length of time and amount of coordination required for major improvements and the lack of past commitment by the region to capital projects for the Westside. With Westside Cities' conceptual approval of the plan through a resolution of support, the COG will be able to move forward with building necessary coalitions to secure meaningful transportation dollars to implement mobility solutions. 2 i ~..~~.~~.y a,... ..i Rail Transit ~ Existing Metro Rail Lines ^ ^ ~ Future Metro Rail Lines ~ Metrolink and Stations WESTSIDE MQBILITY STUDY KAKUnssocinTEs FIGURE ES-1 "~°'P°`~`°" ~~"~~~~~" REGIONAL RAIL TRANSIT NETWORK EXISTING AND FUNDED VS. UNFUNDED Table ES-1: Ideas for Significant Transportation Improvements - IMPROVEMENT TIERS -~--- ' - -......-- -- PARTNER$ TIER ONE-S2.63 billion -- ~-- --~------~- Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown LA through ' Federal / State 1 Culver City to downtown Santa Monica MTA I Los cost estimated for MTA: $1 billion for 15.5 miles -~ -- ----_. .-- . --- . ___-- ---- -L---- -_------ ___._ ~ __ g_ An elss-__- Rail line through West Hollywood connected to the regional rail system _ Federal / State / and other areas of the Westside MTA ! Los _~miles a~$300M~er mile =_$1.5 billion : An eles Major interchange reconfiguration on I-10 at Robertson and Venice; Federal / State explore other possible reconfigurations along I-10 and I-405) ($125M + $5M=$ ~30M) ~ , TIER TVNO-$1.56 billion ~~ ~ _--- --------- - --- -- ; ~ ' ~ Express bus improvements (e.g., peak-period shoulder lane) on Santa Feder2d / State ' Monica Freeway_~2 miles~a $25M = $300M) - ----- -- - . _ - -- ---- -- - - Major transportation hubs (clean mobility centers) in strategic locations - - ---- Feder~) / State ~ on the Westside to link Metro, pedestrian, bicycle, parking and car- ~ sharing resources_(5 centers_~ $20M = $100M) __---- ----- -- ~ Regional street corridor capacity enhancement where appropriate, e.g., MTA ~~ ~ intersection of Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards in Beverly Hills where i relief is needed from through traffic (e.~c., $200M1 - - - ---- --------- I ,i_ Added multimodal capacity in Lincoln Blvd corridor, Venice BNd corridor ,.,,,_ ~os Angeles ~ and Robertson/LaCienega/FairFax corridors (sub~ect to detailed ~ consideration of major investment possibilities) j (16 miles @ $60M = $960M) _ __ . ~ _____ ~._~ Land use and parking incentives coordinated among tt~e Cities in . Los Angeles selected areas of Westside along "grand boulevards" (cost not estimated -- - - ---- ~ ----- , ~ TIER THREE-$9.58 billion -- -- - _-- - ---- --- -- - - - : r Extensive local public transit circulators on fixed or flexible routes to . -- ---- - MTA move people between neighborhoods and major bus and rail transit lines wRhout use of private vehicles (100 buses @$330,000 to purchase and - peryear to operate for 12~rears = $333M) $250,000 _ -__ _ P tY 9 Y _ Added HOV ca aci in San Die o Freewa corridor and Santa Mornca Federal / State Freeway corridor (subject to detailed consideration of major investment in i ooncepts such as tunneling or elevated construction) L7 miles ~ $150M $4 billion) , __ -- -__ . ------- ---- - AX d --- -- -- MTA e and San to Westsi Rail line in San Diego Freeway corridor from L Femando Valley (15 miles @ $150M = $2.25 billion _ ' An altemative multimodal linkage from the Westside to the San Fernando MTA ! Valley and LAX, taking pressure off the I-405 (15 miles @ $200M = $3 billion) ~ ~ , . . , Table ES-2: Existing Metro Rail System MAJOR FUNDING and SOURCES Y'EARS IN ANNING/ P~ CQALITION PROJECTS LENGTH OF FUNDING - CONSTRUCTION ~EMBERS Metro Red Line • Union Station to Federal, Ciry of Los Wilshire/ 5 billion ~4 state, MTA Angeles, County Western . 4 miles 17 Propositions 1~a80 - 2000 and Federal • Union . A and C, City Elected Officials Station to of Los North Holly- Angeles wood Mitigation Federal, measure for Metro Green l.ine $718 million state, MTA Century Freeway • Norwalk to 20 miles Propositions 1980 - 1995 (I-105). EI Segundo A and C Supported by local and State Elected Officials Metro Blue Line • Light rail Los Angeles, from down- $877 million MTA ~ ggp _ 1990 Long Beach, town Los 22 miles Proposition A County and State Angeles to Elected Officials Lon Beach Pasadena, South Metro Gold Line Pasadena, Los • Light rail MTA State Angeles, San from down- $878 million , Propositions 1980 - 2003 Gabriel Valley town Los 14 miles A and C COG, State Angeles to Legislative Pasadena Leaders Table ES-3: Major Regional Projects Planned by MTA ESTIMATED FUNDING Y'EARS IN COALITION MAJOR PROJECTS COST and ~N PLACE PI_ANNING/ MEMBERS EXTENT CONSTRUCTION RAIL TRANSIT Metro Gold Line $1.37 billion Coalition of 11 San Gabriel Valley 23 miles $15 million 2003-2009 cities and Los Extension An eles Coun Metrolink 1990-2002 (SB 5 County JPA with Rehab/Improvements 14q2 Counties 44 cities JPA, Le islation Alameda Corridor Alameda Corridor East Construction East $910 million Authority created Mitigation of 42 grade 1998-2007 by the San Gabriel Valley Increased Tra~c crossings COG, comprised along 35 mite freight 35 miles of 30 cities and rait corridor County of Los An eles Eastside elected Metro Gold Line $912 million 1990-2009 o~cials at Eastside Extension 6.3 miles $912 million Federal, State, Local levels $1 billion Santa Monica 15.5 miles $10 million , ~os Angeles, Exposition LRT ($495 million 1990-2020 Culver City, State of total in and County Westside Elected Officials Cities BUS RAPID TRANSIT ' Valley Coalition, San Fernando Valley State, County and Metro Rapid $340 million $340 million 1980-2005 Local Elected Transitway Officials $235 million None Wilshire/Whittier Metro Rapid ($59 million in 1998-2009 State and County Westside E~ected Officials Transitway Cities Crenshaw Metro $200 million None ~ ggp_2Q15 County and Local Rapid Transitwa Elected O~cials HOV LANES I-5 (San Fernando $425 miliion Valle $183 million I-10 (San Gabriel $442 million Valle SR 14 (Antelope $154 million $105 million Valle SR 60 (San Gabriel $610 million Valle I-405 (Westside and ~1.75 billion ($438 million in None San Fernando ~estside Valley) Cities I-605 (San Gabriel $20 million Valle ) METRO RAPID BUS Lines Serving $20 million ~20 million Westside Lines Not Senring $81 million $81 million Westside PURPOSE What is one of the most challenging issues facing the West:~ide of Los Angeles? Ask anyone and one of the top answers will be "traffic". Time spent in Westside traffic has huge social, economic, and environmental costs for those who live, work, and travel through the Westside. Initiated by the Westside Summit Cities, a COG in fornnation, the Study takes a multi- jurisdictional approach to regional transportation solutions. Traffic calming, synchronized traffic signals, infrastructure improvements and public transit have been pursued individually by the cities with positive impacts. Efforts made within the limits of individual cities that are just a few square miles in size, however, have a minimal effect on the larger metropolitan area. The Westside will continue to grow as a regional employment center, experience population growth, and serve as a tourist destinataon. The Westside Mobility Study has focused on needs for immediate roadway and transit improvements while also identifying locations for long-term transportation solutions. By proposing solutions beyond individual city boundaries, this interjurisdictional approach to transportation planning emphasizes coordination of goals and strategies to address issues of regional importance. It provides greater insight into the Westside's travel behavior than any individual ciry's transportation department has or would be able to acquire on its own. The purposes of the Westside Mobility Study are to: a. Document areas in need of immediate road and transit improvements b, Develop short-term project opportunities c. Identify locations for long-term solutions d. Support an increase in the level of financial re:~ources available for transportation infrastructure and services e. Clarify the fair share of transportation investment that should be made in the Westside f. Assist cities in advancing positions on legi:slation and in gaining support of elected officials in the region and at the state ~~nd federal levels g. Help guide future investments by defining needs in a way that can be periodically updated 8 h. Help decision makers target investments to address subregional mobility Define action plans for work at the regional, state, and federal levels This report documents needs and lays out potential investment options. As a living document, the Westside Mobiliry Study can be used by the cities to guide future transportation planning and advocacy in order to advance the area's economic vitality and improve the qualiry of life. It exemplifies the direction planning must take to benefit the region in a meaningful way when issues extend beyond the boundaries of individual jurisdictions. 9 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS A subregional view of travel on the Westside has been dirawn from interviews with elected officials, meetings with MTA and other agencies and analysis of existing data. The subregion considered in this analysis is shown in Figure 1. Because transportation does not respect political boundaries, the Westside Mobility Study area is roughly all of Los Angeles County west of La Brea Avenue, north of Los Angeles International Airport and south of Mulholland Drive. The Westside has many of the most important activity centers in all of Southern California; 16 of these are shown in Figure 2. The Westside Mobility Study has begun to define what might be done to meet those needs for improved linkages, specifying i:he most critical locations for major transit improvements and other multimodal improvements. Evaluation of Existinq Transportation Conditions A goal of the Westside Mobility Study is to provide an accurate picture of the existing traffic and congestion levels on primary arterials and corridors in the WE;stside area. As there was a large amount of readily available, current data, no new supplementary traffic counts were conducted. Data was acquired from the following sources and range:~ predominantly from 2000 to the present day: Traffic data from the Cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica and West Hollywood • Transit data from Culver City Bus, Big Blue Bus and MTA • Information from MTA's Short Range Transportation Plan: Technical Document • Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADC~T) database of traffic counts Previous Kaku Associates projects Caltrans counts 10 ~ ~ t,~w ~. ~~ nPo~i ~ ' e>~ ,, , ~ E~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ . k ~ ~ 3 % . . 5- ~a.a~ s9~~!,' 4;k„s°'6 ~~ ~~ "0 ~n,:;k ~fl~„~,.. ~ . n ~ s ~ ~ t ~ ,t ., , xS. ~ u ~ ,.. ~ ~ ~ ~, ; ~ E r„ . . ~ : . _. .. ~ . ~ r~ u ~ °~ ^ ~ a~ ~,€, " ~ - • u r ~`P ~ . ~ . t:~ ~ , r.,1. ms' r . , . ~» ;.,+ _... .. .~ A . . ., ~ a~ ~ .. ~~4 ug ~~." . ~ ~j'n~ E ~! ~~1~ ~fF1~~i , ~f 5` - :;k[~'~S ~~.1 r 1~ ~ k~ ~ h. ~ S ~ :~ . , . ~~ '1. ~ k' e . ~ "'E.:.. ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~! ~&; i `I ~.4'~ F .€ t $ ; ~ ''~ ~ 9~ ~v - ~ F: ,~¢' " . ~ ; `~ ~"~,~°'~-,. & . ~Ey~ .~°r ., ~x p . . ± ,~ + `~ eP ~g ~~ 7` { _ '~. , .~. . .. , , „ ~ ... , '~'r ~. ~:. . _ . ~ ~~ d ~>.r;t~f.,. '° Vf~'+ •~. • et ~ ~9>.: k k .. . .. a + ~s s re~ , .. ... . . ~A~ .. e °rox%, .z¢,nv< < ~ ~ ~ '~ 'n. . . ~. .. .4y' M c.f'1 Yu.~M1n..,~n L . .. .,,; . . ~~aa . .. . ~ ~~~. 2 •~'.. I ~j ~ }~ ~ tii ~~ ( .. .t , t~~ , t! f ~t. ~ ~ . .~ t c , i ~11,a ~ .. ~ ~.~~. ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~.~_-. .~ ._.,,,~,.:.~~~- ,:`3 6. . rc.dE.;°:." FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA WESTS-DE MOB/LtTY STUDY awcunssoc~nTEs A Cornoratbn FIGURE 2 MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTI=RS Area Characteristics - Employment, Population and Hou:~ing: The Westside area has at least 10% of the jobs in Los Angeles County and is home to over 6°/a of County residents. This jobs/housing ratio data indicdtes the Westside Cities are net attractors or importers of commuter traffic. More than 8% ~~f the person-miles traveled in the county traverse the Westside, which has only 6% of the county's lane-miles of roads. Figures 3 and 4 show the population and employment densities of the Westside. These figures are from the MTA's Short Range Plan of 2003. In the Short Range Pl~in, MTA has analyzed "throughput" of travelers by automobile and by all modes; in both instances, the Westside has the lowest "throughpuY' in the County. Trafific Analysis: Figures 5 and 6 show the widespread intersection congestio~n throughout the Westside during the morning and evening peak commute periods. Many of the~ key Westside intersections are at level of service (LOS) E and F. (LOS is a qualitative measurE; used to describe the condition of tra~c flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overload conditions at LOS F. LOS D is the typically recognized minimum acceptable level of servi~;e in urban areas.) In the context of the MTA's Short Range Plan, these locations should be ~considered "hot spots" in need of attention. Figure 7 shows the intersections on the Westside where trauel conditions during both the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour are LOS D, E or F. ThesE; "all-day hot spots" represent the poorest of traffic conditions in the four Westside Cities and occur along these major arterial streets: Palisades Beach Road/Pacific Coast Highway from do~+vntown Santa Monica to Malibu Santa Monica Boulevard (with average daily traffic over 50,000 vehicles) from La Brea to Wilshire and from I-405 to Santa Monica city limit Wilshire Boulevard through Beverly Hills and from Bev~erly Glen to Federal Avenue Ocean Park Boulevard throughout Santa Monica 13 FIGURE 3 POPULATION DENSII'Y ~ a. ,3 t.A ~1,.. v ~.. ~~ F Y t 1 t i ,1~~ ~~ IJr `(ap" b ~ .~ I~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ 4.~ :"~t ~ v ~ '~~ ~ e ? l }$ .! 4 ~, J ~ ,~ a . , . ~ ~~.~~xi~ ~5. ix) f . 1' ;4 s~, r~ ,5E ,r FIGURE 4 EMPLOYMENT DENSII~Y ~ WESTS/DE MOB/LITY STUDY 1CAICUnSSOCInTES - A Corporafan .~. .. .~; Santa Mornca ;r^ :, ,; Legend: Levels of Service ~ D ~ E F ,~~ WESTSIDE MOBItITY STUDY ~cnKUnSSOCinTEs ACorporation FIGURE 5 ARTERIAL STREETHOT SPOTS- ,AIUI PEAK HOUR ~~d~tlBifY~~. ~„~'~+k~l~~ ~~ ~~!~"~J~h~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 ~, 6,~,: ~~ac~ r~u E~r~s~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~a~.. , ~ ' ~yro~ ~ ~ s , E ~ , p ~ • ., ~ ` ' ~+B . 4mt.'a~~,e~lE~z."~"~~47C~~... ,"ii~El~~rF~~.,;,. . .~ 4 ~b . '~ ~ .: ,: . .` ;~ . ~ .... i ::.. ~ ~ ~ .. ,., . .,, . ~~.` ~f~-~~bd~ ~~F'"~d~. a~k~~~l~"~`I~~"35dr . ~~ , . ~~ ~~~~~.. ~ . '. '.. ~,d_. . ~.~ !. ...... ~ r ,:: ~ ~ ' ~. ~ 4 t , i , r~ ` }Y } ~ j ' ~c, ~ ', , ; .~t ~~ F .l ~~, ~"i~ ~.: ~4,:~ ~ ,,,. i } { 1 r. ! , ~ rt , L~E~ -~~ . "~~ .. . r,~, a~ 4,~ , . ~ ~ ~' ., _. ~. ..._.._. - - ., _ ty ~ ~ ~ii S~ ~' , ;, ~ _ ;~~,.a~ __ -'-_ ............. ~~~~~~ ~~ . _ ~~~~A~l~~ ~~~~~ !--. ~~~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ I~~t~~nd,' ' ~~~~+.~I ~f `~"~r,r~~~; ~, ~ ~1F F u~ ; k~n~h~ ~"~~ :~n~ ~he~ Pt~~=+: F#a~r,jr;~,i 'r~}~ ' ~ ~' ~t`Su i"' 1 'i ~ z ~,~ ir ~,r~.. ,!~ s ti.~• t i~ ~ ea,.~ i., i~ ., ,,~ t~ ' i,,,, n~,~ tf ~. ff.,:i ~`t}} Y S,Ve.. t"~~~ ~1~ . PU $~S , k 17 22 hH~- l,~! ,o~. ,x olv~~~. . , FIGURE 7 ARTERIAL STREET HOT SPOTS - AM AND PM PEAK HOURS • Lincoln Boulevard (with average daily traffic over 60,G00 vehicles) from downtown Santa Monica to Jefferson Pico Boulevard throughout Santa Monica • Venice Boulevard from Fairfax to Lincoln Jefferson Boulevard from Culver to Duquesne Sepulveda Boulevard from Venice Boulevard to Howard Hughes Parkway Overland Avenue from Jefferson to Venice Boulevard • Olympic Boulevard from Westwood Boulevard to Centinela Beverly Drive/Beverwil Drive/Castle Heights Avenue fr•om Sunset to National Fairfax Avenue Third to Venice Boulevard Coldwater Canyon Boulevard (with average daily traffc of 30,000 vehicles on a winding, 2-lane road) through the Santa Monica Mountains • Centinela Avenue from I-10 to Washington • Sunset Boulevard (with average daily traffic over 60,000) throughout West Hollywood Melrose Avenue throughout West Hollywood Motor Avenue from I-10 to Pico Laurel Canyon Boulevard through the Santa Monica Nlountains Two freeways, I-10 and I-405, senie the Westside and are hE;avily congested in both directions for most of the day. These facilities are the primary regional roadways through the area and are strained to the point of dysfunction. Today, freeways on the ~Nestside have the County's lowest average speed--34 mph in the morning commuter peak. According to MTA's Short Range Plan, by 2009 that speed will drop to 28 mph. At the intersection of the two freeways, I-405 carries over 300,000 vehicles per day and I-10 is used by 280,000 vehicles daily. Santa Monica Freeway (I-10): Figure 8 identifies the eastbound direction of the I-10 as a "severe hotspoY' segment operating under 30 mph during tfie evening commute from Lincoln Boulevard in Santa Monica through downtown Los Angeles,. The reverse is true during the 19 WESTSIDE MOBtLiTY STUDY ~CAICU/~SSOCInTES A Corpwatlon FIGURE 8 FREEWAY HOT SPOT LOCA,TIONS morning commute, when the heaviest congestion is westbound. At La Brea Avenue average daily traffic on I-10 reaches 300,000 vehicles. San Diego Freeway (I-405): Figure 8 identifies both directions of the I-405 as "severe hotspoY' segments operating under 30 mph during the evening comrnute. In the southbound direction the "severe" designation is extends from the Wilshire Boulevard to Marina Freeway. In the northbound direction the "severe" designation extends through the entire Westside. At Santa Monica Boulevard average daily traffic on I-405 exceeds 315,000 vehicles. Public Transit: The Westside has many of the most-heavily-used bus lines in Southern California. Every day, over 200,000 people ride Big Blue Bus, Culver City Bus, MT~~ services on the Westside, as well as the West Hollywood Cityline and the Beverly Hills shuttlE;. Daily ridership on bus lines (as provided by MTA, Big Blue Bus and Culver City Bus) on selected streets is shown in the following table: STREET TYPICAL DAILY RIDERSHIP CITIES SERVED Sunset Blvd 23,000 West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Los An eles Santa Monica Blvd 46,000 Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverl ~ Hills, West Holl wood Wilshire Blvd 38,000 Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Beverl Hills Venice Blvd I 25.000 I Culver Citv, Los Anaeles I Santa Monica, Los Anqeles Pico Blvd 17,000 Santa Monica, Beverly Hifls, Los An eles Robertson Blvd 9,000 Culver City, Beverly Hills, Los An eles, West Holl wood I Washinqton Blvd 6,000 Culver Ci , ~os An eles Sepulveda Blvd 7,000 Culver Ci , Los An eles Laurel Canvon Blvd. 1,300 West Holl ood, Los An eles Although ridership on Westside buses is high, congestion on arterial streets and freeways can affect travel time and result in less than optimal service conditions. With high passenger loads, congested roads make desirable headways (frequency of service) difficult to maintain and result 21 in overcrowded buses. Figure 9 maps the locations where thE: worst congestion degrades transit seniice conditions on these roadways: Santa Monica Freeway (east of Bundy to downtown L~os Angeles) • Wilshire Boulevard (east of Federal and through Beverly Hills) • Santa Monica Boulevard (east of I-405 through West IHollywood) • Sepulveda Boulevard (south of Wilshire to LAX) Venice Boulevard (east of Lincoln through Culver City) • Lincoln Boulevard (from Pico to Marina del Rey) • Pico Boulevard (from I-405 to Fairfax) • Fairfax Avenue (from Venice Blvd. to Santa Monica Blvd.) • Westwood Boulevard (in Westwood Village) La Brea Avenue (from Santa Monica Blvd. to Rodeo F;oad) In Culver City, congestion impacts north-south bus service, for which demand continues at high levels. On Line 6-Sepulveda Boulevard (Green Line to UCLA), ridership has grown rapidly, yet average speeds have decreased from 12.3 mph to 10 mph in~ the past five years. Because Line 6 parallels the I-405 freeway, the transit service expe~iences major service delays during peak traffic hours due to spillover of traffic from the freeway onto Sepulveda Boulevard. On Line 6, there are passengers with no seat on the bus 22% of the time. Culver City Bus systemwide ridership has increased 33°/a in the past eight years from 3.9 ~million to 5.2 million. In Santa Monica, congestion impacts east-west bus service. On Line 7-Pico Boulevard, peak- period average speeds decreased from 12 mph to 10 mph from 1991-2001. On Line 10-Santa Monica freeway, travel times from Santa Monica to downtowr~ Los Angeles via the freeway have almost doubled since the early 1990s. Peak average speed:~ from downtown LA via freeway to Santa Monica decreased from 20 mph to 11 mph (43%) fr~~m 1991-2001. Over the next 10 years, Big Blue Bus system-wide average operating speed is projected to slow by 15%. West Hollywood's Cityline is a local circulator initiated in 1992 to provide local trips and connections to the MTA. The City's Community Needs Assessment reflects a desire to expand service. 22 WESTSIDE Mt~8/L/TY STUDY - ~R /~~SSOCII~TES ACorporaGon - FIGURE 9 LOCATIONS WHERE CONGESTIONDEGRADESTRANSIT SERVICE Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: Approximately 10% of the trips made on the Westside are undertaken by bike and on foot. The Westside has many different bike routes available to cyclists, but they do not form an integrated, connected network. In a densely built-up environment likf; the Westside, considerations of safety and available space make adding bike routes difficult. The City of West Hollywood has completed a bicycle mobility plan. Connecting bike routes and completing a pedestrian and bicycle network would definitely increase the non-motorizs:d mode share on the Westside. 24 COLLABORATIVE IDEAS FOR WESTSIDE TRANSPORTA,TION IMPROVEMENT Top Prioritv Needs To improve transportation on the Westside significantly and realistically, the Westside Cities will need to consider bold, new, and creative options. The WE;stside will continue to grow as a regional employment center, senre as a visitor destination point, experience population growth and serve as a bottleneck for north/south traffic traveling frorri the Valley to the South Bay. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) prc~jects increasingly more traffic and with it, congestion. Unless the problem is addressed, the viability and sustainability of the Westside economy could be challenged. The process of developing possible, practical, and cost-effective solutions for the top priority needs has considered a wide range of options that focus on increasing economic vitality of the Westside, defining projects across city borders, and providing options for living, working, and traveling in the Westside, recognizing and exploiting the land use connection to transportation. Setting priorities for those options that will be pursued collectively has entailed consideration of funding strategies for both the near term (e.g., 2003 MTA ~Call for Projects and MTA Short- Range Plan) and the longer term (e.g., 2003-2004 reauthorization of federal transportation program). The Westside Mobility Study has looked beyond the MTA's plans while supporting MTA's goals; it has identified opportunities and contingency plans. The analysis of transportation conditions on the Westside has identified four top priority mobility- improvement needs • Circulation improvements in travel corridors Linkage to activity centers Major transit expansion • Multimodal service centers 25 Qualitv of Life Improvements The most unique aspect of the Westside Mobility Study has been defining projects across city borders; in doing this, the study has focused on addressing: • The capacity to move people and goods by various modes (local and regional) Safety (pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle) • Wayfinding and signage • Intermodallinkages Parking • Urban design linkages • Technology One way in which the study has brought these considerati~ons together is in defining for the Westside a network of "grand boulevards." One proposal is shown in Figure 10. Grand boulevards would improve mobility throughout the Westside by combining and focusing in selected locations application of these tools: • Incentives for increased mixed-use development • Urban design improvements to enhance pedestrian, bike, and transit environments • Travel time incentives for transit use • Intelligent transportation systems (operational and informational) • Safe bike paths or lanes Landscaped medians for access control and turns • On-street parking • Off-street mobility centers The Westside's grand boulevards could be created in corridors with these characteristics: Heavy transit use Metro Rapid Bus lines, existing or programmed A mix of land uses among which people routir~ely move (e.g, home to work or shopping, work to shopping) 26 ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~,,_. ~ ' ~~ f~ ~ ~ ~~- ~~~ ,~ ~~ °~~ ~ ~` , ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ . n ~ ~~~~~~~.~,~~ ~ __ ~~~~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~~Y ~ ~~ W ~ -' ~ _ . .~. _ ~,~ ~~~~~~'rk~~ m~F~c~.srcr~c~~ - i ~ ~ ~ --~--'~-+ : A~, , ~ I ~~I r -7' 9 t ~ WESTSIDE MC~BtLITY STUDY KAKUnssocinTEs A Corporat/on FIGURE 10 PROPOSED "GRAND BOULENARDS" The streets with the clearest potential for grand boulevards are these (see Figure 10): Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica Boulevard Sunset Boulevard Washington Boulevard Sepulveda Boulevard La Cienega Boulevard Beverly Boulevard Lincoln Boulevard Creating linkages among pedestrians, bicyclists and bus riders to and from the Metro Rapid Bus should be the objective of cities' investments in amenities alcng those boulevards. To that end, the Westside Cities have developed the concept of a"linkage~ toolkit" from which elements could be applied as warranted at specific locations. Application of i:he toolkit should be pursued in the near term; the Cities have requested funding through MTA to assist with implementation. Anchoring grand boulevards and of particular importance to the Westside would be the off-street mobility centers, also called Clean Mobility Centers, IocatEd in some activity/transit centers. They would link the Metro system (rail and rapid bus) with pE;destrian, bicycle, parking and car- sharing (short-term car rental) resources. Possible, Practical and Cost-effective Solutions After months of analysis, discussion and deliberation by the cities involved, the Westside Mobility Study has identified a set of creative, leading-edge ideas for significant transportation improvements to meet the top priority needs on the Westside. Most may be feasible, while others may not. They are very expensive and, in general, would require years of analysis, evaluation, and public involvement prior to additional years fc~r construction. Figure 11 depicts generalized corridors that would benefit from mobility improvements. Other needs cannot be represented on a map but deserve serious consideration; these include public transit connections among neighborhoods and through mountain roads and land-use-related 28 ~~IL~~~ I 1 &.r~~~~4~~~~ ~~.i~ ~~k~l~~~~~t*k9Y~ I ~~4~~~4~~, 1!"'1s~~~~ ~~1`~~~~~~~~~ ~. ~° ~ :a~~`tara .,.~..~_ ..:... ~~~~~~~ ~~. ~ actions. Ideas for mobility improvements have been grouped into three tiers that weigh the relative prioriry of improvements and funding strategy considerations. The improvement tiers and descriptions of improvements are shown in Table 1. Tier One in Table 1 contains major transit improvements and freeway interchange reconfigurati~~ns that are most needed to meet the mobility needs of the Westside. The rationale for those irnprovements is compelling. Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown Los Angeles through Culver City to downtown Santa Monica: The Santa Monica Freevvay corridor is among the most congested and heavily used in the county, with daily traffic a~veraging almost 300,000 vehicles. Much of today's congestion on that freeway is made up of residents from east of downtown traveling to economic opportunities on the Westside. A light r~3il line built on a dedicated right-of- way will add urgently needed capacity in the Santa Monica f=reeway corridor. Studies by MTA have shown that an Exposition Metro rail line would be one o1~ the highest-performing lines in the countywide system; MTA has given it top priority as the next new Metro rail project. A rail line through West Hollywood connected to the r~:gional system: The San Diego Freeway and Hollywood Freeway corridors are inadequate to meet current Valley-to-Westside need for capacity; a lot of West Hollywood's vehicular traffic; today is going between the mid- Valley and the Westside. The surface street and freeway congestion could be at least partially relieved by a rail line connecting to West Hollywood from either of the existing terminus points of the Metro Red Line at Wilshire/Vllestern or Hollywood/Highlai~d and linked to other areas of the Westside by community-supported forms of public transit. Major interchange reconfiguration on I-10 at Robertsc~n and Venice: Mobility on the Westside is both served and impeded by how the area's free:ways and surface streets relate to each other. Light rail serving the Westside along the Exp~~sition right-of-way will create the need for a major intermodal interchange where the rail line intersects Venice and Robertson Boulevards and the Santa Monica Freeway. Reconfiguration of the interchange on I-10 at Robertson and Venice Boulevards will be crucial to mitigating the adverse effects of the possible interim terminus of the Exposition Rail Line in Culver City. A, next step would analyze potential impacts on housing and businesses in the vicinity of the interc;hange. 30 Table 1: Ideas For Significant Transportation Improvements IMPROVEMENT TIERS PARTNERS TIER ONE-$2.63 billion ---- , Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown LA through __ _- Federal / State /' I Culver City to downtown Santa Monica MTA / Los (cost estimated for MTA: $1 billion for 15.5 miles) An eles Rail line through West Hollywood oonnected to the regional rail system Federal ! State / and other areas of the Westside MTA / ~os ; 5 miles $300M ~er mile =$1.5 billion) An eles Major interchange reconfiguration on I-10 at Robertson and Venice; Federal / State ' explore other possible reconfigurations abng I-10 and I-405) ($125M + $5M=$130M) TIER TVUO-$1.56 billion - ~_~. ~. ~ .,,.~ . ,, ,,. Express bus improvements (e.g., peak-period shoulder lane) on Santa Fedet~l ! Sta#e Monica Freewa~ 12 miles a~$25M =$300M1 -- __ _ . _. Major transportation hubs (Gean mobility centers) in strategic iocations - Federal / State on the Westside to link Metro, pedestrian, bicycle, parking and car- ' sharin~resources 5 centers a~ $20M = $100M1 _ Regional street comdor capacity enhancement where appropriate, e.g., MTA intersection of Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards in Beverl~~ Hills where relief is needed from through traffic (e.q., $200M) Added multimodal capacity in Lincoln Blvd corridor, Venice Blvd corridor Los Angeles and Robertson/LaCienega/Fairfax corridors (subject to detailed consideration of major investment possibilities) (16 miles a~ $60M = $96 ~ ___ __ --- --- -------- Land use and parking incentives coordinated among the Cities in L~ Angeles selected areas of Westside along "qrand boulevards" (cost not estimated) TIER THREE-59.58 billion Extensive local public transit circulators on fixed or flexible routes to MTA move people between neighborhoods and major bus and rail transit lines without use of private vehiGes (100 buses @$330,000 to purchase and $250,OO~er r~ear to_~erate for 12 years $333M1 _____ _ _ Added HOV capacity in San Diego Freeway corridor and Santa Monica rederal / State : Freeway corridor (subject to detailed consideration of major investment in concepts such as tunneling or elevated construction) (27 miles @ $150M = $4 billionL Rail line in San Diego Freeway corridor from LAX to Westside and San MTA Femando Vallelr ~15 miles_@ $150M =$2 25 billion~__________ _________ ; _ An altemative multimodal linkage from the Westside to the San Fernando MTA Valley and LAX, taking pressure off the I-405 , (15 mi/es Ca~ $200M = $3 billion) _ _ _ ' 31 At other locations on the Westside, vehicles waiting to enter the freeway or just making turns to get to the interchange can back up and block traffic not bound for the freeway. And traffic leaving the freeway may fill up available street capacity befinreen the off-ramp and the nearest intersections. Examples of interchanges that should be explored further include Sunset, Wilshire, Olympic/Pico and Venice/Washington along I-40;5 and Bundy/Centinela/Cloverfield and Overland along I-10.Further analysis should consider irnpacts on communities near each interchange in exploring how to provide on-off capacity improvements and ease street traffic going past the freeway interchange. Order-of-M~qnitude Costs The study has attached an order-of-magnitude cost to each significant transportation improvement. These costs were either obtained from other sc~urces (e.g., MTA) or calculated as part of the study using the parameters shown in the table. Unit costs, such as the cost per mile for a rail line or freeway improvement, were derived from recent experience with similar projects in the region. Where there is no experience with a comparable improvement, assumptions have been made and documented. Costs were not estimated for I~~nd use and parking incentives. The order-of-magnitude costs are $2.63 billion for Tier One, $1.56 billion for Tier Two and $9.58 billion for Tier Three. Only a very small portion, much less than 1°/a, of the three tiers has been funded in current transportation improvement programs for the region. The pc~sition of the Westside in securing funding for transportation improvements is the subject of the next discussion on what is funded and what is not; that lays the basis for the immediate ac:tion recommendations to pursue implementation of improvements. Pursuit of implementation by the COG is all about getting the money and will require partnerships with one or more of several entities involveci in planning, programming, and funding of transportation projects. The partners crucial to each of the transportation improvement ideas are indicated in the table. 32 The remainder of the Westside Mobility Study has focused on actions to advocate for the limited transportation funding available at the federal, state and regional level. As part of the study, the Westside Cities collaborated on grant applications to implement short-term solutions and begin developing the grand boulevards that are crucial to the Westside's quality of life. Beyond pursuit of short-term solutions, the Westside Ivlobility Study has prepared an accounting, qualitatively as well as in hard numbers, of existing and programmed transportation projects, assessment of equitable allocation of resources to the Westside, pursuit of available funding sources and recognition of fiscal realities. The next steps for the Westside Cities are summarized in the immediate action plans for using the C:OG to leverage cooperation and advocacy with the City of Los Angeles, the MTA and state and federal governments. 33 COLLABORATIVE GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR SHORT 1'ERM SOLUTIONS A major initiative undertaken as part of the Westside Mobilityr Study has furthered the objective of being ready when funding is available. To develop a priority listing of projects to be funded when funding materializes in the near term, MTA has taken applications under the FY 03 Call for Projects. In an unprecedented collaborative effort, the Westside Cities developed and submitted four joint, integrated applications to the MTA. Combined, the applications senre to enhance mobility throughout the Westside Cities. FY 03 Call For Projects Applications With an interjurisdictional approach to transportation planriing, the Westside Mobility Study focused the coordinated efforts of four cities: Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood to address areas on the Westside in need of immediate improvements that would enhance the quality of life and begin developing the grand boulevards identified in this report. The cities collaborated on these urban design and transit improvements by actively seeking funds as soon as available. In March 2003, the Westside Cities submitted four applications to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the 2003 Call for Projects. The C~II for Projects is a product of state and federal statues requiring MTA to prepare a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Los Angeles County. The MTA is required to program revenues in the TIP across all transportation modes based on the planning requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The MTA accomplishes this mandate partly by planning and programming funds on a multimodal basis through the Call for Projects. In calling for project applications this year, MTA has advisPd that new money from existing sources is not available before the fiscal year 2008-2009, although new sources could make funding available before then. To position the Westside Cities for whatever funds become available, four joint applications have been submitted to MTA. The formulation of the submitted project concepts began in October 2002. Together with the consultant team, the Westside Cities systematically revieweci known needs within and among ~4 cities to develop an action plan recommending project concepts. These recommended concepts were reviewed individually and collectively by the Westside i;,ities to reach an initial consensus for further development. The Westside Cities' applications were submitted under four different modal categories: transportation demand management (TDM), transportation enhancement activities (TEA), transit capital, and pedestrian improvements. Each of the four applications consisted of improvements in all the Westside Cities. The power of the Westside Cities as an entity led to regionally significant project concepts. Individually, the project ideas sought to mitigate deficienciies and or enhance mobility in a localized area within one of the Westside Cities. Jointly, the concepts presented the Westside with a transportation senrice that is consistent in the region. Real Time Mlotorist Parkinq Information Svstem Demonstration Activity centers such as the Third Street Promenade, downtown Santa Monica, West Hollywood's Sunset Strip, Culver City Town Plaza and the Beverly Hills Business Triangle consistently experience congestion from limited parking resources. Under the TDM application, an Advance Parking Information System (APIS) is proposed to communicate and guide motorists to available parking spaGas in selected garages or surface lots. The installation of the APIS is designed to improve circulation in urban settings that generate high volumes of vehicles during the peak hours and especially congested locations. The implementation of the APIS requires installation of three c~perational components. Parking Guidance System (PGS): A typical PGS computer that includes a central processing unit, graphics terminal, printer, and software that allows for central control and management of the system Changeable Message Signs (CMS): CM signs output real time information to travelers on highways and major arterials. The signs include scrollable text and flashing text. 35 Dynamic Message Signs (DMS): DM signs are a combination of conventional static signing with a small electronic sign insert that op~erates like a changeable message sign. The APIS will test roadside means to communicate to motorists the information currently collected by the cities about availability of parking spaces in selected garages or surface lots. Communication techniques would include changeable "traiil-blazer" signs leading to parking resources and real time display of "spaces available" near the entrance to each facility. Parking facilities that may be linked to the information system includE: both publicly and privately owned parking lots and garages. Figure 12 shows an example of the changeable signage. The proposed APIS will not eliminate any automobile trips by removing cars from the streets or highways; however, trips made by the same vehicles will be reduced, thereby eliminating automobile trips indirectly. The project concept serves as an alternative to building m~re parking garages by efficiently utitizing the ones already in place. It promotes integration by efficiently moving vehicles to available parking, decreasing the number of slow moving vehicles, and allowing more vehicles to use streets and parking resources. The intended achievements of this project are in harmony wlith the goals of the TDM program. Further, reduction of vehicle miles and removal of auto trips from the streets serve both air quality management plans of AQMD and the long-range plans of MTA and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Santa Monic:a Boulevard Streetscape Enhancements Continuing the goals of the Santa Monica Transit Parkway Project (SMTP), the TEA application proposed to transform the remaining portions of Santa Monica Boulevard unimproved by the SMTP project into a grand boulevard by redesigning and enhancing the streetscape. 36 REAL-TIME MOTORIST PARKING INFORMATION SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION ELEVATIONS A A. Sign on route to parking facility B. Sign on garage facility ~ CULVER ~ _ CITY ~--~ , ~ Parking Available via « ~ hington Blvd. ~ ~h,i~`~4~i" ~~StS;~, . ~ C ~L~r~~C~l'4 r~~+~a~ B ~ CULVER CITY 75 Spaces available MOULE Hc POLYZOIDES ARCMITECTS AND URBANISTS Specifically, the project will complete streetscape enhancements along Santa Monica Boulevard by closing gaps among previous MTA funded projects in ~1) Beverly Hills between the new pedestrian-oriented environment in West Hollywood and the SMTP in Los Angeles and (2) Santa Monica east of the Downtown Transit Mall. Together, the complete grand boulevard program provides for modal integration throughout a 15-mile long corridor linking major activity centers. The proposed improvements include street furniture and netiv landscaping along Santa Monica Boulevard in the cities of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. This stretch of Santa Monica Boulevard encompasses the segment from 4'h Street to 34th Street in the city of Santa Monica and from the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa A~onica Boulevard to North Doheny Drive in the city of Beverly Hills. Figure 13 shows an example of the proposed landscaping at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. The direct relationship of this project to the intermodal transportation system is clear. Santa Monica Boulevard is itself a true intermodal facility. Its hi;~torical function as State Route 2 documents how the boulevard is crucial to east-west automobile travel in the Westside Cities; it is crossed by major arterials, including Lincoln, Bundy, Se~~ulveda, and Wilshire. Its public transit lines are among the most heavily used in the regiori, notably MTA Line 4 and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Line 1. Furthermore, Metro Rapid Bus implementation on Santa Monica Boulevard is due to join the already-operating Metro Rapid Bus on Wilshire and the scheduled services on Lincoln and Sepulveda. With Santa Monica Boulevard being a busy arterial carrying millions of visitors each year, the beautification of the sidewalk will be an incentive for commuters to get out of their vehicles and walk to adjacent shopping areas, recreational venues, and offices. The streetscape enhancement will make walking on Santa Monica Boulevard more attractive in areas where land uses are historic and significant community resources (e.g., churches, medical facilities). The tree planting will provide environmentally pleasing stopover points for pedestrians shopping or traversing to other transit boarding locations along Santa Monica Boulevard. 38 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE ENF-IANCEMENT ~~ ~~ ~y, r ~~~, ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ A. ~d~a~th r~f `~'1il~Fri~€~ ~~+~~~ew~rd `% B ~s~eu~ali€ wi;h L~~~~~~o~a ~ ~ _ ~~(~ `~r`~11~'J F= ~ ~ ~` ~~ _..._ ~....... ... _.,- ~" _ ~ A B r ~.j. /~.s PLAN F ~~~",.-'`,: Y /~J • ~ '~ ~ :~~ ,~ ,n ~ ~.` "~ ` ,i ~C'~ ~ ~~~ ~~~i ~`" ~., ~""~5 `~s ~ F ~~ ~; a. _~ ~ ~7 +` ~ The added trees will also function as an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly barrier between the heavily traveled arterial and the sidewalk, giving pedestrians a sense of security. The pollution created by traffic congestion along Ss~nta Monica will be lessened with the addition of trees along the corridor. The tree planting a:spect of the proposed project will improve air quality by providing much needed oxygen to the ai:mosphere. Westside Ccrmmunitv Transit Information Securitv Center:s The transit capital application serves as an extended effort to encourage transit usage by proposing the construction of two community transit information and security centers. Components of the centers include a satellite dispatch center to monitor and communicate real time vehicle location information as well as an option for a pc~lice substation, intended to allow quick responses to safety and security incidents. If feasiblE;, a waiting/rest area will also be provided for transit operators and the public. The estimated a~mount of space required for each center is approximately between 2,500 and 3,000 square feet. This project concept will place transit information and security centers at strategically planned locations where a high volume of bus operations and transfers between multiple bus lines occur. The locations of the centers are to be accessible to bicyclists and pedestrians, providing information on other modes for a truly multimodal experience. The proposed transit centers are intended to serve as a hub for passengers traveling within the city across community boundaries. The application presented four alternatives in anticipation of the difficulty in acquiring the appropriate property/facility to house all the proposed components. Alternative 1 is the No Build Alternative. Alternative 2 is the minimum project alternative, consisting of the passenger fare outlet and self-serve transit information center. Alternative; 3 is the fully equipped transit information and security center comprising of all the proposed components. Alternative 4, the rejected alternative, proposes the transit centers be located away from busy areas of transit activities. The last alternative would defeat the intent of the project and was rejected. 40 Figures 14 and 15 illustrate Alternative 3 for the anticipate~' project locations with two layout options: building face of the transit center flush with the sidewralk or the building face protruding into the sidewalk. The transit information and security center project will greatly enhance and improve regional mobility among existing transit users and provide for greater fluidity between municipal transit operations. The implementation of the project will result in fewer duplicate services, thereby increasing the cost efficiency of the each system. The transit center will provide well-coordinated transit infor•mation, such as scheduling and routes among the Westside Cities. The center will function as a centralized place to secure maps depicting all available modal options and their connections. Demonstration of the maps will serve to convey to riders the simplicity by which one can t~~averse through the region without a vehicle. The development of the transit information and security centers will coincide with full implementation of the regional Universal Fare System (UFS) ~'roject. This project will provide a common transit pass that can be used on all transit systems. The proposed project locations will facilitate inter-regional travel and complement other transit systems by selling UFS passes to local passengers. It is expected that this project concept will increase transit ridership by 2.3 million boardings over the next 20 years. Many of the passengers are expeci:ed to be former auto drivers that change part of their travel patterns to transit use, given the added convenience, aesthetic, and safety enhancements. Westside Cities' Pedestrian, Rapid Bus and Bike Linkaae Toolkit The pedestrian improvement application proposed to de:sign construction amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists accessing transit, and transferring tran~sit riders. This is comprised of a "toolkiY' for linkage of pedestrians, bicyclists, and the Metrc~ Rapid Bus along the Westside mobility corridors and varies to suit the specific location. 41 TRANSIT INFORMATION & SECURITY CENTER FLUSH WITH FACE OF EXISTING Lobby 2. Customer service Dispatch 4. Restroom 5. Break room 6. Storage 7. Monitoring 8. Police questioning room 9. Police public counter ~xistin~ buildin SECTION ~ ~ MOULE S'. POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS TRANSIT NFORMATION & SECURITY CENTER PROJECTING FROM FACE OF BUILDING Lobby Customer service Dispatch Restroom Break room A' Storage 7, Monitoring 8. Police questioning room Police public counter ~'~ .s~l 9 ~ f --_a ~ ` ~r' ~`'~ Existing building face ~xistin~ buil SECTION PLANS MOUIE Rc POLY201DE5 ARCMITECTS AND URBANISTS These amenities could include: • Bus bench • Passengerlean bar • Shelter • Trash can • Lights (potentially activated by waiting passenger) • Concrete pavement in bus stop area of street • Visibility window (waiting passengers have the ability to see oncoming bus) • Listing of routes served by bus stop • Time schedule of buses senring bus stop • Time of next arrival (e.g., next bus at major Metro Rapid stops) • Regional map of mass transit network • Branding (identification) of late night bus stops • Regional and local bike route map • Bike racks or lockers • Instruction on attaching bike to bus • Fare schedule and notation for exact change • Fare options (costs, where to buy tokens, passes, etc) • Wide and delineated sidewalks • Pedestrian signal enhancements • Stop bar separated from crosswalks • Accommodations for alternative means of pedestrian arrival • Signs, flashers, and other notification technology at non-signalized crosswalks • Drinking fountain • Restrooms The 25 most used transit transfer locations along the Westside Cities' grand boulevards and other corridors have been identified for enhancement. Because the existing conditions at the 25 locations vary due to the surrounding land use and available spacing, only the appropriate items from the toolkit will be applied. Locations of the project will span across the major bus transfer points in the four cities at the following intersections: 44 Beverly Hills - at the intersections of: • Wilshire/Santa Monica • Wilshire/Canon • Wilshire/La Cienega • Wilshire/Robertson • Wilshire/Doheny Culver City - at the intersections of: • Sepulveda/Venice • Washington/La Cienega • LincolnNVashington • SepulvedaNVashington • Fox Hills Mall Transit Center Santa Monica - at the intersections of: • Lincoln/Pico • Lincoln/Ocean Park • Lincoln/Santa Monica • 4th/ Santa Monica • 14'h/Santa Monica • 20th/Santa Monica • 26th or Cloverfield/Santa Monica West Hollywood - at the intersections of: • Santa Monica/San Vicente • Santa Monica/La Brea • Santa Monica/La Cienega • Santa Monica/Fairfax • Santa Monica/Doheny • Santa Monica/Crescent Heights • Sunset/Sweetzer (linked to Metro Red Line via DASH on Sunset Boulevard) • SunseUKings/Queens (linked to the Metro Red Line via DASH on Sunset Boulevard) 45 Figures 16 through 28 illustrate the proposed amenities and show examples of the identified 25 intersections before and after the proposed amenities are applied. The furnishings of the proposed project intend to provide service and information to the transit riders before boarding in order to minimize the bus idling time. Incidents like riders asking the operators whether the bus connects to another route, or bicyclists trying to fit their bikes on a crowded bus will be reduced. Impacts to transit schedule due to boarding incidents can be reduced and passenger travel time will decrease. The provisions outlined in this project imitate the Metro Rapid Bus amenities with the usage of branding, responding to the diversity in which the Westside Cities' transit systems are presented. Providing a more assured and understandable network will entice the neighborhood community to utilize transit and multimodal connections if the entire system is reliable and understandable. As a whole, the scope of this application would improve the connection between pedestrians, bicyclists, transfer transit riders, and the transit system in the Westside. 46 WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT BUS STOP PROTOTYPE ~. ,~ s ~# ~ ~ -,;~" ,,~" ~~ `~ ...,,.,9~~,. ~'s A ~; ~ ~~ a~~ ~ ~~ x, ~i,~" ~~;':_~~~ VIEW OF TYPICAL BUS STOP MOULE Rc POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANI5T5 WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT BUS STOP PROTOTYPE Bus bench Passengerlean cart Canopy Trash can 5. Lights 6, Beacon light Drinking fountain Route information Next arrival information io. Regional map ~z. Bus stop sign i3. Banner TRANSVERSE ELEVATION 6 MOULE Hc POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISfS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT BUS STOP PROTOTYPE Bus bench Passengerlean ca rt Canopy Trash can Lights Beacon light Drinking fountain 9 ic i: i: ONGITUDINAL ELEVATION MOULE Ht. POLYZOIDES ARCHITERS AND URBANI5T5 WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT BUS STOP PROTOTYPE A. Basic armature with pole, becon light, bus stop sign, route information and garbage can B. Incremental additon of benches and panel for maps C Incremental additon of canopy and lean cart ~ .~ ~ \-! A i ..'` B KIT OF PARTS ~ ~ MOULE Hb POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT URBAN CONDITION RETAIL ELEVATIONS A. Bus stop on narrow sidewalk (minimum 7' wide sidewalk). B. Bus stop on wide sidewalk (minimum i2' wide sidewalk) A l.,J I ~ r-; a. / PLAN MOULE Sc POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT URBAN CONDITION RETAIL WITH SETBACK ELEVATIONS A. Bus stop on narrow sidewalk (minimum 7' wide sidewalk). B. Bus stop on wide sidewalk (minimum i2' wide sidewalk) A ~ +I t-.°,~ ~.. i PLAN ~ ~Saus € ~ ~c~~v~c~b~€~ k~Er~iT€crs ar~a ~ka~aev~sT~ WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT URBAN CONDITION OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATIONS Bus stop on narrow sidewalk (minimum 7' wide sidewalk). Bus stop on wide sidewalk (minimum i2' wide sidewalk) ~n ~; PLAN MOULE Hi. POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT URBAN CONDITION GAS STATION ELEVATIONS A. B. Bus stop on narrow sidewalk (minimum 7' wide sidewalk). Bus stop on wide sidewalk (minimum i2' wide sidewalk) A ~ --.-s~_ ~? ,'~ ~Vrl ~~ PLAN B ~ ~- II `~~ ; -----, ---~{-1 ~u ~~~~ u - ;; -;~~ t ,~ ~ ~j.~ i t MOULE Sc POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANI5T5 WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT URBAN CONDITION PARKING LOT E Lf VAT10 N S A. Bus stop on narrow sidewalk (minimum 7' wide sidewalk). B. Bus stop on wide sidewalk (minimum iz' wide sidewalk) Wall Planting PLAN A ~ Y ry _........ _4u ~ ~ ~` ~ MOULE ~t. POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT APPLICATION OF LINKAGE TOOLKIT SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND DOHENY DRIVE r'~y~ i~! ~''i~~.;a~r= Current Condition Proposed Condition MOULE St. POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANI5T5 WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT APPLICATION OF LINKAGE TOOLKIT ~A~Tr~ rv~~3~JI~:~ f~~~~.~?~.(^~'~~~) ~~~~,~ `~IIG,.~1,.8IRE ~~~'~~`~{fi~~~~ ?~~.i,frt`€;~r1:'~~5~.,~~G C;=~€ ~`~~Es~a~~v~'~~E~srsu~l~ir~r'4 t r ~ ~, ~ MOULE H~. POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT APPLICATION OF LINKAGE TOOLKIT LINCOLN BOULEVARD AND PICO BOULEVARD Aerial View Current Condition Proposed Condition g ... ~' . _.... ... MOULE Sc POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WESTSIDE CITIES' PEDESTRIAN RAPID BUS & BIKE LINKAGE TOOLKIT APPLICATION OF LINKAGE TOOLKIT ~~~~a~u'`~~G~~, k~~=JLL~'~.~~? ~~~f~;E ~~ E ~~ f ~ ~-' ~ t ~ ~~ l, L: '~a ~ ~ ~~ ~a~r=~'~ff ~.~~r~s~iti;;.r,: ~~,'~~p~,a~~ i_~o~di~~,rrri ~~~:ri,uf '~~~~~u ? ~ ..~„~ m . _. . ~ : ~.~~u~,~ MOULE Hb POLYZOIDES ARCHITECTS AND URBANISTS WHAT IS FUNDED AND WHA'f IS NOT A majority of the potential transportation improvements needed on the Westside are very expensive. Obtaining funding for such enhancements will require analytical studies, years of work and political leadership. To realize any of the transportation enhancements desired by the Westside Cities, revenue sources will need to be identified and secured. Equitv in Allocation of Resources to the Westside The Westside Mobility Study has assessed how equitable the general allocation of transportation funding to the Westside has been. This was done by analyzing accessibility to activity centers and jobs in Westside, the Westside's contribution of transportation taxes as a share of total in the County, the geography of existing, funded and planned regional transit high- occupancy-vehicle (HOV) network investments and the history of MT~4 Call for Projects, which allocates amounts of funding smaller than the large network investments. Analysis suggests that the Westside's share of existing/funded projects is not equitable. The Westside is a unique part of Los Angeles County and Southern California, with a high number of activity centers and medium to high density housing interspersed with prominent shopping, cultural, recreational and educational institutions. The existing and planned regional transit network leaves the Westside subregion disconnected due to a lack of rail transit or bus rapid transit that provides fast, reliable transit connections to the rest of the metropolitan area's activity centers. Research by UCLA's Institute of Transportation Studies shows that almost all activity centers in Los Angeles County are within an hou~'s reach from Los Angeles Union Station, except for the Westside's centers. The only way to reach the Westside's activity centers is by bus; even Metro Rapid Bus can travel no faster than surrounding traffic. Residents, commuters and visitors who find bus travel too slow end up driving to and around the Westside, further aggravating traffic congestion. The lack of mode choices to reach the Westside's activity centers results in auto driving dominating the streets and reducing the potential of walking, cycling, and transit usage, as they cannot compete for the road space. The reason for much of the increase in congestion cannot be corrected without systemic coordination from land use, employment, and transportation 60 authorities and community groups. Many people who commute long distances to the Westside do so because their jobs cannot cover the housing costs, resulting in excessive commutes and congestion, while residents of the Westside show higher priority to lifestyle preferences in relation to their housing location rather than housing affordability. In addition to shortcomings in transit accessibility to the Westside, there is a serious imbalance between what the Westside Cities contribute in transportation tax revenues and what is returned in transportation funding. The Westside has 10% of the county's employment and over 6% of the population of the county. In just the Cities of Santa Monica, Culver City, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, total taxable sales exceed 5% of the county's total (based on the first three quarters of 2002, the last periods for v~rhich information is available). The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has responsibility for planning, designing, constructing and/or operating a network of regional transit facilities throughout the counry. That network is depicted in Figures 29 and 30 showing which major components already have been built or funded. The history and current status of network development provides lessons for the Westside Cities. Table 2 describes the existing Metro Rail system of four separate but connected rail transit lines. Those lines have been constructed using a combination of federal, state, MTA and city funds. All of the lines spent many years in planning and construction; each was the product of a different coalition of federal, state, county, city and subregional entities. The rail transit facility closest to the Westside Cities is the Metro Red Line, with stations at Hollywood-Highland and W ilshire-Western. Table 3 describes the major regional projects planned by MTA. Major regional projects fall into three categories: rail transit, bus rapid transit and high-occupancy-v~hicle (HOV) lanes. The only projects on the list that serve the Westside are the Exposition light rail transit and a bus rapid transitway on Wilshire, neither of which is funded. Table 4 summarizes the conclusion to be drawn from Figures 29 and 30 and Tables 2 and 3, that the preponderance of MTA investment in the existing and planned regional transit network and future HOV lanes occurs outside the Westside. With 10% of the county's jobs and 6% of its ~t ~~a~ Tr~w7~it h~~~l~~ R~~~~~i ~.~~~ir~, (~~~~lin~ ~~~ ~:x~~~~~~i;~r~,1 ...,.. PM~.~~~ir~ P~1~k~~s ~:~~i+~ T~~r~wit9dv~3~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ 1fp~ p.,,:~ r r,. ir, ! ~` x t~~~~' 29i~7 t~ Rp~t~!~ ~ I~r',t ,~*~u yy,~ k~i ~3 ~. as ~ ~it i~ k~~ s ~~a I ,d ~ ,~, F<% ~ ~ 6S , v, ? ,~ v ,~ ..~~ ~ ,~t~ I~ i':~i q ~~ ~ds'~~~ ~„~~ ~°~S~M..J'~~~~7~ R ~ ~F I ~ L~ F~ E ~~ ~ ~ a:~~~~~~ m.~..~ ~. . .~ w , . o .m.~ y ~~~~~~~L ~~1~ TF~~~I~IT f~l~`~'4J~'~F~~ ~~I~T°If~C~ ,~~~! Fl~f~~~C~ '~~fi ~I~~'~R~~~~ i.~ .~ .~ ~~I~ ~f~~~l~ ~~i~,k~=.`r~~ h~~~t?'~ F~~~el L~~~~~a.~ ~ ~ A ~o.~i~ar~, hw"~~l'r~ F~~aif I:yin~n~ ~.~ . ~a°9~i~t~l~~tk ~ar~r~ ~~~ta~r~~ G ; ~ ~f~~z S~ ~~...,~~ i u~ ~ a ~~w ~~ ~tx{~i~Tj~ ~,. >i`,t~ i ; ~E r ~ SS r4 ~~ {i7 ~ {~'klst f,' ~`+~ a, ~a E~~ft.,~`t„ ~.~~ . ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ r, r a~,+,~~,~ , ~..~..~ ......e. If+.~~~~!'Ml~~ ~~~~ 1 IC~~1~1~~ 1 ~'~i~T~P~~~~ ~~~~ 1 ~1'N~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ 1r~9 ~~~4,~'~4.~~~ Table 2: Existing Metro Rail System MAJOR FUNDING and SOURCES YEARS IN COALITION PROJECTS LENGTH OF FUNDING P~NNING/ CONSTRUCTION MEMBERS Metro Red Line ~ Union Station to Federal, Wilshire! $4.5 billion state, MTA City of Los Angeles County Western 17.4 miles Propositions 1980 - 2000 , and federal • Union q and C, City Station ta of ~os elected officials North Holly- Angeles wood Mitigation Federal, measure for Metro Green Line $718 million state, MTA Century Freeway • Norwalk to 20 miles propositions 1984 - 1995 (I-105). EI Segundo A and C Supported by loca( and state elected o~cials Metro Blue Line • Light rail Los Angeles, from down- $877 million MTA 1980 - 1990 Long Beach, town Los 22 miles Proposition A County and state Angeles to elected officials Lon Beach Metro Gold Line Pasadena, South • Light rail Pasadena, ~os from down- $878 million State, MTA Angeles, San town Los 14 miles Propositions 1980 - 2003 Gabriel Valley Angeles to A and C COG, State Pasadena legislative leaders 64 Table 3: Major Regional Projects Planned by MTA ESTINIIIATED YEARS IN MAJOR PROJECTS COaT and FUNDING PLANNING/ COA~ITION EXTENT IN PLACE CONSTRUCTION MEMBERS RAI~ TRANSIT Metro Gold Line $1 37 billion Coalition of 11 San Gabriel Valley . 23 miles $15 million 2003-2009 cities and ~os Extension An eles Coun Metrolink 1990-2002 (SB ~ County JPA Rehab/Im rovements p 1402 Counties W~th 44 cities JPA Le islation Alameda Corridor East Alameda Corridor Construction East $910 million Authority created Mitigation of 42 grade 1998-2007 by the San lncreased Traffic crossings Gabriel Valley along 35 mile freight 35 miles COG, camprised rail corridor of 30 cities and County of Los An eles Eastside elected Metro Gold Line $912 million 1990-2009 officials at Eastside Extension 6.3 miles $912 million federal, state, local levels $1 billion 15.5 miles Santa Monica, Ex osition LRT p ($495 million of 1990-2020 Los Angeles, total in Culver City, state Weatside and county Cities elected officials BUS RAPID TRANSIT San Fernando Valley Valley Coalition, Metro Rapid $340 million 1980-2005 State, County Transitway $340 million and Local Elected Officials Wilshire/V1lhittier $235 million (~59 million in State and Metro Rapid Westside 1998-2009 County Elected Transitway Cities Officials Crenshaw Metro County and Rapid Transitway $2a0 million None 1990-2015 Lacal Elected O~cials 65 Hov ~aNEs I-5 (San Fernando $425 million Valle $183 million I-10 (San Gabriel $442 millian Valle ) SR 14 (Antelope Valle $150 million $105 million SR 60 (San Gabriel $610 million Valle $1.75 billion 1-405 (Westside and ($438 million in San Femando Valley) Westside Cities I-605 (San Gabriel $20 million Valle METRO RAPID BUS Lines Serving Westside $20 million $20 million Lines Not Serving $g1 million $81 million Westside Table 4: Westside's Share of Major Capital Investments in Regional Transportation INVESTMENT TOTAL COMMITTED TO PERCENT EXF'ENDITURE SERVICE TO COMMITTED WESTSIDE SERVICE TO WESTSIDE Existing Metro Rail $6,973 million $ 0 0% S stem Planned Major Capital Investments in • Rail Transit $4,192 million $ 0 0% • Metro Rapid 101 million $20 million 20% • Bus Rapid 775 million $ 0 0% Transit • HOV Lanes 3,397 million $ 0 0% TOTALS $15,438 million $20 million 0.1 % 66 residents, the Westside has received or is in line to receive only 0.1 % of MTA's investment in major regional transportation facilities. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's primary local source of revenue is a total of 1% sales tax approved by the County's electorate as Propositions A and C. The principal manner in which MTA allocates resources for transportation improvements is through a periodic Call for Projects. Comparison of historical allocations through the Call for Projects demonstrates that the four Westside cities receive far less than 5% of the total allocation throughout the county. In the last three Calls for Projects, total funding awarded to the Cities of West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Culver Ciry or Santa Monica has amounted to these percentages of funding allocated throughout the county: 2.6% in 1999, 0.9% in 2000 and 0.5% in 2001. Fiscal Realitv The potential transportation improvements needed on the Westside are very expensive. Obtaining funding for such enhancements will require analytical studies, years of work and political leadership. To realize any of the transportation enhancements desired by the Westside Cities, revenue sources will need to be identified and secured. To put the magnitude of funding needed on the Westside in perspective involves comparing requirements with the size of potential sources. The total estimated financing required for all three improvement tiers is $16.5 billion. The maximum portion of those improvements potentially to be funded from federal sources is approximately $6.2 billion; that amount equals the total revenue generated by 7.5 cents/gallon of the federal highway user fee (the primary source of federal transportation assistance) over a 20-year period. The remainder of the improvements, $10.3 billion, would have to be funded from state and regional sources. That amount of revenue could be generated by combining 20 years' worth of revenues from these sources: 1/4-cent sales tax in Los Angeles County ($5 billion) 5 cents/gallon state user fee ($4.8 billion) $6 per year motor vehicle fee ($686 million) 67 At this time, all future transportation improvements are beyond the financial abilities of cities, the MTA or the state. In realiry, transportation funding for existing, on-going operations, to the MTA for transit, to cities for street maintenance and to Culver City and Santa Monica bus lines for services, is barely enough to maintain current senrice levels and, in some cases, is shrinking. Funding for capital improvements is also severely limited. The Westside Cities need to support the MTA strongly in addressing the shortfall in financing for public transit and city streets by securing new sources of funds. Due to increased competition for shrinking transportation funds, it is ever more difficult to keep existing programs operating. Any expansion or improvement to the transportation system is not possible without significant additional funding. Some sources of that financing might be increasing sales tax, increasing motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax, instituting "congestion pricing," implementing a traffic impact fee on development or a combination of those. Since those sources would have to be developed countywide, regionwide or statewide, immediate actions should be taken to build coalitions to address the need to stop erosion of funding sources and develop new sources of financing to continue (with new operating funds) and expand (with new capital and operating funds) the multimodal transportation system. In advance of having funding available, it is important to recognize that current planning for regional transportation should continue. Transportation projects take years to plan and obtain consensus. Waiting to begin project planning for when funding is available allows other entities with plans in place to secure the available monies. Since the Westside has lost ground on major projects, creating a relatively large discrepancy on funded or completed major transportation projects as compared to other parts of the county, the VWestside Cities need to be ready when funding is available. 68 IINMEDIATE ACTION RECOMIIAENDATIONS C~itv Council Res~~lution s This report with its list of potential long-term transportation improvements is meant to give city staff direction on how and where to proceed in the next phase of the transportation efforts of the Westside Cities and COG. It illustrates the level of commitment, dedication, and leadership that will be needed to move a project forward if/when one or more are agreed upon. Thereafter staff will identify next steps and collaborative efforts to be approved by the c;ities and COG. Each of the Westside cities should pass City Council resolution(s) to enable use of the COG to leverage programmatic decision making at all levels. The points to be made in the resolution should include these: • The Westside Cities of Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica and West Hollywood have developed, funded and directed the Westside Mobility Study The study represents a subregional, interjurisdictional approach to transportation planning that recognizes the importance of coordination of goals and strategies to address issues of regional importance Each City Council conceptually approves the Westside Mobility Study • With the cooperation of all four cities, the study is meant to provide greater insight into the travel behavior and potential solutions than any of the indi~~idual city's transportation staff has or would have been able to acquire on its own • The Westside Cities strongly support the MTA in efforts to stop the erosion of funding sources and develop new sources of financing to continue and expand the multimodal transportation system The Westside Mobility Study is the first cooperative effort among the cities to forge consensus on policies, programs, and projects of regional significance The COG structure will provide the forum for discussion and c:ommunication as well as representation on behalf of the subregion in transportation advocacy 69 Plan for Cc~operative Action v~vith Citv of Los Anqeles Based on the top priority needs and the ideas for significant transportation improvement on the Westside, the Westside Cities should undertake cooperative action wi1:h the City of Los Angeles at a minimum on these priority projects: 1 Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown Los Angeles through Culver City to downtown Santa Monica. 2. A rail line to West Holly~wood connected to the regional rail system and other areas of the Westside. 3. Added multimodal capacity in the Lincoln Boulevard corridor, the Venice Boulevard corridor and the Robertson/La Cienega/Fairfax corridor (subject to detailed consideration of major intermodal possibilities). 4. Land use and parking incentives coordinated among the Cities in selected areas of the Westside along grand boulevards. Cooperative action with the City of Los Angeles should also recognize the projects upon which the city places priority and the transportation improvements currently being studied by Los Angeles. Plan for Advocacv and Coope~rative Action with MTA In furtherance of the objective to develop new, dedicated sources of transportation funding, endorse efforts by MTA such as the half-cent sales tax enabling legislation passed by the state legislature. Based on the top priority needs and the ideas for significant transportation improvement on the Westside, the Westside Cities should undertake cooperative action with the MTA advocating development of financial resources for these priority projects: 1 Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown Los Angeles through Culver City to downtown Santa Monica. 2. A rail line to West Holly~wood connected to the regional rail s~/stem and other areas of the Westside. 3. Regional street corridor capacity enhancement where appropriate, e.g., the intersection of Wilshire/Santa Monica Boulevards in Beverly Hills where relief is needed from through traffic. 70 4, Extensive local public transit circulators on fixed or flexible routes to move people between neighborhoods and major bus and rail transit lines without use of private vehicles. 5, A rail line in the San Diego Freeway corridor from LAX to the Westside and the San Fernando Valley. 6. An alternative multimodal linkage from the Westside to the San Fernando Valley and LAX, taking pressure off the I-405 Freeway corridor. Plan for Advocacv for State a~nd Federal Fundinq Based on the top priority needs and the ideas for significant transportation improvement on the Westside, the Westside Cities should undertake cooperative action with the MTA advocating state and federal funding for these priority projects: 1 Light rail on the Exposition right-of-way from downtown Los Angeles through Culver City to downtown Santa Monica. 2 A rail line to West Hollywood connected to the regional rail syrstem and other areas of the Westside. 3 Major interchange reconfiguration on I-10 at Robertson and Venice Boulevards. 4. Express bus improvements such as a peak-period shoulder lane on the Santa Monica Freeway. 5. Major transpo~tation hut~s (clean mobility centers) in strategic Ic~cations on the Westside to link Metro, pedestrian, bicycle, parking and car-sharing resources. 6. Added HOV capacity in the San Diego Freeway and Santa Monica Freeway corridors, subject to detailed consideration of major investment in conce;pts such as tunneling or elevated construction. ~~