SR-11-24-2015-4A 25 of 32 roadway, the City’s Traffic Engineering staff or a consultant would need to develop striping and signage plans, which could likely be completed with existing resources. Side Street Crosswalk Markings Crosswalk markings are proposed at 23 side street loca tions within the project area that are currently unmarked. This effort would include continental striping from curb to curb for distances that are generally no more than 30 feet. While this effort could accompany the construction of larger streetscape ele ments, like medians and curb -extensions, many of the proposed side -street crosswalks could be implemented in the near term without foreclosing on future construction activities. A minor design effort would need to be undertaken by Traffic Engineering staf f or a consultant, and a funding stream would need to be identified, and likely supported by a CIP request. In consultation with the City’s Public Works Department, it appears that at least 1/3 of the proposed side -street crosswalks could be funded by loc al return Measure R money, as they are within the appropriate radius from an existing bus stop, and therefore qualify for pedestrian enhancement funds. Placemaking Activities Utility Box Art The LiNC Utility Box pilot project is designed to provide Olympi c High School students with an outlet to use utility traffic control boxes on Lincoln Blvd. as a canvas for their creative expression . Through coordination with various City departments and Olympics’ Fall 2015 art program , teams of students have the oppor tunity to design and refine artwork that will be displayed on 7 highly visible traffic signal utility boxes on Lincoln Boulevard between the I -10 Freeway and City Limits at Ozone Avenue. The artwork would be printed on a high -quality, graffiti resistant v inyl sheet, which would be professionally applied in order to protect the boxes’ functional
26 of 32 requirements. Student t eams are being mentored on the public art process and its execution by experienced local artists from the Beautify Earth collaborative and Ci ty staff . Artwork will be temporarily displayed on the utility boxes , potentially for up to a one year period or more . The cost for printing the final art pieces onto vinyl is intended to be borne through sponsorship opportunities from local businesses on Lincoln Boulevard, or local neighborhood groups to demonstrate community connections and a coordinated interest in enhancing the visual beauty of the street. Curbside Planters The proposed curbside planter p rogram has been conceptually designed to compl ement the efforts of Lincoln Boulevard property and business owners to promote an attractive environment for pedestrian activities, and present an image of a well -maintained district. The project team is developing g uidelines in coordination with staff fro m Public Works t o assist with the selection of drought -tolerant landscaping and the optimal location for planter placement within the sidewalk zone . Staff is currently sourcing materials and coordinating with resource providers who can install the planters at a low cost to local businesses who wish to beautify the public realm in front of their retail location. Historic or Interpretive Wayfinding Lincoln Boulevard long held the title of Pacific Route Highway 1 until the time that it was relinquished to the City of Santa Monica in 2012. Because of this DNA, a playful opportunity exists to benefit the streetscape and the local businesses through signage that reinforces Lincoln’s historical role in the national transportation network. Additionally, through con versations with local property owners and the school district,
27 of 32 there are several buildings of historical significance that can be highlighted through either signage or podium markers to provide a walking history lesson for passersby. “Color Splash” on Exis ting Street Furniture A unique idea to emerge from the discussion on “Pop -Up Placemaking” is to utilize a high quality, colorful paint on existing cement street poles along the corridor. The uniform application of color along the project area has the pote ntial to create a distinct district identity for only the cost of paint. At the February 23 rd workshop, the project team presented the “color splash” concept, which garnered a great deal of support from workshop participants ranking higher than many high -v alue capital improvements such as crosswalks. At the August 6 th workshop, the project team provided a series of preliminary photosimulations to show how the treatment might look in a Boulevard environment. A “color splash” could also be applied to trash c ans or benches, if desired. Going forward, the project team believes that one of the first duties of the emerging BID could be to select the color and to commission the project. Alternatively, a cost estimate has been developed by the City’s paint division , which can implement this project earlier than BID establishment, if desired. Façade Improvements (see ATTACHMENT F) The experience along Lincoln Boulevard is largely influenced by the condition of private property, and how it contributes – or detracts – from the public environment. Many concerns that have been expressed about Lincoln Boulevard relate to private property maintenance, and the signature lack of investment that characterizes much of this
28 of 32 regional roadway facility. An important goal of the LiNC is to support façade maintenance and public realm improvements, and the project team has explored a number of options ranging from the creation of a façade enhancement fund, to community -based “clean up” days, to other activities, such as landscaping and steam cleaning, that would ultimately be administered through a Business Improvement District. In the absence of any available funding sources for private property enhancements, the team has instead developed a list of over 30 individual façade proj ects on properties along Lincoln Boulevard that are low -cost and can be used as guidance to interested property owners. In select cases, the project team has developed illustrated drawings or diagrams to convey specific concepts that, when used by motivate d property owners, could begin to enhance not only the individual property, but the Boulevard character itself. During the next phase of work, staff will tighten up the approach to engaging property owners and will continue to seek potential matching funds for a façade enhancement program, which may be challenging given that currently no precedent exists for the City becoming involved in private property improvements. Potential Incentive Programs While the intent of the LiNC project has been to stimulate in terest in maintenance and enhancement, the decision to improve properties ultimately lies with the Boulevard’s property owners, who – over the past several decades – have shown little appetite for revitalization. To motivate property owners to utilize the business improvement concepts and ideas developed through the LiNC project, the project team proposes to develop two programs for Council discussion: Lincoln Blvd. Business Improvement Fund: in coordination with the City’s Economic Development division, s taff could create a pilot program that supports small façade improvement projects on private property on Lincoln Boulevard with nominal matching funds, perhaps no higher than $500 per tenant space. Conceptually, Lincoln Boulevard businesses or property ow ners could apply for matching funds through an application that required 1) design details as required
29 of 32 by standard permits, 2) enrollment in the City’s “Buy Local” program, and 3) matching dollars or sweat equity equal to or greater than the City’s maximum contribution. The results of the pilot program could be used as a case study to help encourage and inspire other property owners and businesses to undertake improvements with small budgets. Fee Holiday for Staff Level Architectural Review Board (ARB) Appl ications: many code violations or complaints about the Boulevard’s aesthetic stem from outdated or non -conforming building features, such as signage, paint and exterior treatments, and landscaping. Many of these items require staff -level ARB approval, whi ch carries a $350 fee that is an impediment to many Lincoln Boulevard businesses. In coordination with the Current Planning division, staff could draft a Council resolution that, if adopted, could suspend ARB fees for staff -level approvals for a limited t ime, perhaps up to one year. During that period, staff would actively work with local businesses, code enforcement and other entities to address improvements on a case -by -case basis, gradually enhancing the corridor. In combination, the two incentive progr ams discussed above would likely result in positive changes for Lincoln Boulevard and might create the condition for increased private investment along the corridor such that many of the desired visual and land use outcomes bear fruit in the near term. E. NE XT STEPS Streetscape Design The next phase of work on the right -of -way improvements will involve collaborating with City departments to integrate the desired and technically feasible streetscape elements into a single alternative. After a thorough vetting and refinement process , the preferred streetscape plan will include a corridor length schematic plan, street sections, graphic renderings, cost estimates, phasing recommendations and funding sources. A community workshop in January 2016 will help finalize the design and policy
30 of 32 recommendations before final Planning Commission and City Council review in mid -late spring 2016. Transportation Enhancements In the final phase of the project, the project team will address parking -related concerns on a global and on e -on -one basis with businesses who may be impacted by the presence of a bus lane during business hours. This analytical and outreach effort will make use of existing data to develop personalized solutions, where possible, to accommodate any discomfort or perceived impact to economic vitality. Staff will continue to coordinate with regional agencies and Council districts to advise of Santa Monica’s progress in establishing a dedicated bus lane along Lincoln Boulevard. Business Improvements Ongoing outreach to local businesses and property owners will continue, as will the initiative to strengthen commitments for low -cost, low -process placemaking initiatives that can be borne by the business community. While many businesses have participated in the LiNC proc ess, and recent surveys indicate general interest in improving conditions along Lincoln Boulevard, Lincoln’s transformation is challenged by a general perception that City bureaucracy and fees are difficult barriers to making improvements on private proper ty. Handbooks for Improvements In light of this recurring theme, the project team envisions the creation of a series of handbooks , and/or online guides that can be used by businesses and property owners to help navigate City processes and fees and furthe r help to break down perceived barriers. Handbooks could be developed to address a variety of simple development or improvement scenarios, such as adaptive reuse, façade remodel, murals and signage, new construction, or starting a business, and could prov ide clear information to help a business or property owner make informed decisions. Handbooks would build upon some existing City of Santa Monica and Santa Monica Alliance guidance sheets, but would be tailored specifically for Lincoln Boulevard businesse s to address the unique site conditions that characterize the street, such as irregular parcel dimensions, older
31 of 32 building stock, and off -set street patterns. These could then be adapted to citywide resource guides for small businesses and property owners. Incentive Programs Should Council demonstrate an appetite for supporting the incentive programs described above in the implementation discussion, staff could begin work immediately to design a series of processes that would provide businesses with a clear path towards revitalization. Staff would return to Council at time of LiNC adoption with a suite of documents that include applications, program regulations, and guidance for the rehabilitation of buildings and facades. At that time, funds could be iden tified to resource the grant program, as well as an understanding of the impact on City resources to suspend fees for a limited term for certain permit types. Public Outreach Based on input and direction from the City Council, staff will continue to work a ctively with the community and stakeholders, including meetings with the Lincoln Boulevard Task Force, residents, businesses, the school district, social service organizations and other. The project team will hold a public workshop in January 2016 to gene rate feedback on a preferred streetscape alternative before presenting a refined LiNC Plan to the Planning Commission in late winter 2016. Staff anticipated presenting final documentation to the City Council in mid -late spring 2016. Environmental Analysis Staff has reviewed the final concept design for conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the final concept involves the minor alteration of an existing street and sidewalk facility that does not have a significant effect on the environment or on the flow of traffic, it is anticipated that the concept will be categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA.
32 of 32 Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a re sult of the recommended action. Prepared By: Peter James, Senior Planner Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. LiNC Community Preferences B. Streetscape, Transportation and Business Improvement Concepts C. Median Design Alternatives D. Streetscape V ignettes E. LiNC Bus Lane Study F. Short -Term Business Improvement Projects G. Long -Term Business Improvement Projects H. LiNC Traffic Analysis I. LiNC PBAD Feasibility Report J. LiNC Goal Tracking
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 LiNC Community Preference Results from 2.23.15 Workshop Streetscape Transportation Business Improvement
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC LINC CONTEXT MAP Complete Green Street Neighborhood Greenway M LiNC Study Area Building Footprints Parks & Open Space Civic Space Parking Lot Expo Line Future Bike Network Existing Bike Network Safe Routes to School Improvements Expo Light Rail Station M KEY N 0 500 1,000 FEET Los Amigos Park Joslyn Park Hotchkiss Park Tongva Park Santa Monica Place City Hall City Hall Courthouse Courthouse Civic Center Civic Center Main Library Santa Monica State Beach Santa Monica Pier Santa Monica High School Santa Monica High School DOWNTOWN City of Los Angeles (Venice)THIRD STREET PROMENADE PICO BLVD BAY ST PINE ST OLYMPIC BLVD OLYMPIC BLVD COLORADO BLVD BROADWAY ARIZONA AVE 10 1 10TH ST PEARL ST PACIFIC ST MAPLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCEAN PARK BLVD CEDAR ST HILL ST HILL ST GRANT ST MICHIGAN AVE MARINE ST MARINE ST STRAND ST STRAND ST OZONE AVE WILSON PL HILL PL NORTH 7TH ST BAY ST 7TH ST 6TH ST 3RD ST MAIN ST OCEAN AVE 7TH ST 5TH ST LINCOLN BOULEVARD MAIN ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST PACIFIC ST 11TH ST GRANT ST ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE PIER AVE Olympic High School John Muir Elementary School John Muir Elementary School John Muir Elementary School
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC PEDESTRIAN LIFE P1 - ADDITIONAL CROSSWALKS P3 - CURB BULB-OUT P2 - PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AND SPOT MEDIAN P4 - PARKLET §Opportunities for more crossings §Connects neighborhoods §Shortens distances between crossing locations §Makes it easier to park on opposite side §Signals would be pedestrian-actuated to minimize auto delay §Allows people who need more time to cross in two phases §Protects center of crosswalk from traffic §Opportunity for additional greening and water infiltration. §Could impede some left turn movements §Conversion of red curb and one or two parking spaces to public space §Often includes public seating and landscaping §For public use, for a variety of purposes §Compatible on side streets §Shortens length of crossing exposed to traffic §Opportunity to add landscaping and stormwater facilities §Typically located where on-street parking is not present 1200’
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC PEDESTRIAN LIFE P5 - PAINT BASES OF LIGHT POLES P7 - STREET TREES P8 - SCREEN PARKING WITH TRELLISES P6 - PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING §Paint bases of poles a consistent color §Could help establish LiNC identity as a corridor §Possibly add metal cutout banners §Provide visual interest for pedestrians §Absorb and retain stormwater §Give shade and reduce urban ‘heat island’ effect §Increases biodiversity, wildlife habitat §Provides an added buffer from vehicles, especially on stretches with no parking §Reduces visual impact of parking lots §Provides additional outdoor dining areas §Gives some shade and separation from traffic §Not as tall as roadway “cobra head” lights §Illuminate sidewalks more consistently §Decorative lighting might comfort during evenings 15’30’PICO SHOPPING CENTER 1 3 2 RENDERED PERSPECTIVE OF SHOPPING CENTER ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIPS GATEWAY ELEMENT AT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE OUTDOOR SEATING/DINING AREA 1 3 2
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC PEDESTRIAN LIFE P9 - ADDITIONAL STREET FURNITURE P11 - CORRIDOR IDENTITY SIGNAGE P10 - FREEWAY BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS P12 - WAYFINDING SIGNAGE §Currently trash cans, seating and news racks located mainly at bus stops §Possibility for additional street furniture in logical locations based on community feedback §Could be “stock” or corridor-specific designs §Waste compactors can add capacity, reduce litter §Pedestrian-scaled lighting §Potential to add planters, railing at walkway §Some precedents in LA and San Diego §Create a better connection between Downtown and Lincoln Boulevard, south of the I-10 Freeway and to Santa Monica High School §Directs visitors to key destinations §Could include walking routes and walk times §Downtown, beach, parks, schools, transit… §Highway 1/PCH historic trail §“The LiNC” §Interpretive markers §Precedent: New Downtown BID signage
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC Complete Green Street Neighborhood Greenway M LiNC Study Area Building Footprints Parks & Open Space Civic Space Parking Lot Expo Line Future Bike Network Existing Bike Network Safe Routes to School Improvements Expo Light Rail Station M KEY N 0 500 1,000 FEET Los Amigos Park Joslyn Park Hotchkiss Park Tongva Park Santa Monica Place City Hall City Hall Courthouse Courthouse Civic Center Civic Center Main Library Santa Monica State Beach Santa Monica Pier Santa Monica High School Santa Monica High School DOWNTOWN City of Los Angeles (Venice)THIRD STREET PROMENADE PICO BLVD BAY ST PINE ST OLYMPIC BLVD OLYMPIC BLVD COLORADO BLVD BROADWAY ARIZONA AVE 10 1 10TH ST PEARL ST PACIFIC ST MAPLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCEAN PARK BLVD CEDAR ST HILL ST HILL ST GRANT ST MICHIGAN AVE MARINE ST MARINE ST STRAND ST STRAND ST OZONE AVE WILSON PL HILL PL NORTH 7TH ST BAY ST 7TH ST 6TH ST 3RD ST MAIN ST OCEAN AVE 7TH ST 5TH ST LINCOLN BOULEVARD MAIN ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST PACIFIC ST 11TH ST GRANT ST ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE PIER AVE Olympic High School John Muir Elementary School John Muir Elementary School John Muir Elementary School TRANSPORTATION T1 - ‘SPOT’ MEDIANS THAT MAINTAIN LEFT TURNS T4 - SHARED PARKING STRATEGIES T2 - ‘FULL’ MEDIANS & RESTRICTION ON LEFT TURNS T5 - BICYCLE ROUTE “LINC” CONNECTORS §Does not typically affect left turns into side streets and driveways §Adds greenery, planting and possibly trees to streetscape §Medians typically about 30-50’ in length, 10-12’ in width §Would eliminate left turns into some side streets and most driveways §Continuous medians 10-12’ wide, up to about 150’ long, left-turn pockets at key intersections §May have potential to improve traffic flow somewhat, but more study required §Help to close gaps where designated bike routes cross Lincoln with offsets §Could include special bicycle signals if needed §Some vehicle turns might be restricted §Encourage businesses to share private parking among themselves (lease, etc.) §Makes more parking spaces available on-street §Requires uses with complementary parking demand (e.g. restaurant & fitness) §Already happening, but could be better coordinated.Cardio Barre Santino’s Restaurant
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC TRANSPORTATION T3 - PEAK-PERIOD BUS-ONLY LANES §Northbound in AM/Southbound in PM §Reduces delay for transit vehicles and patrons, improves mobility §Parking still allowed on other side of Lincoln during peak, and on both sides off-peak §Potential for bikes and right-turning vehicles to be allowed to use bus-only lanes (pending further study of vehicle code) §Travel speed affects transit ridership §Inclusion of Rapid Bus infrastructure contributed to a substantial increase of transit ridership on the WestStart BRT system §Travel speed is a proven positive force on ridership gains §Helps with on time performance/time tables; Transit ridership increases with reliability
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT/BEAUTIFICATION B1 - ADAPTIVE REUSE OF AUTO-ORIENTED BUILDINGS B3 - ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING B2 - ART ON UTILITY BOXES B4 - SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS §Opportunity to add more neighborhood-serving uses §Can preserve key design features such as roll-up doors §Maintains and strengthens corridor identity, adds desirability/attractiveness §Many local examples in Los Angeles §Adds color and visual interest §Opportunity for local artists to engage with the corridor §Should be curated and maintained to avoid adding visual clutter §Low cost, high impact §Clear, legible business signage §Automobile-scaled signage on upper facades §Pedestrian-scaled signage facing sidewalks §Building-mounted lighting that serves the public realm §Adds visual interest at nighttime §Can highlight building architecture §Enhances safety §Draws attention to your business AUTO-ORIENTED BUSINESSES CAREFULLY EVALUATE READABILITY OF SIGN ADDITIONAL PLANTING AND/OR STREET TREES IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIP PRECEDENT IMAGE – AUTO BUSINESSES OPPORTUNITY TO ADD LANDSCAPING BED AND/OR STREET TREE INSTALL TRELLIS WITH PLANTING PAINT EACH BUSINESS CONTRASTING COLOR WITH BORDERS. MAKE IMPROVE -MENTS TO SIGNAGE TO IMPROVE READABILITY (SEE PRECEDENT IMAGE)1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 5 4
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT/BEAUTIFICATION B5 - MORE ADVANTAGEOUS WINDOW DISPLAY B7 - DE-MASSING BLANK WALLS B6 - MORE ADVANTAGEOUS OUTDOOR DISPLAY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY §Relocate storage away from display windows §Highlight goods and services provided by the business §Add illumination §Relocate storage away from outdoor display areas §Highlight goods and services provided by the business §Add illumination §Enhances safety – ‘Designing out crime’ §Maximize this prime space – Does it promote your business? Does it convey what you sell/do? §Is it welcoming and enticing to draw people in?UNILIGHT WHOLESALE ELECTRIC WEST COAST CLASSICS POWER WASH/CLEAN AWNING PAINT BUILDING TO COMPLIMENT COLORS OF MASONRY TURN ON AND PROMINENTLY FEATURE CHANDELIERS & LIGHT ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIPS ENLARGE ADDRESS PLAQUE OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE AND UTILIZE OUTDOOR SPACE?1 1 2 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 6 LIGHT FIXTURES IN WINDOW DISPLAY HAVE SIGNAGE CAPITALIZE ON THE DRIVE-BY AND PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIP PLANTING BED WITH SCREEN PLANTING AT THE BASE OF GATED ENTRY HEIGHTEN BUSINESS PRESENCE & PROMOTE MERCHANDISE WITH CAR DISPLAY RAMPS 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 CAR DISPLAY RAMP ?ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIPS KAO KAO OFFICE BUILDING PAINT FACADE COLOR, ADD MATERIAL AND/OR PLANTING TRELLIS PLANT IN FRONT OF MASONRY WALL PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST WITH SIGNAGE AND/OR HIGHLIGHT ADDRESS 1 4 2 3 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 3 4 1 8 4 8 PAINT BUILDING TO ARTICULATE AND EMPHASIZE ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL REPLACE EXISTING BLACK SECURITY FENCES WITH SOFTER COLORS AND/OR GRAPHICS 1 2 3 EXAMPLES OF BARRIERS/FENCES AS CANVASSES ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING STRIPS 1 2 3 WALGREENS SMARTSTART PRE-SCHOOL PAINT FACADE COLOR AND/OR INTEGRATE PHARMACY/DRUGSTORE RELATED GRAPHICS ADDITIONAL PLANTING AND/OR STREET TREES IN EXISTING PLANTING BED PAINT EXISTING UTILITY BOX AND/OR USE AS CAN -VAS FOR PUBLIC ART TRELLIS WITH PLANTING 1 2 3 3 4 2 1 1 2 4 1
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT/BEAUTIFICATION B8 - ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING - PRIVATE PROPERTIES §Window boxes B9 - ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON SIDEWALKS B11 - MURALS B10 - AWNING IMPROVEMENTS B12 - PUBLIC ARTWORK §Hardy plants in wine barrels between street trees (cheap!) §Planting in existing parkways §Property/business owners would need to water and maintain §Relate to corridor identity and history §Consider auto vs. pedestrian scale §Consider agreement between artist and property owner (maintenance, ability to replace/update/touch up) §High impact, low cost §Provides shade and rain protection to pedestrians §Can include business signage §Should be architecturally compatible with building §Zoning Code includes private developer cultural arts requirement §Requires 2% of construction cost for public art onsite for projects >7500 sf (1% for off-site) §Arts Commission & Director of CCS review & approve §Trees in front setbacks §Planting in parking lots §Sustainable plants – low maintenance LINCOLN COURT APARTMENTS KATHMANDU TALL COLUMNAR PLANTINGS TO BREAK-UP AND SOFTEN BUILDING INCORPORATE SIGNAGE INTEGRATE UPLIGHTS TO ACCENT PLANTINGS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF BUILDING ADDITIONAL PLANTING AND/OR STREET TREES IN EXISTING PLANTING BED PAINT TALLER SECTION OF BUILDING ALTERNATIVE COLOR TO HIGHLIGHT ARCHITECTURE & BREAK-UP EXPANSIVENESS OF BUILDING 1 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 L i n c o L n c o u r t A p A r t m e n t s 2807 BEAUTIFULLY DESIGNED SIGNAGE IS DIFFICULT TO READ. MOVE SIGNAGE AND/OR RE-DESIGN TO HELP IMPROVE LEGIBILITY NARROW LEDGE PLANTER TO SOFTEN BUILDING AND FRAME ENTRANCE ADDITIONAL PLANTING IN EXISTING PLANTING BED PAINTED BORDERS AROUND WINDOWS PAINT SCREEN DOOR CONTRASTING COLOR 1 2 3 SECTION: LEDGE PLANTER NOT TO SCALE 3 4 5 1 3 5 4 2 2
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - FEBRUARY 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC PROPERTY-BASED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PBID)WHY PBID’S WORK ?URBAN PLACE ROLE IN THE LINC BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HOW A PBID IS FORMED ? §Services provided enhance existing City services §Services areas can include public safety, maintenance, economic development, marketing, special events, and more §District is governed by those who pay the assessment §Unifies the private-sector into a strong leadership organization with improved political clout §Good resource center for businesses to work together and learn from one another so owners do not have to reinvent the wheel §Businesses might get a better deal on improvements if they do it together Through community and one-on-one meetings with stakeholders, Urban Place asked business and property owners to give input on the future vision of Lincoln Blvd and barriers to get to that vision. The focus groups discussion included: §Better traffic flow §Diverse business offering serving the neighborhoods §More food options §Bike friendly §Pedestrian friendly with more safe crosswalks §Beautification, landscaping, lighting §Safety §Clean §Better access to boulevard and better parking/more parking options §More trees §No/less homeless §Cleaner/safer alleys §Creative projects like parklets §Better communication and working relationship with City §Façade improvements “Citywide, Milwaukee has tracked sales tax receipts in business districts with BIDs versus those without. Districts with BIDs have consistently outperformed the others.” --CITY OF MILWAUKEE “Three years after establishing a BID in the Fashion District, land value increased 142%, new development increased by 6.4 million square feet, new business increased 32%, and the number of residential units increased 113%.” –CITY OF LOS ANGELES §Determine need and educate stakeholders §Develop the “management plan” (business plan) §Review the management plan and build consensus §Petition campaign and ballot process §City Council hearings to establish the district §Contract between city and non-profit management organization §Submit assessments to county assessor
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST OLYMPIC BLVD C OLYMPIC BLVD OLYMPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARI MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV MEDIANS MINIMAL PLACEMENT OF MEDIANS MEDIANS LOCATED WHERE LEFT TURNS ARE CURRENTLY PROHIBITED ADDITIONAL AND LONGER MEDIANS CREATE ADDITIONAL LEFT TURN RESTRI CTIONS TO AND FROM LINCOLN ON SIDE STREETS, WHERE TURN VOLUMES ARE LOW DURING PEAK HOURS v MAXIMUM PLACEMENT OF MEDIANS SHOWING RESTRICTED LEFT TURNS AND ALLOWED UTURNS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE MEDIANS PLANTED WITH TREES Medians added to beautify Lincoln Boulevard wherever compatible with the desire to improve vehicle fl ow. Two options: minimal medians that do not aff ect left turns, and maximum medians with more turn restrictions. Provide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) within medians at specifi ed interval distance. EVAs are designed to facilitate emergency access while discouraging their illegal use by motorists for left or U-turns. Pedestrian refuges are provided where a median is located at a crosswalk, providing a protected space when additional time is n eeded to cross the street. MEDIAN TREATMENTS MINIMAL PLACEMENT Approx. 1,000 total linear feet MAXIMIZED PLACEMENT Approx. 2,000 total linear feet PROS Maintains left-turn movements onto side-streets and private driveways. Improves traffi c fl ow by eliminating many points of confl ict. Provides increased amount of median area available for landscaping and pedestrian safety facilities.CONS Limited area reduces opportunity for greening and incorporation of medians into existing and proposed crosswalks. Restricts left-turning movements onto side-streets (potentially up to 5 locations) and into some private driveways.PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST MPIC BLVD C MPIC BLVD MPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV LINCOLN BLVD OLYM OLYM OLYM Prohibited Left Turn Allowed U-Turn LEGEND
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC SIDEWALK LANDSCAPING STREET TREES - EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKWAYS - EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZERO WATER, PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS STREET TREE EXPLORATIONS LOW WATER, PARKWAY PLANTINGS NATIVE PLANTS OR GRASSES PARKWAYS STORMWATER PLANTERS SUCCULENTS Brisbane Box, Lophostemon confertus White Ironbark, Eucalyptus leucoxylon Southern Magnolia, Magnolia grandifl ora Golden Rain Tree, Koelreuteria paniculata Water Gum, Tristaniopsis laurina ‘Elegant’Marina Madrone, Arbutus ‘Marina’Chinese Fringe Tree, Chionanthus retusus PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST MPIC BLVD C MPIC BLVD MPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV OLYM OLYM OLYM Existing Parkways Proposed Parkways LEGEND PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST MPIC BLVD C MPIC BLVD MPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARI MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV OLYM OLYM OLYM Existing Trees Proposed Trees LEGEND
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC INTERVENTIONS Through Zone Planting Zone Through Zone Planting Zone Parking Drive Lane Sidewalk Sidewalk Existing Right-of-Way Curb Extension to Curb 34’-2”60’13’-7”Drive Lane 12’-7”8’10’4’5’-10”6’Pedestrian-scale Lighting Stormwater Bioretention Planter Connecting to Infiltration Chamber Infiltration Chamber Permeable Pavement Parking Beyond SECTION AT LINCOLN BLVD AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK THROUGH MEDIAN TYPICAL CURB EXTENSION AT SIDE STREET PARKWAYS Create additional parkways to beautify Lincoln Boulevard, wherever possible. Promote tree and plant growth by making parkways a minimum of 4 feet wide and 10 feet long. Create parkways at red curbs of suffi cient length that are not bus stops. Locate parkways that include stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) upstream from catch basins. Where parkways are adjacent to on-street parking, provide a paved walkway, grate or other level walking surface across the parkway for each parking space.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC CONNECTIVITY ENHANCEMENTS Curbside Planting with Permeable Pavers at Car Egress Pedestrian-scale Lighting Added to Existing Street Light Pole Stormwater Bulb-out to Replace Existing Red Curb Stormwater Bulb-out to Replace Existing Red Curb Corner Curb Extension New Pedestrian-scale Lighting Fixture Directional Curb Ramps Median with Planting Emergency Vehicle Access (Stamped Concrete)LINCOLN BOULEVARD LINCOLN BOULEVARD PICO BOULEVARD PICO BOULEVARD Signalized Intersection ONLY BUS ONLY BUS ONLY BUS BUS CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP ASHLAND ASHLAND ASHLAND ASHLAND LINCOLN BOULEVARD LINCOLN BOULEVARD RAYMOND RAYMOND STOP STOP STOP Stormwater & Biofiltration Planter Permeable Pavers Directional Curb Ramps Bus Stop Bus Stop Two-way Visually Enhanced Bike Lane Signalized Intersection Bicycle Signal ONLY BUS ONLY BUS ONLY BUS BUS CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP ASHLAND ASHLAND ASHLAND ASHLAND LINCOLN BOULEVARD LINCOLN BOULEVARD RAYMOND RAYMOND STOP STOP STOP Concrete Median Visually Enhanced Bicycle Crossing Bicycle Lane Bicycle Signal NORTH OF PICO BLVD OFFSET INTERSECTION WITH BICYCLE ROUTE - ASHLAND AVENUE UTILIZATION OF RED CURBS AS BULBOUTS, MADE POSSIBLE DUE TO LACK OF BUS FACILITIES OPTION 1 TWOWAY BIKE LANEOPTION 2 BICYCLE CROSSING AND BICYCLE MEDIAN BICYCLE FACILITIES
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC CROSSWALKS LOCATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS AND CURB EXTENSIONS RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS Directional curb ramps guide pedestrian fl ow in the direction of safe travel. Locate curb extensions on Lincoln Boulevard in areas where peak-period dedicated bus lanes are not planned (i.e. north of Pico), where there are existing red curbs. Locate curb extensions on side streets intersecting Lincoln where existing curb-to-curb width exceeds 40 feet. Design curb extensions to be a minimum of 7 feet wide to accommodate planting and trees, where appropriate.PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST MPIC BLVD C MPIC BLVD MPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV OLYM OLYM OLYM Existing Crosswalks Proposed Crosswalks RRFB Traffic Light LEGEND RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACONS (RRFBs) Warning beacon used to alert drivers to yield to pedestrians at unsignalized crosswalks. Actuated by a pedestrian push button and fl ash for a predetermined amount of time, to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway. RRFBs do not themselves create a legal requirement for a vehicle to stop when they are fl ashing. The CA Vehicle Code includes a requirement for vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC GATEWAYS TO THE LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR Signalized Intersection Signalized Intersection Curb Extension Gateway Lighting Fixture Gateway Lighting Fixture Directional Curb Ramps Stormwater Planter Planter Boxes Pedestrian Lighting Right Turn Lane Width Narrowed to 10’Median with Pedestrian Refuge and Gateway Tree Plantings New Parkway LINCOLN BOULEVARD LINCOLN BOULEVARD OLYMPIC BOULEVA OLYMPIC BOULEVA I-10 I-10 KEEP STOP STOP KEEP CLEAR ONLY BUS CLEAR KEEP KEEP CLEAR CLEAR ONLY BUS CITY OF LOS ANGELES OZONE OZONE OZONE OZONE Additional Gateway Tree Plantings Driveway/Red Curb Closed Gateway Light Fixture Directional Curb Ramp & Curb Extension LINCOLN BOULEVARD LINCOLN BOULEVARD Median with Planting Stormwater & Biofiltration Planter Banner Poles for City Banner Painted Bulb-out with Concrete Planters Gateway Light Fixture NORTHERN GATEWAY AND BRIDGE OVERPASS SOUTHERN GATEWAY PLAN SidewalkSidewalk Drive LaneDrive Lane 10’6’6’3’3’10’Pedestrian-scale Lighting Fence Raised Planter SECTION THROUGH BRIDGE GATEWAY AMENITIES PAINTED BULBOUT TREATMENT A ct in g as a vi s u a l c u e t o driv e r s t h at t h ey a r e e n te rin g t h e LiN C , t hi s t r eat m e n t a llo ws for s hor t -te rm, c o st e ff ect iv e s olu t ion w hil e st ill off e rin g t h e m a n y be n e fi ts of p e rm a n e n t b ul b -ou ts .
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC FURNISHINGS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING AND NEW FIXTURE OPTIONS PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST MPIC BLVD C MPIC BLVD MPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV OLYM OLYM OLYM Existing Roadway Lighting Proposed Pedestrian Lighting LEGEND LIGHTING FIXTURES ROADWAY LIGHTING LIGHTING FIXTURES PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING Replace existing cobra-head roadway lighting fi xtures with dual-head fi xtures that provide both roadway and pedestrian lighting. Provide new pedestrian-scaled lighting fi xtures at intervals not exceeding 50 feet, approximately centered between existing fi xtures. Use a coordinated design palette for auto-scale and pedestrian lighting fi xtures.Pedestrian Light Roadway Light EXISTING
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC FURNISHINGS SEATINGTRASH RECEPTACLE EXISTING EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST PIC BLVD C PIC BLVD PIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILLPL HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE VE VE VE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles gl ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV N CO D n £n £n £n £n £n £n £n £n £OLYMPI OLYMPI OLYMPI Existing Trash Receptacle Proposed Trash Receptacle Existing Bench Proposed Bench Land Use - Eating/Drinking LEGEND W W n gele les geles n n n n n n LL LL LL LL LL LL n n n n n n n LNORTH LNORTH L LNORTH LOCATE BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES: Together wherever possible and at intervals of no more than 750 feet. Near existing and proposed pedestrian crossings of Lincoln Boulevard. Near eating and drinking establishments and stores selling food and beverages. Maintain existing locations for benches and trash receptacles at bus stops, but consider upgrading benches and receptacles to a standard design for the LiNC.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE LiNC PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS M Santa Monica Place Main Library DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN City of Los Ange (Venice Third Street Promenade PICO BLVD BAY ST PINE ST OLYMPIC BLVD OLYMPIC BLVD COLORADO BLVD BROADWAY ARIZONA AVE 10 1 PEARL ST PACIFIC ST MAPLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCEAN PARK BLVD CEDAR ST HILL ST HILL ST GRANT ST MICHIGAN AVE MARINE ST MARINE ST STRAND ST STRAND ST OZONE AVE WILSON PL 7TH ST BAY ST 7TH ST 6TH ST 3RD ST MAIN ST OCEAN AVE 7TH ST 5TH ST LINCOLN BOULEVARD MAIN ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST PACIFIC ST 11TH ST GRANT ST ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE PIER AVE Courthouse Courthouse Santa Monica College Santa Monica College John Adams Middle School John Adams Middle School Will Rogers Learning Community Will Rogers Learning Community Dorthy Green Park Dorthy Green Park Santa Monica Pentecostal Church German-American Club German-American Club Ozone Park Ozone Park Los Amigos Park Los Amigos Park Main Street Corridor John Muir Elementary & SMASH **Olympic High School Woodlawn Cemetery Woodlawn Cemetery Joslyn Park Santa Monica High School Santa Monica High School Tongva Park Hotchkiss Park Santa Monica State Beach Santa Monica State Beach Santa Monica Pier Santa Monica Pier Civic Center Civic Center City Hall City Hall MANGO (Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Gree nway)MANGO (Michigan Avenue Neighborhood Gree nway)15min (0.7 mile)22 min (1.1 mile)11 min (0.6 mile) 8 min (0.4 mile)8 min (0.4 mile)6 min (0.3mile)9 min (0.5 mile)6 min (0.5 mile)19 min (0.9 mile)11 min (0.5 mile)14 min (0.7 mile)16 min (0.8 mile)5 min (0.3 mile)3 min (0.1 mile)11 min (0.5mile)13min (0.6 mile)10 min (0.5 mile)N 05001,000 FEET WAYFINDING MAP AND SIGNAGE CURB CUT REDUCTIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE CREATED TO REPLACE REDUNDANT AND UNUSED DRIVEWAYS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS CONSENT PICO BLVD BAY ST BA BA YST YST BA BAY S YST BAYST BAYST BAYST BAY ST BAY ST PINE ST PI PI NE ST NE ST T ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE PINE EST EST OLYMPIC BLVD C OLYMPIC BLVD OLYMPIC BLVD PEARL ST RLST ARLST PACIFIC ST PA PA ACIFICST ACIFICST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFIC ST PACIFICST PACIFICST MAPLE ST MAPLEST MAPLEST M M APLE S APLE ST OCEAN PARK BLVD OCE OCEAN CEDAR ST C C EDARST EDARST EDAR S EDAR ST CEDAR ST CEDAR CEDAR RST RST RST RST CEDAR CEDAR KENSINGTON RD RD RD KENSINGTON KENSINGTON SINGTONRD KENSINGTONRD STRAND ST STRAND ST STRAND ST STRANDST STRANDST HILL ST ST LLST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILL ST HILLST HILLST HILL PL NORTH HILL PLNORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH HILL PL NORTH GRANT ST GR GR ANTST ANTST GR GR ANT GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANT ST GRANTST GRANTST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIG MICHIG E AN AVE ANAVE ANAVE MARINE ST M MARINEST MARINEST MARIN MARINE OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST OZO OZO OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONE ST OZONEST OZONEST NAVY ST AVY ST AVY ST N N AVYST AVYST N N MARINE ST E ST E ST MARIN MARIN MARINEST MARINEST PIER AVE PIER AVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMOND AVE RAYMONDAVE RAYMONDAVE City of Los Angeles geles ofL L WILSON PL WILSONPL WILSONPL WILSON PL WILSON PL LINCOLN BLVD ASHLAND AVE NDAVE ANDAVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLAND AVE ASHLANDAVE ASHLANDAVE PIER AVE PIERAVE PIERAVE P PIER PIER AV walk-yourcity.com walk-yourcity.com WALK SANTA MONICA HELPS YOU BOOST YOUR COMMUNITY’S WALKABILITY, LINKING INFORMATIONAL STREET SIGNS FOR PEOPLE WITH WEBBASED CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT AND DATA COLLECTION TO COMPLEMENT TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO WAYFINDING.WWW.WALKYOURCITY.ORG
Page 1 of 30 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Rood, CD+A Date: August 19, 2015 FROM: Iteris, Inc. Job No: 17J1417C9 SUBJECT: Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus ‐Only Lane Feasibility Analysis I NTRODUCTION /B ACKGROUND Peak period, peak directional bus ‐only lanes on Lincoln Boulevard have been the subject of consideration in Santa Monica for nearly 10 years. In 2005 the City Council of Santa Monica approved an ordinance to restrict parking on Lincoln Boulevard for the creation of peak period, peak directional transit ‐only lanes. The ordinance created parking and traffic restrictions allowing for peak ‐period bus ‐only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard from 7:00 ‐10:00 a.m. and 4:00 ‐7:00 p.m. on weekdays, with the goal of enhancing one ‐way peak directional travel for buses from the Santa Monica Freeway to the southern city limit.1 The bus ‐only lanes would be operational in peak directions during peak periods; therefore, bus ‐only lanes would operate in the northbound direction during the morning peak period and in the southbound direction during the evening peak period. City staff have indicated that a community outreach process to ensure business owners and stakeholders along the corridor were aware of the bus ‐only lane project was conducted in 2005. Initially, individual outreach to businesses along Lincoln Boulevard found there were no issues with the bus ‐only lanes. Further outreach to businesses resulted in 3% (two businesses) expressing specific concerns about parking changes.2 In approximately 2010 the City initiated efforts with Caltrans to relinquish Lincoln Boulevard within the City limits. The relinquishment was officially completed on June 4, 2012, with Lincoln Boulevard becoming a City roadway. City staff immediately began a project to repave and restripe Lincoln Boulevard. As part of the restriping, City staff developed new roadway signage and marking plans containing peak period parking restrictions and associated bus ‐only lanes. The new design plans were completed in the fall of 2012, and City staff then re ‐initiated outreach efforts to notify businesses along Lincoln Boulevard of the pending construction activities associated with repaving and restriping. During two community meetings, business owners expressed concern with the loss of parking associated with the bus ‐only lanes. The concerns regarded direct access to the fronts of their businesses and the overall impact of restricting traffic to buses only in the curbside lane. Further implementation of the Council ‐approved bus ‐only lanes were put on ‐hold, as documented in an Information Item prepared by Big Blue Bus staff in 2013.3 1 Staff Report to Santa Monica City Council; Adding to Municipal Code: Bus ‐only Parking and Traffic restrictions; September 13, 2005; viewed at: http://www.smgov.net/departments/counc il/agendas/2005/2005 0913/s2005091307 ‐F.htm 2 Ibid 3 Information Item to Santa Monica City Council; “Lincoln Boulevard Bus Only Lane;” February 7, 2013; “The implementation of the Lincoln Boulevard Bus ‐Only Lane will be delayed until such time that a more comprehensive regional planning approach for the entire corridor is studied with regional partners;” viewed at: http://www.smgov.net/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=37422
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 2 of 30 Following relinquishment of Lincoln Boulevard from Caltrans to the City of Santa Monica, some community members expressed concerns related to the walkability and overall character of Lincoln Boulevard. This was consistent with the feedback received during the extensive outreach for the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). When Lincoln Boulevard was repaved and restriped in 2013, a number of residents and community groups approached City staff to inquire about additional enhancements ‐ such as curb extensions, landscaping, medians, additional pedestrian crossings ‐ that could be implemented now that the City is in control of Lincoln Boulevard. In 2014 the City initiated the Lincoln Boulevard Neighborhood Corridor Plan (LiNC) in an effort to investigate and develop additional enhancements for Lincoln Boulevard. As a part of the LiNC effort, the project team is again considering the provision of peak period parking restrictions with directional bus ‐only lanes, or other concepts with a goal of providing dedicated transit lanes, as well as improvements to walkability and the overall character of Lincoln Boulevard. K EY C ONSIDERATIONS There are several key considerations associated with the feasibility of implementation of bus ‐only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard within the study area (and beyond). Those include the following: 1. Physical design and operational feasibility – What is the context of the street cross section and operational conditions, and where would it be best to locate a dedicated bus ‐only lane? 2. Existing transit, traffic and parking conditions – What is the context of existing operations on Lincoln Boulevard, and what would the impacts to parking be during peak hours of a dedicated bus ‐only lane on Lincoln Boulevard? 3. Benefits and disadvantages of bus ‐only lanes – What would be the benefits in terms of travel time savings of dedicated bus ‐only lanes and also person trip time savings for people riding the bus? It is also important to consider this not only for the portion in Santa Monica north of Los Angeles but also for a longer corridor that also includes bus ‐only lanes along the entire route from I ‐10 to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). What are the associated disadvantages of providing bus ‐only lanes? Each of these issues is discussed in the subsequent sections.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 3 of 30 1. P HYSICAL D ESIGN AND O PERATIONAL F EASIBILITY P HYSICAL D ESIGN C ENTER ‐RUNNING BUS LANES The concept of bus lanes down the center of a street has been implemented in various cities around the world, and recently in the City of San Bernardino. They require a larger amount of right ‐of ‐way than do curb bus lanes because the bus stops (stations) also need to be provided in the center of the street rather than on the sidewalks. Center ‐running bus lanes operate in a fashion similar to a median light rail line, like the Exposition light rail line on Colorado Avenue, expected to open in 2016. Center ‐running bus lanes have a greater impact on left ‐turn lanes, particularly near stations, and they work best if buses with doors on both sides of the bus can be employed, otherwise the buses need to cross in front of each other to stop at a station with doors only on the right side of the bus. Buses with doors on both sides are more expensive and not manufactured by many companies. The location of stations, the need to access buses from both sides, and the associated operations of a center ‐running bus ‐only lane creates challenges for left ‐turn lanes, similar to the prohibitions of parallel left ‐turns along Colorado Avenue with the new Exposition light rail line. Given the station needs, it is also not very feasible to have the center ‐running bus lanes operate only during peak periods and to switch to general purpose in off ‐peak hours. C URBSIDE B US L ANES Curbside bus lanes would operate in the parking lane. A signing and striping plan allowing for peak ‐period curbside bus ‐only lanes was approved by the City in 2012. In 2013, the Lincoln Boulevard Resurfacing Project 4 updated the pavement striping in accordance with the City’s 2012 striping plans, except no designated bus lane was marked in the curb lane. The existing roadway cross section on Lincoln Boulevard includes 12’ curb lanes while the other travel lanes are 10’‐11’, and the center turn lane is 10’ wide. These narrower lanes are common on urban arterials throughout Santa 4 Staff Report to Santa Monica City Council; Lincoln Boulevard Resurfacing Project; April 23, 2013; viewed at: http://www.smgov.net/departments/Council/agendas/2013/2 0130423/2013 0423_3E.htm Source: Chicago Transi t A uthorit y
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 4 of 30 Monica, and help to calm the speed of traffic, one of the goals of the project. The current striping on Lincoln Boulevard would allow for the creation of curb ‐side bus lanes according to those plans with minor modifications. P EAK P ERIOD VERSUS A LL D AY One advantage of curbside bus lanes is that they could be used for different purposes at different times of the day. For example, curbside bus lanes could be used as parking lanes during part of the day and directional bus lanes during peak periods. Further analysis explained later in this memorandum shows directional (northbound in the a.m. peak period and southbound in the p.m. peak period) high congestion, low speeds along the corridor, and peak passenger demands, which justify the designation of bus lanes during peak periods only, at this time. In non ‐peak periods, the curb lanes can continue to be used for parking and will provide a wider parking lane with 12’ of width, rather than an eight ‐foot wide lane, for drivers/passengers entering and exiting their vehicles. In Santa Monica, common practice is to provide seven ‐foot parking lanes to better utilize the public right ‐of ‐way, and the City has found seven ‐foot parking lanes adequate to accommodate on ‐street parking needs and vehicles of various sizes. The proposal could include a seven ‐foot parking lane leaving five feet of space between a parked car and the adjacent travel lane. Further, this area could be utilized for bicycles wishing to travel on Lincoln Boulevard outside of the mixed ‐flow vehicle lanes (while also providing some buffer from the “door zone” adjacent to parked vehicles). O PERATIONAL F EASIBILITY B USES O NLY VERSUS B USES AND R IGHT T URNS The curb lane could be designated for use by buses only, or it can be restricted to buses and right turning vehicles only. If restricted to buses only, it could create operational challenges by requiring vehicles to make right ‐turns across through bus lanes. It would be problematic for drivers to be able to see a bus approaching from behind in the curb lane, similar to vehicles making right ‐turns across marked bike lanes. Allowing right ‐turners to use the bus lane is common practice in other parts of Los Angeles County, and is the current practice in the bus ‐only lanes on Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway in Downtown Santa Monica between 2 nd and 5 th Streets. Allowing vehicles to use the bus ‐only lanes for right ‐turns also creates an enforcement issue, for drivers who use the bus lane with the excuse that they are going to turn right in a few blocks. Given that the Lincoln Boulevard bus lanes may be extended into the City of Los Angeles to the south, and the Cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica already allow right turners on bus lanes as described above, it makes sense to follow that approach on Lincoln Boulevard within Santa Monica. B USES AND B ICYCLES Lincoln Boulevard does not currently have any exclusive bicycle facilities and is designated as an Auto/Transit Priority Street in the City’s 2010 Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE). On the 2007 City of Santa Monica Bicycle Network map 5 , Lincoln Boulevard is shown as a Class III Bicycle Route with signs along the roadway indicating it is a bicycle route, and no dedicated bicycle lanes. The 2011 Santa Monica 5 City of Santa Monica Existing Bicycle Network; viewed at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departme nts/PCD/Transportation/Bicyclists/Santa ‐Monica ‐Bike ‐Map.pdf
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 5 of 30 Bicycle Action Plan’s 5 ‐ and 20 ‐Year Implementation Plans 6 also show Lincoln as an Auto/Transit Priority Street, similar to the LUCE, with no improvements identified. However, the Bicycle Action Plan does designate Lincoln Boulevard as a Priority Short ‐Term Bicycle Parking Corridor with plans to add bike racks and bike corrals. Bicyclists are allowed to use Lincoln Boulevard, per State law, but parallel routes are prioritized for specific types of exclusive bicycle facilities. Currently bicyclists using Lincoln Boulevard must adhere to State Vehicle Code requirements, and may utilize mixed ‐flow lanes. Given the vehicle speeds and congestion issues on Lincoln Boulevard, the ability for bicycles to use the peak period bus ‐only lanes is desired by many community members. The concept of shared bicycle/bus lanes (SBBL) is appealing on Lincoln Boulevard to the many regular bicycle commuters and residents in Santa Monica. The 2012 report “A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes” prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation 7 outlines how the concept of shared bicycle/bus lanes (SBBL) is being implemented in different cities across the U.S. As of 2012, the report identified 27 SBBLs in municipalities throughout the U.S., with 12 of them established in the past ten years. Although there are no clear SBBL policy and design guidelines in State or Federal manuals, the City of Los Angeles is using the 2010 Bicycle Plan Technical Design Handbook as a guide to implement SBBLs on multiple streets. Section 3.4 from the Technical Design Handbook states that the preferred width for SBBLs is 16’ to allow for comfortable passing of bicyclists, while 14’ may be allowed on roadways with low traffic volumes, and 12’ should “only be considered on constrained areas.”8 Since there is no standard MUTCD signage for this type of lane, Los Angeles has developed its own signage as shown in the photograph. An example of SBBLs in the City of Los Angeles is Sunset Boulevard, from Figueroa Street to Elysian Park, where a peak ‐period only SBBL was implemented in 2013. The project included restriping only and the removal of parking spaces during the peak ‐periods. Another major SBBL project that follows the City of Los Angeles 2010 Bicycle Plan standards is the 12.5 mile Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, which includes 7.7 miles of peak period bus lanes and the displacement of on ‐street parking. The City of San Francisco has also developed their own guidelines as described in the City‘s 2009 Bicycle Plan.9 The Bicycle Facilities on Transit Routes Section of this document calls for SBBLs to be considered on a case ‐by ‐case basis, including technical analysis and mitigation measures. The City of San Francisco interprets San Francisco Traffic Code (SFTC) Section 7.2.72 10 as not prohibiting bicycles from riding in transit ‐only areas, since only vehicles are prohibited from using these lanes and bicycles are not classified 6 City of Santa Monica Bicycle Action Plan; viewed at http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFile s/Departments/PCD/Plans/Bike ‐Action ‐Plan/Bicycle ‐Action ‐Plan.pdf 7 State of Florida Department of Transportation, “A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes”; July 20, 2012; viewed at http://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp ‐content/uploads/2012/11/77937.pdf 8 2010 LA Bicycle Plan – Technical Design Handbook; March 1, 2011; viewed at http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10 ‐2385 ‐S2_MISC_07 ‐11 ‐11.pdf 9 San Francisco Bicycle Plan; June 26, 2009; viewed at http://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/f iles/projects/San_Francisco_Bicycle _Plan_June_26_2009_Accessible_Versio n_001.pdf 10 San Francisco Traffic Code (SFTC) Section 7.2.72; http://transportation.sanfranciscocode.org/7/7.2/7.2.72/ 201 0 Los A ngeles Bicycle Plan
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 6 of 30 as vehicles (although subject to all regulations for vehicles). The San Francisco Bicycle Plan also states that bicycle improvements should not create negative impacts to transit operations, nor have a negative effect on bicyclists‘ safety. Action 1.5 from the City of San Francisco Bicycle Plan requires a before and after study on the impacts of SBBLs. It is also suggested that San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) hold workshops for transit vehicle operators to promote bicycle safety awareness and effective road sharing techniques. According to the 2012 report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation, mentioned above, the most common problems encountered by SBBLs are the large volumes of right ‐turning vehicles at intersections, enforcement of SBBL preferential treatment, safety issues due to adjacent traffic speeds and interaction between buses and bicycles. A simplified explanation of existing California law requires bicyclists to ride in the far ‐right side lane, close to the curb (CVC Section 21202), unless preparing for a left turn; however, the law is not clear in many areas, such as where bicyclists should ride when there is a bus ‐only lane on the right side of the street where bicycles would be prohibited unless specific local regulations allowed otherwise. 2. E XISTING T RANSIT , T RAFFIC AND P ARKING C ONDITIONS E XISTING T RANSIT C ONDITIONS Figure 1 displays the existing bus routes that serve Lincoln Boulevard in the study area as well as provides an inventory of stop locations and amenities at the stops. In 2014, the Big Blue Bus (BBB) began the construction of the Bus Stop Improvement Project (BSIP) to renovate the bus stops to include additional amenities such as real time arrival information and solar ‐powered lighting. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus’ top two corridors with the highest ridership in the system are 1) Pico Boulevard and 2) Lincoln Boulevard. These two corridors constitute 40% of the BBB system ridership. BBB operates one heavily ‐used regular bus route, Route 3, and one heavily ‐used rapid bus route, Rapid Route 3, along Lincoln Boulevard. Rapid bus lines travel the same course as regular bus routes but they have shorter headways and limited stops at major intersections only. Both bus lines provide regional connections between Downtown Santa Monica, LAX and the Green Line Aviation Station. The following is a brief description of Route 3 and Rapid 3: Route 3: Consists of five stops within the study area; Daily ridership is approximately 4,000 passengers on a regular weekday; and Provides services on weekdays and weekends approximately every 15 minutes during peak periods and 20 minutes during off peak. Rapid 3: Consists of two stops within the study area; Daily ridership is approximately 2,000 passengers on a regular weekday; and Provides services only on weekdays approximately every 10 minutes during peak periods and 15 ‐20 minutes during off peak.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 7 of 30 Furthermore, the intersections of Lincoln Boulevard/Pico Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard/Ocean Park Boulevard are designated as major bus stops in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. These intersections provide connections to two local bus routes along Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard and one Rapid route on Pico Boulevard. Those routes include Route 7, Rapid Route 7 and Route 8. Services are provided approximately every 20 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes during off peak for Route 7 and Route 8. The Rapid route provides services approximately every 10 minutes during peak periods and 15 ‐20 minutes during off peak periods.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 8 of 30 Figure 1: Existing Bus Routes, Bus Stops and Amenities along Lincoln Boulevard
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 9 of 30 Transit Ridership Transit ridership data for Fall 2013 was provided by BBB staff. The a.m. peak period (between 7:00 ‐9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak period (between 3:00 ‐5:00 p.m.) with the highest ridership data are used for this analysis. The following are key findings for the peak periods on Lincoln Boulevard, for both BBB lines operating along the route: Southbound direction On ‐board ridership, boardings and alightings are significantly higher during the p.m. peak period compared to the a.m. peak. The stops at Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard show the most boarding and alighting activities compared to the other bus stops. Table 1 summarizes southbound transit ridership activity along the study corridor. Table 1: Southbound Transit Ridership Summary (Route 3 and Rapid 3) Bus Stop On ‐board Boarding Alighting Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Lincoln & Pico 3,108 252 1018 805 67 280 ‐92 ‐10 ‐29 Lincoln & Pearl 2,029 152 508 79 14 20 ‐7 ‐1 ‐4 Lincoln & Ocean Park 3,245 264 1067 105 13 44 ‐74 ‐6 ‐25 Lincoln & Ashland 2,086 160 523 47 7 11 ‐15 0 ‐3 Lincoln & Navy 2,062 158 517 0 0 0 ‐58 ‐5 ‐18 Northbound direction On ‐board ridership is higher in the a.m. peak period compared to the p.m. peak. The ridership at the Ocean Park stop is approximately twice as high as the ridership at the other stops. Boardings are higher in the p.m. peak period compared to the a.m. peak. The station at Pico Boulevard has the highest number of boardings in the p.m. peak period. The Pico/Lincoln stop experiences the highest number of alightings in the a.m. peak period compared to all the other stops in the study corridor. Table 2 summarizes northbound transit ridership activity along the study corridor. Table 2: Northbound Transit Ridership Summary (Route 3 and Rapid 3) Bus Stop On ‐board Boarding Alighting Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Daily AM Peak Period PM Peak Period Lincoln & Pico 2,321 547 424 105 19 32 ‐795 ‐292 ‐105 Lincoln & Pearl 1,928 385 298 6 0 3 ‐31 ‐4 ‐4 Lincoln & Ocean Park 3,030 825 496 79 14 20 ‐207 ‐62 ‐40 Lincoln & Ashland 2,008 404 308 7 1 0 ‐28 ‐6 ‐2 Lincoln & Navy 2,019 407 309 47 7 11 ‐28 ‐10 ‐2
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 10 of 30 E XISTING T RAFFIC C ONDITIONS Figure 2 illustrates the study intersection locations and existing Levels of Service (LOS) for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This analysis used the hour with the highest turning movement volume between 7:30 ‐9:30 for the a.m. peak hour and 5:00 ‐7:00 for the p.m. peak hour. The City of Santa Monica considers LOS D and above acceptable because it signifies fair operations with no long ‐standing traffic queues at intersections. LOS E and F signify long ‐standing vehicular queues and the delays may be up to several minutes. As shown in Figure 2 , all study intersections are operating at acceptable LOS, LOS D or above. However, the speeds on Lincoln Boulevard are slow and there is considerable congestion along the route, which contributes to slow bus speeds since the buses must travel within the flow of traffic and are delayed along with all other roadway users.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 11 of 30 Figure 2: AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 12 of 30 Peak Hour Travel Speeds within the Corridor Actual peak hour moving vehicle speeds were determined within the Lincoln Boulevard study corridor using the Iteris iPeMS (arterial performance measurement) system. iPeMS gathers vehicle “probe” data along arterials and then delivers real ‐time and predictive traffic analytics for roadways. The vehicle probe data comes from cell phones and fleet (truck/taxi/bus/other) GPS units which are observed and their position and speed are used to determine average speeds occurring throughout the day and during peak periods on the arterial system. For this analysis, vehicle probe data were assessed for the months of January through April 2013, and for the hours of 7:30 ‐8:30 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., which constitute the a.m. and p.m. peak hour respectively. Similar to Caltrans freeway PeMS which measures and reports freeway speeds, the data can be used to assess points of slowing along the Lincoln Boulevard study corridor. These iPeMS speed measurements reflect peak hours when vehicles are forced to slow due to traffic congestion. The posted speed limit on Lincoln Boulevard is 35 miles per hour, and during peak periods average speeds are substantially lower. The average speeds observed during peak periods using the Iteris iPeMS system were categorized into the following speed profiles: • 0 to 10 miles per hour (mph); • 11 to 15 mph; • 16 to 20 mph; • 21 to 25 mph; and • Over 26 mph. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the results of the a.m. and p.m. peak hour speed measurements. As shown, during the a.m. peak hour, within the study area, the speeds are generally lower in the northbound direction from the City boundary up to Ocean Park Boulevard and also near I ‐10 where northbound the speeds are in the 11 to 15 mph range, indicating significant slowing and severe congestion at the ramps. South of I ‐10, the observed average speeds are in the 16 to 20 mph range northbound, indicating moderate to significant slowing, and 21 to 25 mph northbound south of Ocean Park Boulevard. During the p.m. peak hour, the most significant slowing occurs in the southbound direction, and it is throughout the entire length of the corridor. At the freeway ramps in both directions during the p.m. peak hour, the speeds are extremely low, in the 11 to 15 mph average range, due to the freeway ramp intersection congestion and trips to and from the freeway. From Pico Boulevard to Ocean Park, the p.m. peak hour speeds are 16 to 20 mph, and they are even lower from Ocean Park to the southern city boundary, at 11 to 15 mph. Interestingly, south of the City boundary, the southbound speeds on Lincoln Boulevard are slower in the PM peak within the City of Los Angeles. Thus, the city boundary and the traffic flow conditions and traffic signal timing patterns in Los Angeles create a bottleneck southbound during the p.m. peak hour for motorists that are exiting Santa Monica.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 13 of 30 Figure 3: AM Peak Hour Speed
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 14 of 30 Figure 4: PM Peak Hour Speed
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 15 of 30 As shown, generally auto and bus travel speeds are higher on the portion of Lincoln Boulevard though Santa Monica, between Pico and the southern City limit. Within the City of Los Angeles, bus travel speeds along Lincoln degrade. This is most likely due to the proximity and frequency of traffic signals along Lincoln Boulevard south of Santa Monica, combined with the high east ‐west volumes along major corridors such as Venice and Washington. Furthermore, Lincoln Boulevard’s odd alignment (with a slight horizontal deflection at the border of Santa Monica and Venice), and slight narrowing at Washington Boulevard are known bottlenecks which could also be a factor for the low speeds in the study area. Potential transit travel times savings with bus lanes The 2005 Study 11 prepared by Big Blue Bus staff indicated a potential time savings of up to 10 minutes per trip with the addition of peak period bus ‐only lanes. For this study, Iteris has completed another estimate of potential travel time savings using data obtained from the iPeMS system. Based on travel speeds obtained from the iPeMS system, Iteris estimated average vehicle travel times for the 1.2 ‐mile study corridor, from Olympic Boulevard/I ‐10 eastbound ramps to the south City limit. These travel times are based on the iPeMS measured congested speeds, which is the average speed over the study corridor during the peak hours. Note this calculation is an estimate for a typical vehicle, not accounting for traffic signal delays at the signalized intersections along Lincoln Boulevard, or driveway and left ‐turn queuing, or bus stopping for boarding/alighting. During peak periods it is typical that vehicles queue at an intersection for approximately two signal cycles (up to two minutes of delay per signal) before clearing the intersection. Within the study area, there are eight signalized intersections on Lincoln Boulevard which would add approximately 10 minutes to travel at the average speeds identified earlier in this document. This means that during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, it can take approximately 13 ‐15 minutes to drive from the I ‐10 freeway to the southern City limit (1.2 miles) and vice versa. The estimated average vehicle travel times are as follows: AM Peak period northbound – 14 minutes average travel time without exclusive bus lanes o Compared to (without taking into account congestion, bus boarding/alighting, and traffic signal delays): Approximately 2 minutes at the posted speed limit of 35 mph, or a savings of approximately 12 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. Approximately 4 minutes at the measured average speed of 18 mph, or a savings of approximately 10 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. AM Peak period southbound – 13 minutes average travel time without exclusive bus lanes o Compared to (without taking into account congestion, bus boarding/alighting, and traffic signal delays): Approximately 2 minutes at the posted speed limit of 35 mph, or a savings of approximately 11 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. Approximately 3.5 minutes at the measured average speed of 20.6 mph, or a savings of approximately 9.5 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. PM Peak period northbound – 14 minutes average travel time without exclusive bus lanes o Compared to (without taking into account congestion, bus boarding/alighting, and traffic signal delays): Approximately 2 minutes at the posted speed limit of 35 mph, or a savings of approximately 12 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. 11 Lincoln Bus Lane Feasibility Study; Big Blue Bus, Transit Programs; 2005.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 16 of 30 Approximately 4 minutes at the measured average speed of 18 mph, or a savings of approximately 10 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. PM Peak period southbound – 15 minutes average travel time without exclusive bus lanes o Compared to (without taking into account congestion, bus boarding/alighting, and traffic signal delays): Approximately 2 minutes at the posted speed limit of 35 mph, or a savings of approximately 13 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. Approximately 5 minutes at the measured average speed of 14.4 mph, or a savings of approximately 10 minutes, with exclusive bus lanes. Based on information provided by the City, BBB buses run behind schedule approximately 40 ‐45 percent of the time, with mid ‐week conditions (Wednesday and Thursday) experiencing the highest occurrences of lateness during the week. Approximately 8 ‐10 buses per direction run on Lincoln Boulevard each hour. According to the BBB schedule, buses are scheduled to travel from Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard to the southern City limit in 5 minutes. Comparing the BBB schedule to the travel time estimates above, congested conditions on Lincoln Boulevard causes bus delays of 8 to 10 minutes, depending on the time period and direction. The implementation of peak period bus lanes would improve this situation. If it is assumed that there is no congestion in a dedicated bus ‐only lane, then speeds for the bus may approach the speed limit of 35 miles per hour, again excluding delays due to traffic signals and the time devoted to boarding/alighting. Assuming the increase in average bus speeds that could result from bus ‐only lanes, Iteris has prepared a rough calculation of potential increases in person throughput along Lincoln Boulevard. To factor in vehicle occupancy, the following analysis was done for the peak direction during the peak period: AM Peak Period – 7:30AM ‐9:30AM Northbound • Peak period direction of travel vehicles – 2,720 vehicles in two lanes during the a.m. peak period • Assuming an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, autos carry 3,260 persons during the a.m. peak period, in the peak direction • Buses currently carry 870 persons during the a.m. peak period • Current delay to bus passengers during the a.m. peak period is approximately 9 minutes • Person Travel Time saved with a dedicated bus lane in the peak direction ‐ 130 person hours cumulative daily savings for the a.m. peak period, at nine minutes per person per trip times 870 passengers PM Peak Period – 5:00PM ‐7:00PM Southbound • Peak period direction of travel vehicles – 3,280 vehicles in two lanes during the p.m. peak period • Assuming an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, autos carry 3,940 persons during the p.m. peak period, in the peak direction • Buses currently carry 1,020 persons during the p.m. peak period • Current delay to bus passengers during the p.m. peak period is approximately 10 minutes • Person Travel Time saved with a dedicated bus lane in the peak direction ‐ 170 person hours of cumulative daily savings for the p.m. peak period, at 10 minutes per person per trip times 1,020 passengers Bus ‐only lanes would operate only during peak hours for the peak direction on the existing parking lane; therefore, there would be no reduction in travel lanes and minimal to no impact to vehicle flow. Since the bus ‐only lanes would be created by removing parking during peak periods, the addition of bus ‐only
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 17 of 30 lanes does not require an associated reduction in travel lanes for vehicles – the same number of vehicle through lanes would be maintained as currently exist on Lincoln Boulevard. The analysis above is shown in Figure 5 and it illustrates the AM and PM peak period people throughput at the two major intersections in the study corridor. The potential transit travel time savings would also provide a financial benefit to Big Blue Bus operating costs, which could then be used to reinvest in new services. Big Blue Bus staff estimate, that after taking into account bus boarding/alighting in the travel time savings calculations, buses would save approximately four minutes per trip. BBB staff provided existing hourly costs and concluded that bus ‐only lanes would potentially result in roughly $300,000 savings per year from the lost service hours of buses sitting in traffic. BBB staff cost calculations, without taking into account fuel costs, are as follow: Maintenance and operating costs total $56.86 per hour o Maintenance costs per revenue hour ‐ $21.46 o Average operator pay per revenue hour ‐ $26.20 o Average operator benefits cost per revenue hour ‐ $9.20 Weekday hour saving calculation o 254 trips/weekday times 4 minutes savings = 1,016 minutes/weekday or 16.93 hours/weekday o 255 weekdays per year times 16.93 hours/weekday = 4,317 hour savings per year Saturday hour saving calculation o 159 trips/Saturday times 4 minutes savings = 636 minutes/Saturday or 10.60 hours/Saturday o 52 Saturdays per year times 10.60 hours/Saturday = 551 hour savings per year Sunday and holiday hour saving calculation o 114 trips/Sunday ‐holiday times 4 minutes savings = 456 minutes/Sunday ‐holiday or 7.63 hours/Sunday ‐holiday o 58 Sunday ‐holiday per year times 7.63 hours/Sunday ‐holiday = 443 hour savings per year A total of 5,311 hours of service per year at $56.86 per hour, without taking into consideration fuel costs, results in $301,983 savings per year. Transit signal priority (TSP) treatments could further enhance bus speeds by reducing or eliminating delays due to traffic signals. The capabilities allow for communication between transit vehicles and the traffic signals; if a transit vehicle is running behind schedule, it can automatically alert the traffic signal it is approaching, and the traffic signal will hold the green light to ensure no additional delay to the transit vehicle. TSP has been shown to reduce bus travel times (and increase bus speeds) along other corridors. The implementation of bus ‐only lanes and TSP treatments, from Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard to the southern City limit, would reduce bus travel time from the existing 13 ‐15 minutes down to approximately two minutes. TSP treatments could enhance bus speeds and operations, and would be beneficial to any future bus ‐only lanes. Vehicles would also benefit from additional green time set by TSP treatments, and would receive increased green time to move through the corridor. As a part of the City’s multi ‐phased Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) project, TSP capabilities have been installed at all signalized intersections along Lincoln Boulevard. As of the date of this memo, Iteris staff understands that the City has not yet implemented the TSP capabilities for BBB vehicles.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 18 of 30 Figure 5 Existing AM/PM Peak Period People Throughput
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 19 of 30 On ‐Street Parking on Lincoln Boulevard Parking inventory and utilization data were provided by the City of Santa Monica staff for all metered spaces along Lincoln Boulevard. Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the parking meter utilization findings for a.m. and p.m. peak hours along Lincoln Boulevard (including only those parking spaces on Lincoln Boulevard and not on the side streets). The on ‐street parking utilization along Lincoln Boulevard does not reach 100% occupancy during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. In fact, the highest occupancy happens on the 3000 block during the a.m. peak period with 54% utilization, and on the 2200 block during the p.m. peak period with 45% utilization. Hence, for every two on ‐street parking spaces available on Lincoln Boulevard, the data collected shows that at least one parking space would be available during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Furthermore, parking utilization rates are generally low along both sides of Lincoln Blvd., with occupancy levels between 10% and 20%, typically. The following are key finding from the parking meter data analysis: • Supply: Along Lincoln Boulevard, there are 84 metered parking spaces on the southbound (west) side and 73 on the northbound (east) side. These are for the spaces along Lincoln only. Southbound side • Supply: The 2500 block of Lincoln (from Pine Street to Ocean Park Boulevard) has the highest parking supply on the southbound side with 17 parking spaces. • AM Utilization: In the a.m. peak hour, the 2200 block of Lincoln (from Pacific Street to Strand Street), the 3000 block of Lincoln (from Pier Avenue to Marine Street), the 3100 block of Lincoln (from Marine Street to Navy Street) and the 3300 block of Lincoln (from Ozone Avenue to Dewey Street) have the highest occupancy rate between 30% and 54%. These blocks contain only 3, 7, 2 and 1 parking spaces respectively. • PM Utilization: In the p.m. peak hour, the 1800 (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard), 2200 (from Pacific Street to Strand Street) and 3300 blocks of Lincoln (from Ozone Avenue to Dewey Street) have the highest occupancy rate between 30% and 45%. These blocks contain 16, 3 and 1 parking spaces respectively. • Blocks with 10 or more parking spaces, such as the 1800 (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard), 2400 (from Kensington Road to Pine Street) and 2500 blocks of Lincoln (from Pine Street to Ocean Park Boulevard), have an occupancy rate of less than 35% in both, the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Northbound side • Supply: The 1800 block of Lincoln (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard) has the highest parking supply on the northbound side with 17 parking spaces. • AM Utilization: The 3000 block of Lincoln (from Pier Avenue to Marine Street) has the highest occupancy rate at 36% for the a.m. peak hour and 22% in the p.m. peak hour. The 3000 block of Lincoln contains 7 parking spaces. • PM Utilization: Blocks with 10 or more parking spaces, such as the 1800 (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard) and 2900 blocks of Lincoln (from Ashland Avenue to Per Avenue), have an occupancy rate of less than 20% in both, the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 20 of 30 Figure 6: AM Peak Hour Metered Parking Utilization per Block per Direction on Lincoln
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 21 of 30 Figure 7: PM Peak Hour Metered Parking Utilization per Block per Direction on Lincoln
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 22 of 30 On ‐Street Parking on Lincoln Boulevard and Side Streets In addition, an on ‐street parking inventory and utilization survey took place in October 2014 for all metered and non ‐metered parking spaces on Lincoln as well as the parking spaces on the adjacent side streets. Figure 8 illustrates the total on ‐street parking utilization findings for a.m. and p.m. peak hours for Lincoln Boulevard and the side streets (generally defined as the block face from Lincoln Boulevard to 10 th Street on the east side, and Lincoln Boulevard to 7 th Street on the west side). The on ‐street parking utilization for any block facing Lincoln Boulevard does not reach 100% occupancy during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. In fact, the highest occupancy happens on the 1700 block during the a.m. peak period with 38% utilization, and on the 1700 and 1800 blocks during the p.m. peak period with 27% utilization. Hence, for every three on ‐street parking spaces available on Lincoln Boulevard, the data collected shows that at least two parking space would be available during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Furthermore, parking utilization rates are generally low along both sides of Lincoln Blvd., with occupancy levels at or below 10%, typically. The following are key findings from the total on ‐street parking analysis: Southbound side • Supply: The 3100 block of Lincoln (from Marine Street to Dewey Street) has the highest parking supply in the southbound side with 57 parking spaces available, 4 meter spaces and 53 non ‐meter spaces. The overall parking occupancy rate for this block is 6% in the a.m. peak hour and 3% in the p.m. peak hour. • AM Utilization: The 1700 block of Lincoln (from Olympic Boulevard to Michigan Avenue) has a higher parking occupancy at 38% for the a.m. peak hour and 27% for the p.m. peak hour. The total on ‐street parking supply for block 1700 Lincoln is 9 spaces, all of which are non ‐meter. • The 1800 block of Lincoln (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard) also has a higher parking occupancy at 30% for the a.m. peak hour and 26% for the p.m. peak hour. The total on ‐street parking supply for block 1800 Lincoln is 51, 19 meter spaces and 25 non ‐meter spaces. • All other blocks in the southbound direction have an occupancy rate of less than 15% during the a.m. Peak Hour. Northbound side • Supply: The 2800 block of Lincoln (from Hill Street to Ashland Avenue) has the highest parking supply in the northbound side with 55 parking spaces, all of which are non ‐meter. The overall parking occupancy rate for this block is 2% in both a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour. • AM Utilization: The 1700 block of Lincoln (from Olympic Boulevard to Michigan Avenue) has a higher parking occupancy at 12% for the a.m. peak hour and 4% for the p.m. peak hour. The total on ‐street parking supply for block 1700 Lincoln is 5 spaces, all of which are non ‐meter. • The 1800 block of Lincoln (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard) also has a higher parking occupancy at 14% for the a.m. peak hour and 9% for the p.m. peak hour. The total on ‐street parking supply for block 1800 Lincoln is 25 spaces, 19 meter spaces and 6 non ‐meter spaces. • All other blocks in the northbound direction have a total on ‐street occupancy rate of less than 10%.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 23 of 30 Figure 8: AM/PM Peak Hour On ‐Street Parking Utilization per Block per Direction
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 24 of 30 In summary, the on ‐street parking supply surveys indicate that when measuring parking usage on Lincoln Boulevard and the adjoining side streets, parking is not highly utilized along the corridor, even during peak traffic hours. The total amount of utilized parking that would be displaced by a potential bus ‐only lane would be as follows: • AM peak northbound [Potential Dedicated Bus Lane] ‐ 10 utilized spaces and 63 available spaces. The parking survey shows that approximately 14% of the total parking spaces are utilized during the a.m. peak hours in the northbound direction. • PM Peak southbound [Potential Dedicated Bus Lane] ‐ 12 utilized spaces and 72 available spaces. The parking survey shows that approximately 16% of the total parking spaces are utilized during the p.m. peak hours in the southbound direction. This represents the parking used only along Lincoln Boulevard that would be displaced by a bus ‐only lane. This would differ slightly day ‐to ‐day based on patterns of usage and activity at the businesses. However, on ‐street parking would still be available on the side of Lincoln Boulevard with non ‐operational bus ‐only lanes, as follows: • PM peak northbound ‐ 7 utilized spaces and 66 available spaces. The parking survey shows that approximately 10% of the total parking spaces are utilized during the p.m. peak hours in the northbound direction. • AM Peak southbound – 12 utilized spaces and 72 available spaces. The parking survey shows that approximately 16% of the total parking spaces are utilized during the a.m. peak hours in the northbound direction. Based on the parking utilization survey, it appears that in general the level of parking loss could be offset by available parking on the side of Lincoln Boulevard without the bus ‐only lanes, and by utilizing available parking on adjacent streets fronting commercial properties, as they also are not highly utilized during the same peak hours. In order to balance the need for resident parking with some limited shorter ‐term general parking, most side streets in the corridor have residential permit parking that restricts non ‐resident parking access to no more than two hours. It is important to note, however, that parking loss is also a very site specific issue. One or two directly adjacent on ‐street spaces can be perceived by particular businesses as very important to their operation and providing parking a block away may be an issue for selected business owners. The concept of shared parking facilities could serve some demand from the displaced metered ‐parking spaces numbered above; the feasibility of shared parking needs to consider lot size, accessibility, and occupancy. As shown in Figure 9 , and described below in the off ‐street parking section, many of the smaller off ‐street parking lots are operating at near capacity. There are already a few shared parking lots in the study area, such as the lot located on the southwest side of the 2600 block of Lincoln. This shared lot has retail and restaurant uses. Other large parking lots along Lincoln Boulevard feasible for shared parking are occupied by Olympic High School, McDonald’s and Albertsons. Shared parking will be addressed in more detail as part of Task 3.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 25 of 30 Off ‐Street Parking Off ‐street parking inventory and utilization surveys took place in October 2014 for all lots immediately adjacent to businesses along Lincoln Boulevard. Figure 9 illustrates the total off ‐street parking utilization finding for a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The following are key findings from the off ‐street parking analysis: Southbound side Supply : There are approximately 766 total off ‐street parking spaces available on the southbound (west) side of Lincoln Boulevard. The 2500, 2600 and 2700 blocks of Lincoln (from Pine Street to Raymond Avenue) have the highest off ‐street parking supply on the southbound side with 103, 94 and 92 parking spaces respectively. The 2500 block of Lincoln (from Pine Street to Ocean Park Boulevard) is Olympic High School with parking utilization of 49% in the a.m. peak hour and 11% in the p.m. peak hour. The 2700, 3100, 3200 and 3300 blocks of Lincoln (from Hill Street to Dewey Street) have off ‐street parking occupancy rates of 80% or higher in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, the 1900 block of Lincoln (from Pico Boulevard to Bay Street) has an occupancy rate of 96% in the PM peak hour. Northbound side Supply: There are 845 total off ‐street parking spaces available on the northbound (east) side of Lincoln Boulevard. The 1800 (from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard) and 2600 (from Ocean Park Boulevard to Hill Place) blocks of Lincoln have the highest off ‐street parking supply on the northbound side with 101 and 187 parking spaces respectively. AM Utilization: In the a.m. peak hour, the 1700 (from Olympic Boulevard to Michigan Avenue), 2100 (from Grant Street to Pacific Street), 2300 (from Pearl Street to Cedar Street), 2400 (from Cedar Street to Pine Street), 2500 (from Pine Street to Ocean Park Boulevard) and 2700 (from Hill Place to Hill Street) blocks of Lincoln have off ‐street parking occupancy rates of 80% and higher. PM Utilization: In the p.m. peak hour, the 2100 (from Grant Street to Pacific Street), 2300 (from Pearl Street to Cedar Street), 2500 (from Pine Street to Ocean Park Boulevard) and 2700 (from Hill Place to Hill Street) blocks of Lincoln have off ‐street parking occupancy rates of 80% and higher. The off ‐street parking is much better utilized than the on ‐street parking, but still is not fully utilized even during peak hours, except for the 3300 (from Ozone Avenue to City limit) block of Lincoln in the southbound direction and the 2700 (from Hill Place to Hill Street) block of Lincoln in the northbound which were found to be fully occupied during the p.m. peak. The 3300 (from Ozone Avenue to City limit) block of Lincoln in the southbound direction has car repair shops and only one metered parking space. The 2700 (from Hill Place to Hill Street) block of Lincoln in the northbound direction has an auto repair shop and an appliance store that share the existing parking lot.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 26 of 30 Figure 9: AM/PM Peak Hour Off ‐Street Parking Utilization per Block per Direction
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 27 of 30 3. B ENEFITS AND D ISADVANTAGES OF B US ‐O NLY L ANES This memorandum presents analysis of current conditions in the corridor along with information related to key issues associated with dedicated bus ‐only lanes within the study area. A summary of noted advantages and disadvantages is provided below: Benefits to transit riders (estimated time savings) o Bus ‐only lanes, without TSP treatment, would provide an estimated 8 ‐10 minutes per transit passenger of travel time savings, or up to 170 total person hours of travel time savings. o Bus ‐only lanes plus TSP treatment would provide an estimated 11 ‐13 minute travel time savings (an additional 35% travel time savings compared to the travel time savings without TSP treatment). o BBB staff estimate that a four minute travel time savings to buses per trip at a total of $56.86 hourly operating cost would result in approximately $300,000 in savings from lost service hours due to traffic congestion. o If bus ‐only lanes, without TSP treatment, could be implemented on Lincoln Boulevard from Pico Boulevard to LAX, the savings would be much greater, perhaps up to 25 minutes savings per passenger or more. o Travel time savings may in turn provide incentive for more people to use the bus, thereby increasing ridership and reducing auto volumes and congestion somewhat o Bus ‐only lanes would operate on the existing parking lane during the peak hour for the peak direction; thus, there would be no reduction in travel lanes. Removing the buses from the flow of travel in the existing two travel lanes would have a beneficial impact on flow, as buses are larger and slower than passenger vehicles and take up more capacity of the roadway. Parking impacts (loss of parking during peak hour) o By creating bus ‐only lanes in existing parking lanes, up to 12 parked vehicles would be displaced during each peak hour, on average within the study corridor o The availability of off ‐street parking, or available on ‐street parking, may partially offset this, to be reviewed in more detail as part of Task 3. o Localized parking mitigation strategies, to be addressed in Task 3, for key blocks with highest parking demand or perceived issues by land owners/tenants, must be identified. 4. F EASIBILITY OF R EGIONAL F ACILITY In December 2012, City staff met with representatives of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Los Angeles City Council District 11, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to discuss a project to widen Lincoln Boulevard within the City of Los Angeles. At that time, City of Los Angeles staff indicated a desire to provide bus ‐only lanes on Lincoln Boulevard within the City of Los Angeles. As a complete network from Pico Boulevard to LAX, this would represent a regional bus ‐only lane serving many users. However, no progress has been made to ‐date by the City of Los Angeles to implement a bus ‐only lane on Lincoln Boulevard within the City of Los Angeles. In February 2015 Iteris staff contacted City of Los Angeles staff to inquire on the status of this project. Lincoln
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 28 of 30 Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles remains a Caltrans facility, and the City has not initiated any efforts to relinquish Lincoln. The most recent efforts for improvements on Lincoln Boulevard are documented in the 2015 Subregional Mobility Matrix Study prepared for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). This study prioritized and evaluated projects for the Westside Cities Subregion based on six criteria: mobility, safety, sustainability, economy, accessibility and state of good repair. Further analysis included qualitative scoring of the estimated level of benefit under each criteria: high, medium, low, neutral, and negative impact. The Lincoln Boulevard BRT/LRT project scored from medium to highly beneficial for all criteria, except the state of good repair which deals with funds for facility maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement. Lincoln Boulevard BRT/LRT project’s score is “neutral benefit” under the state of good repair criteria. The Mobility Matrix Study envisions the implementation of a BRT/LRT project on Lincoln Boulevard as a mid ‐term (20 years) project. In the meantime, funding available for the widening of Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard, which spurred the discussions in 2012, has been de ‐obligated and is no longer available. Significant progress in discussions and programming must be made between the City of Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, and other corridor stakeholders, before bus ‐only lanes can be implemented the entire length of the corridor from I ‐10 to LAX. There was Metro Call for Projects money available for widening Lincoln at Washington, which was identified by LADOT as a critical component for the provision of bus ‐only lanes. Since 2012, LADOT has not made significant progress and has since de ‐obligated the funds. However, the 2015 Subregional Mobility Matrix Study included an evaluation of a BRT/LRT project on Lincoln Boulevard which could serve as a catalyst to restart conversations between the City of Santa Monica, the City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, and other stakeholders to pursue the widening at Washington Boulevard and/or other alternatives to ensure bus ‐only lanes can be implemented from I ‐10 to LAX. This project is also a potential project to be included in future a future tax measure, which, if ‐approved, would provide a funding source. In the City of Los Angeles, Lincoln Boulevard is a state highway, owned and maintained by Caltrans. Santa Monica was in a similar position when the bus ‐only lanes were initially approved by Council in 2005, and discovered that Caltrans was less ‐than amenable to the concept at the time. In recent discussions with LADOT and City of Los Angeles staff, they noted that Caltrans absolutely will not support bus ‐only lanes that require (in their words) "substandard" lane widths ‐ less than 12 feet. Since the City of Los Angeles hasn't even initiated a relinquishment process to take control of Lincoln Boulevard from the state, even in an optimistic scenario Lincoln Boulevard will remain a state highway for at least 5 ‐7 years. Recent discussions with staff from Los Angeles Council District 11 indicate that the current top priority of the City of Los Angeles is the Great Streets program. The Mayor’s proposed budget 12 includes a multi ‐departmental funding plan to implement the Great Streets program. Lincoln Boulevard is not a part of the Great Streets program, while Venice Boulevard is. Therefore, new funding sources will be required for any future improvements on Lincoln Boulevard. The City of Los Angeles and Council District 11 support bus ‐only lanes; however, at this time there are no efforts to secure funding for facilities outside of the Great Streets program. Given the points listed above, 12 City of Los Angeles Fiscal Year 2015 ‐16 Budget Summary; viewed at: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/mayorofla/p ages/15557/attachments/original/1429512273/FY2015 ‐16_Budget_Proposal.pdf?1429512273
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 29 of 30 The City of Santa Monica has initiated conversations with City of Los Angeles Council District 11 and LADOT staff to further explore the possibility of extending bus ‐only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard between the City of Santa Monica and LAX. Although there are funding and implementation challenges, the long ‐term benefits of bus ‐only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard cannot be denied. Implementation of a short bus ‐only lane that is only within the City of Santa Monica would provide real benefits to transit riders, but those benefits in terms of travel time savings would be much less than if a bus ‐only lane was implemented for the entire route or even much of the route. Since Santa Monica has no control over the portion of the route that is within the City of Los Angeles, the eventual travel time savings benefits are speculative only. However, it is also important to note that the implementation of bus lanes, even if only within Santa Monica, sends a message regarding the importance of transit services to Los Angeles decision makers. The advantages and disadvantages of implementing bus ‐only lanes within the City of Santa Monica are listed below: Advantages – Some time savings will result to bus riders, possible increase in bus ridership, action is consistent with City’s Street Network classification of Lincoln Boulevard as a “Boulevard” which is defined as “regional transportation corridor…provides access for all forms of transportation, but emphasizes transit and walking…regional auto traffic is accommodated in order to minimize regional traffic on parallel streets,”13 relatively easy to implement based on prior work accomplished to date, which includes the 2012 design drawings, may provide incentive to City of Los Angeles to consider extending bus ‐only lanes within Los Angeles. Disadvantages – Loss of peak hour parking, would preclude possible curb extensions for pedestrian enhancements, much less time savings than a bus ‐only lane that extends into Los Angeles along the entire route (or much of the route). 5. S UMMARY AND C ONCLUSIONS This memorandum has presented a technical analysis of potential dedicated bus ‐only lanes along Lincoln Boulevard within the project study area, from the southern Santa Monica/Los Angeles boundary up to Pico Boulevard. There are advantages of a dedicated bus ‐only lane as well as some possible negative implications of implementing bus lanes within the study corridor. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are enumerated below. Each option would affect various stakeholders in different ways. Key stakeholders include local residents, businesses that front Lincoln Boulevard within the study area, bus riders who use the services along Lincoln Boulevard, BBB and elected officials. Next Steps In terms of ease of implementation based on physical and operational improvements, adding new peak period peak directional bus ‐only lanes on Lincoln Boulevard north of the Santa Monica City boundary would be relatively simple. As noted previously in this document, the City completed new design plans in 2012 in order to construct new bus ‐only lanes following the relinquishment of Lincoln Boulevard. After relinquishment, the City repaved and restriped Lincoln Boulevard according to the completed plans, and held off on including the bus ‐only lane markings and 13 Santa Monica Land Use & Circulation Element; July 6, 2010; pg. 4.0 ‐17 ‐18.
Lincoln Boulevard Peak Period Bus Lane Feasibility Analysis August 19, 2015 Page 30 of 30 associated signage. At this point, the lane configurations of Lincoln Boulevard are such that creating new bus ‐only lanes would be as easy as adding signage and a few new markings to the roadway; rather than undertaking a complete redesign and all new striping. Implementation of the approved striping plan providing peak period bus ‐only lanes could be an immediate first phase of a more comprehensive bus ‐only lane project. On February 23, 2015, the City held a public workshop to discuss a broad range of improvements on Lincoln Boulevard. The workshop attendees expressed support for peak period bus ‐only lanes, and expressed a desire for the lanes to continue into the City of Los Angeles to LAX. The workshop attendees also expressed support for a modified cross section on Lincoln Boulevard, which would require further changes to existing roadway striping.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC THE PROJECT The Adopt-a-Planter program provides streetscape beautification and greenery through easily replicable, environmentally responsible methods. It has been designed to complement the efforts of Lincoln Bouelvard property and business owners to promote an attractive environment for pedestrian activities, and present an image of a well-maintained district that is comfortable and welcoming. Guidelines are provided to assist with the selection of drought-tolerant landscaping. The Adopt-a-Planter Program is a community effort generating street level vitality and greatly enhancing the ambience along the street.HOW LINCOLN BUSINESSES CAN GET INVOLVED Through the LiNC Project, The City of Santa Monica is encouraging businesses to adopt a planter on Lincoln Boulevard. By working together, we can greatly enhance the streets appearance for businesses, residents and visitors.Steps for adopting planter Business owners fill out the application form, which includes a maintenance agreement and guidance on landscaping. Once processed by the City, the sponsor is notified of the placement timeline. Once planters are placed sponsors’ responsibilities begins immediately. The cost for this program is still in development.Location of planters Planters will be located on sidewalk in public right away, at designated curb locations that conform to City accessibility and urban forest management criteria. Curb locations on Lincoln Boulevard provide an ample opportunity for additional greening and can serve as gateway features to local neighborhood streets adding visual interest and beauty.WHY SUPPORT THIS BEAUTIFICATION EFFORT?This is a low-cost, high-impact placemaking initiative that can produce results immediately. Over the past year, local businesses have identified the need to improve the sidewalk environment and address issues of pedestrian comfort and security. The benefits of sidewalk planters align with the goals of the emerging business association and of the Lincoln Neighborhood Corridor Plan.Adopt a Planter Program (in development)visit www.lincsm.net for more information on this and other projects WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SIDEWALK PLANTERS?Adds visual beauty and greenery to the Boulevard Helps to create a green character-defining element Reduces noise from traffic Creates a buffer for pedestrians that increases comfort and security Could be incorporated into seating elements Easy and fun to maintain!BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES - SHORT TERM STOREFRONT IMPROVEMENTS POP-UP PLACEMAKING - “COLOR SPLASH”THE COLOR SPLASH CONCEPT IS A TACTICAL RESPONSE TO THE DESIRE FOR EFFECTIVE, BUT ECONOMICAL SOLUTIONS TO LINCOLN’S EXISTING CONDITION. THIS POTENTIAL PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO ADD A SENSE OF NOVELTY AND VIBRANCY TO THE CORRIDOR USING:THIS GROUP OF LOW-COST, LOW PROCESS INITIATIVES ARE AIMED AT GIVING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DIRECT ROLE IN IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE STREET ENVIRONMENT WHILE ALSO BEAUTIFYING THEIR BUSINESSES. THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PRE-APPROVED AND WILL BE READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN FALL 2015.THIS EFFORT INVOLVES A DRAFT INVENTORY OF OVER 30 POTENTIAL LOW-COST FACADE PROJECTS, AS WELL AS SEVERAL ACCOMPANYING CONCEPT DESIGN FOR SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES OR CONDITIONS.WHEN FINALIZED, THIS MATERIAL WILL BE HELPFUL IN PROVIDNG PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS WITH IDEAS FOR FACADE REHAB, AND MAY ALSO BE USED TO SECURE FUNDING RESOURCES.BUSINESS ADOPTION OPPORTUNITIES A SIGNATURE PAINT COLOR TO IDENTIFY LINCOLN CORRIDOR EXISTING ON-STREET RESOURCES OR ITEMS IN STORAGE (BENCHES, TRASH CANS, LIGHT POLES)POTENTIAL FOR METAL BANNERS TO ENHANCE CHARACTER CHEAP AND EASY TO IMPLEMENT WITH MINIMAL RESOURCES EXISTING TEAL?ORANGE?BLUE?Design Concepts for Rehab.Guidance on Use of Art Low-Cost Facade Ideas PAGE 1 LINCOLN BOULEVARD STOREFRONT IMPROVEMENT INVENTORY TAD SAVINAR & JESSE STEMMLER Compiled August 2014/Written Up (and enhanced) July 2015 DRAFT JULY 2015 PAGE 1 Throughout rural and urban history, painting on walls has been a vital story-telling tool. During this string of history, the images have been most successful when the content and the scale was produced for the specific viewer within a specific condition. Michelangelo’s Sistine Cha -pel was painted to be seen from a specific vantage point, the cave paintings in Lascaux France to be seen up close by the glow of a fir e, murals in Los Angeles adjacent to the freeway which speak of BIG La -tino Pride. Art on a vertical surface, done properly, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition, but rather a well-considered activity. And, while at first blush the blank walls along Lincoln Boulevard in Santa Monica may not have anything in common with the caves in Lascaux, when the site-specific, urban conditions are considered, something can be learned. It should be noted that not every empty space or “blank wall” cries out to be muralized. Within the urban setting, consider -ation should be given to the re-vitalization needs of the community vs. the needs of the individual walking down the street. What with Times Square and Las Vegas media blitzes invading our computers, our cell phones, our Google glasses, our cars and our homes, empty space is a dying breed. And, as this behavior evolves, empty space and the visual respite it provides might be something to be treasured. Often what we call “blank walls” are merely buildings in the need of some human scaled architectural detailing. Sometimes these sites can be improved by the addition of plantings or vines or trellises. Art, even good art, is not the answer to everything. And certainly, art poorly sited, only creates more urban chaos. And so, some thoughts….1. SITES Develop an “opportunity matrix” which begins to categorize each and every “blank wall” within the corridor. This matrix would include: the size of the space, the direction the wall faces, categorization as to if the wall is best suited for a “walk-by” experience – a “drive-by” expe -rience – a retail experience, a neighborhood gateway or cross traffic node, an entry or exit in the corridor gateway, etc. The content, the colors, the design, etc. – all these tools should be aligned with the site’s location within the community and the best use of the site. Intimate spaces require intimate works. What kind of project is best suited near a school, etc. Artful, graphic solutions to community aspirations should not just be merely more paint on a wall, rather each mural should be tailor-made for its place within the com -munity. The matrix would provide the tool to look at the corridor as a whole and then the improvements could be choreographed into a series of individual events.2. TYPES OF ART Most professional artists have a working “style” or personality. You spot a work by Artist A and you recognize it because it has something inherent within its execution that you have seen before. It is different than Artist B. Landscape painters rarely paint modern geometric pat -terns. Understanding these differences between style as well as con -tent is a valuable tool to use when selecting an artist for a specific site. For when the right artist is asked to create something for the right site – magic is in the house. Generically, these styles could be crudely ordered into the following categories. These may not be finite, but they are the beginnings of a list.Conceptual Art – Art that challenges our brain in some manner. The image is merely the vehicle for the idea. Sometimes this art’s mean -ing can be found in a specific message and sometimes it can l ead the viewer to a set of “thought arenas” and invite them in to draw their own conclusions. Sometimes they just make us scratch our heads. Sites for the success of these works is generally more akin to the pedestrian realm in an intimate scale. Best not as a drive-by and best not next to a school. Facing a signalized crosswalk would be a good spot as the pedestrian would face the piece as they waited for the light to change – lots of time to look and think. SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CURATING MURALS WITHIN THE LINCOLN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR Ernest Zacharevic Artist Unknown John Baldassari LINCOLN BLVD I -10 O ZO NE ST OL YMPIC BLVD PICO B L VD BAY S T P AC IF I C ST ST RA ND ST K E N SIN GT ON R D CE D AR ST PIN E ST O C EAN P ARK H ILL ST RAYMOND AV E ASH L A ND AV E PIER AVE MARINE ST.N A V Y ST .GRA NT ST MICHIG A N AVE PAGE 8 WEST SIDE OF LINCOLN W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 MULTIPLE BUSINESSES (1800 BLOCK)SHELL STATION AT PICO BLVD STARBUCKS AT PICO BLVD SHOPPING COMPLEX AT PICO SHELL STATION & MULTIPLE BUSINESSES (1800 BLOCK)1. 1800 building presents lots of opportunities to capitalize on due to it being set back from street. Con -sider painting storefronts different a color which counteracts the darkness of the current green.2. Paint the apartment portion a color that recedes into the sky.3. Consider blade signs for businesses.4. Consider facing sidewalk planter boxes with wood slats to soften the edge.5. Add more plant materials to existing landscape strips.6. Consider the addition of exterior lighting. Since the building is set back, it allows for very dramatic lighting.1. Add additional plantings to existing beds.2. Improve Kao Kao building by using a Mid Century Modern/2015 aesthetic through color, potentially add -ing wooden slats on the pedestrian portion of the building, removing some paved area to create planted entry (bamboo?), “super graphic” address numbers above garage portion.3. Consider adding new sign above windows to tree-blocked signa ge on Kathmandu,add planter by affixing it to ledge of building face.1. Add entry gateway element over the driveway.2. Convert the two easternmost parking spots next to Lincoln into outdoor dining.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP - AUGUST 2015 LINCOLN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDOR PLAN - THE L i NC WHY DO PBID’S WORK ? SERVICES PROVIDED ENHANCE EXISTING CITY SERVICES SERVICE AREAS CAN INCLUDE PUBLIC SAFETY, MAINTENANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MARKETING, SPECIAL EVENTS, AND MORE DISTRICT IS GOVERNED BY THOSE WHO PAY THE ASSESSMENT UNIFIES THE PRIVATE-SECTOR INTO A STRONG LEADERSHIP ORGANIZATION WITH IMPROVED POLITICAL CLOUT GOOD RESOURCE CENTER FOR BUSINESSES TO WORK TOGETHER AND LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER SO OWNERS DO NOT HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL BUSINESSES MIGHT GET A BETTER DEAL ON IMPROVEMENTS IF THEY DO IT TOGETHER BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES - LONG TERM THE PROCESS FOR BID FORMATION WHAT WOULD A LINCOLN BID DO?OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE PROJECT TEAM HAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED THE LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO DISCUSS THE FORMATION OF A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THIS PROCESS HAS INVOLVED THE PARTICIPATION FROM DOZENS OF PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN GROUP REPRESENTATION AND ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE STREET EXPERIENCE. DOZENS OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 5 FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS FORMATION OF INFORMAL “STEERING COMMITTEE”GOING FORWARD, THE PROJECT TEAM WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THIS GROUP AND OTHERS TOWARDS THE FORMATION OF A PROPERTY-BASED BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.Maintenance Parking Planning Image/Communications Security Cultural Arts Streetscape Placemaking Events & Programming Social Services Econ. Development Low-Cost Facade Ideas Timeframe Phase Tasks Pre-establishment process Develop funding for PBID establishment and select consultant 2-3 months Phase !Program Development Stakeholder focus groups One-on-one meetings Budget and program development Continue steering committee meetings Database development 1 month Phase 2 Plan Development Draft management plan Define assessment methodology Draft engineer’s report Continue database development Develop governance structure City Council reviews comments on draft management plan/engineer’s reports and approves funding of general benefits 1-2 months Phase 3 Plan Review Plan review workshops One-on-one consensus building Continue steering committee meetings Final plan development 2-6 months Phase 4 Property Owner Acceptance Two Steps Campaign strategy and training Develop communication/newsletter Draft petition, review by City Petition packaging and distribution Campaign management and meetings City Council accepts petitions and engineer’s report; adopts resolution of intention for the establishment of PBID and authorize mailing of ballets 1 month Phase 5 Public Hearing/City Council Process City Council holds public hearings 218 Ballot process City Council accepts election results; adopts resolutions; authorizes con -tracts and approves budget THE PROCESS TO DATE COMING SOON?NEXT STEPS TOWARDS A PROPERTY-BASED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Rood, CD+A Date: November 10, 2015 FROM: Iteris, Inc. Job No: 17J1417C9 SUBJECT: Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION This memorandum documents the methodology, findings and conclusions of the traffic analysis for two proposed alternative configurations of Lincoln Boulevard in the City of Santa Monica. The traffic study assesses the effects of the trips diverted or shifted due to the implementation of landscaped medians. 2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ALTERNATIVES The study area consists of an approximately 1.25 mile stretch of Lincoln Boulevard from the I ‐10 Freeway ramps to the southern City Limit. The City of Santa Monica is working to transform Lincoln Boulevard into a comprehensive multi ‐modal corridor. As part of this effort, the following two alternatives have been developed by the project team to incorporate landscaped medians into the streetscape design: Alternative A provides approximately 1,000 linear median feet and does not block any existing vehicle turning movement. Alternative B provides approximately 2,000 linear median feet and would block vehicle turning movements at selected low ‐volume side ‐streets and driveways. Alternative B is considered to have a greater potential to impact vehicle flows along Lincoln Boulevard and has been evaluated and documented in this memorandum. Figure 1 illustrates the two landscaped medians alternatives.
2 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 1: Landscaped Median Alternatives Source: CD+A, August 2015
3 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 3. STUDY AREA AND SCENARIOS The following 25 intersections, as shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2 , were analyzed for weekday morning and evening peak hour (7:30 AM – 9:30 AM and 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM) conditions. Existing peak periods and peak hours were identified based on traffic counts collected by the City and Iteris. T ABLE 1: S TUDY I NTERSECTIONS Intersection Traffic Control Type Intersection Type 1 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 WB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial 2 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 EB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial 3 Lincoln Blvd/Michigan Ave Signalized Arterial 4 Lincoln Blvd/Pico Blvd Signalized Arterial 5 Lincoln Blvd/Bay St Unsignalized Arterial 6 Lincoln Blvd/Grant St Unsignalized Arterial 7 Lincoln Blvd/Pacific St Unsignalized Arterial 8 Lincoln Blvd/Strand St Unsignalized Arterial 9 Lincoln Blvd/Pearl St Signalized Arterial 10 Lincoln Blvd/Kensington Rd Unsignalized Arterial 11 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (N) Unsignalized Arterial 12 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (S) Unsignalized Arterial 13 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (N) Unsignalized Arterial 14 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (S) Unsignalized Arterial 15 Lincoln Blvd/Maple St Unsignalized Arterial 16 Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd Signalized Arterial 17 Lincoln Blvd/Hill St Unsignalized Arterial 18 Lincoln Blvd/Raymond Ave Unsignalized Arterial 19 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (N) Signalized Arterial 20 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (S) Unsignalized Arterial 21 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave/Wilson Pl Unsignalized Arterial 22 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave Unsignalized Arterial 23 Lincoln Blvd/Marine St Unsignalized Arterial 24 Lincoln Blvd/Navy St/Marine St Signalized Arterial 25 Lincoln Blvd/Ozone St Unsignalized Arterial Note: The City’s traffic guidelines have not yet been revised to reflect the different typology for streets adopted in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). Therefore, all intersections were analyzed as arterial roadways, per the 1984 General Plan. In order to analyze the effects of the landscaped medians on the existing and future street system conditions, the 25 study intersections were analyzed for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions – For this scenario, City staff provided 2013 turning movement volumes at eight (8) signalized intersections (as shown on Table 1 ). In addition, Iteris collected new (2015) turning movement data at 17 unsignalized intersections (as shown on Table 1 ) and selected high ‐volume driveways. Overall, the left turn movement volumes, in and out of the driveways, were low within the study area, except for the 2600 and 2700 block of Lincoln where Haggen Food and Pharmacy and McDonald’s are located. Existing “With Alternative B Max Medians” Conditions – This scenario reflects the existing traffic conditions with trips diverted/shifted due to medians.
4 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 2: Study Intersections
5 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Future (Year 2025) “Without Alternative B Max Medians” Conditions – For this scenario, City staff provided projected 2025 turning movement volumes for selected signalized intersections from their Travel Demand Forecast Model (TDFM). Future (Year 2025) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Conditions – This scenario reflects projected 2025 traffic conditions with trips diverted/shifted due to medians. Future (Year 2030) “Without Alternative B Max Medians” Conditions – For this scenario, City staff provided projected 2030 turning movement volumes for selected signalized intersections from their Travel Demand Forecast Model (TDFM). Future (Year 2030) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Conditions – This scenario reflects projected 2030 traffic conditions with trips diverted/shifted due to medians. 4. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY The quality of traffic operations is characterized using the concept of level of service (LOS). Level of service is defined by a range of grades from A (best) to F (worst). At intersections, LOS “A” represents relatively free operating conditions with little or no delay. LOS “F” is characterized by extremely unstable flow conditions and severe congestion with volumes at or near the intersection’s design capacity. This results in long queues backing up from all approaches to intersections. In accordance with the City’s methodology for traffic analysis, the study intersections were evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) delay methodology which is described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000). Under the HCM methodology, LOS at intersections is based on the average delay experienced by vehicles traveling through an intersection. The analysis incorporates the effects of the lane geometry, and signal phasing (e.g., protected or permitted left turns) for the signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, the HCM methodology identifies the worst ‐case delay by directional movement. Table 2 presents a brief description of each level of service letter grade, as well as the range of delays associated with each grade for signalized and stop ‐controlled intersections. Prior to the City’s recent 2010 updated Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the City of Santa Monica’s Circulation Element classified streets in the City as either arterial, collector, or local streets. The City of Santa Monica has designated LOS D as the minimum desirable LOS at arterial intersections and LOS C as the minimum desirable LOS at collector street intersections. The 2010 LUCE has adopted a different typology for streets in the City (e.g., Boulevards, Avenues, Neighborhood Streets, etc.), but the criteria have not yet been revised to reflect the updated street classifications. Therefore, all intersections along Lincoln Boulevard are considered arterial intersections.
6 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 T ABLE 2: I NTERSECTION L EVEL OF S ERVICE D EFINITIONS Level of Service Description Signalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) Stop ‐Controlled Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < 10 < 10 B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. >10 and < 20 >10 and < 15 C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back ‐ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. >20 and < 35 >15 and < 25 D Fair operation. Vehicles are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long ‐standing traffic queues. >35 and < 55 >25 and < 35 E Poor operation. Some long ‐standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. >55 and < 80 >35 and < 50 F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. > 80 > 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000. 4.1. Intersection Threshold of Significance The City of Santa Monica has established threshold criteria to determine if a project has a significant traffic impact at a signalized intersection. A project impact is considered significant if any of the conditions summarized in Table 3 are met. However, the City’s traffic guidelines do not define the criteria to determine a significant impact for unsignalized intersections. For purposes of this traffic analysis, unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F were analyzed as signalized intersections in order to determine a V/C ratio. The impact criteria shown in Table 3 was then used to determine if there is a significant impact based on the difference in the V/C ratio.
7 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 T ABLE 3: C ITY OF S ANTA M ONICA S IGNIFICANT I MPACT C RITERIA A RTERIAL AND C OLLECTOR I NTERSECTIONS Existing or Cumulative Base Scenario Existing Plus Project or Cumulative Base With Project Scenario If LOS = A, B, or C SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: ==> and is a collector street intersection Average vehicle delay increase is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS becomes D, E, or F ==> and is an arterial street intersection Average vehicle delay increase is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS becomes E, or F If LOS = D SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: ==> and is a collector street intersection Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle ==> and is an arterial street intersection Average vehicle delay increase is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS becomes E, or F If LOS = E SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: ==> and is a collector or arterial street intersection Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle If LOS = F SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: ==> and is a collector or arterial street intersection HCM V/C ratio net increase is ≥ 0.005 Source: City of Santa Monica 5. TRAFFIC DIVERSION ASSUMPTIONS As mentioned, the new medians would restrict left turn movements to/from selected driveways and unsignalized low ‐volume intersections. In general, the following assumptions were used to determine the traffic diversion associated with the implementation of the landscaped medians: The only traffic expected to make U ‐turns at the signalized intersections are the vehicles going to the specific businesses (NBL and SBL) where driveway access was restricted by a median. Pearl St and Ashland Ave would have protected left ‐turn movements (left arrows) for the “With Alternative B Max Medians” scenarios. All other movements restricted by the medians would make a left or right turn at the next adjacent intersection. Figure 3 illustrates the private driveways within the study area.
8 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 3: Private Driveway Location
9 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides the methodologies used for determining traffic volumes and traffic analysis for existing conditions. 6.1. Existing “Without medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis Peak hour vehicle turning movement counts, 7:30 – 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 – 7:00 p.m., were collected at the 13 unsignalized study intersections in 2015. In addition, City staff provided 2013 peak hour turning movement counts for eight (8) signalized study intersections. Given the different dates for traffic data collection, traffic volumes were analyzed and “balanced” to ensure a consistency of approach and departure volumes between intersections. In all cases, the highest collected volumes were used as a control point, and approaching and/or departing volumes were adjusted to ensure consistency between adjacent intersections. The morning and evening peak hour level of service analyses were conducted for the 25 study intersections based on the traffic volumes collected and the adopted methodologies described previously. All intersection analyses are performed using Synchro software. The existing “without medians” conditions level of service analysis results are summarized in Table 4 , and illustrated in Figure 4. 6.2. Existing “With Alternative B Max Medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis This scenario consists of existing traffic plus traffic shifted by the proposed medians. Table 4 summarizes the peak hour level of service results, and illustrated in Figure 4 . The resultant change in delay comparing the existing “with Alternative B max medians” and “without medians” conditions is also presented in the table. The traffic analysis for the existing scenarios demonstrates that the addition of medians does not negatively impact level of service operations at signalized intersections along the corridor. Further, the installation of medians on Lincoln Boulevard appears to improve operations at nearly every unsignalized intersection along the corridor. There are two primary reasons for the improvement in LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections: 1. The addition of medians results in increased left ‐ and U ‐turn movements at signalized intersections. This condition requires longer time intervals for left ‐turn signals, which creates longer gaps in traffic for upstream or downstream flow on Lincoln Boulevard. Because of longer gaps in traffic, more time is available for vehicles to make turns to or from Lincoln Boulevard at the unsignalized intersections, and therefore results in improved LOS and reduced average vehicle delays. 2. At intersection locations where the proposed medians would restrict left ‐turns, the overall operations of these unsignalized intersections are greatly improved. Since the left ‐turn movement is typically the “worst case” movement from an unsignalized side street, requiring the largest gaps in traffic and resulting in the greatest average vehicle delays, the introduction of the proposed median and the subsequent prohibition of the left ‐turn movement results in substantial improvements to intersection LOS and average vehicle delays.
10 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 T ABLE 4: E XISTING I NTERSECTION O PERATIONS Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Type Existing “Without Medians” Existing “With Alternative B Max Medians” Change in Delay (s) or V/C Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 WB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial C 28.7 0.91 D 46.5 0.94 C 28.7 0.91 D 46.5 0.94 0.0 0.0 No 2 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 EB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial D 51.6 0.85 C 29.4 0.69 D 51.6 0.85 C 29.0 0.69 0 ‐0.4 No 3 Lincoln Blvd/Michigan Ave Signalized Arterial B 18.3 0.63 A 7.5 0.59 B 18.3 0.63 A 7.4 0.59 0 ‐0.1 No 4 Lincoln Blvd/Pico Blvd Signalized Arterial D 40.0 0.79 D 45.6 0.87 D 42.4 0.8 D 45.9 0.87 2.4 0.3 No 5 Lincoln Blvd/Bay St Unsignalized* Arterial D 25.5 ‐ F 90.1 ‐ C 15.2 ‐ E 37.3 ‐ ‐10.3 ‐52.8 No 6 Lincoln Blvd/Grant St Unsignalized* Arterial D 27.4 ‐ F 55.9 ‐ C 16.7 ‐ D 30.6 ‐ ‐10.7 ‐25.3 No 7 Lincoln Blvd/Pacific St Unsignalized* Arterial D 34.9 ‐ D 30.4 ‐ C 21.5 ‐ C 20.9 ‐ ‐13.4 ‐9.5 No 8 Lincoln Blvd/Strand St Unsignalized* Arterial B 13.9 ‐ C 18.4 ‐ B 12.0 ‐ B 14.9 ‐ ‐1.9 ‐3.5 No 9 Lincoln Blvd/Pearl St Signalized Arterial A 5.1 0.56 A 4.2 0.47 B 11.1 0.63 A 8.0 0.51 6 3.8 No 10 Lincoln Blvd/Kensington Rd Unsignalized* Arterial D 27.5 ‐ D 28.9 ‐ C 23.0 ‐ C 24.0 ‐ ‐4.5 ‐4.9 No 11 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial B 13.1 ‐ B 11.6 ‐ B 10.0 ‐ A 9.6 ‐ ‐3.1 ‐2 No 12 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 17.8 ‐ D 28.1 ‐ C 16.2 ‐ C 23.7 ‐ ‐1.6 ‐4.4 No 13 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial C 17.2 ‐ B 13.2 ‐ C 15.6 ‐ B 12.4 ‐ ‐1.6 ‐0.8 No 14 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial B 11.9 ‐ B 12.6 ‐ B 11.2 ‐ B 11.8 ‐ ‐0.7 ‐0.8 No 15 Lincoln Blvd/Maple St Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.1 ‐ B 13.5 ‐ B 10.3 ‐ A 9.6 ‐ ‐1.8 ‐3.9 No 16 Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd Signalized Arterial D 45.3 0.93 D 45.8 0.92 D 48.0 0.94 D 47.9 0.93 2.7 2.1 No 17 Lincoln Blvd/Hill St Unsignalized* Arterial C 21.6 ‐ E 39.0 ‐ B 13.0 ‐ D 29.2 ‐ ‐8.6 ‐9.8 No 18 Lincoln Blvd/Raymond Ave Unsignalized* Arterial A 9.6 ‐ C 17.0 ‐ A 9.6 ‐ B 14.7 ‐ 0 ‐2.3 No 19 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (N) Signalized Arterial A 2.8 0.5 A 6.3 0.52 A 7.1 0.56 B 13.5 0.57 4.3 7.2 No 20 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 18.2 ‐ B 14.0 ‐ C 15.1 ‐ B 11.7 ‐ ‐3.1 ‐2.3 No 21 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave/Wilson Pl Unsignalized* Arterial C 15.6 ‐ C 16.6 ‐ B 11.4 ‐ B 10.9 ‐ ‐4.2 ‐5.7 No 22 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.9 ‐ C 15.6 ‐ B 10.5 ‐ A 10.0 ‐ ‐2.4 ‐5.6 No 23 Lincoln Blvd/Marine St Unsignalized* Arterial C 24.0 ‐ C 18.4 ‐ C 17.7 ‐ B 13.1 ‐ ‐6.3 ‐5.3 No 24 Lincoln Blvd/Navy St/Marine St Signalized Arterial B 18.2 0.67 C 24.1 0.8 C 21.4 0.73 C 29.2 0.86 3.2 5.1 No 25 Lincoln Blvd/Ozone St Unsignalized*** Arterial F ** 0.570 F ** 0.630 F ** 0.570 F ** 0.630 0.000 0.000 No Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume ‐to ‐Capacity Ratio *Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs at minor approaches. Delay shown represents the delay experienced at the worst ‐case stop ‐controlled approach of the intersection. The large majority of approaching traffic operates under free ‐flow conditions. ** Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated. ***Unsignalized intersection, operating at LOS F, analyzed as signalized intersections in order to determine a V/C ratio.
11 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 4: Existing “Without Medians” and “With Alternative B Max Medians” Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
12 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 7. FUTURE (YEAR 2025) CONDITIONS This section provides the methodologies used for determining traffic volumes and traffic analysis for future (year 2025) conditions. 7.1. Future (Year 2025) “Without medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis As mentioned, City staff provided 2025 turning movement volumes for the eight (8) signalized intersections from the City’s Travel Demand Forecast Model (TDFM). An adjustment factor was applied to the remaining intersections based on a comparison of the turning movement volumes in 2013 and those projected for the year 2025. The morning and evening peak hour level of service analyses were conducted for the 25 study intersections based on the traffic volumes calculations and the adopted methodologies described previously. The future (year 2025) “without medians” conditions level of service analysis results are summarized in Table 5 , and illustrated in Figure 5. 7.2. Future (Year 2025) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis This scenario consists of Future (Year 2025) “without median” plus traffic shifted by the proposed medians. Table 5 summarizes the peak hour level of service results. The resultant change in delay comparing the future (year 2025) “with Alternative B max medians” and “without medians” conditions is also presented in the table, and illustrated in Figure 5 . The traffic analysis for Future (Year 2025) scenarios demonstrates that the addition of medians does not negatively impact level of service operations at signalized intersections along the corridor, except for the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd. As shown in Table 4, it should be noted that the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd is already at capacity in existing conditions. Similar to the existing conditions scenarios, operations at nearly all of the unsignalized intersections along the corridor appear to improve with the addition of the proposed medians, for the reasons described in Section 6.2.
13 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 T ABLE 5: F UTURE (Y EAR 2025) I NTERSECTION O PERATIONS Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Type Future (Year 2025) “Without Medians” Future (Year 2025) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Change in Delay (s) or V/C Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 WB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial C 32.4 0.95 D 42.8 0.97 C 32.4 0.95 D 43.0 0.97 0.0 0.2 No 2 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 EB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial C 32.5 0.8 D 37.2 0.68 C 33.6 0.82 D 37.6 0.68 1.1 0.4 No 3 Lincoln Blvd/Michigan Ave Signalized Arterial C 25.0 0.73 B 14.5 0.55 C 25.1 0.73 B 14.7 0.56 0.1 0.2 No 4 Lincoln Blvd/Pico Blvd Signalized Arterial D 37.8 0.77 D 35.9 0.78 D 37.4 0.78 D 36.1 0.78 ‐0.4 0.2 No 5 Lincoln Blvd/Bay St Unsignalized* Arterial C 22.5 ‐ F 83.8 ‐ B 14.3 ‐ E 38.1 ‐ ‐8.2 ‐45.7 No 6 Lincoln Blvd/Grant St Unsignalized* Arterial C 24.9 ‐ E 48.0 ‐ C 17.0 ‐ D 28.4 ‐ ‐7.9 ‐19.6 No 7 Lincoln Blvd/Pacific St Unsignalized* Arterial D 28.7 ‐ D 28.1 ‐ C 21.1 ‐ C 19.9 ‐ ‐7.6 ‐8.2 No 8 Lincoln Blvd/Strand St Unsignalized* Arterial B 13.5 ‐ C 16.9 ‐ B 12.2 ‐ B 13.9 ‐ ‐1.3 ‐3 No 9 Lincoln Blvd/Pearl St Signalized Arterial A 9.2 0.59 A 6.1 0.46 B 15.5 0.71 B 12.2 0.5 6.3 6.1 No 10 Lincoln Blvd/Kensington Rd Unsignalized* Arterial C 25.0 ‐ C 25.0 ‐ D 26.4 ‐ C 21.2 ‐ 1.4 ‐3.8 No 11 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.4 ‐ B 11.2 ‐ B 10.0 ‐ A 9.5 ‐ ‐2.4 ‐1.7 No 12 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 16.9 ‐ C 23.0 ‐ C 18.1 ‐ C 19.8 ‐ 1.2 ‐3.2 No 13 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial C 15.4 ‐ B 12.6 ‐ C 16.0 ‐ B 11.9 ‐ 0.6 ‐0.7 No 14 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial B 11.7 ‐ B 12.1 ‐ B 11.8 ‐ B 11.3 ‐ 0.1 ‐0.8 No 15 Lincoln Blvd/Maple St Unsignalized* Arterial B 11.6 ‐ B 12.7 ‐ B 10.3 ‐ A 9.6 ‐ ‐1.3 ‐3.1 No 16 Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd Signalized Arterial D 52.8 0.95 D 48.1 0.85 E 57.6 0.97 D 49.4 0.87 4.8 1.3 YES 17 Lincoln Blvd/Hill St Unsignalized* Arterial C 23.1 ‐ D 34.8 ‐ B 13.3 ‐ D 26.5 ‐ ‐9.8 ‐8.3 No 18 Lincoln Blvd/Raymond Ave Unsignalized* Arterial A 9.6 ‐ C 16.3 ‐ A 9.7 ‐ B 14.2 ‐ 0.1 ‐2.1 No 19 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (N) Signalized Arterial A 2.3 0.47 A 2.7 0.5 A 4.1 0.52 A 5.9 0.55 1.8 3.2 No 20 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 21.5 ‐ B 13.1 ‐ C 16.7 ‐ B 11.3 ‐ ‐4.8 ‐1.8 No 21 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave/Wilson Pl Unsignalized* Arterial C 18.1 ‐ C 15.4 ‐ B 11.7 ‐ B 10.6 ‐ ‐6.4 ‐4.8 No 22 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.8 ‐ C 15.9 ‐ B 10.5 ‐ B 10.1 ‐ ‐2.3 ‐5.8 No 23 Lincoln Blvd/Marine St Unsignalized* Arterial D 27.3 ‐ C 17.0 ‐ C 18.4 ‐ B 12.9 ‐ ‐8.9 ‐4.1 No 24 Lincoln Blvd/Navy St/Marine St Signalized Arterial B 17.9 0.77 C 25.1 0.85 C 22.3 0.83 C 32.7 0.91 4.4 7.6 No 25 Lincoln Blvd/Ozone St Unsignalized*** Arterial F * 0.590 F * 0.530 F * 0.590 F * 0.530 0.000 0.000 No Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume ‐to ‐Capacity Ratio *Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs at minor approaches. Delay shown represents the delay experienced at the worst ‐case stop ‐controlled approach of the intersection. The large majority of approaching traffic operates under free ‐flow conditions. ** Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated. ***Unsignalized intersection, operating at LOS F, analyzed as signalized intersections in order to determine a V/C ratio.
14 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 5: Future (Year 2025) “Without Medians” and “With Alternative B Max Medians” Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
15 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 8. FUTURE (YEAR 2030) CONDITIONS This section provides the methodologies used for determining traffic volumes and traffic analysis for future (year 2030) conditions. 8.1. Future (Year 2030) “Without medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis City staff also provided 2030 turning movement volumes for seven (7) out of eight (8) signalized intersections from the City’s Travel Demand Forecast Model (TDFM). As this study includes 25 total intersections, an adjustment factor was applied to the remaining intersections based on a comparison of the turning movement volumes in 2013 and 2030. The morning and evening peak hour level of service analyses were conducted for the 25 study intersections based on the traffic volumes calculations and the adopted methodologies described previously. The future (year 2030) “without medians” conditions level of service analysis results are summarized in Table 6 , and illustrated in Figure 6. 8.2. Future (Year 2030) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Volumes and Traffic Analysis This scenario consists of Future (Year 2030) “without medians” plus traffic shifted by the proposed medians. Table 6 summarizes the peak hour level of service results, and illustrated in Figure 6 . The resultant change in delay comparing the future (year 2030) “with Alternative B max medians” and “without medians” conditions is also presented in the table. The traffic analysis for Future (Year 2030) scenarios demonstrates that the addition of medians does not negatively impact level of service operations at signalized intersections along the corridor, except for the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd. As shown in Table 4, it should be noted that the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd is already at capacity in existing conditions and in Future (Year 2025) scenario. Similar to the existing conditions and Future (Year 2025) scenarios, operations at nearly all of the unsignalized intersections along the corridor appear to improve with the addition of the proposed medians, for the reasons described in Section 6.2.
16 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 T ABLE 6: F UTURE (Y EAR 2030) I NTERSECTION LOS Intersection Traffic Control Intersection Type Future (Year 2030) “Without Median” Future (Year 2030) “With Alternative B Max Medians” Change in Delay (s) or V/C Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 WB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial C 29.2 0.92 D 35.6 0.88 C 29.3 0.92 D 35.6 0.88 0.1 0.0 No 2 Lincoln Blvd/I ‐10 EB Off Ramps Signalized Arterial C 32.9 0.79 D 37.4 0.66 C 34.5 0.81 D 37.4 0.66 1.6 0 No 3 Lincoln Blvd/Michigan Ave Signalized Arterial C 25.0 0.74 B 14.1 0.54 C 25.1 0.74 B 14.3 0.55 0.1 0.2 No 4 Lincoln Blvd/Pico Blvd Signalized Arterial D 37.6 0.77 D 36.8 0.78 D 36.9 0.77 D 37.5 0.78 ‐0.7 0.7 No 5 Lincoln Blvd/Bay St Unsignalized* Arterial C 21.8 ‐ F 81.1 ‐ B 14.0 ‐ E 37.6 ‐ ‐7.8 ‐43.5 No 6 Lincoln Blvd/Grant St Unsignalized* Arterial C 24.4 ‐ E 48.6 ‐ C 17.2 ‐ D 28.9 ‐ ‐7.2 ‐19.7 No 7 Lincoln Blvd/Pacific St Unsignalized* Arterial D 28.2 ‐ D 28.3 ‐ C 18.7 ‐ C 20.2 ‐ ‐9.5 ‐8.1 No 8 Lincoln Blvd/Strand St Unsignalized* Arterial B 13.3 ‐ C 17.0 ‐ B 12.2 ‐ B 14.0 ‐ ‐1.1 ‐3 No 9 Lincoln Blvd/Pearl St Signalized Arterial A 9.6 0.60 A 5.9 0.46 B 17.1 0.66 B 11.0 0.50 7.5 5.1 No 10 Lincoln Blvd/Kensington Rd Unsignalized* Arterial C 24.4 ‐ D 25.7 ‐ C 21.0 ‐ C 21.7 ‐ ‐3.4 ‐4 No 11 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.3 ‐ B 11.6 ‐ B 10.1 ‐ A 9.4 ‐ ‐2.2 ‐2.2 No 12 Lincoln Blvd/Cedar St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 16.5 ‐ C 23.6 ‐ C 15.3 ‐ C 20.2 ‐ ‐1.2 ‐3.4 No 13 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (N) Unsignalized* Arterial C 15.1 ‐ B 12.8 ‐ B 14.1 ‐ B 12.0 ‐ ‐1 ‐0.8 No 14 Lincoln Blvd/Pine St (S) Unsignalized* Arterial B 11.7 ‐ B 12.1 ‐ B 11.0 ‐ B 11.3 ‐ ‐0.7 ‐0.8 No 15 Lincoln Blvd/Maple St Unsignalized* Arterial B 11.5 ‐ B 13.0 ‐ B 10.4 ‐ A 9.5 ‐ ‐1.1 ‐3.5 No 16 Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd Signalized Arterial E 56.7 0.96 D 45.9 0.83 E 60.5 0.99 D 46.7 0.84 3.8 0.8 YES 17 Lincoln Blvd/Hill St Unsignalized* Arterial C 23.5 ‐ E 36.2 ‐ B 13.5 ‐ D 27.6 ‐ ‐10 ‐8.6 No 18 Lincoln Blvd/Raymond Ave Unsignalized* Arterial A 9.5 ‐ C 16.6 ‐ A 9.5 ‐ B 14.5 ‐ 0 ‐2.1 No 19 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (N) Signalized Arterial A 2.4 0.46 A 2.8 0.50 A 4.1 0.51 A 5.9 0.55 1.7 3.1 No 20 Lincoln Blvd/Ashland Ave (S) Unsignalized* Arterial C 21.1 ‐ B 13.2 ‐ C 16.6 ‐ B 11.3 ‐ ‐4.5 ‐1.9 No 21 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave/Wilson Pl Unsignalized* Arterial C 17.8 ‐ C 15.7 ‐ B 11.6 ‐ B 10.7 ‐ ‐6.2 ‐5 No 22 Lincoln Blvd/Pier Ave Unsignalized* Arterial B 12.5 ‐ C 15.8 ‐ B 10.4 ‐ A 9.9 ‐ ‐2.1 ‐5.9 No 23 Lincoln Blvd/Marine St Unsignalized* Arterial D 26.5 ‐ C 17.3 ‐ C 18.3 ‐ B 13.1 ‐ ‐8.2 ‐4.2 No 24 Lincoln Blvd/Navy St/Marine St Signalized Arterial B 18.5 0.76 C 23.6 0.84 C 22.5 0.82 C 30.5 0.89 4 6.9 No 25 Lincoln Blvd/Ozone St Unsignalized*** Arterial F * 0.570 F * 0.540 F * 0.570 F * 0.540 0.000 0.000 No Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume ‐to ‐Capacity Ratio *Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs at minor approaches. Delay shown represents the delay experienced at the worst ‐case stop ‐controlled approach of the intersection. The large majority of approaching traffic operates under free ‐flow conditions. ** Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated. ***Unsignalized intersection, operating at LOS F, analyzed as signalized intersections in order to determine a V/C ratio.
17 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 Figure 6: Future (Year 2030) “Without Medians” and “With Alternative B Max Medians” Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
18 | Page Lincoln Boulevard Landscaped Center Median Traffic Analysis November 10, 2015 9. SUMMARY Operationally, Lincoln Blvd. would function very similar to today with either median alternative. This is primarily due to the relatively low volume of peak period vehicles that would be diverted by any proposed median; as typically, between 5 and 30 additional vehicles per hour would divert during peak hours. In the existing conditions scenarios (with and without medians), four intersections operate at LOS E or F. Based on the City’s thresholds of significance, the addition of the proposed medians does not negatively impact the LOS at signalized intersections. The traffic analysis for Future Year 2025 and Year 2030 scenarios shows that there are no significant impacts at any of the 25 study intersections, except for the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd. o For Future Year (2025), the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd goes from LOS D, in the “without medians” scenario, to LOS E in the “with Alternative B max medians” scenario in the a.m. peak hour, with a slight change in delay of 4.8 seconds. o For Future Year (2030), this intersection operates at LOS E for both scenarios, “without medians” and “with Alternative B max medians”, in the a.m. peak hour. It should be noted that the intersection of Lincoln Blvd/Ocean Park Blvd is already at capacity, and vehicles can sometimes wait through two full signal cycles before progressing through the intersection. The change in operations resulting from the median alternative would be negligible and likely not even perceptible to vehicles using Lincoln. Under all scenarios, the addition of proposed medians appears to improve operations at nearly every unsignalized intersection along the corridor. There are two primary reasons for the improvement in LOS and delay at unsignalized intersections: 1. The addition of medians results in increased left ‐ and U ‐turn movements at signalized intersections. This condition requires longer time intervals for left ‐turn signals, which creates longer gaps in traffic for upstream or downstream flow on Lincoln Boulevard. Because of longer gaps in traffic, more time is available for vehicles to make turns to or from Lincoln Boulevard at the unsignalized intersections, and therefore results in improved LOS and reduced average vehicle delays. 2. At intersection locations where the proposed medians would restrict left ‐turns, the overall operations of these unsignalized intersections are greatly improved. Since the left ‐turn movement is typically the “worst case” movement from an unsignalized side street, requiring the largest gaps in traffic and resulting in the greatest average vehicle delays, the introduction of the proposed median and the subsequent prohibition of the left ‐turn movement results in substantial improvements to intersection LOS and average vehicle delays.
Lincoln
Boulevard
Busi ness
Improvement
District
Feasibility
Study
Prepared
for
The
City
of
Santa
Monica
October
13,
2015
Written
by
Katie
Gibson
Urban
Place
Consulting
Group,
Inc.
Steve
Gibson,
President
5318
E.
Second
St.,
Suite
336
Long
Beach,
CA
90803
562 -‐‑439 -‐‑6571
steve@urbanplaceconsulting.com
www.urbanplaceconsulting.com
1
Background
In
201 2 ,
Caltrans
relinquished
control
of
Lincoln
Boulevard
to
the
City
of
Santa
Mon ica .
The
City
then
embarked
on
a
resurfacing
project
that
lead
to
a
more
comprehensive
neighborhood
visioning
project ,
The
Lincoln
Neighborhood
Corridor
Plan
(LiNC).
The
LiNC
incorporates
detailed
streetscape
design,
Parking
and
TDM,
Transit
Network
Enhanc ement,
Beautification,
Public
Outreach,
and
Business
Improvement.
Through
t he
LiNC
project
the
City
of
Santa
Monica
establish ed :
• A
boundary
map
o Lincoln
Boulevard
south
of
the
I -‐‑10
Freeway
to
the
City’s
southern
limits
at
Ozone
Avenue ;
• A
t ime
line
o Project
began
in
winter
2014
and
will
conclude
with
a
plan
adoption
Spring
2016 ;
• A
v ision
for
the
corridor
o Ascertained
through
several
wo rkshops
and
community
outreach.
As
part
of
the
project,
Urban
Place
Consulting
Group,
Inc.,
(Urban
Place)
was
asked
to
help
identify
potential
placemaking
projects
and
research
the
advantages
of
forming
a
Business
Improvement
District .
Business
Improvement
Districts
B usiness
Improvement
D istricts
(BID s )
have
been
in
existence
since
the
1970 s
as
funding
mechanisms
to
rev italize
and
maintain
commercial
districts .
I n
the
United
States ,
they
currently
raise
well
over
$100
million
annually
to
improve
commercial
centers,
“Main
Streets”
and
downtowns.
The
num ber
of
BIDs
in
North
America
is
approaching
1 ,000
and
several
countrie s ,
including
the
United
Kingdom,
Australia,
New
Zealand,
Ireland,
France,
Sweden,
Japan,
South
Africa ,
and
Mexico ,
are
beginning
to
organize
BID
structures
in
their
cities.
BIDs
help
improve
the
economic
vitality
of
commercial
districts
and
neighborhoods
by
receiving
annual
mandatory
assessments
from
business
or
property
owners,
and
using
those
assessments
to
fund
the
resources
most
needed
in
the
district ,
services
such
as:
Maintenance
sidewalk
sweeping
sidewalk
pressure
wash
trash
pick
up
graffiti
r emoval
tree
trimming
landscaping
Advocacy/Lobbying
city/state/federal
obtaining
grants
issues
forums,
briefings
Image
&
Communications
image
enhancement
programs
newsletters,
fax
updates
banner
program
retail
advertising/promotions
public
relations
industry
specific
marketing
2
Security/Safety
hospitality
guides
bike
patrol
auto
patrol
anti -‐‑panhandling
programs
illegal
vending
Planning
&
Development
vision
&
strategic
planning
design
assistance
development
assistance
Events
Programming
festivals
farmers/craft
market
event
facilitation
parades
Streetscape
Improvements
signage
lighting
benches,
outdoor
dining
sidewalk
improvements
landscape
improvements
Economic
Development
business
recruitment/retention
market
research
small
business
support
residential
development
façade
improvement
programs
loan
programs
Parking
&
Transportation
parking
validation
program
parking
management
shuttle
services
circulation,
1
way/2
way
Sts
Cultural
Arts
arts
district
management
special
arts
events
public
art
programs
Social
Services
homelessness
programs
job
training
&
placement
Research
by
the
Furman
Center
for
Real
Estate
and
Urban
Policy
at
New
York
University
in
2007
found
that,
o n
average,
the
value
of
commercial
property
within
New
York
City
BID s
is
approximately
15 %
higher
than
comparable
properties
in
the
same
neighborhood
but
outside
the
BID 's
boundaries .
Likewise,
in
Los
Angeles,
for
example,
the
Fashion
District
BID
created
an
atmosphere
of
investment
and
stability
causing
retail
v acancy
rates
there
to
decline
3%
in
only
three
years.
Santa
Monica
currently
has
four
BIDS
in
operation ,
all
with
different
visions,
goals ,
and
budgets .
There
is
one
property
based
assessment
district
with
a
higher
budget
to
fund
programs
such
as
Clean
and
Safe,
which
is
what
is
recommended
for
Lincoln
Boulevard,
and
three
business
based
districts
with
lower
budgets
that
fund
programs
s uch
as
marketing.
They
are:
• Downtown
Santa
Monica,
Inc.
o Property
Based
Business
Assessment
District
§ Safety
§ Maintenance
§ Marketing
&
Publicity
§ Events
§ Economic
Development
3
• Main
Street
o Business
Based
Business
Improvement
District
§ Marketing
• Montana
Avenue
o Business
Based
Business
Improvement
District
§ Marketing
• Pico
Improvement
Organization
o Business
Based
Business
Improvement
District
§ Marketing
§ Streetscape
Improvements
Recently
on
July
14,
2015
the
Santa
Monica
City
Council
extend ed
the
current
Downtown
PBAD
two
blocks
east
from
7 th
Court
to
Lincoln
Court
from
Wilshire
to
the
I -‐‑10
Freeway
to
provide
enhanced
maintenance,
ambassador
services,
marketing ,
and
beautification
projects –such
as
signage,
seating,
holiday
décor
and
planters.
Purpose
This
report
is
a
summary
of
stakeholder
interviews ,
meetings,
surveys ,
and
on -‐‑site
research
conducted
by
Urban
Place
from
September
2014
to
October
201 5 .
The
purpose
of
the
report
is
to
provide
the
City
of
Santa
Monica
with
the
following:
1. A
review
of
the
outreach
and
discussions
facilitated
by
Urban
Place;
2. An
explanation
of
the
two
types
of
Business
Improvement
Districts;
3. Urban
Place's
recommendation
to
pursue
a
property -‐‑based
Business
Assessment
District
(PB A D).
Determining
the
Need
Outreach
As
part
of
the
LiNC
p rocess,
Urban
Place
met
with
stakeholders
to
talk
about
the
issues
facing
Lincoln
Blvd
and
how
t heir
properties
and
businesses
are
affected.
The
consultant
team
also
walked
the
district
numerous
times
to
observe
and
assess
its
physical
condition
as
well
as
the
uses
and
behavioral
patterns
of
people
using
the
street.
The
combination
of
interviews ,
meetings ,
research,
and
observations
form
the
foundation
of
this
report.
•Vision •Issues Stakholder
Interviews •Vision •Barriers •Possible
options including
BID Focus
Groups •Organize
stakeholders •PBAD
Formation Steering
Committee
Formation
4
As
a
result
of
several
Stakeholder
interviews
and
focus
group
meetings,
a
steering
committee
was
established
to
discuss
the
needs
and
vision
further.
The
Steering
Committee
consists
of
both
business
owners
and
property
owners
along
Lincoln
Boulevard.
Mailed
paper
surveys
and
online
surveys
were
also
conducted
during
the
research
timeframe,
with
2 5 %
response
received.
The
respondents
of
the
survey
were
asked
to
rate
various
attributes
of
the
existing
neighborhood
and
rank
improvements
or
programs
that
w ould
benefit
their
business
or
property
in
the
future.
Additionally,
Urban
Place
proposed
an
adopt -‐‑a -‐‑planter
project
and
helped
with
outreach
for
a
façade
improvement
concept
(adaptive
re -‐‑use)
to
help
stakeholders
and
members
of
the
public
visualize
how
sm all
improvements
could
change
the
look
and
feel
of
public
and
private
space
on
Lincoln
Boulevard .
One -‐on -‐one
Stakeholder
Interviews
Through
the
Stakeholder
Interviews
Urban
Place
sought
to
gain
an
understanding
of
the
needs
and
opportunities
for
Lincoln
Bl vd,
and
get
a
feel
for
the
neighborhood
from
the
people
that
use
it
and
do
business
there
every
day.
The
following
questions
were
asked
of
each
participant:
1. Type
of
Business?
2. How
long
have
you
been
in
business
on
Lincoln
Blvd?
3. Why
did
you
choose
Lincoln
B lvd?
4. Who
are
your
customers?
a. Where
do
they
come
from?
b. How
do
they
get
here?
5. In
the
past
3
years
has
your
business
increased,
stayed
the
same,
or
decreased?
6. What
are
the
issues
affecting
your
business,
both
positive
and
negative?
7. What
is
your
vision
of
Linc oln
Blvd?
8. Thoughts
on
concepts
like
a
BID
or
merchant
association?
The
types
of
businesses
ranged
from
non -‐‑profit,
retail,
restaurant,
fitness
studio,
to
service
based
establishments ,
including
representatives
from
the
Chamber
of
Commerce,
Beautify
Earth,
Santa
Monica
School
District,
Cardio
Barre,
Santino’s ,
Aika
Bike
Shop,
and
(m)Arch
Architects .
Each
person
had
their
own
take
on
the
neighborhood
and
their
place
in
it,
The
common
i ssues
discussed
were:
(in
no
particular
order)
• City
permitting/timelines
and
regulations
• Congestion/traffic
• Lack
of
bike/walk
friendly
amenities
(safe
bike
lanes,
crosswalks)
• Clean
• Safe
• Homeless
• Lack
of
cohesive
landscaping
and
facades
• Limited
parking
5
The
consensus
on
the
vision
going
forward
for
Lincoln
Blvd.
was:
(in
no
particular
order)
• Work
more
efficiently
with
city
processes
• Less
traffic
and
congestion
• Pedestrian
friendly
• Bike
friendly
• Cohesive
landscaping
• Improved
facades
• Beautification
• Clean • S afe • Diverse
mix
of
services,
retail,
and
restaurants
to
serve
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
Stakeholder
Focus
Group
Meetings
Urban
Place
also
met
with
stakeholders,
business
and
property
owners
in
group
meetings.
The
concerns
that
were
raised
in
the
group
meetings
were
very
similar
to
those
raised
in
the
individual
meetings.
Stakeholders
were
asked
to
give
input
in
two
areas;
the
first
area
of
discussion
was
the
vision
for
Lincoln
Blvd.
The
object
of
the
vision
discussion
was
to
define
elements
of
the
visio n
and
find
out
what
the
stakeholders
wanted
to
see
done.
The
focus
groups’
vision
for
Lincoln
Blvd
included:
(in
no
particular
order)
• Better
traffic
flow
• Diverse
business
offerings
serving
the
neighborhoods
• More
food
options
• Bike
friendly
• Pedestrian
friendly
with
more
safe
crosswalks
• Beautification,
landscaping,
lighting
• Safety
• Clean
• Better
access
to
boulevard
and
better
parking/more
parking
options
• More
trees
• No/less
homeless
• Cleaner/safer
alleys
• Creative
projects
like
parklets
The
second
area
of
di scussion
was
about
the
“barriers”
to
get
to
that
vision.
The
“barriers”
were
defined
by
the
stakeholders
as :
(in
no
particular
order)
• The
City
o Conditions
on
projects
o Zoning
and
rules
o Development
held
up
in
committee
o Time
frames
and
schedules
o Shifting
politics
o Permits
and
costs
of
permits
• Residential
community
surrounding
Lincoln
Blvd
o Perception
is
residents
are
anti -‐‑growth
and
development
6
• Homeless
• Safety
perception
• Appearance
of
store
fronts
• Parking
• Traffic
• Stakeholders
not
working
together
Surveys
The
s urvey,
distributed
both
online
and
via
mail,
sought
to
gain
an
understanding
of
the
needs
and
opportunities
for
Lincoln
Boulevard .
We
received
2 5
responses,
out
of
100
surveys
sent ,
with
all
of
them
being
from
property
owners.
In
many
BIDs
t hroughout
Los
Angeles
and
the
country,
some
of
the
most
comm on
services
pr ovided
are
Clean,
Safe ,
and
Beautiful
p rogram s,
which
help
to
clean
sidewalks
and
litter ,
provide
information
and
safety
services ,
and
provide
landscape
planting
and
maintenance
to
t he
district.
These
services
usually
make
up
70%-‐‑80%
of
a
BID
budget .
As
seen
in
the
chart s
below,
Property
Owners
were
asked
to
rank
programs
that
could
help
improve
Lincoln
Boulevard
and
what
the
current
issues
are.
In
both
questions
c lean
and
safe
ra nk ed
as
top
priorities
that
are
needed
on
Lincoln
Boulevard :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RANK CHOICE WEIGHTED RANK Street festivals and events District signage program Parking management program Cooperative marketing: banner, business directory and website Pedestrian Improvements Retail and/or o ffi ce space development or leasing programs Homeless/Panhandling Programs Increased security program Maintanance program: trash removal,sidewalk cleaning and gra ffi ti removal 8.04 6.76 5.48 4.92 4.80 4.60 3.92 3.36 3.12 Question 01 In your opinion which of the following programs would be a benefit to your property and attract tenants or increase business activity?Answers 25 100%
7
In
addition,
the
Property
Owners
rated
the
overall
attractiveness
and
cleanliness
of
the
neighborhood
as
poor,
along
with
Places
to
Sit
Outside
and
Street
Trees/Landscaping
g enerating
the
most
concern :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RANK CHOICE WEIGHTED RANK Parking cost Retail mix issues Customer attraction/marketing Pedestrian beauti fi cation improvement Parking availability Property development issues Homeless and Panhandling Maintaining a safe environment Maintaining a clean environment 8.44 7.60 6.60 5.56 5.56 5.16 4.44 4.36 4.00 10 Trasportation and access 3.28 Please provide input on the issues currently facing Lincoln Boulevard.Answers 25 100%Question 05
8
In
terms
of
traffic
and
parking,
Property
Owners
feel
that
there
is
room
for
improvement
in
on -‐‑street
and
off -‐‑street
parking
and
in
signage
to
access
that
parking.
Several
BID’s
across
Los
Angeles
and
the
country
have
become
involved
with
signage
programs
and
parking
management
programs,
successfully
lobb y ing
City
government
for
funding,
and
implementing
programs
to
improve
the
parking
perception
and
reality :
9
When
asked
about
who
the
Property
Owners
would
like
to
see
using
the
district
and
what
entertainment
they
think
would
be
appropriate,
they
responded
rating
all
users
as
appropriate.
Dining
and
retail
users
were
the
highest
rated :
10
Respondents
were
asked
to
rank,
what
changes
needed
to
take
place
to
improve
business
on
Lincoln
Boulevard .
As
shown
in
chart
below,
the
top
responses
were
the
perception
of
the
area
and
homeless/panhandling
issues .
BID’s
often
help
in
both
of
these
areas .
Perception
can
be
changed
through
marketing
different
aspects
of
a
district ,
for
example,
if
an
area
is
safe,
but
the
perception
is
that
it’s
not,
BID’s
can
market
the
safe
aspects
and
get
a
new
message
out
about
the
area.
However,
if
the
perception
of
safety
is
a
real
issue,
the
BID
can
institute
a
safe
program
to
bett er
the
neighborhood
and
then
change
the
perception
through
marketing.
BID’s
across
Los
Angeles
have
also
recently
begun
programs
to
help
deal
with
the
homeless
issues
and
have
partnered
with
different
outreach
organizations,
such
as
PATH -‐‑People
Assisting
T he
Homeless,
to
help
find
housing
and
get
the
homeless
the
resources
they
need
to
succeed .
This
usually
changes
some
very
important
perceptions,
allowing
the
neighborhood
to
grow
and
transition
into
a
destination.
The
PBAD
could
work
with
the
City's
Human
Services
Division
and/or
related
social
service
organizations
in
Santa
Monica
to
improve
the
relationship
between
the
homeless
and
the
merchants/property
owners.
Research
and
Observations
The
LiNC
process
has
involved
input
from
the
residential
and
business
communities,
from
Boulevard
stakeholders,
social
service
organizations,
the
School
District
and
the
City’s
Boards
and
Commissions.
General
observations
have
described
Lincoln
Blvd.
as
a
wide,
auto -‐‑centric
thoroughfare
to
the
I -‐‑10
Freeway,
which
h osts
a
variety
of
active
service -‐‑related
businesses
that
cater
mostly
to
vehicles.
The
streetscape,
landscaping
and
pattern
of
land
uses
do
not
directly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RANK CHOICE WEIGHTED RANK Marketing/events Transportation/access City rules and regulations Parking Security/maintenance Improve sidewalks and streets Homeless/panhandling Perception/image of area 6.52 5.44 4.80 4.48 4.40 3.88 3.32 3.16 Question 08 What needs to change to improve business on Lincoln Boulevard?Answers 25 100%
11
attract
pedestrians,
which
is
exacerbated
by
limited
pedestrian
amenities,
such
as
crosswalks,
lightin g
or
seating.
The
perception
of
that
parking
is
insufficient
or
difficult
to
find
is
also
a
detriment
to
a
vibrant
mixed -‐‑mode
corridor,
and
a
decisive
lack
of
placemaking
or
district
branding
has
led
to
the
environment
of
limited
investment
and
maintenanc e
that
characterizes
much
of
the
Lincoln
Blvd.
corridor.
The
City’s
willingness
to
invest
in
the
vision
and
possible
public
infrastructure
is
apparent
through
the
efforts
to
define
and
ultimately
implement
the
LiNC
projects.
However,
many
of
the
concerns
surrounding
Lincoln
Boulevard
stem
from
private
property
issues
-‐‑
the
street
contains
a
dominant
pattern
of
tired
buildings
and
facades
in
need
a
face
lift,
and
the
sidewalk
environment
is
uncared
for,
dirty
and
lacking
in
pedestrian
amenities
that
would
a ttract
people
from
the
neighborhoods.
These
issues
can
be
greatly
helped
through
the
efforts
of
a
dedicated
organization,
such
as
a
Property
Based
Assessment
District,
which
would
provide
group
representation
and
enhancement
services
for
corridor -‐‑wide
bus inesses
and
properties.
Lincoln
Boulevard
must
make
a
dedicated
effort
to
improve
its
environment
if
it
wants
to
create
a
place
people
want
to
be
and
enjoy.
With
so
many
other
great
places
nearby
such
as
Main
Street
and
the
Promenade,
Lincoln
needs
to
establish
an
identity
that
makes
it
unique .
With
a
new
organization
(such
as
a
PBAD )
dedicated
to
revitalizing
Lincoln
Boulevard ,
and
the
consistent
financial
means
to
back
it
(annual
assessments),
Lincoln
c ould
become
a
beautiful
and
vibrant,
pedestrian -‐‑f riendly
neighborhood
tha t
would
offer
a
unique
atmosphere
for
visitors
and
residents,
and
encourage
existing
businesses
to
mature
gracefully
in
place,
while
also
allowing
new
businesses
to
open
their
doors.
The
Expo
station ,
blocks
away,
will
add
further
a ppeal
and
accessibility
to
Lincoln
Boulevard ,
making
it
a
destination.
Summary
of
Needs
In
the
surveys,
interviews,
meetings
and
focus
groups
the
same
message
was
repeated.
People
want
to
like
and
use
Lincoln
B oulevar d,
but
there
is
a
need
to
improve
the
physical
environment
of
the
corridor,
the
traffic
and
parking
realities/perceptions,
the
pedestrian/crosswalk
issues,
the
safety
perceptions,
the
retail/services
mix ,
and
the
relationship
between
the
stakeholders
an d
the
City
of
Santa
Monica.
The
needs
there
are
similar
to
other
commercial
districts
across
the
country.
Many
of
these
districts,
especially
the
ones
that
are
striving
to
be
“Grea t
Places,”
have
implemented
BIDs
to
address
issues
like
the
ones
faced
by
Li ncoln
B oulevar d.
Through
BID
programs
like
C lean,
S afe
and
B eautiful,
along
with
the
LiNC
project,
Lincolns
physical
environment
can
be
transformed.
Although
BID’s
cannot
change
traffic
in
Los
Angeles
and
Santa
Monica,
they
can
change
the
perception
of
p arking.
Since
the
reality
of
parking
is
not
a
problem
on
Lincoln,
a
BID
can
market
its
assets
and
make
people
aware
of
the
parking
opportunities,
changing
the
perception.
While
the
LiNC
project
tackles
larger
crosswalk
issues,
a
BID
can
implement
smaller
p lacemaking
projects
such
as
adopt -‐‑a -‐‑planter
and
art
on
utility
boxes.
They
can
lobby
for
changes
to
ordinances
allowing
curb
cafes,
and
other
innovative
ideas
making
the
pedestrian
and
user
experience
better.
A
BID
can
also
lobby
at
city
planning
level
for
neighborhood
projects,
and
help
the
stakeholders
traverse
the
city
processes,
while
working
with
the
city
to
help
make
those
processes
easier
to
navigate.
Programs
such
as
branding
and
marketing
can
give
a
street
like
Lincoln
a
unique
identity,
allowing
people
to
connect
to
and
experience
Lincoln
Blvd .
Ultimately
that’s
all
people
want,
to
connect –to
12
each
other,
to
the
places
they
spend
their
time,
and
through
the
experiences
they
have.
A
BID
can
create
those
experiences
and
those
places
to
help
connect
community.
Support
While
the
survey
sample
is
only
a
portion
of
the
stakeholders
on
the
Boulevard ,
the
percentage
of
respondents
who
claimed
that
they
were
“Interes ted”
or
“Very
Interested”
in
a
BID
for
Lincoln
(over
75 %)
is
high
at
this
point
in
the
proce ss.
D iscussion
of
BID
Types
One
of
the
tasks
of
this
phase
of
the
project
was
to
determine
which
type
of
BID
would
best
suit
Lincoln
Boulevard .
While
most
states
allow
for
assessment
districts
based
only
on
property -‐‑ownership
(PB A Ds),
California
law
also
allows
the
establishment
of
assessment
districts
based
on
business
ownership
(BBIDs).
Urban
Place
presented
the
pr os
and
cons
of
each
BID
type
at
public
meetings
with
both
business
and
property
owners
in
attendance .
The
following
tables
summarize
thes e
differences:
Business -‐‑Based
BIDs
(BBIDs)
Pros
Cons
• Designed and created by those who will pay assessment • Governed and implemented by those who pay assessment • Provides a collective voice for business owners • Allows for different rates for different types of businesses
• Smaller assessment from large number of rate payers • Assessment collected as part of city business license with no lien rights for delinquency • Difficulty achieving consensus with 502 business licenses on Lincoln Blvd • Vacancies will reduce operating revenue
• Requires City approval and funding reports to establish BID
13
Property -‐‑Based
BIDs
(P B A Ds)
Pros
Cons
• Larger assessment allows for wider range of services • Set term -up to 20 years in Santa Monica • Designed and created by those who will pay assessment • Governed and implemented by those who pay assessment • Provides a collective voice for property owners • Assessment collected as part of county tax bill with lien rights for delinquency • Vacancies will not reduce operating revenue
• Difficult two step establishment process • Renewal process is the same difficult process as establishment
• Requires City approval and funding reports to establish BID
While
the
majority
of
BIDs
in
California
are
PB A Ds,
there
are
several
examples
of
BBIDs
that
have
been
successful
(such
as
Pico
Boulevard
and
Main
Street ).
BBIDs
have
been
successful
in
implementing
events
and
promotions
to
bring
people
to
the
district,
but
they
generally
lack
the
funding
or
vision
to
make
any
sustaining,
long -‐‑term
physical
change.
For
that,
property
owners
must
be
involved.
The
larger
budgets
and
longer
terms
of
PB A Ds
allow
the
managing
non -‐‑profit
organization,
and
its
Board,
to
focus
on
programs
that
will
change
the
physical
ap p earance
of
a
neighborhood
in
addition
to
marketing
and
producing
events .
Based
on
the
needs
of
Lincoln
Blvd,
to
not
only
beautify
the
street
and
make
it
pedestrian
friendly ,
but
to
work
more
cohesively
with
the
city ,
encourage
a
better
mix
of
businesses,
and
cr eate
a
sense
of
place,
the
stakeholders
attending
community
meetings
expressed
unanimously
to
pursue
a
property -‐‑based
BID
(PB A D).
Urban
Place
also
recommends
that
the
City
pursue
the
formation
of
a
property -‐‑based
BID
(PB A D)
for
Lincoln
Blvd.
P B A D
Establi shment
PB A Ds
address
issues
such
as
security,
cleaning
and
maintenance,
homelessness,
retail
recruitment/retention,
economic
development,
parking,
etc.
By
addressing
these
issues,
they
change
the
reality
and
more
importantly,
the
perception,
of
a
business
district.
PB A Ds
can
fund
services
that
are
above
and
beyond
what
the
City
currently
provides.
PB A Ds
are
also
a
source
of
leadership
and
management.
The
property
owners
take
control
and
manage
the
business
district
by
assessing
themselves,
which
makes
the
P B A D
a
provider
of
finances ,
as
well.
This
assessment
is
on
the
C ounty
tax
bill
and
collected
by
the
County;
however,
it
is
then
returned
to
the
PB A D
to
perform
the
services
that
the
property
owners
have
deemed
necessary
to
make
their
district
a
great
place .
Preliminary
Programs
and
Budget
Our
initial
research
and
knowledge
of
P B A D
programs
and
costs
indicates
that
a n
annual
budget
of
approximately
$4 00,000
to
$6 00,000
is
needed
to
f und
the
programs
and
activities,
such
as
a
clean
14
team
and
a
safe
team,
that
Lincoln
Boulevard
needs.
In
response
to
surveys,
interviews,
research
and
consultant
observations,
we
believe
improvements
in
the
following
areas
would
strengthen
the
perception
and
reality
of
Lincoln
and
greatly
enhance
the
user
experience:
1. Maintenance
(Clean)
a. trash
pick
up
b. sidewalk
sweeping
c. sidewalk
pressure
wash
d. graffiti
removal
e. tree
trimming
f. landscaping
2. Safe
a. bike /auto
patrol
b. homeless/panhandling
programs
3. Economic
Development
a. branding
b. marketing
c. retail
recruitment
and
retention
4. Advocacy/Lobbying
a. city/state/federal
b. obtaining
grants/funding
Boundaries
Boundaries
will
be
determined
in
the
next
phase
of
the
project,
but
generally
include
the
properties
fronting
Lincoln
Boulevard
from
Ozone
to
the
10
freeway .
Assessment
Equality
One
of
the
important
te ne ts
of
PB A D
law
is
that
the
manner
of
assessment
is
one
that
fairly
and
equitably
distributes
the
burden
of
financing
the
supplemental
services
among
real
property
owners
within
the
district.
The
most
common
assessment
variables
are
property
frontage,
lot
square
footage ,
and
building
square
footage.
Most
PB A Ds
use
one
or
more
of
these
variable s
to
assess
property.
Recommendation
Urban
Place
recommend s
that
the
City
of
Santa
Monica
commit
to
forming
a
PB A D
to
revitalize
Lincoln
Boulevard .
This
will
help
to
establish
a
strong
private
sector
organization
wit h
a
dependable
financial
core.
This
self -‐‑sufficient
organization
is
necessary
in
order
to
create
a
great
business
district.
We
also
recommend
that
the
Lincoln
Boulevard
Steering
Committee ,
set -‐‑up
through
the
LiNC
project
to
receive
in -‐‑put
from
the
stakeholders,
evolve
into
a
leadership
organization
with
adequate
staff
to
manage
the
programs
that
are
funded
by
the
PB A D.
This
organization
would
have
a
B oard
whose
majority
would
be
property
o wners ,
with
some
business
owners.
The
B oard
would
establish
the
vision,
set
the
goals
for
the
district ,
and
act
in
an
oversight
capacity.
The
s taff
would
be
charged
with
developing
the
programs
and
initiatives
to
fulfill
the
vision
and
meet
the
goals .
15
Next
Steps
Timeframe
Phase
Tasks
1
day
-‐‑-‐‑
City
Council
approves
funding
for
PB A D
establishment
2
months
Phase
1
Program
Development
Stakeholder
focus
groups
One -‐‑on -‐‑one
meetings
Budget
and
program
development
Continue
steering
committee
meetings
Database
developmen t
1
month
Phase
2
Plan
Development
Draft
management
plan
Define
assessment
methodology
Draft
engineer’s
report
Continue
database
development
Develop
governance
structure
1
month
Phase
3
Plan
Review
Plan
review
workshops
One -‐‑on -‐‑one
consensus
building
Continue
steering
committee
meetings
Final
plan
development
City
Council
approves
management
plan/engineers
report
and
approves
funding
for
general
benefit
2
months
Phase
4
Property
Owner
Acceptance
Campaign
strategy
and
training
Develop
communication/newsletter
Draft
petition,
review
by
City
Petition
packaging
and
distribution
Campaign
management
and
meetings
2
months
Phase
5
Public
Hearing/City
Council
Process
City
Council
accepts
petitions
and
adopts
resolution
of
intention
for
the
est ablishment
of
a
PB A D
City
Council
authorizes
mailing
of
ballots
218
Ballot
process
City
Council
holds
public
hearings
and
accepts
the
election
results ,
adopts
resolution
Develop
contracts
with
City
Prepare
database
for
assesso r
Summary
Lincoln
Boulevard
has
a
solid
foundation .
T here
is
definitely
momentum
on
the
street
and
has
potential
to
be
a
model
of
adaptive
re -‐‑use
for
the
City
of
Santa
Monica
and
other
cities
around
the
country.
It
can
and
should
transition
from
a
solely
service
oriented
corridor
to
a
complete
offering
of
services,
retail
and
pedestrian
environment,
that
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
use
and
love.
A
PB A D
will
provide
the
resources,
leadership ,
and
long -‐‑term
vision
Lincoln
B oulevard
needs
to
enhance
its
atmosphere
and
user
experience
while
maintaining
its
organic
small -‐‑business
climate.
Is the LiNC Project Meeting Our Goals? To measure the project’s progr ess against the project’s eight goals as the third phase of work is concluded, staff has prepared the below matrix that demonstrates how each component addresses desired outcomes, an d how many of the streetscape, transportation network and business enhancements are mutually supportive towards the big picture goal of transitioning Lincol n Boulevard into a neighborhood corridor. LINCOLN NEIGH. CORRIDOR PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Reduce Barriers Improve Connections Diversify Landscaping Improve Vehicle Flow Enhance Trans. Network Enhance Land Uses Improve Public Realm Create Business Community STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS New Crosswalks ✓ ✓ ✓ New Landscaped Medians ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bulb-Outs and Curb Extensions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ New Street Trees ✓ ✓ Parkway Landscaping ✓ ✓ Pedestrian Lighting ✓ ✓ ✓ Decorative Pavers ✓ ✓ Elimination of Curb Cuts ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ADA Compliant Curb Ramps ✓ ✓ ✓ Wayfinding ✓ ✓ TRANS. NETWORK Dedicated Bus Only Lanes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bicycle Connectors ✓ ✓ ✓ BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTS Tactical Public Realm Projects ✓ Storefront Façade Enhancements ✓ Adaptive Reuse Guidelines ✓ ✓ Business Improvement District Formation ✓ ✓