Loading...
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 UTURNS 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 BULBOUTS, MADE POSSIBLE DUE TO LACK OF BUS FACILITIES OPTION 1  TWOWAY 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 BULBOUT 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 WEBBASED 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 ✓ ✓