Page 1

Reclaiming the Road Reshaping Transportation in Playa Vista

University of California Los Angeles A comprehensive project submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Urban and Regional Planning.

Cat Callaghan, AIA Advisor Dr. Martin Wachs Client Big Blue Bus 2017


A huge thank you Tim McCormick at Big Blue Bus and Marty Wachs at UCLA for your guidance and encouraging me to dig deeper. Thank you Cary Fukui, Jordan Fraade, Peter James, Chris Marks, Rose McCarron, Beth Rolandson, Rachel Roque, Jarrett Stoltzfus, and Nick Sundback for your advice and time. Thank you Tommy for your support.

Note: This document is formatted to be printed double sided

Disclaimer: This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urban and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of Big Blue Bus as a planning client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.


There is a unique opportunity in Playa Vista to reuse existing road infrastructure and prioritize high capacity vehicles by repurposing existing roads before congestion worsens


[ This page is intentionally left blank ]

iv


Table of Contents Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Playa Vista: Growth & Access. . . . . . . . . . . 5 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Additional Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Recommended Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendices A: Existing Bus Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B: Roads Studied & Tiers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 C: Sample Road Reconfiguration. . . . . . . . 56 D: Costs & Savings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

1


[ This page is intentionally left blank ]

2


Executive Summary This project presents a proposal to connect Playa Vista, a development experiencing rapid growth in housing stock and employment density, to existing and upcoming light rail lines. A plan to connect Playa Vista to bus rapid transit along Lincoln and Sepulveda Boulevards is not scheduled to be implemented until 2047, despite the fact that the area is already undergoing rapid growth. This proposal uses existing road infrastructure and other enhancements that do not require road reconstruction to create a transit-oriented region through enhanced bus service. The report first addresses the development of Playa Vista. It then examines factors that impact the feasibility of a road diet including road width, average daily travel, and curbside parking. Next the report examines improvements including dedicated bus lanes, signal priority, and

off-board fare payment. These are available to municipal and private operators. Lastly, these techniques are applied to the studied roads to create a set of recommendations for upgrades. When feasible, this project recommends a road diet to restripe roads and create dedicated bus lanes. It also recommends installing off-board fare payment and realtime signage at all bus stops and bus signal priority at each intersection. As congestion increases in Playa Vista, fast bus travel may be more appealing to commuters and residents than driving alone. The effect will be improved passenger service and access, without the need to expand existing road width.

3


4


Playa Vista: Growth & Access

5


To Downtown Los Angeles

Santa Monica Mar Vista

Marina Del Rey

Culver City

Playa Vista LMU Westchester

Inglewood LAX Project Area

Existing Expo Line

Near Future Green Line

Bus Lines

Crenshaw Line (2019)

LAX Connector (2023)

Figure 1: Map of Project Area and Existing and Planned Transit

Overview This project is designed to connect Playa Vista, a development experiencing rapid growth in housing stock and employment density, to existing and planned light rail lines with improved bus service. Land use is densifying, but the plan to connect Playa Vista to bus rapid transit is not scheduled to be completed until 2047. Using existing infrastructure, this project promotes a region of transit-oriented development by implementing strategies that improve bus travel times, reliability, and customer service. 6

This study focuses on 58 square miles surrounding and including Playa Vista, bounded by the Expo Line, the planned Crenshaw Line, the Lincoln Blvd. Corridor, and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The area includes Culver City, Playa Vista, Westchester, and Loyola Marymount University (LMU), as seen in Figure 1. Access to Playa Vista is spatially constrained by Ballona Creek and Wetlands, the Bluffs, and the 110 and 405 Freeways (Figure 2). The growth of Playa Vista will add a new center to the already polycentric megacity of Los Angeles. It is one of the last large-scale master planned projects on the Westside


of Los Angeles. The Southern California Association of Governments projects a 140% increase in employment and housing density by 2035.

Playa Vista

Ba

llo

na

uf

Cr

ee

k

10

fs

I-1

Bl N

Playa Vista is dually characterized as the remnant of suburban-minded planning and development, and as a high-density New Urbanist project that infills the remaining available space on the Westside (Cuff 2011; Chamberlain 2009). Wachs (1993) described Playa Vista as a mixeduse community that provides a range of housing and employment choices that can encourage efficient travel patterns while increasing traffic volumes.

Ballona Wetlands

5

I-40

Figure 2: Geographic constraints on Playa Vista Source: Bing Maps 2017

Playa Vista History, Development, & Goals Playa Vista is a master-planned community providing retail, residential, and office amenities (Khouri 2016). The site is predominantly bordered by residential uses, but also includes sites of regional importance including a large mixed-use Marina Del Rey development to the northwest (Chamberlain 2009), Marymount University to the south, and the site of the new 80,000 seat Rams Stadium to the southwest. This site is also bordered by the ecologically sensitive Ballona Wetlands and Ballona Creek on the west and north, respectively. For 2600-5000 years, until the turn of the 19th century, the area was occupied by the Tongva tribe. After European and later American settlement, the land was used for low-intensity farming. In the 1950s, Howard Hughes purchased the site, now known as

Figure 3: Map of historic Hughes Airport Source: USC Digital Archive 2004

Playa Vista, for his aerospace facility. During this period, Japanese farmers continued to use the surrounding land for agriculture (Chamberlain 2009). Comprehensive planning for the area was initiated in 1977 by Summa Corp, a realestate development company founded by Howard Hughes. Playa Vista was eventually developed by a private firm, Playa Capital Company, LLC (Chamberlain 2009; Khouri 2016; Porter, et al. 2003). 7


Cre e k

Ch ann e

Chiat Day

l

Toms Shoes

Park

90

Library

Icon

Bay Park Drive

Villa Savona

Icon Park

Playa Vista Elementary School

Cielo

Matisse

Runway South Apartments Mason

Riparian Corridor

ll Ba

on

is aD

co

very

Playa Greens

Bluff Creek Fields

rk

Boule wood

The Link

IMAX Headquarters

The Link

Millennium Drive

Google

Hercules Campus Spruce Goose Hangar Bluff

Creek

ter Lake Cen Drive

Ce

ns W ay A r t i sa

e ront Driv erf at

W

The Spot

Skylar

rd

The Playa Vista Campus

nt in

ela

Av e

Avenue

Ingle

Street

Centi

nela

Randall

Aven

ue

Grosvenor Boulevard

Corner Greens

Sinclair Court

Everly Hayden CPUs

Bluff Creek Drive

The Link

The Link

Marlowe Jewel

Riparian Corridor Pa

Westlawn Avenue

McConnell Avenue

Cleo

Common Grounds The Link

The Link

Runway South Apartments

et Teale Stre Bouleva

The Brickyard

Sausalito Apartments Fielding Circle

Campus Center Drive

Mondrian

The Resort

Millennium Drive

Woodson Asher Berkus Greens

Runway North Apartments

Camden

Westlawn Avenue

Brookfield Design Studio & Future Residential

Tapestry II

Fountainview The Woods Senior At Gonda Affordable Westside Apartments

Malibu Apartments

Skylar

Village Drive

Trevion

OMD

son Jeffer

Village Lane

The Lawn

Tempo

Seabluff Flats/ Retail Parking

Primera Terra

Montecito Apartments

The Pointe

Camden

McConnell Avenue

Capri Court II Runway Road

Oberrieder Park

Coronado

The Ventana Apartments Bluff Creek Drive

The Lofts Park Houses

Agustin Place

Catalina

The Lounge

The Shops At Concert Park

Promenade

Welcome Center & Sales Gallery Runway

Dawn Creek

Esplanade

Discovery Creek

Waterstone

Concert Park

Pacif ic Promenade

Agustin Place

Celedon Creek

Concerto Lofts

Carabela

Celedon Gardens

Concert Park Drive

Capri Court

The Shops At Concert Park

Avalon

Westwind Park

The Sports Park

Villosa Place

Kiyot Way

Seawalk Drive

The CenterPointe Club

Crescent Walk

Tapestry

Para Way

Crescent Park East

Playa Links Crescent Park

Sunset Park

Crescent Park

The Ventana Apartments

Crescent Park West

The Dorian

Paraiso

Seabluff Drive

EA Way

Villa D’este

Playa Vis ta Driv e

Lincoln Boulevard

Crescent Park

Crescent Park Apartments

Spyglass Park

Vista Park

Serenade

Villosa Place

The Metro

Deutch LA

Chess Park

nue

405 The Collective

Campus Central Park

The Brickyard

Court Park The Collective

i|o Hercules Campus Bl

f uf

Cr

ee

The Bluffs

k

Dr

iv e

LA Clippers Training Center

way San Diego Free

Ballona Freshwater Marsh

Longwood Park

Chatelaine

Home Depot

The Reserve Jefferson Boulevard

Runway Lane

Playa Vist a Driv e

Fire Station

Sunrise

1.5 miles to beach

Alla Road

Bay Str eet

Fountain Park Drive

Water’s Edge

Westside Neighborhood School

Bridgeway

The Shops at Fountain Park

Playa Vista Medical Fountain Park Plaza

Beethoven Street

Mills

vard

Fountain Park Apartments

2.7 miles to Santa Monica

Mesmer

B all on a

Ballona Creek

Drive

Spruce Goose Park

Volleyball Park Hercules Campus

Riparian Corridor

Riparian Corridor

2.7 miles to LAX

Map is of artist’s conception, is not to scale and is subject to change. Plans to build out the new home neighborhoods, amenities and parks as proposed are subject to change without notice, and new home neighborhoods, amenities and parks may not be built as planned or by a specific date or may not be built at all. Community/neighborhood information is also subject to change without notice. © 2017 Playa Vista. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2017 Brookfield Residential, LLC. All rights reserved. CalBRE #00991326.

Figure 4: Playa Vista Development Map Source: http://playavista.com/where-to-find-us/

Environmental concerns and related lawsuits led to a long delay and a reduction in scale of the proposed development from its inception in the 1970s, until approval in 1993, and groundbreaking in 2002. The project was recharacterized as an environmentally- and pedestrian- friendly development (Khouri 2016; Chamberlain 2009; Porter, et al. 2003). In 2003, the State of California purchased 192 acres of the site from Playa Capital Company to preserve the Ballona Wetlands. Playa Capital Company donated another 291 to the state. This purchase provided the necessary capital to begin development (Chamberlain 2009). The completed development area covers 460 acres, less than half of the 1977 proposal to build on 1,087 acres, and can be seen in Figure 4 (Khouri 2016). Playa Vista is projected to house 31,600 permanent jobs. The development is targeted towards new media and high technology companies as well as high-end 8

amenities, like Whole Foods (Chamberlain 2009; Kalamaros 2013). In 2015, 80% of the available office space was occupied by tech companies (Bergman 2015). Businesses are moving from Santa Monica and Venice, including Fred Segal and Yahoo. In 2014, Google purchased 12 acres with a maximum build out area of 900,000 square feet (Khouri 2016). Google’s campus, the last major development on the 460-acre site, will comprise roughly 28% of the 3.2 million square feet of office space zoned for in Playa Vista (Khouri 2016). Facebook also plans to open an office in the area. Services planned for residents a decade ago, including retail, grocery stores, and banks, are now opening (Khouri 2016). As of February 2016, 4500 of the 6500 planned residential units are complete with many of the remainder under construction (Khouri 2016). Half of these apartments have been rented at a starting price of $2,800 a month (Khouri 2016). There is


the road space required for 60 people on a bus and 60 people in single-occupancy vehicles. This limitation is exacerbated when the area is both desirable and constrained, as is the case in Playa Vista. Higher capacity transit modes are a more efficient use of space in this type of area (Walker 2016). Burgess (2002) argues that due to the space consumed by automobiles in dense urban areas, provision of adequate road capacity for all travelers becomes extremely expensive. It can cost upwards of $4.5 million to widen an urban road by two lanes (FDOT 2016). Playa Vista’s constrained geography and rapid growth create potential strain on existing road infrastructure. The Traffic Westside Typical Mobility Plan, which covers an Thursday 6pm area that includes Playa Vista, indicates

additional housing outside of the masterplanned area shown in Figure 4. The stated goals of the Playa Vista development are to create a concentrated area that is pedestrian friendly and environmentally sustainable, where people can live and work without sacrificing profitability (Kalamaros 2013). Playa Vista’s Constrained Geography Playa Vista is constrained by the Bluffs, Ballona Creek, Ballona Wetlands, and the 110 and 405 Freeways (Figure 2). According to Jarrett Walker (2016), congestion from cars is tied to geometric constraints; there is a physical limit to the number of vehicles that can occupy road space. Figure 5 shows

Fastest

ine

Slowest

Projected Percentage Change of Employment & Housing Density 2012-2035

Expo L

0-25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100-25%

125-50%

150-75%

da

lve

pu

Se

0%

co

ln

BR T

6,500 31,600

ist

V ya Pla

a

Crenshaw Line

T BR

Lin

Residential Units

Permanent Jobs

The Future of Playa Vista

Projected Growth

Figure 5: Projected Growth Source: SCAG 2016 9


Playa Vista

Typical Traffic Thursday 6pm Fastest

Slowest

Adapted from Google Maps, 2017

Figure 7: Typical Evening Traffic in Playa Vista Projected Percentage Change of Employment & Housing Density 2012-2035

a 30% expected increase in vehicle miles 0% 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% 100-25% 125-50% 150-75% traveled (VMT) between 2016 and 2035 (LADOT 2016). There is an opportunity before this anticipated increase in vehicle travel occurs to restructure roads that have sufficient capacity to support high-capacity vehicles. Playa Vista is currently connected by bus to the Expo Line and the Crenshaw Line, scheduled to open in 2019 (Figure 1). Operators include LA Metro, Big Blue Bus, Culver City, Torrance Transit, LADOT Dash, Beach Cities Transit, and GTrans. Private services include shuttles and on-demand

Figure 5: Space for 60 people traveling by bus and car (note: does not take into account space between vehicles in motion) Source: Cycling Promotion Fund 10

Source: Google Maps 2017

rides run by Playa Vista Inc., and buses and vanpools run by local companies. A list of existing bus operations can be found in Appendix A. According to a facilities manager at Google, in Los Angeles the company fully subsidizes parking, but provides cash incentives to take alternative modes of transportation. He reported that approximately 10% of Google’s employees in Venice and Playa Vista ride in their private vanpools and buses or take public transit, another 10% bike or walk. This is higher than the 3% of West Side residents that take public transit (City of LA 2016). This study presents a plan to restripe roads and create dedicated bus lanes in order to increase access to Playa Vista. Widening a road would cost $4.5 million and restriping would cost $245,000 per mile respectively. (FDOT 2016, SCVTA 2007, Snyder 2009). This project includes additional upgrades estimated at $62,500 per mile across the project area (Carino 2016; ITS-JPO 2009; Larwin, et al 2012; NACTO 2017; SCVTA 2007). These upgrades are studied in the following sections.


“From the start, developers of the Playa Vista project have known that traffic congestion was the greatest potential roadblock to construction of one of the biggest developments in Los Angeles history. No other issue has loomed so large or proved so daunting as how to deal with the volume of traffic that would be generated by building a city-within-a-city between Marina del Rey and the Westchester Bluffs.� Agreement Reached on Playa Vista Project Traffic Mitigation : Transportation: The developer-financed improvements are aimed at avoiding gridlock in the project's early stages. Release of an environmental impact report is delayed. Jeffrey L. Rabin & James Rainey, Los Angeles Times, September 3, 1992


12


METHODOLOGY

13


methodology: use data on existing roads: and

Road Width

and

Daily Travel

Parking

to inform whether the road supports a

Road Diet

Figure 8: Elements of a road diet

The Federal Highway Administration guidelines, as outlined in the 2014 Road Diet: Informational Guide, were used to determine whether existing roadways can be used to better serve mass transportation users. Roads were selected in a networked pattern that connect Playa Vista to Expo and Crenshaw Line stations. Appendix B describes the existing conditions of studied roads.

14

Data were collected on each road on width from curb to curb, average daily vehicles traveling on the road, and the status of curbside parking. Data collection methods, sources, and relationship are described in the following sections. Figure 9 shows the location of roads studied. Appendix B includes details on each road studied.


Figure 9: Roads & Streets Studied ••Centinela

••La Cienega

••Sepulveda

••Airport

••Culver

••La Tiejera

••Slauson

••Angeles Vista

••Eucalyptus

••Lincoln

••Stocker

••Aviation

••Florence

••Manchester

••Thornburn

••Beach

••Hindry

••Mesmer

••Venice

••Bluff Creek

••Inglewood

••Osage

••West

••Bundy

••Jefferson

••Pico

••Westchester

••Campus Center

••La Brea

••Playa Vista

un

ffe Je a/

aw

ta

Ex

Mo

po

/C

Ex

re n

po

sh

/L

La

C

aB

ien

re a

eg

ulv er C

Pa

C

lm

ity

s

rs

Ex

on

po

/B

ot am erg th/B 26

C SM St/ th 17

y

a

n Ve

nd

nic

ice

Bu

Santa Monica

Ex

dy

po

/S

ep

ulv ed

a

••4th

C

h

4t

re n

sh

aw

/M

LK

Do wn

tow n

San

To Downtown Los Angeles

r lve

co

ln

An

le s

Pa

West

on

ers

Centinela Florence/West

Be

ac

h

ur n

e enc Flor

Osage

rea

or nb

B La

ln co Lin

Manchester

Th

Eucalyptus

k

er a

re e

Tie j

ff C

La

B lu

er H

yd

e

Slauson

Airport

Jeff

Le

Vis ta

ta Vis

Sepulveda

Marina Del Rey

ge

rk

d oo lew Ing

a Play

im

Stocker

Culver City

Cu

Lin

t

La Cienega

ela

ntin

Mar Vista

Ce

o Pic

Florence/La Brea

Florence/Hindry

Aviation

Inglewood Westchester

LAX Aviation/Century

Studied Route Route with Bus Expo Line Green Line Crenshaw Line (2019) Project Area

15


Table 1: Road Diet Parameters

Road Diet & Restripe

Daily Travel

A “road diet”, coined by Burden, refers to the reconfiguration of roadways through the reduction of width and number of automobile travel lanes to create space on existing roads (Burden & Lagerway 1999). It is a relatively low-cost way to alter travel patterns, as restriping is the major implementation strategy. Road restriping costs approximately $128,000 to $362,000 per mile adjusted to 2017 dollars (SCVTA 2007). This is in comparison to the $4.5 million or more per mile it costs to widen an urban road by two lanes (FDOT 2016). Burden & Lagerway (1999) found that average daily travel increased after implementation, although road diets may result in decreased speed for drivers (FHWA 2014). The Westside Mobility Plan estimates a 5% decrease in auto travel speed between 2016 and 2035 in the plan Westside and Coastal Corridor Specific Plan areas, due to increased traffic volumes (LADOT 2016).

Low Volumes

Min. Road Width

Label

Volume

Without Parking

With Parking

Parking Restricted

--

n/a

Under 52 ft

--

--

Low

Under 20k

52 ft

70

52 ft

Medium

20 - 40k

72 ft

90

72 ft

High

Over 40k

n/a

n/a

n/a

Specific costs are included in the “Dedicated Bus Lanes” section. When considering a road diet and restriping, three data sets inform opportunities for improvement: road width, average daily travel, and parking. These are described in the following pages. Table 1 shows the how these three elements are related to each other. Figure 10 shows sample road diets. Please see Appendix C for sample configurations.

Medium Volumes

Under 20 thousand vehicles

20 to 40 thousand vehicles

Before 13+ ft

13+ ft

13+ ft

13+ ft

12+ ft

12+ ft

11 ft

10 ft

12+ ft

52ft +

12+ ft 72ft +

12+ ft

12+ ft

After 11 ft

10 ft

10 ft 52ft +

10 ft

11 ft

Figure 10: Road Diet Reconfiguration on Existing Roads 16

10 ft

10 ft 72ft +

10 ft

10 ft

11ft


Google Maps’ “measure distance” tool perpendicular to the roadway in satellite view. Measurements were taken at the narrowest point so as to not overestimate roadway width.

Road Width The width of a road affects the ways in which it can be restriped without requiring reconstruction. This study revealed that on a number of roads in the study area, lanes were 13 or more feet wide. Lanes can be designed at 9 feet, however for this project a conservative measurement of 10 feet was used. This geometry dictates the possibility for a reconfiguration of a roadway. For example, a roadway with a 35 foot curb-tocurb width could have two lanes or three, but not four.

Roads with no parking that are 72 feet and wider can support a road diet for medium volumes of daily travel, and 52 feet is the minimum width for low volumes (Table 1). If there is parking, the minimum widths are 90 and 70 feet, respectively. Roads under 52 feet wide cannot support a road diet. Existing road widths can be seen in Figure 11 below. A detailed chart, including road width and lanes, can be seen in Appendix B.

To expedite the process of gathering a large volume of information, roadway width was measured from curb to curb using

Bu

ice

y

nd

n Ve

h

4t

La Cienega

Stocker

Lin

Cu

lve

r

ela

ntin

Ce

o Pic

co

ln

An d oo lew Ing

ff C

re e

Centinela

k

Be

ac

P la

er a Ti ej

ur n

e enc Flor

Osage

La Airport

ln

co Lin Manchester

or nb

h rea

Sepulveda

ta

52 - 65 ft

Th

B La

is ya V

51 ft

V is ta

West

on

ers

B lu

le s

Slauson

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

72 - 85 ft

Westchester

90+ ft (121 max)

Figure 11: Road Widths

Source: Google Maps, 2017

Aviation

70 -71 ft

17


Bu

ice

nd

n Ve

y

4t h

La Cienega

ntin Ce

o Pic

Lin

Cu lv

er

ela

Stocker

co

ln

An d oo lew Ing

C re

Centinela

ek

Be

ac

P la

Manchester

er a Ti ej

ur n

e enc Flor

Osage

La Airport

ln

co

Lin

20k - 40k

or nb

h rea

Sepulveda

ta

Th

B La

is ya V

Under 20k

V is ta

West

on

ers

ff B lu

le s

Slauson

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

Westchester

Figure 12: Average daily travel

Daily Travel The annual average daily travel (ADT or AADT) vehicle volumes on roadways affects how a road can be reconfigured without greatly impacting existing drivers on the road. The Federal Highway Administration (2014) notes that “ADT provides a good first approximation on whether or not to consider a Road Diet conversion� (p17). In order to better understand the possibility for road diet conversion, data were collected from LADOT (2005-2013), Culver City ADT (2004), and the City of Inglewood Traffic

18

Aviation

Over 40k

Source: Culver City 2004, City of Inglewood 2005, LADOT 2015, Caltrans 2015

Count (2005). If a road had more than one vehicle count, the higher number was used. The higher the AADT, the fewer options for road reconfiguration. Benchmark values are volumes below 20,000, which require 1 vehicle lane in each direction and 1 turn lane, and volumes between 20,000 and 40,000, which require 2 vehicle lanes in each direction and 1 turn lane. High volumes (those above 40,000) cannot be reconfigured with a road diet (FHWA 2014, Snyder 2017). AADT on studied roads can be seen in Figure 12 above. More detailed notes on AADT can be found in Appendix B.


Bu

ice

nd

n Ve

y

4t h

La Cienega

ntin Ce

o Pic

Lin

Cu lv

er

ela

Stocker

co

ln

An d oo lew Ing

C re

Centinela

ek

Be

ac

P la

Manchester

er a Ti ej

ur n

e enc Flor

Osage

La Airport

ln

co

Lin

1 Side Parking

or nb

h rea

Sepulveda

ta

Th

B La

is ya V

No Parking

V is ta

West

on

ers

ff B lu

le s

Slauson

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

Westchester

Figure 13: Parking Map

Parking On-street parking lies within the curb-tocurb width of the road. There are instances where a road can be restriped, but only if parking is removed or restricted. However, removing or restricting on-street parking can be a political issue and can affect access to businesses and residences. This can be seen in business and community members’ mixed response to the Santa Monica City Council’s April 2017 approval of peak-direction parking restrictions to create a bus lane on the northern 1.25 miles of the Lincoln Corridor included in this study (Kagle 2017).

Aviation

Parking (both sides)

Source: Site Observation, Google Maps, 2017

Data on parking was collected on site visits and using Google Maps and Street View. On-street parking in the study area can be seen above in Figure 13. The existence of onstreet parking spaces on each road can be found in Appendix B.

19


ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS

20


Overview of Elements People often base transportation decisions on costs and opportunities. These derive from upfront costs, such as purchasing a car, ongoing costs, such as bus fare, gasoline, or insurance, and emotional costs, such as stress caused by reliability issues. Time costs can be both literal (the time it takes to get from point A to point B) and perceived (e.g., passengers value time twice as greatly while waiting at a stop than time in travel) (Iseki & Taylor 2009). In order to shift long-term transportation choices in Playa Vista, this project proposes reducing both the literal and perceived costs as well as creating the opportunity for reliable and fast mass transportation, whether public or private. This project proposes upgrades to the bus route network within the project area as seen in Figure 1 on page 6. In the Bronx, New York,, which is home to constrained arterials like those in Playa Vista, the development of bus lanes and associated upgrades was demonstrated to speed up bus running times by 15 to 23 percent and increase ridership by 5 to 10 percent over a four-year period (Beaton, et al 2013).

The plan proposed in this report includes several upgrades to all stops, including offboard fare payment and real-time signage, bus-signal priority at all intersections, and dedicated bus lanes where space and current traffic levels permit. Time savings for users is estimated between 0.5 and 1.06 minutes per mile and provides increased reliability. These upgrades also create savings for municipal operators. Lowering the time spent in travel results in non-fully-loaded operational savings, which can be used to offset the cost of implementation. Big Blue Bus (2017) reported non-fully-loaded operational costs per revenue hour, which includes maintenance costs, operator pay, and fuel, at $85, which is used for this project.

21


Real Time Signage

Bus Signal Priority Dedicated Bus Lanes

Off-Board Fare Payment Road Diet & Restripe with center turn lane Figure 14: Rendering of Mesmer Ave at Major St

Shared Use - Public & Private


Bus Signal Priority Bus signal priority (BSP) is a way to improve transit movement on shared streets and a cornerstone of a typical of Bus Rapid Transit corridor development. Each intersection costs approximately $16,000 adjusted for inflation (2017) (ITS-JPO 2009). The current trend in implementation is to install global positioning system (GPS) and wireless communication on board each bus, with signal controllers at intersection lights (Liao & Davis 2007). This is a technique used by many agencies including LA Metro, which installed BSP technology at 1,500 intersections as part of its BRT light implementation strategy (National BRT Institute 2013). Culver City is in the process of procuring services to implement BSP (Culver City 2016).

of bus running time is spent at traffic signals (Yin, et al 2005). NACTO found that bus signal-priority systems can speed up routes by 10% or more (2017). On-time reliability is important to riders (Yoh, et al 2007), and the reduction of delays helps improve reliability. Furthermore, LA Metro found that BSP can increase travel speeds from 11 to 14 mph (LA Metro 2014), which can save users 1.1 minutes per mile traveled.

BSP serves bus movement by: • Coordinating signal timing with bus arrival. • Extending green lights or shortening red lights, particularly when buses are running behind schedule. • Coordinating red lights with boarding times.

Coordination between buses and signals speeds up routes by 10% or more Source: NACTO, 2017

Metro found that implementation of signal prioritization reduced delays at signals along the Wilshire and Venice corridors by 33% (Panero, et al 2012). This is a significant improvement as LADOT estimated that 20% 23


Real Time Signage Real-time signage informs riders waiting at stops of the approximate arrival time of upcoming buses. While this information is available on a smartphone, a 2016 LA Metro survey found that 60% of their riders do not have access to a smartphone (Carino 2016). Perceived wait time can be higher than real wait time, but this difference can be reduced or eliminated by the availability of real-time data for riders. Real-time signage can decrease perceived wait time by as much as half (Dziekan & Kottenhoff 2007, Watkins, et al 2011). Dziekan and Kottenhoff (2007) found that implementing real-time signage in Hamburg decreased perceived wait time from 6.2 to 4.8 minutes. They note that the same improvements could be achieved by decreasing headway times, which cost five times as much as the signage. In addition, real-time signage can reduce psychological costs by increasing reliability, increasing feelings of security, and increasing ease of use (Dziekan & Kottenhoff 2007, Watkins, et all 2011). Los Angeles is implementing a $4 million contract to install real-time signage at 300 stops across the country (Carino 2016). The cost per sign is roughly $13,333, which is used for this project as it both recent and local. 24

Figure 15: Big Blue Bus’ real time signage and Information on Next Bus, a real time bus arrival service available by phone, text, and smart phone app Source: Author


Pre-Board Fare Payment Pre-board fare payment allows passengers to load a contact (TAP) card or buy proof-ofpurchase tickets before getting on the bus. This results in decreased dwell time. After installation in New York City, overall time buses spent at stops decreased from 27% to 20% of travel time (Barr, et al 2010).

may decrease in importance in upcoming years as mobile phone payment, recently implemented by Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, becomes more widely available (Snyder 2009, Big Blue Bus 2017). This project proposes using the adapted parking meters at all bus stops and budgets three TAP machines, to be placed at key locations to be determined in later studies.

New York City’s Select Bus Service adapted parking-meter technology to provide proof-ofpayment tickets before boarding. Machines accept both cards and cash, which allows cash dependent users to access preboard fare payment. Cash payment before boarding can reduce boarding times by 7 seconds or more per passenger compared to on-board cash payments (Tirachini 2013). These machines cost approximately $7000 each (Larwin & Koprowski 2012). Standard contact (TAP) machines, as used at Los Angeles Metro rail stations, are used to purchase reusable TAP cards that store value or monthly passes. These cost approximately $25,000 each (NACTO 2017). Provision of pre-board fare payment

Figure 16: TAP Card Machine at the Downtown Santa Monica Expo Line Station Source: Author 25


Dedicated Bus Lane Dedicated bus lanes, which should be a minimum of 11 feet in width and striped, increase schedule reliability and increase bus speeds by separating bus traffic from mixed traffic (NACTO 2017). Current studies focus on two classifications of dedicated lanes: exclusive lanes for buses only, and restricted lanes, which are used by buses and high occupancy or tolled vehicles (Fuhs & Obenberger 2002, NCRTPB 2012). This project focuses on exclusive lanes; however in practice the lanes will be semiexclusive, allowing car access at right-hand turns and driveways. A 2012 Federal Transit Administration study on Bus Rapid Transit across the United States emphasizes the importance of stakeholder support to create an upgraded system (Panero, et al 2012). Companies in the area, such as Google and Playa Vista Inc., run buses and vanpools in the area. Creating a system that is usable by these companies’ employees may increase support for the creation of bus lanes. During an interview, a facilities manager at Google expressed tentative support for this plan (2017). While some models demonstrate that bus lanes can create a 200% increase in travel speeds (Basso, et al 2001), Los Angeles’ implementation of bus lanes increased 26

Figure 17: Metro Bus Lane Source: http://zev.lacounty.gov/news/bus-lanes-a-peakevent-on-wilshire

speeds between 23 and 28% and also increased reliable on-time performance by 65% (Barr, et al 2010, Fuhs & Obenberger 2002, Kwon & Varaiya 2008, Levinson, et al 2003, Surprenant-Legault & El-Geneidy 2011). Speed and reliability improvements are more pronounced in the direction of peak vehicle travel (Surprenant-Legault & El-Geneidy 2011). Dedicated lanes may also improve speeds for autos because buses are not interfering with personal vehicle traffic (Saade, et al 2015).


RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

27


These estimates of the costs and benefits of road diets and bus infrastructure improvements were used to inform improvements to the existing infrastructure in the study area. Information on road widths, average daily travel, and parking were used to create Tiers of implementation.

improvements, similar to Metro’s early 2000s BRT-lite pilot along Wilshire and Ventura Boulevards. More extensive investments can be evaluated on an as needed basis. For each road section the feasibility of a road diet informs the intensity of investment as seen in Figure 18 below.

The project consists of 54 miles of upgrades over 58 square miles. The estimated cost is $16.7 million, or $308,000 per mile.

• Tier I roads include bus lanes without restricting parking as well as other upgrades discussed in the previous sections;

This proposed project serves 540% of the length of the 10-mile Lincoln BRT route, at 16% of the Lincoln corridor’s $102 million cost (Hyron 2016). The Lincoln BRT will bring rapid service into a much needed corridor; however, because it is not scheduled for completion until 2047, it may not serve Playa Vista as quickly as growth in the area occurs.

• Tier II roads include bus lanes, but requires restricted parking; • Tier III roads cannot be restriped without affecting auto traffic flow, but include upgrades such as signal prioritization. Each tier is discussed in detail in the following sections. A map of Tier classification and location can be found in Figure 19.

The vision for the proposed project is to implement low-cost infrastructure

how is this implemented? for all roads studied

use data on available capacity: and

Road Width

Daily Travel

- or -

Maintain Parking

road diet, bus lane, upgrade stops and signals

Road Diet

otherwise

Restrict Parking

no bus lane, but upgrade stops and signals

I

II

III

Tier I

Tier II

Tier III

Figure 18: Project Implementation Strategy 28

to inform whether the road supports a


un

ha w

aB

re ns

po

po

/C

Ex

Ex

on

n Ve

dy

aM

/L

La

17t

ice

n Bu

ica

re a

eg a C

C

ul

ien

Pa

ve rC

lm

ity

s

/Je ffe rs

Ex

on

po

/B

am ot erg h/B 26t

MC hS

t/S

Ex

dy

po

/S ep u

lve da

54.3 miles @ $16.7m

ha w /M LK

Do wn

tow

nS

ant

To Downtown Los Angeles

C

re ns

Santa Monica 4t

er t

La Cienega

e ntin

Ce

Stocker

Cu

lve

r

la

Culver City

Le im

h

Mar Vista

o Pic

ge

le s

Vis ta

Slauson

on

ers

Centinela

k

er a Ti ej Airport

h

ur n

e enc Florence/Hindry Flor

La

Sepulved

or nb

rea

ln

co

Westchester

ac

B La

Th

Lin

Manchester

LAX

Florence/West

Be

Eucalyptus

re e

Florence/La Brea

Inglewood Aviation

ff C

a

B lu

Osage

Jeff

Playa Vista

West

d oo lew Ing

Marina Del Rey

H

yd

An

rk

ln

Pa

co

e

Lin

Aviation/Century

Tier I Tier II Tier III Route with Bus Expo Line Green Line Crenshaw Line

Figure 19: Project Tiers 29


Tier I The 19.2 miles of Tier I roads have the highest level of investment and the greatest payoff in operational savings. These can be seen in Figure 20 and detailed information can be found in Appendix B. Tier I roads are reconfigured to include dedicated bus lanes in each direction. Sample Tier I reconfigurations can be found in Appendix C. These roads connect Playa Vista to adjacent areas. There are gaps in Tier I connecting Playa Vista directly to rail services due to high travel volume and parking on Slauson and Centinela respectively.

19.2 miles @ $9.0m Connects Playa Vista to Culver City Station, Florence/La Brea Station, and Florence/ West. Station. 30

Tier I includes 96 bus-signal priority intersections. It also includes 131 off-board fare payment ticket machines and real-time arrival signs at each bus stop. If bus stops are within 35 feet of each other and on the same side of the street, only one of each is allocated. The cost estimate includes 3 Metro TAP Machines to be located in Playa Vista or nearby areas to be determined later. The estimated costs of Tier I are $9.0 million ($468,000 per mile). These upgrades save each rider approximately 1.06 minutes per mile traveled. Capital costs and operational savings can be found in Tables 2 and 5 respectively.

••Airport

••La Brea

••Bluff Creek

••La Tiejera

••Campus Center

••Mesmer

••Centinela

••Playa Vista

••Culver

••Sepulveda

••Eucalyptus

••Slauson

••Florence

••Westchester

••Jefferson


Bu

ice

nd

n Ve

y

4t h

La Cienega

ntin Ce

o Pic

Lin

Cu lv

er

ela

Stocker

co

ln

An d oo lew Ing

V is ta

West

on

ers

ff B lu

le s

Slauson

C re

Centinela

ek

Be

ac

P la

er a Ti ej

ur n

e enc Flor

Westchester

Aviation

Osage

La

ln

Airport

co

Lin Manchester

h rea

Sepulveda

ta

or nb

B La

is ya V

Th

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

Figure 20: Tier I Roads

Enhancement

Unit

Cost per Unit

Number

Total Cost

Restriping

Mile

$245,000

19.22

$4,708,670

Intersection

$16,213

96

$1,556,448

Unit

$25,000

3

$75,000

Unit

$7,000

131

$917,000

Unit

$13,333

131

$1,746,667

Signal Priority TAP Card Machine Off-Board Fare Payment Real-Time Bus Arrival Sign

Estimated Cost:

$9,003,785

Cost / mile:

$468,482

Table 2: Tier I Capital Costs; Sources: See Appendix D 31


8.9 miles

@

$3.9m

Closes gaps between Phase I projects & Connects to Hindry and Hyde Park Stations. ••Angeles Vista

••La Brea

••Centinela

••Manchester

••Inglewood

••West

••Jefferson

Tier I I Tier II roads can be seen in Figure 21 with details in Appendix B. Tier II closes gaps in Tier I, notably along Centinela and Manchester, completing connections to the Crenshaw Line. These are potentially the most politically challenging upgrades as discussed in the previous section on parking. Tier II upgrades include everything from Tier I, but requires the restriction of parking. Parking can be removed or restricted during the day or peak hours. Each of these roads require in- depth study and public outreach to determine political feasibility and public support. If expediency of upgrades is desired, it is recommended that road diet and restriping come after bus stop and signal upgrades. The total estimated cost of Tier II is $3.9 million. This includes the upgrade of 31 signals for prioritization, 61 off-board fare payment ticket machines and real-time signage at stops, and 8.4 miles of road restriping for dedicated bus lanes. These upgrades increase speed by 1.06 minutes per mile. Detailed cost information can be found in Tables 3 and 6.

32


y nd Bu

ice

n Ve

h 4t

La Cienega

ntin Ce

o Pic

Lin

Cu

lve r

ela

Stocker

co

ln An d oo lew Ing

V is ta

West

on

ers

B lu

le s

Slauson

ff C

re e

Centinela

k

Be

ac

P la

er a Ti ej

ur n

La

e enc Flor

Westchester

Aviation

Osage

ln

Airport

co

Lin

Manchester

h

rea

Sepulveda

ta

or nb

B La

is ya V

Th

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

Figure 21: Tier II Roads

Enhancement

Unit

Cost per Unit

Number

Total Cost

Restriping

Mile

$245,000

8.90

$2,181,422

Intersection

$16,213

31

$502,603

Unit

$7,000

61

$427,000

Unit

$13,333

61

$813,333

Signal Priority Off-Board Fare Payment Real-Time Bus Arrival Sign

Estimated Cost: Cost / mile:

$3,924,359 $440,753

Table 3: Tier II Capital Costs; Sources: See Appendix D 33


26.2 miles @ $3.8m

Tier I I I

Upgrades high use corridors of Lincoln, Centinela, La Cienega, Sepulveda, and Aviation.

Tier III roads cannot be restriped. These are the 26.2 remaining miles of the 54 miles of studied roads and can be seen in Figure 22 and Appendix B. However, other treatments can be used.

••4th

••La Cienega

••Aviation

••Lincoln

••Beach

••Osage

••Bundy

••Pico

••Centinela

••Sepulveda

••Eucalyptus

••Slauson

••Florence

••Stocker

••Hindry

••Thornburn

••La Brea

••Venice

There are two primary types of roads that fall into Tier III: Major arterial roads with high levels of daily travel, such as La Cienega; and roads that are too narrow, such as Florence Ave. Tier III includes 79 signal prioritization upgrades and 123 at-stop upgrades for a total estimated cost of $3.78 million ($144,000 per mile). Capital costs can be seen in Table 4. Although these roads cannot be restriped, signal prioritization and off-board fare payment may save buses and passengers traveling on Tier III roads approximately one-half minute per mile. Operators benefit from increased speeds and the annual operational savings can be found in Table 7.

34


y nd Bu

ice

n Ve

h 4t

La Cienega

ntin Ce

o Pic

Lin

Cu

lve r

ela

Stocker

co

ln An d oo lew Ing

V is ta

West

on

ers

ff B lu

le s

Slauson

C re

Centinela

ek

Be

ac

P la

er a Ti ej

ur n

La

e enc Flor

Westchester

Aviation

Osage

ln

Airport

co

Lin

Manchester

h

rea

Sepulveda

ta

or nb

B La

is ya V

Th

Eucalyptus

Jeff

ge

Figure 22: Tier II Roads

Enhancement Signal Priority Off-Board Fare Payment Real-Time Bus Arrival Sign

Unit

Cost per Unit

Number

Total Cost

Intersection

$16,213

79

$1,280,827

Unit

$7,000

123

$861,000

Unit

$13,333

123

$1,640,000

Estimated Cost: Cost / mile:

$3,781,827 $144,331

Table 4: Tier III Capital Costs; Sources: See Appendix D 35


Operational & Individual Savings Travel-time savings affect both riders and bus operators. Buses traveling along Tier I and II projects are projected to increase in speed from a base rate of 11.5 mph to 14.4 mph, which translates to 1.06 minutes saved per mile traveled for passengers and operators. For Tier III, which does not include dedicated lanes, the speed increases to 12.7 mph, saving 0.47 minutes per mile. Individual Savings A single person traveling on Tier I or II roads in both directions for a year1 could potentially save 9 hours per mile per year. The saving is 4 hours per year per mile for roads in Tier III. Operational Savings Big Blue Bus reported operational costs of $85 per non-fully-loaded revenue hour. The cost of a non-fully-loaded revenue hour includes factors influenced by hours on the road, including maintenance costs, operator pay, and fuel. This metric does not account for the costs of administrative and managerial staff, which are not affected by hours on the road.

1. Based on 255 work days per year

36

In order to determine operational savings a number of steps were taken: • Each road was studied to determine how many buses traveled on it per day for each municipal operator. • This value was multiplied by the length of the road and 255 work days to determine how many miles buses traveled on the section per year. • Miles traveled per year was multiplied by the time savings per mile to determine hours saved per year. • Finally this was converted to dollars by multiplying the time saved by the cost per revenue hour. The number of years to pay off each tier was determined by dividing the cost of each tier by the savings per year. These results can be seen in Tables 5 through 7.


Table 5: Tier I Operational Savings - Non Fully Loaded Miles Traveled (per Year)

Time Saved (hours per year2)

Operational Savings ($/hour/mile per year)

Metro

550,514

9,727

$826,772

BBB

37,226

658

$55,906

Culver City

409,756

7,240

$615,380

Total Savings

997,496

17,624

$1,498,058 6.01

Years to Pay Off

Table 6: Tier II Operational Savings - Non Fully Loaded Miles Traveled (per Year)

Time Saved (hours per year2)

Operational Savings ($/hour/mile per year)

Metro

261,615

4,598

$390,817

BBB

38,372

678

$57,628

Culver City

32,553

575

$48,889

Total Savings

332,540

5,851

$497,334 7.89

Years to Pay Off

Table 7: Tier III Operational Savings - Non Fully Loaded Miles Traveled (per Year)

Time Saved (hours per year2)

Operational Savings ($/hour/mile per year)

Metro

306,550

2,423

$205,982

BBB

490,990

3,881

$329,914

Culver City

100,156

792

$67,298

Total Savings

897,695

7,096

$603,194

Years to Pay Off

6.27

Tables 5,6,7: Tier I, II & III Operational Savings for Municipal Operators Sources: Big Blue Bus 2017, Culver City 2017, Levinson, et al 2003, Metro Developer 2016, NACTO 2008.

37


Conclusion This project presented a plan to identify existing roads that can be upgraded with limited effect on existing traffic. These were categorized into three Tiers based on their existing geometry and daily travel patterns: Tier I is restriped with a dedicated bus lane; Tier II is restriped with a dedicated bus lane and restricted parking; and Tier III cannot be restriped. All three Tiers are enhanced with additional measures including bus signal priority, real-time signage, and off-board fare payment. In order to bring this project closer to implementation, several aspects outside the scope of this project recommendations for further studies are: Design • Bus stop access at rail stations: Ensure that there are adequate bus bays at stations in accordance with demand. • Turn-around and rest areas: Ensure that there are spaces for buses to turn around and for drivers to take breaks. • Pedestrian, bike, and disabled access • Sidewalk upgrades and repair • Driveway density: A detailed examination of driveway density along individual corridors, particularly in areas zoned for commercial, schools, or hospitals, as seen in red and light purple in Figure 24. Driveway density can affect 38

Figure 24: Regional Zoning Source: SCAG 2009

crashes and travel speed (McCoy & Heimann 1990). The Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide (2015) recommends limiting left turns and the Federal Highway Administration (2010) recommends consolidating driveways over time through shared access or developing side street access. Policy • Lane enforcement: In order to keep lanes clear, bus lanes require enforcement. Tickets can be issued by police, fixed cameras, or on-board cameras. • Coordination between street light control operators, such as Los Angeles’ Automated Traffic Control Surveillance and Control system (ATSAC) and municipal and private agencies to ensure compatibility of technology.


• Land-use planning: Cities and the regional government can use this opportunity to reconsider areas served by enhanced transit, including incentivizing infill development. Funding Funding sources: Since 1980 four voterapproved measures provide local returns for transportation upgrades. • Proposition A (1980) is a half-cent sales tax that returns 40% to operators and 25% to local return. • Proposition C (1992) is a half-cent sales tax with 20% local return. • Measure R (2008), which is predicted to generate $40 billion over 30 years and dedicates 20% to bus service and 15% to local return. • Measure M (2016), which is expected to raise $120 billion over 40 years and extend Measure R, has 17% local return (City of Santa Monica, 2016). Messaging • Public outreach: there is an opportunity to gain public insight into public priorities and to gain project buy-in. • Public awareness campaign to alert the public to impacts of the project. • Branding: potential to brand the area as a transit-oriented area or advertise certain high-quality transit lines to increase public awareness. 39


APPENDIX A: EXISTING BUS ROUTES

40


Operator

Route Number

Peak Headway

Buses per Hour

40

11

5.45

105

20

3

108/138

10

6

110

20

3

111

14

4.29

115

10

6

120

70

0.86

210

20

3

607

60

1

625

20

3

705

9

6.67

710

13

4.62

740

20

3

3

20

3

R3

10

6

14

15

4

4

40

1.5

6

20

3

6R

15

4

10

30

2

Midtown

30

2

Leimert/Slauson

25

2.4

109

40

1.5

5

30

2

Playa Vista Inc

n/a

15

4

Private Buses / Vans

n/a

Peak Service Only

n/a

Metro

Metro Rapid

Big Blue Bus

Culver City Bus

Torrance Transit LADOT DASH

Beach Cities Gardena

41


Table: Frequency of Buses

LA Metro Route

40

102

108

110

111

115

212

217

607

740

Buses/Day

138

47

196

112

176

168

166

148

10

86

Big Blue Bus

Culver City Bus

Route

3

R3

14

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

6R

7

Buses/Day

114

122

92

90

118

26

139

56

3

113

77

50

Table: Municipal Buses on Studied Routes Street Start Street

End Street

Airport Manchester

La Tijera

Bluff Creek

Campus Center

Bluff Creek

Centinela

Campus Center

Bluff Creek Playa Vista

Lincoln

Big Blue Bus

Culver City Bus

Playa Vista 14

4

4

Campus Bluff Creek Center

Jefferson

14

Centinela Bluff Creek

Jefferson

14

Centinela

La Brea

Beach

110

Centinela

Sanford

Jefferson

108

Centinela Sepulveda

42

Metro

Bluff Creek

14 110

3

Culver

Centinela

Lincoln

7

Culver

Inglewood

Centinela

7

Culver

Venice

Inglewood

1

Eucalyptus

Florence

Beach

607

Florence

Centinela

La Brea

40

111

740

111

740

Florence

West

Centinela

40

Jefferson

Campus Center

Playa Vista Dr

110

607

4

5

7


Street Start Street

End Street

Metro

Jefferson

Centinela

Campus Center

Jefferson

Lincoln

Playa Vista

Jefferson

Slauson

Sepulveda

Jefferson

Slauson

Mesmer

La Brea

Stocker

Slauson

La Tiejera

Airport

Manchester

102

La Tiejera Thornburn

Centinela

102

La Tiejera Thornburn

Airport

102

Jefferson

110

Mesmer

Centinela

108

108

Jefferson

Sepulveda

Slauson

108

110

217

La Brea

102

108

607

La Cienega

102

108

607

Slauson La Cienega

Sepulveda

108

Slauson Sepulveda

Jefferson

108

Slauson Angeles Vista Slauson

La Brea

Westchester

Aviation

Sepulveda

111

Angeles Vista

Crenshaw

Slauson

607

Beach

La Cienega

110

Centinela

Green Valley Centinela Cir Centinela La Cienega

Sepulveda Green Valley Cir

Inglewood

Culver

Jefferson

Jefferson

Mesmer

Inglewood

108

La Brea

Florence

Centinela

212

Manchester

Florence

Sepulveda

115

Manchester Sepulveda

Lincoln

Florence

Slauson

Aviation

Century

Manchester

Beach

Centinela

607

Beach

607

Beach

Beach Eucalyptus Bundy

Exposition

Stanwood

4

3

4

2

6

6R

212

4 102

6

6R

2

3

2

5

607 217

217

2

115

West

2

3

110 110

Culver City Bus

110

Playa Vista Bluff Creek Centinela

Big Blue Bus

3

607

14

44 43


Street Start Street

End Street

Centinela

Culver

Sanford

Centinela

Florence

La Brea

Centinela

Stanwood

Culver

Eucalyptus

Beach

Centinela

Florence Eucalyptus Florence/La Brea Florence/La Florence Brea Florence

Metro 108

14

14

La Cienega Eucalyptus La Brea

Hindry

La Cienega

Florence

Hindry

Manchester

Hindry

Florence

Manchester

La Brea

Centinela

Slauson

212

La Cienega

Centinela

Slauson

102

La Cienega

Florence

Industrial

La Cienega

Jefferson

Slauson

217

217

La Cienega Thornburn

Centinela

Lincoln Bluff Creek

Jefferson

3

R3

Lincoln

Jefferson

3

R3

Bluff Creek

3

R3

Culver

3

R3

Culver

Lincoln

Pico

Osage Manchester Sepulveda

H Hughes Pkwy

Culver City Bus

607

Florence

Lincoln Manchester

La Tijera Centinela

217

6

6R

Sepulveda Manchester

H Hughes Pkwy

6

6R

Sepulveda

Jefferson

3

4

6

6R

Slauson

Sepulveda Westchester Manchester Slauson

Crenshaw

Slauson

West

Thornburn La Cienega Culver City Venice Station

44

Big Blue Bus

West

102 108

607

Angeles Vista 108 La Tijera Culver

33

733

3

6

6R


APPENDIX B: ROADS STUDIED & TIERS

45


46

Street

Start Street

End Street

Direction

Length (mi)

Road Width (ft)

Existing Lanes

AADT

Airport

Manchester

La Tijera

NS

0.38

60

4

15531

Bluff Creek

Campus Center

Playa Vista

EW

1.24

68

4

9,400

Bluff Creek

Centinela

Campus Center

EW

0.57

81

6

9,400

Bluff Creek

Playa Vista

Lincoln

EW

0.17

86

6+1

9,400

Campus Center

Bluff Creek

Jefferson

NS

0.31

105

4+2

9,400

Centinela

Bluff Creek

Jefferson

EW

0.24

93

8

22442

Centinela

La Brea

Beach

EW

0.52

93

4+1

22442

Centinela

Sanford

Jefferson

NS

0.48

84

4+1

29240

Centinela

Sepulveda

Bluff Creek

EW

0.42

93

7 to 9

22442

Culver

Centinela

Lincoln

NS

1.25

85

6

17818

Culver

Inglewood

Centinela

NS

0.32

85

6

17818

Culver

Venice

Inglewood

NS

2.65

80

4+1

17768

Eucalyptus

Florence

Beach

NS

0.25

52

2

3751

Florence

Centinela

La Brea

EW

0.47

85

4+1

18540

Florence

West

Centinela

EW

0.77

106

4

37069

Jefferson

Campus Center

Playa Vista Dr

EW

1.20

95

8

33997

Jefferson

Centinela

Campus Center

EW

0.28

104

9

24665


Parking

Bus (mi per day)

Road Diet & Restripe?

Auto Lanes

Parking?

Tier

No

0.00

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

0.00

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

83.77

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

0.00

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

45.29

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

22.06

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

58.58

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

136.80

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

105.17

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

62.50

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

16.05

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

744.65

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

2.45

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

192.29

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

306.80

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

201.60

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

1-side

30.80

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

47


Start Street

End Street

Direction

Length (mi)

Road Width (ft)

Existing Lanes

AADT

Jefferson

Lincoln

Playa Vista

EW

0.16

115

7+1

33997

Jefferson

Slauson

Sepulveda

EW

0.15

82

6+1

24665

Jefferson

Slauson

Mesmer

EW

0.29

84

6+1

24665

La Brea

Stocker

Slauson

NS

0.60

72

6

34863

La Tiejera

Airport

Manchester

NS

0.52

78

6

17763

La Tiejera

Thornburn

Centinela

EW

0.40

74

4+1

17763

La Tiejera

Thornburn

Airport

NS

0.73

78

6

17763

Mesmer

Centinela

Jefferson

NS

0.30

63

4

1816

Playa Vista

Bluff Creek

Jefferson

NS

0.35

94

4+1

9,400

Sepulveda

Centinela

Slauson

NS

0.55

82

6+2

38522

Slauson

Angeles Vista

La Brea

EW

0.39

83

6+1

38522

Slauson

La Brea

La Cienega

EW

0.67

83

6+1

17670

Slauson

La Cienega

Sepulveda

EW

1.47

92

6+1

17670

Slauson

Sepulveda

Jefferson

EW

0.11

68

4+2

17670

Westchester

Aviation

Sepulveda

EW

1.04

64

4+1

19404

Angeles Vista

Crenshaw

Slauson

NS

1.63

55

4

3,398

Beach

La Cienega

EW

0.20

80

4+1

22442

Street

Centinela

48


Parking

Bus (mi per day)

Road Diet & Restripe?

Auto Lanes

Parking?

Tier

1-side

0.00

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

81.19

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

0.00

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

0.00

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

24.30

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

34.22

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

18.89

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

1-side

92.74

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

0.00

Yes

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

368.93

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

164.25

Yes

4+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

169.26

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

492.45

Yes

2 or 4 +1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

No

27.20

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

1-side

429.52

Yes

2+1

Maintain Existing Parking

1

Yes

5.43

Yes

2+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

24.12

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

49


Start Street

End Street

Direction

Length (mi)

Road Width (ft)

Existing Lanes

AADT

Centinela

Green Valley Cir

Sepulveda

EW

0.54

73

4+1

22442

Centinela

La Cienega

Green Valley Cir

NS

0.95

76

6+1

27415

Inglewood

Culver

Jefferson

NS

1.06

56

4+1

19348

Jefferson

Mesmer

Inglewood

EW

0.29

78

5+1

24665

La Brea

Florence

Centinela

NS

0.82

76

4+1

26950

Manchester

Florence

Sepulveda

EW

1.10

83

4+1

26924

Manchester

Sepulveda

Lincoln

EW

1.32

84

4

23660

West

Florence

Slauson

NS

1.00

55

2+1

7889

Aviation

Century

Manchester

NS

0.99

56

4

25789

Beach

Beach

Centinela

NS

0.17

37

2

3681

Beach

Eucalyptus

Beach

NS

0.61

34

2

3681

Bundy

Exposition

Stanwood

NS

1.30

62

4+1

47990

Centinela

Culver

Sanford

NS

0.48

58

4

22,692

Centinela

Florence

La Brea

NS

0.81

70

4+1

23442

Centinela

Stanwood

Culver

NS

2.12

66

4+1

32137

Eucalyptus

Beach

Centinela

NS

0.52

28

2

3751

Eucalyptus

La Cienega

EW

0.67

57

4+1

23687

Street

Florence

50


Parking

Bus (mi per day)

Road Diet & Restripe?

Auto Lanes

Parking?

Tier

Yes

230.35

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

1-side

247.00

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

30.74

Yes

2+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

63.94

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

135.46

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

184.80

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

372.24

Yes

4+1

Restrict Parking

2

Yes

10.00

Yes

2+1

Restrict Parking

2

No

93.91

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

1.67

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

6.07

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

236.60

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

138.55

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

8.12

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

195.05

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

51


52

Street

Start Street

End Street

Direction

Length (mi)

Road Width (ft)

Existing Lanes

AADT

Florence

Florence/ La Brea

Eucalyptus

EW

0.30

60

4+1

23687

Florence

Florence/ La Brea

La Brea

EW

0.06

60

5

23687

Florence

Hindry

La Cienega

EW

0.19

50.5

5

23687

Florence

Hindry

Manchester

NS

0.27

46

4

23687

Hindry

Florence

Manchester

NS

0.16

38

2

2558

La Brea

Centinela

Slauson

NS

0.87

65

4+1

34964

La Cienega

Centinela

Slauson

NS

0.73

84

6

85265

La Cienega

Florence

Industrial

NS

0.36

55

4

66595

La Cienega

Jefferson

Slauson

NS

2.77

87

6

69760

La Cienega

Thornburn

Centinela

NS

0.61

76

5+1

61864

Lincoln

Bluff Creek

Jefferson

NS

0.35

120

8

61796

Lincoln

Culver

Jefferson

NS

0.31

82

4+1

44043

Lincoln

Manchester

Bluff Creek

NS

0.74

80

6+1

61796

Lincoln

Pico

Culver

EW

3.87

82

4+1

44043

Osage

Manchester

La Tijera

NS

0.78

35

2

12326

Sepulveda

H Hughes Pkwy

Centinela

NS

0.42

98

8+1

56188

Sepulveda

Manchester

H Hughes Pkwy

NS

1.06

83

6

56188


Parking

Bus (mi per day)

Road Diet & Restripe?

Auto Lanes

Parking?

Tier

No

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

144.25

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

141.96

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

409.96

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

0.00

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

82.33

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

72.22

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

174.41

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

913.32

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

140.95

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

53


Start Street

End Street

Direction

Length (mi)

Road Width (ft)

Existing Lanes

AADT

Sepulveda

Slauson

Jefferson

NS

0.11

84

6+2

81189

Sepulveda

Westchester

Manchester

NS

0.36

93

6+1

81189

Slauson

Crenshaw

West

EW

0.25

54

4+1

27895

Slauson

West

Angeles Vista

EW

0.95

66

4+1

33285

Thornburn

La Cienega

La Tijera

EW

0.49

37

2

2036

Venice

Culver City Station

Culver

EW

0.14

102

7+2

127000

Street

54


Parking

Bus (mi per day)

Road Diet & Restripe?

Auto Lanes

Parking?

Tier

No

201.40

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

43.17

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

127.41

ADT Too High

No Change

Not Applicable

3

1-side

51.23

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

186.40

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

Yes

0.00

Too Narrow

No Change

Not Applicable

3

No

0.00

ADT Too High

Not Applicable

3

55


[ This page is intentionally left blank ]

56


APPENDIX C: SAMPLE ROAD RECONFIGURATIONS

57


2 + 1 Lanes

13+ ft

11 ft

13+ ft 13+ ft 52 ft +

10 ft

10 ft 52 ft +

10 ft

13+ ft

11 ft

2 + 1 Lanes with Parking

12+ ft

11 ft

58

12+ ft

10 ft

12+ ft 12+ ft 72 ft +

10 ft

10 ft 72 ft +

10 ft

12+ ft

10 ft

12+ ft

11ft


4 + 1 Lanes

9 ft

13+ ft

9 ft

11 ft

13+ ft 13+ ft 70 ft +

10 ft

10 ft 70 ft +

10 ft

13+ ft

9 ft

11 ft

9 ft

4 + 1 Lanes with Parking

9 ft

12+ ft

9 ft

11 ft

12+ ft

10 ft

12+ ft 12+ ft 90 ft +

10 ft

10 ft 90 ft +

10 ft

12+ ft

10 ft

12+ ft

9 ft

11ft

9 ft

59


APPENDIX D: COSTS & SAVINGS

60


Table D.1: Unit & Total Project Costs Enhancement

Unit

Cost per Unit

Number

Total Cost

Restriping

Mile

$245,000

54.33

$13,309,683

Int.

$16,213

164

$2,655,528

Unit

$25,000

3

$75,000

Unit

$7,000

255

$1,785,104

Unit

$13,333

255

$3,400,198

Signal Priority TAP Card Machine Off-Board Fare Payment Real-Time Bus Arrival Sign

Estimated Cost: Cost / mile:

$16,709,970 $307,591

Sources: Carino 2016; ITS-JPO 2009; Larwin, et al 2012; NACTO 2017; SCVTA 2007

Table D.2: Fully Loaded Operating Cost Fully Loaded Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hours Operator

Operating Expenses

Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Fully Loaded Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hours

Metro Local

$935,330,587

6,815,787

$137

Metro BRT

$26,256,530

130,992

$200

BBB

$65,465,880

489,022

$134

Culver City Bus

$18,934,766

148,569

$127

Source: Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database 2014

61


BIBLIOGRAPHY

62


Baker, R. J., Collura, J., Dale, J. J., Head, L., Hemily, B., Ivanovic, M., & Stoppenhagen, G. R. (2002). An overview of transit signal priority.

Bergman, B. (Sept 30, 2015). Silicon Beach: 80 percent of office space in Playa Vista occupied by tech firms. Southern California Public Radio.

Barr, J., Beaton, E., Chiarmonte, J., & Orosz, T. (2010). Select Bus Service on Bx12 in New York City: Bus Rapid Transit Partnership of New York City DOT and Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2145), 40-48.

Big Blue Bus. (2017a). BBB Accepts Mobile Tickets. Retrieved May 1, 2017 from https://www.bigbluebus.com/ Newsroom/News/BBB-Accepts-MobileTickets.aspx.

Barr, J., et al. (2010). Designing Bus Rapid Transit Running Ways. American Public Transportation Association.

Brown, J., & Thompson, G. (2008). Service Orientation, Bus—Rail Service Integration, and Transit Performance: Examination of 45 US Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2042), 82-89.

Baruch Feigenbaum. (2015). Increasing Mobility in Southern California: A New Approach. Reason Foundation. Beaton, E., Bialostozky, E., Ernhofer, O., Orosz, T., Reiss, T., & Yuratovac, D. (2013). Designing Bus Rapid Transit Facilities for Constrained Urban Arterials: Case Study of the Selection Process for the Webster Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Running Way Design in New York City. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2352), 50-60. Beirão, G., & Cabral, J. S. (2007). Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transport policy, 14(6), 478-489.

Big Blue Bus. (2017b). Meeting with Senior Bus Planner.

Brown, J. and Thompson, G. (2009). “Express Bus versus Rail Transit: How the Marriage of Mode and Mission Affects Transit Performance,” Transportation Research Record, 2110: 45-54. Burden, D., & Lagerwey, P. (1999). Road Diets. Walkable Communities, 1-15. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). May 2015 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 445100 - Grocery Stores. United States Department of Labor.

63


Caltrans. (2015). 2015 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Carino, Meghan M. (October 28 2016). Measure M claim to reduce traffic doesn’t tell the whole story. Southern California Public Radio. Carlton, I., Cervero, R., Rhodes, M., & Lavine, E. (2012). Developing and Implementing the City of Los Angeles’ Transit Corridors Strategy. CDM Smith. (2016). Draft EIR- Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (CTCSP/WLA TIMP) – Specific Plans Amendment Project. LA City EIR No. ENV2014-1458-EIR. Chamberlain, D. D. (2009). Emergent media technologies and the production of new urban spaces. University of Sout. Chatman, D., Xu, R., Park, J., & Le, K. (2016). Public Transportation and Industrial Location Patterns in California. UCCONNECT Final Reports. Chester, M., Pincetl, S., Elizabeth, Z., Eisenstein, W., & Matute, J. (2013). Infrastructure and automobile shifts: positioning transit to reduce life-cycle environmental impacts for urban sustainability goals. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 015041.

64

Circella, G. et al. (2016). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? The National Center for Sustainable Transportation. City of Ingelwood. (2005). Department of Public Works 2005 Traffic Counts. City of Los Angeles. (2009). Village at Playa Vista Revised Draft EIR. City of Los Angeles. (2015). Complete Streets Design Guide. City of Los Angeles. (2016). Draft EIR-Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan (CTCSP/WLA TIMP) – Specific Plans Amendment Project. City Of Santa Monica. (2016). Big Blue Bus Fund (An Enterprise Fund of the City of Santa Monica) Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2016 and 2015. Crosley, S. (2006). The Choices of Choice Riders Demand for Light Rail Transit in the Polycentric City: A Look at Culver City and the Mid-City/Exposition Line (Doctoral dissertation). Cuff, D. (2011). Los Angeles: Urban Development in the Postsuburban Megacity. In Megacities (pp. 273-287). Springer Japan.


Culver City. (2004). Culver City ADT 2004. Retrieved Jan 30 from h t t p : / / w w w. c u l ve rc i t y. o r g / h o m e / showdocument?id=152.

Elkind, Ethan. (March 17, 2017). Metro is spending billions of your tax dollars to build L.A. a world class transit system. Don’t let them blow it. Los Angeles Times.

Culver City. (2016). Request For Proposals for Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) Project, PL-005.

Federal Highway Administration. (2010). Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections.

Currie, G., Sarvi, M., & Young, B. (2007). A new approach to evaluating onroad public transport priority projects: balancing the demand for limited roadspace. Transportation, 34(4), 413-428.

Federal Highway Administration Safety Program. (2014). Road Diet Informational Guide.

Degood, Kevin. (May 4, 2016). The Danger of Measuring Roadway Congestion Wrong. Center for American Progress. Deng, T., & Nelson, J. D. (2011). Recent developments in bus rapid transit: a review of the literature. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 69-96. Diab, E. I., & El-Geneidy, A. M. (2012). Understanding the impacts of a combination of service improvement strategies on bus running time and passenger’s perception. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(3), 614-625. Downs, A. (2004). Still Stuck in Traffic. Washington DC, Brookings Institute. Dziekan, K., & Kottenhoff, K. (2007). Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport: effects on customers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(6), 489-501.

Federal Transit Administration. (2014). The National Transit Database (NTD). Ferris, B., Watkins, K., & Borning, A. (2010, April). OneBusAway: results from providing real-time arrival information for public transit. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1807-1816). ACM. Florida Department of Transportation. (2016). Long Range Estimates: Cost Per Mile Models. Fuhs, C., & Obenberger, J. (2002). Development of high-occupancy vehicle facilities: review of national trends. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1781), 1-9. Glasmeier, A. (1988). Factors Governing the Development of High Tech Industry Agglomerations: A Tale of Three Cities. Regional Studies, 22:4, 287-301. 65


Google. (2014). EEO-1 Report: Employer Information Report.

2014

Google. (2017). Interview with Facilities Manager. Grava, S. (2003). Urban transportation systems. Choices for communities. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pages 383-420. Great Streets. (2017). Venice Boulevard. Retrieved April 20, 2017 from http:// lagreatstreets.org/venice/ Hess, Daniel Baldwin, Brian D. Taylor, and Allison Yoh. 2006. “Light-Rail-Lite or CostEffective Improvements to Bus Service? Evaluating Costs of Implementing Bus Rapid Transit,” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1927: 22-30. Hymon, Steve. (2016). Measure M: transit projects to receive funding from sales tax ballot measure. The Source. Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS-JPO). (2009). Unit Cost Component - Transit signal priority hardware. Iseki, H., & Taylor, B. D. (2009). Not all transfers are created equal: Towards a framework relating transfer connectivity to travel behaviour. Transport Reviews, 29(6), 777-800.

66

Kagle, Kate. (May 2, 2017). “City Council Approves Plans to Add a Dedicated Bus Lane to 1.25 Miles of Lincoln Boulevard”. Santa Monica Daily Press, Vol 16(146), 1 &7. Kalamaros, A. E. (2013). Sustainable Development in Southern California: The Case of Playa Vista. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, 299. Khouri, A. (2016, February 10). $475-million deal reflects Playa Vista’s rise as a tech hub. Los Angeles Times Kim, S., Park, M., & Chon, K. S. (2012). Bus signal priority strategies for Multidirectional bus routes. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(5), 855-861. Knapp, K., K. Giese, and W. Lee, Urban FourLane Undivided to Three-Lane Roadway Conversion Guidelines, 2003. Krueger, S.G. (2012). Delimiting the postmodern urban center: an analysis of urban amenity clusters in Los Angeles. University of Southern California. Kuby, M., Barranda, A., & Upchurch, C. (2004). Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(3), 223-247.


Kwon, J., & Varaiya, P. (2008). Effectiveness of California’s high occupancy vehicle (HOV) system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 16(1), 98-115. Larwin, T. F., & Koprowski, Y. (2012). Off-board fare payment using proofof-payment verification (Vol. 96). Transportation Research Board. Leard, B., Linn, J., & Munnings, C. (2016). Explaining the Evolution of Passenger Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United States. Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., & Gast, J. (2003). Bus rapid transit: Synthesis of case studies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1841), 1-11. Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., Rutherford, S., Smith, R. L., Cracknell, J., & Soberman, R. (2003). Bus rapid transit. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report, 90. Liao, C. F., & Davis, G. (2007). Simulation study of bus signal priority strategy: Taking advantage of global positioning system, automated vehicle location system, and wireless communications. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2034), 82-91.

Lieber, R. (December 9, 2011), “Commuting Puzzle: Why Driving Is Rewarded over Taking the Bus”. New York Times. Litman, T. (2015). Evaluating public transit benefits and costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Lopez, Steve. (Dec. 20, 2013). Congestion isn’t just a Westside problem anymore. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal. (2009). Countywide Zoning. Mann, A. (2014). What’s up with that: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse. Wired. Manville, M., & Shoup, D. C. (2010). Parking requirements as a barrier to housing development: regulation and reform in Los Angeles. University of California Transportation Center. McCoy, P. T., & Heimann, J. E. (1990). Effect of driveway traffic on saturation flow rates at signalized intersections. ITE journal, 60(2), 12-15. McLaughlin, J., & Allison, J. E. (2010). Urban Design, Environmental Consciousness, and Sustainable Communities: Can New Urbanism Reduce Driving in Auto Friendly Los Angeles?. Metro. (2015). Suregional Mobility Matrix: Westside Cities.

67


National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (2017). Better Boarding, Better Buses: Streamlining Boarding & Fares. National BRT Institute. (2013). Los Angeles Metro Rapid Presentation. National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCRTPB) Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2011). TPB Bus Priority Treatment Guidelines. Nelson, L., & Weikel, D. (Jan 27, 2016). Billions spent, but fewer people are using public transportation in Southern California. Los Angeles Times. Novak, M. (2013, April 26). Nobody Walks in L.A.: The Rise of Cars and the Monorails That Never Were. Smithsonian Magazine. Panero, M., Shin, H. S., Zedrin, A., Zimmerman, S., Panero, A. M., & Dowdall, E. (2012). Peer-to-peer information exchange on bus rapid transit (BRT) and bus priority best practices. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration. Porter, D. R., Blakely, E. J., & Kalamaros, A. E. (2003). Sustainable Infill. Urban Land, 62(5), 60-69. Rabin, J. & Rainey, J. (Sept 3, 1992). Agreement Reached on Playa Vista Project Traffic Mitigation: Transportation:

68

The developer-financed improvements are aimed at avoiding gridlock in the project’s early stages. Release of an environmental impact report is delayed. Los Angeles Times. Saade, N., Gub, W., & Cassidya, M. J. (2015). Effects Of Segregating Buses And Cars In A Congested, Non-steady-state Street Network. Transportation Research Circular, (E-C197). Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA). (2007). Bus Rapid Transit Service Design Guidelines. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Scauzillo, S. (Sept 26, 2016). Why weekend ridership is up on Gold, Expo line trains. San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Skabardonis, A., Miller, M. A., Li, I. Y., Cervero, R., Murakami, J., Zou, Z., ... & Wong, N. (2009). Assessment of the Applicability of Bus Rapid Transit on Conventional Highways: Case Study Feasibility Analyses Along the Lincoln Boulevard Corridor. California PATH Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley. Snyder, Ryan. (2009). The Bus Riders Union Transit Model: Why a Bus-Centered System Will Best Serve U.S. Cities. http://


rsa.cc/images/BRU_TM.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (2016). Subarea Forecast. Surprenant-Legault, J., & El-Geneidy, A. (2011). Introduction of reserved bus lane: Impact on bus running time and on-time performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2218), 10-18. Tirachini, A. (2013). Bus dwell time: the effect of different fare collection systems, bus floor level and age of passengers. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 9(1), 28-49. Wachs, M. (1993). Learning from Los Angeles: transport, urban form, and air quality. Transportation, 20(4), 329-354. Walker, J. (2009).. “Bus-rail Debates In A Beautiful Abstract City, And In Los Angeles,” in Human Transit: The Professional Blog of Public Transit Planning Consultant Jarrett Walker. Walker, J. (2010).. “The Power and Pleasure of Grids,” in Human Transit: The Professional Blog of Public Transit Planning Consultant Jarrett Walker. Walker, J. (2016, July 21). “Does Elon

Musk Understand Urban Geometry?,” in Human Transit: The Professional Blog of Public Transit Planning Consultant Jarrett Walker. Watkins, K. E., Ferris, B., Borning, A., Rutherford, G. S., & Layton, D. (2011). Where Is My Bus? Impact of mobile real-time information on the perceived and actual wait time of transit riders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(8), 839-848. Williams, M. (2015). Driving Diversity at Facebook. Facebook Newsroom. Wright, L. (2002). Bus rapid transit. Yahoo. (2015). Yahoo! 2015 Workforce Diversity. Retrieved November 12, 2016 from https://yahoo.tumblr.com/ post/123472998984/please-see-herefor-our-eeo-1-report. Yin, Y., Miller, M., & Ceder, A. (2005). Framework for deployment planning of bus rapid transit systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1903), 11-19. Yoh, A., Iseki, H., Smart, M., & Taylor, B. (2011). Hate to wait: effects of wait time on public transit travelers’ perceptions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2216), 116-124.

69

Reclaiming the Road  

Applied Capstone Project for partial fulfillment of Master of Urban and Regional Planning at UCLA.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you