1939 Transit Program Los Angeles Metropolitan Area

8/20/2019 1939 Transit Program Los Angeles Metropolitan Area

1/73


2/73

A TRANSIT PROGRAM

FOR THE LOS ANGELES

METROPOLITAN AREA

Presenting Recommendations for Development of

Facilities for Private and Mass Transit and a Plan for

Coordination of Mass Transportation Operations


3/73

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BOARD

LLOYD AL DR IC H , CH AI R MAN

K CHA R LES B E AN

ST O N E & WE BST E R ENG I NEE R ING C ORPOR A TIO N

601 W . 5 T H S TR EE T , L OS A NGE L E S

90 BROA D S TR EET , NEW YORK

Assoc iat es

~ A DIGA N -HYLAND

C O NSUL T ING ENGIN EE R S

20 EXC H A NG E PLAC E , N E W YO RK

Honorable Fletcher Bowron, Mayor

Honorable Council, City of Los Ang elesGentlemen:

The Transportation Eng ineering Board take s pleasure in submitting to you its reportwith respect to the transportation needs of theLo s Angeles Metropolitan Area. For the pastye ar and one-half thi s Board has been engaged in making a factual sur vey and in the prepa-ration of a program which is intended to serveas a general guide toward the dev elopment of adequate transit f acilities for thi s region.

The factual sur vey was financed by fundsalloc ated by the Works Progress Adminis-tration and by contributions made throughthe Citizens Transportation Survey Commit-tee. The latter Committee also provided fundsfor the employment of such consulting and professional assistance as was necessary to sup- plement the wo r k of regular Cit y employeesin th e a nal y, sisof the results of the factual sur-ve y a nd the preparation of plans for futureimp r ovements. Result s of the factual surve yar e cove red in a separate report.

Comp arison of local figu r es on area and

po pul ation with similar data on other citiesshows a t once the relat ively low populationd ensi ty i n both the Cit y and the MetropolitanArea . The disper sed character of the develop-ment tend s to abnormally long haul for both pri vate a utomobile and public carrier passen-ger s a nd makes the local problem a distinctiveone. The Metropolitan Area possesses an ex-

tensive network of su r f ace streets, those in the

cit y portion having been dev eloped in accord-ance with the accepted M a jor Traffic StreetPlan. E xisting tran s portation facilities, con-sisting of surface ra il and motor coach lines , pro vide adequate co verage for most of thearea in which de velopment has reached a stage justif ying the mainten ance of public transportation. These facilities now carr y about1,000,000 revenue pas senger s per da y, or 500,-000 in each direction. Neglecting pedestrians,during a 12-hour period about 6 30,000 personsenter the Central Business District of Los An-geles, 245,000 by public transportation facili :'ties and 385,000 by private automobile. Mostof these surf ilce streets and transportation fa-cilities serve, and will of necessit y continue toserve, definite public needs, for they are re -quired both for short haul tr avel in all partsof the district and a s collection and distributionfacilities for long di stance rides. Further improvement in surface tr ans portation is possibleand practicable . Certain changes are attainablein the relativel y near futur e and new equip-ment, reroutings , suitabl y located and arranged off -street terminals , and tr affic signal s ynchro -

nization gi ve promise of rai sing the qualit y and efficiency of service which ma y be rendered onthe su r f ace . Suggestion s for such impro ve-ments are made in the r e port covering theFactu al Survey .

In bu ilt up areas , surface streets and transportation facilities thereon do not permit of satisfactory speed bet ween point s many miles


4/73

apart. Reasonabl y rapid transit over substan-tial distances can be attained only by vehi clesoperated on routes free from the interferenceof cross-traffic and the resulting delays of traffic signal control . The Board has given

much consideration to the problem of ~x pedit-ing long distance travel for the user of the private automobile and for the patron of themass transportation facilities and con cludesthat in many portions of the di strict the e x pres shighway offer s the most attracti ve po ss ibilitiesas a solution. j"A"" sfar as m ass transportation isconcerned, the ultimate solution of the rapid transit problem in a large and densel y popu-lated area can be found only in rail rapid transit,and there is no doubt but that such a solutionwill eventually be necessar y in portion s of the

Los Angeles Metropolitan A r e i J h !

the inter-mediate stage, while population densities arestill moderate and financing of rail rapid transitfacilities difficult, a satisfactory altern ative i savailable, for the provision of express hi ghwaysand the operation of suitable buses thereonmakes it possible to provide the desired rapid transit simultaneously for both pri vate and public types of transportation. The Board hastherefore prepared a plan for such special stop-free highways and presents a pattern arr ange-ment toward which it believes de ve lo pmentshould be directed. A first unit is recommended for immediate construction with a financing plan believed to provide for liquidation of costswithout material burden on the taxpayer.

In order to furnish the most satisfactorytransportation service rapid transit facilitiesshould be thoroughly coordinated with thesurface facilities which, be side their local u ses,serve to collect and distribute the patrons of the rapid transit lines. The Board has there-fore suggested a plan for securing coord inationof management and operation of all major sur-

face lines with the rapid transit facilitiesrecommended for present and future con-struction.

The suggested plan of express highwa ys and parkways is to be regarded onl y as a general pattern and guide to future de ve lopment.Variations in both detail and general location

of some of these facilities may be found desir-able due to unpredictable development prior to actual construction, but it is believed that,with minor variations, the suggested planshould pro vide satisfactory coverage for themajor part of th e Los Ang eles MetropolitanArea and that the construction of such high-ways should adequately meet the rapid transitneeds of this territory until the time when railrapid transit becomes a necessity. Suggestionsare made in this report for the location of cer-tain rail rapid transit lines and for the acquir-ing of rights-of-way where that can mos~economically be done in conjunction with thesecuring of rights-of-way for the special high-ways.

By appropriate landscaping an express high-

way may become an arterial parkway, and autilitarian non -stop roadway thus transformed from a mere traffic lane to a pleasant thorough-fare. It is therefore recommended that amplerights-of-way be provided to permit moderateslopes and parkway treatment for the entireexpress highway system, excepting only thosesections where extremely high property valuesare encountered.

It is the opinion of the Board that tangible progress toward the curing of the transporta-tion ills of the district will best be signalized

not so much by the adoption of a master planas by the breaking of ground for the first con-struction project under the plan. For immedi-ate construction, the Board recommends a unitwhich in its opinion would afford great benefit,would be least likely to be affected by changed conditions, would not interfere with any fore-seeable change s in a ma ster plan, would offer the greatest certainty of being a self-liquidat-ing unit, would be justified by present condi-tions alone and would in no way be dependenton the carrying out of any other unit of the

plan. It recommends the construction of anexpress highway of the parkway type from theCentral Business District through Hollywood to Cahuenga Pass at an e stimated cost at cur-rent prices of about $20,000,000.

Insofar as transportation planning and regu-lation are likewise function s of existing instru-


5/73

mentalities of the state, county, and incorpor-ated cities in the Metropolitan Area, it is theBoard's hope that its work may be of assistanceto them in their respective jurisdictions. TheBoard has studiously avoided effort to controlthe development of the City and its environsaccording to any preconceived idea or objec-tive and has cont inuously contemplated pro-viding in its comprehensive plan for the or-derl y, efficient and free flow of people and good s no matter what regional objectives and arrangements might be adopted or carried out.It has striven to avoid uni-directional view-

points and has aimed to provide fluidity rather than to encourage or to discourage decentral-izing trends. The Board trusts that this reportmay result in definite progress toward the objective of safer, speedier, and more satisfactorytransportation throughout the district .

For recommendations covering immediateser vice changes, you are referred to the reportof the Factual Survey. For further details of the Board's comprehensive plan, immediateconstruction program, unification arrange-ments, and suggested procedure, you are re-ferred to the following pages of this report.

I~r -JOHN COFFEE HAYS, Executive Vice President


6/73

TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BOARDCITY OF LOS ANGELES

Chairman-Lloyd Aldrich, City Engineer -nominated by the Board of Public Works

Member-K Charles Bean, Chief Engineer and General Manager,Department of Public Utilities and Transportation-nominated by the Board of Public Utilities and Transportation

Member-Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Consulting Engineers, 601 West Fifth Street, Los Angeles -nominated by the Citizens Transportation Survey Committee

Madigan-Hyland, Consulting Engineers, 20 Exchange Place, New York, N. Y.

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Bureau of Engineering, City of Los AngelesMerrill Butler, Deputy Engineer, DesignHugo H. Winter, Engineer, Rapid Transit Design

Department of Public Utilities and Transportation, Los AngelesStanley M. Lanham, Assistant Chief Engineer

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Consulting EngineersRudolf L . Weber, Transportation Consultant Thorn Dickinson, Engineer, Rail Rapid Transit

Madigan-Hyland, Consulting EngineersEmil Praeger, Chief Engineer Clinton F. Loyd, Chief Architect and Parkway Designer Edward Passarelli, Landscape Parkway Designer Elmer B. Isaak, Traffic Engineer

Citizens Transportation Survey CommitteeStuart M. Bate, Coordinating Engineer

City of Los AngelesRegular personnel assigned

Works Progress AdministrationField and office forces on Factual Survey

Citizens Transportation Survey CommitteeSupervisory forces on Factual Survey, and engineers,consultants, reports and miscellaneous


7/73

OFFICERS

P. G. Winnett, Chairman

Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, ManhattanBeach, Torrance, Gardena and El Segundo

W. N. Donohugh

Highland Park Joy A. Winans

Hollywood Carl Bush

DISTRICT REPRESENT ATIVES

Huntington Park Lloyd King

Long Beach and Harbor DistrictCharles S. Henderson

Pasadena and South PasadenaHarrison R. Baker

San Fernando ValleyW. P. Whitsett

San Gabriel ValleyFrank Hayes

Santa Monica, Cul ver Cit y and VeniceDonald Douglas

We st Los Ang eles and Westwood George Gregson

Whittier and BelvedereL. M. Sawyer

Alhambra and San MarinoThomas B. Downer

Beverly HillsRalph B. Lloyd

East Los Angeles and VernonC. Bruce Wood

GlendaleHerman Nelson

Dr . Frank F. BarhamE. Manchester BoddyR. A. Carrington, Jr. N orman Chandler Eugene P. Clark

Henry DuqueDavid R. FariesP. B. HarrisBaron LongS. F. Macfarlane

Henry S. Mackay, Jr.. W. S. Rosecrans

Victor H. RossettiGeorge RowanO. A. Smith

COOPERATING AGENCIES

Los Angeles Traffic AssociationCentral Business District Association

Herbert C . Legg - Administrator for Southern CaliforniaEdwin B . Scheuer-State Supervisor of Research and Records Projects


8/73

CONTENTS

I NTRODUCTIONObjecti ves of the Board . . .Factual Sur vey and Othe r Reports .Acknowledgments

PAGE

11

2

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONSSpeed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2The E x pre ss High way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4Mass Tr ansportation and Street Capacit y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

THE BASIC PROGRAMPlans Considered .Specific Recommendations ..

Expres s Highwa y System .Rapid Tran si t Buses .Coordination of Facilities . . .Unification of Management and Operations ..Rail Rapid Transit .

RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMGeneral Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 14The Holl ywood Parkway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15Financing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Arroyo SecoParkway and Santa Monica Parkway 16

ENGINEERING AND RIGHT -OF-WAYTypes of Construction . . . . . . . . 17Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Capacity , Speed and Safet y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Center Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . , 18Right-of-Way and Property Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Prospective Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTProblems of the Central District .Transition Step s.

Hollywood Parkwa y .Broadway Subway . . .Harbor and Inglewood ParkwaysSubway Terminal for BusesInitial Heavy Dut y Subwa y.

Ex press Highwa y Cordon .

UNIFICATION OF TRANSIT OPERATIONSPublic Operation 38Public Control of Coordinated Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Corporate Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Purpose and Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

41


9/73

I ~ ,I n :BROKE N UNE SHOW S EST IMATED I :RESUL TS ON E XPRESS HIGHWAY / 0 :\/---5------ 13 . 7 M IN U TES -- --- -- - -- - --- --- - e

~w •u ./ l .t J i =

!- ~~ ~ ~ M:( S" ;I ~~A~~ ~ - - --- - --- -/~ ; ~

/ , /r - - - - - - - - - - - - - : tL 2 M IN U TE S · - ·~- - -- _ _ ~/ i t:i

/ :f I

V l- - -- - --- 9 .~ M IN V TE s t-- -- - - -

1 ~

the much more rapid progress which could have been made if no stops had been necessary,and there had been no delays due to cross trafficand curb parking, as would have been the caseon an express highway, later described. Thesummary of comparative results shown on Fig-

ure 1 indicates that under the conditions illus-trated nearly double the present overall speed could have been attained and discloses the rea-son for the increase.

Mass transportation vehicles operating onthe surface are confronted with the same dif-ficulties as the private automobile, aggravated by the necessity of taking on and discharging passengers. However, if certain of these ve-

...J

«t -ot -

I

owa ::w>ouwuz~ 2«)

o

I

/, 4--- 6 , 1 MI NU TES _

I

hicles were operated on an express schedule onan available express highway, as later proposed herein, their performance would approximatethat of a private motor vehicle on such a fa-cility, thus enhancing materially the attrac-tiveness, efficiency and utility of the service.

While the local rapid transit buses which would make each stop on the express highway could not match that performance, the stops would on the average be one-half mile apart, permit-ting substantial improvement over speed of travel entirely on the surface streets.

The Board recognizes the importance of cer-tain economic factors such as the cost of automobile operation and the value of time

ii

~"'OE S TINATION

2 0 3 0

TO T AL TRAVEL TIME - MINUTES FROM OF FICE

FIGURE I -EFFECT OF STOPS AND SLOW -DOWNS ON OVERALLTRAVEL TIME

Comparing a rush hour automobile trip on surface streets with one on a stop-free expresshigh way. On latter , speed illustrated varies from 30 mile s per hour in densest traffic to

43 miles in remote section .


10/73

saved, but does not present figures purportingto reappraise their values which have been esti-mated and tabulated by several authorities.Psychological and safety factors are believed to be equally if not more important to the prospective user and facilities proposed as a

measure contributing to the solution of thetraffic and transportation problem should appropriately provide for all essential require-ments including low operating costs, saving intime, increased safety and reduced drivingstrain.

The Express Highway

The terms "express highway," "motorway,""freeway," and "limited way" are interchange-ably used by various authorities though designstandards vary somewhat . As used herein, "ex-

press highway" means a highway free through-out its length from crossings at grade withother highways, streets and railways. At inter-sections with other express highways, curved connections permit right and left turns with-out grade crossings and at reasonably fastspeeds. Access to and from the surface streetsystem is limited by wide spacing of on and off ramps at approximately half mile intervalsgenerally at important points along the route.As to grade, the express highway may be onthe surface, elevated or depressed, dependingon topography and other requirements of thedistrict through which it is passing. As to type,it may be developed on narrow right-of-wayin locations where property values are veryhigh or on wide right-of-way with landscaped treatment where right-of-way costs permit.In the latter case, it is referred to herein as a"parkway.'" Abutting property is entirely cutoff from access to the main express roadways, but where street frontage is lacking, access is provided by service roads along the margin of the right -of-way.

The express highway provides the necessaryelements for continuous flow of traffic, unin-terrupted by signal lights or cross traffic and hence makes possible sustained speed withsafety and high capacity with minimum driv-ing strain.

Mass Transportation and Street Capacity

So long as the number of automobiles is onlyabout half the number of adult persons in thedistrict, the use of the family automobile byanyone of the family leaves the remainingmembers without transportation. For this and Iother reasons, mass transportation systems are [/vital to the existence of large communities and have survived the spectacular automotive de-velopment in the United States. In ordinarycommercial operations an increase in the number of competitors tends to further subdividethe total available business. Each mass transportation vehicle operating in the Los Angelesdistrict divides the business with about 500competitors yet the local systems retain about80 % of their former patronage. While therehas been some growth in population since the

traffic peak of 1927, some of the decline inrevenue passengers may be attributed to a 20 %increase in average fare. Since 1933 the reve-nue rides have increased about 250,000 per day. All these facts present an impressivetribute to the utility of the mass carrier in theLos Angeles district .

The comparisons in the table on Page 5 aremade on a basis of the number of persons ac-commodated and the figures presented refer to persons transportable through the street in-tersection which is ordinarily the point of most

serious congestion and delay. The data whichapplies to a six-lane street shows movements inone direction only, three lanes wide, during one60-second cycle having equal red and greenintervals. While the figures in the comparisonapply only to free moving intersections withlight pedestrian travel and no left turns, thedifferences between types are lat ;ge and therelative standings are not greatly disturbed under more severe conditions.

The low figures shown for the automobileare not a fair representation of its carryingcapacity but they reflect the price, in excessivestreet space, which the public is willing to payfor personalized transportation. The FactualSurvey shows that practically two out of everythree automobiles entering the Central Busi-ness District have only one passenger and that


11/73

Parking permitted near intersection so as to result in only

two moving lanes of automobiles-present rush

hour loading

No parking-three moving lanes .

NUMBER OF PERSONS RELATIVECROSSING60-SECOND CYCLE CAPACITY

Loading platform in street resulting in only one moving

lane of automobiles . . .

during the hour having the heaviest vehicleloadings the average is only about 1 .67 passen-gers per automobile. The average -for the en-tire day is about 1 . 5 persons. This partial useof automobile capacity also affects the lanecapacity of express highways to which refer-ence is later made. The low passenger capacityof streets when automobiles only are used showswhy principal dependence on rail facilitiesmust be resorted to in the densest metropolitancenters. If buses were substituted for street cars

and the sidewalk used as the loading platforminstead of the platform or safety zone in thestreet, two lanes of automobiles might be ac-commodated, but the total capacity of thestreet would not be increased because the busis of smaller carrying capacity than the streetcar. The following figures, derived in partfrom the Factual Survey, illustrate the favor-able effect of large capacity vehicles on streetcapacity as measured by persons accom-modated:

PASSENGERS DURING PEAK HOUR

LOCATION WIDTH OF IN STREET IN AUTO- TOTALPAVING CARORBUS MOBILES FOR STREET

Broadway between 6th and 7th . 56 feet 10,200 1,500 11,700

Wilshire Boulevard between Ram-

part and Vermont . 70 feet 1,200 6,000 7,20'0


12/73

THE BASIC PROGRAM

Plans Considered

The Board has endeavored to cover fully thefield of possible types and solutions applicableto the most pressing transit and transportation problems of the district. It believes it has givendue consideration to all meritorious proposalscoming to its notice and to all arrangementswhich its engineering staff and consultantscould devise having any reasonable probabilityof satisfying the major requirements of the problem. It has been sympathetic to the pos-sibilities of novel arrangements but has beengoverned in certain instances by compellingreasons which sometimes automatically haveindicated the disposition of proposals even

though in successful operation elsewhere. Ele -vated arrangements such as railways, suspended cars with flexible and rigid suspensions, movingsidewalks for interior distribution service inthe Central Business District, non -intersectingstreets and off-surface sidewalks were studied or reviewed as the case warranted.

The Board considered the probable resultsof city wide substitution of buses for remain-ing rail lines but, in view of the urgency of providing economical as well as convenienttransportation service, it does not think it

appropriate to utilize small capacity vehicles,such as buses, on heavy lines where stream-lined cars clearly could furnish the best of service at the lowest cost. For many lines and services buses would be most effective and theBoard has been guided in its analysis of surfaceoperations by the principle that the car and the bus should each be used in its most appropriate field, considering all factors of the prob-lem, including resulting speeds and costs, rider preference, street capacities and conditions,and the rights of the private automobile . Theeconomic phase of the problem is highly important and, in the Board's opinion, the sub-stitution of buses for cars should be worked out progressively with due regard for proposalsherein covering coordination of transportationservices. Ordinarily, no significant change inspeed may be expected from the substitution.Some suggestions reflecting the extent to which

it is believed advisable to go in the near futurein the direction of removal of car tracks in thedowntown area are presented in the discussion

of the problems of the Central BusinessDistrict.

In general, motorway buildings and parking projects were considered to be more properlyventures for private enterprise but their avail-ability might have a material influence on thecapacity and operation of certain express high-ways, making it necessary to pay due regard to their inter-relation . Substitute and com- promise arrangements to avoid the heavy ex- pense of off -surface express highways areconsidered pertinent and might be used in some

cases as preliminary stages in the effectuationof the Board's Plan. They include "SteadyFlow" highways in which travel across themain highway can only be accomplished by theuse of relatively safe mergings and emergingswith the main traffic between which long"weaving distances" are provided to allow safemovement from the right hand to the left hand lanes and vice versa. Several arrangements of progressive signaling are properly applicableunder certain conditions.

Specific Recol1zmendationsIn considering recommendations for im-

mediate action it is necessary to have in mind the system pattern to which it is planned to build. Depending on the rates of constructionand technical progress and of civic change, the plan may in the future be expected to undergomodifications required by the then current and rhen pending developments. As an indicator of the direction in which progress should now be made, the Board presents below its basic program, the special requirements being setforth in italics and the related specific recom-

mendations . being printed in bold face type:1. Non-stop arteries are required with rela-

tivel ' )! direct routes to permit adequate overallspeed for private and public passenger vehi clesover long haul and inter-district trips.

For such purpose, the Board recom-mends a system of express highways and


13/73

arterial parkways as the framework for a comprehensive transit and transporta-tion system and presents a definite pri-mary express route pattern designed to provide simultaneously for radial and inter-district travel with by-pass and dis-

tributing features.Figure 2 on the following page provides a

ke y map of the Metropolitan Area and showshow the express highway system would inter-connect the various communities. Figure 3 prov ides greater detail by showing the centralsection of the district at an enlarged scale and alsoindicates temporary names for the various parkways so that they may be readily re-ferred to.

2. The substantial investm ent incur re d in pro vid ing grade separat ed t ra ffic arteri es r e-qui res int ensive us e to justif y actual construc-tion.

If only 5 out of every 100 vehicles on anexpress highway are buses, the effect of their greater capacity and more practical loadingis to more than double the passenger carryingservice performed by the highway, at the sametime greatly reducing the travel time of thesubstantial number of persons benefited bythe rapid transit bus service.

The Board therefore recommends, as inthe public interest, the controlled use of

express highways by rapid transit busesunder conditions insuring (A) vehiclesspecially designed for the service to pre-clude inappropriate speed, braking or similar characteristics, (B) restricted number as occasion may require, (C) busstops entirely out of the traffic lanes on themain highway and (D) arrangements de-signed to liquidate any excess costs of highways due to buses by rental chargesto be paid out of revenues of the transportation system.

Figure 4 presents a bird's-eye view of anintersection of an express highway with a sur-face street on which a car line is shown. Byusing the diamond arrangement of accessramps or roads, rapid transit buses would leave the express highway and make stops atspecially provided berths, convenient for transfer to existing surface transit lines and

with practically no interference with the traf-fic on the express highway itself.

3. To insure l1 ' taximum utility and benefits from non-stop art eries, rapid transit buses op-erating thereon and surface transit facilities

should be well coordinated.A present difficulty is that a wide flung sys-tem adapted by type to distributing service isinadequately supplemented by or provided with high speed elements tending to make itunnecessary to ride long distances at slowspeed. On the other hand, an express highwaytransportation system would be incompletewithout adequate distributing arrangements.

The Board recommends thorough co-ordination of surface and rapid transitfacilities; that stop locations for rapid transit buses on express highways be ar-ranged to facilitate passenger interchangeat points of intersection with all impor-tant surface rail and bus lines; and thatcertain rapid transit lines be arranged to provide for through service, withouttransfer, by running rapid transit busesfor part of their route on the surfacestreets to pick up the passengers conveni-ently, then on the express highway for high speed over the long haul and then back on the streets again for distributionof their load at the usual street stops.

4. Public convenience, efficiency and sim- plicity of control r equire that all transit opera-ti01H be under a common management inwhich the public is continuously represented by an active trust ee or transit commissioner.

The Board recommends a general policyof unification of management and coordi-nation of all transit operations and theactual carrying out of such policy to theextent which negotiations indicate to bein the public interest.

It submits a plan, later more fully discussed,involving an operating contract with a coor-dinated system whereunder service would bemade more responsive to public wishes and re-quirements, the credit of the transportationsystem would be improved to accelerate pro-vision of new facilities, travel times would begreatly reduced on long rides, and lowest costs


14/73

, .- . _ .- . _-!

I: " " . I. . . .: . . . .'


15/73

FIGURE 2-KEY MAP-PRIM ARY EXPRESSROUTES IN THE M ETROPOLITAN AREA

Sho wing how the propo sed pattern of pr imar y ex pre ss route swould interconnect the mo st populou s are as. The e x pr ess high-ways w ould be completel y g r ad e se par ated and coordin ated with

exis ting arte r ial surf ace h ighwa ys.

-----------------J' - - - t - - - - - ', - - - - - -- - -r - - 1 !

1 - ~ ii' I; S IERRA _.J I I !, M~ D RE i 'MONRDVIA-i

:~': ~ '::- ~-=~ ~7'- "i ! i ~ ; _i- - - - - - - - !

i

! A ZU SAi, _ - ~ 1

L i

I

GLENPORA

,I

< - , c- - - - - - - ,I ; ~ --' \/ i '

f UPLAND

_ _ _ _ _ ___ J I

I - ~

I

r

I

/F ~ -- - - - - - - i 'i~~+A/

,- WEST COVINA< "

I

- I

rLOS ANQ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~

ORANG E co --" '"

(c,"


16/73

WIDE PARKWAY

NARROW MOTORWAY

RAIL RAPID TRANSIT

~ [ = = _ - ' ~ M ~ P ' ' - R ~~«ow> J

t l A N C H S T £ R

[ = = = = = = = = = = = = ; ~ = =

0

LEGEND GW ID E P RK W Y N RROW MOTOR

R IL R PI D T R ~ ~ 0

[ ]

I S LE MIL S

I


17/73

FIGURE 3 -PRIMAR Y EXPRESS ROUTES INCENTRAL SECTION OF THE DISTRICT

Sho wing how the pro posed prim ar y expre ss route pattern would provi d e for radial, circumferent ial, direct int erdistrict and by pass traffic . For re f erence purposes, tentati ve names h ave

been assigned to the var ious route s.

/'

II,,

" (0 ,"'"

~"(; t: ' •. •+: ;'

LAUSON

j

.",z"

\

\

\\


18/73


19/73

would be obtained; all under arrangementsmaking it unnecessary for the public to em- bark in a generally unprofitable public enterprise and also unnecessary to make publiccommitments applicable to possible liquida-tion or purchase of existing transit facilities.

5. Prospective city growth requires that ar-rangements, provided in the present, contem- plate development into a l1~uchhigher capacitys ystem appropriate to the future conditions.

Heavy electric traction is universally used

Iin handling the concentrated passenger move-ments incidental to life and commerce in densemetropolitan areas. Prognostications of popu-lation and urban trends are at best hazardous but it may be accepted with confidence if not certainty that, when the local populationreaches the impressive totals currently ac-cepted as probable, rail rapid transit will be anecessity for the heaviest lines of travel . Thiseventuality must therefore be kept in mind in considering development of new transpor-tation arrangements and also disposition of present ones.

The high cost of the most approved railarrangements tends to defer into the indefinitefuture the time when they can be financed.

The Board therefore does not consider itan appropriate time for recommendationscovering immediate construction of sub-stantial elements of a rail rapid transit sys-tem. It presents below specific suggestionscovering a rapid transit route pattern and

also arrangements in the Central BusinessDistrict with certain indications to serveas a guide as to when the various measureswould be appropriate.

The rail rapid transit routes which it con-siders would be most effective in serving thedistrict on the basis of present trends are shownin Figures 2, 3 and 8 (pages 22 to 24), and several significant differences with previousrecommendations are believed to be important.First, a single axial route to the west is selected along Wilshire Boulevard instead of three west-

ward lines "radiating from the Central BusinessDistrict. Second, San Fernando Valley rapid transit traffic from west of Burbank is routed to and through Hollywood instead of via Eden-dale. Third, Hollywood and Venice service would be run westward over the Wilshireroute to minimize headways thereon and to provide a direct connection between Holly- wood and developments on western Wilshire Boulevard .

RE CO MM ENDED C ON STRUC TIO N PRO GRAM

General Considerations

It should be understood that the Board'srecommendations for construction do notapply to the entire basic program, the develop-ment of which may be expected to extend over a period of years. Although the parkway has proven very popular wherever tried, neverthe-less decision on a vast program in Los Angelesmay appropriately follow local acceptance of

the essential factors which, in turn, may best bedeveloped through public use of the facilities proposed. Development should not be at a burdensome rate and the Board would there-fore urge caution on projects of grand and

.expensive proportions and all reasonable speed in making available the initial route or routesfor public use .

As preliminary to initial construction, theBoard recommends (A) tentative acceptance by the C ity of a city-wide pattern for primaryexpress routes to be used as a guide for its fur-ther action whether independently or in conjunction with a transportation district; (B)agreement with state, county, and all affected jurisdictional entities respecting the particular construction under consideration especially as

to continuity of route, time factors, and finan-cial arrangements; (C) coordination of designand construction features with adjoining routes built or to be built by others; (D) generousright-of-way width; (E) definite commitmentto protect the expensive construction againstcommercial exploitation and deterioration bydisplay advertising or inappropriate building


20/73

construction; (F) decision to provide for and maintain attractive landscaping adequate tothe cultural objectives of the district .

The Hollywood Parkway

The Board has selected the Hollywood

Parkway from the West Bypass to Ca-huenga Pass (seeFigure 3} for the initialroute to be constructed because, in itsopinion, there would be combined thegreatest number of advantages from thestandpoint of the public. This routewould connect two of the district's mostimportant centers of trade and popula-tion and would be exclusively a City of Los Angeles project thereby making for speed of decision, construction and use.

Its transportation features would benefita great number to a hi,ghdegree and con-struction work now in progress throughCahuenga Pass would serve, on comple-tion, asan extension of its length. Affect-ing automobile traffic, as well as masstransportation, this grade separated high-way would crossdiagonally a large number of heavily travelled streets providingexcellent distribution at convenient branch-off angles both northward and westward. The Board favors such a routeas offering the greatest probability of financial successunder the self-liquidat-ing plan which it proposes.

A key map showing the limits of the four sections of the Hollywood Parkway is provided by Figure 10 (pages 27 and 28). The detailed arrangements are shown to a greatly enlarged scale on strip map renderings called "Develop-ment Plans." Three of the strips, covering thesections from Lucas to Holly Drive, are pre-sented on one double folded sheet as Figures11, 12 and 13, while the section just south of Cahuenga Pass is covered by Figure 14. Two bird's-eye views of intersections are . provided by renderings on aerial photographs, Figure 16(pages 42 and 43) covering the Hollywood Parkway and Santa Monica Parkway arrange-ments and Figure 37 (pages 68 and 69), the junction of Cahuenga and Highland at the

Hollywood Bowl . Three perspective drawingsare also included, Figure 9 (pages 25 and 26)illustrating a street passing over a parkway;Figure 17 (pages 44 and 45), a parkway over a street; and Figure 18 (pages 46 and 47), afootbridge over a parkway.

The estimated cost, including interest dur-ing construction, covering the Hollywood Parkway from the West Bypass to the junctionat the Hollywood Bowl, and including theinitial intersection arrangements at both ends,may be taken at $6,500,000 for constructionand $9,500,000 for acquisition of land and property damage. Arrangements for toll op-eration would increase the initial cost about$150,000. A close-up view of typical toll fa-cilities is provided by Figure 25 (page 50).

An important problem relates to the distribution of cars from the express highway to citystreets, parking lots and possibly to motorway buildings or other special facilities in the Cen-tral Business District. The Board recommendsthat construction of a section of the West By- pass southward from its intersection with theHollywood Parkway to Eighth Street be con-sidered a necessity to provide adequate accessramps and outlets. On Figure 8 (pages 22 to24) this section is outlined by extra heavy black edging to indicate the portions consid-

ered as initial construction and it is estimated to cost about $1,350,000 for construction and $2,500,000 for land and property damage.While this estimate includes widening of thesouth side of Sixth Street between Figueroa and Fremont, experience with the new type of operation may develop the desirability of fur-ther adjustments not estimated at this time.Excluding the latter, there results a total esti-mated cost of $20,000,000 for the Hollywood Parkway, arranged for toll operation and in-cluding initi~llandscaping and ramps at Boyls-ton, Flower, Sixth and Eighth Streets. Thealignment of the Hollywood Parkway east-ward from Third and Boylston Streets con-forms to the lines of the proposed street improvement known as "California Boulevard"which might be constructed through Bunker Hill in open cut instead of tunnel as shownon Figure 8.


21/73

Financing Plan

The Board has considered numerous methodsof financing the initial construction. It be -lieves that the persons most entitled to decidethe worth of such proposals are those whoindividually would have to pay the bills and further that it would be better if those whodo not care to use the facility should not berequired to contribute to its construction. Itsuggests the propriety of avoiding an y method tending to add to the burden of prope r tyowner s and taxpayers generally. The Board therefore proposes revenue bonds as an appropriate means of financing the recommended initial construction of the Hollywood Parkwayand temporary collection of tolls charged pri -vate automobiles and rapid transit buses as ameans of placing the cost almost exclusiv ely

on those using the new facilities. The tollmethod is hardl y practicable for an intercon-nected or network system but it should pro-vide an excellent method of initiating the project which, it is believed, would be self-liquidating as long as such basis was continued.It later recommends a special investigation todev elop the amount of coverage of debt serviceand operating charges expected from toll col-lections.

Arr o yo S eco Pa r k wa y and Sant a Monica Park wa y

It may be presumed that the State will com - plete Arroyo Seco Parkway and conceivablymay undertake certain adjustments which may be necessary at its south end to distribute theexpected traffic smoothly. As the Board's plancontemplates making the West Bypass ulti -mat ely continuous with the Arroyo Seco Park-way, it offers some suggestions for initial con-struction along such alignment shown by theheavy black edging in Figure 8 (pages 22 to24), though further consideration should begiven to diverting, initially, southbound ArroyoSeco traffic toward the East Bypass rather thantoward the West Bypass.

The Board considered recommending for initial construction a connection between theArroyo Seco Parkway and the Hollywood Parkway via the West Bypass, but analysisshowed that the connection should be deferred until the Arroyo Seco route has another outlet

to the east of the Civic Center. If prematur ely joined, the load of the two parkways mightseriously crowd the streets and access rampsalong the West Bypass between Fourth and Eighth Streets. However, if joined, therewould result a continuous grade -separated expre ss highway of the parkway type about 18miles long and the closure should be made assoon as the proper terminal and distributingarrangements can be worked out.

The Board b elieves that the Arroyo SecoParkway extension and ramp s south of the

Figueroa tunnels, or their equivalent, should be scheduled for immediate construction but , because this is along a State highway, no allow-ance is included in the Board's estimates of co st herein. Attention should also be given tochanges, believed to be of relatively moderatecost, tending to increase the operating c a pacityof the Figueroa tunnels. One advantage of anexpress highway route through Chavez Ravine(shown on Figure 3) is that much traffic fromRiverside Drive would be diverted throughthe Ravine instead of burdening the heavil yloaded tunn els.

Development plans covering the Santa Mon-ica Parkway east of Beverly Hills are included as of general interest even though not recom-mended as initial construction. Key maps are provided by Figures 26 (pages 51 and 52) and 30 (pages 59 and 60) while the detailed ar-rangements are shown in Figures 27, 28, 31and 32. These detailed drawings cover onlyas far west as La Cienega Boulevard but, incombination with the Ramona Parkway and an extension of the route westward to the sea,there would be provided a continuous east-westartery through the Civic Center connectingwith important State highway routes at either end.


22/73

ENGINEERING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY

Types of Construction

The Board's recommendation for construc-tion should not be taken to apply to any typeincompatible with the highest ideals of civicdevelopment. Economic pressure may forcesome compromises and in certain sections spe-

. cial types of construction may be appropriate.In general, however, its recommendations apply only to construction of the parkway typeand it would prefer to have its highway planreferred to as an "Arterial Parkway System."The Board, while welcoming fullest discussionand criticism, does not view sympatheticallyefforts which may attempt to provide merelythe speed features on narrow rights-af-way or in any other manner prejudicial to the attrac-tiveness of the district. It has considered the possibilities of economies in arrangement, con-struction, and landscaping and is convinced that parkway treatment of express highwayroutes should be adopted as the general guiding policy.

The express highways would take advantageof existing features of the terrain to minimizecost of the parkway and of grade separations.Speaking generally, parkway in cut would befavored over elevated construction as the slop-ing landscaped banks of the cut should presentan attractive outlook for the user and a maxi-mum of acoustical absorption and screeningfor the nearby residents. To illustrate alter-native arrangements, largely depending on theterrain, a number of typical cross-sections areshown in Figures 19 to 23 (pages 48 and 49).The relative widths of rights-of-way, mainand service roads, and of landscaping are alsoshown. Illustrations are included picturinglocal and other parkway and express highwayarrangements. Figure 35 (page 66) illustrates

a section involving sidehill construction, theoutside two roads for land and building service being designated as service roads while thecenter two roadways are for high speed non-stop operation. The entrance points to thecentral parkway roads illustrated in Figure 29(pages 57 and 58) are spaced as far apart as ~

practicable, thus affording the maximum

lengths of roadway without traffic interfer-ence. The complete separation of cross trafficis clearly shown by Figure 38 (page 70). The

necessity for restrictions as to signs and abut-ting buildings is apparent from Figures 5 and 6 on the next two pages, the former beingtaken on a heavily travelled route in this Cityessential as an element of an express highwaysystem for the district. Figures 24, 25, 34 and 36 show other construction features of generalinterest.

Design Standards

The following data are indicative of the de-sign features contemplated by the Board's

recommenda tions:1. Parkway grades, preferably nQt over

4%.2. Access drives, preferably not over 5 %.3. Parkway curvature, preferably not

less than 2,000 foot radius.

4. Access and slow moving roads, pref-erably not less than 200 foot radius.

5. Sight distance over bridges, 400 to 500feet. -

6. Parkway exits as unrestricted as pos-sible. Entrances restricted at junction point to limit entering vehicles tosingle line.

7. Nominal width of right-of-way for parkway type, 250 feet.

Capacit:y, Speed and Safety

Under certain special circumstances morethan three lanes may be appropriate for a road-way but, in general, three is considered the mostsatisfactory number of lanes for each direc-

tion. The capacity of such a six-lane expresshighway should approximate 75,000 cars pass-ing a given point in both directions in 24 hours.While the design of the express highways out-side of intersections would allow of reasonablesafety for a single car at 60 miles per hour, highspeeds greatly cut down the capacity of thehighway as well as its safety. Figure 7 shows


23/73

that at 60 miles the capacity in cars per hour isreduced 40 7 0 below the maximum which oc-curs at about 33 miles per hour .

It will probably be found advisable to keepthe maximum lane speed within a limit of 45miles per hour and under heavy traffic theaverage speed of cars on the express highwaymay be expected to approximate 35 miles per hour. A road speed of 60 miles per hour would,in the Board's opinion, be an inefficient and un-safe use of an expensive highway. It is hoped that the proposed express highway system may be controlled in a manner to assist to the fullest

the e~pense of moderately increased initial cost.The extra width would provide room for

expansion to three main roadways instead of the conventional two which with largely un- balanced traffic would be equivalent to doub-ling the capacity of the route. In such case, thetraffic on the center roadway would be alter-nated in direction morning and evening so thaton the three roadways there would be six lanesin the heavy direction and three in the light .instead of three each. The center roadwaywould not need the usual number of accessramps as it would be designed for express or

FIGURE 5 -INADEQUATE RESTRICTIONS ON ARTERIAL ROUTEShowing present roadside enterprises on an arterial highway which should more properly

have parkway treatment.

extent in improving highway safety, for thetime may well come when the City will not besatisfied with its standing in traffic accidents.

Center Reservation

At the time of acquiring right-of -way and final designing of structures and arrangements,

consideration should be given to the advisa- bility of providing extra width in the center reservation or planted area between the main parkway roads. Several possible uses are in prospect for an extra width of about 35 feetor approximately 15 % of the total right-of-way, and initial provision of such width offers possibilities of attractive future economies at

non-stop operation over great distances and at the maximum speeds permitted on the park-way . Being relatively free of ramps, it should be both safe and fast. Other uses for the center roadway are in prospect such as an exclusiveroadway for buses, or in certain localities for trucks and commercial vehicles.

A most important function is apparent frominspection of Figure 3 where the broken linesin the centers of certain double lined parkwayroutes represent a most intensive and effectiveuse of the investment by providing simultane-ously on the same right-of-way for automobiletraffic of relatively light passenger capacity and for rail rapid transit trains of radically greater


24/73

passenger carrying capacity. In persons ac -commodated, the increase by adding a two-track rail line to a six -lane express highwaywould probably be several hundred percentthough adding only about 15 % to the right-of-way width.

The extra width should at least be considered for those express highway routes where, asshown in Figure 3, future rail rapid transit isexpected and where land, property damage and structures are relatively inexpensive. With agrade-separated right-of-way already provided by the extra width of the express highway, the

would not only ride in the open but would share with others the attractiveness of the parkway ride.

Right-of- Way and Property Damage

Growth and building have been so rapid inthis district that materially increasing costs of and damage to ' property may be expected and it may well be said that, if the express highwaynetwork is to be constructed at all, decision and action on the initial section must be prompt ,and for the future reasonably continuous inorder to avoid prohibitive costs. On the other

FIGURE 6-A CALIFORNIA PARKWAYCompare with Figure 5 for difference between controlled parkway and thoroughfare

without adequate restrictions.

ready-made roadbed allows of future installa-tion of rail facilities at a saving so large as tocompare in magnitude with the entire cost of the initial express highway and its extra widthof land and length of bridge structures. Busrapid transit has definite limitations as to ulti-

mate capacity and, if growths are rapid, itmight not be long until the extra center widthwould be pressed into service. Visual and acoustical screening of the roadbed are possibleand one of the most successful and attractiverealty developments in the country has railrapid transit coordinated with it in a somewhatsimilar manner. Future rapid transit riders

hand, route alignments are still flexible enoughto make realty speculation unduly hazardous.For instance, most of the radial routes have been studied along about four alignments and these have been separated by as much as a half-mile. Each alignment offered its individualcomposite sum of advantages and disadvantages

and the Board's studies indicate that, in gen -eral, there is substantial opportunity to shiftalignments to avoid adverse effects due to un-wholesome speculation. Final alignmentsshould, of course, be kept confidential and notannounced until after adequate data have been assembled to meet the needs of possiblecondemnation proceedings. Organization for


25/73

the prospective work should be with specialregard to keeping confidential matters prop-erly safeguarded but the fact that the Board has drawn its plans along a definite alignmentshould not be erroneously interpreted as repre-

senting a necessity for or " certainty of con-struction along any particular route shown.

Prospective Effects

Experience has demonstrated that improved transportation enhances property values and it ma y be e x pected that, despite propert y re-moved from the tax rolls in the strip takenover for parkways, the overall effect will beto enlarge the tax base or values supporting public cost s including those related to the newfacilities. Furthermore, the new constructionfor a long time after completion should tend

strongly to stimulate growth in populationand values, so that the new tax source s ma y beex pected to provide ampl y for the possibleincreases in public expenses such as lighting,traffic control and landscaping maintenanceon the parkway system. Repair and structuralmaintenance would be added to public costs but the permanent character and high class of the contemplated construction tend to keepthe annual operating and maintenance chargesat a minimum. The annual charges r elating toinvestment, such as interest and sinking fund,far outweigh other considerations and it should be remembered that more than half of the totalinvestment cost is in non-depreciating itemssuch as land, property damage, grading, foun-dations , and mass concrete . It may be con-tended that the o verall total costs to the publicwould be less than are now incurred. The Board is willing to go so far as to register its opinionthat progressive construction of arterial park-ways would be found to be good . busine ss for the community as a whole.

As time is a cardinal factor in the determina-tion of economic results, the effect of using

the express highways instead of surface streetsrequires illustration. It will be obvious that thewide spacing of the parkways tends to makethem of little use for short trips because somuch distance and time is liable to be lost ingoing out of one 's way to get to the parkwayand to get back again to the desired surfacestreet that the gain while on the parkway is

20 ~tf-0u~

40 jtfl

Z-Z

o Qf -U:8((

10 20 30 40 50 AVERAGE SPEED - MILES PER HOUR

FIGURE 7 -EF FECT OF SPEED ON

HIGHW AY C A PA CITY No te th at at 60 miles p er hour the c a pacit y is re duc

40 % belo w the maximum.

practically offset and nullified. The greatestgain of course occurs when origin and destina-tion are close to acce ss ramp s on the parkwafor then practically the entire distance may becovered at express speed. Thus, the benefitand time savings ma y be e x pected to var y fromzero to a substantial amount making it of quetionable value to tabulate them in detail . Tfollowing illustration is intended to furnish ' example covering a route in volving a substan-tial volume of mass carrier and automobile pas-sengers, the effective increase in lipeed reflectinthe combined result of shortening the drivingdistance and increasing the driving s peed . Avalues should be considered approximate.

The proposed express highway netwo r k nonly provides safer operation with minimumoverall trav el time but in effect does awa y wcertain limitations of distance because, in mostcases, distance is measured by the time required to cover it . The radicall y increased fluidity of

trav el and the greater facility of reaching important districts safely and expeditiousl y pemits of two opposing trends. It makes possibleincreased decentralization by widening thetime horizons or points reachable in a giventime and at the same time makes travel to etablished centers more convenient and expedi-tious even from decentralized area s.


26/73

DECREASE EFFECTIVE

6TH AND HILL TO MINUTES IN TOTAL INCREASE

HOLLYWOOD ANDVINE TOTAL SAVING TIME IN SPEED

Via Automobile

Present .... ..... .. .... ........... ...... 25

Proposed . . ....... ... 12 13 52 % 108 %,

.. .. . . . ... ... . .. . .

Via Mass Carrier

Present Rail from Subway Terminal .... .. .. 31

Proposed Rapid Transit BusesLimiteds (No stops on parkway) . 16 15 48 % 94 %

Locals (Two stops per mile on parkway) . 24 7 23 % 29 %


27/73

FIGURE 8 -0FF-SURFACE TRANSIT ARRANGEMENT SCENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT '

Ex press highwa ys recommended f or immediate construction are shown ed ged w ith heav ylines. Remainder of express highway cordon shows suggest ed arrangements ex clusive of on and off ramps. Further study may alter t y pes of construction shown on this drawing .

[ ]

FIGURE 8 0FF SURFACE TR A SIT ARRA GEMENTSCE TRAL BUSI DISTRICT

Express highways recommended fo r immediate construction are shown edged with heavylines Remainder of express highway cordon shows suggested arrangements exclusive ofo n and off ramps Further s tu dy m ay alter types of construction shown on this drawing


28/73

I I ~I

JC = _~C=~ ~-- Q .[ I , - - - - - - - , E :'== = = ' L J.Q

\ I I· I e >~~ L -n _ _ .- J- -I IC=-~I I I lI IC= ~


29/73


30/73

FIGURE 9 -STREET CRO SSI NG

Note gentl y s loping banks to f aci litate l ahea dl igh


31/73

VER DEPRESSED PARKWAY

ping and central hedge to interceptare.


32/73

HI G HLA"D ~V /

/'

l; IGURE 10-KE Y M A P - 1 J O LL WOOD P A RKWA Y

for secr ions berween A and D , see F igur es 1], 12 am. 13. j,'or details C.lst of A, ,ee I' Igur e 8.For dCla ils north of D, sce Figur e 14 . Distan ce F l wcr Strcel lO IIollywood Howl along

par k wa y- 6. 5 m iles; cxtcnsion southward to Eighth Srrccr -O.6 mil es.


33/73

[ 29 3 ]


34/73

LLYWOOD- '

ARK WAY > ~ ",

oi",;> ,. . . J •

.0


35/73

~'.' ,0 ..

. ' "

B-C

A-B


36/73


37/73

HOp

LLYWOOD

ARKWAY

\,(:- . . . "

\\ /,\- . . J L___ _ /./

FIGURE 14- DEVE LOP MENT PLAN-HOShowing a pr eliminar y design of


38/73

~_NORTH

DN-HOLL Y DRIV E TO C K HUENGA PASS

of intersectio n at Hol lywoo d Bowl .


39/73

~~ \«,,. . • . .J

~;,

t.!i

II

' \a

@

~4

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

Proble11 ' Tsof th e Central District

Probably 500,000 different persons dailyhave business or other rea sons for their pres-ence in the Central Business District includingthe Civic Center. It is the destination of about44 % of all mass transportation riders. Figure33 (page 64) provides an aerial view clearl yshowing the impressive development arisingfrom and supporting its important commercialand other activities. As previously stated, theBoard does not discuss certain pressing prob-lems of the area, several of which it considers properly outside its purview. It desires alsoto forestall unwarranted roseate expectationsrelating to relief of traffic congestion whichmight be inconsistent with the operation of immutable laws. As high prices tend to limitthe number of purchases of goods, so obstruc-tions to traffic movement adversely affect traf-fic volume and vice versa. The apparent effectof improvement in traffic arrangements maysometimes be quite temporary, for additionaltraffic volume may be induced or released bythe removal of impediments, and conditionswould then tend to approach the original bal-ance or level . However, if a real improvement

has actually been provided, an increased number will be accommodated though the apparentchange in congestion may not be particularlynoteworthy.

The Board's objectives with respect to theCentral Business District are (A) to separatethe through vehicular traffic from the localcirculatory movements possibly adding 30%to the capacity of certain important streets;(B) to provide rapid transportation to thedistrict for wage earners, shoppers and otherswho would rather leave the family car for thoseat home, thereby releasing valuable highwayand parking space for others who feel theymust ride in their own cars; (C) to eliminaterail vehicles from one or two north and southstreets to increase their motor vehicle capacityand simultaneously to improve the appearance

of the street; (D) to improve distribution of incoming pas sengers on suburban lines by pro-viding extensive longitudinal service instead

of concentrated or limited distribution result-ing from the use of unfa vorably located ter-minals; (E) to provide adequate distributionand transfer arrangements for proposed rapid transit bus lines; (F) to sugge st future railrapid transit line s so a s to pro vide a ma ximumcoverage of the area with minimum resort to

~transferring, as far as po ssible assuring con-venient traverse of the main axis of the bu si-ne ss district including therewith the Ci vicCenter and the Union Station on a commonroute.

The Board considered the wisdom of adopt-ing as an objective the removal of all tracks inthe downtown area. Accomplishing this b ymeans of complete conversion to buses has beenreferred to previously herein and accomplish-ing it by providing off-surface structures for the local lines was not adopted because, in theBoard's opinion, it was impossible to financeand probably would not be favorably received by the riding public. The added investmentcosts to be supported by car fares would be

unacceptable and the stair climbing and morewidely spaced stops incidental to such an ar-rangement would outweigh the probable ad-vantages from the viewpoint of the local rider .Suggestions for off-surface rapid transit facili-ties in the downtown area are shown by Fig-ure 8.

Transition Steps

The arrangements illustrated may be morereadily comprehended by considering the suc-cessive steps by which the result might be at-tained. During development, it is assumed that

continual pressure may be expected requiringminimizing of investment in new facilities,Ian? acquisition and property damage and,whIle actual sequence cannot be accuratel y predicted, the following hypothetical order of events should suffice to illustrate the transitionand to bring out the problems involved:


40/73

UPON CONSTRUCTION OF HOLLYWOOD PARKWAY

Reroute Edendale line cars so that they would go via present tunnel toSubway Terminal . Route rapid transit buses from Hollywood and beyond eastward along 6th Street from the \Vest Bypass to an oft-street loop at or near the Pacific Electric Main Street Station, thereby aftording transfer tonorth and south surface lines at points of reduced load and also to suburbanrail lines. When growth of traffic on 6th Street reaches practical limits,terminal capacity for additional rapid transit buses from the northwestmay, if necessary, be provided by using other streets such as 8th with anynecessary loops oft-street. Estimated cost of terminal arrangements,$200,000.

WHEN NORTH AND SOUTH STREETS APPROACH

CAPACITY FOR SURFACE TRAFFIC

Hill and Spring Streets may then be cleared of surface rail cars by (A)construction of a two-track subway under Broadway from the CivicCenter to 10th Street for Pacific Electric interurban cars and for Los An-geles Railway cars on the principal long distance lines from the southern

and southwestern sections of the City, and (B) rerouting Sunset Boule-vard-Hill Street cars to the Subway Terminal, and the remaining LosAngeles Railway cars now using Spring and Hill Streets to Broadwayand Main Street. Tracks at north end of subway may connect with sur-face tracks of Pacific Electric on Aliso Street and, at south end, with sur-face tracks on Hill Street and Broadway, and depressed tracks alongOlympic Parkway to a connection with the Pacific Electric Long Beachline . . Other methods of rendering rail rapid transit service to the east and south portions of the district have been proposed and should be given care-ful consideration before final decision is made. The hourly train capacityof the Subway Terminal would be enlarged by the construction of a looptrack on the lower level . A pedestrian passageway would probably be built between the terminal and the Broadway subway to provide con-venient transfer with minimum stair climbing. The present Main StreetStation might then be utilized for bus terminal purposes. Estimated costof Broadway subway and connections, including track and electrical equip-ment-$13,OOO,OOO. Estimated cost of terminal rearrangements and pedestrian subway-$300,00 .o.

Rapid transit buses from south, southwest and west of the Coliseum to berouted northward on Hill and Spring Streets using through runs if pos-sible to the north and east to minimize turns and congestion. If excessivecrowding of downtown streets was expected to result from additional bustraffic from the southwest quadrant, congestion could be minimized byrouting some of the rapid transit buses into the Main Street Station or by providing rail instead of bus rapid transit service. The Broadway subwayroute could be extended southward about one mile to meet the Inglewood and Venice Parkways, and the rail lines continued along the center divid-ing strip, taking the place of present long distance Los Angeles Railwaylines for through passengers, and of the present Pacific Electric route toCulver City and Venice . Estimated cost of extending the Broadway sub-


41/73

way in open cut -$4,000,000. An additional 35-foot width of right-of -way and longer bridge spans for parkways in the southwest section of thecity would increase the estimated initial cost about 20 70.

WHEN SURFACE OPERATION OF RAPID TRANSIT BUSES ON 6TH AND 8TH

STREETS IS OBJECTION ABLY SLOW OR CONGESTING

Operation of "express" and "limited" rapid transit buses could be trans-ferred to the present Hollywood subway avoiding the delays of surfaceoperation with congested traffic and signal lights. This would requirererouting of cars then using Subway Terminal, which could be simplydone on right -of -way originally to be provided, by making dividing stripon the section of the Santa Monica Parkway east of Glendale Boulevard,45 feet instead of 10 feet wide, and routing such cars down the Broadwaysubway. Present Hollywood subway would be paved and equipped withforced ventilation. The original costs probably would be increased about$1,000,000 to permit these arrangements which would thereafter costabout $1,000,000 more to complete.

UPON CONSTRUCTION OF INITIAL HEAVY DUTY SUBWAY

This probably would be constructed on an axial route to the west, possiblyunder Wilshire Boulevard, should that street continue its rapid commer-cial and tributary development. On a basis of present trends, it would be routed within the central district east possibly on 7th Street and northon Spring Street, paralleling both axes of the district and threading thecommercial section, Civic Center and Union Station on a common route.Additional downtown capacity for the rapid transit lines to the south and southwest might also be provided by construction of a small section of connecting subway from 7th Street southerly along Spring Street. Atthat time, it would probably be desirable to remove the rails from AlisoStreet and trains on both Broadway and Spring Street subways thereafter

would be routed to the northeast and east over a new roadbed passingdirectly under the Union Station with a more direct alignment to ValleyJunction. The new subways would be constructed for heavy rapid transitequipment with wide cars and flush platforms suitable for high capacityloads in long trains, and would make possible through service from theoutlying sections of the city to both the uptown and downtown businessdistricts without transfer . A cost estimate covering only the downtownsection of a heavy duty subway might be misleading and is therefore notincluded here.

Express Highway Cordon

The construction of consecutive units of the

express highway system results in ultimatelytying into a continuous cordon or loop sur-rounding the Central Business District, thefour crosstown routes which, in effect, would also act as north, south, east and west bypasses.While carrying heavy through traffic, its local purpose would be largely to distribute traffic

from the -radial parkways to the downtownsurface streets and parking facilities with aminimum of confusion. No complete solutionis offered governing this important problem of coordination which, it is believed, must be pro-gressively developed. Figure 8 shows the largeamount of space required by intersections and indicates the necessity of considering fully thisfact when developing plans for the CentralBusiness District.


42/73

UNIFICATION OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS

Public Operation

The public will be best served if its utilitiesare efficient and prosperous. This implies aminimum of duplication of investment and service and a maximum of coordination and interchangeability. Transportation is not gen-erally consider ed profitable, except by thosewithout experience with it. Undertakings intransit operations by American cities have usu-ally been with unhappy financiaf results, butthere remain those persistent proponents whoharass officials with pressure for municipal op-eration despite the uniformly unfortunate experience in large cities which have tried it. On

one municipally operated rapid transit systemin this country, the carrying 'and sinking fund charges on the investment, disregarding oper-ating costs, are about ten cents per ride for which only five cents is charged. Judging byyears of exper ience therewith, public operationhas little if anything to offer justifying largecities in becoming involved in the difficultiesof operation and financing of a transportationsystem.

Public Control of Coordinated Operations

The most successful arrangement, in theBoard's opinion, is that in which the public hasa full time representative continuously and intimately in touch with all sides of the current problems and with adequate authority to getfor the public the kind, character and amountof service it wants, provided only that it paysfor it on a reasonable basis . Furthermore, anefficient service is not likely to be rendered byreturn to the conditions of the 90's whennumerous disconnected operations were givenfranchises, for all indications point to the wis-

dom of providing a thoroughly coordinated system with efficient management under ade-quate public ·control .

It may be accepted as axiomatic that the public in this district, for the time being atleast, will not be led into the purchase of struggling transportation companies involving

some obsolescent elements and it should beequally obvious that certain existing facilitiesare rendering an essential service in an eco-

nomic way. The total .investment in facilitiesof the two major companies for urban servicealone is about $60,000,000. In the opinion of the Board, the problem involves providing for the continued use by the public of the efficientelements of existing facilities at rates equitablealike to the public and the owners, under anarrangement which will insure adequate and continuous modernization and adequate con-trol of service and costs. The Board therefore proposes and recommends a unification planwherein, as far as existing investments are con-cerned, the public undertakes no purchase ob -ligations, but becomes a working and dominat-ing partner in the control of operations and facilities by a trustee representation not re-quiring purchase or difficult corporate and fiscal readjustments.

Corporate Set-up

The unification, coordination and person-alized control of service and costs would be

- effected through the agency of a non-profitassociation with a name such as "Coordinated Transit." This would be incorporated under state laws and function as the core of the ar-rangement, being bound by an "OperatingContract" with the City of Los Angeles, or with a group of cities desiring to enter into thecooperative agreement, to provide the adequatetransportation service desired by the publicand utilizing new facilitie s- and arrangementsas well as such existing equipment as may befound to be suitable for the public service .

Through the operation of dual agency con-tracts between the existing traction companiesand Coordinated Transit, the companies would pool their equipment, and operations there-after would be consolidated in a Unified Tran-sit Service in charge of a Director of TransitOperations, employed by Coordinated Transit.The future use and disposition of the proper-ties would be guided by the three trustees con-


43/73

ASSO CI ATED TO INS URE PRJVIS ION Of A N A DE :Ql... \tl,TE,

COORD IN ATED AND cn .-PRE HENSI \IE TRAN SIT AND

TR ANSPORTA TION SYS TEM FOR THE IR INCLUDED

AND DEP ENDENT AR( A$

EMP OW£R£[) AN D DIRE CTED TO COO RD IN AT E

REL ATE D Pl ANNING . Et« :.l"'£[R'NG,C ON-

ST RU CT ION. F IN AN CI NG, AND TRANS IT

OP ERAT ION$ .

,

,

., ,, , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~- , I-- -- - - - - --- - -- - - --- -- ~ -, I t I11 ,II I ,I

" ,I t I .II 11I I I,

1 . - L ~ S £ - ; ;;-T: R~T~T-;;-I r - - - : E ~ E : - A : : ' - - ' 1

AMOR TISE COS T DURING UH . I NEeen -I ATE D REN T ALL~~~ ' ~~~~ J L- _- r - - _ J

,

,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- .- - - - - - - - - - - - -~ ,1 - ~I I, " _ _ _ _ - - - '...I...I ~

I : ~F~ ~I~RA~ :T~;:~ ~~~ D;~ II OWlGES EClUlTl


44/73

stituting Coordinated Transit. _ The moreintimate control which it is desired to providethe public would result from the fact thatspecial powers of wider latitude would bevested in one of the three trustees called the"Public Trustee" by reason of his appointment

by the City, the cooperating municipalities, or by the public in some other manner. As such position would require closest and continuous personal attention to all functions and opera -tions of the Uni:fied Transit Service with large powers to originate and veto, it should be asalaried and full time job.

On the diagram in Figure 15, the corporateentities are shown in rectangles having doubleline borders and miscellaneous other detailsrelating to the various functions should be ap-

parent. Possibly some slight adjustments would be necessary since it is not intended that thecharter and constitutional functions of exist -ing agencies of city, county and state should be materially disturbed.

Purpos e and Functions

The following may be taken as a summaryof the purposes and functions of Coordinated Transit as recommended by the Board:

1. To provide an instrumentality to co-ordinate and unify present transit facili -ties, with one operating organization,covering as much of the MetropolitanArea as may be in the public interest.

2. To enter into an agreement with thecooperating municipalities, called theOperating Contract, and to carry outits provisions.

3. To develop a comprehensive, well bal-anced transportation system and to op-erate it on an equitable cost basis, aimingto modernize, replace or supplant ar -rangements and facilities not effectivelysuited to current requirements and to preserve efficient elements of existingarrangements .

4. To provide extensions, new services and facilities, and to insure coordination of new arrangements with existing facili-ties with an orderly transition from onetype of service to another.

5. To provide a central, readily controllableagency for making service appropriatel yresponsive to the public interest throughthe provision of the simplest and mostdirect organization and procedure witha representative of the public as a partof such central agency.

6. To expedite provision of actual rapid transit through undertaking of express bus service on high speed, inter-districtstop-free highways and coordination of such service with surface transportationfacilities in the interest of convenienceand economy.

7. To facilitate impartial control of faresand allocation of expenditures and serv-ice between communities, districts and facilities in order to obtain the optimumoverall result.

8. To act as :fiscal and operating controlagency to insure providing the mostefficient and satisfactory public transportation at lowest costs; to improve thecredit standing of transit operations soas to expedite provision of new facilities;to simplify accounting procedure and contractual relations; to facilitate liqui-dation and rental of such rapid transitfacilities as may be provided at publicexpense; and to facilitate adjustment of corporate debts of the transit companie sto such extent as may be proper and equitable to both companies and the public.

9. To simplify franchise arrangements and regulation by city, county and stateagencies, and to simplify public rela -tions in order to expedite achievementof progressive transportation objectives.


45/73

R EC OM M EN DE D PR OC EDUR E

Thi s report of the Board is made to the CityGovernment but its fi nding s apply to theMetropolitan Area. The Bo ar d therefore

recommends:1. That the City proceed under authority

of its charter and of Assembly Bill 2141,Chapter 359, Statute s of 1939, to con-struct the Holly wood Parkwa y, financ-ing the work independently and utiliz-ing its existing agencies in such work and that the City provide for the cost of suchengineering service s as ma y be considered advisable to expedite design and con-struction;

2. That the City simultaneously take thelead b y inviting neighboring mUlllCl- palitie s to conferences with a view todeveloping what, if any, joint or independent action should be taken respect-ing expre ss highwa ys in the MetropolitanArea;

3. That the Cit y invite it s neighbor citiesto join in informal discussions of transit polic y, independent of e x pres s highwa ydev elopment s, with a view to ad vancing

con sideration of the unification and co-ordination problem throu ghout theMetro politan Area, and that the transitcompanies and the Railroad Commission be a sked to present their pr eliminaryview s to such conference s at the earlie stappropriate date ;

4. That thereafter the City, with suchother municipal ities as care to join withit, proceed promptly to organize a ne-gotiating committee to commence work on details with the transit companies;

5. That the City expedite its decision onacceptance of the unification principleand the coordinated transit plan so as toaccelerate definite action and progress by the transit companies toward mod-ernization of equipment and adoption

of other concrete measures recom-mended herein;

6. That the Cit y initiate action look ing tothe provision of a central impartial co-ordinating agenc y with a view to gen-eral efficiency and progress and to avo id-ing ineffectual and uncoordinated effort sof individual communities; and thatfunds be made available for all purpose srelated to such coordinating a ge ncy;

7. That, in an y centralization of organiza-tion , the central agenc y utili ze as far a s possible the ser vices of e xisting city ,county, state and federal agencies so thatall efforts may be fu lly cooperati ve , co-ordinated and well directed, without un-neces sary di ver sion of work to ne w or other organization s;

8. That a special economic study of tollcollections and e x pense s be authorized b ythe Cit y and fund s made a vailable th ere-for in order that the probable percentageof coverage of debt service and specialoperating charges may be determined promptly and unnece ssary del ay in fin-

ancing thereb y avoided;

9. That a separat e study be inaugurated and appropriate action taken with a viewto determining the conditions nece ssar yto minimize realt y speculation , propert ydam age, and acquisition costs falling onthe city or project by reason of the proposed construction, and also the related zoning requirements and for the achieve-ment of the cultural objectives of the plan;

10. That, concurrently with the above,changes in existing transit arrangementsindicated by the Factual Surve y to be inthe public interest and which do notconflict with the unification proposalsmade herein, be effected through theusual channels as soon as possible.


46/73


47/73


48/73

All importan t cross streets to be c arried throug h, crossing either over or under parkway according to local conditions. Access to express high -

way to be prov ided only at interva ls of abo ut one -half mile.

FIGURE 17 PARKWAY ON FILL CROSSING OVER STREET

All impor tant cross streets to be carried through crossing either over orunder parkway according to local conditions ccess to express high-

way to be provided only at intervals of about one half mile


49/73

[ ]


50/73

When through cross streets are too widel y spaced, a foot-

bridge for p edestrian s ma y be necessar y.


51/73

[ ]


52/73

HALF SEC TI O N WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS HALF S E C T I O N WITH SER VIC E R O A D S - ACCESSES

N O R M L P R S

FIGURE 19

s E D P R W Y

c l

10,

,~ i \11 - .

__li ; L . A ~ : ~ < : : > ~.. J ~ . ,· 'VM· 2T;;;· 1 · · · · · · · · · · · ·

~ I :;Ii : . .

j<t \

l o . . , . . . ~ W = ~ · - 1 i1 ~

c_-·_c·····...;.· =.2.=S_ . ~ . . _ _.. :r

HALF SECTION WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS HALF S E C T I O N WITH SERVICE R O A D S

N o R M A L P A R K W A Y L E v E LFIGURE 20

_ ¥ ~ ?: ::..~ 9 . ~ f y...~ _ .

,'

i:

= . o l l : : J ~ C t i . ; i l .~

l ~

_ l ~ _ .._ _ . .

HALF SECTION WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS HALF S E C T I O N WITH SER V IC E R O A D S

N o R M A L P A R K YFIGURE 21

[ 48 ]

o N F I L L


53/73

HALF SECTIO NWITHOUT - -J- HALF SECTIO N

SERVICE ROADS WITH SERVICE ROAD S

" --- 1I ,I ,, ., ', .1.. ~

HALF SECTIO N[N L I M IT E D - -J- HALF SECTIO NRIGHT OF WAY O N SURFACE STR EETS


54/73

[ ]


55/73

. _ . _ . _ .,rI

FIGURE 26 -KEY MAP -SANTA MSEC TIONS EAST OF VAN NE

The Santa Mon ica Parkway is not in cluded in recommtion. For detai ls east of Hoover Street, see Figure 27 Ness Avenue , see Fig ure 28 . For Key Map and sectioFigures 30, 31 an d 32. Distan ceFigueroa Street to inte

-2.7 miles . Distance

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jason-bentley
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

1939 Transit Program Los Angeles Metropolitan Area

Documents