park 101 traffic study

June 6, 2012

16J11-1629

PARK 101 DISTRICT PHASE II PROJECTTraffic Scoping ReportFinal Report

SUBMITTED BY


SUBMITTED TO

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION ofGOVERNMENTS


This is a project of the City of Los Angeles with funding provided by the Southern California Association ofGovernments' (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities andother organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development consistent with the region'sgoals. Compass Blueprint tools support visioning efforts, infill analyses, economic and policy analyses, andmarketing and communication programs.

The preparation of this report was funded in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the United States Department of Transportation(DOT) in accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S.Code.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of thedata presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT or theState of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not beresponsible for the City's future use or adaptation of the report.


Page i SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... i

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables............................................................................................................................ ii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ii

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Community Outreach .................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 8

3.1 ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................... 8 3.2 EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 10 3.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 14 3.5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 15

4.0 Planned/Potential Improvements ............................................................................... 16

5.0 Year 2035 Traffic Forecast ........................................................................................... 17

6.0 Preliminary Circulation Alternatives ............................................................................ 19

6.1 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 20

7.0 Fatal Flaw Anaysis of Alternatives ............................................................................... 22

7.1 ALTERNATIVE A ................................................................................................................... 22 7.1.1 Alternative A‐1 ........................................................................................................ 25

7.2 ALTERNATIVE B ................................................................................................................... 27 7.3 ALTERNATIVE C ................................................................................................................... 31 7.4 TRANSIT ISSUES ................................................................................................................... 35 7.5 FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 39

8.0 Road Map for Approval ............................................................................................... 39

9.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 40

Page ii SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Summary of Outreach Efforts Appendix B: Traffic Counts Appendix C: LOS Calculation Sheets Appendix D: Initial Alternatives Appendix E: Caltrans comments on Park 101 feasibility report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Study Area Transit Lines .................................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions ......................................................................... 14 Table 3: Existing Intersection LOS ................................................................................................. 15 Table 4: Reasons for Potential Freeway Ramp Modifications ...................................................... 20 Table 5: Intersection Significant Impact Criteria .......................................................................... 22 Table 6: Alternative A Intersection LOS ........................................................................................ 24 Table 7: Alternative A‐1 Intersection LOS ..................................................................................... 26 Table 8: Alternative B Intersection LOS ........................................................................................ 30 Table 9: Alternative C Intersection LOS ........................................................................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Location ............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Park 101 Vision Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Study Intersections .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Existing Intersection Configurations ................................................................................ 7 Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ...................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Existing Peak Hour 101 Ramp Volumes ......................................................................... 12 Figure 7: Existing Peak Hour North‐South Bridge Volumes .......................................................... 13 Figure 8: US‐101 TCR Concept ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9: Alternative A Roadway Configuration ........................................................................... 23 Figure 10: Alternative A‐1 Roadway Configuration ...................................................................... 28 Figure 11: Alternative B Roadway Configuration ......................................................................... 29 Figure 12: Alternative B Approximate Study Area ........................................................................ 32 Figure 13: Alternative C Roadway Configuration ......................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Alternative C Approximate Study Area ........................................................................ 36 Figure 15: Alternative C Extent of Traffic Volume Changes – AM Peak Hour .............................. 37 Figure 16: Alternative C Extent of Traffic Volume Changes – PM Peak Hour .............................. 38

SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

1.0 INTRODUCTION Park 101 is a proposal to cap the 101 Freeway in Downtown Los Angeles where the freeway is depressed in a “trench” and to develop a park on top of the freeway. The Park 101 District Plan expands upon the cap park and includes a connection to the Los Angeles River, development of vacant parcels adjacent to the park and removal and reconfiguration of freeway ramps in the park area. The Park 101 District vision was developed as part of the Park 101 District Freeway Cap Feasibility Study, by AECOM in 2010, following an earlier student‐lead planning charrette. The Park 101 District vision includes several changes to the freeway ramps including consolidating the on and off ramps at the east and west ends of the park area, at Grand Avenue and Vignes Street. These ideas were proposed during the feasibility study, but were not explicitly evaluated from a traffic circulation perspective. This study, the Park 101 District Phase 2 Study, is intended to determine if there are fatal flaws associated with the traffic circulation changes incorporated into the Park 101 District Plan vision. This report summarizes the results of the fatal flaw traffic analysis of the Park 101 District Phase II Project. The Park 101 District is part of a long‐term vision to re‐conceive downtown Los Angeles, to reorient it to a pedestrian scale, and to remake it as a more coherent collection of neighborhoods, each contributing to the history and vitality of the City of Los Angeles. Park 101 seeks to transform the freeway trench into a seam, unifying El Pueblo, Union Station, Chinatown, Little Tokyo, the Music Center, Our Lady of Angels Cathedral, Bunker Hill, and the many civic buildings of downtown Los Angeles. Creation of the district will also provide new development opportunities that will contribute to the vibrancy of Los Angeles. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed park project.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND A strong foundation for moving the project forward has been laid out up to this point in time. The community has been engaged, public agencies have been supportive, and a vision has been created. A Friends of Park 101 group has been active in pursuing the park plan. A prior Compass Blueprint demonstration project, spearheaded by EDAW/AECOM, led to the development of a preferred plan at a conceptual level and evaluated its economic viability. Figure 2 shows the original Park 101 Vision Plan developed by EDAW/AECOM, as well as the diagrammatical representation of the roadway and ramp configurations.

The objective of this current, SCAG funded Compass Blueprint study, is to refine and evaluate the transportation elements of the vision plan based on input from stakeholders and agency staff. The vision plan included removal of many freeway on and off ramps and suggested consolidating freeway access at Grand Avenue and Vignes Street. This study investigates the rationale behind the removal of many of these ramps and assesses the circulation implications of their removal and reconfiguration. By removing some of the ramps, particularly the loop on and off ramps, land that is currently used for the ramps could be repurposed as development sites that could potentially provide a source of funding for the

Vision Plan


park. Iteris has worked with a Project Steering Committee to assess which ramps are logical candidates for removal or reconfiguration and has assessed the transportation implications of three alternative sets of ramp modifications. An additional goal of this report is to present a “road map” for approval for these selected alternatives, with the idea that they may be refined or modified over time.

1.2 STUDY AREA This study is not intended to environmentally clear the ramp modification alternatives assessed herein. It is a fatal flaw analysis designed as a “reality check” to determine which circulation alternatives are appropriate to continue to include in the Park 101 District Plan vision. Some of the individual elements of the alternatives will have limited and very localized circulation impacts. Others, if pursued, could have more far‐reaching impacts on Downtown circulation and would require a more extensive traffic analysis as part of an environmental

impact report (EIR). The study area for analysis of potential traffic‐related fatal flaws of the

proposed project alternatives includes the following 21 intersections along the two sides of the 101 Freeway adjacent to the park:

1. Temple Street/US‐101 Southbound Ramps; 2. Grand Avenue/US‐101 Northbound Ramps; 3. Temple Street/Hill Street; 4. Broadway/US‐101 Northbound On‐ramp; 5. Broadway/Arcadia Street; 6. Broadway/Aliso Street; 7. Spring Street/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp; 8. Spring Street/Arcadia Street; 9. Spring Street/Aliso Street; 10. Main Street/Arcadia Street; 11. Main Street/Aliso Street; 12. Los Angeles Street/US‐101 Northbound On‐ramp; 13. Los Angeles Street/Arcadia Street; 14. Los Angeles Street/Aliso Street; 15. Los Angeles Street/US‐101 Southbound Off‐ramp; 16. Alameda Street/Los Angeles Street; 17. Alameda Street/US‐101 Northbound On‐ramp; 18. Alameda Street/Arcadia Street; 19. Alameda Street Aliso Street; 20. US‐101 Southbound Ramps/Commercial Street; 21. Vignes Street/Ramirez Street.

Aerial View of Park 101 area


The locations of the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 3. The existing lane configurations of the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 4, based on a field review of the study area.

2.0 COMMUNITY OUTREACH The public outreach effort for this study was focused on the input from the Project Steering Committee which included representatives of the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Caltrans, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), SCAG, as well as public stakeholders and members of Friends of Park 101. The Steering Committee met monthly during the study process. Updates on the study were provided on the Friends of Park 101 website. In February, 2012, a public meeting was held with a panel of Downtown stakeholders participating in a discussion of the Park 101 District Plan and how the park could be financed and maintained and operated. Additional information about the community outreach component of this study is included in the Appendix A of this report.

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Park 101 District - Phase II Figure 1

Project Location

3RD ST

ALPINE ST

BRO

ADW

AY

COMMERCIAL ST

SPRIN

G

ST

GRAND

AVE

VIGNES ST

HILL

STLO

S AN

GEL

ES

ST

MAI

N

S

T

ALA

ME

DA

ST

1ST

ST

TEMPLE ST

FIGUEROA

ST

ORD ST

CESAR CHAVEZ

AVE

SP

RIN

G

S

T

ALISO

ST

ARCADIA

ST

RAMIREZ

ST

Proposed Park Space

Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr


Park 101 Vision Plan

Preferred Plan Defined in Previous Park 101 Study (2010)

Removed Ramp

New Ramp

New Developable space

New Pedestrian or Park space

Grand Ave Broadway Spring St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Temple St

Vignes St Mission Rd

Commercial St

Hill St Main St

Busway

Aliso St

Arcadia St


Study Intersections

3RD ST

ALPINE ST

BRO

ADW

AY

COMMERCIAL ST

SPRIN

G

ST

GRAND

AVE

VIGNES ST

HILL

STLO

S AN

GEL

ES

ST

MAI

N

S

T

ALA

ME

DA

ST

1ST

ST

TEMPLE ST

FIGUEROA

ST

ORD ST

CESAR CHAVEZ

AVE

SP

RIN

G

S

T

ALISO

ST

ARCADIA

ST

RAMIREZ

ST

20

21

19

18

17

16

1514

13

12

11

109

8

76

5

2

1

3

4



Existing Intersection Configurations

Broadway/Arcadia St Broadway/Aliso St1 2 3 4 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

5 Spring St/101 NB Off-ramp

Spring St/Arcadia St Spring St/Aliso St Main St/Arcadia St Main St/Aliso St Los Angeles St/Aliso St

Los Angeles St/101 SB Off-ramp

Los Angeles St/101 NB On-ramp Los Angeles St/Arcadia St

Alameda St/Los Angeles St Alameda St/101 NB On-ramp

Alameda St/Arcadia St Alameda St/Aliso St Vignes St/Ramirez St101 SB Ramps/Commercial St

Temple St/101 SB Ramps Grand Ave/101 NB Ramps Temple St/Hill St Broadway/101 NB On-Ramp

Legend

AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXX/XX



3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section presents an overview of the existing roadway system and transit routes within the study area, as well as the methodology used to determine existing traffic volumes and existing operations at the study intersections.

3.1 ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS The existing roadways within the study area consist of a mix of Major Highways, Secondary Highways, Local Streets and Collector Streets. Figueroa Street, Grand Avenue, Spring Street, Alameda Street, Temple Street and Ramirez Street are designated as Major Highways, generally consisting of two lanes in each direction except for Alameda Street which consists of three lanes in each direction. Hope Street, Hill Street, Broadway, Main Street and Los Angeles Street are designated as Secondary Highways, generally consisting of two lanes in each direction. Main Street consists of three lanes running in the northbound direction only. Aliso Street and Arcadia Street are one‐way streets designated as Local streets, generally consisting of three lanes. Commercial Street is designated as a Collector street, generally consisting of one lane in each direction.

3.2 EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS The transit system serving the study area consists of bus and rail transit provided by Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Dash, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Foothill Transit, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Metrolink, and Amtrak. Union Station, located on the eastern side of the study area, serves as the primary transportation hub in Los Angeles and is the main access to the transit system in the study area. Table 1 lists the transit lines within the study area. The El Monte Transitway extends east from Alameda Street parallel to the 101 Freeway. It is currently being modified to accommodate high occupancy toll lanes and will be operated as Metro Express Lanes.

Downtown Los Angeles Transit Map


TABLE 1: STUDY AREA TRANSIT LINES

Operator Type Line

Metro Bus Silver Line

2/302

4

10

33

40/42

45

10/48

70

71

76

78/79/378

81

83

84/68

90/91

92

94

96

439

442

485

487/489

704

728

770

Light Rail Gold Line

Heavy Rail Red/Purple Line

Metrolink Commuter Rail

Antelope Valley Line

Orange County Line

Riverside Line

San Bernardino Line

Ventura County Line

91 Line (Riverside ‐ Fullerton)

Amtrak Passenger

Rail

Big Blue Bus Bus 10


Operator Type Line

Foothill Transit Bus Silver Streak

481

493

497

498

499

699

LADOT/Dash Bus Route A

Route B

Route D

Lincoln Heights/Chinatown

3.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection volumes at 14 of the study intersections were obtained from 2009 traffic count data collected as part of the California High Speed Rail project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Vehicle turning movement counts at the seven remaining intersections were collected in October 2011 during the a.m. (7:00 – 10:00) and p.m. (3:00 – 6:00) peak periods. The peak hour volume used in the analysis was the highest single hour of traffic during each of the peak periods. Detailed vehicle turning movement data are included in Appendix B. Figure 5 shows the existing peak

hour volumes at the study intersections. Figure 6 shows the existing peak hour volumes along the on and off‐ramps within the study area, with the magnitudes of ramp volumes depicted by the line thickness. Figure 7 shows the existing peak hour volumes on the north‐south bridges across the 101, with the magnitudes of bridge volumes depicted by the line thickness.

101 Freeway


Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

57

5/1

23

2

94

2/4

87

257/191

387/467

Broadway/Arcadia St Broadway/Aliso St

42

3/11

45

83

/17

5

186/86

259/210

204/55

98

/90

10

33

/67

8

1 2 3 4 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

5

41

/48

178/99

90

8/4

10

0/1

38

/47

95

5/4

49

34

/41

420/197

615/573

3/5

40

/43

25

/61

270/525

160/12

14

8/1

16

12

81

/53

4

Spring St/101 NB Off-ramp

Spring St/Arcadia St Spring St/Aliso St Main St/Arcadia St Main St/Aliso St

80

/14

2

32

4/1

25

8

946/624

62/133

33

2/1

23

9

18

1/3

79

56/72

382/572

Los Angeles St/Aliso St

Los Angeles St/101 SB Off-ramp

Los Angeles St/101 NB On-ramp

116

/55

1

13

4/3

32

3/4

34

2/1

51

Los Angeles St/Arcadia St

31

/91

24

2/8

53

32

4/1

17

24

/36

345/91

954/621

23/33

24

3/7

03

13

5/3

81

26/34

426/836

130/17

4/3

60

2/1

62

36

3/11

82

512/109

83

2/2

26

Alameda St/Los Angeles St Alameda St/101 NB On-ramp

Alameda St/Arcadia St Alameda St/Aliso St

2/1

53

7/8

35

110

/117

49/462

33/61

15/25

53

/69

118

4/7

21

28

3/1

08

85/146

48/49

36/66

25

9/2

52

64

6/9

21

99

7/7

39

27

9/2

46

41

/21

80

7/1

52

9

93

0/6

89

64

/25

462/365

1203/726

129/1856

14

/12

53

13

4/1

91

75/367

35/134

137/53

116

/14

4

15

09

/85

6

194/108

97/123

Vignes St/Ramirez St101 SB Ramps/Commercial St

24

/41

15

9/2

60

72

/45

147/177

31/42

50/51

32

3/2

40

12

6/1

14

21

8/1

74

78/105

41/87

194/419

58

/56

16

/31

4

5/9168/705

41/71

15/3

118

/38

16

/3

18

3/8

5

2/3

81/55

34/156

Temple St/101 SB Ramps Grand Ave/101 NB Ramps Temple St/Hill St Broadway/101 NB On-Ramp

30

/23

2

12

6/5

37

92

/18

7

203/394

606/572

247/114

18

9/6

1

311

/59

67

/30

339/165

621/578

130/134

17

6/7

73

27

7/8

32

28/100

409/246

10

58

/53

0

50

5/2

71

10

4/11

2

15

1/4

86

60

/13

2

79/126

285/416

291/123

19

4/1

76

13

36

/66

6

45

1/2

34

204/83

546/557

33/106

54

1/11

64

37

5/2

23

22

5/1

05

70

7/4

45

Legend

Bus Lane Volumes*AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXX/XX

*

* **



Existing Peak Hour 101 Ramp Volumes


AM PEAK HOUR

437

437459

Temple St

600

178

PM PEAK HOUR


649512 267

317

218

336 498

1,794270 611


1044

346

105 1065

Temple St

328

99


351109 760 1,175

137 538

1,276254 255

Hill St

Hill St

Main St

Main St

Commercial St

126

Commercial St

687

567

150

under 200

200 - 500

500 - 1000

1,000 - 1,500

Aliso St

Arcadia St

Aliso St

Arcadia St

1,500 or more



Existing Peak Hour North-South Bridge Volumes

Grand Ave Hill St Broadway Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Grand Ave Hill St Broadway Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

PM PEAK HOUR

AM PEAK HOUR

under 200

200 - 500

500 - 1,000

1,000 - 1,500

1,199 575

1,131 618

1,375 38*

1,429 40*

404

388

669 273

672 282

1,342 848

1,625 786

678 1,232

768 1,231

646 48*

650 43*

1,400

1,311

208 944

197 868

1,054 1,550

1,000 1,743

1,500 or more

1,467 453

1,981 263

1,605776

1,076 718

* Buses in Bus Lane



3.4 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The efficiency of traffic operations on a facility can be described in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The level of service concept is a measure of average operating conditions at an intersection during an hour. Levels range from A to F, with A representing excellent (free‐flow) conditions and F representing extreme congestion. Traffic operating conditions for signalized intersections in the vicinity of the project were analyzed using intersection capacity‐based methodology known as the Circular 212 “Critical Movement Analysis” (CMA) method. CMA methodology compares the amount of traffic that an intersection is able to process (the capacity) to the level of traffic during the peak hours (volume). A volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratio is calculated which determines the level of service. The analysis of traffic operations at unsignalized intersections in this study utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Operations Analysis Methodology, which is based on the average number of seconds of delay that stop‐controlled vehicles experience at the worst‐case approach of the intersection. Table 2 presents the V/C ratio and delay associated with each LOS grade for both signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as a qualitative description of intersection operations at that grade.

TABLE 2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of

Service Description

Signalized Intersection Volume‐to‐Capacity

Ratio (V/C)

Unsignalized Intersection

Delay (seconds per vehicle)

A Free flowing, virtually no delay. Minimal Traffic. < 0.600 < 10

B Free low and choice of lanes. Delays are minimal. All cars clear intersection easily.

>0.600 to 0.699 >10 and < 15

C Stale flow. Queue at signal starting to get relatively long. Delays starting to become a factor but still within acceptable limits.

>0.700 to 0.799 >15 and < 25

D

Approaching unstable flow. Queues at intersection are quite long but most cars clear intersection no their green signal. Occasionally, several vehicles must wait for a second green signal. Congestion is moderate.

>0.800 to 0.899 >25 and < 35

E Severe Congestion and delay. Most of the available capacity is used. Many cars must wait through a complete signal cycle to clear the intersection.

>0.900 to 0.999 >35 and < 50

F Excessive delay and congestion. Most cars must wait through more than one on one signal cycle. Queues are very long and drivers are obviously irritated.

> 1.000 > 50

Source: Transportation Research Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980. All of the signalized study intersections are currently part of the City’s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) network. Intersections included as part of the ATSAC network receive a 0.070 credit in V/C ratio.


3.5 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Table 3 summarizes the existing levels of service at the study intersections. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3, most of the study intersections are currently operating at LOS A or B, largely due to the fact that the one‐way circulation patterns provide for efficient intersection operations. Only the intersection on Grand Avenue at the northbound on ramps to the 101 and 110 freeways is operating as LOS D. Intersection delay values shown at the three uncontrolled intersections represent the average delay experienced by left‐turning vehicles as they attempt to enter the on‐ramp.

TABLE 3: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection Traffic Control

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps Signal 0.676 ‐ B 0.706 ‐ C 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 & 110 NB Ramps Signal 0.574 ‐ A 0.806 ‐ D 3 Temple St/Hill St Signal 0.768 ‐ C 0.591 ‐ A 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled ‐ 12.0 B ‐ 15.4 C 5 Broadway/Arcadia St Signal 0.333 ‐ A 0.538 ‐ A 6 Broadway/Aliso St Signal 0.449 ‐ A 0.499 ‐ A 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp 1‐way Stop ‐ 12.4 B ‐ 9.7 A 8 Spring St/Arcadia St Signal 0.421 ‐ A 0.257 ‐ A 9 Spring St/Aliso St Signal 0.250 ‐ A 0.167 ‐ A 10 Main St/Arcadia St Signal 0.226 ‐ A 0.378 ‐ A 11 Main St/Aliso St Signal 0.148 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled ‐ 7.8 A ‐ 9.9 A 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St Signal 0.360 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St Signal 0.161 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 1‐way Stop ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 9.2 A 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St Signal 0.382 ‐ A 0.501 ‐ A 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 14.2 B 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St Signal 0.588 ‐ A 0.582 ‐ A 19 Alameda St/Aliso St Signal 0.515 ‐ A 0.552 ‐ A 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St Signal 0.181 ‐ A 0.471 ‐ A 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St Signal 0.251 ‐ A 0.384 ‐ A

Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.


4.0 PLANNED/POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS Within the Park 101 District, there are several planned or ongoing mobility improvement projects that could have an effect on how the Park 101 project is eventually built. An overview of these improvement projects is given below.

The Union Station/Patsaouras Plaza Busway Station Project consists of the construction of a patron boarding island to the south of Los Angeles Union Station’s Patsaouras Plaza, providing a center platform in the El Monte Busway (I‐10 South) for transit patrons boarding and alighting buses traveling on the Busway. Another component of the project would be construction of a direct pedestrian connection between the Busway and Union Station.

The Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar project would provide streetcar services along Broadway and Hill Street south of First Street within the study area. The streetcar will connect Bunker Hill to South Park and the Convention Center/LA Live areas. Once constructed, the streetcar would reduce traffic capacity along the route as streetcars typically share the travel lanes with passenger vehicles. The EIR for the preferred alignment for the project has yet to be approved at the time of this report.

In 2009, Caltrans completed a Project Study Report (PSR) for the 101 freeway section between Los Angeles Street and Main Street consisting of the reconstruction of the Los Angeles Street Overcrossing and the Main Street Overcrossing to construct a pedestrian park bridge deck over the 101 between Los Angeles Street and Main Street. Additional improvements as part of this project were the removal of the Los Angeles Street Northbound On‐ramp and the realignment of the Alameda Street Northbound On‐ramp. The improvements evaluated in this PSR could be implemented as the first phase of the Park 101 District Plan.

Caltrans periodically assesses the long‐term travel demands and capacity needs of the highways it manages in studies referred to as Transportation Concept Reports. The Caltrans Highway 101 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) prepared in 1999 proposes the addition of one High‐Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction along the 101 freeway within the study area of the proposed park

Downtown Streetcar

Proposed Busway Station at Patsouras Plaza

2009 PSR Study Area


project. Funding for the TCR project is not included in the current Long Range Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County. Figure 8 illustrates how the widened freeway would impact adjacent roadways and interchanges. It is unclear how the TCR concept could be constructed through the nearby four‐level interchange, but current Caltrans policy calls for the preservation of the ability to implement the TCR project when any changes are made to the corridor. For the Park 101 District Plan, that means that any changes to the freeway in this segment must not preclude the ability to widen the freeway to implement the TCR project. In the 2009 PSR for the Los Angeles and Main Street Overcrossings and deck park, the ability to widened the freeway was maintained by reconstructing and cantilevering Aliso and Arcadia Streets over the widened freeway.

5.0 YEAR 2035 TRAFFIC FORECAST As part of the analysis, year 2035 traffic volume projections were developed and compared to existing volumes. Traffic volume growth forecasts for year 2035 conditions (without the project) were based upon the results of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) travel demand model. The model was updated and refined specifically for use in this study. Refinements included adjustments to roadway speeds and capacities based on configuration of roadways in the model and traffic patterns in the area.

SCAG’s travel demand forecasting model predicts future travel demand based upon several input data items that include:

• SCAG forecasts of regional growth in population and employment in the six‐county region; • SCAG forecast changes in the socio‐demographic characteristics of travelers; and • Future characteristics of the roadway and transit systems including travel times, costs and

system capacity reflective of the planned system (No‐Build Alternative). The results of the SCAG model run showed a relatively small increase in background traffic volumes within a 10 mile radius of the proposed project area. An increase of approximately 2% was seen in the a.m. peak hour between 2008 and 2035, while an increase of approximately 3% was seen in the p.m. peak hour. These results are not unexpected given the constraints of the freeways around Downtown Los Angeles which are at capacity during peak periods, the increasing Downtown residential population and the significantly enhanced transit system that will be in place Downtown by 2035. It should be noted that the traffic forecasts included in this analysis do not explicitly evaluate the additional traffic that may be generated by the potential developments that could be built on the development parcels that may be created by the removal of some ramps, nor by any activities at the park itself. Events at the park would likely be held on weekends of in off‐peak hours. The level of growth built into the SCAG model for the zones located adjacent to the Park where development parcels could be created includes population growth equivalent to approximately 10% and employment growth equivalent to approximately 5%.


US-101 TCR Concept



6.0 PRELIMINARY CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES

The original Park 101 Vision Plan developed by the EDAW/AECOM staff consisted of a freeway cap park between Grand Avenue and Union Station. In general, the plan was considered a conceptual vision of what the project could be, without much consideration of environmental constraints. As part of the park plan, the 101 freeway ramps at Broadway, Spring Street, Los Angeles Street, Alameda Street, Commercial Street, and Vignes Street would all be removed. A new diamond interchange would be built at Vignes Street to accommodate or “intercept” downtown‐related traffic shifting from the closed ramps.

The initial project alternatives were conceived for several different purposes which included creating developable land, reducing traffic on surface streets in the park area, improving traffic flow along the 101 Freeway, and improving substandard freeway on and off‐ramps. In preparation for the fatal flaw traffic analysis to be conducted in this study, Iteris worked with the Project Steering Committee to develop three circulation improvement alternatives for analysis. The initial step in development of the alternatives was to consider which freeway ramps should be considered for potential closure or reconfiguration, as opposed to arbitrarily closing all of the ramps between Grand Avenue and Vignes Street. Table 4 lists the northbound and southbound ramps along the 101 freeway within the study area, and lists three potential reasons for closure or modifications at some of these ramps. One reason would be to create an area on which development could occur by freeing up some land currently used for freeway ramp right of way. A second reason could be the removal of a ramp helps eliminate a merging or weaving issue on the freeway mainline. The third potential reason was the removal of a non‐standard ramp design. Identifying these improvement opportunities helped in developing the preliminary set of alternatives.

Union Station


TABLE 4: REASONS FOR POTENTIAL FREEWAY RAMP MODIFICATIONS

Ramp Removal Creates Development Opportunity

Removal Improves Mainline Weaving

Issues

Non‐Standard Ramps

101 Southbound (from 110 to 10) SR‐110 to Temple St Off‐ramp X Temple St Off‐ramp Temple St On‐ramp Broadway/Aliso St Off‐ramp Los Angeles St Off‐ramp Los Angeles St On‐ramp X Commercial St Off‐ramp X Commercial St On‐ramp X Mission Rd/I‐5/I‐10 Off‐ramp

101 Northbound (from 10 to 110) Vignes St Off‐ramp Vignes St On‐ramp X Alameda St Off‐ramp X Alameda St On‐ramp X X X Los Angeles St Loop On‐ramp X X X Spring St Off‐ramp X X X Broadway On‐ramp X X Grand Ave/I‐110 Off‐ramp X X Grand Ave On‐ramp

There were few reasons identified for considering removal of the southbound ramps. None of them could be removed to create a development parcel of any significant size. Only the ramps to/from Los Angeles and Commercial Streets were closely spaced to create some weaving issues, but the Commercial Street ramps had recently been rebuilt to improve conditions in that segment of the freeway. In the northbound direction, there are several loop ramps that is removed, would create space for potential development. They are also very tight loops and not consistent with current design standards. Many of the northbound on and off ramps also cause slowing on the freeway mainline as vehicles merge to/from them and weave between them.

6.1 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES The scope of services for this study called for Iteris to work with the Steering Committee to develop three alternatives for fatal flaw analysis. Early in the study, a total of six alternatives were initially considered for further analysis. They ranged from limited change to the freeway ramps to complete implementation of all the changes alluded to the in the Park 101 District Plan vision. Figures illustrating the initial alternatives diagrammatically and listing some of their pros and cons are shown in graphics included in Appendix D. These graphics reflect comments received from Caltrans on January 10, 2012. Initial Alternatives 1 and 2 were geared towards creating the maximum number of development parcels north of the 101 by eliminating or realigning ramps at Broadway, Spring Street, Los Angeles Street, and


Alameda Street. Alternative 2 was essentially a scaled down version of Alternative 1. Both alternatives were well received by the Steering Committee.

Initial Alternative 3 was considered for the purpose of creating a continuous pedestrian/park connection between the El Pueblo and Civic Center areas by closing Arcadia Street and Aliso Street between Main Street and Los Angeles Street. Alternative 3 was also well received by the Steering Committee. Initial Alternative 4 was considered for the purposes of both improving traffic flow on the 101 and creating maximum development parcels on the north side of the 101 by eliminating a total of 12 on and off‐ramps between Grand Avenue and Vignes Street, and creating a new diamond interchange at Vignes Street. The elimination of the ramps within the trench area would shift all Downtown‐related traffic to the ramps at Grand Avenue and Temple Street on the west and the newly constructed Vignes Street interchange on the east. This alternative was

not well received by the Steering Committee, and was eliminated due to concerns over the traffic impacts at the remaining interchanges and due to geometric concerns about the short distance between the new interchange and the existing Mission Road ramps. Initial Alternative 5 was considered for the purposes of realigning Broadway and Spring Street in Chinatown, as well as eliminating Hill Street north of Aliso Street. This alternative would have also eliminated the Broadway Northbound On‐ramp and Spring Street Northbound Off‐ramp, thus creating some development and park space as a result. This alternative was not well received by the Steering Committee, and was eliminated primarily due to the traffic and political concerns over closing Hill Street through Chinatown. In addition, this alternative would have resulted in an isolated ramp situation at the Broadway Southbound Off‐ramp because of the elimination of the Broadway Northbound On‐ramp; a condition that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been opposed to on past projects. Initial Alternative 6 was a scaled down version of Alternative 4 and was considered for the purpose of improving traffic flow on the 101 by eliminating the Alameda Street Northbound Off‐ramp and by creating a new diamond interchange at Vignes Street to intercept Downtown‐related traffic. In addition, this alternative would provide a new access to Patsaouras Plaza across the 101 freeway. This alternative was not well received by the Steering Committee, and was eliminated primarily due to geometric concerns about the short distance between the new interchange and the existing Mission Road ramps.

Spring Street/Broadway Ramps

Los Angeles Street/Alameda Street Ramps


Based on feedback from stakeholders and agency staff, three refined alternatives were developed through this process. The three alternatives are discussed in detail in the following section.

7.0 FATAL FLAW ANAYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Based on stakeholder and agency feedback, three refined alternatives were developed and analyzed as part of this study. It is likely that these three alternatives would be further analyzed as part of a future EIR/EIS for the project. The analysis focused on determining if any of the three alternatives would result in any “fatal flaws” from a traffic/circulation standpoint. For the purposes of this study, a “fatal flaw” was defined as any type of traffic or circulation impact severe enough that it would prevent a particular alternative from receiving final approval. Significant traffic impacts are determined based on a threshold of significance set by respective agencies. The LADOT has established threshold criteria to determine if a project has significant traffic impacts. Using the LADOT standard, a project impact would be considered significant based on the criteria shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5: INTERSECTION SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA

With Project Conditions Project‐Related Increase in V/C Ratio

LOS V/C Ratio

C 0.701 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040

D 0.801 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020

E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.010

Source: LADOT Traffic Study Guidelines, December 2010

Although no study intersection is forecast to operate at LOS E or F in any of the project alternatives, it is still possible for an intersection to be considered significantly impacted while operating at LOS C or D, as shown in Table 5.

7.1 ALTERNATIVE A Alternative A creates maximum development parcels north of the 101 by eliminating northbound ramps at Broadway, Spring Street, and Los Angeles Street, and realigning the Alameda Street On‐ramp. In addition, the eliminated Broadway on‐ramp would be replaced by a new ramp at the current terminus of Arcadia Street at Broadway. This new northbound on ramp from Broadway would replace the loop on ramp and enter the freeway in the same location north of Hill Street where the existing ramp joins the freeway. It would also avoid creating an isolated ramp out of the southbound off ramp to Broadway by preserving the reverse move to the northbound freeway. Figure 9 diagrammatically shows the roadway configuration changes associated with Alternative A. Table 6 summarizes the projected levels of service at the study intersections assuming Alternative A conditions. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 6, the study intersections continue to operate at good levels of service with most intersections operating better than LOS D. The elimination of the Spring Street off ramp and Los Angeles Street on ramp will shift some traffic to Alameda Street, but the ramp terminus intersection at Alameda/Arcadia will still operate at LOS A in both peak hours.


Alternative A Roadway Configuration


Temple St

Vignes St Mission RdHill St Main St

To 110

Commercial St

Alternative A

Aliso St

Arcadia St

Removed Ramp

New Ramp



From110

N



TABLE 6: ALTERNATIVE A INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection


Existing Alternative A Existing Alternative A

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 0.676 ‐ B 0.676 ‐ B 0.706 ‐ C 0.706 ‐ C 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 0.574 ‐ A 0.602 ‐ B 0.806 ‐ D 0.822 ‐ D 3 Temple St/Hill St 0.768 ‐ C 0.768 ‐ C 0.591 ‐ A 0.591 ‐ A 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 12.0 B Removed ‐ 15.4 C Removed 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 0.333 ‐ A 0.611 ‐ B 0.538 ‐ A 0.575 ‐ A 6 Broadway/Aliso St 0.449 ‐ A 0.449 ‐ A 0.499 ‐ A 0.499 ‐ A 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp ‐ 12.4 B Removed ‐ 9.7 A Removed 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 0.421 ‐ A 0.448 ‐ A 0.257 ‐ A 0.272 ‐ A 9 Spring St/Aliso St 0.250 ‐ A 0.250 ‐ A 0.167 ‐ A 0.167 ‐ A 10 Main St/Arcadia St 0.226 ‐ A 0.246 ‐ A 0.378 ‐ A 0.388 ‐ A 11 Main St/Aliso St 0.148 ‐ A 0.148 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 7.8 A Removed ‐ 9.9 A Removed 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 0.360 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.391 ‐ A 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 0.161 ‐ A 0.161 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 9.2 A ‐ 9.2 A 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 0.382 ‐ A 0.457 ‐ A 0.501 ‐ A 0.621 ‐ B 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 25.0 D ‐ 14.2 B ‐ 21.6 C 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 0.588 ‐ A 0.588 ‐ A 0.582 ‐ A 0.582 ‐ A 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 0.515 ‐ A 0.515 ‐ A 0.552 ‐ A 0.552 ‐ A 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 0.181 ‐ A 0.181 ‐ A 0.471 ‐ A 0.471 ‐ A 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St 0.251 ‐ A 0.251 ‐ A 0.384 ‐ A 0.384 ‐ A



Implementation of Alternative A could help improve freeway weaving conditions in the northbound direction with the elimination of the Spring Street Off‐ramp, as vehicles entering the freeway from Alameda Street will not have to conflict with vehicles attempting to exit the freeway until further downstream at the Grand Avenue Off‐ramp. No change to the southbound traffic flow would be expected. It is not anticipated that additional study intersections or freeway segments, beyond the study area identified in this report, would need to be analyzed as part of any future environmental clearance for Alternative A. Any change in traffic patterns would likely be localized within this study area. However, the exact study area would need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles at the time of the study via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

7.1.1 ALTERNATIVE A‐1 Alternative A‐1 is a scaled down version of Alternative A. Alternative A‐1 proposes the elimination of the Los Angeles Street On‐ramp and the realignment of the Alameda Street On‐ramp. Implementation of Alternative A‐1 would create developable land between Los Angeles Street and Alameda Street north of the 101. Figure 10 shows the roadway configuration changes associated with Alternative A‐1. Table 7 summarizes the projected levels of service within a more focused study area assuming Alternative A‐1 conditions. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 7, the study intersections continue to operate at LOS D or better.


TABLE 7: ALTERNATIVE A‐1 INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection


Existing Alternative A Existing Alternative A

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS

12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 7.8 A Removed ‐ 9.9 A Removed 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 0.360 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.391 ‐ A 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 0.161 ‐ A 0.161 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 9.2 A ‐ 9.2 A 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 0.382 ‐ A 0.457 ‐ A 0.501 ‐ A 0.621 ‐ B 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 25.0 D ‐ 14.2 B ‐ 21.6 C


It is not anticipated that additional study intersections or freeway segments, beyond the study area identified in this report, would need to be analyzed as part any future environmental clearance for Alternative A‐1. Any change in traffic patterns would likely be localized within this study area.


7.2 ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B proposes the closure of Arcadia Street and Aliso Street between Main Street and Los Angeles Street. The implementation of Alternative B creates a continuous pedestrian/park connection between the El Pueblo and LA City Mall in the Civic Center area. It could also be characterized as a pedestrian pathway between Union Station and the Civic Center area. Figure 11 shows the roadway configuration changes associated with Alternative B. It does not change any of the freeway ramps and hence has no impact on the freeway geometrics. The elimination of through traffic on Aliso and Arcadia would, however shift some of the traffic to alternate ramps. In the northbound direction, the closure of one block of Arcadia

Street would shift some traffic from the Alameda Street off ramp to the Spring Street off ramp. In the southbound direction, the one block closure on Aliso Street would shift some traffic from the Broadway off ramp to the Los Angeles Street off ramp. The Alternative B roadway network was run using the SCAG base model to determine the change in traffic patterns as a result of the two roadway closures. Table 8 summarizes the projected levels of service at the study intersections assuming Alternative B traffic volumes. Level of service calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 8, the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better.

El Pueblo


Alternative A-1 Roadway Configuration


Temple St


To 110

Commercial St

Alternative A-1

Aliso St

Arcadia St

Removed Ramp

New Ramp



From110

N



Alternative B Roadway Configuration


Temple St


To 110

Commercial St

Alternative B

Aliso St

Arcadia St

Removed Ramp or Roadway

New Ramp



From110

N



TABLE 8: ALTERNATIVE B INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection


Existing Alternative B Existing Alternative B

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 0.676 ‐ B 0.758 ‐ C 0.706 ‐ C 0.666 ‐ B 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 0.574 ‐ A 0.581 ‐ A 0.806 ‐ D 0.822 ‐ D 3 Temple St/Hill St 0.768 ‐ C 0.854 ‐ D 0.591 ‐ A 0.748 ‐ C 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 12.0 B ‐ 11.9 B ‐ 15.4 C ‐ 17.1 C 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 0.333 ‐ A 0.299 ‐ A 0.538 ‐ A 0.566 ‐ A 6 Broadway/Aliso St 0.449 ‐ A 0.408 ‐ A 0.499 ‐ A 0.626 ‐ B 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp ‐ 12.4 B ‐ 12.8 B ‐ 9.7 A ‐ 10.1 B 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 0.421 ‐ A 0.284 ‐ A 0.257 ‐ A 0.169 ‐ A 9 Spring St/Aliso St 0.250 ‐ A 0.247 ‐ A 0.167 ‐ A 0.071 ‐ A 10 Main St/Arcadia St 0.226 ‐ A 0.062 ‐ A 0.378 ‐ A 0.249 ‐ A 11 Main St/Aliso St 0.148 ‐ A 0.158 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 0.454 ‐ A 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 7.8 A ‐ 7.7 A ‐ 9.9 A ‐ 9.0 A 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 0.360 ‐ A 0.280 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.206 ‐ A 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 0.161 ‐ A 0.152 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 0.650 ‐ B 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 27.1 D ‐ 9.2 A ‐ 9.2 A 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 0.382 ‐ A 0.400 ‐ A 0.501 ‐ A 0.478 ‐ A 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 22.5 C ‐ 14.2 B ‐ 16.2 C 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 0.588 ‐ A 0.604 ‐ B 0.582 ‐ A 0.609 ‐ B 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 0.515 ‐ A 0.609 ‐ B 0.552 ‐ A 0.587 ‐ A 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 0.181 ‐ A 0.183 ‐ A 0.471 ‐ A 0.431 ‐ A 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St 0.251 ‐ A 0.269 ‐ A 0.384 ‐ A 0.391 ‐ A



While intersection operations would be mostly unaffected, implementation of Alternative B could result in additional delay within the northbound 101 weave segment between the Los Angeles Street/Alameda Street On‐ramp and the Spring Street Off‐ramp. The additional delay would be due to northbound vehicles bypassing the Alameda Street Off‐ramp, in order to avoid the Arcadia Street closure, and remaining on the freeway longer to exit at the Spring Street Off‐ramp. It is anticipated that additional study intersections and/or freeway segments beyond the study area identified in this report would need to be analyzed as part of any future environmental clearance for Alternative B. Changes in traffic patterns due to the closures of Aliso Street and Arcadia Street could potentially occur as far west as Figueroa Street, as far east as Mission Road, as far south as 3rd Street, and as far north as Ord Street. While this report analyzed traffic operations at 21 key intersections in the vicinity of the project site, Figure 12 shows the study area that would likely be included as part of a more extensive environmental clearance study for Alternative B. However, the exact study area would need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles at the time of the study via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

7.3 ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C is a combination of Alternative A and Alternative B. Alternative C provides both maximum development parcels north of the 101 and creates a continuous pedestrian walkway between the El

Pueblo and Civic Center areas. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C proposes the elimination of northbound ramps at Broadway, Spring Street, and Los Angeles Street, and the realignment of the Alameda Street On‐ramp. In addition, the eliminated Broadway on‐ramp would be replaced by a new ramp at the current terminus of Arcadia Street at Broadway. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C proposes the closure of Arcadia Street and Aliso Street between Main Street and Los Angeles Street; however, transit movements could still be allowed. Figure 13 shows the roadway configuration changes associated with Alternative C. The Alternative C roadway network was run using the SCAG base model to determine the change in traffic patterns as a result of the roadway and ramp closures. Table 9 summarizes the projected levels of service at the study intersections assuming Alternative C conditions. Level of service calculation

worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 9, the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better.

Los Angeles City Hall


Alternative B Approximate Study Area

3RD ST

ALPINE ST

ALPINE ST

BRO

ADW

AY

COMMERCIAL ST

SPRIN

G

ST

GRAND

AVE

VIGNES ST

HILL

STLO

S AN

GEL

ES

ST

MAI

N

S

T

1ST ST

3RD ST

ALA

ME

DA

ST

1ST

ST

TEMPLE ST

FIGUEROA

ST

MISSION ROAD

ORD ST

CESAR CHAVEZ

AVE

NORTH MAIN

ST

SP

RIN

G

ST

ALISO

ST

ARCADIA

ST

RAMIREZ

ST

Intersection to be studied further

Peak Hour LOSAMPM

CB

AD

DC

AB

AA

BC

AA

AA

BB A

AAAA

A

AAA

ADA

AB

CC

BBBA A

A

AA



Alternative C Roadway Configuration


Temple St


To 110

Commercial St

Alternative C

Aliso St

Arcadia St

Removed Ramp or Roadway

New Ramp



From110

Bus movementsstill allowed

N



TABLE 9: ALTERNATIVE C INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection


Existing Alternative C Existing Alternative C

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS V/C Ratio

Delay (sec)

LOS

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 0.676 ‐ B 0.804 ‐ D 0.706 ‐ C 0.681 ‐ B 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 0.574 ‐ A 0.550 ‐ A 0.806 ‐ D 0.778 ‐ C 3 Temple St/Hill St 0.768 ‐ C 0.799 ‐ C 0.591 ‐ A 0.706 ‐ C 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 12.0 B Removed ‐ 15.4 C Removed 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 0.333 ‐ A 0.457 ‐ A 0.538 ‐ A 0.671 ‐ B 6 Broadway/Aliso St 0.449 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 0.499 ‐ A 0.564 ‐ A 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp ‐ 12.4 B Removed ‐ 9.7 A Removed 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 0.421 ‐ A 0.279 ‐ A 0.257 ‐ A 0.204 ‐ A 9 Spring St/Aliso St 0.250 ‐ A 0.214 ‐ A 0.167 ‐ A 0.066 ‐ A 10 Main St/Arcadia St 0.226 ‐ A 0.101 ‐ A 0.378 ‐ A 0.237 ‐ A 11 Main St/Aliso St 0.148 ‐ A 0.174 ‐ A 0.348 ‐ A 0.472 ‐ A 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 7.8 A Removed ‐ 9.9 A Removed 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 0.360 ‐ A 0.375 ‐ A 0.380 ‐ A 0.237 ‐ A 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 0.161 ‐ A 0.109 ‐ A 0.332 ‐ A 0.633 ‐ B 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp ‐ 24.6 C ‐ 20.4 C ‐ 9.2 A ‐ 9.1 A 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 0.382 ‐ A 0.399 ‐ A 0.501 ‐ A 0.473 ‐ A 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 20.1 C ‐ 14.2 B ‐ 13.9 B 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 0.588 ‐ A 0.634 ‐ B 0.582 ‐ A 0.609 ‐ B 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 0.515 ‐ A 0.609 ‐ B 0.552 ‐ A 0.587 ‐ A 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 0.181 ‐ A 0.254 ‐ A 0.471 ‐ A 0.433 ‐ A 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St 0.251 ‐ A 0.238 ‐ A 0.384 ‐ A 0.400 ‐ A



Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C could help improve freeway weaving conditions in the northbound direction with the elimination of the Spring Street Off‐ramp. It is anticipated that additional study intersections and/or freeway segments beyond the study area identified in this report would need be analyzed as part of any future environmental clearance for Alternative C. Changes in traffic patterns due to the closures of Aliso Street, Arcadia Street, the US‐101 Northbound Off‐ramp at Spring Street, and the US‐101 Northbound On‐ramp at Los Angeles Street could potentially occur as far west as Figueroa Street, as far east as Mission Road, as far south as 3rd Street, and as far north as Alpine Street. While this report analyzed traffic operations at 21 key intersections in the vicinity of the project site, Figure 14 shows the study area that would likely be included as part of a more extensive environmental clearance study for Alternative C. However, the exact study area would need to be reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles at the time of the study via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Figures 15 and 16 shows the extent of traffic volume changes forecast on the links in the travel demand model associated with Alternative C during a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Shifts in traffic patterns can be seen as far away as the Golden State (I‐5) freeway on the east and Glendale (Route 2) freeway to the west as drivers adjust their Downtown access patterns as a result of Alternative C. In addition, the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) between existing conditions and Alternatives B and C was evaluated, using the SCAG model. The results showed that within a 10 mile radius of the project area, the total VMT and VHT in the region was only slightly affected by either alternative, within the accuracy of the model. Therefore, neither alternative had much of an impact.

7.4 TRANSIT ISSUES Based on feedback from Metro staff, full closures of Aliso Street and Arcadia Street could be problematic for the many bus lines that utilize these streets. One option to alleviate this concern would be to leave the two streets open for bus traffic only. Another option would be to leave Aliso Street and Arcadia Street open for all traffic during weekdays, but fully closed during weekends and special events. There are a number of transit routes that use Aliso and Arcadia Streets to connect between Alameda Street and the Downtown area. These include Metro’s Rapid Route 740, which uses the one‐way pair to/from Broadway, and the Metro Silver Line (Route 910), which uses them to/from Spring Street. Foothill Transit has seven routes that use Aliso and Arcadia to connect between Spring and Alameda Streets. All of these routes have peak hour headways of 10 to 15 minutes, so there are about 50 buses in the peak hours using the one‐way pair. They would all be impacted by the potential closure of Aliso and Arcadia between Main and Los Angeles Streets. LADOT’s Commuter Express Line 534 uses Los Angles Street to cross the freeway in the southbound direction and Aliso Street to east of Los Angeles to connect to Alameda Street, so it would not be affected by the closures. There are many other routes that cross the freeway on north‐south streets, none of which would be affected by the potential closures of the one block on each of Aliso and Arcadia.


Alternative C Approximate Study Area

3RD ST

ALPINE ST

ALPINE ST

BRO

ADW

AY

COMMERCIAL ST

SPRIN

G

ST

GRAND

AVE

VIGNES ST

HILL

STLO

S AN

GEL

ES

ST

MAI

N

S

T

1ST ST

3RD ST

ALA

ME

DA

ST

1ST

ST

TEMPLE ST

FIGUEROA

ST

MISSION ROAD

ORD ST

CESAR CHAVEZ

AVE

NORTH MAIN

ST

SP

RIN

G

ST

ALISO

ST

ARCADIA

ST

RAMIREZ

ST

Intersection to be studied further

Peak Hour LOSAMPM

DB

AC

CC

AA

AB

AA

AA

AA

AA

AAA

ACA

AB

CB

BBBA A

A

AA


Park 101 District - Phase II Figure 15Change in Volume/Capacity Ratio with Alternative C

AM Peak Hour

PASADENAFW

Y

NSPRIN

GST

I 10 HOV

E 4TH ST

BELLEVUE AVE

WTEMPLE ST

E 1ST ST

N MAIN ST

HOLLYW

OO

D

FWY

W

1ST

ST

W3RD ST

GLE

ND

ALE

BLV

D

NVIG

NES

ST

1

MERRICK

ST

GO

LD

EN

ST

AT

EF

WY

E CESAR E CHAVEZ AVE

N

BR

OA

DW

AY

W6TH ST

NM

ISS

ION

RD

N

BE

AU

DR

Y

AV

E

NU

NIO

NA

VE

SG

LE

SS

ST

W 2ND

ST

NB

UR

LIN

GTO

NA

VE

CHERRY ST

SB

OY

LE

AV

E

SU

NIO

NA

VE

W8TH

ST

SA

LVA

RA

DO

ST

SB

UR

LIN

GTO

NA

VE

STADIUM WAY

NA

LV

AR

AD

OS

T

SS

AN

TA

FE

AV

E

NB

OY

LEA

VE

LU

CA

S

AV

E

S

BIX

EL

ST

PLE

AS

AN

TA

VE

SS

TA

TE

ST

W

7TH

ST

Figueroa

St

Ramp

S

FLO

WER

ST

W

SUNSET

BLVD

HA

RB

OR

FW

Y

N

FIG

UER

OA

ST

ALB

AN

YS

T

BEVERLY BLVD

ALPINE

ST

N

HILL

ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

N

HO

PE

ST

E

TEMPLE ST

N

GR

AN

D

AVE

S

BEAU

DR

Y

AVE

GEORGIA ST

E4TH

PL

JAMES MWOOD

BLVD

WPICO

BLVD

E6TH

ST

S

OLI

VE

ST

W

CESAR

E

CHAVEZ

AVE

RA

MIR

EZ

ST

E 5TH ST

E7TH

ST

E 3RD ST

CE

NT

ER

ST

GA

RE

YS

T

N

AL

AM

ED

A

ST

SC

EN

TR

AL

AV

E

E2ND

ST

W OLYMPIC BLVD

S

GR

AN

D

AVE

SA

VE

NU

E1

9

W

5TH

ST

N

LOS

AN

GE

LES

ST

FRAN

CIS

CO

ST

JUD

GE

JOH

N

AIS

O

ST

SFI

GUER

OA

ST

STAN

FOR

DAVES

SA

NP

ED

RO

ST

SA

LA

ME

DA

ST

Kosciuszko

MAPLE

AVE

S L

OS

AN

GE

LES

ST

E

COMMERCIAL ST

Hill St

Ramp

SM

AINST

SSPR

ING

ST

HOPE

PL

SBRO

ADW

AY

SH

OPE

ST

SH

ILL

ST

W

4TH

ST

SM

APLE

AVE

E9TH

ST

W

ALISO

ST

VA

LEN

CIA

ST

BIS

HO

PS

RD

E8TH

ST

ARCADIA

ST

BERNARD ST

ORD

ST

W9TH

ST

W11TH

ST

W12TH

ST

2ND

ST

EO

LYM

PIC

BLVD

BLA

INE

ST

2nd

St

3RD

ST

FIGUEROA TER

BE

LM

ON

TA

VE

GATEWAY PL

MIRAM

AR

ST

E11TH S

AIN

TLO

UIS

ST

NICE BL

MA

TE

OS

T

NS

TA

TE

ST

SA

VE

NU

E20

SA

VE

NU

E21

SM

ISS

ION

RD

AB_AM_Diff

% Capacity Decrease

% Capacity Increase

AM_ABDiff

50 25 12.5

AM_ABDiff

Park 101 - Alternative C AM Peak Hour Volume % Difference per Capacity (With - Without)


Park 101 District - Phase II Figure 16Change in Volume/Capacity Ratio with Alternative C

PM Peak Hour

PASADENAFW

Y

NSPRIN

GST

I

10

HOV

BELLEVUE AVE

WTEMPLE ST

E

1ST

ST

N MAIN ST

HOLLYW

OO

D

FWY

W1ST ST

W3RD ST

GLE

ND

ALE

BLV

D

NVIG

NES

ST

MERRICK

ST

E

CESAR

E

CHAVEZ

AVE

NB

RO

AD

WA

Y

W6TH ST

N

M

ISS

ION

RD

NB

EA

UD

RY

AV

E

NU

NIO

NA

VE

W2N

DST

NB

UR

LIN

GTO

NA

VE

CHERRY ST

SB

OY

LE

AV

E

SU

NIO

NA

VE

W8TH

ST

SA

LVA

RA

DO

ST

SB

UR

LIN

GTO

NA

VE

STADIUM WAY

NA

LV

AR

AD

OS

T

LU

CA

SA

VE

SB

IXE

LS

T

PLE

AS

AN

TA

VE

W 7TH ST

Figueroa St Ramp

SFL

OW

ER

ST

WSU

NSET

BLVD

NFI

GU

ER

OA

ST

ALPINE ST

N

HILL

ST

WILSHIRE BLVD

NH

OPE

ST

E

TEMPLE

ST

N

GR

AN

D

AVE

SBEAU

DR

YAVE

E

4TH

ST

GEORGIA ST

E4TH

PL

JAMES MWOOD

BLVD

SO

LIVE

ST

WCESAR

ECHAVEZ

AVE

RA

MIR

EZ

ST

E 5TH ST

E

3RD

ST

CE

NT

ER

ST

GA

RE

Y

ST

N

AL

AM

ED

A

ST

E

2ND

ST

W OLYMPIC BLVD

SG

RAN

DAVE

SA

VE

NU

E19

SC

EN

TR

AL

AV

E

W5TH

ST

N

LOS

AN

GE

LES

ST

BEVERLY BLVD

FRAN

CIS

CO

ST

JUD

GE

JOH

N

AIS

O

ST

SFI

GUER

OA

ST

SA

LA

ME

DA

ST

Kosciuszko

S

LOS

AN

GE

LES

ST

E

COMMERCIAL

ST

S

SA

N

PE

DR

O

ST

Hill St Ramp

SSPR

ING

ST

HOPEPL

ALB

AN

YS

T

SBRO

ADW

AY

SH

OPE

ST

SH

ILL

ST

W4T

HS

T

S

MAIN

ST

SM

APLE

AVE

W

ALISO

ST

VA

LEN

CIA

ST

BIS

HO

PS

RD

W 9TH ST

ARCADIA

ST

BERNARD ST

ORD ST

2NDST

W11TH

ST

BLA

INE

ST

2nd

St

3RDST

E7TH

ST

E6TH

ST

FIGUEROA TER

BE

LM

ON

T A

VE

GATEWAY

PL

NB

OY

LE

AV

E

MIRAM

ARST

AN

FOR

DAVE

APLE

AVE

AV

E

SG

LE

SS

ST

1

SS

AN

TA

FE

AV

E

AB_PM_Diff

% Decrease per capacity

% Increase per capacity

PM_ABDiff

50 25 12.5

PM_ABDiff

Park 101 - Alternative C PM Peak Hour Volume % Difference per Capacity (With - Without)



All of the routes affected by the closure could be re‐routed to either use Los Angeles or Alameda Streets to cross the freeway and could then use Temple Street or First Street to return to their current north‐south streets, Spring or Broadway to continue their routes through Downtown. This should not cause a significant impact on ridership or travel time, as there are few land uses along Aliso and Arcadia Streets that generate many transit riders.

7.5 FATAL FLAW ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Based on the preliminary traffic operational results at the study intersections and freeway segments, some increases in traffic delay can be expected, depending on the alternative chosen, as ramp or street closures naturally result in less traffic capacity and shifting of traffic to other ramps and streets. However, the remaining ramps and roadway network surrounding the proposed park would be able to accommodate this shifted traffic demand. Therefore, it can be concluded that none of the three alternatives studied contain traffic‐related fatal flaws that would prevent them from being considered further. This study has not included a civil engineering design assessment, but it does not appear from a traffic engineering perspective that any of the alternatives have fatal flaw design elements. It appears feasible to take any of the three alternatives studied forward into the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) phase.

8.0 ROAD MAP FOR APPROVAL Each proposed project alternative involves the closure of a city street and/or a freeway ramp. Therefore each alternative will require a unique approval process involving the City of Los Angeles and/or Caltrans. Alternative A consists of the closure of three Caltrans ramps, the realignment of one Caltrans ramp, and the addition of one Caltrans ramp. Alternative B consists of the closure of two City of Los Angeles street segments. Alternative C consists of all the closures, realignments, and additional ramps contained in Alternatives A and B. A road map for the next steps will be developed for the environmental clearance, project approval, design and implementation after further discussion with the project Steering Committee as to the elements of the Park 101 District plan that are to be implemented and review of the governance structure white paper has been completed. At the April 9, 2012 Project Steering Committee meeting, committee members expressed a desire to move forward with the environmental clearance of the Park 101 District Plan vision, not just a first phase of the project. They qualified that statement however, to include only the portions of the vision that are northwest of the Alameda Street overcrossing, as most of the components of the vision to the southeast are longer‐term concepts and entail use of land outside the public right‐of‐way and reconfigure the El Monte Transitway. The Steering Committee would like to environmentally clear the vision to the northwest of Alameda Street, with a particular emphasis on the phase one project that would include the elimination of the Los Angeles Street Loop on‐ramp, the freeway cap between Los Angeles and Main Streets, and improved pedestrian connections to Union Station and the Civic Center Mall. Closures of Aliso and Arcadia Streets in this one‐block area were felt to be only appropriate on weekends or on days when special events were being held on this part of the park.


The next steps in the project development process will be to move the Park 101 District Plan vision into the Project Approval/Environmental Document phase. The key challenge will be finding funding for the environmental and preliminary engineering work required. A determination must also be made as to which agency is going to be the lead agency. This is the subject of the separate Governance Whitepaper prepared by InfraConsult as part of this Phase 2 Study (see separate document). Once a lead agency is identified, an environmental impact report can be initiated under CEQA and an environmental impact statement initiated under NEPA. The environmental documents can assess the impacts of the entire Park 101 District Vision in the cumulative analysis sections of the document and can focus more‐detailed analysis and mitigation on the Phase One elements of the project. The scope of the analysis in the EIS/EIR phase will be more detailed than included in this fatal flaw traffic analysis, with additional detail paid to the operations of the freeway mainline, in particular. Caltrans has provided a letter of support (dated May 31, 2012) on the current study that includes some comments on the previous “Park 101 District Feasibility Study” in a letter dated August 12, 2010, which is included in Appendix E of this report. The 2010 comments identified numerous issues, not all traffic related, that will help with the scoping of the EIS/EIR analysis. As noted in the letter, it was not anticipated that this planning study would address all of Caltrans’ comments. This fatal flaw analysis has addressed Caltrans’ comments related to the elements of the Park 101 concept, as presented in the 2010 economic feasibility study, and the effects of the project on circulation on city streets, but has not focused on the freeway mainline. The impacts and benefits of the Park 101 District Plan for the freeway will need to be addressed in the PA/ED documentation. In order to allow Caltrans staff to spend time working on the environmental and engineering plans, a budget will need to be established and this project will need to be designated a project with a budget account against which Caltrans staff time can be charged. It should also be noted that this fatal flaw analysis did not explicitly facture into the analysis traffic that could be generated by developments on the development sites that could be created by the removal of some freeway ramps. The Park 101 District EIS/EIR should include an estimation of the development potential on those sites and should include the potential traffic to be generated by such developments in the detailed traffic analysis. Following completion of the PA/ED phase, the next steps in the process will include final design and construction. The process to be used for these steps in the development process will depend upon the funding sources and the lead agency.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS This fatal flaw traffic analysis has demonstrated that the removal of some of the loop ramps in the Park 101 District Plan area can be pursued as part of the Park 101 District and they should not present a fatal flaw to the potential approval of the project. The removal of the Broadway loop on ramp is proposed to be accompanied by the construction of a replacement on ramp from Broadway at the intersection with Arcadia Street so as not to result in an isolated southbound off ramp to Broadway. The elimination of the Los Angeles Street loop on ramp and the Spring Street loop on ramps would not divert significant volumes of traffic to the remaining ramps that could not be accommodated by available capacity on those ramps.


There are several key questions that must be addressed by the Project Steering Committee and the Friends of Park 101, now that the questions related to the feasibility of the circulation system to absorb some of the proposed traffic infrastructure changes built into the Park 101 District plan have been answered:

• Does the Phase One project that will move into PA/ED include specific development project approvals as part of the plan?

• Must the planning for Park 101 continue to be based on the 1999 Transportation Concept Report for Highway 101 and allow for the widening of the freeway through Downtown Los Angeles? Or, has the 2009 Los Angeles County Long Range Transportation Plan, which does not include the widening of this portion of Highway 101 take precedence?

• Which agency(ies) will take the lead for environmental clearance, design, construction, and operations maintenance of the Park 101 District?

park 101 traffic study

Documents

district phase

thestate of california

policies of scag

metropolitan planning

infill analyses

policy analyses

planning options

official views