Park 101 Traffic Study

PARK 101 DISTRICT PHASE II PROJECT Traffic Scoping Report Final Report

SUBMITTED BY

SUBMITTED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS

June 6, 2012 16J11-1629

PARK 101 DISTRICT PHASE II PROJECT Traffic Scoping Report Final Report

This is a project of the City of Los Angeles with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities and other organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development consistent with the region's goals. Compass Blueprint tools support visioning efforts, infill analyses, economic and policy analyses, and marketing 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 the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for the City's future use or adaptation of the report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... i Appendices .............................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 1.1 1.2

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0

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

3.0

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

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................... 8 EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 10 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 14 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 7.0

INITIAL ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 20 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 i 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

Page ii 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

Vision Plan

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

Page 1 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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

Page 2 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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.

Page 3 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

AL P

IN E ST

OR D VI

ST

ST SPR IN G

ST

A

ST

AV E

RO

S

UE FIG

E GN

ST

CES

M TE

AR

E

ST

PL

1S T

AR CA DIA

AL

ISO

ST

ST NG

AN

MA LO S

ST

ALAMEDA

GE LE S

D

IN

3R

SP

RI

BR

RA MI RE Z ST

OA

DW AY

HI LL

D AN GR

AVE ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

CH A VEZ

COMM E

RCIA L

ST

Proposed Park Space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 1 Project Location Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Preferred Plan Defined in Previous Park 101 Study (2010)

Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Arcadia St

Aliso St

Vignes St

Mission Rd

Busway

Commercial St

Temple St

Removed Ramp New Ramp New Developable space New Pedestrian or Park space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 2 Park 101 Vision Plan

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

AL P

IN E ST

OR D VI

ST

S

ST

E GN

ST

SPR IN G

RO

A

ST

1

AV E

UE FIG

ST

2

M TE

CES

E

7

6 AL

3

IA

14 15

21 R A

MI RE Z

18

ST GE LE S

IN

AN

MA LO S

ALAMEDA

SP

Park 101 District - Phase II

17 13

11

19

D

ST

12

10 ST

ST RI

NG

OA 3R

AVE

16

ST

BR

A 8 RCAD ST

DW AY

HI LL

D AN GR

9

ST

ST

ISO

CH A VEZ

ST

PL

5

1S T

ST

AR

4

COMM E

RCIA L

20

ST

Figure 3 Study Intersections Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

1

Temple St/101 SB Ramps

8

15

Spring St/Arcadia St

Los Angeles St/ 101 SB Off-ramp

5

2

Grand Ave/101 NB Ramps

3

Temple St/Hill St

4

9

Spring St/Aliso St

10

Main St/Arcadia St

11

Main St/Aliso St

12

16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17

Alameda St/ 101 NB On-ramp

18

Alameda St/Arcadia St

19

Broadway/101 NB On-Ramp

6

Broadway/Aliso St

Los Angeles St/ 101 NB On-ramp

13

Los Angeles St/Arcadia St

Alameda St/Aliso St

20

Broadway/Arcadia St

101 SB Ramps/ Commercial St

7 Spring St/101 NB Off-ramp

14

Los Angeles St/Aliso St

21

Vignes St/Ramirez St

Legend XX/XX

AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 4 Existing Intersection Configurations Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

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

Downtown Los Angeles Transit Map

Page 8 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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.

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

Riverside Line

San Bernardino Line

Ventura County Line

91 Line (Riverside ‐ Fullerton)

Amtrak

Passenger Rail

Big Blue Bus

Bus

10

Page 9 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

Orange County Line

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 101 Freeway 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.

Page SCAG 10 Park 101 District Phase II

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

19

194/108

168/705 41/71 15/3

Alameda St/Aliso St

20

602/162 4/3 26/34 426/836 130/17

14

34/156 81/55 2/3

101 SB Ramps/ Commercial St

Los Angeles St/Aliso St 218/174 126/114 323/240

24/36 324/117 97/123

7 Spring St/101 NB Off-ramp

23/33 954/621 345/91

Los Angeles St/Arcadia St

183/85 16/3 118/38

13

*

147/177 31/42 50/51

21

194/419 41/87 78/105

72/45 159/260 24/41

75/367 35/134 137/53

908/410

1033/678 98/90

942/487 342/151 3/4 129/185 1203/726 462/365

Alameda St/Arcadia St

Broadway/Aliso St

5/9 16/314 58/56

18

Los Angeles St/ 101 NB On-ramp

134/191 614/1253

Alameda St/ 101 NB On-ramp

12

1509/856 116/144

64/25 930/689

279/246 997/739

283/108 1184/721 53/69

707/445 225/105

451/234 1336/666 194/176

505/271 1058/530 1281/534 148/116

67/30 311/59 189/61 34/41 955/449 832/226

Main St/Aliso St

178/99

135/381 243/703

11

807/1529 41/21

16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17

6

242/853 31/91

36/66 48/49 85/146

Main St/Arcadia St

Broadway/Arcadia St

134/332 116/551

10

186/86 259/210 204/55

41/48

5

181/379 332/1239

49/462 33/61 15/25

Broadway/101 NB On-Ramp

56/72 382/572

646/921 259/252

Los Angeles St/ 101 SB Off-ramp

324/1258 80/142

Spring St/Aliso St

110/117 537/835 2/1

15

363/1182

512/109

** 9

4

62/133 946/624

25/61 40/43

270/525 160/12

38/47 0/1

Spring St/Arcadia St

Temple St/Hill St

257/191

83/175 423/1145

3/5 615/573 420/197

* 8

3

387/467

575/1232

Grand Ave/101 NB Ramps

375/223 541/1164

2

33/106 546/557 204/83

60/132 151/486 104/112

Temple St/101 SB Ramps

79/126 285/416 291/123

277/832 176/773

1

28/100 409/246

92/187 126/537 30/232

203/394 606/572 247/114

130/134 621/578 339/165

Vignes St/Ramirez St

Legend XX/XX

*

AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Bus Lane Volumes

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 5 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

AM PEAK HOUR Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

336

178

600

Mission Rd

498 1,794

Arcadia St

687

437

Vignes St

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

567

611

270

317

459

437

Aliso St

649

512

Commercial St

267

218

Temple St

PM PEAK HOUR Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

137

99

1044 346

Mission Rd

538 1,276

Arcadia St

254

255

126

150 105

328

Vignes St

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

351

1065

Aliso St

109

760

Commercial St

1,175

Temple St 1,500 or more 200 - 500 1,000 - 1,500

under 200

500 - 1000

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 6 Existing Peak Hour 101 Ramp Volumes Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

AM PEAK HOUR Grand Ave 1,467

Hill St

453

1,981

263

Broadway

Spring St

Main St

*

404

669

273

1,342

848

*

388

672

282

1,625

786

Broadway

Spring St

Main St

678

1,232

646

48

768

1,231

650

43

1,199

575

1,375

38

1,131

618

1,429

40

Los Angeles St

Alameda St

PM PEAK HOUR Grand Ave 776

Hill St

1,605

1,076 718

1,500 or more 200 - 500 1,000 - 1,500

Los Angeles St

Alameda St

*

1,400

208

944

1,054 1,550

*

1,311

197

868

1,000 1,743

* Buses in Bus Lane

under 200

500 - 1,000

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 7 Existing Peak Hour North-South Bridge Volumes Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

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 A

Description

Free flowing, virtually no delay. Minimal Traffic.

Signalized Intersection Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio (V/C)

Unsignalized Intersection Delay (seconds per vehicle)

< 0.600

< 10

Free low and choice of lanes. Delays are minimal. All >0.600 to 0.699 cars clear intersection easily.

Stale flow. Queue at signal starting to get relatively C long. Delays starting to become a factor but still within >0.700 to 0.799 acceptable limits.

Approaching unstable flow. Queues at intersection are quite long but most cars clear intersection no their D >0.800 to 0.899 green signal. Occasionally, several vehicles must wait for a second green signal. Congestion is moderate.

Severe Congestion and delay. Most of the available E capacity is used. Many cars must wait through a >0.900 to 0.999 complete signal cycle to clear the intersection.

Excessive delay and congestion. Most cars must wait F through more than one on one signal cycle. Queues > 1.000 are very long and drivers are obviously irritated.

Source: Transportation Research Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, 1980.

B

>10 and < 15 >15 and < 25

>25 and < 35

>35 and < 50

> 50

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.

Page SCAG 14 Park 101 District Phase II

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

AM Peak Hour

Traffic Control

V/C Ratio 0.676 0.574 0.768 ‐ 0.333 0.449 ‐ 0.421 0.250 0.226 0.148 ‐ 0.360 0.161 ‐ 0.382 ‐ 0.588 0.515 0.181 0.251

Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps Signal Grand Ave/US‐101 & 110 NB Ramps Signal Temple St/Hill St Signal Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled Broadway/Arcadia St Signal Broadway/Aliso St Signal Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp 1‐way Stop Spring St/Arcadia St Signal Spring St/Aliso St Signal Main St/Arcadia St Signal Main St/Aliso St Signal Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled Los Angeles St/Arcadia St Signal Los Angeles St/Aliso St Signal Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 1‐way Stop Alameda St/Los Angeles St Signal Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Uncontrolled Alameda St/Arcadia St Signal Alameda St/Aliso St Signal US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St Signal Vignes St/Ramirez St Signal Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.

Page SCAG 15 Park 101 District Phase II

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.0 ‐ ‐ 12.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.8 ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 20.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PM Peak Hour LOS B A C B A A B A A A A A A A C A C A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.706 0.806 0.591 ‐ 0.538 0.499 ‐ 0.257 0.167 0.378 0.348 ‐ 0.380 0.332 ‐ 0.501 ‐ 0.582 0.552 0.471 0.384

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.4 ‐ ‐ 9.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.9 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 14.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LOS C D A C A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A

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.

Proposed Busway Station at

Patsouras Plaza

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.

Downtown Streetcar

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 2009 PSR Study Area 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

Page SCAG 16 Park 101 District Phase II

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%.

Page SCAG 17 Park 101 District Phase II

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 8 US-101 TCR Concept Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

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.

Union Station

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.

Page SCAG 19 Park 101 District Phase II

TABLE 4: REASONS FOR POTENTIAL FREEWAY RAMP MODIFICATIONS Ramp

101 Southbound (from 110 to 10) SR‐110 to Temple St Off‐ramp Temple St Off‐ramp Temple St On‐ramp Broadway/Aliso St Off‐ramp Los Angeles St Off‐ramp Los Angeles St On‐ramp Commercial St Off‐ramp Commercial St On‐ramp Mission Rd/I‐5/I‐10 Off‐ramp 101 Northbound (from 10 to 110) Vignes St Off‐ramp Vignes St On‐ramp Alameda St Off‐ramp Alameda St On‐ramp Los Angeles St Loop On‐ramp Spring St Off‐ramp Broadway On‐ramp Grand Ave/I‐110 Off‐ramp Grand Ave On‐ramp

Removal Creates Development Opportunity

Removal Improves Mainline Weaving Issues

Non‐Standard Ramps

X X X

X

X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X

X

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

Page SCAG 20 Park 101 District Phase II

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 Los Angeles Street/Alameda Street Ramps 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 Spring Street/Broadway Ramps (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.

Page SCAG 21 Park 101 District Phase II

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.

Page SCAG 22 Park 101 District Phase II

Alternative A Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

To 110

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Vignes St

Mission Rd

Arcadia St

From 110

Aliso St

Commercial St

Temple St Removed Ramp

N

New Ramp New Developable space New Pedestrian or Park space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 9 Alternative A Roadway Configuration Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

TABLE 6: ALTERNATIVE A INTERSECTION LOS AM Peak Hour Existing

Intersection

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 3 Temple St/Hill St 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 6 Broadway/Aliso St 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 9 Spring St/Aliso St 10 Main St/Arcadia St 11 Main St/Aliso St 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.

Page 24 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

V/C Ratio 0.676 0.574 0.768 ‐ 0.333 0.449 ‐ 0.421 0.250 0.226 0.148 ‐ 0.360 0.161 ‐ 0.382 ‐ 0.588 0.515 0.181 0.251

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.0 ‐ ‐ 12.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.8 ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 20.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PM Peak Hour

Alternative A LOS B A C B A A B A A A A A A A C A C A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.676 0.602 0.768 0.611 0.449 0.448 0.250 0.246 0.148 0.380 0.161 ‐ 0.457 ‐ 0.588 0.515 0.181 0.251

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 25.0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Existing LOS B B C B A A A A A A A C A D A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.706 0.806 0.591 ‐ 0.538 0.499 ‐ 0.257 0.167 0.378 0.348 ‐ 0.380 0.332 ‐ 0.501 ‐ 0.582 0.552 0.471 0.384

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.4 ‐ ‐ 9.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.9 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 14.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Alternative A LOS C D A C A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.706 0.822 0.591 0.575 0.499 0.272 0.167 0.388 0.348 0.391 0.332 ‐ 0.621 ‐ 0.582 0.552 0.471 0.384

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 21.6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LOS C D A A A A A A A A A A B C A A A 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.

Page SCAG 25 Park 101 District Phase II

TABLE 7: ALTERNATIVE A‐1 INTERSECTION LOS AM Peak Hour Existing

Intersection

12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.

V/C Ratio ‐ 0.360 0.161 ‐ 0.382 ‐

Delay (sec) 7.8 ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 20.1

PM Peak Hour

Alternative A LOS A A A C A C

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec) Removed 0.380 ‐ 0.161 ‐ ‐ 24.6 0.457 ‐ ‐ 25.0

Existing LOS A A C A D

V/C Ratio ‐ 0.380 0.332 ‐ 0.501 ‐

Delay (sec) 9.9 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 14.2

Alternative A LOS A A A A A B

V/C Ratio

Delay (sec) Removed 0.391 ‐ 0.332 ‐ ‐ 9.2 0.621 ‐ ‐ 21.6

LOS A A A B 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.

Page 26 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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 El Pueblo 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.

Page SCAG 27 Park 101 District Phase II

Alternative A-1 Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

To 110

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Vignes St

Mission Rd

Arcadia St

From 110

Aliso St

Commercial St

Temple St Removed Ramp

N

New Ramp New Developable space New Pedestrian or Park space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 10 Alternative A-1 Roadway Configuration Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Alternative B Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

To 110

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Vignes St

Mission Rd

Arcadia St

From 110

Aliso St

Commercial St

Temple St Removed Ramp or Roadway

N

New Ramp New Developable space New Pedestrian or Park space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 11 Alternative B Roadway Configuration Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

TABLE 8: ALTERNATIVE B INTERSECTION LOS AM Peak Hour Existing

Intersection

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 3 Temple St/Hill St 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 6 Broadway/Aliso St 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 9 Spring St/Aliso St 10 Main St/Arcadia St 11 Main St/Aliso St 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.

Page 30 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

V/C Ratio 0.676 0.574 0.768 ‐ 0.333 0.449 ‐ 0.421 0.250 0.226 0.148 ‐ 0.360 0.161 ‐ 0.382 ‐ 0.588 0.515 0.181 0.251

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.0 ‐ ‐ 12.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.8 ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 20.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PM Peak Hour

Alternative B LOS B A C B A A B A A A A A A A C A C A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.758 0.581 0.854 ‐ 0.299 0.408 ‐ 0.284 0.247 0.062 0.158 ‐ 0.280 0.152 ‐ 0.400 ‐ 0.604 0.609 0.183 0.269

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 11.9 ‐ ‐ 12.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.7 ‐ ‐ 27.1 ‐ 22.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Existing LOS C A D B A A B A A A A A A A D A C B B A A

V/C Ratio 0.706 0.806 0.591 ‐ 0.538 0.499 ‐ 0.257 0.167 0.378 0.348 ‐ 0.380 0.332 ‐ 0.501 ‐ 0.582 0.552 0.471 0.384

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.4 ‐ ‐ 9.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.9 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 14.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Alternative B LOS C D A C A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.666 0.822 0.748 ‐ 0.566 0.626 ‐ 0.169 0.071 0.249 0.454 ‐ 0.206 0.650 ‐ 0.478 ‐ 0.609 0.587 0.431 0.391

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.1 ‐ ‐ 10.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.0 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 16.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LOS B D C C A B B A A A A A A B A A C B A A 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 Los Angeles City Hall 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.

Page SCAG 31 Park 101 District Phase II

AL

PI

NE

IN

ST

H RT

ST

MA

NO

AL P

INE ST

OR D

ST ST

AV E

SPR IN

G

ST

C B

R

FIG

ES

A D

GN

UE

OA

VI

ST

ST

M TE E

AVE

A A

ALAMEDA

ST

LO S

AN

MA

IN

GE LE S

SP

RI

NG

ST

DW AY BR

ST

AD

RA MI RE Z

MI

N SIO

RO

S

ST

OA

ST

HI LL

D AN GR

AR C H AV EZ

ST

ST

D C

T

D

CES

ST

PL

1S

3R

B A C B A A A AARB CA BALIS DIA A O A A A A AST A A ST A A C C A AA B DB B A B A

COMM ER

CIA L

A A

ST

1ST ST

3RD ST

AM Peak Hour LOS PM Intersection to be studied further

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 12 Alternative B Approximate Study Area Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Alternative C Grand Ave Hill St

Broadway

To 110

Spring St Main St Los Angeles St Alameda St

Vignes St

Mission Rd

Arcadia St

From 110

Commercial St

Aliso St Bus movements still allowed

Temple St Removed Ramp or Roadway

N

New Ramp New Developable space New Pedestrian or Park space

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 13 Alternative C Roadway Configuration Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

TABLE 9: ALTERNATIVE C INTERSECTION LOS AM Peak Hour Existing

Intersection

1 Temple St/US‐101 SB Ramps 2 Grand Ave/US‐101 NB Ramps 3 Temple St/Hill St 4 Broadway/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 5 Broadway/Arcadia St 6 Broadway/Aliso St 7 Spring St/US‐101 NB Off‐ramp 8 Spring St/Arcadia St 9 Spring St/Aliso St 10 Main St/Arcadia St 11 Main St/Aliso St 12 Los Angeles St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 13 Los Angeles St/Arcadia St 14 Los Angeles St/Aliso St 15 Los Angeles St/US‐101 SB Off‐ramp 16 Alameda St/Los Angeles St 17 Alameda St/US‐101 NB On‐ramp 18 Alameda St/Arcadia St 19 Alameda St/Aliso St 20 US‐101 SB Ramps/Commercial St 21 Vignes St/Ramirez St Notes: V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio, LOS = Level of Service.

Page 34 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

V/C Ratio 0.676 0.574 0.768 ‐ 0.333 0.449 ‐ 0.421 0.250 0.226 0.148 ‐ 0.360 0.161 ‐ 0.382 ‐ 0.588 0.515 0.181 0.251

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 12.0 ‐ ‐ 12.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7.8 ‐ ‐ 24.6 ‐ 20.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

PM Peak Hour Alternative C

LOS B A C B A A B A A A A A A A C A C A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.804 0.550 0.799 0.457 0.348 0.279 0.214 0.101 0.174 0.375 0.109 ‐ 0.399 ‐ 0.634 0.609 0.254 0.238

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ 20.4 ‐ 20.1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Existing LOS D A C A A A A A A A A C A C B B A A

V/C Ratio 0.706 0.806 0.591 ‐ 0.538 0.499 ‐ 0.257 0.167 0.378 0.348 ‐ 0.380 0.332 ‐ 0.501 ‐ 0.582 0.552 0.471 0.384

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.4 ‐ ‐ 9.7 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.9 ‐ ‐ 9.2 ‐ 14.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Alternative C LOS C D A C A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A

V/C Ratio 0.681 0.778 0.706 0.671 0.564 0.204 0.066 0.237 0.472 0.237 0.633 ‐ 0.473 ‐ 0.609 0.587 0.433 0.400

Delay (sec) ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Removed ‐ ‐ 9.1 ‐ 13.9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

LOS B C C B A A A A A A B A A B B A A 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.

Page 35 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

AL

PI

NE

IN

ST

H RT

ST

MA

NO

AL P

INE ST

OR D

ST ST

AV E

SPR IN

G

ST

D B

R

FIG

ES

A C

GN

UE

OA

VI

ST

ST

E

O

GE LE S

D

LO S

ST

AN

MA

IN

3R

SP

RI

NG

ST

ST

DW AY BR

AARC A A A ADIA AST A A ST A A AA CB A

A A C B B B B A

AVE

A A

AD

RA MI RE Z

MI

N SIO

RO

S

ST

OA

ST

HI LL

GR

AN

D

ST

ST

C C

T

ST

PL

1S

AR C H AV EZ

ALAMEDA

M TE

CES

A A B AALIS

COMM ER

CIA L

A A

ST

1ST ST

3RD ST

AM Peak Hour LOS PM Intersection to be studied further

Park 101 District - Phase II

Figure 14 Alternative C Approximate Study Area Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

S AV

BE LM ON TA

AV E NIO NA

VE

GT ON L IN

NU

NB UR

AD OS T

VE

NS SU ET

A LP

INE S

VE

SU

DR YA AU BE

E AV

N

PE

AV

E

HO

GR A

ND

N

RAMIREZ ST

ST

ST

LE A OY

ST ST SA INT

LO U IS

D

ST

ST

D

Park 101 District - Phase II

6T H

MATEO

V BL

ST

C

H

E

R SION

ST

PI M

H 9T

LY

E

O

11 T

ST

E 4TH ST S CENTRAL AVE

ST

ST AN FO R

H 8T

7T H

IC K

D

S

E

PL

ER R

S MIS

E

ST

VD

4T H

AV E

SA N

PE DR O

ST

E

S STA

AP LE S

N AI

AV E

9T H

M

M AP LE

W ST

M

ST SP RI NG S S

S ALAMEDA ST

AV E

AY AD W BR O S

ST L HI L

ST

ST

S SANTA FE AVE

HO S

11 TH

E5 TH

TE ST

ST

ST

M

D

S

W

NS TA TE

LO

ST

E3 RD

PE

AN Y

BL V

NB

SA

NG

E 1ST ST

ST

VE

D

CENTER

ST

S BOYLE AVE

ST

1

OV

EL ES

E TEMPLE

I 10 H

ZA VE

N MIS SION R

ST

MERC IAL ST

EC HA VE

S GLESS ST

PIC

T

12 TH

2N D

O

FI G UE RO A

CI

T

W

E

S

ST

Y SC

FW

E BL

ST

ST

ST AIS O OH N

LO S

O LI VE S

ST

E

NIC E

O

ST

E COM

AN G

ST

AV GR S

PL

IS

GAREY

St

ST

d

EL ES

2n

AL

JUD GE J

H

AN D

S 5T

ST

ST

E

FL OW

ER

S

ST

3R D

Ko sc ius zk o

N

AV E BE AU DR Y

W

2N D

AD IA

GATEW AY PL

N ALAMEDA ST

SB IX E

ST

EC ES AR

ST

S

AS

A EN AD

AN

BL VD

FR

BL AIN ES T

LL HI

E AV NT SA EA PL

AL B

N

AR C

ST

OR GI

FW Y

FW Y

N

LS

T

CA S LU

ST

H 8T

OD

CHE RRY S

HA RB OR

D

ST

ST A UE RO FI G N AV E

VA LE NC IA ST

LV D

ST

AR

tR am p

S

IR AM

O

T NE G VI

mp Ra St roa e u Fig

T HS 4T

EB

Hil lS

N

M

W

WO

12.5

EZ AV HO LL YW O

W

HIR

S PA

BL

50 25 AM_ABDiff

H C

HS T

WO LYM

PIC O

NM AIN ST

E

ST

6T

W7 TH

W

ST

T

OR DS

D 2N

3R DS T

HO PE

GE

NG RI SP

AR ES

TS T

W

JA ME SM

N

C

1S

W

W

WI LS

T

W

NIO N

AV

E

VD BL

UR LIN GT ON A

W

SB

ST

R A TE ERO FIGU

W

W

BER N AR DS

GOLDEN STATE FWY

TE MP LE

VD ALE BL GLEND

SA LV AR

Y WA IUM AD ST

BELLEVUE AVE

NB RO AD WA Y

OS T NA LV AR AD D

W

1 E2

LV

NU VE SA E 20 EN U

RL YB

S AVENUE 19

VE

RD

BE

AB_AM_Diff % Capacity Decrease % Capacity Increase AM_ABDiff

S OP

VE

SH BI

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

Figure 15 Change in Volume/Capacity Ratio with Alternative C AM Peak Hour Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

AVE

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

OS T

VE NA

E NIO N

AV

INE S

T

SU

H C

AU DR YA

E

VE

AR ES EZ AV

N

BE

E AV

TS T

OR DS

AV E GR A

ND

RAMIREZ ST

N MIS SION R

CENTER

D

ST

ST GAREY

ST AIS O GE J

ST EDR O NP

E 1ST ST

S SA

RD S

T

S CENTRAL AVE

AV LE

ST

ST

M

E5 TH

ST

AN FO RD

H

AV E

S

7T

AV E

E

AP LE

ST SP RI NG S

Park 101 District - Phase II

H

AP

AY AD W BR O S

ST S

HI L

L

T

6T

E

HO S

E

LVD

M E

4T H

PL

ER RI C

K

ST

S SANTA FE AVE

E3 ST

PE

ST

TH S T

S ALAMEDA ST

ST FI G UE RO A

E4 TH

S

ST

IC B

ST

ST

OV

S BOYLE AVE

TH 11

CHE RRY S

2N D

I 10 H

S GLESS ST

W

WO LYM P

E

MERC IAL ST

E TEMPLE

J UD

ST AN GE LE S

M S

LO S S

O SC W9

T

OH N

N

LO S

O LI VE

ST

N ALAMEDA ST

ST AN GE LE S

ST

AV GR S

PL

ST

ST

Y

CI

FW

AN

ST

A EN

FR

ST AL BA NY

E COM

St

1

N BOYLE AVE

BL AIN E

d

EZ AV E

E AV

AS

2n

ST

EC HA V

NT SA EA PL

OR GI

H

ST

AI N

ST

BL VD D SA PA

GE

5T

2N D

GATEW AY PL

AR CA DI W A AL ST IS O ST

ST

H 8T

OD

Ko sc iu sz ko

AN D

S W

WO

T

E

FL OW

ER

ST

3R D

HO PE

W7 TH

S LL HI

EC ES AR

S

AV E BE AU DR Y S

ST EN CI A VA L

ST

T

LV D

AM AR

HS

EB

N

4T

HIR

FW Y

W

SB IX E

HS T

D

N

LS T

LU

6T

IR

O O

PE HO N

N

AV E CA S

M

LL YW

ST

ST OA FI G

UE R

mp

ST

Ra

S

St

NE

ST roa ue Fig

T

St Ra mp

G VI

D

HO

N

Hil l

2N

3R DS T

W

JA ME SM

N

12.5

T

C

1S

W

W

WI LS

ST

50 25 NM PM_ABDiff AIN S

ST

W

UR LIN GT O

A LP

VD BL

SB

ER OA T

ET

LV D

W

W

NAR D

NG RI SP

NB RO AD WA Y

AD OS T

ER FIGU NS SU

RL YB

BE R

ST

W

SA LV AR

TE MP LE

VD ALE BL GLEND

NU

NB UR

NIO NA

L IN

VE

GT ON

W

S AVENUE 19

AV E

BE

RD

NA LV AR AD

S

LM ON TA

OP

VE

SH BI

Y WA IUM AD ST

BELLEVUE AVE

BE VE

AB_PM_Diff % Decrease per capacity % Increase per capacity PM_ABDiff

Figure 16 Change in Volume/Capacity Ratio with Alternative C PM Peak Hour Q:\2011\16\Jobs\J11-1629 Park 101 Ph 2\Gra\Park 101 Phase 2 figures_Report_02-2012.cdr

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

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.

Page 39 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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.

Page 40 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II

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?

Page 41 SCAG Park 101 District Phase II