Corrections and Additions. 4.2 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR

Transcription

1 Chapter Introduction Corrections and Additions The following section presents corrections or additions that were made to the text or content of the Draft EIR/EA. These changes generally include revisions in response to comments and staff-initiated text changes to provide clarifications and additional analysis and to correct non-substantive errors. Text deleted from the Draft EIR/EA has been shown in strikethrough, and new/inserted text is underlined. 4.2 Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR Appendix A: Summary Matrix of Scoping Comments As shown in the following table (pp. 16, 17, and 21 of the table), the Summary Matrix of Scoping Comments in Appendix A has been revised to update the highlighted names of Korean commenters, whose comments were inadvertently not translated. The translations of these comments, which are shown in the following pages, have also been included. Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Tables 9-2 and 9-8 of the Traffic Impact Analysis have been revised to address the inadvertent identification of a significant unavoidable traffic impact at the intersection of Beverly Glen Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard for Year 2012 in the a.m. peak hour in Table 9-2 and the inadvertent omission of the same intersection in Table 9-8. The Wilshire Bus Speed Improvement Stage Two Analysis Memorandum (Transportation Management & Design, Inc, February 2007), which was referenced in Master Response No. 8, has been included in Appendix B, following the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Iteris, Inc. A copy of this memorandum is shown in the following pages. Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit Project 4-1 November 2010

2 WILSHIRE BRT PROJECT SUMMARY MATRIX OF SCOPING COMMENTS Concern regarding anticipated increase in bus ridership Discuss existing and anticipated ridership in each segment /compare bus ridership to car usage Impact on automobile travel times/increased idling and congestion lead to more noise and air quality problems Less accessibility to businesses and homes/ reduced emergency access Concern/more info regarding results of past trial bus runs/results of test demonstrations Discuss changes in data assumptions for bus delays/bus speeds/auto speeds in Westwood since 2001 FEIR Describe existing and anticipated bus operations such as increase in bus speeds/bus use of auto lanes/speed enforcement measures/ number of buses/change in bus and auto travel times Discuss availability and need for parking structures/park ride lots Encourage mass transit/light rail/alternative modes of transportation Project will create more traffic in neighborhood Project will increase accident rate Cut through/neighborhood impacts/more gridlock Concerns regarding Santa Monica and/or Beverly Hills not participating Concern regarding road degradation/recommend use of concrete bus lanes for less maintenance Describe parking Impacts/loss of parking spaces Describe impacts to traffic at Pico/Olympic/Santa Monica/Sunset More stress, noise, pollution, and speeding vehicles/reduced quality of life Impacts to air quality, noise and vibration from more busses/busses running closer to residents Concern regarding aesthetic impacts of project Concern regarding impacts to property values Increased risk to children, elderly, pedestrians, cyclists, pets, neighborhood; health/safety concerns Impact of project on cyclists and use of bus lane should be evaluated Impact to schools/churches/increased health risks to children Describe impacts of/reasoning behind project alternatives Concerns regarding segmentation of the project Describe requirements for federal funding/project funding questions Waste of tax dollars Land use impacts/change in neighborhood character/ consistency with community and specific plans/growth inducing impacts Concern about street widening/removal of sidewalks Request that center lanes and stations/ dedicated bike lanes/shared bus bike and bike bypass lane be evaluated Project impacts to traffic on north/south and east/west streets Would like to retain jut outs Area west of the 405 freeway should be studied separately Discuss impact on access to the 405 freeway/bottlenecking at 405 Discuss LOS impacts to segments and intersections on adjacent roadways (Westwood and west of 405) Scope of the project should exclude Westwood residential corridor/condo canyon area Concern regarding project elements such as sidewalk, jut out (tree), median, and auto lane removal/restriping/signal priority timing Request to be added to notification list/project updates Describe mitigation measures for parking, traffic/traffic management Project will help to increase transit use and reduce air pollution and green house gasses. Project will reduce congestion and bus travel time/improve reliability Project will help spur other BOLs throughout other major streets in LA Support the project Commentor Esperanza Martinez X X Barbara Lott Holland X X Sunyoung Yang X X X Jose Ceja X X Seong Yeol KangKorean can t read X Kang Soon Ko X Korean can t read Flores Yung Suk X Korean can t read Yang Hee ParkKorean can t read X Katty Yi X Korean can t read Lee Kyung Sik X Korean can t read X Ana Garcia X X X Monge Morgue X X Heby Orozco X X Janaye Sallee X X Sun Hee HeoKorean can t read X Kwang Sook Park X Korean can t read Willie Kong X Korean can t read In Sun ParkKorean can t read Chi Hyeon BaekKorean can t read Ok Sook YoonKorean can t read Jose Alvarez X X X Chante Nesbitt X X X Carlos Miramontes X X X Other Comments April 2010 Page 16

3 WILSHIRE BRT PROJECT SUMMARY MATRIX OF SCOPING COMMENTS Concern regarding anticipated increase in bus ridership Discuss existing and anticipated ridership in each segment /compare bus ridership to car usage Impact on automobile travel times/increased idling and congestion lead to more noise and air quality problems Less accessibility to businesses and homes/ reduced emergency access Concern/more info regarding results of past trial bus runs/results of test demonstrations Discuss changes in data assumptions for bus delays/bus speeds/auto speeds in Westwood since 2001 FEIR Describe existing and anticipated bus operations such as increase in bus speeds/bus use of auto lanes/speed enforcement measures/ number of buses/change in bus and auto travel times Discuss availability and need for parking structures/park ride lots Encourage mass transit/light rail/alternative modes of transportation Project will create more traffic in neighborhood Project will increase accident rate Cut through/neighborhood impacts/more gridlock Concerns regarding Santa Monica and/or Beverly Hills not participating Concern regarding road degradation/recommend use of concrete bus lanes for less maintenance Describe parking Impacts/loss of parking spaces Describe impacts to traffic at Pico/Olympic/Santa Monica/Sunset More stress, noise, pollution, and speeding vehicles/reduced quality of life Impacts to air quality, noise and vibration from more busses/busses running closer to residents Concern regarding aesthetic impacts of project Concern regarding impacts to property values Increased risk to children, elderly, pedestrians, cyclists, pets, neighborhood; health/safety concerns Impact of project on cyclists and use of bus lane should be evaluated Impact to schools/churches/increased health risks to children Describe impacts of/reasoning behind project alternatives Concerns regarding segmentation of the project Describe requirements for federal funding/project funding questions Waste of tax dollars Land use impacts/change in neighborhood character/ consistency with community and specific plans/growth inducing impacts Concern about street widening/removal of sidewalks Request that center lanes and stations/ dedicated bike lanes/shared bus bike and bike bypass lane be evaluated Project impacts to traffic on north/south and east/west streets Would like to retain jut outs Area west of the 405 freeway should be studied separately Discuss impact on access to the 405 freeway/bottlenecking at 405 Discuss LOS impacts to segments and intersections on adjacent roadways (Westwood and west of 405) Scope of the project should exclude Westwood residential corridor/condo canyon area Concern regarding project elements such as sidewalk, jut out (tree), median, and auto lane removal/restriping/signal priority timing Request to be added to notification list/project updates Describe mitigation measures for parking, traffic/traffic management Project will help to increase transit use and reduce air pollution and green house gasses. Project will reduce congestion and bus travel time/improve reliability Project will help spur other BOLs throughout other major streets in LA Support the project Commentor George Carpio X X X Jeanette Charles X X Gladys Sanchez X X X Alfonso Celucue X X X Yong Hak JoKorean can t read X Junghee Lee X Korean can t read Donald LeeHo X Korean can t read Bryan Paek X Korean can t read Yohgo Yongo Kim X Korean can t read JD Olloi JA Choi X Korean can t read Hee Joo Yoon X Korean can t read Byeong Guk BaekKorean can t read X Patricia McGraw X X Kim Hee Pok X Korean can t read InJoon Suh X Korean can t read Cheong Rae Kim X Korean can t read Korean can t read Leona Gericleter X X X Donna Gooley X X Clinton Cameron X X Fatima A. X X April 2010 Page 17 Other Comments

4 WILSHIRE BRT PROJECT SUMMARY MATRIX OF SCOPING COMMENTS Concern regarding anticipated increase in bus ridership Discuss existing and anticipated ridership in each segment /compare bus ridership to car usage Impact on automobile travel times/increased idling and congestion lead to more noise and air quality problems Less accessibility to businesses and homes/ reduced emergency access Concern/more info regarding results of past trial bus runs/results of test demonstrations Discuss changes in data assumptions for bus delays/bus speeds/auto speeds in Westwood since 2001 FEIR Describe existing and anticipated bus operations such as increase in bus speeds/bus use of auto lanes/speed enforcement measures/ number of buses/change in bus and auto travel times Discuss availability and need for parking structures/park ride lots Encourage mass transit/light rail/alternative modes of transportation Project will create more traffic in neighborhood Project will increase accident rate Cut through/neighborhood impacts/more gridlock Concerns regarding Santa Monica and/or Beverly Hills not participating Concern regarding road degradation/recommend use of concrete bus lanes for less maintenance Describe parking Impacts/loss of parking spaces Describe impacts to traffic at Pico/Olympic/Santa Monica/Sunset More stress, noise, pollution, and speeding vehicles/reduced quality of life Impacts to air quality, noise and vibration from more busses/busses running closer to residents Concern regarding aesthetic impacts of project Concern regarding impacts to property values Increased risk to children, elderly, pedestrians, cyclists, pets, neighborhood; health/safety concerns Impact of project on cyclists and use of bus lane should be evaluated Impact to schools/churches/increased health risks to children Describe impacts of/reasoning behind project alternatives Concerns regarding segmentation of the project Describe requirements for federal funding/project funding questions Waste of tax dollars Land use impacts/change in neighborhood character/ consistency with community and specific plans/growth inducing impacts Concern about street widening/removal of sidewalks Request that center lanes and stations/ dedicated bike lanes/shared bus bike and bike bypass lane be evaluated Project impacts to traffic on north/south and east/west streets Would like to retain jut outs Area west of the 405 freeway should be studied separately Discuss impact on access to the 405 freeway/bottlenecking at 405 Discuss LOS impacts to segments and intersections on adjacent roadways (Westwood and west of 405) Scope of the project should exclude Westwood residential corridor/condo canyon area Concern regarding project elements such as sidewalk, jut out (tree), median, and auto lane removal/restriping/signal priority timing Request to be added to notification list/project updates Describe mitigation measures for parking, traffic/traffic management Project will help to increase transit use and reduce air pollution and green house gasses. Project will reduce congestion and bus travel time/improve reliability Project will help spur other BOLs throughout other major streets in LA Support the project Commentor Natalie Poston X X Cristina Quiñones X X Bryan Tucker X X Laura Simanonok X X Selly (unclear)pg. 13 X X Jordan Brady X X Isis Enriquez X X Margaret Howe X X Cameron Quinn X X Natasha Gorodnitsui X X Michael Jacobo X X Gui Shiqiao X X Chen Jiug X X Unclear pg. 22 X X Erez Miller X X Carla Orendorff X X Elsa Dannerstedt X X Deniz Askin X X Eric Nissen X X Avery Roper X X Bharath Tripuraneni X X Aaron Colon X X Yolanda Torres X X Peter Cuzul X X Jarrer Lombard X X Ricardo Henriquez X X James Acosta X X Other Comments April 2010 Page 18 21

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Traffic Impact Analysis Draft A.7 TABLE 9 2: PROJECT ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SUMMARY Year 2012 AM Peak Hour Year 2012 PM Peak Hour Year 2020 AM Peak Hour Year 2020 PM Peak Hour Overall Results Significant Impact Fully Mitigated Partially Mitigated No Feasible Mitigation Significant Impact Fully Mitigated Partially Mitigated No Feasible Mitigation Intersection 1. Veteran Ave/Sunset Blvd X X X X X 5. Bundy Dr/Wilshire Blvd X X X X X X X X X X X 6. Barrington Ave/Wilshire Blvd X X X X X X 11. Beverly Glen Blvd/Wilshire Blvd X X X X X X X X 21. Veteran Ave/ Santa Monica Blvd X X X X X 22. Westwood Blvd/Santa Monica Blvd X X X X 23. Overland Ave/Santa Monica Blvd X X X X X X X 24. Beverly Glen Blvd/Santa Monica Blvd X X X X X X X 28. Bundy Dr/Olympic Blvd X X X X X X X X 32. Westwood Blvd/Olympic Blvd X X X X X 34. Beverly Glen Blvd/Olympic Blvd X X X X X X 39. Westwood Blvd/Pico Blvd X X X X X 53. Fairfax Ave/Wilshire Blvd X X X X X X X 54. La Brea Ave/Wilshire Blvd X X X X X X X 55. Highland Ave/Wilshire Blvd X X X X 67. Fairfax Ave/Olympic Blvd X X X X X X X X X X 69. La Brea Ave/Olympic Blvd X X X X 70. Highland Ave/Olympic Blvd X X X X 71. Crenshaw Blvd/Olympic Blvd X X X X X X X X TOTAL Significant Impact Fully Mitigated Partially Mitigated No Feasible Mitigation Significant Impact Fully Mitigated Partially Mitigated No Feasible Mitigation Significant Impact Fully Mitigated Partially Mitigated No Feasible Mitigation Significant Impact after Mitigation Page 71 LACMTA Wilshire Boulevard BRT Project

29 Traffic Impact Analysis Draft A.7 TABLE 9 8: YEAR 2012 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE PM PEAK HOUR LOS AT IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS WITH MITIGATION 2012 Without Project Mitigated 2012 With Project Alternative Percent of Change Significant Threshold Impact in Delay Impact? Mitigated Delay Delay LOS LOS Intersection (sec) (sec) 5. Bundy Dr/Wilshire Blvd 77.2 E F Yes 10% 6. Barrington Ave/Wilshire Blvd 32.9 C 27.0 C No 100% 11. Beverly Glen Blvd/Wilshire Blvd 38.1 D 39.5 D No 100% 21. Veteran Ave/ Santa Monica Blvd 61.2 E 64.9 E Yes 68% 23. Overland Ave/Santa Monica Blvd 72.9 E 80.8 F Yes 0% 24. Beverly Glen Blvd/Santa Monica Blvd 48.9 D 53.9 D Yes 0% 28. Bundy Drive/Olympic Blvd 73.3 E 69.2 E No 100% 32. Westwood Blvd/Olympic Blvd 44.6 D 42.3 D No 100% 34. Beverly Glen Blvd/Olympic Blvd 49.0 D 47.5 D No 100% 39. Westwood Blvd/Pico Blvd 70.1 E 74.6 E Yes 0% 53. Fairfax Ave/Wilshire Blvd F F No 100% 54. La Brea Ave/Wilshire Blvd 34.8 C 34.5 C No 100% 55. Highland Ave/Wilshire Blvd 38.6 D 36.3 D No 100% 67. Fairfax Ave/Olympic Blvd 60.9 E 56.7 E No 100% 71. Crenshaw Blvd/Olympic Blvd 51.8 D 39.4 D No 100% Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), LOS = Level of Service As shown in Tables 9 7 and 9 8, 8 of the 15 significantly impacted intersections are reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures for year 2012 with Project Alternative conditions. As also shown in Tables 9 7 and 9 8, the project s impact is reduced at the following four significantly impacted intersections during a.m. and/or p.m. peak hour conditions, but not enough to fully mitigate the project s impact: Bundy Drive/Wilshire Boulevard; Veteran Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard; Westwood Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard; and Fairfax Avenue/Wilshire Boulevard. The following three intersections are forecast to remain significantly impacted in year 2012 with Project Alternative conditions since no feasible mitigation measure could be identified: Overland Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard; Beverly Glen Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard; and Westwood Boulevard/Pico Boulevard. Page 78 LACMTA Wilshire Boulevard BRT Project

30 Traffic Impact Analysis Draft A.7 Table 9 9 presents the mitigated year 2020 with Project Alternative intersection operating conditions for the a.m. peak hour at the mitigated intersections. TABLE 9 9: YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT ALTERNATIVE AM PEAK HOUR LOS AT IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS WITH MITIGATION 2020 Without Project Mitigated 2020 With Project Alternative Percent of Change Significant Threshold Impact in Delay Impact? Mitigated Delay Delay LOS LOS Intersection (sec) (sec) 1. Veteran Ave/Sunset Blvd F F Yes 0% 5. Bundy Dr/Wilshire Blvd 63.7 E F Yes 7% 6. Barrington Ave/Wilshire Blvd 38.1 D 40.3 D No 100% 11. Beverly Glen Blvd/Wilshire Blvd 36.1 D 39.9 D No 100% 22. Westwood Blvd/Santa Monica Blvd F F No 100% 28. Bundy Dr/Olympic Blvd F 90.1 F No 100% 34. Beverly Glen Blvd/Olympic Blvd 69.0 E 71.1 E No 100% 53. Fairfax Ave/Wilshire Blvd F F Yes 15% 54. La Brea Ave/Wilshire Blvd 39.0 D 48.3 D Yes 32% 67. Fairfax Ave/Olympic Blvd 35.0 D 37.8 D No 100% 69. La Brea Ave/Olympic Blvd 53.7 D 42.7 D No 100% 70. Highland Ave/Olympic Blvd 50.7 D 33.5 C No 100% 71. Crenshaw Blvd/Olympic Blvd 73.5 E 71.8 E No 100% Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), LOS = Level of Service Table 9 10 presents the mitigated year 2020 with Project Alternative intersection operating conditions for the p.m. peak hour at the mitigated intersections. Page 79 LACMTA Wilshire Boulevard BRT Project

31 To: From: Rex Gephart, Director of Regional Transit Planning Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) Joe Forgiarini, TMD Memorandum Subject: Wilshire Bus Speed Improvement Project Stage Two Analysis Date: February 5, 2007 Introduction: During October 2006, Los Angeles City Council approached LACMTA (Metro) for assistance in developing recommendations for improving bus speeds on the Wilshire corridor. There is considerable interest among the Los Angeles City Council and the County Board of Supervisors in optimizing the operation of the Wilshire Metro Rapid Bus Line 720, in order to more fully realize corridor transit ridership potential. This is a precursor to a possible future extension of the Metro Rail service beyond Western Avenue to Santa Monica. Initial investigation by Los Angeles City Council Department of Transport (LADOT) of full implementation of bus lanes along the Wilshire corridor through City of Los Angeles suggested that an excessively negative impact would be experienced on overall traffic flow and existing curb space allocation. Adding additional lane space for the entire corridor would also be very costly, and potentially wasteful in terms of the limited resulting benefit for transit in many locations. Effort was therefore refocused on identifying segments of the Wilshire corridor with the slowest operating speeds as primary candidates for additional transit priority. Goals/Methodology: The first stage of the Wilshire Corridor Bus Speed Improvement Project identified potential increases in Metro Rapid operating speeds on Wilshire Boulevard. This second stage of the project is intended to identify specific transit improvements to achieved targeted travel time savings. This outcome was to be achieved through additional operating data analysis (continuing from Stage One), including electronically collected data, service ridechecks and on-site reviews of intersection performance. The final outcome of the analysis would be a set of transit priority measures designed to achieve the total targeted travel time savings (operating speed improvements) for the Wilshire corridor. Background Service Details: Line 720 operates up very high service levels, on a limited stops format: AM Peak: Up to two minute frequency westbound from Vermont (three-four minute eastbound to LA) Midday: Five-six minute midday frequency both directions PM Peak: Up to two minute eastbound frequency from Westwood (three-four westbound from LA) Up to 77 buses (mostly articulated) are deployed in peak periods, with 40 buses in use during the midday. Line 720 is one of the busiest lines in the LACMTA (Metro) system, with over 41,000 boardings recorded on an average weekday in 3 rd Quarter Local bus lines also serves all bus stops on the Wilshire

32 Page 2 corridor, with these lines recording over 21,000 boardings for an average weekday. Any improvements for transit on Wilshire Boulevard improves the travel experience for over 60,000 trips per day. Section One: Summary of Initial Review of Operating Data: Introduction: Stage One of the Wilshire Corridor Bus Speed Improvements Project for LACMTA (Metro) included a review of weekday operating data for Wilshire Metro Rapid Line 720 bus service. Each line segment (stop to stop) between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica was analyzed, using a rich supply of Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) data to identify operating speeds and travel times. Level One Improvements Operating Speed Improvements: The initial review identified a first level (Level One) of potential areas for operating speed (travel time) improvements, by removing the worst congestion impacts for each route segment to match the existing fastest daytime operating speeds. This approach targeted savings of up to 15 (18%) of travel time per weekday trip. The suggested speed improvements would be achieved through establishing priority for transit at key congestion locations, with new bus lanes at major intersections. Operating Cost Savings: Operating cost savings for LACMTA (Metro) from achieving the Level One travel time savings (higher operating speeds) were estimated at $1.36 million per annum. This was based on an estimated reduction of up to nine buses needed to maintain provide the same Line 720 service level. Level Two Improvements Operating Speed Improvements: A more aggressive approach to travel time improvements, a second higher level of speed improvements, was also considered. This approach targeted reducing operating speeds to the levels currently experienced during early morning and late night. Estimated travel time savings of up to 25 (32%) per trip would be likely if this level of speed improvements were achieved. Achieving this second level of priority in many cases was considered to require complete separation of transit and general traffic, including through major intersections. Operating Cost Savings: Operating cost savings of $2.92 million per annum for LACMTA (Metro) were estimated for achieving the second level of travel time improvements, with up to eighteen fewer buses estimated to operate the same Line 720 Metro Rapid service. Targeted Travel Time Improvements: Stage two of the Wilshire Bus Speed Improvement Project focuses on identifying transit priority measures to achieve Level One travel time savings. The targeted total time savings per trip for Level One improvements are set out in Table One below. Table One: Level One Targeted Travel Time Savings Wilshire Corridor Direction/Time Period AM peak Midday PM Peak Westbound Eastbound 7 minutes 3-5 minutes 6 minutes before 11am 9 13 minutes after 11am 5 minutes before 11am minutes after 11am minutes minutes

33 Page 3 Study Area: Initial investigations included all route segments (stop to stop) from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica along the Wilshire corridor. In discussions with LACMTA (Metro) and LADOT, it was decided to focus efforts on Wilshire corridor between Valencia Street (just west of downtown LA) where Metro Rapid buses first join Wilshire Boulevard, and Santa Monica (Ocean/Colorado), 15.6 route miles. The Wilshire Bus Speed Improvement Project covers potential initiatives in a number of cities. Efforts have focused on identifying key transit priority initiatives for the City of Los Angeles (in partnership with LADOT), as well in the city of Beverly Hills. Both the cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica contain a Line 720 segment of just under three miles, with a key short segment (around 0.5 miles) of Wilshire Boulevard near the I-405 Freeway/VA Hospital also belonging to Los Angeles County. LACMTA (Metro) intends to work closely with these authorities to secure their support and involvement. Section Two: Further Detailed Review of Data: Introduction: Wilshire Line 720 operating data, including stop to stop travel times, operating speeds, stop dwell times and passenger activity, was obtained for Stage One analysis from automatic passenger counter (APC) - equipped Metro buses. While this data was a good start point to know which segments were most congested, a further level of data precision was required to identify exact problem locations. Additional data was supplied by LADOT from their Transit Priority Signal System (TPS). This is the same system that grants priority to Line 720 buses. This data summarized average operating speeds and travel times weekdays between transponder loops at all signalized intersections along Wilshire Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles (month of October 2006). The data provided statistics for AM peak (8-9am), midday (1-2pm) and PM peak (5-6pm) periods and formed the basis for further detailed analysis. Available Operating Data: The LADOT Line 720 TPS operating data allowed for easy identification of signal to signal operating speeds and travel times for around 65 segments in the City of Los Angeles (including the short segment in LA County). The analysis took into account the impact of bus stop dwell times. Each direction of travel was reviewed separately in the three key time periods (AM peak, Midday, PM Peak). The same rich data source was not yet available in the City of Beverly Hills, which is presently implementing TPS, or the City of Santa Monica, which is considering implementing TPS on four corridors. These areas were reviewed using ridecheck and intersection observation. Low Operating Speeds: Segments where buses were noted operating at speeds lower than 10 miles per hour (MPH) became the priority for focus. Table Two below shows the number of segments with speeds below 10 MPH, by direction and time of day. Table 2: LA City: Number of Wilshire Segments Operating < 10 MPH Direction/Time Period AM Peak Midday PM Peak Westbound (66 segments) Eastbound (64 segments)

34 Page 4 The data indicates < 10 MPH operating speeds in both peak and midday periods. Problems are not restricted to peak periods. In addition, the number of eastbound segments with < 10 MPH operating speeds doubles across the course of a day, while westbound the number climbs only slightly. Slowest speeds usually involved segments at or approaching major Wilshire corridor intersections within the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, and even a section of LA County (unincorporated): Alvarado Vermont Normandie Western La Brea Fairfax La Cienega (City of Beverly Hills) Santa Monica (City of Beverly Hills) Westwood Sepulveda/I-405 (LA County) Follow-Up Investigation: Each low operating speed segment was reviewed in the field by a team of LADOT, LACMTA (Metro), and TMD staff. As a result of these visits, strategies were developed with the goal of improving operating speeds to at least 10 MPH in the slow operating segments. These strategies are discussed in Section Five. Initiatives include LACMTA concepts for transit priority at key LA County and City of Beverly Hills intersections. Section Three: Field Operational Review: Introduction: To better understand bus operations on the Wilshire corridor, data was collected for a sample of Line 720 trips from AM Peak, Midday and PM Peak periods weekdays. This data would help identify where transit priority measures were most valuable for potential travel time savings. During the week of December 4 8, 2006, TMD staff collected data on approximately 25 Line 720 trips in each direction between just west of downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The staff noted all time spent at bus stops and intersections. Total Time at Stops and Intersections: From the ridecheck data, an important statistic was to identify the key sources of delay for L:ine 720. The average time spent at bus stops (from time stopped to time in motion) and time spent clearing intersections (from time stopped on approach to time clear of intersection) were each calculated. The sample results are shown in Table 3a below: Table 3: Wilshire Line 720: Total Stop or Intersection Time Line 720 Direction Time Period % Time at Stop % Time at Intersection % Time Relating to Minor Intersections Westbound AM Peak 9.0% 25.4% 58% Westbound AM Midday 11.4% 26.9% 66% Westbound PM Midday 8.9% 28.4% 70% Westbound PM Peak 9.6% 26.6% 56% Eastbound AM Peak 8.1% 27.2% 55% Eastbound AM Midday 10.0% 28.8% 64%

35 Page 5 Eastbound PM Midday 9.7% 33.8% 68% Eastbound PM Peak 8.7% 36.0% 53% Impact of Stops and Intersections: The sample data in Table 3a clearly shows time delays for buses clearing intersections has the most significant impact compared with time spent at bus stops, representing 25-36% of total travel time, compared with 8-11% of time at bus stops. Westbound, while the sample percentage of time spent clearing intersections climbs slightly through the midday, it remained reasonably stable (25-28%) overall. Eastbound, however, the time for buses to clear intersections expanded more significantly (from 27 to 36%). Clearly, the eastbound afternoon travel times are impacted by significant congestion. Time at bus stops increased slightly in the am midday period. This likely reflects likely slightly slower boarding of passengers during these potentially less time sensitive travel periods. Overall, time at stops as a percentage of overall travel time was relatively stable. Impact of Minor Intersections: There are 90 signalized intersections along Line 720 on Wilshire between the western edge of downtown Los Angeles (Valencia), through the City of Beverly Hills to the western edge of City of Los Angeles (Centinela), with a further 20 within the City of Santa Monica. In peak periods, between 53-58% of time Line 720 buses did not move related to delays at these minor intersections, compared to time at stops and the 16 major corridor intersections. Impact of minor intersections was slightly lower eastbound compared to westbound, as peak congestion at major intersections is more pronounced eastbound. In the Midday period, impact of minor intersections climbed significantly to 64-70% of total intersection delays, as the impact of major intersections declined somewhat. Clearly, any reductions in time delayed at minor intersections can positively contribute to Wilshire speed improvements. A number of locations have been selected for trial of extended TPS priority (15 in stead of 10 seconds) to gauge the impact of this extended priority. If successful, this could be expanded to many minor intersections. Even a small saving on average for each intersection counts significantly when duplicated at up to 110 corridor minor intersections. Adjusting signal timings at minor intersections in general to favor Wilshire more, particularly in the Midday period, may also have a positive impact. This would need to be judged on a case by case basis, recognizing the varied traffic volumes across this group of intersections. Any adjustments also should be well co-ordinated with surrounding major intersections. Average Time Clearing Intersections: The Line 720 ridecheck data clearly points to severe delays at key Wilshire intersections, particularly pm peak, confirming the LADOT data pointing to problems at: Eastbound: o Sepulveda Boulevard/I-405 o Santa Monica Boulevard o Robertson Boulevard o La Cienega Boulevard o Fairfax Avenue Westbound:

36 Page 6 o La Brea Avenue o Fairfax Avenue o La Cienega Boulevard o Santa Monica Boulevard o Westwood Boulevard Average total time delay impact of traffic signals on Line 720 buses eastbound between Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles climbing from 17 minutes (AM Peak) to 37 minutes (Midday) and 66 minutes (PM Peak). Again, this result indicates that significant effort appears warranted for developing strategies for reducing eastbound Line 720 travel times on Wilshire Corridor. Westbound operations were less impacted by traffic signal delays. Average total time delay impact of traffic signals varied between 17 and 22 minutes across the different time periods, midday being worst. Impacts of Congestion: Of particular significance was time noted at intersections where traffic congestion caused buses not to pass through in the first available green signal phase. A full summary of these observations is presented in the technical appendix. The most frequent and severe instances of buses experiencing multiple traffic signal cycles to clear an intersection were in the pm peak eastbound: Sepulveda Boulveard/I-405 Eastbound: Average delay 340 seconds (3 cycles) Santa Monica Boulevard Eastbound: Average delay 210 seconds (3 cycles) plus adjacent Whittier Boulevard Eastbound: Average delay 145 seconds (2 signal cycles) Other intersections with notable frequency and level of congestion impact eastbound in the pm peak were at Robertson and La Cienega Boulevards and Fairfax Avenue. Westbound, worst impacts of congestion were observed both in the am peak and afternoons at Santa Monica Boulevard and approaching Westwood in the pm peak. Mornings, La Brea Avenue was also experiencing significant problems. The frequency of traffic congestion causing Line 720 buses not to clear intersections in the first available green cycle on Wilshire Boulevard were 72 incidents eastbound compared with 26 incidents westbound from the sample ridecheck data collected. The frequency and severity of congestion delays was far higher eastbound than westbound, particularly in the pm peak. Again, this data supports significant effort being devoted to eastbound transit priority measures for Wilshire Line 720 operations. Average Time Per Signal: The average time delay per traffic signal was calculated for the various Line 720 Wilshire Metro Rapid segments, as shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: Average Time Per Signalized Intersection: Line 720 Metro Rapid Eastbound Ave Time Ave Time Ave Time Ave Time Per Trip Per Sig Per Sig Per Sig Per Sig Total Total Signals Time Period AM Peak AM Mid PM Mid PM Peak Signals Distance Per Mile Santa Monica City

37 Page 7 LA (SM BH) Beverly Hills City LA (BH-Western) LA (Western - Witmar) Westbound Ave Time Ave Time Ave Time Ave Time Per Trip Per Sig Per Sig Per Sig Per Sig Total Total Signals Time Period AM Peak AM Mid PM Mid PM Peak Signals Distance Per Mile Santa Monica City LA (SM BH) Beverly Hills City LA (BH-Western) LA (Western - Witmar) Three of the segments are within the City of Los Angeles, where intersections are equipped with TPS equipment. One segment is the City of Beverly Hills, where TPS is currently being implementing. The other segment covers the City of Santa Monica, which is considering installing TPS. From the sample data collected, the City of Los Angeles transit signal priority system (TPS) appears to be achieving time savings in the area between Beverly Hills and downtown Los Angeles, when compared with average time per signal within City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. This is a particularly good result given the higher density of signals per mile in this part of the City of Los Angeles. Notable is the relatively higher average time per signal for the City of Los Angeles (and LA County) segment between the cities of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills. This area has TPS operational. The area does experience congestion, particularly severe in the afternoon peak eastbound leading up to the I-405 freeway. While the area has the lowest density of signals per mile, many of these signals run long 150 second signal cycles and have a higher density of high volume cross streets. There may be some system tuning required to optimize TPS system performance in this area, to match more closely the results achieved between downtown Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, and the results could not be expected to fully match given the extended cycle times. Applying the performance of the City of Los Angeles transit signal priority system (east of Beverly Hills) to the City of Beverly Hills, average time per signal might be expected to change as follows: Eastbound: o AM Peak: save 2-5 seconds per signal o AM Mid: save 5-7 seconds per signal o PM Mid: save 5 7+ seconds per signal, significant pm congestion in Beverly Hills. o PM Peak: save 5 7+ seconds per signal, significant pm congestion in Beverly Hills. Westbound: o AM Peak: save 3-4 seconds per signal o AM Mid: save 5-9 seconds per signal o PM Mid: save 5-10 seconds per signal o PM Peak save 7-10 seconds per signal.

38 Page 8 Even a saving of 3 seconds per average signal delay (22 intersections) per trip each direction equates to: 66 seconds in AM Peak 110 seconds AM/PM Mid 110 seconds PM Peak, This is subject to the TPS s ys t em performing in line with the City of LA experience east of Beverly Hills. For City of Santa Monica, likely time savings per Wilshire intersection from TPS are less significant: Eastbound: o AM Peak: No apparent saving. o AM Midday: No apparent saving. o PM Midday: 1-2 second saving. o PM Peak: 0-1 second saving. Westbound: o AM Peak: 1-2 second saving. o AM Mid: 2-5 second saving o PM Mid: 0 3 second saving. o PM Peak: 3-6 second saving Likely benefit for Santa Monica from TPS with two seconds average time saving per signal equates to: Eastbound: No savings am 40 seconds saving pm mid 20 seconds saving pm peak Westbound: 20 seconds saving am peak 40 seconds midday 60 seconds pm peak. Average Dwell Time at Stops: This section reviews previous APC data on stop dwell times. Full data is available in the technical appendix. Most stops had dwell times of 20 seconds or less. Of note westbound was the large amount of dwell time at the Westwood stop, peaking at over 1.5 minutes on average in the midday period. This stop is influenced by high numbers of boardings and alightings and operators taking a rest-break here with door open during the long (150 second) traffic signal cycles. Next longest dwell times westbound were at Vermont, Western and Alvarado stops. These three stops have connections with the red line rail service and key north-south bus lines. Some passengers were noted boarding through rear doors of buses at these stops. Many would be passholders. Longest average stop dwell times eastbound were noted at 4 th. St (Santa Monica), Westwood and Western. Each was over 30 seconds in at least the midday and/or pm peak. Other stops above 20 seconds average dwell time eastbound were Ocean/Colorado, Bundy, Barrington, Bonsall, Santa Monica Blvd., Fairfax, La Brea, Normandie, Vermont and Alvarado, again primarily in the midday and pm peak.. Fairfax, La Brea and Normandie were also above 20 seconds average dwell time in the pm peak.

39 Page 9 Operator and Passenger Behavior: Operators were noted with a sense of urgency in keeping the service moving, and passengers likewise were quick to board. Many operators aggressively asked passengers to board quickly in order to close the doors and depart stops, even if passengers could not initially access the farebox. The farebox machines seemed to struggle often to accept notes, somewhat adding to dwell times. While many daypasses are sold, these being available on the buses makes for at least more dwell time particularly in the mornings. Proof of Payment: Line 720 does appear to have merit for consideration of a proof of payment system. The value of such a scheme in terms of average boarding time reductions would be most apparent at key stops. While many other stops have low volumes of activity per trip, even a small saving in seconds at each of the over twenty stops for Line 720 could save enough time to reduce resource requirements. Passenger Information or Special Needs: While generally infrequent, there were delays of over one minute on occasions when an operator tried to assist a customer with a complex travel query. Bikes generally were loaded or unloaded quickly, many taking no additional time for the buses. Very rarely was a bike customer needing assistance. A reasonable number of wheelchairs were loaded/unloaded, though operators were noted to quickly attend to this process. However, it still can add two or more minutes to a stop dwell time. Overall Impact of Dwell Times: Based on the data collected, it appears that dwell time at stops provides the least opportunity to improve travel times on the Wilshire corridor. Improved farebox operations, protocols for providing customer information and proof of payment may provide opportunities for further travel time savings. Section Four: Priority Location Reviews: Introduction: An additional task for Stage Two of the Wilshire Corridor Bus Speed Improvement Project was to review the performance of key intersections along the Wilshire corridor, within the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. A key aspect for review was the allocation of signal timings compared to observed traffic needs for Wilshire Boulevard and the intersecting street. A detailed report is provided for this review in the technical appendix, with key findings being listed below. City of Santa Monica Intersections: The performance was reviewed for six intersections in the City of Santa Monica, as well as one intersection (Wilshire/Bundy) in the City of Los Angeles, near the border with City of Santa Monica. It appears more time could be allocated for the left turn from Wilshire to Ocean without significantly adverse impact on Ocean Boulevard traffic. Similar signal cycle time tuning would be beneficial at the Ocean/ Colorado intersection. The Wilshire/26 th intersection in the midday period showed an even balance in signal phase timings for each street, though through traffic on Wilshire appeared far higher than 26 th Street volumes. This was creating a noticeable increase in delays for Line 720 buses, particularly eastbound. 17 th Street had a similar midday cycle time allocation, but with less severe impacts. The same situation was identified at the nearby City of Los Angeles intersection of Wilshire/Bundy, though volumes on each of these flows were closer to even.

40 Page 10 Westwood Area Intersections: Time was spent during the am and pm peak at the major intersections of Wilshire with Westwood, Veteran, Sepulveda, Federal and Barrington Boulevards. Very long signal cycle times of 150 seconds are common at intersections here. Traffic volumes are high both for the straight Wilshire movements as well as traffic turning into or out of Westwood Village. Most significant queues were in the pm peak westbound back from Westwood Boulevard (and beyond Glendon) and eastbound back from Sepulveda Boulevard. Buses frequently missed multiple green light phases here. Westwood Boulevard northbound frequently banked up to the intersection of Wilshire throughout the day. This at times impacted westbound Wilshire traffic as cars blocked the intersection. Similarly, in the pm peak, southbound Westwood traffic has problems turning right out into Wilshire Boulevard, due congestion there. Traffic police were noted allocated to this intersection around 4-6 pm to limit this. In the pm peak, bank up of traffic queues in the first 1-2 lanes back from I-405 beyond Veteran westbound lanes. These observations correspond with APC, TPS and ridecheck data all pointing to this area as a source of significant delays. City of Beverly Hills Intersections: In the City of Beverly Hills, observations were made during the am and pm peaks at four major (Santa Monica, Beverly, Robertson, La Cienega) and one minor (Doheny) Wilshire corridor intersections. At four of the five sampled intersections, Wilshire gained the greater share of signal phase timings, but at its intersection with La Cienega, Wilshire was given less green time in the am peak, and only slightly more in the pm peak. At both La Cienega and Robertson Boulevards, queue lengths eastbound were particularly significant in the pm peak. At Santa Monica Boulevard, eastbound queues extended beyond the Whittier intersection. Two or three light cycles were noted for some buses to clear the intersection. Northbound Santa Monica Boulevard traffic was noted banking up into the intersection with Wilshire Boulevard, blocking at times the westbound Wilshire Boulevard flow. The same problem noted occasionally at Beverly Boulevard. Timings for the Wilshire westbound left turn arrow phase at Santa Monica, Beverly, Doheny and Robertson, appeared excessive, particularly in the am peak. Eastbound, the left turn pocket from Wilshire to Robertson overflowed at end of some signal cycles. Mid-Wilshire/Miracle Mile Intersections: Performance was reviewed at seven key City of Los Angeles intersections in the Mid- Wilshire/Miracle Mile section of Wilshire Boulevard, namely Fairfax, La Brea, Crenshaw, Western, Normandie, Vermont and Alvarado. Signal timings slightly favored Fairfax Avenue over Wilshire in all periods reviewed. Long westbound traffic queues noted on Wilshire at Fairfax in the am peak, and eastbound in the pm peak. By comparison, La Brea Avenue was noted favored in signal timings until 9.00 a.m., after which times were evenly split with Wilshire. Some long queues were noted westbound on Wilshire at La Brea in the am peak, and the curb lane here is not wide enough for buses to use.

41 Page 11 Although Wilshire is clearly favored over Crenshaw, signal phase timings appeared excessive for the Crenshaw T intersection, particularly after 9.00 am. Many cycles need only seconds to clear the Crenshaw traffic. The thirty seconds currently allocated appears excessive, but may be linked to pedestrian needs. This intersection appears to warrant a further check on signal time allocated. At the Normandie Avenue intersection, signal phase timings were noted significantly favoring Wilshire all day. By comparison, signal phase timings were quite even for the two major corridors of Western and Vermont, where traffic volumes are quite intense on Vermont, Western and Wilshire. Northbound Vermont currently is negatively impacted by one lane being closed due to construction north of Wilshire. Alvarado and Wilshire also fairly evenly share signal time. Section Five: Key Priority Measures Introduction: Based on data available from LADOT and TMD ridechecks, a team from LACMTA (Metro), LADOT and TMD reviewed options to address delays at key Wilshire corridor intersections. Key Intersection Transit Priority: The main strategy developed by the above team for improving operating speed at key Wilshire corridor intersections was to allocate bus and right turn movements to either an existing or an additional outside lane (through reduced sidewalk widths). Some parking reductions and relocation of bus stops allows for the above strategy for transit priority. To enhance the advantage to transit, pedestrian movements for the cross street are lagged to allow right turning cars and buses straight ahead to clear an intersection first, with an arrow for the turn movement. If these options are not practical within an existing lane, an additional lane would be obtained from reduced sidewalk widths. Key intersections identified for application of this transit priority are shown in Table Five: The largest quantity of lane mile improvements are proposed for the City of Los Angeles (9.87 miles total), though this consists of 5.38 miles of curb lane repairs, and an even split of around 2 miles each of transit priority from either conversion of existing lanes or widening for new lanes. Los Angeles County and City of Beverly Hills have much smaller miles of improvements, though these represent some of the highest value improvements. The proposed improvements allocate 17.6% (5.49 miles) of the total 31.2 mile bi-directional corridor as Bus Only/Right Turn lanes.

42 Page 12 Table Five: Proposed Transit Priority Improvements and Benefits Wilshire Corridor Location Improvements Direction Facility Start End Distance City Daily Time Saving (Pass Hours) Facility Cost (x $1,000) Cost/ Pass Hour saved Vermont Westbound Convert Existing Lane Westmoreland Vermont 0.17 Los Angeles Normandie Westbound Convert Existing Lane Alexandria Ardmore 0.22 Los Angeles ,861 Western Westbound Convert Existing Lane Serrano Manhattan 0.13 Los Angeles Western - Fairfax Westbound Curb Lane Repair St Andrews Fairfax 2.64 Los Angeles ,519 10,988 La Brea Westbound Widen Existing Lane Mansfield Detroit 0.24 Los Angeles ,278 17,833 Fairfax Westbound Extra Lane Ogden Crescent Heights 0.3 Los Angeles ,249 19,166 San Vicente Westbound Extra Lane Crescent Heights San Vicente 0.42 Los Angeles ,252 42,335 La Cienega Westbound Extra Lane San Vicente Le Doux 0.22 Beverly Hills ,373 25,905 Santa Monica Westbound Extra Lane Linden Santa Monica 0.06 Beverly Hills ,124 Westwood Westbound Convert Existing Lane Westholme Glendon 0.54 Los Angeles ,500 97,341 Westwood Westbound Convert Existing Lane Glendon Gayley 0.17 Los Angeles Westwood Westbound Convert Existing Lane Gayley Sepulveda 0.45 Los Angeles Barrington Eastbound Extra Lane Barrington Federal 0.12 Los Angeles ,268 24,546 Bonsall Eastbound Extra Lane Federal Bonsall 0.55 County ,950 17,230 Westwood Eastbound Extra Lane Glendon Selby 0.28 Los Angeles ,143 Santa Santa Monica Eastbound Extra Lane Whittier Monica 0.23 Beverly Hills ,513 16,001 Robertson Eastbound Extra Lane Swall Hamel 0.23 Beverly Hills ,470 29,202 La Cienega Eastbound Extra Lane Stanley La Cienega 0.14 Beverly Hills ,504 15,978 Fairfax Eastbound Extra Lane Crescent Heights Ogden 0.3 Los Angeles ,805 14,989 La Brea Eastbound Widen Existing Lane Cloverdale Sycamore 0.19 Los Angeles ,302 Fairfax-Western Eastbound Curb Lane Repair Fairfax St Andrews 2.74 Los Angeles ,519 15,619 Western Eastbound Convert Existing Lane St Andrews Hobart 0.35 Los Angeles ,177 Normandie Eastbound Convert Existing Lane Hobart Mariposa 0.33 Los Angeles Vermont Eastbound Convert Existing Lane Berendo Shatto 0.28 Los Angeles