Mobility Plan 2035

Mobility Plan 2035
An Element of the General Plan

May 28, 2015 Draft - as approved by City Planning Commission
Los Angeles Department of City Planning

T H I S PA G E I S I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K
LOS A N GE L E S D E PA RT ME N T O F CI T Y P L A N N I N G
Acknowledgments
MAYOR PROJECT STAFF
Eric Garcetti Ken Bernstein, Principal City Planner
Claire Bowin, Senior City Planner
CITY COUNCIL My La, City Planning Associate
Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Council President David Somers, City Planning Associate
and District 10 Councilmember
Mitchell Englander, President Pro Tempore Past Project Staff
and District 12 Councilmember Jane Choi, City Planner
Tom LaBonge, Assistant Council President Pro Bryan Eck, City Planning Associate
Tempore and District 4 Councilmember Steven Katigbak, Planning Assistant
Gil Cedillo, District 1 Councilmember Juliet Oh, Planning Assistant
Paul Krekorian, District 2 Councilmember Michael Sin, Planning Assistant
Bob Blumenfield, District 3 Councilmember Norman Ornelas Jr., Student Professional Worker
PaulKoretz, District 5 Councilmember Casey Osborn, Student Professional Worker
Nury Martinez, District 6 Councilmember Sabina Roan, Student Professional Worker
Felipe Fuentes, District 7 Councilmember Abraham Sheppard, Student Professional Worker
Bernard Parks, District 8 Councilmember Max Thelander, Student Professional Worker
Curren D. Price, Jr., District 9 Councilmember Interns: Vincent Agoe, Roland Argomaniz, Sheela Bhongir, Matthew
Mike Bonin, District 11 Councilmember Braughton, Hayley Chin, Matthew Diemer, N.D. Doberneck,
Mitch O’Farrell, District 13 Councilmember Azeen Khanmalek, Ryland Lu, Adam Rabb, Joyce Tam
Jose Huizar, District 14 Councilmember
Joe Buscaino, District 15 Councilmember GRAPHICS/ GIS
John Butcher, GIS Chief
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Louie Angeles, GIS Supervisor I
Michael LoGrande, Director Cuong Fan, GIS Supervisor I
Alan Bell, Retired Charles Lee, GIS Supervisor I
Jan Zatorski, Deputy Director Fae Tsukamoto, GIS Supervisor II
Lisa Webber, Deputy Director Shannon Wheeler, GIS Supervisor I
Cruz Ortiz, GIS Supervisor I (Acting)
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Rene Gonzalez, GIS Specialist
David H.J. Ambroz, President Elvia Hernandez, Graphic Designer III
Renee Dake Wilson, Vice-President Louisa Ranick, Graphic Designer II
Robert L. Ahn, Commissioner William Baughman, Graphic Design Consultant
Maria Cabildo, Commissioner
Caroline Choe, Commissioner DCP Staff
Richard Katz, Commissioner Community Plans Section
John W. Mack, Commissioner Patricia Diefenderfer
Dana M. Perlman, Commissioner Conni Pallini-Tipton
Marta Segura, Commissioner Anita Cerna
William Roschen, Former Commissioner Nicholas Maricich
Regina M. Freer, Former Commissioner Haydee Urita-Lopez
Melissa Alofaituli
Reuben Caldwell
Marie Cobian
Valentina Knox
Urban Design Studio

Simon Pastucha
Acknowledgments
Technical Advisory Committee, Street Standards Comittee, & Green Streets Committee
LADOT Staff Mayor’s Office – Great Streets Team Task Force (continued)
Seleta Reynolds, General Manager Nate Gale Los Angeles Business Council
Susan Bok Carter Rubin Los Angeles Eco-Village
Tomas Carranza Dan Rodman Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Pauline Chan Los Angeles Walks
Tim Fremaux Consultant Team Metro
Rubina Ghazarian Fehr & Peers Multicultural Communities for Mobility
Eddie Guerrero Jeremy Klop, Principal Natural Resources Defense Council
Sean Haeri Sarah Brandenberg, Principal Pacoima Beautiful
Jonathan Hui Alex Rixey, Senior Transportation Planner Pat Smith, Landscape Architecture
Christopher Hy Port of LA
Jay Kim Terry Hayes Associates Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Dan Mitchell Terry A. Hayes, Principal Southern California Association
Michelle Mowery Michael Sullivan, Senior Planner of Governments
Lan Nguyen Southern California Air Quality
Margot Ocanas Wendy Lockwood, Principal, Management District
Valerie Watson Sirius Environmental Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association
Patricia Smith, ASLA The Valley Economic Alliance
Department of Public Works GOOD/CORPS Transit Coalition
Bureau of Engineering MindMixer TRUST South LA
Ted Allen UCLA Luskin Center
Michael Brown Task Force UPS
Steve Chen American Institute of Architects, LA USC Transportation
Mark Chmielowiec Bicycle Advisory Committee Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Michael Kantor Big Blue Bus
Hugh Lee Bikestation
Lance Oishi Building Industry Association
Jeannie Park Bus Riders Union
Randy Price Caltrans District 7
Ali Nohass Community Health Council
Dale Williams Culver City Bus
Disabled Access Commission
Bureau of Sanitation FilmL.A., Inc
Deborah Deets Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic
Sharam Kharaghani Foothill Transit
Wing Tam Green LA Coalition
Harbor LA
Bureau of Street Services Heal the Bay
Ferdy Chan LA River Revitalization Corporation
Kevin Minne LA County Bicycle Coalition
Audrey Netsawang LA County, Department of
Greg Spotts Public Health, PLACE
LA Department of Transportation
LAUSD - Office of Environmental
Health and Safety
Mobility Plan 2035
Table of Contents
Introduction11 4. Collaboration, Communication & Informed Choices 111
Key Policy Initiatives:�� 12 Discussion�� 111
Plan Organization ��13 Objectives��112
Purpose, Adoption, & Implementation Process of the Plan��13 Policies��112
General Plan Circulation System Maps ��17
Background�� 23
Key Forces Influencing Shifts in Mobility Planning��24 5. Clean Environments and Healthy Communities 133
Mobility by the Numbers �� 32 Discussion��133
Transportation Partners�� 38 Objectives��135
Consistency with Other Plans�� 40 Policies��135
1. Safety First 51 6. Action Plan 144

Discussion��51 Discussion��144
Objectives�� 53 Network Concept Maps�� 145
Policies�� 53 Program Categories ��146
2. World Class Infrastructure 67 7. Appendices175

Discussion��67 Appendix A: References�� 175
Objectives�� 68 Appendix B: Inventory of Designated Scenic
Policies��69 Highways and Guidelines ��177
Appendix C: Funding Resources ��182
Appendix D: Glossary of Transportation Terms��187
3. Access for All Angelenos 91 Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms��190
Discussion�� 91 Appendix F: Inventory of Modified Street Designations �� 191
Objectives�� 92
Policies�� 93
Introduction + Orientation Chapter
Introduction
Key Policy Initiatives
Plan Organization
Purpose, Adoption, & Implementation
Process of the Plan
Street Classifications
Citywide General Plan
Circulation System Maps
Context
Key Forces, Trends, and Concepts in
21st Century Mobility Planning
Mobility Timeline
Mobility by the Numbers
Partners
City Departments
Transit Providers
Street Design, Operations, Planning
and Maintenance
Relationship to Other Plans

General Plan
Other Citywide Plans
Other Agency Plans
Public Participation
Project Website
Online Town Hall
Participation Summary
T H I S P A G E I S I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K

Introduction
L os Angeles has historically been

a bustling center where people
from all over the world have come
streets” principles and lays the policy
foundation for how future generations
of Angelenos interact with their streets.
addresses these issues though policy
initiatives today will set the stage for
the way we move in the future.
to explore the possibilities this
city has to offer. The 3.8 million In 2008, the California State Legislature Mobility Plan 2035 includes goals that
who have made it their home adopted AB 1358, The Complete Streets define the City’s high-level mobility
have given this city its unique Act, which requires local jurisdictions priorities. Each of the goals contains
identity comprised of distinct to “plan for a balanced, multimodal objectives (targets used to help measure
neighborhoods. Numerous places transportation network that meets the progress of the Plan) and policies
to go, things to do, warm weather, the needs of all users of streets, roads, (broad strategies that guide the City’s
and a strong economic base all and highways, defined to include achievement of the Plan’s five goals):
contribute to making Los Angeles a motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
great place to live and work. A city children, persons with disabilities, 1. Safety First
as diverse as Los Angeles requires seniors, movers of commercial goods,
a transportation system that offers and users of public transportation, 2. World Class Infrastructure
equally diverse and viable mobility in a manner that is suitable to the
choices to accommodate all. rural, suburban or urban context.” 3. Access for All Angelenos
Mobility Plan 2035 (Plan) provides The City’s transportation system will 4. Collaboration, Communication
the policy foundation for achieving a continue to evolve to fit the context and Informed Choices
transportation system that balances the of the time and situation. Today,
needs of all road users. As an update to we are faced with environmental 5. Clean Environments &
the City’s General Plan Transportation constraints, public health issues, and Healthy Communities
Element (last adopted in 1999), Mobility some of the longest traffic delays in the
Plan 2035 incorporates “complete nation. The way Mobility Plan 2035
LADCP Draft May 2015 11

Mobility Plan 2035
“Complete streets” take into Key Policy Initiatives:

account the many community
needs that streets fulfill. Streets • Lay the foundation for a network of complete streets and establish new
do not just move people from complete street standards that will provide safe and efficient transportation
one location to another. They for pedestrians (especially for vulnerable users such as children, seniors and
provide a space for people to the disabled), bicyclists, transit riders, and car and truck drivers, and more
recreate, exercise, conduct
business, engage in community • Use data to priotize transportation decions based upon outcomes of safety,
activities, interact with their public health, equity, access, social benefits, and/or economic benefits
neighbors, and beautify their
surroundings. Complete streets • Consider the strong link between land use and transportation
offer safety, comfort, and
convenience for all users • Embed equity into the transportation policy framework
regardless of age, ability or and into project implementation
means of transportation. They
also lead to other public • Target greenhouse gas reductions through a more sustainable transportation system
benefits, including improved
transportation, a cleaner • Promote “first mile-last mile” connections
environment, and healthier
neighborhoods. • Improve interdepartmental and interagency communications and
coordination with respect to street design and maintenance
- Los Angeles City Council Motion,
January 28, 2014 • Increase the use of technology (applications, real time transportation
information) and wayfinding to expand awareness of and access to parking
options and a host of multi-modal options (car share, bicycle share, car/
van pool, bus and rail transit, shuttles, walking, bicycling, and driving)
• Expand the role of the street as a public place
• Increase the role of “green street” solutions to treat and infiltrate stormwater
12 Draft May 2015

Reader’s Guide
While the Plan’s narrative frames the to reflect a commitment to a balanced,
key concepts and proposals of Mobility multi-modal viewpoint. Bicycle Plan
Plan, the essence of the Plan lies in its programs have been incorporated
goals, objectives, policies, and action into Chapter 6: Action Plan.
programs. These declarative statements
set forth the City’s approach to various Introduction and Orientation. This
issues. Goals, objectives, policies, and initial chapter describes the role of
action programs are described below. the Mobility Plan and provides a brief
timeline of transportation. The chapter
Goals: A goal is a statement that also outlines the Plan’s five goals,
describes the future condition or “end” highlights the Plan’s organizational
state. Goals are outcome-oriented format, describes the Plan’s relationship
and achievable over time. Each goal is to the City’s General Plan as well as
represented by a chapter in the Plan. plans developed by other City agencies
and regional jurisdictions and includes
Objectives: An objective is an a glossary of transportation terms. This
aspirational measure of goal attainment. chapter also contains the circulation
In the Mobility Plan, the objectives system maps with street designations.
follow the goal and precede the
policies. Meeting given objectives Chapter 1: Safety First focuses
will depend on available funding to on topics related to crashes,
implement the proposed programs. speed, protection, security, safety,
education, and enforcement.
Policies: A policy is a clear statement
that guides a specific course of action Chapter 2: World Class Infrastructure
for decision-makers to achieve a desired focuses on topics related to the Complete
goal. In the Plan, each policy is preceded Streets Network (walking, bicycling,
by a key word or phrase alerting the transit, vehicles, green streets, goods
reader to its main purpose. Information movement), Great Streets, Bridges,
about the intent of the policy is described Street Design Manual, and the smart
in the text following the policy. investments needed to get there.
Action Programs: The proposed action Chapter 3: Access for All Angelenos
programs are located in Chapter 6 of focuses on topics related to
the Plan. They comprise of proposed affordability, accessibility, land
procedures, programs, or techniques use, operations, reliability,
that may be utilized to further the transportation demand management
Mobility Plan’s goals and policies. and community connections .
Decisions to implement specific programs
are discretionary and governed by Chapter 4: Informed Choices focuses on
program cost, available funding, staffing, topics related to real-time information,
feasibility and similar considerations. open source data, transparency,
monitoring, reporting, emergency
Mobility Plan 2035 is organized into response, departmental and agency
six chapters. Each chapter is further cooperation and database management.
organized into sections that address
the specific topics described below. The Chapter 5: Clean Environments and
2010 Bicycle Plan goals and policies Healthy Communities focuses on topics
have been folded into the Mobility Plan related to the environment, health,

Mobility Plan 2035
benefits of active transportation, implementation. The action programs

clean air, clean fuels and fleets are organized into the following 15
and open street events. categories: Communication, Data &
Analysis, Education, Enforcement,
Chapter 6: Action Plan contains the Engineering, Funding, Legislation,
nextwork concept maps for transit, Maintenance, Management,
bicycle, vehicle, pedestrian, and Operations, Parking/Loading,
goods movement and describes the Planning and Land Use, Public Space,
various programs that, funding and Schools, and Support Features.
staff permitting, will be prioritized for
Purpose, Adoption, & Implementation

Process of the Plan
GENERAL PLAN PURPOSE State law requires that the General
Plan must contain seven mandatory
California State Law requires that cities elements: land use, transportation,
prepare and adopt a comprehensive, housing, conservation, open space,
integrated, long-term General Plan to noise, and safety. All of the elements
direct future growth and development. must be internally consistent.
The General Plan is the fundamental The City of Los Angeles has 12
policy document of a city. It defines how elements to better address the
a city’s physical and economic resources particular issues facing the City.
are to be managed and utilized over time.
Decisions by a city regarding the use of Framework Element
its land, design, character of buildings
and open spaces, conservation of existing The City has adopted an overarching
and provision of new housing, provision “Framework Element” that sets forth
of supporting infrastructure and public a strategy for long-range growth and
and human services, and protection of development, providing a citywide context
residents from natural and man-caused for updates to community plans and the
hazards are guided by and must be citywide elements. The Framework is
consistent with the General Plan. focused around seven guiding principles:
grow strategically; conserve existing
The General Plan may be adopted either residential neighborhoods; balance
as a single document or as a group of the distribution of land uses; enhance
related documents organized either by neighborhood character through
subject matter or by geographic section better development standards; create
within the planning area [Government more small parks, pedestrian districts,
Code Section 65301 (b)]. The General and public plazas; improve mobility
Plan must be periodically updated to and access; and identify a hierarchy
ensure its relevance and usefulness. of commercial districts and centers.
Changes to the law over the past thirty The Framework sets forth an estimate
years have vastly boosted the importance of population and employment growth
of the General Plan to land use decision to the year 2010 that can be used to
making. A General Plan may not be a “wish guide the planning of infrastructure
list” or a vague view of the future but and public services. This, however, does
rather must provide a concrete direction. not represent a limit on growth or a
mandated level of growth in the City or
14 Draft May 2015

its Community Plan Areas. Traditionally, ADOPTION PROCEDURES

such “end-state” limits have proven
ineffective in guiding growth and public Commission Approval
infrastructure/service investments and
in responding to the changing needs of The General Plan and any amendments
a city’s residents and its economy. In thereto must be approved by the City
its place, the Framework establishes a Planning Commission following a public
program to annually monitor growth, its hearing and the approved changes
impacts, and infrastructure and service must be presented to the Mayor and
needs that will be documented in a report the City Council by the Director of
to the City Council and pertinent service Planning, together with the Commission’s
departments and agencies. This provides report and recommendations.
decision makers and planners with the
information that is essential in shaping City Council Adoption
growth in a manner that seeks to mitigate
its impacts, minimize development The General Plan and any amendment
costs, conserve natural resources, and to it must be adopted by majority vote
enhance the quality of life in the City. of the City Council. A two-thirds vote
of the Council is required if its action
MOBILITY PLAN PURPOSE is contrary to the recommendations of
either the City Planning Commission
The purpose of this Plan is to present a or of the Mayor. A three-fourths
guide to the further development of a vote of the Council is required if the
citywide transportation system which action of the Council is contrary to
provides for the efficient movement of the recommendations of both the City
people and goods. This Plan recognizes Planning Commission and the Mayor.
that primary emphasis must be placed on
maximizing the efficiency of existing and IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
proposed transportation infrastructure
through advanced transportation The Plan identifies goals, objectives,
technology, through reduction of vehicle policies, and action items (programs and
trips, and through focusing growth in projects) that serve as guiding tools for
proximity to public transit. In addition, the making sound transportation decisions
Plan sets forth street designations and as the City matures and evolves.
related standards. A listing of street types
with descriptions and generalized cross Like most long-term planning documents
sections for each designation is included it is not expected that all of the goals and
in the Complete Street Design Guide. objectives will be met nor that all of the
policies and action items be completed.
The Plan recognizes the contribution of Instead, this Plan is both a working
a proper juxtaposition of land uses to guide and a reference document.
the reduction of vehicle trips. Locating
uses that better serve the needs of the The Plan is intended to guide the City
population closer to where they work and and other agencies In allocating often
live reduces the number and distance of scarce resource dollars when determining
vehicle trips and decreases the amount future mobility improvements. The
of pollution from mobile sources. The policies located throughout the Plan are
Mobility Plan provides goals, objectives, interrelated and should be examined
policies and programs to continually comprehensively when making planning
meet the changing mobility, air quality decisions. This Plan reflects the ideas
and health challenges faced by the City. and challenges that the City foresees in
the future- from its perspective today.

Mobility Plan 2035
Street Classifications
Each of the city’s arterial streets retained its designation in name only,
included in the General Plan Circulation but the footnotes and modifications
System Maps (found in this chapter) indicated that the street was not to be
have been re-designated from the widened in the future. Unfortunately,
1999 Transportation Element to reflect this collection of footnotes and modified
the new arterial types included in references has made it difficult for
the Street Standard Plan S-470. The city engineers, consultants, property
updated S-470 includes five arterial owners, developers and community
road types (Boulevard I, II, Avenue I, members alike to have a full grasp of the
II, III) whereas the current S-470 has city’s long-term vision for its streets.
only three (Major Highway Class I, II,
Secondary Highway). The expanded To rectify this situation, the Mobility
range of dimensions more accurately Plan, in the majority of cases, assigns
reflects the range of street dimensions new street designations that are more
that exist today and acknowledges that closely aligned with the streets’ current
there are many arterial streets that are, dimensions and thus future dedications
and should remain, narrower than their and/or widenings will be smaller in
current designation would permit. In a dimension than would be required under
majority of instances, today’s arterial the current designation. Streets that had
streets have not yet been expanded to been previously “modified” will retain
reflect the full dimension envisioned their corresponding “modified” dimension
by the current designation, as physical under the new designations unless their
changes to the roadway are not made “modified” dimensions are in alignment
until adjacent parcels are redeveloped. with one of the new street designations
in which case the modified term will be
In recognition of this, and since the eliminated. An inventory of modified
1999 Transportation Element was street segments is included in Appendix F.
last adopted, there has been growing
interest in restricting streets from In the interest of protecting our adjacent
being widened to match their currently land uses, living within our current
assigned designation. To align with this right-of-way, and managing our streets
interest, as community and specific plans efficiently, all of the City’s arterial streets
have been updated and/or introduced have been reclassified according to
over the past 14 years (since 1999), the new system. The former functional
footnotes have been added and street classification nomenclature will still
modifications have been made that remain for reference purposes.
would restrain a street from future
widening. In most instances, the street
16 Draft May 2015

Street Designations and

Standard Roadway Dimensions
Previous Example of New Designated Dimensions (right-
Previous
Designated Previous Built New Designation(s) of-way/(Right-of-Way/Roadway
Designation
Dimensions Dimensions widths, feet) Roadway widths, feet)
(126/102) Boulevard I (136/100)
Major Highway Class I (126/102)
(110/80) Boulevard II (110/80)
(104/80) Boulevard II (110/80)
Major Highway Class II (104/80) (100/70) Avenue I (100/70)
(86/56) Avenue II (86/56)
Avenue I (100/70)
Secondary Highway (86/56) Avenue II (86/56)

(90/70)
(90/70) (72/46) Avenue III (72/46)
(66/40) Collector Street (66/40)
Collector Street (64/44) (64/44) Collector Street (66/40)
Industrial Collector
(64/48) (64/48) Industrial Collector Street (68/48)
Street
(60/36) Local Standard (60/36)
Local Street (60/36)
(50/30) Local Limited (50/30)
Industrial Local (60/44) (60/44) Industrial Local (64/44)
Standard Walkway 10 10 Pedestrian Walkway (10–25)
(New Designation) Shared Street (30’ / 10’)
(New Designation) Access Roadway (20 right-of-way)
One-Way Service Road –
Various (28–35/12 or 18)
Adjoining Arterial Streets
Service Road 20
Bi-Directional Service Road
(33–41/20 or 28)
– Adjoining Arterial Streets
Hillside Collector (50/40) (50/40) Hillside Collector (50/40)
Hillside Local (44/36) (44/36) Hillside Local (44/36)
Hillside Limited Standard (36/28) (36/28) Hillside Limited Standard (36/28)

Mobility Plan 2035
Citywide General Plan Circulation System Maps

The Citywide General Plan Circulation System maps establish the designated street classifications
for arterial streets, scenic highways, divided streets, and depict modified segments as well. Any
changes to these street designations would require a general plan amendment.
The first maps that displays all of the arterial streets onto a single map describes the “generalized circulation”
meaning that further details such as whether a street is divided, modified, or a scenic highway are not depicted.
The hollowing sub-area maps provide a more detailed description of the streets’ complete designation as a
divided, modified, or scenic highway in addition to its primary designation as a Boulevard or Avenue.
Scenic Highways depicted within the City of Los Angeles have special controls for protection and enhancement of scenic
resources. Scenic Highway Guidelines (for those designated scenic highways for which there is no adopted scenic corridor
plan) are presented in the appendices of this Plan. Proposed streets are depicted in the Community Plans, consistent with
General Plan standards and criteria (see Policy 3.12 on proposed streets). Community Plans also designate collector streets.
18 Draft May 2015

¯
rra
Sie
Olive View Gav
ina
El
dr
d
or
id
Se
xf
ge
pu
Ro
lk
e
d
Po
lve
so
y
ar
la
ed
bb
da
Ses ac
Bl
Hu
no M
n
La
on
ur
pa
Fo
ny
el
Porter Ranch
ot
m
Ca
Ca
hi
Ta
lla ne
ll
ny
Be
ga
Rinaldi or
on
rra sb
jun
Santa Susana Pa on
ss xt Te O
Tu
San Fernando Mission Bra nd x
Fo Pa ys
Big
Chatsworth Chatsworth Nu Wentworth
n
Canoga
Woodley
V
Devonshire
Apperson
ne
Balboa
Hayvenhurst
Lassen lla or
Be
Zelzah
sb
Tuju
Marilla
Louise
Vesper
rra O
cle Plummer Plummer Te rd
Cir
nga
fo n
Ar
lley do
Reseda
an
le
Va Br el yon
ta
Nordhoff La Tuna Can
Ca
Sh
Sunla nd
nyo
d
Mason
Parthenia or
De Soto
Haskell
xf
Valley Circle
n
Tu
Canoga
Roscoe
Wilbur
Winnetka
Strathern Strathern
Tampa
Woodlake
G
Lankershim
le
Corbin
no
Clybourn
Saticoy Saticoy Saticoy
ak
Valjean
s
Haskell
Sherman Sherman Sherman
Topanga Canyon
Hayvenhurst
Fallbrook
Vanowen
Kester
Vanowen
White Oak
Shoup
Lindley
Tujunga
Clybourn
Coldwater Canyon
Vineland
Victory
Hazeltine
Balboa
Platt
Oxnard
Woodman
Oxnard
Clybourn
Oxnard
Colfax
Cahuenga
Van Nuys
Burbank Burbank
Laurel Canyon
Fulton
Sepulveda
Whitsett
w na
Kelo
Kester
Magnolia
Ventura Riverside Camarillo

a
Ha Ventu wn
M
Moorpark
Resed
ve ra La
ul
nh st
ho
u re
Fo
lla
rst
do
nd
Be lora
ve
rly Yose Co
Gl mite
en
Ca
ck
Ro
64
York
hu
e gle El
e
r P
ue
at he Ea as
ng
Ri o
ng
ven
s Feliz ve tc
a
i
a eliz Lo rsi Fle
roa
nt Los F de
rey A
ou ue
Franklin Fig
Hillhurst
n
M
erio
Hollywood
Cy
nte
Sunset on
ion
pr
Fairfax
gt
Hyp
Wilton
Mo
es
tin
rm
Highland
Sta
is
Vine
s
n
Coll
Ma
Hu
diu
ke
Normandie
a
Crescent Heights
m
lendale
rL
Melrose
Eastern
ve
La Brea
Sil
Virgil
Beverly
Hilga
Burton
on
y
Griffin
G
lle
Wilshire 3Rd ain
ssi
Va
o
G
art
Sun
rd
Un arad
M
ay
Mi
et 6Th
rth
mp
le
Barring
ns Wilshire
set
1S
Daly
No
on
Bev
y
t
Wilton
Su
Ra
Alv
Ce
San Olympic 8Th 2N

Western
7Th
i
Ve
d
er
Te
Pic o Irolo
Hoover
nt
Vic Wa
ca
na
te
te
ly G
m
en
ton
ur
ba
aw
Palisades
ta 5T
ra
te
pl
Sta
y
sh
on h
ion
e
n
Pico
nsh
len
Venice
Hi r
c
M pi
e
rtson
Un
Ve
w
ll
to
Pa ym
Cre
nic
Flo
Ol 4Th 1St
Missio
e Washington
So
cif e
nic
Alameda
ic
Ov
Robe
9T
Co Ve
Bu
h
ast Wh 3Rd
Mateo
Bre
Adams
nd
er
ive
way
n
16 itti
lan
y
30Th T er
Boyle
s Ol h
La
Indiana
lm nic
Jefferson
d
Gate
Pa 15Th 8Th
Sa
Ve Rodeo
La Cienega
wt
Exposition Boulevard N/R ro

e
nic
ed
ell
Ve
e
nP
rea
Ce
Martin Luther King, Jr

Long Beach
Sa
nt
Arlington
se
Sto La B
Ing
ine
Ro Sa Vernon
er
e w
la
lew
nic te 48Th
ck
Broadway
se Ve lle
oo
Ro Abbo 54Th
t Kinn
d
ey
In
Slauson Slauson
gl
ao
ew
Pa
All
Central
Avalon
an
Crenshaw
Gage
oo
n
cif
rso
nd
La Cienega
d
ffe
ic
Mi
Je
Hoover
Florence
Sepulveda
Lin
Main
co
er
r
Normandie
lve
Tij
ln
Van Ness
La
Cu
Manchester Manchester
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
Western
Pe Vista
ster
Westche 92Nd 92Nd
rsh
96Th
ing Del M
Century Century Century

Sepulveda
Be
Vermont
Glend
Aviation
ve
g
rly 108Th 108Th

Per r Vist
rin
Su
do
Sp
No ay
ns
shin
Imperial Imperial
ale
ara
et
a
ion
w
rth
n
ad
g
Alv
ai
Un
120Th
M
Bro
as
a
ro
aD
el
rth
3R
Vi
ue
Luc
d
Bix
rth
gn
Fig
No
6Th
el M
ion
Bixel
Ces
Vermont
es
No
ar EC
Un
2N
ar
d hav
ez
d ry
el
Wi
Te
a
au
lsh
Bix
O d e
m
ro
ire
n p
Be
pl
ue
ion
G Ho
5Th
Fig
Un
e
el
ra
liv
Bix
3R
Figueroa
4T d
Ja h 1S
me W
Center
el
ilsh t
sM
Bix
.W ire 5T
Oly oo 6T h 1St
n
d
g
h
ai
mp
rin
d
M
ic N
182
Sp
er
182Nd
w
ay ill
a
lo
H
ro
Santa Fe
pe F
9T
ue
190Th
h
dw
Fig
oa
Ho
Br
Central
Del Amo
8T
Ve 7T
h
h
o
Alameda
nic
dr
9T
e
Pe
h
Carson
Mateo
Ve
Santa Fe
n
nic
Sa
s
e 223Rd
ele
s A ain
Western
Ve
ng
Lo M
Pic
9T
nic
o 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
h
Lomita Lomita
eda
Pacific Coast
CITYWIDE GENERAL PLAN

Wilmington
An
Alam
ah
Avalon Fries
eim
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Figueroa
Henry Ford
Map A1 - Generalized Circulation

on
Westmont
bs
Gi
ol
pit
S
Ca e
hn
Boulevard I Arterial Streets Outside City of LA Front

Sea
sid
Jo
Summerland
Boulevard II Freeways 1St
Miralest
7Th
Harbor
Avenue I City of Los Angeles Boundary 9Th

Gaffey
e
Avenue II 19Th
rn
te 25Th
Avenue III es
W
Pacific
Draft May 2015

0 3 6 9
Miles
¯
rar
Sie
10 Olive View 90 90
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
80
Ga
Roxford
4 62 66 vin
a
9 Map A2 - VALLEY SUBAREA
66 0
32 0
6
Boulevard I Divided Streets Modified Streets
90
70
^
100 Modified ROW
Eld
Boulevard II ^^ Scenic Hwys
d
Se
ar
^
r id
80 0
pu
bb
^ ^
10
ge
100 Modified RD
Hu
Avenue I Freeways
ve
lk
G
70 0
Po
e
da
9
le
so
En no
ed
^
ci ak y Avenue II Collector Streets
Bl
^ n ita s la
ac
^
s
Ses
^ ^ M Avenue III Local Streets
^
^
^ no n
^
City of Los Angeles Boundary
^ ^
90
70
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
La
^
ur
^
^
^
el
Fo
^
ot
Terra
an
Vista
hi
^
^
^
ll
yo
^
^ ^
n
^
Corbin
^Porte ^
ys
^
lla ne
64
Nu
^ ^ ^
Be
^
or
G
Rinaldi
36
Rinaldi
le
n
^
sb
^
Va rra
^ ^
no
^ ^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^
^
Te O
^
r R anc
ak
Sepu lve
d
^
^
an on
s
^ ^ ^
^
Br xt
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
San Fernando Mission
Tamp
^
^ ^ ^ ^
x Pa
Fo
^
^
Reseda
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^ ^^
da
^ ^
Ar
^
White Oak 84
54
le
Wentworth
ta
Chatsworth
Sa
^
Chatsworth Chatsworth
^
n
^ ^ ^ ^
Fe
^
^
^
rn
ey ^
an
Sepulveda
^
Canoga
do
Devonshire
nn
^ ^ ^
Ro
^
Tu
Apperson
Louise
ad
Balboa
^
^
Woodley
So
ut
Lassen lla ne
Zelzah
hw
^
Be or
Marmont
Marilla
^ ^
^
sb
es
rra
Vesper
t
O
Tuj
Te
Rd
^
^
^ ^
un
w
cle Plummer Plummer
y
^
Cir ^ rd
ga
Ar
fo
^
lley
le
n
Va ^ an ia
ta
Ca
^
r do or
B el Pe
nyo
^
Nordhoff Sh
Hayvenhurst
La Tuna Can
^
n
^ ^
yon
^
^
De Soto
^ ^ ^
^
Sunla nd
^
Br
^ ^ ^ ^
^
Mason
ad
^
d e
Parthenia or
^
os
Haskell
le
xf nr
y
Tu Pe
Canoga
Wilbur
Roscoe
^
Strathern
Topanga Canyon
Strathern
Corbin
G
le
Woodlake
Ingomar
^
no
Winnetka
Lankershim
ak
s
Saticoy
Clybourn
^
Be Saticoy Saticoy Saticoy
G
ll C
le
^
an
no
yo
Valjean
n
ak
Haskell
s
Sherman Sherman Sherman Sherman Sherman
Tampa
Lindley
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
Van Nuys
Hayvenhurst
Fallbrook
Coldwater Canyon
Vanowen 114 104 104 90 Vanowen
Shoup
White Oak
40 104 114
60
Tujunga
Kester
^
Clybourn
Laurel Canyon
80
74
84
80
Reseda
Vineland
Platt
136
Van Nuys
104 114
Victory
80 90
64 60
90
104
80
Hazeltine
^
Oxnard 114 104 Oxnard

^
54
Oxnard
Woodman
Clybourn
Balboa
80
Colfax
80 90
^
^
Louise
60
64
^
104 104
80 90 80
^
^
Fulton
Burbank
^
Burbank
^
74
70
Whitsett
Sepulveda
Va
^ ^
112
136
Ventura
^
wna
lle
^
Ke^lo ^
^
Chandler
^
tura
^
yC
^
Kester
Cly
Van Nuys
^
Ven
^
Cahuenga
^
^ ^
Magnolia
ir c
bou
Mecca
^ le
^
Hayvenhurst
r
^
^
n
^ ^
^
^
Riverside Camarillo
^
^
^
Canoga
Colfax
Mu
^
lho
seda
lla n
^
d Ventu Moorpark
^
^ Re^
^
ra
^ ^ ^
Ha
^
^
^
ve n
aw
^
nh
tL ^
^
rd
urs Valley V
^
t ista res
adfo
en
Fo ^
^
^ r ly G l
^
^
R^
^
^
^
^
^
ve
^
^
^
^ Be
^
^
^ ^
Ca
^
hu
^
^
en
^
ga
^
m
0 1.5 3 4.5
Draft May 2015
^
rha
^
^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
Miles
^^
^ ^
^
^
^ ^
^
^
^ ^ ^
Ba
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^ ^
^
^
^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
74
40
Victory
80
80
64 60
104
Kester
Woodley
Van Nuys
54
Winnetka
104 114 Oxnard
Oxnard
Corbin
Wilbur
Tampa
Balboa
80 90
Reseda
Colfax
Clybou rn
Louise
90
De Soto
Vineland
White Oak
70
80 90 80
Lindley
Tujunga
112
136
a nk Chandler
Bu rb
Hazeltine
Fulton
Kester
Laurel Canyon
Magnolia
Canoga 114 104 114

Woodman
Van Nuys
Mecca
Cahuenga
La
n
Riverside Camarillo
ke
Ve ntu
ra
rs
Hayvenhurst
a
h im
Colfax
Whitsett
Moorpark
Re sed
Ve ntu
ra
Ha
ve
n
n
hu
rs t
Valley V
ista
Radfo rd
Gl e
Coldwater Canyon
rly
ve
Be
Ca
hu
en
g a
te
n ta in ga
Mou
80
50
60
80
104
66
44
64
66
84
80 Melrose
To
66 56
La Cienega
pa
ng
Fairfax 104
a
C
Sa
Beverly
Hilg
an
nV
yo
ard
n
Burton
ic e
G 3R d
Doheny
Se
p
ay
n te
le
Be
y
ulv
ve
e
rly
da
6Th
G
Le Co nte Wilsh ire

et
l en
Sa
ns n
Av
nt
e
Su h ire i ca
Vi
ur
ce
Wils on
O lymp ic
Ce n ue
nt
M e
Be
Ce
Ba rringto
O
ta
n
nt
f ax
ve
W
an
ur
an
y f Th
S
n
rly
y
e
es
Ve
Fair
Pico
Robertson
St
tw
in g
er
a
60
o
ar
s
ic en te an
an
t
od
Sa n V
on
on
W
M
La Cienega
re
Palisa de
a ny
hi
es
s
t
i ls
66
W 0 50
wo
e 15 1
al C
Ba
ic
o
c Ve n 10 8
d
Ov
pi
rrin
e sc
80
g
er
lym nic
to
O 0
n
60
Ve 10 8
lan
Bu
10
Te m
0
n
d
17 72
dy
8
10 0
Pa
ci f M 10
Ov
ic C l an 0 88
17
er
95 Adams
ay
oa ne n in
st an g
w
70
lan
Ch 6 0 10 8
d
t
50
s 66 1
70
We s
lm 90
Gate
Pa e 92 80
S
86 59
86
al nic 64
60
n
66
Ve
aw
t io 66 39
M
80
te
Na
pu
102
l
100 Rodeo
ot
Se le
o
lv e
e
r
78 74 80 74
nic 84
da
Ve
e 56
nic
Ve
Ce
n
e
nic
tin
Ve
e la
a
s e on
Ro gt r
hi n ke
as
La Bre
W t oc
er
e Sa S
lv
nic w
te
Cu
Ve In lle
e g le
s w
Ro e 86 oo
Pa
nic d
c
66
i
Ve
f
70
ic
50 rt
80
ho 68 86
Ma
y S
54
e Abbo t Kin ne
in
66 90
nic
All
10
ao
a
Ve
h 84 0
Ce ntine la
ut
d an
So
Via
Min
n
Do
rso
f fe
All
Je
lc e
a
Howard Hughes
Lin
c
a
o ln
er
La Cienega
r
Tij
lv e
La
Cu
Manchester Somerset Manchester

Pe
r
r sh
Airpo rt
Westc he ste
in g
Vis
96Th
Sepulveda
ta
Century 133 141

De
Bellanc a
124 114
lM
ar
Pe
rshin
Aviation
111Th
g
Sepulveda
Imperial Imperial
Vis
ta
De
lM

ar
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Map A3 - WEST SUBAREA

Boulevard II Scenic Hwys 100 Modified ROW
Avenue I Freeways 100 Modified RD
Avenue II Collector Streets
Avenue III Local Streets
Collector and Local Streets are shown for reference only.

Refer to specific community plan.
Please see NavigateLA for more detail after plan adoption.
0 1 2 3
Miles Draft April 2015
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
La
C
^
ur
¯
ah
^
^
el
ue
^
C ^
^ ^
ng ^
an
^
^ ^ ^ ^
a
^
yo
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^
^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^ ^0
^
^
0 ^
^
^
^
^
s Feliz
120 Lo
118
4
^
7
84
^ ^
120
^
liz
Los Fe
^
40
Vermont
^ ^ ^
^
115
^
^
70
80
50
104
76
^
60 90 64 60 Franklin
^
74
85
80
56
56
60
61 40
40
76 Yu cca
50 68 60
^
70
54
78
100
34 50 40
70
80 Hollywood
84
60
^
60
Hillhurst 90
60
Cahuenga
66 Gardner 50
La Bre
34
56
115 Sunset Su
a
ns
Fairfax 104
104
85
80
74
78
60
et
Fountain 76
104
40
74
56
Bronson
Western
Vine
90
66
76
70
72
48
Santa Monica 104 90
60
60
40
80
Gower
104 La Brea
64
44
Wilcox
La Cienega
50
74
80
56
66
44
Cole 40
104
Wilton
84
80 Melrose 74 64
66
64
44
Crescent Heights
56 44
Virgil
^
^
^
Normandie
Temple
^
Beverl
y 0 Beverly
Fairfax
0
0
0
Doheny
^
La Cienega
3Rd
Burton Burton
^
^
0
0
^
^
^
3Rd
^ Sa ^
^
nV
îce ^
Highland 0
0
Wilton
^
^ nte ^
Virgil
^
Wilshire 6Th
^
^
^
^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
7Th 7Th
^
^^
Olympic 8Th
Irolo
^
Doheny
^
^^
fax
aw
Fair
La Cienega
nsh
San
^
V
Cre
Pic o ice
^
h
nte
T
60
10
Hoover
San
V ice
^
^ nte
50
70
^ ^
^
^
80
119 Pico
7 130 56
10 13
rtson
99 104
Hoover
0 ^2 0 11^ 110
100
21^ 3
Venice
^
19 84 100
66
^ ^
150^ ^ ^ 190
Robe
150 80 7 95
^
170 ^ ^ ^ 108 1 110 Venice
^ ^
108 67
^
90
ea
^
^ ^
e ^
r
nic ^ ^
La B
80
Ve
e ^^ 100 Washington
enîc
60
V^ 72
0
^
10
104
72
^^
74
0^
17^
75
100
^
0 ^ 108 108
nega
17^ ^ 88
100
e
80
nic^^
^
Adams
Hoover
Ve^ 95 ^ ^ ^ ^ 100
La Cie
fax
th
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
60
^
^ ^ ^ ^
70
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
ou ^
Fair
90 0S
16
^
66 160 ^
108
^
^
50
^^
70
^ 30Th
^
104
80
^
92
80 83
^ ^ 64 86 80 Jefferson
^
66 59 56
90
60
74
39 60 60
^
104
56
80
40
Western
102 40
^
100 Rodeo 122 82 Rodeo 80 42

78 74 80 74 16
80 98 58 56
116 100
13 2
^ ^
62
8
94 74
100
74
16
84 13 2 60 67 Exposition Boulevard S/R Exposition Boulevard N/R
8
ega
56
^
40 47
16
ien
14 4
200
176
Normandie
0
La C
La Brea
Figueroa
^
23
21 6
2
153
80
^
14
97 5 100 100
Arlington

^
72 72 ^
117
92
^
^
t
er
Figueroa
eim ^

L
^
^
t
er
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Stocker
îm
^
Le
^
86.5 75 Vernon
62.5 51
Map A4 - CENTRAL, MIDCITY SUBAREA
^
Boulevard I Divided Streets Modified Streets 80 71 48Th

180 ^
60 51
^
150
180 ^

Hoover

150 150
^

180
City of Los Angeles Boundary 80 54Th

^
50 60
180
150 150
^

Refer to specific community plan. 100 Slauson 76 76 Slauson
Figueroa
^
56
Please see NavigateLA for more detail after plan adoption. 84 66
160
130
Van Ness
80
56
Draft April 2015

0 0.65 1.3 1.95 55
La Brea
Overhill
Gage
100
80
Miles 30
60 5
3
roa
ue
Fig
Yose
mite
R oc k
Eagle
Ve rdu g
Fig
o
ue r
liz
oa
s Fe
Lo
Av
en
Sa
York
ue
n
F
ck
42
Ro
er
gle
na
e
Ea
al
El
4
nd
Av
6
o
Pa
nd
Figue ro
so
le
en
Ro
ue
G
ue
ad
en
N
36
Av
or
0
th
12
ea
74
st
o nt
dm
Avenue 54
Ro
Pie
a
on
p e ri
dw
Hy
ay
76
is t a yo
40 Arro
r
Riv
e eV
nt
he
r si
tc
Ro w
e
de Mo oa
na er
70
Av
Fle
50
60 F ig u
en
ue
90
40
66
5
0
Av
Ave
n ue
en
60
Via Marisol
ue
ey
52
er
nt
Cy
M arm ion
p
Mo
80
re
60
s
s
80
108
76
56
is
Co ll
CASP Ca
rn egie
to n
ng
n ti
Hu
m
A
iu
El Sereno
11
ve
50
ad
n 48 0
St
60
ue
60
26
76
90 40
52
68
i
42
on on
60
40
gt n gt
H
ke
do
in
42
Eastern
La
a
n t un t
32 .5
er
ara
u
40
22 .5
v
H
S il
d en
Alv
60
40
Pa s a
80
Su
n se
t
60
83 42
74 44
40 A
56
ra
n
b
e
m
7
North Broadway
ssio
a
0
40
nu
lh
Mi
A
70
Elysian Park
80 Bohlig
rt
6
05
56
pa
e2 0
6
Te m
Daly
m
p le
6 .5
Ra
60 5
Griffin
Lansdowne
60
a
n
98 75.5
40 ssio
io
nn
76 30 Mi
ia
Un
g
ar
North Main io n
rin
40
M
iss
Be M
Sp
n
lo
ve
o
60 60
io
60
rl
40 40
y 66 Vall e
r th
y
60 28
iss
60 M
ay
76
rad
No
n
P ab
a
28
io
40
dw
Alv
a
Un
Sa n
l
Bro
e
Vi
DOWNTOWN3RLOS ANGELES Zo
d a n
Bi x
gn
ro
r th
n al
s
e
ue io
s
io n
No
90
Fig iss
ca
Indiana
to
M
60
Ce
Un
Lu
sa
90
So
2N Ma Ch
rEC a
60
6Th d h av re n r lo
g
pe
ry
ez go tte
76
3R
rin
Wi
Ho
ud
d
te
lsh 56 Bi xel
90
Ra
a
Sp
ire 11 4
m
62
6Th 4 41 8
Be
St a
7Th 9 85
ire
96
z
96
8Th 18 2 58
90
5
6T
76 74 110
h
70
10 17
96
56
2 5 1 58 7
2
0 2
l
90
Ja 70 49 0 42 2
10 10 0
e
70
0
52
Ce
62 64
me 60 Wa
90 s
93
68 1S b
Bi x
sM 95 95 ar
t
66
60 as
n
.W 90 EC h
.5
90
86
4 70 80
86
80
79
93
io
ha
Ce n ter
oo
90
58
d 70 0 60 ve
P
66
73
70
Ol 76 z
Un
le
ym 90 68 40
n
56
a
82
p ic 61 46
ai
65
44
sa
90
62
80
M
82
nt
50 85 .
60 40 70 58 5
5T .5
40 h
10
85
73 0
70
56
76
90
66 90
52
4 70
9 60 6
Santa Fe
76 2 . 76 60
66 5 4 70 40 es
10 6 el
6 ng
Flo
80
pe r
76 A
e
M issio
Ho w e
90 Lo s
n
84
liv
Ve 70 1St
O
54
nic
9T
e 64
h
40
75
4Th
na
67
10
.4 70
re
17 46
86 116
90
0
90
Lo
68
56
9T
Indiana
66 64
10
h
90 40
6
66
Pic
o
92
64 4
0
40
Bo yle
3Rd
e ro
10 56
40
68
Figu
90 Wh
it ti e
66 16 Th 14 r
Th
y
Alameda
Mateo
wa
Ad Wa
s
Santa Fe
am
ad
hi n
s g to
92 n
Br o
70 14 Th
52
.5
Soto
15 Th
l
82
59 .5
Hil
8Th
ed ro
54 Olympic
nP
.5
Sa
ay
Long Beach
60
w
Je 40
ad
f fe Wa shin
rso 60 gto n
n
Br o
40

CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Map A5 - CENTRAL, EAST AND
Central
CORNFIELD ARROYO SECCO PLAN (CASP) SUBAREA

Vernon Vernon
San Pedro

Main
Avalon

Long Beach

Compton

Central

Slauson Slauson Slauson
0 0.65 1.3 1.95

rt
mpa
Ra
80
10 8
io n
Glen d
Un
Sun s
ay
ale
et
dw
g
ro a
B
rin
Sp
r th
h
No
Be
ve
do
N
rl y
98
ara
Co ll
76 or t
eg e
Alv
60
40
Te
n
m
io
y
pl
Alp
Un
e
in e
wa
ad
Bro
r th
2N
l
No
d
e
Ce
4T
s
Bi x
h
ar
EC
oa ha
er ve
6Th
F igu z
n
io
Bixel
90
60
Un
s
re
3R
o
90
d
el
60
D
e
1S
t
D
ta
n
pe
aci
lsto
Ho
Pl
ai
76
M
La
56
Bo
dr
e
r th
a
s
op
au
ro
e
as
No
l
r H
c
el
90
Be
4Th
ue
e
g
Flow e 41
62
Lu
n
Wi 11 48
Fig
Bi x
lsh
An
io
e
ire
s
92 4
liv
Un
Lo
7Th 85
l
10 58
96
96
90
66
70 2 1
66
70
8 58 11
76
5Th 17 5 20
10
5 74 0
56 Bi xe
64 0
1
10 15 5 0
iso
0 58
96
70 2
y 20
nA
10 72
dr
2
l
90
au 10 4 42
e
10
70
oa
4
Joh
62
Be
er
Bi x
66
90
gu
ge
Fi
90 68 60
93
Jud
9 95 60 81 3R
Ja 56 5
l
me 65 51 40 d
e
sM
.W 90 76 70
Bi x
90 80
79
93
oo
d
43
68 60
66
86
90
62
85
70
W 55 70
i ls 73 40
hi 56 1St
80
90 re 6T 43
65
61 46 h
80
90
82
oa
44
er
64
Fi gu
52
71 40
80
50 85
66
70
60
40
90
10
73 0
85 70
76
60 56
9T 46
10 h 70
ng
4T
h
ri
76 6
Sp
92 76 60
. 40
66 5
5T
n h
ai
M
90
46 70
11
10
86 6
76 6
pe
O
Ho
lym
pi
c 90
9T
h
70
84
54
r
10
68
64
F
40
75 low e
91
.
5
56
67 4 1 7V
10
.4 1
7 e nic 7
e 46 0
90
n
66
ai
90
M
9T
h
64 8T
40 h
Ve
nic
e
92
66 Pic
64 64 o
40 40
90
0
10
16
68
Th
90
66
O
ly
m
p
Alameda
ic
14
Th
Wa
s hi n
g to
n
92
70
d
an
Gr
l
14 Th
Hil
52
.5
ro

ed
nP
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Sa
Ad
wa
15 Th
am
s
ad
59
Map A6 - CENTRAL, EAST SUBAREA
in
Br o
Ma

82
.5 Boulevard II Scenic Hwys 100 Modified ROW
54
.5
nd
a
Gr

ral

t
Je
Ce n
f fe
rso
Long Beach
n
y
wa
0 0.25 0.5 0.75

ad

Br o
Long Beach
Sa
n
F er
na
nd
o
R
oa
d
No
rt he
as
Cy
tR
pr
oa
es
d
s
wa
y
Marm ion
St a
diu
m
Riv
e r si
de
11
48 0
4
50 0
60
40
42
40
76
52
90
a 68
ro 40
ue
Fig
60
42
60
40
32 .5
42
50
40
22 .5
Av
en
26
42 ue 40
40
60
74
60
42
83
40
44
49
80
na
56
de
sa
Pa
Av
North Broadway
e
nu
70
e2
70
0
80
on
56
ssi
Mi
56
g
rin
Sp
Griffin
r th
No
.5
60 56
60
60 40
98 30
76
75.5
Daly
n
40 s s io
Mi
North Main
io n
iss
M
60
40
Vall e
y
60
60
40
40
Hill
60
n
28
Co ll 66 io
eg e iss
M
60 76
28
40
lo
P ab
Alp
ay
in e
Sa n
dw
ro a
B
r th
No
Zo
n
Vi
n al
g
io
iss
ne
s
M
Co
rn we
ll
Ce s
a rEC
h av Ch
ez Ma a
re n r lo
go tte
s e
s
le
te
e
Vign
St a
ng
Ra
sA
m
Lo
ire
z
Wa
b as
h
to
Ce
Te mp le s
So
ar
.5
1S EC
t
ha
58 n dia
80 ha
Ec
ve
Ce n ter
60 z
56
1St
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Pl
San ta Fe
ea
sa
nt
Map A7 - CENTRAL, CORNFIELD ARROYO SECCO PLAN SUBAREA

82
.5
Boulevard I 58.5 Divided Streets Modified Streets
3R
d
Boyle

Santa Fe
86
52

M issio

Cen tral
n
5T Please see NavigateLA for more detail after plan adoption.

h
Alameda
4Th
Sa
n ta
Fe
0 0.25 0.5 0.75

M ateo

l
21 40
80
2 14
Hil
re a
B
97 5 100 100 Martin Luther King, Jr
La
72 72
92
117
t
er
Arlington
Central
im
Le
Stocker
0 75 Vernon Vernon
10
56 51
80 71 48Th
60 51
Broadway
Long Beach
La Bre a
150
Alameda
Compton
180 180 180 180

150
80 54Th
50 60
Long Beach
180
Western
150 150
100 Slauson 76 76 Slauson Slauson
84 66 56
160
130
Avalon
80
Gage
80
56
Gage
100
55
Ove rhill
Normandie
30
Van Ness
35
60
Figueroa
40
Hoover
Florence
San Pedro
Vermont
Manchester
Western
Vermont
92Nd 92Nd
Vermont

Compton
Vermont
Main
108Th 108Th
Central
Vermont
Imperial
Vermont
Broadway
120Th
El Segundo
135Th
Rosecrans
Redon do Beach
Alond ra
Garde na

CIRCULATION SYSTEM
d
Map A8 - SOUTH SUBAREA 2N
18
Nd
182Nd 18 2
Western
Normandie

Avenue III Local Streets 190Th

Vermont

Western
Del Amo
0 0.75 1.5 2.25

Torrance
CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Map A9 - HARBOR SUBAREA

0 1 2 3

Background
The City of Los Angeles has grown from businesses for our consumption, but
its modest size of 50,000 people and also by providing bountiful employment
28 square miles in 1890, to 3.8 million opportunities in the logistics sector.
people and 468 square miles today.
The City’s population is projected to While Los Angeles’ reputation as a car
increase to 4.3 million people by 2035, culture is not unfounded, this legacy has
according to SCAG regional growth often ignored the early and continued
projections. Collectively, Los Angeles, presence of pedestrians, bicyclists, trains,
Anaheim, and Long Beach rank as one of streetcars, and delivery trucks traveling
the nation’s top metropolitan economic throughout the City (see timeline on
powerhouses1. A robust transportation subsequent pages). The popularity of
system that offers multiple options and each of these other transportation
quality infrastructure will be crucial to modes has varied over time, as
achieving and maintaining economic economics and lifestyle preferences
prosperity, especially in a city and region continually change. However, for today
so large and expansive. In addition to (2015) and for the foreseeable future
being the second largest city in the (2035), a transportation system that
country, Los Angeles is also the most offers multiple modal choices (with
diverse. Meeting the transportation and respect to time, cost, convenience,
mobility needs of such a varied, growing energy, etc.) will foster a culture of
population requires a comprehensive smarter, better informed road users.
package of transportation strategies.
For many, the car is the only viable
Distance, weather, comfort, time, and form of transportation and this Plan
costs usually dictate our mode of travel. acknowledges the necessary and
But whether we walk, bike, board a continued investments that are needed
bus/train/taxi, drive a car, or fly on an to maintain our roadways. Likewise, there
airplane, we rely on transportation are many who cannot, or desire not to,
to get us where we want to go. use a car every day. This Plan, therefore,
also acknowledges the necessary and
Not only does transportation move continued investments that are needed to
people from one place to another, but it improve the variety of safe, comfortable,
also moves goods and materials. Cargo and viable transportation choices.
ships and airplanes deliver products
made in far flung places to our harbor Even a relatively minor incremental shift
and airport, freight rail and large semi- in mode choice can yield large rewards.
trailers distribute goods to warehouse Cars and trucks contribute to 40% of
distribution points, and local delivery greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore,
trucks bring these goods to our homes reductions in vehicle miles traveled
and workplaces. The multifaceted (VMT) will reduce the amount of carbon
nature of our goods movement emissions and improves the region’s
industry keeps our economy humming air quality. Safer and more comfortable
by not only delivering goods to retail streets that encourage the use of active
transportation (biking, walking) can
improve a person’s overall health.
1 The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan This Plan recognizes the importance
region ranked as #2 in GDP with $765 billion; U.S. of our City’s streets as the lifeblood
Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analyses of our health and economy and
(2012). GDP-by-Metropolitan-Area Statistics. seeks to prioritize resources to

Mobility Plan 2035
transform and maintain our streets This evolution will not happen overnight.
as complete streets that serve all Upgrading technology and modifying or
users, now and into the future. adapting street and/or rail infrastructure
is not easy or cheap. It is an aspiration
that we are setting for future generations.
Key Forces Influencing Shifts

in Mobility Planning
Changing Demographics
This Plan responds to changing survey, 56% of respondents did not get
demographics, a younger population their license within one year of being
desirous of safe and accessible active age-eligible and only 54 percent had
transportation options (biking, walking), acquired their license before turning
a growing number of residents and 18 years old2. When teens do get their
employees seeking alternatives to driver’s license they are driving fewer
the car, and an aging population that miles than previous generations did at
may need to rely more and more on the same age. Young people between the
transportation alternatives to the ages of 16 and 34 drove 23 percent fewer
automobile. In 2030, senior citizens miles on average in 2009 than they did
will make up one fifth of LA County’s in 20013. Fewer of today’s households
population. This older population (as have two cars as more are deciding
well as children and the disabled) will (for financial and/or environmental
benefit from longer pedestrian crossing reasons) to get by with one car or less.
times, shorter street crossing distances,
wider, shaded sidewalks, street benches, 2 http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/
and separated bicycle facilities. Today’s Teens-Delay-Licensing-FTS-Report.pdf
teens are delaying getting their driver’s 3 ttp://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20
licenses in droves. According to a 2012 New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf
Transportation, Health and

Land Use Connection
Information is also becoming increasingly
available on the relationships between
the built environment, health, and the
economy. Improved urban design (wider
sidewalks, street trees, street lighting,
parking design, less parking, and better
access to transit) increases both the
utilization of active transportation modes
and spurs community interaction, which
in turn can improve the health of an area’s
residents and increase economic activity.
26 Draft May 2015

Technology
Technology is also dramatically altering provide easy, temporary access to a
the way we think about travel and our rental car. Both of these new options
relationship with streets. Technology offer a convenient and cost-effective
permits us to attend a meeting remotely, alternative to buying and owning a car.
and bypass the morning’s commute Increasingly, technology informs us
thereby reducing a trip. Increasingly, about real-time travel options so that
new transportation network companies tomorrow’s trip decisions can be aided
are using mobile technology to connect by information as to the cost, length of
ordinary drivers with passengers trip, health benefits, departure and arrival
needing a ride. Car sharing companies time of multiple transportation options.
Streets as Places
In today’s cities, streets not only facilitate public gathering spaces speaks to the
movement but provide “places” to gather, community’s increasing interest in
to congregate, to sit, to watch, and to using their streets for more than just
interact. This expanded definition has transportation. Streets are the City’s
fundamentally changed our relationship public face, the places that connect
with streets and will factor into future us to work, entertainment, shopping,
transportation discussions. The success recreation, and each other. Complete
of CicLAvia, coupled with the desire street policies will help carve out a new
for improved sidewalks and more vision for how we think about streets.

L.A. Mobility Timeline 1850–1900
The timeline is divided into three sections: early years up to the adoption Historical Event Active
of the 1999 Transportation Element, years following adoption to the present, Project Multi-modal
and future of the City/regional transportation system. Legislation Rail
Plan or Study Roads/vehicles
Transit
1850
1851
1852
1850 Los Angeles incorporated as a
municipality. California achieves statehood.
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858 1
1859
1860
1861
1862
2
1863
1864
1865 T H I S P A G E I S I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K
1866
1867
1868
1869 1869 Transcontinental Railroad completed, linking California (San Francisco)

to the rest of the nation for the first time.
1870 1869 21-mile Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad completed, connecting downtown
1871
Los Angeles to the harbor for the first time and opening the door to global trade.
1872 The tracks ran along the same path as today’s Alameda Corridor.
1873
1874 1874 First street car line in the city opens, consisting of two open cars drawn by horses
1875 along a 2.5-mile track running from Temple Street down Spring to 6th Street.
1876 1876 Southern Pacific Railroad completed, linking the city to the national rail network
1877 for the first time and setting the stage for an era of explosive urban growth. Los Angeles
successfully competed against San Diego to become the terminus of the railroad. 3
1878
1879
1880 1880 Main Street becomes the first paved roadway in the city.
1881
1882
1883
1884 4
1885
1886
1887 1887 Santa Fe Railroad completed, further spurring immigration to

1888 Southern California from the East and Midwest.
1887 The Los Angeles Electric Railway introduces the city’s
1889
first electric-powered streetcars. The line goes out of
business the following year when its power plant boiler bursts.
1890
1891
1892
1893 1895 Los Angeles Railway (Yellow Cars) inaugurates

the city’s first interurban trolley line, running between
1894
Los Angeles and Pasadena.
1895 5
1896 State’s Bureau of Highways issues its first plan, laying the
1896
foundation for the California highway system as it exists today. 6
1897
1897 The city's first dedicated bikeway opens, an elevated
1898
wooden turnpike connecting Downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena.
1899 Only 4.5 of the planned 9 miles are built.
1900
1900–1950
Historical Event Active
Project Multi-modal
Legislation Rail
7
Transit
1900
1901
1902 1902 Henry E. Huntington’s Pacific Electric trolley line begins

1903 service from downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach, along
the path of today’s Metro Blue Line.
1904
1905
1906
1907 1907 Subdivision Map Act enacted, giving the City legal
9
8
1908
authority to exact land dedications for street rights-of-way.
1909 1907 A 100 mile-per-hour monorail running from Pasadena to Santa Monica
is proposed the idea does not get beyond the planning stage.
1910
1911
1912
1907 Port of Los Angeles officially founded with the creation of
the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners. That year, the
1913 Port handled $2 million worth of cargo. In 2012, the Port handled
1914 more than $280 billion worth of cargo.
1915 1915 "Jitneys," automobiles operated by private citizens, offer
1916 customers flexible service and routes, threatening the business
of fixed rail lines.
1917 10 11
1918
1919 1923 State approves first gas tax to fund maintenance and
construction of state and county roads.
1920
1921 1923 First gasoline-fueled buses in the city introduced by the
People’s Motor Bus Company.
1922
1923
1924 1924 Rapidly growing automobile ownership leads to increasing

1925 congestion and conflicts with streetcars. In response, a private group
12
commissions the “Major Traffic Street Plan” by renowned city planners
1926
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., Charles H. Cheney, and Harland Bartholomew.
1927
1925 City adopts its first traffic sign and signal plan.
1928
13
1929 1925 Huntington introduces the city’s first subway,
the Hollywood Subway.
1930 14
1931 1925 United States Highway System establishes the
first nationwide system of standardized routes.
1932
1933
1928 The city's first airport opens on a 640-acre bean field in
1934 Westchester. Today, LAX is the sixth busiest airport in the world
and third busiest in the United States, serving 64 million
1935
passengers per year.
1936 15
1937 16
1938
1939 17
1939 Union Station opens.
1940 1940 California’s first non-toll highway, or "freeway," completed, the

1941 six-mile Arroyo Seco Parkway (later renamed the Pasadena Freeway).
1942
1945 The Pacific Electric has its peak ridership, and is the world’s
1943
largest electric rail system, with 1,164 miles of track serving 125
1944 cities throughout Southern California.
1945
1947 Following a severe "smog attack" in 1943, the Los Angeles 18
1946 County Board of Supervisors establishes the nation’s first air pollution
control program.
1947
1947 The City enacts its first parking requirements, requiring
1948 residential units to provide at least one off-street parking spot.
1949 19
1950 20
21
1950–1975
Project Multi-modal
Legislation Rail
Transit
1950
1951 1951 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority

(LAMTA) established.
1952
1953 1953 Four-level interchange is completed, a marvel of

civil engineering, connecting the Hollywood, Pasadena,
and Harbor Freeways.
1954
1955
1956 1956 President Eisenhower signs the Federal-Aid Highway Act

of 1956, establishing the Highway Trust Fund and spurring a
1957
national wave of highway building. 22
1958
23
1959 1959 City adopts the Highway and Freeways Element, the first
transportation element to be included in the City's general plan.
The element focuses on expanding the transportation network
1960 through investments in highway and freeway infrastructure.
1961
1962
1963 Undercut by buses and private automobiles, the

1963 Pacific Electric discontinues service on its last
remaining line, from Los Angeles to Long Beach.
1964 1964 The state legislature creates the Southern California Rapid
Transit District (RTD), tasked with designing, building, and operating
a regional transit system. Unlike the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
1965 Transit Authority (LAMTA) that preceded it, the RTD is authorized to 24
levy taxes and use eminent domain.
1966
1967
1968
25
1969
1970 1970 Congress enacts an expanded Clean Air Act and creates the
Environmental Protection Agency to administer it.
1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California
1971
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) enacted.
1972 1972 Federal Clean Water Act enacted. 26

1972 Acknowledging shifting priorities, the state legislature establishes the California
Department of Transportation (aka Caltrans) to replace the Division of Highways. The new
1973
agency is charged with planning and implementing a multi-modal transportation system.
1974 1974 Voters approve a measure allowing gas tax revenue to be used for
non-highway projects for the first time. The federal Urban Mass Transit
Administration allocates funds for multimodal regional transit systems.
1975
1975–2000
Project Multi-modal
Legislation Rail
Transit
1975
1976 1976 The first carpool (HOV) lanes are installed on the I-10.
1977 1977 City adopts its first Bicycle Plan, establishing a 600-mile
citywide system of bikeways intended to serve both recreational
and transportation needs. Included within the citywide system 27
1978
was a 300-mile backbone system.
1979 1979 Los Angeles Department Of Transportation (LADOT) formed,

consolidating most transportation-related functions into a single department.
28
1980 1980 Los Angeles County voters approve Proposition A, the first tax
specifically intended to fund public transportation.
1981
29
1982
1983
1984 1984 The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC)

is initiated by the City to provide traffic congestion relief during the
Olympic Games, using a combination of traffic engineering measures
1985 and traffic operation control procedures.
1986
1987
1988
1989 The State establishes the Congestion Management Program (CMP), requiring regions to examine the
impact of land use and growth on the regional transportation system.
1989
30
1990 Proposition C passed sales tax for transit and alternative transportation
1990 1990 The Port of Los Angeles becomes the nation’s busiest port, overtaking New York City.
1990 The Blue Line light rail system begins service downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach, the first
1991 interurban transit service to operate since 1963.
1992 The Metrolink regional commuter train system begins service, operated by
1992 the Southern California Regional Rail Authority.
1993 The I-105 freeway opens, the last new freeway to be constructed in the Los Angeles region. Other
1993 once-planned freeways including the Beverly Hills Freeway and the Laurel Canyon Freeway remain unbuilt. 31
1993 The state legislature establishes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
1994 (MTA, or Metro), consolidating the RTD and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC).
1993 Metro opens the Red Line subway, with service between Union Station and Westlake.
1995 1995 Metro’s Green Line begins service between Norwalk and Redondo Beach,
running largely within the median of the I-105 Freeway.
1996
1996 The City adopts a new bicycle plan, designating 673 miles
of bikeways plus 69 miles of study corridors.
1997
1998 32
1999 1999 The City adopts the Transportation Element of the general plan.
The new Mobility Element updates and replaces this plan.
2000
2000–2010
Project Multi-modal
Legislation Rail
2000 Metro’s Rapid Bus Service pilot program begins. Transit
2000
34
33
2001
2002 2002 The Alameda Corridor begins operations, linking the ports of
Long Beach and Los Angeles to rail yards near downtown LA via a
20-mile-long, below-grade "rail expressway." The Corridor reduces the
share of cargo moved by truck on the 710 freeway, thereby reducing
congestion and emissions. 35
2003 T H I S P A G E I S I N T E N T I O N A L LY L E F T B L A N K
2003 Metro's Gold Line begins operation from Union Station
to Sierra Madre Villa.
36
2004
2005 2005 Metro's Orange Line bus rapid transit (BRT) service begins,
connecting North Hollywood to Warner Center. The 14-mile busway
is a less expensive alternative to fixed-rail transit.
37
2006 2006 AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act)

enacted, setting a statewide target of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
2006 Proposition 1B passed, The Highway Safety,
Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act
38
2007 2007 Low Carbon Fuel Standard established, setting a target
ofreducing the carbon intensity of fuels sold in California by at
least 10 percent by 2020.
2008 SB 375 (Sustainable Communities Strategy) adopted, requiring

2008 regional planning that links transportation with land use, as a strategy
for meeting the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals.
2008 Los Angeles County voters pass Measure R with a two-thirds
majority, implementing a half-cent sales tax to finance various
transportation improvements in the region.
2008 AB 1358 (Complete Streets Act) signed into law, requiring all
cities and counties to account for all roadway users when updating
2009 transportation plans.
39 40
2010 The City adopts its third bicycle plan, the most ambitious
to date in its commitment to bikeways.
2010 The first CicLAvia event takes place, opening up streets in

downtown Los Angeles to all modes of non-motorized transportation
2010 for a single day.
2010–2020
Project Multi-modal
Legislation Rail
Transit
2010
2011
2011 Metro Gold Line extension from Union Station to Atlantic Station opens.
2012 - LA Express Park, first demand-based parking pricing program implemented
2012 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approves the Advanced
Clean Cars program, setting targets for adoption of zero-emission vehicles.
2012 2012 Initial phase of Metro's Expo Line opens, connecting Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.
41
2012 Metro's Orange Line is extended to Northridge (Chatsworth Station).
2013 The Greenway 2020 campaign launches, with the vision of a

continuous, 51-mile greenway adjacent to the Los Angeles River.
2013 The City adopts a Bicycle Parking Ordinance, requiring development
2013 projects to provide bike parking and allowing reductions in required vehicular parking.
2013 ExpressLanes/High Occupancy Tolling (HOT) begin on the I-110 and I-10.
2013 Lyft, Uber, Sidecar and other ridesharing services launch in Los Angeles.
2013 - Automated Traffic Surveillance &TControl
H I S P(ATSAC)
A G E Isystem
S I N Tcompleted
E N T I Ocitywide
N A L LY L E F T B L A N K
2014 Wilshire Bus Rapid Trasit: 12.5 miles along Wilshire Blvd. from Valencia St.
2014
to Santa Monica at Centinela Ave.
42
2014 I-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements: Add 10 miles of HOV lanes,
improve ramps, bridges, sound walls on 1-405
2015 Expected completion of the City’s first protected bike lanes (cycle tracks) 43
along sections of the 4.5-mile MyFigueroa Project.
2015Expected adoption of the City’s new Mobility Element. Expected adoption of the
Westside Mobility Plan, a transportation blueprint for the Westside. Expected adoption
of the Transit Neighborhood Plans for the Exposition and Crenshaw/LAX Lines.
2015 Expected completion of Phase 2 of the Expo Line,
2015 extending from Culver City to Santa Monica.
2016 Expected completion of Phase 2a of the Gold Line

Foothill Extension, from Pasadena to Azusa.
Sources: Projects and Future Milestones with

1. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 24. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection Unknown Timelines or Completion Dates
2. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 25. http://www.flickr.com/photos/
3. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 34916386@N00/3199743725/ ➔ *Gold Line Foothill Extension.
4. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 26. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection
5. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection Will extend the existing Gold Line to Montclair.
27. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection
6. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection The current extension to Azusa will be
29. Photo by Eric Richardson
completed in 2016; however a timeline has not
30. A.P. Moller-Maersk Group been released for the phases to Montclair and
2017 9. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection
10. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 31. Photo by Alan Weeks the Ontario Airport.
11. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 32. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
12. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection Transportation Authority Library & Archive ➔ Bike Share. Regional Metro Bike Share Program
13. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 33. LADCP is being explored
14. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 34. Photo by Dave Proffer
15. Los Angeles Times photographic archive, ➔ *Sepulveda Pass Corridor. Metro is studying
35. Photo by Thomas Brightbill
UCLA Library.
16. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 36. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltarrrrr/ various modal alternatives for the regional
2018 17. Los Angeles County Metropolitan 3982965199/ transportation corridor.
Transportation Authority Library & Archive 37. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of
18. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Los Angeles Metro.
➔ Purple Line Extension Metro plans to extend
Transportation Authority Library & Archive 38. Photo by Gary Leonard courtesy of
Los Angeles Metro.
the purple line to the westside, phase 1 2023.
20. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 39. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
21. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection File:Ciclav ia_family_October_2012.jpg ➔ California High Speed Rail (CAHSR).
22. Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection 40. Photo by Melissa Wall The system would transport passengers
23. www.eisenhower.archives.gov/audiovisual/ 41. Ludovic Hirlimann between Los Angeles and San Francisco in
2019 Portraits/index.htm
42. Los Angeles River Revitalization Corp. under three hours.
43. Photo by Sergio Ruiz
Airport Metro Connector. Extension of
2019 Expected completion of the Crenshaw/LAX Line, the Green line to connect to LAX.
connecting the Expo and Green Lines via LAX.
2020 Planned completion of the Regional Connector, providing a

2020
one-seat ride for travel across Los Angeles County.
Mobility Plan 2035
Mobility by the Numbers

Sources found in Appendix A
The City
POPULATION LAND AREA
3.8 468
million square miles
Infrastructure
STREETS 86.5
60% 40% square miles
7,500 land area
occupied by streets
miles miles of miles of
local streets “arterial” and (28% of City’s
“collector” streets total developed land)
SIDEWALKS
10,750 42% 800 181

miles of alleys miles of freeways
miles sidewalks in disrepair
40,000 22,000 4,398 38,011

intersections marked crosswalks traffic signals parking meters
Driven in The City On An Average Day
75.2 53% 47%

million miles
on freeways on surface streets
34 Draft May 2015

Goods Movement
(Port of Los Angeles & Long Beach combined)
$1.1 Billion 39,000

PER DAY PER DAY
value of cargo handled in 2012 number of containers handled in 2012
(more than $700,000 per minute) one, every 2.2 seconds,
(twenty-foot equivalent units)
1st busiest
in the US
(since 2000)
9th busiest port
in the world
40% + PROJECTED
INCREASE
in cargo volume
300%
OF THE NATIONS
CONTAINERIZED IMPORTS at ports by 2035
pass through the ports
Goods Movement From The Port transforms to:
48% 32% 20%

truck truck-to-rail
rail
Air Travel
(LAX)
63.7 1659
MILLION TAKEOFFS &
PASSENGERS IN 2012 LANDINGS
175, 000 / day IN 2012 busiest airport
one every 52 seconds in the world
(by passenger traffic)

Mobility Plan 2035
Economic, Environmental, & Health Impacts

Obesity
6% $6 Billion
ANNUAL COST 25%
INCREASE
OF OBESITY
IN THE LIKELIHOOD
in LA County of children are obese
OF OBESITY
(measured in healthcare in the City of LA
for each additinal hour & lost productiviy)
per day spent in a car
Collisions
36,000+ 1/3
angelinos injured 48% angelinos injured
or killed
or killed
in motor vehicle of traffic fatalities are in motor vehicle
collisions per year pedestrian and bicyclists collisions per year
100 every day
double 5% 80%
the national average
pedestrian fatality rates
for children under age 4 of pedestrians die of pedestrians die
and seniors over age 70 when hit by a vehicle when hit by a vehicle
moving < 20 MPH moving > 40 MPH
Cost of Living
$ 9,122 15-20%
average annual cost
of vehicle ownership of household income
is typically spent
on transportation
36 Draft May 2015

Economic, Environmental, & Health Impacts

Air Pollution
57 $22 2,000+
UNHEALTHY AIR
BILLION PREMATURE DEATHS
QUALITY DAYS
ANNUAL COST PER YEAR
in 2012
of health impacts in greater Los Angeles
(when air pollution levels, from air pollution in attributed to air
in LA County,
exceeded federal standards)
the South Coast Air Basin pollution from vehicles
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
160 38%
MILLION
tons of greenhouse emissions
of California’s
per year
greenhouse gas emissions
from vehicles in California
come from transportation
Water Pollution
48%
4 in 10
of California’s of beaches in LA County
most polluted beaches received an F grade for
are in Los Angeles County wet weather water quality
(2008 - 2012 average)

Mobility Plan 2035
Signs of Change
Walking & Biking
64,000 16,000 56%

PEOPLE WALK PEOPLE BIKE
TO WORK TO WORK
INCREASE IN
everyday in the everyday in the
BIKING TO WORK
City of Los Angeles* City of Los Angeles*
2000-2010
*walk and bike commute trips only reflect a small number of total trips in the City.
In the LA region it’s 5% of all walking trips and 16% of all biking trips.
Transit
1.5 2.1
MILLION PEOPLE
ride Metro rail and buses
BILLION MILES
traveled by Metro rail
3rd
in public transit usage
on a typical weekday and buses in 2013 of cities nationwide
80 15,967 100%
Metro rail stations Metro bus stops
currently in service currently in service of Metro bus fleet is
powered by
clean-burning CNG
38 Draft May 2015

Signs of Change
Walking & Biking
47%
84%
of all trips in
greater Los Angeles of these trips are
are less than 3 miles currently made by car
(within walking/ biking distance)
Transit
87% 300
DAYS/ YEAR
with favorable weather conditions
of all roads in Los Angeles
for active transportation
are relatively flat
(sunshine, moderate temperatures)
(less than 5% grade)
• new Metro rail lines currently planned or under construction

- Expo Line Phase 2
- Crenshaw/ LAX Line
- Gold Line Foothill Extension
- Purple Line Extension
- Regional Connector
• 116 Metro rail stations planned to be in service by 2015

Mobility Plan 2035
Transportation Partners
Managing such a sprawling and complex Regional Transit Providers Other Agencies Serving
transportation network like Los Angeles Downtown Los Angeles
requires coordinating between multiple In addition to the Metro bus and
State, Regional, County, and local rail system, portions of the City are Other local agencies outside the City of
jurisdictions, agencies, and departments. served by other local operators. LA, such as City of Santa Clarita Transit,
Below is a summarized list of the Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, Montebello
various players who impact the City’s Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB) Bus Lines, and Torrance Transit
transportation system and who will be outside the City of LA operate express
active partners in implementing the The Santa Monica Big Blue Bus (BBB) service to Downtown Los Angeles.
future changes envisioned by this Plan. operates a fleet of over 200 buses.
Spanning more than 51 square miles Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA)
Los Angeles Department of across Santa Monica and portions
Transportation (LADOT) of the Westside (including UCLA/ The Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)
Westwood, Century City, Culver City, is a proprietary department of the City
The Los Angeles Department of LAX, and more), BBB serves more of Los Angeles, under the management
Transportation is the second largest than 20 million people annually. and control of a seven-member Board of
provider of transit within the City, Airport Commissioners appointed by the
serving over 30 million passenger Culver City Bus Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
boardings per year. The LADOT Bureau LAWA operates three airports in the
of Transit Programs manages a fleet Operating a fleet of 52 buses, Culver Los Angeles Air Trade Area: Los Angeles
of nearly 400 vehicles that operate City Bus system is comprised of 7 routes International Airport (LAX), LA/Ontario
over 800,000 revenue hours and spanning nearly 26 miles on the Westside, International Airport (ONT), and Van
over two billion passenger miles. including Venice, Culver City, Westwood, Nuys Airport (VNY). LAWA also maintains
Palms, and Century City. The system the LA/Palmdale Regional Airport (PMD).
Los Angeles County Metropolitan serves over 5 million riders annually.
Transportation Authority (Metro) Port of Los Angeles (POLA)
Foothill Transit
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan The Port of Los Angeles is the nation’s
Transportation Authority (Metro) serves Foothill Transit, a joint powers authority premier gateway for international
as a transportation planner, coordinator, of 22 cities in the San Gabriel and Pomona commerce, generating more than
funder, designer, builder, and operator for Valleys, serves 14 million passengers 3 million jobs nationally. Almost 1
the 1,433 square mile transit and track annually and currently operates 33 million jobs are related to Port-related
service area within Los Angeles County. bus lines covering 327 square miles. commerce in California alone. The
It is responsible for the planning, design, Port of Los Angeles spearheads many
and implementation of the region’s Metro innovative environmental initiatives and
Rail, Metro Liner and Metro Bus systems. security measures, and boasts a bevy
of historic and recreational facilities.
40 Draft May 2015

Street Design, Operations, Planning and Maintenance Partners

California Department of and commercial growth along the Bureau of Sanitation (BOS)
Transportation (Caltrans) City’s corridors, in high activity centers,
and around transit opportunities. The primary responsibility of the
The California Department of Bureau of Sanitation is to collect, clean
Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible Los Angeles Department and recycle solid and liquid waste
for planning, design, construction, of Public Works generated by residential, commercial
maintenance, and operation of the state and industrial users in the City of Los
highway system. The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Angeles and surrounding communities.
is located within the jurisdiction of
Caltrans District 7, which includes Los The Bureau of Engineering is Bureau of Street Services (BSS)
Angeles and Ventura counties. District responsible for the City’s vast network
7 is responsible for 42 freeways and of infrastructure within the public right The Bureau of Street Services
highways, consisting of 915 freeway and of way, including the planning, design, is responsible for maintaining
highway miles in Los Angeles County and construction of public facilities. BOE repairing, resurfacing, and cleaning
and 273 miles in Ventura County. On also manages the delivery of voter- improved streets, alleys, bridges,
average, 100 million vehicle miles are approved public bond funds, federally tunnels, pedestrian subways, and
traveled daily on District 7 freeways. funded projects, and cross-sector related structures. The Bureau also
local government programs that serve maintains street trees, landscaped
Los Angeles Department millions of residents and businesses in median islands and embankments.
of City Planning (DCP) diverse neighborhoods and industries.
Los Angeles Department of
The Department of City Planning (DCP) Bureau of Street Lighting (BSL) Transportation (LADOT)
is responsible for preparing, maintaining,
and implementing a General Plan that The Bureau of Street Lighting is The Los Angeles Department of
guides development in the City of Los responsible for the design, construction, Transportation is the leader in the
Angeles. The department sets citywide operation, maintenance and repair of planning, design, construction, and
and community-specific goals and the street lighting system within the operation of the transportation
policies to guide future growth and City of Los Angeles. There are currently system in the City of Los Angeles. The
promote the social and physical health, more than 220,000 lights in the City Department partners with sister agencies
safety, and welfare of Angelenos. DCP consisting of more than 400 designs. to improve transportation service and
also helps manage ongoing residential infrastructure in the City and the region.

Mobility Plan 2035
Consistency with Other Plans

Land Use Element - 35 Community Special Purpose Districts
Plans and 2 Special Use Districts
LAX
The City’s 35 Community Plans and two
Special Purpose Districts (LAX and Port The LAX Plan is intended to promote
Master Plans) constitute the Land Use an arrangement of airport uses that
Element of the City’s General Plan. While encourages and contributes to the
the General Plan provides a citywide modernization of the airport in an orderly
approach to enhancing safe, accessible and flexible manner within the context
transportation options, the area plans of the City and region. It establishes
that comprise the Land Use Element a framework for the development of
provide the opportunity for a more facilities that promote the movement
focused and nuanced transportation and processing of passengers and cargo
discussion at a community level. In this within a safe and secure environment
way, localized recommendations that while continuing to serve as the region’s
address community-specific conditions principal international gateway.
can be developed in each of the Plans/
Districts that are consistent with and Port of Los Angeles
complementary to this citywide Plan.
The Port of Los Angeles Plan is the official
Community Plans guide to the continued development
and operation of the Port. The plan
The Community Plans implement, promotes an arrangement of land and
at a community level, the citywide water uses, circulation and services
goals and policies established in the that will encourage and contribute
overarching General Plan Framework to the economic, social and physical
and all other elements of the General health, safety, welfare and convenience
Plan. They are intended to promote of the Port. The Plan also provides for
an arrangement of land uses, streets additional public recreation facilities
and services which will encourage and within the Port of Los Angeles consistent
contribute to the economic, social and with sound and compatible port
physical health, safety, welfare and planning. The Plan is designed to be
convenience of the people who live consistent with the Port Master Plan.
and work in each of the communities.
42 Draft May 2015

Circulation Element Consistent with the policies of the

adopted Air Quality Management
Under California Government Code Plan, the Mobility Plan 2035 promotes Sample List
§65302(b), the General Plan requires strong linkages between land use,
the inclusion of a Circulation Element, transportation and air quality. The Land of Existing
which consists of the general location Use Element is intended to guide the
and extent of existing and proposed location and intensity of the private Infrastructure
major thoroughfares, transportation and public use of land and to promote
routes, terminals, any military airports an arrangement of land uses, streets, Planning
and ports, and other local public utilities and services which will encourage and
and facilities. Since the City of LA is so contribute to the economic, social and Documents
vast with specialized departments, the physical health, safety, welfare, and
Mobility Element covers goals, objectives, convenience of the people who live LADWP Power Integrated
policies and programs for major and work in the City. The Community Resources Plan 2010
thoroughfares, transportation routes, and Plans, which comprise the Land Use
terminals; existing planning documents Element, incorporate the Mobility LADWP Urban Water
by operational departments cover goals, Plan’s Highways and Freeways system Management Plan 2010
objectives, policies and programs for and also designate collector streets.
utilities, airports, ports and harbors. LADWP Water Supply Action
Plan 2008
Bureau of Sanitation (BOS)

5-Year Strategic Plan 2011
Major Thoroughfares
Streets, Roads, and Highways
Transit and Railroads Addressed BOS Wastewater, Recycled
Transportation Operations Management in Mobility Water and Stormwater
Transportation Routes Element Management Integrated
Truck Routes Update
Resources Plan 2006
Pedestrian and Bicycle Routes
Transit Routes
BOS Water Quality Compliance
Utilities Master Plan for Urban Runoff
Energy Water Quality Compliance
Water Master Plan 2009
Sewer / Wastewater
Drainage / Stormwater Addressed
Solid Waste by Operating BOS Solid Waste Integrated
Departments*
Terminals Resources Plan 2009
General and Commercial Airports
Ports and Harbors
Terminals Addressed
Railroad Depots in future
Public and Private Transit Terminals General Plan
Freight Truck Terminals and Warehouses Update

Mobility Plan 2035
Other Citywide Plans

In addition to the General Plan, the Los Angeles Department of transit system. It includes information
City occasionally adopts long-range Recreation and Parks Community- about the City’s transit services,
vision plans that provide further Wide Needs Assessment (2009) areas served, ridership, and fleet and
guidance to the City in establishing equipment inventory. The Plan also
priorities for funding future policy The Los Angeles Department of discusses budget and financial resources
decisions and staff resources. Recreation and Parks’ Community- to support the Department’s goals and
Wide Needs Assessment identifies, objectives for fiscal years 2011-14.
Los Angeles River Revitalization quantifies and prioritizes residents’
Master Plan (2007) needs for recreation and open space The City of Los Angeles, through
throughout the City of Los Angeles. The LADOT’s Transit Bureau, provides
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Needs Assessment is the first step in a fixed-route and demand-response
Master Plan (LARRMP) provides a vision citywide park master plan and a five-year (paratransit) services throughout the City.
for the 32 miles of the Los Angeles capital improvement plan. The Needs
River within the City limits. This vision Assessment underwent an extensive Short Range Transit Plan
balances multiple goals including flood community outreach process that http://ladot.lacity.org/pdf/
protection, water quality, open space, included community leaders, stakeholders PDF261.pdf
habitat, recreation and non-motorized and other members of the public in
transportation opportunities. The interviews, focus groups, community
LARRMP calls for the continued forums and surveys. When asked
“development of non-motorized which parks and recreation facilities
transportation and recreation elements residents felt a need for, the majority
including bicycle and pedestrian paths of the community (63%) identified the
and multi-use trails in the River and need for walking and bicycling trails.
tributary rights-of-way.” The Los Angeles
River plays a significant role in Los Community-Wide Needs
Angeles’ environmental, non-motorized Assessment (2009) http://
transportation and recreational identity. www.laparks.org/planning/
pdf/finalReport.pdf
http://boe.lacity.org/
lariverrmp/ Short Range Transit
CommunityOutreach/ Plan 2011-12 (March 2012)
pdf/LARRMP_
Final_05_03_07.pdf The Short Range Transit Plan provides
an overview of the City of Los Angeles’
44 Draft May 2015

Consistency with Other Agency Plans

When preparing or revising a General Southern California Association Metro Complete Streets
Plan, cities and counties should carefully of Governments (SCAG) Policy (2014)
analyze the implications of regional Regional Transportation Plan
plans for their planning area. General (2012) and Non-Motorized The Complete Streets Policy builds
Plans are required to include an analysis Transportation Report (2008) upon projects and programs already
of the extent to which the general underway at Metro to increase mobility
plan’s policies, standards and proposals The 2012 Regional Transportation options, improve air quality and health,
are consistent with regional plans. Plan (RTP) is a $524.7 billion plan and strengthen the economy in Los
that provides a regional investment Angeles County. It is a tool to help guide
Regional plans prepared by the Southern framework to address the region’s Metro to better coordinate within the
California Association of Governments transportation and related challenges. various functions and departments
(SCAG) and other designated regional SCAG’s vision for the region focuses on of the agency and between partner
agencies (e.g. Metro) provide the legal three interrelated principles (mobility, organizations that have influence or
basis for allocating state and federal economy, and sustainability), all of which jurisdiction over the public realm.
funds, as in the case of transportation and aim to create efficient transportation
water quality facilities. Other regional systems, healthier communities, and a Complete Streets Policy
plans, such as air quality plans, detail thriving economy. The RTP outlines a plan Draft http://www.metro.
measures which local governments to meet state and federal environmental net/projects/countywide-
may institute in order for the region goals, implement emission-free planning/complete-streets/
to meet state and federal standards. transportation technologies, and
develop investment strategies for
The General Plan Framework and Land sustainable economic growth. Metro Long Range
Use Elements serve as subregional input Transportation Plan (2009)
to SCAG’s Regional Transportation The Non-Motorized Transportation
Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Community Report of the RTP is a technical and policy Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation
Strategy (SCS) and provide a context document that guides, supports and Plan provides a 30-year vision for
for cooperative planning efforts encourages the development of county Los Angeles County’s transportation
between the City, adjacent cities, and city bicycle and pedestrian networks, system to the year 2040. The Plan
and the five county region. facilities and other non-motorized identifies public transportation and
programs for the SCAG region. Particular highway projects, funding forecasts
California Transportation Plan emphasis is placed on increasing over a 30-year timeframe, multi-modal
bicycling and walking as a commute funding availability, sub-regional needs,
The California Transportation Plan option and improving safety for all forms and project performance measures.
(CTP) is a statewide, long-range of non- motorized transportation.
transportation plan to meet our future Long Range Transportation
mobility needs and reduce greenhouse Regional Transportation Plan http://media.metro.net/
gas (GHG) emissions. The CTP defines Plan http://rtpscs.scag. projects_studies/images/
performance-based goals, policies, and ca.gov/Documents/2012/ final-2009-LRTP.pdf
strategies to achieve our collective final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf
vision for California’s future statewide,
integrated, multimodal transportation
system. The CTP is prepared in response
to Federal and State requirements
and is updated every five years.

Mobility Plan 2035
Metro Bicycle Transportation Metro Los Angeles Union LADOT Strategic Plan (2014)
Strategic Plan (2006) Station Master Plan (2014)
LADOT released its first strategic
Metro’s 2006 Bicycle Transportation Union Station is the region’s primary plan outlining the organization’s
Strategic Plan (BTSP) aims to help transit hub, connecting Southern goals, objectives, and benchmarks,
municipalities and agencies in the region California counties whose combined which are consistent with the
plan for bicycling in their jurisdictions as population totals more than 17 million. ideas set forth in this Plan.
a viable mode of transportation. The plan The Union Station Master Plan will
contains an inventory of “bike-transit” develop Metro’s vision and guide future LADOT Strategic Plan http://
hubs in Los Angeles County. It assists development at the station, including www.ladot.lacity.org/
in the identification of routes that transit operations and new private and/ stellent/groups/
may eventually provide continuity for or public real estate development. Departments/@LADOT_
bicyclists, while also outlining a strategy Contributor/documents/
for prioritizing regional bikeway projects. Union Station Master Plan Contributor_Web_Content/
As the regional transportation planning http://www.metro.net/ LACITYP_029076.pdf
authority for Los Angeles County, projects/LA-union-station
Metro is the primary local funding
source for bicycle transportation.
First-Last Mile Strategic Plan
Bicycle Transportation Connect US Action Plan
Strategic Plan http://media. In 2012, the Metro Board adopted the
metro.net/projects_studies/ The Connect US Action Plan (formerly Countywide Sustainability Planning Policy
bikeway_planning/images/ known as the Linkages Study) seeks and Implementation Plan and the Regional
BTSP.pdf to improve connections between Los Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Angeles Union Station and the 1st historic Strategy (RTP/SCS) Joint Work Program, both
Los Angeles County Bicycle neighborhoods by enhancing pedestrian of which direct the development of a First-Last
Master Plan (2012) and bicycle travel options. The Connect Mile Strategic Plan. The goal of this plan is to
US Action Plan includes a neighborhood- better coordinate infrastructure investments
As an update to the to the 1975 Los level assessment of arterial and in station areas to extend the reach of transit,
Angeles County Bikeway Plan, the collector streets, with an emphasis on with the ultimate goal of increasing ridership.
2012 Los Angeles County Bicycle bicycle and pedestrian mobility. The
Plan seeks to both promote greater final report will include a community- These guidelines help facilitate the integration
ridership and expand the mobility prioritized list of improvement projects of mobility solutions in a complex, multi-modal
options for all riders throughout the to strengthen bicycle and pedestrian environment. Strategies will need to be flexibly
county. The plan outlines proposed (active transportation) connectivity deployed to contend with widely varying
network expansions, ridership strategies, between communities and destinations. environments throughout the county, yet
funding sources, and programming will aim to improve the user experience by
and implementation. In addition, the Connect US Action Plan supporting intuitive, safe and recognizable
plan also addresses issues related http://www.metro.net/ routes to and from transit stations. This effort
to gaps in the network, problematic projects/linkages will require coordination amongst the many
areas, and regional connectivity. cities and authorities having jurisdiction over
the public realm throughout the county.
LA County Bicycle Master
Plan http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ http://media.metro.net/docs/
pdd/bike/masterplan.cfm sustainability_path_design_guidelines.pdf
46 Draft May 2015

Public Participation
Community participation and feedback Online Town Hall : Ideas.la2b.org Online Town Hall Traffic
have been critical to forming the direction
of the Mobility Plan 2035. An open public As a new way of expanding
dialogue has been integral to each step of
the planning process, from visioning and
the number and diversity of
stakeholders, the Mobility
10K+
Visitors
analyzing to goal and policy formulation. Plan introduced an online
town hall through ideas.la2b.
The Mobility Plan is a citywide document, org. This online format provided an
and community outreach for a city as opportunity for community members to 80K+
large and spread out as Los Angeles is no share thoughts and opinions about the Page Views
easy undertaking. A strategic approach streets of Los Angeles.
was used to engage a cross section of
citizens at the community level in order The virtual town hall has allowed for a
to garner broader citywide issues. wider range of citizens to participate
Since the inception of the Mobility Plan

outside of traditional workshops and
focus groups. The largest participant
Average Participant is:
in the Fall of 2011, project staff have group was in the 25-45 age range. In
participated in over 100 community addition, participants represented 79 Male
meetings throughout the city, held four of the 108 (73%) zip codes associated
“think lab” workshops, two scoping with the City of Los Angeles as well as 41
Years Old
meetings, seven community forums additional participants from Culver
Living in these Postal Codes:
and public hearings, maintained a City, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa
project website for easy access to Monica, and the South Bay. The online 90026, 90012, 90027
materials, implemented an online format also allowed staff to identify
town hall to hear from those unable geographical areas where there was
to go to traditional meetings, and limited participation and focus additional
worked with various agencies, outreach efforts in those communities.
nonprofits, and community groups.
Activated Communities “Designate certain areas of the
Online All the Time city (those with suitable density
To ensure widespread distribution of and proximity to public transit)
Project Website: LA2B.org information, materials were disseminated as official walkable urban
at the Council District and Neighborhood neighborhoods”
LA2B.org has been the main Council levels. The Mobility Plan
source of information for the Team worked with the Department -Jonathan E, ideas.la2b.org
Mobility Plan with regular of Neighborhood Empowerment
updates on the status of the and Council staff to reach out to the
plan. From the website, the community on a citywide scale.
public has been able to download
important documents released during the Task Force
process and become more informed
about the analysis behind each step by The Mobility Task Force was put into
reading blog posts. Website visitors can place to guide this citywide effort
read about the project, learn how to get and community-wide discussion. The
involved, and contact planning staff online Task Force played a pivotal role in
to give their comments. assisting the City to generate significant
engagement and input for the plan. Over
50 organizations were invited including:
community groups, nonprofits, major

Mobility Plan 2035
transit providers, and civic, business,

and environmental transportation Online Town Hall Age Range
leaders throughout the City.
“Great Streets, Great 389

Neighborhoods” Activity Kit
To obtain participation on an overarching

citywide scale, an activity kit was sent to
over 100 Neighborhood Councils and
civic organizations. This pen-and-paper 278
activity, with a one fourth response
rate, was meant to supplement the
dialogue of our online town hall and
included a series of brief exercises to
help give input toward the development
of the draft goals, objectives, policies, 160
and programs of the Mobility Plan.
124
Public Workshops
81 79
In early 2012, the Departments of City
Planning and Transportation held citywide
workshops in central locations across
3
14-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
the City: Van Nuys, the Miracle Mile,
Downtown, and Pacoima. These “Think
Labs”, encouraged participants to explore
L.A.’s existing mobility system through
a gallery of maps that conveyed key
information about the City’s streets and There are 809 ideas in this Project
demographics. Community members also
shared ideas that complemented those There are 1114 Active Participants in this Project
submitted onto LA/2B’s online Town Hall.
Gender Average Age
Scoping Meetings
40.8
The environmental analysis of the
32%
plan required a scoping period to female
receive input from the public and other 68%
agencies on what should be studied in male
the Environmental Impact Report. Two
scoping meetings held in the spring
of 2013 focused the analysis around
the potential impacts and benefits of
the proposed enhanced networks. 2014 starting a 90 day public comment Los Angeles and re:code LA to expand
period on both documents. A series of the Plan’s reach to a broader audience
Community Planning Forums and seven meetings and staff level public and allow participants to participate
Staff Level Public Hearings hearings were held citywide to take in three related long range planning
comments and answer questions efforts being led by City Planning.
The Draft Plan and Draft Environmental on the Plan. Resources were pooled
Impact Report were released February together with The Plan for A Healthy
48 Draft May 2015

Chapter 1: Safety First
Discussion
Objectives
Policies
1.1 Roadway User Vulnerability
1.2 Complete Streets
1.3 Safe Routes to Schools
1.4 Design Safe Speeds
1.5 Railroad Crossings
1.6 Multi-Modal Detour Facilities
1.7 Regularly Maintained Streets
1.8 Goods Movement Safety
1.9 Recreational Trail Separation
Mobility Plan 2035
50 D
raft April 2015
Safety First
Crashes, speed, protection, security,
safety education, and enforcement.
Discussion
S afety is at the foundation of a Complete Streets policy – to design and operate streets in a
way that enables safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or transportation mode
choice. Safety consistently ranks as a top priority for many in the City of Los Angeles and is an
important factor in creating livable neighborhoods. People want streets to be safe, stress-free
places for all ages and all modes of travel. In terms of transportation, concerns for physical safety
stem from traffic speeds, roadway conflict between different modes of travel, and infrastructure.
Safety is a key issue when deciding whether to walk, bike, drive, or take transit.
Safety and the Built Environment

Street quality and infrastructure have a traffic or on alternate routes that are fewer trees and plants as unsafe due to
role in improving transportation safety. not always obvious. Safer crossings physical and psychological discomfort.
Street paving in disrepair poses a safety at intersections and at the middle of While these built environment
threat for pedestrians, vehicles, and larger blocks are an additional area issues are fundamental to improving
bicyclists. Sidewalks that are uneven, of pedestrian concern. Furthermore, transportation safety, they will be
narrow, or physically obstructed can pedestrians can perceive areas with lower further addressed in the next chapter.
also force pedestrians closer to vehicle levels of street activity and lighting, and
Transportation Safety in Los Angeles

In recent years, there has been a Creating safe streets requires a follow the rules of the road, which can
shift towards creating a healthier multifaceted approach. Roadway have the added benefit of making traffic
LA that allows people to make engineering, education, and enforcement flow more predictably and consistently.
more environmentally sustainable all play an important role in building a Educating students on how to cross the
transportation choices. To do that, other safe transportation system. Roadway road or drivers to share the road make for
transportation options have to be seen engineering can have the greatest a more pleasant travel experience while
as safe, attractive, and convenient. With impact in reducing collisions. Roadway also reducing collisions. Enforcing traffic
active modes of transportation on the enhancements such as separated bicycle laws such as speed limits underpins all
rise as people’s everyday choice, safety lanes protect cyclists, while more visible the pieces that work together to make
measures must take into account the crosswalks and bulb-outs provide streets safe for all. Safety measures
most vulnerable users - pedestrians. A city added safety for pedestrians. Roadway strategically implemented throughout the
that is safe for pedestrians is safe for all. interventions like these are intended to city can dramatically reduce the number
make it second nature for everyone to and severity of collisions in Los Angeles.
LADCP Draft April 2015 51

Mobility Plan 2035
Vehicle speed is a significant factor in Many policies and programs are in

Feedback from Online Town traffic collisions. Higher speeds pose a place and in development to promote
Hall two-fold problem: 1) the faster a car is transportation safety in Los Angeles.
moving, the smaller the field of vision In recent years, the Department of
“Safety would be a top the driver can process, and 2) increased City Planning authored its Urban
priority for all forms of speed increases the force of collision Design Guidelines and Walkability
transportation.” impact, increasing the likelihood of a Checklist to encourage better site
severe injury or fatality. As a result, design that increases safety and
“A livable neighborhood is faster traffic poses a higher safety accessibility for the general public,
one where you need not fear risk to others on the road, especially regardless of mode of travel.
that your children will be hit pedestrians and bicyclists because they
by cars.” are smaller and less visible than vehicles.
“Public streets would be used

to safely transport people
and goods.”
52 D
raft April 2015
Objectives
• Vision Zero: Decrease transportation related fatality rate to zero by 2035.
• Increase the number of adults and children who receive

in-person active transportation safety education, in areas
with the highest rates of collisions, by 10% annually.
• Ensure that 80% of street segments do not exceed targeted operating speeds by
2035. (Refer to Complete Streets Design Guide for targeted operating speeds).
• Establish 100 school slow zones operating within 1/2 mile of schools by 2035.
• Increase the percentage of females* who travel by bicycle to 35% of all riders
by 2035. (*The presence of females riding on a bikeway is typically cited as
an indicator that the bikeway provides a safe and comfortable environment
for less experienced riders. Therefore, this measurement is a good proxy
for understanding the degree to which a particular bikeway has succeeded
in attracting the range of bicyclists between eight and 80 years of age).
Policies
1.1 Roadway User Vulnerability
1.3 Safe Routes to Schools
1.4 Design Safe Speeds
1.5 Railroad Crossings
1.6 Multi-Modal Detour Facilities
1.7 Regularly Maintained Streets
1.8 Goods Movement Safety
1.9 Recreational Trail Separation

Mobility Plan 2035
1.1 Roadway User Vulnerability:
D esign, plan, and operate streets to prioritize the

safety of the most vulnerable roadway user.
Our streets need to be safe for all elderly, and the mobility-impaired. In
users. By planning and designing many cases, roadways are designed
for the most vulnerable users, we to facilitate vehicle throughput first,
ensure our streets will be safe for all. rather than other modes. The design
Roadways should operate in a manner and operation of our streets to create
that considers the presence of people a safe and livable environment for
who walk and bike, children, the people is a priority for our City.
54 D raft April 2015

1.2 Complete Streets:
Implement a balanced transportation system on all streets,

tunnels, and bridges using complete streets principles
to ensure the safety and mobility of all users.
California’s Complete Streets Act (AB layers roadway systems that prioritize
1358) was signed into law in 2008 and a certain mode (transit/bicycle/vehicle)
mandates that complete street policies within each layer. While each street will
and standards be incorporated into still accommodate all modes, layering
a city’s general plan. The idea behind networks serves to emphasize a
complete streets is to make streets particular mode on a particular street as
safe, comfortable, and convenient part of a larger system. A layered network
for people of all mode types. approach has the benefit of increasing
connectivity between modes. Enhancing
A transportation system that the system for one type of mode can
accommodates the needs and have shared benefits for another.
considers the safety of all users is at
the foundation of a well-designed city. Expanding the active tranportation
An effective transportation system network increases opportunities for the
allows for the use of multiple modes transit dependant by better connecting
and in the end results in providing a people to work, education, and recreation.
variety of options for people to move A transportation system that is more
around in ways that best suit them. balanced is also more equitable by
providing a means of cost-effective travel.
The approach to implementing complete Implementing complete street policies
streets in the City of Los Angeles has will ensure that the City of Los Angeles
taken shape through a layered network has more viable options for travel.
concept. The Complete Street Network

Mobility Plan 2035
1.3 Safe Routes to Schools:
P rioritize the safety of school children on all streets

regardless of highway classifications.
A singular focus on accommodating together contribute to a large amount of

vehicular mobility has resulted in street vehicle trips every morning. Implementing
configurations that disadvantage other a Safe Routes to School Programs would
users, especially pedestrians. Reduced create more opportunities for children
crossing times, increased vehicle to walk or bike to school and could
lanes, wide curb radii at intersections, have a secondary benefit of decreasing
and reduced visibility at crosswalks vehicle trips during peak travel times.
have made walking hazardous.
According to data from LADOT, many
School-age children are a particularly students are already using active forms
vulnerable group of roadway users. In of transportation during their commute
the City of LA, school-age children (ages to school. 33% of LA County students
5-17) account for 19% of all pedestrian- either walk or bike to school, which
related collisions and 18% of all fatally or is almost 10% higher than the State
severely injured pedestrians4. In order average (26%). This trend becomes
to increase the safety of school children stronger when a student lives within a
as they are traveling to and from school, half-mile from school. Of those who live
the City initiated a Safe Routes to School between a quarter-mile and a half-mile
Strategic Plan during the Fall of 2013 from their school, 50% walk or bike to
that works to ensure that no child shall school. Of those a quarter-mile or less,
be injured or killed by a vehicle when 73% walk or bike to school. Even of
walking or biking to/from school. those students that live over a mile from
their school, 19% still walk or bike. By
The Los Angeles Unified School District focusing on increased safety measures
(LAUSD) has the second largest to and from school, the percentage of
population of any public school system students walking/biking to school has
in the United States. There are 495 the potential to rise even higher.
LAUSD schools within the City of LA that
4 LADOT, Safe Routes to School Fact Sheet
56 D raft April 2015

1.4 Design Safe Speeds:
D esign streets to Targeted Operating Speeds as

defined in the Complete Streets Design Guide.
Context-sensitive roadway design is Given that excessive speed is a highly

important for the safety of all roadway cited factor in collisions, targeted
users. The way a street is designed has reductions in speed could have a big
much to do with how it functions. A impact on reducing the number of
completely straight road with multiple collisions in Los Angeles. Pedestrians
lanes on each side allows for a high and bicyclists are particularly vulnerable
capacity of fast-moving vehicles, whereas in collisions with cars, especially when
a roadway with narrow travel lanes, a those vehicles are traveling at increased
winding path, greenery, and pedestrian speeds. At higher speeds bicyclists
activity calls for slower travel speeds. and pedestrians become less visible
and more vulnerable. Since the human
Speed limits have been on the rise due brain can only process a finite amount
to state speed limit requirements. The of visual information, the field of vision
85th percentile rule dictates that the decreases significantly as the speed
speed limit be set at or below the 85th of travel increases. At faster speeds
percentile operating speed, meaning that the field of vision narrows and the
if people break the law and drive faster periphery, often where pedestrians
than the posted speed limit on a particular or bicycles would be located, fades
road, the speed limit can and will be from view. Also with increased speed
raised. This law has grave consequences is the likelihood of injury and death,
for street safety and performance which jumps from a 40% chance of
since it does not take into account death when a vehicle is traveling at 30
other factors like land use context mph to an 80% chance of death when
and other modes of transportation. a vehicle is traveling at 40 mph5.
20 MPH 5%
chance of fatality
30 MPH 40%
40 MPH 80%
50 MPH 90%
5 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
DOT HS 809 021October 1999 Final Report)

Mobility Plan 2035
1.5 Railroad Crossings:
R educe conflicts and improve safety at railroad crossings

through design, planning, and operation.
Southern California leads the nation road users should be considered at

in fatal collisions at railroad crossings6. railroad crossings in order to minimize
Vehicles can stack up at these crossings collisions. Keeping traffic from driving
and sometimes cannot clear out across railroad tracks with a bridge or
when trains come through, leading underpass minimizes the chance for
to potentially disastrous situations. conflict and is the most effective way to
For this reason, the safety of all reduce conflicts at railroad crossings.
6 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis
58 D
raft April 2015
1.6 Multi-Modal Detour Facilities:
D esign detour facilities to provide safe passage for all

modes of travel during times of construction.
Current standards call for all users to be to oncoming traffic if sidewalk space is
considered when streets are temporarily blocked off while bicyclists and vehicles
reconfigured during construction. The are left to maneuver within the remaining
California Manual on Uniform Traffic roadway space. Detour facilities are
Control Devices for Streets and Highways needed to provide a clear route of safe
provides guidelines for temporary traffic passage for all modes during roadway
control that provides for the safety of construction. Awareness of detour
all when designing detour facilities. facility guidelines is paramount to
increasing safety in construction zones.
During times of roadway construction,
lane and sidewalk space are often
reduced. Pedestrians can be exposed

Mobility Plan 2035
1.7 Regularly Maintained Streets:
E nhance roadway safety by maintaining the street, alley,

tunnel, and bridge system in good to excellent condition.
At the very core of a safe street system Well maintained streets feel safer to
is proper maintenance. Streets that are travel on and attract more users. Properly
not regularly maintained can damage maintained streetscapes that are clean
vehicles that traverse over them. In and attractive are essential to making
addition, inadequate streets can lead livable neighborhoods and creating
to dangerous situations for drivers streets that are welcoming to people.
and place bicyclists and pedestrians
in vulnerable positions while trying
to maneuver around obstacles.
60 D
raft April 2015
1.8 Goods Movement Safety:
E nsure that the goods movement sector is integrated with the rest
of the transportation system in such a way that does not endanger
the health and safety of residents and other roadway users.
The concept of complete streets the arterial street network as much

extends to goods movement as well. as possible since these streets have
As transportation systems evolve, the the lanes and wider turning radii
economic necessity of moving goods to accommodate these heavy large
via trucks on city streets will still be vehicles. Land uses along heavily used
an important issue to consider in the truck routes should also coincide with
balancing act of roadway prioritization. goods movement priorities and limit
Truck movement should be limited to interaction with residential uses.

Mobility Plan 2035
1.9 Recreational Trail Safety:
B alance user needs on the City’s public recreational trails.
The City has a limited number of biking. Given the constrained amount
recreational trails established for of trails, the first priority is keeping
various mode uses such as hiking, trail users safe and preventing
horseback riding, and mountain conflicts between various users.
62 D
raft April 2015
T H I S PA G E I S I N T E N T I O N A L L Y L E F T B L A N K
PHOTO: LADOTBIKEBLOG, FLICKR
Chapter 2: World Class Infrastructure
Discussion
Objectives
Policies
2.1 Adaptive Reuse of Streets
2.2 Complete Streets Design Guide
2.3 Pedestrian Infrastructure
2.4 Neighborhood Enhanced Network
2.5 Transit Network
2.6 Bicycle Networks
2.7 Vehicle Network
2.8 Goods Movement
2.9 Multiple Networks
2.10 Loading Areas
2.11 Transit Right-of-Way Design
2.12 Walkway and Bikeway
Accommodations
2.13 Highway Preservation and
Enhancement
2.14 Street Design
2.15 Allocation of Transportation Funds
2.16 Scenic Highways
2.17 Roadway Widenings
Mobility Plan 2035
66 Draft April 2015

World Class Infrastructure

Design, Complete Streets Network (walking, bicycling, transit,
vehicles, goods movement), Bridges, Highways, Smart Investments
Discussion
Infrastructure is the physical

underpinning of the City’s
transportation system. In the
Streets are a defining feature of the public
realm. Beyond their function as corridors
for travel, they also serve as settings
It is anticipated that both transportation
infrastructure planning (as presented in
the Mobility Plan) as well as future land
City of Los Angeles, streets are for commercial activity and spaces for use planning efforts (community plans,
our largest public asset and play interaction. Pedestrian and retail activity specific plans, and occasionally individual
a large role in defining the City’s along street corridors is vital to the project), will be undertaken in an iterative
character. A well-maintained and economic health of neighborhoods. As manner. The Mobility Plan will provide
connected network of streets, the City continues to expand and invest the framework for future community
paths, bikeways, trails, and more in its infrastructure, improvements must plans and specific plans that will take
provides Angelenos with the also be made to enhance the streetscape a closer look at the Plan’s Enhanced
optimum variety of mode choices. realm, creating attractive environments Networks and PEDs analysis, in specific
This Plan establishes a Complete for walking, biking, and transit to create areas of the City and may recommend
Streets Network of individual a balanced transportation system. more-detailed implementation strategies
roads enhanced for a particular to realize the MP 2035. More detailed
mode (pedestrians bicycles, The implementation of the Enhanced land use planning may reveal the need
transit, vehicles, trucks). It also Networks would not automatically for changes to the networks, which
focuses attention on the benefits occur as a result of adoption of the will be undertaken as needed to reflect
of flexible design standards, Plan. Further design, development, these more detailed planning efforts.
needed future infrastructure and specific right-of-way treatments
improvements, and funding. would be determined only after
further study and discussion with the
community and the City’s leadership.

Mobility Plan 2035
Objectives
• Complete the protected bicycle lanes and priority Neighborhood Enhanced
Network segments on Map D1 of the Bicycle Enhanced Network by
2035. Complete the Bicycle Path segments along the Los Angeles River,
as depicted in Map D1 of the Bicycle Enhanced Network by 2025.
• Provide 95% on-time arrival reliability of buses traveling on the Transit

Enhanced Network by 2035. Establish an off-peak 5 minute bus
frequency on 25% of the Transit Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Establish an off-peak 10 minute bus frequency on 50%

of the Transit Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Establish an off-peak 15 minute bus frequency on 100%

of the Transit Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Achieve established performance levels on 100% of the

streets within the Neighborhood Enhanced Network by 2035
(see policy 2.4 Neighborhood Enhanced Network).
• Increase vehicular travel time reliability on all segments

of the Vehicle Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Bring all sidewalks to good condition by 2035. Bring all City-owned

streets, tunnels, and bridges to good condition by 2035.
• Increase the number of roadway segments that have a level of B

(Average Pavement Condition Index of 80) or better by 2035.
• Increase proportion of freight transportation provided by

railroad and intermodal services to 50 by 2035.
• Increase share of Measure R local return funds to 20%

for active transportation investments.
• Dedicate 20% of road reconstruction budgets and capital

improvement funds toward complete street improvements.
• Maintain the Automated Traffic Control Surveillance and

Control System (ATSAC) Communications Network.
68 Draft April 2015

Policies
2.1 Adaptive Reuse of Streets
2.2 Complete Streets Design Guide
2.3 Pedestrian Infrastructure
2.4 Neighborhood Enhanced Network
2.5 Transit Network
2.6 Bicycle Network
2.7 Vehicle Network
2.8 Goods Movement
2.9 Multiple Networks
210 Loading Areas
2.11 Transit Right-of-Way Design
2.12 Walkway and Bikeway Accommodations
2.13 Highway Preservation and Enhancement
2.14 Street Design
2.15 Allocation of Transportation Funds
2.16 Scenic Highways
2.17 Street Widenings

Mobility Plan 2035
2.1 Adaptive Reuse of Streets:
D esign, plan, and operate streets to serve multiple purposes and

provide flexibility in design to adapt to future demands.
Streets are often thought of as conduits system – it is an urban ecosystem, a

for travelling from one place to another, complex set of interactions among
whether it is by foot, bicycle, or motorized objects, people, and the environment.
vehicle. While a complete streets policy
is about enabling safe access for all Numerous city departments, each
transportation users, streets also serve with different perspectives and
many other functions beyond mobility. As objectives, have a role in shaping and
public spaces, they are vibrant settings managing streets. However, it is vital
for social interaction. As retail corridors, to keep in mind the multiple purposes
they promote the local economy and and benefits streets provide, and to
can become great destinations. As adopt a multi-faceted approach in the
ecological infrastructure, they offer planning and design process. Ideally,
opportunities to enhance the City’s designs should be flexible in their
sustainability with trees and stormwater nature to accommodate a diversity
collection. The City’s roadway network of uses and adapt to future needs.
is more than just a transportation
70 Draft April 2015

Great Streets for Los Angeles

Design Guide:
E stablish the Complete

Streets Design Guide as the
City’s document to guide the
operations and design of streets
and other public rights-of-way.
The Complete Streets Design Guide lays

out a vision for designing safer, more
vibrant streets that are accessible to
people, no matter what their mode choice.
It is a living document that will frequently
get updated as City departments identify
and implelement streets standards and
experiment with different configurations
to promote complete streets. The guide
is meant to be a toolkit that provides
numerous examples of what is possible
in the public right of way and provide
guidance on context-sensitive design.
CIT Y OF LOS ANGELES
COMPLETE
STREETS
D E S I G N G U I D E

Mobility Plan 2035
2.3 Pedestrian Infrastructure:
R ecognize walking as a component of every trip, and ensure high-

quality pedestrian access in all site planning and public right-of-way
modifications to provide a safe and comfortable walking environment.
Walking is a vital component to a city’s streets could be prioritized to provide

circulation since most every journey better walking connections to and
starts and ends with walking. There from the major destinations within
are multiple benefits to investing in communities. Further analysis and
pedestrian infrastructure. Enhancing prioritization will be done as funding
the environment can promote more and projects come through based on
walking, reduce reliance on other safety, public health, equity, access, social,
modes for shorter trips, promote health, and/or economic benefit objectives.
increase the vitality of streets, and
more. Providing more attractive and The Neighborhood Network was
wider sidewalks, and adding pedestrian established in the 2010 Bicycle Plan as
signalization, street trees, and other a network of local streets comfortable
design features encourages people to for bicycling. The Mobility Plan
take trips on foot instead of car. This helps recognizes that this network can also
to reduce cars on the road and emissions, serve local neighborhood pedestrian
increase economic vitality, and make activity. The Neighborhood Enhanced
the City feel like a more vibrant place. Network reflects the synthesis of the
two ideas and serves as a system of
The Pedestrian Enhanced Districts local streets that are slow moving and
(PEDs) provided in the maps section safe enough to connect neighborhoods
in Chapter 6 of the Plan call out through active transportation.
initial analysis done to find out where
pedestrian improvements on arterial
72 Draft April 2015

2.4 Neighborhood
Enhanced Network:
P rovide a slow speed network

of locally serving streets.
The Neighborhood Enhanced Network

is a selection of streets that provide
comfortable and safe routes for
localized travel of slower-moving modes
such as walking, bicycling, or other slow
speed motorized means of travel. This
network complements the Pedestrian
Enhanced Districts and the Bicycle
Enhanced Network by identifying
non-arterial streets important to
the movement of people who walk
and bike. Criteria for streets on the
Neighborhood Enhanced Network
may include vehicular travel that does
not exceed 1500 vehicles a day and
streets where the 85th percentile of
travel speed is equal to or less than
20 mph, in order to provide a safe and
comfortable experience for people who
travel by walking, bicycling, or other
slower moving modes. Enhancements
may not be required if streets meet
targeted speeds and volumes or they
can take shape in the form of a variety
of traffic calming features depending
on local context need. Please see the
Complete Street Design Guide for
more discussion on Neighborhood
Enhanced Network features. The
Neighborhood Enhanced Network
(NEN) maps are provided in the maps
section in Chapter 6 of the Plan.

Mobility Plan 2035
2.5 Transit Network:
I mprove the performance and reliability of

existing and future bus service.
A robust public transit network is service that is convenient and safe;

important to a great transportation increase transit mode share; reduce
system. As of 2014, Metro reported that single-occupancy vehicle trips; and
the Los Angeles County region averaged integrate transit infrastructure
1.4 million boardings a weekday, making investments with the identity of the
it one of the largest transit agencies in surrounding street. These corridors were
the nation. Performance, convenience selected based on a data-driven analysis
and comfort are key factors in improving of factors such as ridership, destinations,
the transportation experience. employment, and population.
The implementation of the Transit Transit enhanced streets may receive

Enhanced Network (TEN), while a number of enhancements to improve
not only an iterative process will be line performance and/or the overall
done in collaboration with transit user experience for people who walk
operators as thet determine service and take transit. Enhancements may
levels and hours of operation. range from streetscape improvements
to make walking safer and easier,
Working in collaboration with the to transit shelters, or bus lanes.
transit operators, combined with The Transit Enhanced Network
street improvements of city managed (TEN) map is provided in the maps
enhancements, the Transit-Enhanced section in Chapter 6 of the Plan.
streets outlined in the Plan strive to:
provide reliable and frequent transit
74 Draft April 2015

2.6 Bicycle Networks:
P rovide safe, convenient, and comfortable local and regional

bicycling facilities* for people of all types and abilities.
Bicycling is an important element to lanes get installed. In addition, bicycling

complete streets as it fulfills both long has positive benefits for public health,
and short distance trips in the larger environmental health, and local business.
transportation system. The City of
LA established a long term vision of Bicycling plans and implementation
improving bicycling for all types of people strategies will continue to evolve as
of varying experience with the 2010 conditions change, but the City’s long
Bicycle Plan. The Mobility Plan builds term vision will remain to provide safe,
upon this idea with the vision of fully convenient, and comfortable bicycling
separated, protected bicycle lanes. The facilities that are prioritized based on a
Bicycle Enhanced Network is comprised number of factors such as public health,
of protected bicycle lanes, and bicycle safety, equity and other factors consistent
paths to provide bikeways for a variety of with the prioritization-focused policies
users. This low-stress network provides a (Policy 4.6) in this Plan. The Bicycle
higher level of comfort than just a striped Enhanced Network (BEN) map and
bicycle lane. The Complete Streets Design Bicycle Lane Network map is provided in
Guide details various bicycling treatments the maps section in Chapter 6 of the Plan.
and in what contexts they work best in.
*bicycling facilities are ideally suited for
There are multiple benefits to improving a host of slow moving modes including
the bicycling network and providing fully but not limited to scooters, skateboards,
separated bicycle lanes. Many other rollerblading, and other future compact
cities have demonstrated an increase personal transportation technologies.
in bicycle ridership and a decrease
in traffic delay when street calming
features such as protected bicycle

Mobility Plan 2035
2.7 Vehicle Network:
P rovide vehicular access to the regional freeway system.
The role of vehicular movement has been identifies 79 miles of arterials, important
significant in the development of the Los to vehicular movement, that carry
Angeles region and will continue to play between 30,000 and 80,000 vehicles per
a critical role in our City’s circulation. day, traverse 10 miles or more through
The freeway infrastructure built in the the City, and provide access to freeways
1950s helped establish vehicles as the and critical facilities. As the Mobility Plan
primary mode of transportation in LA. establishes a Complete Streets Network
The freeway network was designed on that provides new choices (transit use,
the heels of the 1956 Federal Highway walking, biking), the Plan also addresses
Act that focused on designing a system maintaining access for vehicular users
emphasizing regional movement. A total particularly by identifying gaps in the
of 527 miles were built countywide regional freeway system. Safety and
and 181 miles were built citywide, but targeted operating speeds are still key as
the freeway system was never fully part of the design and operation of VEN
completed due to local context. streets. The overall intent of the VEN is to
provide streets that prioritize vehicular
In response to the need to accommodate movement and offer safe, consistent
regional traffic to and from the freeways travel speeds and reliable travel times.
on city streets, the Vehicle Enhanced
Network (VEN) was developed to identify The Vehicle Enhanced Network
corridors that will remain critical to (VEN) map is provided in the maps
vehicular circulation and to balance section in Chapter 6 of the Plan.
regional and local circulation needs.
The Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN)
76 Draft April 2015

2.8 Goods Movement:
I mplement projects that would provide regionally significant

transportation improvements for goods movement.
Goods movement is a core economic the United States. All of this activity
engine in Southern California, providing generates an enormous and growing
one of the largest employment bases volume of truck and rail trips in the City.
in the County. In California, 76 percent
of all freight is shipped by truck. Trucks Goods movement is a regional issue
also transport 98 percent of all finished that requires collaboration among
goods to final destinations, according many departments across cities in the
to the California Trucking Association. Southern California area. As of 2014,
Metro is preparing a Countywide
The Port of Los Angeles has been the Strategic Truck Arterial Network
largest container port complex in the to identify the region’s key arterials
country since 2000. Combined with necessary for the movement of goods.
neighboring Port of Long Beach, they
form the 9th largest container port It has been demonstrated that business
in the world and handle 14.6 million is attracted to and retained in areas
Twenty-Foot Equivalent (TEU) containers where business-related goods deliveries,
collectively (CY 2013). The Port of Los including small package delivery, are
Angeles alone is ranked fourth worldwide convenient and reliable. Goods movement
for volume of total cargo and second improvements can alleviate congestion,
largest in the nation behind Anchorage. improve mobility, remove traffic safety
Most of the region’s air cargo (78%) hazards, and promote economic health.
moves through LAX, making it the third The transportation of goods is critical
busiest air cargo airport in the world. to business vitality, and every effort,
The County is also a major rail hub with policy, and project that helps improve
both Union Pacific and BNSF operating the greening and streamlining of goods
mainlines linking the region to the movement also makes the City safer,
national rail network. Goods movement cleaner, and economically stronger.
by all these modes is projected to
increase by over 80% between 1995 The Goods Movement map is provided in
and 2020 (SCAG). In addition to this, the maps section in Chapter 6 of the Plan.
the greater Los Angeles area is now
the largest manufacturing center in

Mobility Plan 2035
2.9 Multiple Networks:
C onsider the role of each mode enhanced network when

designing a street that includes multiple modes.
The Mobility Plan recognizes the each enhanced network. For example, on
various modes of travel that need to a street that is designated as both a TEN
be accommodated on streets (such as (Transit Enhanced Network) and a BEN
walking, biking, driving, goods movement, (Bicycle Enhanced Network), designs
and more). The Plan proposes a number must include both dedicated transit
of enhanced networks that prioritize a facilities and protected bicycle facilities.
certain mode of travel to be improved,
as discussed in the prior policies. Certain Where an enhanced network for one
streets may be included in multiple mode also includes design elements for
networks which may cause conflicts a different mode (not on an enhanced
between modes. The Complete Street network), the enhanced network design
Design Guide provides a guidebook elements will take precedence. For
of design tools that minimize these example, on a street that is designated
conflicts and offers solutions that can as a TEN but is also intended to receive
promote multiple modes in certain a bicycle lane, design elements for
circumstances. In situations where the transit can take precedence over
there are multiple priorities and the provision of a bicycle lane.
constrained street widths, the safety of
people shall be considered a priority. The Plan proposes hundreds of miles
of enhanced networks that will require
Where more than one enhanced network additional analysis and discussion
is identified for a specific street, design before being implemented.
modifications shall include elements of
78 Draft April 2015

2.10 Loading Areas:
F acilitate the provision of adequate on and off-street loading areas.
Many businesses depend on being When considering the design of our

able to receive deliveries, often roadways, it is important to accommodate
multiple times per day. When loading the delivery and unloading of goods
and unloading areas are mismanaged upon which businesses depend, while
or poorly designed, businesses may also seeking to minimize the impacts of
experience delays that can lead to large trucks in the urban environment.
greater costs, operational inefficiencies, Loading areas should be strategically
and customer dissatisfaction. located and designed in order to best
facilitate the commercial needs of the
A common problem is a lack of sufficient businesses they are meant to serve. In
space (either on- or off-street) to addition, these loading and unloading
reasonably accommodate delivery areas should consider all potential
trucks and allow for their unloading. vehicle maneuvers that delivery trucks
Illegally parked vehicles present can make, so as to not encroach on
another problem when they prevent or block the public right-of-way.
delivery trucks from parking in the ideal
location to load and unload goods.

Mobility Plan 2035
2.11 Transit Right-of-Way Design:
Set high standards in designing public transit rights-of-way that considers

user experience and supports active transportation infrastructure.
Transit rights-of-way, such as the Blue supporting infrastructure parallel to

Line, Orange Line, and segments of the exclusive transit rights-of-way such as
Gold Line and Exposition lines that have fully protected bike paths and walkways
separated rights-of-way provide better are ideal for making seamless connections
operation times and an overall better from walking and biking to transit.
experience for transit users. High-quality
80 Draft April 2015

2.12 Walkway and Bikeway Accommodations:
D esign for pedestrian and bicycle travel when rehabilitating or

installing a new bridge, tunnel, or exclusive transit right-of-way.
New exclusive rights-of-way along Bridges, tunnels, and transit rights-of-way

transit corridors such as the Orange provide vital connections between areas
Line can provide new ways to improve separated by otherwise impassable
circulation for active transportation barriers such as rivers, rail lines, and
through previously inaccessible corridors. freeways. They have the potential
People who walk and bike can also to significantly enhance the mobility
benefit greatly from the connectivity experience for all modes passing through
that bridges and tunnels provide to the City and should be designed to reflect
facilitate access across a mobility barrier. a balanced transportation system.

Mobility Plan 2035
2.13 Highway Preservation

and Enhancement:
Support the preservation and enhancement of the state highways

consistent with the RTP/SCS and the goals/policies of the General Plan.
The state highway system is an essential can aid in streamlining the development
component of the City’s transportation review process. Where possible
network. As such, the City has a vested and feasible, the City will work with
interest in the network performance Caltrans to contribute to State highway
and maintenance of these highways. improvements that directly contribute
Developing a strategy for how the to achieving the goals and policies of
City and Caltrans will interact on all SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/
aspects of state highway planning, Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/
maintenance, operations, and expansion SCS) as well as the City’s General Plan.
82 Draft April 2015

2.14 Street Design:
D esignate a street’s functional classification based upon

its current dimensions, land use context, and role.
Los Angeles has a vast roadway A street’s designation influences its

system of about 7,500 miles of streets. overall design. Street widths, number
Approximately 40% of the City’s streets of lanes, land use context, and more
operate as arterials that serve to are influenced by the designation of a
move people and goods long distances street. The Complete Streets Design
from one end of the City to the other. Guide delves into the components of
Around 60% of streets are non-arterials a street, and the different roadway
intended for local circulation and and right-of-way widths for the
to serve neighborhood travel. hierarchy of street classifications.
Every city has a hierarchy of street Due to the variety of street types and
classifications that defines the role of land use contexts , many streets do
each street type and how it serves the not completely fit into the dimensions
travel needs of a larger system. The new identeified in the S-470. In these
standard plan for street classifications situations, a street will receive a
(S-470) lays out a new nomenclature to sub-designation as “modified” as well
reflect complete street policies. Major as an alternative dimension for either
Highways are being called Boulevards the right-of-way, roadway, or both.
and Secondarys are now Avenues. Since
the functional classification of streets
is tied to federal level aid from the US
Department of Transportation, the old
functional classification terminology
will also be kept for funding purposes.

Mobility Plan 2035
2.15 Allocation of Transportation Funds: Benefits of Investing in

Complete Streets: expanding
and enhancing the City’s
E xpand funding to improve the built environment for people who

walk, bike, take transit, and for other vulnerable roadway users.
network of complete streets
can result in direct and
indirect benefits:
The maintenance of streets and roadways and parks and recreational areas; they
benefits all users. However, it is important act as first mile and last mile solutions Low cost and available
to set aside funding specifically for for a wide range of users (ages 8-80) funding – The cost of
the development of bikeways and for trips throughout the day. implementing and
pedestrian facilities because sidewalks maintaining complete streets
and bikeways connect all users to transit, policies are minimal
commercial centers, neighborhoods, compared to the cost of
widening roadways.
Economic revitalization –
Investing in streetscape
improvements can enliven
commercial corridors and
boost the local economy (and
increase sales tax revenue).
Improve safety – Improving

the right-of-way for a wider
range of modes makes safer
environments and corridors
for pedestrians and the most
vulnerable users. Traffic
calming coupled with the
presence of multiple modes
can help reduce vehicle
speeds and the rate of
collisions.
Reduce GHG emissions and

congestion – Multi-modal
streets encourage the use of
transit and active modes,
decreasing the dependence
on vehicles. The National
Complete Streets Coalition
reported an estimated
savings from $2.3 billion
(Chicago) to $19 billion (New
York City) per year in
transportation costs when
cities provided better transit,
walking, and biking facilities
84 Draft April 2015

2.16 Scenic Highways:
E nsure that future modifications to any scenic highway do not impact

the unique identity or characteristic of that scenic highway.
Scenic Highways include many of the and their scenic resources need to be
City’s iconic streets. Preservation preserved per the Scenic Highways
and enhancement of these streets Guidelines in Appendix B of this Plan.

Mobility Plan 2035
2.17 Street Widenings:
C arefully consider the overall implications (costs, character,

safety, travel, infrastructure, environment) of widening a
street before requiring the widening, even when the existing
right of way does not include a curb and gutter or the resulting
roadway would be less than the standard dimension.
Due to the often unique nature of a result in other adverse changes. The
street segment there are situations Planning Director will resolve any
where widening the roadway width to ambiguity with respect to whether any
the standard dimension could change the particular street shall be widened.
character of the street in an undesirable
way, prove unnecessarily expensive
relative to the resulting benefits, or
86 Draft April 2015


PHOTO: LADOTBIKEBLOG, FLICKR
Chapter 3: Access for All Angelenos
Discussion
Objectives
Policies
3.1 Access for All
3.2 People with Disabilities
3.3 Land Use Access and Mix
3.4 Transit Services
3.5 Multi-Modal Features
3.6 Regional Transportation
& Union Station
3.7 Regional Transit Connections
3.8 Bicycle Parking
3.9 Increased Network Access
3.10 Cul-de-sacs
3.11 Open Streets
3.12 Proposed Streets

Access for All Angelenos

Affordability, vulnerable users, land use, operations, reliability,
demand management, community connections.
Discussion
A transportation system is only useful insofar as it is accessible and convenient.
There are a number of different Land use is another component of the various networks fit together.
dimensions within the concept of accessibility. One measure of this is Many trips involve using more than
accessibility. One aspect of accessibility the percentage of destinations – such one mode of transportation, and a
relates to the design of the built as jobs, services and residences – that well-connected mobility network
environment. The 3.8 million people can be conveniently accessed via non- facilitates transferring from one to
who live in the City have widely varying vehicular modes. Current planning efforts another as seamlessly as possible.
levels of physical ability. They include seek to increase this percentage by
large numbers of children, seniors, expanding transit service, and by aligning
and people with disabilities. A fair and higher-density land uses with existing Still another piece of accessibility is
equitable system must be accessible and planned transit infrastructure. affordability. The City’s population
to all, and must pay particularly close varies widely in terms of income levels.
attention to accommodating the most For many families, transportation is
vulnerable users. These issues can be A related concept is connectivity: among the most significant expenditures,
addressed by standards for streets and how comprehensive and complete along with food and housing.
sidewalks, as well as site planning. each modal network is, and how well

Mobility Plan 2035
Objectives
• Ensure that 90% of households are have access within one
mile to the Transit Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Ensure that 90% of all households have access within one-half

mile to high quality bicycling* facilities by 2035. (*protected
bicycle lanes, paths, and neighborhood enhanced streets)
• Increase the percentage of 0/1 car ownership (car-light)

households from 50% currently to 75% by 2035.
• Reduce the average share of household income spent on transportation costs

to 10 % by 2035 through the provision of more transportation options.
• Provide a shared use vehicle within a half-mile of 75% of households by 2035.
• Provide access to bicycle sharing within a quarter-

mile of 50% of households by 2035.
• Install pedestrian access curb ramps at 100% of all intersections by 2035.
• Increase the combined mode split of persons who travel

by walking, bicycling or transit to 50% by 2035.
92 Draft April 2015

Policies
3.1 Access for All
3.2 People with Disabilities
3.3 Land Use Access and Mix
3.4 Transit Services
3.5 Multi-Modal Features
3.6 Regional Transportation & Union Station
3.7 Regional Transit Connections
3.8 Bicycle Parking
3.9 Increased Network Access
3.10 Cul-de-sacs
3.11 Open Streets

Mobility Plan 2035
3.1 Access for All:
R ecognize all modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicycle,

transit, and vehicular modes - including goods movement - as
integral components of the City’s transportation system.
The outcomes of a transportation system distance someone is willing or able to

can be dramatically different depending walk. Today, we often get in the car even
on the expressed goals of a city. A city that for local errands, because walking would
prioritizes public transit infrastructure entail negotiating a narrow, broken
will be built differently from a city that sidewalk with no tree canopy for shade,
prioritizes single occupancy vehicle crossing a wide intersection with four
travel. The build out and evolution of a or more lanes of fast-moving vehicles,
city happens slowly based on incremental and braving the vast parking lot in front
decisions that work towards a larger of the store’s entry. But reimagine that
vision. The City of LA now has a vision walk now with a wider, smooth sidewalk
to make travel safe and convenient for lined with mature trees that provide
all modes. The first step in making a shade, disabled access ramps and street
balanced transportation system is a basic calming at the intersection to moderate
acknowledgment that various modes of vehicle behavior and reduce the crossing
travel are given equally important weight distance while increasing the visibility
from a citywide standpoint. Some travel of the pedestrian, and a store entrance
choices will work better than others made more accessible by including a
in certain areas and the incremental well-marked pedestrian pathway or
decisions that will arise from this policy relocating the parking behind the store.
platform will need to be context-sensitive Communities whose environment
with the larger goal still in mind. more closely resembles the second
scenario have higher rates of pedestrian
mobility, with all the associated benefits:
Making changes to the built environment lower rates of obesity, improved air
can, in turn, bring about dramatic shifts quality, and more opportunities to
in behavior, such as increasing the encounter neighbors and friends.
94 Draft April 2015

The Americans with Disabilities 3.2 People with Disabilities:

Act of 1990 (ADA) defines
disability as “a mental or
physical impairment that
substantially limits one or
more major life activities.” ADA
A ccommodate the needs of people with disabilities when modifying
or installing infrastructure in the public right-of-way.
protection extends to
individuals who currently have Seemingly minor modifications such as are free of obstacles, can do much to
a disability and those with a adding curb cuts and audible signals at increase the comfort and safety of all
record of a mental or physical intersections, providing an occasional pedestrians, particularly those with
impairment. bench to rest, and ensuring that pathways disabilities6.
6 Federal Highway Administration California Division,
Americans with Disabilities Act, (2013).

Mobility Plan 2035
3.3 Land Use Access and Mix: TOD Corridors
P romote equitable land use decisions that result in fewer

vehicle trips by providing greater proximity and access to
jobs, destinations, and other neighborhood services.
Transit-oriented development
(TOD) planning has been a tool
used by cities to promote the
development of areas that have
a mix of housing, jobs, and local
While the quality of the streetscape place to cluster uses and services so services . However TOD refers
plays a large part in someone’s that area residents, students, and/or to more than just the properties
decision to walk or not, so too does employees can complete a number of immediately adjacent to stations;
the proximity of the most commonly errands within a single walk or bike trip. the corridors themselves can
frequented neighborhood destinations Likewise, it makes sense for land uses be planned as destinations and
such as supermarkets and schools. A situated near major transit stops to be of job centers that add value to
community with a mix of uses clustered the intensity and type that they attract the area. Investing in elements
close together makes it much easier for a high number of transit riders. A major such as first-and-last mile
someone to accomplish a number of daily transit stop adjacent to a cluster of single strategies, pedestrian-friendly
errands by walking or bicycling. Better family homes on 5,000 square-foot lots street infrastructure, and bicycle
still is when these uses are clustered or larger is not going to generate the parking increases the appeal and
around a transit station, offering people same number of riders as a regional walkability of transit corridors.
the opportunity to easily take care of destination such as museum, university/ Corridors linked to transit have
errands on their way to work or home, college, shopping, office, or apartment the capacity to accommodate
without having to go out of the way. complex. The greatest benefits of transit greater densities of residential and
accrue when the greatest number of commercial uses, while increasing
potential riders can be located within access to transit connections.
Neighborhoods with frequent, reliable easy access of the transit service.
transit seven days a week are the ideal
96 Draft April 2015

3.4 Transit Services:
P rovide all residents, workers and visitors with affordable,

efficient, convenient, and attractive transit services.
Transit services, whether buses, trains, Compared to a private vehicle, transit

commuter shuttles, or paratransit, is more affordable. However, in order
offer a mobility alternative for for it to be a viable alternative, it
residents, employees, students and should be reasonably reliable, efficient,
visitors who either do not have access convenient, safe, and comfortable. The
to, or prefer not to use, a car. more that our regional transit system
meets this description, the better it will
serve its existing customer base, and
The costs of car ownership are large. In the more it will succeed at attracting
addition to the cost of the vehicle itself, new riders (especially those not driven
one must also factor in the costs of fuel, by economic necessity). When private
maintenance, parking, and insurance. vehicles are no longer considered to be
As a result, a number of households a necessity, the cost of living decreases
in the City cannot afford to own a and quality of life improves for everyone.
car or choose not to. Others may feel
compelled to own a car and consequently
are forced to cut back on things such
as housing, food, and health care.

Mobility Plan 2035
3.5 Multi-Modal Features:
S upport “first-mile, last-mile solutions” such as multi-modal

transportation services, organizations, and activities in the
areas around transit stations and major bus stops (transit stops) to
maximize multi-modal connectivity and access for transit riders.
While many of our daily trips can be well A wide variety of solutions have
served by transit, it is rare that one’s been developed to meet first-mile,
origin and destination are both located last-mile needs of transit users. The
directly adjacent to a transit stop. In options run the gamut from simply
transportation planning, the issue of enhancing the public realm around
how to make these connections at the transit stations to encourage walking
beginning and end of each journey (sidewalks, street trees, street lights,
is known as the “first-mile, last-mile” wayfinding), to providing racks for
problem. As a comparison, a typical bicycles on buses and trains, as well
vehicle trip across the City involves as supporting bicycle share programs,
driving on the freeway for most of taxis, car shares, and high-frequency
the distance, but using local streets local shuttle service. By providing a
at the beginning and end. Similarily, a robust array of options, a variety of
trip that utilizes a train to cover the different needs can be accommodated,
largest leg of a journey may include a greatly increasing the number of
bike ride to reach the train station and destinations reachable by transit.
a walk to reach the final destination.
98 Draft April 2015

3.6 Regional Transportation & Union Station:
C ontinue to promote Union Station as the major regional transportation

hub linking Amtrak, Metrolink, Metro Rail, and high-speed rail service.
Since 1939, Union Station has been the is currently developing a master plan
center of the region’s transportation for the area that will identify long-term
system. Union Station serves as the hub strategies for improving multi-modal
for Amtrak, Metrolink, and Metro Rail connections within the station, as well
trains, as well as numerous local and as enhancing the quality of its public
long-distance buses and the Flyaway spaces. The plan will also highlight
shuttle to LAX. In the future, high-speed mixed-use development opportunities
rail is expected to join this list as well. on the 40-acre site, and propose ways
Currently, Union Station handles to strengthen the station’s connections
a combined total of about 60,000 to the downtown core, the LA river, and
boardings per day, and once all Measure surrounding neighborhoods. The vision is
R Projects are completed it is estimated for a station that serves as an impressive
that this number will exceed 100,000. gateway, a destination in itself and one
of the city’s foremost landmarks, rather
than simply a place to pass through.
Metro, the agency which has owned
and operated Union Station since 2011,

Mobility Plan 2035
3.7 Regional Transit Connections:
I mprove transit access and service to major regional

destinations, job centers, and inter-modal facilities.
In addition to the general principle of or van, 9% by taxi, 3% by Flyaway, and

focusing neighborhood services and 1% by transit8. Increasing the amount of
a mix of uses around transit stations transit access and service to LAX would
– creating destinations around transit offer a viable non-vehicular option. In
– an important parallel is improving addition to accommodating passenger
transit service to the major regional service, a new rail connection to LAX can
destinations that already exist. assist a portion of the 50,000 employees
that come to the airport for work.
Currently, a number of the region’s North/South Connectivity: The

foremost attractions have only limited continuation of the Crenshaw Light
transit service. These include: the Getty Rail line north to the Hollywood Bowl
Center, the Valley Performing Arts would expand the travel options for
Center, Griffith Park, Sepulveda Basin, area residents, employees, and visitors.
Venice Beach, San Pedro, LAX, major A visitor could arrive at LAX and travel
sports venues, and major employment directly north to Hollywood. The addition
centers such as Century City. Because of this leg to Metro’s rail network would
of the large numbers of trips associated greatly contribute to the flexibility and
with these places, improvements in fluidity with which travelers could move
transit service in these key locations about the region.
could lead to significant mobility benefits.
Harbor Subdivision: The Harbor
Subdivision, which is an existing freight
Key Connections: rail corridor, provides an opportunity
to improve the non-vehicular mobility
of residents in the South Bay, Harbor,
Sepulveda Pass/405 Corridor: While not and southern portions of the City. The
an actual destination, the 405 Corridor rail corridor can fit seamlessly into
through the Sepulveda Pass represents the regional transportation network,
a vital connection between the San connecting to other existing stations
Fernando Valley and the West side of Los (Green, Blue, Union Station), stopping
Angeles. It carries 331,000 cars daily7. at major destinations (Downtown LA,
Despite the freeway widening to make LAX), and providing rail service where it
room for an HOV lane, both short-term is currently lacking (South LA, South Bay
and long-term transit options are urgently cities).
needed to provide drivers with an
alternative to driving. Employment Centers: Employment
hubs in the city, such as Warner Center,
Los Angeles International Airport: Based Downtown, Century City, and Hollywood
on a 2006 passenger survey, 55% of experience greater-than-average levels
individuals travel to LAX by private car, of congestion because of the density of
11% by rental car, 10% by on-call shuttle
8 http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/lax/
7 http://media.metro.net/images/Route%20I-405%20(107KB).pdf pdf/2006LAXPassengerSurveyFinal.pdf
100 Draft April 2015

employees working there. Transit not only of our economy. Nationally, hospitals
to these hubs, but also to future sites of create over 2 trillion dollars in economic
clustered employment in the city, requires activity9.
improved transit access and service.
Shopping Centers: Los Angeles’ many
Educational Institutions: There are retail attractions generate valuable sales
numerous universities and colleges tax revenue and foster social gatherings.
across Los Angeles that would benefit Providing better transit access and
from improved transit access. While there service to these attractions would help
are current examples of those that have contribute tow the economic viability of
convenient transit access near their sites our city by providing consumers with an
(e.g., Expo Line to USC, Blue Line to LA alternative means of travel.
Trade Tech, Orange Line to Valley/Pierce
College, Metrolink to Cal State LA), there Sports Venues: Special attention
are still many institutions that could should be paid to large sporting events
benefit from better service and access. that require additional transit service
before and after games. For example,
Parks and Recreation Centers: Iconic Metro operates a dedicated shuttle
neighborhoods such as Venice Beach and bus service (Dodger Stadium Express)
Griffith Park represent only a few of Los from Union Station to Dodger Stadium
Angeles’ many parks. Just as important before and after the game. Also, rail
are the rest of Los Angeles’ parks and line schedules should be tailored to
recreation centers. As local places of absorb the additional demand for riders
lesiure and community, each deserves traveling to attend Lakers/Clippers/
better transit access. Kings and USC/UCLA games. These
special accommodations, especially when
Hospitals: The City’s many hospitals play well-publicized, can provide much-needed
an important role not only with regard to congestion relief when a game or event
our health care needs, but also in terms begins during the evening rush-hour.
9 www.aha.org/content/00-10/2010econcontrib.pdf

Mobility Plan 2035
3.8 Bicycle Parking:

Bicycle Parking
Ordinance
P rovide bicyclists with convenient, secure and well-
maintained bicycle parking facilities.
In 2013, the City adopted a new
Bicycle Parking Ordinance. The
Just as the availability of vehicle parking likelihood of theft. Bicycle lockers and Ordinance expands bicycle
at a destination influences one’s decision indoor bicycle parking offer a greater parking requirements for new
about whether or not to drive there, so level of security, as well as protection developments and additions, and
too does the availability of bicycle parking from the elements. Regardless of the type establishes design standards. It
play a major role in making bicycling an of facility, bicycle parking should be easy also includes a provision
attractive option. With the knowledge to locate, with signage, when helpful. allowing bicycle parking to
that there will be a place to safely and substitute for up to 30% of
conveniently secure his/her bicycle required automobile parking.
for the duration of a visit, a bicyclist is The Los Angeles Department of
much more likely to ride. Conversely, Transportation (LADOT) Sidewalk Bike Bicycle Parking as
fear of theft and difficulty finding Parking Program installs bicycle racks in
suitable parking discourage the use of the public right-of-way at the request of Public Art
bicycles for commuting and errands. local business owners or citizens10. Metro
also provides bicycle racks and/or lockers Bicycle racks can be designed so
at most transit stations, facilitating the that they are not only functional,
Outdoor bicycle racks are the most basic use of bicycles for first/last mile but also sculptural works of art
and most common parking option. These connections. Metro is planning to open its that contribute to placemaking
should be located as close as possible to first “Bike Hubs” in 2015 - facilities which and add visual interest to the
building entrances, without obstructing will provide secure indoor parking along streetscape. “Bicycle Stops
pedestrian pathways, and should ideally with repair stands, air pumps, and other Here” was a cooperative project
be sheltered and well-illuminated. tools and resources. Similar facilities of the Community
Educating riders on the proper ways already exist in a number of other cities in Redevelopment Agency (CRA),
to secure their bicycle reduces the Los Angeles County11. Southern California Institute of
Architecture (SCI-Arc), and the
Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT). The
project included the
development of functional
works of art at 10 different
locations that can be used as
bicycle racks.
10 http://www.bicyclela.org/Parking.htm
11 http://www.metro.net/bikes/

“Our streets are our largest 3.9 Increased Network Access:

public asset. They occupy
15% of Los Angeles’ total land
area and serve as our City’s
circulation system. We need
them to also foster
D iscourage the vacation of public rights-of-way.
community by providing
places to gather and enjoy.” A street vacation is a term used to Increased network access improves the
describe the process that turns public mobility of travelers by breaking up long
-Mayor Eric Garcetti, 2014 streets over to private property. While blocks and providing short-cuts that
a vacation provides greater control reduce the distance required to get from
and responsibility of the space to the one point to another.
adjacent property owner, the vacation
process reduces access for all modes
of travel. Streets, alleys, stairways,
and other public right-of-ways play an
important role in the City’s mobility
system by facilitating better connectivity.

Mobility Plan 2035
3.10 Cul-de-sacs:
D iscourage the use of cul-de-sacs that do not provide

access for active transportation options.
Traditional cul-de-sacs are designed with A daylighted cul-de-sac is an alternative

the intention of excluding through traffic to the conventional closed-off design.
and reducing street connectivity. This Daylighting refers to the modification
reduced network connectivity has greater of a dead end street to allow for
impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists, as pedestrian and bicycle through access.
the increased trip distances discourage In addition, there are a number of
active modes of transportation. design tools available in the Complete
Streets Design Guide to reduce and calm
through traffic within neighborhoods.

CicLAvia
Organized by a non-profit group in
collaboration with the City of Los
Angeles, CicLAvia is a day-long event
in which selected streets are closed to
motorized traffic and opened to
people. Inspired by the first “Ciclovía,”
which took place in Bogotá, Colombia,
over thirty years ago, the event is less
of a “race,” as there is no designated
start or finish point and movement
flows in both directions. Besides
riding bicycles, people participate in
many different ways: running,
rollerblading, walking dogs,
picnicking, and socializing. A variety of
impromptu events and performances
take place along the route.
People St.
People St. is a program designed to 3.11 Open Streets:
facilitate partnerships between the
community and the City to implement
projects that transform under-used
areas of street into high-quality
public space. The program operates
F acilitate regular “open street” events and
repurposing of the public right of way.
as a public-private partnership. Each

project requires the active In many of the City’s neighborhoods, Short-term repurposing of streets for
participation of neighborhood open space is in short supply. Only non-vehicular purposes can be a highly
sponsors to identify a site, conduct 52% of the City’s residents live within effective means of encouraging people
outreach, and raise funds for walking distance (1/2 mile) of a park, to get outside, promoting both physical
implementation and maintenance. compared to 98% in San Francisco, 96% activity and social connections.
in New York, and 90% in Chicago12. In
The first People St. demonstration a city where public gathering spaces
project, Sunset Triangle Plaza, are few, creative solutions have to
debuted on Griffith Park Boulevard, be employed. The flexible nature
near Sunset Boulevard, in Silver Lake of complete streets can allow an
in March 2012. A one-block stretch of underutilized space to be converted
the street has been closed to traffic to other uses fitting to the situation.
and is filled with café tables and
chairs, planters, a bike corral, and a
basketball hoop. The plaza has hosted
events including summer movie
nights and a weekly farmers market.
Evaluation studies on the pilot have
found increased revenues for local
business owners.
12 The Trust for Public Land, Center for City Park
Excellence, “2012 City Park Facts”

Mobility Plan 2035
P lan for and accommodate future growth areas

through the identification of “proposed streets”
during the community planning process.
The potential future location for

proposed streets are identified in the
Community Plan maps to improve and/
orcomplement existing local circulation.

Chapter 4: Collaboration, Communication
& Informed Choices
Discussion
Objectives
Policies
4.1 New Technologies
4.2 Dynamic Transportation
Information
4.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment
4.4 Community Collaboration
4.5 Improved Communication
4.6 Data-Driven Prioritization
of Projects
4.7 Performance Evaluation
4.8 Transportation Demand
Management Strategies
4.9 Transportation Management
Organizations
4.10 Public-Private Partnerships
4.11 Cohesive Regional Mobility
4.12 Goods Movement
4.13 Parking and Land Use Management
4.14 Wayfinding
4.15 Public Hearing Process
Chapter 4: Collaboration, Communication & Informed Choices
Collaboration, Communication
& Informed Choices
Real-time information, open-source data, transparency, monitoring, reporting, departmental and agency
cooperation, database management, parking options, loading and unloading, goods movement
Discussion
W hether it is providing information about the cost and availability of a public parking space, the arrival
of the next bus, or the current speeds on a freeway, real-time technology is changing the way we think
about our travel. In recent years, the advent of mobile phone applications has resulted in better management
of travel decisions due to the predictability that real-time technology provides. The impact of new technologies
on our day-to-day mobility demands will continue to become increasingly important in the future.
The amount of information made Improved mobility through crucial to building better communication
available by new technologies must be communication is not limited to channels across the City. Whether it is
managed responsibly in the future. It technological innovations. New communication between community
is not enough to merely produce the signage and traditional forms of media members and government, the private
data. It must be stored, organized, and will continue to play an important and public sector, or various government
made accessible in user-friendly formats role in wayfinding and providing agencies, effective communication will be
so that it can be queried and utilized place-based information on things paramount in streamlining processes at
without complication. As we dive into such as parking availability, bike every level. More importantly, technology
the next 20 years, new technologies will facilities, and local destinations. will be a vital tool for collaboration,
play a major role in our communities by ensuring that the policies and programs
providing users with better information. Understanding the role that technology guiding our region’s future are closely
plays in our transportation needs is coordinated and well-integrated.

Mobility Plan 2035
Objectives
• Provide real-time information at all major transit stations by 2020.
• Implement coordinated wayfinding at all major transit stations by 2035.
• Implement wayfinding along all segments of the completed

Bicycle Enhanced Network by 2035.
• Install street parking occupancy-detection capability at

50% of on-street parking locations by 2035.
• Coordinate communication with regional transportation

agencies and neighboring jurisdictions.
Policies
4.1 New Technologies
4.2 Dynamic Transportation

Information
4.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment
4.4 Community Collaboration
4.5 Improved Communication
4.6 Data-Driven Prioritization of Projects
4.7 Performance Evaluation
4.8 Transportation Demand Management Strategies
4.9 Transportation Management Organizations
4.10 Public-Private Partnerships
4.11 Cohesive Regional Mobility
4.12 Goods Movement
4.13 Parking and Land Use Management
4.14 Wayfinding
4.15 Public Hearing Process

4.1 New Technologies:
S upport new technology systems and infrastructure

to expand access to transportation choices.
The way we move continues to change day. Encouraging new technology

as technology evolves. Cities need to that expands our mobility options
be prepared to adapt to technological involves being open to adapting current
advances as they come – from the infrastructure, whether physical
newest mobility smartphone application or procedural, to support the new
to transportation technology systems ways we will move in the future.
that cannot be fathomed in the present

Mobility Plan 2035
4.2 Dynamic Transportation Information:
S upport a comprehensive, integrated transportation

database and digital platform that manages existing assets
and dynamically updates users with new information.
Informed users create a cleaner, smarter, scattered across many different sources
and more efficient transportation and sometimes is not easily available.
system. Information regarding road By utilizing emerging spatial and
closures, traffic conditions, and arrival communication technologies, a dynamic,
times for public transit is important for comprehensive transportation database
making better, smarter travel choices. and digital platform could seamlessly
This information affords individuals manage and share - in real-time - the
more flexibility to adjust their travel many types of data gathered locally.
choices as changes occur in real-time. In addition to real-time information,
the system could use historical trends
A wide variety of relevant transportation to predict near-future conditions.
data already exists; however, it is

4.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment:
E nsure the fair and equal treatment of people of all races, cultures,
incomes and education levels with respect to the development and
implementation of citywide transportation policies and programs.
Keeping open communication lines monitoring process of new and ongoing

between the City and its residents is transportation policies and programs.
crucial. In order to facilitate the fair Soliciting and incorporating resident
and equal treatment of its residents, feedback will contribute toward citywide
the City should strive to inform and transportation policies and programs
involve environmental justice groups, that emphasize the fair distribution of
community-based organizations, and all resources as well as equitable outcomes.
concerned residents in the planning and

Mobility Plan 2035
4.4 Community Collaboration:
C ontinue to support the role of community engagement in the

design outcomes and implementation of mobility projects.
Community engagement is important valuable in finding context-sensitive

to every stage of the planning phase. solutions in various communities
As projects get implemented in the that may value different results.
City, continued engagement will be

4.5 Improved Communication:
F acilitate communication between citizens and the City in reporting

on and receiving responses to non-emergency street improvements.
An open communication platform where In March, 2013, the City released

citizens have a venue to input street a mobile phone application titled
improvements allows for a transparent “MyLA311” that allowed residents to
catalogue that is easily accessible for submit service requests for potholes,
both the front end and back end users. graffiti, broken street lights, and
fallen trees in their communities.

Mobility Plan 2035
4.6 Data-Driven Prioritization of Projects:
Make the most of limited financial resources by utilizing

data to prioritize transportation projects based upon
safety, public health, equity, access, vulnerable social
characteristics, social benefits, and/or economic benefits.
A data-driven process that identifies efficient use of resources, multi-benefit

a potential list of projects that will projects can potentially tap into a
have the most impact based on certain larger number of funding sources.
criteria is important to making the
most of our limited transportation This approach will require considering
dollars. Because financial resources a wider array of data beyond vehicular
are constrained, it is important to throughput, which has traditionally been
strategically prioritize improvements a primary factor guiding transportation
to the City’s transportation network. investments. A more comprehensive
Preference can be given to integrated set of criteria should account for the
projects that achieve multiple objectives full range of benefits and impacts
and benefits. Besides being a more associated with any given investment.

4.7 Performance Evaluation:
E valuate performance of new transportation strategies

through the collection and analysis of data.
Data collection, analysis, and monitoring pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles
are instrumental to the smart investment - they provide hard numbers and statistics
in, and development of, programs and over time that can support investment
strategies that will improve the citywide in multi-modal transportation systems.
transportation system. Information
such as collision rates, traffic flows, In the past, the City has focused
ridership rates and roadway capacities much of its transportation funds on
are quantifiable factors that reflect improving roadways for motorized
the overall effectiveness of a program. vehicles. However, the growing
Consistently tracking the progress and problem of traffic congestion, air
performance of new changes to a system pollution, and decreasing quality of life
(such as added bicycle lanes or new has created an impetus for new and
transit lines) allows for refinements to be innovative strategies that reimagine
made to improve the existing system. the City’s transportation future.
Examples of new strategies include:
Much of the transportation data that
monitors traffic flows during peak travel • Data collected through bicycle
times, ridership rates on various transit and pedestrian counts track the
lines, and collision rates is collected increase in non-motorized travel
by LADOT and Metro and is used to (citywide),13 which can be used
analyze the performance of roadway to improve bike and pedestrian
and highway improvements, new transit infrastructure on heavily used streets
lines, and increased service. Such
monitoring, tracking, and performance • LADOT’s Shared Lane Marking Study
review is central to the implementation measured the changes in driver and
of programs that diversify the City’s bicycle interactions, showing that
transportation system to include sharrows improved driver behavior14.
13 Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition LACBC. (2009).
LA Bike Count Results. www.la-bike.org.
14 LADOT. (2011). Shared Lane Marking Study
Final report June, 2011. Ladot.lacity.org.

Mobility Plan 2035
4.8 Transportation Demand

Transportation
Management Strategies:
Demand
Management
E ncourage greater utilization of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce
dependence on single-occupancy vehicles. (TDM) Program
In the City of Los Angeles, 67% The elements of a TDM program Elements
of commute trips are made by are already in place today among
single-occupancy vehicles 15. The major employers. The City of Los
percentage of commuters who Angeles’ TDM Ordinance (LAMC • Telecommuting
carpool has been steadily declining 12.26.J), adopted in 1993, mandates
since the 1970s, mirroring a national that businesses that exceed certain • Carpool/Vanpool
trend16. Single-occupancy vehicle square footage thresholds implement
travel has contributed to severe certain TDM measures. Similarly, the • Unbundled parking/
delays due to traffic congestion, South Coast Air Quality Management parking cash out
among other problems. District’s Rule 2202 requires that
employers with more than 250 • Transit pass subsidy
A variety of programs and strategies, employees at a worksite implement
which are collectively referred to as an emission reduction program • Bicycle facilities
Transportation Demand Management designed to reduce vehicle miles (parking/lockers)
(TDM), can reduce the percentage of travelled (VMT) and/or increase
commuters who drive alone by raising average vehicle ridership (AVR)17. • Parking for rideshare/
awareness of available alternatives carshare users
and by offering incentives to make
those alternatives more attractive. • Parking for scooter/moped/
motorcycle users
• Transportation
information center
• Guaranteed ride home
• Flex work hours
• Commuter club (various

benefits and incentives)
15 2007-2011 American Community Survey 17 http://www.aqmd.gov/trans/rideshare.html
5-Year Estimates, Los Angeles City http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg22/r2202.pdf
16 SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, p. 23-4

• Telecommuting (employees): Telecommuting more bike trips. The inability to find bike parking
programs give employees the flexibility to work from can discourage bicyclists from making the trip at all,
home as opposed to in an office that they would have or alternatively, convince them to drive instead.
to travel to. Individually, the benefits of working from
home can yield more productive results, as it allows • Parking for rideshare/carshare users: Special
for work to be done within the comforts of one’s own parking accomodations for rideshare/carshare users
home and affords more flexibility in one’s personal not only make these services more attractivee, but
schedule. Moreover, employees also bypass the also diminish the need to purchase one’s own car.
stress and costs (e.g. gas, car maintenance, etc.) of
having to commute, especially during the rush hour. • Parking for scooter/moped/motorcycle users:
Parking for scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles
• Telecommuting (employers): Employers can also takes up less space than that needed to
benefit from telecommuting programs. By promoting accommodate single-occupancy users.
flexible work schedules, they can cut down on the
amount of employee absences and tardies that occur • Transportation information center: A transportation
from long-distance commutes or morning traffic. information center would assist residents,
Additionally, telecommuting can compensate for employees, and visitors with information on
a company’s limited office space, equipment, and transit schedules, commute planning, ridesharing,
resources that employees may already have at home. telecommuting, taxis, para-transit, on-site services,
and bicycle and pedestrian routes and facilities.
• Carpool/Vanpool: Commuters that utilize carpool
and vanpool services save money on gas and • Guaranteed ride home: A Guaranteed Ride Home
parking costs. In addition, they can reap the time (GRH) plan ensures that participating employees
benefits of a carpool lane and help improve overall that do not drive to work will have access to an
air quality from fewer greenhouse gas emissions. emergency ride service when needed. For example,
this service can be utilized during the day in cases
• Unbundled parking/parking cash out: A “parking of a family emergency, or at night if employees
cash out” program can help reduce the amount of are asked to work late into the evening past the
solo drivers by requiring employers to offer their hours that their transit service operates.
workers the option of accepting a cash payment
in lieu of a subsidized parking space18. A 1997 • Flex work hours: Flexible work hours, or “flextime,”
study revealed that a parking cash out program allows employees to arrive and depart outside of
implemented by eight employers resulted, on traditional peak-time hours. Flexible work hours
average, in a 12% reduction in vehicle emissions19. help promote trips (especially vehicle trips) during
non-peak hours, when roads are less congested.
• Transit pass subsidy: An employer-subsidized transit
pass program can help promote alternative modes • Commuter club (various benefits and
of transportation amongst employees or residents, incentives): Members of commuter clubs (i.e.,
especially in areas with limited parking availability. At individuals that choose not to drive) can benefit
the same time, it reduces the number of cars on the road from many transportation services, such as
and can save the user money on car-related expenses. subsidized vanpool or transit passes, discounted
daily parking permits, and carshare credits.
• Bicycle facilities (parking/lockers): Adequate
bicycle parking is important because it encourages
18 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf
19 http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf

Mobility Plan 2035
4.9 Transportation Management

Organizations:
P artner with the private sector to foster the success of Transportation

Management Organizations (TMOs) in the City’s commercial districts.
Because our City’s commercial a robust corporate membership that

districts serve as major employment includes over 30,000 employees.
hubs, they face many transportation Currently, nearly 1 in 3 Warner Center
challenges that warrant specific demand employees participate in ridesharing,
management and mitigation strategies. which is considerably more than the
regional average. Over the years, the
Transportation Management Warner Center TMO has worked to
Organizations (TMOs) are nonprofit acquire and maintain bicycling-related
organizations comprised of private amenities, bus transit service from
employers, property owners, and multiple agencies (including the Metro
developers who work together to educate Orange Line), a comprehensive vanpool
local employees about the benefits fleet, and a convenient carpooling
of alternative commuting solutions. database. In addition, the TMO works
TMOs function in much the same way as closely with commercial property
TDM programs, but at the larger scale owners to track ridesharing statistics
of a district rather than an individual and travel patterns, in order to meet
workplace. By assuming responsibility for long-term trip reduction goals.
the operation of these programs, TMOs
make it easier for smaller businesses to Century City TMO
offer TDM benefits to their employees.
Century City TMO’s web-based platform,
In the City of Los Angeles, the Warner Commute 90067, allows companies
Center and Century City TMOs and their employees to log trips and
effectively work toward improving the accumulate points based on ridesharing
traffic conditions and mobility options participation and the number of miles
for employees in their respective areas. saved from reduced trips. Companies
Their efforts provide other commercial and individual employees can track their
districts in the City with a blueprint commute behavior and see how they
on how to manage and implement the rank amongst their Century City peers.
many facets of a successful TMO. The TMO’s useful trip planner feature
allows commuters to compare the cost,
Warner Center TMO time, distance, and carbon footprint of
their trips in order to help them make
The Warner Center TMO in the the best travel decision. Additionally, the
San Fernando Valley has developed TMO sets an overall “smart commute”
successful transportation programs that goal for all its members to collectively
have resulted in better, more efficient strive for and displays their progress
circulation in the area. Created in 1988, toward that goal on the TMO website.
the nonprofit coalition has developed

4.10 Public-Private Partnerships:
E ncourage partnerships with community groups

(residents and business/property owners) to initiate and
maintain enhanced public rights-of-way projects.
The successful planning and community groups in a collaborative

implementation of future projects effort to develop new projects and
will hinge on the critical partnerships sustain their long-term viability. These
forged between the City and its citizens. partnerships will allow both parties to
Through public-private partnerships, the carve out a unified vision for projects
public sector teams up with the private from the outset. Additionally, they will
sector and/or community-based groups also help accelerate project timelines by
on new projects that would otherwise ensuring that the associated risks and
be difficult to undertake single-handedly. responsibilities will not fall squarely on
For instance, the 2012 unveiling of the only one party’s shoulders. For example,
Sunset Triangle Plaza in Silver Lake has potential issues related to liability
proven how the City and local community insurance, financing mechanisms, and
groups can work collectively to bring facility management will be negotiated
new, exciting projects to fruition in early on by both parties. Moreover,
a shorter time period. A partnership the success of these partnerships will
that mutually emphasizes transparent, rely on strong leadership from elected
conscientious decision-making at every officials and community leaders that will
step of the process will ultimately yield see the development process through
successful, long-standing projects. its entirety and ensure the long-term
sustainability of these projects.
The City can continue to build and
maintain strong partnerships with local

Mobility Plan 2035
4.11 Cohesive Regional Mobility:
C ommunicate and partner with the Southern California Association

of Governments (SCAG), Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), and adjacent cities and local transit
operators to plan and operate a cohesive regional mobility system.
Most people’s daily journeys take them meetings between agencies can help
across multiple jurisdictional boundaries. ensure that all parties are on the same
For a transportation system to serve page. Agencies would also benefit from
their needs effectively, it must work a web-based application designed to
seamlessly. This can only be accomplished keep all parties up-to-date on the status
through close cooperation between and timeline of ongoing projects.
government agencies representing cities
and counties throughout the region, along Moreover, each agency and department
with relevant state and federal partners. should recognize that data and research
produced internally could also be
These partnerships must emphasize valuable to their partner agencies
the importance of having clear in accomplishing shared goals. The
communication lines, so as to avoid unobstructed sharing of expertise across
duplicative services, bureaucratic jurisdictions will benefit the region
roadblocks, and conflicting visions. as a whole and allow transportation
Regularly scheduled coordination projects to avoid unnecessary delays.

4.12 Goods Movement:
I ncrease public awareness about the importance and economic

value of goods movement in the Los Angeles region.
Goods movement represents a vital years, as greater consumer demand

component of our regional economy. is expected to follow increases in
Industries directly and indirectly population and employment21.
dependent on goods movement (e.g.,
manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail The Ports of Los Angeles and Long
trade, construction, and warehousing) Beach make up the nation’s largest
account for over a third of Southern container port complex, moving 43%
California’s jobs and a third of our of the nation’s containerized cargo22.
region’s gross domestic product20. In 2012, the ports collectively handled
These industries are expected to nearly $384 billion worth of cargo, or
grow substantially in the next 20 more than $1 billion per day. In addition,
both ports generate billions of dollars in
local and state tax revenue annually23.
21 http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/
final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf
22 http://www.octa.net/pdf/goods_facts.pdf
20 http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/
final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf 23 http://portoflosangeles.org/pdf/POLA_Facts_and_Figures_Card.pdf

Mobility Plan 2035
4.13 Parking and Land Use Management:
B alance on-street and off-street parking supply with

other transportation and land use objectives.
Parking in Los Angeles is a crucial but Moreover, parking consumes a

often overlooked element of the larger vast amount of space in the urban
mobility system in the City and region environment, land which could otherwise
at large, with significant implications for be put to any number of valuable
travel behavior as well as urban form. alternative uses. Large parking lots create
significant environmental impacts, detract
An oversupply of parking can undermine from neighborhoods’ visual quality, and
broader regional goals of creating discourage walking by increasing the
vibrant public spaces and a robust distances between services and facilities.
multi-modal mobility system.
When planning for parking-related
An abundance of free parking has the needs, it is important to consider ways
effect of incentivizing automobile of effectively managing parking demand.
trips and making alternative modes By appropriately pricing short-term
of transportation less attractive. on-street and off-street parking,
mobility needs can be accommodated
while reducing adverse impacts.

4.14 Wayfinding:
P rovide widespread, user-friendly information about mobility

options and local destinations, delivered through a variety of
channels including traditional signage and digital platforms.
First-time visitors and long-time Wayfinding should be a ubiquitous

residents alike depend on wayfinding element of the cityscape so as to
signage to navigate through the City. always be readily accessible. It is
The essential function of wayfinding is particularly important in and around
to facilitate reaching one’s destination key destinations, along major corridors
by indicating directions and distances. and at intersections, and at multi-modal
The most effective wayfinding also mobility hubs such as transit stations.
provides information on alternative
ways of getting there, and highlights In addition to traditional signage,
additional points of interest along the technology serves an increasingly
way. When designed well, wayfinding valuable role in wayfinding, enabling
can enhance one’s surroundings and directions to be individually
contribute to a neighborhood’s civic customized, and delivering a wealth
pride and unique sense of place, in of place-based information.
addition to providing information.

Mobility Plan 2035
4.15 Public Hearing Process:
R equire a public hearing for the proposed removal of an existing

or designated bicycle facility or other related enhancements.
Open communication in changes to benefits stakeholders and maintains

a still nascent network of bikeways the integrity of the long range vision
of our transportation system.

Chapter 5: Clean Environments
& Healthy Communities
Discussion
Objectives
Policies
5.1 Sustainable Transportation
5.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
5.3 Alternative Metrics
5.4 Clean Fuels and Vehicles
5.5 Green Streets
Chapter 5:
Clean Environments and

Healthy Communities
Environment, public health, clean air, clean fuels and fleets
Discussion
T ransportation is deeply
implicated in the health of both
human beings and natural systems.
Mobility directly impacts human
health and wellness, both physical
and mental. Active transportation
modes such as bicycling and
walking can significantly improve
personal fitness and create
new opportunities for social
interaction, while lessening
impacts on the environment.
The transportation sector is by far the premature deaths per year in the Los federal standards for three of the six
largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) Angeles metro area, of which more criteria pollutants: ozone, lead, and fine
emissions and the largest consumer of than 2,000 can be attributed to vehicle particulate matter (PM2.5). Under the
energy. Transportation is also among the emissions alone26. Statewide, vehicle Clean Air Act, non-attainment areas are
most significant sources of air, water, and emissions result in more than twice as required to develop implementation
noise pollution in the urban environment. many premature deaths as car crashes27. plans outlining specific measures they
The economic impact of this public health will take to reduce pollution levels
Air Pollution burden is estimated at $22 billion per sufficiently to meet the standards.
Despite significant improvements year in the South Coast Air Basin (in Additionally, all federally supported
in the last several decades, the Los lost days at work, lost days at school, highway and transit project activities in
Angeles region continues to suffer health care, and premature death)28. non-attainment areas are required to
from the worst air quality in the United demonstrate that they will not cause new
States25. Los Angeles residents are Increases in both the regional population air quality violations, worsen existing
at greater risk for asthma attacks, and the stringency of federal air violations, or delay timely attainment
heart attacks and premature deaths quality standards will pose a significant of the standards29. The AQMD’s 2012
due to air pollution. The Los Angeles challenge to cities throughout Southern Air Quality Management Plan focuses
Basin is uniquely predisposed to California. As of August 2013, the South on bringing the Basin into attainment
poor air quality, as atmospheric Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment of with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard30.
inversions and the surrounding
mountain ranges trap air pollutants. 26 Caiazzo, Fabio, et al. “Air pollution and early deaths in In addition to the National Ambient
the United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Researchers estimate that air pollution sectors in 2005.” Atmospheric Environment (2013).
is responsible for more than 7,500 27 http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/ 29 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), 4-14
StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx
30 South Coast AQMD, 2012 Air Quality

14 http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-
rankings/most-polluted-cities.html 28 Vision LA, 3 Management Plan (AQMP), ES-5

Mobility Plan 2035
established by the U.S. EPA, the state the ocean, and as a result, Los Angeles
of California has set standards for County is home to 7 of the 10 most
certain pollutants (such as particulate polluted beaches in California33. These
matter and ozone) which are more pollutants endanger the health of plants
stringent than the corresponding and animals that inhabit local ecosystems,
federal standards. California has also set as well as humans who engage in
standards for some pollutants that are recreational water-based activities.
not addressed by federal standards.
“Green infrastructure” and “low impact
In 2010, transportation accounted for development” rethink how streets
more than 34% of California’s greenhouse and parking lots are designed. These
gas emissions, the largest by far of any approaches have the potential to address
sector31. 80% of the transportation- many problems in the urban environment
related emissions come from passenger simultaneously: reducing water pollution
vehicles, equivalent to 160 million levels, flooding problems, and the urban
tons of carbon dioxide per year32. heat island effect; increasing local
groundwater supplies; and improving
Water Pollution habitat quality and aesthetics34.
Urbanization and community Noise Pollution

development patterns have degraded Los
Angeles’ local water resources over time Automobile and truck traffic is a leading
in two ways. One is the physical alteration source of noise in the urban environment,
of creeks and streams when they were increasing stress levels and reducing
channelized or buried underground so quality of life. In contrast, non-motorized
that development could occur on top of modes of transportation such as walking
them. This prevents natural ecological and bicycling generate little or no noise.
and water purification processes from
occurring. The second is the runoff Human Health
from impermeable surfaces, such as
streets and parking lots. This increases A 2004 analysis found that each
the volume of water in the creeks and additional hour spent in a car per day
streams during storm events, which was associated with a six percent
makes restoring a natural condition increase in the likelihood of obesity35.
in those waterways difficult. It is also Walking to transit or biking adds a
the most significant source of water fitness element to an everyday routine.
pollution in local rivers and beaches.
When rain falls on paved surfaces, Long commutes can also take a toll on
it picks up an array of pollutants, mental health – each hour spent alone
including pesticides and fertilizers, oil in a car is an hour not spent with friends
and automotive fluids, heavy metals, or family. Commuters ensconced in their
animal waste, and litter, before entering own cars are deprived of opportunities
the storm drain system. This water is for serendipitous encounters with
not treated before being released into neighbors - of the sort that happen on
33 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/us/los-angeles-
plan-to-turn-pollution-into-drinking-water.html?_r=0
34 TreePeople, Second Nature: Adapting L.A.’s Landscape
31 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm for Sustainable Living, http://www.treepeople.org/sites/
default/files/images/learn/Second%20Nature%20.pdf
32 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/
ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-10_2013-02-19.pdf 35 SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, 30
134 Draft May 2015

Chapter 5:
a sidewalk. The stresses associated

with commuting can occasionally
manifest in episodes of “road rage.”
Objectives
• Decrease VMT per capita by 5% • Reduce port-related diesel
every five years, to 20% by 2035. particulate matter emissions by
77%, NOx by 59%, and SOx by
• Meet a 9% per capita GHG reduction 93% by 2023, relative to 2005.
for 2020 and a 16% per capita
reduction for 2035 (SCAG RTP). • Reduce the number of unhealthy
air quality days to zero by 2025.
• Convert 100% of City General Services
Division vehicle fleet to alternative fuels • Reduce the pollutant load of
and/or zero emission vehicles by 2035. stormwater runoff to meet Total
Maximum Daily Load standards.
• Convert 100% of City refuse
collection trucks and street sweepers • Install more than 1,000 new
to alternative fuels by 2020. publicly available EV charging
stations throughout the City.
• Reduce transportation-related energy
use by 95% and reduce maintenance
requirements of City vehicle fleet.
Policies
5.1 Sustainable Transportation
5.2 Vehichle Miles Traveled (VMT)
5.3 Alternative Metrics
5.4 Clean Fuels and Vehicles
5.5 Green Streets

Mobility Plan 2035
5.1 Sustainable Transportation:
E ncourage the development of a sustainable transportation

system that promotes environmental and public health.
A healthy transportation system options is key to improving the health of

complements a healthy city by allowing the City and the people who live here.
people to make choices that are more Sustainable transportation also extends
environmentally sustainable and to the circulation of goods movement.
physically beneficial transportation Goods movement is important to the
choices. To do that, other options like City’s economic health and a goods
walking, biking, and transit have to be movement system that considers local
seen as a safe, attractive, and convenient context and integrates clean truck
mode choice. Giving people options corridors can promote healthy and
to make healthy choices by putting environmentally safe communities. See
the same thought and investment into Policy 1.8 on goods movement safety.
making walking, biking, and transit viable
136 Draft May 2015

Chapter 5:
5.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT):
S upport ways to reduce vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) per capita.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are • Increasing the availability of affordable

closely correlated with Vehicle Miles housing options with proximity to
Traveled (VMT)36. Reducing VMT is transit stations and major bus stops.
therefore an important component
of the overall strategy to reduce • Offering more attractive non-
GHG emissions. Efficient fuels and vehicle alternatives, including
alternative vehicle technologies, which transit, walking, and bicycling
produce fewer GHG emissions per mile
traveled, are another component. • Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs
Reducing VMT requires a combination of that encourage ride-sharing
sustainable approaches working together:
• Pricing mechanisms that encourage
• Land use policies aimed at shortening commuters to consider alternatives
the distance between housing, jobs, to driving alone, including:
and services that reduce the need to ·· Congestion or cordon pricing, which
travel long distances on a daily basis would charge vehicles entering
into a congested area (such as
downtown during rush hour)
36 SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, p. 106

Mobility Plan 2035
5.3 Alternative Metrics:
S upport a range of transportation metrics to evaluate

the multiple purposes that streets serve.
Many jurisdictions have traditionally SB 743

used the “level of service” (LOS) metric
to evaluate potential transportation Senate Bill (SB) 743, enacted in
impacts from development projects. LOS September 2013, creates a process
measures vehicle delay at intersections to change the way that transportation
and on roadways, and is represented impacts are analyzed. The bill tasks
as a letter grade A through F, with F the Governor’s Office of Planning and
representing congested conditions. Research with proposing an alternative
to LOS for evaluating transportation
Because the LOS metric only considers impacts from development projects,
impacts on vehicular movement, it often particularly in areas served by transit.
has the effect of discouraging projects The new criteria “shall promote the
that support alternatives to driving reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,
such as public transit, bicycle lanes, the development of multimodal
pedestrian safety features, and urban transportation networks, and a diversity
infill development. Roadway widening of land uses.” Potential metrics may
is the typical mitigation measure include vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
required for projects that exceed LOS automobile trips generated (both overall
standards. However, wider roads can and per capita). Once developed, the new
result in adverse environmental, public metrics will be implemented through
health, and fiscal impacts. Wider roads an amendment to CEQA (California
are more expensive to maintain and Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines
enable driving at faster speeds in the and Thresholds of Significance37.
short term, leading to more pollution,
noise, and higher risks to bicyclists
and pedestrians in the long term.
37 http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php
138 Draft May 2015

Chapter 5:
5.4 Clean Fuels and Vehicles:
C ontinue to encourage the adoption of low and zero emission fuel

sources, new mobility technologies, and supporting infrastructure.
Low and zero emission fuel source outcomes (Policy 5.2). Since vehicles
vehicles are a way of reducing will continue to be a common mode
greenhouse gas emissions and air of transportation for the foreseeable
pollution. Reducing vehicle miles traveled future, improving their efficiency is an
is another approach to meeting these important complementary policy.

Mobility Plan 2035
5.5 Green Streets:
M aximize opportunities to capture and infiltrate

stormwater within the City’s public right-of-ways.
Impervious surfaces such as streets and • Improving air quality and reducing
alleys disrupt the natural hydrological the heat island effect
cycle, with numerous consequences.
Rain that falls on these surfaces picks • Enhancing aesthetics, which can
up an array of pollutants and carries increase pedestrian use of sidewalks
them into local bodies of water. This and encourage the use of bicycles
stormwater cannot soak into the
ground, meaning that local groundwater • Reducing stormwater runoff to
supplies are not replenished. It also restore the natural stormwater
increases the volume of runoff entering runoff hydrograph of the land
storm drains and streams during storm mobility pathways occupy.
events, which creates the need for
engineered flood control channels. • Reducing flooding.
The City’s Green Streets Initiative is a Best Management Practices (BMP)

program that seeks to address these include canopy trees, planters, bioswales,
interrelated problems through the use of pervious paving, infiltration trenches,
stormwater Best Management Practices curb extensions., designing mobility
(BMPs) that mimic natural hydrological pathways that daylight and restore
functions. Goals of the program include: creeks and streams where they have been
buried underground, and focusing on
• Reducing pollutant levels in “parkway” areas between the roadway
stormwater through natural filtration, and sidewalk, where stormwater can be
to improve local water quality and easily directed from streets and sidewalks
meet regulatory requirements
These BMPs vary in terms of their cost,
• Increasing local water supplies effectiveness, and the applications
by recharging groundwater for which they are best suited.
basins, thereby decreasing
dependence on imported water
140 Draft May 2015

Chapter 5:

Chapter 6: Action Plan
Introduction
Network Concept Maps
Program Categories
Communication
Data + Analysis
Education
Enforcement
Engineering
Funding
Legislation
Maintenance
Management
Operations
Parking/Loading Zones
Planning + Land use
Public Space
Schools
Support Features
Mobility Plan 2035
Action Plan
Discussion
A n implementation program
is a coordinated series of
actions the City hopes to take
Other programs will require the
securing of additional resources.
As such, the precise programs
encompass amendments to existing
plans, ordinances, development
standards and design guidelines; capital
in the future that are broadly the City may pursue, in which investments/projects; coordination of
intended to advance, over the order, and when, will in part be economic development/development
long term, the General Plan’s opportunity-driven, dependent on review processes; and interagency/
goals, policies, and objectives. An the availability of funding, staffing, interjurisdictional coordination. The
implementation program is thus and other necessary resources. Action Plan describes each of the
a follow-up measure and Chapter implementation programs and identifies
6 is a menu of such programs Program implementation is in large the City agencies responsible for
the City will consider pursuing. part contingent upon the availability implementation. The programs are
Taken as a whole, these programs of adequate funding. Funding is likely organized into 15 categories and each
represent the City’s best thinking to change over time due to economic program includes reference to the
today on what actions should conditions and to fluctuations in the pertinent policies that it implements.
be taken to make sure that the priorities of federal, state and regional
Plan’s aspirations are achieved. funding agencies. None of the projects The Action Plan also includes the
Many of these programs can be included here can be implemented unless programs that were originally included
pursued through initiatives already specific funding is made available. as part of the 2010 Bicycle Plan and
underway, such as the current those programs have subsequently
effort to rewrite the City’s zoning The Mobility Plan 2035 is implemented been integrated into this plan.
code and LADOT’s Strategic Plan. by a broad range of programs which
144 Draft May 2015

Chapter 6 Action Plan
Network Concept Maps

The following maps depict the modal and safe environment for walking, neighborhood serving streets that
priorities established by the Mobility biking, and circulation of slower moving provide connections within the cycle track
Plan today. The Plan also recognizes that modes. The Neighborhood Enhanced system. Covers approximately 50 miles.
cities are dynamic and transportation Network is described in Policy 2.4 of
systems may need to be modified this Plan. Examples of treatments for The Bicycle Lane Network consists
over time. Therefore the networks Neighborhood Enhanced Network of: Bicycle Lanes - Bicycle facilities on
described herein are identified as components are presented in the arterial roadways with striped separation.
aspirational network concepts that do Complete Streets Design Guide. Bicycle Lanes cover approximately 700
not require a plan amendment in order miles. A subset of the lanes are proposed
to be modified. While the network Map D1 – D2 – Bicycle Enhanced to be upgraded to protected bicycle lanes.
concepts are not part of a street’s official Network and Bicycle Lane Network:
designation any future changes would The following maps depict a network of Map E – Vehicle Enhanced Network:
still need to comply with State planning arterial streets and other rights-of-way The following map depicts a network
law consistency requirements and prioritized for bicycle movement. The of streets prioritized for vehicular
therefore, meet the goals, objectives Bicycle Enhanced Network is described movement. The Vehicle Network is
and policies of the Mobility Plan. Future in Policy 2.6 of this Plan. Priority described in Policy 2.7 of this Plan.
projects to improve City right of ways segments identified in Maps C1-C5 The Vehicle Enhanced Network covers
for the enhanced networks, including (Neighborhood Enhanced Network) approximately 80 miles of arterials
selecting alternative streets, would be provide gap closures to the protected throughout the City of Los Angeles.
required to be reviewed under CEQA, bicycle (cycle tracks) lane system
including under CEQA Guidelines within the Bicycle Enhanced Network. Map F – Pedestrian Analysis: The
15162 to determine if a subsequent or Sample treatments are presented in the following map depicts targeted areas on
supplemental EIR would be required, Complete Streets Design Guide. The arterial streets prioritized for pedestrian
or whether a completely new CEQA Bicycle Enhanced Network consists of: safety enhancements. Pedestrian
review and clearance would be required. infrastructure is described in Chapter
Bicycle Paths - Bicycle facilities 2.3 of this Plan and sample treatments
Map B – Transit Enhanced Network: outside of the roadway, such as the are presented in the Complete Streets
The following map depicts a network of LA River bicyle path. Bicycle Paths Design Guidelines. This analysis is
streets prioritized for transit. The Transit cover approximately 150 miles. a snapshot in time and will require
Enhanced Network is described in Policy update as implementation occurs.
2.5 of this Plan and sample treatments Protected Bicycle Lanes (cycle
are presented in the Complete Streets tracks) - Bicycle facilities on arterials Map G – Goods Movement: The
Design Guide. The Transit Enhanced roadways with physical separation. following map depicts the existing
Network covers approximately 300 miles Protected Bicycle Lanes cover freight movement facilities (including
throughout the City of Los Angeles. approximately 300 miles and are a the major intermodal terminals: LAX,
subset of the Bicycle Lane Network. Van Nuys Airport, Port of Los Angeles).
Map C1-C5 – Neighborhood Enhanced Goods Movement is discussed in Policies
Network: The following maps depict Priority Neighborhood Enhanced 1.8, 2.8, and 4.12 of this Plan. Goods
a network of approximately 800 miles Network - Bicycle facilities on movement is further discussed on a
of collector, local, and some arterial regional level in Metro’s Countywide
streets identified to provide a calm Strategic Truck Arterial Network.

Mobility Plan 2035
Program Categories
Communication Management
Data + Analysis Operations
Education Parking/Loading Zones
Enforcement Planning + Land use
Engineering Public Space
Funding Schools
Legislation Support Features
Maintenance
It is important to emphasize that none Implementation of the Plan

of the programs described in Chapter depends on four factors:
7 represent a mandatory duty or other
official obligation on the part of the 1. Significant and sustained funding
City. On the contrary, priorities and for projects and staff, particularly by
perspectives continually evolve. New prioritizing projects in federal, state,
techniques and superior methods to and local transportation programs
achieve the Plan’s aspirations may be
identified. Conversely, what worked at 2. A commitment by key city
one time may no longer work. As such, the agencies to implement the
program strategies the City may pursue recommended strategies
are subject to change. The City thus
retains the flexibility to make adjustments 3. A strong partnership with
and mid-course corrections as deemed the community
advisable, and may do so without formally
amending the Mobility Plan, including 4. Political support
changes to the Network Concept Maps.
146 Draft May 2015

rra
¯
Sie
Olive View Gav
ina
El
d
dr
id
S
or
e
xf
ge
l k
pu
Ro
e
d
Po
so
ar
lve
ed
bb
da
Bl
l ay
Hu
ac
La
n
Ses M
ur
non
yo
pa
el
ot
m
an
C
hi
ll
C
Ta
an
a
yo
lla
ng
ne
n
Rinaldi Be
ju
or
Tu
Santa Susana Pa n rra sb
ss to Te O
Porter Ranch
San Fernando Mission Brand x x
Big
Fo Pa ys
Chatsworth Nu
Ar
Wentworth
l
n
et
Va
a
Devonshire
Apperson
Canoga
ne
Woodley
!
5 Lassen lla or
Sepulveda
sb Tuju
Balboa
Marilla Be
O
Zelzah
Ar
cle rra
Louise
Plummer Plummer rd
le
nga
Cir Te n
Vesper
fo
ta
lley
Hayvenhurst
Va an do
Ca
Nordhoff Br el nyon
5
! Sh La Tuna Ca
nyo
n
Parthenia rd
x fo
Mason
Sunland
Tu
Reseda
Haskell
De Soto
Roscoe
5
!
Wilbur
le
Strathern Strathern
Canoga
no
Valley Circle
ak
Tampa
s
Winnetka
Corbin
Woodlake
Clybourn
Lankershim
5
!
Valjean
Haskell
Vanowe Vanowen
n
Laurel Canyon
Kester
Shoup
5
!
Lindley
Fallbrook
Victory
5
!
Tujunga
5
!
Hayvenhurst
White Oak
Coldwater Canyon
Clybourn
5
!
Platt
5
!Oxnard 5
! Oxnard
5
! Oxnard
5
! 5
! 5
!
Topanga Canyon
Balboa
Hazeltine
Vineland
Burbank Burbank
Colfax
Louise
5
!
Clybourn
w na
Woodman
Kelo 5
!
Magnolia 5
!
Van Nuys
Cahuenga
Kester
Sepulveda
Riverside Camarillo
a
Ventura
Fulton
M
u l
Whitsett
Ha Ventu Moorpark wn
ra
ho
ve La
st
Resed
lla
5
!
nh re
Fo
nd
ur
Radford
st do
Be
ve 5
! Co
lora 5
!
rly Yosem
ite
5
!
Gl
en
Ca
64
hu
ck
Ro
en
York
e gle El
nue
r
ga
Ea Pa
at Ri he so
ng Los Fe
liz ve tc 5
!
t ai eliz 5
!
rsi Fle
roa
y Ave
Los F de
e
un ue
r
o Franklin Fig
Cy
M
erio
Hollywood
nte
pr
5 !
5 5
!
ion
Hillhurst
Sunset !
es
5
! 5
! on
Hyp
is
s
Mo
rm
gt
Sta
in
Fairfax
ke
Wilton
Coll
Ma
Vine
nt
diu
5
!
La
m
Hu
le
er
5
!
Highland
v
Melrose
Si l
5
!
Beverly
Eastern
5
!
Virgil
ion
Glenda
Normandie
Hilga
t
La Brea
o
r
Burton y
ss
G
d
rd
lle
Mi
ay
3Rd
Griffin
Sun
pa
Wilshire ain Va
le
5
!
m
6Th hM
set
et !
lv
5
! Wilshire 5rt
Crescent Heights
5
! 5
!
Ra
Bev
A
ns 5
!
1S
Daly
5
!
n
No
Ce
7Th ! t
Ve
U ara
Su
Te
5
! 5
!
nt
Barring
as
5 8Th
7 2N
te
Wilton
erly
m
te
!
ur
5Th d
San Olympic
5
!
y
5
!
Irolo
pl
ra
Pico
aw
Vic
Luc ion
5
ton
n
Wa
e
na
n
Sta
ta
ent ba
i
Gle
e
e 5T !
Hoover
sh
ll
5 !
! 5h
n
nsh
5
!
w
on Pico
!
Un
to
5 !
5
Hi r
c
o
Western
M pi Venic e
Fl
rtson
So
Ve
!
5
Cre
Palisades
Pa ym e Washington nic
Ol 5
!
a
Bu
e 4Th 1St
Ov
cif
Missio
ic nic
9T
er
5
!
nd
n
Co Ve
5
!
y
ive
Robe
Bre
Adams 3Rd
5
! 5
! 5
!
ast
5
! 5
!
lan
Wh
way
Ol
5
! 16
d
La
itti
5
!
Mateo
s5 Th er
5
e! 30Th
Sa
!
5 Jefferson !
5
Boyle
lm ! nic 5
!
Pa 5
!
8Th
ro
Gate
wt
15Th
5
! Ve Rodeo
e
5
!
l
Indiana
5
!
l
e
ed
c Exposition Boulevard N/R 5

!
e
i
n 5
! 5
! 5
!
a
nP
Ve
Ce
5
!
n
Crenshaw

Sa
5
!
La Cienega
Ing
it ne
se
er
le
la
Ro Sa Vernon
5
!
w
ck
e w 48Th
!
5
Arlington
nic te
oo
Sto La Bre
se lle
d
Ve
Long Beach
In
54Th
g
Ro Abbo
Alameda
t Kinn
le
ao
ey Slauson Slauson
5
!
w
5
!
Pa
All
Broadway
5
!
an
a
oo
cif
d
Gage
nd
Avalon
ic
on
Mi
rs
Central
ffe
Je Florence
5
!
Lin
5
!
a
r
er
co
Hoover
Tij
lve
ln
La Cienega
Main
La

Cu
Sepulveda
5
! 5
! 5
!
5
!
Western
Su
ster
y
r sh
Be Westche 92Nd
Normandie
92Nd
ns
Van Ness
Vermont
ve
et
wa
rly 96Th
ion
n
Century
Pe Vista
Century
ad
ai
Century
5
!
Un
M
5
!
as
Bro
el
Vi
rth
a 108Th 108Th
g
Bix
ro
ing Del M
rth
Luc
nd
No
ne
3Rd
a
ue
s
ion
Vermont
shin
ra
Imperial 5
!
Aviation
No
Fig Imperial
g
Bixel
Sepulveda
Un
Ces
ar 5
! 5 !
! 5
!
5 5
!
y
EC
Per r Vist
6Th
5
!
dr
hav 120Th 5
!
Te
5
!
2N
el
ez
au
d
m
5
!
aD
ro
e
pl
Bix
B
e
ue
ion
Wi
lsh 5
!
el M
Fig
ire
5
!
Un
pe
el
5
!
a
ar
y
ro
Ho
Bix
e
dr
Vermont
ue
5
!
liv
au 3R
d
g
el
O
Be
Fi
1S
t 5
!
Bix
Ja W
n
5
!
me
Sp
Center
ils
! 5!
5 5
!
ai
sM Th
5 hire 5
!
M ring
.W 6T
h 1St
er
oo
ue
d 5
!
Fig
ay
Figueroa
pe Flow roa
dw ill
Santa Fe
9T
Ho
h
roa H
O 4T Nd
B
h 5
!
Missio
lym 182
182Nd
n
pi
c
8T
h
Central
190Th
ro
5
!
9T
7T
ed
h
P
a
n
Del Amo
Sa
5
!
u ero
Mateo
les
9T
Alameda
Fig
h
ge ain
Santa Fe
Ve
Pic
An M
nic
e o
s
O Carson
Lo
Wa ly
in
s
!
5 hing 16 0 1mp 2 4 Miles 223Rd
Ma
T h 14 ic
ton T h
5
!
Western
5
!
5
!
Lomita Lomita
eda
TRANSIT ENHANCED NETWORK Pacific Coast

Map B An 5
!
Alam
ah
eim
5
!
Moderate Transit Enhanced Streets
Wilmington
Figueroa
55
! !
Avalon Fries
on
Moderate Plus Transit Enhanced Streets

Henry Ford
5
!
ibs
Westmont
SG
Comprehensive Transit Enhanced Streets ol

hn
pit e
Ca
Jo
Front sid
Future Valley/ West Transit Study Corridor Sea
Summerland
1St
Existing & Planned Rail/Busway 7Th
9Th
Miralest
e
Harbor
5
! Transit Stations
Gaffey
19Th
rn
Arterials te 25Th
es
W
Freeways
Pacific
0 3 6 9
Olive View Dr
Si
m
sh
a w
Av
¯
St
e
ia
He
El
or
d
rri
t
As
rid
ck
ge
la
Te Av
ds
l
Av
fa e
to
Blvd i rA
e
n
Sesno
ne
d Br
Bl v ad ve
Av
on
ve
W
n f or
Ses
e
oo
e
d
Mason A
Av
Dr
Pl
dle
pa
y
Nugent
Av
m
Dr
Wilbu
Ta
on
El
Maso
d
fie
rid
ld
r Ave
Louise Ave
ge
Av
n
Te
Av
e
Ave
St
l
e
fa
e
Corbin Av
i
Wentworth St
Wilbur Ave
e
rA
Chatsworth St rc St
Variel Ave
e room
ve
White Oak Ave
Pi
Joha
St McB
Wheatland Ave
e
Lindley Ave
gu St Apperson St
n
Mayall St
na A
ta
Lemona Ave
n
Lassen St St on l do
Vanalden Ave
e
Baden Ave
ce M
Sh
ve
er
Plummer St Plummer St Plummer St Pi
St
Independenc
Prairie St
e
Blvd
Nordhoff St u
Cedros Ave
Rayen St t ag
on St
le
M e
Owensmouth Ave
os
Circ
Chase St nr
Pe
ve
e Ave
y
Farralone Ave
Zelzah A
Valle
Lanark St
Strathern St
Shirley Ave
Encino Ave
Oso Ave
Ingomar St Raym
er S t
Variel Ave
Satic Saticoy St
oy St
Platt Ave
Valerio St Valerio St Valerio St

Lindley Ave
Hart St Hart St Hart St
Tujunga Ave
Kittridge St Kittridge St
e
Riverton Ave
i Av
Variel Ave
Bellaire Ave
Erwin St
d
Oxnard St Oxnard St
Hazeltine Ave
Ran
Clybou
Colfax Ave
Ethel Ave
Hatteras St
Burbank
Kester
rn
Mariano St Cumpston St
Ave
Louise Ave
Hayvenhurst Ave
Wells Dr Otsego St
Addison St
ad
Dumetz Ro
Colfax Ave
Forman Ave
ve
er A
Blvd
Valley Vista Hil
t
Kes
lD
r
r
Yosemite
od D
Mulholland Dr Dr
Dr
wo
Br
on
un
Ellen
ny
sw
Meridian St
Avenue 50
Ca
ick
Avenue 54
Roscomare Road
Av
lin
d Av
liz Blv
nk
e
en
West Silver Lake Dr

os Fe t ue
Franklin Ave L
Fra
S
ion
Talmadge St
Tr
is 60
ac
Div
Gardner St
Hobart Blvd
y
Selma Ave
St
Ave
Fountain Ave
Heliotrope Dr
Gower St
is
Coll
Ave
Waring Ave Waring Ave
Be
Be
lla
Co lle
k
Rosewood Ave vu
Par
gi o
m eA
st 1st St
Griffin Ave
oc 3rd St ve
Oxford Ave
Ro
1st St
o
kA
ve
Ech
Ch
ve Lucerne Blvd
S t
rd A
d
ur
no
ch
Re
8th St 6th
Hilg
Ln
Whitworth Dr St
ve
e 9th St Wa
sA
e Pac
Av Av Cashio St b
Hoover St
ka ash
St
a i e Sat rd St
a
an e ur Av Airdro Av
Luc
e St urn St
dro
t o
Av
te
ss m e
e
on ee
Mi
Gless St
Av
Sta
s ss
Mo St
e
M xa Cad
d
e
Fe
St
t
nP
nn
Av ill S
Te
ion
illa
Blv
ed
Te c Av
Gramercy Pl
Catt 2n
d
6th Ave
t
a e d
t
er
Sa
Un
Bre
r aug 22nd St 10 St
st
al
us A t
Mateo St
e
24th St 23 h
We
ve St
Av
e
rd
Mi
Av
St
e
le
d 29th St
Bl v 30th St
lit
St
p
30
clid
7th Ave
ary
al
Ma
th
za
ti on St
Eu
St
Av
Na
ran
Coliseum St 37t dro
e
hS
pe
39th St 39th St t
Pe
Es
Gr
lv d
an
sB Stocker St
Sa
42nd St
dV
e lm
Av Pa
i ew
se 48th St 47th St 47th St

Ro
r
50th Pl 51st St
kD
Blv
4th Ave
Gl
oc
d
en
co
Ma
Oxford
ad
Ave eA
60th Pl 60th St 59th Pl 60th St
in
ve 60th St
Br
St
Dr 67th St 66th St
ek
Cre
8th Ave
ff
Blu 77th St 76th St
t
Loyola Blvd
vd S 83rd St 83rd St
Western Ave
Emerson Ave
83rd St
r Bl 79th
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES ve
Mckinley Ave
ul 90th St
C
96th St Colden Ave
Co
ll eg 103rd St
Wall St
Per
eS
St
t
eS
Alp t 107th St
Hoover St
uca
in
s
eS
Bra
hin
2nd St t 111th Pl
Tol
gD
Ord
ni e
Dr
S t 118th Pl
r
n
a
Bo
m
Lo
ve
6th
St
sA
Hoover St
a
Luc
ve
nA
io
Un
2n
d St
edro
Santa Fe Ave
P
San
St
pe
186th St
t
ll S
Ho
Hi
ve
dA
Francisco St
or
nf
St
a
St
o
dr
Santa Fe Ave
Mateo St
11
Pe
Denker Ave
th
n
St
Sa
Pic
o Blv 10
d th
dro
St
e
0 1 2 4 Miles
Av
Pe
le
n
p
Sa
Ma
240th St
253rd St Q St
Blinn Ave
L St L St L St
Opp St
Eubank Ave
G St
C St
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCED NETWORK

Map C1
1st St Harbor
Priority Neighborhood Network

Beacon St
Walker Ave
17th St
Neighborhood Network
23rd St
Miner St
Arterials
Draft May 2015

0 3 6 9
Miles
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCED NETWORK -
Olive View Dr
Eg be rt St
El
dr
Si
m
VALLEY SUBAREA
id sh
ge
G Av
aw
Av Map C2
D la e e
ro ds
n fie t on
ld e
H Av Av
er
ri e e Priority Neighborhood Network
lv d
ck
B
Av
St
e Neighborhood Network
on
ia
sn
Te
or
lfa
t
Se
As
ir
St
Arterials
Se sn on Blvd Av
e y
d la
lv ac City of Los Angeles Boundary
St
nB Br M
sn o a
Re
k
dfo
l
Se
Po
oo
rd
se d
dle
Pl
e
Mas on Ave
Dr
yA
aB
Av
ve
Nug en t
pa
lv d
m
Wilb
Ta
Dr
ur A
Po rter
Ma
on
St
El
Co
fie
so
d
la
ld
l
rid
rb
nA
Be
He
Av
in
ge
Ran ch
rra
rri
e
Av
ve
Av
Te
ck
e
e
St
Av
Te
a San Fernando Mission Blvd San Fernando Mission
e
lfa
ny
Dr
Ke
ir
Av
Mt Gleason Ave
St
Corbin Ave
Tu ju
e
Chatsworth St e rc
Pi
n
Variel Ave
ga
Joh
White Oak Ave
Can
S
a nn
Te
om
lfa
St
yo n
a Av
ir
Lindley Ave
B ro
e
Louise Ave
Av
gu Apperson St
Wheatland Ave
Cly bo urn
Wilbur Ave
Mayall St ta
B lv
Mayall St
Mc
e
on
Lemona Ave
M
d
Lassen St St
Baden Ave
Vanalden Ave
rc
A ve
e
Pi
Oso Ave
Plummer St Plummer St Plummer St
Sy
lm
Ormon d St
Prairie St Tupper St
ar A
St
Cedros Ave
e
d
gu
ve
Nordhoff St
Independence Ave
Blv
ta
on
le
Rayen St Rayen St M
i rc
yC
Parthe nia St St
se
lle
Louise Ave
o
Va
Chase St nr
Eccles St Chase St Pe
Owensmouth Ave
Lanark St
Oso Ave
Strathern St Strathern St Strathe rn St
Encino Ave
Shirley Ave
Ingomar St Raym
er S t
Farralone Ave
Variel Ave
Etiwanda Ave
Sa tic Saticoy St
oy S t
Zelzah Ave
Vale rio St Sa tic

oy
Shoup Ave
Valerio St Valerio St Valerio St Valerio St St S

Leadwell St
Kester Ave
Pla tt Ave
Lindley Ave
Vanalden Ave
Hig hlan Hart St Hart St Hart St

d er Rd
Va
Glade Ave
Ranchito Ave
rn a
Av
Tujunga Ave
Kittridge St
Beck Ave
e
Kittridge St Kittridge St Kittridge St
Haynes St
Cedros Ave
Randi Ave
Riverton Ave
Platt Ave
Erwin St
Fair Ave
Cly bo urn
Oxnard St
Hazeltine Ave
Oxnard St
Ze lz ah Av
Colfax Ave
Ethel Ave
Hatteras St Mira nda St
Bellaire Ave
Manton Ave
Ave
Burbank Burbank Blvd
Kester
e
vd
Cedros Ave
Bu rban k Bl
Mariano St Cumpston St
s
L ui
Louise Ave
an
eS
Hayvenhurst Ave
nu Wells Dr
Ave Otsego St
Nestle Ave
Addison St Addison St Addison St

ad
Dum e tz Ro
Dr
o St
Ran ch
o
Colfax Ave
an
Forman Ave
Noe
Valm
Stern Ave
lici
line
Fe
Gree n
ar
lea f S
n
t
Ave
Sa
Roa d
oa d
Adlon R
Valley Vis ta
Blv d
Max we
Mulh ll F ire R
olla n d
d Dr
Br
e Roa d
nsu
w ic k
0 2 4 6
Draft April 2015
Roscom ar
Av
Miles
e
Kittridge St
Zelzah Ave
Ranchito Ave
Kittridge St Kittridge St
Vanalden Ave
Haynes St Kittridge St Kittridge St
Cedros Ave
Beck Ave
Riverton Ave Riverton Ave

Etiwanda Ave
Variel Ave
Erwin St
Fair Ave
Oxn Oxnard St
Clybourn
ar dS
Zelzah Av
Colfax Ave
Lindley Ave
t
Tujunga Ave
Ethel Ave
Bellaire Ave
Hazeltine Ave
A
Burbank Burbank
ve
e
Kester
Cedros Ave
Serrania Ave
Louise Ave
Hayvenhurst Ave
Wells Dr Otsego St
Nestle Ave
Addison St Addison St Addison St
o St
Ranch
Colfax Ave
Forman Ave
Noe
Stern Ave
line
Green
le af S t
oad
Av
Adlon R
e
Valley Vista
Blvd
Maxwe
ll Fire Rd
nd Dr
Mulholla
Roscomare Road
Franklin Ave
Hawthorn Ave
Be
nedic
Sto
Fountain Ave
tC
ne
any
Can
on
Croft Ave
Orange Dr
yon
Dr
Waring Ave
Sweetzer Ave
Roa
Be
d
lla
Rosewood Ave
gi o
Orlando Ave
Ro
Hilga
a
Lapeer Dr
d
3rd St 1st St
Co
1st St
rd Av
Gay
m
le
st
y Av
Ave
oc
e
kA
Ave
Ch
Sweetzer
ve
ur
ch
La Jolla
Le Conte Ave 6th St
We
W
Ln
ar
stho
na
Selby
8th St
ll A
e
lme
n Av
ve
Br
Ave Whitworth Dr
in
Ave
so
gh
Av
Ke
Cur
am
e Cashio St
lt
ran
Av
on
ve
t
doah S
Av
a iA Pr
oad
h
Av
an ur Monte Mar Dr
e
Coc
t o os
e
on ss Airdro Satu
ve
ve
Mi
on R
se
me S rn S
M sA 18th t t
r
gA
xa e St 18
Sa
Av
Av
Shena
Te ve th St
y
io ve
wt
Pa
e
uldin
Can
Oh o A eA
el
se tric Cad
Fe
le
h
Ida es illa
Spa
ia c Av
scal
21st S
Bl rdue
d
n
Pu ve
n e
er
t
Av
Te
vd
d
al
Catt
Blv
e
e
a
A
r aug
Tem
us A
st
Av
ve
ve
We
e
rt A
National Blvd
u
Mi
rco
rl S
ROW
lit
a 30th St
Pe
Ha
ary
d
l Bl v Av
e
Av
na se
r Power Line
ti o Ro
e
Na Rodeo Road
Mi
Coliseum St
dv
Mi
al e
lita
ve
Nicolet A
Av
ry
Fairfax-Hause
Av
e
e
Gr
an
dV
Dr
lvd
Ing Blvd
i ew
sB
uel
e
Av
l ew
lm
se Pa
Mi g
Ro
oo
dB
Don
Dr
7t
lvd
ck
h
Ce
Ma
Av
do
nt
e
in St
in
ad
Abbo el
t
St
Kinn ald
Br
ey B a
Av
Gl
lvd n
do
Be
e
en
Mc
e
co
th o
eA
Mc St
60th St
ve
ve
De
co
n
nn
ll
Av
el l
e
Av
Dr
Arizona Ave
e
ek
Cre
Pla
ff
e
Blu
Av
ya
t
k
t S
w
77th S 76th
a
Vis
ttyh
Airp
ta
Ki
Dr
80th St
ort
Hindry
St
th 83rd St
Blvd
d 79
Emerson Ave
lv
A
rB
ve
ve t
ul sS
Loyola Blvd
C g er
Ro
ill
W
96th St
Pe
rs hin
gD
r
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCED NETWORK-

WEST SUBAREA
Map C3

Arterials
Draft May 2015

0 1.5 3 4.5
Miles
Hill
Las Flores Dr Dr
Yo se m
d Dr
ite Dr
woo
Townse nd Ave
Ellen
v e
Br
e 51
m ni A
un
Woo dro
w Wils
on Alu
sw
Dr
ic k
Ave n
Meridian St ve
Av
lA
Ve
e
a
rm
s cu
on
La
Pa
n
rg
e
tA
a
Av Sa
ve
St
Av
nd Avenue 54
e
e la ta
l
Av
d C Vis
St
Av
e
liz B lv
e
e n te
n
Lo s F nu
io
Mo
nu
Tr
Finley Ave
e
Fe rn De ll Dr
a
v is
cy
50
Di
60
Franklin Ave
St
Frank lin Ave Carlos Ave Via Marisol
ay
Hawthorn Ave
W
Selma Ave
Harvard Blvd
n
Hillhurst Ave
io
Talmadge St
St
m
o
ve
ar
Foun tain Ave
dr
Foun tain Ave
M
Fountain Ave Av
an
Wes t Silver Lake Dr

is A
en
El Centro Ave
Lexington Ave Lexington Ave ue
Orange Dr
l les
A
43
Coll
ve
e rA
t
pp e
Cole Ave
Pe
oS
Normal Ave Av
Gower St
Lemon Grove Ave s
ie
Croft Ave
rad
Waring Ave
Vista St
a
ffr
Orange Dr
Mo Je
Alv
Heliotrope Dr
n ta
na
ev
Rosewood Ave
Formosa Ave
Be St t
lle tS
kA
Sweetzer Ave
ld
r
Oakwood Ave vu
Hoover St
eA bo
St
m
Pa
ve Ke
1st St nt Hu
Larchmont Blvd
las
ho
3rd St 1st St St
ug
Ec
Orlando Ave
Do
Lincoln Park Ave
St Andrews Pl
Ave
St
Lapeer Dr
The Grove Dr
Edinburg h Ave Edinburgh

ra
Griffin Ave
no
Ave
Oxford Ave
Av e St
Workman St
4th S t
A
4th S t
Re
llo
n
So n n
ion
6th St t
St
Bo
te S t
Sweetz er
Un n ie B
aS
La Jolla
Alp
t
uc
Hayes D in e
Lucerne Blvd
r 8th St
Tol
nS
4t
7th St Ord S t
7th St
d
e
St
iso
St
8th St
Av
6th
B lv
Wh itw
d
rc h
Bedford St
St
Av
o rth D 9th St
r
as
e
c
Mu
Blv
pau
St
Av
Lu
h ran
rn e
Sh Wa
d ia
Cash
Rim
e
ion ba
io S t eri
d sh
Coc
Un an
t
ha n
S
St
Av
Lu c
12 t e
t
A ve
S
th
Ec
ro
te
Sa tu
r St
Westmoreland Ave
ve
on
Hoover St
Airdro n St
St
d
Sta
oa h
18 th me S
t
Pe d
t
t
nA
St 1
pe
Lo
8 th S
ll S
Curs
e
t B lv
e
tt S
Ho
ree
Hi
St
Sa n
n a nd
v
Gless St
St u is S
Av
Wilton Pl
A
Mo
St Andrews Pl
erg
rd
Santa Fe Ave
Wes
ed
Sh e
fo
Ev
Boyle Ave
21 st S
t 21st St 20th St
an
ya rd
11
Bre
2n
th 6th d
St
6th Ave
22nd St Pic St St St
Vine
2
ve
24th St o
Normandie Ave
24th St 3 rd 10
Sa nta Fe Av
Blv
th 4th
rt A
St d
e
ve
23 St St
e
rd
ou
St
rc
St
id A
l
Av
tta
6th
c
W
Ha
29th St St
ri e
30th St 29th Pl
Eu
an
St
Mateo St
RO
23
Ma
Gr
rd
za
Santa Fe Ave
30 St 8th
th
10th Ave
ran
St St
ve
7th Ave
Rod eo Roa d
Buckingham Road
ve
pe
St
le A
Es
hA
p
dro
Coliseum St
iffit
Ma
37 t
r Powe r Line
h
Pe
Sa
Ave
Gr
Ruthelen St
nc St
n
he 39th St
z 39th St
Sa
39 t
Dr h St
Nic olet
Menlo Ave
e
Av
r
ed
Fa irfa x-Hause
re 42nd St 42nd St
C 42nd Pl
el D
ig u
M
Gramercy Pl
46th St 47th St 47th St

48th St 47th St
48th St
Don
Honduras St
51st St 50th Pl 51st St

52nd St
4th Ave
8th Ave
Denker Ave
Wilton Pl
60th St d 60th St 59th Pl 60th St

Blv 60th Pl
ark 62nd St
eP
H yd
66th St
Rimpau Blvd
67th St 66th St
West Blvd
8th Ave
Budlong Ave
Airp
77 t
h
o
St
79th St
rt B lv
d
83rd St 82nd St 83rd St 83rd St
Wile y P
88th St
Budlong Ave
o st A ve 88th Pl
90th St
92nd St
Western Ave
S t
94 th
Mckinley Ave
St
95th St
Colden Ave
n
a rro
Bandera St
im
C
102nd St 103rd St 103rd St
107th St 107th St
111th Pl
Hoover St
Wilmington Ave
San Pedro St
118th Pl
Stanford Ave
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCED NETWORK-

Hoover St
CENTRAL, EAST & SOUTH SUBAREA

Map C4

Arterials
186th St
Fra nc isco St
0 1 2 3
Denker Ave
118th Pl
Stanford Ave
Hoover St
186th St
Fra nc isco St
Denker Ave
240th St
Frampton Ave
253rd St Q St
President Ave
Nep tun e Ave
Blinn Ave
L St L St
L St
Opp St
G St
Eubank Ave
C St
Ava lon Blvd
Meyler St
1st St Harbor 1st St

Cabrillo Ave
Grand Ave
Sampso n Way
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCED NETWORK -

Weymouth Ave
17th St
HARBOR SUBAREA St
Walker Ave
d
El 22 n
Map C5 an
ita
Dr 23rd St
Min e
r St
26th St
27th St
St
t
a
aS
ba r
Alm
Ba r
Arterials
0 1 2 3
¯
rra
Sie
Olive View El G av
dr ina
id
Fo ge
lk
Po
ot
hi
rd
G ll
fo
le
Se
no
x
pu
Ro
ak
l ve
e
s
so
rd
da
y
ba
ed
la
ac
Bl
b
Hu
n M
s no
Se
d
ar
bb
Hu
lla ne
Be or
rra sb
d n ys Te O
an xt
o
Nu
Br Fox
White Oak
Ta mpa
Rinaldi Pa n
Va
Chatsworth Chatsworth W en tw
orth
Sepulveda
Ar
Canoga
Woodley
le
t
Devonshire
La
ne
Balboa
Apperson
or
ure
Hayvenhurst
sb
Zelzah
l
Lassen
C
O
Vesper
Louise
Marilla
an
la
el
yo
B
ir cle Plummer Plummer
rra or
d
n
Ar
C n
lley Te nf do
ia
le
Va a el or
t
Br Pe
a
Nordhoff Sh La Tu na Ca
ny on
Su nla nd
Mason
d
De Soto
or o se
Haskell
Parthenia
xf r
Canoga
Tu en
P
Wilbur
Roscoe
Winnetka
Corbin
Strathe rn
G
Strathern
Lankershim
le
Topanga Canyon
Ingomar
no
Cl ybourn
ak
s
Valjean
Haskell
Tampa
Coldwater Canyon
Hayvenhurst
Fallbrook
Shoup
Vano wen
White Oak
Vanowen
Lindley
Woodlake
Tujunga
Clybourn
Reseda
Vineland
Platt
Victory
Balboa
Va
Hazeltine
Woodman
Cl ybourn
l le Oxnard Oxnard Oxnard Oxnard
Colfax
y
C
ir c
Fulton
Whitsett
le Burbank
Sepulveda
Burbank
w na
Kester
Kelo Chandler
Van Nuys
ra
nt u Magnolia
Mecca
Ve
Colfax
Riverside Camarillo
Mu
a
lho
lla
Re sed
nd Ve ntu Moorpark
Ha ra
ve wn
nh Valley Vista t La
ur s
t r es
Fo o
Colorado lo rad
Yo se Co
m ite
Ve rdug
Fig
Ca
u er
ck
hu
Ro
o
Yo rk
64
e
oa
gle El P
ng
Ea
ue
a so
en
s Feliz
eliz Lo
Av
Av
Lo s F
r
he
en
tc
rio n
Hillhurst
Marmio n
Franklin
Fle
ue
Fran klin
Glendale
Hollywood
Cy
Hype
60
Bronson
Fairfax
p
Sunset
re
Gower
Wilton
Fountain
Cole Wilcox
ss
is
Vine
Co ll
Santa Monica Riv
er
Su n
sid
Highland
um
e
Crescent Heights
Eastern
Melrose
se t
do
to
di
g
Normandie
La Brea
St a
ara
Virgil
in
a
br
nt
Doheny
Beverly
Alv
Hu
Griffin
a m
Ga Burton ng
yle y pri A
lh
do
S
rt
Wilshire 3Rd
rth
pa
No North Main
ara
ar d
6Th Valle
Virgil
m
Ba rrin
Wilshire Zo y
Alv
io n
Ra
Hilg
Wilton
7Th na
Vig
l
Ma
t
Ce
f ax
Un
Su nse Olympic 8Th 2N
Ve
Ce v er
Irolo
7Th
gto n
s
Hoover
Sa n d
n
nt
Te
ca
n nin
Fair
t
es
Pic o
nt
te
Be
Vic
er
ur
m
Wa
ic e nte
Palisade
Lu
ur
St a
y
pl
a
nte ba
w
Sa n V
n
e
ire sh
sh a
5T
Santa Fe
to
ly
h Pico
r
e h
M liv e w e
ils pi
c e Ve ni c
io
Gl
So
Boyle
so n
ill
W Ve nic Venice
Ba
Cr e
Un
n H
O Flo
lym
en
M issio
s
Pa 1
4Th St
rrin
rt
c if O e Washington
ni c
Ro be
ic Hoover
W
Alam eda
g
ai
Co
Bu
Ve
es
9T
to
na
Ma
n
as
n
Ov o d
h
16
n
tw
t
way
nn
dy
Adams Wh
re
Mateo
T h 14 T
i ce
Arlington
i ng itt ie
o
er
Lo
h
en r
lan
s 30 Th
Gate
eV
a
alm Jefferson
Indiana
ni c
La Cien eg
d
8Th
Sa
ro
P 15 Th
Ve
ed
Rodeo
wt
Crenshaw
e
ell
nP
ni c
d
e
Ve
an
Sa
e
Ce
Gr
ni c Martin Luther King, Jr
Long Beach
Ve
n
a
tin
s e
La Bre
Stocker
In g
Ro
ela
Sa Vernon
le w
w 48Th
Compton
te
oo
se lle
Ro A i ce
Western
d
bbo en t 54Th
t Kin V or
G
Sh
In
n ey Slauson Slauson
le
g
nc
le
Avalon
Van Ness
All
Central
w
Pa
oe
er
oo
a
Gage
ci
lv
La Cienega
fi c
n
Cu
rso
f fe
Hoover
Je
San Pedro
Broadway
Florence
Vermont
Normandie
Lin
Main
c
a
oln
er
er
Tij
lv
Sepulveda
La
Cu
Pe
Airpor t
ste r
W estc he 92Nd
r sh
92Nd
i ng
96Th
Vis

ta
Sepulveda
Aviation
De
Pe
108Th 108Th
Vermont
lM
r sh
ar
i ng
Imperial Imperial
Broadway
Glendal
do
Be Co
v
Su
erl lle
ara
y g
ns
e
ay
120Th
e
3R
Alv
Alp
dw
d
io
ine
e
Un
1S
r oa
t El Segundo
B
a
ro
Vi
rth
ue
d
gn
135Th
n
Fig
n
No
Bi xel
ra
es
io
Ce s
G
6Th
Un
a rEC Rosecrans
as
h av
pe
2N ez
c
Ho
Lu
d
n
el
ry
Te
ai
a
Bi x
ud
M
ro
Ra
W il
pl
a
ue
sh ir
rth
e
Be
m
n
e
Figuero a
Fig
No
ire
io
5Th
Un
el
z
a
Vermont
Bi x
ro
ue
e
el
liv
Ce nter
Fig
Bi x
W
ilsh
g
Ja
ri n
me ire d
sM 5T
Sp
h 2N
n
.W 6T 1St 18
ai
oo h 182Nd
M
ay
a
d
ro
w
ue
3R 190Th
oa
d
Fig
Santa Fe
Br
9T
h
pe
O 4T Del Amo
lym h
Ho
e
Cen tral
M issio
pi
c nc
rr a
To
n
8T
h
7T Carson
h
o
dr
9T
Ve
Alam eda
h
Pe
ni c
e 223Rd
Santa Fe
n
Mateo
Western
Sa
ro a
ge in
Ve
r
ue
we
a
s
ni c
le
M
9T
Fig
e
Flo
Pic
An
o
ll
Hi
Wa
0 1 2 4 Miles
s
Lo
sh 16
in g T
O
h
n
ton
ly
ai
Lomita
M
pi
Vermont
c
Normandie
ed a
Wilmingto n
Ava lon
Alam
BICYCLE ENHANCED NETWORK

Figuero a
Anaheim
Henry Ford
Map D1
Frie s
Westm ont
Bicycle Paths Ca pit
o l
e
sid
Protected Bicycle Lanes
t
Fro n Sea
Summ erland
Priority Neighborhood Enhanced Network 1St 1St

Weym ou th rn
5Th
Harbor
Gaffey Gaffey Gaffey
9Th
Arterials 13Th
W
es
Pacific
Freeways 19Th
te
25Th
City of Los Angeles Boundary Pa s
eo
D el
Ma
r
Shepard
Draft May 2015

0 3 6 9
Miles
rra
Sie
Olive View
El
Gav
ina
¯
d
dr
id
S
or
e
xf
ge
l k
Ro
pu
e
d
Po
so
ar
lve
ed
bb
da
Bl
u
l ay
H
ac
n
Ses
non M
yo
Fo
pa
ot
d
m
an
hi
ar
ll
C
Ta
bb
da
Hu lla
ng
Rinaldi Be ne
ju
or
Tu
d n rra sb
Rese
Santa Susana Pa
ss an to Te O
Porter Ranch
San Fernando Mission x
Big
Br Fox Pa
Chatsworth ys
Chatsworth Nu
Ar
Wentworth
n
Sepulveda
le
Va
ta
Devonshire
Apperson
Canoga
ne
Woodley
Lassen lla or Tuju
Sepulveda
sb
Balboa
Marilla Be
O
Zelzah
Ar
rra
Louise
cle Plummer Plummer rd
le
Te
nga
Hayvenhurst
Cir n
Vesper
fo
ta
lley
C
Va an do
Nordhoff Br el nyon
Sh La Tuna Ca
any
on
rd
Reseda
Parthenia fo
x
Mason
Sunland
Tu
Haskell
De Soto
Roscoe
Wilbur
le
Strathern Strathern
Canoga
oa
Valley Circle
Tampa
ks
Winnetka
Corbin
Woodlake
Lankershim
Clybourn
Valjean
Haskell
Vanowe Vanowen
n
Kester
Shoup
Fallbrook
Lindley
Victory
Laurel Canyon
Tujunga
Hayvenhurst
White Oak
Clybourn
Platt
Oxnard Oxnard Oxnard
Topanga Canyon
Balboa
Vineland
Hazeltine
Burbank
Colfax
Burbank
Louise
Clybourn
wna
Woodman
Kelo
Magnolia
Van Nuys
Cahuenga
Kester
Sepulveda
Riverside Camarillo
a
Ventura
Canoga
Fulton
M
ul
Whitsett
ho
ve ra La
st
Resed
lla
nh re
Fo
nd
ur
Radford
st
Coldwater Canyon
Be do
lora
ve
rly Yosem Co
Gl ite
en
Ca
64
hu
ck
Ro
en
York
gle El
nue
te r P
ga
he Ea as
o
ga Ri
ve tc
ain liz l e
Los Fe rsi F roa
y Ave
nt de
e
ue
r
ou Franklin Fig
Cy
M
erio
Hollywood
nte
pr
ion
Hillhurst
Sunset
es
Hyp
Mo
is
s
rm
Sta
Fairfax
e
Wilton
Coll
Ma
Vine
Santa Monica
diu
ak
m
rL
le
on
Highland
v
Melrose
gt
Sil
in
nt
Beverly
Eastern
Virgil
Hu
Glenda
Hilga
La Brea
o
Burton y
G
d
rd
art
lle
ay
3Rd
Griffin
Wilshire
Va
le
mp
et 6Th
lv
Hill
Wilshire
Crescent Heights
Zo
Ra
Bev
A
ns
n
Ce
Ce na
Ve
l
U ara
Su
Te
nt
Barring
as
8Th
Western
2N sar
te
Wilton
erly
m
ur
7Th
San Olympic d EC
y
Irolo
pl
ra
Pico
Luc ion
aw
Vic ha
ton
n
e
Wa
n
na ve
o
ba
Gle
ent
ta
i
z
er
e 5T
h sh
n
nsh
w
on Pico
Un
to
M c 6T
pi
Flo
h
Ov
rtson
So
Palisades
Cre
Ve
ym
rea
Pa e Washington nic
erl
1St
Ol
Bu
e
9T
les
cif
Missio
ic nic
h
an
nd
n
Ve
ge
Co
y
Ma
Robe
La B
4Th
d
Hoover Hoover
Vermont
ast nn e Adams 16 Wh
way
T
An
h
l
ing itti
nic
s
Alameda
Mateo
s er
ra
30Th
Ve
Sa
Jefferson
Boyle
lm
ro
Lo
nt
Pa 8Th
Gate
wt
15Th
Rodeo
ed
Ce
ell
e Exposition Boulevard N/R

e
nP
Indiana
nic
C
Sa
Ve
La Cienega

nt
In
ine
g
se
er
la
Ro e Sa Vernon
lew
ck
nic w 48Th
Arlington
te
oo
Ve
Sto
se lle
d
Long Beach
In
Ro Abb 54Th
gl
ot Kin
ao
ney Slauson Slauson Slauson

ew
Pa
All
an
a
oo
cif
Hoover
nd
GageGage
i
ic
Broadway
n
Normandie
rso
ffe
Je Florence
Lin
a
r
er
co
Tij
lve
ln
La Cienega
Main
La
Avalon
Central
Cu
Sepulveda
Figueroa
Van Ness
ster
r sh
Westche 92Nd 92Nd

96Th
Century
Pe Vista
Century Century
108Th 108Th
ing Del M
a

shin
Imperial
Aviation
Imperial
g
Sepulveda
Vermont
Per r Vis
Su
y
120Th
ta
Be
ns
ve
et
wa
rly
De
ion
n
El Segundo
ad
ai
Un
lM
as
ar
Bro
el
Vi
rth
a
g
Bix
rth
Luc
ero
nd
No
ne
3Rd
u
s
ion
ra
No
Fig
Vermont
Bixel
Un
Ces
ar
y
6Th EC
dr
hav
Te
2N
el
ez
au
d
m
ro
e
pl
Bix
B
e
ue
ion
Wi
lsh Alondra
Fig
ire
Un
pe
el
a
y
ro
Ho
Bix
e
dr
ue
liv
au 3R
d
g
el
e
i
O
B
F
i x
1S
t
B
Ja Nd
W 182
n
me
Sp
Center
ilsh
ai
sM 5T
ire h
M ring
.W 6T
h 1St
er
oo 190Th
ue
d
Western
Fig
ay
pe Flow roa
Del Amo
dw ill
Santa Fe
9T
Ho
h
roa H
O 4T
B
h
Missio
lym
n
pi
c
8T
Carson
h
Central
o
dr
9T
7T
h
h 223Rd 223Rd
Pe
a
n
Sa
Sep
ero
ulv
u
Mateo
ed
les
a
9T
Alameda
Fig
h
ge ain
Santa Fe
Ve
Pic
An M
nic
e o
s
O
Lo
Wa ly
in
shi 16 0 1mp 2 4 Miles Lomita

ng
Ma
T h 14 ic
T
eda
ton
h
Vermont
Avalon
Alam
Wilmington
Normandie
Anaheim
Fries
on
Henry Ford
ibs
BICYCLE LANE NETWORK Westmont

SG
ol
hn
Map D2 pit e
Ca
Jo
Front s id
Existing Bicycle Lane* *Part of the Bicycle Enhanced Network of Cycle Sea
Summerland
Planned Priority Bicycle Lane*
} Tracks (Protected Bicycle Lanes in Map D1) 1St
7Th
Existing Bicycle Lane 9Th
Miralest
e
Harbor
Planned Priority Bicycle Lane

Gaffey
19Th
Planned Bicycle Lane Pa
seo 25Th
Arterials De
lM
ar
Pacific
Freeways
Gaffey
0 3 6 9
rra
Sie
Olive View G av
ina
El
dr
rd
id
S
x fo
ge
ep
lk
Ro
rd
ulv
oe
Po
e
ds
ba
e
b
y
da
Bl
la
Hu
ac
n
Ses M
no
n
yo
Fo
pa
ot
d
m
an
hi
ar
ll
Ta
bb
a
ga
d
Hu ys lla ne
Rinaldi
un
Nu Be or
uj
n
T
n rra sb
Re se
San ta Susan a Va
Pass to Te O
Porter Ranch
Bi g
Fo Pa
Chatsw orth
Ar
Wen tworth
l
ys
et
a
Devonshire Nu
n
Va Apperson
ne
Woodley
Tu
Lassen lla or d
Sepulveda
sb
Balboa
Marilla Be or ju n
O nf
Zelzah
rra
g
a
Louise
Ar
irc le Plummer Plummer Te Br n
Vesper
le
yC
aC
ll e do
ta
Va
a
Nordhoff el nyon
Sh La Tu na Ca
nyo
d
n
Reseda
Parthenia or
xf
Mason
Sunland
Tu
Haskell
De Soto
Roscoe
Wilbur
le
Strathe rn Strathern
Canoga
no
Valley Circle
ak
Tampa
s
Winnetka
Corbin
Woodlake
Clybourn
Lankershim
Valjean
Haskell
Vano wen
Vanowen
Kester
Shoup
Fallbrook
Lindley
Victory
Tujunga
Hayvenhurst
White Oak
Clybourn
Platt
Vineland
Oxnard Oxnard
Van Nuys
Oxnard
Topanga Canyon
Balboa
Burbank Burbank
Colfax
Louise
Fulton
Clybourn
Coldwater Canyon
Ve ntu ra wn a
ra Kelo
Whitsett
ntu Magnolia
Cahuenga
Kester
Ve
Laurel Canyon
Sepulveda
Van Nuys
Riverside Camarillo
a
Colfax
Ca noga
M
Hazeltine
ul
n
Woodman
h
Ha
Moorpark aw
ol
ve Valley V
n ista Ve ntu s tL
Re sed
la
hu ra re
Fo
nd
rst o
Be lo rad
ve
rly Yose Co
Gl mite
en
Ca
64
hu
ck
e
Ro York
ng
e g le El
n ue
er Ea Pa
at so
ve
Ri ch
ing v t
liz er le a
ta Lo s Fe si
n
n de F ro
ey A
ue
r
ou Fran klin Fig

Cy
M
te
e rio
Hollywood
n
pr
ion
Hillhurst
Sunset
es
on
Hyp
s
Mo
is
rm
gt
St a
in
Fairfax
Wilton
ke
Vine
Santa Monica nt
Ma
Co ll
diu
n
La
m
Hu
le
to
er
Melrose
ilv
in g
S
nt
Beverly
Eastern
Highland
Hu
Virgil
Glen da
Hilga
o
rt
Ga Bu rto n y
rd
le
a
yle y
3Rd l
Griffin
Wilshire io n
Normandie
iss Va
mp
Sa 6Th
et n M
Hill
io n
Wilshire n
Ra
Be v
ns
Alv
Virgil
Ce
Vi io
Ba rrin
Vig
7Th
s
Ve
Un arad
Su ce
Te
n
Olympic 8Th 2N iss

M
te
e rly
tu
m
ca
te
nt 7Th
es
e d
w
ax
p
ry
Irolo
ra
a
Lu
gto n
le
Wa
n
La Brea
St a
t an b
Gl e
sh a
er
5T
n
as
to
h 3R h
n
Fairf
n
d
w
on Pico
i
on
c
So
M pi e Ve nic e
Flo
Palisa de
Un
s
6T
Cr e
nic h
W
Pa lym Ve Washington
4Th 1St
O
Bu
9T
berts
ci f
es
La Cie nega
M issio
ic
h
e
e
re a
n
tw
Co
dy
Ma
iv
Ro
B
Hoover Hoover
as
t nn e Adams Wh
w ay
Ol ro a
oo
Fig
in g 16 it
La
nic
d
ti e
Mateo
s 30 Th Th r
Ve Jefferson
ro
alm
aw
P 8Th
Gate
t
15 Th
Rodeo
ed
Indiana
e ll
P

e
nic
Soto Bo yle
an
Ve
S
Ce
La Cie ne ga

tin
In g
r
s e
e la
Vernon
ke
Central
Ro Sa
le w
w
oc
48Th
Arlington
te
oo
St
se
d
lle
Long Beach
In
Avalon
Ro Abb 54Th
gl
Alameda
o t Kin
ao
ne y Slauson Slauson
ew
Pa
All
an
a
ci
oo
d
Gage Gage
ind
fic
n
Broadway
rso
f fe
Je Florence
Lin
a
c
er
er
Hoover
Tij
lv
o ln
La Cienega
Main
La
Central
Cu
Sepulved a
Western
st er
r sh
92Nd
i
Westc he
Normandie
92Nd
Van Ness
n g
96Th
Pe Vista

De
l
Pe
108Th 108Th
M
Vermont
ar
Imperial
Aviation
Imperial
in g
Sepulveda
r sh Vista
120Th
De
lM
ar
Vermont
Rosecrans
Figueroa
N d
18 2
190Th
Western
Del Amo
Carson
223Rd 223R d
Sep
ulv
e da
Lomita
eda
Vermo nt
Ava lon
Alam
Wilmington
Normandie
Anaheim
Frie s
on
Henry Fo rd
i bs
Westmont
SG
VEHICLE ENHANCED NETWORK ol

hn
pit
Ca
Jo
Fron
t ide
as
Map E Se
Summerland
5Th
9Th
M irale st
e
Harbor
Vehicle Enhanced Network

Gaffey
19Th
Arterials rn
te 25Th
es
W
Freeways
Pacific
0 3 6 9
rra
¯
Sie
Olive View Gav
ina
El
d
dr
id
or
Se
xf
ge
l k
pu
Ro
e
d
Po
so
ar
lve
l ed
bb
da
B
u
l ay
H
ac
La
n
Ses M
ur
non
yo
Fo
pa
el
ot
m
an
hi
ll
C
Ca
Ta
a
ny
lla
ng
ne
on
Rinaldi Be
ju
or
Tu
Santa Susana Pa n rra sb
ss to Te O
Porter Ranch
Big
Fo Pa ys
Chatsworth Nu
Ar
Wentworth
n
le
Va
ta
Devonshire
Apperson
Canoga
ne
Woodley
Lassen lla or
Sepulveda
Tuju
sb
Balboa
Marilla Be
O
Zelzah
Ar
rra
ng
cle
Louise
Plummer Plummer rd
le
Cir Te n
Vesper
fo
ta
lley
aC
Hayvenhurst
Va an do
Nordhoff Br el nyon
Sh La Tuna Ca
any
on
Parthenia rd
x fo
Mason
Sunland
Tu
Reseda
Haskell
De Soto
Roscoe
Wilbur
le
Strathern Strathern
Canoga
no
Valley Circle
ak
Tampa
s
Winnetka
Corbin
Woodlake
Clybourn
Lankershim
Valjean
Haskell
Vanowe Vanowen
n
Laurel Canyon
Kester
Shoup
Lindley
Fallbrook
Victory
Tujunga
Hayvenhurst
White Oak
Coldwater Canyon
Clybourn
Platt
Oxnard Oxnard Oxnard
Topanga Canyon
Balboa
Hazeltine
Burbank Burbank Vineland
Colfax
Louise
Clybourn
w na
Woodman
Kelo
Magnolia
Van Nuys
Cahuenga
Kester
Sepulveda
Riverside Camarillo
a
Ventura
Fulton
M
ul
Whitsett
ra
ho
ve La
st
Resed
lla
nh re
Fo
nd
ur
Radford
st do
Be lora
ve
rly Yosem Co
Gl ite
en
Ca
h
64
ck
ue
Ro York
le
ng
e g El
nue
r
a
Ea Pa
at Ri he so
i ng s Feliz ve tc
ta eliz Lo rsi Fle
roa
y Ave
Los F de
e
un ue
r
o Franklin Fig
Cy
M
erio
Hollywood
nte
pr
ion
Hillhurst
Sunset
es
on
Hyp
is
s
Mo
rm
gt
Sta
in
e
Fairfax
Wilton
Coll
Ma
Vine
nt
diu
ak
m
Hu
rL
le
Highland
ve
Melrose
S i l
Beverly
Eastern
Virgil
ion
Glenda
Normandie
Hilga
t
La Brea
o
r
Burton y
ss
G
a
rd
lle
Mi
ay
3Rd
Griffin
Sun
Wilshire ain Va
le
M
mp
6Th
set
et Wilshire rth
Crescent Heights
R
Bev
Alv
ns 1S
Daly
No
Ce
7Th t
Ve
Un arad
Su
Te
nt
Barring
as
8Th 2N
te
Wilton
erly
m
te
ur
7Th
San Olympic d
y
Irolo
pl
ra
Pico
aw
Vic
Luc ion
ton
Wa
e
na
n
Sta
ta
ent ba
ion
Gle
e
e 5T
Hoover
h sh
ll
n
nsh
w
on Pico
U
to
Hi r
c
o
Western
M pi n
Ve ic e
Fl
rtson
So
Ve
Cre
Palisades
Pa ym e Washington nic
Ol
a
Bu
e 4Th 1St
Ov
cif
Missio
ic nic
9T
er
nd
n
Co Ve
y
ive
Robe
Bre
ast Adams 3Rd

lan
Wh
way
Ol
16
d
La
itti
T
Mateo
s e 30Th h er
Sa
Jefferson
Boyle
lm nic
Pa 8Th
ro
Gate
wt
15Th
Ve Rodeo
Indiana
ell
e
ed
Exposition Boulevard N/R

e
nic
C
nP
Ve
e
ea
Crenshaw

Sa
nt
in
La Cienega
Ing
e
se
er
la
Ro Sa Vernon
lew
ck
e w 48Th
o
Arlington
nic te
Sto La Br
se lle
od
Ve
Long Beach
In
54Th
g
Ro Abbo
l
o
Alameda
t Kinn
ey Slauson Slauson
na
ew
Pa
All
Broadway
a
oo
da
cif
d
Gage
n
Avalon
ic
n
Mi
rso
Central
ffe
Je Florence
Lin
a
r
er
co
Hoover
Tij
lve
ln
La Cienega
Main
La
Cu
Sepulveda
Western
ster
r sh
Westche 92Nd
Normandie
92Nd
Van Ness
Vermont
96Th
Century
Pe Vista
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES Century Century
108Th 108Th
ing Del M
a
g
Vermont
shin
Imperial
Aviation
Imperial
g
Be
rin
Sepulveda
Su
ve
Glend
do
ns
rly
Sp
Per r Vist
et
120Th
w
ale
ara
rth
ion
n
aD
ad
ai
Un
Alv
No ay
o
M
as
B
el M
el
Vi
rth
a
g
ar
Bix
rth
Luc
ero
No
ne
3Rd
u
s
ion
Vermont
No
6Th Fig
Bixel
Un
Ces
ar
y
2N EC
dr
d
el
hav
Te
ez
au
m
ro
Bix
pl
Wi
Be
e
ue
lsh
ion
ire
n
Fig
e
Un
el
ra op
liv
5Th
G H
O d e
Bix
Figueroa
3R
el
4T d
Ja h 1S
W t
Bix
me
sM ilsh Nd
n
Center
.W ir e 182
ai
5T 182Nd
ir n
oo h
M
Oly
d 6T
h 1St
er
Sp
mp
ic
w
190Th
a
H
Flo
ro
ay ill
ue
Fig
dw
9T
pe
h Del Amo
oa
Ho
Santa Fe
Br
8T
h
Central
Carson
o
dr
9T
7T
h
Ve h
Pe
nic 223Rd
n
e
Sa
Ve
les
nic
Alameda
Mateo
e
Western
ge
9T
h
An ain
Santa Fe
Ve
s
nic Pic
o 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Lo M
Lomita Lomita
eda
Pacific Coast
An
Alam
ah
eim
Wilmington
Figueroa
PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS
Avalon Fries
on
Henry Ford
ibs
Map F Westmont
SG
ol
hn
pit e
Ca
Jo
Front sid
Pedestrian Segments Sea
Summerland
1St
Arterials 7Th
9Th
Miralest
e
Harbor
Freeways
Gaffey
19Th
rn
City of Los Angeles Boundary te 25Th
es
W
Pacific
0 3 6 9
¯
rra
Sie
Olive View Gav
ina
El
d
dr
id
or
Se
xf
ge
p
l k
Ro
e
d
ulv
Po
so
ar
ed
ed
bb
a
Bl
u
l ay
H
ac
La
n
Ses M
u
non
yo
Fo
pa
re
ot
m
an
lC
hi
C
ll
Ta
an
a
y
G
lla
le
ng
ne
on
n
Rinaldi Be
ju
or
oa
Tu
n rra sb
ks
Santa Susana Pa
ss San Fernando Mission to Te O
Porter Ranch
Brand x x
Big
Fo Pa
Ar
Wentworth
s
le
uy
ta
Devonshire N
n Apperson
Va ne
Woodley
Lassen lla or
rd
Tuju
Marilla sb
Sepulveda
Balboa
Be O fo
Zelzah
cle rra an
Louise
Ar
Plummer Plummer
nga
Cir Te Br n
Vesper
le
lley
C
ta
Va do
Nordhoff el nyon
Sh La Tuna Ca
Reseda
any
rd
on
Parthenia fo
x
Mason
Sunland
Tu
Haskell
De Soto
Roscoe
Wilbur
le
Strathern Strathern
Canoga
no
Valley Circle
o
ak
Be
Tampa
s
ll C Saticoy Saticoy Saticoy
Winnetka
Corbin
an
yo
Woodlake
n Sherman Sherman Sherman
Clybourn
Lankershim
Valjean
Haskell
Vanowe Vanowen
n
Kester
Shoup
Fallbrook
Lindley
Victory
Tujunga
Hayvenhurst
White Oak
Coldwater Canyon
Clybourn
Platt
Oxnard Oxnard
Topanga Canyon
Balboa
Hazeltine
Laurel Canyon
Burbank Burbank
Colfax
Louise
Vineland
Clybourn
wna
Woodman
Canoga
ra Kelo
ntu Magnolia
Ve
Cahuenga
Kester
Sepulveda
Riverside Camarillo
Van Nuys
a
Fulton
M
u l
Whitsett
ho
ve ra La
st
Resed
lla
nh re
Fo
nd
ur
Radford
st do
Be lora
ve
rly Yosem Co
Gl ite
en
Ca
4
hu
ck
Ro
en
York
ue 6
e r gle El
P
ga
at he Ea as
o
ven
ng liz Riv tc
t ai Los Fe Fle roa
n
er
un sid ue
rey A
o Franklin e Fig
e
Cy
M
erio
Hollywood
nt
pr
ion
Hillhurst
Sunset
es
on
Hyp
is
s
Mo
rm
gt
Sta
Fairfax
tin
Wilton
Coll
Ma
Vine
Santa Monica n
diu
ak
m
Hu
rL
le
Highland
v
Melrose
Sil
Beverly
Eastern
Virgil
on
Glenda
Hilga
t
La Brea
o
r
Burton
ssi
Gay y
d
rd
ley 3Rd lle

Mi
Griffin
pa
Wilshire ain
Normandie
M Va
m
et 6Th
lv
Wilshire rth n
Crescent Heights
Ra
Bev
ns
A
Virgil
n
No io
Ce
7Th
Ve
U ara
Su iss
Te
nt
Barring
as
8Th 2N
te
M
Wilton
erly
te
ur
7Th
San Olympic d
to
y
Irolo
pl
ra
Pico
aw
Vic
Luc ion
Wa
e
na
n
Sta
ta
ent ba
Gle
e 5T
n
h sh
Hoover
nsh
n
ill
w
on Pico
io
to
c
l o
M pi
F
Venice
rtson
Un
So
Cre
Palisades
n H er
ym
W
Pa
rea
e 1St
ai
Ol
Bu
9T
cif
es
Missio
ic
t
h
nic
nd
n
Wa
w
Co Ma
y
4Th
Robe
Ve
La B
shi
Adams
Alameda
ast nn Wh
way
ng
oo
ing itti
d
ton 1
Mateo
Western
s 30Th 6T er
Sa
Boyle
lm e Jefferson h
Pa 8Th
Gate
wt
nic Rodeo Rodeo

15Th
dro
Ve
ell

e
Pe
i c
Indiana
n
C
n
Ve
Sa

La Brea
nt
in
Ing
e
se
er
la
Ro Sa Vernon
lew
ck
w 48Th
o
Arlington
te
Sto
se lle
od
Long Beach
In
Ro Abb 54Th
g l
ot Kin
Vermont
ney Slauson Slauson

na
ew
Pa
All
a
oo
da
cif
d
Gage
n
Avalon
ic
n
Mi
rso
Central
ffe
Je Florence
Lin
a
Crenshaw
r
er
co
Hoover
Tij
lve
ln
La Cienega
Main
La
Cu
Sepulveda
ster
r sh
Westche 92Nd
Normandie
92Nd
Van Ness
Western
96Th
Vermont
Century
Pe Vista
Century
o
Broadway
108Th 108Th
ing Del M
a
shin
Imperial
Aviation
Imperial
g
Sepulveda
Per r Vis
ta
Broadway
De
lM
Vermont
ar
Rosecrans
Figueroa
Nd
182
190Th
Western
Del Amo
Please refer to Metro's Countywide Strategic Truck Arterial Network

for information on the regional arterial truck system. Carson
223Rd 223Rd
Sep
ulv
GOODS MOVEMENT ed
a
Map G
Lomita
eda
Truck Routes ( >3 tons ) Arterials

Vermont
Avalon
Alam
Wilmington
Normandie
Alameda Corridor City of Los Angeles Boundary Anaheim

Fries
ern
Rail yards
Henry Ford
West
Major Intermodal Terminals

Gaffey
ol
pit e
Ca Front sid
LAX (Airport property) Sea
o
Summerland B
1St
Port (Port/ Harbor property) 7Th
9Th
Miralest
B
e
Harbor
Van Nuys Airport (Airport property) 19Th

o
rn
Pacific
te 25Th
es
W
Gaffey
0 3 6 9

LADCP
Mobility Plan 2035 Programs
Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic
C.1 Bicycle Ambassador Program. Develop a Bicycle Ambassador program to attend public DOT, bicycle nonprofits 3.5, 2.6, Communication
events including health fairs and communitiy bike rodeos to broaden awareness of bicycling 4.4,
and provide safety information.
C.2 Bike to Work Week. Expand the regional effirts of Bike-to-Work Week by providing City Mayor, Council, LAUSD, DOT, SCAG, 5.1, 2.6, 1.3 Communication
sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school Metro
for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to
work and school. Distribute materials and post information on Bicycle Program Websites.
C.3 Bus Arrival Information. Work with Metro, municipal transit providers, and local businesses Metro, DOT, Mayor’s Office, BSS 4.2, 4.11 Communication
and organizations to provide bus arrival information near station and stop areas.
C.4 Car Free Days. Coordinate a Car-Free Day on a regular basis each month. Provide information DOT, DPW, Council, Mayor, SCAG, Metro 5.2, 4.8 Communication
and incentives for drivers to leave the car behind for a day. Work with Metro and City Council
offices to provide incentives and disseminate materials to event participants.
C.5 Citywide Active Transportation Map. Provide and distribute physical and electronic copies DOT Systems, Planning, DOT Bikeways, 4.14 Communication
of the City’s existing bikeway facilities, neighborhood greenways and safe routes to school Metro
along with information about public bicycle parking facilities and mobility hub facilities.
C.6 Citywide Bicycle Transportation Website. Continue to maintain the BicycleLA.org website DOT 4.14, 1.6 Communication
to provide bicyclists with current information about safety, future improvements, events,
network maps, route information and suggestions, maintenance and other relevant
information.
C.7 Multi-Modal Access Campaign. Develop a Multi-Modal Access Campaign, in collaboration Metro, SCAG, DOT, BBB, Culver City Bus, 3.5, 4.11 Communication
with Metro, SCAG and other transportation providers, to highlight the availability (all day, Metrolink, Foothill Transit, Orange Transit,
every day) of multiple transportation options (transit, vanpool, car share, bikeshare, bicycling, Gardena Transit
walking, etc.) across the region.
C.8 Neighborhood Network and Business District Maps. Work with local Business Improvement DOT 4.14 Communication
Districts, Neighborhood Councils, Homeowner Associations and Chambers of Commerce to
develop, fund, and distribute physical and electronic maps of localized portions of the existing
bikeways, neighborhood network streets, and bicycling supportive businesses.
C.9 Poster Campaigns. Promote awareness of the various networks, streetscape, and green or DOT, Mayor’s Office, Council 4.14 Communication
“great street” improvements through the installation of posters and/or banners. Installation
could be either temporary or permanent and could be used to inform the community about
the Networks as well as focus on a variety of topics including safe driving practices and/or
bicycling encouragement.
C.10 Roadway Safety Campaigns. Conduct outreach citywide to advance vision zero goal. DOT, LAPD, Caltrans, OHS, LAUSD, 1.2 Communication
LASPD
C.11 Timely Information. Provide timely information on current roadway work, including DOT, BOE, BSS, Council 4.2, 1.6, Communication
scheduled maintenance, work in progress and completed projects. Use temporary signage, 4.14
social media, and web banners to warn users and provide detour strategies for vehicles,
Draft April 2015

pedestrians and bicyclists. Promote the State-wide 511 Real Time Travel Information System.
160
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

C.12 Wayfinding. Develop and install a comprehensive way-finding program throughout the City to DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, BSS 4.14 Communication
provide information about transportation routes, schedules, bikeways urban trails, and area
amenities including schools, parks, cultural and retail activities.
C.13 CSTAN. In collaboration with Metro support efforts to promote goods movement traffic to DOT 4.14 Communication
the CSTAN and identify funding to maintain corridors.
D.1 Analysis of Existing Paths. Identify and map paved paths within City parks suitable for RAP 2.6 Data & Analysis
bicycling. Emphasize opportunities for gap closures in the active transportation network.
D.2 Annual Counts of Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Active Transportation). Initiate a long term DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office of Technology, 4.11, 3.1, Data & Analysis
strategy to count the number and type (by sex, age, disability, income and geography) of LAPD 1.4, 2.3,
bicyclists and pedestrians traveling for all trips on the Networks and other City streets each 2.6, 2.15
year . Identify a specific date and locations for the annual count. The number of locations that
are included each year should increase as funding increases. Utilize the locations, date, and
time of the count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coaliton (LACBC) in 2009 as
the baseline; implement a methodology that is consistent with SCAG and Metro/UCLA Luskin
Center.
D.3 Semi-Annual Survey. Conduct in-person and on-line interviews annually about active DOT, DCP 4.11, 4.10 Data & Analysis
transportation implementation. In particular, identify on-going concerns and listen to
suggested improvements. Collect data on problem areas (not just where collisions have
occurred but where “near-misses” frequently occur) and identify solutions.
D.4 Collision Monitoring and Analysis. Annually identify locations with high levels of auto, DCP, DOT, LAPD, LAFD 1.1, 4.11 Data & Analysis
pedestrian, and bicycle collisions and develop and implement strategies to improve the
safety of these areas and reduce overall collision rates. Analyze bicycle crash data from the
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and other sources to evaluate the
impacts of prior improvements. Use collision data to produce hot zone maps (GIS maps that
reflect crash data citywide) and to conduct case studies of potential improvments to reduce
collisions. Coordinate engineering and enforcement reporting systems to avoid duplication
and/or overlooked emergency room data; with support and data from LAPD, LAFD and
LAUSD.
D.5 Data Collection Protocols. Establish before and afer data collection protocols for all projects. DOT, DCP 4.6, 4.7 Data & Analysis
D.6 Goods Movement Information. Compile goods movement data from the Port of Los Angeles, Port, LAWA 4.12, 4.6 Data & Analysis
Los Angeles World Airport and regional goods movement providers to monitor and assess
economic fluctuations.
D.7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking Program. Quantify total reduction in GHG from vehicle Mayor’s Office on Environment and 5.1, 5.4, Data & Analysis
miles traveled reductions. Include data in the Citywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Sustainability, DCP, Council, SCAQMD 4.11
Action Registry. Maintain a database of completed infrastructure projects; track and apply
offset credits (resulting from GHG and VMT reductions) towards the city’s compliance with
SB 375, AB 32 and the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy.

LADCP
D.8 Mountain Trail Spillover and Conflict Resolution Analysis. Conduct a spillover analysis to RAP, DPW 1.9 Data & Analysis
determine the extent to which mountain biking use spills over onto trails where biking is
prohibited. Examine other jurisdictions to understand how they accommodate mountain
biking and how they have managed conflicts.
D.9 Off-Road and Park Trail Bicycle Database. Develop a database and create maps of mountain RAP, DCP, DOT, LAPD 1.9 Data & Analysis
and park bicycling trails within and adjacent to the City of Los Angeles.
D.10 Revised Traffic Analysis Methodology. Establish a revised Traffic Analysis Methodology DOT, DCP 5.3 Data & Analysis
(TAM) that takes into consideration a project’s location, design and density, based on CEQA
revisions, OPR guidelines, and other state/regional authorities
D.11 Unimproved/Off-Road Database. Inventory all unimproved roads and determine their RAP, DCP, DOT, LAFD 1.9 Data & Analysis
suitability for mountain biking and off-road facilities.
D.12 Strategic Capital Planning Group. Establish an inter-departmental Group to determine , using CAO, DCP. BPE. BSS. BSL, BOE 4.6, 4.11, Data & Analysis
data and prioritization criteria,a list of priority projects and match to funding sources. 4.7, 2.15
ED.1 Bicycle Parking Training. Develop a Bicycle Parking Requirement Training Presentation and DBS, DOT, DCP 2.6, 3.8 Education
Handbook and post on the Bicycle website. Provide training sessions to the Departments of
Building and Safety, Planning, Engineering, and all other public counter staff on the LAMC
bicycle parking requirements.
ED.2 Design Workshops. Host/participate in workshops on active transportation facility design. DOT 1.4, 2.2, Education
4.4, 4.10
ED.3 Goods Movement Awareness. Develop and implement strategies to increase coordination POLA 1.8, 2.8, Education
of issues relating to goods movement and increase awareness of economic role of goods 4.12, 2.10
movement.
ED.4 LAPD Officer Training. Train officers on the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users LAPD 1.2 Education
and improve their ability to evaluate conflicts and collisions between different modal users.
ED.5 Rail Crossing Safety. Work with local and regional passenger and freight services to educate DOT, Mayor’s Office 1.5 Education
all users about safe at-grade crossing practices.
ED.6 Roadway Safety Education. Educate law enforcement, heavy duty bus and truck operators, DOT, POLA, LAUSD, GSD, LAPD 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 Education
taxis, motorists, all City employees, and roadway users on the rights of, and need for safe
motoring skills, around non-motorized active transportation uses. Develop educational/
promotional materials to inform roadway users about the benefits of active transportation
facilities.
ED.7. Roadway Safety Public Service Announcements. Continue to produce a series of Roadway DOT, LAPD, ITA 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 Education
Safety Public Service Announcements (PSA’s) for distribution on television, radio, and
outdoor signage.
ENF.1 Commercial Loading Zones. Target enforcement efforts against parking by vehicles not in DOT 2.10 Enforcement
Draft April 2015

the act of loading/unloading in Commercial Loading Zones.
162
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

ENF.2 Enforcement Stings. Target enforcement efforts against unsafe behavior by roadway users, LAPD 1.1 Enforcement
especially in school and commercial loading zones. Publicize the stings to encourage healthy
interaction among all roadway users.
ENF.3 Local Truck Use. Target enforcement efforts against truck use on local streets where cut- DOT, LAPD 1.8 Enforcement
through traffic has been expressly forbidden.
ENF.4 Speed Limit Enforcement. Execute speed limit enforcement checks 48 hours prior to LAPD, DOT 1.4 Enforcement
calculating prevailing speeds in Engineering and Traffic Surveys used for adjusting speed
limits.
ENF.5 Truck Inspection Areas. Develop a Truck Inspection Program in coordination with Highway DOT, POLA, LAPD 2.8, 4.12 Enforcement
Patrol and Port of Los Angeles.
ENF.6 Enforcement Program. Utilize LAPD and LADOT Traffic Officers to identify bicycle lane LAPD, DOT, DPW 1.1 Enforcement
parking violations and issue citations.
ENG.1 ATSAC. Continue to implement and update as needed the City’s signal management program DOT 4.11, 4.2 Engineering
(ATSAC) to monitor and manage the traffic flows.
ENG.2 Bicycle-Sensitive Detectors. Continue to install bicycle sensitive detectors at all actuated DOT 2.6, 1.2 Engineering
signal controlled intersections, including pavement markings for bicyclists.
ENG.3 Transit Enhanced Network. Collaborate with transit providers to implement the TEN, an DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor’s Office 2.5 Engineering
approximately 300 mile network ofroadway improvements to provide a frequent and reliable
bus system that interfaces and supports the fixed-transit lines.
ENG.4 Bridge Design Program. Incorporate Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities when DOT, BOE 2.12 Engineering
designing new or retrofitting bridges. Particular attention to bridge underpasses that cross
existing or future bicycle/walking paths to ensure design integration.
ENG.5 Caltrans Design. Work with Caltrans to develop and implement design improvements to DOT, Caltrans 1.1, 1.4, 2.2 Engineering
freeway entrances and exit ramps to transition motorists from freeways speeds to an urban
environment that includes vulnerable roadway users.
ENG.6 Bicycle Enhanced Network. Create and maintain an interconnected bicycle network of 150 DOT, DCP 1.4, 2.6, Engineering
miles of bicycle paths and 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes to provide a regional low- 4.14
stress bicycle system.
ENG.7 Flexible Installation Standards. Use engineering judgement and the approval of the City DOT, City Attorney, Caltrans, BOE, BSS, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 Engineering
transportation engineer or designee, in lieu of warrants, to install facilities that will improve BSL
safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians.
ENG.8 Grade Crossing Elimination. Work with Southern California Regional Railroad Association BOE, Port of LA, DOT, FRA, FTA, FHWA, 1.5 Engineering
(Metrolink) as well as with freight rail operators to eliminate rail/ street at-grade crossings on CPUC, Metro, Expo Authority, City
regional passenger rail and freight lines. Attorney, Railroad Owners and Operators.

LADCP
ENG.9 Green Alleys Program. Continue the Green Alleys program to introduce low-impact BOS, DOT, LASAN 5.5, 2.3, Engineering
development stormwater features and improve the overall quality and safety of 1.2, 1.7
neighborhood alleys.
ENG.10 Industrial Street Infrastructure. Provide adequate street infrastructure in established DOT, DCP, BOE 1.7, 1.8, 2.8 Engineering
industrial areas; revise geometric design standards for intersections in/around industrial
areas with high truck volumes.
ENG.11 Manual of Policies and Procedures. Update LADOT Manual of Policies and Procedures to BOE, DOT, DCP, LASAN 2.2, 1.4, 1.2 Engineering
incorporate innovative engineering standards and traffic control devices (for all modes of
transportation) included in the City’s Complete Street Design Guide. Regularly update both
manuals as new standards and devices are adopted by the California Traffic Control Devices
Committee in the MUTCD and/or the CA Highway Esign Manual and/or Federal Highway
Administration.
ENG.12 Complete Street Design Guide (CSDG). Utilize the CSDG to guide decisions about specific DCP, BOE, DOT, LASAN, LAPD, LAFD 2.2 Engineering
complete street enhancements and potential cross-section designs of streets on the BEN,
Bicycle Lane, TEN, PED, and VEN networks.
ENG.13. Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Slow Zones. Establish a procactive neighborhood traffic DOT, DCP, CLA, LAPD 1.4, 2.4, Engineering
management program and institute “slow zones” in targeted areas. Support and advocate for 3.1, 3.2
20 new zones.
ENG.14 Neighborhood Enhanced Network. Implement the NEN, an approximately 800 mile system DOT, DCP, LASAN 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering
of collector and local streets designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity. A subset
of this network has been priortized to fill gaps in the protected bicycle lane system defined by
the Bicycle Enhanced Network.
ENG.15 Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN). Implement the VEN, an 80 mile roadway system of existing DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS 2.7 Engineering
city streets that have been prioritized for vehicular movement due to their ability to improve
vehicular access to the regional freeway system.
ENG.16 Los Angeles River. Implement Greenway 2020 (a locally led effort to complete the bicycle RiverWorks Team and local non-profit 2.3, 2.4, Engineering
path along the entire 32 mile stretch of the Los Angeles River by 2020.) and Los Angeles River partners 2.6, 3.1
Greenway Trail to provide a multi-generational trail and provide active transportation options
to disadvantaged communities.
ENG.17 Bicycle Lane Network. Implement and maintain an interconnected 700 mile bicycle lane DOT, DCP 1.4, 2.6, Engineering
system 300 of which are intended to be upgraded to protected bicycle lanes. See above BEN. 4.14
ENG.18 Pedestrian Enhanced Districts. Implement pedestrian improvements on targeted DOT, DCP, LASAN 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering
intersections and arterial street segments.
Draft April 2015

164
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

ENG.19 First Mile/Last Mile Transit Connectivity Program. Install pedestrian and bicycle connectivity DOT 3.5 Engineering
improvements at every major Metro transit station by providing enhanced sidewalk amenities
such as landscaping, shading, lighting, directional signage, shelters, curb extensions and mid-
block crosswalks where feasible, ADA rampos, lead pedestrian interval signal phases, secure
bike parking, etc.
F.1 Commercial Vehicle Related Revenue: Dedicate revenues generated by commercial vehicle DOT 1.7, 4.6 Funding
fees to roadway-related purposes
F.2 Congestion and Cordon Pricing. Evaluate potential revenues and performance improvements DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, CLA, SCAG 4.6, 4.8 Funding
in congestion relief from the implementation of congestion or cordon pricing. Identify the
boundaries of, and access points in and out of cordon pricing districts on which to implement
congestion pricing.
F.3 Coordinated Grant Application. Establish a coordinated effort to apply for and administer Mayor’s Office 1.2, 4.6, Funding
federal, state, and local transportation grants to provide additional funding to support 4.11
transportation and streetscape efforts.
F.4 Funding Reports. Identify the total amount of funding needed to design, construct and CAO, DOT, BOE, BSS, BOS 1.7, 4.6 Funding
maintain transportation related priority projects on an on-going basis. Identify existing
sources of funds and evaluate funding gaps.
F.5 Maintenance Options. Establish procedures and protocols to facilitate partnerships with DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN 4.10, 4.6 Funding
community groups and the private sector to provide maintenance of street investments;
encourage the utilization of assessment districts by local non-profits or businesses to fund
and maintain specific infrastructure improvements
F.6 Priority Grading System (PGS). Pursue funding for projects based upon the criteria DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, BSL, LASAN 1.7, 4.6 Funding
established by the PGS as defined by the Strategic Capital Planning Group.
F.7 State Highway Control. Identify funding, and initiate process with Caltrans to transfer Mayor’s Office, DOT, DCP 2.13, 4.6, Funding
oversight of, and improve State Highways within the City limits including Lincoln, Santa
Monica, Venice and Topanga Canyon Boulevards.
F.8 State Highway Funding. Coordinate with Caltrans, other local, regional, state and federal Mayor’s Office, DOT, DCP 2.13, 4.11, Funding
agencies, and the private sector to identify and implement funding alternatives for the City’s 4.6
transportation network including the State highway system.
F.9 Active Transportation Funding. Update Mobility Plan every five years to stay competitive for DCP, DOT 1.2, 2.15, Funding
state funding of active transportation grants. 4.6
L.1 Advocacy for Funding Multi-Modal Infrastructure Projects. Aggressively advocate for Mayor’s Office, City Council, CLA 1.2, 3.5, 4.6 Legislation
continued and expanded Federal, State, Regional, and Local funding for multi-modal
transportation programs and infrastructure projects in transportation legislation. Ensure
representation of issues with City’s lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington DC.

LADCP
L.2 Legislation Monitoring. Continually monitor and develop state and federal legislation to DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, CLA 4.11, 4.6 Legislation
support or oppose legislation that could impact plan/project implementation.
L.3 Posted Speed Limit Reductions. Develop and advocate for state legislation to support Mayor’s Office, CLA 1.4, 1.2, 3.2 Legislation
reducing posted traffic speeds. Revised methodology should account for all roadway users
(including pedestrians and bicyclists), adjacent land uses, and street user demand.
L.4 Resetting Speed Limits. Evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s speed limit requirements on DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation
street safety and performance.
L.5 Tailpipe Emission Legislation. Support legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars and Mayor’s Office, CLA, SCAQMD 5.3, 5.4 Legislation
trucks.
L.6 Vehicular Travel Safety Training. Work with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to DOT, City Attorney 1.1 Legislation
develop a program that offers training on driving behavior around other users of the roadway
to motorists receiving citations and/or involved in collisions with non-auto modes.
L.7 Local Street Speed Limit. Advocate for and support for a 20 mph speed limit on all local DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation
streets within California.
MT.1 Bicycle Path Maintenance Program. Regulary inspect and maintain Class I bicycle paths. DOT, BOE 1.7 Maintenance
MT.2 Crosswalk Maintenance. Implement a crosswalk upgrade and maintenance program to ensure DOT 3.2, 1.7 Maintenance
all crosswalks are kept to City standards. See Street Design Manual.
MT.3 Mandeville Canyon Park. Maintain off-road bicycle trails in Mandeville Canyon. RAP 1.9 Maintenance
MT.4 Notification System. Develop a coordinated interdepartmental maintenance and response Mayor’s Office, BSS, BOE 4.1, 4.2 Maintenance
program for the City’s network of roads and bikeways; continue to utilize DPW service
request forms and the 311 System for the public to directly inform the City.
MT.5 Pavement Preservation Program. Annually fund a baseline pavement preservation program BSS 1.7, 4.6 Maintenance
that provides for major rehabilitation (resurface and reconstruction) and preventive
maintenance (crack and slurry seal). Make annual schedule public and easily accessible on
the BSS website. Prioritize bikeways and other areas of high need. BSS to Coordinate non-
emergency resurfacing with other departments one year in advance.
MT.6 Sidewalk Cleaning. Work with local businesses and community organizations to maintain Mayor’s Office, BSS 1.7, 4.10 Maintenance
sidewalks, along arterials, free of debris
MT.7 Sidewalk Repair. Implement a sidewalk improvement program to bring up all existing BSS 1.7 Maintenance
degraded sidewalk sections to City standards and implement a program to ensure that future
degraded sidewalk sections are promptly identified and repaired in a timely manner.
MT.8 Street Services Budget Allocation Formula. Continue to utilize the Bureau of Street Services’ BSS 1.7 Maintenance
Budget Allocation Formula that allows for the equalization of pavement conditions citywide.
Draft April 2015

166
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

MT.9 Street Trees. Implement a tree trimming cycle for all street trees within the public ROW. Use BSS-UF 1.7, 2.3 Maintenance
Priority Grading System to prioritize streets.
MG.1 Five Year Mobility Plan Implementation Report. Develop and submit a report every five years DCP, DOT, BOE, BSS, BSL, BOS, 4.7 Management
detailing accomplishments of prior five years and prepare a proposed work plan for the next
five year cycle.
MG.2 Green Streets Committee. Continue the Green Streets Committee to identify and evaluate DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS< LASAN 5.5, 4.6, 4.7 Management
the effectiveness of existing green street features and to continue to identify funding and
location options in which to upgrade with green street features.
MG.3 Off-Peak Deliveries. Identify and Implement incentives to encourage off-peak hour delivery DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office 2.10 Management
operations.
MG.4 Regional Cooperation. Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and agencies to DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor’s Office, SCAG 3.7, 4.11 Management
coordinate transportation related planing and implementation activities to ensure regional
connectivity.
MG.5 State Highway Management. Collaborate with Caltrans on any modifications to the State DOT, DCP, Caltrans 2.13 Management
highway system necessary to accommodate new development or on any modifications to
City’s transportation network.
MG.6 State Highway Management continued. Cooperate with Caltrans to identify State highway DOT, DCP, Caltrans 2.13, 4.11 Management
deficiencies and associated improvement plans, to be used in the City’s long range planning
and individual project review.
MG.7 Transportation Management Organizations. Continue to work with businesses and future DCP, DOT 4.9 Management
development projects to establish geographically and/or industry based Transportation
Management Organizations throughout the City for the purposes of implementing a
coordinated transportation demand management program.
MG.8 Non-Ownership Models for Vehicle Mobility. Support existing and future innovations that DOT, Metro, BIDS, Chambers of 4.1, 4.2, Management
support access to vehicle mobility without the cost and responsibility of ownership. Commerce, Departments of Aging and 4.10, 5.2,
Disability, User Groups 5.4
O.1 City Fleet. Convert the City’s, including proprietary departments, fleets into alternative fuel, GSD, LAWA, POLA, DPW 5.3, 5.4 Operations
very- low and zero-emission vehicles.
O.2 City Work-related Trips. Instruct departments to establish protocols to facilitate the use Mayor’s Office, GSD 4.8, 4.9 Operations
of transit for short trips (< 5 miles during work hours when the employee does not need to
transport materials). Facilitate non-vehicular alternatives to City employees for work-related
trips.
O.3 Construction Zone Standards. Implement and expand upon standard procedures as defined DOT, BSS, BOE, DWP, POLA, Utilities 1.6 Operations
in the MUTCD to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian travel through construction zones and
detours.

LADCP
O.4 Feeder Network/Transit Circulator (DASH System and Commuter Express). Coordinate DOT 3.4 Operations
local bus transit services so as to provide neighborhoods with local feeder buses where the
roadway system permits.
O.5 Flyaway Shuttle. Continue the Flyaway Shuttle service from Westwood, Van Nuys, Expo, La Metro 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 Operations
Brea and Union Station locations, and evaluate other regional locations, such as San Pedro,
for expanded service.
O.6 Operational Efficiencies. Establish and strengthen public/private partnerships (with the DOT, POLA, Mayor’s Office 2.8, 4.10 Operations
goods movement industry) to coordinate and improve operational efficiencies for the
movement of goods. Work could include the implementation of incentives to encourage
off-peak and extended hour Port operations, an appointment system, the consideration of
short-haul intermodal rail operations, and the establishment of an Advanced Transportation
Management and Information System (ATMIS) which would include changeable message
signs and video surveillance.
O.7 Region-Wide Traffic Control Center. Link all of the traffic control centers in region on a 24 Mayor’s Office, ITA, DOT, Metro, Caltrans. 4.1, 4.2 Operations
hour basis.
O.8 Shuttle Bus. Work with special event providers, employers and community-based DOT, Mayor’s Office, DOA 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 Operations
organizations to identify and implement shuttle bus programs to serve as a first-mile, last-mile
solution between transit stations and special events and/or specific populations. Continue
programs like Cityride, to provide transportation assistance for senior citizens and individuals
with disabilities.
O.9 Signal Timing. Identify opportunities to re-time street signals to provide safer speeds, DOT 1.4, 2.3, Operations
improve safety for all, and create smoother traffic throughput. Identify opportunities to 2.5, 2.6
re-time street signals to allow longer crossing times for bicyclists and pedestrians in large
intersections.
O.10 Transit Coordination. Actively collaborate with regional transit partners to achieve seamless DOT, IT, and other transit providers, 3.4, 4.11 Operations
transfers between systems, including scheduling, ticketing, shared fare systems, and stops Mayor’s Office
and loading areas.
O.11 Transit/Event Coordination. Facilitate collaboration between regional transit partners and DOT 4.2, 3.4 Operations
event providers to provide and promote awareness of additional and timely transit service
before and after large events.
O.12 Improve the Flow of Freight Traffic. Identify and implement strateigies to facilitate the flow DOT 2.8 Operations
of freight traffic.
O.13 Truck Inspections and Service Patrol. Identify locations for temporary and long-term truck DCP 2.8 Operations
inspection stations and Implement a Truck Service Patrol Program to remove disabled
commercial trucks from freeway lanes.
O.14 Improve the Flow of Passenger Traffic. Identify and implement strategies to provide reliable DCP, DOT 2.5, 3.4 Operations
travel times during peak hours and during special events.
Draft April 2015

168
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

O.15 Zero Emission Truck Collaborative (ZETC). Promote consistency among public agencies in POLA, Metro, AQMD, POLB, Caltrans, 5.4, 5.1 Operations
working to catalyze the development and deployment of zero emission trucks in the region. SCAG and Gateway Cities COG.
PK.1 Creative Parking Solutions. Work with communities, businesses, and organizations to identify DCP, DOT 4.13, 4.10 Parking/ Loading
and implement creative strategies to resolve parking conflicts in areas with high-parking Zones
demand.
PK.2 Curb Parking Conversion. Standardize processes to facilitate the conversion of curb parking DOT, BOE, DCP, LASAN 2.1, 3.8, Parking/ Loading
spaces for other uses such as parklets, plazas, bike corrals and docking stations for bicycle 3.11 Zones
sharing, especially in high volume areas of pedestrians and bicyclists.
PK.3 Individualized Parking Requirements. Permit businesses to identify their respective parking DCP, DOT 4.8, , 4.9 Parking/ Loading
demand and establish criteria whereby projects can reduce on-site parking through the Zones
inclusion of a package of transportation demand management strategies.
PK.4 LA Express Park. Continue LA Express Park system using reak-time technology to increase DOT, BIDS, Chambers of Commerce 4.13 Parking/ Loading
awareness of the availability of parking spaces. Zones
PK.5 Meter Pricing. Establish demand based meter pricing to maximize efficient use of on-street DOT 4.13 Parking/ Loading
meters. Zones
PK.6 Neighborhood Parking Districts. Explore modifying some Neighborhood Parking Districts DOT, DCP, City Attorney 4.13 Parking/ Loading
to permit the utilization of residential streets for metered commercial parking and direct Zones
revenue to specific neighborhood improvements.
PK.7 Off-Street Loading. In non-industrial areas, require off-street dock and/or loading facilities DCP 2.10 Parking/ Loading
for all new non-residential buildings and for existing non-residential buildings and undergoing Zones
extensive renovations and/or expansion, whenever practical.
PK.8 On-Street Loading. Encourage the designation of on-street loading areas, through removal DOT, DCP, City Attorney 2.10 Parking/ Loading
of curb parking, in established industrial areas where off-street loading facilities are lacking. Zones
Update the Commercial Loading Zone Ordinance (see B-2, page 6, 2-14 of Mayor’s Task
Force-Mar 2004)
PK.9 Pedestrian Design Features in Parking Areas. Update zoning code to require the inclusion of DCP 2.3, 3.1 Parking/ Loading
pedestrian design features into all parking lots and provide safe, clear paths of travel from Zones
parking lots and/or structures to the associated buildings and/or uses. Ensure that all features
are ADA compliant.
PK.10 Pedestrian Improvement Incentives. Establish an incentive program to encourage projects to DCP 2.3, 3.1, Parking/ Loading
retrofit parking lots, structures and driveways to include pedestrian design features. 4.13, Zones
PK.11 Reduced Size Parking. Develop parking, design, and replacement parking standards for DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
reduced size vehicles (e.g. sub-compact cars, scooters, motorcycles, bike corrals) in residential Zones
and non-residential developments as well as public parking facilities and public rights-of-way.
PK.12 Shared Off-Street Parking. Facilitate the shared utilization of privately owned off-street DOT, City Attorney, BIDS, DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
parking facilities. Zones

LADCP
PK.13 Transit Area Parking Reductions. Reduce parking requirements for developments that locate DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
near transit (e.g. within a half-mile of a transit stop)or a major bus stop and provide facilities Zones
to enable pedestrian, bicycle and disabled access. Parking requirement reductions are being
reviewed as a potential component of the Central City and Central City North Community
Plans.
PK.14 Unbundled Parking Options. Evaluate potential for the unbundling of parking from rental or DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading
purchase options for all new multi-family development. Zones
PK.15. Accessible Parking in Residential Areas. Update policies and guidelines for accessible parking DOT, DCP, City Attorney 3.2, 3.3, Parking/ Loading
in residential areas. 4.13 Zones
PK.16. Park and Ride. Expand the park and ride network. Dot, Caltrans, Metro 3.4, 3.5, Parking/ Loading
4.13 Zones
PL.1 Driveway Access. Require driveway access to buildings from non-arterial streets or alleys DCP 3.9, 4.3 Planning & Land
(where feasible) in order to minimize interference with pedestrian access and vehicular Use
movement.
PL.2 Local Access. Explore opportunities to incorporate community assets (food, retail) in DCP 3.3, 1.2, Planning & Land
locations immediately adjacent to residential areas to promote local walking and biking trips 5.2 Use
and reduce VMT.
PL.3 Mixed-Use. Encourage mixed-use residential, employment and commercial serving uses DCP 3.3, 1.2, 5.1 Planning & Land
where appropriate to facilitate increased utilization of walking, bicycling, and transit use. Use
PL.4 Network Additions. Identify and designate bicycle, and transit enhanced streets and DOT, DCP 3.3, 2.3, Planning & Land
pedestrian enhanced designation areas in Community Plan updates to provide local 2.4, 2.5, Use
complements to the Citywide Transit and Bicycle Enhanced Networks, and Pedestrian 2.6, 1.2
Enhanced Destinations and increase access to area amenities including medical facilities
through continuous, predictable and safe sidewalks, intersections, bikeways, and transit
support facilities.
PL.5 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan for that enhances DOT, Mayor 3.1, 2.3 Planning & Land
mobility and accessibility for pedestrians. Use
PL.6 Regional Transportation Plan. Coordinate with Metro and SCAG on the development of DCP, DOT,LASAN, Metro, SCAG 4.11 Planning & Land
the Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Long Range Use
Transportation Plan.
PL.7 Transit Coordination. Continue to work with Metro and various Construction Authorities on DCP, DOT, Metro, other bus providers 4.11, 3.7 Planning & Land
station location, portal siting, station access, support features and parking strategies that Use
maximize ridership and transit revenue.
PL.8 Transit Neighborhood Plans. Adopt and implement Transit Neighborhood Plans that enhance DCP 3.3 Planning & Land
access to transit stations and set new zoning regulations to effectuate appropriate mixes and Use
scales of uses as well as site design.
Draft April 2015

170
Chapter 6
Program No. Department. Policy Topic

PROGRAM
Mobility Plan 2035

PL.9 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Revision (TDM). Update the TDM ordinance DCP, DOT 4.8 Planning & Land
(LA Municipal Code 12.26.J) to expand the number and type of projects required to Use
incorporate TDM strategies and expand the number and variety of available TDM strategies.
Include bicycle parking and other bicycle use incentives as a TDM measure to mitigate traffic/
vehicle trips for purposes of CEQA compliance for commercial, residential and mixed-use
development projects. Continue to require eligibile projects to provide work-trip reduction
plans and parking cash-out programs in compliances with ACMD’s Regulation XV.
PL.10 Truck Staging Facilities. Identify locations within the City where regional truck staging and DOT, DCP 1.8, 2.10 Planning & Land
service facilities are permitted and address solutions to illegal freight staging practices. Use
PL.11 Union Station Master Plan. Continue to work with Metro to complete the Union Station DCP, DOT, Mayor’s Office 3.6 Planning & Land
Master Plan and implement Connect US. Connect US is a strategy to improve active Use
transportation options to and from Union Station.
PL.12 Greenways to Rivers Arterial Stormwater System (GRASS). Establish a stormwater greewnay DCP, DOT, Mayor’s Office 5.1, 5.5 Planning & Land
planning network and an intergrative planning tool for Los Angeles’ One Water Plan. Use
PL.13 Special Street/Alley Treatments. Explore the use of special materials used within public right DCP, DOT, DPW 2.1, 2.2 Planning & Land
of ways. Use
PS.1 Plazas/Paseos. Identify temporary and/or permanent opportunities to establish car free DCP, DOT 3.11 Public Space
zones and/or plazas/paseos/play streets in select locations around the City. Play streets
provide an opportunity to open public spaces to families and residents in park-poor
communities without fear of conflicts with motor vehicles.
PS.2 Great Streets. Continue to support the Mayor’s Great Streets Initiative by creating a DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN, RAP, DCP, DCA, 2.15, 3.11 Public Space
comprehensive matrix of project elements and associated costs, outlining an implementation DPW, BSL, EDD
timeline, tracking project impacts, evaluating funding strategy, and strategizing the
coordination of city services to Great Streets.
PS.3 Pedestrian Loops. Explore the development of a connected network of walking passageways DOT, BOE, BSS, RAP, DCP, DPW 3.9, 3.10, Public Space
utilizing both public and private spaces, local streets and alleyways to facilitate circulation. 3.11
PS.4 People Street. Continue the People Street program for community partners to repurpose DOT, BOE, LASAN, BOS, RAP 4.10, 3.11 Public Space
underused portions of streets (below the curb) using cost effective materials into temporary
plazas, parklets, bike parking, and other public spaces.
PS.5 Recreational Rides. Organize and lead local and citywide recreational rides ranging from 5-30 RAP, LAPD, Mayor’s Office, City Council, 2.6 Public Space
miles. Prioritize routes that include the Green, Bicycle Enhanced or Neighborhood Networks. DOT, BOE, Bicycle non-profits
PS.6 Open Streets. Establish procedures and protocols to support and expand non-profit efforts to Mayor’s Office, City Council, RAP, DOT, 3.11 Public Space
coordinate and plan frequent and predictable events. DPW, LAPD, LAFD
S.1 Active Transportation Education. Coordinate with LAUSD to incorporate mobility education DOT, LAUSD 1.3, 1.2 Schools
(for children ages 4-18) into regular physical education curriculum.

LADCP
S.2 Bike, Walk, and Roll Weeks. Support Metro’s Bike, Walk, and Roll Week by providing City DOT, LAPD, Council, Mayor, LAUSD, 1.3, 1.4, Schools
sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school Metro, SCAG 3.1, 4.10,
for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle 5.1, 5.2
to work and school. Distribute materials, post information, and evaluate the progress of the
program.
S.3 Safe Routes to School. Continue to work/partner with LAUSD, (with support from PTAs DOT, DPW, LASAN, support from LAPD, 1.3 Schools
and traffic officers) to develop an education program, develop and implement a safe routes and LAUSD
to school program and maps and a Comprehensive SRTS Strategic Plan to calm traffic in
communities surrounding all elementary, middle and high schools to maximize pedestrian and
bicycle convenience and safety. Refer to the Citywide Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan
S.4 School Locations. Work with LAUSD and other school providers to site new schools in DCP 1.3, 3.3 Schools
appropriate locations that can be easily accessed and integrated into the surrounding
community.
SF.1 Artist Designed Bicycle Parking Standards. Support and develop creative bicycle parking DOT/BOE 3.8, 3.11 Support Features
solutions in the public rights-of-way and adopt as city standard guidelines.
SF.2 Bicycle Parking at Existing Major Destinations. Work with special event facilities’ managers DOT 3.8 Support Features
to provide convenient, secure, good quality and well-lit bicycle parking facilities at special
event venues such as Dodger Stadium, the Staples Center/LA Convention Center, and the LA
Memorial Coliseum/Sports Arena.
SF.3 Bicycle Path Landscaping. Incorporate drought tolerant and low maintainence plant materials DOT, DPW, MRCA 2.6,5.5 Support Features
along bicycle paths.
SF.4 Bicycle Path Lighting. Adopt and install standard lighting designs for bicycle paths and grade DOT, BSL 2.6 Support Features
separated bikeways.
SF.5 Bicycle Path Mile Markers. Continue to install and retrofit mile markers along bike paths; DOT, LAPD, LAFD, BOE 2.6 Support Features
work with LAPD and LAFD to facilitate emergency response on paths.
SF.6 Bicycle Racks on Taxis. Investigate the integration of bicycles with taxi service by adding DOT 3.5, 3.8 Support Features
bicycle racks on to all of the taxi cabs that are permitted through DOT.
SF.7 Bicycle Sharing Network. Work with Metro and other area jurisdictions to launch a Bicycle Metro, DOT, DCP, City Council, Office of 2.6, 4.11 Support Features
Share Program. Identify a strategy to enable city staff to access the bicycle share system as a the Mayor
“fleet” option for work related tasks.
SF.8 Bicycle Valet. Work with special event providers, employers and community-based DOT, bicycle non-profits. 3.8 Support Features
organizations to provide bicycle valet services at large public and private special events.
SF.9 Bus Bike Racks (on/off-board). Work with transit providers to provide solutions for additional DOT Transit, Metro, regional transit 3.8, 3.5, Support Features
bike storage, such as bike rack systems to accommodate at least three bicycles on-board the providers 4.11
bus, or permitting bicyclists to board with their bicycles at the rear of the bus.
Draft April 2015

172
Chapter 6

Mobility Plan 2035

SF.10 Essential Transit Components. Include short-term and long-term bicycle parking and way- Metro, DOT 3.8 Support Features
finding as essential components of all stations.
SF.11 Increase Publicly Available Bicycle Parking. Review all City-owned, operated, and leased All 3.8, 1.3, Support Features
facilities for compliance with the City’s bicycle parking standards. Increase bicycle parking 2.6
to meet LAMC requirements where deficiencies are present.Continue to implement bicycle
parking and corrals at major destinations, especially where demand is already high. Encourage
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), local four-year universities, and the Los
Angeles Community College District (LACCD) to install quality bicycle parking at public
schools within the City of Los Angeles.
SF.12 LED Street Lighting. Continue to retrofit existing street lighting infrastructure with energy- BSL 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features
efficient LEDs.
SF.13 Mobility Hubs/Multi-Modal Transit Plaza. Facilitate the implementation of multi-modal DOT/Metro, City Council, DCP, Office of 3.5, 4.1, 4.2 Support Features
transportation support activities and services in proximity to transit stations and major bus the Mayor, DPW
stops, including but not limited to: adequate bus stop and layover space, transit shelters with
real-time bus arrival information, bike share docking stations, car share facilities, taxi-waiting/
call areas, Wi-Fi service, public showers/toilets, bicycle storage and repair facilities, and food
and beverage providers.Develop a coordinated permitting proceess for the installation of the
support features identified above.
SF.14 Off-Street Alternative Energy Charging. Continue to support off-street alternative energy DOT, DCP, Mayor’s Office, DWP 5.3, 5.4 Support Features
charging and fueling stations within privately and city-owned parking and/or fueling facilities.
SF.15 On-Board Storage. Work with transit providers to provide an on-board location for the Metro, DOT 3.4, 4.11 Support Features
storage of shopping bags and/or luggage.
SF.16 On-Street Bicycle Corrals.Develop bicycle parking corrals in on-street parking spaces as DOT, BSS, BOE 3.8, 3.11 Support Features
a public-private partnership. Continue implemention of a pilot program and evaluate the
feasibility and criteria for widespread use.
SF.17 Operator Judgement of Bicycles on Buses. Work with Metro and local transit operators in the DOT, City Council, Mayor’s Office, BAC, 3.5, 3.8, Support Features
City of Los Angeles to allow operators to make decisions regarding allowing bicycles on buses Metro 4.11
when space on bus allows, racks are full, service is last of the day or in inclement weather
SF.18 Parking Meter Posts. Develop pilot project to install bicycle parking mechanism on parking DOT Parking 3.8 Support Features
meter posts.
SF.19 Sidewalk Bicycle Parking Program. Continue to install and maintain City-standard bicycle DOT 3.8 Support Features
racks on sidewalks. Identify areas with demand for bicycle racks and implement an
installation schedule. Prioritize the installation of racks on streets.
SF.20 Street Furniture Definition. Include bicycle racks in the definition of street furniture to utilize City Attorney, BSS 1.7, 2.2, Support Features
streetscape funding opportunities 3.8, 2.15

LADCP
SF.21 Street Lighting. Support equitable distribution of funds for appropriate street and/or BSL, DCP, DOT 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features
pedestrian lighting, especially in areas of high crime rate and high volume of pedestrian
activities.
SF.22 Transit District Curbside Management. Manage curb areas adjacent to transit stops to DCP, DPW, DOT, Metro & other transit 3.5, 3.8, Support Features
facilitate the loading and unloading of buses, para transit, smart shuttles, van/car pools and providers 3.2
taxi queuing. Include curb areas for bicycle parking and car share facilities where space
warrants.
SF.23 Transit Furniture. Transit furniture shall be prioritized on corridors with the highest rates of DPW 1.7, 2.5, Support Features
public transit ridership; design features shall incorporate aesthetic, comfort, and protection 4.3, 4.6
from the elements (sun and rain) considerations. Target the equitable provision of transit
furniture throughout the City. Evaluate and pursue all possible alternatives to increase
transit furniture in underserved corridors.
SF.24 Transit Pass. Collaborate with Metro to encourage schools, employers, and residential DOT, DCP, LAUSD, Metro 4.8, 4.9, Support Features
developers to provide monthly or annual transit passes for their respective students, 4.11
employees, and residents.
SF.25 Trash Facilities. Increase the number of trashcans on sidewalks. Work with local business and DPW-BOS 1.7, 4.10 Support Features
community organizations to develop an adopt-a-trash can program.
SF.26 Tree Canopy. Continue to expand the City’s tree canopy using tree species that are LASAN, BSS, BOE, DWP, Tree People, NCs 1.7, 3.2, Support Features
appropriate for the location, climate, water supply, planting conditions and existing street 2.3, 2.4,
infrastructure. 3.1
SF.27 Turnstile Design. Work with Metro and local transit agencies to ensure that all turnstiles can DOT, City Council, Mayor’s Office, BAC 3.5, 4.11 Support Features
accommodate a bicycle.
SF.28 Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Continue to support Bicycle Friendly Business Program DOT 2.6 Support Features
Draft April 2015

174
Chapter 6
Appendices
Appendix A: References
Introduction Pages 20-21
1. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Metropolitan Obesity
region ranked as #2 in GDP with $765 billion; U.S. Dept of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analyses (2012). GDP- SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, 30
by-Metropolitan-Area Statistics California Center for Public Health Advocacy
2. http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ LA County Dept. of Public Health, “Obesity and Related
Teens-Delay-Licensing-FTS-Report.pdf Mortality in Los Angeles County: Obesity and Related Mortality
3. http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20 in Los Angeles County”, 2011
Direction%20vUS.pdf
Collisions
California Highway Patrol, 2010 Annual Report of Fatal and
Injury Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions, Table 8a,
Mobility by the Numbers http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/
Pages 18-19
Cost of Living
The City http://newsroom.aaa.com/2013/04/cost-of-owning-and-
operatingvehicle-in-u-s-increases-nearly-two-percent-
U.S. Census, 2010
according-to-aaas-2013-your-driving-costs-study/
Infrastructure
Air Pollution
Caltrans, 2012 Public Road Data, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
http://www.lamayor.org/total_non_attainment_days
tsip/hpms/hpmslibrary/prd/2012prd/2012PRDwMaps.pdf
Environmental Defense Fund and Los Angeles County Economic
“L.A. full of roads to ruin for cars”,
Development Corporation, “Vision Los Angeles”, 3
Los Angeles Times, 4 May 2013
Caiazzo, Fabio, et al. “Air pollution and early deaths in the United
“A citizens sidewalk brigade for L.A.”,
States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005.”
Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2012
Atmospheric Environment (2013)
Bureau of Street Services, 2011 State of
the Streets Report Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Los Angeles Transportation Profile, LADOT, 2009 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_
http://www.lacity.org/visitors/TransportationParking/index. scopingplan_00-10_2013-02-19.pdf
htm?laCategory=392 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm
City of Los Angeles Travel Demand Model, 2013
Water Pollution
Goods Movement http://www.healthebay.org/sites/default/files/pdf/
beachreportcard/BRC_2013_WEB.pdf
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/about/facts.asp
Metro, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan
Hasan Ikhrata, “Freight infrastructure should get federal
support”, Los Angeles Daily News, 31 Oct 2013
Air Travel
http://www.lawa.org/welcome_lax.aspx?id=798

Pages 22-23 5. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf
6. http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/
Signs of Progress f2012RTPSCS.pdf
U.S. Census, 2010 and 2000 7. http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/
f2012RTPSCS.pdf
http://www.metro.net/news/ridership-statistics/
8. http://www.octa.net/pdf/goods_facts.pdf
http://www.metro.net/news/facts-glance/
9. http://portoflosangeles.org/pdf/POLA_Facts_and_
Future Potential Figures_Card.pdf
National Household Travel Survey, 2009 10. Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition LACBC. (2009). LA
Bike Count Results. www.la-bike.org.
http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map_
underconstruction.pdf 11. LADOT. (2011). Shared Lane Marking Study Final Report.
http://www.metro.net/projects/toc/ June, 2011. Ladot. lacity.org.
Chapter 5
Chapter 2
1. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/city-rankings/most-
1. http://www.metro.net/projects/i-710-corridor-project/ polluted-cities.html
2. http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/pdf 2. Caiazzo, Fabio, et al. “Air pollution and early deaths in the
GoodsMovementFS2012.pdf United States. Part I: Quantifying the impact of major sectors
in 2005.” Atmospheric Environment (2013).
3. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/
StatesCrashesAndAllVictims.aspx Vision LA, 3
Chapter 3 4. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), 4-14
1. The Center for an Accessible Society, (2013). http://www. 5. South Coast AQMD, 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
accessiblesociety.org/topics/universaldesign/ (AQMP), ES-5
2. Federal Highway Administration California Division, 6. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/graph/graph.htm
Americans with Disabilities Act, (2013). 7. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_
3. http://media.metro.net/images/Route%20I-405%20(107KB). inventory_scopingplan_00-10_2013-02-19.pdf
pdf 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/us/los-angeles-plan-
4. http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/lax/ to-turnpollution-into-drinking-water.html?_r=0
pdf/2006LAXPassengerSurveyFinal.pdf 9. TreePeople, Second Nature: Adapting L.A.’s Landscape for
5. www.aha.org/content/00-10/2010econcontrib.pdf Sustainable Living, http://www.treepeople.org/sites/default/
files/images/learn/Second%20Nature%20.pdf
6. http://www.bicyclela.org/Parking.htm
10. SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, 30
7. http://www.metro.net/bikes/
11. SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, p. 106
8. http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-1297-s1_
misc_1-15-13.pdf 12. http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php
9. http://www.bicyclela.org/Parking.htm 13. http://www.environmentla.org/programs
10. The Trust for Public Land, Center for City Park Excellence,
“2012 City Park Facts”
Chapter 4
1. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
Los Angeles City
2. SCAG 2012 RTP-SCS, p. 23-4
3. http://www.aqmd.gov/trans/rideshare.html; http://www.
aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg22/r2202.pdf
4. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/93-308a.pdf
Appendix B: Inventory of Designated Scenic
Highways and Guidelines
e. Landscaped medians of Scenic Highways shall not be removed.
Scenic Highways Guidelines Such medians may be reduced in width (1) to accommodate
Corridor Plans for each designated Scenic Highway should be left turn channelization within one hundred feet of a signalized
prepared in accordance with each corridor’s individual character intersection; or (2) to accommodate a designated Class II
or concept. These Corridor Plans may be incorporated into bikeway provided that there is compliance with Guideline 3c
specific plan or district plan ordinances. In the absence of such above, and that the resulting median width is not less than
adopted Scenic Corridor Plans, the following interim guidelines eight (8) feet.
are established as part of this Plan:
4. Signs / Outdoor Advertising
1. Roadway a. Only traffic, informational, and identification signs shall be
a. Design and alignment of a Scenic Highway roadway must permitted within the public right-of-way of a Scenic Highway.
include considerations of safety and capacity as well as b. Off-site outdoor advertising is prohibited in the public right-
preservation and enhancement of scenic resources. However, of-way of, and on publicly-owned land within five hundred feet
where a standard roadway design or roadway realignment of the center line of, a Scenic Highway.
would destroy a scenic feature or preclude visual access
c. A standard condition for discretionary land use approvals
to a scenic feature cited in Appendix B of this Plan, design
involving parcels zoned for non-residential use located within
alternatives must be considered through preparation of an
five hundred feet of the center line of a Scenic Highway shall
environmental impact report.
be compliance with the sign requirements of the CR zone.
b. Design characteristics such as curves, changes of direction
d. Designated Scenic Highways shall have first priority for
and topography which provide identity to individual Scenic
removal of nonconforming billboards or signs. Such priority
Highways shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible.
extends to properties located along, or within five hundred
feet of the center line of, designated Scenic Highways.
2. Earthwork / Grading
a. Grading for new cuts or fills shall be minimized. Angular cuts 5. Utilities
and fills shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
a. To the maximum extent feasible, all new or relocated electric,
b. All grading shall be contoured to match with communication, and other public utility distribution facilities
the surrounding terrain. within five hundred feet of the center line of a Scenic Highway
c. In order to negate the environmental impacts of grading shall be placed underground.
in designated Hillside Areas (as depicted on Bureau of b. Where undergrounding of such utilities is not feasible, all such
Engineering Basic Grid Map No. A-13372), maximum effort new or relocated tilities shall be screened to reduce their
shall be made to balance cut and fill on-site. visibility from a Scenic Highway.
3. Planting / Landscaping
a. Fire-resistant native plants and trees shall be utilized in any
parkway landscaping along Scenic Highways located within Scenic Byways Guidelines
designated Hillside Areas.
Guidelines for Scenic Byways designated in the Community
b. In designated Hillside Areas, where previous plant material Plans should be established as part of the Community Plan
has been washed away or destroyed (due to excessive rainfall, Update or Revision process, with guidelines tailored to local
fire, grading, etc.) erosion-controlling plants shall be planted to considerations. Such guidelines may be incorporated into the
prevent erosion and mud/land slides. Such Hillside parkways Community Plan text or into a Community Design Overlay
and slope easements shall either be hydro-seeded, or terraced (CDO). Guidelines for scenic byway protection and/or
and then planted, with native fire-resistant plants. enhancement should consider the following aspects:
c. Outstanding specimens of existing trees and plants located
within the public right-of-way of a Scenic Highway shall be 1. Roadway Design and Alignment
retained to the maximum extent feasible within the same 2. Parkway Planting / Landscaping
public right-of-way.
3. Signs / Outdoor Advertising Restrictions
d. Low-growing ground cover and/or shrubs shall be utilized
as parkway planting along Scenic Highways in order to avoid 4. Utilities (e.g. undergrounding of new or
blocking a desirable view of a scenic feature listed in Appendix relocated utility facilities)
E of this Element. Plant material size at maturity as well as 5. Opportunity for Enhanced Non-motorized Circulation
overall scale of plants within the landscaped area must be
carefully studied in the site analysis and design stages.
Selection Criteria for Scenic
Highways and Byways
1. Scenic Highways
Any proposed Scenic Highway should correspond to one of the
following basic types:
• (1) An arterial street or state highway which traverses area(s) of
natural scenic quality in undeveloped or
sparsely developed areas of the City; OR
• (2) An arterial street which traverses urban area(s) of cultural,
historical or aesthetic value which merit protection and
enhancement.
• Specific criteria to be considered in the evaluation of proposed
scenic highways include:
• 3) Visual impact of scenic features or area,
• (4) Type/angle/duration of view + location of viewer,
• (5) Vegetation (type and extent), and/or
• (6) Scenic characteristics
2. Scenic Byways
Any proposed Scenic Byway to be designated by a Community Plan
shall correspond to one of the following basic types:
• (1) A non-arterial street which traverses an area of natural
scenic quality in an undeveloped or sparsely developed area of
the City;
• OR (2) A non-arterial street which traverses or borders
significant Open Space
(as depicted in Figure 6-1 of the Citywide General Plan
Framework).
Inventory of Designated Scenic Highways
Scenic Features or
Street Name Alignment
Resources/Comment
Adams Blvd Figueroa to Crenshaw
Avenue of the Stars Santa Monica to Pico Wide landscaped median, fountains
Streets should be designed so as to
1.Fwy. 5 to Sesnon; least disrupt the scenic qualities of
Balboa Blvd the area it traverses.
2.Victory to Burbank Blvd
Sepulveda Basin, park access
Dramatic pass with
Barham Blvd Fwy. 101 to Forest Lawn Dr.
northerly Valley views
Winding cross mountain road;
Beverly Glen Blvd. Ventura Blvd. to Sunset Blvd.
valley views
Big Tujunga Canyon road with impressive views
Fwy. 210 to northerly City boundary
Canyon Blvd. of rugged mountains
Brand Blvd Sepulveda to City boundary Landscaped median
Broadway 98th St. to 112th St. Wide landscaped median
Burbank Blvd Balboa to Fwy. 405 Sepulveda Basin, park access
Le Doux Rd to City boundary
Burton Way Wide landscaped median
with Beverly Hills
Winding cross mountain road
Ventura Blvd to City boundary
Coldwater Canyon Dr providing access to the
with Beverly Hills
Mulholland Scenic Parkway
Colorado Blvd Eagledale to Monte Bonito (Specific Plan Ord. No. 168,046)
Crenshaw Blvd Fwy. 10 to Slauson
Ocean and Marina views,
Culver Blvd Vista Del Mar to Ballona Creek
Ballona wetlands
Eagle Rock Blvd NE’ly Verdugo Rd to Colorado Blvd Landscaped median
Winding road past Hollywood Hills;
Forest Lawn Dr Barham to Griffith Park Dr.
gateway to Griffith Park
Fwy. 5 Fwy. 210 to N’ly City limit State Scenic Highway
Topanga Canyon Blvd
Fwy. 101 State Scenic Highway
to W’ly City limit
Fwy, 118 DeSoto Ave to W’ly City limit State Scenic Highway
Fwy. 210 Fwy. 5 to E’ly City limit State Scenic Highway
LA River Bridge to City Boundary
Glendale Blvd Wide landscaped median
with Glendale
Vincent Thomas Bridge to Crescent Views of historic San Pedro
Harbor Blvd
Ave + future alignment to Shepard St and the Port
Landscaped median,
Highland Ave Wilshire to Melrose
significant palm trees
Huntington Dr N Monterey Rd to E’ly City limit Wide landscaped median
Views of harbor activities,
John S. Gibson Blvd Harry Bridges Blvd to Pacific Ave
Vincent Thomas Bridge
La Tuna Canyon Blvd Sunland Blvd to Fwy. 210 Views of ranches in Verdugo Hills
Ventura Blvd to Winding cross mountain road
Laurel Canyon Blvd
Hollywood Blvd through rustic area

Scenic Features or
Resources/Comment
Leimert Blvd MLK to 43rd Place Landscaped median
Lincoln Blvd Venice Blvd to City boundary with
State Scenic Highway
(Highway Route 1) Santa Monica
Los Feliz Blvd Riverside Dr to Western Ave Hillside and city views
Monterey Rd Hardison Way to Huntington Dr
Mountaingate Dr Canyonback Sepulveda Landscaped median
1.Fwy. 101 westerly
to Mulholland Hwy; (Specific Plan Ord. No. 167,943)
Mullholland Dr
2.Mulholland Hwy Panoramic views, “ribbon of park”
to Valley Circle Blvd
Views of Vincent Thomas Bridge;
Pacific Avenue/Front St John S. Gibson Blvd to Harbor Blvd
views of historic San Pedro and Port
Pacific Coast Highway Entire alignment N. of Fwy.
State Scenic Highway
(Highway Rte. 1) 10 (City portion)
Wide mountain road; good
Palisades Dr Sunset Blvd to N’ly terminus
landscaping and ocean views
Hillside bluff route with ocean
Paseo del Mar Western Ave to Gaffey St
views, park access
Plummer St Valley Circle to Topanga Canyon (LAMC 17.05-T)
Porter Ranch Streets
Corbin Ave
Mason Ave
(future streets) (Specific Ord. No. 166,-068)
Rinaldi St
Sesnon Blvd
Winnetka Ave
1.Portion N. of Rinaldi; Street should be designed so as to

Reseda Blvd least disrupt scenic qualities of the
2.Ventura Blvd. to S’ly terminus hillside area it traverses
Hillside street with good mountain,
Rinaldi St * Fwy. 405 to Corbin Ave
Valley Views
Essential link in
Riverside Dr Los Feliz Blvd to Stadium Way
“chain of parks” concept
Sepulveda to City Boundary
Santa Monica Blvd
with Beverly Hills
Dramatic pass; hillside
Santa Susana Pass Rd Entire alignment within City
and Valley views
Wide street with landscaped median
1.Pico Blvd to Colgate Ave;
San Vicente Blvd [Specific Plan Ord. No. 161,766];
2.Goshen Ave to 26th St
wide landscaped median
Old cross mountain road with tunnel,
1.Fwy 405 to Sunset Blvd;
Sepulveda Blvd views of mountains and Valley
2.Rayen St. to Devonshire St
Wide street with landscaped median
Scenic Features or
Resources/Comment
Street should be designed so as to
Sesnon Blvd * Winnetka Ave to Balboa Blvd least disrupt the scenic qualities of
the hillside area it traverses
Sherman Way Variel to Kester Wide street, landscaped median
Shepard Street Pacific Ave to Gaffey St Views of harbor, ocean
Views to and from Reservoir;
Silverlake Blvd Duane St to Armstrong Ave
landscaped setbacks
Stadium Way Fwy. 5 to Fwy. 110 Winding drive through Elysian Park
Sunland Blvd Chivers Ave. to Fwy. 210 Hillside views
PCH to City Boundary with Beverly Views of mountains, estates, UCLA

Sunset Blvd
Hills campus
Street should be designed so as to

Tampa Ave Portion N. of Devonshire St least disrupt the scenic qualities of
the hillside area it traverses
Broad avenue lined with parks and
Temescal Canyon Rd PCH to Sunset Blvd
amenities
Topanga Canyon Blvd
PCH to Mulholland Dr (City portion) State Scenic Highway
(Highway Rte. 27)
“country road” winding past
Chatsworth Reservoir with views of
Valley Circle Blvd Mulholland Dr. to Plummer St.
“Twelve Apostles” rock formations
(LAMC 17.05-T.)
Venice Blvd Longwood to Abbot Kinney Wide street, landscaped median
Ventura Blvd Valley Circle to Fwy. 405 (Specific Plan Ord. No. 166,650)
Vermont Ave Gage to Gardena Blvd Wide street, landscaped median
Vineland Ave Ventura Blvd to Magnolia Landscaped median
Vista del Mar Culver Blvd to Imperial Highway Sand dunes and ocean views
Views of hills, Hansen Dam and
Wentworth St Sheldon St to Fwy. 210
Tujunga Wash
1.25th St to Paseo del Mar; Hillside and ocean views
Western Ave
2. Franklin Ave to Los Feliz Hillside and city views
Deodar trees cultural-historic
White Oak Ave Rinaldi to Devonshire
monument
1.Beverly Hills boundary to Malcom
(Specific Plan Ord. No. 155,044)
Wilshire Blvd Ave;
Miracle Mile; landscaped median
2.Sycamore to Fairfax
Woodley Ave Victory to Burbank Blvd Park access; Sepulveda Basin
25th St Western Ave to W’ly City boundary Hillside and ocean views
Avenue 64 York Blvd to N’ly City boundary
City of Los Angeles Transportation Element 1999 - Appendix E

Appendix C: Funding Resources
The New Starts program provides funds for the construction
Funding Resources and Opportunities of fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing guideway
Transportation improvements are funded through multiple systems. The Small Starts program provides funds to capital
departments and are subject to prioritized project lists. As projects that either (a) meet the definition of a fixed guideway for
part of the discussion about smart investments, it is necessary at least 50 percent of the project length in the peak period or (b)
to identify a diverse cross section of revenue sources that can are corridor-based bus projects with 10 minute peak/15 minute
feasibly implement the improvements proposed in the Plan. This off-peak headways or better while operating at least 14 hours
section outlines potential funding opportunities at the federal, per weekday. New Starts projects must cost more than $75
state, regional, and local level and discusses various options that million and have a total capital cost of more than $250 million,
are currently being explored or studied by regional and City while Small Starts projects must cost less than $75 million and
agencies. The following also includes revenue sources that are have a total capital cost of less than $250 million.
currently used to fund Transportation related projects.
The New Starts and Small Starts programs were funded through
the Safe, Accountale, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity
Federal Funding Sources Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and was reauthorized
Many of the enhancements proposed in the Mobility Element through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
qualify for Federal Aid. (MAP-21). Map-21 authorized $1.9 billion for 2013 and $1.9
billion for 2014. Funds are available for five years (the fiscal year
National Highway System (NHS) in which the amount is made plus four additional years.4
These funds are typically restricted to projects located on the

Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
National Highway System.
The LWCF program provides matching grants to States and
Surface Transportation Program (STP) local governments for the acquisition and development of public
outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The program is intended
STP funds can be used on any public roads that are not classified to create and maintain a nationwide legacy of high quality
as local roads or minor collectors. Such roads are referred recreation areas and facilities and to stimulate non-federal
to as federal-aid roads or highways. However projects or investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation
improvements to bridges, safety, carpool related, and bicycle/ resources. The LWCF could fund the development of river-
pedestrian infrastructure care exempt from the highway adjacent bicycle facilities.
restriction .1
Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA)
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement
PVEA funds come from fines paid by oil companies in the 1970’s
The CMAQ program funds transportation projects and for violating oil price caps set by the federal government. The
programs that help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Department of Energy’s State Energy and Weatherization
Eligible projects include: transit improvements, travel demand Assistance Program distribute the money at the state level
strategies, traffic flow improvements, and fleet conversions to through grants. PVEA funds projects with an emphasis on
cleaner fuel2. energy saving including public transportation and bridge
construction or maintenance.
Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER)
The United States Department of Transportation invests in
road, rail, transit, and port projects that will have a significant State Funding Sources
impact on the Nation, region, or a metropolitan area. To date,
Congress has dedicated $1.5 billion for TIGER I, $600 million for California’s principal source of state revenue for transportation
TIGER II, $526.944 million in 2011, and $500 million in 2012. is the state excise tax on motor vehicle fuels; this includes motor
The TIGER Discretionary Grants have awarded projects that are vehicle fuel, diesel fuel, and alternative fuels on a per-gallon
multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional, or are difficult to fund through basis. Approximately 49.7% of the State’s transportation funding
existing programs.3 was attributed to the State Fuel Excise Tax, 20.8% to the sales
tax on Motor Vehicle Fuel
Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Program (New Much of the money available at the State level is funded through
Starts and Small Starts) the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which
includes revenue from the State Highway Account (SHA) and
1 State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Local Assistance. Local
Assistance Program Guidelines: Processing Procedures for Implementing Federal and/or
State Funded Local Public Transportation Projects. December 2008 4 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. Notice of FTA Transit
Program Changes, Authorized Funding Levels and Implementation of the Moving Ahead for
2 Ibid Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and FTA Fiscal Year 2013 Apportionments,
3 United States Department of Transportation. Allocations, Program Information and Interim Guidance. http://www.fta.dot.gov/
TIGER Grants. www.dot.gov/tiger documents/2012-10-10_MAP-21_FINAL.pdf
TEA-21 fund allocated to the State. 2009, OTS awarded $82 million to 203 agencies.5
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Recreational Trails Program (RTP)

As of September 26, 2013, the ATP consolidates existing federal The Recreational Trails Program provides funds to states to
and state transportation programs, including the Transportation develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities
Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses.
(BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating,
program with a focus to make California a national leader in active equestrian use, and other non-motorized as well as motorized
transportation. The ATP administered by the Division of Local uses. Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:
Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs. • Maintenance and restoration of existing trails;
The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active • Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead
modes of transportation by achieving the following goals: facilities and trail linkages;
• Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by • Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance
biking and walking equipment;
• Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users,
• Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on
• Advance the active transportation efforts of regional federal lands);
agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals, • Acquisition of easements or property for trails;
• Enhance public health,
• State administrative costs related to this program (limited to
• Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the seven percent of a State’s funds); and
benefits of the program, and • Operation of educational programs to promote safety and
• Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types environmental protection related to trails (limited to five
of active transportation users. percent of a State’s funds).
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S)
The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Program The Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) program provides funds to
has a total of $10 million each year to local, state, and federal local governments to improve safety and efforts that promote
governmental agencies and to nonprofit organizations. Projects walking and bicycling within communities. The main objective
must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental of the SR2S grant is to increase the number of children walking
impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility and bicycling to school by removing barriers such as lack of
or construction of a new transportation facility. The four infrastructure, unsafe infrastructure, and lack of programs to
categories of the grant are: educate children, parents, and members of the community. The
• Highway landscaping and urban forestry projects program rates proposals on the following factors:
• Resource lands projects • Demonstrated need of the applicant.
• Roadside recreation projects • Potential of the proposal for reducing child injuries
and fatalities.
• Mitigation projects beyond the scope of the lead agency
• Potential of the proposal for encouraging increased
All projects are funded on a reimbursement basis of the state’s walking and bicycling among students.
proportionate share of actual costs. No matching funds, cost
shares, or other funding sources are required to apply from • Identification of safety hazards.
the EEM grant. However, projects that include the greatest • Identification of current and potential walking and
proportion of other moentary sources of funding are rated bicycling routes to school.
highest. Grants are limited to $350,000.
Consultation and support for projects by school-based
associations, local traffic engineers, local elected officials, law
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant enforcement agencies, and school officials.
Office of Traffic Safety Grants (OTS) fund safety programs The State’s SR2S program is authorized through Streets
and equipment. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety is a specifically & Highways Code Section 2330-2334 and was extended
identified priority. This category of grants includes enforcement indefinitely through AB 57. In 2012, SR2S awarded $48.5
and education programs, which can encompass a wide range million in funds to 139 projects; about $24.45 million is
of activities, including bicycle helmet distribution, design and available annually. 6
printing of billboards and bus posters, other public information
materials, development of safety components as part of physical
education curriculum, or police safety demonstrations through
school visitations. The grant cycle typically begins with a request
for proposals in October, which are due the following January. In
5 Caltrans. EEM Program Information. http://dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/EEM/
program-info2.htm
6 Caltrans. Safe Routes to School program information. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
LocalPrograms/saferoutes/sr2s.htm

Regional Funding Sources bicycle parking, benches, drinking fountains, changing rooms,
restrooms and showers which are adjacent to bicycle trails,
A major portion of state funding from the State Transportation employment centers, park-and-ride lots, and/or transit
Improvement Program (STIP) is allocated to Regional terminals and are accessible to the general public
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs). In California, 75
percent of STIP funds are sent to the Regional Transportation Congestion Mitigation Fee Program
Improvement Programs (RTIP). The City of Los Angeles falls
The Congestion Mitigation Fee Program was proposed by Metro
under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
(through a joint study effort with local jurisdictions and agencies)
Transportation Authority (Metro). Metro works with the Southern
to meet the state mandated Congestion Management Program
California of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan Planning
(CMP) Deficiency Plan requirements. The one-time fee would be
Organization (MPO), to develop a Regional Transportation
applied to all types of new development projects to help mitigate
Plan (RTP) every four years. The RTP is critical to the region’s
the impact of growth on the regional transportation network
transportation projects because without it, proposed projects
through transportation improvements. A feasibility study was
would not qualify for Federal and State funding. 7
completed in 2008, yet the program has not yet been adopted 10
Metro: Call for Projects Program

Much of the funds available for local transportation programs
are funded through Metro’s Call for Projects program. Metro Local Funding Sources
accepts project applications every other year in eight modal
categories. 8 While the availability of Federal and State grants are adequate
• Regional Surface Transportation Improvements sources to fill the gap in necessary funds, they only provide a
temporary fix to the ongoing deficit in funding. Regional and
• Goods Movement Improvements local sources can provide a more stable, reliable, and long-term
• Signal Synchronization & Bus Speed Improvements solution to the shortage in transportation improvement funds.
However, the limited supply of funds available for transportation
• Transportation Demand Management
improvements and programs are already stretched thin and
• Bicycle Improvements will require additional sources of revenue to supplement new
• Pedestrian Improvements projects and programs. The following are City’s major sources of
revenue that fund transportation related projects and programs:
• Transit Capital
• Transportation Enhancement Activities Proposition A Local Transit Assistance Fund
Approved projects are ranked, prioritized, and integrated into The Proposition A Local Transit Assistance Fund consists of
the Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program money allocated by the County, based on population. Revenue
(TIP) as part of the five-year program of scheduled projects.9 generated from the ½ cent sales tax is used for the planning
administration, and operation of citywide public transportation
Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 programs.
The Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 funds
are administered by Metro, to local jurisdictions annually. 15 Proposition C Transit Improvement Fund
percent of the TDA funds are allocated to the City and County; The Proposition C Transit Improvement Fund receives funds
30 percent going to the City and 70 percent to the County. TDA from the ½ cent sales tax increase approved in Los Angeles
Article 3 funds may be used for the following activities related to County in 1990. The funds are allocated on a per capita basis
the planning and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities: and may be used for public transit, paratransit, and the repair
and maintenance of streets used by public transit.
• Engineering expenses leading to construction.
• Right-of-way acquisition. Measure R Local Traffic Relief and Rail Expansion Fund
• Construction and reconstruction. Measure R is a countywide, ½ cent sales tax that funds local
• Retrofitting existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and countywide transportation projects and programs. Passed
including installation of signage to comply with the Americans in 2008, this 30-year tax is expected to generate $40 billion,
with Disabilities Act (ADA). create 210,000 construction jobs, fund vital county and local
transportation projects, and accelerate the timeline of projects
• Route improvements such as signal controls for cyclists, in development. Measure R local return funds are a key source
bicycle loop detectors, rubberized rail crossings and bicycle- of revenue used to fund street maintenance and improvement
friendly drainage grates. projects, traffic relief, transit programs and upgrades, and
• Purchase and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle and pedestrian programs.
7 Caltrans. Global Gateways Program. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ogm/

products_files/GGDP_Final_Report.pdf
8 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO). Call for Projects
Overview. http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/.
9 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro). Call for Projects Overview. 10 LACMTA Congestion Management Program. (2013). Metro – Congestion Management
http://www.metro.net/projects/call_projects/ Program. http://www.metro.net/projects/congestion_mgmt_pgm/
Measure J and Extension of Measure R would pay more during peak periods of travel or high demand.
Measure J was an effort to extend the Measure R Transit Sales Different types of congestion pricing include:
Tax by another 30 years. The Measure was put on the ballot • Facility Pricing. Charges a toll for the use of all lanes of a
in June 2012, but failed to receive the necessary 2/3s vote to road, a bridge, or a short road segment
pass. Revenue from the 30-year period was expected to be
• Express Lanes. HOT lanes; separate lanes of freeway
approximately $90 billion from 2039-2069. While Measure R will
not expire until 2039, there is still a need to plan for a funding • Cordon Pricing. Fee is charged every time a vehicle crosses a
mechanism or tax that will replace it. boundary in/out of a congested area
• Express Parking. Pricing of parking varies by weekday,
weekend, and availability
• Area Wide Pricing. Charge is applied to vehicle driving
Additional Funding and Leveraging anywhere in a larger area )county or region)
Opportunities • VMT. Fee is applied based on the number of miles traveled
(used instead of the gas tax, see below)
In addition to sources of transportation funding that it has
not traditionally relied upon, the City may be able to secure • Emissions Fees. Variable fees based on the level and type
transportation dollars in the future through several existing, but of emissions/pollutants a classification of vehicles produce
as yet untapped or underutilized, sources of funds. Moreover, (encourage a shift to cleaner burner engines..)
the City could potentially benefit from entirely new sources-
sources that do not yet exist but are being considered by Congestion Mitigation Fee
transportation policymakers and stakeholders.
Metro proposed a countywide Congestion Mitigation Fee
Programs to meet the State-mandated requirements of the
Special Revenue Funds Congestion management Program (CMP) Deficiency Plan to
According to the City Controller’s Office, as of June 30, 2012 mitigate the impact of new development (2003). The Congestion
there are over 500 Special Revenue Funds in the City of Los Mitigation Fee would be applied to new development projects
Angeles. These funds consist of fees and monies collected for seeking a building permit. This one-time fee would be used
specific purposes and have specific expenditure provisions. to fund transportation projects in each jurisdiction’s project
While many accounts are actively being used, there is a list. Each jurisdiction determines the specific fee-per-trip by
possibility that the balances of many inactive funds can be used developing a transportation list that takes into account expected
for transportation improvements. growth in the city and would also generate a fee schedule by land
use type.11
Bicycle Plan Trust Fund Although Metro is the Congestion Management Agency,
Following the adoption of the Citywide Bicycle Plan in 2010, the revenue collected by each jurisdiction would stay in the City;
City created the Bicycle Trust Fund in 2011 to collect developer control over projects and spending would stay in the local
mitigation fees. These fees are used to fund the implementation government.
of bicycle projects and programs of the Bicycle Plan. The City
requires conditions of approvals or development agreements, Rental Car Fees
for land use projects, that include the contribution of funds to Many states and cities across the country assess a rental car tax
implement improvements that benefit surrounding communities. to offset the impact of those cars on streets and highways- the
State of California and the City of Los Angeles do not. If the
Developer Trust Funds City were to levy a 2% tax on all car rentals in the City it could
The City has created 10 trust funds (funded primarily with the generate $7 million annually.12
Transportation Impact Assessment Fee) that are dedicated for
specific transportation projects. Developer Mitigations
Funding through mitigation fees or development agreements
High Priority Projects can be used strictly for street improvement in the area, rather
There may be an opportunity for the City to obtain 80% of the than beautification projects.
funding for its unfunded capital projects from Congressional
earmarks for “High Priority Projects.” The process for obtaining Trash Franchise Fees
High Priority Project funding is highly discretionary and may not The fees collected through a Franchise Fee could be used to
be dependent on well-defined funding criteria. The City would repair roads used by private and/or public haulers. There would
benefit by seeking support for projects through a congressional be a logical nexus between the fee and the use of revenue
representative. because a truck carrying 10 times the weight of a car does 1,000
times more damage to a road than a car.
Congestion Pricing (Currently being studied by SCAG)
Utilizing a fee or charge to make the best use of existing/future
11 Southern California Association of Governments SCAG. (2011). Express travel choices
investments in highway, roadway, and/or parking infrastructure. Study. http://www.expresstravelchoices.org/docManager/1000000066/FAQ_110113.pdf
Fees would depend on congestion at the time of use; users 12 Metro. Congestion Management Program: Congestion Mitigation Fee Study. http://media.
metro.net/board/Items/2013/05_may/20130515p&pitem15.pdf

General Obligation Bond (Street/Infrastructure Bond) *proposes a direct fee on those using road/ similar to toll roads
Is backed by revenue from property taxes and requires a two-
thirds voter approval. America Fast Forward
In response to the growing need for federal financing to improve
Incremental Sales Tax Assessment transportation infrastructure, Metro, the City of Los Angeles,
In July 2011, the State Tax dropped 1 percent, reducing Los and a number of municipalities in the US proposed legislation to
Angeles County’s Sales Tax to 8.75. A voter-approved increase provide more flexible federal bond and loan programs. America
of 1/4th of 1 percent by the City would result in $100 million Fast Forward proposes a new federal financing approach to
annually. *However, it is significant to note that in 2012 voters leverage transportation projects by using tax code incentive s
failed to approve (Measure J) an extension of the current half- and credit assistance through two pieces of legislation: Qualified
cent tax (Measure R). Measure R will expire in 2039. Transportation Improvement Bonds (QTIB) and the Enhanced
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
Program (TIFIA). While TIFIA was adopted in 2012, QTIB has
Special Tax Assessment yet to be approved. However, QTIB has the support of mayors
An assessment district can be created, at the request of across the US and provides an opportunity for state and local
a majority of property owners, to finance improvements governments to maximize infrastructure investment through
in the defined area. All property owners that benefit from public-private financing mechanisms.13
improvements would be subject to an assessment (based
on how much the property is expected to benefit from the Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds (QTIB)
improvement).
Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds (QTIB) would
create a new class of qualified tax credit bonds, similar to those
Mello-Roos District created for forestry, conservation, renewable energy projects,
The City can form a special, community facilities district (subject energy conservation, qualified zone academics, and new school
to two-thirds approval of property owners in the area) that can construction. The qualified tax credit bonds would be issued
finance public infrastructure through the sale of bonds. by state, local, or other eligible issuers where the federal
government subsidizes most or all the interest cost through
Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) granting investors annual tax credits in lieu of interest payments.
Annual bond authorizations would be $4.5 billion annually;
The City or County can create IFDs to pay for regional scale unissued amounts could be carried forward to a future year The
public works projects. IFDs divert property tax increment QTIB proposal has not been adopted by Congress, but it reflects
revenue for up to 30 years. These funds cannot be used for the growing demand for more flexible transportation financing.
maintenance, repairs, operating costs, and services. The City
must first develop an infrastructure plan, send copies to all
landowners, consult with local governments, hold a public Enhanced Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
hearing, and gain approval from all local agencies that will Innovation Act Program (TIFIA)
contribute its property tax increment to IFD. In addition two- The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
thirds voter approval is required to form an IFD and issue bonds. (TIFIA) authorizes the federal government to make conditional
credit commitments to large projects or programs that meet
Mark Roos District national infrastructure investment goals. The U.S. Department
of Transportation (USDOT) can provide: secured/direct loans,
Local government facilities can be financed by bank bond pools, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. Reauthorization of the
funded by bond proceeds. The pool (formed under a Joint Transportation Bill (MAP-21) increased the maximum federal
Powers Authority) can buy any legally issued debt instrument share on projects from 33 percent to 49 percent.This guarantees
within or without its geographic area. lower interest rates for transportation agencies and decreases
the overall cost of projects. Eligible projects must have costs that
General Road User Fees equal or exceed at least one of the following:
Similar to tolls implemented on highways, user fees can be • $50 million;
applied to City streets.
• $25 million for a rural project;
Transportation Utility Fees • $15 million for an intelligent transportation system
(ITS) project; or
Legal difference between fee and tax, using the “rational nexus test”
• 1/3 of the most recently-completed fiscal year’s formula
• Service needs must be directly relatable to those bearing the apportionments for the States in which the project is
cost located.14
• The cost must be allocated proportionally to benefits
• The facilities funded must be part of a comprehensive plan;
the fee must account for taxes paid toward transportation so
property owners are not double-billed
• The fee revenues must be used for their intended purposes 13 Metro. America Fast Fordward. http://americafastforward.net/
in a timely manner 14 Metro. America Fast Forward: The TIFIA Provision. http://americafastforward.net/
wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AFF_TIFA.pdf
Appendix D: Glossary of Transportation Terms
Accessibility: Accessibility is the ability to reach destinations. the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other
While mobility focuses on how you are getting somewhere, transportation modes.
accessibility emphasizes where you are going and incorporates California Department of Transportation (Caltrans): State
land use aspects within transportation planning. Accessibility is agency responsible for the design, construction, operation, and
the goal of a good transportation system with the end result of maintenance of the State highway system (includes interstate
increasing the ease of traveling to desired destinations such as and state highways)
jobs, recreation, and other resources.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA was
Active Transportation: consists of pedestrians and bicyclists. enacted in 1970 to protect the environment by requiring public
Active transportation refers to an interconnected system of agencies to analyze and disclose the potential environmental
pedestrians and bicyclists that are better integrated with and impacts of proposed land use decisions. Any public or private
more likely to use public transit. project with potential adverse effects upon the environment is
Alignment: identifies the general location of a current or future subject to CEQA and must be reviewed by decision makers and
roadway. the public. For more information, visit the California Natural
Resources Agency page on CEQA Guidelines.
At-grade crossing: A junction where bicycle path or sidewalk
users cross a roadway at the same level as motor vehicle traffic, CA MUTCD: The CALTRANS Manual on Uniform Traffic
as opposed to a grade-separated crossing where users cross Control Devices, which designates standards for signage and
over or under the roadway using a bridge or tunnel. pavement markings.
ATSAC: Automatics Traffic Surveillance and Control. Developed Capacity: Capacity is the measure of a transportation facility’s
during the 1984 Olympics, the System monitors and adjusts the ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles in
traffic signal system based on real-time data to help alleviate a given period of time.
traffic congestions. Class I Bikeway: CALTRANS HDM designation. See “bicycle path”.
Bicycle-Enhanced Network (BEN): The BEN is a network of Class II Bikeway: CALTRANS HDM designation. See “bicycle lane”.
streets that will receive treatments that prioritize bicyclists. This
network is a subset of the 2010 Bicycle Plan and will supplement Class III Bikeway: CALTRANS HDM designation. See “bicycle route”.
the system. Class IV Bikeway: CALTRANS HDM designation. See “protected
Bicycle facilities: A general term used to describe all types bicyle lane”.
of bicycle-related infrastructure including linear bikeways Clearance, lateral: Width required for safe passage of bicycle
and other provisions to accommodate or encourage bicycling, path users as measured on a horizontal plane.
including bicycle racks and lockers, bikeways, and showers at
employment destinations. Clearance, vertical: Height required for safe passage of bicycle
path users as measured on a vertical plane.
Bicycle Lane: A striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on a
street or highway. Caltrans refers to this facility as a Class II Complete streets: Also known as living streets, complete
bikeway. streets are designed to be safe and comfortable for road users
of all modes, ages, and abilities. This includes: pedestrians, public
Bicycle Path: A paved pathway separated from motorized transit vehicles and riders, bicyclists, and motorists.
vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within
the highway rights-of-way or within an independent alignment. Complete Streets Networks: A layering of different street
Bicycle paths may be used by bicyclists, skaters, wheelchair networks based on mode of transportation, with each
users, joggers, and other non-motorized users. Caltrans refers layer incorporating complete streets principles. The concept of
to this facility as a Class I Bikeway which “Provides a completely Complete Streets Networks is being utilized in this update of the
separated right of way for the exclusive use of bicycles and Mobility Element.
pedestrians with cross flow of motorists minimized.” CTCDC: The California Traffic Control Devices Committee
Bicycle Route: A shared roadway specifically identified for use establishes standards and designs for the signs, stripping,
by bicyclists, providing a superior route based on traffic volumes pavement markings and signalization included in CA MUTCD.
and speeds, street width, directness, and/or cross-street CROW Manual: Bicycle facility and design manual from the
priority, denoted by signs only. Caltrans refers to this facility as Netherlands.
a Class III Bikeway – “Provides for shared use with pedestrian or
motor vehicle traffic.” Enhanced Complete Street System: Is a network of major
streets that facilitate multi-modal mobility within the citywide
Bike Boulevard: A roadway that motorists may use, but that transportation system. This system consists of four networks:
prioritizes bicycle traffic through the use of various treatments Pedestrian-Enhanced Districts (PEDs), Bicycle-Enhanced
to slow motorists and enhance the bicycle level of service. Network (BEN), Transit-Enhanced Network (TEN), and the
Directional signage, bicycle amenities, and other enhancements Vehicle-Enhanced Network (VEN). The four proposed networks
are most often used together. work together as a layered network of complete streets.
Bikeway: A generic term for any road, street, path or way Environmental Impact Report (EIR): An environmental
that in some manner is specifically designed for bicycle travel, impact report is a document that describes and analyzes the
regardless of whether such facilities are designated for
significant environmental effects of a project and discusses which can both help conserve water and reduce urban runoff
ways to mitigate or avoid these effects (California Code of without sacrificing aesthetic quality.
Regulations §15362). An EIR is required under CEQA if an initial Highway Design Manual (HDM): Caltrans Highway Design
study indicates that a proposed project may cause one or more Manual for the design of transportation facilities including
significant effects on the environment. streets and bikeways.
“First-mile, last-mile” solutions: A term used in transportation Lead Agency: The primary public agency responsible for
planning to illustrate the hurdle of getting people to and from managing and carrying out a project. (The City of Los Angeles
a transportation hub and their final destination. An example Department of City Planning is the Lead Agency in the Mobility
of a first/last-mile solution in the city of Los Angeles is Element Update project)
the DASH system in Downtown. It connects people from Union
Station to their workplace and vice versa on their commutes Level of service (LOS): Term for the measurement of how well
home. Another solution could be compact, foldable bikes that automobile traffic “flows” on a roadway system or how well an
can easily be brought onto buses, rail, or trains. First and last intersection functions.
mile solutions encourage the use of public transport by offering Livable neighborhood: The concept that a neighborhood that
easy ways to connect people to and from their final destinations. meets the needs and desires of its residents, businesses, and
See the City’s 2009 “Maximizing Mobility in Los Angeles” for visitors. Factors impacting livability include safety, affordability,
more information about first-mile, last-mile solutions in LA. health, access, sustainability, diversity, or businesses. A livable
Gaps neighborhood is often described as a neighborhood that kids can
play safely in or where people enjoy spending time in their local
Connection Gaps: Connection gaps are missing segments community.
(1/4 mile long or less) on a clearly defined and otherwise
well-connected bikeway. Major barriers standing between Loop detector: A device placed in the pavement at intersections
bicycle destinations and clearly defined routes also represent to detect a vehicle or bicycle and trigger a signal or provide
connection gaps. green time.
Linear Gaps: Similar to connection gaps, linear gaps are 1/2-to Medians: Area in the center of the roadway that separates
one-mile long missing link segments on a clearly defined and directional traffic. Medians may be painted and leveled with the
otherwise well-connected bikeway. surrounding roadway or “raised” using curb and gutter. Medians
may include landscaping, concrete, striping or any combination
Corridor Gaps: On clearly defined and otherwise well- thereof.
connected bikeway, corridor gaps are missing links longer than
one mile. These gaps will sometimes encompass an entire street Mitigation Measure: If a proposed project is subject to CEQA,
corridor where bicycle facilities are desired but do not currently mitigation measures are proposed to eliminate, avoid, rectify,
exist. compensate for, or reduce that effect on the environment.
System Gaps: Larger geographic areas (e.g., a neighborhood or Mobility: Mobility is the ability to move around. It takes into
business district) where few or no bikeways exist would be are consideration how people are getting from place to place
identified as system gaps. A geographic gap is identified where (i.e. walking, biking, bus, auto, etc) and how fast. In general,
the density of bikeways in one part of the City is less than the improving mobility improves accessibility.
density of bikeways in another part of the City. Mode share: Also called mode split, refers to the number or
General Plan: The policy foundation for all growth and land percentage of travelers using a certain mode of transportation.
development in a jurisdiction. The City of Los Angeles General MPP LADOT: Manual of Policies and Procedures used by the
Plan consists of the Framework Element, eight additional City’s Department of Transportation
elements, and 35 Community Plans forming the Land Use
Element. The Mobility Element will replace the City’s 1999 Multi-modal transportation: Refers to a transportation system
Transportation Element. that considers various modes or ways of getting around (public
transit, walking, biking, car, etc.)
Geographic Information System (GIS): A collection of computer
hardware, software, and geographic data for capturing, MUTCD: Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
storing, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying all forms of which designates standards for signage and pavement markings.
geographically referenced information. CA MUTCD has jurisdiction in California.
Geometry: The vertical and horizontal characteristics of a Neighborhood Enhanced Network: Slow-moving, locally
transportation facility, typically defined in terms of gradient, serving streets that promote the safety of all roadway users.
degrees, and super elevation. Non-Motorized Transportation: Refers to modes of travel such
Goods movement: The transport of for-sale products from as walking and biking. (also includes equestrians)
their manufacturing origin to their final destination where they Notice of Preparation (NOP): A Notice of Preparation is a
will be sold. Moving goods can involve many different types of document stating that an EIR will be prepared for a particular
transport such as airplanes, cargo ships, trains, and trucks. project. It is the first step in the EIR process (14 California Code
Grade-separated crossing: A bridge or tunnel allowing pedestrians of Regulations §15082). The NOP includes a description of
and bicyclists to cross a major roadway without conflict. the project, location indicated on an attached map, probable
environmental effects of the project.
Green streets: Streets that incorporate environmentally-
friendly design or infrastructure. Examples of green street Paved shoulder: The outer edge of the roadway beyond the
measures are permeable paving and native plant landscaping, outer stripe edge that provides a place for bicyclists when it is
wide enough (3 ft. minimum), free of debris, and does not contain These documents identify transportation priorities for the
rumble strips or other obstructions. region.
Pavement marking: Any marking on the surface of the Street classifications: Arterial – Major streets that are
pavement that gives directions to motorists and other road very wide with multiple lanes; Non Arterial – Local streets
users in the proper use of the road. The MUTCD determines the that are not very wide. These are the type of streets that
standard marking in California for state and local use. usually run through neighborhoods. Learn more about street
classifications here.
Pedestrian-Enhanced Districts (PEDs): The PEDs are an
analysis of a snapshot in time of areas where pedestrian Streetscape: The visual appearance, physical forms, and
improvements are prioritized relative to other modes. These character of a street. Examples of streetscape elements include
areas may be located near schools, transit stations, areas of high roadways, medians, sidewalks, street furniture, crosswalks,
pedestrian activity, areas with high collision frequency, or other signs, open space, and landscaping, among many other factors.
placemaking opportunity areas. View common street features in our Street Features Glossary.
Performance metrics: Standards and measurements for Traffic calming: Changes in street alignment, installation of
performance results. In transportation planning, the most barriers, and other physical measures employed to reduce traffic
commonly used performance metrics measure vehicle speeds and/or cut-through traffic volumes in the interest of
throughput and delay (congestion). street safety, livability, and other public purposes.
Protected Bicycle Lanes/ Cycle Tracks: Bicycle lanes that Traffic control devices: Signs, signals, or pavement markings
provide further protection from other travel lanes by the use of whether permanent or temporary, placed on or adjacent to a
a physical roadway intervention. travel way by authority of a public body having jurisdiction to
regulate, warn, or guide traffic. CA MUTCD/MUTCD designates
Refuge islands: Raised medians which may be used by
standards.
pedestrians or bicyclists at intersections or mid-block for
assistance with crossing wide streets or signalized intersections. Traffic volume: The number of vehicles that pass a specific point
for a specific amount of time (hour, day, year).
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): A plan to meet the region’s
long-term mobility needs by connecting transportation and Transit-Enhanced Network (TEN): The proposed TEN will
land use policy decisions. The RTP is prepared by the Southern improve existing and future bus service on arterial streets by
California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the prioritizing improvements for transit riders.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) of this region. Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Strategies
Right of way (ROW): The legally granted access that a roadway that influence long-term travel behavior. The aim of TDM is to
or other transportation facility can use. It is important to note improve mobility and decrease negative impacts such as traffic
that the right of way can extend beyond the asphalt in a street congestion and air pollution. TDM strategies can include: ride-
and can also include non-street land such as former railroad sharing, providing commuter subsidies, promoting walking and
lines. biking, and encouraging flexible work schedules.
Sensitive receptors: A term from the Environmental Protection Transportation System Management (TSM): Strategies
Agency that refers to areas with occupants more susceptible to that make better use of the existing transportation system by
the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, improving signalization, re-striping lanes for turning vehicles, or
and other pollutants. Sensitive receptors include (but are not providing real-time traffic information. TSM strategies aim to
limited to) hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing increase efficiency and capacity in the short-term.
and convalescent facilities. Utilitarian trips: Trips that are not for recreational purposes,
Shared pathway: A path that permits more than one type of such as running errands.
user, such as a path designated for use by both pedestrians and Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN): The proposed VEN consists
bicyclists. of enhancements, on a select group of streets, to prioritize the
Shared roadway: A roadway where bicyclists and motor efficient movement of motor vehicles.
vehicles share the same space with no striped bicycle lane. Any Wayfinding signs: Signs typically placed at road and bicycle
roadway where bicycles are not prohibited by law (i.e. interstate path junctions (decision points) to guide bikeway users
highways or freeways) is a shared roadway. toward a destination or experience.
Sight distance: The distance a person can see along an Walkable neighborhood: A neighborhood in which people
unobstructed line of sight. can safely and easily walk to a variety of local destinations and
Single-occupancy vehicle: A private car that is being used to resources.
transport only one person, the driver. Wide curb lane: A 14 foot (or greater) wide outside lane
Southern California Association of Governments adjacent to the curb of a roadway, that provides space for
(SCAG): SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority and the Metropolitan bicyclists to ride next to (to the right of) motor vehicles. Also
Planning Organization (MPO) for this region. Their main task is referred to as a “wide outside lane”. If adjacent to parking, 22
to develop a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Federal feet in width may also be considered a wide curb lane.
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) every four years.

Appendix E: Glossary of Acronyms
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and GSD - General Services Department
Transportation Officials HDM - Highway Design Manual (Caltrans) HSIP - Highway Safety
AB - Assembly Bill Improvement Program ITA - Information Technology Agency
APC - Area Planning Commission LACMTA - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (also Metro)
BAC - Bicycle Advisory Committee (City of Los Angeles)
LAMC - Los Angeles Municipal Code
BFS - Bicycle Friendly Street
LAPD - Los Angeles Police Department
BLOS - Bicycle Level of Service
LAUSD - Los Angeles Unified School District
BoE - Bureau of Engineering (Department of Public Works)
LAWA - Los Angeles World Airports
BoS - Bureau of Sanitation (Department of Public Works)
LOS - Level of Service
BP - Bicycle Plan
Metro - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
BPIT - Bicycle Plan Implementation Team
Authority (also LACMTA or MTA)
BRT - Bus Rapid Transit
MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal)
BSL - Bureau of Street Lighting (Department of Public Works) NHTS - National Household Travel Survey
BSS - Bureau of Street Services (Department of Public Works)
OTS - Office of Traffic Safety (State of California)
BTA - Bicycle Transportation Account (Caltrans)
PBCAT - Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool
BTSP - Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan (Metro)
PMS - Pavement Management System POLA - Port of Los
CA DMV - California Department of Motor Vehicles
Angeles
CA MUTCD - California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
PSA - Public Service Announcement RAP - Recreation and Parks
Devices Caltrans - California Department of Transportation
ROW - Right-of-Way
CDL - Commercial Driver License
RTP - Recreational Trails Program
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
RTPA - Regional Transportation Planning Agency
CFP - Call for Projects ( Metro)
RUS - Recreational Use Statute
CMAQ - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
SAFTEA-LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
CRA - Community Redevelopment Agency
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
CSHTS - California Statewide Household Travel Survey
SB - Senate Bill
CTCDC - California Traffic Control Device Committee
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
DBS - Department of Building and Safety
SCS - Sustainable Community Strategy
DCP - Department of City Planning
SLM - Shared Lane Marking (also “sharrow”)
DEIR - Draft Environmental Impact Report
SLPP - State Local Partnership Program
DOT - Department of Transportation
SR2S - Safe Routes to School (CA State Program) SRTS - Safe
DPW - Department of Public Works Routes to School (Federal Program) SWITRS - Statewide
DUI - Driving Under the Influence (of alcohol or drugs) EAD - Integrated Traffic Records System TDA - Transportation
Environmental Affairs Department Development Act
EIR - Environmental Impact Report TEA-21 - Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century TIMP -
Traffic Impact and Mitigation Studies
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
GIS - Geographic Information System
Appendix F: Inventory of Modified Street Designations
INVENTORY OF MODIFIED STREET DESIGNATIONS

Street Alignment Standard Street Community Plan Comment on Modified Street Designation
Designation
3rd St Doheny Dr to Avenue II Per Wilshire District Plan footnote, street improvements shall be
City of Beverly limited to the existing 75’ R.O.W.
Hills boundary
Abbot Kinney Main St to Avenue III Venice Plan calls for a 70’ R.O.W. w/ 50’ roadway.
Plams Blvd
Beverly Blvd Western Ave Avenue I No widening in excess of the existing roadway (Wilshire Plan)
to La Cienega
Blvd
Beverly Glen Blvd Mulholland Dr Scenic Arterial No widening, realigning or improvement to increase traffic capacity
to Sunset Blvd Mountain (Bel Air - Beverly Crest Plan)
Bixel St Miramar St to Avenue II Modified standards are set forth in the Central City West Specific
Wilshire Blvd Plan.
Califa St Topanga Collector Modified standards are set forth in the Warner Center Specific
Canyon Blvd to Plan.
Canoga Av
Coldwater Canyon Dr Mulholland Dr Scenic Arterial No widening, realigning or improvement to increase traffic capacity
to Beverly Hills Mountain (Bel Air - Beverly Crest Plan)
City boundary
Crenshaw Blvd Pico Blvd to Avenue I Modified standards are set forth in the West Adams - Baldwin Hills
79th St - Leimert Plan
Crescent Heights Blvd Wilshire Blvd to Avenue III Roadway restricted to current width along single family, low and
Rosewood Av low medium density residential areas. Permit flaring or other types
of improvements at the commercial intersections of Wilshire,
Third Street, and Beverly Boulevard. The City may acquire
dedication, 100 feet beyond the alley behind these intersections
for improvements only if the adjacent lots are ever developed with
commercial, commercial parking or high or medium density multiple
family residential uses.
DeSoto Ave Fwy 101 bridge Boulevard II Modified standards set forth in Warner Center Specific Plan
to Victory Blvd
Glencoe St Washington Bl Avenue II Modified standards set forth in Glencoe - Maxella Specific Plan
to Maxella Av
Glendale Blvd 1st Street Boulevard II Modified standards are set forth in the Central City West Specific
to Fwy 101 Plan
viaduct
Grand Av Temple St to Boulevard II Modified standards will conform to the Conceptual Rendering of
4th St Pedestrian Amenities and Linkages [Exhibt A, attached to Council
file No. 02-1238] relating to the Grand Avenue Promenade project.
Grand Av 4th St to 5th Avenue II Modified standards will conform to the Conceptual Rendering of
Street Pedestrian Amenities and Linkages [Exhibt A, attached to Council
file No. 02-1238] relating to the Grand Avenue Promenade project.

Highland Ave Melrose Av to Divided Avenue I Retain medians; trees to be preserved; no improvements beyond
Rosewood the existing right-of-way (Wilshire Plan)
Highland Ave Rosewood to Divided Avenue I Retain medians; trees to be preserved; no improvements beyond
Wilshire the existing right-of-way (Wilshire Plan)
Hope St 6th St to Avenue II Modified standards set forth in the Downtown Street Standards.
Olympic
Laurel Canyon Blvd Lookout Avenue II No widening, realigning or improvement to increase traffic capacity
Mountain to (Bel Air - Beverly Crest Plan)
Mulholland Dr
Mulholland Dr Mulholland Scenic Parkway No changes or improvement may be made to the alignment or
Hwy to design of Mulholland Drive without the prior approval of the City
Lakeridge Rd Council. Mulholland Drive must remain at its existing alignment
and the width of the right-of-way must remain as is. Mulholland
Drive shall consist of two travel lanes, one in each direction, with a
maximum width of 15 feet per lane. The shoulder shall be five feet
wide.(Ord. 167,943)
Overland Ave Pico Blvd to La Collector No street widening shall be permitted, except for any currently
Grange Av scheduled realignment project at Pico Blvd. This restriction is in
effect as long as fronting properties remain in the Low Density
Housing Category. (West Los Angeles Plan)
Overland Ave Pico Blvd to La Secondary No street widening shall be permitted, except for any currently
Grange Av Highway scheduled realignment project at Pico Blvd. This restriction is in
effect as long as fronting properties remain in the Low Density
Housing Category. (West Los Angeles Plan)
Redondo Blvd Venice Blvd to Collector Wilshire Plan calls for 70’ R.O.W./50’ roadway to accommodate
La Brea Class II bikeway.
Robertson Blvd Whitworth to Avenue II Wilshire Plan calls for 80’ R.O.W./60’ Roadway
18th St
San Vicente Blvd Santa Monica Secondary No roadway alignment changes shall be made on the San Vicente
City Limits to Highway Scenic Corridor (except for safety improvements) without a public
Goshen Av hearing, to be held by the Board of Public Works, notification of
which shall be posted along the right-of-way and published in a
newspaper of local circulation at least 16 days prior to the hearing
date. (Ord. 161,766)
Sunset Blvd City of Beverly Major Highway Per Bel Air – Beverly Crest Plan text, Sunset is not to be widened
Hills boundary Class II for the purpose of increasing capacity.
to 405 fwy
Sunset Blvd 405 fwy to Major Highway Per Brentwood – Pacific Palisades Plan Footnote No.14, Sunset is
PCH Class II not to be widened for the purpose of increasing capacity during the
Plan’s 20-year life. [thru June, 2018]
Victory Blvd De Soto Av Boulevard I Modified standards are set forth in the Warner Center Specific
to Topanga Plan.
Canyon Blvd
Wilshire Blvd San Vicente Boulevard II No widening in excess of existing roadway (Wilshire Plan)
Blvd to
Sweetzer
Wilshire Blvd Sweetzer to Avenue I No widening in excess of existing roadway (Wilshire Plan)
Lafayette Park
Pl
White Oak Ave Rinaldi St to Avenue II Any additional improvement shall be limited to 54 feet in width
Devonshire St between curbs to protect the historic and cultural deodar trees.
(Northridge Plan)
Modified Street Standards for Specific Area Geographies
For modified street standards in the Cornfield Arroyo Specific Plan (CASP), Downtown area, and Warner Center Specific Plan
area, please see the CASP document, Downtown Street Standards document, and Warner Center Specific Plan for detailed
cross sections on modified street segments.

Los Angeles
Department
of City Planning
Los Angeles Department of City Planning • February 2015

Mobility Plan 2035

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mobility Plan 2035

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mobility Plan 2035

An Element of the General Plan

Los Angeles Department of City Planning

Urban Design Studio

1. Safety First 51 6. Action Plan 144

2. World Class Infrastructure 67 7. Appendices175

Relationship to Other Plans

Introduction + Orientation Chapter

L os Angeles has historically been

LADCP Draft May 2015 11

“Complete streets” take into Key Policy Initiatives:

• Expand the role of the street as a public place

12 Draft May 2015 

LADCP Draft May 2015 13

benefits of active transportation, implementation. The action programs

Purpose, Adoption, & Implementation

14 Draft May 2015 

its Community Plan Areas. Traditionally, ADOPTION PROCEDURES

LADCP Draft May 2015 15

16 Draft May 2015 

Street Designations and

Secondary Highway (86/56) Avenue II (86/56)

LADCP Draft May 2015 17

Citywide General Plan Circulation System Maps

18 Draft May 2015 

Ventura Riverside Camarillo

San Olympic 8Th 2N

Exposition Boulevard N/R ro

Martin Luther King, Jr

Century Century Century

rly 108Th 108Th

CITYWIDE GENERAL PLAN

Map A1 - Generalized Circulation

Boulevard I Arterial Streets Outside City of LA Front

Avenue I City of Los Angeles Boundary 9Th

Draft May 2015

Be Saticoy Saticoy Saticoy

Oxnard 114 104 Oxnard

Canoga 114 104 114

Le Co nte Wilsh ire

Manchester Somerset Manchester

Century 133 141

CITYWIDE GENERAL PLAN

Boulevard I Divided Streets Modified Streets

Collector and Local Streets are shown for reference only.

100 Rodeo 122 82 Rodeo 80 42

Martin Luther King, Jr

CITYWIDE GENERAL PLAN

Boulevard I Divided Streets Modified Streets 80 71 48Th

Avenue I Freeways 100 Modified RD

Avenue II Collector Streets

Avenue III Local Streets

City of Los Angeles Boundary 80 54Th

Collector and Local Streets are shown for reference only.

Draft April 2015

Martin Luther King, Jr

CORNFIELD ARROYO SECCO PLAN (CASP) SUBAREA

Avenue II Collector Streets

Avenue III Local Streets

City of Los Angeles Boundary

Collector and Local Streets are shown for reference only.

Refer to specific community plan.

Slauson Slauson Slauson

0 0.65 1.3 1.95

1. Safety First 51 6. Action Plan 144

2. World Class Infrastructure 67 7. Appendices175

LADCP Draft May 2015 11

12 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 13

14 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 15

16 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 17

18 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 25

26 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 27

34 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 35

36 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 37

38 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 39

40 Draft May 2015

LADCP Draft May 2015 41