university park and jefferson boulevard street plan 2014 - 12.13.2014 - low res

Uni

vers

ity

Ave

nue

& R

oyal

Hoo

ver

Stre

et

W. J

effe

rson

Bou

leva

rd

UNIVERSITY PARK AND JEFFERSON BOULEVARD STREET PLAN 2014

Prepared by the Fall 2014 USC PPD 531L Complete Streets and Bicycle Planning Studio

PLAN AUTHORS Fall 2014 PPD 531L Complete Streets and Bike Planning Students:

Nick Armour, Christine Blackman, Karl Fielding, Lynnette Hartenian,Haijing Lin, Clare Kelley, Patrick Martinez, Bryan Moller, Lavandra Raghuraman, Shrota Sharma, Peter Soderberg, Kurt Taillin, Lawrence Young, Samuel Zneimer

Direction and edits by Professor Alison Kendall, LEED AP BD+C, AICP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe following members of the Trojan Community and various governmental agencies and cy-cling and pedestrian safety advocates assisted in the preparation of this documen:

USC Administration

Student AffairsAinsley Carry, VP-Student Affairs

Facilities/Construction/Auxilliary ServicesBrian League

Administrative ServicesBrian Gross, Special Projects

Department of Public SafetyChief John Thomas

Faculty/External RelationsDavid Galaviz, Exec. Director, Local Govt Relations

TransportationDavid Donovan, Assistant Director

Sol Price School of Public Policy, USCStudents of the Spring 2012 Bike Planning StudioStudents of the Spring 2014 Bike Planning Studio

USC Undergraduate Student GovernmentJordan FowlerKody Kessler

USC Graduate Student GovernmentChristine Wozniak, Director of Campus Affairs

City of Los AngelesDave Somers, City Planning, PolicyRubina Ghazarian, LA DOT, Bicycle Coordinator

USC Bicycle CoalitionCathy Ji, PresidentAlex Leavitt, Graduate School RepresentativeJake Peters, Staff Representative

LA MetroTham Nguyen

TRUST South LAMalcolm Harris, Director of Programs & Organizing

TABLE OF CONTENTS I) IntroductionChapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................................. 01 Chapter 2: Issues and Opportunities ............................................................ 07

II) Proposed Street Improvements and ProgramsChapter 3: University Avenue and Royal Street Improvements ................. 21 3.1 Issues & Opportunities............................................................ 22 3.2 Proposed Improvements....................................................... 23 3.3 Implementation Plan.............................................................. 35

Chapter 4: Hoover Avenue and McClintock Improvements ........................ 43 4.1 Issues & Opportunities.......................................................... 44 4.2 Proposed Improvements....................................................... 50 4.3 Implementation Plan............................................................... 56

Chapter 5: Jefferson Boulevard-Vermont to Normandie............................. 63 5.1 Issues & Opportunities........................................................... 64 5.2 Proposed Improvements........................................................ 71 5.3 Implementation Plan.............................................................. 81

III) Next Steps & Other ResourcesChapter 6: Implementation: Evaluation and Campus Community Collaboration............................................ 86 6.1 Recommendation on Implementation ................................. 86 6.2 Implementation by Area .......................................................... 87 6.3 Education................................................................................ 90 6.4USC Coordination with City and County Agencies....................91

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 99 Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts..................................................... 99 Funding Opportunities............................................................... 103 References.................................................................................. 106

A62 53 41 Executive Summary

1

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

Purpose of the University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan

The University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan was prepared by the Fall 2014 Complete Streets and Bicycle Planning Studio at the Sol Price School of Public Policy as an exploration of the potential for street redesign and collaborative USC/City of LA/Community planning to en-hance the livability and mobility of this unique neighborhood in LA.

The University Park neighborhood directly north of the main USC cam-pus contains a large number of USC undergraduate and graduate stu-dents, as well as a large number of university related institutions. Two streets examined in this study, Uni-versity Avenue and Hoover Avenue, link the campus to the area and carry extremely high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians throughout the day and evening. Currently the USC Vil-lage project is under construction just north of the main campus, and offers a chance to substantially improve the safety, convenience and character of

University Park streets over the lon-ger term, while currently impacting them during construction.

Given the flat terrain and dispersed facilities, bicycling is an increasingly popular choice for USC students, fac-ulty and staff commuting and trav-eling between University facilities. However the campus area has not adapted to this cycling increase by providing a clear bicycle circulation network, supported by bike safety ed-ucation, enforcement and adequate bicycle parking and services.

The goal of the University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Street Plan is to propose street improvements to improve the safety and convenience of bicycling and walking in the area immediately north and west of the University Park Campus. Cycling should be supported as a healthy and sustainable transportation option for students, faculty, staff, and community members.

USC and the University Park area have one of the highest cycling rates in California. This Street Plan proposes street improvements for consideration by the City of LA, USC, and the local community. the safety and convenience of bicycling and walking. programning and infrastructure, it can also become one of the most bicycle friendly Universities in the country.

2

Proposed long-term improvements along Hoover Cooridor

Photo simulation of street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, bicycle parking and lanes near the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Budlong Avenue. Some of these improvements can be implemented at low cost yet could dramatically change the corridor.

Policies of the North University Park and Jefferson Blvd Streets Plan

The Plan identifies specific actions and strategies to:

1. Propose and encourage imple-mentation of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements for key path-ways and streets north and west of the USC main campus. A clear bicycle circulation network reduces potential conflicts between pedestri-ans and cyclists.

2. Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety at campus gateways and key intersections, and promote coopera-tion between USC, the community, and the the City of LA to coordinate bikeway improvements in the Uni-versity Park and Jefferson Boulevard area.

3. Identify key partners and stakeholders who can participate in improving bicycle and pedestrian safety and convenience through safe cycling education, encouragement for bicycle commuters, and consis-tent enforcement of safety regula-tions Seek recognition of the Univer-sity Park and Jefferson Boulevard

area as a Bicycle Friendly Commu-nity and USC as a Bicycle Friendly University to recognize and celebrate bicycle improvements and program achievements.

Organization of the Plan

I) Introduction1. Executive Summary2. Issues and Opportunities

II) Policies and Programs3. University Avenue4. Hoover Avenue 5. Jefferson Boulevard

III) Next Steps & Other Resources6. Implementation & Evaluation and Campus-Community Collaboration7. Appendices & Resources


3

The 2014 Bike Planning Studio Class - Bike Safety and Training Day

Policy Context Planning Process

Preparation of the North Univer-sity Park and jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan nvolved members of the Trojan Community, residents and merchants in surrounding neigh-borhoods and public agencies. This planning document builds upon USC policies developed in a broader pub-lic process in the 2012 University of Southern California Bicycle Master Plan.

Other relevant Planning Documents which affect the Project Areas in-clude: 2010 City of LA Bike Plan, My Figueroa Streetscape Plan, USC Vil-lage Development Agreement and Jefferson Streetscape Design Guide-lines. (provide full names, web ad-dress)

USC graduate students from the 2014 Bike Planning Studio Class collected valuable bicycle and pedestrian count data and analyzed bicycle and pedes-trian collision data to identify safety issues and develop recommendations for potential bicycle improvements and programs in the area north and west of the USC campus.

This input was integrated, along with planning concepts from the previ-ous 2012 Bike Planning Studio Class, into Draft Plan Proposals discussed with USC, public agencies and com-munity representatives on October 30, 2014 and December 4, 2014, and in numerous Stakeholder meetings held with University Park and Jef-ferson Boulevard area stakeholders. This Draft Streets Plan has been pre-pared for the use of key stakehold-ers in the University Park, Jefferson Boulevard, and USC Community and by City of LA transportation plan-ners and advocates. Comments from guest reviewers will be integrated

4

Photo simulation of long-term improve-ments at Hoover and Jefferson intersection

Photo simulation of raised crosswalk at intersection of Univer-sity Avenue and 30th Street

into the Final North University Park Streets Plan.Next Steps and Implementation

Chapter 6 of the Plan describes the recommended Implementation Strategy, including integration with the USC Bicycle Education Program and Bicycle Master Plan implementa-tion.

Implementation of the street im-provements mentioned in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 can be phased and coor-dinated with related campus plan-ning projects. City and County of

Los Angeles projects will also present opportunities for implementing the plan and coordinating USC and pub-lic agency efforts.

TIMS data showing the high collision injury rate on Hoover Street and at 30th and 32 Streets should be used in making the case for the City of Los Angeles and USC to participate in implementing the raised crosswalks, extended curb cuts and possibly oth-er additional improvements such as flashing beacons.


5

USC Bicycle Master Plan: Circulation Network

6

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A61 53 42 Issues & Opportunities

7

Chapter 2: Issues and Opportunities: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

This chapter is intended to highlight and summarize the data collection process and the subsequent findings from bicycle and pedestrian counts conducted at major intersections north of the USC campus with heavy bicycle and pedestrian volumes. These include Figueroa Street, University Avenue and Hoover Avenue, and Vermont Avenue at Jefferson Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. These counts will be used in part as baseline data, prior to the My Figueroa complete streets project, to inform future political and infrastructure decisions regarding pedestrians, bicycles, and complete streets projects in Los Angeles and beyond.

Counts conducted after the completion of the My Figueroa project will be used in comparison to these baseline counts to provide empirical evidence of the impact of complete streets facilities on volumes of bicycles and pedestrians, perceived safety of the bicycling environment, and changes in bicyclist behavior i.e. Sidewalk riding, wrong-way riding, use of helmets, etc. The following sections will document the data collection process, site characteristics, and findings resulting from the completed counts.

This chapter also discusses safety concerns in the area and highlights areas of special concern. The North University Park and West Adams neighborhoods experience high

volumes of cyclists and pedestrians. Due to behavioral and road design issues there are also high volumes of collisions involving cyclists and pedestrians in this area.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012Data Source: SafeTrec’s Transportation Injury Mapping System

8

2.1 Figueroa Street and Jefferson Boulevard: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

Site CharacteristicsThe intersection of Jefferson Blvd. and South Figueroa St. currently favors vehicle transportation over bicycles. Both Jefferson and Figueroa have a total of six lanes of traffic and an additional lane of parking near the intersection, as well as posted speed limits of 35 MPH, respectively. The two streets are devoid of on-street bicycle facilities; there are no bike lanes or sharrows present. Figueroa is designated as a Bike Route and one sign located east of the intersection on Jefferson, heading west, indicates this, yet this area contains only the very most southern tip of this designation because it ends at Exposition Blvd.

The intersection does, however, have a fairly strong pedestrian orientation. There are ADA accessible pedestrian curb cutouts at each corner. The intersection borders the main campus of USC to the southwest, the Galen Center to the southeast, a mixed-use development comprised of retail and student housing to the northwest, and an automobile dealership to the northeast. The sidewalk width is between 10 and 20 feet alongside all of these properties, except the auto dealership, in which

case it decreases to approximately 8 feet. There is a strong pedestrian orientation due to the presence of the University and the close proximity to the Metro Exposition light rail line (Expo), located one block east of the study intersection, on Jefferson Blvd. and South Flower St.

There is a limited amount of bicycle parking along the north leg of Figueroa in front of the mixed-use development, likely to serve the occupants of the apartment building and the customers of the retail locations. However, there is no bicycle parking along the other legs of the intersection. Much of the bicycle parking for this area is located on USC’s campus, with the expectation that cyclists will then walk to their destinations. Hence, there is a lack of adequate bicycle parking facilities for non-USC affiliated cyclists and users of the Expo line.

FindingsDepending on the location of screenline counters, some bicyclists and pedestrians can appear to be “lost” in the intersection, that is, there are differences in the number of people approaching and departing a given intersection. This commonly

occurs when the individual’s trip destination or origin is located between the screenlines; thus, they will pass only one screenline instead of two. This is likely to occur at this particular location because a large apartment complex and entrances to the University of Southern California, two significant trip generators, are located at the intersection. For this reason, we will focus on the approach numbers in order to show trends in

bicyclist and pedestrian volumes.

Our data shows that the volume of both bicyclists and pedestrians appears to generally increase throughout the day, likely in surges during peak periods. During the morning, midday, and evening peak periods, a total of 192, 391, and 525 bicyclists approached the intersection, respectively. Similarly, 632, 1176, and 2152 pedestrians approached

7 a.m. to 9 a.m.


9

2.1 Figueroa Street and Jefferson Boulevard: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

the intersection during the same respective time periods. It is feasible that the University of Southern California is among the largest generators of bicycle and pedestrian traffic since in all cases, except for midday bicyclists, between 52% and 62% of approach traffic is heading in the direction of the University (located at the south-east corner of the intersection) during any given peak period. While it is impossible to

determine the ultimate destination of these travelers without widespread surveying and turning movement counts, the approach numbers can still be loosely extrapolated to show direction of travel.

In a similar fashion, pedestrians and cyclists coming to and from the Expo line can also be roughly estimated based on the westbound approach (coming from the Expo station) and

the eastbound departure (going to the Expo station) count numbers. These numbers are particularly revealing for pedestrians, with 23% of morning peak period pedestrians coming from the direction of the Expo line and 22% of evening peak period pedestrians going in the direction of the Expo line. Again, while we cannot say for sure if these trips are due to the Expo line without a proper trip generation and transit

ridership analysis, an extrapolation can be made to suggest that these people may be walking between the transit line and the University.

Both of these points may be used in discussions to provide enhanced infrastructure and programs related to the active transportation users seeking access to the University of Southern California and first mile-last mile connections with the Metro Expo Line.

10

2.2 University Avenue: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

Site Characteristics

University Avenue is a critical transportation corridor, providing a direct connection between off-campus student housing and the University of Southern California, as well as an intermediate connection to 30th Street and 32nd Street that in turn connect to Hoover Street and Figueroa Street. The southern terminus at the Jefferson/Hoover/University intersection adds complexity to the movement of all modes of transportation. This avenue is not open for vehicular traffic except for the occasional USC facilities truck. This thoroughfare offers a park-like setting for other modes of transport including pedestrian, bicycle, and skateboard, locomotion. Signs are posted to disallow skateboard use.

There is a large median within the length of the avenue that is planted with grass and trees, and provides some seating in the form of foot-wide cement walls (that act as benches). The median divides the avenue into uneven paths on either side. This design carries through both blocks of University with only slight variation between the two blocks. It is important to note that the median

is of variable width that adds to the park-like setting, but inhibits to some degree the efficient movement of large volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists.Royal Street is another pedestrian path that is used sometimes by vehicular traffic to access the parking lot to the west, for instance during Shrine Auditorium shows. There is a gate that is normally locked at the north end of Royal Street, at 32nd Street, and cement barriers at the south end, at Jefferson Boulevard, to prevent vehicle access. There are also more cement barriers about halfway between Jefferson and 32nd. The design of this street is more open, without greenery, and the only inhibition to pedestrian and bicycle movement are the gates and the cement barriers. There are no posted signs along this passageway.

FindingsThe screenline method provided counts at a particular location north of the intersections. Each screenline location was approximately 120 feet north, and allowed the counter to count both northbound and southbound pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the screenline, and either approaching or departing

the respective intersection.Our data shows that the volume of both bicyclists and pedestrians appears to generally increase

throughout the day, likely in surges or class changes during peak periods. On University, during the morning, midday, and evening peak periods, a



11

total of 340, 477, and 292 bicyclists approached the intersection, respectively. A total of 45, 373, and 513 bicyclists traveled north, departing the intersection area during the same peak periods. The largest volume coincides with the typical end to day class times. Similarly, 355, 498, and 292 pedestrians approached the intersection during the same respective time periods, and 60, 470, and 691 pedestrians departed. It is likely that the University of Southern California is among the largest generators of this bicycle and pedestrian traffic during any given peak period, considering the location. While it is impossible to determine the ultimate destination or departure point of these travelers without widespread surveying and turning movement

counts, the approach numbers can still be loosely tied to USC.Royal Street overall experiences less foot and bicycle traffic. During the midday peak period, a total of 396 pedestrians, and 105 bicyclists, moved both north and south fairly evenly split between the two directions. The volumes for both locations increase typically in the fifteen-minute periods prior to an hour, for instance 11:45 am – 12:00 pm. Additionally, on University, the midday and evening peaks experience the highest volumes between 800 to 1,000 each for pedestrians and bicyclists!These high volumes and high collision reports may be used in discussions to provide enhanced infrastructure and programs related to the active transportation users seeking access to the University of Southern California.

Royal Street 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

12

7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Cyclist and Pedestrian Volume Counts: University Avenue

These figures show the northbound and southbound volumes on University Avenue for bicyclists and pedestrians north of the Jefferson/Hoover/University intersection during the three peak periods. At right is Royal Street for north of the Jefferson/Gate 4 intersection during one peak period. Generally, Royal experiences much lower volumes than University, so the count emphasis was placed at University Avenue.


13

2.3 Hoover Street: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

The bicycle counts conducted on the Hoover Avenue corridor showed massive volumes of cyclists, which are detailed in the Hoover Avenue corridor analysis chapter. The data indicates that a large number of bicyclists use the Hoover/Jefferson/University intersection to enter campus. While bike counts were not performed at the McClintock/Jefferson intersection observations were made about the intersection.

The Hoover Avenue and McClintock Avenue corridors face similar safety concerns; the mixing of different modes at intersections, the temporary elimination of bicycle facilities do to USC Village construction, and high volumes with insufficient capacity. The intersections are of particular concern as they involve bicycle and pedestrian movements at the same time, and when construction is finished at the Hoover Jefferson intersection, both are scrabble configuration intersections. The conflicting movement and speed of the cyclist and pedestrians can result in collisions. In the short-term there are limited solutions but adding capacity for bicyclist by changing curb-cuts or temporary markings can help with the separation. In

the long-term more comprehensive recommendations should be used. For the streets outside of the intersection there is currently bike lanes for both; while better than nothing upgrading the corridors to cycle tracks will increase the safety and comfort of bicyclist separating them from vehicular traffic and possible dooring.

The other safety issue is inexperienced users utilizing the corridors. In USC Bicycle Master Plan states that the surveys of the student population confirm that they lack experience and frequently engage in dangerous behavior. The data illustrates how this manifests a high number of users riding without a helmet, on the sidewalk and the wrong-way within the roadway. While current construction contributes to the illegal and unsafe riding it was also observed that cyclist would ride one-handed either holding coffee or a cellphone.

Site CharacteristicsThe intersection of Jefferson Blvd. and South Figueroa St. currently favors vehicle transportation over bicycles. Both Jefferson and Figueroa have a total of six lanes of traffic and an additional lane of parking near the intersection, as well as posted speed

USC


14

limits of 35 MPH, respectively. The two streets are devoid of on-street bicycle facilities; there are no bike lanes or sharrows present. Figueroa is designated as a Bike Route and one sign located east of the intersection on Jefferson, heading west, indicates this, yet this area contains only the very most southern tip of this designation because it ends at Exposition Blvd.

The intersection does, however, have a fairly strong pedestrian orientation. There are ADA accessible pedestrian curb cutouts at each corner. The intersection borders the main campus of USC to the southwest, the Galen Center to the southeast, a mixed-use development comprised of retail and student housing to the northwest, and an automobile dealership to the northeast. The sidewalk width is between 10 and 20 feet alongside all of these properties, except the auto dealership, in which case it decreases to approximately 8 feet. There is a strong pedestrian orientation due to the presence of the University and the close proximity to the Metro Exposition light rail line (Expo), located one block east of the study intersection, on Jefferson Blvd. and South Flower St.

There is a limited amount of bicycle parking along the north leg of Figueroa in front of the mixed-use development, likely to serve the occupants of the apartment building and the customers of the retail locations. However, there is no bicycle parking along the other legs of the intersection. Much of the bicycle parking for this area is located on USC’s campus, with the expectation that cyclists will then walk to their destinations. Hence, there is a lack of adequate bicycle parking facilities for non-USC affiliated cyclists and users of the Expo line.

FindingsDepending on the location of screenline counters, some bicyclists and pedestrians can appear to be “lost” in the intersection, that is, there are differences in the number of people approaching and departing a given intersection. This commonly occurs when the individual’s trip destination or origin is located between the screenlines; thus, they will pass only one screenline instead of two. This is likely to occur at this particular location because a large apartment complex and entrances to the University of Southern California, two significant trip generators, are

located at the intersection. For this reason, we will focus on the approach numbers in order to show trends in bicyclist and pedestrian volumes.

Our data shows that the volume of both bicyclists and pedestrians appears to generally increase throughout the day, likely in surges during peak periods. During the morning, midday, and evening peak periods, a total of 192, 391, and 525 bicyclists approached the intersection, respectively. Similarly, 632, 1176, and 2152 pedestrians approached the intersection during the same respective time periods. It is feasible that the University of Southern California is among the largest generators of bicycle and pedestrian traffic since in all cases, except for midday bicyclists, between 52% and 62% of approach traffic is heading in the direction of the University (located at the south-east corner of the intersection) during any given peak period. While it is impossible to determine the ultimate destination of these travelers without widespread surveying and turning movement counts, the approach numbers can still be loosely extrapolated to show direction of travel.

In a similar fashion, pedestrians and cyclists coming to and from the Expo line can also be roughly estimated based on the westbound approach (coming from the Expo station) and the eastbound departure (going to the Expo station) count numbers. These numbers are particularly revealing for pedestrians, with 23% of morning peak period pedestrians coming from the direction of the Expo line and 22% of evening peak period pedestrians going in the direction of the Expo line. Again, while we cannot say for sure if these trips are due to the Expo line without a proper trip generation and transit ridership analysis, an extrapolation can be made to suggest that these people may be walking between the transit line and the University.

Both of these points may be used in discussions to provide enhanced infrastructure and programs related to the active transportation users seeking access to the University of Southern California and first mile-last mile connections with the Metro Expo Line.


15

7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Cyclist and Pedestrian Volume Counts: Hoover Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard

Volume counts conducted at the intersection of Hoover Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard demonstrate the large flows of cyclists and pedestrians to and from the USC campus during three peak periods. Full volume count data is included in the Appendix of this report.

16

2.4 Vermont Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard: Volume Counts and Safety Issues

Count DataCyclist and pedestrian counts were conducted over a three week period from October 9, 2014 to October 23, 2014 at three two-hour intervals. The counts were done during morning peak hours of 7 AM to 9 AM, midday peak hours between 11 AM - 1 PM and evening peak hours between 4 PM - 6PM. The location of counts were north, east, south and west of the intersection at Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue.

The count data displayed high volumes of cyclists and pedestrians. About 245 pedestrians used the sidewalks near the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in any given direction for all peak hour intervals. Similarly, a large number of bicyclists traveled through the intersection--an average of 121 bicyclists. The volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists were higher in the eastbound direction towards campus, with the exception of evening peak hours, in which westbound volumes are much higher. Northbound and southbound volumes have no discernible pattern over the peak hour intervals.

Safety ProblemsCounters at Jefferson Blvd. and Vermont Ave. noted clearly visible problems between motor vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Motorists often fail to yield to pedestrians when making right turns on red lights. A high percentage of observed cyclists where sidewalk riders, demonstrating that many riders do not feel that the street is a safe place to ride.

Collision data shows a concentration of collisions involving cyclists or pedestrians at the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. Collisions are also clustered along Vermont Avenue south of Jefferson Boulevard.

USC



17

7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Cyclist and Pedestrian Volume Counts: Vermont Avenue and Jefferson BoulevardVolumes are consistently high during the three peak hour intervals. Both pedestrians and bicyclists use the Jefferson Boulevard corridor, west of Vermont Avenue, regularly. These numbers validate that there is a comparable number of users that would value the addition of bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian-friendly streets.

18

2.5 Jefferson Boulevard: Vermont Avenue to Normandie Avenue:Safety Issues

Safety data collected in the Transportation Injury Mapping System, provided by SafeTrec, reveals that nearly one hundred collisions involving cyclists or pedestrians occurred in the project study area from 2008 to 2012. Collisions are clustered along Jefferson Boulevard at intersections. The intersections of Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard and Normandie Avenue are particular hot spots.

Most collisions involved cyclists who must contend with a lack of bicycle facilities along Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Normandie Avenue The primary collision factor in the majority of these collisions was driver behavior. Driver behavior includes illegal maneuvers as well as falling asleep at the wheel and other improper driving.

Nearly thirty percent of these collisions were classified as hit and runs, indicating a lack of accountability for cyclist and pedestrian safety. Additionally, the majority of cyclist collisions resulted

in visible injuries. Both cyclists and pedestrians were severely injured during this time period in collisions. Most collisions took place during the daytime, which should be safer than periods in darkness. Over half of the collisions involving pedestrians occurred in intersections without control devices demonstrating the need for enhanced pedestrian infrastructure.

Infrastructure deficits, discussed in the Chapter 5, likely contributed to these collisions. There are opportunities to provide enhanced facilities for cyclists and pedestrians along the corridor, improving safety for all.

Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012

Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012


19

USC


2020


3 University Avenue A61 52 4

21

Chapter 3: University Avenue

University Avenue is a critical trans-portation corridor, providing a direct connection between off-campus stu-dent housing and the University of Southern California, as well as an in-termediate connection to 30th Street and 32nd Street which in turn con-nect to Hoover Street and Figueroa Street. A number of transportation efficiency and safety related issues have been identified in regards to University Avenue; most notably, there are safety concerns due to col-lisions, congestion, user conflict, and inadequate crossing facilities at in-tersections which will be discussed in depth in the appendix. This report will discuss some of these issues, pro-pose a number of improvements to the existing facilities, detail these im-provements through concept designs and graphics, and finally, justify the importance of investing in these in-frastructure and plan improvements.

Project Study Area

2222

3.1 Issues and Opportunities

The neighborhood north of the USC campus is busy with movement from all modes of transportation. As shown by the counts taken, pedes-trian and bicycle volumes within this area are extremely high and often there are severe conflicts that pro-duce critical safety hazards for these particular modes. University Avenue is a pedestrian pathway (used by bi-cyclists as well) that is intersected by 32nd Street. It is an important link-age between student housing and the university, and experiences high volumes with chaotic and inefficient flows. Risk of collisions between bi-cyclists and pedestrians is high, as well as collisions with vehicles at the crossings of Jefferson Boulevard, and 32nd and 30th Streets.

Royal Street presents fewer safety concerns within its corridor; howev-er, pedestrians and bicyclists face the similar hazards crossing Jefferson Boulevard as those from University Avenue. The pedestrians and bicy-cles crossing Jefferson to enter Gate 4 experience serious conflict with vehicles using this University access. In addition, the existing single pedes-trian crosswalk is inadequate.

These challenges are, in fact, oppor-

tunities for improvement. Los Ange-les is looking forward to an increase in complete streetscape design that includes good mobility for all users. The upcoming MyFig and Jefferson Boulevard Streetscape projects are evidence of that trend. The Univer-sity community has an opportunity to increase the benefits of those im-provements by moving forward with design ideas from this planning stu-dio, as well as past efforts that pro-duced the USC Bicycle Master Plan, and providing support with the nec-essary collaborations that will be re-quired with other agencies such as LADOT. In particular, this section’s focus on University Avenue and Roy-al Street, and their relevant cross-ings, provides opportunity in the short term to make smaller improve-ments that will have a significant and positive impact for pedestrians and bicyclists. Longer term improve-ments will need a more coordinated effort but the effort will be rewarded with lifting the University area into a bike and pedestrian friendly status, which aligns well with the historical and significant use of walking and cy-cling for residents in this area. This is another opportunity for USC to ex-tend its good neighbor effort into the north and west of the Academic core.

University Avenue - Current Conditions


23

3.2 Proposed Improvements1. Protected Cycle Track

One of the primary concerns re-garding University Avenue is safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians throughout the length of the heavily used corridor. In order to reduce col-lisions and increase efficient flow of traffic, it is imperative to physically separate the pedestrians from the faster moving bicycles. Observations show limited compliance with the painted bicycle lanes on Trousdale Parkway. Therefore, a greater degree of separation is desired to ensure appropriate and adequate use. This separation can be achieved through a cycle track featuring a painted lane with pylon buffers creating a physical barrier between the cyclists and the pedestrians. In doing so, user con-flict and congestion will be reduced, travel times will likely become faster and there is potential for reduced in-cidence of collision. In addition, pre-

senting cycle tracks to the on cam-pus student population may have spillover benefits resulting in greater ridership for the nearby My Figueroa complete streets project which makes use of similar cycle tracks. Further complicating travel down University Avenue is the presence of a large median containing green space and pedestrian seating ar-eas. The median provides valuable green space and supports a number of mature trees. It is very feasible to reduce the median width and this is recommended for the following im-provements. The median is also not centered directly in the middle of the path, creating a narrow side on the east and a wider side on the west. In addressing this issue, two alterna-tives involving physically separated cycle tracks were studied for how best to conduct this separation, discussed below.

Proposed cycle track along University Avenue with con-nections to surrounding bicycle infrastructure

2424

Two-way cycle track on west side of University

Contrary to the traditional one-way cycle tracks which feature one direc-tional traffic of bicycles on the right side of a street, two-way cycle tracks instead place each directional lane right next to each other, allowing the track to be on one side of the street instead of both sides. Two-way cycle tracks are commonly featured as rec-reational bike paths, and more re-cently, in urban settings in both Eu-ropean and North American cities. At

its most narrow point, the east side is a mere 12 feet wide, too narrow to accommodate both a two-way cycle track with an appropriate width of 6.5 feet per lane and pedestrians. This cycle track could be placed on the west side, abutting the median. This provides space for pedestrians on both sides of the median and al-lows pedestrian access into the me-dian.

Photo simulation showing proposed two-way cycle track along the west side of median along University Avenue


25

One-way cycle tracks on both sides of the median

One cycle track concept was a one-directional separated cycle track on both the east and west sides of the median. These cycle tracks would be 6.5 feet wide and will allow adequate space for pedestrians to utilize both sides of the median. Sections along the cycle tracks will be marked with striped paint and feature gaps in the physical separation in order to indi-cate pedestrian crossing zones. This signage performs three important functions. First, it alerts both cyclists and pedestrians to each others’ pres-ence and shows that pedestrians are permitted to cross the path in these

locations thus, reducing poten-tial for user conflict and collisions. Second, it provides convenient en-trances and exits for cyclists using the cycle tracks, and third, they al-low pedestrians to access the pub-lic green space in the median. This treatment is the less preferred op-tion due to the creation of conflict areas and reduced access to the green space present in the medi-an. The two-way cycle track would maintain adequate access to the median while avoiding conflict zones.

Class I Cycle Track

Pedestrian Crossing Zone Bike Route Tra�c Circle Bike Box

Class II Bike Lane

Alternative idea for separated cycle track along University

2626

2. Crossings at 32nd and 30th- Raised Crosswalk

According to traffic injury data col-lected from TIMS, there are bicycle and pedestrian collision hotspots at the intersections of University and 30th as well as University and 32nd. These locations likely yield a high number of collisions due to poor sig-nage, large volumes of bikes and pe-destrians, and inadequate crossing facilities for all users. In order to ease the flow of traffic, increase the visibil-ity of pedestrians, and enhance the integration of the bicycle network,

we suggest adding a raised cross-walk. There’s a school nearby (Thirty Second School Street) which is an-other challenge for all users because students are picked up and dropped off on 32nd street near USC at peak hours. The raised crosswalk would calm down traffic and force cars to slow down. This is great for pedes-trians because the users can feel safe when crossing the path from curb to curb and cars know to slow down be-cause of the raised crosswalk along with increasing signage in the area.

Aerial view showing proposed cycle track connection to existing bike lanes north of 30th Street

Photo simulation of raised crosswalk at intersection of Univer-sity Avenue and 30th Street


27

3. Crossing at Jefferson Blvd.- Dedicated Bike Crossing Phase

Another area with significant conges-tion and user conflict is the intersec-tion where Hoover St, Jefferson Blvd, and University Ave meet. The exist-ing intersection dynamic is very cha-otic, allowing bicycles and pedestri-ans to cross the intersection vertical-ly, horizontally, and diagonally lead-ing directly into a bottleneck on the campus side caused by a fence and a utility box. To reduce congestion and improve safety at this crossing, it is important to first remove this bottle-neck by relocating the utility box and expanding the existing curb cut to provide greater access to the Univer-sity property.

Next, it is important to again sepa-rate the bicyclists from the pedestri-ans in order to reduce user conflict. This will be done by painting bicycle boxes at either side of the intersec-tion to physically bring bicycles in front of pedestrians at the intersec-tion. Then the signal phasing will be altered to provide a 4 second bi-cycle only crossing phase. These 4

seconds will be allocated by taking 2 seconds from the southbound green phase and the eastbound/westbound through phase. This altered signal phasing will allow bikes to cross the intersection before pedestrians begin crossing, reducing user conflict and congestion. It is important to main-tain the full time allocated for pedes-trian crossing phases due to the high volumes of pedestrians.In order to move forward with an im-provement for this intersection, it is important to coordinate it with and include the Jefferson Blvd streetscape improvements as well as to take in account of the future opening of the USC Village project at the northwest corner of this intersection, a mixed use retail and housing development which will bring an additional 2,700 students to the area. However, USC Village will be providing a dedicated pedestrian crossing at Jefferson Blvd and Watt Way to the west of this in-tersection, reducing much of the con-gestion that would otherwise spill over from the project.

Aerial view showing proposed cycle track connection to intersection of Hoover Street and Jefferson Boulevard

2828

4. “Road Diet” on 32nd between Hoover and FigueroaTo enhance bike and pedestrian safe-ty, as well as encourage safer driving habits along 32nd street, a standard “road diet” is recommended. This road diet will consist of reducing the number of travel lanes in each direc-tion from two lanes to one lane, add-ing a 2-way left turn lane in the me-dian and adding 5 feet class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. This type of road treatment will maintain the existing street parking on 32nd but provide much safer travel condi-tions for all modes of transportation

5. Removal of parking and ad-dition of bike lanes on 30th be-tween Royal and FigueroaCurrently, there are class II bike lanes on 30th between Hoover and Royal, but these bike lanes then transition into sharrows. To address the safety concerns in this neighborhood, it is important to update this infrastruc-ture and provide 5 feet class II bike lanes. However, there is insufficient space to add this treatment with the existing lane configuration. In order to add this improvement, the remov-al of street parking along 30th from Royal to Figueroa will be necessary.

Bike parking along University Avenue causes additional conflict zones that must be navegated by pedestrians and bicyclists.


29

3.2.6 Royal and Jefferson Intersection at USC Gate 4

The crossing here does not work well for bicyclists nor for the automobiles exiting the gate. It is also difficult for vehicle traffic to move in and out of Gate 4 which is on the south side of the intersection. The Gate itself was not designed for either pedestrians or bicyclists to enter or exit, yet many people do use this Gate on foot and bicycle due to its location near the Shrine parking garage and the Gate-way housing complex.

In order to improve the pedestrian and bicycle crossing facilities, it is recommended that an additional crosswalk on the west side of the in-tersection be striped. This crosswalk should also lead into a newly build bicycle and pedestrian oriented gate on the west side of the existing auto-mobile gate. Additional signage and pedestrian striping should continue through the gate, leading bicyclists and pedestrians into the existing campus transportation network. To further reduce the user conflict at this intersection, it is also recom-mended that the signal phasing be al-tered to provide a 4 second head start phase for bicycles and pedestrians crossing the intersection. University Avenue experiences much higher vol-umes of pedestrian and bicycle traf-

fic so making improvements for that multi-use pathway should be the pri-ority. However, the USC community will continue to utilize this intersec-tion, it is important to address the

existing inadequacies. In addition, a proposed USC parking garage on the current Shrine parking lot will increase pedestrian use and may provide an opportunity to reduce the

barricades to through bicycle access on Royal Street.

Proposed crossing and entrance to campus for pedestrians and bicyclists at Royal Street

Proposed intallation of bike and pedestrian path at Royal Street entrance to campus

3030

3.2.7 Recommendations Justification

The majority of recommendations made in this report are infrastructure improvements, supplemented with an educational program to improve knowledge and awareness. Of these improvements, the most important for improving the safety throughout the entire University Avenue corri-dor are the cycle track and the raised crosswalks along University Avenue. The primary concern for the corridor is protecting student safety by reduc-ing collisions, congestion, and user conflict. All three of these aspects can be improved by providing a cycle track which separates the bicycles and pedestrians effectively eliminating user conflict and bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Congestion along the cor-ridor is likely to improve as bicycles are free to move faster, since they will not be impeded by pedestrians, and pedestrians do not have be constantly on alert for approaching bicycles. Ad-

ditionally, the raised crosswalk will create more visibility for bicyclists and pedestrians while simultaneous-ly slowing down motor vehicles, two features crucial for alleviating the collision hotspots observed at these intersections (see Appendix).

Due to the difficult existing condi-tions on Royal Street, University Av-enue will be made into the primary connection to campus. University currently has higher bicycle and pe-destrian volumes than Royal (see Fig.5 in Appendix) thus, the focus will be placed on improving condi-tions at University to diverting bicy-cle and pedestrian traffic to this cor-ridor. However, the improvements at the intersection of Royal and Jef-ferson are still critical for ensuring a safe and convenient route for bicycles and pedestrians.


31

3.2.8 Issue Identification

University Avenue is a multi-use transportation pathway, providing a vital connection between the Uni-versity of Southern California and a large supply of off-campus stu-dent housing located just North of Campus. University Avenue also in-tersects with 30th Street and 32nd Street, two east-west running streets which connect to Hoover Street and Figueroa Street. These are two im-portant connections for facilitating travel throughout this neighborhood. The path provides automobile free access for bicycles and pedestrians, which include skateboards, scooters, and rollerbladers. Due to the direct connection between USC and student housing, as well as the diverse trans-portation modes permitted to use the path, there are high volumes of users along University Avenue and signifi-cant conflict between various modes (see figure 1).

The pathway appears generally cha-otic, with a median consisting of green space and pedestrian oriented seating bordered by two strips of un-even pavement. With no designated space for pedestrian and bicycle ac-cess, nor a separation for direction of travel, the entire corridor becomes a

hodge podge of traffic moving in dif-ferent directions, at different speeds. This creates a serious

Bicycle and Pedestrian volumes on University Ave

3232

safety concern for students trav-eling along University Avenue.

1. Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data was analyzed to quan-tify this safety concern (see figure 2), however, this data does not accurate-ly reflect bicycle-bicycle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions due to a lack of incident reporting and poor commu-nication between the University De-partment of Public Safety and the Los Angeles Police Department, the latter of whom reports the statewide stan-dardized collision data used in TIMS. In moving forward with improving the safety of this area, it is important to establish a protocol for bicycle and pedestrian collision reporting, with the University Department of Pub-lic Safety, so that baseline data can be established and future changes in collisions and injuries can be prop-erly recorded, scrutinized, and ad-dressed through policies, programs, and improvements.

2. The data does however indicate hotspots of collisions along Universi-ty Avenue at Jefferson Blvd, 32nd St, and 30th St. These intersections are likely made more dangerous because of the large volumes of bike and pe-destrian traffic, inadequate crossing

facilities, and poor signalization for automobiles.

3. Additionally, the high volumes of bicycles and pedestrians crossing Jefferson where University Ave and Hoover St converge creates a number of other issues. The existing signaliza-tion provides an all pedestrian cross-ing phase in which both pedestrians and bicycles cross in any and every direction possible. This intersection reflects the same user conflict issues present along University Avenue and should be addressed by creating sep-aration of bicycles and pedestrians during the crossing to both ensure safety and reliable crossing access.

1/2-mile radius around Hoover Street and Jef-ferson Boulevard intersection showing bicycle and pedestrian crashes (2008-2012)


33

Royal Street and Gate to Campus

A good portion of the bicycle and pe-destrian traffic chooses to cross at the intersection of Jefferson Blvd and Royal St, one block to the East. This intersection however, was not de-signed to handle the large amount of non-motorized vehicle crossings and presents significant safety and traf-fic congestion issues. This rerouted traffic reflects the existing deficien-cies along University Ave. If travel down University is made more safe, reliable, and efficient traffic will be far more likely to continue using Uni-versity instead of shifting to Royal. Creating this incentive to use Univer-sity Avenue instead of Royal Street is imperative to ensuring student safe-ty, alleviating vehicle traffic conges-tion along Jefferson Boulevard, and reducing conflicts with The Shrine located at the corner of Royal and Jefferson. However, USC plans to construct a parking garage opposite of the Shrine which will increase the need to accommodate more pedes-trian and bike crossings here.

Bicycle and Pedestrian volumes on Royal Street.

3434

Suggested Improvements for Royal and Jefferson Blvd. Intersection

The issues along University Avenue regarding safety are as follows:

1. Separating bicycles and pedestri-ans on University Avenue in order to reduce congestion, collisions, and user conflict

2. Increase reporting of bicycle-bicy-cle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions in order to generate more accurate safety data and quantifiable needs and benefits derived from existing and future safety programs and poli-cies

3. Provide safe and timely crossing mechanisms along University Av-enue at the intersections of Jefferson Boulevard, 32nd Street, and 30th Street

4. Creating incentives to maintain ridership along University Avenue instead of diverting traffic to Royal Street

1. Add pedestrian gate east of Gate 4 so pedestrians are not in the gate driveway.

2. Include pedestrian striping and crosswalk within Gate drive, just west of parking kiosk. Continue pe-destrian striping along northwestern curb for MRF building until it meets up with sidewalk just west of MFR. Add ADA compliant curb-cut ramp at sidewalk for uninterrupted access.

3. Remove driveway for Gate 4,and replace it a few feet to the south (and just north of the brick pedestal) so the sidewalk pedestrians walking along Jefferson are aware of entry into a major conflict zone.

4. Bike lane striping across Jefferson, from Gate 4 to Royal; two ways and split on east and west side of intersec-tion.5. Add painted bike boxes on north and south side of intersection at the appropriate waiting zone.

6. Implement signal change for pedestrians and bicycles to move through the intersection ahead of vehicles entering and exiting Gate 4. Install signal change for vehicles exit-ing Gate 4 to a standard red, yellow, green, traffic light.

7. Remove west end of median on Jefferson that currently intrudes into crosswalk.

8. Add ADA compliant curb-cut ramps for pedestrians at either end of the crosswalk.


35

3.3 Implementation Plan for University Avenue

Recommendation by Priority Cost & Level of Coordination Implementation Recommendation (Description)

Education and Collision Reporting LowOrientation programs, signage and notices, bicycle safety training courses; LAPD & DPS coordination

Crossing at Jefferson Blvd. Low/Medium Curb smoothing, consolidation and relocation of signal poles

Cycle Tracks on University Avenue Medium Median reduction, lane striping and pylon installation

Crossing at Jefferson Blvd. HighExpand curb cuts, relocate utility box, paint bike boxes, add lead signal for bicyclists

Raised Speed Tables at 32nd St. and 30th St. Medium Raised table installation, striping, signage

Crossing at Royal and Jefferson HighInstall curb cuts, add signal changes, crossing striping, pedestrian gate, and striping within gate area

Phase I: 0-3 Years Short Term and Intermediate Improvements

Phase II: 3-5 Years Long Term Improvements

The recommendations that are of-fered here are critical to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area north of the USC University Park Campus. There are significant safety concerns that are evidenced by the high number of reported col-lisions. However, the recommenda-tions have different levels of funding requirements and coordination with other jurisdictions. Therefore, each improvement and program has been

prioritized.

Recommendations that require less investment appear earlier in the im-plementation strategy because early action provides forward momentum for the plan. In addition, smaller funding amounts are more easily found. Other recommendations ap-pear later in the implementation timeline due to the complex coordi-nation needed with other agencies

and higher funding required. Table 1 lists each recommendation in or-der of priority. Additionally, we have created a two-phase implementation program in which to organize these improvements based on the difficulty and complexity of implementation. Please note that the Phase I improve-ments to the Jefferson/Hoover inter-section (Crossing at Jefferson, Table 1) can be easily integrated into the Jefferson Streetscape which is al-

ready planned in conjunction with the University Village project. These minor changes can be implemented soon with low to no additional cost because of the timing of our recom-mendations. See Section 4.2.1 for more details.

3636

3.3.1 Implementation Timeline

Phase I consists of the simpler, eas-ier to implement programs and im-provements. These include educa-tional outreach programs, improved collision reporting, and policy en-forcement. These programs are easy and comparatively inexpensive to implement. They will also allow for a smoother implementation process for future improvements. It is expect-ed that all elements of Phase I can be implemented within one year of final approval.

• Education and Collision Re-porting

The USC Bicycle Master Plan (2012) reported on collision data and made recommendations for ongoing edu-cation programs for improved bicy-cling behavior. Many of the issues found at that time are still occurring on a regular basis. Accurate collision reporting informs both the bicyclists and pedestrians, and the community, including the University, and has the added value of providing motivation to develop educational programs that serve to improve safety. Signage, brochures and maps, are some edu-cational components that can be im-plemented as early as Spring of 2015. The provision of orientation materi-

als and information, as well as mak-ing available bicycle safety training classes, should be implemented by September 2015.Educational campaigns, particularly those aimed at incoming students through orientation programs, are paramount to the success of the bi-cycle network and fully realizing the potential of other infrastructure im-provements to be implemented in the

future. Educational programs are low cost, in comparison to physical infra-structure development, and can be used to not only encourage safe be-havior, but to increase awareness of forthcoming improvements to bicycle facilities. While infrastructure im-provements make up the bulk of this report, their efficacy can be greatly enhanced by simple and cost effective educational programs.


37

Phase I - Intermediate Improve-ments

Phase I intermediate improvements contain physical infrastructure devel-opments, beginning with those that are most critical to our project area and least complicated to implement. These improvements consist of the least complex projects and take into account the permitting process for the Jefferson streetscape improvements. Since the permit has not been final-ized some minor changes are possible especially for needed improvements to safety, and for conformance to the Jefferson Streetscape guidelines.

• Cycle Tracks on University Ave.

Due to the higher costs associated with physical infrastructure projects, installation of the cycle track will be conducted after educational out-reach programs have begun. Since this project will be entirely within an area maintained by the Univer-sity, there will be far fewer barriers to implementation than some of the other recommended improvements. In light of these findings, it is recom-mended that these cycle tracks are the first infrastructure improvement to be made, since they can func-tion as independent bicycle facilities with or without the more costly and complicated infrastructure improve-ments that require cooperation with LADOT.

• Intermediate - Crossing at Jefferson Boulevard

This intersection presents many safety challenges critical to our study area, and some mitigation efforts can be implemented in the short-term, while more extensive design changes may follow later. Due to the ongoing construction at USC Village, this is an impor-tant area to implement the recom-mended safety strategies without delay, even while recognizing a larger funding need and increased cooperation with LADOT in or-der to implement any changes to the existing street infrastruc-ture. However, since the permit-ting process for USC Village has

already been completed and any significant changes to the devel-opment plan are unlikely, we have created an intermediate improve-ments plan for the intersection that can be further bolstered with a long-term improvement project in the future. In the short term, basic capacity and access issues will be addressed with low im-pact improvements included curb smoothing on the north and south sides of the crosswalk, consolida-tion of signal poles on the north side, and relocating the signal pole on the south side to remove a bottleneck. These improvements are shown in Section 3.2, Number 3. Please also see Section 4.2.1.

Short-term 0-3 years (2015-2018)

3838

The long-term improvements are comprised of the most complicated and expensive projects that will ide-ally be constructed to finish improv-ing and connecting the bicycle net-work. These more complex projects will require more funding and be subject to a greater level of scrutiny, thus they will likely require a longer implementation period.

• Long Term - Crossing at Jeffer-son Boulevard

More intensive long term improve-ments include expansion of curb cuts, relocation of the utility box to the south of the crosswalk, painted bicycle boxes, and new bicycle signals which will provide a 4 second “head start” crossing period for bicycles be-fore the pedestrian crossing phase. The overall cycle length will remain the same, this 4 second all-bicycle period will be derived by reallocating 2 seconds from the southbound traf-fic phase and 2 seconds from the east and westbound through phase.This improvement has been pushed behind the other projects due to the slow and bureaucratic nature of multi-jurisdictional projects such as this in which the University and LADOT both have a stake and oversight over

various portions of the project. Since the Jefferson streetscape improve-ments are already in the permitting process, these more intensive im-provements are unlikely to be short-term implementations, thus, they have been designated as long-term improvements. While this intersec-tion is among the primary concerns for our study area, the timeline in which the improvement is likely to be completed forces us to prioritize oth-er, more easily attainable goals, first.

• Raised Crossings (Speed Ta-ble) at 32nd St. and 30th St.

Raised speed tables installed at the 32nd Street and 30th Street crossings at University Avenue will provide im-proved safety and efficiency for all modes of transport. A temporary so-lution may inform us further regard-

ing the exact design and the configu-ration of the street lanes just before the intersections. Some early work to gain more insight into a preferred final solution is recommended. An education campaign for all users of these intersections will be beneficial. Early work can be implemented with-in 4 years, with a transition to the full implementation occurring within 6 years.Since these intersections have similar jurisdictional issues as the Jefferson intersection, they too are pushed fur-ther back in the improvements pri-oritization plan. Additionally, since they create less of a bottleneck and critical juncture compared with the Jefferson intersection, they have been pushed further back still. While their timely implementation is still critical for a fully functioning, effi-cient bicycle and pedestrian network,

the feasibility timeline and cost func-tion of the project makes it the least important in terms of chronologi-cal prioritization. Painted crossings as an interim solution may serve to improve safety while waiting for full implementation.

• Crossing at Royal St. and Jef-ferson Blvd.

Planning at this intersection is insuf-ficient for the volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic currently utiliz-ing the intersection. The USC Gate 4 entrance is not designed well for pe-destrian and bicycle access. The 2012 USC Bicycle Master Plan pointed this out. These improvements include ADA compliant curb cuts on all four corners, pedestrian and bicycle only signal (ahead of vehicle traffic), bike lane striping and painted bicycle box-

Long-term 0-3 years (2015-2018)


39

es, as well as the addition of a pedes-trian crossing on the west side of the intersection. Gate entrance design improvements can be implemented at a later time because within that area, improved efficiency is the main goal. Again, since the Jefferson streetscape improvements are moving through the city process, some changes may be able to be implemented sooner.

Again, this intersection faces simi-lar jurisdictional issues mentioned above stemming from the neces-sary collaboration between USC and LADOT. Despite the fact that the in-tersection is performing very poorly, it is outside of our primary focus, the corridor of University Avenue. The greatest priority is to address the University Avenue connection issues and provide direct connections to the existing bicycle network through this route. Royal Street remains an important intersection in need of im-provements, but its separation from University Avenue makes it less of an immediate implementation concern.

4040

3.3.2 Benchmarking and Evaluation Strategies

Benchmarking and evaluation fall into several categories. A designated Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, as recommended in the 2012 USC Bicycle Master Plan, will be best for monitoring implementation of im-provements, as well as monitoring bicycle ridership, and following prog-ress through the Bicycle Friendly Uni-versity designation. DPS is the best candidate for monitoring collision and injury data, as well as coordinat-ing with LAPD, and reporting data to the state-wide database. As recom-mended in the Bicycle Master Plan, establishing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee will also con-tribute to assuring that benchmarks are reached, and needs are assessed accurately.

Completion of Recommended Improvements

The simplest way to evaluate the suc-cess of a plan is through measuring the tangible developments produced from it. Comparing the rate in which projects are actually completed to the improvements timeline released with this plan will show whether they were constructed ahead of schedule, on time, delayed, or not at all. Keeping track of when various improvements

are completed will play a role in how other benchmarking strategies are conducted. For instance, baseline measurements on collisions and rid-ership must be conducted before and after each improvement. Not only will this metric clearly show if the plan is actually being implemented, but it will also provide insight in how to best perform future benchmarking procedures based on the completion of infrastructure improvements.

Monitoring Collision and Injury Rates

In order to continuously monitor bi-cycle-bicycle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions and injuries, it is necessary for the Department of Public Safety to first engage in a stricter reporting protocol to ensure that this data is as accurate as possible. Injuries from collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclist need to be reported to the state-wide SWITRS database used by the Transportation Injury Mapping System so hot spots and trends can be identified. After this reporting proto-col has been established, collision and injury reports will be generated on a yearly basis in order to show trends in collisions and injuries. These will be particularly illuminating during

pre and post improvement condi-tions. This will show us how well the infrastructure is working to actually prevent collisions and achieve our goal of creating a safer, more reliable transportation network.

Monitoring Bicycle Ridership

This strategy is intended to evalu-ate the impacts that infrastructure improvements will have on encour-aging more students to ride bicycles to campus and to ride them in a safe way. We have already conduct-ed baseline bicycle and pedestrian counts in which cyclist behavior was also observed. These counts should be repeated after each phase of in-frastructure improvements in order to see if there is a discernable effect on ridership from providing these bi-cycle facilities. Safety is often cited as a common barrier preventing people from riding bicycles in an urban en-vironment, so if these infrastructure improvements are successful in im-proving the perceived safety of cy-cling to campus, we would expect an increase in bicycle ridership as well as a decrease in injuries from colli-sions.

Benchmarking against other Univer-sities: Bike Friendly University StatusIt is important to continue updat-ing the bicycle plan and strive to provide cutting edge infrastructure improvements and programs in or-der to promote student safety and maintain the University’s innovative approach to student affairs and cam-pus life. The first step is to become a Bicycle Friendly University through the League of American Bicyclists. This will better position the Univer-sity to meet with other schools and compare best practices in bicycle de-velopments, policies, and programs. Engaging in discussions and com-parisons of best practices will en-sure that USC does not become com-placent and will continue to pursue more improvements for the benefits of students and the greater Univer-sity community.


41

3.3.3 Estimated Costs

Treatment Cost of ProjectRaised Crosswalk at University Avenue and

30th Street 100,000.00$ Raised Crosswalk at University Avenue and

32nd Street 100,000.00$

Dedicated Pedestrian Gate at Jefferson

Boulevard and Royal Street2,087.00$

Additional pavement leading through

Pedestrian Gate at Jefferson Boulevard and

Royal Street37,500.00$

Striping along pavement through Pedestrian

Gate 900.00$

Estimated 20% cost for construction 48,097.40$

Subtotal for Short Term Improvements 288,584.40$

Total for Short Term and Long Term

Improvments500,470.80$

Treatment Cost of Project

Two-way Cycle Track on University Avenue 164,036.00$

Class II Bicycle Lanes on 32nd from Hoover

Street to Figueroa Street $ 6,680.00

Class II Bicycle Lanes on 30th from Royal

Street to Figueroa Street5,240.00$

Additional Crosswalk on the west side of the

intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Royal

Street616.00$

Estimated 20% cost for Construction 35,314.40$

Subtotal for Short Term Improvements 211,886.40$

Long-term Impovement Cost EstimatesShort-term Impovement Cost Estimates

4242


4 Hoover Corridor A61 52 3

43

Chapter 4: Hoover Street & Jefferson Boulevard

The Hoover and Jefferson entrance to the University of Southern Cali-fornia is one of the most heavily used gateways onto campus. With the vast amount of student housing, this cor-ridor provides an easy access route for students coming from Greek Row and other neighborhoods to the north. Dealing with the large volume of both pedestrians and bicyclists coming south to campus and leaving cam-pus to the north on their way home has led to traffic changes such as di-agonal crossings and pedestrian-only signals, providing additional safety by freezing automobile traffic with a pedestrian phase. Bicycles crossing between campus and Hoover tend to use the pedestrian phase and cross-walks. While this is illegal under Los Angeles law, it is rarely enforced at this intersection. Conflicts between bikes/pedestrians and cars are com-mon, though less so than in other North University Park areas due to high volume and slower speeds. Re-cent construction along Hoover has

Hoover and Jefferson on a typical day. This intersection contains diagonal crossings and a pedestrian phase scramble. While Los Angeles law treats bicycles as vehicles, most bicyclists at USC coss during the pedestrian phase using the crosswalks.

low for improved amenities and safer access for the large population of the student population who choose an alternative mode of transportation than the automobile.

led to many safety issues that have not been properly addressed during USC Village construction, from 2014-2017.

By assessing volume counts and ex-ploring potential design options, there are several improvements that could be made in both the short-and long-term . These changes would al-

44

4.1 Issues and Opportunities

The methodology for collecting data for the Jefferson/Hoover/Univer-sity/Trousdale intersection required multiple manual counters, four screen lines, recorded at three differ-ent times of day. The time periods for data collect were 7:00 – 9:00 am, 11:00 am – 1:00 pm, and 4:00 – 6:00 pm; the morning period and evening

period are traditional peak travel for work purposes. The 11:00 am – 1:00 pm period is a better represents the college students’ travel into and out of campus. The data collection pro-cess utilized 13 counters; multiple days to collect the data and groups to analyze data.

4.1.1 Bike and Pedestrian Counts

Map showing screen-line locations of bike and pedestrian counts

Existing intersection conditions at Hoover and Jefferson


45

stand that the high-volume of users forces solutions to be more creative and different than traditional in-tersection or corridor treatments to facilitate safe movement.

During the 4:00 – 6:00 pm time period was the highest recorded bi-cycle and pedestrian counts. More of the bicyclist and pedestrians are traveling north away from the cam-pus, with most classes ending before 6:00 pm this makes sense. As was mentioned before with the 11:00 am – 1:00 pm time period, the massive volume forces creative solutions.

A. Summary of Data Collection Time Periods

During the 7:00 – 9:00 am time period the majority of bicyclists and pedestrians are traveling south onto campus; this would be expected for faculty, workers and students. The bicycle and pedestrian counts were their lowest at the beginning of count period with higher counts at the of h count period which coin-cides with the beginning of classes at 9:00 am.During the 11:00 am – 1:00 pm time period the north/south movements were relatively equal and both bike and pedestrian movements were extremely high. A comparison with UCLA, a comparable campus exam-ple, which only has 88 cyclists and

4.1.2 Existing Conditions

1500 pedestrians during its peak pe-riod, further demonstrates the high volumes at USC (LACBC, 2011). The number of users, both pedestrians

and bicyclists, at this intersection and corridor are much higher than most locations through Los Angeles. As such, it is important to under-

Aerial showing bike and pedestrian volume -7:00am-9:00am

46

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Path on University

University has a water feature that creates a chokepoint restricting movements and forces further con-flicts by limiting capacity. There is no delineation of space for dif-ferent modes, so there is a con-stant conflict of user and speed due to the nature of the corridor.

• Campus Entry Hoover to Trousdale

Jefferson has lower bicycle and pe-destrian counts which is not sur-prising and the majority of users will utilize egress/ingress on-cam-pus that facilitates their north/south movement without the neces-sity of going east/west on Jefferson.

B. Summary of Conditions of Intersection and Corridor

• The construction at the intersection and immediate corridor has the big-gest effect on the current conditions of the area. The construction has removed both the sidewalk and the bike lane on the west side of Hoover. This also resulted in the partial clo-sure of the intersection and remov-ing the scramble intersection design, further exacerbating the pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. The east side of Hoover has a sidewalk and north-bound bike lane with existing park-ing. One of the issues with the park-ing is that food trucks parking there which obstruct sight lines and can cause congestion on the sidewalk.

Aerial showing bike and pedestrian volume - 11:00am-1:00pm

Aerial showing bike and pedestrian volume - 4:00pm-6:00pm


47

A walk audit and review of the USC Bicycle Master Plan revealed bicy-cle parking was only existent on the University corridor. The lack of bike parking along Hoover is an issue as there is currently with destinations along the corridor. Bicycle parking should be provided at entry points to buildings and existing activity centers. Once completion of Phase 1 of the USC Village is completed bicycle parking should be readily available on the Hoover/Jefferson entrance as well as ample bicycle parking within the development.

When reviewing the TIMS data, one notices that there have been a num-ber of collisions within the Hoover/University corridors an unsurpris-ingly it is at the intersection of 32nd street for both corridors. National statics reveal that the majority of ac-cidents occur at intersections. This data might be further skewed as this is TIMS data and it is reported by LAPD or LA Sheriff’s department, which are not likely the first responders to col-lisions involving student at USC. DPS would likely have more statics about the collisions occur in this study area.

TIMS 10-year heat map for collisions

48

C. Risky Behavior by Cyclists

While large volume and limited ca-pacity is the infrastructure issue that needs to be addressed, dangerous behavior by users contribute to the safety issues at this intersection and along the corridor. One of the main issues is distracted users; both cyclist and pedestrians are guilty of this. Us-ers are not looking at what is ahead of them rather they are looking down at their phones, unaware of the danger of oncoming traffic or traffic trying to pass them. This can be worsened by the use of head phones, again, both bicyclist and pedestrian utilize head phone while traveling. For cy-clist it’s illegal, but most either don’t know or don’t practice safe behav-ior. Specifically for bicyclists, hold-ing objects like coffee or a cell phone minimizes the control of the bicycle and can contribute to collisions.

• Current Construction Effects

USC Village construction, expect-ed to 2014-2017, has removed the southbound bicycle lane. Eliminat-ing a major cyclist route has result-ed in more riding on the sidewalk and wrong way riding in the north-bound bike lane. This risky behav-ior creates a dangerous potential for bike on bike collisions, or worse bike on car collisions, if a motorist is not expecting a wrong-way rider in the bike lane or in the intersection.

Cell phone use by bikers is a common practice around USC


49

The main concern for the corridor is safety. The infrastructure is not suf-ficient for the high volume of users at the intersection and the corridor in general. At the intersection, there is a small curb-cut that bicyclists and pedestrians utilize and the current crosswalks have deficient allocation of space to accommodate the users. This results in near collisions on a regular biases and actual collisions at times, the separation of modes at the intersection would help mitigate that issue. Also within the University cor-ridor there is no delineation of space for modes, so the speed differentials cause modal conflicts that can lead to collisions and injury for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Current construction has intensified the problem by reducing intersection

space and curb-cuts as well as side-walks and bike lanes on the west side of Hoover. By not providing a sepa-

~6’

Image Courtesy of Google Street View

do not want to ride in a general pur-pose lane take to sidewalk riding and riding the wrong-way in the existing northbound bike lane. These practic-es are very dangerous and will con-tribute to the high rate of collisions. Food trucks parking on the east side of Hoover has created two major safe-ty hazards; first it worsens sight lines for users as food trucks are big than normal cars, two it creates pedestrian traffic on Hoover and with sidewalk riding and the large amounts of users along that street it increase conges-tion.

While these issues persist, there are a multitude of opportunities to capital-ize on. The high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians within this corridor provides for great reasons to design great streetscapes with less parking and more “place.” While construc-tion may bring temporary issues, the USC Village investment could feature robust bicycle improvements that provide equitable and safe transpor-tation facilities for all users. As part of the development Jefferson will be undergoing improvements that can incorporate improvements to the Jef-ferson/Hoover intersection.

4.1.3 Summary of Issues and Opportunities

rated bicycle lane or even temporary bicycle facilities during construction it further mixes cars and bicycles. With many of the cyclists being in-experienced, this can lead to unsafe practices while riding in a mixed-use lane. Additionally, those cyclists who

Current USC Village construction has led to a closure of the sidewalk on the NW corner of Hoover and Jefferson

Current curb cut and obstacles that form a bottleneck for pedes-trians and bikes

50

4.2 Proposed Street Recommendations

A. Hoover/Jefferson Intersec-tion Improvements

The Hoover/Jefferson intersection deals with the highest volumes of bikes and pedestrians in the entire City of Los Angeles. Much of this traf-fic is generated by University Avenue, so improving the design of this inter-section will work to aid flows on both University and Hoover. Additionally, the street clutter at the

intersection in terms of signs, poles, and the large central fountain fur-ther reduce the capacity of the con-nection between University Avenue and Hoover to Jefferson. This leads to even more bottlenecks which spill out to affect the entire intersection. To improve this, the curb cuts must be widened on both sides of Jefferson and much of the clutter at the Univer-sity/Jefferson intersection must be removed. This will allow individuals attempting to move northbound on Hoover from campus to do so more smoothly.

• Separate Bikes and Pedestri-ansAlso, within the University corridor

there is no delineation of space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Because of the speed differential between the two, conflicts arise which can lead to collisions and injury for both cyclists and pedestrians. To solve this, Uni-versity Avenue should separate these uses. Just like with the curb cuts, this action will also improve the ability of those seeking to go northbound on Hoover avoid the congestion of bikes and pedestrians attempting to get onto University Avenue.

• Improve Signage, road mark-ingsFinally, bicyclists riding southbound on Hoover need to have better sig-nage and wayfinding tools available to properly navigate this complicated

• Widen Curb Cuts, Eliminate BottleneckFirst and foremost, the curb cuts at the intersection must be extended. The volume of bikes and pedestrians is simply too high for standard curb cuts utilized by intersections with much lower bike volumes to suffice here. Because of the narrow entry-ways, the throughput of the intersec-tion is significantly reduced, forming bottlenecks behind the curb cuts.

4.2.1 Short Term RecommendationsPhoto-simulation showing installation of new extended curb cut and relocation of signal pole to avoid conflict zone.

Photo simulation of North-east side of Jefferson intersection with extended curb cut and consolidation of signal poles.


51

means cars come around this cor-ner relatively fast, leaving the drivers little time to see a southbound cyclist waiting in the northbound Hoover lanes.

With construction lasting for ap-proximately three years, it is impera-tive that there is a short term solution to this. One option is to replace one of the car lanes with a buffered bike lane. While this would be the best option, it would significantly reduce capacity for cars on southbound Hoover and may not be the most feasible solution. However, a much more implementable strategy would be to paint sharrows on southbound Hoover. This would give cyclists a greater sense of safety that they have a right to use the southbound lanes,

intersection. Southbound Hoover consists of two lanes. The far left lane is for left turns on eastbound Jeffer-son only, while the right lane permits both left and right turns onto Jeffer-son. The right lane is also where all cyclists queue up at the light. How-ever, most southbound cyclists on Hoover are not trying to navigate onto either eastbound or westbound Jefferson. Instead, most of them make a left turn from the right lane and then to head up the curb cut that permits access into campus. This tricky maneuver obviously cannot be replicated by cars, so there is abso-lutely no signage in the intersection to guide cyclists in making this move. In addition, the crowds that can form near the curb cuts place the cyclist in a difficult position to exit Jefferson Blvd and enter campus. The cyclist is forced to slow down, and sometimes walk their bike within the intersec-tion, while fast moving cars behind them whip past to move eastbound on Jefferson, placing the cyclist in a dangerous position. Obviously, es-tablishing signage and markings on the roadway to lead cyclists through the intersection and to alert motor-ists that they will likely be making this move becomes very important. Establishing a bike box for south-

from the pre-construction volumes. Cyclists are now turning to alterna-tive routes such as McClintock, Royal and University. Unfortunately, they have also turned to using the north-bound bike lanes of Hoover to move south. This is a dangerous practice that puts these southbound cyclists in conflict with northbound cars and cyclists. It also puts them into direct conflict with cars turning right from the east/west intersections along the corridor as they are not looking for bicycles coming from their right. And, when these southbound cyclists reach the Hoover/Jefferson intersec-tion lights, they stop in the right hand turn lane, which is especially danger-ous because the right green arrow on westbound Jefferson that is present when Hoover has the green lights

bound turning cyclists would allow these individuals to know where to stop at the light, stagger them for-ward when the light turns green, and alert motorists to their presence.

• Ban Food Trucks on HooverFood trucks currently create two ma-jor issues. First, they worsen sight-lines for cyclists as food trucks are larger than normal cars. And second, they create standing pedestrian traf-fic that blocks the narrow Hoover sidewalk. By banning these food trucks on Hoover, both of these is-sues could be alleviated.

B. Southbound Hoover Im-provements

Outside of the intersection at Hoover and Jefferson, cyclists face significant constraints in navigating southbound on the roadway. This is because the current construction of the USC Vil-lage has eliminated both the south-bound bike lane and sidewalk that used to exist, forcing cyclists to mix in with fast moving southbound traf-fic in a narrow lane. Because of the perceived danger many cyclists have about riding southbound on Hoover, the volume of bikes on this stretch of roadway has significantly declined

Photo simulation showing short-term addition of sharrows on South-bound Hoover Street

52

reducing the chances that they would instead ride in the northbound bike lane. The sharrows would also alert drivers that the roadway is utilized by cyclists. Additionally, more “Share the Road” signs could be placed along the corridor adjacent to construction. This awareness would lead motorists to slow down and give cyclists greater clearance when passing, increasing both actual and perceived safety lev-els.

D. McClintock/Jefferson Im-provements

Because of the USC Village construc-tion, much of the southbound traf-fic on Hoover has diverted to south-bound McClintock. McClintock’s bike lane dumps cyclists into the intersec-tion at Jefferson that has many of the same problems as Hoover and Jeffer-son. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes are extremely heavy here as well. While the access point at McClintock into campus is much wider than at Hoover, there is a very large speed bump after the gates posing a major obstacle to cyclists. If the cyclist does not want to be jarred by riding over the speed bump, they have to cycle in the opposite lane, shoot a narrow gap between the end of the speed bump and the curb, or ride on the sidewalk. All three of these scenarios are extremely dangerous for the cy-clist, and, because the sidewalks are extremely narrow at the McClintock entrances, the presence of a bicycle on the sidewalk also puts pedestrians in danger as well. Thus, one of our major short term recommendations is to either remove that speed bump outright, or to at least take out sec-tions of it which allow cyclists to ride through while still being wide enough

C. Northbound Hoover Im-provements at 28th, 30th, and 32nd

Unlike the southbound lanes im-pacted by construction, the east side of Hoover has both a bike lane and a sidewalk. Although this arrangement works in the short term, there are several persistant problems that re-ally can only be solved with long term strategies, as will be shown later on. However, in the short term, north-bound Hoover can be improved by providing better pavement marking for some of the quick jogs that have to be made across the roadway from feeder east west streets that termi-nate at Hoover. For example, cyclists riding east on 28th St west of Hoover have to make an unsignalized right turn onto Hoover and then quickly cut across two lanes of fast moving traffic in order to make a left to con-tinue eastbound on 28th St. Several of these scenarios exist up and down the corridor, impeding the non-arte-rial east/west flow of cyclists. In order to improve these conditions, placing pavement markings that both show cyclists how to navigate the intersec-tions and alert motorists as to cyclist presence would greatly improve safe-ty on these difficult maneuvers.

to pose as an obstacle to vehicles.

Furthermore, the median that exists on Jefferson west of McClintock forc-es cyclists living west of the intersec-tion into wrong way riding eastbound towards McClintock. This places them in a position to be easily hit by westbound cars and bicycles on Jef-ferson, as well as cars turning right from McClintock onto Jefferson. This further exacerbates the issues that al-ready exist at the intersection.

Finally, the USC Village construction has meant that the northbound bike lanes on McClintock have been re-moved. This puts cyclists into a nar-row car lane with bad sightlines due to the high fencing and curvature of the road. Poor lighting at night makes the sightlines even worse. Thus, this stretch of a roadway must become a definite priority to avoid a potentially fatal collision. At the very least, shar-rows and dashed bike markers must be installed on McClintock north-bound and in the Jefferson intersec-tion to remind cyclists they can ride there and alert motorists of cyclists. When the USC Village construction is done, McClintock could revert back to its prior two bike lane format and the parking could be reinstated.


53

While the strategies mentioned above can be implemented relatively soon, the following long term recom-mendations call for improvements that will primarily come after the new University Village has been complet-ed and the temporary issues associ-ated with its construction will have been solved. This project will signifi-cantly alter the conditions along the corridor necessitating new solutions to improve the flow of all traffic.

• Protected Bike Lanes on Hoover

First and foremost, our long term plan calls for swapping the parking and the bike lane on Hoover, creat-ing northbound and southbound pro-tected bike lanes. As the current bike lane is within the door zone, this swap would not only protect cyclists from driver side doors swinging open with a wider buffer zone, but it would also protect them from the fast moving Hoover traffic. We also recommend removing the southbound parking lane to allow for better bike lane and car travel lane widths. With an added sense of safety, bicycle traffic may use Hoover instead of University to move to and from campus, which would re-duce congestion on University. Using

4.2.2 Long Term Recommendations

Photo simulation of long-term improvements at Hoover and Jefferson intersection

54

for other uses along Hoover. How-ever, in the long term, there must be ample parking on the west side of Hoover to serve the University Vil-lage destinations.

• University & City CoordinationNo matter the final implemented so-lution, any pedestrian and bicycling facilities along Hoover will have to be integrated within the overall frame-work of the USC Village. The pres-ence of so much housing, retail, and

parking to buffer bike lanes has been successful in many US cities and would be a feasible solution here as well. Protected bike lanes should also be installed northbound and south-bound on McClintock; there is ample right-of-way in the street to accomo-date existing automobile uses as well as the expanded bike facilities.

• Tie in to University Avenue Cy-cle TrackAs a long-term recommendation, the University Avenue cycle tracks would tie into the improvements at the Hoover and Jefferson intersection. In order to accomodate the high volume of bikes, the eastern crosswalk will be split in half, with the eastern half accomodating bikes and the western half remaining for pedestrians. Bike boxes will be placed at both ends of the bike crossing to accomodate bik-ers waiting at the light. Additionally, bike-jogs will be used to allow bikers travelling south on Hoover to join the bike path, as well as those travelling north to join the north-bound pro-tected bicycle lane on Hoover.

• Bike ParkingCurrently, bike parking is not an is-sue along Hoover as there are not many major destinations, as well as

dining destinations will significantly alter the flows of automobiles, bi-cycles, and pedestrians. Thus, long term recommendations must be sure to take into account these volumes and the nature of the entry and exit points for this development. Finally, the proponents of these long term Hoover solutions will have to be sure to work with the University and the City of Los Angeles in order to secure implementation commitments and to develop a design that fits in with

the rest of the city’s and schools in-frastructure.

Photo-simulation showing installment of new extended curb cut, removal of obstacles and new bike box and lane onto campus


55

Proposed Hoover Street Section

Proposed McClintock Avenue Section

56

4.3 Implementation Plan for Hoover Improvements

The timeframe for implementing our recommendations is almost as important as the recommendations themselves and as such we propose that our short-term goals be imple-mented within a 1-3 year period and our long-term recommendations be implemented within 3-5 years; this distinction will help to avoid short-term goals becoming long-term ones and thus results in a more imple-mentable plan overall. For both our short and long term goals, we col-laborated with the University Avenue group in order to present a cohesive, implementable set of recommenda-tions for the Hoover and Jefferson intersection.


heavy volumes in the area. Finally, we recommend relocating the cross-ing pole located on the south side to the church planter box.

Long-term Implementation -Hoover & Jefferson

For the long term goals of the Hoover

and Jefferson intersection we firstly we propose the flattening of the plaza through the removal of the fountain at which point designated parking spots may be created for the food trucks in a more safe and controlled setting.

Secondly, we recommend the addi-

Short-term Implementation - Hoover & Jefferson

Firstly, we recommend expanding the curb-cut on the north side to the limit of the crosswalk. In conjunc-tion, we recommend the expanding the curb-cut on the south side to the edge of the drain, because anything beyond that would require the reloca-tion of the storm drain which would result in this no longer being a short term solution. Thirdly, we propose to consolidate the signal and light poles located on the north side to the pole on the east edge of the crosswalk- this along with the smoothed curb will al-low us to maximize the effect of ame-liorating the stress and conflict of the




57

tion of green bike lane markers and bike boxes to distinguish bike and pe-destrian crosswalk.

Thirdly, we recommend adding bi-cycle traffic signals. Once these are in place we recommend restructuring the signal phasing. This will include removing two seconds from each of the existing auto movements and adding a four second bicycle phase before the pedestrian only one – this will allow for temporal separation by mode.

Short-term Implementation - Hoover Corridor

In addition, we also have short and long term recommendations for the Hoover corridor. The short term rec-ommendations include the addition of sharrows, paint and signage at Jef-ferson. Further, we are recommend-ing the addition of sharrows on 28th

and 29th streets leading onto Hoover.

Long-term Implementation - Hoover Corridor

Our long term recommendations pri-marily focus on the creation of both north and southbound protected bike lanes on Hoover including plan view and cross sections. Secondly, on 28th street along the Hoover crossing, we recommend the addition of a bike box as well as a sharrow jog (see pic-ture to right). The aforementioned short and long-term recommenda-tions help connect to and modify the current Jefferson Streetscape Plan, while also seeking further integra-tion with the USC Village upon its completion.

This integration is feasible due to only minor differences between our recommendations and the existing streetscape plan; for example, our

recommendations to flatten the curb cut on the north side as opposed to adding another small curb as is rec-ommended according to the current Jefferson Streetscape Plan. In addi-tion, with the Hoover stretch, there will be no change to the roadway configuration and the city standards will be maintained with the reinstate-ment of the parking and bike lane. Similarly, the McClintock stretch will remain unchanged through Phase I of the USC Village construction and will

see the return of the parking and bike lane. As such our recommendations have been well thought out in terms of the viability of integrating them into existing planned documents such as the Jefferson Streetscape Plan as well as long-term implemen-tation and integration with Hoover and McClintock after the construc-tion of the USC village is completed.


Example of a jog sharrow in Austin, Texas to allow bikes to cross atypical intersections


58

4.3.2 Strategies for Tracking, Benchmarks, and Evaluation

To evaluate the effects of the imple-mentation of our recommendations, we first reiterate our three main goals for our proposed plan: 1) increase safety along the corridor, 2) increase cycling volumes along the corridor, 3) and improve the ability of the Jef-ferson/Hoover intersection to handle the large cyclist volumes it sees daily.

Safety can be evaluated by compar-ing before and after collision counts along the corridor over a five to ten year period using both data collect-ed from DPS and LAPD. This data would include collisions between bikes and pedestrians, bikes and cars, and bikes and other bikes. Ad-ditionally, the number of collisions should be compared with the volume of cyclists. Even if the total aggregate number of collisions increases, the per capita number could go down if the increases in safety encourage more and more individuals to bike in the corridor.

However, raw collision data from DPS and LAPD may not be the best data to analyze the plan’s safety be-cause most collisions go unreported. In addition, DPS does not report most bike collisions to the California statewide SWITRS program as LAPD

does. This results in an under-report-ing of collisions near and on campus Instead, we could use survey results from before and after asking students if they had ever been in a collision at that intersection or along the cor-ridor. Although this would require extensive interviewing, it would al-low for a much better justification as to whether or not our implemented ideas actually had a direct effect on safety (as seen in the SafeTREC Study of Bike-Ped Safety around UCLA, and UC Berkeley & Sacramento State combined TIMS data by Offer Grem-bek).

Finally, care should also be taken to evaluate improvements in cyclist be-havior resulting from the implement-ed strategies. Although issues with cell phone and helmet usage won’t be significantly affected by infrastruc-ture improvements, we can mea-sure changes in the level and rate of wrong way riding and sidewalk riding on Hoover. With our implemented strategies we would imagine that be-havioral issues on a per capita basis would drastically decrease.

In order to evaluate whether or not the changes in the Hoover corridor

elicited an increase in the volume of cyclists on that corridor, we would first need to gather baseline data for the amount of cyclists currently using Hoover. However, it must be noted that the current construction at the USC Village mars the accuracy of these counts from normal operation. Once this data is obtained, it can be compared with counts collected after implementation to see if the chang-es led to an increase in the number of cyclists using the corridor. How-ever, an increase in the number of cyclists doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in the percentage of people


59

choosing to bike to campus. This is because there will be a massive in-crease in volume of students heading south on Hoover into campus with the completion of the USC Village. An increase in cyclists then is all but inevitable because of this project. Instead, it would be better to evalu-ate any increase in cycling activity by looking at modal splits of both stu-dent’s and staff’s journey to campus from sources such as AQMD, the Am Comm Survey, and Campus surveys.

Determining how our strategies im-proved the throughput of the Jef-ferson/Hoover intersection is also a tricky goal to evaluate as several dif-ferent measures of efficiency could be taken into account. One such method would be to take an average of the duration it takes individual cyclists to navigate the intersection. This mea-surement would allow us to realize whether or not the removed sidewalk clutter and curb cuts actually reduced bottlenecking at the intersection. However, if these improved mea-sures prompt cyclists that otherwise would not have used the intersection to use it, the increased volume that the intersection is now handling may reduce the gains in efficiency. It prob-ably isn not that large of a tradeoff,

but it is worth noting when properly evaluating the implemented strate-gies. Additionally, as we also plan on changing the signal phasing, we would also have to evaluate if these effects increased the number of bikes going through the intersection at any one time. Conversely, we would want to take a look to see if the changes

in signal timing had an adverse ef-fect on the vehicular throughput of the intersection. There is the poten-tial of meeting resistance due to the fact that vehicles will face increased delays at the intersection and/or sig-nificant changes in the level of service they receive.

60


Cost estimates were generated for each proposal by using a variety of sources; many of the sources were found in studies, project engineer-ing estimates, bicycle master plans, design and operational manuals and the Public Works Department. Understanding the costs of these proposed improvements allows us to better seek funding by grants or budget allocations. Also evaluating the cost of proposed infrastructure improvements will help determine if a recommendation should be pur-sued or when it would be implement. A benefit for bicycle and pedestrian projects is that at a relatively low-cost allowing many improvements can be made that can have a significant ef-fect on the safety and quality of life of students and other users.

The USC Village construction is currently underway, with expect-ed completion of Phase 1 in 2017. Once that is completed the bicycle lanes will be reinstalled on Mc-Clintock. Our recommendation is a short term solution of sharrows to be installed during construc-tion. As previously mentioned, the high volumes at Jefferson/

Hoover/University intersection along with obstructions within the corridor contribute to an un-safe situation. As volumes will not decrease, removal of obstructions will be essential for creating the necessary capacity to facilitate safe travel. For this reason, re-moval of the fountain would bet-ter facilitate the connection to the University Avenue proposed bike lanes.

Treatment Cost of Project

Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows on 28th St. and 29th St. for connectionsonto Hoover St.

$11,300

Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows on Southbound Hoover St. from 30th to Jefferson

$3,700

Flattening Curb on Northeast and Southeast of Jefferson/Hoover Intersection $9,000

Consolidation of Northeast corner traffic signals to one pole and Removal of Streetlight at Jefferson/Hoover

$24,000

Relocation of pedestrian prompting “beg” button and pedestrian head on Southeast corner of Jefferson/Hoover Intersection

$9,000

Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows on McClintock Ave $3,300

Subtotal for Short-term improvements: $60,300

Short-term Impovement Cost Estimates


61

Treatments Cost of Project

Modified Class III Bicycle “Jog” with Bicycle Boxes for 28th St. Connection $14,400Installation of Bicycle traffic-signals and Modification of the Traffic Signal Cycles to allow bicycle phase $6,000

Relocation of Traffic Box, movement of drainage location and further curb flattening on Southeast corner of Jefferson/Hoover $40,000

Protect Buffered Bicycle Lane on Hoover St from Jefferson to Adams Blvd. $220,000Protect Buffered Bicycle Lane on McClintock Ave from Jefferson to 32nd St $53,300Removal Fountain at Jefferson/Hoover/University Intersection $250,000

Subtotal for Long-term improvements: $587,300

Total Cost of Short- and Long-term Improvements: $647,600

Long-term Impovement Cost Estimates

62


5 Jefferson Boulevard A61 42 3

63

Chapter 5: West Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue to Normandie Avenue

This chapter discusses improvements to W. Jefferson Boulevard, from Vermont Avenue to Normandie Avenue, for all users, but especially cyclists and pedestrians. In addition to the student community north of campus, the area west of campus has a large population of local community members. Many small businesses line the corridor, some offering historic and vibrant facades. The corridor serves as an important link from the West Adams neighborhood to the University of Southern California, nearby transit, and the future University Village project. Users of the corridor currently face safety problems and a street that does not meet the needs of the community.

The boundaries of the university form a stark dividing line on Jefferson Boulevard East of Vermont Avenue,street trees line Jefferson Boulevard and utilities are buried. West on Vermont Avenue, sidewalks are damaged and littered with trash. As more redevelopment takes place near University Park Campus, this neighborhood will become increasingly valuable. The University Village is expected to add housing for 5,200 and 350,000 square feet of retail space1. Additionally, there

will be streetscape improvements to Jefferson Blvd. east of Vermont Ave. These improvements will include bike lanes, street trees, and pedestrian scale lighting2. With the influx of development, the area west of campus will undoubtedly present a stark contrast. Accommodating all users through a network of complete streets is a major planning priority for the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Manual describes the importance of balancing user needs on city streets3. It also emphasizes the need for safe and attractive streets that provide multi-modal options. The Jefferson Boulevard corridor is an example of a street in need of rebalancing to serve the needs of the community.

Through a program of community engagement and physical improvements the W. Jefferson Boulevard can become a safe, convenient, and attractive corridor that serves the needs of the community. The following sections will explore existing conditions, proposed recommendations, and implementation strategies.

2000 feet

USC

N

Project Study Area

64

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Car, truc

k, or va

n

Public tran

sporta?o

n (In

clud

es Taxicab

)

Bicycle

Walke

d

Other

Means of Travel to Work Los Angeles

Means of Travel to Work Tracts that Touch Corridor

5.1 Issues and Opportunities:Jefferson Boulevard

5.1.1 Community Profile

Community History

The Jefferson Boulevard corridor is located in the West Adams community, one of the most historic neighborhoods in Los Angeles. In the early part of the twentieth century Jefferson Boulevard., like many streets in Los Angeles, was a pedestrian thoroughfare served by the city’s streetcar system. Like many of today’s neighborhood residents, people relied on their feet and transit to get around. Small businesses have historically been important assets to the community, and continue to serve as anchors along the corridor.

Community Demographics

74% of residents of the area around the W. Jefferson Boulevard corridor are people of color4 and 33% of families and 47% of children live in poverty5. It is critical that this community, which has a significant low income population, has access to safe travel paths and opportunities for recreation.

Data from the 2008-2012 American Community Survey demonstrates residents of these households are over five times as likely to bike to work as other households in Los Angeles and over four times as likely to walk6. Residents of this community depend on active transportation for their commutes, and for other important trips.

Bicycle and Pedestrian counts (discussed in Chapter 2 of this plan), as well as census data, indicate that there is a large base of cyclists and pedestrians travelling along the Jefferson corridor. Residents, students, and shoppers of all ages and abilities bike and walk on Jefferson Boulevard throughout the day. Collision data (discussed in Chapter 2 of this plan) indicates that users along the corridor are subject to unsafe conditions. Existing physical conditions, such as a lack of bicycle infrastructure and improved crosswalks, contribute to safety problems along Jefferson Boulevard.

80%

60%

40%

20%

Car Public Transit

Bicycle Walk Other0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Car, truc

k, or va

n

Public tran

sporta?o

n (In

clud

es Taxicab

)

Bicycle

Walke

d

Other



Means of Travel to Work

Project Area

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Car, truc

k, or va

n

Public tran

sporta?o

n (In

clud

es Taxicab

)

Bicycle

Walke

d

Other



Los Angeles

Data source: ACS 2008-2012; Social Explorer; U.S. Census Bureau

A Horsedrawn Streetcar on Jefferson Boulevard c. 1897Today, community members continue to rely on nearby public transit.


65

Small Business Corridor

Small businesses, like this one, have long been community assets along the Jefferson Boulevard corridor. Image courtesy of the Los Angeles Public Library. Today, businesses like this one serve as anchors along the

corridor and provide vibrant character along the street.

Businesses and Institutions

66

5.1.2 Existing Conditions

Right of way along the corridor varies from one hundred feet to seventy-two feet, presenting a challenge to siting improvements. There are two travel lanes in each direction. Parking is allowed in the right lane in each direction during off-peak hours. Small business owners along the corridor have identified on-street parking on Jefferson Boulevard as a vital asset to their businesses.

There are currently no on road bicycle facilities on the corridor.

The Los Angeles City Bicycle Plan of 2010 identifies Jefferson Blvd. as an appropriate location for bicycle lanes. These lanes would be a part of the city’s Backbone Bikeway Network7. Wide vehicle travel lanes provide an opportunity to reallocate right of way.

There is bicycle parking at the corner of Budlong Avenue and Jefferson Avenue in front of a laundromat. Opportunities to put bike parking in front of markets and corner stores exist along the corridor. Placing

facilities in front of these areas, which are popular neighborhood destinations, could stimulate cycling and create a safer environment.

A lack of street trees and the above ground location of utilities diminish the pedestrian experience. Many of the sidewalks are in a state of disrepair and trash (including bulky items) often lines the corridor. There are some continental crosswalks, but several intersections lack marked crossings or have traditional

crosswalks.

The corridor features a variety of land uses, including three schools, several churches, and many small businesses. These facilities anchor the corridor and attract people, many of whom travel on foot or by bicycle. Institutions and along the corridor offer the opportunity to foster partnerships for community development and streetscape improvements.

There are four crosswalks in all direc2ons and a striped-‐off area that can be u2lized as a parklet.

An exis2ng con2nental crosswalk is located on Jefferson Boulevard and Raymond Avenue. This crosswalk connects the two adjacent neighborhoods.

There are four crosswalks in all direc2ons at the intersec2on of Jefferson Boulevard and Budlong Avenue.

A yellow school crossing is located on Jefferson Boulevard and Catalina Street. John W. Mack Elementary is on the northeast corner of the intersec2on.

Con2nental crosswalks run in every direc2on at Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont Avenue. Vermont Avenue marks the western boundary of USC.

72’ Section- Jefferson Boulevard from Catalina Street to Normandie Avenue

100’ Section- Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Catalina Street


67

ABOVE: Damaged and uneven sidewalks with improper trash disposal BELOW: Opposition from business owners in removing street parking

ABOVE: Lack of street trees and vegetation

BELOW: Above-ground utility poles

ABOVE: Cracked and untreated sidewalks

1 2 3

4 5

4

1 2

3

5

Catalina StreetJefferson Boulevard

Norm

andie Avenue

ABOVE: Damaged and uneven sidewalks with improper trash disposalBELOW: Opposition from business owners to removing parking

ABOVE: Lack of street trees and vegetationBELOW: Above-ground utility poles


54

1 2 3

68

ABOVE: Area for potential parklet conversion BELOW: Wide feeder street that can be repurposed fro additional parking

ABOVE: One of the many local businesses along Jefferson Boulevard BELOW: Bike friendly businesses such as Bill’s Bike Shop

ABOVE: Vacant parking lot adjacent to a church for future parking easement

1 2 3

4 5

1

3

2

5

4

Catalina StreetJefferson Boulevard

Norm

andie Avenue

ABOVE: Damaged and uneven sidewalks with improper trash disposalBELOW: Opposition from business owners to removing parking

ABOVE: Lack of street trees and vegetationBELOW: Above-ground utility poles


1 2 3

4 5


69

Jefferson Boulevard from Catalina Street to Normandie AvenueExisting Right of Way- 72’ Section

Typical right of way aquired by the city for eventual widening. There is potential for bike corrals, parklets, or sidewalk widening in these parcels.

70

Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Catalina StreetExisting Right of Way- 100’ Section


71

5.2 Recommendations for Jefferson Boulevard

This section outlines recommendations for enhancing community life and improving safety along the Jefferson corridor. Central to these suggestions is the idea that Jefferson Boulevard has the potential to be a vibrant gathering place for the neighborhood.

Improvements to the corridor will also make the street a safer and more pleasant travel path for the neighborhood residents, students, and shoppers who traverse the corridor. Many of these users come on foot or bicycle, often facing dangerous conditions. The recommendations described in this section will protect their safety and encourage other pedestrians and cyclists.

As in the past, today small businesses are important institutions in the community. Many of the proposed recommendations would help to increase business along the corridor. Bicycle racks, for example, would encourage cyclists to shop at businesses with available parking. Streetscape improvements would help local merchants capitalize on the high volume of cyclists and pedestrians in the area, both neighborhood residents and

students.

This section proposes three sets of improvements for the Jefferson corridor. The first is a set of short term recommendations that would be relative easy to implement and can immediately improve user experience. The second is a set of mid term recommendations that would

require more study and funding. Finally, the third is a set of long term recommendations that envision a transformed corridor with intensive improvements. Together these recommendations provide a plan for streetscape enhancements that fit a community’s needs and reflect an understanding of project constraints.

Photo simulation of street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, bicycle parking and lanes near the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Budlong Avenue. Some of these improvements can be implemented at low cost yet could dramatically change the corridor.

72

5.2.1 Short Term Recommendations for Jefferson

The following short term recommendations are designed to be easily implementable. They would make a noticeable difference in user experience and safety while requiring minimal disruptions to existing infrastructure. Furthermore they are relatively low cost and there are existing funding sources for many of them.

1. Fixing damaged sidewalks along the corridor would be an important investment for pedestrian users.

2. Planting street trees would enhance aesthetics on the street and shade pedestrians, providing for more pleasant walking journeys.

3. Providing bicycle parking, especially in front of corridor businesses, would make cycling on the corridor more feasible and could attract customers.

4. Replacing traditional crosswalks with continental crosswalks, and providing continental crosswalks at unmarked pedestrian crossing near the elementary school, would increase pedestrian safety.

5. Implementing a neighborhood

branding and 311 campaign would help community members identify ways to get involved in corridor improvements and would generate interest in the corridor and its businesses.

6. Installing pedestrian scale lighting would improve safety along the corridor and encourage street life after dark

Branding/Engagement Campaigns

• West Adams Branding - The branding of the Historic West Adams Neighborhood is an important component to the project as it will show highlight the neighborhood’s historic amenities to bolster residents’ pride in their community and help local businesses.

• 311 Campaign - The 311 campaign is aimed at the residents of the neighborhood. Due to the lack of civic engagement and linguistic isolation many of the residents in the neighborhood do not know of the City’s 311 program where people can

call in and report graffiti, sidewalk cracking, and dumping on the street. By participating in the 311 program, residents can report problems to the City.

• LADOT Bike Rack Program Flyers - Many of the businesses along Jefferson Boulevard are not aware of the LADOT Bike Rack Program and do not know that they can have bike racks placed outside of their businesses for free. LACBC has created flyers for its Central Ave. Campaign which they have graciously allowed us to use as part of our Jefferson Boulevard project to get the word out.

Banners and signage, like the sample below, can help to build a sense of place along the corridor.


73

Jefferson Boulevard from Catalina Street to Normandie AvenueShort Term Recommendations- 72’ Section

74

Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Catalina StreetShort Term Recommendations- 100’ Section


75

5.2.2 Mid Term Recommendations for Jefferson Boulevard

These mid term recommendations are meant to be implemented after the first set of improvements, which would demonstrate the value of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along the corridor.

They require restriping of the road space along the corridor. Thus, more study would be necessary than for the short term improvements above. Because Jefferson Boulevard narrows to seventy-two feet, reallocating road space is necessary to provide on-road bicycle facilities.

1. Implementing a road diet along the corridor would reallocate road space to provide for bicycle lanes and would help to calm traffic along the corridor, improving safety for all.

2. Installing bicycle, with painted buffers at the wider road widths, would increase safety and encourage cycling.

3. Preserving parking, which would now be allowed during peak hours, would protect small businesses along the corridor. Businesses on Jefferson identify on-street parking as a major concern.

4. Installing a parklet at Jefferson Boulevard and Normandie Avenue would provide needed green space and an attractive gateway to the corridor.

Data on cycling use and safety along the corridor demonstrates that bicycle facilities would be a valuable addition to Jefferson Boulevard. Average daily vehicle traffic on Jefferson Boulevard at Catalina Avenue is 20,156, lower than average daily traffic on Adams Boulevard at Normandie Avenue, to the north, and Exposition Boulevard at Normandie Avenue, to the south8. The Federal Highway Administration classifies streets with an average daily traffic of 20,000 or less as appropriate locations for road diets and identifies the road diet as a successful strategy for improving cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian safety9. On the cusp of this volume, Jefferson Boulevard should be evaluated for feasibility.

5. There is potential to install additional parklets and amenities in aquired right of way if the City of Los Angeles can negotiate use with orignal property owners. Amenities could be funded through the People St program.

This simulation illustrates a potential parklet at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Normandie Avenue. There is currently unallocated empty street space here.

76

Jefferson Boulevard from Catalina Street to Normandie AvenueMid Term Recommendations- 72’ Section


77

Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Catalina StreetMid Term Recommendations- 100’ Section

78

5.2.3 Long Term Recommendations for Jefferson Boulevard

The proposed long term recommendations would require significant infrastructure work along the Jefferson Boulevard corridor. They would make this stretch of Jefferson Boulevard a state of art complete street and would represent a full transformation of the streetscape. These recommendations would implementable if the short and mid term improvements demonstrate significant community support, increases in biking and walking along the corridor, and improvements in safety.

1. Removing parking from the seventy-two foot section of the corridor, from Catalina Street to Normandie Avenue, and relocating it to city-owned easements or a closed side street would create room for enhanced bicycle facilities. On street parking would be preserved along the wider portions of the street.

2. Installing cycle tracks along the corridor would provide safe and comfortable travel paths for cyclists of all ages and abilities. Cycle tracks would extend the right of way dedicated exclusively to cyclists and provide a protective barrier for pedestrians on the sidewalks.

3. Creating a linear park from Vermont Avenue to Catalina Street and parklets in city-owned easements would enhance aesthetics along the corridor, provide much-needed green space, and provide opportunities for community interaction such as recreation facilities, street fairs or farmers markets according to community needs and desires.

A well planned implementation strategy is a key recommendation. The success of the later phases will depend on the outcome of earlier phases and the level of enthusiasm generated. The next section will address phasing, methods for community engagement, and funding for streetscape improvements along Jefferson Boulevard.

This simulation shows potential cycle tracks added to Jefferson Boulevard.

4. Burying utilities would remove barriers to pedestrians, open up space on sidewalks, and improve aesthetics along the corridor.


79

Jefferson Boulevard from Catalina Street to Normandie AvenueLong Term Recommendations- 72’ Section

80

Jefferson Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to Catalina StreetLong Term Recommendations- 100’ Section


81

5.3 Implementation


Phasing proposed recommendations is a crucial component of successfully implementing this plan. Spreading streetscape improvements over three periods will build momentum and support, allow for evaluation of and adjustment to planned recommendations. Recommendations should be packaged and timed to take advantage of various funding opportunities. Short term, low cost improvements can be leveraged to create support for later phases.

Work with Million Trees Los Angeles to plant

street trees

Work with neighborhood

groups to launch

outreach plan

Create neighborhood

branding /wayfinding

Launch My 311 and Bike

Rack campaigns

Work with City of LA to install

crosswalks, lighting, and

repair sidewalks

Short-‐term Improvements 2015-‐2016

Install parklet at Jefferson

Boulevard and Normandie

Avenue

Work with City of Los Angeles to install road

diet

Work with City of Los Angeles to install bike

lanes

Work with City of Los Angeles to

preserve street parking

Mid-‐term Improvements 2018-‐2020

Work with City of Los Angeles to

relocate street parking to easements or closed

off side street

Work with City of Los Angeles to install

cycle tracks

Install linear park in 100' section of

Jefferson Boulevard and parklets in city owned easements

Work with City of Los Angeles to bury

utility poles along the Jefferson Boulevard

corridor

Long-‐term Improvements 2022 and beyond

Short Term 1 to 3 years out

Mid Term5 to 10 years out

Long Term10 to 15 years out

2015 2019

2020 2024

2025

82


Cost by Treatment Potential Funding Sources are listed in detail in the Appendix of this plan.

Many short term recommendations and some mid and long term recommendations can be funded through local, community oriented programs.For example:• Street Trees- The City Plants Program• Bike Parking- The LADOT Bike Parking Program• Parklets- People Streets Program, USC open space funding• Street Lights- USC may fund area safety improvements like increased lighting as part of their campus area safety efforts

Treatment Implementing Party Cost (US$) Per Mile or Unit

Cost Source

Striped Bike Lane City of Los Angeles 40,000 Alta PlanningRoad Diet City of Los Angeles 165,000 Alta PlanningStreet Light City of Los Angeles 5,000 UNC Highway Safety

Research CenterStreet Trees Community 500 UNC Highway Safety

Research CenterContinental Crosswalk City of Los Angeles 3,000 UNC Highway Safety

Research CenterBuffered Bike Lane City of Los Angeles 50,000 Alta PlanningCycle Tracks w/ Bollards

City of Los Angeles 100,000 Washington DC, DDOT

Cycle Tracks w/ dedicated signals and trees

City of Los Angeles 1,000,000 Washington DC, DDOT

Parklet Community/ City of Los Angeles

40,000 City of Huntington Park

Buried Utilities City of Los Angeles/ LADWP

614,000 Edison Electric Institute

Bike Parking (U-Rack) Community/ City of Los Angeles

500 UNC Highway Safety Research Center


83

Cost by PhaseTreatment Units Street From To Cost ($US)1st Phase CostsBike Parking (U-Rack) 50 Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 25,000Community Outreach Flyers

100-200 Jefferson Boulevard Corridor and Surrounding Neighborhood

500

Continental Crosswalk Jefferson Boulevard and Budlong Avenue Crosswalks

40,000

Continental Crosswalk Jefferson Boulevard and Normandie Avenue Crosswalks

40,000

Street Lights 50 Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 250,000Streets Trees 80 Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 40,000

Phase 1 Total: 395,500

2nd Phase CostsRoad Diet w/ Striped Bike Lane

Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 82,500

Parklet Jefferson Boulevard and the Southern Corner of Normandie Avenue

40,000

Phase 2 Total: 122,500

3rd Phase CostsUtilities Burial Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 307,000Cycle Tracks w/ bollards (Option A)


Cycle Tracks w/ dedicated signals & furniture (Option B)


Linear Park Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Catalina Avenue 300,000Parklet 3 Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 120,000Intersection Closure 2 Jefferson Boulevard Vermont Avenue Normandie Avenue 80,000

Phase 3 Total- Option A:

939,500

Phase 3 Total- Option B:

1,389,500

Totall All- Option A: 1,457,500Total All- Option B: 1,907,500

84


6 Implementation Steps A1 42 3 5

85

Chapter 6: ImplementationEducation and Campus Community Collaboration

6.1 Recommendations on Implementation

For any plan or large project to be implemented a few things need to occur information needs to be dis-seminated, support gathered, and champions need to be empowered. The implementation plan is a multi-step plan that reaches out to multiple stakeholders and utilizes a ground-up approach to garner a board range of support to reach the eventual goal of implementation. The recommen-dations within our plan for the Uni-versity and Hoover area need support from students, USC administrators/faculty and outside agencies like City of Los Angeles Transportation De-partment (LADOT), Los Angeles De-partment of Public Works, Los Ange-les Metropolitan Transportation Au-thority (Metro). In order to reach ev-eryone a lot of steps and actions must be taken. A broader and more diverse community effort is needed for the Jefferson Blvd east of Vermont.

After meeting with the Graduate Student Government (GSG), we re-alized that students have not been informed about bicycling projects and bicycling in general. We need to provide them with information and to utilize the established structures to gather support but to do more to reach out to the entire student body. To help inform the groups and the community at-large we will make the report available online. Our first step is reaching out to the student groups; we will be building on our current outreach efforts to obtain feedback on recommendations, and providing groups with a final product. Some of the groups include but are not lim-ited to GSG, Undergraduate Student Government (USG), Associated Stu-dents of Planning and Development (ASPD), the Alumni Board, Greek So-ciety and more.

The presentation will focus on the project recommendations; for this project sheets will be developed showing before and after, cost and agencies involved with project. We

will then ask each of these groups to provide a letter of support for the projects that they support. We will also ask if their members would be willing to help participate in a bike summit; at which we will be inform-ing a larger audience, more on the summit to follow. While we are going from group to group to present on the recommendations we will be engag-ing the users of the Hoover/Jeffer-son/University area by doing a series of mobile charrettes.

86

The mobile charrettes will be display-ing projects on posters and we will be asking students to sign a petition ask-ing for bicycle improvement, specifi-cally the ones on the University, Jef-ferson and Hoover corridors. While doing this we will be informing them of the upcoming summit. To reach additional members of the school we will utilizes the e-mail system send out an optional survey to click to find out about recommendations for bike improvements, giving them informa-tion about the bike summit, infor-mation on how to participate and an option to sign the pledge to support bicycle infrastructure.

Taking the advice from GSG members and from comments provided during the draft presentation to USC staff members, we will use established

channels to reach out to the decision-influencers and decision-makers, USC faculty and administrators and outside agencies. We would likely start with Price they understand the importance of bicycle infrastructure and providing a balanced transpor-tation system. After the meetings we will be requesting a letter of support and informing them of the upcoming bicycle summit. The group will also be talking to the various departments of USC like the assets management, capital projects, DPS and others to inform them of our recommenda-tions and advertising the bike sum-mit. We will also be sending an invi-tation to all administrators President on down to attend the bicycle summit with information about our recom-mendations, so they are all informed participants.

The bike summit will mirror that of the bike summit hosted when the USC Bicycle Master Plan was created but with a focus on the specific recom-mendations we are proposing. This summit will allow all of the groups we have been addressing to talk to all of the faculty, USC departments, and administrators; many of these groups may have some connect with one or more of these people that can help push these recommendations to a critical mass. To help enable that we will be demonstrating how much support we have already garnered for the project recommendations by showing letters of support, survey numbers and having the groups and students speak for themselves. The

report, letters of support and the pe-tition will be available online for peo-ple to see and they will even be able to provide comments there as well as sign the petition. This amount of sup-port can be mind-changing for those who never saw bicycling as a need for USC or for those who don’t see who would benefit or see how badly stu-dents/users want the recommenda-tions. The USC administrators and departments as well as the outside agencies would see that their fund-ing will go to projects that are badly wanted and needed, hopefully this will garner the support necessary to be provided funding to implement our recommendations.

Image from 2012 USC Bike Summit. Courtesy of USC Bicycle Master Plan

Mobile design charrette. Courtesy of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company


87

6.2 Implementation by Area

University Avenue

The recommendations that are of-fered here are critical to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area north of the USC University Park Campus. There are significant safety concerns that are evidenced by the high number of reported col-lisions, traffic counts, interviews and day to day observations. The Univer-sity of Southern California, LAPD, LADOT, students, community mem-bers, and the Departments of Public Safety, Parking and Transportation and Facilities Management must work together to ensure the safety of students. Our team also met with T.R.U.S.T. South LA, a long time community advocacy group in the South Los Angeles area, to discuss possible solutions and infrastructure changes for pedestrians and bicy-clists in the USC community. Reach-ing out to organizations such as these can help solve some of the issues by increasing the communication, us-ing each other’s resources and having these type of conversations.

Our group surveyed both bike and pedestrian users on and nearby cam-pus. Both emphasized separation for both bikes and pedestrians. Based on our feedback, data and observations we believe there needs to be more ed-ucation on bicycle safety, traffic sig-nals, signage and how users can pro-tect themselves on campus. We are a proposing a bicycle education pro-gram that will be held during orienta-tion for incoming students as well as other training courses for all students throughout the year. Each improve-ment and program has been priori-tized so we have divided the project into two phases. Phase I will consist of the simpler, easier to implement programs and improvements. These include educational outreach pro-grams, improved collision reporting, and policy enforcement. These pro-grams are easy and comparatively inexpensive to implement. Phase II improvements contain physical in-frastructure developments, begin-ning with those that are most critical to our project area and least compli-

cated to implement. While the bicycle education pro-gram administered at orientation will enhance awareness of bicycle infrastructure and safe behavior, an enforcement component will be nec-essary to ensure that this knowledge actually translates to changes in rid-ership patterns. This responsibility will fall primarily to the USC Depart-ment of Public Safety, which will also facilitate information sharing with the Los Angeles Police Department. These responsibilities are best de-lineated as enforcing safety protocol and reporting collisions and injuries. Benchmarking and evaluation of these improvements and programs fall into several categories: comple-tion of proposed infrastructure, col-lision and injury rates, bicycle rider-ship rates, and benchmarking with other universities. We want to con-tinue the momentum of bike plan-ning. We plan on collaborating with organizations such as the USC Bi-cycle Collation, T.R.U.S.T. South LA and the Associated Students of Plan-ning Development with the launch of their new bike program. The work that all teams have done in our 2014 bike studio can be used an examples for recommendations as well provide important information to better un-

derstand these areas and users of the space. We understand that this some-thing that all people must take seri-ous and until then, we must continue to bring awareness to bicycle and pe-destrians issues on campus.

88

Hoover Street & Jefferson Boulevard

Partnerships:

There are many entities and stake-holders involved in ensuring the Hoover Avenue and Jefferson Bou-levard recommendations are imple-mented. Although USC does not necessarily have the jurisdictional authority to approve the proposed changes to the project area, they serve as a major project pronent as well as a potential funding part-ner which is only enhanced through the construction of the USC village. Technical partners include the Los Angeles Department of Trasnporta-tion (LADOT) and the Department of Public Works (LADPW) - the latter of which will likely involve three dif-ferent bureaus: Bureau of Engineer-ing, Bureau of Streeting Lighting, and the Bureau of street services. Further, collaboration with Metro will be necessary as they coordinate the bus services on Hoover. The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) will be an additional stakeholder as they will soon have a fire station located on Hoover. Finally, there is the need

for increased coordination and coop-eration with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Depart-ment of Public Safety (DPS) to ensure more comprehensive and representa-tive bicycle crash data.

The city of Los Angeles will also be a major partner in implementing the recommendations due to the recently adopted Jefferson Streetscape plan. Coordination with the office of local Los Angeles City Council member Curran Price will also be necessary as a way to aid in attaining approval by the Planning Commission or the full city council - depending on which way it goes.

Broader Implementation:

In order to ensure stakeholders are well informed about the proposed changes, broader public outreach is required. This includes business owners and tenants along Hoover avenenue and McClintock avenue, local community members, as well as USC staff and students.

Momentum:

In addition to advocating for the aforementioned changes, continued involvement and outreach is neces-sary before, during and after imple-mentation. This can take the form of continued bicycle/pedestrian plan-ning courses, regular town hall meet-ings, and arguably most important, the appointment of a bicycle/pedes-trian coordinator.


89

W. Jefferson Boulevard

Coordination Between USC & Other Players

1. The University of Southern Califor-niaThe University of Southern Califor-nia can play a major role in the shap-ing of Jefferson East of Vermont just like they are playing a major role on shaping Jefferson West of Vermont. The University has already set up a community fund with approximately $350,000. The university can also coordinate with community and non-profit groups, like TRUST South LA. The community groups would have a technical backing from students at USC that are in planning studious or courses and the university would be giving students a chance to work on a real world project. Providing com-munity groups a source to tap into can create strong ties with the sur-rounding community.

2. Community and Non-Profit GroupsIn order to tap into the community, there has to be inclusion of the lo-

cal groups that focus their work in the area. These groups know where people congregate and what issues are more pertinent to the area, their expertise and community outreach can help both the university and the city departments. These groups can also take a role in increasing walking and biking in the area through com-munity bike rides and engagement.

3. Los Angeles Department of Trans-portationThe LADOT had put Jefferson Boule-vard on their 2010 Bike Master Plan and should take responsibility and this corridor that is frequented by the community as well as by students from the University of Southern Cali-fornia; this makes it a very important corridor in terms of safety.

Education, Public Involvement & Empowerment, AdvocacyThis section of Los Angeles has been neglected throughout the years as can be seen by the dearth of street trees, cracked sidewalks, and accumulated

street trash. We have proposed put-ting together a 311 campaign that gets residents knowledgeable on the 311 program the city has to get the city’s attention to these problems and in-crease the low civic participation in the area.

LADOT also has a free bike rack pro-gram that many businesses along this corridor do not know about. We have proposed a campaign to get the busi-nesses knowledgeable about the pro-gram and to increase the amount of bicycle infrastructure along Jefferson Boulevard.

An increase in civic participation would go a long way in this commu-nity as it would increase the ties of the residents with the Jefferson Bou-levard corridor

The University can play an active role in community outreach to increase civic engagement by printing out ma-terials like those highlighted in the Jefferson West of Vermont section and provide students in, for example: communications or political science, courses or studios to train commu-nity members to do the outreach or have students do the outreach them-selves.

Continuing The Momentum Of Bike PlanningIn order for bike planning to go be-yond the borders of the current plan, there should be an increase in coordi-nation between the University and its student base, community/non-profit organizations, and the LADOT. This three-pronged approach provides all three parties with ways to get their work done. University of Southern California would create safer street and provide real world work experience to its stu-dents.

Community/Non-Profit Organiza-tions would have a way to further their work and branch out their orga-nization into mobility and health.Los Angeles Department of Trans-portation would have two partners to provide outreach and conceptual planning to move forward with the 2010 Bike Master Plan.

90

6.3 EducationIn order to create a strategic and ef-fective education plan for our pro-posals, meeting with the USC Grad-uate Student Government (GSG) was a requisite. Given that USC is a primary project proponent and that one of the focal points of GSG is to be responsible for providing a voice for the student community, the meet-ing proved to be extremely beneficial. The meeting with GSG revealed the overall lack of knowledge both to-wards bicycle and pedestrian plan-ning but also, that there was even a problem to plan for. I Further, it was brought to our attention that there

was general discrepancy between un-dergraduate and graduate students as to what they perceived to be a bi-cycle “problem” and the level of said problem. In an effort to combat this discrepancy, the USC staff and ad-ministration have been encouraged to implement a Bike Safety Class as part of the new student orientation process for both undergraduate and graduate students. This would allow for an opportunity in which incom-ing students can become acquainted with the USC campus as well as at-tain the rules and skills necessary to ride safely not only within USC, but

everywhere. This can and should include a Campus Bike Tour, dur-ing which time the students can ap-ply the skills they have learned. This would allow students to gain a more nuanced understanding of their roles and responsibilities as both cyclists and pedestrians.

In conjunction with the education section of the existing USC Bike Mas-ter Plan (Chapter 3), we are propos-ing a five-fold education plan. Firstly, we are recommending that a man-datory bicycle/pedestrian orienta-tion be given. This can and should be incorporated with the general orientation given to students prior to the start of their academic studies at USC; similar to the one described above. Secondly, we are calling for enforcement coupled with education. - Essentially like traffic school. DPS officers standing around and issuing tickets will not lead to desired results when it does not include an added layer of education, as depicted in the photo- it will just create and maintain a disdain for authority. Thirdly, we recommend the use of a social me-dia campaign of some sort- this can include an educational video specific to the USC campus similar to the one UC Davis has already issued. This

video has the potential to further enhance enforcement; for instance, if an individual is issued a citation, he/she may be mandated to watch it. Fourthly, we seek to popularize and legitimatize bicycle riding through the creation of a university club. Fi-nally, we strongly recommend the appointment of a bicycle coordinator to promote all of the aforementioned as well as to continually advocate for cyclists.

A strategic education plan is critical to the success of our proposed goals. Without proper education and en-couragement there is no way to en-sure that the infrastructure we are recommending to implement will be properly used.


91

6.4 USC Coordination with City and County Agencies

6.4.1 Recommendations for Local Coordination and Accountable Parties

Orientation Bicycle EducationCreating a bicycle education program during student orientation will in-volve a number of actors affiliated with the University of Southern Cali-fornia. From the top-down, the Uni-versity Administration must be in-volved with the program, as they are responsible for budgeting and allo-cating funding for various programs across the university. Without secure funding from the administration, creating an orientation based bicycle education program would not be a financially sustainable undertaking. In addition to the administration, the USC Office of Orientation Programs will be among the other crucial actors since they will need to approve and oversee the educational program. Ad-ditional support will be required as a

bottom-up approach from student groups including the Undergraduate Student Government, Graduate Stu-dent Government, and the USC Bi-cycle Coalition. These student groups will work directly with the Office of Orientation Programs to help de-velop the educational program. This includes compiling information and creating handouts to be distributed during orientation, student outreach to join bicycle advocacy groups like the USCBC and LACBC, and leading bicycle tours around campus. While the stakeholders and responsible actors for this program are all con-tained within the University, they represent very different aspects of the school and will provide a diverse base of knowledge and information

in establishing and carrying out this program which is so critical to ensure student compliance with the bicycle plan elements.

Outreach Community outreach is an impor-tant aspect for planning projects in general, and these improvements will benefit all users, USC students and community members alike. We surveyed both bike and pedestrian users on and nearby campus. They believe the width of University Av-enue is wide enough, but something has to be done about the crossing at Jefferson Blvd. because they were more concerned with it being unsafe. One person that was surveyed com-pared crossing at Jefferson to playing “Russian Roulette.” They empha-sized separation for both bikes and pedestrians. This also supports our recommendations with the bike box, traffic circle, cycle track, pedestrian and bicycle only signal (ahead of ve-hicle traffic), bike lane striping and painted bicycle boxes. A professor we spoke with was very upset and he himself has actually witnessed near life death experiences.

We also met with T.R.U.S.T. South LA, a long time community advocacy

group in the South Los Angeles area, and discussed infrastructure changes for pedestrians and bicyclists in the USC community. They suggested temporary installments, and also in-creasing the communication between USC and community members. Their feedback for us was to reach out to community organizations to build strong relationships and get their input to execute properly. The di-rector, Mr. Harris, reminded us that we must think about the community around the school as well as consider the students’ needs, travel time, and bike/pedestrian volume. He also suggested a bike program similar to the one they have where they ride together every Friday to in-crease awareness, discuss rules and have different groups to lead every week. We have included a bike pro-gram and ways to educate students in our list of recommendations.

Bicycle Safety and Regulations En-forcement and ReportingWhile the bicycle education pro-gram administered at orientation will enhance awareness of bicycle infrastructure and safe behavior, an enforcement component will be nec-essary to ensure that this knowledge actually translates to changes in rid-

University Avenue

92

ership patterns. This responsibility will fall primarily to the USC Depart-ment of Public Safety, which will also facilitate information sharing with the Los Angeles Police Department. These responsibilities are best de-lineated as enforcing safety protocol and reporting collisions and injuries. The Department of Public Safety will make regular rounds to ensure that bicyclists are appropriately using the infrastructure and encourage report-ing of bicycle-bicycle and bicycle-pe-destrian collisions. These collisions are currently underreported and will play an important role in assessing the benefits and effectiveness of the infrastructure improvements. These collision figures will then be shared with the LAPD so that they can be ac-curately reported to TIMS in order to inform future projects.

University Avenue Cycle TrackUnlike the orientation program, re-sponsibilities for implementing in-frastructure improvements are more direct and top-down. Unfortunately, the responsibility for bike and pedes-trian improvements has long been a contentious issue in which no indi-vidual department has taken charge. Thus, we have designated a working partnership between the USC De-

partment of Parking and Transporta-tion and the Department of Facilities Management to coordinate on plan-ning, construction, and maintenance of the campus bicycle network. The Department of Parking and Trans-portation will be responsible for monitoring the infrastructure as it pertains to the greater transportation system at USC and Facilities Manage-ment, in accordance with their en-gineering services and maintenance services will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the bicycle improvements. Fostering this collaborative relationship is taking a crucial step for interdepartmental coordination that will benefit greater operations and planning initiatives throughout the University commu-nity.

30th Street and 32nd Street Intersec-tionsThe planned raised speed tables for the intersections of University Av-enue at 30th and 32nd Street will be less involved with USC and instead fall under the jurisdiction of LADOT since they are city owned streets. This will create an unavoidable disconnect since USC will be unable to directly control the timeline or decision mak-ing process on these improvements.

As an important stakeholder in the process, USC will be able to work with LADOT, but ultimately the improve-ments will be made and maintained by the city. This also means that pub-lic outreach initiatives will likely be undertaken to inform the community surrounding USC to these changes and invite their comments. This outreach is an important part of the planning process, but will also slow the timeline for project development.

Jefferson Boulevard IntersectionThe most complicated improvement will be the intersection at Jefferson Boulevard where Hoover Street and University Avenue meet. This initia-tive will require similar departmental coordination between Facilities Man-agement and Parking and Transpor-tation in order to ensure planning,

construction, and maintenance for the bike boxes, signage, and pave-ment treatments to connect the ex-isting bicycle network with the pro-posed improvements. However, this will also require coordination with LADOT in a much more involved way than at the 30th and 32nd intersec-tions. Again, since Jefferson is a city street, any improvements fall under the jurisdiction of LADOT. At Jeffer-son Boulevard, USC will not be able to make the proposed improvements until LADOT is ready and willing to restripe the pedestrian crosswalk in order to better accommodate bi-cycles. While USC can build cycle tracks along University without the completion of roundabouts at 30th and 32nd, the bike box and crosswalk treatment will be counterintuitive without contributions for LADOT.


93

For the short term recommendations, USC will play a key role as the project proponent, since students and staff traveling to and from campus will re-ceive the most benefit from the pro-posed improvements. Although USC doesn’t necessarily have the jurisdic-tional authority to approve the pro-posed changes to Hoover Street and Jefferson Boulevard, they play a key role as the primary stakeholder and advocate for the changes, as well as a potential funding partner. The pro-posed curb modifications and street light and signal relocation and con-solidation will require review and ap-proval from both the Los Angeles De-partment of Transportation (LADOT) and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

The Department of Public Works en-gagement will likely involve three dif-ferent bureaus: Bureau of Engineer-ing, Bureau of Street Lighting, and Bureau of Street Services. These enti-ties will need to work closely together in order to understand the proposed changes and coordinate amongst themselves to provide the necessary project approvals. Due to the minor

nature of these proposed curb, light-ing, and signal changes, this scope of work can likely be accomplished with minimal modifications to the re-cently adopted Jefferson Streetscape Plan and move forward as part of the street changes associated with USC Village implementation. Since the Jefferson Streetscape Plan construc-tion designs are under review with the City of Los Angeles, the timing is perfect to suggest the slight modifica-tions to the north and south edges of the Jefferson crosswalk. Both curbs will be reconstructed and the signal poles modified to accommodate the updated streetscape, so the suggested modifications could be made now and incorporated into the construction plans for implementation within the next two years. It is our understand-ing that the Jefferson Streetscape Plan will be implemented in close proximity to the completion of the

first phase of USC Village, so these minor modifications (curb flattening and signal pole relocation/consolida-tion) can be incorporated now and scheduled for implementation at that time. Any larger scale recommenda-tions would likely require redesign and resubmittal of the permit appli-cation, delaying implementation of the Jefferson Streetscape Plan.

For the long term recommendations, the same entities will be involved as with the short term recommen-dations. USC will still play the role of primary project proponent, with LADOT and the different bureaus of Public Works supporting for project review and approval. Another key

Hoover Street & Jefferson Boulevard

94

group that should be engaged with the cycletrack proposal is the Bike Plan Implementation Team, made up of City of Los Angeles staff and stake-holders that help bike projects get built. This team can likely help strat-egize how best to approach the pro-posal and navigate it through the ap-proval process. Additional coordina-tion will be required with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates bus service on Hoover Street, and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, which will soon have a fire station on Hoover Street. Those entities will likely need to play a role in reviewing and ap-proving the proposed protected bike lanes and revised lane configuration as well. Outreach to affected stake-holder will also be necessary for the more significant, long term changes being proposed. This should include business owners and tenants along

Hoover Street and McClintock Av-enue, local community members, as well as staff and students from USC. This coordination should begin early and continue throughout the process so the stakeholders know why these changes are being proposed, how the changes will affect the operations of Hoover Street, and stay informed throughout the project planning and implementation phase. Because the scope of these proposed changes are more significant than the short term recommendations, the involvement of the office of local Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price will be necessary. By coordinating with Council staff, political buy-in and will for the project can be secured, which will be required for these changes to get approved by the Planning Com-mission or the full City Council (de-pending on how high up the deci-sion-making gets elevated). Since the

proposed north/south cycletracks on Hoover would be considered a ma-jor roadway reconfiguration, those improvements as well as associated restriping of the Hoover/Jefferson intersection would need to be more fully designed and vetted with the stakeholders before being proposed for implementation. This makes these improvements appropriate to characterize as long term recommen-dations.


95

W. Jefferson Boulevard

Purpose:Inform and empower the residents of the West Adams neighborhood to become involved and create a safer, healthier, and more vibrant community.

Scope:The purpose of this outreach plan is to involve merchants and stakeholders residents in the process of making Jefferson Boulevard a safer, more walkable and bike-friendly area.

Goals:1. Provide information so that residents are knowledgeable on what can be achieved.2. Have outreach touch base with the maximum amount of people.Approach & Process:

The following are outreach challenges along the West Jefferson Boulevard corridor:

1. Civic participation is low throughout the area, which can be detrimental if people are unable to express concerns and get help solving problems. Linguistic isolation plays a role in low attendance as people believe that their voice will not be heard, including those people that

are Invisible Riders (cyclists , often working class commuters, who do not fit the stereotypical image of cyclists).

The above problems can remedied by having a broader outreach plan, for which we propose the following:

1. Contact schools in the area to connect with Parent-Teacher Associations and Safe Routes to School programs. Present the safety and health benefits bike lanes provide for children and families as a whole. Target: Primary school children and parents.

2. Contact schools in the area to present to bike clubs, environmental science classes, etc. Work to involve USC students in local school outreach through the Joint Education Project and other programs. Target: Young adults and potential champions

3. Partner with organizations in the area like T.R.U.S.T. South LA, Eastside Riders, and the LA County Bicycle Coalition. Target: Residents already involved in the community

4. Attend and present the progress of the Jefferson

Boulevard improvements effort at local government meetings. Target: Merchants and residents that are involved in the government process. There is potential for a Bicycle Friendly Business District on Jefferson Boulevard.

My311 app to report trash dumping, cracked sidewalks, and graffiti along the corridor.2. Free Bike Racks Campaign - The Free Bike Rack campaign serves to help businesses to participate in the Jefferson Boulevard improvements by contacting the city to request bike parking.

The use of and participation in events to provide people with biking and walking activities is an important component of the outreach process.The following events should be used to increase public participation:

1. Bike Rodeo - To encourage children at one or two elementary schools in the neighborhood to be active and have them think about different modes of travel (applicable to parents as well).

2. Group bike rides - These will be monthly rides targeted at people of high school age and up. These group bike rides can be done in conjunction with local community groups

3. Monthly meetings with members of the community to provide input and voice concerns; can serve as a Community Advisory Committee.

Programming and Events: The programming we propose below will increase civic engagement and community investment in the West Adams neighborhood.

1. My311 Campaign - Encourage people to participate in the City’s 311 program by calling in or using the

96

Stakeholders

In order to create a safe and vibrant corridor, the participation of concerned individuals is required. This section considers the following stakeholders as key players in the implementation of this plan:

• Community Members:Community members are the most important players when it comes to any street improvements implemented along the Jefferson Boulevard corridor. This group will be the streets’ primary users and thus these recommendations will be geared towards providing for the needs of community members. The inclusion of and support from the community will validate the project and vet the success of improvements.

• Community Organizations:Organizations like T.R.U.S.T. South LA perform vital work in the community are would be important partners in any streetscape improvement plan. Involving community groups would be especially important in the community outreach component.

• Business & Property Owners:Businesses along the Jefferson

Boulevard corridor are community assets. Many of the businesses have been rooted in the community for years and form a distinct character for the neighborhood. Improvements will affect businesses along the corridor by facilitating economic development and encouraging patronage. Working with business and property owners on creating

friendly and walkable streets benefits the community as a whole.

• Los Angeles Department of TransportationLos Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is the governmental agency responsible to implementing street and bicycle infrastructure. The working group will need to follow the LADOT Master Bike Plan and street design guidelines and collaborate with LADOT to successfully implement the recommendations.

• University of Southern California: Many USC students and staff live along and frequent the Jefferson Boulevard corridor; facilitating the creation of a more walkable and bikeable street benefits the university as well. USC has pledged $350,000 to new or existing open space areas within two miles of campus.10 Additionally, the University has committed to corridor improvements along Jefferson Boulevard east of Vermont Avenue and can provide further assistance by using the corridor for studio and course study, tapping into its faculty and students technical knowledge.

Providing outreach materials in Spanish as well as English is important. Sample flyers courtesy of LACBC.

Encourage business owners to participate through programs like the LADOT Bike Parking Program.


97

6.4.2 Long-term Coordination Objectives

In order to ensure the successful implementation and benchmarking of the recommended improvements, a high level of coordination will be required between a number of actors and agencies. In the long term, this coordination will be crucial for pro-gram oversight, evaluation, informed decision-making, and continued stu-dent and community involvement. Long term coordination between the Los Angeles Police Department and the USC Department of Public Safety will be necessary for maintaining an accurate database of bicycle and pe-destrian collisions. The existing lack of coordination creates large gaps in data which can result in misinforma-tion and inadequate needs assess-ments for the study area. Fostering this relationship will encourage data driven solutions, as well as provide the necessary framework for bench-marking improvements based on collision reduction statistics. Addi-tional collaboration between bicycle enforcement and education between

these two departments will foster a more informed community and cy-clist population which is more aware of their rights and responsibilities as road users.

There are also significant opportuni-ties for USC to enhance their engage-ment with the surrounding commu-nity through Good Neighbors Grants and the Safe Routes to School Part-nership. Furthering fostering rela-tionships with these organizations and programs will provide funding and resources for long term improve-ments which actively involve the surrounding community, creating a more inclusive community and a saf-er bicycle and pedestrian network for users of all ages.

Additionally, these groups can work together with the university to regu-larly offer formal and informal com-munity bicycle rides to help famil-iarize residents with the improved bicycle facilities. These rides can also help facilitate discussions and vision-

ing sessions about potential improve-ments for the future as a method of grassroots outreach and active en-gagement.

The Sol Price School of Public Policy at USC also has a substantial role to play in the future coordination in this area. By continuing to offer the Bike and Pedestrian Planning Studio course, the Price School can become a perennial resource which is able to provide vital connections between community groups, students, city agencies, and the university admin-istration. While these stakeholders have great interest in these projects and the community as a whole, there is often a lack of communication be-tween them. The Price School can emerge as a champion in uniting these groups and serving as the glue that holds the projects and discus-sions together.

98


Appendix61 42 3 5

99

Appendix

Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts

Data was collected using a standard-ized methodology in accordance with the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (NBPD). This method calls for a “screenline” approach, in which counters are sta-tioned at each leg of the intersection (East, West, North and South) and count all bicycles and pedestrians that pass by them. For example, see Figure 1 for counter and screenline formations for the Jefferson Boule-vard and Figueroa Street. This data can then be extrapolated to show ap-proach and departure volumes for each leg of the intersection. Counters collected data for the number of bicy-clists and pedestrians and the direc-tion they were travelling. Additional bicycle data was collected to denote female bicyclists, sidewalk riding, wrong-way riding, and whether, or not, a helmet was worn; and, addi-tional pedestrian data was collected

Jefferson Blvd. and Figueroa St. Intersection

# Time PeriodNorth bound

Southbound Totals

North bound

Southbound Totals # Time Period

East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 8 3 11 16 14 30 1 7:00-7:15** 0 2 2 3 0 32 7:15-7:30 4 4 8 6 30 36 2 7:15-7:30 0 3 3 3 0 33 7:30-7:45 5 9 14 11 47 58 3 7:30-7:45 5 3 8 16 25 414 7:45-8:00 12 11 23 6 52 58 4 7:45-8:00 3 1 4 7 8 155 8:00-8:15 9 7 16 12 28 40 5 8:00-8:15 6 7 13 22 31 536 8:15-8:30 7 8 15 6 26 32 6 8:15-8:30 8 5 13 16 28 447 8:30-8:45 3 14 17 9 34 43 7 8:30-8:45 2 7 9 11 33 448 8:45-9:00 5 17 22 11 45 56 8 8:45-9:00 6 5 11 13 21 34

2 hrs 7 - 9am 53 73 126 77 276 353 2 hrs 7 - 9am 30 33 63 91 146 237


Southbound Totals

North bound

South bound Totals # Time Period

East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 3 2 5 4 19 23 1 7:00-7:15 5 3 8 8 18 262 7:15-7:30 1 3 4 16 22 38 2 7:15-7:30 6 1 7 11 33 443 7:30-7:45 6 5 11 17 26 43 3 7:30-7:45 8 6 14 11 63 744 7:45-8:00 5 16 21 13 68 81 4 7:45-8:00 11 10 21 19 86 1055 8:00-8:15 3 12 15 15 27 42 5 8:00-8:15 7 9 16 16 41 576 8:15-8:30 6 2 8 13 35 48 6 8:15-8:30 8 2 10 15 50 657 8:30-8:45 2 4 6 6 43 49 7 8:30-8:45 3 3 6 16 30 468 8:45-9:00 3 12 15 13 30 43 8 8:45-9:00 9 8 17 17 51 68

2 hrs 7 - 9am 29 56 85 97 270 367 2 hrs 7 - 9am 57 42 99 113 372 485*This count was performed on 10/23/14 due to unavailability on 10/9/14**Yellow indicates values were interpolated; count was not performed for 7-7:30am

N of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of FigueroaS. Figueroa St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/9/14 - 7 am - 9 am - Morning Peak

S of Jefferson* Bicycle Pedestrian W of Figueroa Bicycle Pedestrian

Bicycle Pedestrian

for wheelchairs/special needs, skate-boards and scooters, and children.

In order to accurately assess the fluctuations of weekday peak travel throughout the day, counts were conducted for morning peak period (7:00 AM - 9:00 AM), midday peak period (11:00 AM - 1:00 PM), and evening peak period (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) on various dates beginning on Thursday, October 9, 2014, and end-ing on Thursday, October 23, 2014. However, due to insufficient counters being available, there are a few legs and/or time periods left uncounted. Similarly, additional counts could have been performed to assess the Saturday midday traffic, however, counters were not available during this time period, thus, our data will only reflect weekday peak periods.

As the standard methodology dic-

tates, each weekday peak period is divided into fifteen-minute incre-ments, and totals counts for each of those increments is tallied. These counts are used to inform us about volumes and behavior, and an ad-ditional goal is to add this count data to the SCAG Bicycle Clear-inghouse, managed by UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. This database is available to all who are in-terested for access to bicycle and pedestrian counts across the Los An-geles metropolitan area.

The following tables contain the counts for bicycles and pedestrians for the following locations:• Jefferson/Figueroa• Jefferson/Hoover• University, Royal• Jefferson/Vermont

100


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 11:00-11:15 23 15 38 34 41 75 1 11:00-11:15 7 3 10 8 22 302 11:15-11:30 9 7 16 31 38 69 2 11:15-11:30 9 2 11 14 33 473 11:30-11:45 9 10 19 39 40 79 3 11:30-11:45 2 4 6 16 24 404 11:45-12:00 14 20 34 54 49 103 4 11:45-12:00 5 6 11 23 18 415 12:00-12:15 16 8 24 74 54 128 5 12:00-12:15 7 3 10 13 31 446 12:15-12:30 13 12 25 84 77 161 6 12:15-12:30 4 4 8 17 34 517 12:30-12:45 23 14 37 85 86 171 7 12:30-12:45 2 8 10 21 29 508 12:45-1:00 9 16 25 62 66 128 8 12:45-1:00 3 7 10 25 40 65

2 hrs 11am-1pm 116 102 218 463 451 914 2 hrs 11am-1pm 39 37 76 137 231 368

N of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of Figueroa Bicycle PedestrianS. Figueroa St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/9/14 - 11 am - 1 pm - Midday Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 11:00-11:15 13 8 21 6 47 53 1 11:00-11:15 24 9 33 52 46 982 11:15-11:30 7 2 9 2 44 46 2 11:15-11:30 14 4 18 28 32 603 11:30-11:45 12 7 19 2 46 48 3 11:30-11:45 19 16 35 25 53 784 11:45-12:00 14 18 32 3 82 85 4 11:45-12:00 31 19 50 59 62 1215 12:00-12:15 6 10 16 11 81 92 5 12:00-12:15 16 11 27 85 51 1366 12:15-12:30 16 7 23 3 58 61 6 12:15-12:30 35 25 60 62 90 1527 12:30-12:45 9 9 18 1 77 78 7 12:30-12:45 18 10 28 97 59 1568 12:45-1:00 7 8 15 3 27 30 8 12:45-1:00 11 19 30 55 79 134

2 hrs 11am-1pm 84 69 153 31 462 493 2 hrs 11am-1pm 168 113 281 463 472 935

S of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian W of Figueroa Bicycle PedestrianS. Figueroa St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/9/14 - 11 am - 1 pm - Midday Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 4:00-4:15 18 25 43 21 125 146 1 4:00-4:15 4 8 12 15 11 262 4:15-4:30 9 19 28 7 131 138 2 4:15-4:30 3 9 12 26 18 443 4:30-4:45 12 11 23 18 118 136 3 4:30-4:45 1 8 9 29 19 484 4:45-5:00 8 25 33 11 165 176 4 4:45-5:00 9 9 18 36 20 565 5:00-5:15 4 40 44 18 142 160 5 5:00-5:15 6 13 19 44 34 786 5:15-5:30 8 38 46 34 161 195 6 5:15-5:30 2 8 10 42 29 717 5:30-5:45 4 28 32 18 130 148 7 5:30-5:45 6 13 19 41 24 658 5:45-6:00 11 55 66 27 190 217 8 5:45-6:00 2 10 12 26 23 49

2 hrs 4 - 6pm 74 241 315 154 1162 1316 2 hrs 4 - 6pm 33 78 111 259 178 437


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 4:00-4:15 1 15 16 4 45 49 1 4:00-4:15 13 12 25 54 50 1042 4:15-4:30 1 2 3 2 22 24 2 4:15-4:30 12 14 26 38 37 753 4:30-4:45 9 3 12 22 33 55 3 4:30-4:45 10 9 19 53 52 105

4 4:45-5:00 9 17 26 60 33 93 4 4:45-5:00 18 21 39 85 57 1425 5:00-5:15 19 7 26 40 30 70 5 5:00-5:15 18 23 41 78 50 1286 5:15-5:30 16 5 21 30 15 45 6 5:15-5:30 15 22 37 63 59 1227 5:30-5:45 4 10 14 50 48 98 7 5:30-5:45 19 12 31 77 61 1388 5:45-6:00 20 30 50 80 60 140 8 5:45-6:00 22 14 36 76 75 151

2 hrs 4 - 6pm 79 89 168 288 286 574 2 hrs 4 - 6pm 127 127 254 524 441 965

N of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of Figueroa Bicycle Pedestrian

S of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian W of Figueroa Bicycle Pedestrian

S. Figueroa St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/9/14 - 4 pm - 6 pm - Afternoon Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 3 7 10 4 9 13 1 7:00-7:15 3 3 6 12 14 262 7:15-7:30 5 16 21 4 14 18 2 7:15-7:30 10 4 14 9 50 593 7:30-7:45 1 16 17 2 29 31 3 7:30-7:45 6 2 8 17 134 1514 7:45-8:00 1 63 64 1 51 52 4 7:45-8:00 8 0 8 15 73 885 8:00-8:15 0 28 28 0 23 23 5 8:00-8:15 8 1 9 11 17 286 8:15-8:30 3 26 29 3 25 28 6 8:15-8:30 7 3 10 7 17 247 8:30-8:45 6 16 22 7 20 27 7 8:30-8:45 2 1 3 11 31 428 8:45-9:00 1 41 42 1 54 55 8 8:45-9:00 6 3 9 9 26 35

2 hrs 7 - 9am 20 213 233 22 225 247 2 hrs 7 - 9am 50 17 67 91 362 453

# Time Period*North bound

Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 6 10 16 16 23 39 1 7:00-7:152 7:15-7:30 18 31 49 18 74 92 2 7:15-7:303 7:30-7:45 9 56 65 23 207 230 3 7:30-7:454 7:45-8:00 18 176 194 29 214 243 4 7:45-8:005 8:00-8:15 15 63 78 18 74 92 5 8:00-8:156 8:15-8:30 20 68 88 20 81 101 6 8:15-8:307 8:30-8:45 13 54 67 18 82 100 7 8:30-8:45 1 2 3 8 18 268 8:45-9:00 19 126 145 22 169 191 8 8:45-9:00 16 20 36 17 52 69

2 hrs 7 - 9am 118 584 702 164 924 1088 2 hrs 7 - 9am 17 22 39 25 70 95

Pedestrian

S of Jefferson on Trousdale Bicycle Pedestrian W of Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian

* These counts were not performedfor this leg, but calculated.

N of Jefferson on Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian E of Hoover Bicycle

Not Taken

Hoover St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/16/14 - 7 am - 9 am - Morning Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 22 26 48 15 9 24 1 7:00-7:15 12 9 21 38 24 622 7:15-7:30 11 3 14 12 16 28 2 7:15-7:30 8 7 15 26 16 423 7:30-7:45 15 17 32 16 14 30 3 7:30-7:45 17 3 20 33 21 544 7:45-8:00 35 35 70 30 23 53 4 7:45-8:00 17 8 25 59 37 965 8:00-8:15 21 21 42 29 27 56 5 8:00-8:15 15 6 21 53 26 796 8:15-8:30 34 37 71 31 45 76 6 8:15-8:30 26 9 35 62 49 1117 8:30-8:45 23 24 47 46 27 73 7 8:30-8:45 19 3 22 78 42 1208 8:45-9:00 17 25 42 13 45 58 8 8:45-9:00 14 12 26 64 39 103

2 hrs 7 - 9am 178 188 366 192 206 398 2 hrs 7 - 9am 128 57 185 413 254 667

# Time Period*North bound

Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 64 61 125 72 56 128 1 7:00-7:15 17 6 23 24 20 442 7:15-7:30 43 23 66 62 48 110 2 7:15-7:30 5 3 8 8 7 153 7:30-7:45 54 50 104 88 60 148 3 7:30-7:45 11 2 13 9 16 254 7:45-8:00 114 143 257 152 125 277 4 7:45-8:00 9 15 24 24 32 565 8:00-8:15 82 64 146 111 154 265 5 8:00-8:15 9 7 16 34 19 536 8:15-8:30 133 128 261 164 114 278 6 8:15-8:30 15 12 27 17 37 547 8:30-8:45 67 140 207 178 82 260 7 8:30-8:45 13 8 21 17 41 588 8:45-9:00 46 82 128 94 112 206 8 8:45-9:00 7 14 21 21 35 56

2 hrs 7 - 9am 603 691 1294 921 751 1672 2 hrs 7 - 9am 86 67 153 154 207 361* These counts were not performed for this leg, but calculated.


Hoover St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/16/14 - 11 am - 1 pm - Midday PeakN of Jefferson on Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian E of Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian

Jefferson Blvd. and Hoover St. IntersectionJefferson Blvd. and Figueroa St. Intersection

Appendix61 42 3 5

101

University Ave. - 4 - 6 pm - 10/21/14 - Afternoon Peak Royal St. - 11 am - 1 pm - 10/23/14 - Midday Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


North bound

Southbound Totals

North bound

Southbound Totals

1 4:00-4:15 38 21 59 71 28 99 1 11:00-11:15 10 6 16 15 21 362 4:15-4:30 34 17 51 60 30 90 2 11:15-11:30 5 2 7 14 12 263 4:30-4:45 37 15 52 51 20 71 3 11:30-11:45 3 3 6 8 17 254 4:45-5:00 93 61 154 110 51 161 4 11:45-12:00 8 12 20 30 25 555 5:00-5:15 89 18 107 116 31 147 5 12:00-12:15 8 5 13 41 37 786 5:15-5:30 54 28 82 74 24 98 6 12:15-12:30 15 8 23 31 33 647 5:30-5:45 79 37 116 105 53 158 7 12:30-12:45 9 5 14 35 22 578 5:45-6:00 89 95 184 104 90 194 8 12:45-1:00 2 4 6 22 33 55

2 hrs 4 - 6pm 513 292 805 691 327 1018 2 hrs 11am-1pm 60 45 105 196 200 396

Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 2 3 5 17 12 29 1 7:00-7:15 0 0 0 2 1 32 7:15-7:30 6 3 9 7 14 21 2 7:15-7:30 3 5 8 4 17 213 7:30-7:45 5 5 10 11 5 16 3 7:30-7:45 4 13 17 3 27 304 7:45-8:00 17 6 23 24 11 35 4 7:45-8:00 2 16 18 11 36 475 8:00-8:15 7 4 11 13 15 28 5 8:00-8:15 7 37 44 6 9 156 8:15-8:30 8 7 15 10 8 18 6 8:15-8:30 2 7 9 4 20 247 8:30-8:45 5 1 6 16 4 20 7 8:30-8:45 4 12 16 2 32 348 8:45-9:00 9 3 12 16 15 31 8 8:45-9:00 5 9 14 12 37 49

2 hrs 7 - 9am 59 32 91 114 84 198 2 hrs 7 - 9am 27 99 126 44 179 223


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 2 3 5 2 5 7 1 7:00-7:15 1 4 5 13 3 162 7:15-7:30 1 2 3 3 3 6 2 7:15-7:30 5 0 5 12 4 163 7:30-7:45 11 5 16 15 10 25 3 7:30-7:45 9 5 14 15 13 284 7:45-8:00 12 7 19 12 9 21 4 7:45-8:00 12 0 12 37 13 505 8:00-8:15 6 7 13 6 25 31 5 8:00-8:15 2 5 7 18 3 216 8:15-8:30 2 2 4 2 5 7 6 8:15-8:30 5 1 6 27 4 317 8:30-8:45 5 7 12 16 21 37 7 8:30-8:45 8 2 10 22 10 328 8:45-9:00 2 8 10 12 20 32 8 8:45-9:00 6 6 12 20 6 26

2 hrs 7 - 9am 41 41 82 68 98 166 2 hrs 7 - 9am 48 23 71 164 56 220

Pedestrian

S of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian W of Vermont Bicycle Pedestrian

N of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of Vermont BicycleVermont Ave./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/23/14 - 7 am - 9 am - Morning Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 11:00-11:15 1 11:00-11:15 6 13 19 19 16 352 11:15-11:30 2 11:15-11:30 12 6 18 13 14 273 11:30-11:45 3 11:30-11:45 8 5 13 25 13 384 11:45-12:00 4 11:45-12:00 12 6 18 28 22 505 12:00-12:15 5 12:00-12:15 4 7 11 17 18 356 12:15-12:30 6 12:15-12:30 11 8 19 31 24 557 12:30-12:45 7 12:30-12:45 10 7 17 20 33 538 12:45-1:00 8 12:45-1:00 11 12 23 30 26 56

2 hrs 11am-1pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 hrs 11am-1pm 74 64 138 183 166 349


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 11:00-11:15 7 5 12 1 11:00-11:15 5 13 18 17 11 282 11:15-11:30 5 8 13 2 11:15-11:30 13 14 27 3 1 43 11:30-11:45 15 8 23 3 11:30-11:45 4 8 12 15 4 194 11:45-12:00 17 29 46 4 11:45-12:00 3 5 8 12 8 205 12:00-12:15 12 19 31 5 12:00-12:15 4 5 9 7 10 176 12:15-12:30 19 13 32 6 12:15-12:30 5 10 15 7 7 147 12:30-12:45 18 12 30 7 12:30-12:45 7 11 18 10 13 238 12:45-1:00 15 14 29 8 12:45-1:00 5 7 12 6 12 18

2 hrs 11am-1pm 0 0 0 108 108 216 2 hrs 11am-1pm 46 73 119 77 66 143

Not Taken

S of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian

Vermont Ave./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/23/14 - 11 am - 1 pm - Midday PeakN of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of Vermont Bicycle Pedestrian

W of Vermont Bicycle Pedestrian

Not Taken

University Ave. - 7 - 9 am - 10/16/14 - Morning Peak


Southbound Totals

North bound


North bound

Southbound Totals

North bound

Southbound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 1 11:00-11:15 43 43 86 37 32 692 7:15-7:30 5 10 15 3 11 14 2 11:15-11:30 32 23 55 29 16 453 7:30-7:45 4 44 48 2 38 40 3 11:30-11:45 48 41 89 33 32 654 7:45-8:00 13 90 103 9 113 122 4 11:45-12:00 87 97 184 71 101 1725 8:00-8:15 7 34 41 7 34 41 5 12:00-12:15 63 120 183 55 42 976 8:15-8:30 10 39 49 10 39 49 6 12:15-12:30 88 57 145 88 88 1767 8:30-8:45 8 49 57 6 37 43 7 12:30-12:45 71 54 125 38 111 1498 8:45-9:00 13 89 102 8 68 76 8 12:45-1:00 38 63 101 22 55 77

2 hrs 7 - 9am 60 355 415 45 340 385 2 hrs 11am-1pm 470 498 968 373 477 850

University Ave. - 11am - 1 pm - 10/16/14- Midday PeakBicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian

Not Taken

University Avenue - Royal Street

Jefferson Blvd. and Vermont Ave. Intersection


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 19 11 30 29 18 47 1 7:00-7:15 7 2 9 21 21 422 7:15-7:30 12 7 19 22 17 39 2 7:15-7:30 8 5 13 24 22 463 7:30-7:45 25 8 33 25 15 40 3 7:30-7:45 7 11 18 21 19 404 7:45-8:00 49 30 79 52 21 73 4 7:45-8:00 11 8 19 33 29 625 8:00-8:15 58 13 71 45 13 58 5 8:00-8:15 13 11 24 39 19 586 8:15-8:30 31 9 40 30 11 41 6 8:15-8:30 14 10 24 27 21 487 8:30-8:45 25 22 47 30 30 60 7 8:30-8:45 5 7 12 26 17 438 8:45-9:00 50 19 69 39 26 65 8 8:45-9:00 5 15 20 36 18 54

2 hrs 7 - 9am 269 119 388 272 151 423 2 hrs 7 - 9am 70 69 139 227 166 393


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 7:00-7:15 64 34 98 121 67 188 1 7:00-7:152 7:15-7:30 54 29 83 106 69 175 2 7:15-7:303 7:30-7:45 69 34 103 97 54 151 3 7:30-7:454 7:45-8:00 153 99 252 195 101 296 4 7:45-8:005 8:00-8:15 160 42 202 200 63 263 5 8:00-8:156 8:15-8:30 99 47 146 131 56 187 6 8:15-8:307 8:30-8:45 109 66 175 161 100 261 7 8:30-8:458 8:45-9:00 144 129 273 179 134 313 8 8:45-9:00

2 hrs 7 - 9am 852 480 1332 1190 644 1834 2 hrs 7 - 9am 0 0 0 0 0 0

N of Jefferson on Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian E of Hoover Bicycle Pedestrian


Not Taken

* These counts were not performed for this leg, but calculated.

Hoover St./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/16/14 - 4 pm - 6 pm - Afternoon Peak

Jefferson Blvd. and Hoover St. Intersection

102

Jefferson Blvd. and Vermont Ave. Intersection


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 4:00-4:15 10 14 24 25 18 43 1 4:00-4:15 9 11 20 18 27 452 4:15-4:30 18 3 21 28 16 44 2 4:15-4:30 11 6 17 21 29 503 4:30-4:45 7 11 18 21 17 38 3 4:30-4:45 7 8 15 18 22 404 4:45-5:00 17 8 25 17 15 32 4 4:45-5:00 5 10 15 15 50 655 5:00-5:15 18 16 34 28 14 42 5 5:00-5:15 8 9 17 6 31 376 5:15-5:30 20 11 31 39 22 61 6 5:15-5:30 9 10 19 13 30 437 5:30-5:45 13 13 26 20 9 29 7 5:30-5:45 9 19 28 18 29 478 5:45-6:00 15 13 28 31 20 51 8 5:45-6:00 18 12 30 14 27 41

2 hrs 4 - 6pm 118 89 207 209 131 340 2 hrs 4 - 6pm 76 85 161 123 245 368


Southbound Totals

North bound


East bound

West bound Totals

East bound

West bound Totals

1 4:00-4:15 1 4:00-4:15 4 5 9 16 29 452 4:15-4:30 2 4:15-4:30 4 9 13 15 12 273 4:30-4:45 3 4:30-4:45 4 2 6 9 12 214 4:45-5:00 4 4:45-5:00 4 5 9 19 16 355 5:00-5:15 5 5:00-5:15 4 7 11 10 11 216 5:15-5:30 6 5:15-5:30 5 15 20 16 11 277 5:30-5:45 7 5:30-5:45 2 7 9 11 18 298 5:45-6:00 8 5:45-6:00 8 10 18 12 15 27

2 hrs 4 - 6pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 hrs 4 - 6pm 35 60 95 108 124 232

Not Taken

Bicycle Pedestrian

Vermont Ave./Jefferson Blvd. - 10/23/14 - 4 pm - 6 pm - Afternoon PeakN of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian E of Vermont Bicycle Pedestrian

S of Jefferson Bicycle Pedestrian W of Vermont

Appendix61 42 3 5

103

Local

Funding Opportunities

Local - Potential Source Plan Component to be Potentially Funded

University of Southern California All projects applicable

LADOT's Bicycle parking program - provides bicycle parking free of cost to businesses that request it. Bicycle parking

Million Trees Los Angeles Program - Distributes street trees to residents, business owners and communities through urban

forestry non-profits.Street Trees

Metro ExpressLanes Net Toll Revenue Grant Programs - The objective of the Grant Program is to increase mobility and

person throughput a series of integrated strategies in the I-10 and I-110 corridors.

Bicycle facilities (lanes, routes, cycle streets, protected bike lanes) and pedestrian

infrastructure

Metro Call for Projects program - funds bicycle, pedestrian, and surface improvementsBicycle facilities, branding/wayfinding, burying/moving utilities, crosswalks, sidewalk

repairs, street lighting and road way modifications such as road diets and more

Proposition C - benefit public transit including Congestion Management Programs, commuter bikeways and bike lanes,

street improvements supporting public transit service, and Pavement Management System projects.

Bicycle facilities, branding/wayfinding, burying/moving utilities, crosswalks, sidewalk

repairs, street lighting, road way modifications and information or safety programs

Measure R Local Return Funds - Can be used to fund improvements such as bikeways, pedestrian infrastructure, and

streetscape enhancements.

Bicycle facilities, wayfinding, crosswalks, sidewalk repairs, street lighting, road way

modifications

AB2766 Air Quality Management

District (AQMD) - Focused on reducing emissions and reducing single occupancy vehicle trips by encouraging the use of

the bicycle for transportation is the priority goal of these funds.

Bicycle facilities (lanes, routes, cycle streets, protected bike lanes), pedestrian infrastructure,

bicycle parking facilities, and research & development practices

104

State

State - Potential Source Plan Component to be Potentially Funded

Cal Trans Active Transportation Program (ATP) - A statewide program that provides

money for active transportation projects.Bicycle facilities, wayfinding, crosswalks, sidewalk repairs, street lighting

Safe Routes to School - Physical infrastructure improvements including bicycle facilities,

traffic control devices, traffic calming measures and other pedestrian infrastructure

elements.

Bicycle facilities , bicycle parking, street modifications and pedestrian

infrastructure

Bicycle Transportation Account - Part of the ATP but specifically for bicycle improvements

and planning.

Bicycle facilities (lanes, routes, cycle tracks, protected bike lanes),

pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking facilities, and research &

development practices

Transportation Development Act Article III - uses monies collected from the state gasoline

tax to provide grants through Metro to fund transportation improvements.


pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking facilities, planning, obstruction

removal engineering and more

Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant Program - mission is to obtain and effectively administer

traffic safety grant funds to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from

traffic related collisions, includes pedestrian and cyclists.

Enforcement and education programs, distribution of bicycle helmets, and

the development and distribution of materials to improve safety are all

eligible under this program

Cap and Trade funding to be distributed by the Strategic Growth Council for active

transportation projects.Eligibility guidelines to be released in Winter of 2014

Appendix61 42 3 5

105

Federal

Federal - Potential Source Plan Component to be Potentially Funded

MAP-21 - The Moving Ahead Progress in the 21st Century Act funds bicycling and walking

projects under these programs : National Highway Performance Program (NIHPP), Surface

Transportation Program (STP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ), Metropolitan Planning and

Transportation Alternatives


pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking facilities, and planning and more

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Allocates grants to develop viable

communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and opportunities

to expand economic opportunities, the program is aimed at low and moderate income

persons

Crosswalks, neighborhood branding/wayfind, sidewalk repair and street

lighting

The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or TIGER Discretionary

Grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and

port projects that promise to achieve critical national objectives. DOT also evaluates projects

on their expected contributions to economic recovery, as well as their ability to facilitate

innovation and new partnerships.


pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle parking facilities, full streetscape

redesign, planning and more

Safe Routes to School Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as well as non-infrastructure for

education and encouragement programs

Information provide by Santa Monica Bicycle Action Plan, South Pasadena BMP, Cal Trans website

106

Campbell, R.L. (1994). Repair, Evaluation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Research Program Overlays on Horizontal Concrete Surfaces: Case Histories. Accessed at: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA276952

City of San Leandro. (2011). BID Summary for Street Light Undergrounding. May 2011 https://www.sanleandro.org/civica/bids/inc/blobfetch.asp?BlobID=8595

City of Portland (2014) Traffic Circles. Accessed at: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/83341

City of Pasadena. (2014) Bikeway Analysis and Feasibility Study. Performed by KOA Corporations. Accessed at:http://cityofpasadena.net/transportation/BikePlan/

City of South Pasadena. (2011). South Pasadena Bicycle Master Plan.Accessed at: www.southpasadenaca.gov/cyclesopas

Federal Highway Administration (2014). Road Diet. Accessed on 4 November 2014 from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.cfm

Federal Highway Administration (2006) Traffic Calming Guidelines (pp 20).Accessed at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/resources/SCDOT%20Traffic%20calming%20guidelines.pdf

Gordon, L. (2014). USC unveiling plans for $650-million housing, retail complex. Los Angeles Times. Accessed at: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-usc-village-20140915-story.html

Jackson, Nate (2011). Work begins on downtown Long Beach bicycle lanes. Los Angeles Times: LA Now. Accessed at:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/work-begins-on-downtown-long-beach-bicycle-lane.html

LADOT Bicycle Services (n.d.) City of Los Angeles Bikeways. Accessed at: http://bicyclela.org/maps_main.htm

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2010). 2010 Bicycle Plan. Accessed at: http://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/transelt/NewBikePlan/Txt/LA%20CITY%20BICYCLE%20PLAN.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2010). 2010 Bicycle Plan Technical Design Handbook. Accessed at: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-2385-S2_MISC_07-11-11.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2014). Complete Streets Manual. Accessed at: http://planning.lacity.org/Cwd/GnlPln/MobiltyElement/Text/CompStManual.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2012). Jefferson Boulevard Streetscape Plan. Accessed at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/USC/Exhibits/Appendix_B_Streetscape%20Plan.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2013). Broadway Streetscape Master Plan. Accessed at: http://planning.lacity.org/complan/othrplan/pdf/Broadway_

References

Appendix61 42 3 5

107

StreetscapePlan.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2012). PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BENEFITS University Park Specific Plan CPC-2011-1171-DA. Accessed at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/USC/Development/USCDAtableprelimdraft02-12c.pdf

Los Angeles Department of City Planning (2010) USC Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (pp IV.K-28). Accessed at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/USC/DEIR/files/IV.K.1%20Transportation%20and%20Circulation.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2012) Bicycle Master Plan. Accessed at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/bike/docs/bmp/Appendix%20H.pdf

Los Angeles Department of Transportation (2010). 2001-10 Traffic Volume Book. Accessed at: http://ladot.lacity.org/WhatWeDo/TrafficVolumeCounts/CurrentCountData/index.htm

Lusk, A., Furth, P., Morency, P., Miranda-Moreno, L., Willett, W., Dennerlein, J. (2011). Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Injury Prevention.

Means of Travel to Work- Social Explorer Tables: ACS 2008 to 2012 (5-Year Estimates) (SE), ACS 2008 -- 2012 (5-Year Estimates), Social Explorer; U.S. Census Bureau

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation (n.d.). Accessed at: http://bikepeddocumentation.org

National Institute for Transportation and Communities. (2014). Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S. Accessed at: http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/NITC-RR-583_ProtectedLanes_FinalReportb.pdf

PedBikeSafe (1997) Neighborhood Mini Traffic Circles. Accessed at: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/case_studies/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=503

Poverty- Social Explorer Tables: ACS 2008 to 2012 (5-Year Estimates) (SE), ACS 2008 -- 2012 (5-Year Estimates), Social Explorer; U.S. Census Bureau

Race- Social Explorer Tables: ACS 2008 to 2012 (5-Year Estimates) (SE), ACS 2008 -- 2012 (5-Year Estimates), Social Explorer; U.S. Census Bureau

Santa Monica Bike Action Plan (NOV 2011). Accessed at: http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Plans/Bike-Action-Plan/

Seattle Department of Transportation (2014) Seattle Cycle Tracks - Comfortable Protected Bikelanes. Accessed at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/PBL.htm

University of Southern California. (2012). Bicycle Master Plan of University Park Campus. (Fall Planning Studio) Kendall Planning and Design. Accessed at: https://docs.google.com/a/usc.edu/file/d/0B4tJAQfiDxlUMUU1Z0xXNEVtRm8/edit?pli=1

University of Southern California (2014). USC Village Conceptual Plans. Accessed at: http://villagearchive.usc.edu/information/plans/

Zegeer, C. et al (2013) Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System Federal Highway Administration. Accessed at: http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/

university park and jefferson boulevard street plan 2014 - 12.13.2014 - low res

Documents

implementation plan

proposed improvements

proposed street improvements

issues opportunities

mcclintock improvements

royal street improvements

bike planning students

city planning