A Confusing Proposal for LAX - Part 1 of 2 Posts

LAX is wrapping up a multi-billion approval to “improve access to and egress from the airport.”  Will they spend billions and get the same results as the billions spent on the 405 widening, which is no improvement?

If someone wanted to design the least imaginative, most confusing, and dubiously effective access program, the proposed concept would be it:

The proposal creates two Intermodal Transportation Facilities (ITF) which will have

--parking

--baggage check-in

--meet and greet areas

The ITF to the right contains car rental facilities and a metro train station which does not provide direct service to LAX

The ITFs will be connected to the Central Terminal Area by a people mover.  If someone parks in the ITF and takes the people mover this will make for two long walks before reaching security.

50% of people who fly from LAX arrive by car.  Which facility will they use, ITF or Central Terminal Area?

The ITF and people mover provide alternative access but will people use it instead of just driving to the Central Terminal Area?

Will the ITF really reduce traffic?

Will the train connection provide a decent alternative to driving?   

Rental car drivers will use the ITF and most buses and shuttles in the Central Terminal Area are likely to be forced to use it but I doubt all will be eliminated;  buses for plane crews? Flyaway? Tour groups?  Shared-ride vans?  How much will traffic really be reduced?

And was the traffic concept of induced demand--where increasing capacity induces more traffic--considered?  Look no further than the 405 widening to see this idea at work.

The world's seventh busiest airport deserves better thinking. 

I am also disturbed by the proposal because it provides no role for LAX's long-standing symbol, the iconic Theme Building.  Instead the people mover ignores its relevance, skirts around it, provides no access, and pushes it aside.

There is lots of room for improvement in the proposal:  clear design, reroute the people mover, open space, and direct train service.  Detailed in Part 2.

Gold to Red

 Proposed Dash / Bus Line Connecting 

Gold Line  to  Red Line  

Highland Park, Mt Washington, Glassell Park, Cypress Park, Atwater, Silver Lake, Hollywood

Returns Service to Ave 50 and Division Streets (former line 176)

Adds Service on Rowena where none exists

Bus Line can be extension of line 175 or 176

No Comparable East-West bus service

Connecting the following Activity Centers (east to west)

—Highland Park Gold Line Station

—Highland Park - Figueroa com’l center

—Old LA Farmers Market

—Monte Vista Street Elementary School

—Academia Avance Charter School

—Food 4 Less (Figueroa)

—Highland Nursing & Wellness Center

—Aldama Elementary School

—Holy Virgin Mary Coptic Church

—Glassell Park Elementary School

—Sotomayor Learning Academies

—Renaissance Arts Charter School

—Los Feliz Charter School for Arts

—LA Media Center

—Super King Market

—Ribet Academy

—Env’t Science & Tech High School

—Goodwill Retail & Outlet Center

—LA Comm College Fletcher Sq

—LA River Greenway Trail

—Ivanhoe Elementary School

—Skyline Health Care & Wellness Center

—Trader Joe’s / Gelsons (Hyperion)

—Marshall High School

—Thomas King Middle School

—Vons Market

—Goodwill Los Angeles

—Childrens Hospital

—Kaiser Medical Center

—Hollywood Presbyterian

—Barnsdall Shopping Center

—Barnsdall Park

—Scientology Center

—Vermont Hollywood Retail District

—Vermont Sunset Red Line Station

LAX Billion Dollar People Mover Addition Adds to the Mess

In the drawing it looks beautiful and simple--the proposed People Mover running through the middle of the Central Terminal Area (CTA) at LAX.  It jogs around the Theme Building and has three stations where passengers take moving walkways to the existing terminals.  

The People Mover trains are designed to carry people between the Central Terminal Area and three Intermodal Transfer Facilities (ITF).  The concept is that access to LAX will become easier because, and this is where I get confused, because, why?

Before I discuss this take a look at some of the other pretty pictures:

But here's the rub:  

The People Mover connects many buildings along its 2 1/4 mile route that have pick-up and drop-off locations.  This is in addition to the locations in the newly renovated Central Terminal Area.  And of course they all have parking garages.  So where to go to meet someone or drop them off?  

Everyone is going to head to the Central Terminal Area, especially if you have luggage.  There's lots of parking and new curb facilities.  But if someone did want to drive and use the Intermodal Transfer Facilities, good-luck finding them, none are on major streets.  

What can be said about this design is that it will eliminate rental car shuttle busses and make it easier to arrive by train.  It might eliminate other shuttle buses, if they are forced to, freeing up Central Terminal Area traffic.  

The problem with the train, however, is the majority of riders will need to change trains before they get to the People Mover because it does not travel a centralized or high-density route.

Oh, and roads will be improved too.  But if the roads are improved and busses eliminated from the CTA, more people will drive (Induced Demand).

Besides the wayward train, here are the new ways to access LAX:

THERE ARE BETTER WAYS

I have long been fascinated by the opportunities to improve the LAX experience and improve access.  These latest proposals come close to a design I proposed years ago, here's the link:  http://laxflightways.blogspot.com

Another idea is to eliminate parking in the Central Terminal Area and turn it into gardens.  This would not only encourage the use of  ITF parking but create an incredibly calming and beautiful space amid the chaos of LAX.  

And how about experimenting with self-driving vehicles that leave from the ITF where a person steps from a private vehicle right into a google car that takes them to the terminal?  

The best opportunity at LAX revolves around the simplicity of it's design, a "U" shaped plan with the Theme Building in the middle.  If designed properly this simple urban form can provide a sense of place and direction that makes it easy for the user to digest and manage.    

In these designs the moving sidewalks are draped with arcs that mimic the arcs of the Theme Building.  Otherwise the sidewalks are similar to the proposal at the top of this page.  

Hollywood Boulevard and the Walk of Fame -- We Can Do Better

Los Angeles' iconic street may be home to the world's most glamorous event but it can use a make-over.

The day before the Oscar ceremony I took some friends from out of town to Miceli's restaurant and afterward had a walk around the site and the Boulevard.  I was struck by how much in dis-repair the Walk of Fame was and how, despite 20 years of revitalization efforts, it still feels and looks grubby.

And I know grubby.  I lived in Hollywood in the 70's and 80's and worked on revitalization efforts for the City.  Back then the opening of a storage facility was celebrated because it was the only private investment being made in Hollywood.

A few weeks later I found myself at the other end of Hollywood Boulevard and decided to look around and see how this end of the Walk of Fame and the Boulevard compared.

Take a look:

All of the Walk of Fame did not look this bad, but it was easy to find sections like this.  

Hollywood Boulevard and the Walk of Fame is a major economic generator for the region and State and it should not look like this.  This is especially ironic because there are many efforts to evolve LA's streets into more than just traffic corridors.

We can do better with LA's most iconic street.

A Hole in the Ground Speaks Volumes or Why Can't Proposed Proposed Projects in LA Be On the Internet?

Recently some buildings were torn down in our neighborhood, land graded, and a fence put up. It took about a day.  That was plenty of time to light up the neighborhood's internet sites with people asking "what's going on?"

This should be no surprise with today's instant communications, even if questions are limited to a small part of a small community.  

But what was really surprising was that I was able to find the answer within an hour of being asked.  

This is surprising because the City of Los Angeles does not post on the internet information on proposed projects.  It mails applicant provided paper files to neighborhood councils and sends an electronic table that contains all recent city applications filed.  That table contains a 2 or 3 line narrative description of the project.

I was able to find this project because the applicant had posted drawings and plans on their own web page. 

The City relies on paper to distribute this information to communities.  It mails a copy of a projects documents to neighborhood councils and uses a private company, BTC, to mail public hearing notices.  Some neighborhood councils post projects on their own web page.  

About a dozen years ago the Planning Department's computer systems administrator and I both agreed it was inevitable that proposed projects would be on the web:  the increase in accessibility and savings in staff resources make the idea a no-brainer.  The easiest way to implement would be is for BTC  to contract a web designer to post projects when they are filed.  An applicant has to visit BTC just before they file a case so it's a perfect opportunity.  And there would be no cost to the City, BTC can add the cost to their mailing fee.

I've updated the idea to include a DISCUSSION BOARD with a project's posting.  It's another way to democratize the process.  It's time the City got on-board.

Neighborhood Integrity Initiative in a Market Driven Economy

Reading about the proposed Neighborhood Integrity Initiative sent me back to thinking about planning school ideas.  How does the fact that we operate under a capitalist economy interplay with efforts to improve the quality of our neighborhoods?  Are they exclusive?

I attended UC Berkeley in the early 70's where idealism and socialism were prominent.  But even back then I realized that in a market economy planners don't plan or build for an ideal world: they direct, they mirror.

And who is for them to judge what an ideal environment would be?

These ideas came up again with the proposed initiative.  This in turn sent me to review State law on general plans.

California cities are required to adopt long term general plans for the "physical development of the City."  This sounds like an economic development plan but State enabling language also directs cities to designate the "general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste and disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses."

This language seems to enable the accommodation of both growth and neighborhood integrity.

But apparently Los Angeles's planning efforts do not, hence the birth of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.  It is not the first such initiative but rather joins a historic list of major planning efforts spawned by lawsuits or voters.

I am wondering where to go with this blog post and one direction is to comment that one idea of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative makes a lot of sense and is remarkably similar to a past planning effort.

But after my years as a City Planner administering LA's planning labyrinth, I am inclined to comment instead on the fluidity and dynamics of development in LA.  The Neighborhood Integrity Initiative is another part of the complexity and moving target approach that makes up the mechanics of development in LA.  As I use to say to staff:  "It would be boring if we always had the answers."

Re-Boot and Marry the Hollywood Community Plan Update and the Re-Code Project

Hopefully someone has already thought of this but just in case no one has I'm putting it out there.

With the chaos in Hollywood over new projects versus neighborhood preservation, it seems there is an opportunity to re-think two City efforts--the Hollywood Community Plan Update and Plan Re:Code  (Re-Code LA).

HOLLYWOOD

                        http://recode.la/about

VERBATIM FROM CITY DOCUMENTS:

The purpose of the Hollywood Community Plan is to provide an official guide to future development . . . for the use of the City Council, the Mayor, the City Planning Commission; other concerned government agencies, residents, property owners, and business people of the community . . .

The purpose of  Plan Re: Code (Re-Code LA) is to establish a new zoning structure that will include clear and predictable language . . . to more effectively meet the goals and objectives of the General Plan . . . allow each neighborhood to maintain a distinct sense of place, while improving the sustainability, economic vitality, and quality of life for all residents.

                                  - - - - -

The resources of these two efforts could be combined in a single program that can address the concerns of all Hollywood stakeholders.  The Hollywood Community Plan Update program could work with community stakeholders to define the size and scale of development on each block.  When this is defined the Re-Code LA program could codify it into legal code based on the defined size and scale of development for each block in Hollywood.

This is the definition of a form-based code that Re-Code LA is attempting.  It is what Re-Code LA want to do for downtown LA.  However, there is more reason to do this in Hollywood considering the recent effort to update it's community plan was overturned by the Courts.  Instead of focusing on downtown LA, where there is no lawsuit, why not do it for Hollywood?