1941 Master Plan Highways County Los Angeles Regional Planning District

8/20/2019 1941 Master Plan Highways County Los Angeles Regional Planning District

1/112

IVgs


2/112

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Roger Jessup, Chairman

Gordon L. McDonough

John Anson Ford

Oscar Hauge

W. A. Smith

THE REGION AL PLANNING

COMMISSION

Roy Teeters, Chairman . . . Temple City

B. F. Shr impton West Hollywood

Mrs. Ella M. F. Atchley Los Angeles

Mrs. L. S. Baca . Los Angeles

Stiles Clements Bever ly Hills

Mattison B. Jones . . . . . . Glendale

O. F. Cooley, County Road Commissioner

Alfred Jones, County Surveyor

Spence D. Turner, County Forester and

Fir e Warden

Wm. J. Fox, Chief Engineer

The Regional Planning Commission

Ar thur H. Adams, Assistant Chief Engineer


3/112

A C O M PR E H E N SIV E R E PO R T

on the

M A ST E R PL A N O F H IG H W AY S

for the

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT

VOLUME I

THE PLAN AND ITS PREPARATION

S .C .R J . D . L I B R A R Y

THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT

1941

LIBRARY

L OS ANGELES RA1L .W ~Y


4/112

02121

HE

3~56+ 5.L7

L67

v.1.

Honora ble Boar d of Supervisor s

County of Los Angeles

Calif ornia

On Fe bruar y 27, 1940 your honorable bod y adopted the

Master Plan of Highways of the Los Angeles County Regional

Planning District.

The present r e port is intend ed to make the details of that

Plan available to of f icials and to the general public f or ref er-

ence, and to outline a reasonable and practical means f or

putting this Master Plan into effect. Volume II will treat of

the means of execution in detail. It will analyze in d etail the

cost of com pleting the highways proposed in the Plan, dur ing

a reasonable per iod of time, the legal means available or

needed and the funds that can be expected dur ing the period

of development, to the end that a d efinite policy may be

established f or the efficient expend iture of highway f und s.

A com prehensive transportation plan, now in prepar ation,

will further amplify some of the implications of the Highway

Plan leading to a desirable coordination of var ious tr ans-

portation f acilities.


5/112

T A B L E OF

Recommend ations

Introduction

C O N T E N T SPage

....... vii

.viii

The Los Angeles County Highway Pr oblem 13

How Many Highways Will Be Needed ? 20

The Location of Highways 34

What Kind of Highway Will Be Adequate? . 51

How Can Los Angeles County Complete the Highway System Planned ? 75

Page

1. Streets and Highways, Investments .. 132. Distribution of Land Uses ... .233. Motor Vehicle R egistration. .29

Page

4. Highway Pavement Req uir ed 325. Grad e Crossing Elimination Pr ogram. 66

6. Standar d Highway Cross Sections .. 72

Page

A Portion of The Arroyo Seco Freeway .. 15

Typical Freeway Treatment 16Overpass on Cahuenga Fr eeway .17Slot Type Inter section on Cahuenga

Freeway . . . . . . . . . . . 18Ratio of Highway Pavement to

Population .Population Trend Po pulation DensityAutomobiles, Po pulation, Per sons Per

Automobile Z8Vehicular Flow and Lane Density 30

Normal Dr iving Time 31Distribution of Population, 1940

Showing Transit Lines 33

Topography .35

First Street, Los Angeles, Wid ening 36

Marina Del Rey 39

Highway System Ser ving R esidence .40

Highway System Ser ving Commerce ... 41

Highway System Serving Airports .42

Highway System Ser ving R ail Ter -

minals . 42

Highway System Serving Agriculture .. 43Highway System Serving Recr eation ... 43Highway System Serving Airplane In-

dustry .. . ... 44

Highway System Serving AutomobileInd ustr ies .

Highway System Serving Motion Pic-tur e Industries .45

Highway System Serving Industries ... 45

Highway System Serving State Wide

Traf fic 46

.. 21.... 25.26

Page

Beverly Hills Highway Plan .47Whittier Highway Plan 47

Pasadena Highway Plan 48

Glendale Highway Plan .. . .. 48Eaton Canyon Parkway .50

Traf fic Behavior on Cur ves 53

Of f Street Parking . . 54, 55Standar d Cross Sections, Ma jor

Highways 56Progr essive Development, Major

HighwaysSu per -elevation Required Progressive Development,

Highways

Divid ed HighwaysIntersection, Washington and Culver

Blvds. . .

Major Highway Grade Separ ationCloverleaf Inter section

San Gabriel Valley Gr ad e Separ ation

Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67Par k on Santa Monica Blvd .,

Beverly Hills 68

Highways Through Residential Areas .. 69Divided Highway in a Business

District ..... 70Transformation from Street to Highway 73Ar royo Seco Freeway 74Development o·f Major Highways 76, 77

Garvey Avenue Wid ening 78, 79Sunset Boulevard Widening 80, 81Olympic Boulevard Widening 82, 83Automobile Parking at Hollywood

Park . . . . . . . . . . 87Theoretical Highway Capacity .91

............ Back Cover Pocket

... 58.......... 59

Secondi'Y.............. 60

.61

.62...... 63

.64


6/112

OFFICE OF THE BO A RD OF S U PERV ISORS OF THE

C OU N TY OF LOS A N G E LES , STATE OF C A LI F OR N IA ,

T U ESDAY , FEBRUARY 27t h, 1940.

T he Boar d met in r egular session. Pr esent: Supervisor s Roger W. J essup,

Chairman presiding, W m. A. S mith, Gor d on L. McDonough, J ohn AnsonF ord and Oscar H auge; and L. E . Lam pton , Clerk , by Genevieve 0' Bannon ,

De puty Clerk.

I N R E MASTER PLAN OF

HIGH WAYS FOR THE

COUN TY OF LOS ANGEL E S

AND FOR LOS ANGELES

COU N TY REGIONAL

PLA NN ING DISTRICT:

ORD E R ADOPTI N G PLA N.

T his being t he time regularly fixed b y

or d er o f t his Board adopted on F ebruar y

13th, 1940, f or hearing on t he pr o posed

ad o ption of the " M aster Plan o f High-

ways f or the County o f Los Angeles ," and

the " M ast er Plan of H ighways f or the

Los Angeles C ounty Regional Planning

District ," as ad o pt ed b y the Regional Planning C ommission on F ebruary 7t h ,1940 , and as submit ted to this Board by said Commission on February 7th ,

j 940; and d ue notice o f said hearing having been published as required b y

law , said matter is called up; an opp01·tunity is given for any penon present

t o be heard and the Boai' d is addressed by F rank Lanterman , Fenton K night ,

C has. R . Rollin, Silas M. C ain, and ot hen; and on motion of S upervisor M c- Donough, unanimously carr ied , it is or d er ed that the Board o f Super visor s o f

the C ounty of Los Angeles her eby ad opts as the M aster Plan o f the Count y o f

Los Angeles that certain H ighway Plan shown on ma ps on file in the off ice o f

this Boar d entit led " The Master Plan , M etro polit an Area , C ounty o f Los An-

geles , H ighway Plan ," and " T he Master Plan , N 01,th Portion , County o f Los

Angeles , H ighway Plan."

And it is further or d ered that the Board o f S u pervisors of the Count y of

Los Angeles hereby ad o pt as t he Master Plan o f the Los Angeles C ounty

Regional Planning Dist rict that certain H ighway Plan shown on ma ps on file

in the office o f this Boar d entitled res pect ivel y , " T he M aster Plan , Met ro polit an

Ar ea, Count y of Los Angeles , H ighway Plan" and " T helf!l,1aster Plan, N or th

Portion, C ount y o f Los Angeles , H ighwa y Plan."

And it is f urther ord ered that the act ion her ein tak en by t his Board in

ap proving said M ast er Plan of H ighways be cer ti f ied by the C ler k o f this

Board on said document and on each o f said ma ps; it being hereby d eclared

that said Master Plan o f H ighwa ys is established t o conserve and promote the

public health , sa f ety and general welf are.

T he foregoing order was adopted b y t he Boat ' d o f S u per vison of the C ountyo f Los Angeles , S tate o f C ali f ornia, on F ebruary 27th, 1940, and is ent ered ill

t he Minutes o f said Board.

L. E. LAMPTON, C ounty Cler k o f t he

C ounty of Los Angeles , S tate of Cali-

fornia, and ex-O jficio Cler k o f the

Boar d o f S u pervisor s of said C ounty.

B y: Alice Bm' k s (S igned )

De puty.


7/112

R EC OM M E ND A T rO NS

(1) That the Master Plan be str ictly ad her ed to m the future acquisition, widen-

ing and construction of all highways within the Region.

(2) That lhe basis for f inancing all acq uisition and construction shall includ e the

fund s d erived under State Law from the motor vehicle fuel tax and from motor vehicle

licenses.

(3) That the State statutes governing the d istr ibution of motor vehicle and gaso-

line tax fund s be so amended as to provide that as a cond ition pr eced ent to the allo-

cation of any such fund s to any political subdivision of the State, such subd ivision shall

have adopted a Master Plan of Highways in accord ance with the Planning Act of the

State of Califor nia and that such fund s shall be expend ed only upon highways included

in such Master Plan.

(4) That State Legislation be sought to pr ovid e f or the creation of a county-wid e

Highway Author ity char ged with the custody of all highway funds, and their expend i-

ture in accordance with the Master Plan and a sound prior ity pr ogram based on actual

traf f ic need s.

(5) That the county-wide Highway Authority be empowered to use motor vehicle

and gasoline tax fund s for the acquisition of highway rights of way.

(6) That a reasonable proportion of highway fund s shall be lawf ully devoted to

adequate r esearch and study of saf ety, traff ic conditions and highway needs.

(7) That traffic need s beyond the scope of this Highway Plan be met by the

adoption of a Master Plan of Fr eeways and construction of such Freeways together

with development of highways, wher ever practicable, with d ivided road ways, separated

intersections and lik e facilities to exped ite traf f ic flow.'t

(8) That it be the policy of the Board of Supervisor s to ad opt as off icial plans,

upon r ecommendation of The R egional Planning Commission, pr ecised sections of the

Master Plan of Highways, and to pr ovid e by or d inance for the fullest protection of

ind ividual alignments in unincor por ated por tions of the County.

(9) That each incor porated city within the R egion be urged to ad opt a Master

Plan of Highways and pr ecised official plans based thereon, in accordance with the

procedur e set forth in the Planning Act of the State of California.

(l0) That the of f icials of the cities and the county, with the cooperation of state

officials, establish the maximum possible legal protection of rights-of -way and tr affic

capacity of highways by means of planning and zoning, and jointly resist all effor ts to

nullify such pr otection.

(11) That the Boar d of Super visor s, Planning Commissions and other pu blic offi-

cials end eavor to pr omote pu blic interest in and under stand ing of the Master Plan, so

as to assure the continued coo peration of all concerned .


8/112

INTRODUCTION

I e Jhe Regional Planning Commission has previously published , in 1929 cmd 1931,

partial reports on two sections of the Re-

gional Plan of Highways for Los Angeles

CountY.CThe complete Master Plan of High-

ways is here presented for the first tim~.'

Of greater significance, the status of the

present plan d if fer s materially from that of

those earlier portions. Those sections had

been approved by resolutions of the Re-

gional Planning Commission, the Board of

Supervisors, and the City Councils of twenty-

six cities. On December 22, 1936, the Board

of Supervisor s had , by resolution, adopted

the plan f or the entire county as the Off icial

Regional Plan of Highways for Los Angeles

County.

In 1937, however , the California legisla-

ture amended the Calif ornia Planning Act,

Statutes 1937, Chapter 665,-"An act to

provide for the establishment of master and

official plans in cities, cities and counties,

and for the creation of regional planning

districts . . ." necessitating substantialchanges in procedure. Two items are par-

ticularly important in connection with this

report. The f irst is the requirement that

"every city and county shall adopt and

establish as herein provided a master plan

of said city and county .... to conserve

and promote the public health, safety and

general welf are," and sets forth as one of

the subjects matter of which such a plan

shall consist, a "Streets and Highways Plan,"

"showing the general locations and widths

of a comprehensive system of m(fOr traffic

thoroughfares and other traffic ways and of

streets and the recommended treatment

thereof ."

THE REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT

In regard to the second point, it is neces-

sar y to clar if y the legal distinction, as en-

tities for planning purposes under this Act,

between the "County of Los Angeles" and the "Los Angeles County Regional Planning

District." Section 2.2 of the Planning Act

reads as f ollows:

"For the purpose of pr oviding

State coordinated regional plan-

ning, the State Planning Boar d

shall divide the State into region-

al planning d istricts. These dis-

tricts shall be established so far

as possi ble so as to include:

"(a) Natural physiographicaregions containing com pIe t e

watersheds of major stream sys-

tems, together with the land upon

which the waters of such water-

sheds are put to beneficial use;

"(b) Areas having mutual so-

cial and commercial interests, as

exemplif ied by radiating and

connecting routes of transporta-

tion, by trade, and by common

use of recreation areas within the

region."

The State Planning Board on October 21,

1939, established the County of Los Angeles

as one such Regional Planning Distr ict. The

Act further provides (Sec. 2.4) that "If the

regional district consists of but one county,

the county planning commission for that

county shall be ex of ficio the regional

planning commission. " The member s of the

County Commission, therefore, meet as The

Regional Planning Commission of the Los

Angeles County Regional Planning District

at regular intervals. There are im portant

differences in the functions of these two

bodies. Many problems, such as the r egu-

lation of land subdivision, the pre paration

and administration of zoning in the unin-

corpor ated por tions of the County are

"County matters requiring detailed atten-

tion." The duties assigned by law to the


9/112

"Regional District," on the other hand , are

of a more general character, with em phasis

placed upon the "coordination of city plans

with the county plan" and of the County

Plan with that of adjacent counties and

other r egions of the State. Under the lawit is su perior to the "County" Commission

and stand s in a mor e authoritative relation-

ship to the incorporated cities within the

County than d oes the latter . The Planning

Act provides (Section 4.6) that "The county

and city commissions ... shall acce pt and

embody in the r espective master plans un-

der their control the features and findings

of the res pective r egional planning commis-

sions in matters pertaining to the regional

and State welfar e."

EARLY PROGRESS O N THE

HIGHWAY PLAN

Long befor e this time, however , rapid

development of highway pr o blems in the

region had been a primary factor among

the forces that led to the establishment of

The Regional Planning Commission in De-

cember , 1922. In May, 1923, the Board of

Supervisor s in a formal resolution had

urged the "need of working out this systemor networ k of highways" upon all official

bodies concer ned , and it became at once a

major task of the new Commission.

In the year s that followed much had been

accomplished . A preliminary plan f or a

comprehensive network of through high-

ways had been set up as a guide to sub-

division activity and road constr uction.

Many miles of right-of -way 80 and 100 f eet

wide had been thus secur ed without cost

to the pu blic by d edication along the lineof planned thoroughfares, in connection with

new su bd ivisions. Even more had been

obtained , also without cost, by outright deed

where no subdivision was involved . Co-

ordination of highway construction of the

forty-five incor por ated cities and of the

county had been und ertak en with mar k ed

success.

MASTER PLAN HEARINGS

In or der to realize the functions and auth-

ority im plied in the establishment of a Re-

gional Planning District it now became nec-

essary to re-adopt these alread y operative

plans as Master Plans und er the procedure

of the Planning Act. For the convenience

of the pu blic, the required hear ings on

Master Plans are set f or both Commissions

at the same time and place (since the mem-

bershi p is identical). But they ar e acted

upon separately for the District and for the

County. At the Highway Plan hearings maps

showing the entire plan were d isplayed and

explained to inter ested assemblages of of -

ficials and citizens. All suggestions and

criticisms of the Plan were given seriousconsid eration, and further refinement of de-

tail followed . The Plan was then on Febr u-

ary 7, 1940, formally adopted by Resolution

as "The Master Plan of Highways, Los An-

geles R egional Planning District." Thus, it

has the end orsement of a R egional Com-

mission, appointed by the Gover nor of the

State and charged with consid er ation of its

quality as a par t of a state-wid e plan. It

was also ad opted on the same d ay, by the

Commission sitting as a County Planning

Commission, as the Master Plan of High-

ways for the County of Los Angeles, thus

pr e paring it for cer tification to the Board of

Super visor s as both a local and a r egional

plan.

FINAL ADOPTION

The next ste p was to certify an attested

copy of the Master Plan to the Board of

Supervisor s, who in their turn held a public

hear ing on the Plan. At that time eight

lar ge scale maps, showing in color the

alignment of ~very f eature of the pro posed

networ k of major and second ar y Highways

covered the walls of the hearing room. The

Chief Engineer of the Commission's technical

staff went over the maps in d etail, answer-

ing q uestions and clar ifying objectives. The

formal resolutions of the Commission, cer ti-

fying the ado ption of the Plan f or the Re-

gional Planning District and for the County,


10/112

and r ecommending its appr oval by the

Board , were r ead. The Board had also in-

vited to appear bef or e it of f icial representa-

tives of all the incorpor ated cities, and the

absence of any o pposition to the Plan

demonstrated the value 6f the year s of preparation, conf erence, and coord ination

which had preceded that important oc-

casion.

Ado ption of the Plan by the Boar d fol-

lowed and on Februar y 27, 1940, the Master

Plan of Highways came into its well-ear ned

legal status.

The pr ocedur e ihus far , may seem to be

only a matter of technical conf ormity to the

letter of the state law, but it does d iff er in

fact f r om the same operations in communi-

ties where the earlier work had not been

carried as far toward completion prior to

the ad option of the Planning Act. It is

f urthermore impor tant to realize that none

of that ear lier wor k was wasted effor t. The

period of time d ur ing which the plan had

an official status as a Regional Plan of

Highways sub jected it to the severe test of

most searching examination and cr iticism

growing out of application of the plan in

countless construction pr ojects. The value

of this cour se was ind icated by the resultantcorrection of a num ber of minor details, so

as to provide a more complete har mony

with local policies or with other phases of

the comprehensive plan. Of even gr eater

signif icance was the very small number of

changes in the major f eatures of the plan.

The Master Plan is, as has been noted ,

an instrument clearly defined by the State

Planning Act. But to accomplish its own

objectives the Master Plan must go beyond a legalistic descr i ption on a pie~ of pa per .

Planning is essentially a continuing process,

and constant ref inement of detail in the

light of changing trends and technical ad ··

vances must always be mad e. The f ailure

to ap ply this princi ple explains why many

so-called plans have never pr ogressed be-

yond the stage of fancied perfection on

diagrammatic sk etches. In this Region the

policy has always been, not to sto p with a

general plan as f ir st carefully outlined , but

to proceed f rom such a plan as a starting

point, to examine every detail in the light

of field surveys and related information, and to continue the stud ies until there is a def -

inite determination of what need s to be

done, where and why. The aim has been

and is to present, not a generalized d octr ine

of theoretical per f ection, but a tested , pr ac-

tical and precisely f ixed alignment for each

element of the plan.

The city engineer s and the city planning

commissions, and all other agencies, official

and unofficial, interested in the Plan are

constantly brought into consultation, the

Commission acting thr oughout as a central

coordinating agency. The gener al pu blic

is kept constantly informed as to the prog-

r ess of the Plan, through the maps which

are always available f or consultation, and

through visual presentation of special pro-

jects and stud ies.

DETAILED ALIG NMENTS

Through the cooperation of the County

Surveyor most of the proposed highways

have been precisely sur veyed and accur ate

maps have been pre pared to show their exact alignment, cur vature, and relation to

existing impr ovements and property lines.

In many cases large-scale maps are pre-

par ed by the County Surveyor , giving suf -

ficient dimensions to make it possi ble f or

each landowner to know exactly where the

lines tr aver se his pr operty. Refer ences to

these surveys and to build ing line ord i-

nances are car ef ully entered upon the d is-

play ma ps used in the office of the Commis-

sion for the ad ministration of the Plan. The

precise or "Official Plans" contem plated bythe Planning Act are therefore read y for

execution as the need ar ises.

Many f eatur es of the Plan have, as a

result of these activities, been tr anslated

into r eality, and today offer working demon-

strations of the value of advance planning,

integrated with governmental adminis-

tr ation.


11/112

The task thus com pleted is only a found a-

tion. It represents but one, though a basical-

ly impor tant phase, of the Planning Com-

mission's work . It could not even be de-

veloped without the develo pment in parallel

of numerous other items of the com prehen-

sive plan.* The plan of air ports, for ex-

ample, had to be well-ad vanced , and sites

of future air ports determined upon before

f ixing upon highway locations in the vicin-

ity. Par ks and par k ways, r ecr eational ar eas,

commercial and ind ustr ial centers, cultural

center s, and areas of greater or lesser

density of residential use had to be stud ied

and planned , for not only d o they depend

upon the location of highways in some de-gree, but also the proper location of high-

ways depend s u pon them.

TR ANSPORTAnO N PLANNI NG

, NECESSARY

Probably the most closely related sub ject

in the planning f ield is transportation. The

. miles of highways, together with the ve-

hicles upon them, constitute a large and

im por tant part of the trans por tation system

of the r egion, consider ing both passenger s

and fr eight. They do not, however , con-tribute many of the controlling influences

in either trans portation or the spread of

population and industry. Facilities for mass

trans portation, by r ail and bus, had and

still have effects of the greatest importance

in the cr eation and maintenance of business

d istricts, in the successful operation of in-

*The Master Plan of Airpor ts was ado pted in1941.

The Master Plan of Shoreline Development wasad opted in 1941.

The Master Plan of the Civic Center was adopted

in 1941 by both the County and the City of LosAngeles.

The Master Plan of Land Use, adopted in 1940,merely conforms to procedure und er the presentPlanning Act. Its precise plans, the var ious sec-tions of the Zoning Ord inance, have been in for cesince 1927.

The Subdivision Ordinance has been in effectsince 1933, and has been regulating, among other things, the ar rangement of local streets.

Other plans of the Commission which have never en joyed the technical status of "Master Plans" arementioned thr oughout this report. •

dustr ial enterprises and in the develo pment

of resid ential districts.

The Master Plan of Highways will con-

tinue to be su bject to some change until a

positive Trans por tation Plan has been

agreed upon and put into oper ation. Only

when this has been d one, can many pr ob-

lems of carr ying out the Highway Plan be

solved with f inal assurance. The Regional

Planning Commission is now enqaged in

the compilation of the many surveys and

proposals that have been made f rom time

to time on this sub ject. A certain amount

of original research will provid e new in-

formation and br ing old mater ial up-to-d ate.

It is hoped that the wor k can be completed ,

culminating in a com pr ehensive plan for organizing the transportation facilities of

this r egion, within two years. It is con-

templated that this one plan will cover mass

tr ans portation by common carrier s (exclu-

sive of steam r ailroads), freeways' and some

aspects of highway transportation not cov-

ered in the present r e port such as the cent-

ral d istrict parking pr o blem.

This inter -dependence of all phases of the

Master Plan need s to be borne carefully in

mind also in connection with any pr oposed

amendments to the Highway Plan as nowadopted. These cannot be under taken

lightly, or considered inde pendently of their

effect upon the d is position of the other

items mentioned. Any change in one ele-

ment has its effect upon the rest, and must,

ther ef ore, be most carefully stud ied in its

relationship to the whole.

PROVISION FOR AMENDME NTS

We have pointed out that planning is a

continuing pr ocess, so that no plan, how-

ever arr ived at, is ever r eally complete and final. The Planning Act (Section 5) pro-

vides that "The commission may from time

to time amend , extend or add to the master

plan or part thereof , as her ein pr ovided f or

the adoption thereof , whenever changed

conditions or further studies by the commis-

sion require such amend ment, extension or

add ition." The Commission has always held


12/112

that the most vital part of its work is the

constant integration of the Plan with actual

development, and adjustment to meet

changing cond itions is under stood to be in-

evitable. But seventeen y~ar s of colla bora-

tion have prod uced a basic networ k of

highway alignments, which is now q uite

definitely fixed and ' is relied upon by all

concerned with the physical d evelopment

of the Region and its individual com-

munities.

It is therefore considered proper at the

present time to make available thr ough

publication and wide distr i bution, this of -

ficially adopted Master Plan of Highways

as a record of pr ogress and a guide with

which we can pr ess for ward confidently inthe work of developing this great Metr o-

politan Area.

A good plan properly conceived and

consistently followed will eliminate waste-

f ul expenditures, through adjustment of ~on-

struction to har monize with current need s,and must result in ma jor economies.

The carr ying out of the Plan here pr e-

sented will mean a substantial cash saving

to the citizens of today and tomorr ow.

Millions are actually expended ever y year

on highway construction. The plan proposes

wise d istr i bution of such fund s in str ict

accord ance with traf f ic needs, in line with

present and anticipated growth, and in

harmony with other physical development,

so that the right dollar may be spent in the

right place.

W HER EAS , T he Regional Planning C ommission of the Los Angeles C ounty Regional Planning Dist rict , C ali-

f or nia , ha s, b y Resolution, (adopt ed on t he 7t h d a y of F ebruary, 1940) d eclared it s int ention t o adopt a M ast er Plan

of the Los Angeles C ounty Regional Planning Dist ric t, pu rsuant to the pr ovisions o f T he P Lanning Act , as amended

b y Cha pt er 665, S tatut es 1937, and

lV HEREAS , S ection 4 o f t he Planning Act pr ovid es f or t he ado ption o f a M astel' P Lan of S t r eet s and H ighways

showing the gener a L Locat ion and wid ths of a com pr ehensive system of ma;or t horough f ar es and other t r aff ic ways

and of street s and the r ecommended t r eatment thereo f , and

lV HER E AS , T he Regiona L PLanning C ommission has pre pared a comprehensive H ighwa y PLan of the ent ir e Dis-

t rict inc Luding t he incorpor at ed cities , which plan is shown by symboLs as M a;or and S econdary H ighwa ys on two

maps entitLed res pect ive L y " T he M ast el' PLan , M etropoLitan Ar ea , C ount y of Los Ange Les, Highway P Lan" and " The M ast el' Plan , N orth Portion , C ount y of Los Ange Les , H ighwa y Plan ," and

W " HERE AS , a f te ,· due not ice o f the time and p Lace t her eo f, published in a news paper of gener a L circu Lat ion

in the District , a pub Lic hearing was heLd on the 15t h d a y o f N ovembe,' , 1939, t o consid er the ad o ption o f a " M astel' Plan f or the Los Ange Les C ounty Regiona L P Lanning Di Jtr ict ," at which the above-ment ioned p Lal1 wa J publicl y d is-

played ;

NOW, T HERE F ORE , B E IT R E SO LV E D: T h.at T he Regiona L Planning C ommission her eby ad o ptJ as the

Mast er PLan o f the Los Angeles C ounty Regiona L Pla.nning Dist rict t hat cer tain Highway Plan shown on th e two

above-mentioned ma ps entit Led reJ pect ive L y, " T he M astel' PLan, Metr o politan Area , C o un ty o f Los Angeles, H igh-

wa y Plan" and " T he M astel' P Lan , North Portion , Count y o f Los Ange Les, Highway Plan"; and

BE IT F U RT HER RES O LV ED: That the ado pt ion o f said M ast er P Lan shall be cer ti f ied and at t ested on each

of the said ma ps by the signat m'es of the C hairman , the Chief E ngineer, and t he S ecret ar y o f t he C ommission , and

t hat at t est e d c opi es o f the said ma ps be cer t i fied t o t he Board o f Super visor s o f t he C ount y of Los Ange Les; and

BE I T F U RTHER RESOLVED: That T he Regional Planning C ommission recommends that the Board of S uper -

11isors o f the C ounty of Los AngeLeJ a ppr ove and ad opt said M aste r PLan aft er ho Lding a pubLic hearing as pre scr ibed

b y law , and certifying their action 011 each co py of the m aps r e f er red to , which accompany t his r esolut ion; and

BE I T FU RTH E R RES O LV ED: T hat T he Regional P Lanning C ommission recommends that th e Board o f S uper -visors d eter mine u pon r easonab Le and practica L means o f putting into e ffect this M ast er P Lan , in o,'der that t he same

may serve as a p at tem and guide f or the ord erL y ph ysical g.-o wth and d evelo pment o f the Los Angeles Region and as

a basis f o r the e f ficient e xpenditure of t he funds ther eof re Latin/ !, to the sub;ects o f t he M astel' PLan and t o conser ' ve

and promote the p ublic hea Lt h , sa fet y and gener al weLf ar e; and

. BE I T FURTHER R ESOLVE D: That cert i fied copies o f this ResoLution be t r ansmitted to said Bo ar d o f S uper -v I sor s.

I her eb y certif y t hat t he f 01egoin/!, is a f ull , t rue and conect copy o f a ResoLution ad o pted by the RegionaL P Lanning

C ommission o f the Los Angeles C ounty Regiona L P Lan ning District , S tate of C a Lif omia, in r egu Lar assembl y on t he

7 t h d a y of F ebmary , 1940, and entered in the minutes o f said C ommission.

(,r ) I rma Ruthe ,- ,

S ecretary of The RegionaL P Lanning C ommission of the LOJ AngeLe ,r C ounty RegionaL P Lanning

Di ,r trict, State of C a Lifomia.


13/112

I

T H E L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y H IG H W AY

P R O B L E MIn Los Angeles County there are now

over 150 square miles of land devoted to

use as streets and highways. They provide

near ly 13,000 linear miles of rights-of-way

f or traf fic movements and access to proper-

ty. This immense area already in public

ownership is, nevertheless, inadequate in

some respects, chiefly because the widths

and alignments of many of the streets and

highways have not been determined on the

basis of a plan scientifically related to the

traffic needs.

Wide highways in open country where

land is cheap and plentiful streets in

" paper " subdivisions where the houses are

f ew characterize the outlying sections. In

contrast, narrow, crowded streets in the

older and most densely occupied sections

f ail to accommodate the traff ic load. On

these older, more heavily traveled routes

old " bottle necks" and " jogs" dam up the

traf fic streams until they practically ceaseto f low. Finally, after wasteful delays these

obstructions are opened up at increasingly

heavy cost. Local traf fic and thr ough traff ic

on the same thoroughfare interfere with

each other, causing more delay and acci-

dents, while irregular patterns of local

streets add much unnecessary intersection

traf f ic to the confusion.

HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION IS

MASS TRANSPOR TATION

The problem is no new one, but has beendeveloping with increasing intensity ever

since the advent of motor transportation.

Today over a million motor vehicles move

upon Los Angeles County streets and high-

ways, traveling annually some eight billion

miles. Collectively this vast machine for

what must now be def initely recognized as

"mass transportation" must represent an

investment, f or vehicles alone, of at least

500 million dollars.

The land used f or all str eet and highway

purposes, estimated conser vatively at a

minimum average value of $2000 an acre,

re presents a capital investment of nearly

two hundred millions, and the impr ove-

ments, including pavement and signals,

have a present value of not less than four

hundred millions of dollar s.

Table l.

STR EETS AND HIGHWAYS

INVESTME NT IN EXISTING

IMPROVEMENTS

Los Angeles County

Miles Construction Cost

880 @ $50,000 $ 44,000,0003,000 @ 80,000 240,000,000

5,000 @ 20,000 100,000,000

State HighwaysMa jor Tr affic Streets ..

Local StreetsUnimproved

(or low type)

Annually we spend f or new acquisitions,

improvements and maintenance on the

street and highway system of the County,

well over $10,000,000.

Replacement of rolling stock must ap-

proximate 10'10, or 50 millions of dollars

annually, while the money spent for gaso-

line, oil, tires, and repairs on vehicles fig-

ured at 2c per mile, reaches the astonishing

sum of 160 million dollars per year .

These broad facts alone are sufficient to point to the conclusion that motor trans-

por tation plays 9 - most important part in the

modern community lif e of Los Angeles

County, and that a concerted effort to

remed y present known def ects and in some

measur e for esee and provide for future

need s is imperative. In succeeding chapters

of this repor t a closer , more detailed study


14/112

of the inadequacy of our partly completed

highway system, both quantitative and

qualitative will be presented , not in sub-

stantiation of the above statement, but in

a sincere effort to show by careful analysis

the factual bases of the Master Plan of

Highways.

The importance to ever y ind ivid ual in the

community of a g ood system of str eets and

highways will pr oba bly not be questioned ,

and is scarcely to be over -estimated. Ever y-

one is d aily affected, for better or wor se,

by the r elative efficiency of the trans porta-

tion system. He depend s u pon it, d ir ectly

or indirectly, f or ever y activity of his homeand business lif e. Whether he commute from

Alhambra or South Gate or be a resident of

a downtown or Wilshire d istrict apar tment,

he is sub ject to the delays and d anger s of

congestion and s peeding cars. Whether he

be a dr iver , a r ider in public conveyance,

or a ped estrian, he must face the problem

of getting from home to work, from store

to war ehouse, f rom town to countr y and

back again.

The value of r eal pr operty is greatly af -

f ected by its relative accessi bility. The Ante-

lope Valley r ancher , the Glend ora orange

grower or the Artesia dairyman must be

able to send his hay, oranges or milk to

mark et; the manufacturer in Vernon or Bur-

bank must receive raw mater ials and d is-

tribute his f inished prod uct. For this trans-

portation both f armer and manufacturer de-

pend more and more each year upon motor

vehicles which move over the public road s.

H the road s ar e good , the savings in trans-

portation costs are ref lected in lower pricesand higher stand ard s of living for buyer

and seller alike. The business man and

his customer are gravely aff ected by the

efficiency of bus and street car ser vice; the

efficiency with which d elivery tr ucks can

reach the customer 's home is a factor in

the prices of the retailer 's goods and the

patronage he ear ns.

The producer and ,the consumer are

joined by means of these public rights-of -

way, whether they deal in airplanes or oil,

in motion-pictur es or the morning news- pa per . Farm to mark et road s must reach

f r om thousand s of farms thr ough d istribut~

ing ter minals to hund r ed s of thousands of

ind ivid ual homes. The homes themselves

are made of constr uction materials which

come fr om many sources and are tr ans-

por ted largely on highways f rom sour ce to

build ing site. Thus the new value created

by dwelling construction is in part derived

fr om the highways over which construction

materials were tr ansported.

The motor vehicle has gr eatly incr eased

the mo bility of the ind ivid ual. Grea~er earn-

ing power and wider o pportunities for the

en joyment of social activities have r esulted .

The resident of Compton find s em ployment

in an airplane factory at Santa Monica,

Downey or Burbank. The Glend ale busi-

ness man can go in f or yachting if it is con-

venient for him to keep a boat at Long

Beach or Balboa. Rural and urban lif e have

become less d if f erentiated , and inter -city

and inter -state tr avel commonplace to all.

The collective value to the community of

all these things is a measure of the value

. of our str eets and highways, since without

them it could not be attained .

In the larger sense, a highway may be

thought of as any publicly-owned strip of

land dedicated to and improved f or the

purpose of pr ovid ing access to property,and of provid ing f or movement of good s

and persons f r om one place to another .

This would, of cour se,' includ e local streets

and even alleys, and , legally, that is the

case. But it is more convenient in plan-

ning, to limit the term somewhat, and to

classif y these "stri ps of land " under more

specific names.


15/112

When the pr imary purpose of such a strip

is to give immed iate access to the land on

either side, we think of it as a local street.

The ideal in wor k ing out the ar r angementof such streets is to red uce to a minimum,

tr affic other than that r eq uired for immed i-

ate access, although most local streets d o

accommodate some through movement.

Ad equate r egulation of land subd ivision,

com bined with some measure of re- platting

in certain ar eas, generally of f er s a satis-

factory method of dealing with problems of

minor str eets and their r elation to other

classes of public ways. This R epor t has to

do, not with them, but with the thorough-

fares carrying heavy tr affic. The Master

Plan of Highways for the Los Angeles Coun-

ty R egional Planning Distr ict, as of ficially

ad opted by the Board of Supervisor s of the

County, constitutes, with regard to minor or

local str eets a skeleton guide, which taken

together with the Subd ivision Ord inance

provid es for an order ly d evelopment along

the highways. Its im portance in this r es pect

cannot be over-emphasized , and its value

while d e pend ent partly upon the cooper a-

tion of land d evelo per s, still requires united

support of those who ar e charged by law

with the d uty of car rying it out. The success

throughout the past seventeen year s of the

Los Angeles County Regional Planning

Commission in obtaining such coo peration

f rom subdivid er s d ur ing the period of d e-

velopment of the Highway Plan has con-

tr ibuted much to mak e possible the com-

pletion and final adoption of that plan.

The Master Plan of Highways has to d o

with the location and d esign of the ways

whose primar y function is to facilitate move-

ment of large volumes of tr affic f rom one part

of the ar ea to another . To them, the ter m


16/112

subject to mor e inter f erence with traf -

f ic flow than would the f r eeways. In

many instances they would ser ve as

feed ers to the fr eeways. They would

carry large volumes of tr af fic and ex-tend continuously through the region,

but would not pr ovide for as fast

service as the freeways.

3. A system of secondary highways,

similar to major highways but de-

signed for smaller volumes of traf f ic.

Serving in part as f eeder s to the ma-

jor highways and freeways they

would not necessar ily be continuous

through the entire region and would

be subject to slightly mor e traff ic

interference than the major highways.

They would ordinar ily serve more to

provide frontage and access f or abut-

ting pro perty than would the ma jor

highways.

Filling in the s paces between the three

pr eced ing classes, are the minor streets,

composed as nearly as is pr actically pos-

si ble into a ser ies of su b-systems. The

pr ime function in this case is to provide

f r ontage to abutting property, not to car r y

any large volume of traf fic or at any great

speed s. The streets ser ve as f eeder s to and

d istr ibutors from all the highways, but onlyr arely would they have any direct connec-

tion to freeways.

The develo pment of a plan for a system

of highways adequate for the growing

need s of Los Angeles County, was neces-

sar ily begun by seeking to make use, as

much as possi ble, of highways or streets

already existing in 1923. Many of the high-

ways shown on page 76 were at that time

merely local streets woefully inadequate inthat they were narrow or unpaved or d is-

connected segments of what eventually was

to become a highway. Many of the tr ue

highway routes of that time followed d evi-

ous routes with sharp-angled turns, nar r ow

brid ges, inadequate directional signs and .

uncer tain status within the incor por ated

cities. One ty pical example was Lexington-

Gallatin Road , from £1 Monte to Downey


17/112

which had 20 right-angle turns in a d istance

of 12V 2 miles. Por tions of this old wagon

road are included in several different high-

ways in the pr esent Master Plan, and one

of these, Rosemead Boulevar d , now devel-

o ped has no such tur ns in the entire route.

After accepting this situation as a basis,

the d evelo pment of an adequate Highway

Plan was a problem in engineering design

both set and solved by a series of q uite

definite and calculable factor s. The prin-

ciples under lying this process can be set

f orth clearly and simply, although the ap pli-

cation of these pr inciples has been, because

of the magnitude of the ar ea, com plex and

difficult-a task that has taken a long time,

and involved the combined effor ts of many

people.

THE ENGINEER ING APPROACH

It is r e por ted* that General John J. Carty,

Chief Engineer of the New York Tele phone

Company had thr ee fir st questions to be

applied to ever y engineering pro posal that

came bef ore him for review:

1. Why d o this at all?

2. Why d o it now?

3. Why d o it this way?

In the case of a system of highways for

Los Angeles County a bundant evid ence of

the prime need answers the fir st q uestion

so broadly, and in the mind s of so lar ge a

bod y of the public that it need s not be d is-

cussed at this point. It is suff icient to say

that the need for a system being recog-

nized , the same questions ar e then to be

applied to the various elements that ar e

und er consid eration for mak ing up that

system. In analyzing the highway pr o blem

f or this r egion these three basic questions

may be restated as follows:

1. How many highways will be requir ed ?

The answer d epends upon the population

to be served , the number of vehicles they

use, and the resultant volume of traff ic to

be accommod ated .

* Principles of Engineer ing E conom y; Grant, the

R onald Pr ess, N. Y.; 1930.

2. Where should they be placed ?

Here the relationshi p of the highways to

one another , to the communities within the

Region, and to the other featur es of the

comprehensive Master Plan f or the d evelop-

ment of the R egion as a whole, are the pr imar y consider ations.

3. What k ind of highways will be ad e-

quate.

This is a pr o blem in d esign f or various

load s, and includes determination of satis-

factory alignments, adequate wid ths, prac-

tical grades, and other character istics of

the physical improvement, as well as in-

tended ser vice.

4. When must they be provid ed ?

This is a twofold question, r eq uiring sepa-

rate consideration (a) of the r ate at which

rights-of-way need to be acquired or wid -

ened , and (b) of the physical construction

r equired to kee p abreast of traff ic need s.

5. How can they be secur ed ?

Ways and means of f inancing necessar y

costs must her e be consider ed . The Plan

must be soundly related to the economic

structur e of the R egion, f or other wise it will

be impractical and ther efor e without value.

Fund s availa ble for paving and other im-

pr ovements, and f or land acq uisition, where

necessary, must be analyzed , and their

distribution r elated to the Plan on a sound

basis of functional priority. Legislation af -

f ecting the execution of the Plan, both

financially and from a proced ur al stand -

point, must be studied . County-wide ap-

pr oval and suppor t must be mer ited and

secured , and ad ministr ative saf eguar d s

applied .

The Commission has studied each ele-ment of the Plan her e presented from these

five points of view, in ord er to be assur ed

that it is necessary, well-designed , and

feasible. Succeeding chapter s of this R e-

por t deal more fully with the method s of

analyzing the pr o blem in each case and of

ar r iving at the conclusions which consti-

tute the Master Plan of Highways.


18/112

II

H O W M A N Y H IG H W A Y S W ILL BE N EE DE D?

Some years ago the R egional Planning

Commission mad e an exhaustive study of

cond itions in a number of cities of various

sizes in this region, to discover possible

relationships between the existing pave-

ment, number of automobiles and popula-

tion. Referring only to arterial traf fic in

ur ban d istr icts, and exclusive of park ing

space, actual measurements r evealed that

approximately 450 squar e feet of pavement

were r equired for each registered vehicle.*At that time the width of pavement con-

sid ered adequate for a line of moving ve-

hicles was 10 f eet. This area was therefore

the eq uivalent of one such "lane" 45 feet

in length, per automobile. In or der to make

application of this requir ement ind ependent

of changes brought about by increased

s peed and other factors in the standard of

lane wid th, the r atio then deter mined is

more practically ex pressed in ter ms of

"lane-miles", a lane-mile being the ar ea of

pavement r equired f or a linear mile one

lane in width. In these terms the require-

ment r educes to 8.5 lane-miles f or each

1000 vehicles. This includ es no allowance,

of cour se, for the paving r equir ed f or cer tain

highways r unning to the bor der s of the

County through open ter r itor y, and neces-

sary passages through the mountains,

where actual d istance is the controlling

factor .

It is of interest to compar e this theoretical

req uirement with the actual provisions for tod ay's tr af f ic load . The registration, as of

December 31, 1939, in Los Angeles County,

totalled 1,081,03l.t This would require, at

the ratio established in the pr eceding para-

graph, 9,189 lane-miles of highway pave-

'See Long Beach· Redondo Ar ea Highway Repor t(1931), page 20.

tree- paid automobiles and tr uck s only.

ment. Actually, these vehicles are operating

today on about 8,400 lane-miles of highway

(2,800 miles in the Metr opolitan Ar ea, with

an average width of about three lanes).

The d iff er ence of 789 lane-miles between

these f igures ind icates a pr esent shortage,

the existence of which no one familiar with

tr affic cond itions of tod ay will d eny. A stud y

of the lane-density maps pre par ed in con-

nection with the Commission's traffic survey

ind icates further that if the missing 789

lane-miles could be created by magic over night at the places where the worst "sor e-

spots" ar e ind icated , many immed iate prob-

lems of congestion would be solved .

This d oes not mean that the peak-load

congestion inherent in a system with inter -

sections at grad e, and without adequate

in-town ter minal facilities, would be elimi-

nated-that is a separate pr o blem. But it

does ind icate that the theor etical r atio de-

velo ped in 1929 check s with actual ex peri-

ence ten years later . Hence we have a re-

lia ble empiric f ormula for determining the

pro per amount of highway paving for the

automobiles in use at any given time. To

extend this calculation into the f utur e, an

analysis of the trend s of population increase

and pr evalence of automo bile owner ship is

necessary. Bef ore consid er ing the well-

known ratio of automobile ownership to

population we shall first examine the more

f und amental question of an estimate of fu-

ture population.

The f oremost consideration in d etermining

highway requirements is population, for in

designing a highway system, just as in de-

signing a w ater system or any other general

utility ser vice, the basic req uirement is a

cor rect estimate of the number of people


19/112

109876

V)5

Z

o 4~ 3

Z...J

0 ~ 2

I- ' " 80- Z 7;; \ 60 : : : > 50- 0 4:I::

l-

e ; 3:g 2~' "z: : : >:I:: 1

-~L.

" ' "

" , . ~

~ • • • , . . . .

~ ~ P-ATIO OF

HIGHWAY PAVEMENT

TO POPU LATIONIN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

TH E REG I ON A L PLA NN ING CO M MI SS ION C OU N TY O f L O S A NGELE S

7:~O 1H

1,000 5.000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

L ANE MILES P-EQUIRED BASED ON 8.5 L ANE MILES OF PAVEMENT PER 1,000 VEHICLES

that it will have to serve now and in the

f uture.

Fifty years ago, Los Angeles County had

a population of only a hund red thousand

people. Since 1900 it has grown at a tre··

mendous rate, equivalent to doubling ever y

d ecade. (A 1940 population of 2,724,608

would exactly fulf ill this condition). The in-

crease dur ing the last decade was only

about 26 1' 0 , but the final census f igure

(2,785,643) for 1940 is considerably more

than sixteen times the population of 1900.

Naturally such a phenomenal r ate of in-crease cannot be expected to continue, nor

indeed would it be desirable.

The rate of growth of the United States

as a whole is considerably slower than in

the past, and students of the subject believe

the population will become r elatively sta-

tionary within thirty or f orty year s. But

migration within the nation is a factor which

continues to o per ate, and ther e is ever y

indication that for some decad es a con-

siderable add ition to the population of this

R egion will occur .

REASONS FOR FURTHER GR OWTH

Provis~m has been made for water-sup-

ply, through the construction of the Metro-

politan Aq ueduct, sufficient to meet the de-

mands of an ultimate population of about

twelve millions in Los Angeles County.

Cheap electr icity will contribute toward the

r apid develo pment of lar ge scale manuf ac-

turing. The endless possibilities of a vastocean tr ade with the Orient lie largely

ahead . The soil is fertile and the climate

f avorable. Economic op portunities, in s pite

of the adver se ef f ects of wor ld-wide u psets

now obscuring them, will doubtless be su-

per ior for many decades, when contrasted

with areas mor e d ensely settled and less

richly end owed by nature. All these things

point to a continued ra pid population in-

crease.

The Regional Planning Commission has

taken these factor s into consid er ation and

f rom a study of their im plications, attempted

to determine:

(a) the pr o bable ultimate population;

(b) the pro bable population trend dur-

ing the next fif ty years;

(c) the ex pected annual increase during

the coming decad e.

Each of these phases of the po pulation

question has a particular bearing on some

portion of the planning procedure. A merestatement of the ultimate number of people

expected in the ar ea is not suf f icient, since

the land uses that will develop with increas-

ing population have cer tain limiting effects

u pon po pulation densities. The land use

pattern and densities in var ious sections

f urther af fect the location of highways which

is the sub ject of the next chapter . Only


20/112

when the population estimates are closely

related to the land use pattern can they be

used with any confidence as the basis f or

highway planning.

The method of deter mining these several

population estimates and their land useimplications are theref ore presented in con-

siderable de~ail in the following paragr a phs.

ULTIMATE POPULATION

In arriving at the first of these population

estimates the preservation of the amenities

is important, and the f igure sought is not

one repr esenting the highest attainable, but

rather the highest desirable one. The Com-

mission d oes not desire to encourage, or

to make plans for , a density of human load

on the land that would defeat its primar y

ob jective of better living cond itions. This

sets aside at once any conception of the

f uture metropolitan area which includes

great unbroken stretches of multi-stor ied

tenement houses, such as character ize many

cities today. It is believed that even though

some increase in the percentage of f amilies

accommodated in multi ple d wellings is in-

evi:able, this Region can and should remain

one in which the single-family d welling

predominates. The advantages which thosewho live here now attain through the wid e-

s pread use of the automobile must other -

wise be greatly diminished .

As cities grow in size, there are economies

in oper ation which result in ad vantage to

the citizens until a point of diminishing re-

turns is reached. Beyond this point the

urban organization tend s to become cum-

ber some, and there is a tendency for those

who wish to preser ve the amenities of home

lif e to remove to suburban areas or satellite

cities. Thus, while there has been dur ing

the last f ew decades a distinct movement

of population f rom the countr y to the metr o-

politan areas, there has likewise been a

distinct trend fr om the center to the outer

edges of the metr opolitan areas themselves.

The 1940 census shows only slight po pula-

tion decreases in the center of Los Angeles,

the center of Long Beach and in a few other

scattered localities, some of which may be

due to expansion of institutions and indus-

tr ies. This trend toward the peripher y is

perhaps less noticeable in this region, not

so much because it ap pear s at a later stage

of development as because original settle-ment along the per ipher y proceeded at a

f aster rate and earlier than in some older

regions, while the central district never

reached population densities that are now

declining in those older cities. In the light

of other known conditions and factors, how-

ever, it is safe to say that the tendency is

at least as strong here as elsewhere.

PRESER VATION OF PRESENT

STA NDARDS

The Commission, theref ore, believes that

to conform with actual events and processes

it is necessar y as well as desirable to pro-

vide for future population in this Region

by encouraging the development of the

various smaller cities and towns throughout

the Region, until each r eaches an optimum

size, rather than by the indiscriminate and

unbroken expansion of the central urban

area. Each should be se parated f rom ad ja-

cent towns by a belt of land used for agr i-

culture, recreation, or other uses not re-quiring buildings.

This line of reasoning leads to the con-

clusion that in a calculation of the ultimate

population, we should assume the extension

of each of the various urban uses, in about

the same proportion to the population as

at present, to all of the parts of the Region

which are adaptable to such use, with due

allowance for these separating open str i ps

between the var ious urban center s.

The lef t half of Table 2 which f ollows

shows the present actual r a~e of a bsor ption

of land for ur ban pur poses. To the r ight

of these f igures are given some ad justed

figures which, while necessar ily only a p-

proximations, will serve to ind icate how

these ratios would work out by extension

into the future. These f igures are taken

f rom the Commission's Re port on A Survey

of Land Use, in which the method by which


21/112

Present Usage Ultimate R equirements

Sing le-Family Residence......................... 31.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.9

Multiple R esidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.8................. 3.1

Streets and Highways 24.9.............. 18.2

Commercial 2.7................ 2.6

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0...................... 3.0

Utilities, Railroads, Airpor ts '.. . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5.............. 3.1

Schools and Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7............. 2.4

Parks and Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6.............. 9.0

Other Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.8...................... 0.5

Total Used 75.2 63.8

Allowance for Vacancy 30.1................... 2.2

Total Urban 105.4 66.0

Population Per Urban Sq uare Mile 6,100 9,700

they were deduced is given in greater de-tail.

The pr oposed reduction in the require-

ment for single-family resid ence land in the

future is based upon tw.o assumptions. The

f irst is that the average density in single

residence* ar eas (now 24) will not exceed

28 persons per acre, which is equivalent toa reduction in average lot size f r om 6,000

square feet to 5,000 squar e feet (the mini-

mum allowed under present regulations).

Second ly, it is assumed that the proportion

of the total population in such dwellings

will not fall below 6 2' 10.

The f igure given f or multiple d wellings

includes a wide range of d ensities in the

Survey-running f rom a use almost as light

as that in the single-f amily dwelling area

to sever al hundred persons per acre in the

relatively small d istr icts developed to lar ge

multi-family apartment houses. The present

average net density is 103 persons per acre.

It was assumed that 31I";t of the f uture

*In the Sur vey the almost negligible amount used

f or du plex houses was includ ed with the single-family r esidence ar ea.

tThe remaining 7'10 being allowed f or the proportion living in commercial areas, industr ial ar eas,institutions, etc.

population (ultimate) might have to live in

dwellings of these same widely-varying

types, but that there should be suff icient

allowance of land to provide for a net

aver age d ensity of not more than 100 per -

sons per acre, which is equivalent to 1250

square feet per d welling unit. It must be

noted that tripling this density would onlydiminish the total of land needed for urban

purposes by about three per cent. Nothing

is gained by overcrowding.

As for streets, the present rate of absorp-

tion is aff ected by the ver y considerable

area of the local streets which now serve

vacant land and lots. This consideration

is off -set to some extent by the need f or

greater wid th on highways and to allowfor land to be used f or a system of free-

ways. The rate set f or the future gives a

somewhat lower pr oportion of total ur ban

used land than at pr esent.

The amount of land at present used for

parks and playground s, although it includes

many recreational areas not now publicly

owned , is less than half that ind icated by


22/112

park officials as a minimum stand ar d 00

acres per 1,000 persons) for a completely

developed Region. The num ber of acres

per 1,000 peo ple for this use in the right

half of the table has accor d ingly been m-

creased to nine. *

The allowance for other uses, except in-

dustr y, has been slightly decreased, keeping

to a pproximately the same pro por tion of

total urban used land, however . For the

maximum d evelopment the amount of va-

cancy has been assumed to be red uced to

only 3 .4 /"0 of the whole urban ar ea, instead

of 2 8 .6 /"0 as at present.

Summing up then, it is ind icated that a

minimum of approximately 66 acr es will

be needed f or all urban purposes for each

1,000 per sons who come her e to d well. This

is equivalent to an average urban density

of 9,700 persons per square mile. The

actual d ensity and the propor tion of land

used f or the various purposes would, of

course, var y greatly in dif f er ent parts of

the metro politan area.

Of the entire Region, over two-thir d s is

occu pied by mountains not ada pted for in-tensive ur ban use, or is included within the

semi-arid Antelope Valley, north of the

mountains. Only a very small pr o portion

(one or two per cent of the po pulation) may

be expected to settle in these areas. The

coastal plain (includ ing the San Fernando

Valley), with an area of 1,233 sq uar e miles,

must accommodate the rest. If we set asid e

133 sq uare miles for channels, overflow

land s, and lands too rugged or otherwise

unadapted to urban d evelo pment, there re-

main 1,100 square miles, which, under the

conditions assumed , would be sufficient for

a total po pulation between ten and eleven

million. Of course, this would mean almost

complete elimination of the 400 squar e miles

now used f or agriculture in this por tion of

the Region.

* An additional acre per 1,000 being provided inschool playgrounds.

I t is dou btful whether such a complete

d is placement of all agricultural uses from

this part of the Region would be desirable.

Cer tainly it should not be thought of except

as a possible eventuality in the far-distant

future to which this d iscussion of ultimate

po pulation applies. Red istri bution of pr es-

ent uses f or better efficiency and the f illing

in of areas now vacant, in accord ance with

the Master Plan of Land Use, should provide

f or a century of growth without ,seriously

d iminishing the space available f or agricul-

tur e. It is, however, certain that the pres-

sur e of a population incr easing to figures

approximating 10,000,000 would make it

d ifficult economically to continue to hold much of this land in agr icultural use. The

important point here is that all of it would

then be need ed for urban uses, unless the

r atios set f or th above, and particularly the

standard s as to home sites, are abandoned .

These calculations, based on careful esti-

mates and established standard s, serve to

ind icate in a general way what maximum

population could be accommod ated on theentire coastal plain. Even if allowance were

made f or consid erably increased densities of

residential d evelopment, the f igures would

be alter ed by only a small per centage. For

example, a r eduction of the aver age single-

family d welling lot to the ob jectionably low

ar ea of 3,500 square feet (per family of 35

persons), which would incr ease the net

d ensity in these resid ential areas by more

than 50 /"0,* only makes possi ble the addition

of 12 to 14/"0 to the ultimate population.

Similar f igur es were given a bove for the

multiple d welling use and show that only

by the sacrifice of everything that now dis-

tinguishes the Region as a good place in

which to live, would the f igure be materially

increased.

* Above the minimum standard of 28.3 persons per acre.


23/112

..~

3

~2

,/'I

9

•765 ~4 ~3

'7

POPULATION T R . E N D -i---2

71=1==9

LOS ANGE.LES COUNTY =r = =•7 - ~619405 ~

THE R E.GION AL PL ANNING COMMISSION· COUNTY OF lO$ANGHES4 ,3

72

-~ '71 0'- ~.,

The Commission sees no ad vantage in

such an a band onment of the reasonable

standar d s now prevailing. It prefers to

adopt a policy and a Plan based upon their

preservation. If these be lef t out of con-

sideration, then the only upper limit that

can be calculated at this time is that in-

d icated by the available water supply,

which at pr esent normal rates of consum p-

tion would be reached at a population of

approximately 11,640,000. This is the figure

established as a point of "satur ation" for

Los Angeles County by A. L. Sonder egger,

in his repor t to the Metropolitan Water Dis-

trict of Southern Calif or nia*.

It is r ealized (and look ing back ward a

hundred year s will emphasize the point)

that, since many unforeseen changes, tech-

nological, social and economic, may and

pr obably will intervene, the uses of such

an estimate of ultimate population ar e lim-

ited. It ser ves primar ily to point the neces-

sity of a periodic evaluation of the eco-nomics of our agriculture, to emphasize the

im portance of provision for industr y, and to

guide in the reservation of the necessar y

open spaces. Above all it hel ps to br oad en

our vision of the future, and to guard us

against the stupidity of mak ing "little" plans.

*Forecast of Gr owt h o f Metr o polit an Area, May21, 193 1.

Documents

1941 Master Plan Highways County Los Angeles Regional Planning District