Westside Purple Line Extension Final Supplemental ......The evaluation of the three alternative station locations was conducted by: Fehr & Peers to identify “walksheds,” which

November 2017

Westside Purple Line Extension

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement andSection 4(f) EvaluationAppendix C: Ridership Studies

`

Century City TOD and Walk Access Study

February 2012

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T February 2012 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 STUDY OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 Key Findings .................................................................................................................... 2-32.5.1 Distance Matters ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5.2 Influence of the Walking Environment .............................................................. 2-42.5.3 Population Density and Distribution ................................................................. 2-42.5.4 Comparison of Alternative Station Locations ................................................... 2-4

2.5.5 Comparison to Travel Forecasting Results ....................................................... 2-4

3.0 WALK ACCESS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Identify Station Walksheds ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Existing Population ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Full Development Population ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Walking Behavior—Literature Review ............................................................................ 4-54.4.1 Walking Distance to Transit ............................................................................... 4-5

4.4.2 Walk Environment .............................................................................................. 4-54.4.3 Other Walking Factors ....................................................................................... 4-5

4.5 Walk Environment Evaluation......................................................................................... 4-64.5.1 Evaluation Framework and Summary Results .................................................. 4-6

4.5.2 Santa Monica/Century Park East Station .......................................................... 4-64.5.3 Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station ....................................................... 4-6

4.6 Ridership Estimates ........................................................................................................ 4-7

4.7 Comparison to Metro Forecast Results ....................................................................... 4-15

5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 6-1


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page ii February 2012

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Comparison of Century City Stations Full Development Intensity by Walkshed ................. 1-3

Figure 1-2. Comparison of Century City Stations Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed ........... 1-3

Figure 2-1: Westside Station Locations .................................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 4-1: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations ........ 4-2

Figure 4-2: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations...... 4-3

Figure 4-3: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations ..... 4-4

Figure 4-4: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed .. 4-10

Figure 4-5: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed ....................................................................................................................... 4-11

Figure 4-6: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Existing Development Intensity by

Walkshed ....................................................................................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-7: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed ......... 4-13

Figure 4-8: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed ....... 4-14

Figure 4-9: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed ...... 4-15

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Distance and Walk Mode Share............................................................................................... 2-4

Table 4-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs—Existing Development ........................................................ 4-4

Table 4-2: Walkshed Population and Jobs—Full Development ............................................................... 4-5

Table 4-3: Quarter-mile Walkshed Evaluation Criteria and Grades Table ............................................... 4-7

Table 4-4: Estimate of Ridership—Existing Development ....................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-5: Estimate of Ridership—Full Development .............................................................................. 4-8

Table 4-6: Development Intensity by Walkshed—Existing Development ............................................... 4-9

Table 4-7: Development Intensity by Walkshed—Full Development ...................................................... 4-9

Table 5-1: Ridership Estimate and Sensitivity Analysis—Full Development .......................................... 5-2

Appendices

Appendix A Century City Station Options Updated Jobs & Population Inventory

Memorandum

Appendix B Walking to Transit Literature Review and Evaluation

Appendix C Century City Stations—Jobs and Population Calculations—Full Development

Appendix D Century City Stations—Existing and Full Development ridership Calculations


1.0—Executive Summary

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T February 2012 Page 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose

To assist Metro in analyzing station options in Century City, this report evaluates the relative accessibility of three potential station locations to surrounding commercial and residential development within a 1/2-mile walking distance. The report estimates the number of Westside Subway Extension riders who would walk to and from the stations. This analysis is a supplement to the Metro travel forecasts that were conducted for the two Century City Station options in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)—Century City Constellation (referred to in this report as Constellation/Avenue of the Stars or Constellation Station) and Century City Santa Monica (referred to in this report as Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East Station). A third station location on Santa Monica Boulevard at Avenue of the Stars (which is the Century City Santa Monica Station option previously evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR) was added for this analysis, but a corresponding updated Metro travel forecast has not been prepared.

1.2 Key Findings

This analysis shows the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station is, and will continue to be, in the most advantageous location for attracting the most Westside Subway Extension riders compared to the station locations along Santa Monica Boulevard. The Constellation Station outperformed the Santa Monica/Century Park East and the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Stations based all of the key indicators examined in the analysis. It has the best pedestrian environment, can be expected to attract the most transit riders, and is centrally located to help shape the redevelopment of Century City as an important transit-oriented destination on the Westside Subway Extension.

A review of literature on walking to transit was conducted to establish best practice in thinking about walking and transit. The review shows that proximity to transit has a bigger impact on ridership than the absolute total number of jobs and residents near transit. This is because as distance increases from the station, walking rates decline significantly. Importantly for a major employment center like Century City, this “distance decay” effect is more pronounced for work trips.

Based on existing development, the Constellation Station has approximately twice the number of jobs and residents within the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds than the two Santa Monica Boulevard station locations. Within those 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds, the existing population for the Constellation Station is 20,380 jobs and residents, far greater than the 12,160 for the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station or 10,490 for the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station.

The Constellation Station is expected to have by far the highest concentration of future jobs and residents within the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds, as well. Within those 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds, the future population for the Constellation station is estimated to be 37,630 jobs and residents, far greater than the 20,920 for the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station or 13,740 for the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station. As a consequence, the 14,005 riders estimated in the sensitivity analysis for the Constellation Station is approximately 72% greater than the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and about 50% greater than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station, which are expected to have approximately 8,145 and 9,359 riders respectively.



W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 1-2 February 2012

The illustrations in Figures 1-1 and 1-2 provide a comparison of how the station locations stack up against each other under existing and future development.

Under existing development, the Constellation Station has a combined total of approximately 20,380 people in the 0 to 1/4-mile walksheds. Constellation ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (604 people per acre). By comparison, the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station has 402 people per acre and the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station has 393 people per acre within the 600-foot walkshed. Constellation also ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600 foot to 1/4-mile walkshed, with 185 people per acre, compared to 121 people per acre for the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and 102 people per acre for the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station.

Under full development, the Constellation Station is expected to have a combined total of 37,630 people in the 0 to 1/4-mile walksheds, by far the highest of the three stations. Constellation ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (804 people per acre) under full development. By comparison, the Santa Monica/Century Park East and Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Stations are expected to have 673 and 456 people per acre, respectively, within the 600-foot walkshed. Constellation also ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600 foot to 1/4-mile walkshed under full development, with 439 people per acre, compared to 155 people per acre for the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and 287 people per acre for the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station.




Figure 1-1: Comparison of Century City Stations Full Development Intensity by Walkshed

Santa Monica/Century Park East Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars

Figure 1-2: Comparison of Century City Stations Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed

Santa Monica/Century Park East Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars


2.0—Study Overview


2.0 STUDY OVERVIEW

2.1 Purpose

Metro requested a supplemental evaluation regarding pedestrian access and ridership potential for the following three potential Westside Subway Extension station locations in Century City:

Santa Monica Boulevard at Century Park East

Constellation Boulevard at Avenue of the Stars

Santa Monica Boulevard at Avenue of the Stars

Figure 2-1: Westside Station Locations

The purpose of this analysis is to better understand how the number of potential Westside Subway Extension riders may vary between the Century City Station options. Because transit riders typically do not walk more than 1/2 mile to and from transit, the analysis focused on “walksheds,” which identified the areas that could be reached with the following walking distances to and from the alternative station locations:

0 to 600 feet

600 feet to 1/4 mile

1/4 mile to 1/2 mile




2.2 Analysis Summary

The evaluation of the three alternative station locations was conducted by:

Fehr & Peers to identify “walksheds,” which represent the areas that are within 600-foot, 1/4-mile, and 1/2-mile walking distances from the alternative station locations. The existing number of employees and residents was also calculated for each of these walkshed areas. See Appendix A for the complete report.

Anne Vernez Moudon, Professor of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, University of Washington to conduct a literature review of walking behavior to and from transit and the factors that influence such behavior, along with an analysis of the walking environment surrounding each of the proposed station locations. See Appendix B for the complete report.

Parsons Brinckerhoff to estimate the number of employees and residents within the station walksheds (identified by Fehr & Peers) assuming full development based upon current plans and zoning and to estimate potential Westside Subway Extension ridership for the three alternative station locations. See Appendix C for information about the calculations leading to the forecast employment and resident population for the station walksheds and Appendix D for estimated ridership calculations.

2.3 Methodology

The analysis methodology included the following steps:

1. Station Walksheds—Walkshed areas, based upon actual walking distances on existing public sidewalks, were identified for each of the three station locations.

2. Existing Population—The existing number of jobs and residents within the three walkshed areas (0 to 600 feet, 600 feet to 1/4 mile, and 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile) for each station were estimated by evaluating current development within the walksheds.

3. Full Development Population—Corresponding estimates of the future number of jobs and residents within the station walksheds, at full development, were also calculated based on existing plans, policies and development approvals.

4. Walking Behavior Literature Review—A variety of studies have evaluated the factors, which influence walking behavior to and from transit. These studies were reviewed for information relevant to the alternative Westside Subway Extension station locations.

5. Walk Environment Evaluation—Important characteristics of the walking environment, including accessibility, safety, and comfort, were used to assess the quality of the pedestrian experience in the vicinity of the three station locations.

6. Ridership Estimates—By applying the walking behavior information to the employee and resident populations within the 600-foot, 1/4-mile, and 1/2-mile walksheds for each station, estimated ridership figures for each station alternative were calculated.




2.4 Assumptions

The six-step methodology included a number of assumptions.

Identify Station Walksheds. Buildings with entrances within a walkshed were included as part of the walkshed even when a portion of the building extended outside of the walkshed.

Existing Population. The existing number of jobs were estimated using real estate data from Grubb & Ellis and by applying the following assumptions:

– 90% occupancy of commercial buildings.

– Leasable building floor area per employee of 350 square feet—office, 600 square feet—retail, 450 square feet—food service, and 2 rooms—hotel.

– Residential population was based on 2000 U. S. Census data and the application of growth factors in the 2010 Census Estimates to derive a current residential population estimate.

Full Development Population. The full development population was calculated based upon several assumptions:

– Full development at 85% of the maximum density allowed by current plans and zoning.

– Commercial occupancy of 90% was assumed along with an average leasable floor area of 410 square feet per employee (a blend of office and retail since the plans do not distinguish between the two).

– 1.9 residents per single or multi-family household.

– 1 household per single family residential parcel.

2.5 Key Findings

2.5.1 Distance Matters

The literature review reveals a consistent theme regarding walking behavior and transit ridership—distance is the key factor. Studies show that walking rates decline significantly as distance to transit increases (Table 2-1). This “distance decay” effect has also been found to be more pronounced for work–transit trips than for home-transit trips. Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within 1/4 network mile or less of a station, typically declining by one-half between 1/4 and 1/2 mile, and becoming insignificant beyond 1/2 mile. Based upon the literature review, Anne Moudon concludes it would be reasonable to assume that work-related walk trips to transit would be 20% within 600 feet, 10% between 600 feet and 1/4 mile, and 5% between 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile. The 2005 Development Related Ridership Survey, conducted by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for its heavy rail transit system, also reflects the research findings, but with a higher mode share for walking.




Table 2-1: Distance and Walk Mode Share

Walkshed

Metrorail Walk Mode Share

Office Residential

At station 35% 54%

600 feet to 1/4 mile 23% 43%

1/4 to 1/2 mile 10% 31%

Source: WMATA, 2005 Development Related Ridership Survey of 13 Metro stations

2.5.2 Influence of the Walking Environment

The quality of the walking environment will also influence one’s willingness to walk. As discussed in Appendix B, six characteristics including accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging, all can affect walking rates. Anne Moudon evaluated how conducive the three station areas are for walking based on these characteristics. The walking environment for the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station was found to be the best of the three.

2.5.3 Population Density and Distribution

Although the employee and resident populations for the three stations are similar within the 1/2-mile walkshed, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station has a considerably higher population density within 1/4-mile of the station compared to the two stations on Santa Monica Boulevard, which have a higher percentage of the population between 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile from the stations.

2.5.4 Comparison of Alternative Station Locations

By applying the Moudon walk mode share recommendation and WMATA walk mode share results to the populations within the 600-foot, 1/4-mile, and 1/2-mile walksheds, estimates of the potential ridership were the highest for the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station primarily because it has the greatest population development density within 1/4-mile of the station. The two stations on Santa Monica Boulevard have lower densities close to the station, in part because of the golf course on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard.

2.5.5 Comparison to Travel Forecasting Results

As noted in Section 1.1, the forecast ridership analysis serves as a supplement to the Metro travel forecasts, which have been completed for the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East stations. The methodology followed in this study and the Metro travel forecast serve different purposes, rely on different data, and are not intended to yield the same results. However, a comparison between this study and the travel forecast does reveal a similar result regarding the relative desirability of the three station locations in terms of ridership. This study and the travel forecast share the same overall conclusion—the anticipated ridership will be the greatest at the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station, followed by Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars, and trailed by Santa Monica/Century Park East.


3.0—Walk Access Analysis


3.0 WALK ACCESS ANALYSIS

The purpose of the supplemental evaluation of three potential station locations for the Westside Subway Extension in Century City was to better understand the potential ridership for employees and residents near the following three alternative station locations:




This report considers potential pedestrian “walksheds” from the station portals using actual walking distances of:

0 to 600 feet


1/4 mile to 1/2 mile

The analysis compared the number of existing and future jobs and residents within the three walksheds for each station. A literature review was conducted to understand the effect of distance, walking environment, and other factors on walking rates. This information was then used to identify what would be a reasonable expectation for walking trips to and from the three potential station locations. An evaluation of employee and resident population and likely walking rates yielded an estimated number of potential Westside Subway Extension riders for each of the three stations.


4.0—Methodology


4.0 METHODOLOGY

The analysis methodology included the following steps, which are described in more detail below:

Identify station walksheds

Existing population

Full development population

Walking behavior—literature review

Walk environment evaluation

Ridership estimates

4.1 Identify Station Walksheds

The “walksheds” showing areas within the 600-foot, 1/4-mile, and 1/2-mile walking distances from the stations are shown in the figures below. The walking distances were calculated following existing sidewalk routes (see Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-3). Detailed maps and descriptions of the walksheds are provided in Appendix A.

4.2 Existing Population

The employment and residential population for the 600-foot, 1/4-mile, and 1/2-mile walksheds was estimated (Table 4-1) (Fehr & Peers, Appendix A). The total number of jobs and residents were similar across all three of the station locations within the 1/2-mile walking distance. However, for the 600-foot and 1/4-mile walking distances, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars location had approximately twice the number of jobs and residents compared to the two station locations on Santa Monica Boulevard.

4.3 Full Development Population

A corresponding estimate of future employment and residential population was created, which assumed full development consistent with current plans and zoning. Using the three walkshed areas developed by Fehr & Peers, the potential number of jobs and residents were estimated. For the purpose of this calculation, it was assumed that: full development should be 85% of the maximum density allowed, a commercial occupancy rate of 90% is representative of normal economic conditions, and the average leasable floor area per employee should be 410 square feet. Similar to the existing population analysis, the population within 1/2 mile is comparable for all stations, but again, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars location is anticipated to have more than twice the number of jobs and residents within 1/4 mile compared to the Santa Monica/Century Park East station location and nearly double the number for the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars station location as summarized in Table 4-2. Supporting maps showing generalized plan designations for the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills are provided on the following pages.


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-1: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-2: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-3: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Walksheds and General Plan Designations

Table 4-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs—Existing Development

Walkshed

Santa Monica/

Century Park East Station

Constellation/

Avenue of the Stars Station

Santa Monica/


Population Total Jobs Population Total Jobs Population Total Jobs

0 to 600 feet 0 4,820 0 10,260 0 5,900

600 feet to 1/4 Mile 180 5,490 210 9,910 110 6,150

1/4 to 1/2 Mile 1,720 16,980 1,800 10,870 1,830 16,820

Total 1,900 27,290 2,010 31,040 1,940 28,870

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011; 2000 US Census; 2010 US Census Estimates; Grubb & Ellis/Costar, 2011


4.0—Methodology


Table 4-2: Walkshed Population and Jobs—Full Development

Walkshed

Santa Monica/


Constellation/


Santa Monica/



0 to 600 feet 0 8,070 0 13,670 0 6,840

600 feet to 1/4 mile 180 5,490* 820 23,140 120 13,960

1/4 to 1/2 mile 2,310 32,640 7,190 13,160 2,420 29,520

Total 2,490 46,200 8,010 49,970 2,540 50,320

Sources: City of Los Angeles ZIMAS zoning information, 2011; Century City North Specific Plan, 1981; Century City South Specific Plan, 1993; and City of Beverly Hills General Plan, 2010 * The available data led to a forecast decline in employment in this walkshed. For the purpose of this report, existing employment (see Table 4-1) was assumed to remain constant into the future.

4.4 Walking Behavior—Literature Review

The findings from the literature review conducted by Anne Moudon (Appendix B) are presented below relating to distance, walk environment, and other factors that affect walking.

4.4.1 Walking Distance to Transit

Physical distance is the primary determinant of walking as the choice means of travel. In general, people select to walk to transit and other destinations only if they need to travel short distances. Median distances to rail transit range from a fifth to a half mile. These short distances are due to a strong distance decay effect on both (1) transit commute mode share and (2) walking as the access mode to transit. This strong inverse relationship exists at both the employment and the residential sides of the trip, although the effect in employment areas is generally stronger than the effect in residential areas. Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within 1/4 network miles or less of a station, typically declining by half between 1/4 and 1/2 miles, and becoming very small beyond 1/2 mile.

4.4.2 Walk Environment

The walk environment can greatly influence the decision to walk and the willingness to walk longer distances. Characteristics of the walk environment, which have this effect, can be structured into a hierarchy of needs that people consider when walking. If fulfilled, these needs will alter either the actual distances people walk or their perception of time and therefore distance, and their attitude toward and eventual decision to walk. These needs are: accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. The needs are described in the walk environment evaluation and in Appendix B. While this hierarchy was developed for walking in general, research on walking to transit confirms that people do in fact consider these features in their choice to walk to transit.

4.4.3 Other Walking Factors

Travel mode choice is dependent on other factors in addition to the built environment. These factors must be considered in conjunction with an assessment of the walk environment because they provide insight into who may be more likely to walk to transit. Those more likely to use transit tend to be women, people who do not own cars, people with less income, people that live in multifamily


4.0—Methodology


dwellings, people with positive attitudes toward health and the environment, and employees at workplaces with transit-supportive policies.

4.5 Walk Environment Evaluation

4.5.1 Evaluation Framework and Summary Results

The framework used to evaluate the ability for each of the proposed station sites to support walk trips is based on pedestrian needs noted in Section 4.4.2 above. This needs framework consists of six levels necessary for a completely supportive walk environment: accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. For each of the levels, urban design theory and findings from research on walking to transit were used to develop criteria on which to grade each of the three transit stations. Stations sites were evaluated using a letter grade. The station grades are summarized in Table 4-3.

4.5.2 Santa Monica/Century Park East Station

The Santa Monica/Century Park East Station site received the lowest grades because it is least accessible to Century City jobs and the concentration of useful destinations at the Westfield Mall. It is only accessible via one thru-block pedestrian path and is adjacent to the poor pedestrian street environment along Santa Monica Boulevard characterized by heavy traffic volumes and a golf course on the north side. It benefited from its location on Century Park East, a street that, near the north end, offers a moderate level of safety, comfort, and sensory pleasure.

4.5.3 Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station

The Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station received slightly better grades compared to Century Park East. Although it is accessible by high-quality thru-block pedestrian paths and provides convenient access to utilitarian destinations in the Westfield Mall, it is not in a central location to Century City jobs. The pedestrian environment along Santa Monica Boulevard is essentially the same as the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station. Additionally, its street-level environment would leave pedestrians feeling exposed to traffic and criminal danger. Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station

The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station site received the highest grades. It is more accessible to more workers and residents, especially those most likely to use transit. It is also located next to many utilitarian destinations that would facilitate trip chaining. The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars site also benefits from its location away from Santa Monica Boulevard, a major barrier that contributes to traffic exposure and offers little in the way of safety or sensory pleasure. While neither Constellation nor Avenue of the Stars are great pedestrian streets, they do provide a sufficiently safe and comfortable walk environment. Additionally, this site benefits from easy access to a high-quality mid-block green space and social space. Its location at the center of the neighborhood puts it in a unique position to provide equal access from the surrounding worksites and neighborhoods and to contribute to a sense of equal belonging to transit riders. Future development of the vacant lot on the northeast corner of the intersection is also a unique opportunity to bring in a greater sense of place and to anchor the station at the heart of the Century City neighborhood.


4.0—Methodology


Table 4-3: Quarter-mile Walkshed Evaluation Criteria and Grades Table

Hierarchy Level Domain Criteria

Santa

Monica/Century Park

East

Constel-

lation/Avenue of

the Stars

Santa

Monica/Avenue of

the Stars

Accessibility Work Jobs within 1/4 mile Likely number of low-wage jobs

C A B-

Home Population within 1/2 mile, Ratio of MF to SF housing

B A B

Route Directness

Sidewalks continuity along streets Pedestrian paths, formal + informal Pedestrian network length and route choices Access to buildings, universal access

C+ A B+

Usefulness Utilitarian destinations Trip chaining potential

Proximity to retail Proximity to food, drink, entertainment Proximity to present transit boardings

C A A-

Safety Safety from Traffic

Crosswalks at street intersections Crosswalks timing + crosswalk lengths Mid-block Crosswalks Few curb cuts and driveway interruptions Low traffic volume + Low traffic speed

B- B C

Safety from Crime

Live security presence Lack of potential offenders Lighting, street Lighting, pedestrian path Prospect-refuge, streets, path

A A B

Comfort Level topography, lack of stairs Sufficient sidewalk width Shade and shelter, Street trees Landscaping, green spaces

B+ B B-

Sensory Pleasure Noticeable differences, physical + social (people and events)

B A- A-

Sense of Belonging

Proximity to neighborhood center and community gathering spaces

B A B

Condensed from Table 5.1 in full report—Appendix B

4.6 Ridership Estimates

Ridership estimates were calculated based upon the walkshed population estimates and the major findings coming from the literature review. The three station locations are expected to perform differently with respect to the number of employees and residents who will walk to and from transit. The ridership estimates were calculated using the recommended walking rates based on the Moudon literature review and the observed walking rates from the WMATA 2005 Development Related Ridership Survey, which are described above in Section 2.5.1. The walking rates (e.g., Moudon 600 feet—20%, 1/4-mile—10%, and 1/2-mile—5%) were applied to the walkshed employee and/or resident population to estimate the potential number of Westside Subway Extension riders walking to and from the station. For example, if there is a population of 1,000 employees and residents within the 600-foot walkshed, 200 would be expected to use the Westside Subway Extension by walking


4.0—Methodology


between their job and/or home location and the station (1,000 x 20% = 200). An important distinction between the WMATA and Moudon methodologies is that WMATA uses both employees and residents and Moudon only considers employees. Anticipated ridership with existing and full development using both techniques is presented in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. In addition, the Metro travel forecasts for Santa Monica/Century Park East and Constellation/Avenue of the Stars are noted in Table 4-5.

Table 4-4: Estimate of Ridership—Existing Development

Walkshed

Santa Monica/ Century Park East Station

Constellation/ Avenue of the Stars Station

Santa Monica/ Avenue of the Stars Station

WMATA Moudon WMATA Moudon WMATA Moudon

0 to 600 feet 1,687 964 3,591 2,052 2,065 1,180

600 feet to 1/4 mile 1,340 549 2,370 991 1,462 615

1/4 to 1/2 mile 2,231 849 1,645 544 2,249 841

Total 5,258 2,362 7,606 3,587 5,776 2,636

Table 4-5: Estimate of Ridership—Full Development

Walkshed

Santa Monica/


Constellation/


Santa Monica/


Pop. WMATA Moudon Pop. WMATA Moudon Pop. WMATA Moudon

0 to 600 feet 8,070 2,825 1,614 13,670 4,785 2,734 6,840 2,394 1,368

600 feet to 1/4 mile 5,670 1,340 549 23,960 5,675 2,314 14,080 3,262 1,396

1/4 to 1/2 mile 34,950 3,980 1,632 20,350 3,545 658 31,940 3,702 1,476

Total 48,690 8,145 3,795 57,980 14,005 5,706 52,860 9,359 4,240

Metro Forecast 5,492 8,566 No Forecast

Applying the ridership rates calibrated by distance provides the most reasonable approximation illustration of how the alternative station locations are likely to perform. Because of distance decay, the proportion of the population likely to use transit declines as distance from the station increases.

Comparing the WMATA ridership numbers from the close in and most distant walkshed zones with the highest total population helps explain why Constellation outperforms the other station locations. There is a full development population of 13,670 within 600 feet of the Constellation Station compared to 8,070 for the Santa Monica/Century Park East station (Table 4-6). While the total number of jobs and residents within a 1/2-mile walking distance of the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station is somewhat larger than Santa Monica/Century Park East (57,980 for Constellation and 48,690 for Century Park East), Constellation produces significantly more riders (14,005) than the Santa Monica/Century Park East station with 8,145 riders. The Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars station has a comparable number of jobs and residents (52,860) with a distribution of people living and working near the station, yielding a ridership estimate of 9,359.


4.0—Methodology


The literature review and experience from other transit systems shows the importance of considering distance in evaluating station locations. To make a point made many times in this paper, where the people are can matter more than how many people there are in total. To help illustrate Century City development intensity 3D graphics were prepared comparing the average population of the 600-foot, 1/4-mile and 1/2-mile walksheds for each station. For each walkshed, the number of acres was calculated and divided by the total population to calculate people per acre.

Table 4-6: Development Intensity by Walkshed—Existing Development

Walkshed




Acres People People

per Acre Acres People People

per Acre Acres People People

per Acre

0 to 600 feet 12.0 4,820 402 17.0 10,260 604 15.0 5,900 393


36.5 5,670 155 54.6 10,120 185 49.1 6,260 128

1/4 to 1/2 mile 155.1 18,700 121 161.5 12,670 78 182.9 18,650 102

Total 203.6 29,190 233.1 33,050 247.0 30,810

People = Population + Total Jobs from Table 4-1

People per acre is useful because it provides a common measure to look at the relative intensity of jobs and residents based on existing conditions and the plans and policies guiding future development in Century City. Table 4-6, Table 4-7, and Figure 4-4 through Figure 4-9 show the comparative densities within the three station walksheds for both existing and full development.

Table 4-7: Development Intensity by Walkshed—Full Development

Walkshed




Acres People

People per

Acre Acres People

People per

Acre Acre People

People per

Acre

0 to 600 feet 12.0 8,070 673 17.0 13,670 804 15.0 6,840 456


36.5 5,670 155 54.6 23,960 439 49.1 14,080 287

1/4 to 1/2 mile 155.1 34,950 225 161.5 20,350 126 182.9 31,940 175

Total 203.6 48,690 233.1 57,980 247.0 52,860

People = Population + Total Jobs from Table 4-2


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-4: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station has a combined total of approximately 10,490 people, the lowest of the three stations. It ranks in the middle for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (402 people per acre) and highest in the 1/2-mile walkshed (121 people per acre).


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-5: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station has a combined total of approximately 20,380 people, by far the highest of the three stations. It ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (604 people per acre) and its density is lowest in the 1/2-mile walkshed (78 people per acre).


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-6: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Existing Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station has a combined total of approximately 12,160 people, placing it in the middle of the three stations. It ranks at the bottom for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (393 people per acre) and in the middle for the 1/2-mile walkshed (102 people per acre).


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-7: Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station has a combined total of approximately 13,740 people, the lowest of the three stations. It ranks in the middle for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (673 people per acre) and highest in the 1/2-mile walkshed (225 people per acre).


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-8: Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station has a combined total of approximately 37,630 people, by far the highest of the three stations. It ranks at the top for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (804 people per acre) and the lowest in the 1/2-mile walkshed (126 people per acre).


4.0—Methodology


Figure 4-9: Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Full Development Intensity by Walkshed

In the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station has a combined total of approximately 20,920 people, placing it in the middle of the three stations. It ranks at the bottom for the intensity of people within the 600-foot walkshed (456 people per acre) and in the middle for the 1/2-mile walkshed (175 people per acre).

4.7 Comparison to Metro Forecast Results

As noted in Section 1.1, the Metro travel forecasts were developed for two of the three potential Century City station locations. Model runs were conducted to refine and compare Century City station options in the Final EIS/EIR. The Century City Constellation Station (referred to as Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of the Stars Station in this report) Alternative and the Century City Santa Monica Station (referred to as the Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East Alternative Station in this report) were evaluated. The purpose of this analysis is to support the Final EIS/EIR work.

The ridership estimates presented in this report are intended to compare the three alternative station locations in Century City, and they are not designed to supersede the Metro travel forecasts developed for the Final EIS/EIR. The Metro travel forecast analysis estimates approximately 8,600 station boardings at the Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of the Stars location and 3,000 fewer boardings at the Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East location (see Table 4-5). This result is consistent with the ridership estimates discussed and calculated above.


5.0—Conclusion


5.0 CONCLUSION

This analysis shows the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station is, and will continue to be, in the most advantageous location for attracting the most Westside Subway Extension riders compared to the two station locations along Santa Monica Boulevard. The Constellation Station outperformed the Santa Monica/Century Park East and the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Stations based all of the key indicators examined in this analysis. It has the best pedestrian environment, can be expected to attract the most transit riders, and is centrally located to help shape the redevelopment of Century City as an important transit-oriented destination on the Westside Subway Extension expansion.

The conclusion supporting the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station as the best relative location is supported by a number of factors. The literature review shows the location of jobs and housing within the station walkshed has a bigger impact on ridership than the absolute total number of jobs and housing. This is because as distance increases from the station walking rates decline significantly. Importantly for a major employment center like Century City this “distance decay” effect is more pronounced for work to transit trips than for home to transit trips.

The Constellation station received the highest grades in a site analysis by Professor Anne Moudon of the pedestrian environment. It is more accessible to more workers and residents, especially those most likely to use transit. It is also located next to many utilitarian destinations that would facilitate trip chaining. The Constellation site also benefits from its location away from Santa Monica Boulevard, a major barrier that contributes to traffic exposure and offers little in the way of safety or sensory pleasure.

A station at Constellation also outperformed the two Santa Monica station locations when considering the future growth and development of Century City. A detailed station-by-station analysis was undertaken to quantify the number of jobs and residents for each walkshed assuming 85% build out of Century City consistent with existing plans, policies and development approvals.

This relationship between density and walking distance to the station is a significant differentiator for the three alternative station locations. As summarized in Table 5-1, the future aggregated employee/resident populations at 1/2 mile are comparable for Constellation/Avenue of the Stars (57,980), Santa Monica/Century Park East (48,690), and Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars (52,860). However, as described in this report and the supporting appendices, analyzing the distribution of density within the 1/2-mile walksheds reveals significant differences as to how each of the station locations will perform.


5.0—Conclusion


Table 5-1: Ridership Estimate and Sensitivity Analysis—Full Development

Walkshed

Santa Monica/


Constellation/


Santa Monica/


Pop. WMATA Moudon Pop. WMATA Moudon Pop. WMATA Moudon

0 to 600 feet 8,070 2,825 1,614 13,670 4,785 2,734 6,840 2,394 1,368

600 feet to 1/4 mile 5,670 1,340 549 23,960 5,675 2,314 14,080 3,262 1,396

1/4 to 1/2 mile 34,950 3,980 1,632 20,350 3,545 658 31,940 3,702 1,476

Total 48,690 8,145 3,795 57,980 14,005 5,706 52,860 9,359 4,240

Metro Forecast 5,492 8,566 No Forecast

Pop. = employees plus residents. Table WMATA estimates are based upon total population, and the Moudon estimates are based only on employment.

Overall, the distribution of development surrounding the Constellation Station is much better suited for transit. The location of jobs and residents around the Constellation Station is expected to have by far the highest concentration within the critical 600-foot and 1/4-mile walksheds. As a consequence, the estimated 14,005 riders in the sensitivity analysis for the Constellation Station is approximately 72% greater than the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and about 50% greater than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station, which are expected to have approximately 8,145 and 9,359 riders respectively.


6.0—References


6.0 REFERENCES

Century City Station Options Updated Jobs & Population Inventory Memorandum, Fehr & Peers, May 24, 2011 (Appendix A).

Walking to Transit Literature Review and Evaluation, Anne Vernez Moudon, May 26, 2011 (Appendix B).

Century City North Specific Plan, November 24, 1981, City of Los Angeles.

Century City South Specific Plan, amended August 10, 1993, City of Los Angeles.

West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, March 8, 1997, City of Los Angeles.

City of Los Angeles ZIMAS zoning information, http://zimas.lacity.org/ .

City of Beverly Hills General Plan, April 30, 2010, City of Beverly Hills, http://www.beverlyhills.org/services/planning_division/general_plan/default.asp.


6.0—References

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T December 21, 2011 Page A-1

Appendix A CENTURY CITY STATION OPTIONS UPDATED JOBS AND POPULATION INVENTORY MEMORANDUM

CENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/CENTURY PARK EASTCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/CENTURY PARK EASTCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/CENTURY PARK EASTCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/CENTURY PARK EAST

AddressAddressAddressAddress Generalized Land UseGeneralized Land UseGeneralized Land UseGeneralized Land Use

Gross Leasable Gross Leasable Gross Leasable Gross Leasable

Area/RBA/Area/RBA/Area/RBA/Area/RBA/

Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms # Jobs# Jobs# Jobs# Jobs

0.25 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.25 600' 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.25 600' 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.25 600' 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.25 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 600' 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.25 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.25 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.25 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.25 9935 Santa Monica Blvd Office 5,000 130.25 9940-9944 Santa Monica Blvd Office 20,000 510.25 9949 Santa Monica Blvd Office 1,758 50.25 9950 Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,820 70.25 9952 Santa Monica Blvd Office 7,600 200.25 9975 Santa Monica Blvd - The Gateway Building Office 12,000 310.25 9990 Santa Monica Blvd Office 10,598 270.25 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.25 600' 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.25 9919-9925 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,920 40.25 9953 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,304 30.25 9956-9960 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,097 60.25 9970 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,900 70.25 600' 9923 S Santa Monica Blvd Retail 750 1

0.50 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.50 Beverly Hilton Hotel 570 2850.50 Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.50 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.50 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.50 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.50 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.50 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.50 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.50 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 2049 Century Park E South Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 2080 Century Park E - Century City Medical Bldg Office 199,534 5130.50 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.50 124 Lasky Dr Office 8,360 210.50 132 Lasky Dr Office 5,483 140.50 132-B Lasky Dr Office 2,113 50.50 138 S Lasky Dr Office 1,502 40.50 152-160 S Lasky Dr Office 15,000 390.50 153 S Lasky Dr Office 8,060 210.50 201 S Lasky Dr Office 7,288 190.50 9916 Santa Monica Blvd Office 11,000 280.50 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.50 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.50 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.50 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.50 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.50 10327-10329 Santa Monica Blvd Office 4,808 120.50 10340 Santa Monica Blvd Office 9,552 250.50 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.50 9800 Wilshire Bl Office 40,000 1030.50 9830 Wilshire Bl - Creative Artists Bldg Office 65,000 1670.50 9859-9867 Santa Monica Bl Retail 3,675 60.50 9869-9877 Santa Monica Bl Retail 5,850 90.50 9879-9883 Santa Monica Bl Retail 3,200 50.50 9885 Santa Monica Bl Retail 6,546 100.50 9885-9887 Santa Monica Bl Retail 2,800 40.50 9889-9899 Santa Monica Bl Retail 5,696 90.50 9900 Santa Monica Bl Retail 18,945 280.50 9901-9905 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,661 40.50 9907-9909 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,315 50.50 9908 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,939 60.50 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Retail 1,339,873 2,0100.50 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 15

Distance from Distance from Distance from Distance from

PortalPortalPortalPortal





Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms # Jobs# Jobs# Jobs# JobsDistance from Distance from Distance from Distance from


0.50 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 50.50 10305 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,450 50.50 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 8,372 130.50 9775-9777 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 1,700 30.50 9849 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 2,468 40.50 9815 Wilshire Bl Retail 923 10.50 9844 Wilshire / 9811 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 4,184 60.50 9988 Wilshire Bl Retail 1,089 2

CENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION bl





0.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.25 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 600' 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.25 600' 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.25 600' 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.25 600' 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.25 600' 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.25 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.25 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.25 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.25 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.25 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.25 600' 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.25 1930 Century Park W Office 56,300 1450.25 10250 Constellation Blvd - MGM Tower Office 775,037 1,9930.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 1,410,393 2,1160.25 600' Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.25 Intercontinental Hotel 364 182

0.5 2121 Avenue of the Stars - Fox Plaza Office 730,510 1,8780.5 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.5 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.5 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.5 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.5 2049 Century Park E South Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.5 2080 Century Park E Century City Medical Bldg Office 199,534 5130.5 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.5 Olympic Blvd and Century @ Olympic Blvd - Crescent Century City II Office 24,000 620.5 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.5 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.5 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.5 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.5 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,372 220.5 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.5 Fox Studios Office 4160.5 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 150.5 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.5 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 5



CENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/AVENUE OF THE STARSCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/AVENUE OF THE STARSCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/AVENUE OF THE STARSCENTURY CITY STATION SANTA MONICA BL/AVENUE OF THE STARS




Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms JobsJobsJobsJobs

0.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.25 600' 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 600' 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 600' 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.25 600' 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.25 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.25 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.25 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.25 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.25 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.25 600' 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.25 600' 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.25 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.25 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.25 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,372 220.25 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Retail 1,339,873 2,0100.25 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 150.25 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 50.25 10305 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,450 5

0.5 Beverly Hilton Hotel 570 2850.5 Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.5 Intercontinental Hotel 364 728

0.50 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.50 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.50 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.50 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.50 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.50 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.50 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.50 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.50 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.50 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.50 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 1930 Century Park W Office 56,300 1450.50 10250 Constellation Blvd - MGM Tower Office 775,037 1,9930.50 Olympic Blvd and Century @ Olympic Blvd - Crescent Century City II Office 24,000 620.50 9916 Santa Monica Blvd Office 11,000 280.50 9935 Santa Monica Blvd Office 5,000 130.50 9940-9944 Santa Monica Blvd Office 20,000 510.50 9949 Santa Monica Blvd Office 1,758 50.50 9950 Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,820 70.50 9975 Santa Monica Blvd - The Gateway Building Office 12,000 310.50 9990 Santa Monica Blvd Office 10,598 270.50 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.50 10327-10329 Santa Monica Blvd Office 4,808 120.50 10333 Santa Monica Blvd Office 3,355 90.50 10340 Santa Monica Blvd Office 9,552 250.50 10350 Santa Monica Blvd Office 42,292 1090.50 10351 Santa Monica Blvd - Santa Monica Comstock Plaza Office 101,495 2610.50 10390 Santa Monica Blvd - Royal Beverly Glen Building Office 78,463 2020.50 10436 Santa Monica Blvd Office 15,950 410.50 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.5 2121 Avenue of the Stars - Fox Plaza Office 730,510 1,878

0.50 9901-9905 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,661 40.50 9907-9909 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,315 50.50 9908 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,939 60.50 9919-9923 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,920 40.50 9952 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 7,600 110.50 9953 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,304 30.50 9956-9960 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,097 60.50 9970 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,900 70.50 10349 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 7,319 110.50 10391 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,337 40.50 10401 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,132 5







Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms JobsJobsJobsJobsDistance from Distance from Distance from Distance from


0.50 10403 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 11,520 170.50 10421-10423 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,400 70.50 10425-10431 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 6,000 90.50 9923 S Santa Monica Blvd Retail 750 1


Appendix B

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T December 21, 2011 Page B-1

Appendix B WALKING TO TRANSIT LITERATURE REVIEW AND EVALUATION

`

Walking to Transit Literature Review and Evaluation

July 29, 2011

WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION PROJECT Contract No. PS-4350-2000


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T July 29, 2011 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Findings from the literature ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.1.1 Distance .............................................................................................................. 1-11.1.2 Walk environment .............................................................................................. 1-11.1.3 Other Factors Influencing Walking to Transit ................................................... 1-1

1.2 Station Site Evaluation .................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Site ................................................... 1-31.2.2 Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Site ................................................ 1-31.2.3 Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Site ................................................. 1-3

1.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 1-3

2.0 FULL REPORT .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Findings from the literature ............................................................................................ 2-12.1.1 Distance .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Walk environment .............................................................................................. 2-22.1.3 Other factors influencing walking ...................................................................... 2-4

2.2 Walk Environment Evaluation......................................................................................... 2-52.2.1 Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 2-6

2.2.2 Usefulness .......................................................................................................... 2-82.2.3 Safety .................................................................................................................. 2-82.2.4 Comfort ............................................................................................................. 2-102.2.5 Sensory Pleasure .............................................................................................. 2-10

2.2.6 Sense of belonging ........................................................................................... 2-11

2.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.4 References ..................................................................................................................... 2-12

3.0 TECHNICAL APPENDIX A: DETAILED LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................. 3-1

3.1 Walking distance to transit ............................................................................................. 3-13.1.1 Distance to transit and transit use .................................................................... 3-13.1.2 Distance to transit and access mode choice ..................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Walk distances to/from transit .......................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Walk Environment ........................................................................................................... 3-53.2.1 Feasibility ............................................................................................................ 3-63.2.2 Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.3 Usefulness .......................................................................................................... 3-73.2.4 Safety .................................................................................................................. 3-83.2.5 Comfort ............................................................................................................... 3-93.2.6 Sensory pleasure .............................................................................................. 3-10

3.2.7 Sense of belonging ........................................................................................... 3-11

3.3 Other factors known to modify transit use and walking distances to transit ............. 3-113.3.1 Gender .............................................................................................................. 3-113.3.2 Car ownership .................................................................................................. 3-11

3.3.3 Socioeconomic factors and employment land uses ....................................... 3-123.3.4 Housing type and transit use .......................................................................... 3-12


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page ii July 29, 2011

3.3.5 Attitudes ........................................................................................................... 3-133.3.6 Employer policies ............................................................................................. 3-13

4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDIX B: DETAILED STATION SITE EVALUATION ..................................... 4-1

4.1 Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 4-34.1.1 Distances ............................................................................................................ 4-34.1.2 Route Directness ................................................................................................ 4-5

4.2 Usefulness ....................................................................................................................... 4-74.2.1 Utilitarian destinations trip chaining potential ................................................. 4-7

4.3 Safety ............................................................................................................................... 4-84.3.1 Safety from traffic ............................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.2 Safety from crime ............................................................................................. 4-10

4.4 Comfort .......................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.5 Sensory Pleasure ........................................................................................................... 4-14

4.6 Sense of belonging ........................................................................................................ 4-14

4.7 Long-range considerations ........................................................................................... 4-15

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: An example of the distance decay effect of walking to transit from 10 California office projects (Cervero 2006). ................................................................................................. 3-2

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Quarter-mile Walkshed Evaluation Criteria and Grades for the Three Proposed Station Sites (condensed from Table 4-1 in Technical Appendix B) .......................................... 1-2

Table 2-1: Quarter-mile walkshed evaluation criteria and grades for the three proposed station sites (condensed from Table 4-1 in Technical Appendix B) .......................................... 2-5

Table 2-2: Comparing Percent of Jobs Weighted with Santa Monica/Century Park E as Reference (100%) ............................................................................................................................. 2-7

Table 3-1: Observed walk distances to/from transit ................................................................................ 3-4

Table 3-2: Hierarchy of walking needs and facilitators. ........................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-3: 2009 California average annual wages for selected Industries ............................................. 3-12

Table 4-1: Detailed station evaluation by individual criterion and rankings. Stations are evaluated

using a quarter mile walkshed. ....................................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2: Comparing percent of absolute number of jobs with Santa Monica/Century Park E as reference (100%) ............................................................................................................. 4-3

Table 4-3: Comparing percent of jobs weighted with Santa Monica/Century Park E as reference

(100%) ............................................................................................................................. 4-4



W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T July 29, 2011 Page 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This executive summary presents condensed results of our literature review and evaluation of the ability for each of the three proposed Century City Westside Subway Extension station sites to support walk trips. The literature review focuses on distance to transit, environments that support walking, and other factors related to walking to transit. For the evaluation, we develop criteria based on the literature and grade each of the proposed station sites using information collected during site visits and provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff. This system allows us to identify a preferred Century City station site to support walk trips to transit.

1.1 Findings from the literature

1.1.1 Distance

Physical distance is the primary determinant of walking as the choice means of travel. In general, people select to walk to transit and other destinations only if they need to travel short distances. Median distances to rail transit range from 1/5 to ½ miles (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Ewing 1998; Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007; Guo 2009). These short distances are due to a strong distance decay effect on both (1) transit commute mode share and on (2) walking as the access mode to transit. This strong inverse relationship exists at both the employment and the residential sides of the trip, although the effect in employment areas is generally stronger than the effect in residential areas (Dill 2003; Cervero 2006; Kolko 2011). Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within ¼ network miles or less of a station, typically declining by half between ¼ and ½ miles, and becoming very small beyond ½ mile (Cervero 1994; O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Seskin, Cervero et al. 1996; Dill 2006; Brown and Werner 2009; Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009; Kolko 2011). Based on these findings, we think an appropriate walkshed for capturing the majority of walk trips to and from a station would be up to ¼ network mile for employment sites (Dill 2003) and ½ network mile for primarily residential sites (Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009; Kolko 2011).

1.1.2 Walk environment

The walk environment can intervene in the decision to walk and in the willingness to walk longer distances. Characteristics of the walk environment that have this effect can be structured into a hierarchy of needs that people consider when walking (Mehta 2008). If fulfilled, these needs will alter either the actual distances people must walk or their perception of time and therefore distance, and their attitude toward and eventual decision to walk. These needs are: accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. While this hierarchy was developed for walking in general, research on walking to transit confirms that people do in fact consider these features in their choice to walk to transit (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005; Guo 2009).

1.1.3 Other Factors Influencing Walking to Transit

Travel mode choice is dependent on numerous factors other than the built environment (Ewing and Cervero 2010). These factors must be considered in conjunction with an assessment of the walk environment because they provide insight into who may be more likely to walk to transit. Those more likely to use transit tend to be women, people who do not own cars, people with less income, people who live in multifamily dwellings, people with positive attitudes toward health and the



W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 1-2 July 29, 2011

environment, and employees at workplaces with transit-supportive policies (Kitamura, Mokhtarian et al. 1997; Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Canepa 2007; Larco 2009).

1.2 Station Site Evaluation

The framework we used to evaluate the ability for each of the proposed station sites to support walk trips is based on Mehta’s hierarchy for pedestrian needs. The framework consists of six levels necessary for a completely supportive walk environment: (1) accessibility, (2) usefulness, (3) safety, (4) comfort, (5) sensory pleasure, and (6) sense of belonging. For each of the levels, we used urban design theory and findings from research on walking to transit to develop criteria on which to grade each of the three transit stations. Stations sites are evaluated within a quarter mile walkshed (except for the assessment of the population residing in the Century City area, which is considered within the one half mile walkshed) and graded using a letter grade. The station grades are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Quarter-mile Walkshed Evaluation Criteria and Grades for the Three Proposed Station Sites (condensed from Table 4-1 in Technical Appendix B)

Hierarchy

Level Domain Criteria

Santa

Monica/ Century

Park East

Constel-

lation/ Avenue of

the Stars

Santa

Monica/ Avenue of

the Stars

Accessibility Work Jobs within ¼ mile Likely number of low-wage jobs

C A B-

Home Population within ½ mile, Ratio of multifamily to single-family housing

B A B

Route Directness


C+ A B+



C A A-



B- B C

Safety from Crime


A A B


B+ B B-

Sensory pleasure

Noticeable differences, physical + social (people and events)

B A- A-

Sense of belonging


B A B




1.2.1 Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Site

The Santa Monica/Century Park East Station site received the lowest grades overall, not only because it has the lowest estimates of transit riders within all walksheds, but also because it is least accessible to jobs and the concentration of useful destinations at the Westfield Mall. It is only accessible via one thru-block pedestrian path and is adjacent to the poor pedestrian street environment – little protection or visual stimulation – along Santa Monica Blvd, which is characterized by heavy traffic travelling at relatively fast speeds. It benefits from its location on Century Park East, a street that, near the North end, offers a moderate level of safety, comfort, and sensory pleasure. The vacant lot at the Southeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd and Century Park East offers an opportunity to improve the street environment along Santa Monica Boulevard. This improvement, however, would only be marginal as the golf course bordering the north side of the street blocks pedestrian accessibility and provides little in the way of a pedestrian destination.

1.2.2 Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Site

The Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station received slightly better grades. It had low to medium estimates of transit riders compared to the other stations locations. Although it is accessible by high-quality thru-block pedestrian paths and provides convenient access to utilitarian destinations in the Westfield Mall, it is not in a central location to Century City jobs. Additionally, we think its street-level environment of wide travel lanes, large building setbacks, and lack of quality street trees would leave pedestrians feeling exposed to traffic and criminal danger. Walking at street level would also seem like a burden due to little coverage from the elements and few interesting things to look at.

1.2.3 Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Site

The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station site received the highest grades. It has by far the highest estimates of transit riders in all three walksheds. It is more accessible to more workers and residents, especially those most likely to use transit. It is also located next to many utilitarian destinations that would facilitate trip chaining. The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars site also benefits from its location away from Santa Monica Blvd, a major barrier that contributes to traffic exposure and offers little in the way of safety or sensory pleasure. While neither Constellation nor Avenue of the Stars are great pedestrian streets, they do provide a sufficiently safe and comfortable walk environment. Additionally, this site benefits from easy access to a high-quality mid-block green space and social space. Its location at the center of the neighborhood puts it in a unique position to provide equal access from the surrounding worksites and neighborhoods and to contribute to a sense of equal belonging to transit riders. Future development of the vacant lot on the Northeast corner of the intersection is also a unique opportunity to bring in a greater sense of place and to anchor the station at the heart of the Century City neighborhood.

1.3 Conclusion

Based on our analysis using site evaluation criteria developed from the literature, we think the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station would support the most walk trips to and from transit. We think this location would benefit the most workers, residents, and others who wish to access Century City using the new Westside Subway Extension.


2.0—Full Report


2.0 FULL REPORT

This report is divided into two main sections: a literature review and an evaluation of the three proposed Century City Westside Subway Extension station sites. The literature review covers walk distances to transit, features of the walk environment that support walking to transit, and other factors that are known to influence walking to transit. The site evaluation section applies findings from the literature to designate appropriate walksheds for the proposed station sites and analyze the walk environment within these areas. Each potential station site is graded using criteria developed from the literature. To conclude, we summarize the benefits and drawbacks of each station site for supporting walk trips to transit.

2.1 Findings from the literature

This review is divided into a section focusing on distances as the primary determinant of walking as a mode choice; a section on the characteristics of the walk environment which can influence the decision to walk and the perceived and actual distance that will be walked; and a brief section on individual and policy characteristics that are associated with more people walking longer distances (see Appendix A for a more detailed review of this literature).

2.1.1 Distance

2.1.1.1 Physical distance: walking as a choice travel mode

Physical distance is the primary determinant of walking as the choice means of travel. In general, people select to walk to transit and other destinations only if they need to travel short distances. Median distances to rail transit range from 1/5 to ½ miles (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Ewing 1998; Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007; Guo 2009). Most people switch to motorized modes of travel for longer travel distances (> ½ mile) (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996). The decision to walk even within short distances (< ½ mile) is determined by the choice of other alternative modes of travel and the perception of time walking.

2.1.1.2 Perceived distance and the perception of walking as an access mode to motorized modes

There is no choice in accessing any of the motorized means of travel: they all must be “walked to,” whether it is getting to a car in one’s garage (~one minute) or catching a bus a few blocks away (~five minutes). Importantly, these unavoidable short walks are rarely considered as a “walking trip.” They are typically underreported and bundled with the “primary” motorized means of travel (U.S. Department of Transportation 2009). Hence for most people, a walk trip becomes a conscious travel mode choice if the trip is perceived as lasting longer than about five minutes. A five minute walk at three miles per hour corresponds to roughly a quarter mile, the median distance people walk to transit based on national data and the rule of thumb distance that transit planners have used as ridership walksheds (Ewing 1998).

People have been observed to walk up to two miles to or from transit (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007; Guo 2009). But to compete with the private automobile among choice transit riders, transit access must be within “perceived walking distance” of a trip origin and destination. Ease of access to a transit station by walking contributes to increasing the transit commute mode share, and to reducing the share of motorized modes to access transit. Indeed


2.0—Full Report


transit stations with the greatest transit ridership are those in Central Business Districts (CBDs), where most access is by foot. Also, the higher the ridership at a given station, the larger the proportion of riders accessing transit on foot.

2.1.1.3 Distance to station as a determinant of transit ridership levels and walking as a primary access mode

The transportation literature presents similar, yet sometimes conflicting advice on appropriate transit walksheds – or areas around transit stations from which most walk-to-transit trips will originate. Using nationwide data on access to all types of transit, Ewing and Cervero (2010) suggest a quarter-mile walkshed. Evidence shows that people are willing to walk further to rail than to rubber transit, typically because of the higher frequency and quality of rail transit (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009). Half-mile walksheds have been used as a standard Transit-Oriented Development radius along rail lines (Canepa 2007). Furthermore, people tend to walk further to access transit stations near residential concentrations than employment concentrations (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Krygsman, Dijst et al. 2004). O’Sullivan and Morrall (1996) suggest a 1,312 ft (400m, about ¼ mile) radial distance pedestrian zone for stations near concentrations of office development and a 2,953 ft (900m, about ½ mile) zone for stations in residential areas. Some suggest that walk distances are shorter in CBDs because employment land uses are more concentrated than residential ones, and therefore distances between activities and transit stations are simply shorter in major employment locations (Canepa 2007).

Importantly, there is a distance decay effect on both commute mode share and on walking as the access mode to transit. Distance to and from a station is strongly and negatively related to (1) the number of people using transit (commute mode share); and (2) the number of transit riders walking to a station (access mode share). This strong inverse relationship exists at both the employment and the residential sides of the trip. Several studies provide metrics for the relationship between distances to stations and a declining proportion of riders (Dill 2003; Cervero 2006; Kolko 2011). Overall, the proportion of transit riders walking to transit is greatest within ¼ network miles or less of a station, typically declining by half between ¼ and ½ miles, and becoming very small beyond ½ mile (Cervero 1994; O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Seskin, Cervero et al. 1996; Dill 2006; Brown and Werner 2009; Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009; Kolko 2011).

Based on these findings, we think an appropriate walkshed for capturing the majority of walk trips to and from a subway station would be up to ¼ network mile for primarily employment sites (Dill 2003) and ½ network mile for primarily residential sites (Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009; Kolko 2011).

2.1.2 Walk environment

The walk environment can intervene in the decision to walk and in the willingness to walk longer distances. The ¼ mile and ½ mile walksheds correspond to a walk trip of about 5 to 10 minutes, which entail a small portion of not only the working day, but also of time allocated to daily travel. The 600 foot walkshed corresponds to a 2.5 minute walk, a span of time which people will hardly notice if they like where they are, but which may seem like “an eternity” if they feel bored or threatened. How time is perceived by individual travelers will vary by individual and by the environment in which they walk. Borrowing the structure from Maslow and the content from urban design theorists, Mehta (2008) offers a hierarchy of needs that people consider when walking. If fulfilled, these needs will alter people’s perception of time and therefore distance, and their attitude toward and eventual decision to walk. Applied to station area characteristics, these needs are:


2.0—Full Report


Accessibility, or the ability to “easily” get to the station. Physical distance (covered in the first section of the literature review) is the first measure of accessibility. A second measure is route directness or the “circuity” factor (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996), measured as the ratio of airline (as the crow flies) distance between origin and destination and actual distance traveled. A route directness ratio of about 1.3 or less (corresponds to a block size of about 2.2 acres, or 300 by 300 feet) is deemed desirable, indicating that a walking route may be as much as 30% longer than the straight line distance between origin and destination (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Ewing 1998; Hess, Moudon et al. 1999). Route directness is a measure of the efficiency of the network of walking routes. Conversely, it measures the “detour” that a pedestrian must make to reach an activity. Importantly, pedestrians walking for transportation seek to minimize the distance traveled. They take shortcuts whenever they can, sometimes even taking risks (Gehl 2006). A detour (both perceived and actual) is more onerous to the slow moving pedestrian than to the driver. A recent meta-analysis of the relationship between the built-environment and transit use showed that distance to the nearest transit stop and the percent of 4-way intersections had the highest weighted average elasticities for transit use (0.29), followed by intersection/street density (0.23) (Ewing and Cervero 2010).

Usefulness, or the ability to carry out different activities along the walk. Commuters note the need to attend to child care, to shop, to attend to personal business, and to eat and carry social and recreational activities on their way to and from work (Cervero 2006). Transit mode share is generally twice as high in CBDs than in otherwise dense suburban areas in part because the density of CBDs is associated with land use mix: CBDs contain utilitarian land uses that serve those who walk to and from transit (Douglas and Evans 1997; Dill 2003; Cervero 2006). The opportunity to trip chain as an influence on transit mode choice is also evidenced by research on walk routes selection to and from transit stations: transit riders in CBDs have been shown to select walk routes that passed by more retail parcels (Guo 2009) or to frequently walk to destinations near their work place (Lachapelle, Frank et al. 2011).

Safety, or the avoidance of danger from vehicular traffic or from crime. As they move through space unprotected, pedestrians are particularly vulnerable to car traffic. Indeed while walk trips constitute some 4 % of all commute trips, crashes involving pedestrians account for 11% of traffic fatalities (U.S. Department of Transportation 2010) As a result, pedestrians favor using sidewalks and other separated walkways; and they consider traffic speeds and protective traffic devices (crosswalks, medians, etc.) in selecting their walk route (Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). Safety from traffic has been rated as more important than attractive station design (Iseki and Taylor 2010). A model shows that a conflict with traffic is equivalent to adding 119 ft (36.3 m) to the walk trip (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005).

Also, because pedestrians are directly exposed to their immediate environment, they are sensitive to other people whom they may find threatening. The theory of “prospect-refuge” articulates people’s evolutionary based need to have a protective environment, which at the same time enables them to look out for themselves—to see but not to be seen (Appleton 1975). According to this theory, pedestrian spaces that provide nearby shelter and edges with clear lines of sight into the surrounding area can increase perceived safety.

Comfort: people need places to sit and they prefer wide sidewalks. Steep hills and stairs act as barriers to walking and have been shown to add to the perceived length of a walk trip (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005; Guo 2009). Pedestrians traveling to or from transit will also seek out more


2.0—Full Report


comfortable routes, such as those with wider sidewalks or which pass through a park, even if these routes add to their travel time (Guo 2009).

Sensory pleasure: having one’s senses pleasantly stimulated by the walk environment shortens the distance perceived by replacing the effort demanded by walking with other pleasurable sensations. There is evidence that the sense of time is modified by what has been termed “noticeable differences” in the proximal environment (Rapoport 1990). Both physical (e.g., building facades and street trees) and social (e.g., other pedestrians or nearby cafes) features can contribute to noticeable differences and make for a more pleasurable walk trip (Whyte 1980).

Sense of belonging: while there is little research on this topic that is related to transit, the concept of “third place” or home away from home has been successful in the retail environment where creating a sense of place has been used to entice people to shop more. People choose to walk in main streets that they feel having a special connection with (Mehta 2008). This suggests that people may choose routes to transit that pass by third places, or that a properly positioned and designed transit station could become a catalyst for such third places in a neighborhood due to the pedestrian traffic generated.

2.1.3 Other factors influencing walking

It is well understood that travel mode choice is dependent on the traveler’s socioeconomic characteristics as well as on the built environment. In fact, socioeconomic characteristics may be even more important than the built environment (Ewing and Cervero 2010). These factors must be considered in conjunction with an assessment of the walk environment because they provide insight into who may be more likely to walk to transit. These factors include:

Gender, in the U.S., women in the 16 to 24, 25 to 34, and 45 to 54 year age groups walk to transit at higher rates than their male counterparts (U.S. Department of Transportation 2009). Men are more likely to walk farther to transit and females are less likely to walk at night (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996).

Car ownership, higher rates of auto ownership is consistently associated with lower transit ridership (Cervero 2006) and a reduced likelihood of walking to transit (Besser and Dannenberg 2005).

Socioeconomic factors, compared to the general U.S. population, those who walk to transit are more likely to earn <$15K, be aged 18-29, be less educated, be a minority, and be without access to a car (Besser and Dannenberg 2005).

Housing type, multifamily dwellers have fewer cars, travel shorter distances and ride transit at higher levels than their single-family counterparts ((Larco 2009)).

Attitudes, there is evidence that attitudes toward the environment, climate change, health, and transportation influence many to use transit and to walk more (Kitamura, Mokhtarian et al. 1997; Loutzenheiser 1997).

Employer policies, flex time programs or employer assistance with transit costs are associated with higher levels of commute trips by transit. Those with free worksite parking or employer assistance with car costs report much lower levels of commute trips by transit (Canepa 2007).


2.0—Full Report


2.2 Walk Environment Evaluation

The framework we used to evaluate the ability for each of the proposed station sites to support walk trips is based on Mehta’s (2008) hierarchy for pedestrian needs. The framework consists of six levels necessary for a completely supportive walk environment: accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. The framework accounts for neighborhood-level influences on walking that are well understood and documented, such as accessibility, but also considers microscale environmental factors that can influence the walk experience at the street-block scale. For each of the levels, we used urban design theory and findings from research on walking to transit to develop criteria on which to grade each of the three transit stations. Stations sites are evaluated within a quarter mile walkshed (except for the assessment of the population residing in the Century City area, which is considered with the one half mile walkshed) and graded using a letter grade. The station grades are summarized in Table 2-1 (see Appendix B for a detailed, criterion by criterion, evaluation of the station location options) and explained in the remainder of this section.

Table 2-1: Quarter-mile walkshed evaluation criteria and grades for the three proposed station sites (condensed from Table 4-1 in Technical Appendix B)

Hierarchy

Level Domain Criteria

Santa

Monica/ Century

Park East

Constel-

lation/ Avenue of

the Stars

Santa

Monica/ Avenue of

the Stars

Accessibility Work Jobs within ¼ mile Likely number of low-wage jobs

C A B-

Home Population within ½ mile, Ratio of multifamily to single-family housing

B A B

Route Directness


C+ A B+



C A A-



B- B C

Safety from Crime


A A B


B+ B B-

Sensory pleasure

Noticeable differences, physical + social (people and events)

B A- A-

Sense of belonging


B A B


2.0—Full Report


2.2.1 Accessibility

2.2.1.1 Work

The percentage of workers who commute by transit drops quickly as distances from transit station to work increase (Dill 2003; Cervero 2006). Median walk length to or from CBD’s where most jobs are located, tend to be very short (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996). Those with less income are more likely to walk to transit (Besser and Dannenberg 2005). Based on these research findings, the criteria we used to assess job accessibility were the number of jobs within a quarter mile of the station and the number of those that were likely to offer lower wages. Job estimates were provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in a May 24, 2011, memorandum.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: C

– 10,310 jobs and mostly office buildings within a quarter mile.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: A

– 20,170 jobs and access to mall and hotel within a quarter mile.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: B-

– 12,050 jobs and access to mall within a quarter mile.

The station sites have a widely varying number of jobs up to a quarter mile away but a similar number of jobs located within a half mile network distance. Because of these variations, we explore the distance decay effect on the potential number of transit riders and on their likelihood of walking to the three station options. Using the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station as the reference, we compare the number of jobs likely to walk to transit weighted by the distance to the station (Table 2-2) within the three walksheds. We use 20% to estimate the number of riders or walkers in the 0 to 600 foot walkshed; 10% in the 600 ft to ¼ mile walkshed; and 5% in the ¼ to ½ mile walkshed.1 Estimates derived from weighted numbers suggest that compared to Santa Monica/Century Park East, about twice as many workers will walk to the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station and about 120 percent will walk to the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars station at distances up to a quarter mile. At distances of a half-mile, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station will still likely capture 152 percent of the walk trips at Santa Monica/Century Park East; and the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars station would capture 112 percent of the walk trips. Clearly, the distance decay effect favors job concentrations near stations, and in this case, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars location.

1 This exercise is based on a conservative assessment of two California studies. We use Cervero’s finding that 19% of workers in 10 primarily suburban sites within ½ mile of a rail station used transit as their primary commute mode (Cervero 2006). We also interpret Dill’s finding that within ¼ mile of a station, the share of transit commute was 20%, dropping to 4% between ¼ and 1/2 mile, and to 2.5% beyond ½ mile (Dill 2003). Other references include Cervero 1994, and Seskin, Cervero et al. 1996.


2.0—Full Report


Table 2-2: Comparing Percent of Jobs Weighted with Santa Monica/Century Park E as Reference (100%)

Walkshed

Santa Monica/


Constellation


Santa Monica/


Percent Total weighted jobs Percent Total weighted jobs Percent Total weighted jobs

0’ to 600’1 100 964 213 2,052 122 1,180

0’ to ¼ Mile 2 100 1,513 201 3,043 119 1,795

0’ to ½ Mile 3 100 2,362 152 3,587 112 2,636 120% jobs within 0’ – 600’. 220% jobs within 0' – 600’; plus 10% jobs within 600’ - ¼ mile. 320% jobs within 0' – 600’; plus 10% jobs within 600’ - ¼ mile; plus 5% jobs within ¼ - ½ mile 5%.

2.2.1.2 Home

To evaluate home accessibility, we measured the number of residences within a half mile, the median distance walked from home to transit in some North American Cities (Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). Furthermore, since people who live in more compact multi-family residences are more likely to use transit than their counterparts who live in single-family detached housing (Larco 2009), we evaluated the ratio of multi-family to single-family housing within the half-mile residential walkshed. Population estimates were provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in a May 24, 2011, memorandum.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: B

– 1,900 people and primarily mid-density townhomes within a half mile.


– 2,010 people and primarily higher density condominiums within a half mile.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: B

– 1,940 people and a mix of single-family detached housing and apartments within a half mile.

2.2.1.3 Route Directness

Route Directness measures the ease for pedestrians to access destinations via actual walk routes. Pedestrians prefer direct routes (Moudon, Hess et al. 1997) and may be discouraged from walking to transit if the station requires a circuitous route (Canepa 2007). We considered the sidewalk coverage along streets, the presence of pedestrian paths, as well as the length and number of routes that make up the complete pedestrian network. We also considered the accessibility of buildings from the pedestrian network, both for those with complete and limited mobility. Across all three station walksheds we observed consistent and sufficient sidewalk coverage along vehicular streets and building access points.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: C+

– Four pedestrian routes in quarter-mile walkshed, station directly accessible via one formal thru-block pedestrian path


2.0—Full Report



– Seven pedestrian routes in quarter-mile walkshed, station directly accessible via one formal thru-block path and near the thru-block pedestrian network in the Westfield Mall.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: B+

– Five pedestrian routes in quarter-mile walkshed, station directly accessible via two formal thru-block paths to the East and West.

2.2.2 Usefulness

2.2.2.1 Utilitarian destinations and trip chaining potential

Walking is a means of reaching destinations that fulfill basic day-to-day needs for shopping, eating, entertainment, and other activities. A station located closer to stores, restaurants and other facilities that fulfill these needs would allow workers and neighborhood residents to easily link trips to these utilitarian destinations with transit-based trips to or from work or other destinations. To measure each station’s trip chaining potential, we examined the proximity to retail, food and drink establishments, and entertainment venues. We also looked at the proximity to the bulk of present transit boardings within Century City, both as a measure of the relative attractiveness of destinations within the area and as a measure of proximity to transit stop that subway riders may wish to use for transfers.


– Farthest from the retail shops, food, and entertainment at Westfield Mall and the concentration of present transit boardings. Some food and drink sources along Century Park East that facilitate trip chaining.


– Close to the South mall entrance. Close to movie theater, grocery store, and food court at South end of mall, as well as several smaller food and drink outlets near Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Blvd intersection. Closest to the concentration of present transit boardings.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: A-

– Close to the Northeast mall entrance and the food and drink sources at north end of the mall. Within reasonable distance of food sources along Century Park East and the movie theater, grocery store, and food court at the South end of the mall. Also a reasonable distance (1.5 street-blocks) from concentration of present transit boardings.

2.2.3 Safety

2.2.3.1 Traffic

People walking to transit prefer routes that offer real or perceived protection from exposure to traffic and potential collisions (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). We assessed the presence of environmental features that would reduce exposure to traffic. These included marked and signalized crosswalks at street intersections, mid-block crosswalks and long crosswalk timings. We also assessed features of the street that contribute to a sense of exposure to traffic: higher traffic speeds and volumes along streets and curb cuts and driveways that interrupt sidewalks. Because traffic exposure only occurs along streets that carry traffic, our assessment focused only on the street


2.0—Full Report


environment (as opposed to the mid-block areas) within the quarter-mile walkshed. Across all three walksheds we found sufficient crosswalk signalization, but insufficient walk times at intersections. Curb cuts and driveways were also consistent and ubiquitous.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: B-

– Santa Monica Blvd is a very wide (9 lanes + median) street that carries heavy traffic at relatively fast speeds. It presents a major barrier to cross and contributes to a sense of exposure to traffic danger. Century Park East is less wide (6 lanes). It presents only a minor barrier to cross, especially due to the mid-block pedestrian crossing near the intersection with Santa Monica Blvd, and does not contribute to a sense of unsafe exposure to traffic.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: B

– Avenue of the Stars is a very wide street (8 lanes + median) and presents a major barrier to cross. It appears to carry a relatively small number of cars in relation to its capacity. Constellation Blvd is less wide (6 lanes) and less of a burden to cross. A mid-block crosswalk near the South entrance to the Westfield Mall makes it safer and easier to cross. Traffic volume on Constellation Blvd appears low and cars tend to travel at reasonable speeds.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: C

– Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Blvd are both very wide streets (8 lanes + median) and present a major barrier to cross and contribute to exposure to traffic.

2.2.3.2 Crime

An environment that contributes to a sense of safety from assault, theft, or other crimes is preferred by pedestrians accessing transit (Kim, Ulfarsson et al. 2007; Iseki and Taylor 2010). According to routine activity theory, three elements are necessary for a crime to occur: a target, an offender, and the absence of a capable guardian (Foster, Giles-Corti et al. 2010). Social environment characteristics that can contribute to a sense of safety from crime are an absence of potential offenders and the presence of capable guardians. Physical environmental characteristics that can contribute to a sense of safety from crime are sufficient lighting and an environment that allows for pedestrians to remain relatively hidden from others (i.e., potential offenders) yet enables them to observe others. This evolutionary based need is called prospect-refuge (Appleton 1975). Overall, Century City has a strong live security presence and few people that may be considered potential offenders. Ample lighting exists along the streets and pedestrian paths. Prospect-refuge along streets was the only characteristic with significant differences from station site to site. Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars have large building setbacks and several lanes, contributing to a sense of exposure for pedestrians walking along its sidewalks. Constellation Blvd and Century Park East have better prospect-refuge due to shorter setbacks, fewer auto lanes, shorter block lengths (only for Constellation Blvd) and street trees between the sidewalk and auto lanes (only for Century Park East).

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: A

– Generally a safe environment. Santa Monica Blvd has poor prospect-refuge, Century Park East is better.


– Generally a safe environment. Avenue of the Stars has poor prospect-refuge, Constellation Blvd is better.


2.0—Full Report



– Generally a safe environment. Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars both have poor prospect-refuge.

2.2.4 Comfort

Walking is a physical activity that leaves the participant exposed to weather and requires navigating space. Pedestrians walking to transit tend to choose paths that minimize discomfort from physical exertion, weather, or the burden of avoiding obstacles (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005; Guo 2009). We measured comfort of the pedestrian environment around the three stations by observing features that would make walking easier, such as flat topography and the lack of elevation changes that require the use of stairs. We also compared the presence of shade and shelter, street trees, landscaping, and green spaces that help regulate the microclimate. Throughout Century City, we generally found ample sidewalk widths and a lack of obstacles that would make navigating the sidewalks difficult.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: B+

– Relatively flat, some stairs in nearby thru-block pedestrian pathways. High quality street trees along the North end of Century Park East and green space and landscaping nearby.


– Slope along Avenue of the Stars. Some stairs in nearby thru-block pedestrian pathways. Street trees present, but small and do not provide a buffer from traffic. Most accessible to the high-quality green space/plaza to the Southeast of the intersection of Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: B-

– Slope along Avenue of the Stars. Some stairs in nearby thru-block pedestrian pathways. Street trees present, but small and on the building side of the nearby streets. Green space and landscaping nearby.

2.2.5 Sensory Pleasure

A moderate variety of facades, shop window displays, awnings, trees, planters, and other physical objects can provide sensory stimulus to pedestrians that contributes to a seemingly shorter walk (Rapoport 1991). A variety of people and human activities and events can also contribute to the sensory stimulus that makes pedestrian travel more pleasant and seemingly quicker (Whyte 1980).


– A high level of physical noticeable differences along the nearby pedestrian path and along Century Park East. Few noticeable physical or social differences along Santa Monica Blvd. Moderate human activity in pedestrian pathway and along Century Park East.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: A-

– A high level of physical noticeable differences in the nearby pedestrian pathways and plazas. The slight curve along the East block of Constellation Blvd contributes to noticeable physical differences. Avenue of the Stars has few noticeable physical or human differences. In close


2.0—Full Report


proximity to human activity at the mall as well as to a variety of other social spaces, particularly the green space/plaza to the Southeast.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: A-

– A high level of physical noticeable differences in the nearby pedestrian pathways and plazas. Few physical noticeable differences along Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars. Near social activity at mall and within the pedestrian pathways.

2.2.6 Sense of belonging

The highest degree of walking enjoyment is achieved in a place where pedestrians feel that they are part of a community (Mehta 2008). To facilitate this experience for people walking to transit, access routes should pass community gathering spaces. It appears that there are numerous potential spaces for community gathering throughout Century City. However, a station located at the center of the four primary blocks that comprise “downtown” Century City, the intersection of Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars, would enable transit riders from all parts of Century City to travel through these community spaces walking to or from transit. Being located at the heart of Century City, this transit station could become a “third place” that is shared equally among Century City workers and residents. In contrast, the two other station locations near Santa Monica Boulevard favor some office buildings and adjacent neighborhoods at the expense of employees or residents in the southern part of Century City who would have poorer access.


– Spaces for community gathering nearby, such as the retail space along Century Park East and the mid-block plazas to the Southwest, but does not offer equitable access to those located in the southern section of Century City.


– Central location contributes to equity in access and facilitates walk travel through the most community-gathering spaces, including the large plaza with retail to the Southeast, the Starbucks immediately to the Northwest, and the retail and restaurants in the Westfield Mall.


– Spaces for community gathering nearby, such as the mid-block plazas on either side of Avenue of the Stars and the retail and restaurants in Westfield Mall, but does not offer equitable access to those located in the southern section of Century City.

2.3 Conclusion

To assess the potential for each of the three proposed Century City stations to attract walk trips, we reviewed the literature on walking to transit. We found that shorter distances from work, home, or other activity places to transit are essential for supporting walk trips to transit, but microscale features of the environment are also important. We structured the literature findings and site evaluation using Mehta’s hierarchy of pedestrian needs, which identifies six environmental levels that support walking: accessibility, usefulness, safety, comfort, sensory pleasure, and sense of belonging. Using research findings and urban design theory, we developed criteria for each of these levels and graded each station site based on our observations and data provided by PB.


2.0—Full Report


The Santa Monica/Century Park East Station site received the lowest grades overall, not only because it has the lowest estimates of transit riders within all walksheds, but also because it is least accessible to jobs and the concentration of useful destinations at the Westfield Mall. It is only accessible via one thru-block pedestrian path and is adjacent to the poor pedestrian street environment along Santa Monica Blvd. It benefits from its location on Century Park East, a street that, near the North end, offers a moderate level of safety, comfort, and sensory pleasure.

The Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station received slightly better grades. It had low to medium estimates of transit riders compared to the other stations locations. Although it is accessible by high-quality thru-block pedestrian paths and provides convenient access to utilitarian destinations in the Westfield Mall, it is not in a central location to Century City jobs. Additionally, we think its street-level environment would leave pedestrians feeling exposed to traffic and criminal danger. Walking at street level would also seem like a burden due to little coverage from the elements and few interesting things to look at.

The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars station site received the highest grades. It has by far the highest estimates of transit riders in all three walksheds. It is more accessible to more workers and residents, especially those most likely to use transit. It is also located next to many utilitarian destinations that would facilitate trip chaining. The Constellation/Avenue of the Stars site also benefits from its location away from Santa Monica Blvd, a major barrier that contributes to traffic exposure and offers little in the way of safety or sensory pleasure. While neither Constellation nor Avenue of the Stars are great pedestrian streets, they do provide a sufficiently safe and comfortable walk environment. Additionally, this site benefits from easy access to a high-quality mid-block green space and social space. Its location at the center of the neighborhood puts it in a unique position to provide equal access from the surrounding worksites and neighborhoods and to contribute to a sense of equal belonging to transit riders. Future development of the vacant lot on the Northeast corner of the intersection is also a unique opportunity to bring in a greater sense of place and to anchor the station at the heart of the Century City neighborhood.

2.4 References

Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. Berkeley, CA, Wiley. Beimborn, E. A., M. J. Greenwald, et al. (2003). "Accessibility, Connectivity, and Captivity: Impacts

on Transit Choice." Transportation Research Record 1835: 1-9. Ben-Akiva, M. and T. Morikawa (2002). "Comparing ridership attraction of rail and bus." Transport

Policy 9(2): 107-116. Besser, L. M. and A. L. Dannenberg (2005). "Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical

Activity Recommendations." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29(4): 273-280. Brown, B. B. and C. M. Werner (2009). "Before and After a New Light Rail Stop." Journal of the

American Planning Association 75(1): 5-12. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Employment and Wages Online Annual Averages, 2009, U. S.

Department of Labor. Cambridge Systematics (1994). The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies

on Commuting Behavior, U.S. Department of Transportation. Canepa, B. (2007). "Bursting the Bubble: Determining the Transit-Oriented Development's Walkable

Limits." Transportation Research Record 1992: 28-34. Cervero, R. (1994). "Rail-Oriented Office Development in California: How Successful."

Transportation Quarterly 48: 33-34.


2.0—Full Report


Cervero, R. (2006). "Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices." Journal of Public Transportation 9(5): 41-55.

Crowley, D. F., A. S. Shalaby, et al. (2009). "Access Walking Distance, Transit Use, and Transit-Oriented Development in North York City Center, Toronto Canada." Transportation Research Record 2110: 96-105.

Dill, J. (2003). "Transit Use and Proximity to Rail: Results from Large Employment Sites in the San Francisco, California, Bay Area." Transportation Research Record 1835: 19-24.

Dill, J. (2006). Travel and Transit Use at Portland Area Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). Seattle, WA, Transportation Northwest Regional Center X (TransNow): 53.

Douglas, G. B. and J. E. Evans (1997). Urban Design, Urban Form, And Employee Travel Behavior. Sixth TRB conference on the application of transportation planning methods. Dearborn, MI: 298-306.

Estupinan, N. and D. A. Rodriguez (2008). "The relationship between urban form and station boardings for Bogota's BRT." Transportation Research Part A 42: 296-306.

Ewing, R. (1998). Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly Design. Third National Conference on Access Management. Fort Lauderdale, FL, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: 31-32.

Ewing, R. and R. Cervero (2010). "Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3): 265-294.

Foster, S., B. Giles-Corti, et al. (2010). "Neighbourhood design and fear of crime: a social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents' fear in new suburban housing developments." Health Place 16(6): 1156-1165.

Gehl, J. (2006). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Skive, Denmark, The Danish Architectural Press.

Guo, Z. (2009). "Does the Pedestrian Environment Affect the Utility of Walking? A Case of Path Choice in Downtown Boston " Transportation Research Part D 14: 343-352.

Hess, P. M., A. V. Moudon, et al. (1999). "Site Design and Pedestrian Travel." Transportation Research Record 1674: 9-19.

Isaacs, R. (2001). "The Subjective Duration of Time in the Experience of Urban Places." Journal of Urban Design 6(2): 109-127.

Iseki, H. and B. D. Taylor (2010). "Style versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions of Transit Stops and Stations." Journal of Public Transportation 13(3): 39-63.

Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature -- a Psychological Perspective. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Kim, S., G. f. Ulfarsson, et al. (2007). "Analysis of light rail rider travel behavior: Impacts of individual, built environment, and criome characteristics on transit access." Transportation Research Part A 41: 511-522.

Kitamura, R., P. L. Mokhtarian, et al. (1997). "A Micro-analysis of Land Use and Travel in Five Neighborhods in the San Francisco Bay Area." Transportation 24: 125-158.

Kolko, J. (2011). Making the Most of Transit: Density, Employment Growth, and Ridership around New Stations, Public Policy Institute of California.

Krygsman, S., M. Dijst, et al. (2004). "Multimodal public transport: an analysis of travel time elements and the interconnectivity ratio." Transport Policy 11(3): 265-275.

Lachapelle, U., L. Frank, et al. (2011). "Commuting by Public Transit and Physical Activity: Where You Live, Where You Work, and How You Get There." Journal of Physical Activity and Health 8(Suppl 1): S72-S82.


2.0—Full Report


Larco, N. (2009). "Untapped Density: Site Design and the Proliferation of Suburban Multifamily Housing." Journal of Urbanism 2(2): 189-208.

Lee, B. H. Y. (2005). Parcel-level measure of public transit accessibility to destinations. Access to Destinations. D. M. Levinson and K. Krizek. Oxford, Elsevier.

Lee, C. and A. V. Moudon (2006). "Correlates of Walking for Transportation or Recreation Purposes." Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3(Suppl 1): S77-S98.

Lo, R. H. (2009). "Walkability: what is it?" Journal of Urbanism 2(2): 145-166. Lofland, L. (1998). The Public Realm: Exploring the City's Quintessential Social Territory. New York,

Aldine de Gruyter. Loutzenheiser, D. R. (1997). "Pedestrian Access to Transit: Model of Walk Trips and Their Design

and Urban Form Determinants Around Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations." Transportation Research Record 1604: 40-49.

Mehta, V. (2008). "Walkable streets: pedestrian behavior, perceptions and attitudes." Journal of Urbanism 1(3): 217-245.

Metro (2010). Westside Subway Extension: Transit Impact Assessment Report. Moudon, A. V., P. M. Hess, et al. (1997). "Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use,

Medium Density Environments." Transportation Research Record 1578: 48-55. Nasar, J. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. O'Sullivan, S. and J. Morrall (1996). "Walking Distance to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations."

Transportation Research Record 1538: 19-26. Oldenburg, R. (1981). The Great Good Place. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. Olszewski, P. and S. S. Wibowo (2005). "Using Equivalent Walking Distance to Assess Pedestrian

Accessibility to Transit Stations in Singapore." Transportation Research Record 1927: 38-45. Rapoport, A. (1990). History and Precendent in Environmental Design. New York, Plenum. Rapoport, A. (1991). Pedestrian Street Use: Culture and Perception. Public Streets for Public Use. A.

V. Moudon. New York, Columbia University Press: 80-92. Ryan, S. and L. F. Frank (2009). "Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership." Journal of Public

Transportation 12(1): 39-57. Schlossberg, M., A. W. Agrawal, et al. (2007). How Far, By Which Route, and Why? A Spatial

Analysis of Pedestrian Preference. San Jose, CA, Mineta Transportation Institute. Seskin, S. N., R. Cervero, et al. (1996). TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form. Washington D.C.,

Transportation Research Board. 1. Townsend, C. and J. Zacharias (2010). "Built environment and pedestrian behavior at rail rapid

transit stations in Bangkok." Tranportation 37: 317-330. U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). National Household Travel Survey, Federal Highway

Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation (2010). The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status

Report, Federal Highway Administration. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York, Project for Public Spaces.


3.0—Technical Appendix A: Detailed Literature Review


3.0 TECHNICAL APPENDIX A: DETAILED LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Walking distance to transit

3.1.1 Distance to transit and transit use

There is a strong negative relationship between distance to/from transit stations and transit use. Distance to the closest transit station is a consistent predictor of mode choice in travel-demand forecasting models, which assume that people will minimize travel time and cost. Many models suggest that a minute of walk time to or from transit service is two to three times more onerous than a minute of in-vehicle travel time (Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009). A meta-analysis of studies on the relationship between the built environment and transit use showed that distance to the nearest transit stop had one of the highest weighted average elasticity for transit use (0.29) (Ewing and Cervero 2010). Transit commuters consistently report a higher level of ease of access to transit than non-transit commuters (Lachapelle, Frank et al. 2011). And distance to the nearest transit stop is even more important for those who have a choice between riding transit or driving (Beimborn, Greenwald et al. 2003). The negative relationship between distance to transit stations and transit use holds true for trip origins and destinations. For commuters, these are home and work.

3.1.1.1 Home to station

A Toronto Area study found that walk to subway mode share for those living within a 656 ft (200 m) airline distance of the nearest subway station was 36%; for those living 657 – 1,312 ft (201 – 400 m) it was 32%. Walk to subway mode share dropped substantially to 17% for those living 1,313 – 2,624 ft (401 – 800 m) from the nearest station and was only 3% for those farther than 2,625 ft (801 m) from a station (Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009). Similar trends were seen in a California study using aggregate data (Kolko 2011). An average of 6.7% of residents in census block groups less than a half mile from a fixed-line transit station commuted by transit whereas only 1.1% of residents in census block groups farther than a half-mile but in the same county commuted by transit.

Decreasing distances between home and transit can lead to increases in transit use. A case study of 48 Salt Lake City residents in a neighborhood that experienced light rail station development, 11 residents began using light rail transit (LRT) after the station opened (Brown and Werner 2009). New LRT users had previously lived an average of 2,417 ft (737 m) from the closest station and now lived an average of 964 ft (294 m) from the new station. None of the new transit riders were previously bus riders.

3.1.1.2 Work to station

Research examining the relationship between work proximity to transit and use suggests that thresholds of distance between transit and the workplace are even more restrictive than those of distance from the home to transit. Kolko’s (2011) California study of proximity to transit using census block groups found a pronounced drop in work transit mode share for distances above one half mile – from 7.2% at distances shorter than a half mile to 0.5% for distances longer than one half mile. In a survey of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), residents who lived within a half mile of Portland, OR, area light rail stations, there was no difference in average actual walk distances from home to transit stations for transit commuters and non-transit commuters. However, distance perceptions differed between transit and non-transit users: transit commuters estimated that it took an average of 9.6 minutes to walk from a LRT station to work or school, while non-transit commuters




estimated that it would take an average of 15.5 minutes. In the same study, a major drop in transit commuting appeared when the work or school location was more than 15 minutes (about 0.75 miles) from the LRT station and almost no one commuted by transit if the walking time was 30 minutes (1.5 miles) or more (Dill 2006).

Shares of employees commuting via transit at worksites also offer insight into the relationship between worksite distance from transit and transit use. In a 2003 survey of 887 workers at 10 predominantly suburban office buildings located within ½ mile of a rail station in five California metropolitan areas, Cervero (2006) found that 18.8% used transit as their primary commute mode – nearly three times the weighted average of 6.3% in the counties in which the offices were located. Even within these 10 worksites, distance had a relatively steep nonlinear negative relationship with transit ridership. That is, the percentage of workers commuting by transit declined sharply as distance increased only slightly (Figure 3-1). This effect is known as distance decay. A similar relationship was found in an analysis of travel surveys including 251,835 employees from 1,153 worksites in the San Francisco Bay area. Worksites within one quarter mile of rail stations had a 19.8% share of commute trips by transit; those located between 0.25 to 0.5 miles from a transit station had 4.0% transit commute share, and those more than ½ mile had 2.5% commute trips by transit (Dill 2003).

Figure 3-1: An example of the distance decay effect of walking to transit from 10 California office projects (Cervero 2006).




Two California studies quantified the relationship between distance to rail transit and worksite rail transit commute share. Cervero (1994) found an elasticity of 0.8, where a 10% increase in walking distance was associated with about an 8% decline in rail modal split. Dill (Dill 2003) found an elasticity of -1.0, where every 10% increase in walking distance resulted in about a 10% decline in transit use. A federal Transit Cooperative Research Programs (TCRP) report estimated that the share of workers commuting by rail dropped by about 1.5% for every 100 ft away from a rail station, up to one mile (Seskin, Cervero et al. 1996).

Survey responses confirm that longer distances from transit are a disincentive for transit use. In a survey of 1,027 office workers at Shady Grove, an employment site outside the Washington D.C. Beltway, located 1-3 miles from the suburban terminus of the Metrorail Red Line, the 980 workers who commuted by auto and carpool cited the distance from a transit stop as the primary deterrent for them using transit (Douglas and Evans 1997).

3.1.2 Distance to transit and access mode choice

Distance is also a major factor for those who do choose to travel via transit because it affects how they access a transit station (Kim, Ulfarsson et al. 2007). In a study of home-based origin trips based on a 1992 BART rider survey, only 24% of the riders walked from their home to a BART station, most others drove or took the bus. However, more than 76% egressed their destination station on foot. Distance was the most significant factor in the choice to walk from home to a BART station (Loutzenheiser 1997).

In Singapore, a survey of passengers waiting for MRT (Mass Rail Transit) between 8 AM and noon found that 60% walked to the station instead of taking feeder buses or LRT. A sub-modal split model showed that the difference in distance between walking directly to an MRT station and walking to a feeder mode was the most significant factor affecting the probability of walking (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005).

Analyses of access modes to San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations and LRT stations in Edmonton, Canada, found that that walking accounted for more than 50% of the access mode for distances up to approximately 2,952 ft (900 m), after which the bus became the dominant access mode (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996).

3.1.3 Walk distances to/from transit

Given the strong negative relationship between distance and transit use as well as distance and walking to transit, it should come as no surprise that distances walked to transit are relatively short. Median walk distances to or from LRT range from about a fifth- to a half mile (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Ewing 1998; Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). Average walk distances tend to be slightly higher (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Besser and Dannenberg 2005). The 75th percentile of walk distances is roughly one half to two-thirds of a mile (Besser and Dannenberg 2005; Olszewski and Wibowo 2005; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). As shown in Table 3-1, the maximum walk distance to LRT appears to be about a little less than two miles (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007; Guo 2009).




Table 3-1: Observed walk distances to/from transit

Study information Distances (miles)

Reference Location Date Data source Transit type Trip type N* Mean Median Max

Besser and Dannenberg (2005)

U.S. 2001 Travel diary All All 11,940 0.4 72% <0.5

Dill (2006) Portland, OR 2005 Survey of TOD residents (<0.5 miles from LRT station)

LRT Home-station NR 0.33

Station-work or school

NR 0.48 ~1.5

Guo (2009) Boston, MA 1994 Rider survey Subway Station-CBD destination

2,748 0.5 1.98

Olszewski and Wibowo (2005)

Singapore 2002-3 Rider survey MRT Origin-station 1,430 0.38 77% <0.5

O’Sullivan and Morrall (1996)

Calgary, Canada

1993-4 Rider survey LRT All NR 0.26 0.20 2.30

All to/from CBD station

NR 0.20 0.17 1.59

All to/from suburban Station

NR 0.40 0.34 2.30

Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. (2007)

Portland, OR, and San Francisco, CA

2006 Rider survey LRT Origin-station 328 0.52 0.47 1.88 (75% < 0.68)

Ewing (1998) U.S. 1990 Travel diary All All NR 0.25

Krygsman, Dijst et al. (2004)

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2000 Travel diary Train Home-station (for work trips)

287 0.43

Station-work 287 0.47

Bus/Tram/Metro

Home-station (for work trips)

125 0.30

Station-work 125 0.30

Kim, Ulfarsson et al. (2007)

St. Louis, Missouri

2002 Rider survey LRT Trips to or from home

0.47 (0.28 st.

dev)

Townsend and Zacharias (2010)

Bangkok, Thailand

2006 Observation MassRT Station-destination

778 0.20 (0.14 st.

dev.)

Note: Studies that reported travel times instead of distances were converted using a walk speed of three mph.* NR = Not Reported




The evidence shows that people are willing to walk further to access rail transit compared to bus (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009). This appears to be a function of differences in service attributes (e.g., travel time, reliability, information, comfort, safety, etc.) between bus and rail, since bus and rail lines with similar service attributes typically attract the same levels of ridership (Ben-Akiva and Morikawa 2002).

Some people will simply walk long distances to transit. Maximum observed walking distance are around two miles, both in CBDs and suburbs (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Dill 2006; Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007; Guo 2009). Mean and median distances to and from transit, however, are usually shorter in CBDs than suburbs (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996; Krygsman, Dijst et al. 2004). For this reason, it has been suggested that short walking distances to transit are more of a reflection of higher densities of origins and destinations around transit stations than actual willingness to walk. Canepa (2007) suggests that the per-capita portion of transit riders who walk to access transit may be similar up to 1.25 miles (2 km) from a transit station. Shorter mean and median walk distances to transit are observed simply because a greater absolute number of residents and employees are located at shorter distances.

The preponderance of evidence, however, points to the conclusion that distance is a major factor in capturing walk-on/walk-off transit trips. In addition to distance, numerous other environmental factors are taken into consideration by those choosing to access/egress transit on foot. These are explored in the next section.

3.2 Walk Environment

Walking to transit can be made more pleasant and less burdensome if the route passes through a high-quality pedestrian environment. Defining a high quality pedestrian environment is difficult because less tangible concepts such as comfort and aesthetics inevitably come into play. Urban design theory does, however, provide a workable framework for deconstructing a quality pedestrian environment. Building on previous urban design theories (and borrowing a structure from Maslow) Mehta (2008) proposed a seven-level hierarchy of needs in the decision-making process leading to walking: (1) feasibility, (2) accessibility, (3) usefulness, (4) safety, (5) comfort, (6) sensory pleasure, and (7) sense of belonging. Mehta’s hierarchy provides a useful framework not only for defining what constitutes a quality walk environment, but also for identifying which factors are more important than others in making the decision to walk. Cross-referencing Mehta’s hierarchy with definitions of walkability from the fields of urban planning, transportation, urban design, and public health (Lo 2009) enables us to develop a robust framework in which to assess the walk route environment Table 3-2.




Table 3-2: Hierarchy of walking needs and facilitators.

Hierarchy

Level Need Facilitators

1 Feasibility Mobility, time

2 Accessibility Reasonable distances Presence of continuous and well-maintained sidewalk path directness and street network connectivity universal access designs

3 Usefulness Destinations that fulfill basic needs Land-use density Land-use diversity or mix

4 Safety No threat of traffic collisions No threat of crime

5 Comfort Street trees and landscaping Generous sidewalk widths Shade and shelter Lack of obstacles Flat topography

6 Sensory pleasure Moderate level of variety and novelty as well as order and coherence Street definition (fenestration, signage, etc.) Stimulating, but not chaotic

7 Sense of belonging Defined by local conditions Familiarity, acceptance “Third places” with collective ownership

Source: Adapted from (Mehta 2008)

Mehta’s framework was developed for walking in general. Walking for transit and recreation are different behaviors and associated with different environmental characteristics (Lee and Moudon 2006). Nevertheless, many basic walking needs have been associated with walking to or from transit. For example, neighborhood walkability, calculated using net residential density (the need for “usefulness” noted in the framework), intersection density (accessibility), retail floor area ratio and land use mix (usefulness), have been associated with both regular and infrequent transit commuting among individuals (Lachapelle, Frank et al. 2011), as well as with increased ridership at transit stops (Ryan and Frank 2009). In a study of the relationship between site design, travel demand management strategies and commute mode choice at a variety of workplaces in Southern California (Cambridge Systematics 1994), the greatest factor associated with transit use was the presence of an “aesthetic” urban setting, which was defined as an environment that possessed abundant street trees and sidewalks (comfort), and was free of graffiti (safety). Factors more specific to each of the needs listed in the framework have also been associated with walking to transit.

3.2.1 Feasibility

In the hierarchy of walking needs, feasibility is a primarily individual factor: a pedestrian trip is feasible if a person is mobile and has the time for it. Since we are concerned with exploring environmental characteristics that contribute to walkability, this need is not examined in great depth. However, in the third section of this review, we discuss the extent to which amounts of walking and distances walked are influenced by the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the population.




3.2.2 Accessibility

The concept of accessibility focuses on travel time and combines measures of proximity, convenience, and comfort (Lee 2005). As described in the first section, physical distance is one of the most influential factors in explaining the decision to walk to transit. For those who chose to walk to rail stations in Portland and the Bay Area, the first consideration for route choice was its directness (affecting how quickly one could get to and from the station) (Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007). However, pedestrians may choose not only the quickest routes but also the “best” ones. Pedestrians traveling from subway stations to destinations in downtown Boston were more likely to choose paths that had more intersections; wider sidewalks; and traveled through the Boston Common, a large park in the city’s central core (Guo 2009). These are all characteristics of direct and accessible routes. Conversely, larger block sizes have been associated with lower transit ridership. A recent meta-analysis of the relationship between the built environment and transit use showed that the percent of 4-way intersections and intersection/street density were among the variables with the highest weighted average elasticities for transit use (0.29 and 0.23, respectively) (Ewing and Cervero 2010).

To support walkability, Ewing (1998) targets block length of 300 feet up to 500 feet. He recommends mid-block crosswalks and pass-throughs for block lengths of 600 feet or longer. O’Sullivan and Morrall (1996) called the directness of pedestrian access to LRT stations a “circuity” factor, which is measured as the walk route distance divided by the airline distance. He thought the factor shouldn’t be more than 1.4 and recommended a value closer to 1.2. A low route directness ratio is particularly important to consider for pedestrian travel, which has been documented to favor shortcuts, and which can in turn generate informal paths away from formal walkways (e.g., through parking lots, vacant lands, off-areas in parks, etc.) (Moudon, Hess et al. 1997). The prevalence of jaywalking is another indication that pedestrians favor direct routes and are often willing to sacrifice safety for time (Hess, Moudon et al. 1999). A low route directness ratio is also important to assess for the small walksheds to transit stations: short distances to and from a station mean that potential pedestrians can easily and fairly accurately gauge the length of the straight line distance to and from their transit station and can therefore be discouraged to walk if the actual path to the station is perceived as a significant “detour.”

While pedestrian travel and walkability generally refers to people travelling on foot, it also includes mobility-impaired persons travelling by wheelchair. While laws and policies are in place to ensure universal access, wheeled access to buildings and along sidewalks is sometimes still limited and can present a major barrier to wheeled pedestrian travel. A “walkable” environment includes universal access (Lo 2009).

3.2.3 Usefulness

For walking as for other modes of travel, “usefulness” means that there must be places one needs to go to or and activities one want to perform within an acceptable travel time duration. For walking, the more places or activities are within a short distance of each other, the higher the likelihood that many people will choose to walk. Transit use at CBD stations is expectedly higher than at stations in suburban areas because there are simply more places to go to in the former setting than in the latter. One study found that almost half of those working in offices within 1,000 feet of downtown Washington D.C. Metrorail stations commuted by rail, but in offices that were within comparable distances from the more suburban Crystal City and Silver Spring stations, rail commute shares were 16 to 19% (Cervero 2006). Similar trends were seen in California. The percent of commute trips by transit for worksites up to a ¼ mile from BART stations in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara




Counties were relatively high at 33.6%. However, the share of transit dropped to 6.2% when downtown Oakland and Berkeley stations were excluded. Oakland and Berkeley are higher in density, have a greater mix of land uses, and are more likely to have paid or limited parking than the other station areas in more suburban Richmond, San Leandro, and Fremont (Dill 2003).

Density, land use mix, and higher costs of car travel (including parking availability and costs) seem to be the factors that give CBD stations the competitive edge over suburban stations. Suburban stations with higher rates of transit ridership have characteristics which are similar to those of downtown environments: within an area of 500 ft of less from the station, the density of workers is high, the land uses are mixed, and market-rate parking prices are high ($100 per month) (Cervero 2006).

Density can contribute to a useful walking environment by locating such origins and destinations as home, work, and transit stations, within close proximity to one another. In order to support walking, however, the destinations must enable people to carry out daily life, which is more than working, dwelling, and commuting. The need to make intermediate stops on the way to or from work is a factor believed to reduce transit commuting, especially at suburban work sites where few non-work or residential land uses exist. Of people working at suburban California offices located within a half mile of transit stations, those who commuted by private cars were far more likely to chain trips than transit commuters. The main reason for the intermediate stops was to pick up or drop off children (27% of trip chains), followed by shopping (21%), personal business (21%), eating (13%), and social-recreation (8%) (Cervero 2006). Workers in a suburban Washington D.C. office park where distances from offices to the nearest rail transit station ranged from one to three miles, and which had no land use mix and a poor pedestrian environment, often cited the need for transportation during work hours as a deterrent to rail commuting (Douglas and Evans 1997).

In places where multiple destinations are accessible from transit stations, transit users appear to take advantage of them. Subway riders accessing destinations in downtown Boston were more likely to choose paths that passed by more retail parcels. In a model that assumed pedestrians would take the quickest route between transit and their destination, routes that passed one additional retail parcel per 328 ft (100 m) had the equivalent effect of deducting 0.5 minutes from the trip (Guo 2009). In a Bangkok study that observed people exiting MRT stations, most trips that did not end in the pedestrian boarding another motorized vehicle (e.g., taxi or bus) were to retail, followed by residence/hotel, office, services (bank), then eating/drinking (Townsend and Zacharias 2010). In Seattle and Baltimore, transit commuters walked more often to destinations around their work place than non-transit commuters (Lachapelle, Frank et al. 2011). Destinations included food stores, retail, banks, post offices, restaurants, gyms or recreational facilities, and parks.

These studies suggest that, given the opportunity, transit commuters will more readily walk to useful destinations within a transit station area than their non-transit counterparts. Also, even though transit commuters must be able to easily walk to the station from their workplace, they must also be able to walk from their work to restaurants, shopping, and services. Co-locating transit stations with other daily destinations, such as child-care centers and retail, enables workers to consolidate trips.

3.2.4 Safety

After route directness, safety was the second most important factor that people who walked to stations in the Portland Metro and San Francisco Bay Area cited as a reason for choosing their walk route. Specifically, more than 80% agreed or strongly agreed that traffic devices, slower traffic speeds, and sidewalks were important factors in route choice (Schlossberg, Agrawal et al. 2007).




An analysis of walk routes to Singapore MRT stations suggest that riders are more likely to walk to a station rather than take feeder buses or LRT if their walk path has fewer roads to cross or traffic conflicts (i.e., crossing an access road or car park). Each additional at-grade road crossing was estimated to add the equivalent of 182 ft (55.4 m) to the trip, and each traffic conflict added 119 ft (36.3 m) (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005).

In addition to frequent, reliable service, transit riders value an environment of personal safety. Los Angeles transit riders preferred safety over elaborate and attractive station design (Iseki and Taylor 2010). In St. Louis, walking between home and LRT stations was more likely to occur in the evening, except for females, who were more likely to get picked up or dropped off. Females were also more likely to get picked up or dropped off at stations with higher crime rates, suggesting that criminal activity, at or on the way to transit, can deter walk trips (Kim, Ulfarsson et al. 2007).

Conversely, in Bogota, Colombia, a low safety factor was counter-intuitively related to increased transit ridership (Estupinan and Rodriguez 2008). The safety factor included low researcher-perceived safety, high traffic control measures, a higher rate of violent deaths, and a higher rate of crashes and thefts. These results were explained by the authors as relating to the nature of the study area and the possibility that people with fewer resources must walk to transit under unsafe conditions in the developing world. This supports the placement of safety after accessibility and usefulness in the hierarchy of walk needs.

Appleton’s (1975) prospect-refuge theory provides insight into the types of physical environments that can contribute to a sense of safety from crime. Appleton’s theory states that the ability to survey one’s surroundings (prospect ) from a place where one cannot easily be seen (refuge ) is basic to many biological needs that developed with evolution and survival. According to this theory, pedestrian spaces that provide nearby shelter and edges with clear lines of sight into the surrounding area can increase perceived safety.

3.2.5 Comfort

Pedestrian comfort describes the microclimate conditions such as sunlight, shade, wind, and protection from rain. Comfort can be reduced through minor obstacles or barriers in walk routes, or it can be increased through street furniture, lighting, etc. that support walking (Mehta 2008). Because pedestrians occupy space by being stationary as well as by moving through it, a comfortable pedestrian environment is one that allows for standing, sitting, and impromptu social interactions (Gehl 2006).

People walking from subway stations to destinations in downtown Boston were more likely to choose paths with wider sidewalks (Guo 2009). Transit riders were also more likely to choose a path through a major park. These choices could be made for any number of reasons including the presence of trees, landscaping, benches, and reduced traffic noise.

In Bogota, Colombia, an assessment of the micro-scale environment within 820 ft (250 m) of BRT stations found that several items associated with comfort loaded onto a factor termed “walking support,” which was related to increased transit ridership (Estupinan and Rodriguez 2008). The walking support factor included sidewalk quality, amenities (e.g., benches, crossing aids, and public illumination), a positive safety environment, cleanliness, a pedestrian friendly environment, a bike friendly environment, overall positive perceptions of the station, bike paths, and sidewalk buffers. The same study also found that a low safety factor was related to increased transit ridership. This




could mean that safe and comfortable environments attract riders, but those that must use transit will brave less than ideal environments to access transit.

An incline is considered as a physical barrier to walking (Canepa 2007). Guo (2009) found that subway riders accessing destinations in downtown Boston had a disutility of 3.5 minutes if their path went through the hilly Beacon Hill neighborhood. In other words, walking through a hilly neighborhood was the equivalent of walking an additional 3.5 minutes to or from transit.

Steps and stairs also represent a disutility. MRT riders in Singapore were more likely to walk to stations than use other modes if their path helped them avoid stairs. Each additional step added the equivalent distance of 9.2 ft (2.8 m) to the walk trip (Olszewski and Wibowo 2005). Pedestrians crossing a street from a bus stop in Lund, Sweden, either jaywalked (10%) across a heavily trafficked street or walked an additional 160 ft to a crosswalk (87%) rather than using a pedestrian underpass (7%) (Gehl 2006).

3.2.6 Sensory pleasure

Transit riders always seek to minimize walk time to transit. While direct routes minimize travel time, they can be dull and unprotected from the weather, and as such, they are experienced as being longer (Gehl 2006). Rapoport wrote about the importance of “noticeable differences” along the walk route, which account for the sensory stimuli that people experience as they walk (Rapoport 1991). Noticeable differences can be sensed at different scales, including changes in the direction of the walk route, as well as number and frequency of such attributes as doors, trees, windows, etc. The presence of people along the walk route also adds to noticeable differences in the environment itself (Whyte 1980). More noticeable differences along the walk route alter the sense of time that pedestrians feel they spend walking. This has been documented in the case of shopping malls, where people walk longer times than they typically would in less “interesting” environments. Applied to transit station areas, the concept of noticeable differences suggests that transit users would be willing to walk longer distances in a more stimulating environment.

Isaacs (2001) documented the altered sense of time that people experience in walking through stimulating environment. He noted that people often focus on short stages within a walk rather than dwell on how long they are actually walking, and found that paths with smaller spatial dimensions — smaller cross-sectional areas perpendicular to the path and narrower building facades flanking the path, more variation in the spatial dimensions along the path, shorter block dimensions, more intersections, and more changes in direction – were actually perceived to take longer to walk through. Importantly, however, all the routes Isaacs studied were in downtown Dresden, Germany, with a highly stimulating environment. While this finding was attributed to humans perceiving time as the duration of a stimulus, with more stimuli along a route meaning the perception of a longer time, from the perspective of a walk to a transit station, it can be interpreted as people being willing to walk for a longer time if they are being appropriately stimulated by the surrounding environment.

The desire for an interesting, yet not too complex path highlights that sensory pleasure results from variety and novelty as well as order and coherence (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nasar 1998). Numerous attributes of the environment can contribute to sensory pleasure, including:

the characteristics of the edges of buildings that define the street, including fenestration, shop windows and the goods in them, canopies, awnings, and signage (Rapoport 1991),




the street and sidewalk, including vehicles, street furniture, and all other physical artifacts on it;

natural features, such as landscape elements and trees;

and people and their activities, including movements, sounds, etc. (Whyte 1980).

3.2.7 Sense of belonging

The ideal setting for walking is a space that is welcoming, familiar, and comfortable. The sense of belonging implies a unique relationship between the space and the pedestrian. Places that facilitate a sense of belonging have common characteristics: they are accessible to the public, help shape community attitudes, provide continuity from past to present, cater to mundane but essential everyday functions, and help in establishing a community’s identity. The sense of belonging is shared by neighbors, which helps achieve social value and meaning in a community (Lofland 1998). Places imparting a sense of belonging have been called “third places” (Oldenburg 1981), or places that are neither home nor work, yet sensed with similar personal closeness and perhaps even intimacy as home or work.

Intuitively, people may use transit to access “third places,” so that planning such places near stations would be beneficial to increase transit use. With this in mind, the station should be located where it has the greatest potential to build a sense of community. Also, a transit station itself could conceivably be designed as a third place that is a publicly accessible, mundane, yet significant part of many “neighbors” lives.

3.3 Other factors known to modify transit use and walking distances to transit

3.3.1 Gender

In the U.S., Women in the 16 to 24, 25 to 34, and 45 to 54 year age groups walk to transit at higher rates than their male counterparts (U.S. Department of Transportation 2009). Men walked farther distances to access LRT in a Calgary, Canada, study (O'Sullivan and Morrall 1996), while in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, men were found to walk shorter distances from transit to work than women (Krygsman, Dijst et al. 2004). Of those walking to or from transit in the U.S., women reported longer walk times, suggesting they walked longer distances to and from transit than men (Besser and Dannenberg 2005).

3.3.2 Car ownership

An increasingly important single factor in explaining variations in transit use is auto availability (Crowley, Shalaby et al. 2009). Higher rates of auto ownership are consistently associated with lower transit ridership (Cervero 2006) and a reduced likelihood of walking to transit (Besser and Dannenberg 2005). Mode choice models that exclusively analyze choice transit users—those who live within a quarter mile of a transit station but have access to an automobile—show that walk time to the nearest transit station is one of the most important factors influencing the decision to use transit (Beimborn, Greenwald et al. 2003). In other words, walk time to transit is more onerous for households with more cars (Ben-Akiva and Morikawa 2002).




3.3.3 Socioeconomic factors and employment land uses

Compared to the general U.S. population, those who walk to transit are more likely to earn less than $15K, be aged 18-29, be less educated, be a minority, and be without access to a car (Besser and Dannenberg 2005). Of those who do walk to transit, those who earn less than $34,999/year, have a high school degree or less, are not non-Hispanic White, and do not own a car reported longer walk times to and from transit, suggesting they walk longer distances to access transit (Besser and Dannenberg 2005).

Because people of lower socioeconomic brackets are more likely to use transit, work sites that employ lower wage workers (and are located close to transit) are more likely to see their employees commute via transit. Of 1,153 worksites in the San Francisco Bay area (excluding San Francisco County) with more than 100 employers, the highest rates of transit use are among transportation-related industries and services, government agencies, retail stores, and hotels (Dill 2003). Stores, hotels, and recreational services employ large numbers of lower-wage employees. The average weekly salaries in California for the accommodation and food service industry are roughly one-fifth those of the finance and insurance industry (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3: 2009 California average annual wages for selected Industries

NAICS Code Industry 2009 CA Average

Annual Wage

72 Accommodation and food service $ 18,616

44-45 Retail Trade $ 30,160

56 Administrative and waste services (includes secretarial services, security, janitorial, and landscaping)

$ 35,464

54 Professional and technical services (includes law, accounting, architecture, advertising, and computer programming)

$ 85,020

52 Finance and insurance $ 87,412

51 Information (media) $ 92,872

Source: (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2009)

3.3.4 Housing type and transit use

Residential units in multifamily buildings (apartments or condominiums) are typically smaller than single-family houses, and they are more compactly developed, yielding higher population densities than single-family development. These types of housing units constitute a large portion of the housing stock in metropolitan areas and need to be taken into account in estimating transit ridership around stations. Evidence exist that multifamily dwellers have fewer cars, travel shorter distances and ride transit at higher levels than their single-family counterparts. Based on the 2005 American Housing Survey, Larco (2009) noted that the modal split between suburban multifamily and single-family dwellers was 6.6% versus 1.5%. The percentage of public transit users among suburban multifamily dwellers approached that of urban dwellers (9.4%). Income differences between these populations also explained the higher use of transit: while 46% of the households in single-family earned $58,000 or less, almost 80% of those in multifamily did so. This difference in income is in part explained by the smaller size of families living in multifamily housing and the higher number of older retired people who may have some wealth but little income.




3.3.5 Attitudes

There is evidence that attitudes toward the environment, climate change, and transportation influence many to use transit and to walk more. There is also evidence that concerns for health and specifically the negative effects of sedentary behavior motivate some people to use transit. BART riders who walk longer distances from their egress station are more likely to walk from their home to their access station. This suggests that people who undertake regular physical activity are more likely to walk in the first place and thus will walk longer distances from transit to destinations (Kitamura, Mokhtarian et al. 1997; Loutzenheiser 1997). As concerns for the environment increase, especially among the younger generations, transit ridership is likely to increase. While these considerations are not directly germane to this study, they should be included in the longer term planning of station area design and overall system planning as well.

3.3.6 Employer policies

Station-area residents or workers whose employers offer flex time programs or assistance with transit costs report higher levels of commute trips by transit. Those whose employers offer free parking or assistance with car costs report much lower levels of commute trips by transit (Canepa 2007). The probability of suburban California office workers commuting by transit fell as the supply of parking relative to workforce size increased. Employer assistance in covering the cost of transit travel, such as the provision of deeply discounted Eco-passes, significantly increased the odds of transit-commuting (Cervero 2006). In a survey of TOD residents who lived within a half mile of Portland, OR, area rail stations, workers and students who would have to pay to park at work were far more likely to use transit (Dill 2006).


4.0—Technical Appendix B: Detailed Station Site Evaluation


4.0 TECHNICAL APPENDIX B: DETAILED STATION SITE EVALUATION

Based on the literature on walking to transit and walk environments, we developed a list of criteria to evaluate the three proposed Century City station sites. The criteria are organized using Mehta’s (2008) hierarchy for pedestrian needs. Mehta’s hierarchy allows us to order the criteria in descending order of importance for creating a completely walkable environment. Thus, criteria that meet basic walk needs are listed first and criteria that contribute to a pleasant walk environment are listed later. For simplicity, we rank each of the three proposed station sites using a letter grade similar to the Level of Service (LOS) grades used in traffic engineering. High rankings correspond to characteristics that are likely to result in more people walking to transit and/or a more pleasant walk trip to transit. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the evaluation using a quarter-mile walkshed. Except when noted otherwise, a quarter-mile was used because the literature suggests that the majority of walk trips to transit originate within this distance. Reasoning for each of the rankings is described in the remainder of this appendix.




Table 4-1: Detailed station evaluation by individual criterion and rankings. Stations are evaluated using a quarter mile walkshed.

Hierarchy Level Domain Criteria

Santa Monica/

Century Park East

Constel-lation/

Avenue of the Stars

Santa Monica/

Avenue of the Stars

Accessibility Work Jobs within ¼ mile C A B

Likely number of low wage jobs C A B

Home Population within ½ mile B B B

Population within ½ mile, Ratio of MF to SF housing

B A B

Route directness

Sidewalks continuity along streets A A A

Universal access B B B

Thru-block pedestrian paths, formal B B A

Pedestrian paths, informal N/A N/A N/A

Access to buildings A A A

Pedestrian network length and route choices C A C


Proximity to retail C A A

Proximity to food, drink, entertainment C A B

Proximity to present transit boardings C A B

Safety Traffic Crosswalks at street intersections A A A

Crosswalks timing C C C

Shorter crosswalk lengths B B C

Mid-block Crosswalks B B C

Few curb cuts and driveway interruptions C C C

Low traffic volume C B C

Low traffic speed C B B

Crime Live security presence A A A

Lack of potential offenders A A A

Lighting, street B B B

Lighting, pedestrian path A A A

Prospect-refuge, streets B B C

Prospect-refuge, path A A A

Comfort Level topography A B B

Lack of stairs A A A

Sufficient sidewalk width B B B

Shade and shelter B B B

Street trees A B B

Landscaping, green spaces B A B

Sensory Pleasure

Noticeable differences, physical B B B

Noticeable differences, social (people and events) B A A

Sense of belonging


B A B




4.1 Accessibility

4.1.1 Distances

Jobs within ¼ mile: The literature suggests that employees will walk short distances between transit and their place of work. Therefore we use a quarter mile as the employment walkshed. To evaluate workplace accessibility, we simply compare the number of jobs within a quarter mile of each proposed transit station. Job estimates were provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in a May 24, 2011, memorandum.


– 10,310 jobs within a quarter mile.





The station sites have a widely varying number of jobs up to a quarter mile away but a similar number of jobs located within a half mile network distance. Due to these variations, we explore the distance decay effect on the potential number of transit riders and on their likelihood of walking to the three station options. Using the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station as the reference, we compare the relative increase in the absolute number of jobs (Table 4-2) to the number of jobs weighted by the distance to the station (Table 4-3) within the three walksheds. We use 20% to estimate the number of riders or walkers in the 0 to 600 foot walkshed; 10% in the 600 ft to ¼ mile walkshed; and 5% in the ¼ to ½ mile walkshed.2 Estimates derived from absolute and weighted numbers are similar within the ¼ mile walkshed: the Constellation station has twice the number of jobs or riders/walkers than the Century Park E station, and the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars station has not quite 20% more jobs or riders/walkers than the Century Park East station. Within the ½ walkshed, however, the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars has slightly more than 10% more jobs or riders/walkers than the Century Park E station, and Constellation has slightly more than 50% more jobs or riders/walkers than the Century Park E station. Clearly, the distance decay effect favors job concentrations near stations, and in this case, the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars location.

Table 4-2: Comparing percent of absolute number of jobs with Santa Monica/Century Park E as reference (100%)

Walkshed


Constellation Avenue of the Stars Station


Percent Total jobs Percent Total jobs Percent Total jobs

0’ to 600’ 100 4,820 213 10,260 122 5,900

0’ to ¼ Mile 100 10,310 196 20,170 117 12,050

0’ to ½ Mile 100 27,290 114 31,040 106 28,870

2 This exercise is based on a conservative assessment of two California studies. We use Cervero’s finding that 19% of workers in 10 primarily suburban sites within ½ mile of a rail station used transit as their primary commute mode (Cervero 2006). We also interpret Dill’s finding that within ¼ mile of a station, the share of transit commute was 20%, dropping to 4% between ¼ and 1/2 mile, and to 2.5% beyond ½ mile (Dill 2003). Other references include Cervero 1994, and Seskin, Cervero et al. 1996.




Table 4-3: Comparing percent of jobs weighted with Santa Monica/Century Park E as reference (100%)

Walkshed

Santa Monica/


Constellation

Avenue Of The Stars Station

Santa Monica/

Avenue Of The Stars Station

Percent Total weighted jobs Percent Total weighted jobs Percent Total weighted jobs

0’ to 600’1 100 964 213 2,052 122 1,180

0’ to ¼ Mile2 100 1,513 201 3,043 119 1,795

0’ to ½ Mile3 100 2,362 152 3,587 112 2,636 120% jobs within 0’ – 600’. 220% jobs within 0' – 600’; plus 10% jobs within 600’ - ¼ mile. 320% jobs within 0' – 600’; plus 10% jobs within 600’ - ¼ mile; plus 5% jobs within ¼ - ½ mile 5%.

Likely number of low-wage jobs: The literature suggests that people with less income are more likely to use transit. A greater portion of low-wage jobs located within a quarter mile of the station will likely result in a greater number of employees using the station. Without fine-grained salary data for jobs in Century City, we assume that most low-wage jobs will be located in the retail and service industry at the Westfield Mall. Fewer lower wage jobs will be located in the Century Plaza Hotel. Higher wage jobs are assumed to be located in the office towers.


– Quarter mile walkshed primarily contains offices.


– Located within a quarter mile of the mall and hotel.


– Located within a quarter mile of the mall.

Population within ½ mile: The literature suggests that people will walk further from their residences to transit than from work to transit. We use the residential population within ½ mile to assess the relative advantage of each station site attracting home-based transit trips. Population estimates were provided by Parsons Brinckerhoff in a May 24, 2011, memorandum.


– 1,900 people within half-mile walkshed.





Ratio of multi-family to single-family housing: The literature suggests that people with less income and who live in denser, multi-family housing are more likely to take transit compared to people with higher income and who live in less dense, detached single family housing. Because the neighborhoods surrounding century city appear to have similar income profiles, we use the ratio of multi-family to single-family housing in the surrounding neighborhoods to estimate the relative portion of residents that would use transit.





– Primarily mid-density townhomes.


– Primarily higher density condominiums.


– Mix of single-family detached housing and apartments.

4.1.2 Route Directness

Sidewalk continuity along street: Continuous sidewalk coverage along a street network enables pedestrians to traverse the entire extent of the street network. The streets in Century City have almost complete and continuous sidewalk. No station site is more advantageous than any other.


– Continuous sidewalk coverage.



Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: A


Universal access: The formal pedestrian paths in the Century City site are characterized by stairs and changes of levels, making it difficult, if not impossible for wheelchair bound pedestrians to traverse. The sidewalk coverage in the area is, however, complete and there is undoubtedly wheelchair access to all buildings in the site. Therefore no site had an advantage on this criteria.


– Accessible streets and buildings.





Thru-block pedestrian paths, formal: Formal pedestrian paths allow more direct and often more comfortable access to places off the street grid. These are especially important in places like Century City, which are characterized by large blocks. We compared the accessibility of each site via formal thru-block pedestrian paths within a quarter mile.


– Accessible via a formal pedestrian path running East-West between Avenue of the stars and Century Park East





– Accessible via a formal pedestrian path (plaza) through the block on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Avenue of the stars and Constellation Blvd. Also near the networks of pedestrian paths accessible through the South entrance of Westfield Mall.


– Accessible via formal pedestrian paths in each of the blocks on the East and West side of Avenue of the Stars.

Pedestrian Paths, informal: Informal pedestrian paths provide more direct routes where the street network or formal pathways are insufficient. We found no informal pedestrian paths in Century City.

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station: N/A

– None.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: N/A

– None.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station: N/A

– None.

Access to buildings: building access in the Century City Plaza was consistently clear and straightforward. Pedestrian paths and plazas related well to the buildings they accessed. We found no buildings that would be confusing or difficult to access.


– Nearby buildings appeared accessible.





Pedestrian network length and route choice: Good pedestrian network connectivity is characterized by blocks of 600 feet or less or thru-block pedestrian paths when blocks are longer than 600 feet. These distances between network nodes provide a variety of route choices and result in a longer pedestrian network. Century City is characterized by large block, but several thru-block access paths. The pedestrian network route choices and length within a quarter mile of each station site was reviewed on the basis of the number of pedestrian routes (sidewalk-lined street blocks and thru-block paths) within the quarter-mile walkshed.


– Four routes: Santa Monica Blvd (East and West), Century Park East, and the thru-block pedestrian path between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars.





– Seven routes: Avenue of the Stars (North and South), Constellation Blvd (East and West), pedestrian path through the block to the Southeast, pedestrian paths accessible through the South entrance of Westfield Mall, Century Park East, and the thru-block pedestrian path between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars.


– Five routes: Avenue of the Stars (South), Santa Monica Blvd (East and West), pedestrian paths accessible through the North entrances of Westfield Mall, thru-block pedestrian path between Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars.

4.2 Usefulness

4.2.1 Utilitarian destinations trip chaining potential

Proximity to retail: To assess each site’s potential to enable transit commuters to consolidate shopping trips with work trips, we assessed distances between retail (the Westfield Mall) and the station location:


– Farthest from the Westfield Mall.


– Close to the Northeast mall entrance.


– Close to the South mall entrance.

Proximity to food, drink, and entertainment: To assess each site’s potential to enable transit commuters to consolidate dining and entertainment trips with work trips, we assessed distances between food and entertainment destinations and the station location:


– Some food and drink sources along Century Park East.


– Close to Movie Theater, grocery store, and food court at South end of mall, as well as several smaller food and drink outlets near Avenue of the stars and Constellation Blvd intersection.


– Close to food and drink sources at north and of mall and within reasonable distance of food sources along Century Park East and the Movie theater, grocery store, and food court at the south end of the mall.

Proximity to present transit boardings: An analysis of current transit boardings can shed light into the location that current transit riders choose to access transit. Boarding data for the Century City area show that many boardings are located at corner of Constellation Blvd and Garden Lane, near the South entrance to Westfield mall (Metro 2010). Distances from this location to the proposed station sites are compared.





– 2.5 blocks from concentration of present transit boardings.





4.3 Safety

4.3.1 Safety from traffic

Crosswalks at street intersections: Crosswalks at intersections enable pedestrians to safely cross heavily trafficked streets. All major intersections in Century City had sufficient crosswalks with markings and pedestrian signalization.


– All intersections within ¼ mile have sufficient crosswalks.





Longer Crosswalk timing: To support walking for those with varying levels of mobility, or attention span, crosswalk signalization timing must allow sufficient time to allow people with limited ability to safely cross the street. Crosswalks in Century City were generally timed to allow adults walking at a brisk pace barely enough time to cross the street. No major differences were found at various intersections. Crosswalk timing was too short across the area.


– Crosswalk signalization allows too little time for people with limited mobility to cross the street.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: C




Shorter Crosswalk lengths: Shorter crosswalk lengths present less of a barrier to pedestrians crossing the street. Crosswalk lengths were assessed at the street crossings adjacent to the proposed station sites to determine the difficulty pedestrians would have accessing the station from the opposite side of the street





– Santa Monica Blvd is a very wide street and presents a major barrier. Century Park East is a less wide (6 lanes) and presents only a minor barrier to cross.


– Avenue of the Stars is a very wide street (8 lanes + median) and presents a major barrier. Constellation Blvd is less wide (6 lanes) and less of a burden to cross.


– Avenue of the Stars and Santa Monica Blvd are both very wide streets (8 lanes + median) and present a major barrier.

Mid-block crosswalks: at-grade mid-block crossings allow pedestrians to safely access both sides of a street much easier when blocks are long and intersections are far between. We counted the number of mid-block crossings within a quarter mile of each proposed station site to evaluate the safety of mid-block crossings.


– One mid-block crossing along Century Park East.


– One mid-block crossing near the South mall entrance.


– No mid-block crossings within a quarter mile of the site.

Few curb cuts and driveway interruptions: Driveway access through sidewalks disrupts pedestrian travel and creates the potential for collisions between turning cars and pedestrians. Multiple driveways were found along every block face in Century City, contributing to a similar level of danger and discomfort across the site.


– Driveways found across all block faces.

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station: C




Low traffic volume: Streets that carry many cars can contribute to decreased sense of safety. Streets that carry fewer cars make for a better pedestrian environment.


– Santa Monica Blvd carries a large number of cars. Century Park East carries relatively fewer cars.





– Traffic volume on Constellation Blvd appears low. Avenue of the Stars appears to carry a relatively small number of cars in relation to its capacity.


– Santa Monica Blvd carries a large number of cars Avenue of the Stars appears to carry a relatively small number of cars in relation to its capacity.

Low traffic speed: Cars travelling at high speeds contribute to s a decreased sense of safety and. The risk of serious injury or death for a pedestrian in a collision increases as auto speeds increase even moderately. Santa Monica Blvd appeared to have the highest speeds, while North-South streets such as Century Park East and Avenue of the Stars appeared to carry mostly traffic accessing buildings in Century City, and therefore traveling at more moderate speeds. Traffic on Constellation Blvd was very slow, likely due to its short length.


– Speeds are high on Santa Monica Blvd and only somewhat slower on Century Park East.


– Slower traffic on Constellation Blvd and moderate speeds on Avenue of the Stars.


– Speeds are high on Santa Monica Blvd and only somewhat slower on Avenue of the Stars.

4.3.2 Safety from crime

Live security presence: People that appear trustworthy in a pedestrian environment can alleviate fears of crime. Criminals would be unlikely to strike when others are around to intervene or at least bear witness. It appears that the buildings in Century City have numerous plain-clothed and uniformed security personal, which provide a high level of security across the area.


– Numerous security personnel throughout.





Lack of potential offender: Because a crime requires an offender, pedestrians avoid walking where they may encounter potential offenders, or even persons that may cause discomfort and be perceived as threatening (Mehta 2010). We saw no such people in Century City.


– No potential offenders observed.








Lighting, street: Although street lighting was more oriented to facilitate auto travel, it was present across the entire site and contributed to the safety of walking at night.


– Street lighting throughout.





Lighting, pedestrian path: The pedestrian paths all appeared to have sufficient lighting to contribute to safe pedestrian travel at night.


– Path lighting throughout.





Prospect-refuge, streets: People traveling on foot are made to feel safer if they can easily see others, but have the option of not being seen by others. Open, vacant areas can compromise a pedestrian’s sense of safety. Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars have large building setbacks and several lanes, contributing to a sense of exposure for pedestrians walking along its sidewalks. Constellation Blvd and Century Park East have better prospect-refuge due to shorter setbacks, fewer auto lanes, shorter block lengths (Constellation Blvd) and street trees between the sidewalk and auto lanes (Century Park East).


– Santa Monica Blvd has poor prospect-refuge, Century Park East is better.


– Avenue of the Stars has poor prospect-refuge, Constellation Blvd is better.


– Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars both have poor prospect-refuge.




Prospect-refuge, path: The pedestrian pathways generally had good prospect-refuge. Buildings were nearby, but allowed for good lines of sight.


– Good prospect-refuge throughout all pedestrian paths.





4.4 Comfort

Level topography: even slight inclines can cause discomfort for those walking, especially those that have more difficulty walking. There is a noticeable upward slope on Avenue of the Stars from Santa Monica Blvd to Olympic Blvd. The remainder of the site was found to be generally flat.


– Relatively flat.


– Slope along Avenue of the Stars.


– Slope along Avenue of the Stars.

Lack of stairs: Similar to slopes, stairs require more effort to cover the same distance. Routes with stairs can deter pedestrian travel. The only stairs in the site were in the pedestrian pathways and were more or less evenly distributed amongst the pathways.


– Some stairs in the pedestrian pathways.





Sufficient sidewalk width: Wider sidewalks enable a greater number of pedestrians to travel without getting in one another’s way. The sidewalks in century city were wide enough to support a high volume of pedestrian traffic in comfort.


– Sufficient sidewalk width throughout.








Shade and shelter: Pedestrians are exposed to the elements when travelling and therefore prefer paths with the option for shelter from sun and rain. We found little shelter along the sidewalks, but sufficient shelter along the pedestrian pathways.


– Poor along sidewalks, good in pedestrian pathways.





Street trees: Street trees contribute to shade in the summer, offer a buffer from traffic, and create softer edges in hard urban environments. To fulfill these roles, street trees need to be of a sufficient size and located in-between the sidewalk and street. We found street trees throughout the area, but they were only large and located on the street side of the sidewalk along the north end of Century Park East.


– High quality street trees along North end of Century Park East.


– Street trees present, but small and on the building side of the nearby streets.


– Street trees present, but small and on the building side of the nearby streets.

Landscaping and green spaces: Landscaping and green spaces can bring relative calm and quite to what can seem like a hard, noisy environment. We found plenty of landscaping and green spaces throughout the area, particularly in the pedestrian pathways. The highest quality green space, however was in the block to the Southeast of the intersection of Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars.


– Green space and landscaping nearby.


– Most accessible to the high-quality green space to the Southeast of the intersection of Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars.


– Green space and landscaping nearby.




4.5 Sensory Pleasure

Noticeable differences, physical: A moderate variety of facades, shop window displays, awnings, trees, planters, and other physical objects can provide sensory stimulus to pedestrians that contributes to a seemingly shorter walk. A station located near routes with such physical noticeable differences could attract more riders from further away.


– A high level of physical noticeable differences along the nearby pedestrian path and along Century Park East. Few noticeable differences along Santa Monica Blvd.


– A high level of physical noticeable differences in the nearby pedestrian pathways and plazas. Few physical noticeable differences along Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars.


– A high level of physical noticeable differences in the nearby pedestrian pathways and plazas. Few physical noticeable differences along Santa Monica Blvd and Avenue of the Stars.

Noticeable differences, social: A variety of people and human activities and events can also contribute to sensory stimulus that makes pedestrian travel go by quicker. A station located near routes with a higher amount of human activity could attract more riders from further away. We found plenty of human activity and events throughout the area. The epicenter of activity, however, was located around the Westfield mall, particularly the grocery store, food court, and the theater – particularly in the evening.


– Activity in pedestrian pathways and along Century Park East.


– Near mall activity and a variety of other social spaces particularly the plaza to the Southeast.


– Near mall activity and activity within other pedestrian pathways.

4.6 Sense of belonging

Proximity to community gathering spaces: The highest degree of walking enjoyment is achieved in a place where a pedestrian feels that they are part of a community. To facilitate this experience for people walking to transit, the route should pass community gathering spaces. It appears that there are numerous potential spaces for community gathering throughout century city. However, a station located at the center of the four primary blocks that comprise Century City (the intersection of Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars) would enable the most people to traverse these community gathering spaces on their way to or from light rail.


– Spaces for community gathering nearby.





– Central location contributes to the most pedestrian travel through community gathering spaces on the way transit.


– Spaces for community gathering nearby.

4.7 Long-range considerations

Our assessment took into account what is likely to happen over the next decade or so. We considered that the extension of the Purple Line would add greatly to the rail system as a whole because it serves lands that are already densely occupied. Also, the extension runs through areas with a relatively wealthy and educated population, and where a good portion of the population is likely not only to support transit as a “sustainable” means of transport, but also to actually use the rail system.

It would also be advisable to consider the functionality of the subway over a longer period of time, taking into account not only population growth, but also likely changes in travel behavior. Thirty or 50 years from now, the new generation of Los Angelinos will be able to access a rail network that covers a large proportion of the metropolitan region and that links major nodes of concentrated employment and residential areas. Because the network will then be more complete, Angelenos will be able to reach many destinations by rail faster than they will by using their individual cars on congested highways. Taking the train will also be cheaper as parking will inevitably become less readily available (and more expensive). Faster and cheaper travel by transit will lead to higher levels of ridership.

What do these trends suggest about the relative feasibility of the three station locations being considered? Thirty years from now, ridership at Century City will be even higher. Even if mode share does not change, there will be more people using the system because of population growth and because the system will provide access to a large part of the region. Changes in mode share, with more trips taken by transit are also likely, however, for the reasons stated above.

To reduce distances within a station area and to maximize the population having access to the station, a station location should always be located at the 100% corner of the “neighborhood” it serves (the 100% corner is a term that real estate professionals like to use to define the center of activity, and hence the most expensive and revenue-generating location). Having a station at a 100% corner means that the station entries will be at a street intersection serving four fully developed city blocks. In this regard, the station location at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars is the only option offering a 100% corner condition. The two other station location options along Santa Monica Blvd (at either Avenue of the Stars or Century Park East) are less desirable because they are adjacent to a 50% corner. Unless the golf course north of Santa Monica Blvd is developed, a station along Santa Monica Boulevard will always be serving an area that is smaller and has less development (or development potential) than the area served by a 100% corner location. As well, a 50% corner location will always increase average walking distances to and from the transit station.


Appendix C

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T December 21, 2011 Page C-1

Appendix C CENTURY CITY STATIONS—JOBS AND POPULATION CALCULATIONS—FULL DEVELOPMENT

A B C D E F G H

Walkshed/Plan Designation Acreage

MaximumDevelopment

Potential (units orfloor area)

85% Buildout(units or floor

area)

90%CommercialOccupancy(floor area)

Employees(410 sq. ft.floor area

peremployee)

Residents(1.9 peopleper unit)

TotalEmployees& Residents

0 600 feet 12.0Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 0 0 0 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 0 0 8,070 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 4,326,572 3,677,586 3,309,828 8,073 8,070 Total600 feet to 1/4 mile 36.5Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 0 0 180 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 112 95 180 5,490 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 2,046,867 1,739,837 1,565,854 3,819 5,670 Total1/4 mile to 1/2 mile 155.1Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 28 24 45 2,310 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 1,402 1,192 2,264 32,640 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 17,492,972 14,869,026 13,382,124 32,639 34,950 Total

3,999

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Full DevelopmentSanta Monica/Century Park East Station

I

Rounded NumbersUsed in the Report

8,073

Column I. The estimates in Column H were rounded for presentation in the report as shown. Forecast results showed a decline in jobs in the 600 foot to 1/4 mile walkshed (3,820future v. 5,490 existing). Existing employment was assumed to remain constant in the future at 5,490.

34,948

ExplanationData Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the propertieswithin the walksheds created by Fehr & Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; CenturyCity South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

Column A. The general or specific plan designations for the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were mapped on a parcel base map (see Figures C 1 through C 3). The walkshedsprepared by Fehr & Peers for walking distances of 0 to 600 feet, 600 feet to ¼ mile, and ¼ mile to ½ mile were applied to the base map to identify the parcels and plan designationswithin the three walkshed areas for each of the three alternative station locations (Figures C 1 through C 3).

Column B. The land area for the plan designations within the 0 600 feet, 600 feet 1/4 mile, and ¼ mile 1/2 mile walksheds (created by Fehr & Peers) was calculated.

Column C. The maximum development potential for the plan designations within the walksheds was calculated based upon the land area within each walkshed multiplied by themaximum density allowed by the respective plan designations within the walksheds. For commercial uses, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the plan documents was used to calculatethe maximum development potential expressed in square feet of building floor area. The maximum density for single and multiple family development, expressed as the maximumnumber of units per acre, was used to derive the maximum amount of residential development potential.Column D. The maximum (100%) figures in Column C were reduced to 85% for commercial and residential development to be more consistent with a likely full developmentoutcome.Column E. Commercial development is rarely 100% occupied, and a 90% occupancy rate is assumed (consistent with the Fehr & Peers analysis of existing conditions in Appendix A)The maximum development floor area in column C was reduced by 10% ([full development potential X 0.85] X 0.90 = occupied floor area at full development) to give a morerealistic estimate floor area actually occupied by employees.Column F. The estimated number of employees was calculated by applying an average floor area per employee of 410 square feet to the floor area derived in Column E. Thisaverage was based on the current employee/floor area figures supplied by Fehr & Peers for different commercial uses (office 350 sq. ft., retail 600 sq. ft., food service 450 sq.ft., and hotel 2 rooms) and the planned dominance of office employment in Century City.Column G. The estimated number of residents was calculated by multiplying the number of units in Column D with an average of 1.9 persons per household.

Column H. The estimated total of employees and residents is presented.

Distance fromPortal

MapLocation AIN General Plan Designation General Type

PermittedFAR

MaximumPotential BuiltSquare Feet

85% Trend BuiltSquare Feet

90% Leasable AreaBuilt Square Feet

Trend Employees(410 SF/employee)

600 FOOT B3 4319001001 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 562,230 477,896 430,106 1,049600 FOOT B3 4319001002 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 64,108 54,492 49,043 120600 FOOT B3 4319001005 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 359,574 305,638 275,074 671600 FOOT B3 4319001903 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 355,205 301,924 271,732 663600 FOOT B3 4319001904 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 399,857 339,878 305,891 746600 FOOT B2 4319002045 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 310,974 264,328 237,895 580600 FOOT B2 4319002057 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,141,506 970,280 873,252 2,130600 FOOT B3 4319002060 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,133,118 963,150 866,835 2,114

600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 4,326,572 3,677,586 3,309,828 8,073QUARTER MILE B3 4319001006 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 561,012 476,860 429,174 1,047QUARTER MILE B3 4319001007 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 180,100 153,085 137,777 336QUARTER MILE B3 4319001008 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 179,156 152,283 137,054 334QUARTER MILE B2 4319002046 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 648,054 550,846 495,761 1,209QUARTER MILE B2 4319002059 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 328,232 278,998 251,098 612QUARTER MILE A3 4328002001 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 18,335 15,584 14,026 34QUARTER MILE A3 4328002002 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,995 10,196 9,176 22QUARTER MILE A3 4328002003 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,991 10,193 9,173 22QUARTER MILE A3 4328002004 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,996 10,196 9,177 22QUARTER MILE A3 4328002005 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,989 10,190 9,171 22QUARTER MILE A3 4328002006 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,998 10,199 9,179 22QUARTER MILE A3 4328002009 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 48,006 40,805 36,725 90QUARTER MILE A3 4328002036 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 24,003 20,403 18,363 45

QUARTER MILE SUBTOTAL 2,046,867 1,739,837 1,565,854 3,819

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Full DevelopmentSanta Monica/Century Park East Employment

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR





HALF MILE C3 4319001009 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 108,198 91,968 82,771 202HALF MILE C3 4319001010 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 360,006 306,005 275,405 672HALF MILE C3 4319001013 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 429,220 364,837 328,353 801HALF MILE C3 4319001014 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 482,768 410,353 369,318 901HALF MILE B3 4319001803 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 343,308 291,812 262,631 641HALF MILE B2 4319002053 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 674,616 573,424 516,081 1,259HALF MILE C3 4319002054 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 195,737 166,377 149,739 365HALF MILE C2 4319002055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 256,441 217,975 196,177 478HALF MILE B2 4319002056 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 652,254 554,416 498,974 1,217HALF MILE C2 4319003055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 577,828 491,154 442,039 1,078HALF MILE B2 4319003061 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 629,268 534,878 481,390 1,174HALF MILE C2 4319003063 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 196,976 167,430 150,687 368HALF MILE C2 4319003064 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 4,888,818 4,155,495 3,739,946 9,122HALF MILE C2 4319003065 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 723,282 614,790 553,311 1,350HALF MILE C2 4319004109 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,512,972 1,286,026 1,157,424 2,823HALF MILE C2 4319009030 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,038 6,832 6,149 15HALF MILE C2 4319009031 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,579 6,442 5,798 14HALF MILE C2 4319009050 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 20,700 17,595 15,836 39HALF MILE C3 4319016029 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 602,790 512,372 461,134 1,125HALF MILE C3 4319016030 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 625,704 531,848 478,664 1,167HALF MILE C3 4319016031 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,144,044 972,437 875,194 2,135HALF MILE C3 4319016032 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 985,194 837,415 753,673 1,838HALF MILE C2 4327017015 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,069 11,959 10,763 26HALF MILE C2 4327017016 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,030 5,975 5,378 13HALF MILE C2 4327017017 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,026 5,972 5,375 13HALF MILE C2 4327017018 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,022 5,969 5,372 13HALF MILE B2 4327017019 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,903 7,568 6,811 17HALF MILE B2 4327018010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,053 6,845 6,161 15HALF MILE B2 4327018011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,130 12,010 10,809 26HALF MILE B2 4327018012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,004 5,404 13HALF MILE B2 4327018013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,066 6,006 5,405 13HALF MILE B2 4327018014 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,174 6,948 6,253 15HALF MILE B2 4327019010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,042 6,836 6,152 15HALF MILE B2 4327019011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13HALF MILE B2 4327019012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,062 6,003 5,402 13HALF MILE B2 4327019013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR





HALF MILE B2 4327019023 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,240 12,954 11,659 28HALF MILE A3 4327028001 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 773,438 657,422 591,680 1,443HALF MILE A3 4327028002 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 664,054 564,446 508,001 1,239HALF MILE A2 4327028003 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 46,669 39,669 35,702 87HALF MILE A3 4328002010 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,002 10,202 9,181 22HALF MILE A3 4328002011 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,006 10,205 9,184 22HALF MILE A3 4328002012 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,999 10,199 9,180 22HALF MILE A3 4328002013 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,996 10,197 9,177 22HALF MILE A3 4328002034 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 23,991 20,393 18,353 45HALF MILE A3 4328003001 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,991 10,193 9,173 22HALF MILE A3 4328003015 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,785 10,017 9,016 22HALF MILE A3 4328003025 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 184,735 157,024 141,322 345HALF MILE A3 4328004017 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 17,407 14,796 13,317 32HALF MILE A3 4328008010 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 17,991 15,292 13,763 34HALF MILE A3 4328008011 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,239 10,403 9,363 23HALF MILE A3 4328008012 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,253 10,415 9,373 23HALF MILE A3 4328008013 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,239 10,403 9,363 23HALF MILE A3 4328008014 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,245 10,408 9,368 23HALF MILE A3 4328008015 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,250 10,413 9,372 23HALF MILE A3 4328008016 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,258 10,419 9,377 23HALF MILE A3 4328008017 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,246 10,409 9,368 23HALF MILE A3 4328008027 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 48,425 41,161 37,045 90

HALF MILE SUBTOTAL 17,492,972 14,869,026 13,382,124 32,639

Distance fromPortal

MapLocation AIN General Plan Designation General Type Permitted Density

MaximumDwelling Units

85% TrendDwelling Units Trend Population

600 FOOT 0600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 0

QUARTER MILE A3 4328002024 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10QUARTER MILE A3 4328002025 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10QUARTER MILE A3 4328002026 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10QUARTER MILE B3 4328002028 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10QUARTER MILE B3 4328002029 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 5 4 8QUARTER MILE B3 4328002030 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 5 4 8QUARTER MILE B3 4328002031 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 12QUARTER MILE B3 4328002035 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 19 16 31QUARTER MILE B3 4328004001 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 12 10 19QUARTER MILE B3 4328004002 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11QUARTER MILE B3 4328004003 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11QUARTER MILE B3 4328004004 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11QUARTER MILE B3 4328004033 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 18 15 28

QUARTER MILE SUBTOTAL 112 95 180HALF MILE C2 4319009051 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE C2 4319009052 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE A3 4328002016 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 13 11 20HALF MILE A3 4328002017 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002019 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002021 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002022 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002023 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002040 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328004008 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 14 12 22HALF MILE A3 4328004009 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004010 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004011 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004012 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004013 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004014 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004015 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 14 12 22HALF MILE A3 4328004016 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328004018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 13 11 21HALF MILE A3 4328004019 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004020 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Full DevelopmentSanta Monica/Century Park East Resident Population

Distance fromPortal




HALF MILE A3 4328004021 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004022 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004023 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004024 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004025 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004026 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 16 14 26HALF MILE A3 4328004027 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004028 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004029 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004030 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004031 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE A3 4328004032 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 2 1 3HALF MILE A3 4328004085 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 21 18 33HALF MILE B3 4328005001 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 15 13 24HALF MILE B3 4328005002 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 3 3 5HALF MILE B3 4328005003 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE B3 4328005004 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005005 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005006 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005007 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005008 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005009 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005010 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005011 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005012 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 6 12HALF MILE B3 4328005014 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005015 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005016 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005017 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005019 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 13HALF MILE B3 4328005020 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 12 10 20HALF MILE B3 4328005022 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 10 9 17HALF MILE B3 4328006008 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006009 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006019 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12

Distance fromPortal




HALF MILE B3 4328006020 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006021 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006022 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328006026 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 21 18 34HALF MILE B3 4328006046 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 14 12 22HALF MILE B3 4328006052 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 23 19 37HALF MILE B3 4328006066 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 15 13 25HALF MILE B3 4328007011 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328007012 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328007013 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE B3 4328007014 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE A3 4328007015 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE A3 4328007016 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE A3 4328007017 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE A3 4328007018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 8 7 12HALF MILE A3 4328007019 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328007020 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 9 8 15HALF MILE A3 4328007034 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 63 54 102HALF MILE A3 4328008008 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 11HALF MILE A3 4328008009 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 10 9 17HALF MILE A3 4328008042 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 21 18 33HALF MILE A3 4328009011 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 10 9 17HALF MILE A3 4328010034 Low Medium Density Multi Family Residential MF 40.0 8 6 12HALF MILE C3 4329001063 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 558 474 900HALF MILE C3 4329009001 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 51 44 83

MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1,402 1,192 2,264HALF MILE B2 Various Low Residential Residential SF 8.7 28 24 45

HALF MILE SUBTOTAL 1,430 1,215 2,309


Wilshire Blvd

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Olympic

Blvd

Beverly Glen Blvd

Of The Stars

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Com

stock Ave

Club View Dr

Fox Hills Dr

Benecia Ave

Warnall Ave

Lask

y D

r

Heath Ave

Moreno Dr

Thayer Ave

Durant D

r

Eastborne A

ve

Ensley AveRochester Ave

Constellation Blvd

Kerw

ood

Ave

Missouri A

ve

Fairb

urn

Ave

Holm

by Ave

Miss

issip

pi A

ve

Devon A

ve

Galaxy

Way

Woodruff Ave

Ashton Ave

Century Hill Shirley Pl

Calv

in A

ve

Holman Ave

Pandora Ave

Kinnard Ave

La G

rang

e Av

e

Robbins D

r

Wes

thol

me

Ave

Orto

n Av

eLouisiana Ave

Wilkins Ave

Garden Ln

Trenton Dr

Laur

isto

n Av

e

Empyre

an W

ay

Bellw

ood

Ave

Calm

ar Ct

Verona Ave

Wilkins AveEa

stbo

rne

Ave

Com

stoc

k Av

e

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Roc

hest

er A

ve

Thayer Ave

Pandora Ave

Missouri A

ve

Holmby Ave

Century Park

La Grange Ave


Updated October 5, 2011

600 Ft Walkshed

1/4 Mile Walkshed

1/2 Mile Walkshed

Building Distance from CPE Portal

600 Ft

1/4 Mile

1/2 Mile

General Plan Designation

Commercial

Residential -MF

Residential-SF

Manufacturing

Park, Open Space, Recreation

Public, Facility, Govt

350Feet

A1 A2 A3

B1 B2 B3

C1

D1

C2 C3

D2 D3

Station

4327028002

4327028003

Wilshire Blvd

Century Park East Station - A2

Updated October 5, 2011 100Feet

4327028001

4327028002 4328003025

4328008027

4328002009

4328002035

4328009011

4328004017

4328008011

4328007034

4328008042

4328004015

4328002036

4328002034

4328004008

4328004018

4328002016

4328005001

43280080094328008010

4328007020 4328010034

4328004026

4328004023

4328004021

4328004024

43280040204328004019

4328004022

4328004025

4328007018

4328007014

4328007015

4328007017

4328007016

4328008016

4328008012

4328008008

4328008015

4328007019

4328008017

4328008014

4328008013

4328002011

4328004011

4328004016

4328004010

43280040144328004013

4328004012

4328002010

4328004009

4328002012

4328002006

4328002013

43280020044328002003

4328003001

4328002005

4328002002

4328003015

4328002001

43280020224328002023

43280020254328002024

43280020184328002017

4328002026

4328002019

43280020214328002040

4328004085 432800701343280050124328002028

Wilshire Blvd

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Lask

y D

r

Spal

ding

Dr

Durant D

r

Charleville Blvd

Trenton Dr

Whittier Dr

Car

mel

ita A

ve

Walden Dr

Robbins D

r

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Century Park East Station - A3


4319002057

4319002056

4319002046

4319003061

43190030644319002053

4319003055

4319002045

4319002060

4319002059

4319002055

4327019023

4327018011

4327020014

4327019016

4327019017

4327019019

4327019018

4327019020

4327019021

4327019022

4327020016

4327020015

4327018015

4327019001

4327018018

4327018019

4327018017

4327018016

4327018020

4327019008

4327018008

4327019006

4327019002

4327018007

4327019003

4327019005

4327019004

4327019007

4327018009

4327019009

4327018014

4327018010

4327019010

4327017019

4327019011

4327018013

4327019013

4327018012

4327019012

4319001903

4327017018 4319002054


Santa Monic

a Blvd

Club View Dr

Ensley Ave

Of The Stars

Eastborne A

ve

Warnall Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Century Park East Station - B2


4319002060

4319001001

4319001006

4319001904

4319001013

4319001005

4319001803

4319016029

4319001903

4319001010

4319001007

4319001008

4319002053

4328004085

4328004033

4319002054

4328004001

4319001014

4328007011

4319002059

4328006052

43280060264328006066

4328006046

4319001009

4328005020

4319001002

4328004026

4328005022

4328005011

4328005017

4328005009

4328005005

43280040304328005008

4328005019

4328005010

4328005004 43280050164328005015

4328004029

4328005018

43280050064328005007

4328004031

4328005014

43280040284328004027

4328007012

4328006022

4328006021

4328006019

4328006020

4328006018

4328006009

4328006008

4328006007

43280070344328007013

4328002031

4328005003

4328005012

43280040034328004002

4328002001 432800202843280050014328002035

43280020294328002030

4328005002

4328004008 4328004025

4328004032

Moreno Dr

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Lask

y D

r

Robbins D

rDurant D

r

Youn

g Dr

Heath Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Gregory Way

Century Park East Station - B3


4319003064

4319004109

4319003065

4319003055 4319002053

4319002055

4319009050

4327017015

4319009051

4319009052

4319016032

43190090304319009031

43270170164327017017

43270170184327017019

4319003063

Fox Hills Dr

Century Park

Constellation Blvd

La G

rang

e Av

e

Com

stock Ave

Garden Ln

o f The Stars

Dunkir

k Ave

Missouri A

ve

Benecia Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Cen

tury

Woo

ds D

r

Mississ

ippi A

ve

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Century Park East Station - C2


4329009003

4329001063

4319016031

4319016032

4319016030

4319001014

4319016029

4319004109

4319001010

4329009001

4319001013

4319002054 4319001900

4319001009

Oly

mpi

c Bl

vd

Century Park

Heath Ave

Of The Stars

Shirley Pl

Spal

ding

Dr

Galaxy

Way

Conste

llation Blvd

Century Hill

Hillgreen Dr

Century Park Ln

Century Park East Station - C3


A B C D E F G H


MaximumDevelopment



area)



peremployee)



0 600 feet 17.0Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 0 0 0 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 0 0 13,670 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 7,325,158 6,226,384 5,603,746 13,668 13,670 Total600 feet to 1/4 mile 54.6Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 0 0 820 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 508 432 821 23,140 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 12,402,565 10,542,180 9,487,962 23,141 23,960 Total1/4 mile to 1/2 mile 161.5Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 31 26 50 7,190 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 4,422 3,758 7,141 13,160 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 6,830,452 5,805,884 5,225,296 13,161 20,350 Total

Explanation

Column D. The maximum (100%) figures in Column C were reduced to 85% for commercial and residential development to be more consistent with a likely full developmentoutcome.

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Full DevelopmentConstellation/Avenue of the Stars Station

I


13,668

23,962

20,352

Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the propertieswithin the walksheds created by Fehr & Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; CenturyCity South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

Column A. The general or specific plan designations for the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were mapped on a parcel base map (see Figures C 1 through C 3). The walkshedsprepared by Fehr & Peers for walking distances of 0 to 600 feet, 600 feet to ¼ mile, and ¼ mile to ½ mile were applied to the base map to identify the parcels and plan designationswithin the three walkshed areas for each of the three alternative station locations (Figures C 1 through C 3).


Column C. The maximum development potential for the plan designations within the walksheds was calculated based upon the land area within each walkshed multiplied by themaximum density allowed by the respective plan designations within the walksheds. For commercial uses, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the plan documents was used to calculatethe maximum development potential expressed in square feet of building floor area. The maximum density for single and multiple family development, expressed as the maximumnumber of units per acre, was used to derive the maximum amount of residential development potential.

Column E. Commercial development is rarely 100% occupied, and a 90% occupancy rate is assumed (consistent with the Fehr & Peers analysis of existing conditions in Appendix A).The maximum development floor area in column C was reduced by 10% ([full development potential X 0.85] X 0.90 = occupied floor area at full development) to give a more realisticestimate floor area actually occupied by employees.

Column F. The estimated number of employees was calculated by applying an average floor area per employee of 410 square feet to the floor area derived in Column E. Thisaverage was based on the current employee/floor area figures supplied by Fehr & Peers for different commercial uses (office 350 sq. ft., retail 600 sq. ft., food service 450 sq. ft.,and hotel 2 rooms) and the planned dominance of office employment in Century City. Fox Studios property is partially (16%) within the 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile walkshed. 16% of thecurrent employment (416) was assumed for full development, and it is part of the total employment number (8,706 + 416 = 9,122).

Column G. The estimated number of residents was calculated by multiplying the number of units in Column D with an average of 1.9 persons per household.


Column I. The estimates in Column H were rounded for presentation in the report as shown.

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR




Trend Employees(410 SF/employee) Notes

600 FOOT B2 4319002053 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 674,616 573,424 516,081 1,259600 FOOT C2 4319002054 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 195,737 166,377 149,739 365600 FOOT C2 4319002055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 256,441 217,975 196,177 478600 FOOT B2 4319002056 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 652,254 554,416 498,974 1,217600 FOOT B2 4319003055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 577,828 491,154 442,039 1,078600 FOOT C2 4319003065 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 723,282 614,790 553,311 1,350600 FOOT C2 4319004109 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,512,972 1,286,026 1,157,424 2,823600 FOOT C3 4319016029 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 602,790 512,372 461,134 1,125600 FOOT C3 4319016031 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,144,044 972,437 875,194 2,135600 FOOT C3 4319016032 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 985,194 837,415 753,673 1,838

600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 7,325,158 6,226,384 5,603,746 13,668QUARTER MILE B3 4319001006 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 140,253 119,215 107,293 262QUARTER MILE B3 4319001007 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 45,025 38,271 34,444 84QUARTER MILE B3 4319001008 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 134,367 114,212 102,791 251QUARTER MILE B2 4319002046 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 648,054 550,846 495,761 1,209QUARTER MILE B2 4319002057 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,141,506 970,280 873,252 2,130QUARTER MILE B2 4319002059 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 328,232 278,998 251,098 612QUARTER MILE B3 4319002060 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,133,118 963,150 866,835 2,114QUARTER MILE B2 4319003061 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 629,268 534,878 481,390 1,174QUARTER MILE C2 4319003063 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 196,976 167,430 150,687 368QUARTER MILE B2 4319003064 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 4,888,818 4,155,495 3,739,946 9,122QUARTER MILE C2 4319004140 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 491,839 418,063 376,257 918QUARTER MILE C2 4319004141 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 936,954 796,411 716,770 1,748QUARTER MILE C2 4319004142 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 93,555 79,522 71,570 175QUARTER MILE C3 4319004144 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 968,916 823,579 741,221 1,808QUARTER MILE C3 4319016030 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 625,704 531,848 478,664 1,167


Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Parcel Level InventoryConstellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Employment

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR




Trend Employees(410 SF/employee) Notes

HALF MILE D2 4315018057 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial 1.5 51,793 44,024 39,622 97HALF MILE D3 4315019005 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,610,904 1,369,268 1,232,342 3,006HALF MILE B3 4319001001 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 562,230 477,896 430,106 1,049HALF MILE B3 4319001002 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 64,108 54,492 49,043 120HALF MILE C3 4319001005 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 359,574 305,638 275,074 671HALF MILE C3 4319001009 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 108,198 91,968 82,771 202HALF MILE C3 4319001010 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 360,006 306,005 275,405 672HALF MILE B3 4319001013 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 429,220 364,837 328,353 801HALF MILE C3 4319001014 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 482,768 410,353 369,318 901HALF MILE B3 4319001803 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 343,308 291,812 262,631 641HALF MILE B3 4319001903 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 355,205 301,924 271,732 663HALF MILE B3 4319001904 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 399,857 339,878 305,891 746HALF MILE B2 4319002045 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 310,974 264,328 237,895 580HALF MILE C2 4319004138 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 907,806 771,635 694,472 1,694HALF MILE D2 4319004139 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 318,457 270,688 243,620 594HALF MILE D2 4319005070 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial 1.5 12,333 10,483 9,435 23HALF MILE C2 4319009050 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 20,700 17,595 15,836 39HALF MILE C2 4327017015 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,069 11,959 10,763 26HALF MILE C2 4327017016 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,030 5,975 5,378 13HALF MILE C2 4327017017 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,026 5,972 5,375 13HALF MILE C2 4327017018 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,022 5,969 5,372 13HALF MILE C2 4327017019 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,903 7,568 6,811 17HALF MILE B2 4327018010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,053 6,845 6,161 15HALF MILE B2 4327018011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,130 12,010 10,809 26HALF MILE B2 4327018012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,004 5,404 13HALF MILE B2 4327018013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,066 6,006 5,405 13HALF MILE B2 4327018014 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,174 6,948 6,253 15HALF MILE B2 4327019010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,042 6,836 6,152 15HALF MILE B2 4327019011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13HALF MILE B2 4327019012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,062 6,003 5,402 13HALF MILE B2 4327019013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13HALF MILE B2 4327019023 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,240 12,954 11,659 28HALF MILE D3 4315019013 Limited Industrial Industrial 416 (1)


Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the properties within the walksheds created by Fehr &Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; Century City South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

(1) Fox Studios lot expected to maintain current employee levels in the future

Distance fromPortal



85% TrendDwelling Units Trend Population Notes

600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 0 0 0QUARTER MILE C3 4329009001 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 51 44 83QUARTER MILE C3 4329009003 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 457 388 738 (1)

QUARTER MILE SUBTOTAL 508 432 821HALF MILE D3 4315019006 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 296 251 477HALF MILE D2 4319004059 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 644 548 1,041HALF MILE D2, D3 4319004134 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 776 660 1,253HALF MILE C2 4319009051 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE C2 4319009052 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE C3 4329001063 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 558 474 900HALF MILE C3, D3 4329008083 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 1,022 869 1,651 (2)HALF MILE C3 4329009003 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 988 840 1,596 (3)HALF MILE C3 4330001001 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 16 13 26HALF MILE C3 4330001002 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 7 6 11HALF MILE C3 4330001003 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 7 6 11HALF MILE C3 4330001004 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 7 6 11HALF MILE C3 4330001005 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 9 7 14HALF MILE C3 4330001018 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 17 15 28HALF MILE C3 4330001020 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 18 15 29HALF MILE C3 4330001040 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50 37 32 60

MULTI FAMILY SUBTOTAL 4,422 3,759 7,141HALF MILE B2, C3 various Low Residential Residential SF 8.7 31 26 50


(3) Took 66% of total for parcel, as 66% of property is within the walkshed

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Parcel Level InventoryConstellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Resident Population

Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the properties within the walksheds createdby Fehr & Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; Century City South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

(1) Took 33% of total for parcel, as 33% of property is within the walkshed(2) Took 50% of total for parcel, as 50% of property is within the walkshed

Wilshire Blvd

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Olympic

Blvd

Beverly Glen Blvd

Of The Stars

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Com

stock Ave

Club View Dr

Fox Hills Dr

Benecia Ave

Warnall Ave

Lask

y D

r

Heath Ave

Moreno Dr

Thayer Ave

Durant D

r

Eastborne A

ve


Conste

llation Blvd

Kerw

ood

Ave

Missouri A

ve

Fairb

urn

Ave

Holm

by Ave

Miss

issip

pi A

ve

Devon A

ve

Galaxy

Way

Woodruff Ave

Ashton Ave


Calv

in A

ve

Holman Ave

Pandora Ave

Kinnard Ave

La G

rang

e Av

e

Robbins D

r

Wes

thol

me

Ave

Charleville Blvd

Orto

n Av

eLouisiana Ave

Wilkins Ave

Garden Ln

Trenton Dr

Laur

isto

n Av

e

Empyre

an W

ay

Bellw

ood

Ave

Calm

ar Ct

Verona Ave

Wilkins AveEa

stbo

rne

Ave

Com

stoc

k Av

e

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Roc

hest

er A

ve

Thayer Ave

Pandora Ave

Missouri A

ve

Holmby Ave

Century Park

La Grange Ave

Constellation Station


600 Ft Walkshed

1/4 Mile Walkshed

1/2 Mile Walkshed

Building Distance from Portal

600 Ft

1/4 Mile

1/2 Mile


Commercial

Residential -MF

Residential-SF

Manufacturing


Public, Facility, Govt

350Feet

A1 A2 A3

B1 B2 B3

C1

D1

C2 C3

D2 D3

Station

Constellation Station

4319002057

4319003064

4319002056

4319002046

4319003061

4319003055

4319002053

4319002045

4319002060

4319002059

4319002055

4327019023

4327020014

4327018011

4327019016

4327019017

4327019019

4327019018

4327019021

4327019020

4327019022

4327018015

4327020016

4327020015

4327019001

4327020013

4327017020

4327018017

4327018016

4327018019

4327018018

4327018021

43270180204327019007

4327019008

4327019006

4327019002

4327019003

4327019005

4327019004

4327017019

4327019009

43270180094327018014

4327018010

43270190104327019011

4327019013

4327018013

4327019012

4327018012

4327017018 4319002054

4319001903

4327017017 4319003065

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Club View Dr

Ensley Ave

Of The Stars

Eastborne A

ve

Warnall Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Constellation Station - B2


Moreno Dr

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Lask

y D

r

Robbins D

rDurant D

r

Youn

g Dr

Heath Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Gregory Way

Constellation Station - B3


4319002060

4319001001

4319001006

4319001904

4319001013

4319001005

4319001803

4319016029

4319001903

4319001010

4319001007

4319001008

4319002053

4319001014

4319002059

4319001009

4319001002

4319002054

4330001001

4319003064

4319004109

4319004141

4319004138

4319003065

4319004134

4319004140

4319004139

4319003055

4319003063

4319002055

4319002053

4319004059

4319009050

4319004142

4319009051

4319016032

4319009052

4327017015

4319011018

4319010027

4319011017

4319011016

4319011014

4319011010

4319011011

4319011015

4319011007

4319011013

4319011012

4319010031

4319011009

4319011008

4319011006

4319011005

4319011004

4319010029

4319010030

4319010028

4319011001

4319004134

4319011003

4319010032

4319004144

43270170164327017017

4327017018

4319003060

4319010033

4327017019

4319004023

Fox Hills Dr

Century Park

Constellation Blvd

Com

stock Ave

La G

rang

e Av

e

Garden Ln

Of The Stars

Dunkir

k Ave

Missouri A

ve

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Cen

tury

Woo

ds D

r

Benecia Ave Miss

issip

pi A

ve

Constellation Station - C2


4329009003

4329008083

4329001063

4319016031

4319004144

4319016032

4319016030

4319001014

43150190054319004134

4319016029

4319004109

4330001040

4319001010

4329009001

43300010204330001018

4330001007

4330001006

43300010014319001013

4330001011

4330001005

4330001010

4330001008

4330001009

4319001009

4319002054

43300010044330001003

4330001002

4319001900

4319004059

Oly

mpi

c Bl

vd

Century Park

Heath Ave

Of The Stars

Shirley Pl

Spal

ding

Dr

Galaxy

Way

Conste

llation Blvd

Century Hill

Hillgreen Dr

Century Park Ln

Constellation Station - C3


4319004059

4319004134

4315019013

4319004134

4319004139

4315018057

43190041384319004141

4319005070

4319010038

4319010037

4319010031

4319010036

4319010034

4319010029

4319010033

4319010030

4319010028

4319010032

4319010035

4319005061

4319005059

4319005066

4319005069

4319005068

4319005062

4319005067

4319005065

4319005060

4319005063

4319005064

4319010027

4319004023

4319004138

Benecia Ave

Fox Hills DrKerw

ood

Ave

Century Park

Olympic B

lvd

Miss

issip

pi A

ve

Calvin Ave

Com

stoc

k Av

e

Louisiana Ave

Lauri

ston A

ve

Orto

n Av

e

Dunkir

k Ave

Beverly Glen Blvd

La Grange Ave

Century Woods Dr

Bellw

ood

Ave Fox Hills Dr

Constellation Station - D2


4315019013

4329008083

4315019005

4315019006

4319004134

4319004059

43290090034319004059

Of The Stars

Century Hill

Empyre

an W

ay

Olympic

Blvd

Pico Blvd

Galaxy

Way

Constellation Station - D3


A B C D E F G H


MaximumDevelopment



area)



peremployee)



0 600 feet 15.0Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 0 0 0 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 0 0 6,840 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 3,664,151 3,114,528 2,803,075 6,837 6,840 Total600 feet to 1/4 mile 49.1Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 73 62 118 120 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 0 0 13,960 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 7,480,439 6,358,373 5,722,536 13,957 14,080 Total1/4 mile to 1/2 mile 182.9Residential Single Family (dwelling units) 229 195 370 2,420 ResidentsResidential Multi family (dwelling units) 1,268 1,078 2,048 29,520 JobsCommercial Employment (sq. ft. blg. floor area) 15,822,051 13,448,743 12,103,869 29,522 31,940 Total

Explanation

Column E. Commercial development is rarely 100% occupied, and a 90% occupancy rate is assumed (consistent with the Fehr & Peers analysis of existing conditions in AppendixA). The maximum development floor area in column C was reduced by 10% ([full development potential X 0.85] X 0.90 = occupied floor area at full development) to give a morerealistic estimate floor area actually occupied by employees.

Column F. The estimated number of employees was calculated by applying an average floor area per employee of 410 square feet to the floor area derived in Column E. Thisaverage was based on the current employee/floor area figures supplied by Fehr & Peers for different commercial uses (office 350 sq. ft., retail 600 sq. ft., food service 450 sq.ft., and hotel 2 rooms) and the planned dominance of office employment in Century City.

Column G. The estimated number of residents was calculated by multiplying the number of units in Column D with an average of 1.9 persons per household.


Column I. The estimates in Column H were rounded for presentation in the report as shown.

Column D. The maximum (100%) figures in Column C were reduced to 85% for commercial and residential development to be more consistent with a likely full developmentoutcome.

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Full DevelopmentSanta Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station

I


6,837

14,075

31,939

Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the propertieswithin the walksheds created by Fehr & Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan;Century City South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

Column A. The general or specific plan designations for the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were mapped on a parcel base map (see Figures C 1 through C 3). Thewalksheds prepared by Fehr & Peers for walking distances of 0 to 600 feet, 600 feet to ¼ mile, and ¼ mile to ½ mile were applied to the base map to identify the parcels and plandesignations within the three walkshed areas for each of the three alternative station locations (Figures C 1 through C 3).


Column C. The maximum development potential for the plan designations within the walksheds was calculated based upon the land area within each walkshed multiplied bythe maximum density allowed by the respective plan designations within the walksheds. For commercial uses, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the plan documents was used tocalculate the maximum development potential expressed in square feet of building floor area. The maximum density for single and multiple family development, expressed asthe maximum number of units per acre, was used to derive the maximum amount of residential development potential.

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR





600 FOOT B2 4319002046 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 648,054 550,846 495,761 1,209600 FOOT B2 4319002056 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 652,254 554,416 498,974 1,217600 FOOT B2 4319002057 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,141,506 970,280 873,252 2,130600 FOOT B2 4319003055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 577,828 491,154 442,039 1,078600 FOOT B2 4319003061 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 629,268 534,878 481,390 1,174600 FOOT B2 4327019023 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,240 12,954 11,659 28

600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 3,664,151 3,114,528 2,803,075 6,837QUARTER MILE B3 4319001903 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 88,801 75,481 67,933 166QUARTER MILE B2 4319002045 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 310,974 264,328 237,895 580QUARTER MILE B2 4319002060 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,133,118 963,150 866,835 2,114QUARTER MILE C2 4319003063 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 196,976 167,430 150,687 368QUARTER MILE C2 4319003064 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 4,888,818 4,155,495 3,739,946 9,122QUARTER MILE C2 4319003065 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 723,282 614,790 553,311 1,350QUARTER MILE C2 4319009050 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 20,700 17,595 15,836 39QUARTER MILE C2 4327017015 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,069 11,959 10,763 26QUARTER MILE C2 4327017016 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,030 5,975 5,378 13QUARTER MILE C2 4327017017 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,026 5,972 5,375 13QUARTER MILE C2 4327017018 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,022 5,969 5,372 13QUARTER MILE C2 4327017019 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,903 7,568 6,811 17QUARTER MILE B2 4327018010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,053 6,845 6,161 15QUARTER MILE B2 4327018011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,130 12,010 10,809 26QUARTER MILE B2 4327018012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,004 5,404 13QUARTER MILE B2 4327018013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,066 6,006 5,405 13QUARTER MILE B2 4327018014 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,174 6,948 6,253 15QUARTER MILE B2 4327019010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,042 6,836 6,152 15QUARTER MILE B2 4327019011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13QUARTER MILE B2 4327019012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,062 6,003 5,402 13QUARTER MILE B2 4327019013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,064 6,005 5,404 13


Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Parcel Level InventorySanta Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Employment

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR





HALF MILE D3 4315019005 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,610,904 1,369,268 1,232,342 3,006HALF MILE C1 4317001002 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,427 6,313 5,682 14HALF MILE C1 4317001003 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,428 6,314 5,682 14HALF MILE C1 4317001004 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,269 7,029 6,326 15HALF MILE C1 4317001158 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,264 12,975 11,677 28HALF MILE C1 4317002003 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,667 6,517 5,865 14HALF MILE C1 4317002048 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,668 6,518 5,866 14HALF MILE C1 4317002052 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,918 13,530 12,177 30HALF MILE B3 4319001001 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 562,230 477,896 430,106 1,049HALF MILE B3 4319001002 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 64,108 54,492 49,043 120HALF MILE B3 4319001005 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 359,574 305,638 275,074 671HALF MILE B3 4319001006 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 561,012 476,860 429,174 1,047HALF MILE B3 4319001007 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 180,100 153,085 137,777 336HALF MILE B3 4319001008 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 179,156 152,283 137,054 334HALF MILE B3 4319001009 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 108,198 91,968 82,771 202HALF MILE B3 4319001010 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 360,006 306,005 275,405 672HALF MILE B3 4319001803 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 343,308 291,812 262,631 641HALF MILE B3 4319001904 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 399,857 339,878 305,891 746HALF MILE B2 4319002053 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 674,616 573,424 516,081 1,259HALF MILE B3 4319002054 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 195,737 166,377 149,739 365HALF MILE C2 4319002055 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 256,441 217,975 196,177 478HALF MILE B3 4319002059 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 328,232 278,998 251,098 612HALF MILE C3 4319004109 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,512,972 1,286,026 1,157,424 2,823HALF MILE C2 4319004138 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 907,806 771,635 694,472 1,694HALF MILE C2 4319004140 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 491,839 418,063 376,257 918HALF MILE C2 4319004141 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 936,954 796,411 716,770 1,748HALF MILE C2 4319004142 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 93,555 79,522 71,570 175HALF MILE C3 4319004144 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 968,916 823,579 741,221 1,808HALF MILE C2 4319009030 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 8,038 6,832 6,149 15HALF MILE C2 4319009031 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,579 6,442 5,798 14HALF MILE C2 4319009032 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,519 6,391 5,752 14HALF MILE C2 4319009033 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,462 6,343 5,709 14HALF MILE C2 4319009034 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,405 6,295 5,665 14HALF MILE C1 4319009035 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,346 6,244 5,619 14HALF MILE C1 4319009036 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 7,289 6,196 5,576 14HALF MILE C1 4319009056 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 28,099 23,884 21,496 52HALF MILE C1 4319009093 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 37,023 31,469 28,322 69HALF MILE C3 4319016029 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 602,790 512,372 461,134 1,125HALF MILE C3 4319016030 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 625,704 531,848 478,664 1,167HALF MILE C3 4319016031 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 1,144,044 972,437 875,194 2,135HALF MILE C3 4319016032 Regional Center Commercial Commercial 6 985,194 837,415 753,673 1,838

Distance fromPortal


PermittedFAR





HALF MILE C1 4326032031 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 21,319 18,121 16,309 40HALF MILE C1 4327006008 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 13,533 11,503 10,353 25HALF MILE C1 4327006009 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 6,599 5,609 5,048 12HALF MILE C1 4327006010 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 6,599 5,609 5,048 12HALF MILE C1 4327006011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 6,601 5,611 5,050 12HALF MILE C1 4327006012 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 15,674 13,323 11,991 29HALF MILE C1 4327006013 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 6,178 5,252 4,726 12HALF MILE C1 4327007008 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 19,414 16,502 14,852 36HALF MILE C1 4327007016 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 47,007 39,956 35,960 88HALF MILE C1 4327017011 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 17,970 15,275 13,747 34HALF MILE C1 4327017014 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 14,078 11,967 10,770 26HALF MILE C1 4327017022 General Commercial Commercial 1.5 10,676 9,075 8,167 20HALF MILE A3 4327028001 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 773,438 657,422 591,680 1,443HALF MILE A3 4328002001 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 18,335 15,584 14,026 34HALF MILE A3 4328002002 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,995 10,196 9,176 22HALF MILE A3 4328002003 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,991 10,193 9,173 22HALF MILE A3 4328002004 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,996 10,196 9,177 22HALF MILE A3 4328002005 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,989 10,190 9,171 22HALF MILE A3 4328002006 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,998 10,199 9,179 22HALF MILE A3 4328002009 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 48,006 40,805 36,725 90HALF MILE A3 4328002010 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,002 10,202 9,181 22HALF MILE A3 4328002011 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 12,006 10,205 9,184 22HALF MILE A3 4328002012 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,999 10,199 9,180 22HALF MILE A3 4328002013 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 11,996 10,197 9,177 22HALF MILE A3 4328002034 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 23,991 20,393 18,353 45HALF MILE A3 4328002036 Low Density General Commercial Commercial 2 24,003 20,403 18,363 45


Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the properties within the walksheds created by Fehr &Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; Century City South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

Distance fromPortal




600 FOOT SUBTOTAL 0 0 0QUARTER MILE B2 various Low Residential Residential SF 8.7 73 62 118

QUARTER MILE SUBTOTAL 73 62 118HALF MILE C1 4317001005 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4317001006 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4317001036 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4317001037 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4317001038 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 6 12HALF MILE C1 4317001041 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 12HALF MILE C1 4317001042 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 12HALF MILE C1 4317001094 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 11HALF MILE C1 4317001103 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 11HALF MILE C1 4317001151 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 15 13 24HALF MILE C1 4317002026 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 7 6 10HALF MILE C1 4319009007 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 12HALF MILE C1 4319009008 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 12HALF MILE C1 4319009009 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 7 6 12HALF MILE C1 4319009017 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009018 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009019 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009020 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009021 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 5HALF MILE C1 4319009022 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009023 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009024 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009025 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009026 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009027 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009028 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C1 4319009029 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319009045 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C2 4319009051 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE C2 4319009052 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 17HALF MILE C2 4319009062 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 16 14 26HALF MILE C2 4319009075 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4319009081 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 14 12 23HALF MILE C1 4319009101 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 21 18 34HALF MILE C2 4319009121 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13

Appendix C Century City Stations Jobs and Population Calculations Parcel Level InventorySanta Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Resident Population

Distance fromPortal




HALF MILE C1 4319009136 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 22 18 35HALF MILE C2 4319009151 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C2 4319009161 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 19 16 30HALF MILE C2 4319009172 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 9 8 14HALF MILE C2 4319011001 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319011002 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 8HALF MILE C2 4319014001 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 5HALF MILE C2 4319014002 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014003 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014004 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014005 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014006 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 5HALF MILE C2 4319014007 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 3 3 5HALF MILE C2 4319014008 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014009 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014010 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014011 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014012 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 7HALF MILE C2 4319014013 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014014 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014015 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014016 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 7HALF MILE C2 4319014017 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 6HALF MILE C2 4319014018 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014019 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014020 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014021 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014022 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 8HALF MILE C2 4319014023 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 3 7HALF MILE C2 4319014037 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 4 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014038 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 7HALF MILE C2 4319014039 Low Medium II Residential Residential MF 29.0 5 4 7HALF MILE C1 4327005018 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 13 11 21HALF MILE C1 4327005019 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 12 10 19HALF MILE C1 4327005020 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 10 9 16HALF MILE C1 4327005021 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 14HALF MILE C1 4327005023 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 14HALF MILE B1 4327005037 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 34 29 55HALF MILE C1 4327005088 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 25 22 41HALF MILE C1 4327006001 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 9 7 14HALF MILE C1 4327006002 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4327006003 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4327006004 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13

Distance fromPortal




HALF MILE C1 4327006005 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4327007006 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 11 9 18HALF MILE C1 4327007007 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 10 9 17HALF MILE B1 4327008001 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 9 8 14HALF MILE C1 4327008002 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4327008003 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 8 7 13HALF MILE C1 4327008004 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 9 7 14HALF MILE C1 4327008005 Medium Residential Residential MF 54.5 17 15 28HALF MILE A3 4328002025 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002026 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002028 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 6 5 10HALF MILE A3 4328002029 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 5 4 8HALF MILE A3 4328002030 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 5 4 8HALF MILE A3 4328002031 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 7 6 12HALF MILE A3 4328002035 High Density Multi Family Residential MF 50.0 19 16 31HALF MILE C3 4329009003 High Medium Residential Residential MF 108.9 564 479 911 (1)

MULTI FAMILY SUBTOTAL 1,268 1,078 2,048HALF MILE A1, A2, B1 various Low Residential Residential SF 8.7 229 195 370


Data Sources. The plan designations from the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills were used to determine the maximum allowable development potential for the properties within the walksheds created byFehr & Peers in Appendix A. The four sources used were: city of Los Angeles ZIMAS database information; Century City North Specific Plan; Century City South Specific Plan; and Beverly Hills General Plan.

(1) Took 40% of total for parcel, as 40% of property is within the walkshed

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station

Wilshire Blvd

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Olympic

Blvd

Beverly Glen Blvd

Of The Stars

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Com

stock Ave

Club View Dr

Fox Hills Dr

Benecia Ave

Warnall Ave

Lask

y D

r

Heath Ave

Moreno Dr

Thayer Ave

Durant D

r

Eastborne A

ve


Constellation Blvd

Kerw

ood

Ave

Missouri A

ve

Fairb

urn

Ave

Holm

by Ave

Miss

issip

pi A

ve

Devon A

ve

Galaxy

Way

Woodruff Ave

Ashton Ave


Calv

in A

ve

Holman Ave

Pandora Ave

Kinnard Ave

La G

rang

e Av

e

Robbins D

r

Wes

thol

me

Ave

Charleville Blvd

Orto

n Av

eLouisiana Ave

Wilkins Ave

Garden Ln

Trenton Dr

Lauriston Ave

Empyre

an W

ay

Bellw

ood

Ave

Calm

ar Ct

Verona Ave

Wilkins AveEa

stbo

rne

Ave

Com

stoc

k Av

e

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Roc

hest

er A

ve

Thayer Ave

Pandora Ave

Missouri A

ve

Holmby Ave

Century Park

La Grange Ave

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station


NEW_SMStation

600 Ft Walkshed

1/4 Mile Walkshed

1/2 Walkshed

Station Area BuildingsBuilding Distance from Portal

600 Ft

1/4 Mile

1/2 Mile


Commercial

Residential -MF

Residential-SF

Manufacturing


Public, Facility,

Govt

350Feet

A1 A2 A3

B1 B2 B3

C1

D1

C2 C3

D2 D3

4327022015

4327025011

4327022005

4327025002

4327015026

4327022013

4327022004

4327022014

4327015028

4327025007

4327025004

4327025005

4327025006

4327025008

4327025009

4327022012

4327025010

4327022002

4327022001

4327015025

4327022003

43270220064327022009

4327026011

Wilshire Blvd

Com

stock Ave

Ashton Ave

Club View

Dr

Beverly Glen Blvd

Devon A

ve

Holm

by Ave

Warnall Ave

Roch

este

r Ave

Wellworth Ave

Devon Ave

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station - A1


4327022015

4327025011

4327026011

4327015023

4327015022

4327015021

4327015020

4327015019

4327015024

4327015025

4327015026

4327022006

4327022005

4327022010

4327025002

4327022012

4327022013

4327020024

4327022004

4327022014

4327020023

4327025007

4327020019

4327025004

4327025005

4327025006

4327025008

4327025009

4327020021

4327022009

4327020022

4327022011

4327025010

4327020020

4327026010

4327021001

4327015011

4327022002

4327022008

4327022001

4327026007

4327026001

4327026004

4327026006

4327026002

4327026003

4327026009

4327026008

4327026005

4327021022

4327020001

4327021023

4327020005

4327015028

4327022007

4327020002

4327022003

4327020018432702100243270150184327015012 4327020006

4327015010

4327021021

Club View Dr

Com

stock Ave

Wilkins Ave



4327028001

4319001001

4328002009

4328002035

4328002036

4328002034

4328002001

4328002031

43280020114328002010

4328002012

4328002006

4328002013

4328002004

43280020024328002003

4328002005 43280020254328002026

43280020284328002029

4328002030

Wilshire Blvd

Lask

y D

r

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Durant D

r

Robbins D

r

Charleville Blvd

Trenton Dr

Whittier D

r

Santa Monic

a Blvd



4327009030

4327015023

4327009031

4327015022

4327015021

4327015020

4327016005

4327015017

4327015019

4327015018

4327016018

4327008001

4327005037

4327015024

43270150114327015010

4327009020

4327009001

4327015015

4327015012

4327021005

4327010020

43270210074327021006

4327022006

4327016019

4327015025

4327009019

4327009032

4327021008

4327016006

4327021001

4327016007

4327009021

4327009016

4327021020

4327016020

4327022008

4327009017

4327021009

4327010019

4327015016

4327015013

4327009013

43270210044327015014

4327016022

4327016011

4327016021

4327021021

4327016008

4327010021

4327009014

4327010024

4327016004

43270100264327010025

43270100224327010023

4327021022

4327009023

4327009027

4327009004

4327016001

4327016012

4327009028

4327009029

4327021023

4327009005

4327016010

4327009025

4327016009

4327009026

4327021002

4327016014

4327016013

4327016024

4327009024

4327009022

4327016017

4327017007

4327016023

4327021003

4327017005

4327021010

4327022009

4327022007

4327016015

4327009033

4327009002

4327016016

43270160034327009003

4327009018

4327016025

4327009015

4327016026

4327017004

4327008012

4327021011

4327017006

4327015026

4327021017

43270080134327008011

4327021012

4327020001

4327022005

Warnall Ave

Woodruff Ave

Rochester Ave

Com

stock Ave

Holm

by Ave

Beverly Glen Blvd

Pandora AveWarner Ave

Wilk

ins

Ave

Wellworth Ave

Crestview Ct

Wilkins Ave

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station - B1


4319002057

4319003064

4319002056

4319002046

4319003061

4319003055

4319002053

4319002045

4319002060

4319002059

4319002055

4327019023

4327020014

4327018011

4327019016

4327019017

4327019019

4327019018

4327019021

4327019020

4327020024

4327019022

4327020017

4327021013

4327018015

4327020016

4327020015

4327020019

4327020018

4327017003

4327020021

4327020022

4327020023

4327020020

4327019001

4327018001

4327021014

4327021015

43270210164327020013

4327017020

4327017001

4327026001

4327018017

4327020006

4327026004

4327026002

4327026003

4327018016

4327018019

4327018018

4327018021

4327018022

4327018020

4327017002

4327019007

4327018007

4327020010

4327020011

4327020007

4327019008

4327019006

4327019002

4327019003

4327019005

4327019004

4327018003

4327018008

4327018004

4327018006

4327018005

4327018002

4327020012

4327021012

4327020008

4327020009

4327020005

4327017021

4327017004

4327021017

4327017019

4327018023

4327026005

4327019009

43270180094327018014

4327018010

4327019010

4327021011

4327019011

4327019013

4327018013

4327019012

4327018012

4327017018

4327021018

4319002054

4319001903

4327017017

4327021019

4319003065

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Of The Stars

Eastborne A

ve

Santa Monic

a Blvd



4319001902

4319002060

4319001001

4319001006

4319001904

4319001005

4319001803

4319016029

4319001903

4319001007

4319001008

4319002053

4319002059

4319001009

4319001002

4319002054

4328002031

4328002001 43280020284328002035

43280020294328002030

Moreno Dr

Spal

ding

Dr

Century Park

Lask

y D

r

Robbins D

rDura

nt Dr

Youn

g Dr

Heath Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Gregory Way



4327007016

4319009093

4319009056

4326032031

4327005088

4319009136

4319009101

4319009161

4327008005

4327007008

4327017011

4317001151

4319009081

4327017010

4317002052

4327017009

4327006012

4327008010

4317001158

4327005018

4327005019

4327007001

4327006008

4327017014

4327007006

4327007007

4327008007

4327005020

4327017022

4327006001

4327008004

4317001005

4327005021

4327005023

4327008008

43270070024327007003

43270070044327007005

4327008003

43270060044327006005

43270060034327006002

4317001037

4317001006

4317001036

4317001038

4317001041

4327008009

4327008006

4317001042

4319009017

4327017008

4319009019

4319009018

4319009007

4319009020

4319009008

4319009009

4317001004

4327017006

4317001103

4317001094

4319009024

4319009027

4319009026

4319009022

4319009025

4319009023

4319009028

4319009029

4327008002

43170020484317002003

43170010034317001002

4319009021

4319009036

43270060104327006011

4327006009

4327006013 4319009062

4327008013

4319009035

4327008011

4327008012 4327017015

4319009034

Eastborne A

ve

Thayer Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Holman Ave

Kinnard Ave

Beverly Glen Blvd

Fairb

urn

Ave

Benecia Ave

Pandora Ave

Wilkins A

ve

Holmby Ave

Comstock Ave

La Grange Ave

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Pandora Ave

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station - C1


4319003064

4319004109

4319004141

4319004138

4319003065

4319004140

4319003055

4319003063

4319002055

4319002053

4319009050

4319004142

4319009062

4319009051

4319016032

4319009052

4327017015

4319014030

4319014022

4319011018

4319011002

4319009172

4319011025

4319014039

4319014018

4319014019

4319014038

4319014035

4319014027

4319013025

4319011032

4319014010

4319011017

4319011016

4319011014

4319011010

4319011011

4319011015

4319011007

4319011013

4319011012

4319011009

4319011008

4319009151

4319011006

4319011005

4319011004

4319014037

4319014013

4319011031

4319009121 4319011001

4319009075

4319014025

4319009045

43190140214319014020

4319014036

4319014016

4319014029

4319011024

4319014023

4319014012

4319014032

4319011019

4319014028

4319014026

4319011030

4319014014

4319011003

4319014015 4319011033

4319014031

4319014024

4319011020

4319014009

4319014033

4319014034

4319014017

4319011028

4319011023

4319011029

4319011034

4319011022

4319011027

4319014011

4319009030

4319014008

4319011021

4319014007

4319009031

4319004144

43190090324319009033

4327017016

4319014006

4327017017

4319009034

4327017018

4319003060

4327017019

4327017014

4319009161

Fox Hills Dr

Century Park

Constellation Blvd

La Grange Ave

Garden Ln

Of The Stars

Dunkirk Ave

Missouri A

ve

Santa Monic

a Blvd

Cen

tury

Woo

ds D

r

Benecia Ave Miss

issip

pi A

ve



4329009003

4319016031

4319004144

4319016032

4319016030

4315019005

4319016029

4319004109

43190010094319002054

Oly

mpi

c Bl

vd

Century Park

Heath Ave

Of The Stars

Shirley Pl

Spal

ding

Dr

Galaxy

Way

Conste

llation Blvd

Century Hill

Hillgreen Dr

Century Park Ln




Appendix D

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T December 21, 2011 Page D-1

Appendix D CENTURY CITY STATIONS—EXISTING AND FULL DEVELOPMENT RIDERSHIP CALCULATIONS

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRiders

JobsFactor

ResidentRidersResident

EstimatedTotal Riders

0' 600' 12.0 4,820 0 4,820 402 20% 964 35% 1,687 54% 0 1,687600' 1/4 mi. 36.5 5,490 180 5,670 155 10% 549 23% 1,263 43% 77 1,3401/4 1/2 mi. 155.1 16,980 1,720 18,700 121 5% 849 10% 1,698 31% 533 2,231Total 203.6 27,290 1,900 29,190 2,362 4,648 611 5,258

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRiders

JobsFactor

ResidentRidersResident


0' 600' 17.0 10,260 0 10,260 604 20% 2,052 35% 3,591 54% 0 3,591600' 1/4 mi. 54.6 9,910 210 10,120 185 10% 991 23% 2,279 43% 90 2,3701/4 1/2 mi. 161.5 10,870 1,800 12,670 78 5% 544 10% 1,087 31% 558 1,645Total 233.1 31,040 2,010 33,050 3,587 6,957 648 7,606

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRidersJobs

FactorResident

RidersResident


0' 600' 15.0 5,900 0 5,900 393 20% 1,180 35% 2,065 54% 0 2,065600' 1/4 mi. 49.1 6,150 110 6,260 128 10% 615 23% 1,415 43% 47 1,4621/4 1/2 mi. 182.9 16,820 1,830 18,650 102 5% 841 10% 1,682 31% 567 2,249Total 247.0 28,870 1,940 30,810 2,636 5,162 615 5,776

Appendix D Century City Stations Existing and Full Development Ridership Calculations

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

MoudonExisting PopulationWalkshed Walk Mode Share

WMATA

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station

Jobs ResidentsDistance Acres

Walkshed

Distance

Explanation

Moudon calculations are based only upon the number of employees, and they do not include residents.

Walkshed Existing PopulationMoudon WMATA

Moudon WMATA

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars StationWalk Mode Share

Distance Acres

Acres Jobs

Existing Population

Pop./Acre

Pop./Acre

Jobs Residents Pop./Acre

Residents

Total Jobs&

Residents

Total Jobs&

Residents

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station

Total Jobs&

Residents

Walk Mode Share

Walkshed jobs and residential population from Fehr & Peers (Appendix A).Walkshed acreage calculated from Fehr & Peers (Appendix A).

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRidersJobs

FactorResident

RidersResident


0' 600' 12.0 8,070 0 8,070 673 20% 1,614 35% 2,825 54% 0 2,825600' 1/4 mi. 36.5 5,490 180 5,670 155 10% 549 23% 1,263 43% 77 1,3401/4 1/2 mi. 155.1 32,640 2,310 34,950 225 5% 1,632 10% 3,264 31% 716 3,980Total 203.6 46,200 2,490 48,690 3,795 7,351 794 8,145

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRidersJobs

FactorResident

RidersResident


0' 600' 17.0 13,670 0 13,670 804 20% 2,734 35% 4,785 54% 0 4,785600' 1/4 mi. 54.6 23,140 820 23,960 439 10% 2,314 23% 5,322 43% 353 5,6751/4 1/2 mi. 161.5 13,160 7,190 20,350 126 5% 658 10% 1,316 31% 2,229 3,545Total 233.1 49,970 8,010 57,980 5,706 11,423 2,582 14,005

FactorEstimated

RidersFactor

JobsRidersJobs

FactorResident

RidersResident


0' 600' 15.0 6,840 0 6,840 456 20% 1,368 35% 2,394 54% 0 2,394600' 1/4 mi. 49.1 13,960 120 14,080 287 10% 1,396 23% 3,211 43% 52 3,2621/4 1/2 mi. 182.9 29,520 2,420 31,940 175 5% 1,476 10% 2,952 31% 750 3,702Total 247.0 50,320 2,540 52,860 4,240 8,557 802 9,359

Total Jobs&

Residents

Total Jobs&

Residents

Residents

Constellation/Avenue of the Stars StationWalkshed Full Development Population Walk Mode Share

Distance Acres Jobs

WMATA

Residents Pop./Acre

Moudon

Walkshed acreage calculated from Fehr & Peers (Appendix A).

Distance Acres Jobs Residents Pop./Acre

Moudon WMATAWalk Mode ShareFull Development PopulationWalkshed

Santa Monica/Century Park East Station

FULL DEVELOPMENT

Walkshed jobs and residential population from Parsons Brinckerhoff (Appendix C).

Explanation

Moudon calculations are based only upon the number of employees, and they do not include residents.

Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars StationWalkshed Full Development Population Walk Mode Share

Moudon WMATA

Pop./AcreTotal Jobs

&Residents

Distance Acres Jobs

`

Final Century City Station Options Updated Jobs and Population Inventory Memorandum

May 24, 2011



Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T May 24, 2011 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Memorandum Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ................................................................ 1

2.1 Walkshed Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Population Data ................................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Employment Data .............................................................................................................. 1

3.0 DATA RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 600 Feet Walkshed Results ................................................................................................ 6

3.2 One-quarter-mile Walkshed Results .................................................................................. 6

3.3 One-half-mile Walkshed Results ........................................................................................ 6

4.0 VALIDATING DATA ACCURACY .................................................................................................... 6

5.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 6

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 7

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Century City Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3-2: Century City Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Walkshed Population and

Jobs ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3-3: Century City Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ..................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Land Use per Employee Standards............................................................................................. 2

Table 3-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs ................................................................................................... 2

Appendices

Appendix A—RBA and Job Calculations


W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T May 24, 2011 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Memorandum Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to present a revised estimate of the population and employment accessible within various walking distances (600 feet, 1/4 mile, and 1/2 mile) of the following three potential Century City station options of the Westside Subway Extension:




2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

2.1 Walkshed Analysis

The Network Analyst tool in ArcGIS1 was used to measure walking distance on the existing street network from the primary portal for each station option. Consistent with the Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR), 1/4-mile and 1/2-mile “walksheds” from the primary station portal have been evaluated. For this analysis, a walkshed of 600 feet has also been evaluated to provide more detailed information on population and employment within the immediate vicinity of each station option.

2.2 Population Data

Population data were obtained from the 2000 United States Census at the Census Block level. 2010 Census Estimates at the Census Block Group level were used to derive growth factors that were then applied to the 2000 Census data to reflect 2010 population numbers contained within each walkshed. When Census Blocks were fully contained within a walkshed, the population from the Block was counted. If a Block was split by walksheds or only partially contained in one walkshed, the population was divided proportionately based on how much of the Block was located within one walkshed distance versus another. Open space and non-residential areas were taken into account when splitting Block populations.

2.3 Employment Data

Real estate data obtained from Grubb & Ellis, a respected commercial real estate service and investment company, were used to estimate the number of jobs within each walkshed. Grubb & Ellis maintains a detailed real estate database (Grubb & Ellis/Costar) of every leasable office and retail property in Los Angeles and lists the rentable building area (RBA) for each building contained in the data set. Because the database lists total RBA for each property, a vacancy factor of 10 percent has been assumed for all office and retail/food service space in this analysis to represent standard market conditions. While the vacancy rate for Century City office space is currently 13 percent (LA Times, 2011), a senior officer at Grubb & Ellis indicated that 10 percent represents a typical vacancy rate

1 ArcGIS is a Geographic information system (GIS) software used to analyze spatial relationships and spatial data.


W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 2 May 24, 2011

under standard market conditions. Therefore, 10 percent of the RBA within each walkshed has been assumed to be vacant.

To estimate the number of jobs provided at each property, square feet per employee standards have been applied to the RBA for each property. A per-room employee standard has been applied to the number of hotel rooms for each hotel contained within a walkshed. Table 2-1 details the standards applied to calculate the number of jobs at each property contained within the walksheds. Appendix A provides the detailed job calculations for each property, as well as the walkshed the property falls within.

Table 2-1: Land Use per Employee Standards

Land Use Standard Units

Office 350 square feet

Retail 600 square feet

Food Service 450 square feet

Hotel 2 rooms

Source: Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) South Florida Regional Planning Council, 2011

3.0 DATA RESULTS

Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-3 illustrate the three walkshed distances (600 feet, 1/4 mile, and 1/2 mile) for each station option and the buildings with a primary entrance contained within each walkshed.

Table 3-1 summarizes the population and jobs within the three walksheds for each potential station area.2 Access to population within the three walksheds is generally similar across all three station options. At all three station options, office jobs make up approximately 90 percent of the total jobs within a 1/2-mile walkshed.

Table 3-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs

Walkshed





0’ to 600’ 0 4,820 0 10,260 0 5,900

0’ to ¼ Mile 180 10,310 210 20,170 110 12,050

0’ to ½ Mile 1,900 27,290 2,010 31,040 1,940 28,870

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011; 2000 US Census; 2010 US Census Estimates; Grubb & Eillis/Costar, 2011

2 Approximately 16 percent of Fox Studios is located within the 1/2-mile walkshed of the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station option. Therefore, only 16 percent of the 2,600 Fox Studios employees (no contractors) were included within the 1/2-mile walkshed job totals included in Table 3 1.



Figure 3-1: Century City Santa Monica/Century Park East Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-2: Century City Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-3: Century City Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



3.1 600-foot Walkshed Results

As shown in Figure 3-2 within the 600-foot walkshed, the Constellation station option has access to more than double the number of jobs as the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and almost 75 percent more than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station.

3.2 One-quarter-mile Walkshed Results

Within the 1/4-mile walkshed, the Constellation station option has access to nearly 96 percent more jobs than the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station and 67 percent more than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station.

3.3 One-half-mile Walkshed Results

Within the 1/2-mile walkshed, the Constellation station option has nearly 14 percent more than the Santa Monica/Century Park East Station option and 7 percent more than the Santa Monica/Avenue of the Stars Station option.

4.0 VALIDATING DATA ACCURACY

Because the job estimates of the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station option are higher than the job estimates for the two station options located on Santa Monica Boulevard, two validation checks were performed:

1. First, job estimates from this analysis were compared to US Census 2009 employment estimates at a Census Block level. The same approach to split Census Block population data described above was applied to Census Block employment data to estimate walkshed employment. Based on these estimates, approximately 33,408 jobs are accessible within the 1/2-mile walkshed of the Constellation Station option, suggesting that the analysis contained in this memorandum is relatively accurate.

2. Second, through the Century City Chamber of Commerce, occupancy data and total RBA of most of the main office buildings in Century City were obtained from property managers. In total, these buildings averaged 387 square feet of RBA per occupant, which is close to the 350 square feet per occupant assumption used to calculate office jobs in the analysis using the Grubb & Ellis data above.

5.0 SUMMARY

The Grubb & Ellis real estate data is a robust data source to document the RBA in the Century City area. The following assumptions were used to develop job estimates from the RBA data:

Vacancy rate (10 percent assumed in this analysis)

Land use per employee factors:

– Office (350 square feet)

– Retail (600 square feet)



– Food Services (450 square feet)

– Hotel (2 rooms per job)

To verify the validity of these assumptions, the job estimates for the Constellation/Avenue of the Stars Station option were compared to US Census estimates, as well as office occupancy data obtained from property managers in Century City. The estimates were close to both sources of validation data.

The Constellation Station option has more jobs accessible within a 1/2-mile walkshed compared with the station options located on Santa Monica Boulevard. The Constellation Station option has significantly more jobs within a 600-foot and a 1/4-mile walkshed compared with the other station options.

6.0 REFERENCES

Grubb & Ellis/

Co Star 2011

February, 2011. Century City area real estate database report.

LA Times 2011

LA Times. April 21, 2011. Developer Proposes Century City High-Rise. Accessed April 2011 from http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-century-city-deal-20110421,0,2664084.story.

Metro 2010 Metro. September 2010. Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report

SFRPC 2006 SFRPC, June 19, 2006. Fiscal Impact Analysis Model. Accessed April 2011 from http://www.sfrpc.com/fiam.htm.

US Census 2000 2000 US Census population estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=.

US Census 2009 2009 US Census employment estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/.

US Census 2010 2010 US Census population estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t.

Century City Station Options Updated Jobs & Population Inventory Memorandum Appendix A - RBA & Job Calculations

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page A-1 May, 2011

Appendix A RBA & JOB CALCULATIONS






0.25 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.25 600' 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.25 600' 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.25 600' 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.25 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 600' 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.25 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.25 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.25 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.25 9935 Santa Monica Blvd Office 5,000 130.25 9940-9944 Santa Monica Blvd Office 20,000 510.25 9949 Santa Monica Blvd Office 1,758 50.25 9950 Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,820 70.25 9952 Santa Monica Blvd Office 7,600 200.25 9975 Santa Monica Blvd - The Gateway Building Office 12,000 310.25 9990 Santa Monica Blvd Office 10,598 270.25 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.25 600' 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.25 9919-9925 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,920 40.25 9953 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,304 30.25 9956-9960 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,097 60.25 9970 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,900 70.25 600' 9923 S Santa Monica Blvd Retail 750 1

0.50 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.50 Beverly Hilton Hotel 570 2850.50 Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.50 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.50 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.50 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.50 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.50 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.50 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.50 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 2049 Century Park E South Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 2080 Century Park E - Century City Medical Bldg Office 199,534 5130.50 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.50 124 Lasky Dr Office 8,360 210.50 132 Lasky Dr Office 5,483 140.50 132-B Lasky Dr Office 2,113 50.50 138 S Lasky Dr Office 1,502 40.50 152-160 S Lasky Dr Office 15,000 390.50 153 S Lasky Dr Office 8,060 210.50 201 S Lasky Dr Office 7,288 190.50 9916 Santa Monica Blvd Office 11,000 280.50 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.50 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.50 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.50 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.50 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.50 10327-10329 Santa Monica Blvd Office 4,808 120.50 10340 Santa Monica Blvd Office 9,552 250.50 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.50 9800 Wilshire Bl Office 40,000 1030.50 9830 Wilshire Bl - Creative Artists Bldg Office 65,000 1670.50 9859-9867 Santa Monica Bl Retail 3,675 60.50 9869-9877 Santa Monica Bl Retail 5,850 90.50 9879-9883 Santa Monica Bl Retail 3,200 50.50 9885 Santa Monica Bl Retail 6,546 100.50 9885-9887 Santa Monica Bl Retail 2,800 40.50 9889-9899 Santa Monica Bl Retail 5,696 90.50 9900 Santa Monica Bl Retail 18,945 280.50 9901-9905 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,661 40.50 9907-9909 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,315 50.50 9908 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,939 60.50 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Retail 1,339,873 2,0100.50 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 15







Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms # Jobs# Jobs# Jobs# JobsDistance from Distance from Distance from Distance from


0.50 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 50.50 10305 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,450 50.50 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 8,372 130.50 9775-9777 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 1,700 30.50 9849 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 2,468 40.50 9815 Wilshire Bl Retail 923 10.50 9844 Wilshire / 9811 S Santa Monica Bl Retail 4,184 60.50 9988 Wilshire Bl Retail 1,089 2

CENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION blCENTURY CITY STATION CONSTELLATION bl





0.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.25 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 600' 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.25 600' 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.25 600' 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.25 600' 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.25 600' 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.25 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.25 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.25 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.25 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.25 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.25 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.25 600' 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.25 1930 Century Park W Office 56,300 1450.25 10250 Constellation Blvd - MGM Tower Office 775,037 1,9930.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 1,410,393 2,1160.25 600' Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.25 Intercontinental Hotel 364 182

0.5 2121 Avenue of the Stars - Fox Plaza Office 730,510 1,8780.5 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.5 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.5 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.5 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.5 2049 Century Park E South Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.5 2080 Century Park E Century City Medical Bldg Office 199,534 5130.5 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.5 Olympic Blvd and Century @ Olympic Blvd - Crescent Century City II Office 24,000 620.5 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.5 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.5 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.5 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.5 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,372 220.5 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.5 Fox Studios Office 4160.5 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 150.5 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.5 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 5







Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms JobsJobsJobsJobs

0.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Food Services 70,520 1410.25 600' 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Gateway East Bldg. Office 286,000 7350.25 600' 1801 Avenue of the Stars Office 284,717 7320.25 600' 1900 Avenue of the Stars Office 605,942 1,5580.25 600' 1901 Avenue of the Stars Office 492,139 1,2660.25 1950 Avenue of the Stars Office 14,742 380.25 1999 Avenue of the Stars - Sun America Center Office 824,106 2,1190.25 1800 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza I Office 255,525 6570.25 1801 Century Park E - Century Park Plaza Office 373,900 9610.25 1801 Century Park W - Century Park West Office 49,855 1280.25 600' 10100 Santa Monica Blvd Office 600,000 1,5430.25 600' 10203 Santa Monica Blvd - The Samuel Goldwyn Office 24,886 640.25 10215 Santa Monica Blvd - New Century (former) Office 3,096 80.25 10231 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,000 210.25 10309 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,372 220.25 10323 Santa Monica Blvd Office 8,178 210.25 10250 Santa Monica Blvd - Westfield Century City Retail 1,339,873 2,0100.25 10257 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 10,200 150.25 10301 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,581 50.25 10305 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,450 5

0.5 Beverly Hilton Hotel 570 2850.5 Century Plaza Hotel Hotel 726 3630.5 Intercontinental Hotel 364 728

0.50 2000 Avenue of the Stars Office 787,323 2,0250.50 2040 Avenue of the Stars Office 6,863 180.50 2010 Century Park E Office 43,066 1110.50 1840 Century Park E - Northrop Grunman Plaza II Office 331,500 8520.50 1875 Century Park E - North Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.50 1880 Century Park E Office 311,400 8010.50 1888 Century Park E Office 483,896 1,2440.50 1925 Century Park E South Tower Office 450,000 1,1570.50 1940 Century Park E Office 46,000 1180.50 1950 Century Park E Office 21,734 560.50 2029 Century Park E North Tower Office 1,124,719 2,8920.50 1930 Century Park W Office 56,300 1450.50 10250 Constellation Blvd - MGM Tower Office 775,037 1,9930.50 Olympic Blvd and Century @ Olympic Blvd - Crescent Century City II Office 24,000 620.50 9916 Santa Monica Blvd Office 11,000 280.50 9935 Santa Monica Blvd Office 5,000 130.50 9940-9944 Santa Monica Blvd Office 20,000 510.50 9949 Santa Monica Blvd Office 1,758 50.50 9950 Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,820 70.50 9975 Santa Monica Blvd - The Gateway Building Office 12,000 310.50 9990 Santa Monica Blvd Office 10,598 270.50 10300 Santa Monica Blvd - The Barn Office 3,729 100.50 10327-10329 Santa Monica Blvd Office 4,808 120.50 10333 Santa Monica Blvd Office 3,355 90.50 10340 Santa Monica Blvd Office 9,552 250.50 10350 Santa Monica Blvd Office 42,292 1090.50 10351 Santa Monica Blvd - Santa Monica Comstock Plaza Office 101,495 2610.50 10390 Santa Monica Blvd - Royal Beverly Glen Building Office 78,463 2020.50 10436 Santa Monica Blvd Office 15,950 410.50 9915 S Santa Monica Blvd Office 2,940 80.5 2121 Avenue of the Stars - Fox Plaza Office 730,510 1,878

0.50 9901-9905 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,661 40.50 9907-9909 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,315 50.50 9908 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,939 60.50 9919-9923 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,920 40.50 9952 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 7,600 110.50 9953 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,304 30.50 9956-9960 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,097 60.50 9970 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,900 70.50 10349 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 7,319 110.50 10391 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 2,337 40.50 10401 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 3,132 5







Hotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel RoomsHotel Rooms JobsJobsJobsJobsDistance from Distance from Distance from Distance from


0.50 10403 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 11,520 170.50 10421-10423 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 4,400 70.50 10425-10431 Santa Monica Blvd Retail 6,000 90.50 9923 S Santa Monica Blvd Retail 750 1

`

Updated Direct Ridership Forecasting Report

September 8, 2011



Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T September 8, 2011 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Memorandum Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Direct Ridership Forecasting ............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Model Input Variables ........................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Walkshed Analysis .............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES ................................................................ 5

2.1 Population Data ................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Employment Data .............................................................................................................. 5 2.2.1 Validating Employment Data Accuracy ................................................................ 6

2.3 Parking ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.4 University Population ......................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Catchment Population and Employment .......................................................................... 7

2.6 Bike Parking ........................................................................................................................ 7

2.7 Pedestrian Accessibility and Design Rating ...................................................................... 7

2.8 Subway Service Frequency ................................................................................................. 7

2.9 Supporting Bus Routes ...................................................................................................... 7

3.0 STATION AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT .................................................................. 8

4.0 DAILY RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS............................................................................................... 18

5.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax, and Wilshire/La Cienega Stations .......................... 19

5.2 Wilshire/Rodeo Station .................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Century City Station (Santa Monica and Constellation Options) .................................. 19

5.4 Westwood/UCLA Station ................................................................................................. 19

5.5 Westwood/VA Hospital Station ....................................................................................... 19

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 20


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page ii September 8, 2011

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Wilshire/La Brea Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ........................................................ 9

Figure 3-2: Wilshire/Fairfax Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ........................................................ 10

Figure 3-3: Wilshire/La Cienega Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ................................................ 11

Figure 3-4: Wilshire/Rodeo Station Walkshed Population and Jobs ........................................................ 12

Figure 3-5: Century City Santa Monica Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs ......................... 13

Figure 3-6: Century City Constellation Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs .......................... 14

Figure 3-7: Westwood/UCLA Off-Street Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs ....................... 15

Figure 3-8: Westwood/UCLA On-Street Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs ....................... 16

Figure 3-9: Westwood/VA Hospital North/South Station Options Walkshed Jobs and Population ........................................................................................................................ 17

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Land Use per Employee Standards............................................................................................. 6

Table 3-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs ................................................................................................... 8

Table 4-1: Direct Ridership Model Boarding and Alighting Projections .................................................. 18

Appendices

Appendix A—RBA and Job Calculations

Appendix B—Model Development Report


W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T September 8, 2011 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Memorandum Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present daily ridership estimates (both boardings and alightings) using a Direct Ridership Forecasting (DRF) model for the following stations that are part of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Westside Subway Extension Project:

Wilshire/La Brea

Wilshire/Fairfax

Wilshire/La Cienega

Wilshire/Rodeo

Century City

– Constellation Option

– Santa Monica Option

Westwood/UCLA

– On-Street Option

– Off-Street Option

Westwood/VA Hospital

– North Option and South Option treated as one in this analysis due to the close proximity of station entrances

This report updates the direct ridership forecasting conducted for the Smart Growth Evaluation Report (Metro, August 2010) by using a more refined land use and demographic data set. However, a direct comparison between the two forecasts should not be made because the Smart Growth Evaluation Report used future year 2035 projections and this analysis focuses on using detailed existing (year 2010) land use and demographic data.

1.2 Direct Ridership Forecasting

Direct Ridership Forecasting models use multivariate regression based on empirical data to deter-mine the station characteristics that influence rail transit patronage. They respond directly to factors such as parking, feeder bus levels, station-area households and employment, and the effects of transit oriented development. Rail ridership is traditionally forecast with region-wide travel demand models, which often represent transportation networks and land use at an aggregate scale. Such models are typically unresponsive to changes in station-level land use and transit service charac-teristics. DRF models are directly and quantitatively responsive to land use and transit service characteristics within the immediate vicinity and catchment area of transit stations.

The DRF model used for this study was based on the model1 developed for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Demand Management Study. This model predicts changes in ridership at individual

1 The model development report is contained as Appendix B.


W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 2 September 8, 2011

stations along the BART heavy rail system during the AM and PM peak hours and was based on empirical relationships found through statistical analysis of BART system ridership data and the 2008 BART Station Profile Study (BART 2008) for the BART system. To determine if the DRF model developed for the BART system was suitable for use on the Westside Subway Extension Project, the DRF model was compared to daily ridership data collected in 2008 along the existing Metro Heavy Rail Transit service in Los Angeles.

1.3 Model Input Variables

Data was developed for nearly 100 independent variables believed to be potentially predictive of station ridership. The station level data collected from the BART system was used to perform ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to predict daily boardings. This analysis is based on empirical relationships found through statistical analysis of station ridership and local station characteristics. Multiple iterations of all collected data were tested in the regression model, but the variables that entered into the DRF model as significant were the following:

Total population within a one-half mile walkshed

Total employment within a one-half mile walkshed

Retail employment within a one-half mile walkshed

Non-retail employment within a one-half mile walkshed

Neighborhood (on-street) parking spaces within a one-half mile walkshed

Total vehicle parking spaces within a one-half mile walkshed

University catchment population

Total catchment population

Total catchment non-retail employment

Station bike parking spaces

Pedestrian accessibility and design rating

Number of trains arriving and departing in the AM and PM peak hours

Number of supporting bus routes

1.4 Model Development Process

The objective of the BART DRF model development effort was to derive statistically valid models capable of predicting current station-specific ridership, both boardings and alightings, over nine time periods:

AM Early

AM Pre-Peak Shoulder

AM Peak

AM Post-Peak Shoulder



Midday

PM Pre-Peak Shoulder

PM Peak

PM Post-Peak Shoulder

Evening

Boardings models were developed for each time period for four modes of access: Walk/Bike, Transit, Park, and Drop Off. These models were combined to develop the total boardings for each time period. Alightings models followed a similar process, but with only three modes of egress: Walk/Bike, Transit and Drive.

The mathematical form of each model is a linear regression formula. The variables included in each model, along with overall model performance indicators (R-squared) are presented in Table B-2 through Table B-5 of Appendix B. The R-squared indicator expresses how close the model comes to explaining all of the station-to-station variability in the dependent variable. For example, a perfect R-squared value of 1.0 model indicates the variation in PM ridership among all BART stations is fully described by the model’s combination of independent variables (population, employment, etc.) with their respective coefficients and constant term.

1.5 Model Validation

The purpose of the validation of the BART DRF model was to ensure the model was statistically valid and capable of predicting current daily ridership (boardings and alightings) for existing Metro HRT service in Los Angeles. The model was also validated to ensure the model was capable of responding to input changes, and therefore able to predict future transit ridership at the seven candidate stations.

Daily ridership data collected in 2008 for the following 13 stations along the Red/Purple Lines was provided by Metro for the DRF model validation.

1. Metro Red Line North Hollywood Station

2. Metro Red Line Universal City Station

3. Metro Red Line Hollywood/Highland Station

4. Metro Red Line Vermont/Sunset Station

5. Metro Red Line Vermont/Santa Monica Station

6. Metro Red Line Vermont/Beverly Station

7. Metro Red Line Hollywood/Western Station

8. Metro Red Line Hollywood/Vine Station

9. Metro Red/Purple Line Wilshire/Vermont Station

10. Metro Red/Purple Line Westlake/MacArthur Station

11. Metro Red/Purple Line 7th Street/Metro Center Station



12. Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station

13. Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Normandie Station

Station-related demographic, land use, and transit data within a ½-mile walking distance of each of the 13 stations were derived with TAZ data from the base year Metro Regional Travel Demand Model. The TAZ data was also used to develop station catchment population and employment data to account for kiss and ride patrons as well as patrons who may park nearby. Feeder transit, transit frequency, and other transit-related data were collected from Metro’s website.

The model validation results for daily boardings and alightings at all 13 stations are presented in Figure 1-1 along with the results from the Metro Regional Travel Demand Model for the same 13 stations.

Figure 1-1. DRM Model Validation Results

As shown in Figure 1-1, the DRF model under-predicts system-wide Metro Red/Purple Line daily boardings by approximately 2% and over-predicts daily alightings by approximately 5%, while the Metro Regional Travel Demand Model under-predicts both boardings and alightings by approximately 19%.

Based on the model validation results, it was determined that the DRF model was suitable for forecasting daily ridership (boardings and alightings) at each of the seven stations for the Metro Westside Subway Extension.

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

Counted Boardings

Metro Model Boardings

DRM Boardings

Counted Alightings

Metro Model Alightings

DRM Alightings



2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

Data for the 13 DRF model input variables (as identified in Section 1.3) were collected for each Westside Subway Extension Station. These variables were used to predict daily boardings at each station.

2.1 Walkshed Analysis

The Network Analyst tool in ArcGIS3 was used to measure walking distance on the existing street network from the primary entrance for each station option. Consistent with the Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report, one-half mile walksheds from the primary station entrance have been evaluated.

2.2 Population Data

Population data were obtained from the 2000 United States Census at the Census Block level. Year 2010 Census Estimates at the Census Block Group level were used to derive growth factors that were then applied to the 2000 Census data to reflect 2010 population numbers contained within each walkshed. When Census Blocks were fully contained within a walkshed, the population from the Census Block was counted. If a Census Block was split by walksheds or only partially contained in one walkshed, the population was divided proportionately based on how much of the Census Block was located within one walkshed distance versus another. Open space and non-residential areas were taken into account when splitting Census Block populations.

2.3 Employment Data

Real estate data obtained from Grubb & Ellis, a respected commercial real estate service and invest-ment company, were used to estimate the number of jobs within each walkshed. Grubb & Ellis maintains a detailed real estate database (Grubb & Ellis/Costar) of every leasable office and retail property in Los Angeles and lists the rentable building area (RBA) for each building contained in the data set. Because the database lists total RBA for each property, a vacancy factor of 10 percent has been assumed for all office and retail/food service space in this analysis to represent standard market conditions. While the vacancy rate for Century City office space is currently 13 percent (Los Angeles Times, 2011), a senior officer at Grubb & Ellis indicated that 10 percent represents a typical vacancy rate under standard market conditions. Therefore, 10 percent of the RBA within each walkshed has been assumed to be vacant.

To estimate the number of jobs provided at each property, square feet per employee standards have been applied to the RBA for each property. A per-room employee standard has been applied to the number of hotel rooms for each hotel contained within a walkshed. Table 2-1 details the standards applied to calculate the number of jobs at each property contained within the walksheds. Appendix A provides the detailed job calculations for each property, as well as the walkshed the property falls within.

3 ArcGIS is a Geographic information system (GIS) software used to analyze spatial relationships and spatial data.



Table 2-1: Land Use per Employee Standards

Land Use Standard Units

Office 350 square feet

Retail 600 square feet

Food Service 450 square feet

Hotel 2 rooms

Source: Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM) South Florida Regional Planning Council, 2011

2.3.1 Validating Employment Data Accuracy

As part of the Century City Station Options Updated Jobs and Population Inventory Memorandum (Metro, May 2011), two validation checks were performed for the Century City Station to validate the derived employment data:

1. Job estimates from this analysis were compared to U.S. Census 2009 employment estimates at a Census Block level. The same approach to split Census Block population data described above was applied to Census Block employment data to estimate walkshed employment. Based on these Census Block estimates, approximately 33,408 jobs are accessible within the one-half mile walkshed of the Constellation Option, suggesting that the analysis contained in this memorandum is comparatively accurate.

2. Through the Century City Chamber of Commerce, occupancy data and total RBA of most of the main office buildings in Century City were obtained from property managers. In total, these buildings averaged 387 square feet of RBA per occupant, which is close to the 350 square feet per occupant assumption used to calculate office jobs in the analysis using the Grubb & Ellis data above.

2.4 Parking

No LPA station will offer park-and-ride facilities, so this value was set to zero for each analyzed location.

2.5 University Population

The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), with a total enrollment of just under 40,000 (including undergraduates, graduate students, and interns/residents), is located within a one-half mile walk of the Westwood/UCLA Station (either the Off- or On-Street Option). Although the majority of the campus falls outside the one-half mile station walkshed, the penchant for students to walk farther than a typical pedestrian and presumed high frequency shuttle service between the station and campus suggests that the entire campus should be considered in the DRF model.

More than 70 percent of students (28,820 undergraduates, graduate students, residents, and interns combined) commute from their off-campus residence to UCLA4. The current transit mode share among commuting students is 33.2 percent and a substantial increase is expected with a Westwood/UCLA subway stop. However, West Los Angeles, including the cities of Santa Monica and Culver City, has a high concentration of overall UCLA student commuters, and that area will not be served 4 2010 State of the Commute Report (UCLA Transportation, 2011)



by the subway. Instead of inputting the entire student population into the DRF model, it was conservatively estimated that only 25 percent of student commuters (about 7,000) are potential riders.

2.6 Catchment Population and Employment

The catchment area refers simply to the most likely service areas for each station. These areas are developed based on the proximity to the station and the ease of access over different transportation modes. Each station catchment has a unique area and they do not overlap. Since many bus transit and drop-off access riders come from outside the one-half mile station area, catchment area population and employment data are often more descriptive than half-mile variables for feeder transit and auto drop-off models.

2.7 Bike Parking

Bike parking inputs were obtained from the Station Circulation Report. The Metro Bicycle Program recommended bicycle parking supply per station were used in this analysis, ranging from 45 spaces at the Wilshire/Rodeo Station to 117 spaces at the Westwood/UCLA Station.

2.8 Pedestrian Accessibility and Design Rating

The pedestrian accessibility and design rating relates directly to the connectivity and accessibility of the station, as well as its orientation (automobile or pedestrian). The measure combines three categories to form a score from 1 to 6. Each station scored a single point for being underground. All stations except for Westwood/VA Hospital scored a point for not being adjacent to a freeway. Stations also scored a point for each direction (out of four) that the station provides direct access to the surrounding neighborhood without having to travel at an angle more than 45 degrees in either direction or having to cross a freeway/expressway, a large parking lot, or an industrial area.

2.9 Subway Service Frequency

The LPA is expected to operate seven days per week, 365 days per year, with hours of operation from 4:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. Peak-period headways of 4 minutes will be in effect during weekday non-holidays, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Off-peak headways of 10 minutes will be in effect during the remaining weekday hours of operation and on weekends. Service frequencies on other Metro Rail lines and bus routes in the corridor will be the same as for the No Build Alternative.

2.10 Supporting Bus Routes

With the LPA, no major restructuring of bus routes is expected, and bus fleet requirements will not be modified in a major way. Thus, existing bus routes that serve the station areas were counted as supporting bus routes and input into the model. The number of buses serving each station area per hour was obtained from the Feeder Service Operations Plan. For the Century City Station options (Constellation and Santa Monica), Metro Rapid 704 was counted as feeder service even though the route does not stop adjacent to either of the station entrances. Similarly, Metro Local 4 was assumed as feeder service for the Constellation Option.



3.0 STATION AREA POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Table 3-1 summarizes the population and jobs within one-quarter and one-half mile walksheds for each potential station area. Adjustments made for large institutions are as follows:

Approximately 16 percent of Fox Studios is located within the one-half-mile walkshed of the Constellation Option. To provide a conservative estimate, only 16 percent of the 2,600 Fox Studios employees (no contractors) were included within the one-half-mile walkshed job totals included in Table 3-1.

A total of 25,550 faculty and staff are employed at UCLA. However, West Los Angeles, including the cities of Santa Monica and Culver City, has a high concentration of UCLA faculty and staff that will not be served by the subway. For the DRF model jobs input, it was conservatively estimated that 25 percent (6,390) of faculty and staff commuters are potential riders.

Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-9 show each station or station option for two walkshed distances (one-quarter mile and one-half mile) and list the jobs and population within each walkshed.

Table 3-1: Walkshed Population and Jobs

Westside Subway Extension StationTotal Jobs1/4 Mile

Total Jobs1/2 Mile

Population1/4 Mile

Population 1/2 Mile

Wilshire/La Brea 2,210 5,390 1,460 7,320

Wilshire/Fairfax 2,880 11,710 710 4,650

Wilshire/La Cienega 3,360 10,530 920 4,600

Wilshire/Rodeo 8,250 16,960 780 4,420

Century City (Santa Monica) 10,310 27,290 180 1,900

Century City (Constellation) 20,170 31,040 210 2,010

Westwood/UCLA*(Off Street) 10,360 19,870 1,260 7,170

Westwood/UCLA*(On Street) 10,310 19,980 1,280 7,470

Westwood/VA Hospital 3,500 7,600 0 470

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011; 2000 U.S. Census; 2010 U.S. Census Estimates; Grubb & Ellis/Costar, 2011; UCLA, 2011 *Total jobs one-half mile for Westwood/UCLA Station options include 25 percent of the UCLA faculty and staff total of 25,550



Figure 3-1: Wilshire/La Brea Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-2: Wilshire/Fairfax Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-3: Wilshire/La Cienega Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-4: Wilshire/Rodeo Station Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-5: Century City Santa Monica Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-6: Century City Constellation Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-7: Westwood/UCLA Off-Street Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-8: Westwood/UCLA On-Street Station Option Walkshed Population and Jobs



Figure 3-9: Westwood/VA Hospital North/South Station Options Walkshed Jobs and Population



4.0 DAILY RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS

Using the refined data set, the daily ridership projected with the DRF model (including both boardings and alightings) at the seven station locations is shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Direct Ridership Model Boarding and Alighting Projections

Westside Subway Extension Station Boardings Alightings Boardings+Alightings

Wilshire/La Brea 5,030 5,360 10,390

Wilshire/Fairfax 5,630 5,890 11,520

Wilshire/La Cienega 5,520 5,760 11,280

Wilshire/Rodeo 9,240 9,460 18,700

Century City (Santa Monica) 10,300 10,460 20,760

Century City (Constellation) 11,230 11,390 22,620

Westwood/UCLA (Off-Street) 12,060 12,270 24,330

Westwood/UCLA (On-Street) 12,210 12,430 24,640

Westwood/VA Hospital 4,440 4,490 8,930

Source: Fehr & Peers

These ridership projections are based on existing conditions, including land use. Future changes in land use, which would result in population and employment increases or decreases, would affect future ridership projections.



5.0 SUMMARY

Based on existing land use, demographics, and other input variables, the DRF model can project ridership (boardings plus alightings) at the LPA stations. The following summarizes the most important observations about the LPA stations resulting from the DRF modeling process.

5.1 Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax, and Wilshire/La Cienega Stations

These stations are projected to generate comparable ridership (10,390 to 11,520 daily boardings and alightings) due to similar demographics (jobs, population, and other characteristics, such as number of supporting bus routes, station design rating, etc.).

5.2 Wilshire/Rodeo Station

The Wilshire/Rodeo Station is projected by the DRF model to be a high ridership station (18,700 boardings and alightings). This is due in part to significant employment opportunities, including the highest concentration of retail among the LPA stations, within a one-half mile walk of the station entrance.

5.3 Century City Station (Santa Monica and Constellation Options)

The Constellation Option is projected to generate ridership (boardings and alightings) that is 9 percent higher than the Santa Monica Option. The primary reason why ridership is projected to be similar between the two station options (less than a 10 percent difference) is due to the DRF model being developed, calibrated, and validated to population and employment at a one-half mile walking distance. At a one-quarter mile walking distance, almost twice as many jobs (20,170 compared to 10,310) are accessible from the Constellation Option as are from the Santa Monica Option.

5.4 Westwood/UCLA Station

The DRF model predicts the highest ridership for this station among all the LPA stations. The locations of the two station options are not far enough apart to result in meaningful differences in ridership predictions. This station location is unique in that it will provide access to housing, retail, offices, a major university, and a hospital.

5.5 Westwood/VA Hospital Station

Of all the LPA stations, the DRF model predicts the lowest ridership for the Westwood/VA Station. There is very little residential or commercial land use within a one-half mile walk of the station that will generate ridership, which are the independent variables in the regression model that influence ridership the most. In this instance, the DRF model may not be sensitive enough to the feeder bus connection to West Los Angeles and Santa Monica that ridership at this station will be highly dependent upon.



6.0 REFERENCES

BART 2008 BART Marketing and Research Department. 2008. 2008 BART Station Profile Study

FTA 2009 Federal Transit Administration. November 13, 2009. Federal Register, Vol. 74. No 218. “Proposed policy statement on the eligibility of pedestrian and bicycle improvements under federal transit law.”

Grubb & Ellis/Costar 2011

February, 2011. Century City Area Real Estate Database Report.

Los Angeles Times 2011

Los Angeles Times. April 21, 2011. “Developer Proposes Century City High-Rise.” Accessed April 2011 from http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-century-city-deal-20110421,0,2664084.story.

Metro 2011 Metro. July 2011. Station Circulation Report.

Metro 2011 Metro. May 2011. Feeder Services Operation Plan.

Metro 2010 Metro. September 2010. Westside Subway Extension Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

Metro 2010 Metro. August 2010. Smart Growth Evaluation Report.

Metro 2010 Metro. May 2010. Century City Station Options Updated Jobs and Population Inventory Memorandum.

Mineta 2006 Mineta Transportation Institute. June 2006. How Far, by Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis of Pedestrian Preference.

SFRPC 2006 SFRPC, June 19, 2006. Fiscal Impact Analysis Model. Accessed April 2011 from http://www.sfrpc.com/fiam.htm.

UCLA 2011 UCLA Transportation. 2011. 2010 State of the Commute Report.

U.S. Census 2010 2010 U.S. Census population estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t.

U.S. Census 2009 2009 U.S. Census employment estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/.

U.S. Census 2000 2000 U.S. Census population estimates. Accessed February 2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=.

Victoria 2009 Victoria Department of Transportation. 2009. Walking and Cycling International Literature Review.

`

Technical Report Summarizing the Results of the Forecasted Alternatives

March, 2012



Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T March, 2012 Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Definition of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) ........................................................... 1-1

1.2 Model Runs for Alternative Refinement ......................................................................... 1-21.2.1 Feeder Bus Service ............................................................................................. 1-21.2.2 Coding Refinement for Century City Station Location Options ....................... 1-31.2.3 Balanced Headways ........................................................................................... 1-5

1.2.4 Updated Westside Subway Extension Operating Plan ..................................... 1-61.2.5 Incorporating Regional Connector LPA Alignment .......................................... 1-9

1.3 Final Build Alternative and Baseline in Final EIS/EIR .................................................... 1-9

2.0 RESULTS FROM THE REFINED LPA OPTIONS AND THE BASELINE ALTERNATIVE ........... 2-1

2.1 Urban Rail Line Boardings .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Purple Line Station Boardings ........................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Purple Line Extension Station Mode of Access .............................................................. 2-3

2.4 Purple Line Westside Extension Project Trips................................................................ 2-4

2.5 Project Line Peak Hour and Peak Direction Volumes ................................................... 2-5

2.6 User Benefits ................................................................................................................... 2-5

3.0 PHASING OF ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Phase 1 to Wilshire/La Cienega ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Phase 2 to Century City ................................................................................................... 3-2

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Refined Coding of Century City Station Location Options ................................................... 1-4

Figure 2-1: Century City Station Options Year 2035 Jobs within ¼ Mile and ½ Mile Catchment Areas around Stations ............................................................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-2: User Benefits Distribution, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option, Home-based

Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Production ........................................................................ 2-9

Figure 2-3: User Benefits Distribution, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option, Home-based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Attraction ........................................................................ 2-10

Figure 2-4: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Home-Based

Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Productions .................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2-5: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Home-Based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Attractions ...................................................................... 2-12


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T March, 2012 Page ii

Figure 2-6: User Benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Production ...................................................................................... 2-13

Figure 2-7: User Benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Attraction ........................................................................................ 2-14

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Bus Routes Connected to Proposed Century City Station ..................................................... 1-2

Table 1-2: Refined Coding of Century City Station Location Options – Walk Times ............................. 1-5

Table 1-3: Operating Plan, Westside Century City/Constellation Option in Final EIS/EIR Phase ........ 1-8

Table 1-4: Operating Plan, Westside Century City/Santa Monica Option in Final EIS/EIR Phase ....... 1-9

Table 1-5: Station and Line Boardings of Purple/Red Lines - Draft EIS/EIR, Operating Plan Refinement

and Final EIS/EIR Model Runs ..................................................................................... 1-11

Table 2-1: Urban Rail Boardings by Line, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option .................... 2-1

Table 2-2: Purple Line Station Boardings, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option .................. 2-2

Table 2-3: Purple Line Extension Station Mode of Access, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation

Option .............................................................................................................................. 2-3

Table 2-4: Purple Line Westside Extension Project Trips, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option ......................................................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-5: User benefits by Purpose and Time Period, Baseline Alternative vs. Constellation Option ......................................................................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2-6: User benefits by Purpose and Time Period, Baseline Alternative vs. Santa Monica Option ......................................................................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2-7: User Benefits and New Trips over the Baseline Alternative, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option ....................................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-8: Daily User Benefits over the Baseline Alternative for Existing and New Riders, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option .................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-9: Daily User Benefits and New Transit Trips, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option ......................................................................................................................................... 2-8

Table 3-1: 2035 Daily Station Boardings ................................................................................................... 3-1

Table 3-2: 2035 Comparison of Phase 2 and Phase 3 Urban Rail Boardings and Mode of Access for

Century City Stations and Wilshire/Rodeo ..................................................................... 3-2


1.0 – Introduction

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T March, 2012 Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report documents the travel forecasting evolution and results of two options for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) phase of the Westside Subway Extension Project. To support the environmental process, a number of model runs were made to help refine assessment of the LPA, to address changes since the Draft EIS/EIR phase, and provide the magnitude of difference if a change was made. The first section describes the refinement and testing that was made and the second section describes and compares the results for two variations of the LPA.

1.1 Definition of Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)

In October 2010, the Metro Board approved the Draft EIS/EIR and selected Alternative 2 as the LPA. The LPA would extend heavy rail transit (HRT), in subway, from the existing Metro Purple Line Wilshire/Western Station to a Westwood/VA Hospital Station. The extension would be nearly nine miles and would include a total of seven new stations:

Wilshire/La Brea

Wilshire/Fairfax

Wilshire/La Cienega

Wilshire/Rodeo

Century City (Santa Monica Boulevard or Constellation Boulevard)

Westwood/UCLA (On-Street or Off-Street)

Westwood/VA Hospital (South of Wilshire Boulevard or North of Wilshire Boulevard)

Based on this approval, the Metro Board authorized preparation of the Final EIS/EIR to further evaluate the LPA. Refinement to travel forecasting effort focuses on the station accessibility and to a lesser extent the change in operating plans from the refinement in engineering at the Century City Station location. The two LPA options analyzed are:

LPA Century City/Santa Monica Option

LPA Century City/Constellation Option

In the Draft EIS/EIR phase, variations of Alternative 2 with either the Century City/Santa Monica Option and or the Century City/Constellation Option were studied and named Alternative 2B and Alternative 2E respectively (both of which excluded the Wilshire/Crenshaw Station). Their travel forecasting results were not included in the Draft EIS/EIR. However, the New Starts Template submission to FTA was based on the travel forecasting results of Alternative 2E (Century City/Constellation Option).

The travel forecasting horizon year is 2035 in the Final EIS/EIR, same as in the Draft EIS/EIR phase.




1.2 Model Runs for Alternative Refinement

More than ten model runs were conducted to respond to changes, perform additional analysis, and answer questions that were raised during the project development process in the Final EIS/EIR phase. The test runs analyzed the impact on the Purple Line ridership and project trips. The main types of refinement included feeder bus service, balanced headways and some coding refinement, to determine what changes should be included in the Final EIS/EIR model runs.

1.2.1 Feeder Bus Service

The buses that serve the Century City Stations were reviewed to check consistency between the Century City/Santa Monica Option and Century City/Constellation Option. During the initial refinements to the travel forecasts for the LPA, the Century City Station in the Century City/Santa Monica Option was located in the proximity of Santa Monica Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars. (This was before the project team requested to move the station to Santa Monica/Century Park East, as discussed in Section 1.2.4). In the Century City/Constellation Option, the station is in the proximity of Constellation Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars. Table 1-1 displays which bus routes are connected to each proposed Century City Station option, and could potentially act as feeder service to the station. In both the Century City options there are eight routes connected to each rail station. Six of the ten routes are common to both options; Metro Routes 4 and 704 are only connected to the Century City Station in the Santa Monica Option, and Santa Monica Big Bus Route 5 and Culver City Route 3 are only connected to the Century City Station in the Constellation Option.

Table 1-1: Bus Routes Connected to Proposed Century City Station

Transit Agency

Route

Alt2B Santa Monica

Alt2E Constellation

LA Metro 4 Connected

LA Metro 704 Connected

LA Metro 28 Connected Connected

LA Metro 728 Connected Connected

LADOT Commuter Express 534 Connected Connected

LADOT Commuter Express 573 Connected Connected

Santa Clarita Transit 792 Connected Connected

Santa Clarita Transit 797 Connected Connected

Santa Monica Big Blue Bus 5 Connected

Culver City Transit 3 Connected

Several model runs were made to determine if changes should be made in the feeder bus service. The first test was to verify if routing Metro local bus Route 4 to connect the Century City Station in the Constellation Option would provide an increase in ridership on the Purple Line. The results show that detouring Route 4 to Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of Stars only added approximately 100 daily boardings to the Century City Station. In further testing both, Metro local bus Route 4 and rapid bus Route 704 were re-routed to the Century City Station in the Constellation Option and the service frequency of Culver City bus Route 3 and Santa Monica bus Route 5 were doubled. The daily boardings at the Century City Station did increase but there was an equal or greater reduction at the other extension stations, resulting in boardings on the Purple Line extension having minimal




change. The increase in frequency on Culver City bus Route 3 and Santa Monica bus Route 5 did result in more ridership on those bus routes but not the boarding on the Purple Line Extension.

The feeder bus service test runs demonstrated that the cost of additional feeder bus service is not worth the minimal increase in boardings at the Century City Station. This is mainly because the Century City area is a destination, not necessarily a transfer point. Therefore, feeder bus service improvement is not justified to be incorporated in the build alternatives in the Final EIS/EIR phase.

1.2.2 Coding Refinement for Century City Station Location Options

With cooperation of Metro Modeling staff, the coding of the Century City Station in the Santa Monica Option and the Constellation Option was refined after carefully studying the land use, streets, and traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure around Century City. The refinement best represents the location of the Century City Station relative to the development in the main TAZ representing Century City (TAZ 738) in the Santa Monica Option and the Constellation Option. In the Constellation Option, the Station is located at Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of Stars, the walk time between the central point (centroid) of zone 738 and the Century City Station platform is three minutes.

In the Santa Monica Option, the Century City Station was in the proximity of Santa Monica Boulevard/Avenue of Stars. The walk time between TAZ 738’s centroid location and the Century City Subway Station platform is eight minutes, which is five minutes longer than the walking time between TAZ 738’s centroid and Century City/Constellation Option’s Station location. The detailed coded time between the main TAZ and the access to transit for the two options is displayed in Figure 1-1 and Table 1-3.




Figure 1-1: Refined Coding of Century City Station Location Options




Table 1-2: Refined Coding of Century City Station Location Options – Walk Times

Century City/Constellation Option

To Centroid

738

Constellation/Ave of Stars Subway Station

Platform

Bus Stop Constellation/Ave

of Stars

Bus Stop Santa Monica/Ave of

Stars From

Centroid 738 3 2 7

Constellation/Ave of Stars Subway Station Platform 3 1 6


of Stars 2 1 5 Bus Stop Santa Monica/Ave of

Stars 7 6 5

Century City/Santa Monica Option

To Centroid

738

Santa Monica/Ave of Stars Subway Station

Platform


of Stars


Stars From

Centroid 738 8 2 7

Santa Monica/Ave of Stars Subway Station Platform 8 6 1


of Stars 2 6 5


Stars 7 1 5

1.2.3 Balanced Headways

The Westside Project team requested a model run with “balanced headways” on the Purple and Red Lines to analyze the impact on boardings if the headways on these two lines are both changed to four minutes in the peak period. In the Draft EIS/EIR, the peak period headway on the Purple Line and the Red Line was 3.3 minutes and five minutes, respectively.

As a result, the estimated Purple Line daily boardings decrease to approximately 114,700, or 6.8 percent less than the Draft EIS/EIR estimate of approximately 123,100. The estimated Red Line daily boardings increase to approximately 137,300, or six percent more than the Draft EIS/EIR boardings of approximately 128,800. The estimated combined daily boardings on the Red and Purple Lines are approximately 252,000, or 0.1 percent more than the Draft EIS/EIR boardings. As expected with the




less frequent headway the estimated Purple Line Extension Project Trips are approximately 76,700, or 2.5 percent less than the Draft EIS/EIR estimate of 78,700.

In addition to the refinements discussed above, there are two additional changes in the transit network as described in the following sections.

1.2.4 Updated Westside Subway Extension Operating Plan

The station-to-station distance and running time simulated for the Westside Subway Extension in the Draft EIS/EIR phase was based on the general alignment and reflects basic speed calculations. In the Final EIS/EIR, the alignments of the Century City/Santa Monica Option and the Century City/Constellation Option have been refined. The distance and running time calculations reflect more engineering details such as vertical and horizontal curves and are better estimates of travel time.

During preparation of the Final EIS/EIR, further geotechnical investigations were conducted to better define the location of the Santa Monica Fault. Based on the results of these studies, the station box for the Century City Santa Monica Station shifted to the east to avoid locating the station box on the Santa Monica Fault. The station box would extend from just west of Moreno Drive to just west of Century Park East. This new location of the Century City Station on Santa Monica Boulevard increases the walk time between zone 738, the core of Century City business area, to the Century City Station platform from 8 minutes to 13 minutes, compared with the three minutes walk time in the Constellation Option.

Compared with the Draft EIS/EIR phase, the running time on the subway extension between Wilshire/Western and Westwood/VA Hospital is about one and a half minutes longer. The operating plans for the two options in the Final EIS/EIR are listed in Table 1-3 and




Table 1-4, respectively. The station-to-station running time and distance is identical between the two options on most of the extension except the segment between Wilshire/Rodeo and Westwood/UCLA. In the Santa Monica Option, the running time between Wilshire/Rodeo and Westwood/UCLA is 3.8 minutes. In the Century City Option, the alignment is further south to the location of Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of the Stars. Therefore, the running time between Wilshire/Rodeo and Westwood/UCLA is 4.3 minutes, half a minute longer than the Santa Monica Option.




Table 1-3: Operating Plan, Westside Century City/Constellation Option in Final EIS/EIR Phase

Station

Draft EIS/EIR Final EIS/EIR

Distance (miles)

Time (mins)

Distance (miles)

Time (mins)

WB EB

1 Union Station Existing

2 Civic Center Existing 0.84 2.0 0.84 2.0 2.0

3 Pershing Square Existing 0.46 1.0 0.46 1.0 1.0

4 7th/Metro Existing 0.54 2.0 0.54 2.0 2.0

5 Westlake Existing 1.11 2.0 1.11 2.0 2.0

6 Wilshire/Vermont Existing 0.97 2.0 0.97 2.0 2.0

7 Wilshire/Normandie Existing 0.60 2.0 0.60 2.0 2.0

8 Wilshire/Western Existing 0.50 2.0 0.50 2.0 2.0

10 Wilshire/La Brea Extension 2.01 2.5 2.00 2.7 2.7

11 Wilshire/Fairfax Extension 1.00 1.6 1.00 1.8 1.9

12 Wilshire/La Cienega Extension 0.85 1.5 0.80 1.7 1.7

13 Wilshire/Rodeo Extension 1.29 1.9 1.40 2.2 2.2

14 Century City/Constellation Extension 1.21 1.8 1.28 2.4 2.4

15 Westwood/UCLA Extension 1.99 2.5 1.79 2.8 2.8

16 Westwood/VA Hospital Extension 0.53 1.3 0.53 1.2 1.2

Total 13.90 26.2 13.82 27.8 27.7

Extension 8.88 13.2 8.80 14.8 14.7




Table 1-4: Operating Plan, Westside Century City/Santa Monica Option in Final EIS/EIR Phase

Station

Draft EIS/EIR Final EIS/EIR

Distance (miles)

Time (mins)

Distance (miles)

Time (mins)

WB EB

1 Union Station Existing

2 Civic Center Existing 0.84 2.0 0.84 2.0 2.0

3 Pershing Square Existing 0.46 1.0 0.46 1.0 1.0

4 7th/Metro Existing 0.54 2.0 0.54 2.0 2.0

5 Westlake Existing 1.11 2.0 1.11 2.0 2.0

6 Wilshire/Vermont Existing 0.97 2.0 0.97 2.0 2.0

7 Wilshire/Normandie Existing 0.60 2.0 0.60 2.0 2.0

8 Wilshire/Western Existing 0.50 2.0 0.50 2.0 2.0

10 Wilshire/La Brea Extension 2.01 2.5 2.00 2.7 2.7

11 Wilshire/Fairfax Extension 1.00 1.6 1.00 1.8 1.9

12 Wilshire/La Cienega Extension 0.85 1.5 0.80 1.7 1.7

13 Wilshire/Rodeo Extension 1.29 1.9 1.40 2.2 2.2

14 Century City/Santa Monica Blvd/Century Park East* Extension 1.29 1.9 1.03 2.1 2.1

15 Westwood/UCLA Extension 1.81 2.3 1.80 2.7 2.7

16 Westwood/VA Hospital Extension 0.53 1.3 0.53 1.2 1.2

Total 13.80 26.1 13.58 27.5 27.4

Extension 8.78 13.1 8.56 14.5 14.4

*Note the Century City Station in the Santa Monica Option in the Draft EIS/EIR was located at Santa Monica Blvd. and Avenue of the Stars.

1.2.5 Incorporating Regional Connector LPA Alignment

In the Westside Draft EIS/EIR phase, the Regional Connector in the transit network reflected the proposed alignment at that time. Since then, the LPA of the Regional Connector has been updated. Therefore, the latest LPA alignment for the Regional Connector was incorporated in the transit network for the Westside FEIS phase, which now includes three stations versus four previously.

1.3 Final Build Alternative and Baseline in Final EIS/EIR

Given the model runs and changes discussed above, five refinements/updates were made to the LPA Options in the Final EIS/EIR phase:

Refine the coding of the Century City/Constellation Option that best represents the location of the Century City Station relative to the development in the traffic analysis zone (TAZ 738).

Move the location of Century City Station in the Santa Monica Option to Santa Monica Boulevard/Century Park East.

Change the peak period headway of the Purple Line from 3.3 minutes to four minutes and change the peak period headway of the Red Line from five minutes to four minutes.

Use the updated travel time from the May 11, 2011 operating plan that reflected the engineering details at that point in time.




Incorporate the Regional Connector LPA alignment.

To be consistent between the Build Alternatives and the Baseline which is used in the development of user benefits, the coding refinements in the Build Alternatives was applied to the Baseline Alternative. Additionally, the headway of the Red Line and the Purple Line in the Baseline Alternative was changed to four minutes in the peak period and the latest Regional Connector LPA alignment was incorporated.

Although many model runs were made, Table 1-4 summarizes the station and line boardings of the Red/Purple Lines for three sets of runs to provide a sense of the magnitude of change: 1) the Draft EIS/EIR for comparison purposes, 2) the balanced headways run because it had the greatest overall impact on ridership, and 3) the Final EIS/EIR which includes the culmination of the changes made for this phase of work. The results for the Final EIS/EIR runs will be discussed in detail in the next section.




Table 1-5: Station and Line Boardings of Purple/Red Lines - Draft EIS/EIR, Operating Plan Refinement and Final EIS/EIR Model Runs

Note: RC means the LA Metro Regional Connector Project

Wilshire/VA Hospital n/a n/a 8,116 8,198 n/a 8,010 n/a 7,631 7,806

Wilshire/Westwood n/a n/a 12,922 12,882 n/a 12,438 n/a 11,926 11,967

Century City n/a n/a 6,556 6,685 n/a 6,573 n/a 5,492 8,566

Wilshire/Rodeo n/a n/a 4,612 4,640 n/a 4,561 n/a 4,436 4,241

Wilshire/La Cienega n/a n/a 6,703 6,959 n/a 6,829 n/a 6,425 6,530

Wilshire/Fairfax n/a n/a 6,436 6,456 n/a 6,314 n/a 6,125 6,183

Wilshire/La Brea n/a n/a 4,135 4,163 n/a 4,026 n/a 3,954 4,047

Wilshire/Western 3,751 3,766 6,081 6,092 6,984 5,854 6,959 5,743 5,852

Wilshire/Normandie 3,420 3,486 6,066 6,079 4,780 5,873 4,770 5,747 5,838

Wilshire/Vermont 2,821 2,997 11,135 11,231 5,587 9,967 5,687 9,760 10,105

Westlake 2,112 2,128 4,372 4,367 3,061 3,776 3,199 3,860 3,891

7th/Metro 5,181 5,260 16,670 16,677 9,468 15,023 10,058 17,790 18,133

Pershing Square 3,256 3,274 6,243 6,242 4,715 5,480 4,821 5,557 5,575

Civic Center 1,088 1,094 2,433 2,432 1,667 2,134 1,797 2,241 2,250

Union Station 6,404 6,259 19,897 19,982 11,775 17,853 9,682 12,820 13,058

TOTAL 28,031 28,263 122,373 123,082 48,035 114,707 46,971 109,502 114,038

North Hollywood 24,677 24,657 25,308 25,355 25,255 25,902 25,329 25,844 25,989

Universal City 12,410 12,396 12,697 12,725 12,719 13,038 12,748 13,001 13,075

Hollywood/Highland 6,797 6,661 5,146 5,178 6,807 5,345 6,843 5,326 5,381

Hollywood/Vine 4,776 4,729 4,521 4,541 4,825 4,656 4,845 4,634 4,670

Hollywood/Western 4,640 4,598 4,497 4,508 4,620 4,645 4,592 4,594 4,619

Sunset/Vermont 4,463 4,464 4,564 4,570 4,567 4,679 4,573 4,668 4,694

Santa Monica/Vermont 7,612 7,614 7,388 7,423 7,659 7,609 7,689 7,587 7,648

Beverly Vernont 6,565 6,491 5,202 5,208 5,556 5,472 5,610 5,496 5,514

Wilshire/Vermont 11,126 11,664 10,082 10,175 8,835 11,412 8,850 11,157 11,486

Westlake 5,451 5,426 3,967 3,964 4,701 4,524 4,828 4,646 4,649

7th/Metro 28,085 28,133 23,342 23,352 27,001 25,299 29,319 27,545 27,583

Pershing Square 7,570 7,569 5,803 5,804 6,627 6,521 6,696 6,588 6,595

Civic Center 2,966 2,965 2,284 2,286 2,604 2,558 2,722 2,673 2,671

Union Station 18,785 18,993 13,680 13,691 16,377 15,649 12,773 12,154 12,164

TOTAL 145,922 146,355 128,478 128,776 138,149 137,307 137,416 135,908 136,735

Red Line + Purple Line 173,953 174,618 250,851 251,858 186,184 252,014 184,387 245,410 250,773

Total New Stations n/a n/a 49,478 49,981 n/a 48,749 n/a 45,986 49,339

Total Urban Rail Lines 563,594 564,132 634,604 635,736 575,325 636,763 577,415 633,706 639,692

4 Minute Headways

on both Red/Purple

Lines Final EIS/EIR Phase

Purple Line

Red Line

No Build Baseline Alt2B Alt2E

Baseline

with RC

LPA

Alt2B -

Final

Operation

Plan with

RC LPA

Alt2E -

Final

Operation

Plan with

RC LPAStation

Draft EIS/EIR Phase

Baseline Alt2E


2.0 – Results from the Refined LPA Options and the Baseline Alternative


2.0 RESULTS FROM THE REFINED LPA OPTIONS AND THE BASELINE ALTERNATIVE

As discussed in the previous section, two LPA options (Century City/Santa Monica Option and Century City/Constellation Option) and the Baseline Alternative were refined. The travel forecasting results are presented and discussed in this section.

2.1 Urban Rail Line Boardings

As displayed in Table 2-1 the estimated daily boardings on the Purple Line in the Century City/Santa Monica Option and the Century City/Constellation Option are approximately 109,500 and 114,000 respectively. The Purple Line boardings in the Constellation Option is approximately 4,500 or four percent more than the Santa Monica Option. The estimated daily boardings on the Red Line in the Constellation Option are approximately 136,700, about 0.6 percent more than the Santa Monica Option. The overall daily urban rail boardings of the Constellation Option is estimated at approximately 639,700, or about 6,000 additional boardings which is nearly one percent more than the Santa Monica Option.

The daily boardings on the other urban rail lines are estimated to have a very minor difference between these two LPA options. The North-South Line has approximately 0.4 percent more daily boardings in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option, the largest difference among all the other urban rail lines. Since the North-South Line is connected to the Purple Line at the 7th/Metro Station, the higher ridership in the Constellation Option has a larger impact on the ridership on the North-South Line than on the other Urban Rail Lines.

Table 2-1: Urban Rail Boardings by Line, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Rail Line

Santa

Monica Option

Constellation Option

Constellation

Option minus Santa

Monica Option


minus Santa Monica

Option Pct Diff

Purple Line (Union Sta. - VA Hospital) 109,502 114,038 4,536 4.1%

Red Line (Union Sta. - North Hollywood) 135,908 136,735 827 0.6%

Green Line (Norwalk-Torrance) 29,697 29,760 63 0.2%

Green Line (Norwalk-LAX) 25,939 25,971 32 0.1%

LAX People Mover (Lot C) 3,650 3,656 6 0.2%

LAX People Mover (Century/Aviation) 3,779 3,782 3 0.1%

Crenshaw Line (Expo - Torrance) 25,500 25,437 -63 -0.2%

North-South Line (Citrus - Long Beach) 100,207 100,496 289 0.3%

North-South Line (SMV - Long Beach) 76,077 76,377 300 0.4%

East-West Line (East LA - Santa Monica) 123,447 123,440 -7 0.0%

Total Urban Rail Lines 633,706 639,692 5,986 0.9%




2.2 Purple Line Station Boardings

Table 2-2 compares the estimated Purple Line station boardings between the two LPA options. The largest difference occurs for the Century City Station. The station boardings for the Constellation Option are approximately 8,600, over 3,000 more than that for the Santa Monica Option. This is mainly because the Century City Station location in the Constellation Option is much closer to the core of the Century City business district than the station location in the Santa Monica Option at Santa Monica Boulevard and Century Park East.

Table 2-2: Purple Line Station Boardings, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Santa Monica

Option

Constellation

Option

Constellation Option minus Santa Monica

Option

Constellation

Option minus Santa Monica

Option

Pct Diff

Westwood/VA Hospital 7,631 7,806 175 2.3%

Westwood/UCLA 11,926 11,967 41 0.3%

Century City 5,492 8,566 3,075 56.0%

Wilshire/Rodeo 4,436 4,241 -195 -4.4%

Wilshire/La Cienega 6,425 6,530 106 1.6%

Wilshire/Fairfax 6,125 6,183 59 1.0%

Wilshire/La Brea 3,954 4,047 93 2.4%

Wilshire/Western 5,743 5,852 109 1.9%

Wilshire/Normandie 5,747 5,838 91 1.6%

Wilshire/Vermont 9,760 10,105 346 3.5%

Westlake 3,860 3,891 31 0.8%

7th/Metro 17,790 18,133 343 1.9%

Pershing Square 5,557 5,575 18 0.3%

Civic Center 2,241 2,250 9 0.4%

Union Station 12,820 13,058 238 1.9%

Existing Stations 63,516 64,699 1,183 1.9%

Extension Stations 45,986 49,339 3,353 7.3%

TOTAL 109,502 114,038 4,536 4.1%

Among the extension stations in the two LPA options, the Westwood/UCLA Station is the busiest with approximately 12,000 daily boardings. This is more than the boardings on the Wilshire/Vermont Station where the passengers could transfer between the Red Line and the Purple Line but fewer than the 7th/Metro Center Station and Union Station which are the two main urban rail hubs in the Los Angeles Metro urban rail system. The Century City Station is the second busiest station among all the extension stations, followed by the Westwood/VA Hospital Station, the terminus of the Purple Line extension.

The difference in the station boardings between the two LPA options at other Purple Line Stations is minor. The Constellation Option has approximately 3.5 percent more boardings than the Santa Monica Option at the Wilshire/Vermont Station, approximately 2.4 percent more at the Wilshire/La Brea station and approximately 2.3 percent more at the Westwood/VA Hospital Station. The boardings at the extension stations in the Constellation Option are approximately 49,300, about 3,350




or 7.3 percent more than for the Santa Monica Option. The Constellation Option also has slightly more boardings at the existing stations with approximately 64,700 daily boardings versus 63,500 in the Santa Monica Option, a difference of 1,200 additional boardings or 1.9 percent.

The only Purple Line station that has fewer boardings in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option is the Wilshire/Rodeo Station. There are approximately 200, or 4 percent fewer boardings at this station in the Constellation Option. This is mainly because the Rodeo Station is the closest station to the Century City Station and there is some competition between these two stations. The more boardings at the Century City Station, the fewer boardings at the Rodeo Station.

2.3 Purple Line Extension Station Mode of Access

Table 2-3 lists the mode of access estimates for the extension stations in both LPA Options. It reveals that the main difference in boardings at the Century City Station is the increased walk access trips in the Constellation Option over the Santa Monica Option. The walking time between the TAZ 738 (Century City)’s centroid node and the Century City subway station is 3 minutes in the Constellation Option and 13 minutes in the Santa Monica Option.

Table 2-3: Purple Line Extension Station Mode of Access, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Station

Santa Monica Option Constellation Option

Walk

Access

Bus

Access

KNR

Access

Total

Access

Walk

Access

Bus

Access

KNR

Access

Total

Access

Wilshire/La Brea 2,454 1,040 175 3,668 2,507 1,065 188 3,760

Wilshire/Fairfax 4,125 1,420 154 5,698 4,133 1,454 166 5,752

Wilshire/La Cienega 5,278 617 130 6,024 5,052 873 139 6,063

Wilshire/Rodeo 3,786 247 97 4,130 3,436 322 105 3,862

Century City 1,834 2,884 78 4,795 6,736 957 76 7,769

Westwood/UCLA 5,196 5,398 102 10,696 5,274 5,377 114 10,764

Westwood/VA Hospital 4,609 2,333 206 7,148 4,733 2,339 235 7,307

Figure 2-1 illustrates why there are more walk access trips to the Century City Station in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option. The number of jobs and jobs per square mile in the ¼ mile and ½ mile area around the Century City Stations is much higher in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option.




Figure 2-1: Century City Station Options Year 2035 Jobs within ¼ Mile and ½ Mile Catchment Areas around Stations

Data Source: SCAG RTP08 Socio-economic Data, converted by LA Metro to Metro zone structure

2.4 Purple Line Westside Extension Project Trips

Project trips are another element that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reviews. Project trips are defined as trips using any part of the project, either getting on at one of the project (extension) stations or getting off at one of the project stations or both getting on and off at the project stations.

Table 2-4 shows the project trips for the two LPA options. The Constellation Option has approximately 76,800 project trips, about 4,550 or 6.3 percent more than the Santa Monica Option. Given the Constellation Option has the most boardings between the two options it is logical that it has the most project trips.

1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile BufferNumber of Jobs 10,936 34,795Jobs per s.q. mile 55,741 44,319

Santa Monica/Century Park East

1/4 Mile Buffer 1/2 Mile BufferNumber of Jobs 24,909 47,185Jobs per s.q. mile 126,960 60,070

Constellation/Ave of Stars




Table 2-4: Purple Line Westside Extension Project Trips, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Santa Monica

Option

Constellation

Option

Constellation

Option minus Santa

Monica

Option

Constellation

Option minus Santa Monica

Option

Pct Diff

Purple Line Westside Extension 72,252 76,806 4,554 6.3%

2.5 Project Line Peak Hour and Peak Direction Volumes

In the Baseline Alternative, the peak hour peak load point on the Purple Line is eastbound, between Civic Center and Union Station, with approximately 2,730 passengers. It is equivalent to about 180 people per train. The location of the peak hour load point, direction and passenger load changes from the Baseline to the two LPA options.

In the Santa Monica Option, the peak hour peak load point on the Purple Line is between the Wilshire/Normandie Station and the Wilshire/Western Station in the westbound direction. The maximum load is approximately 5,300 or 350 per train. The peak hour peak load point on the Red Line is between the Beverly/Vermont Station and the Wilshire/Vermont Station with approximately 6,450 passengers in the inbound direction. It is equivalent to approximately 430 passengers per train.

The peak hour peak load point of the Purple Line in the Constellation Option is between the Wilshire/La Brea Station and the Wilshire/Fairfax Station in the westbound direction. The maximum load is approximately 5,700 or 380 per train. The peak hour peak load point on the Red Line like in the Sana Monica Option is between the Beverly/Vermont Station and the Wilshire/Vermont Station with approximately 6,550 passengers in the inbound direction. It is equivalent to approximately 440 passengers per train.

2.6 User Benefits

User benefits are similar to travel time savings, but more comprehensive, as user benefits include the time savings for new riders as well as existing riders. User benefits are reported for FTA’s New Starts projects and compare the benefits between two alternatives, generally the baseline versus the build. The calculation of user benefits is based on the micro-economic principles of consumer surplus. User benefits (or dis-benefits) are assumed to arise because of changes in mobility for individual travelers that result from a transportation project or policy and are measured in hours of travel time and aggregated over all travelers in a region. The procedures that were applied to estimate the total change in user benefits for all travelers, trip purposes and modes, are based on those developed for the FTA and applied within the travel forecasting model using the FTA Summit software.

The daily user benefits of the Century City/Constellation Option versus the Baseline Alternative is approximately 31,650 hours, about 44 percent of which is attributed to the Home-Based Work peak purpose. The daily new transit trips for the Constellation Option over the Baseline Alternative are approximately 24,600. The detailed user benefits and new transit trips by purpose and by time period are displayed in Table 2-5.




Table 2-5: User benefits by Purpose and Time Period, Baseline Alternative vs. Constellation Option

Transit Trips User Benefits

Baseline Constellation

Option in Minutes

Peak Period

Home Based Work 708,707 719,524 830,831

Home Base University 87,050 87,877 64,771

Home Base Other 267,869 270,230 219,472

Non Home Based 90,151 92,914 181,312

TOTAL PEAK 1,153,777 1,170,545 1,296,386

Off-peak Period

Home Based Work 297,805 301,920 331,290


Home Base Other 213,068 214,447 120,614

Non Home Based 65,358 67,209 124,542

TOTAL OFFPEAK 635,434 643,243 603,016

Daily

Total 1,789,211 1,813,788 1,899,402

Hours of User Benefit 31,657

New Trips 24,577

The daily user benefits of the Century City/Santa Monica Option versus the Baseline Alternative is approximately 27,900 hours, about 42 percent of which is attributed to the Home-Based Work peak purpose. The daily new transit trips for the Santa Monica Option over the Baseline Alternative are approximately 21,700. The detailed user benefits and new transit trips by purpose and by time period are shown in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6: User benefits by Purpose and Time Period, Baseline Alternative vs. Santa Monica Option

Transit Trips User Benefits

Baseline

Santa Monica

Option in Minutes

Peak Period

Home Based Work 708,707 717,928 701,785


Home Base Other 267,869 269,984 196,529

Non Home Based 90,151 92,408 149,087

TOTAL PEAK 1,153,777 1,168,204 1,112,942

Off-peak Period

Home Based Work 297,805 301,680 312,204


Home Base Other 213,068 214,372 114,064

Non Home Based 65,358 66,984 109,507

TOTAL OFFPEAK 635,434 642,704 562,273

Daily

Total 1,789,211 1,810,908 1,675,215

Hours of User Benefit 27,920

New Trips 21,697

Comparing the information in Tables 2-5 and 2-6 and shown in Table 2-7, the Constellation Option has approximately 13 percent more user benefits and new transit trips than the Santa Monica Option




over the Baseline Alternative. This is not only because the Constellation Option has more boardings (4.1%) and project trips (6.3%) than the Santa Monica Option, but also because the average user benefits per trip is higher in the Constellation Option.

Table 2-7: User Benefits and New Trips over the Baseline Alternative, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Santa Monica

Option

Constellation

Option


minus Santa Monica

Option


minus Santa

Monica Option

Pct Diff

Daily User Benefits 27,920 31,657 3,737 13.4%

Daily New Transit Trips 21,697 24,577 2,880 13.3%

Table 2-8 compares the existing and new riders with user benefits over the Baseline between the Santa Monica Option and the Constellation Option. The Constellation Option has slightly fewer existing riders with user benefits than the Santa Monica Option. However, the minutes of user benefits per existing rider is 12.6 percent higher in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option. The Constellation Option has approximately 26,850 new riders, which is 12 percent more than the Santa Monica Option. The minutes of user benefits per new rider in the Constellation Option are about 12 minutes, or 10.5 percent more than the Santa Monica Option. This is mainly because the walk access time from the core of Century City to the subway station is ten minutes less in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option, as discussed in section 1.2.4.

Table 2-8: Daily User Benefits over the Baseline Alternative for Existing and New Riders, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Description

Santa Monica Option


Percentage Difference

Existing Riders

Number of Riders with UB 365,465 365,228 -0.1%

Benefits(hours) 24,702 27,797 12.5% Minutes of User Benefit Per Existing

Rider 4.06 4.57 12.6%

New Riders

Number* 23,982 26,849 12.0%

Benefits(hours) 4,353 5,387 23.8%

Minutes of User Benefit Per New Rider 10.89 12.04 10.5%

Percentage of New Riders of Total Trips with UB 6.2% 6.8% Note: The difference between the number of new riders and the number of new transit trips in Table 2-7 is the lost transit trips (transit trips in the Baseline and shifted to auto trips in LPA)

Please note that the number of new riders in Table 2-8 does not necessarily match the number of new transit trips in Table 2-7. For example, as shown in Table 2-8, the Santa Monica Option has 23,982 new riders, which are 2,285 more than the number of new transit trips (21,697) in Table 2-7. The 2,285 trips are transit trips in the Baseline but shift back to the auto modes in the LPA mainly due to the lower frequency of Route 720 in the LPA than in the Baseline.




To better understand and visualize why the Constellation Option is better; a Summit run comparing the two LPA options was made. As shown in Table 2-9, the Constellation Option has approximately 2,900 new transit trips and 4,100 user benefits over the Santa Monica Option on the daily basis. Please note that the calculation of user-benefits is complicated. The user-benefits of the Constellation Option over the Santa Monica Option is 4,123, which is not simply the difference between the options’ user-benefits over the Baseline (27,920 vs. 31,657 in Table 2-7).

Table 2-9: Daily User Benefits and New Transit Trips, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option

Santa Monica Option Constellation Option

Total Transit Trips 1,810,908 1,813,788

New Trips (Difference) +2,880

Hours of User Benefit (Difference) +4,123

Thematic maps were created as shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3. Figure 2-2 displays the Home-based Work peak trip purpose production end of the trip; and Figure 2-3 displays the attraction end of the trip. For both maps, green indicates where the Constellation Option is better and the red indicates where the Santa Monica Option is better.

The difference between the two options is the location of the Century City Stations. As discussed in section 1.2.4, the walk time between the centroid node of zone 738, the core of Century City business area, and the Century City Station is 3 minutes and 13 minutes in the Constellation Option and the Santa Monica Option, respectively. As shown in Figure 2-2, the zones in the study area and along the fixed-guideway transit lines producing trips to Century City would save 10 minutes of walk time and demonstrate positive user benefits in Green in the production map.

However, not everyone is better off in the Constellation Option. Section 1.2.4 explains that the running time between Wilshire/Rodeo and Westwood/UCLA is half a minute longer in the Constellation Option than in the Santa Monica Option. The passengers taking the Purple Line extension through the segment between Wilshire/Rodeo and Westwood/UCLA would experience a slightly longer ride and their user-benefits will be negative.

In most cases, the overall user-benefits of the zones that produce this kind of longer ride trips could still be positive because the positive user benefits from the trips they generate to Century City is enough to offset the negative user-benefits. This is why most zones in the production map are in green.

For the zones in the west portion of the study area, their overall attracted user-benefits are negative, which is shown in red in Figure 2-3, the attraction map. This is because these zones have many jobs and leisure destinations. They attract many trips from east of Century City and accumulate sizable negative user-benefits by the longer-ride between Rodeo and UCLA. On the other side, these zones attract very few trips from Century City. Therefore, there would be no positive user-benefits to offset the negative ones.




Figure 2-2: User Benefits Distribution, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option, Home-based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Production




Figure 2-3: User Benefits Distribution, Santa Monica Option vs. Constellation Option, Home-based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Attraction

The remaining portion of this section discusses the thematic maps developed by using Summit in the standard manner of comparing the Baseline and Build Alternative. The user benefits pattern of the Baseline Alternative versus the two LPA options is very similar. The user benefits maps for the Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option are included in this section. The maps for the Baseline vs. the Santa Monica Option are included in the Appendix. Two user benefit maps are developed for each trip purpose, one with the benefits at the production (start) end of the trip and one at the attraction end of the trip. In the production maps the benefits are aggregated (and displayed) for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where the trip began and in the attraction map the benefits are aggregated (and displayed) for the TAZ where the trip ended. Given the Home-Based Work trip purpose has the greatest number of user benefits those maps are included to provide some insight as to where the greatest benefits occur. Additionally, maps of the summation of the daily (total) user benefits are provided.

As shown in Figure 2-4, the production zones with user benefits are concentrated in the Westside Corridor and along the urban rail lines (Red Line and North-South Line), BRT (Metro Orange) and Metrolink lines (San Bernardino Line and Riverside Line). Additionally the figure shows the Westside study area is the direct beneficiary of the Purple Line Extension. The project brings user benefits to transit riders using the Purple Line as part of their travel all over the region. The Westside is a job rich area that attracts many work trips from outside the study area, as well as inside the study area. The people working in the Westside and living in areas with walk or bus access to fixed




guideway transit service, including urban rail, commuter rail and BRT can utilize the Purple Line Extension and benefit from savings in travel time.

Figure 2-4: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Home-Based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Productions

Figure 2-5 illustrates the distribution of the Peak Home-Based Work user benefits from the attraction side. The user benefits are highly concentrated in the Westside Corridor, especially around the proposed extension stations. The TAZ attracting the most user benefits encompasses the Century City Station. Century City is an important business center and regarded as the second central business district (CBD) in Los Angeles. Although the number of TAZs colored with benefits attracted to the study area is much less than the number of TAZ with benefits produced, the magnitude of benefits is much greater.

There are several zones in the Santa Monica area with negative user benefits in both the production map and the attraction map. This is because of the more frequent service on the Metro Rapid Bus Route 720 in the Baseline Alternative. Route 720 runs between Santa Monica and Wilshire/Vermont along Wilshire Boulevard. In the Century City/Constellation Option, the peak period headway of Route 720 is five minutes in the westbound direction and ten minutes in the eastbound direction. In the Baseline Alternative, the peak period Route 720 headway is four minutes in both directions. The Purple Line Extension in the LPA options terminates at the Westwood/VA Hospital and does not serve the Santa Monica area. Therefore, the transit service serving Santa Monica is slightly better in the Baseline Alternative than in the LPA options and generates some negative user benefits in that area.




Figure 2-5: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Home-Based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Attractions

Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 show the daily user benefit thematic maps. The pattern on the daily user benefit thematic maps is similar to that of the Home-Based Work peak user benefit thematic maps. The trips produced by the majority of the Westside corridor accumulate a substantial amount of user benefits. Trip production zones with large amounts of user benefits are generally located along the Red Line, North-South Line, East-West Line (Gold Line Eastside portion), Metrolink San Bernardino Line and Metrolink Riverside Line. In the map presenting daily user benefits for the attraction end of the trip, the zones with the largest benefits are located in the Westside Study Area, especially along the proposed Purple Line extension stations at Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Cienega, Wilshire/Rodeo and Century City.




Figure 2-6: User Benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Production




Figure 2-7: User Benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Constellation Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Attraction


3.0 – Phasing of Alternatives


3.0 PHASING OF ALTERNATIVES

Metro is currently looking at two options for constructing the Westside Extension. The LPA could either be

constructed as a single phase or as three consecutive phases. The transit ridership is not projected to differ by 2035 whether the LPA is constructed in a single phase or as three sequential phases. This analysis looks at the ridership for the year 2035 for comparison purposes, however if the extension was constructed in phases, La Cienega would likely open by 2020 and the extension to Century City by 2026.

Table 3-1 presents the daily station boarding for the stations along the LPA. Under the LPA in Phase 3 total boardings will range from approximately 46,000 to 49,300 per day (as shown previously in table 1-5). With the Century City Constellation Station option, higher ridership is estimated to occur as compared to the

Century City Santa Monica Station option. However, what is more interesting is what happens in phasing along the way. For Phase 1 alone, the 2035 total daily station boardings are estimated to be approximately 19,800. With the addition of Phase 2, the 2035 total daily station boardings are estimated to range from 30,000 to 31,700. In addition, Phase 1 and Phase 2 will generate varying levels of boardings at stations and

mode of access patterns during periods when they establish an interim terminus at Wilshire/La Cienega Station and Century City Stations.

Table 3-1: 2035 Daily Station Boardings

Station

Phase 1

to La Cienega

Phase 2 - to

Century City (with

Constellation Option)

Phase 2 - to Century City (with

Santa Monica Option)

Phase 3 - to

Westwood/VA Hospital (with

Constellation Option)

Phase 3 - to

Westwood/VA Hospital (with

Santa Monica Option)

Wilshire/La Brea 3,636 3,774 3,707 4,047 3,954

Wilshire/Fairfax 6,025 5,767 5,742 6,183 6,125

Wilshire/La Cienega 10,120 6,073 5,942 6,530 6,425

Wilshire/Rodeo - 8,057 7,411 4,241 4,436

Centy City Constellation - 8,021 - 8,566 -

Century City Santa Monica - - 7,157 - 5,492

Westwood/UCLA - - - 11,967 11,926

Westwood/VA Hospital - - - 7,807 7,631

Total Stations Boardings 19,781 31,692 29,959 49,341 45,989

Source: Metro Travel Demand Model (CBM 09)

3.1 Phase 1 to Wilshire/La Cienega

Under Phase 1, the LPA will operate to the Wilshire/La Cienega Station. This is a 3.8 mile extension from the Wilshire/Western Station. The total boardings on the three new Purple Line stations are estimated to be approximately 19,800 per day. Since the Wilshire/La Cienega Station will serve as an interim terminus station, it is estimated to have higher daily boardings than under the full LPA – 10,100 daily boardings under

Phase 1 compared to 6,400 to 6,500 daily boardings when the line is built to the Westwood/VA Hospital. It is typical to get an increase in boardings at the end of the line station because riders within the catchment area for the corridor will typically go to the end of the line as their closest station.




3.2 Phase 2 to Century City

Under Phase 2, the LPA will operate to the Century City Station (either Santa Monica or Constellation option). This is an extension of approximately 2.7 miles (depending on which option) from Wilshire/La

Cienega. For Phase 2 of the LPA, the total estimated 2035 daily station boardings are approximately 30,000 to 31,700 or 64-65 percent of the daily boardings on the full LPA to the Westwood/VA Hospital. However, the station with the largest increase in ridership for Phase 2 is the Wilshire/Rodeo Station not the Century City Station. The 2035 daily boardings for the Wilshire/Rodeo Station is approximately 7,400 to 8,100

compared to 4,200 to 4,400 under the full build to the Westwood/VA Hospital Station. This is due to the proximity of the Wilshire/Rodeo to the interim terminus location in Century City and the good bus connections provided to the Wilshire/Rodeo Station via Route 720 along Wilshire Boulevard.

At the Century City Station the boardings range from 7,200 to 8,000 when it is the end of the line compared to 5,500 to 8,600 when the rail extends to the Westwood/VA Hospital. Unlike the other stations, when the Century City Station is at Constellation it gets fewer boardings when it is the end of line than when the rail

terminates at the Westwood/VA Hospital Station.

Table 3-2: 2035 Comparison of Phase 2 and Phase 3 Urban Rail Boardings and Mode of Access for Century City Stations and Wilshire/Rodeo

Station

Phase 3 - to Westwood/VA

Hospital (with Santa Monica

Option)

Phase 2 - to

Century City (with

Santa Monica

Option)

Absolute Difference

(Phase 2 minus

Phase 3)

Percent Difference

(Absolute Divided by

Phase 3)

Phase 3 - to Westwood/VA

Hospital (with Constellation

Option)

Phase 2 - to Century City

(with Constellation

Option)

Absolute Difference

(Phase 2 minus

Phase 3)

Percent Difference

(Absolute Divided by

Phase 3)

Century City Urban Rail Boardings 5,492 7,157 1,665 30.3% 8,566 8,021 -545 -6.4%

Century City Walk Access 1,834 1,606 (228) -12.4% 6,736 5,863 (873) -13.0%

Century City Bus Access 2,884 4,527 1,643 57.0% 957 1,266 309 32.3%

Century City Walk Plus Bus Access 4,718 6,133 1,415 30.0% 7,693 7,129 -564 -7.3%

Wilshire/Rodeo Urban Rail Boardings 4,436 7,411 2,975 67.1% 4,241 8,057 3,816 90.0%

Wilshire/Rodeo Walk Access 3,786 3,279 (507) -13.4% 3,436 3,017 (419) -12.2%

Wilshire/Rodeo Bus Access 247 3,118 2,871 1162.3% 322 3,763 3,441 1068.6%

Wilshire/Rodeo Walk Plus Bus Access 4,033 6,397 2,364 58.6% 3,758 6,780 3,022 80.4%

Source: Metro Travel Demand Model (CBM 09)

To further assess what is occurring at the Wilshire/Rodeo Station and the Century City Stations Table 3-2 displays mode of access information and a comparison between the Phase 2 and Phase 3 station boardings. The daily boardings at the Century City Station for both the Santa Monica and Constellation options are shown in Table 3-2, in the Santa Monica option the Phase 3 boardings are almost 5,500 versus about 7,200

in Phase 2. This increased ridership in Phase 2 can best be explained by looking at the mode of access in Table 3-2. At this station location there are slightly fewer (about 200) walk access boardings in Phase 2 versus Phase 3 however, there is large increase (1,600) in bus access boardings in Phase 2 over Phase 3.

The increases in bus access more than off-sets the loss in walk access providing 30 percent more boardings in Phase 2 than Phase 3. An increase in bus access trips is logical and typical at the end of the line, which is the case in Phase 2.




Under the Constellation option the Phase 3 boardings are 8,600 versus 8,000 under Phase 2, although there is a slight increase (about 300) in bus access trips in Phase 2 over Phase 3, there is a greater (almost 900)

decrease in walk access trips. The same trend (as at the Santa Monica option) of loss in walk access and gain in bus access occurs at the Constellation location between Phase 2 and Phase 3. But the difference in the Constellation option is the magnitude of change and the magnitude of walk access versus bus access at that location, resulting in a decline of approximately six percent in boardings in Phase 2 versus Phase 3. The

location of the station at Constellation provides for a much easier walk to high density designations in the Century City area and a much longer walk to one of the main routes in that area, Route 704 on Santa Monica Boulevard. Which means for trips coming from or going to the west in Phase 2 are at a disadvantage under the Constellation option.

Also, in Table 3-2 is the mode of access and boardings for Wilshire/Rodeo station under Phase 2 and Phase 3 for the station alignments for Century City. The big change in boardings at this station as mentioned previously is the large influx in bus access when Century City is the end of the line. Not only do the boarding

increase significantly under both options but the increase is in bus access.


Appendix

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T March, 2012 Page A-1

Appendix A USER BENEFITS MAPS FOR BASELINE VS. THE CENTURY CITY/SANTA MONICA OPTION

Figure A-1: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Santa Monica Option, Home-Based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Productions


Appendix


Figure A-2: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Santa Monica Option, Home-Based Work Peak Purpose, for Trip Attractions


Appendix


Figure A-3: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Santa Monica Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Productions


Appendix


Figure A-4: User benefits Distribution, Baseline Alternative vs. the Santa Monica Option, Daily All Purposes, for Trip Attractions

Documents

Westside Purple Line Extension Final Supplemental ......The evaluation of the three alternative station locations was conducted by: Fehr & Peers to identify “walksheds,” which