1922 Los Angeles Plan

8/20/2019 1922 Los Angeles Plan

1/14

.;2 .::J ..352-/ .z < 0

U B i i R Y U S EO N L Y

I

\I I - ,I' 11

t \ ,t . ~I\ , ',','"

\

'~ . • . . . \

J : ~"

Ii ,

{ , I II1

I. t , I,I,

1, j

"

'I

\

I'I

\ 1

II'I

r , ::::- . . . . ,(

- L

~"\'

,

I : -;

I i) (l

\ ; \ \

The y-os Angeles Plan- - - - - - .

A Selected Traffic Program

bi1comPiled by

The Los Angeles Traffic Commis~ion

I December, 1922

I

I

Ic.=~==.=.-=_~~ I


2/14

r I .

Dedication

THIS REPORT of the Los An-geles Tr affic Commission is re-

spectfully d edicated to the Hon-

or a ble, the Mayor and the City Councilof Los Angeles, with the ho pe that it

may pr o ve h elpful in the solution of

the tr aff ic pr oblems of this city:

HON. GEOR GE E. CRYER , Mayor

HON. RALPH E. CR ISWELL,Pr esid ent , Cit}1 Council

R . M. ALLANO. C. CONAWAYF. C. LANGDONVVALTER MALLARD

VV. C. MUSHETVV. J . SANBORNR. S. SPAR KS

F. C. VVHEELER

ROBERT M. DOMINGUEZ,

City C ier I?

DAVID CARROL.

Minute Cier I ?

~~1 ••--------lll\lll'/=o=e=;;;,~,..I"«l~~J>=". ~;;; o. ..wrE==========================

ll \ et \ ll (~i\\e~\s l\I ,\

. , . . c f t \ C 1 - ' rPO'Ir\O'ri Ori g in Objects of the Los

Commission

Angelesand

Traffic

THE LOS ANGELES Traffic Commission was c reated to f ill the pr essing need of an or ganization to solve the const an tl y i ncr easingtr affic congestion pro blems of the City of Los Angeles.

H. Z. Os bor ne , Jr ., Chief Engineer of the Board of Pu blic Utilities, was

dir ected by the Board of Public Utilities to mak e a compr ehensive sur veyI and r e por t on the sub ject of tr affic congestion and d etailed metho ds o f relief .

The pr eliminary r eport on this subject was ad opted by the _ Boar oJ. PublicU-.ill.i.t.if .LQ.!1..I2~~mhe.r )2th, 19211. an _ cL.su12§.!:9~entlyJ?y the Honorable City

Council on Januar y 4th, 1922. In this r eport it was recommend ed that therepre"sentatives-of -tne"val'ious civic and industrial or ganizations work ing on

this pr oblem, should be called into a con f erence to secur e the benefit of the

work 'of each, and at the same time, to avoid d u plication of the work and to adjust conflicting rec ommend ations bef ore they were finally presented tothe Honor a ble City Council f or ad option. Suhseq uently, a confer ence washeld of r e pr esentatives of those organizations of Los Angeles who had mani-fested a sincer e inter est in the solution of the gr ave traffic prciblems confront- Iing the City

---- _ _ Dur ing this conf er ence, the Los Angeles Tr affic Commission was for -

mally or ganized . .

DEDICATED TO PUBLIC SERVICE

The Los Angeles Tr aff ic Commission is f ound ed on an ideal, is unsel-

fishly dedicated to public ser vic e, and is uniq ue in its or ganization and mem-hership. It is d ed icated to the solution of tr aff ic pro blems , c oo perating to the

f ullest extent with the City Planning Commission and other public hod ies,and yet occupying a position which, in many cases, cannot be filled by anyof them.

~"' .. PUbli~ ?ff icials ar e, by the v er y nature of their of f ice, pr ohi bited f r omhe 111 g' p artIcIpants. They must act in a judicial capacity and it is not appr o-

priate f or them to tak e sid es for or against pu blic im pr ovements wher e there

ar e conflicting inter ests and divid ed pu blic opinion. City of ficials by reasonof the position the y o ccu py, are ethically pr ohi bited fr om initiating such

•....."l1't&'lsures. . '.

. The Tr af fic Commission can f unction as a huf fer between the puhlic and the author ities. The Tr af f ic C om mission can actively advocate need ed pub-

lic im provements. cir culate petitions. secure deeds f or str eets, soli ci t f und s. in accor dance with the directions of the Honorable City Council for main-

tenance. of the organization. secure agreements o f pr op er ty o wn er s and

aggressnoeljl advocate all measures iJ~the interest o f public welfar e , 1001?ingtoward t he r elief of traffic congestion in t he ci ty of Los A ngeles , and its

-1,1-n:mediat evicinit : y.

~ . _ 3


3/14

THE LOS ANGELES PLAN is not or iginal wi th t he Tr af f ic Commiss-

ion. Cre.d it f or w!lat~v.er vir tue may attach t? i t r ests entir ely with t.heor gamzatlOns and Jl1chvld uals who h av e contnbuted so generously wIth

their suggestions as to impr ovements that would assist i n b r inging a bout much

need ed tr af fic r elief . l' The Automo bile Clu b of Southern Calif ornia has furnished in their

re port on tr af fic pro blems the basis f or the major str eet plan which is sug-

gested . The Traff ic Commission consider s this re port of t he Automobile ,Club one of the gr eatest civic contributions ever mad e to the City of Los !

Angeles- a noteworthy d emonstr ation of unselfish ser vice, not only to the \notoring pu blic, but to the community at large.

The Honor able Mayor and members of the Honor a ble City Council.

the Boar d of Public Wor ks, the City Planning Commission, the Board of Public Utilities, the Police and Fir e De partment, the County Board of Sv per-

visor s and many other s of the City and County government have extend ed , intheir official ca pacity, invalua ble assistance in f ostering the work of t he LosAngeles Tr affic Commission and making this presentation possible.

To the Los Angeles Chamber o f Commer ce, through the enlightened ad vic e of its able Pr esident, Ca ptain John D. Fr ed ericks, and its able and ind ef atiga ble Secr etar y, Fr ank Wiggins, and to the equally potent forces f or the advancement of pu blic welfar e-the Los Angeles "Times," "Examiner.""Herald," "Expr ess" and "Record"-to the C;:ommunity Development AS119-ciati.9-t:i-the Los Angeles Traffic Commission ~SheS t6- i 'nscribe as a matter " O f public r ecor d, its ,a ppreciation of the work r end er ed to ena ble the develop-

ment of the Los Angeles Plan.

ALL HAVE CO-OPERATED

Mr . Jess E. Stephens and Milton Br yan, City Attorney and Deputy City

Attorney, r espectively, have been in sym pathy with the aims of the Commis-

sion and have contr ibuted gener ously of their time and advice in helpingsolve its pr oblems.

Ma jor J . A. Grif f in, City Engineer , and his a ble assistant, Mr - John R .Pr ince, have instituted a number of meritorious projects which are included in this r e por t. Mr . G. Gord on Whitnall, Director , an d Mr . W. H. Pier ce,

Past Presid ent of the City Planning Commission, have contributed manyvaluable suggestions. The co-o pera ti on o f the City Planning Commission,as a whole, is her ewith gratefully acknowled ged. Acknowledgement is also

mad e to Su pervisor McClellan, Councilman Allan, i n t he ir r e presentative

char acter, as mem ber s of the R egional Planning Conf er ence and to the work

,of this Conference for many valua ble suggestions.Much in f ormation was o btained thr ough the sessions held by the Los

Angeles Tr aff ic Commission with the Board of Public Work s. Messr s.Chas. H. Treat, Hugh McGuir e and E. J . Delor ey, together with Gen-

er al Schreiber. f ur nished a fund of nractical information that has beenincor por ated in the recommendations th~t f ollow. .

Space does not per mit ack nowledgment of. all the assistance r end er ed,

'4

\

~l\l

\

I{ '-y. •

1

. t d sincer e t hanks to the r e pre· but the Tr affic Commission also wlshe~ to .ex en . the Los Angele~

. f h t five orgal1lzatlons composl11gsentatlves 0 t e seven y- . other part of this r eport anc

Traffic Comx,nission, whose na~es aP~~~~l ~e~r y of their time and thought:-to the followl11g gentlemen W~10 av~ g uis Whitehead, Perr ;

Standish Mitchell, DaVId Fanes, Ivan Kels~~o C J Shults E. G

Thomas, R . W. Stewart, Howard R o bertson, f e ' Hor~~:'Fe'rr i's, A. L: K ingEvans, E. F. Struble, S. R . Searl, J. H. ~:r\-I;~mas Murchison, David Car

Walter Leed s, J. P . K enned y, ;H.\t~A

-hIe Car l V. King, John R ock r oll, Joseph Hopper , J. S. Meyers, : . l~es!e'r Weaver , C. H. Eu bank hold , Alfred Jones, Maynar d McFle, SSYA J bb D J Mac pher son, Zac'J. Challen Smith, Geor ge E. Pr eston, . . u , . .

Farmer.

M AKE no little plans;

they have no magic to

stir men's blood and prob-'

ably themselves will not be

realized.

Make big plans; aim high

in hope and work, reme'm-

bering that a noble logical

diagram once recorded will

never die, but long after we

are gone will be a living

thing, asserting itself with

ever-growing insistency.

-Daniel 'H. Burnham,

Father of the

"ChicagoPlan."


4/14

Traffic Problems of Los Angeles

Their Solution

T os A NGELES today is the wonder city of the world. It is a city. l . . . . . 4 of splendid industrial structures and beautiful homes. It i s the

ca pital of the film wor ld , and as such is the best advertised cityon earth. It has more automobiles per capita than any other large cityin America. Growth and development will continue with unceasing

persistency.

However, in our rejoicing over present and prom,ised future great-ness we must not lose sight of a few obstacles which must be overcome. \vVe must not ignore the fact that LOS ANGELES IS A CITY OF NARR OW STREETS, NARROW SIDEWALKS A ND DA NGER-OUS GRADE CROSSI NGS.

LACK OF STREET AREA CAUSE OF CONGESTION

The r~sult of this insufficiency of traffic arteries is traffic conges-tion. This is apparent to the most casual obser ver and results ar e mani-fested almost d aily through the d e plorable loss of life and limb. Theappalling list of fatalities that has placed Los Angeles at the head of all cities for its traffic dangers is too well known to call for comment.

From a pur ely monetary standpoint traffic congestion is exactinga terrific toll in loss of time and money from the citizenry of Los An-geles. The Automobile Club of Southern California has stated that theover crowded condition of our thoroughfar es is causing Los Angelescitizens an economic loss of $12,000 daily, or more than $4,000,000 ayear . All of u s help pay the bill-the street car rider, motorist, pedes-trian and ·the merchant.

This economic loss is not limited to the loss of time resulting from Icongestion. Property values ar e made unstable through the aimless I "

shifting of business center s .. In time, if the question remains unsolved ,financier s, who through their confidence in the future of this city in-vested tremendous fortunes in business structures, will hesitate in mak~ing additional investments and look to a field where their investments!will not be jeopardized by an uncertain and shifting business center .

All authorities agree that the congestion is primarily caused by '\insufficient str eet ar ea. This is r eadily apparent when f igures are con-sulted and Los Angeles is shown to have the smallest percentage of str eet ar ea of any of the large cities of America. Present congestion Iwill continue to be aggr avated by a steadily incr easing population, the Iextensiveness of which it is well to reflect upon. Conservative esti-Jmates, based upon d e pendable statistical data, indicate a population of a million by 1930 and a million and a half by 1940. These f igures arenot flights of fancy, and should suggest the ur gency of pr oviding d efiniteaction and that f orthwith.

Only a negligible degr ee of r elief will be f or thcoming thr ough fu-

,G

ture tr affic regulation. In r ecent years consid er a ble im provement re-sulted from time to time as meritorious suggestions wer e mad e and putinto practice. However , we have now r eached the point wher e newregulations may afford some measure of relief , but this r elief will only

be of a tempor ary nature. Let us emphasize-the day of r eckoning has \arrived and the only logical and permanent r elief must come f r om in-creased street area.

NEED OF CITY-WIDE COORDINATED STREET PROGRAM

Conceding the necessity of increased str eet ar ea, obviously a well-defined and compr ehensive program of street opening and wideningshould precede all other consideration. The entire city must be em-

braced in a coordinated system of well d efined arteries. A haphazard opening and widening of thoroug(hfares will aggravate' conditions,

rather than help. them. In almost any section of Los Angeles will befound glaring examples of roads that started bravely for somewhereonly to end tamely in someone's back yard . A narrow "neighborhood policy" based upon selfish sectional advancement will fail to accomplishnecessary results. Per sonal desires of the few must give way to the planwhich offers greatest benefit to the city as a whole.

Such a plan is presented in the pages thatfoJ:ow. As pr eviously stated,

it is not original with the Traffic Commiss·on. It i s simply the r esult of co-ordination of many existing plans, but it is a good plan. a safe plan and a

plan that deserves the support of ever y civic or ~anization and of the entir eforward-looking citizenship of this city. If this p'an seems too extensive,too radical-remember the words of Daniel H. Burnham, father of theChicago Plan: "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's

blood and. probably themselves will not be realized . Make big plans;aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagramonce recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a livingthing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency."

SUCCESS DEPENDS UPON AWAKENING OF PUBLIC MIND

The average citizen is not far-sighted and unless convinced of theseverity of conditions which conf ront him will not be deeply concerned with

traffic plans. Unless the public has a complete und er standing of the projectswhich will solve the city's needs as a whole, single projects will inevitably fail,as they have failed in the past. Constructive projects will continue to be"protested out" by local interests quite regardless of the benefits accruingfrom them to the city as a whole.

Immediately after this "Los Angeles Plan" is presented and r eceives theendors~ment of the proper city officials and civic organizations, a campaignshould be inaugurated of sufficient intensity and duration to convince the pub-lic mind that the intend ed plans are for the public g-ood . Misappr ehensionmust be supplanted with comprehension. The particular tactics to pursue in br inging- about the necessary awakening of the public mind is a matter of future consideration and d etails of this plan will be later consid er ed . The

whole-hearted support of the public is necessar y, and this su p port will be forthcoming once the picture of the Gr eater Los Angeles is firmlyimplanted in the mind s of the people. All who have mad e a stud y of

existing conditions ar e thor oughly convinced of the need of action on a

7


5/14

~ ' 01 • •--40'¢. cr;ll~

& '1 '08 . ( i \ ) . S ·, e( \& ' ~ \, , \i\\e .

"'" ~&~\ \&'" There are grounds for ho pe that the next State LegIslatur e may also pro-f iI t t lO " , c J .' ~'1(\(}. vide legal machiner y whereby excess proceedings may also be instituted. If

this is done the net cost of condemnation proceedings may be somewhatreduced . The benefits accruing und er the operation of such a law, if passed ,will of cour se be valuable to the carr ying on of the program advocated .

THERE IS NO QUESTION, HOWEVER , THAT THE IM-MEDIATE A ND PRESSING NEED OF THE PRESENT SITUA-TION 1S A BOND ISSUE COVERING A DEFINITE AND SPECIFICPROGRAM. SUCH A PROCEEDING IS LEGAL AND IT IS THEONLY METHOD THAT WILL GUAR A NTEE THE NECESSAR YIMPETUS TO A COMPR EHE NSIVE PROGR AM OF STREETOPENING AND WIDENING.

PUBLIC NEEDS MUST GOVERN PRIORITY OF PROJECTS

In the Los Angeles Plan are included projects of varying degrees of urgency. The selection of the proper projects to be given precedure will bea matter that must be governed solely on the mer its as to which offer s thegreatest immediate public benefits. Selection and the ord er of carrying outthese projects is a matter of dee p concern and should be handled by a pr o per-ly and carefully selected representative group of citizens who would beactuated solely from the standpoint of public needs.

com pr ehensive scale. It is equally certain that the public will shar ethese vie\vs if the pr o blems ar e pr o per'ly and for cefully pr esented tothem. .

DISTRIBUTE COST EQUITABLY; BOND ISSUE ADVOCATED

The. necess.ity of a wides pread under stand ing of a broad program becomes ll~cr easlI1gly~ ppar ent when the financial angles of street opening

and wld .e11lngar e conSIdered . Ther e is evid ent a growing public convictionth.at l~aJor street development costs should be cared for by an equitable dis-tnbutlOn of . the costs between abutting property owner s and the city as awhole. In thISstand ther e is obvious justice and it is our conviction that wherethe city as a whole is benef ited largely by the improvement, the cityas ~ whole should stand a reasonable part of the cost. Many improvement

projects would have been accomplished in the past had the proper financiallI1ducements been pr esented to property owners affected .

R ecognition that the public is in sympathy with the id ea of the people iat large beanng part of the expense of major improvements is f urnished bythe r ecent electIon when the voters approved the measure provid .ing that sixcent~ o.f each $1.25 of tax levy should be set aside to provide for permanent

pubhc Im provements. The f und accruing from this source will be very help-f ul, but, of course, entirely inad equate to provid e means for major improve-ment on the large scale necessar y. Estimates of revenues to be derived fromthis six-cent fund indicate that only from four to six hundred thousand dol-lar s will be availa ble yearly, and moreover , there is no assurance that this sum,,:ill be s pent in str eet opening and widening. The amendment simply pro-VId es that the sum will be set asid e for permanent public improvements.

Suggestions have been made that the City permit f unds to accumulatefrom year to year , uncler the six-cent amendment. until such time as a suffic-ient amount of money is at hand to insur e the City's participation is a great

program. Unquestionably postponement would be result in the cost of the projects being incr eased to a point beyond the amount accumulated . Itmust be borne in mind that each succeeding year will find cond emnation proceed ings more costly through increased realty values and new structur eswill mak e the phy'sica1accomplishment of the work more complicated. Thecity of Chicago is today pr oceeding on an improvement program costing$50,000,000, which might have been accomplished f or $5,000,000, had the

proper foresight been exercised and support of the public forthcoming.Against the available sl1m derived from the six-cent amendment many

improvements present themselves of a most pressing character in which theCity should share the expense to the extent of several million dollars. NorthBroadway. Macy str eet, East Seventh, South Main and West Eighth call tomind any number of pr o jects the worthiness and urgency of which cannot

be questioned. Ex perience has shown that they cannot be accomplished with-out partici pation of the whole city in their costs.

~he six-cent amendment will be a wonderful hel p in the carr ying outof thIS large program of urgently need ed Jevelopment. Pror ierly adminis-ter ed , it will make finances immediately available in ad vance of the slow pr ocesses of o pening and wickning pr oceed ings. It i s a start in the rio-htdirection. . . b.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Traffic Commission recommends as a logical order of procedur eto insure the realization of the Los Angeles Plan the following program:

FIRST. P,'oceed imwt ediat elJ I to the appoint ment of a r epr esentat ivecommitt ee f or t he selection of a s pecific program from the projects out lined in the Los Angeles P lan.

SECOND. Embark at O1' lceon an intensi' ve campaign to acquaint thecity as a whole with the f' ict ur e of the Gr eater Los Angeles g' iven by the

Los Angeles Plan.THIRD. On select ion o f a program , let the Los Angeles Traffic Com-

1nission r esolve it self into a ,nilitant group pledged to employ ever y legiti-1nate means to the carr y' ing out of whatez' er bond issue ma y be necessar y t ocover the cit y's cost in the program , select ed .

CHALLENGE OF THE PAST AND FUTURE

It is granted that the selection of a program and the carr ying of a bond issue both entail large demands in the way of effort. Surely, however, notask could off er larger r eward s for the individuals and organizations thatdedicate themselves to its successful conclusion. It is not too much to saythat the onward march of Los Angeles towards its place of d estiny will bemade immeasureably slower unless a solution is f ound for the traffic problem,

The problem is a task of enlightment only. The spirit of Los Angeleswhich dictated such tremendous ex penditur es as have been made for the ac-queduct, our harbor, will never falter in carr ying out the Los Angeles Plan,once its vital need is understood. The past and the futur e both challenge usto immediate. a,ction in this gr eat undertaking.


6/14

i " 1 ', p lI, Ii:

/ 2-, I,,~:;~ 1

• I I j ~ J

Bridges, Viaducts and Subways

SEPARATION OF GRADES AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS AT

THE LOS ANGELES RIVER

FOR SOME YEAR S it has been gener ally admitted by all inter ested

parties that viaducts must be built acr oss the L os Angeles river , and ithas been hoped that an ear ly d etermination of the whole gr ade crossing

situation would be finally ar r ived at, when the California Railr oad Commis-sion mad e its d ecision in the Union Terminal case. This decision, however has been attack ed in the courts, and it is im possible at this time to f or ecastthe r esults of the attack , or the time that will be consumed, before final d eci-sion of the cour t. Meanwhile the necessity incr eases daily for the use of

some, at least, of those viad ucts.

The question involved in the viad uct situation is top of r ail level of therail lines on each side of the r iver, which, when esta blished, will d eterminef loor line of the viaducts at all such points, and an agreement as t o the man-ner of bringing a bou t t his se par ation, which involves the limits of the f ir stand f utur e ste ps of this pr o blem.

The depr ession o f these track s along the r iver has been conced ed as fea-sible and desir able, and in fact, ever y gr a de cr ossing plan so far su bmitted

by the r ail lines, as well as other s, has been predicated on the d epr ession of

these track s.

This Commission believes that in view of the a bove, the city should end eavor to pr oceed with the viaduct plan, irr espective of the litigation over the Califor nia Railroad Commission's Union Terminal d ecision, along suchline s a s will per mit of an early solution of the river cr ossing problemwithout compr omising the Califor nia Railr oad Commission's Union Terminald ecision.

GRADE SURVEY RECOMMENDED

With this end in view the Lo s Angeles Traffic Commission recommend sthat the inter ested partie s a gr ee upon the gr ad e line fixed by the CaliforniaRailr oad Commission, yielding a r ailway that will fit in with the Union Ter-minal plan, as set out in the Califor nia Railr oad Commission's d ecisionadmitting of connections and ser vice to industr ies and other railr oad f acilitiesalong the Los Angeles r iver , fr ee of gr ad e cr ossing with main highways.

This sur vey should also r esult in an agr eement as to the manner of br inging a bout this gr ade se par ation, which involves the limit s o f the firstand futur e steps of the problem, together with an agr eement concerning the just apportionment of expense for the constnl'.~tion of the viad ucts.

Viad ucts acr oss the Los Angeles r iver should provide for str eet car sauto s a nd ped estr ians; should have the shortest possible a ppr oaches, com- jmensurate with grad e of from three per cent to four and one-half per cent, but not gr eater than the latter , and should be constructed on Ninth street,

11


7/14

Sev.enth str eet, FO~lrth str eet, Second str eet, Fir st street, Macy str eet, Northl\lalll street, and cllagonally acr oss the river fo r t he extension of San Pedr ostreet and San Fernando r oad. It is fur ther recommended that such of thesevIaducts as will . best fit in wit~ the f ir st construction progr am selected f r omthIS r eport, be mc!ud ed the r em, and the bond issue made lar ge enough to

cover the constructIon of same.

SEPARATION OF GRADES AT MAIN THOROUGHFARE

INTERSECTIONS. The L?s Angeles r iver viad uct~, however , are only one part of the pr ObOlem. .Stuc!I:s shoul~l l~e m.ade and l?lans drawn. for ~he .separatio?


8/14

Recommend ation is made as part of the 1923 program, looking toward tr aff ic congestion r elief :-

1st: That the pr oposed permanent wid th of streets constituting theLos Angeles Plan be immediately determined .

2nd. That set- back lines for the streets, composing the Los AngelesPlan be established by ordinance, or by volul)tar y agreement of the propertyowner s wher e such or d inance is not possible.

3r cl. That set- back lines be establi?hed throughout the city to agr ee withwell-k nown and po pularly f ixed lines, established ·' by d eed i n most of thesubd ivisions thronghout the City of Los Angeles.

Will We Tolerate Conditions WhichElicit Such Harmful Publicity?

Undcr the capt io n o f " D ol lbt f ul Dist inct ion," t he Engineering News-

Rr conl o f N ovclIl.be r 9th , made the following cdit oria l co m.menl:

O NE item in t he census statistics of motor deaths stand soU,t as a confirn)C~tion in figures of .w.hat anyone .1~ay o b-serve 111per son. H IS the common op1l11Onof all vIsitor s to JLos Angeles that that busy city is the worst congested inAmerica, and ther e is an unsurpassed disr egard ther e of t!1e.•

"'--a.ccepted rules of tr affiF' R esid ents of the city rather resentthis cr iticism; they possibly consider the cause of it only an-other evid ence of the live C jualities of the town.

What r eckless driving in cr owded streets means they may

see when they r ead that in Los Angeles in 1921 the death ratefrom automobiles per 100,000 was 27.9; in 1920,27.1, and in1919,24.1, as against an average in 1921 of 11.5 for the United States, 20.3 in Chicago, 18.8 in Manhattan, and about 15 for an average of all the large cities.

Los Angeles has the d oubtful distinction of killing mor eof .its citizens and visitor s with automobiles than any other city in the countr y. A walk or ride through its str eets would lead one to ex pect just this, but now the figur es ar e her e toconfirm it possi bly the city authorities will tak e some drasticaction to su p plement the eff orts the city engineer is taking toguid e tr aff ic on to safer routes.


9/14

Planowne

3well-1

su bdi

•• ~ ' m ±U

-

:,

I I·0

t -

o

0

Rf

Ii =1

c (

:,~.

lsl

0 :If - .

Ar

: P : i ' 1 -

211 0

"

bf

,

...

,

r s

- t- +H

f(

< :n

0

- 0

VI~

-

-

..

0

0

.0

,

, I

- 00

c

0

-0

I

0

0 r 0

0

0

..

1I

0

0

f > .

.,

0

-

..

0

. 0 -

;

- 0

:

,

'i j 1'1

II - I8 IB

0

,

s

L A

" a(

- t i =

ot


10/14

Brief of Projects Embodied

in the Los Angeles Plan

THE FOLLO\:,TI NG is a ser .ial. list of t he projects recommended by the

Los Angeles fraff i c CommIss Io n as co mp ri si ng a co mp rehens iv e and

cor related progr am of stre et opening, widening and impr ovement, as

shown on the map attached hereto.

Our pr esen t "pi on eer p at hs," called street s, are p ai nful ly i nad eq uat e t o

pern~l: f r ee ~move men t of t he vo!ul\le ?f traffic which the growth of the Cityrequll es .. 1


11/14

HOOVER STREET:Open and widen f r om Sunset boulevard , to Exposition boulevar d

and FIguer oa str eet.Hoover is a d iagonal thor oughf ar e which might be compar ed to

Mark et str eet in San Fr ancisco. It is recommend ed that this street bed esign.ated as a main north and south tr unk thor oughf ar e, and that a set- back Ime of 150 feet be established from Sunset boulevard to Exposition boulevard , and that the sa me I SO-foot set-back be continued onFiguer oa street to the south city limits.

NORMANDIE AVENUE:O pen and wid en, f rom Los Feliz boulevar d to the south city limits.

WILSHIRE BOULEVARD:O pen, wid.en, and im pr ove, as per plans o.f the Communit y Develop-

I \.it- . mF.entASSOCiatIOn, easterly v ia Westlake Par k and Orange str eet toi i \ . ';;e Igueroa str eet.

24. EXPOSITION PARK BOULEVARD:/ -I\"Jf _(? pen, widen, a nd i m prov.e, .as cross-town thoroughfar e fr om

1,!g:JllI}!f i\astr eet to west CIty IllTI1ts.

SANTA BARBARA AVENUE:O pen, ,:"iden, an d i m pr ove on both sides, and parallel to the Los

Angeles . R ~~lway tr ack s f r om Mesa d rive easterly to Grif f ith avenue,thence vIa I hlr ty-seventh street to Santa Fe avenue.

BROADWAY:Extend by opening south to a junction with Moneta, with change of

name f r om Moneta to Br oad way.

CENTRAL AVENUE:O pen, wid en, and impr ove, f r om Jeffer son, northerly to Tenth and

Main streets.

Alhambr a avenue, and impr ove souther ly vIa Soto street, to SanAntonio street.

20. SLAUSON AVENUE:Widen and im pr ove, from Pacific boulevar d , westerly SIX miles to

Redondo boulevard .

32. HILL STREET:Extend and improve, souther ly, fr om Washington street to Thirty·

eighth str eet.

33. FLOWER STREET:Open a nd wid en, f rom Vvashington str eet to Figueroa street at

Thir ty-eighth str eet.

34. THIRD STREET:O pen, wid en, and straighten, cutting thr ough pr ivate property, from

Fr emont str eet to Vermont avenue. Tak e out jogs at Boylston streetand Figueroa street.

35. HIGHLAND AVENUE:Open and wid en, f rom Sunset boulevard to the south city limits.

36. RAMPART BOULEVARD:Wid en and improve, f r om Sunset boulevard to Temple str eet.

37. ALVARADO STREET:Open, widen, an d I m pr ove, fr om Glend ale boulevard to Hoover

str eet.

38. CHILDS AVENUE:Im pr ove fr om Sunset bOllleva rd northerly to a connection with

River side drive in Griffith Par k .39. RIVERSIDE DRIVE:

Open, wid en, and imp;'ove, nor therly from Dayton avenue to Bur - bank , with connection to Dark Canyon r oad.

40. SILVER LAKE BOULEVARD:O pen, wid en, and impr ove, as may be r eq uir ed , f or a n ew shor t line

thor oughf are from Glassell str eet, crossing Verdugo r oad , Glend aleavenue, via Fletcher and Glor ietta str eets, cr ossing R iver side d r ive, skirt-ing Silver Lak e, viaduct und er Sunset boulevard at Eliza str eet t o a con-nection with Beverly boulevard , east of Vermont.

41. REDE.SDALE AVENUE:Extend southerly along the west bank of Silver Lak e to the pro-

posed Silver Lak e boulevar d - pro ject num ber 40.

42. SCHUTZEN PARK ROAD:Open and im pr ove, fr om Rosehill station at Armour str eet to Mon-ter ey road.

43. LORENA STREET:Im pr ove fr om Brooklyn avenue at Ind iana street to Downey road.

44. FREMONT STREET:Open and im pr ove, thr ough pr ivate proper ty, fr om Sixth str eet south

to Fr ancisco str eet, then wid en and im prove, Fr ancisco to Tenth street.

45. SEPULVEDA CANYON ROAD:Fr ?m .Sawtelle via Sepulved a Canyon through the Santa Monica

mount~ms to Ventura boulevard o pposite Van Nuys. R ight-of -way to be su b ject to approval by Los Angeles City Water De partment.

19

28. SOUTH PARK AVENUE:

O pen. wid en and im pr ove, souther ly f r om its p r or iosed junction withLos Angeles str eet to Canal str eet, vVilmington.

EAST ADAMS STREET:O pen, wid en, and improve, fr om

Antonio str eet and the Downey r oad.railr oad cr ossings.

30. DOWNEY ROAD:O pen, and impr ove, nor ther ly to connect with the proposed East

Ninth str eet.

Main str eet to connect with SanViad ucts over , or su bways und er ,

31. LOS ANGELES STREET:Extend southerly thr ough private pr o per ty to Woodlawn at Thirty"

seventh str eet. .

18


12/14

tided b . , _ \ _ be ~r~ S code'"

. • • . \ 5 tl\a\er\a "'''=(1~5i,\r::e=-t7===========================

~\e'£' 'I' vr iai\' laW

\ eOO 3rd . That set-back lines be established throughout the city to agreePasa- \ with the well-known and popular ly f ixed building lines, as established b.y

I deed in most of the subdivisions throughout the City of Los Angeles.\ and that new construction be prohibited outside of the intersection of

side of channel from San \ the projected building lines of the two streets.

\ 53. PARALLEL BOULEVARDS:,

The cosmopolitan meaning of the word, "boulevard " is a wide street )

divided by a planting space, being in effect a double track thoroughfare, , I

with one-way traffic on either side. .'~/TWO PARALLEL STREETS, each designated for one-way

traffic, in opposite directions, would be equivalent to such a boulevard.REALIZATIO N OF THE WIDE BOULEVARD, no matter how

desirable, involves consent of property owner s, large appropriations, and , ·V ·even when successful, long construction delays in time before the publiccan come into full use of the benefits.

COMPLETE USE OF PAIRS OF PAR ALLEL STREETS can be secured at once, by legal regulation, without cost for construction \/work .

ARROYO SECO PARK WAY:Construct d ouble road s, one on either sid e of channel from

dena to the Los Angeles river parkway.

LOS ANGELES RIVER PARKW AY:Construct double road s, one on either

Fernando Valley to Long Beach.Through the industrial district these r oads should pass under all

r ailway and highway bridges with ramp connections to intersecting

east and west thoroughfares.Wher e levees exist the r oad should be on top of the levee. This

r ecommendation subject to overcoming of possible engineering problemsin connection therewith.

CHAVEZ RAVINE: Northerly by tunnels, etc., from Figueroa street to River side drive.

GRAND AVENUE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:A general plan of opening and widening should be work ed out for

the entir e district south of Pico street between Main and Figueroa streets,to avoid a shoe string business development which will be ver y unprofit-able to r eal estate values, and und esirable from a traffic movement standpoint.

ALLEYS-IN CONGESTED DISTRICT:Open, widen, through the center of all block s in the business district.

The Commission is of the opinion that, in the face of the growingcongestion, it will not be long befor e all merchandise deliveries acrosssidewalk s will have to be stopped , as well as the opening of sidewalk vaults during the business hours of the day. This will leave the mer-chants the alternative of either making their outgoing shipments or receiving incoming merchandise before the opening of the business dayor after closing of same, or the construction of alleys nearby, to receivesame without blocking sidewalk s or main thor oughfares. Alleys can beopened through the present blocks without loss of any except fir st floor s pace, as they can be arcaded and the present frontage retained . This,we believe, involves the property owners themselves and is not a publicimprovement involving apportionment of city funds.

CROSS GUTTER ELIMINATION:All swales, open culverts, or cross-gutter s, should be removed from

all important thoroughf ares. This can only be done by constructionof proper storm drains, of which the city is sadly in need.

It is the opinion of this Commission that storm drains are of suchvital importance to the city at large that they as well as main thor ough-f ares, should also participate in bond issues.

SET BACK LINES-MAJOR STREET WIDTHS:Recommend ation is made, as part of the 1923 program, looking

toward traffic congestion r elief :-1st. That the proposed permanent width of streets constituting

the Los Al1geles Plan be immediately determined .2nd . That set-back lines f or the str eets composing the Los Angeles

Plan be esta blished by ordinance, or by voluntary agr eement 0 . £ the prop-erty owner s wher e such ord!nance is not possible.

20

Pr oj ect 5 4 -

Co ns t r u c t t u nn el a. t FOt : : . r t l 1St r eet t oext end. f r om Hi l l t o F l owe r a l on g F ou r t h .

Ex t e nd Hy p er i on A ve n ue s o ~s t o ma k ea b oul e v ar d Wh i c h wi l l e x t e n d fl'CL~ S l nb.Moni ca. E o ul e va r i t o I v an ho e Gl · ~md3. 1ePI::' ig8.

Op e n F i f t h S t r e e t f r om t h e c on ge s t e d

d i st r i c t I i , est er l yt o a connect i . on wi t h S i x t hS t r e et , i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f Bi xel .

Con s t r u c t v i a d. uct s ov~r Los Angel esRi v er o n t h e f o l l OWi n g s t r e et s : Ni n t h ,Sevent h> Four t h> Second. > Fi r st , Macy,Nor t h Mai n ' an1 S~n Pedr o.


13/14

Some Highlights on Traffic CongestionDelay Invites Disaster!

In 1919 there wer e 62,600 automobiles registered in the City

of Los Angeles. On December 1st, 1922, the city's automobile reg-

istration was in excess of 1 65,000.

In 1900 the Government census rank ed Los Angeles thirty-

fifth in po pulation among the cities of the United States. The Gov-

ernment census of 1920 ranked Los Angeles the eleventh largest

city in population.

During October , 1922, a total of 4,079 traffic accidents in LosAngeles were recorded by the Police Department, as against 2,047in October , 1920.

In 1921 the death rate from auto accid ents in Los Angeles per 100,000 population was 27.9, as against:

For the whole United States , 11.5Average of all large cities. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0

Manhattan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.8Chicago ......•............................ 20.3

Based on recent checks, the following volumes of traffic arehandled daily between the hours of 5:00 and 6 :00 p.m. at Seventhand Broadway:

Pedestrians 18,000 to 20,000Automobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,200 to 1,400Street cars 320 to 350

The intersection of Seventh and Broadway handles the largestvolume of automobile traffic in the downtown district. Fr om 7:00a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. a recent check showed a total of 13,468 passingautomobiles at this intersection.

Fifth and Broad way is the busiest intersection in point of pe-destrian traffic, checks showing a maximum of approximately 25,-000 pedestrians per hour , as against a maximum of 23,000 atSeventh and Broadway.

The Los Angeles Railway o perates in the congested distr ict8,404 car movements d aily; the Pacific Electric more than 4,000daily.

To 'vVestern and Wilshire Avenues goes the distinction of hanelling the largest volume of automobile traffic of any itttersec-tion in the city. Mor e than 34.000 automobiles cr ossed this inter-section.in a recent check of 18 hours.

THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIO N has pr esen.ted the for egoing as anassemblage of the best thought on the subject.

"Something" must be done, and this "something" must be started NOW.

Half measures are useless.

To put off adopting .a p~an,~ntil tl:e congested district di.esof str al~g~la- j/'

tion means that a new dlstnct WIll spnng up elsewhere, leavll1g depreclatlOnl

of property value, and d isaster in its wake. ,

We must adopt some plan, and ' push it steadily and firmly along, com-

pleting it unit by unit, in the order of paramount necessity, acquiring prop-

erty for improvements in ad vance of needs, where it can be done reasona bly

and in advance of probable improvement, and in. all ways protecting the

future of the plan, by present action.\Ve can do this NO'W, at reasonable expense,. but we cannot do. this five.

ten or fifteen years from now except at tremend 'ous loss. ••

The plans submitted with this report are broad in scope, logical in

requirements, and necessar y to protect the growth of this city.

This Commission is prepared and willing to get behind this report, to

back it up, to push it along until accomplished, and it can be acc01nplished , if

the organization that helped in the making and the c' itizenry at large will lend

to the Commission of their strength and back the Commission with their

support.

We will then be

,'FifteeFl Years Ahead,. Instead of Fifteen

Y D h · d ". ears De·lH


14/14

Documents

1922 Los Angeles Plan