Bill Rosendahl Presents Transpo Concerns to Stadium Developers

The Ad Hoc Committee on Farmers Field met Monday morning at L.A. City Hall where representatives from Anschutz Entertainment Group gave a presentation on transportation as it relates to the proposed downtown stadium.

Councilmemeber Bill Rosendahl, who is the vice-chair of the ad hoc committee and chairs the City’s transportation committee, presented a series of questions to the developers:

  1. SB 292 contains traffic mitigation requirements in the bill but the City does retain the authority to impose additional requirements as necessary, correct?
  2. I thought SB 292 was drafted with the intent of streamlining CEQA challenges so I was a little surprised to see traffic mitigations in the bill.  Could someone please explain the intent of having those mitigation measures in the bill?
  3. Who authored the specific traffic mitigation requirements in the bill?  Was it the author of the bill?  A traffic engineer or consultant?
  4. SB 292 requires that the stadium achieve a trip ratio that is no more than 90 percent of the trip ratio at any other stadium serving a team in the National Football League.  Who decided that was the ideal target?  NFL stadiums range  in capacity from 50-80,000 patrons.  It’s conceivable that we could hit that 90% target but that doesn’t mean our transportation system can necessarily support all those people.  We are Los Angeles.  We are a unique city with a unique set of challenges.  We could hit that target and still end up with gridlocked streets.  Shouldn’t we be comparing this stadium within the context of our own transportation network, rather than comparing apples and oranges with other stadiums?
  5. The Planning Department as the Lead Agency will be responsible for developing the guidelines and the criteria that will be used to determine the trip ratio; is that right?  Do we have a draft of those guidelines yet?  I do want to see those guidelines before they take effect.
  6. Who will be responsible for collecting the data to determine if we hit this 90% ratio?
  7. If the City determines that the data collected is insufficient, can it require the collection of additional data?
  8. Who would cover the cost of that additional data collection?
  9. What’s the recourse for non-compliance?  What if the stadium never achieves this 90% target ration?  And conversely what if they do?
  10. Have you had discussions with Metro about improving the Blue Line station at Pico?  The capacity on the platform is obviously very limited.
  11. What about the connection from the station to the stadium?  What are the plans for streetscape improvements to make that more inviting to pedestrians?  Are there plans to widen sidewalks, install street lighting, plant trees etc?
  12. Are you incorporating bicycle parking into your planning?  We need adequate safe, well-lit bicycle parking so that not only patrons, but employees at the stadium can be assured that their bikes will be there at the end of the game or their shift?
  13. Our bicycle network needs to connect to the stadium as well.  We have a recently approved bicycle plan and we need to ensure that our bike lanes connect to the stadium so that people feel safe and comfortable traveling by bicycle to the stadium.  Have you looked at our bicycle plan and the proposed facilities in the area?

Councilmember Rosendahl also presented the following questions, suggested by Twitter follower and Westchester constituent, Chris Lamberth (@CRLamberth94):

  1. What is the existing parking inventory within walking distance of the site? Typically 1/4 mile and also within 1/2 mile?
  2. What are major parking structures/ lots (and existing inventory) along/ adjacent to (under 1/4 mile) direct MTA routes within 3 miles available via Metro or bus?
  3. Considering the above parking inventory, what is the ratio of fans per stall (for cars)? Is it 3:1? What does city or consultant advise as acceptable? How do these counts and ratios compare to LA coliseum, Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, NFL? Will the on-site ratios satisfy the needs of the expected convention center expansion? (considering loss of inventory under existing west hall)
  4. What will the demand be for public safety officers city/ county/ state to manage events for traffic, security, parking? Who will pay for these services? Shared? What ratio? How does this compare with past agreements in LA city/county, state? In NFL?
  5. What will be the extent of street closures during events?
  6. Consider reversible traffic lanes. What are cost impacts to implement?
  7. What are the planned, budgeted, approved roadway improvements within a select area of the site (prior to End of 2012)? What is the anticipated scope & cost of roadway improvements to accommodate eventual final traffic plan?

Councilman Rosendahl also took a question from @lastreetsblog:

  1. Has the Planning Dept. had conversations with @metrolosangeles about expanding Pico Station?

Councilman Rosendahl is expecting answers to these questions in the coming weeks.  Meantime, the next Ad Hoc committee on the proposed stadium project will meet on October 11 at 5 p.m. at City Hall.

Advertisements

One thought on “Bill Rosendahl Presents Transpo Concerns to Stadium Developers

  1. Pingback: Rosendahl Seeks Further Study of Proposed Stadium Traffic and Neighborhood Impacts « The Ones

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s