I assume that any mention of tearing down the Route 2 spur is immediately met by two arguments: (1) it is too expensive and (2) tearing it down will increase traffic.

I say fine, let’s test the traffic engineers’ theory. Why don’t we run a 3 month pilot program where Route 2 is closed to all traffic south of the 5 freeway, simulating its removal. At little to no cost, this allows us to see what the actual effects of such a project would be, both for local residents and traffic flow. Any further discussion about what to do with the Route 2 spur would be greatly enhanced by the real-time data produced from this pilot program.

To appease the auto obsessed LADOT traffic engineers the neighborhood proposed along with the removal of the spur that an elevated bypass (a glorified extended off ramp) linking the 5 and downtown be built that would siphon off the traffic that now floods into downtown via Glendale Blvd. It was an old idea that somebody named Ruben Lebraze (I know my spelling is off on that) had actually been able to get blueprints by some official entity done of it at one point, before the idea stalled. The ramp would skirt what is now the state park north of Chinatown and end near Union Station. The Gold Line and other development that have happened since may make the concept harder to do and or liable to objection by stakeholders of Chinatown and downtown.

My sympathy to the folks of Echo Park that are all these years later still fighting the good fight.

In the City’s General Plan, in Chapter 6 “Street Designations and Standards”, the City lays out all the legal parameters it will use to design and plan the use of the right-of-way.

LA uses a couple of general streetscape design guidelines – and their structure is interesting:
1. Pedestrian Priority Street Segments
2. Transit Priority Streets
3. Standard (vehicle priority) Streets

Unless otherwise noted, all the Major and Secondary Highway streets in LA are “Vehicle Priority”.

Of these Standard (vehicle priority) streets, what does the city recommend as a minimum of performance?

“[T]he following minimum performance criteria are set forth for each street designation, expressed in both laneage and vehicular volume capacity for all arterial streets with intersections operating at level of service D or worse during peak hours; selection criteria for designations are expressed in average daily trips (ADT).”

“a. Major Highway – Class I
Selection Criteria: more than 50,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• four travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections
• 3200 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction during peak hours
b. Major Highway – Class II
Selection Criteria
• Major highways (Class II) should typically be located one mile apart in a grid
system.
• 30,000 to 50,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• three travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections.
• 2400 vph in each direction during peak hours
c. Secondary Highway
Selection Criteria:
• Secondary highways supplement the through-traffic carrying characteristics of
major highways. They should typically be located one mile apart midway between
major highways in a grid system.
• 20,000 to 30,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• two travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections.
• 1400 vph in each direction during peak hours

So, clearly, you can see where the LADOT is coming from – they are seemingly obligated to shove as much of this car-only crap down our throats as possible, even when that will negatively impact our safety, our businesses, our air quality, and our quality of life.

Glendale is clearly a Major Class I highway – and no attempts have been successful at changing the designation of this street, have they? It would be great to great to see the council office take Glendale down a notch – and thus tie the LADOT’s hands in this matter. Those guys will shovel as much sewage through our streets as the can get a way with!