1930 Conference Rapid Transit Question

8/20/2019 1930 Conference Rapid Transit Question

1/67

~~nfeTence-on the


2/67

Conference on the Rapid Transit Q!estion

The Board of City Planning Commissioners

Tuesday, January 21 s t, 1930

Hearing Room of the Board of Public WorksCity Hall, Los Angeles


3/67

Much discussion has tak en place recently in connection with the

subject of Improved Mass Transpartation, popularly known as Rapid

Transit. Various civic bodies and groups have been discussing it, and

the Board of City Planning Commissioners, feeling that it was a subject

which was, in the first instance, one involved in city planning, called this

conference, at which a number of the groups and interests which would

be affected by or had been giving thought to the subject, were asked to

present their views and experience. The purpose of the confer ence was

five fold.

1. To assist the Planning Commission in making the proper approach to the problem.

2. To bring together those who had been giving thought tothe matter, ascertain their views.and experience, and makethe same available to others who were interested.

3. To briefly sum up the present situation.

4. To define the various factors which enter into the problem.

5. To present to the public, through publication of the pro-ceedings, the information and views expressed .

. It will be seen, by a perusal of the papers herein, that the problem

is exceedingly complex and covers a large field, and that much thought

and study must be given it before it can be solved. Any solution will

affect the city as a whole and must be made with that idea in mind.

The first element of the problem is the question of whether anything is

needed, the second is that of what is needed, the third, what will be the

consequences, and the fourth, how can it be acquired and paid for.

These four questions should all be answered in some manner before we

proceed to achieve a solution.


4/67

The Pr esent Pr oblem-

Donald M. Bak er, Presid ent Board of City Planning Commissioners.

R es ponse-

John C. Porter , Mayor .

"An Interpr etation of the City Charter Provisions Governing Rapid Transit"-

Er win P. Werner, City Attorney.

"A Digest and Simple Statement of the High Lights of the Kelker DeLeuw R e port"-

J. Ogd en Mar sh, Chief Engineer and Gener al Manager, Board of PublicUtilities and Trans portation.

"Possibilities of Rapid Tr ansit To M eet R equir ements of Metr o politan Business Dis-trict of Los Angeles"-

D. W. Pontius, Pr esident, Pacific Electric Railwa~.

"The Objectives of Adequate Internal Tl'ans portation Ser vice and p'r esent ObstaclesTo Cr eating Such Service"-

Richar d Sachse, Consulting Engineer, Los Angeles Railway.

"Wherein the Question of Rapid Tr ansit Is of Inter est to 'Downtown' Business and Pro pert'y"-

John G. Bullock.

"The Community's Interest in the Ser vice of Satellite Business Center s and the EffectU pon Them of Rapid Tr ansit and Its Lack"-

Car l Bush, Executive Secr etar y, Hollywood Chamber of Commer ce.

"Would the San Fer nand o VaHey Be Fed or Drained by Ra pid Tr ansit Connectionwith Metr opolitan Center ?"-

Chas. L. Wood, Manager, Major Development Association.

"Traf fic Connections to Neigh boring Cities"-

George A. Damon, Consulting Engineer , Pasadena.

"Traffic Connections with Metr opolitan Center of Los Angeles Need ed by Whittier "-

John M. Kemmerer, Secr etar y, Whittier Planning Commission.

"What Kinii of Tr af fic Connection Do Neigh bor ing Cities Need and Want with theMetr o politan Center?"-

R. B. Ta plin, Planning Engineer, City of Long Beach.

"What K ind of Traf fic Connection Do Neigh boring Cities Need and Want with theMetro politan Center ?"-

C. J. S. Williamson, Mem ber Santa Monica Planning Commission.

"An Analysis and Statement of the Purpose of Pr esent Legislation Pertaining toRapid Tr ansit"-

David R. Faries, Attorney-at-Law.


5/67

CONFER ENCE O N THE RAPID TR ANSIT QUESTION

DONALD M. BAK ER , Mem. Am. Soc. C. E.

Presiclent Boar cl of City Plann1ng Commissioners

Mr . Mayor and Friend s:

We ar e met her e tod ay at the call of the Board of City PlanningCommissioner s to contr i bute our thoughts, id eas and exper ience towardsthe approach to one of the most im portant questions now facing theCity of Los Angeles and the sur r ounding metropolitan area, a question,if you please, just as important to the f utur e of our city as that of water su pply. It has been in the public mind for some year s but now is beingd iscussed in a far gr eater degree than ever bef or e. Much of the d is-cussion, however , which one hears concerning it nowadays is more or less academic and not based u pon sound knowledge. It is the purpose of this conference to bring out from those who ar e most familiar with thesu bject, technical information which will be of value to our d epartment.

We hope also that the varying view points expr essed will be of val ue toall who ar e pr esent. We have invited to be her e, in ad dition to thosewho are giving pa pers, those who have evinced an interest in the su bject.

The q uestion under discussion is popularly k nown as "rapid transit" but suc h a title no more ind icates the real scope than does the phrase"over lapping assessments" indicate what is included when one discussesthe method in which pu blic im provements in our city ar e hand led and financed. A better term to be applied to this q uestion would be that of "im proved mass trans por tation."

My su bject on the progr am today is entitled "The Present Prob-lem" and that likewise d oes not indicate the scope of my paper . I am notgoing to tell you a lot of facts nor give you a group of conclusionsrelative to the sub ject which have been r eached by myself or by our Board . I am going to tell you a f ew facts but primarily I am going to

ask you a lot of q uestions. It is hoped that from these q uestions, fromthe points which are raised by other speak ers of this conference, and from the various impressions you will receive from the papers given,that we may start to investigate and d efine just what is involved in thissu b ject that we have been discussing und er its popular name "rapid transit."

Weare here more to d ef ine than to solve the problem. Once wehave defined it, then we can seek a solution. That is what our Engineer -ing 'Presid ent, Herbert Hoover, terms a quantitative or engineeringmethod of attack, and being a mem ber of the Engineer ing Professionmyself, such a method appeals to me.

When one sits back and views the pr esent method of lif e in our cities he is im pr essed with the vast amount of moving ar ound which people now do. Fifty years ago, or even twenty-five years ago, therad ius of d aily movement of our po pulation, even in the larger cities,

was small. Men worked near wher e they slept and d id their trad inglik ewise close to their homes. Po pulation densities in most large citieswer e fair ly high. In the pr esent d ay, industry and commerce are carried on in larger units and business necessitates more intimate contacts,with the resulting concentration of ind ustry and commer ce in specificlocalities and the establishment of residential areas at some distancefrom those given over to manufactur ing and business.· Transpor tationthen becomes essential.

In a small community, even in the pr esent d ay, the movement of po pulation d oes not give rise to any ser ious problems, as the time ele-ment in such movement is negligi ble. As population increases, however,

r


6/67

area does likewise, distances become gr eater , and the time elementcommences to be a factor. If no ad eq uate means of trans portation exista high d ensity of population d evelops. Soon this excessive concentrationof many people in a small area gives r ise to un pleasant living con-ditions and ineff icient method s of transacting business, and in rebellionagainst such cond itions we find a movement toward s d ecentralizationspr inging u p, industr ies and · businesses moving away f r om the initialcenter, with smaller communities d eveloping.

U p until the ad vent of the automo bile the growth of most Americancities followed fixed lines of trans portation. In the old er cities increasein population has lar gely resulted fr om the filling in of gaps located between f ixed tr ansportation routes. In Los Angeles and its surround ingarea, however, gr owth and development have largely occurr ed since theautomobile has been in common use. The tr end of growth has not, ther e-fore, been so controlled by rail transpor tation because the route of tr avelof the automo bile is flexible. This situation has been gr eatly accentuate'd in Los Angeles because her e much of our gr owth has oc.curred since theWorld War and rising commodity prices pr evented any wid e-s pread extension of rail1ines. R esid ental sections have moved out and out and

people, when they were not able to rid e u pon rail lines, pur chased auto-

mo biles. Los Angeles is particularly a city of single family homes and und ou bted ly will continue to retain this char acter istic. This has with-out q uestion been encour aged by the method of trans por tation which its

people have used . We will without q uestion continue to spread our population over large areas in the f utur e and maintain a low populationdensity.

Seven or eight years ago automobile congestion became serious and a program was em barked u pon to provid e more str eet space to takecare of the ever increasing num ber of motor cars, but this program of im provement has not kept pace with the increase in automobiles and their use and the congestion has continued. This congestion has beenf urther aggravated by the extensive use of automobiles by people living beyond the termini of rail transportation.

When the carrying capacity of the street system in any section ap-

pr oaches the saturation point people go elsewhere, and Los Angeles isonly beginning to f eel the r esults of this d ecentr alization movement. Wemust expect this to occur to a certain d egree in any city o f such largear ea, but one of our problems is to d etermine in the planning of our cityto take car e of its f utur e millions, just how far we shall allow thisd ecentr alization to proceed and still maintain an efficient city structur e;continue to conduct our business and commerce in an efficient manner ,and pr omote satisfactor y living conditions. Los Angeles is f aced withthat pr oblem at the pr esent time and the solution of the q uestion of {flasstransportation is the k ey to the whole thing.

I have been greatly impr essed in various meetings on this su bjectwhich I have attend ed r ecently with the varying view points which have been expr essed . Diff erent phases of the problem a ppear to have beengiven considerable thought, but no gr ou p or interest, to my knowledge,

has approached it on a br oad com prehensive scale-one which con-siders not alone the question of mass transportation, but the effect of same upon the city plan.

I want to leave with you certain q uestions which must be answered before we can even def ine our pr oblem. I d o not claim that these con-stitute all the factors which enter into the eq uation, as we will discover others when we study it f ur ther , but these q uestions will give you anid ea of the com plexity of the pr o blem and its close relationship withmany other q uestions which ar e tod ay of vital inter est.

The Planning Commission is interested in this subject pr imar ily because of the ef fect of method s used in circulation and distr i bution of our po pulation u pon f utur e planning of our city. Our pr esent plan, in-


7/67

cluding our highway structur e and the pro posed utilization of our prop-erty (zoning), is built around existing transpor tation facilities, including present and pr o posed str eet systems and existing r ail lines. Any pr o jectinvolving im pr oved mass tr ansportation will vitally eff ect the entir estr uctur e of the city. Pr esent zoning might have to be radically changed

in some cases as a r esult, and if changes are necessar y they should bemad e as soon as possible so that owner s of proper ty will know what toex pect in the futur e. With a change in zoning there natur ally followsa change for the plans of our public utilities, such as sewer s, water mains, power and tele phone lines, etc. It may also f ollow, and proba blywill, that our pr oposed plan of highways will necessitate f ur ther stud yand revising as a r esult of the introd uction of im pr oved mass trans por -tation. At least we may find that we can postpone the im provement of some of them.

Do you r ealize that our city boundaries include a large area-450sq uare miles or 300,000 acres, and that a much gr eater area exists out-side of our corpor ate limits which is physically in all res pects a par t of the City of Los Angeles, being separated only by political boundar ies '!That at pre.sent a bout one-third of the cor por ate ar ea of Los Angeles

is fairly well built u p but has a very low density of po pulation, whichmay, however, incr ease consid er ably? This situation will necessitatelong hauls which must be mad e at a high- r ate of s peed and for which ar easonable f are must be charged. These things are essential in anysystem.

Our present subdivision activity is now controlled pr imar ily by thelocation of our ma j'or highways. Improvement of rail transpor tationmight entirely change this pictur e. Have you thought about the pr oblemof downtown parking in connection with this question? Consid er thetens o f thousand s of people who now drive their automobiles into thed owntown ar ea every day on account of the slowness of our rail tr ansportation, or because of the fact that they ar e not ser ved with suchfacilities. These automobiles will average slightly mor e than one pas-senger per car. We have been spending millions of dollars annually to pr ovid e r ights of way for this ver y inefficient means of mass trans por -

tation, and these millions have been contr i buted to very great extent by owners of property abutting u pon or ad jacent to the highways. If you pr ovid e these driver s with a r a pid and chea p method of r eachingtheir d estination you will immediately r emove many of the cars whichcongest our central business district.

Do you r ealize the center of the business district has moved in thelast twenty-five or thirty year s, f rom north of Fir st Street on Spr ingsouthward to Seventh and Broad way, and then westerly, constantlyreaching out toward the r esid ental section, with the resulting ob-solescence of many business proper ties and a conseq uent loss of invest-ment. Ther e is nothing to anchor our central area. In other cities theytear down existing buildings which become obsolete and build new ones.In Los Angeles we allow the old ones to stay and just move on a block.

Do you realize the intimate relation$hip between im proved rail trans-

portation and the existing limitations on the height of buildings in thec.entral ar ea of Los Angeles? At pr esent our maximum limit is oneh~nd red fif ty f eet, but even in the central ar ea the average height isa bout' hitlf of this. The center of our block s ar e not utilized . This hascaused our central commercial district to tr avel in sear ch of new corner s.

Must we go to one extreme in providing for improved mass tr ansportation, building a complete r a pid transit system, including down-town subways, elevated structur es, grad e se parations, extending wayout into the resid ental distr ict, or will a limited improvement wher e byr ail tr affic in the central area is speeded u p through its removal fromthe sur face of the ground be sufficient, at least for the. next few year s '!


8/67

. What will be the effect of improved rail transpor tionupon. the property just outside of the central business district and insid e of thenewer r esid ential districts, valuable from the standpoint of proximityto the central ar ea, but built u p with old obsolete buildings and residences?

Any improvement in rail tr ansportation must, of cour se, be paid for by someone. The problem of financing it really becomes one of seeing that the cost is borne by those who are benefited , and that it can be stood by the benefited parties. .

. Much thought must be given to the proper allocation of these costs.If we place them entirely upon the car rid ers, fares may be so high as todiscourage use of rail transportation. Have you ever considered thefact that a public street is merely a right of way for vehicular traffic,usually provided at the expenseof adjoining or adjacent property own-ers. and used in most cases by residents of the entire city? Cannot weconsider a rapid transit route in the same light, paid for by those whoate benefited , where the riders, instead of owning and operating their own ·vehicles, pay, through·fares,'a private concern to do so.

If we are to build improved rail transportation routes partially by public fund s, as suggested by some, in order tp .maintain reasonable

fares, then we must consider the public cr edit. W((need so many thingsin Los Angeles to keep pace with our growth-increased water supplyand power facilities, more improved highways, sewer and drainagesystems, public buildings, schools, etc. Any financial program must kee pin mind the conser vation of the public cr edit.

I have br iefly touched upon the r elationship between improved railtrans portation and the city plan. This trans portation system must fitinto the pr esent scheme and must not upset it. The Planning Commis-sion at the pr esent time frankly admits that it has no solution f or the pro blem. We cannot compare Los Angeles to other cities and we canonly take ad vantage in a limited way of their experience. The d iffer encein characteristics of Los Angeles from other cities does not mean either that we must or must not have improved rail transportation. Our pr esent problem is to find out what we must do.

We hope that this conference will mark the start of a pr oper approach to the problem and will serve to clarify it somewhat. The prob-lem at pr esent does not involve the question as to whether we should have subways or elevated road s; that question is merely a nominal oneto be determined upon an economical basis. The present problem is oneof economics and engineering.

We feel that papers given today will have a very definite value and we hope that some means will be found whereby they can be published and furnished to all those in attendance. We also hope, as the PlanningCommission studies this problem, to have the advice of those most quali-fied to give such advice, and we intend from time to time to call many of you into consultation. We feel that the interchange of id eas r esultingfrom this conference will be ver y valua ble to each of you and will stimu-rate constructive thought. .

We have ask ed you to be present f or a short while, Mr. Mayor ,knowing that you ar e busy, and also knowing that you are inter ested inthis problem which is of such impor tance to our city, and we hope thatyour attend ance will be profitable to you as well as ourselves. We should be glad at this time to hear a f ew r emark s from you on this generalsubject.


9/67


10/67

An Interpretationof the City Charter Provisions

Governing Rapid Transit

By ERWIN P. WERNER Oity Attorney

Article XX of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, as adopted January 22, 1925, and as amended January 15, 1929, provides asfollows:

"Sec. 210. The Board of Public Utilities and Transportationshall have the following power s and duties:

"( 1) To investigate all pr ivately owned public utilities in the Cityof Los Angeles (exce pt utilities at the har bor placed by this charter under the jurisdiction of the Harbor Depar tment) and compile suchdata as may be necessar y to deter mine the proper ser vices to be f urnished

by such utilities or the charges to be made ther efor . The boar d shall

have the right of access at all reasonable times to the property and record s of said utilities for the purpose of investigation and may re-quire repor ts respecting said matter s from such utilities at such timeand in such f orm as said board may pr escribe.

"(2) To establish and prescribe by resolution r egulations provid -ing for the o peration of, the extent, character and q uality of ser vice of,the rates to be charged by and the extensions to be required of, anysaid utility, all in a manner not in conflict with any paramount regu-lation, rate fixing or extension requir ements for any such utility by thestate or nation. The Secretar y of the Board shall publish once in theof ficial news paper a certified co py of ever y such proposed r egulation,tentatively approved by the board , together with a notice to any and all per sons to show cause, if any, within five days from the date of

publication of said notice, why the pr o posed r egulation should not bemad e ef f ective. Any per son inter ested in or affected by the pr o posed regulation may within five days after the expiration of such publication,file objections ther eto with the Secr etary of the Boar d, specif ying theground s of such objections. The Secr etary shall lay all such ob jections

before the board at its next r egular meeting after the expiration of thetime for filing the same, and the board shall then f ix a date not less· thanfive days later for hearing any and all objections, and shall, after said hearing, finally act on said proposed r egulation by appr oving, changingor r e jecting the same, pr ovid ing that any r esolution of the board ap:

proving any such regulation shall be pu blished once befor e becomingeff ective and shall be subject to the referendum pr ovisions of thischarter relating to or dinances. Any resolution f ixing rates must be ap-

proved by the Council, by ordinance, befor e tak ing ef f ect.

" (3) To investigate com plaints against the service or charges of any said utility and to mak e order s adjusting the same;

" (4) To inspect all such utilities as to their compliance with their franchises, the or dinances of the city and the laws of the state, and asto their service gener ally; and to enfor ce in the manner prescr i bed bylaw a compliance with the terms of such franchises and ordinances or

laws applicable thereto."(5) To kee p a record of all pu blic utility franchises granted by

the city or exer cised therein.

"Section 211. Every application 'e to or gr anted by theCouncil for a franchise for any public, .v J (except utilities at theharbor placed by this char ter under the jurisdiction of the Harbor De-

partment), shall, befor e any action is tak en ther eon, be r efer r ed by theCouncil to the Board of Public Utilities and Tr ans portation for itsr ecommendation respecting the same. Said boar d ' shall proceed toinquire into such application or grant, and within thir ty days after suchapplication or grant has been ref err ed to it, or longer if allowed by theCouncil, shall report to the Council its r ecommendation r elative thereto.If, in the judgment of the boar d, such application or grant should not be advertised for sale or granted , it shall so report, stating its r easonstherefor ; and if, in the jud gment of the board, such application or grantshould be granted , it shall recommend the terms and conditions uponwhich the s·ame should be so gr anted. No franchise shall be advertised for sale or granted unless such application or gr ant shall have been


11/67

ref er r ed to the Board of Pu blic Utilities and Tr ans portation as afor esaid ; pr ovid ed , however , that if said boar d shall fail to re por t ther eon withinthe time her ein prescribed, or as extend ed by the Council, nothing hereincontained shall be constr ued to pr event the Council, in i ts discr etion,from proceed ing to advertise such fr anchise for sale, or f r om awar d ingor gr anting the same, as provid ed by law. No f ranchise shall be ad ver-

tised f or sale or gr anted contrar y to the recommendations of said board exce pt upo n a thr ee-four ths vote of the entire Council."Sec. 212. The term ' public utility', as used in this char ter, is

her eby d efined as includ ing the following:

"(l) Any public ser vice d eclar ed by the Constitution or Statutesof the State of California or the d ecisions of the Federal or State Courts,to be a public utility;

"(2) The o peration of vehicles for hir e, regar d less of the for m of trans por tation;

"(3) Any pu blic service d eclar ed to be a public utility by theCouncil by or d inance which the city has author ity to ad o pt."

For a pr oper legal constructiOl of the Charter cer tain sections of the State Constitution must be consid ered .

The State Constitution pr ior to 1879 mad e no mention of f ranchiserights of public utilities. In 1911, however , the constitutional amend -ment was adopted (Art. XI, Sec. 19) pr oviding that:

"Any municipal corpor ation may establish and oper ate public work sfor supplying its inhabitants with light, water, power , heat, trans por -tation, telephone service or other means of communication. Such wor k smay be acquir ed by or iginal constr uction or by the pur chase of existingwor k s, including their franchises, or both. Persons or corporations mayesta blish and operate wor ks f or supplying the inhabitants with such ser v-ices u pon such conditions and und er such r egulations as the munici palitymay. pr escribe und er its organic law, on condition that the municipalgovernment shall have the right to r egulate the charges thereof . Amunicipal cQrporation may furnish such services to inha bitants outsid e'its bound ar ies; pr ovid ed , that it shall not f ur nish any ser vice to the in-habitants of any other munici pality owning o r o per ating wor ks su pply-ing the same ser vice to such inhabitants, without the consent of suchother munici pality, ex pressed by ord inance."

And in 1914 Section 23 of Article XII was adopted giving the R ail-road Commission of the State " power and jur isdiction to su per vise and regulate public utilities in the State of Califor nia, and to f ix the ratesto be charged for commodities furnished or service rend ered by publicutilities, as shall be conf er red upon it by the Legislatur e, and the rightof the Legislatur e to conf er power s u pon the R ailroad Commissionrespecting public utilities is her e by declarer l t.o be plenary and to beunlimited by any pr ovision of this constituti

Section 23 a bove r eferr ed to originally, dad been enacted in theCon,'3titution of 1879 and had been amend ed in 1911. Pursuant to theSection the Legislatur e had enacted the or iginal Public Utility ActFebr uar y 10, 1911, which was re-enacted and amend ed, and in 1915an entirely new Pu blic Utility Act was enacted , which is now in eff ectas amend ed .

The Public Utility Act as amend ed in 1911 contained Section 82,limiting the power s of the Railr oad Commission. That section r ead asfollows:

"This act shall not aff ect such power s of control over any pu blicutility vested in any city and county or incorporated city or town as,at an election to be held pursuant to laws to be hereafter passed bythe legislature, a ma jority of the q ualified electors voting ther eon of such city and county, or incorpor ated city or town, shall vote to r etain,and until such election such power s shall continue unimpaired in suchcity and county, or incor por ated city or town; but if the vote so tak enshall not favor the continuation of such power s, they shall thereafter vest in the commission; pr ovid ed , that wher e any such city and county,or incorpor ated city or town shall have elected to c ontinue any . power r es pecting public utilities, it may, by a vote of a majority of its q ualif ied elector s voting ther eon, ther eafter surrend er such power s to the Com-mission in the manner to be pr escr i bed by the legislatur e; or is such


12/67

municipal corporation shall have surr end er ed any such power s to theCommission, it may, by like vote, thereafter reinvest itself with such

power."

The Public Utility Act as re-enacted in 1915 continued tlie power of the R ailr oad Commission to r egulate ever y public utility in the State, but Section 82, above set f or th, was omitted , the Legislature evidentlyintending to tak e away f rom the municipality the powers therein givenand to f ix them in the State \ommission.

CONFLICT WITH RAILROAD COMMISSION

On August 12, 1915, the R ailroad Commission, in Decision 2879,Case 683, established rules and regulations for certain pu blic utilitiesto apply on and af ter Octo ber 11, 1915, to all such utilities d oing busi-ness in the State.

The Commission, on Se ptember 24, 1915, ad vised the City of LosAngeles that it had jur isdiction over trans portation matters in Los An-geles, effective Decem ber 1, 1915. .

On Novem ber · 19, 1915, the Boar d of Pu blic Utilities of the Cityad opted the same set of r ules set f orth by the State Commission, su b-stituting the name "Board of Public Utilities" wher ever the word s "R ail-r oad Commission" a p pear ed. This q uestion of jurisd iction between theBoard of Pu blic Utilities of the City and the State R ailroad Commissionhas never been forced to a decision. The City has sought to cooper atewith the Commission rather than assert its position. The Commissionappears to tak e the position that all service matter s aff ect the r ates and that theref or e it has complete jurisdiction over such matter s, except for the police powers of the City. It, however, yield s to the. Board of PublicUtilities the adjud ication of minor com plaints insid e the city limits. TheBoard of Public Utilities, however , tak es the position that it has jur is-d iction over all ser vice matters, and if the cost of service is af fected byservice r egulations, the recour se of the Commission is to adjust rates tothose ser vice conditions.

However, in this connection, the Constitution provides (Art. XI,Sec. 6) _ that: .

"Cities, * * * or ganized under charter s framed and adopted byauthority of this constitution, are her e by empower ed * * * to make and enfor ce all laws and r egulations in r espect to municipal af fair s, su b jectonly to the r estrictions and limitations pr ovided in their sever al charter s,and in respect to othe.r matter s, they shall be su b ject to and contr olled by gener al laws * * *."

It was held in Civic Center Assn. v. Railroad Comm., 175 Cal. 441,that the pr ovision of Section 23, Art. XII, as amended in 1914, givingthe Legislature power to confer additional power s on the R ailr oad Com-mission, is gener al and does not pr evail over this section.

However, the fixing of r ates is not a "municipal aff air", within themeaning of this section.

San Leandro v. R. R. Comm., 183 Cal. 229.

But, in City of Los Angeles v. Central Trust Co., 173 Cal. 323, it washeld that the provision of the Los Angeles Char ter, giving the City power to regulate the construction and o peration of r ailr oad s withinthe City, is paramount to the Public Utility Act as to grade-cr ossings,so far as operations within the City ar e concerned , and the q uestionwhether , and to what extent, the streets of a munici pality shall be su b-

j'ected to such second ar y uses as the maintenance ther e of telegr aph and tele phone poles and wir~ is a "municipal affair ". (Sunset T. & T. Co. v.Pasadena, 161 Cal. 265.)


13/67


14/67

elsewher e contained in this charter ; exce pt that the Council shall adoptan or dinance which shall establish the procedur e for granting to thehold er of an existing fr anchise, any fr anchise r eq uir ed for the extensionof facilities, ord ered by the city, as author ized in paragr a ph (c) of thissubdivision, or for granting a new f r anchise for a period not exceedingten year s to re place a f r anchise about to expire, as authorized in para-gra ph (d) of this subd ivision; provid ed that such procedur e or dinanceand ever y or d inance gr anting any such f r anchise shall be subject to ther efer endum.

" (b) Except as otherwise in this charter pr ovided , every franchise, permit or pr ivilege, for the construction, extension or oper ation of a public utility shall r eserve to the city the r ight to pur chase the propertyof such utility, or find a pur chaser ther efor, u pon one year s' wTittennotice, either at an agreed price or a pr ice to be d etermined in a manner to be pr escri bed in the grant. In fixing in any franchise the pr ice to be

paid by the city f or any utility, no allowance shall be mad e for franchisevalue, good will, going concer n, earning power , incr eased cost of r e-

pr oduction, sever ance d amage, or incr eased value of r ight of way.

"(c) Ever y grant of every such f ranchise, permit or privilege, shall pr ovide that the Boar d of Public Utilities and Tr ans portation Commis-sioner s shall have power to ord er extensions of the facilities authorized therein, af ter a hear ing as provided in this charter , and the grantee of such f r anchise, permit or privilege shall, by its acceptance thereof, agreeto comply with every such ord er . Pr ovid ed, that when such extension of

facilities is for constr uction or o per ation outsid e of the limits of theoriginal franchise to which it will connect, the Council shall first grantsuch ad ditional fr anchise r ights as may be requir ed to cover suchextension.

"(d) No fixed term f r anchise, permit 01' pr ivilege for the con-struction and oper ation of plants or work s necessar y or convenient f or the f urnishing of the city and its inhabitants with tr ans portation, com-munication, ter minal f acilities, water, light, heat, power, r ef rigerationand stor age, or any other pu blic ser vice, shall be mad e f or a period ex-ceeding twenty-one (21) years, exce pt in the case of f r anchises for theconstruction and o per ation of subways and elevated r ailways, as her ein-af ter provid ed, and no such grant f or the extension of an existing utility,operating und er a franchise granted by the city or county, shall be mad efor a period beyond the expir ation date of the franchise, under whichsuch utility or the por tion of such utility with which such extension is to

be connected, is held or operated , nor in any case f or a per iod longer than twenty-one (21) year s. The city may, by ordinance, f ive (5) year sor less prior to the expiration of any f ranchise, gr ant to the holder of

such fr anchise a new franchIse to replace such f r anchise a bout to expir e,such new franchise to run f or a period not to exceed ten (10) year sf r om the date of ex pir ation of the fr anchise it replaces. All such f r an-chises so granted shall be in accordance. with the pr oced ure ord inanceat the time in force, and shall carr yall the conditions r eq uir ed in theoriginal f r anchise. No f ixed term franchise, per mit or pr ivilege f or theconstruction or operation of elevated railways or subways shall begranted f or a period exceed ing for ty (40) year s for the or iginal fran-chise, or for a period exceeding ten (10) year s for a franchise to re-

place a f ranchise a bout to expir e."

Su bdivisions (e) to (p), incl., pr ovid e for the granting of indeter -minate franchises.

Su bd ivision (9), Section 3, Article I, provid es:

"No franchise, per mit or privilege shall be gr anted across or along public streets or ways, or on a pr ivate right of way for str eet, interur - ban, or other railr oad s, o per ated on or sus pended f r om elevated struc-

tur es, or through su bways, until af ter the ad o ption by the city of acompr ehensive elevated r ailway and su bway plan f or the d evelopment of r a pid tr ansit into, out of and through the city, and the city shall haveselected that par t of such plan, if any, that it may d esir e to own and control, o per ate or lease; but after such selection made by said city, itmay mak e grants not in conflict with such plan for the operation throughor over such par ts of said plan as ar e selected by said city, or for theconstruction and operation of such par ts not so selected , or of add itionalsu bways, or elevated r ailways, or approaches to and connections withthat part owned and controlled by said city, at such elevations, gr ad esand alignment as shall be a ppr oved and fixed by ordinance. No sub-ways or elevated railways shall be so. constructed as to cross at gr ade."


15/67

Section 2, Subsec. (11), Subd . (m), in this connection, provides:

"The City of Los Angeles, in addition to any other rights and power s now held by it, or t hat her eafter may be granted to i t, und er the constitution or laws of the state, shall have the right and power , sub-

ject to the r es~~ictions in this charter contained " * *:

"(11) Among the rights and power s which may be exercised bythe City of Los Angeles ar e the following, this enumeration being a par tial enumeration and in no sense a r estriction or limitation u pon ther ights and power s of the city *" * :

"(m) To pr ovid e for the acquisition, construction, improvement or alteration, maintenance, use and contr ol of str eets, tunnels, subways,rights of .way, public places, harbor s, sewer s, storm drains, and other pu blic or local improvements, on, a bove or below the surf ace of theland or water."

It is therefore plain that, und er the organic law of the City, i t islegally possi ble to construct a rapid transit system in Los Angeles, pro-vided there shall first be ad opted by the City a com prehensive elevated railway and su bway plan for the development of rapid transit into, outof , and through the City, as provid ed by subsection (9) of Section 30f the Char ter , quoted above.

CAN SPECIAL ASSESSMBNT DISTRICTS BE FORMED TO BEAR

ALL, OR A PORTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION

OF RAPID TRANSIT STRUCTURES?

It might be stated , in general, that und er the Charter and the Im- provement Acts, s pecial assessment distr icts can be formed to bear all,or a portion, of the cost of constr uction of ra pid tr ansit str uctur es, pro-vided it can be shown that there will be a resulting special benefit to theproperty included within such districts. In other word s, in ord er tocr eate s pecial assessment districts to finance, or to aid in financing, r apid transit construction, the City of Los Angeles could, und er su bdivision (p)'of su bsection (11) of Section 2 of the Charter , adopt a procedural

'ordinance for · that purpose; or it could make use of one of the s pecialassessment statutes of Califor nia. As to the latter , however , amend-ments would d oubtless be necessar y to cover the s pecific question of r apid transit construction. (See Larsen v. San Francisco, 182 Cal 80;Spring Street Co. v. Los Angeles, 170 Cal. 24; Hayes v. Handley, 182Cal. 273.)

The construction of su bways or tunnels and of elevated structur es beneath and above a pu blic street to be used by street railways for rapid transit constitutes a use comprehended within the pu blic use per -mitted by the d edication of a street to the public, without imposing anadditional ser vitude upon the land of a butting owner s. (See Hayes v.Handley, 182 Cal. 273; Colegrove Water Co. v. City of Hollywood, 151Cal. 425.)

It is also true that the construction of such subways or elevated

str uctures for the purposes stated would constitute a public im prove-ment for the use and benefit of the public, assuming that such structuresconstitute a reasonable use of a pu blic street. (See Larsen v. San Fran-cisco, 182 Cal. 1.)


16/67

A Digest and Simple Statement of the. High Lights

of the Kelker DeLeuw ReportBy J. OGDEN MARSH

Ch'ief Eng'ineel· and GeneTal Manager , BoaI'd of Public Utilities and TTanspoTtation

SUBJECT: R esume of Kelker & DeLeuw R e por t on Com- pr ehensive Rapid Tr ansit Plan for the City and County of Los Angeles. Also, on the outline of someviews on the Economics of R apid Transit.

It appear s that the ince ption of serious constructive thought ap- proa.ching the sub ject of rapid transit, embracing the corporate and metr opolitan area of the City, was sometime early in 1923. A bout thistime, the ser iousness of traffic conditions in the congested distr icts and its eff ect upon the general economic condition was beginning to be

r ealized . Pr ivate and public inter ests were conf ronted with the absoluteim perativeness of the initiation of cor rective and relief measures. Therewer e, therefore, numer ous agencies and · committees organized for the pur pose of stud ying and ad vocating im provements of the various specific phases of this major pro blem. Paramount in this respect, were thePar king Survey Committee created by the City Council under the super -vision of the Board of Public Utilities and char ged with making a surveyof all matters pertaining to the parking of automo biles and their effectupon general traf f ic; the Committee on Major Highways employed bythe Traffic Commission in wor k ing out a major highway system for theMetropolitan area; the State R ailroad Commission, Board of PublicUtilities and the two local street railway com panies engaged in makinga valuation and service survey of the local street railway operations of the Pacif ic Electric Railway and the total operations of the Los Angeles

Railway; the Grade Crossing Committee created by the Los AngelesAutomobile Clu b of Souther n Califor nia for the purpose of endeavor ingto eliminate grade crossings throughout the City and County of Los An-geles. Also, at about this time, the Presid ent and Chief Engineer of theBoar d of Pu blic Utilities wer e author ized by the City Council to visit allthe larger cities in the United States for the pur pose of studying thevar ious transportation problems existing in the respective cities, and ther e by becoming more competent to r ecommend impr oved and cor -rective measur es in the problem conf ronting Los Angeles. This, as wellas the fact that there did not exist at that time any committee, or indi-vidual, whose specific duties were to generalize or coor d inate the re-sults of all the other var ious committees in meeting the need s of metropolitan Los Angeles, resulted in the Board of Public Utilities recommend -ing to the City Council that they be allowed to employ a transportation

ex pert for the purpose of mak ing a com prehensive survey em bracingthe transportation problems of the whole metropolitan area. Negoti-ations were f inally com pleted and agreement reached whereby the Cityand the County were to appropr iate f unds up to $40,000.00 for this purpose, each bearing fif ty percent of the expense. As a result, Mr. R . S.Kelk er, Jr ., and Mr . C. E. DeLeuw. nationally recognized transportationexperts, doing business und er the f ir m name of Kelk er, DeLeuw & Com-

I pany, headquarters Chicago, were em ployed by the City and County inJuly, 1924, for the purpose of mak ing a com plete and com prehensiveinvestigation and survey of tr aff ic cond itions and transportation facil-ities of the City and County of Los Angeles, and to com pile and deliver to each party fifty (50) pr inted copies of a re port thereon. Also, toer m)o(ly therein their conclusions regard ing present tr affic and trans-

portation problems and their r ecommend ations for the im pr ovementthereof.


17/67

The survey was immediately begun. With the assistance and co-operation of various city and county officials, as well as representativesof pr lvate transportation companies in and around Los Angeles, the in-

K ))L- fIJy.J-I' vestigation was completed , a report compiled and submitted to the:)~br --' - (>4.


18/67

The report also states that,

"It is evident from the experience of other large cities that r a pid transitlines cannot be constructed and o per ated on a self -sustaining basis at alow rate of fare, unless the ter r itor y to be ser ved is an ar ea with anextr emely d ense population and the num ber of rid es per ca pita (riding

habit) is high."

The d ensity of population of var ious cities is com pared as follows:

"Greater New Yor k has average of 31 per sons per acre (161 persons per acre in the Bor ough of Manhattan). Boston 27 per acre; Philad el phia22 per acr e; Chicago 22 per acre; Los Angeles-Urban ar ea approxi-mately 6-mile circle 10.2 per sons per acr e; 4-mile circle 15 per acre.Entire municipal area 4.2 per acre. Comparison with other cities for entir e ar ea is not r easonable, due to the lar ge s parsely settled ar easwithin the corporate limits of Los Angeles."

The num ber of persons per dwelling, 1920, is given as follows:

" New Yor k 15+; Boston 9+; Chicago 8; Buff alo 7; Cleveland 7-;Detr oit 6+; Pitts bur g 6+; San Fr ancisco 5.5+; United States at lar ge5+; Los Angeles 4.5+."

The r eport concluded with a recommend ation f or the immediateconstruction of 26.1 single tr ack miles of Subways and Tunnels; 85.3Elevated Railr oad s and Depressed Tr ack ; 41.6 of Surface Street Rail-way at an estimated cost of $133,385,000.00. It further outlined for future construction 15.4 single track miles of Subways and Tunnels;155 Elevated Railroads and De pressed Track , and 62.7 miles of Sur-face Street Railways. No estimate of cost was mad e for this futur e proposed construction. Lik ewise, no r ecommend ations were mad e relativeto the method of financing the $133,385,000.00 estimated cost of the program for immediate constr uction. It had been antici pated that thereport would be ado pted by the City. One of the par ticular reasons for this was the fact that Section 9 of Article 1 of the new City Charter ,adopted by the Board of Fr eehold er s Januar y 22, 1925, and placed ineffect July 1st, same year, was d rafted to r ead as follows:

" No fr anchise, per mit or pr ivilege shall be granted across or along public streets or ways, or on a pr ivate right of way for str eet, interurban,or other r ailroad s, operated on or sus pend ed f r om elevated str uctures,or thr ough su bways, until af ter the ad option by the city of a compre-hensive elevated railway and su bway plan f or the d evelopment of rapid tr ansit into, out of and through the city, and the city shall have selected that par t of such plan, if any, that it may desir e to own and contr ol,o perate or lease; but after such selection made by said city, it may mak e.grants not in conf lict with such plan f or the o per ation through or over such par ts of said plan as ar e selected by said city, or f or the con-str uction and o peration of such parts not so selected, or 9f additionalsu bways, or elevated l"ailways, or appr oaches to and connections withthat part owned and controlled by said city, at such elevations, grad es and alignment as shall be a ppr oved and fixed by ordinance. No su bways or elevated railways shall be so constr ucted as to cr oss at gr ad e."

Obviously, and rightf ully so, this section of the City Charter wasso drafted to preclud e the possibility of any pressure, either political or otherwise being br ought to bear upon any official of the City tending tof orce them to acq uiesce in the construction of any portion or unit of ara pid tr ansit system until such time as an intelligent and economicallysound plan as a whole had been ad opted; and for the specific purposeof for estalling an im pr ud ent, illogical or piecemeal constr uction of rapid tr ansit lines. To d ate, however , the report in q uestion has not been adopted. Some five years have elapsed since this sur vey was mad e,with numerous physical changes in the f actor s entering into the tr ans por-tation problems in and about Los Angeles during the interim, and it isf elt that the value of the repor t has diminished to such a d egr ee that it isquite unlikely that it ever will be ado pted .

The ever -increasing street traf f ic in Los Angeles leaves but littlequestion that sooner or later measures will have to be und ertak en for


19/67


20/67

(b) One-fourth of the cost of the right-of-way and permanent con-struction to be paid by public utility bond s of the city, inter est and sink-ing fund charges on which will be paid out of the general city fund.

(c) All of the cost of track s, rolling stock, electrical and other

equipment to be paid for by the operating company. As this is par t of the cost of operating the system, it will come from fares collected f r omthe car rider who ultimately bear s the cost of th.e service r end er ed directly to him.

While ther e seems to be some disagr eement as t o the proportionof the assessment in the three for egoing instances, ther e does appear to be an agreement as to the groups upon which the assessment should f all.

The above is a very brief outline of a large subject, and is sub-mitted f or the purpose of inviting discussion.


21/67

Possibilities of Rapid Transit to Meet Requirements of

Metropolitan Business District of Los Angeles

By D. W. PON'rlUSPresicZent, Pacific Electr ic Railway

My own view is that an adequate rapid transit plan should beworked out for the district where traffic is most seriously delayed at

present. This district, would, roughly, embrace the territory say from20th Street on the south to the Plaza on the north, and from FigueroaStreet or a short distance beyond on the west, to Central Avenue or ashort distance beyond on the east. Such a plan should provide, in so far as it is practicable, for the removal of all surface lines in the metro-

politan business district.

Every city of importance should endeavor to preserve a metropoli-tan business district, and I believe every city of importance has this very

thing in view. .It is doubtful if these subways could be provided under a bond issue

s pread over the entire City of Los Angeles and probably the only waythe subways can be built would be by a local bond issue covering onlythe districts affected, and this necessarily would have to be arranged bythe property owners in each district and not by a general election.

Subways in the metropolitan business district is principally a property owners' problem, but the local service railroad s, I believe,should join in on the equipping of the subways, when built, in so far asfinancial conditions will permit, in some way to be determined after astudy has been made.

My view is that the only way a matter of such magnitude can bedetermined is by organization of a committee to make a study and deter-mine just what can be worked out. This committee should be made upof property owners of the district affected, the City of Los Angeles,which, I should think, would include representatives of the City Counciland the City Planning Commission, and probably r e presentatives of therailroad s concerned.

An off -hand opinion given by anyone cannot possibly be convincingand it is possible that my own views in this matter are wrong, but thiscan only be determined by a study such as suggested.

The relief afforded by a system of subways as outlined would notonly materially improve city street car service but also interurbanservice, as the greatest delays to traffic are encountered in gettingthrough the metropolitan business areas.

At the present time two of the most vital points to be considered inconnection with interurban transportation are the preservation of the

continuity of existing private rights of way of the rail lines and the gradecrossing problem.Manifestly it is impossible to work out a transportation plan to

meet the requirements of the public if the rail line cannot be assured of retaining its present rights of way. The seriousness of the grade cross-ing problem is well understood, and unless every means possible is takent o avoid the opening unnecessarily of additional crossings and to closelittle used existing crossings where reasonable that they be closed, thehigh speed value of the private rights of way is lost, not only to therailroads but to the public. The Pacific Electric has steadily improved its equipment and our problem now is to operate with safety at highspeed that equipment. Much has been accomplished and through co-operation much more can be accomplished in the future.


22/67

The Pacific Electric Railway system as it stands, constitutes and isthe foundation for an expanded rapid transit interurban system for theterritory which it covers. This service will be needed in the future asmuch and probably more than it ever has been needed in the past. This

view. is concurred in by many nationally known transportation expertswho have not only inspected the interurban railroads as well as thestreet car lines here, but have made extensive studies of traffic conditions.

All of the above points must be considered in planning an adequatetransportation service for this territory. As to what constitutes ad equateservice, I think that briefly it can be stated as follows:

1. Comfortable, modern equipment.

2. Reasonably fast schedules that can be maintained.

3. Reasonably frequent service.

There are, of course, many other details involved, but to my viewthe three items listed are the basic principles.

Comfortable, modern equipment can only be provided under a

progressive program such as the Pacific Electric now has in effect, and the program it follows is of course dependent upon what is reasonablefrom a financial standpoint.

The need for reasonably fast schedules and their dependability areself-evident and need not be elaborated upon.

Proper frequency of service is simply a matter of constant and care-ful analysis of traffic and must be provided to hold the traffic to the lineunder present competitive conditions.

Traffic conditions in the City of Los Angeles, the local street car and bus problem, as well as the interurban railroad problems are all closelyunited. The people, not only throughout the United States, but fromall points over the entire world, are looking this way and the populationis in any event going to continue to increase rapidly. Our problem then

is to prevent the present increasing traffic congestion conditions from becoming intolerable, which would result in Southern California being pointed to as an undesirable place to live, which would be exactly theopposite to our national and international reputation at this time.


23/67

The Objectives of Adeq uate Internal Transpor tation Ser vice

and Pr esent Obstacles to Cr eating Such Ser vice

By RICHARD SACHSECons~tlting EngineeT, Los Angeles Railway

MEMORANDUM of Los Angeles Railway Corporation toBoar d of City Planning Commissioners, City of LosAngeles, on the Objectives of Ad eq uate Trans porta-tion Service and Pr esent O bstacles to Creating SuchSer vice, in connection with a study of "Rapid Tr ansit" su bmitted to R a pid Transit Conference,January 21, 1930.

I. Purpose of Memorandum

This memor andum was prepared in compliance with the requestof the Boar d of City Planning Commissioners of the City of Los Angelesdated Decem ber 27, 1929, addressed to Mr . George J. Kuhr ts, Presid entof the Los Angeles Railway Corporation, and read ing in part as follows:

"The Board of City Planning Commissioner s is im pressed with thenecessity of making an immed iate star t in stud ying the su b ject of "R a pid Tr ansit." The Board has no preconceived id eas as to what, if anything,is necessar y to be done in or d er to assure Los Angeles of ever y neces-sar y mod ern trans portation facilities.

The Board is impressed with the pr o bable fact that Los Angeles possesses characteristics quite uniq ue in itself, and that unq uestiona blythere is within the city the intelligence to successf ully cope with the

pr o blem of trans portation.

As a fir st ste p the Boar d is calling a conf erence of re presentatives of

those agencies whose pr of essional or business inter ests place them in a position to contr i bute constructive information for the advantages of Los Angeles. This conf er ence is called for January 21st, 1930, at theCity Hall beginning at 10 :00 a.m. in Room 360.

The Los Angeles R ailway naturally possesses both an interest and information that i t is our ear nest desir e you shall contri bute on the abovenamed occasion. The Board ther efor e r es pectfully r eq uests that you pre- pare or arrange to have pre par ed a statement of facts as k nown to your or ganization on the q uestion of mor e ad eq uate trans portation facilitiesfor Los Angeles. It is hoped that this statement will be as long as neces-sar y to be complete, but as shor t as possi ble to be interesting and in-telligible to some of the other s who may not have any s pecialized view- point that you natur ally would have.

. It is es pecially d esir ed that the pa per s, a list of which is enclosed,shall be entir ely fr ee from contr over sy-though it is q uite permissi bleand to be desir ed that pr oper and pertinent questions be definitely r aised.All of those who appear on the enclosed list are being ask ed to pr epare

and submit similar statements, but each, of cour se, f r om the standpointof their own par ticular inter est.

Weare ver y d esir ous of mak ing the sum total of testimony intro-duced at the confer ence of exceptional value to the City. To that end , wewould appreciate it greatly if you can arrange to have the paper you pre pare su bmitted not later than Januar y 14th. The reason for this sug-gestion is, that with so many contr i buting to dif f er ent phases of thesame sub ject, ther e is a possibility that gaps will exist in the continuityof the testimony that by all means should be pr evented . It is in antici pa-tion of these possible discrepancies, that we ask the privilege, between thedate of the conf er ence, of having you augment your statement in suchr espects as will f ill in the missing d ata."

Attached to the letter of the City Planning Commission is a memor-andum on "Rapid Transit Confer ence" giving a list of per sons and inter-ests invited by the Boar d to par ticipate in the Ra pid Transit Conference

and assigning to d if f er ent men and to d iff erent interests certain sU bject~


24/67


25/67

These req uir ements tak en together , if they could be completelymet, would f ur nish "ad eq uate city-wid e local mass transportationservice."

It is not an over-simplification, ther efor e, to say that an analysisand a stud y of these six factor s comprises the entir e question of localtrans por tation, including the question of r a pid transit within this urbanarea.

An effort will be made in this memorandum to discuss, briefly, theessentials of each of these items, and the effect on each item of a r apid transit pr ogram or system will be considered .

IV. City-Wide Local Transportation Service

The expression "city-wide" has a special meaning for the City of Los Angeles. The tremend ous extent of the city area (442 square milesat the present time), and the configuration of its boundary precludesthe possibility of the entire corporate city being included within a singleurban or local mass transportation system. Electr ic lines extendingfrom the center of the city (say the City Hall) to Owensmouth, or SanFernando, or San Pedro, will always have to be considered as interurbanrather than urban lines.

These f acts are clearly set forth in the Joint Report on the StreetRailway Survey for the City of Los Angeles made jointly in 1925, by theCalifornia R ailroad Commission, the City of Los Angeles, the PacificElectric Railway Company and the Los Angeles R ailway Corporation.In this r e por t the maps on pages 29, 51 and 55 show the "Local Tr ansportation Area," as distinguished f r om the "Metropolitan R a pid Tr ansitArea."

Ma p No.2, page 51, shows the boundary of the "Maximum LocalTr ans por tation Area" at a 10 mile r adius from 7th Street and Broadway,and the Present Local Trans portation Ar ea a t an 8 mile radius.

The consensus of opinion among engineers and city planner s is that

the maximum practical area of a local mass transportation system mustlie approximately within a circle with a 10 mile radius; or measured bytime within approximately 60 minutes rid e from any point within thecircle to any other point.

It will be noted that in Los Angeles this maximum has just a bout been reached .

In this connection reference is mad e to pages 50 to 66 of the "JointReport," und er the heading of Gener al Description of the Territory and Population Ser ved ," and particular attention is called to the comparisonof the Los Angeles situation with Chicago, New York , San Francisco and other cities. Excerpts from this chapter of the Joint R eport ar e attached to this memor andum as Appendix " A" .

If we ref er to the map showing the local tr ans portation lines, bothr ail and motor coach, within this "Local Trans portation Ar ea" it is appar ent that pr actically the entire ar ea is remarkably well ser ved by masstrans por tation f acilities. The physical means are, theref or e, lar gely inexistence to meet our fir st r equirement of an adequate local trans por ta-tion system: namely, that "any part of the city within the ar ea of ser-vice must be accessible and connected with all other parts."

It is tr ue, of course, that this ser vice is given by two separate companies, the Los Angeles Railway Cor poration and the Pacific ElectricRailway. * It is clear that the Pacific Electric and the Los Angeles R ail-way lines connect at many points and as f ar as the physical and oper at-ing situation is concerned ther e is no o bstacle to free interchange of tr af -

*In order to avoid d etail, the add itional comparatively small rail and motor coachlocal car r iers operating in this area are left out of consid er ation for the purpose of this memorand um.


26/67

fic between the two lines. The q uestion of the "universal transfer " will be r eferred to und er the subsquent heading of "Fares".

The conclusion is justified, therefore, that Los Angeles is remar k-ably well served, in com par ison with other com parable cities, with localtransportation lines. Fur thermore, the Los Angeles R ailway is on record

that it is pre pared to extend its ser vice wher ever and whenever a r ea-sona ble need for additional tr ans por tation lines, whether rail or motor coach, developes, and such extensions will be mad e by rail or by motor coach in accordance with the needs of each s pecific case.

V. Maximum Safety

That maximum safety is a pr ime r equisite of an adeq uate trans por-tation service goes without saying. This is so well und er stood thatusually no reference is made to this factor in d iscussions of this kind.Statistics show that in all urban ar eas, including the Los Angeles ar ea,travel by street railway is the safest form of tr avel. It is safer thanmotor coach or bus travel, and automobile travel, and safer than walk -ing. What element of r isk exists is brought about by the congestion and the conf lict for the possession of the availa ble street area between the

different mod es of tr ans portation, and particularly between the privateautomobile and street cars and motor coaches. It is clear that a rapid transit development will have no inf luence on the factor of safety.

VI. Maximum Speed

Next to safety the princi pal req uir ement, on the part of the pu blic,of a transportation service is maximum s peed. It is not only the timeelement that is contr olling, but speed is demand ed for its own sake. In-clud ed in the speed r eq uir ement ar e ra pid acceler ation and d eceleration.

Our str eet car s and motor coaches are built f or a speed of 35 miles per hour. The actual average speed of cars over the system as a whole,includ ing layover time is 10% miles per hour; the r unning speed (ex-clud ing layover time) is 12 miles per hour. For the motor coach servicethe corr es ponding figures are 12 miles per hour and 14 miles per hour.

Ther e is, therefore, an enor mous discre pancy between the possible speed and the actual speed.

The q uestion immediately arises: to what extent is the control of speed within the com pany and to what extent is this contr ol outside of the company's power and author ity? It is at once appar ent that the lowaverage speed on any line is accounted for by the slowing down in thecongested d istricts. In these districts, dur ing the r ush hours, the averages peed s falls below 5 miles per hour.

The electr ic r ailway industr y is making gr eat ef for ts in the d evelop-ment of im pr oved types of eq uipment, both of str eet car s and motor !;oaches, in the direction of gr eater power , f aster acceleration, greater braking capacity and lower weights; together with gr eater comfort, lessnoise and more attraGtive ap pearance. A lot has been accom plished inthese d irections dur ing r ecent year s and there is expectation by car

build ers and trans portation companies that eq uipment can be designed capable of com peting in those respects with the automobile.

But even if we had the highest speed equipment at the present timewe still would be unable to lower our running time mater ially in thecongested districts under the present tr affic conditions. In other wor d sthe limitations with regard to speed are to a very lar ge extent beyond the control of the transportation agency.

In the non-congested sections of the city the speed at the presentaver ages between 15 and 25 miles per hour and is gener ally satisfactor y.With a s peed of 20 miles per hour it would be possible to r un throughthe entir .e "local trans portation area" in an hour's time, and that is gen-


27/67

erally consid ered a satisfactory travel time for such a d istance. The pr ivate automobile within an urban area cannot do much better .

The construction of rapid transit lines, above or below the surfaceand f ree from intersections at grad e, would mak e possible an even

higher average s peed but at best the aver age would not exceed 25 mir es per hour. This is the experience of rapid tr ansit lines in all cities, unlesss pecial track s and facilities are provid ed for "ex press service", as is doneon certain limited portions of the su bway system in New York . Pro-vision f or "express ser vice" increases costs enormously and no such planshave ever been made for Los Angeles.

This higher s peed would be had only on a com paratively fewand com paratively short ra pid transit arter ies and the balance (cer tainlymor e than 75 %) of the "local trans portation area" would remain un-af fected and would not be benef itted in this r es pect. It is necessary,ther efor e, to com pare and measure the benefits and ad vantages of greater speed secured by a r apid tr ansit system against the costs of allkind s of such a system and against its disad vantages. It is f urther neces-

sary to ascertain what alter natives there are and at what cost they willimprove present speed conditions.

A large num ber of stud ies have been made in Los Angeles and inother large cities throughout the country with this end in view. And ithas been univer sally found that mass transpor tation can be materiallys peeded up to the benefit of an overwhelming pro portion of the popula-tion by means of traffic regulations and at an insignificant cost com pared with the construction and operation of entirely new r a pid transit lines.Among the most obvious and most important means of exped iting masstrans portation in the urban congested ar eas is a better control of par k-ing on important traffic arter ies; the installation and extension of co-or dinated progressive traff ic signals; the extension of the skip-stop sys-tem; the giving of the right-of -way to the mass tr ansportation vehicle in

prefer ence to the private vehicle, particularly dur ing r ush hour s; theclear ing of car tracks on cer tain streets. d ur ing cer tain hours (r ushhour s) by the establishment of "tr aff ic lanes". All of these measureshave been adopted in par t by a num ber of other large cities and informa-tion is available to ascer tain the effect of these measur es.

It is interesting to note in this connection that in all cities wherethere exists municipal operation of str eet r ailways (San Fr ancisco,Seattle, Detr oit), traf f ic r egulations ar e promptly made and rigidly en-f orced, giving the street car anq the motor coach the r ight-of -way asf ar as possi ble and every effor t is mad e, by police and traffic regulation,to s peed u p this service. The need for speed y ser vice is of course eq uallygreat in cities where a pu blic utility com pany f ur nishes this service and no reason exists why the same consideration should not b e given thestreet car rid er s r egard less of owner ship and regard less of the form of operation.

VII. Maximum Frequency

The patron does not lik e to wait for the street car or the bus and theideal condition would be to have a car or a bus "in sight" at all times.As a practical matter , of course, the frequency of the ser vice must always be determined by the volume of traffic. In the downtown section of LosAngeles the ideal of "a car in sight at all times" is su bstantially obtained,and this certainly is true dur ing the gr eater part of the hours from 8a, m. to 7 p. m. Checks that have been made for a num ber of years byindependent investigators of the California R ailroad Commission and of the City of Los Angeles have stated it as their conclusion that the service

of the Los Angeles Railway over its entir e system is reasonably satis-factory as far as the item of freq uency of ser vice is concerned .


28/67

The creation of a ra pid transit system would have no eff ect, practi-cally, on this particular factor . It is apparent that the lar ge per centageof the area of the city and the great percentage of the po pulation, would have to d e pend as now on the surf ace trans portation system, and thefreq uency of that service would not be im proved but might possi bly be

impaired.

VIII. Maximum Comfort and Convenience

This item includ es the capacity of car s, the comfort and convenienceof seating arrangements; the r eduction or elimination of noise; the avail-ability of through lines; the doing away, as far as possible, with thenecessity for tr ansfers and gener ally ever ything that goes towar d s meet-ing the wishes of the public, including cleanliness, eff iciency and courtesy of em ployees, light, air , etc.

No r eason exists why the surface str eet car and motor coach cannotoperate as exce ptionally convenient and comf ortable vehicles in all of these respects. The surface system has great ad vantages in this regard over all other for ms of tr anspor tation includ ing subways and elevated railr oad s. Gr eat eff or ts are now being made by all mass tr ans portation

systems, including the Los Angeles R ailway, to im prove eq ui pment and service in all of these matters and these eff orts ar e meeting with suc-cess. I might say in this connection that our r ailway has d esigned and is now asking f or bid s on new car s and on new buses that r e present the best and the ver y latest d evelopments in the items of speed, comfort and convenience.

One of the most impor tant things in this r egard is the matter of seating ca pacity. The id eal condition, of course, would be a seat f or every r ider at all times. The fact must be f aced , however, that there hasnever been a mass transpor tation system anywher e, and never can be,that will com pletely meet this id eal. The r eason lies in the nature

1930 Conference Rapid Transit Question

Documents

Transcript of 1930 Conference Rapid Transit Question