Universal City project traffic impacts

The city of Los Angeles released its environmental impact report earlier this week for the proposed development of the parking lots at the Universal City subway stop. The report shows that the 1.5 million square feet of development, including a relocation of NBC Studios from Burbank, will add to traffic in the area by generating about 14,000 new car trips daily.

The Daily News has a complete story online, with the predictable headline "Universal gridlock disaster?"  The story quotes Los Angeles Councilman Tom LaBonge and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, both of whom say the development is too large -- as they've said in the past. The mayor's office continues to back the project, saying it creates needed jobs in the entertainment industry and is located atop a subway stop.

Here are 10 things worth knowing about the project and its impact on traffic:

1.  The project's first phase includes a 24-story office tower and five-story studio space, with the second phase adding another 24-story office tower or hotel and residential building. The studio would host "The Tonight Show," which for decades has been taped in Burbank. NBC/Universal and its development partner Thomas Properties says it will bring 5,000 jobs to the city.

2. Most of the land is currently owned by Metro (the agency also known as the MTA). The agency has in recent years been looking for developers to build on land it  owns at transit stops. This is part of that effort, although on a bigger scale. And, as I've written before, it will continue to be controversial because of possible traffic impacts.

3. The development sits to the southeast side of the never-completed junction of the 101, 134 and 170 freeways. Motorists on the freeway can't go from the 101 north to the 134 east or from the 134 west to the 101 south, for example, without using surface streets. Lankershim Boulevard serves as the connector between those routes and Lankershim is also going to sit on the south side of the new development.

4. The environmental impact report does not cover the 2,900 residential units that NBC/Universal wants to build on its backlot. City planner Jon Foreman said that the determination was made that the two projects had different locations, different time lines and different players -- so the report was limited just to the subway stop development. Another EIR will cover the residential units. What this means, of course, is that the report can't weigh the combined real-life impacts of the new NBC studios with the 2,900 residential units. Why? The residential side hasn't been built yet.

5. The key chart in the EIR comes on page 133 of the traffic impacts section (which you can download as a pdf file)  when the city lists key intersections that will be affected  near the project. Overall, the performance of 16 of 163 intersections would deteriorate by 2011 if the project is built and mitigations are included, according to the report. Some of those intersections would only get worse on one street -- not both.

6. As for parking (page 207), the developer is proposing to build up to 5,176 spaces, including 800 for the Universal City subway station, which currently has about 600 spots spread out over three lots. Depending on which version of the project gets built, the city says that about 3,200 to 4,300 parking spots are being required.

7. A question worth asking the crystal ball: Does building 5,176 parking spots in a region as auto-centric as the Southland pretty much guarantee that 5,176 vehicles will park there?

8. Traffic counts, by the way, are controversial thing. In Century City, for example, the city of L.A. determined that two proposed 47-story residential towers would produce less traffic than several small businesses on the site. Several homeowner groups in the area sued and ended up reaching a multimillion-dollar settlement with the developer last year. The money is dedicated to traffic mitigations.

9. It is also worth noting that although the Universal project sits atop a subway stop, the subway only goes as far as North Hollywood to the north and doesn't go to the city's Westside (and likely won't for another decade in the best-case scenario), nor does it connect to the two Metrolink lines that run through Burbank. The subway, however, does connect with the Orange Line busway in NoHo and could bring people from downtown and Hollywood to Universal.

10. Lack of comprehensive mass transit is just one reason that many residents in the area are worried about the traffic impacts of the NBC/Universal project. "The problem with everything in this city is the development happens and they [developers and politicians] say they are going to fix the streets, and fix the freeway and fix the transit, but that never happens," said Lisa Sarkin, a board member of the Studio City Neighborhood Council.

11. Rob Stutzman, a consultant for the development, said that while it is possible there would be some traffic impacts, environmental reports often look at the largest possible impacts -- which  may or may not actually happen. He also said that the developers are proposing to build a number of street improvements, including better access from the northbound 101.

--Steve Hymon

rendering: NBC / Universal

Comments

[Cary Adams]

I agree about the number of parking spots - too many. Our challenge is to get people out of cars and into public transit. If successful, the size of any project is not important.

Some would prefer the project be located just "across the street". That just won't work. We would still have the impact but more important, lose the tax base since across the street is unincorporated county territory. That's another reason the mayor wants this project to go ahead.

[Martina]

How so embllishing this Universal city project this area is very nice good luck.

[Martina]

What a embllishing this universal city is very nice I like this.

[Tony]

Re: connection to other transit such as Metrolink, NBC-Uni currently provides employees with free shuttle buses to and from the Burbank Metrolink station. For employees on the Universal lot, it's a great alternative to the Red Line for connecting to Metrolink.

[M]

I live very close to this site and walk to the Universal Red Line station every morning and home every night. To say the least, as a pedestrian and a biker, the number of cars that it is implied will be encouraged to enter the area based on the number of parking spots is alarming. They are taking into consideration people would want to walk across Lankershim from the station to Universal, but are completely ignoring that other individuals work and live in the area and they will have to cross intersections that are NOT being enhanced and instead will have increased car traffic. Meanwhile NBC still won't open up bike paths along the LA River because they don't want people so close to their studios.

Crossing some of the intersections near this area (especially the intersection of Campo De Cahuenga and the 101 freeway on ramp/off ramp) are dangerous as the current traffic patterns stand. More than once a car driver eager to enter the freeway has almost run over a pedestrian in front of my own eyes. Due to the geography of the area where there are a few hills that all intersect to leave narrow valleys for travel, this is a VERY bad location to add additional car traffic.

A couple of years back there was an accident on the 101 freeway going south and as a result all of the traffic poured onto Ventura, Lankershim, Cahuenga, Vineland and other nearby streets to Universal Studios. It was an absolutely insane slightly mobile parking lot.

The proposed parking lots are even more disruptive to the local landscape as they will block out some of the few remaining views of the mountains in the area by the only park in the area. I hardly consider these huge parking lot towers to be part of a truly "green" building project.

Also, recall the previous studies done on public transit use and the people living near the stations. Hopefully those numbers will improve, but if I recall correctly they were surprisingly low.

[NM]

Re: #7, this illustrates the exact problem with parking requirements. If there was a maximum number of parking spaces allowed for the project (rather than a minimum), this would actually increase the viability and competitiveness of transit and non-motorized access to the site, and decrease the built-in competitive advantage of the auto, for people making a travel choice. I agree there should be some parking for the rail patrons, but it should be paid parking, as should any parking for employees at the site. This would go a long way toward reducing the projected vehicle trips for the development. Unfortunately, people always want to see more parking to avoid spillover impacts in adjacent areas. But in reality, this just encourages more driving, because people have the expectation that they will be able to arrive at any destination in the city and park on-site for free. Maybe if they put the required parking several blocks away, there would actually be an incentive to taking the subway because you would arrive right on the property?