University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

University
Avenue
& Royal
Hoover
Street
W. Jefferson
Boulevard
UNIVERSITY PARK AND JEFFERSON
BOULEVARD STREET PLAN 2014
Prepared by the Fall 2014 USC PPD 531L Complete Streets and Bicycle Planning Studio

PLAN AUTHORS
Fall 2014 PPD 531L Complete Streets and Bike Planning Students:
Nick Armour, Christine Blackman, Karl Fielding, Lynnette Hartenian,
Haijing Lin, Clare Kelley, Patrick Martinez, Bryan Moller,
Lavandra Raghuraman, Shrota Sharma, Peter Soderberg,
Kurt Taillin, Lawrence Young, Samuel Zneimer
Direction and edits by Professor Alison Kendall, LEED AP BD+C, AICP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following members of the Trojan Community and various governmental agencies and cy-cling
and pedestrian safety advocates assisted in the preparation of this documen:
USC Administration
Student Affairs
Ainsley Carry, VP-Student Affairs
Facilities/Construction/Auxilliary Services
Brian League
Administrative Services
Brian Gross, Special Projects
Department of Public Safety
Chief John Thomas
Faculty/External Relations
David Galaviz, Exec. Director, Local Govt
Relations
Transportation
David Donovan, Assistant Director
Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC
Students of the Spring 2012 Bike Planning Studio
Students of the Spring 2014 Bike Planning Studio
USC Undergraduate Student Government
Jordan Fowler
Kody Kessler
USC Graduate Student Government
Christine Wozniak, Director of Campus Affairs
City of Los Angeles
Dave Somers, City Planning, Policy
Rubina Ghazarian, LA DOT, Bicycle Coordinator
USC Bicycle Coalition
Cathy Ji, President
Alex Leavitt, Graduate School Representative
Jake Peters, Staff Representative
LA Metro
Tham Nguyen
TRUST South LA
Malcolm Harris, Director of Programs &
Organizing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I) Introduction
Chapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................................. 01
Chapter 2: Issues and Opportunities ............................................................ 07
II) Proposed Street Improvements and Programs
Chapter 3: University Avenue and Royal Street Improvements ................. 21
3.1 Issues & Opportunities............................................................ 22
3.2 Proposed Improvements....................................................... 23
3.3 Implementation Plan.............................................................. 35
Chapter 4: Hoover Avenue and McClintock Improvements ........................ 43
4.1 Issues & Opportunities.......................................................... 44
4.2 Proposed Improvements....................................................... 50
4.3 Implementation Plan............................................................... 56
Chapter 5: Jefferson Boulevard-Vermont to Normandie............................. 63
5.1 Issues & Opportunities........................................................... 64
5.2 Proposed Improvements........................................................ 71
5.3 Implementation Plan.............................................................. 81
III) Next Steps & Other Resources
Chapter 6: Implementation: Evaluation and
Campus Community Collaboration............................................ 86
6.1 Recommendation on Implementation ................................. 86
6.2 Implementation by Area .......................................................... 87
6.3 Education................................................................................ 90
6.4USC Coordination with City and County Agencies....................91
Appendix ........................................................................................................ 99
Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts..................................................... 99
Funding Opportunities............................................................... 103
References.................................................................................. 106

1 Executive Summary 2 3 4 5 6 A
1
Chapter 1:
Executive Summary
Purpose of the University
Park and Jefferson Boulevard
Streets Plan
The University Park and Jefferson
Boulevard Streets Plan was prepared
by the Fall 2014 Complete Streets
and Bicycle Planning Studio at the
Sol Price School of Public Policy as an
exploration of the potential for street
redesign and collaborative USC/City
of LA/Community planning to en-hance
the livability and mobility of
this unique neighborhood in LA.
The University Park neighborhood
directly north of the main USC cam-pus
contains a large number of USC
undergraduate and graduate stu-dents,
as well as a large number of
university related institutions. Two
streets examined in this study, Uni-versity
Avenue and Hoover Avenue,
link the campus to the area and carry
extremely high volumes of bicycles
and pedestrians throughout the day
and evening. Currently the USC Vil-lage
project is under construction just
north of the main campus, and offers
a chance to substantially improve the
safety, convenience and character of
University Park streets over the lon-ger
term, while currently impacting
them during construction.
Given the flat terrain and dispersed
facilities, bicycling is an increasingly
popular choice for USC students, fac-ulty
and staff commuting and trav-eling
between University facilities.
However the campus area has not
adapted to this cycling increase by
providing a clear bicycle circulation
network, supported by bike safety ed-ucation,
enforcement and adequate
bicycle parking and services.
The goal of the University
Street Plan is to propose street
improvements to improve
the safety and convenience of
bicycling and walking in the area
immediately north and west of the
University Park Campus. Cycling
should be supported as a healthy
and sustainable transportation
option for students, faculty, staff,
and community members.
USC and the University Park area have one of the highest cycling rates in California. This
Street Plan proposes street improvements for consideration by the City of LA, USC, and the
local community. the safety and convenience of bicycling and walking. programning and
infrastructure, it can also become one of the most bicycle friendly Universities in the country.

2
Proposed long-term improvements along Hoover Cooridor
Photo simulation of street trees, pedestrian scale lighting,
bicycle parking and lanes near the corner of Jefferson Boulevard
and Budlong Avenue. Some of these improvements can be
implemented at low cost yet could dramatically change the
corridor.
Policies of the North University
Park and Jefferson Blvd Streets
Plan
The Plan identifies specific actions
and strategies to:
1. Propose and encourage imple-mentation
of bicycle and pedestrian
safety improvements for key path-ways
and streets north and west
of the USC main campus. A clear
bicycle circulation network reduces
potential conflicts between pedestri-ans
and cyclists.
2. Improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety at campus gateways and key
intersections, and promote coopera-tion
between USC, the community,
and the the City of LA to coordinate
bikeway improvements in the Uni-versity
area.
3. Identify key partners and
stakeholders who can participate in
improving bicycle and pedestrian
safety and convenience through safe
cycling education, encouragement
for bicycle commuters, and consis-tent
enforcement of safety regula-tions
Seek recognition of the Univer-sity
area as a Bicycle Friendly Commu-nity
and USC as a Bicycle Friendly
University to recognize and celebrate
bicycle improvements and program
achievements.
Organization of the Plan
I) Introduction
1. Executive Summary
2. Issues and Opportunities
II) Policies and Programs
3. University Avenue
4. Hoover Avenue
5. Jefferson Boulevard
III) Next Steps & Other
Resources
6. Implementation & Evaluation and
Campus-Community Collaboration
7. Appendices & Resources

The 2014 Bike Planning Studio Class -
Bike Safety and Training Day
3
Policy Context
Planning Process
Preparation of the North Univer-sity
Park and jefferson Boulevard
Streets Plan nvolved members of the
Trojan Community, residents and
merchants in surrounding neigh-borhoods
and public agencies. This
planning document builds upon USC
policies developed in a broader pub-lic
process in the 2012 University of
Southern California Bicycle Master
Plan.
Other relevant Planning Documents
which affect the Project Areas in-clude:
2010 City of LA Bike Plan, My
Figueroa Streetscape Plan, USC Vil-lage
Development Agreement and
Jefferson Streetscape Design Guide-lines.
(provide full names, web ad-dress)
USC graduate students from the 2014
Bike Planning Studio Class collected
valuable bicycle and pedestrian count
data and analyzed bicycle and pedes-trian
collision data to identify safety
issues and develop recommendations
for potential bicycle improvements
and programs in the area north and
west of the USC campus.
This input was integrated, along with
planning concepts from the previ-ous
2012 Bike Planning Studio Class,
into Draft Plan Proposals discussed
with USC, public agencies and com-munity
representatives on October
30, 2014 and December 4, 2014, and
in numerous Stakeholder meetings
held with University Park and Jef-ferson
Boulevard area stakeholders.
This Draft Streets Plan has been pre-pared
for the use of key stakehold-ers
in the University Park, Jefferson
Boulevard, and USC Community and
by City of LA transportation plan-ners
and advocates. Comments from
guest reviewers will be integrated

into the Final North University Park
Streets Plan.
Next Steps and Implementation
Chapter 6 of the Plan describes the
recommended Implementation
Strategy, including integration with
the USC Bicycle Education Program
and Bicycle Master Plan implementa-tion.
Implementation of the street im-provements
3, 4, and 5 can be phased and coor-dinated
4
Photo simulation of long-term improve-ments
at Hoover and Jefferson intersection
mentioned in Chapters
with related campus plan-ning
projects. City and County of
Photo simulation of raised crosswalk at intersection of Univer-sity
Avenue and 30th Street
Los Angeles projects will also present
opportunities for implementing the
plan and coordinating USC and pub-lic
agency efforts.
TIMS data showing the high collision
injury rate on Hoover Street and at
30th and 32 Streets should be used
in making the case for the City of Los
Angeles and USC to participate in
implementing the raised crosswalks,
extended curb cuts and possibly oth-er
additional improvements such as
flashing beacons.

5
USC Bicycle Master Plan: Circulation Network

6
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 2 Issues & Opportunities 3 4 5 6 A
7
Chapter 2:
Issues and Opportunities:
Volume Counts and Safety Issues This chapter is intended to highlight
and summarize the data collection
process and the subsequent findings
from bicycle and pedestrian counts
conducted at major intersections
north of the USC campus with heavy
bicycle and pedestrian volumes. These
include Figueroa Street, University
Avenue and Hoover Avenue, and
Vermont Avenue at Jefferson
Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.
These counts will be used in part as
baseline data, prior to the My Figueroa
complete streets project, to inform
future political and infrastructure
decisions regarding pedestrians,
bicycles, and complete streets
projects in Los Angeles and beyond.
Counts conducted after the
completion of the My Figueroa
project will be used in comparison
to these baseline counts to provide
empirical evidence of the impact of
complete streets facilities on volumes
of bicycles and pedestrians, perceived
safety of the bicycling environment,
and changes in bicyclist behavior
i.e. Sidewalk riding, wrong-way
riding, use of helmets, etc. The
This chapter also discusses safety
following sections will document
concerns in the area and highlights
the data collection process, site
areas of special concern. The North
characteristics, and findings
University Park and West Adams
resulting from the completed counts.
neighborhoods experience high
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012 Data Source: SafeTrec’s Transportation Injury Mapping System
volumes of cyclists and pedestrians.
Due to behavioral and road design
issues there are also high volumes
of collisions involving cyclists
and pedestrians in this area.

8
2.1 Figueroa Street and Jefferson Boulevard:
Volume Counts and Safety Issues
Site Characteristics
The intersection of Jefferson Blvd.
and South Figueroa St. currently
favors vehicle transportation over
bicycles. Both Jefferson and Figueroa
have a total of six lanes of traffic and
an additional lane of parking near the
intersection, as well as posted speed
limits of 35 MPH, respectively. The
two streets are devoid of on-street
bicycle facilities; there are no bike
lanes or sharrows present. Figueroa
is designated as a Bike Route and one
sign located east of the intersection
on Jefferson, heading west, indicates
this, yet this area contains only the very
most southern tip of this designation
because it ends at Exposition Blvd.
The intersection does, however, have
a fairly strong pedestrian orientation.
There are ADA accessible pedestrian
curb cutouts at each corner. The
intersection borders the main
campus of USC to the southwest,
the Galen Center to the southeast, a
mixed-use development comprised
of retail and student housing to
the northwest, and an automobile
dealership to the northeast. The
sidewalk width is between 10 and 20
feet alongside all of these properties,
except the auto dealership, in which
case it decreases to approximately
8 feet. There is a strong pedestrian
orientation due to the presence of the
University and the close proximity
to the Metro Exposition light rail
line (Expo), located one block
east of the study intersection, on
Jefferson Blvd. and South Flower St.
There is a limited amount of bicycle
parking along the north leg of
Figueroa in front of the mixed-use
development, likely to serve
the occupants of the apartment
building and the customers of the
retail locations. However, there is no
bicycle parking along the other legs of
the intersection. Much of the bicycle
parking for this area is located on
USC’s campus, with the expectation
that cyclists will then walk to their
destinations. Hence, there is a
lack of adequate bicycle parking
facilities for non-USC affiliated
cyclists and users of the Expo line.
Findings
Depending on the location of
screenline counters, some bicyclists
and pedestrians can appear to be
“lost” in the intersection, that is,
there are differences in the number
of people approaching and departing
a given intersection. This commonly
occurs when the individual’s trip
destination or origin is located
between the screenlines; thus, they
will pass only one screenline instead
of two. This is likely to occur at this
particular location because a large
apartment complex and entrances to
the University of Southern California,
two significant trip generators, are
located at the intersection. For this
reason, we will focus on the approach
numbers in order to show trends in
bicyclist and pedestrian volumes.
Our data shows that the volume of both
bicyclists and pedestrians appears
to generally increase throughout
the day, likely in surges during
peak periods. During the morning,
midday, and evening peak periods,
a total of 192, 391, and 525 bicyclists
approached the intersection,
respectively. Similarly, 632, 1176,
and 2152 pedestrians approached
7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

9
the intersection during the same
respective time periods. It is feasible
that the University of Southern
California is among the largest
generators of bicycle and pedestrian
traffic since in all cases, except for
midday bicyclists, between 52% and
62% of approach traffic is heading
in the direction of the University
(located at the south-east corner of
the intersection) during any given
peak period. While it is impossible to
determine the ultimate destination of
these travelers without widespread
surveying and turning movement
counts, the approach numbers
can still be loosely extrapolated
to show direction of travel.
In a similar fashion, pedestrians and
cyclists coming to and from the Expo
line can also be roughly estimated
based on the westbound approach
(coming from the Expo station) and
the eastbound departure (going to
the Expo station) count numbers.
These numbers are particularly
revealing for pedestrians, with 23%
of morning peak period pedestrians
coming from the direction of the
Expo line and 22% of evening peak
period pedestrians going in the
direction of the Expo line. Again,
while we cannot say for sure if these
trips are due to the Expo line without
a proper trip generation and transit
11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
ridership analysis, an extrapolation
can be made to suggest that these
people may be walking between
the transit line and the University.
Both of these points may be used
in discussions to provide enhanced
infrastructure and programs related
to the active transportation users
seeking access to the University of
Southern California and first mile-last
mile connections with the Metro
Expo Line.

10
2.2 University Avenue:
Volume Counts and Safety Issues
University Avenue is a critical
transportation corridor, providing
a direct connection between off-campus
student housing and the
University of Southern California, as
well as an intermediate connection
to 30th Street and 32nd Street that
in turn connect to Hoover Street
and Figueroa Street. The southern
terminus at the Jefferson/Hoover/
University intersection adds
complexity to the movement of all
modes of transportation. This avenue
is not open for vehicular traffic except
for the occasional USC facilities truck.
This thoroughfare offers a park-like
setting for other modes of transport
including pedestrian, bicycle, and
skateboard, locomotion. Signs are
posted to disallow skateboard use.
There is a large median within the
length of the avenue that is planted
with grass and trees, and provides
some seating in the form of foot-wide
cement walls (that act as benches).
The median divides the avenue
into uneven paths on either side.
This design carries through both
blocks of University with only slight
variation between the two blocks. It
is important to note that the median
is of variable width that adds to the
park-like setting, but inhibits to some
degree the efficient movement of large
volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists.
Royal Street is another pedestrian
path that is used sometimes by
vehicular traffic to access the parking
lot to the west, for instance during
Shrine Auditorium shows. There is
a gate that is normally locked at the
north end of Royal Street, at 32nd
Street, and cement barriers at the
south end, at Jefferson Boulevard,
to prevent vehicle access. There are
also more cement barriers about
halfway between Jefferson and
32nd. The design of this street is
more open, without greenery, and
the only inhibition to pedestrian and
bicycle movement are the gates and
the cement barriers. There are no
posted signs along this passageway.
Findings
The screenline method provided
counts at a particular location north
of the intersections. Each screenline
location was approximately 120
feet north, and allowed the counter
to count both northbound and
southbound pedestrians and
bicyclists crossing the screenline,
and either approaching or departing
the respective intersection.
Our data shows that the volume
of both bicyclists and pedestrians
appears to generally increase
throughout the day, likely in surges
or class changes during peak periods.
On University, during the morning,
midday, and evening peak periods, a

11
total of 340, 477, and 292 bicyclists
respectively. A total of 45, 373,
and 513 bicyclists traveled north,
departing the intersection area during
the same peak periods. The largest
volume coincides with the typical
end to day class times. Similarly,
355, 498, and 292 pedestrians
approached the intersection during
the same respective time periods,
and 60, 470, and 691 pedestrians
departed. It is likely that the
University of Southern California
is among the largest generators of
this bicycle and pedestrian traffic
during any given peak period,
considering the location. While it is
impossible to determine the ultimate
destination or departure point of
counts, the approach numbers
can still be loosely tied to USC.
Royal Street overall experiences less
foot and bicycle traffic. During the
midday peak period, a total of 396
pedestrians, and 105 bicyclists, moved
both north and south fairly evenly
split between the two directions. The
volumes for both locations increase
typically in the fifteen-minute
periods prior to an hour, for instance
11:45 am – 12:00 pm. Additionally,
on University, the midday and
evening peaks experience the highest
volumes between 800 to 1,000
each for pedestrians and bicyclists!
These high volumes and high collision
reports may be used in discussions
to provide enhanced infrastructure
and programs related to the active
transportation users seeking access to
the University of Southern California.
Royal Street 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

12
7 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Cyclist and Pedestrian Volume Counts:
University Avenue
These figures show the northbound and southbound volumes on
University Avenue for bicyclists and pedestrians north of the Jefferson/
Hoover/University intersection during the three peak periods. At right
is Royal Street for north of the Jefferson/Gate 4 intersection during one
peak period. Generally, Royal experiences much lower volumes than
University, so the count emphasis was placed at University Avenue.
11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

13
2.3 Hoover Street: Volume
Counts and Safety Issues
The bicycle counts conducted on
the Hoover Avenue corridor showed
massive volumes of cyclists, which
are detailed in the Hoover Avenue
corridor analysis chapter. The data
indicates that a large number of
bicyclists use the Hoover/Jefferson/
University intersection to enter
campus. While bike counts were
not performed at the McClintock/
Jefferson intersection observations
were made about the intersection.
The Hoover Avenue and McClintock
Avenue corridors face similar safety
concerns; the mixing of different
modes at intersections, the temporary
elimination of bicycle facilities do to
USC Village construction, and high
volumes with insufficient capacity.
The intersections are of particular
concern as they involve bicycle
and pedestrian movements at the
same time, and when construction
is finished at the Hoover Jefferson
intersection, both are scrabble
configuration intersections. The
conflicting movement and speed of
the cyclist and pedestrians can result
in collisions. In the short-term there
are limited solutions but adding
capacity for bicyclist by changing
curb-cuts or temporary markings
can help with the separation. In
the long-term more comprehensive
recommendations should be used. For
the streets outside of the intersection
there is currently bike lanes for both;
while better than nothing upgrading
the corridors to cycle tracks will
increase the safety and comfort
of bicyclist separating them from
vehicular traffic and possible dooring.
The other safety issue is inexperienced
users utilizing the corridors. In USC
Bicycle Master Plan states that the
surveys of the student population
confirm that they lack experience
and frequently engage in dangerous
behavior. The data illustrates how
this manifests a high number of
users riding without a helmet, on
the sidewalk and the wrong-way
within the roadway. While current
construction contributes to the illegal
and unsafe riding it was also observed
that cyclist would ride one-handed
either holding coffee or a cellphone.
The intersection of Jefferson Blvd.
and South Figueroa St. currently
favors vehicle transportation over
bicycles. Both Jefferson and Figueroa
have a total of six lanes of traffic and
an additional lane of parking near the
intersection, as well as posted speed
USC

limits of 35 MPH, respectively. The
two streets are devoid of on-street
bicycle facilities; there are no bike
lanes or sharrows present. Figueroa
is designated as a Bike Route and one
sign located east of the intersection
on Jefferson, heading west, indicates
this, yet this area contains only
the very most southern tip of this
designation because it ends at
Exposition Blvd.
The intersection does, however, have
a fairly strong pedestrian orientation.
There are ADA accessible pedestrian
curb cutouts at each corner. The
intersection borders the main
campus of USC to the southwest,
the Galen Center to the southeast, a
mixed-use development comprised
of retail and student housing to
the northwest, and an automobile
dealership to the northeast. The
sidewalk width is between 10 and 20
feet alongside all of these properties,
except the auto dealership, in which
case it decreases to approximately
8 feet. There is a strong pedestrian
orientation due to the presence of the
University and the close proximity to
the Metro Exposition light rail line
(Expo), located one block east of the
study intersection, on Jefferson Blvd.
and South Flower St.
14
There is a limited amount of bicycle
parking along the north leg of
Figueroa in front of the mixed-use
development, likely to serve
the occupants of the apartment
building and the customers of the
retail locations. However, there is no
bicycle parking along the other legs of
the intersection. Much of the bicycle
parking for this area is located on
USC’s campus, with the expectation
that cyclists will then walk to their
destinations. Hence, there is a lack of
adequate bicycle parking facilities for
non-USC affiliated cyclists and users
of the Expo line.
Findings
Depending on the location of
screenline counters, some bicyclists
and pedestrians can appear to be
“lost” in the intersection, that is,
there are differences in the number
of people approaching and departing
a given intersection. This commonly
occurs when the individual’s trip
destination or origin is located
between the screenlines; thus, they
will pass only one screenline instead
of two. This is likely to occur at this
particular location because a large
apartment complex and entrances to
the University of Southern California,
two significant trip generators, are
located at the intersection. For this
reason, we will focus on the approach
numbers in order to show trends in
bicyclist and pedestrian volumes.
Our data shows that the volume of both
bicyclists and pedestrians appears
to generally increase throughout
the day, likely in surges during
peak periods. During the morning,
midday, and evening peak periods,
a total of 192, 391, and 525 bicyclists
respectively. Similarly, 632, 1176,
and 2152 pedestrians approached
the intersection during the same
respective time periods. It is feasible
that the University of Southern
California is among the largest
generators of bicycle and pedestrian
traffic since in all cases, except for
midday bicyclists, between 52% and
62% of approach traffic is heading
in the direction of the University
(located at the south-east corner of
the intersection) during any given
peak period. While it is impossible to
determine the ultimate destination of
counts, the approach numbers can
still be loosely extrapolated to show
direction of travel.
In a similar fashion, pedestrians and
cyclists coming to and from the Expo
line can also be roughly estimated
based on the westbound approach
(coming from the Expo station) and
the eastbound departure (going to
the Expo station) count numbers.
These numbers are particularly
revealing for pedestrians, with 23%
of morning peak period pedestrians
coming from the direction of the
Expo line and 22% of evening peak
period pedestrians going in the
direction of the Expo line. Again,
while we cannot say for sure if these
trips are due to the Expo line without
a proper trip generation and transit
ridership analysis, an extrapolation
can be made to suggest that these
people may be walking between the
transit line and the University.
Both of these points may be used
in discussions to provide enhanced
infrastructure and programs related
to the active transportation users
seeking access to the University of
Southern California and first mile-last
mile connections with the Metro
Expo Line.

15
7 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Hoover Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard
Volume counts conducted at the intersection of Hoover Avenue and
Jefferson Boulevard demonstrate the large flows of cyclists and
pedestrians to and from the USC campus during three peak periods. Full
volume count data is included in the Appendix of this report.
11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

2.4 Vermont Avenue and Jefferson
Boulevard: Volume Counts and Safety
Issues Count Data
Cyclist and pedestrian counts were
conducted over a three week period
from October 9, 2014 to October 23,
2014 at three two-hour intervals. The
counts were done during morning
peak hours of 7 AM to 9 AM, midday
peak hours between 11 AM - 1 PM
and evening peak hours between 4
PM - 6PM. The location of counts
were north, east, south and west
of the intersection at Jefferson
Boulevard and Vermont Avenue.
The count data displayed high
volumes of cyclists and pedestrians.
About 245 pedestrians used the
sidewalks near the intersection of
Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont
Avenue in any given direction for
all peak hour intervals. Similarly, a
large number of bicyclists traveled
through the intersection--an average
of 121 bicyclists. The volumes of
pedestrians and bicyclists were
higher in the eastbound direction
towards campus, with the exception
of evening peak hours, in which
westbound volumes are much
higher. Northbound and southbound
volumes have no discernible pattern
over the peak hour intervals.
16
Safety Problems
Counters at Jefferson Blvd. and
Vermont Ave. noted clearly visible
problems between motor vehicles,
cyclists, and pedestrians. Motorists
often fail to yield to pedestrians when
making right turns on red lights. A
high percentage of observed cyclists
where sidewalk riders, demonstrating
that many riders do not feel that
the street is a safe place to ride.
Collision data shows a concentration
of collisions involving cyclists or
pedestrians at the intersection of
Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont
Avenue. Collisions are also
clustered along Vermont Avenue
south of Jefferson Boulevard.
USC

17
7 a.m. to 9 a.m.
Vermont Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard
Volumes are consistently high during the three peak hour intervals. Both
pedestrians and bicyclists use the Jefferson Boulevard corridor, west
of Vermont Avenue, regularly. These numbers validate that there is a
comparable number of users that would value the addition of bicycle
infrastructure and pedestrian-friendly streets.
11 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

18
2.5 Jefferson Boulevard:
Vermont Avenue to Normandie Avenue:
Safety Issues
Safety data collected in the
Transportation Injury Mapping
System, provided by SafeTrec, reveals
that nearly one hundred collisions
involving cyclists or pedestrians
occurred in the project study area
from 2008 to 2012. Collisions are
clustered along Jefferson Boulevard
at intersections. The intersections
of Jefferson Boulevard and Vermont
Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard and
Normandie Avenue are particular
hot spots.
Most collisions involved cyclists who
must contend with a lack of bicycle
facilities along Jefferson Boulevard
from Vermont Avenue to Normandie
Avenue The primary collision factor
in the majority of these collisions
was driver behavior. Driver behavior
includes illegal maneuvers as well as
falling asleep at the wheel and other
improper driving.
Nearly thirty percent of these
collisions were classified as hit
and runs, indicating a lack of
accountability for cyclist and
pedestrian safety. Additionally, the
majority of cyclist collisions resulted
in visible injuries. Both cyclists and
pedestrians were severely injured
during this time period in collisions.
Most collisions took place during the
daytime, which should be safer than
periods in darkness. Over half of
the collisions involving pedestrians
occurred in intersections without
control devices demonstrating
the need for enhanced pedestrian
infrastructure.
Infrastructure deficits, discussed
in the Chapter 5, likely contributed
to these collisions. There are
opportunities to provide enhanced
facilities for cyclists and pedestrians
along the corridor, improving safety
for all.
Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012
Pedestrian Collisions 2008-2012

19
USC

2200
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN

1 2 3 University Avenue 4 5 6 A
21
Chapter 3:
University Avenue
University Avenue is a critical trans-portation
corridor, providing a direct
connection between off-campus stu-dent
housing and the University of
Southern California, as well as an in-termediate
connection to 30th Street
and 32nd Street which in turn con-nect
to Hoover Street and Figueroa
Street. A number of transportation
efficiency and safety related issues
have been identified in regards to
University Avenue; most notably,
there are safety concerns due to col-lisions,
congestion, user conflict, and
inadequate crossing facilities at in-tersections
which will be discussed
in depth in the appendix. This report
will discuss some of these issues, pro-pose
a number of improvements to
the existing facilities, detail these im-provements
through concept designs
and graphics, and finally, justify the
importance of investing in these in-frastructure
and plan improvements.
Project Study Area

2222
3.1 Issues and
Opportunities
The neighborhood north of the USC
campus is busy with movement from
all modes of transportation. As
shown by the counts taken, pedes-trian
and bicycle volumes within this
area are extremely high and often
there are severe conflicts that pro-duce
critical safety hazards for these
particular modes. University Avenue
is a pedestrian pathway (used by bi-cyclists
as well) that is intersected by
32nd Street. It is an important link-age
between student housing and
the university, and experiences high
volumes with chaotic and inefficient
flows. Risk of collisions between bi-cyclists
and pedestrians is high, as
well as collisions with vehicles at the
crossings of Jefferson Boulevard, and
32nd and 30th Streets.
Royal Street presents fewer safety
concerns within its corridor; howev-er,
pedestrians and bicyclists face the
similar hazards crossing Jefferson
Boulevard as those from University
Avenue. The pedestrians and bicy-cles
crossing Jefferson to enter Gate
4 experience serious conflict with
vehicles using this University access.
In addition, the existing single pedes-trian
crosswalk is inadequate.
These challenges are, in fact, oppor-tunities
for improvement. Los Ange-les
is looking forward to an increase
in complete streetscape design that
includes good mobility for all users.
The upcoming MyFig and Jefferson
Boulevard Streetscape projects are
evidence of that trend. The Univer-sity
community has an opportunity
to increase the benefits of those im-provements
by moving forward with
design ideas from this planning stu-dio,
as well as past efforts that pro-duced
the USC Bicycle Master Plan,
and providing support with the nec-essary
collaborations that will be re-quired
with other agencies such as
LADOT. In particular, this section’s
focus on University Avenue and Roy-al
Street, and their relevant cross-ings,
provides opportunity in the
short term to make smaller improve-ments
that will have a significant and
positive impact for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Longer term improve-ments
will need a more coordinated
effort but the effort will be rewarded
with lifting the University area into a
bike and pedestrian friendly status,
which aligns well with the historical
and significant use of walking and cy-cling
for residents in this area. This
is another opportunity for USC to ex-tend
its good neighbor effort into the
north and west of the Academic core.
University Avenue - Current Conditions

23
3.2 Proposed Improvements
1. Protected Cycle Track
One of the primary concerns re-garding
University Avenue is safety
for both bicyclists and pedestrians
throughout the length of the heavily
used corridor. In order to reduce col-lisions
and increase efficient flow of
traffic, it is imperative to physically
separate the pedestrians from the
faster moving bicycles. Observations
show limited compliance with the
painted bicycle lanes on Trousdale
Parkway. Therefore, a greater degree
of separation is desired to ensure
appropriate and adequate use. This
separation can be achieved through
a cycle track featuring a painted lane
with pylon buffers creating a physical
barrier between the cyclists and the
pedestrians. In doing so, user con-flict
and congestion will be reduced,
travel times will likely become faster
and there is potential for reduced in-cidence
of collision. In addition, pre-senting
cycle tracks to the on cam-pus
student population may have
spillover benefits resulting in greater
ridership for the nearby My Figueroa
complete streets project which makes
use of similar cycle tracks.
Further complicating travel down
University Avenue is the presence
of a large median containing green
space and pedestrian seating ar-eas.
The median provides valuable
green space and supports a number
of mature trees. It is very feasible to
reduce the median width and this is
recommended for the following im-provements.
The median is also not
centered directly in the middle of the
path, creating a narrow side on the
east and a wider side on the west. In
addressing this issue, two alterna-tives
involving physically separated
cycle tracks were studied for how best
to conduct this separation, discussed
below.
Proposed cycle track along University Avenue with con-nections
to surrounding bicycle infrastructure

2244
Two-way cycle track on west
side of University
Contrary to the traditional one-way
cycle tracks which feature one direc-tional
traffic of bicycles on the right
side of a street, two-way cycle tracks
instead place each directional lane
right next to each other, allowing the
track to be on one side of the street
instead of both sides. Two-way cycle
tracks are commonly featured as rec-reational
bike paths, and more re-cently,
in urban settings in both Eu-ropean
and North American cities. At
its most narrow point, the east side
is a mere 12 feet wide, too narrow to
accommodate both a two-way cycle
track with an appropriate width of
6.5 feet per lane and pedestrians.
This cycle track could be placed on
the west side, abutting the median.
This provides space for pedestrians
on both sides of the median and al-lows
pedestrian access into the me-dian.
Photo simulation showing proposed two-way cycle track along
the west side of median along University Avenue

25
One-way cycle tracks on both
sides of the median
One cycle track concept was a one-directional
separated cycle track on
both the east and west sides of the
median. These cycle tracks would be
6.5 feet wide and will allow adequate
space for pedestrians to utilize both
sides of the median. Sections along
the cycle tracks will be marked with
striped paint and feature gaps in the
physical separation in order to indi-cate
pedestrian crossing zones. This
signage performs three important
functions. First, it alerts both cyclists
and pedestrians to each others’ pres-ence
and shows that pedestrians are
permitted to cross the path in these
locations thus, reducing poten-tial
for user conflict and collisions.
Second, it provides convenient en-trances
and exits for cyclists using
the cycle tracks, and third, they al-low
pedestrians to access the pub-lic
green space in the median. This
treatment is the less preferred op-tion
due to the creation of conflict
areas and reduced access to the
green space present in the medi-an.
The two-way cycle track would
maintain adequate access to the
median while avoiding conflict
zones.
Class II Bike Lane
Alternative idea for separated cycle track along University

2. Crossings at 32nd and 30th
- Raised Crosswalk
According to traffic injury data col-lected
2266
from TIMS, there are bicycle
and pedestrian collision hotspots at
the intersections of University and
30th as well as University and 32nd.
These locations likely yield a high
number of collisions due to poor sig-nage,
large volumes of bikes and pe-destrians,
and inadequate crossing
facilities for all users. In order to ease
the flow of traffic, increase the visibil-ity
of pedestrians, and enhance the
integration of the bicycle network,
we suggest adding a raised cross-walk.
There’s a school nearby (Thirty
Second School Street) which is an-other
challenge for all users because
students are picked up and dropped
off on 32nd street near USC at peak
hours. The raised crosswalk would
calm down traffic and force cars to
slow down. This is great for pedes-trians
because the users can feel safe
when crossing the path from curb to
curb and cars know to slow down be-cause
of the raised crosswalk along
with increasing signage in the area.
Aerial view showing proposed cycle track
connection to existing bike lanes north of
30th Street
Photo simulation of raised crosswalk at intersection of Univer-sity
Avenue and 30th Street

27
3. Crossing at Jefferson Blvd.
- Dedicated Bike Crossing Phase
Another area with significant conges-tion
and user conflict is the intersec-tion
where Hoover St, Jefferson Blvd,
and University Ave meet. The exist-ing
intersection dynamic is very cha-otic,
allowing bicycles and pedestri-ans
to cross the intersection vertical-ly,
horizontally, and diagonally lead-ing
directly into a bottleneck on the
campus side caused by a fence and a
utility box. To reduce congestion and
improve safety at this crossing, it is
important to first remove this bottle-neck
by relocating the utility box and
expanding the existing curb cut to
provide greater access to the Univer-sity
property.
Next, it is important to again sepa-rate
the bicyclists from the pedestri-ans
in order to reduce user conflict.
This will be done by painting bicycle
boxes at either side of the intersec-tion
to physically bring bicycles in
front of pedestrians at the intersec-tion.
Then the signal phasing will
be altered to provide a 4 second bi-cycle
only crossing phase. These 4
seconds will be allocated by taking 2
seconds from the southbound green
phase and the eastbound/westbound
through phase. This altered signal
phasing will allow bikes to cross the
intersection before pedestrians begin
crossing, reducing user conflict and
congestion. It is important to main-tain
the full time allocated for pedes-trian
crossing phases due to the high
volumes of pedestrians.
In order to move forward with an im-provement
for this intersection, it is
important to coordinate it with and
include the Jefferson Blvd streetscape
improvements as well as to take in
account of the future opening of the
USC Village project at the northwest
corner of this intersection, a mixed
use retail and housing development
which will bring an additional 2,700
students to the area. However, USC
Village will be providing a dedicated
pedestrian crossing at Jefferson Blvd
and Watt Way to the west of this in-tersection,
reducing much of the con-gestion
that would otherwise spill
over from the project.
Aerial view showing proposed cycle track
connection to intersection of Hoover Street
and Jefferson Boulevard

4. “Road Diet” on 32nd between
Hoover and Figueroa
To enhance bike and pedestrian safe-ty,
as well as encourage safer driving
habits along 32nd street, a standard
“road diet” is recommended. This
road diet will consist of reducing the
number of travel lanes in each direc-tion
from two lanes to one lane, add-ing
a 2-way left turn lane in the me-dian
and adding 5 feet class II bike
lanes on both sides of the street. This
type of road treatment will maintain
the existing street parking on 32nd
but provide much safer travel condi-tions
2288
for all modes of transportation
5. Removal of parking and ad-dition
of bike lanes on 30th be-tween
Royal and Figueroa
Currently, there are class II bike lanes
on 30th between Hoover and Royal,
but these bike lanes then transition
into sharrows. To address the safety
concerns in this neighborhood, it is
important to update this infrastruc-ture
and provide 5 feet class II bike
lanes. However, there is insufficient
space to add this treatment with the
existing lane configuration. In order
to add this improvement, the remov-al
of street parking along 30th from
Royal to Figueroa will be necessary.
Bike parking along University Avenue causes additional conflict
zones that must be navegated by pedestrians and bicyclists.

29
3.2.6 Royal and Jefferson
Intersection at USC Gate 4
The crossing here does not work well
for bicyclists nor for the automobiles
exiting the gate. It is also difficult for
vehicle traffic to move in and out of
Gate 4 which is on the south side of
the intersection. The Gate itself was
not designed for either pedestrians
or bicyclists to enter or exit, yet many
people do use this Gate on foot and
bicycle due to its location near the
Shrine parking garage and the Gate-way
housing complex.
In order to improve the pedestrian
and bicycle crossing facilities, it is
recommended that an additional
crosswalk on the west side of the in-tersection
be striped. This crosswalk
should also lead into a newly build
bicycle and pedestrian oriented gate
on the west side of the existing auto-mobile
gate. Additional signage and
pedestrian striping should continue
through the gate, leading bicyclists
and pedestrians into the existing
campus transportation network.
To further reduce the user conflict
at this intersection, it is also recom-mended
that the signal phasing be al-tered
to provide a 4 second head start
phase for bicycles and pedestrians
crossing the intersection. University
Avenue experiences much higher vol-umes
of pedestrian and bicycle traf-fic
so making improvements for that
multi-use pathway should be the pri-ority.
However, the USC community
will continue to utilize this intersec-tion,
it is important to address the
existing inadequacies. In addition,
a proposed USC parking garage on
the current Shrine parking lot will
increase pedestrian use and may
provide an opportunity to reduce the
barricades to through bicycle access
on Royal Street.
Proposed crossing and
entrance to campus for
pedestrians and bicyclists
at Royal Street
Proposed intallation of bike and pedestrian path
at Royal Street entrance to campus

3300
3.2.7 Recommendations
Justification
The majority of recommendations
made in this report are infrastructure
improvements, supplemented with
an educational program to improve
knowledge and awareness. Of these
improvements, the most important
for improving the safety throughout
the entire University Avenue corri-dor
are the cycle track and the raised
crosswalks along University Avenue.
The primary concern for the corridor
is protecting student safety by reduc-ing
collisions, congestion, and user
conflict. All three of these aspects
can be improved by providing a cycle
track which separates the bicycles and
pedestrians effectively eliminating
user conflict and bicycle-pedestrian
collisions. Congestion along the cor-ridor
is likely to improve as bicycles
are free to move faster, since they will
not be impeded by pedestrians, and
pedestrians do not have be constantly
on alert for approaching bicycles. Ad-ditionally,
the raised crosswalk will
create more visibility for bicyclists
and pedestrians while simultaneous-ly
slowing down motor vehicles, two
features crucial for alleviating the
collision hotspots observed at these
intersections (see Appendix).
Due to the difficult existing condi-tions
on Royal Street, University Av-enue
will be made into the primary
connection to campus. University
currently has higher bicycle and pe-destrian
volumes than Royal (see
Fig.5 in Appendix) thus, the focus
will be placed on improving condi-tions
at University to diverting bicy-cle
and pedestrian traffic to this cor-ridor.
However, the improvements
at the intersection of Royal and Jef-ferson
are still critical for ensuring a
safe and convenient route for bicycles
and pedestrians.

31
3.2.8 Issue Identification
University Avenue is a multi-use
transportation pathway, providing
a vital connection between the Uni-versity
of Southern California and
a large supply of off-campus stu-dent
housing located just North of
Campus. University Avenue also in-tersects
with 30th Street and 32nd
Street, two east-west running streets
which connect to Hoover Street and
Figueroa Street. These are two im-portant
connections for facilitating
travel throughout this neighborhood.
The path provides automobile free
access for bicycles and pedestrians,
which include skateboards, scooters,
and rollerbladers. Due to the direct
connection between USC and student
housing, as well as the diverse trans-portation
modes permitted to use the
path, there are high volumes of users
along University Avenue and signifi-cant
conflict between various modes
(see figure 1).
The pathway appears generally cha-otic,
with a median consisting of
green space and pedestrian oriented
seating bordered by two strips of un-even
pavement. With no designated
space for pedestrian and bicycle ac-cess,
nor a separation for direction of
travel, the entire corridor becomes a
hodge podge of traffic moving in dif-ferent
directions, at different speeds.
This creates a serious
Bicycle and Pedestrian volumes on University Ave

safety concern for students trav-eling
3322
along University Avenue.
1. Traffic Injury Mapping System
(TIMS) data was analyzed to quan-tify
this safety concern (see figure 2),
however, this data does not accurate-ly
reflect bicycle-bicycle and bicycle-pedestrian
collisions due to a lack of
incident reporting and poor commu-nication
between the University De-partment
of Public Safety and the Los
Angeles Police Department, the latter
of whom reports the statewide stan-dardized
collision data used in TIMS.
In moving forward with improving
the safety of this area, it is important
to establish a protocol for bicycle and
pedestrian collision reporting, with
the University Department of Pub-lic
Safety, so that baseline data can
be established and future changes in
collisions and injuries can be prop-erly
recorded, scrutinized, and ad-dressed
through policies, programs,
and improvements.
2. The data does however indicate
hotspots of collisions along Universi-ty
Avenue at Jefferson Blvd, 32nd St,
and 30th St. These intersections are
likely made more dangerous because
of the large volumes of bike and pe-destrian
traffic, inadequate crossing
facilities, and poor signalization for
automobiles.
3. Additionally, the high volumes of
bicycles and pedestrians crossing
Jefferson where University Ave and
Hoover St converge creates a number
of other issues. The existing signaliza-tion
provides an all pedestrian cross-ing
phase in which both pedestrians
and bicycles cross in any and every
direction possible. This intersection
reflects the same user conflict issues
present along University Avenue and
should be addressed by creating sep-aration
of bicycles and pedestrians
during the crossing to both ensure
safety and reliable crossing access.
1/2-mile radius around Hoover Street and Jef-ferson
Boulevard intersection showing bicycle
and pedestrian crashes (2008-2012)

33
Royal Street and Gate to Campus
A good portion of the bicycle and pe-destrian
traffic chooses to cross at
the intersection of Jefferson Blvd and
Royal St, one block to the East. This
intersection however, was not de-signed
to handle the large amount of
non-motorized vehicle crossings and
presents significant safety and traf-fic
congestion issues. This rerouted
traffic reflects the existing deficien-cies
along University Ave. If travel
down University is made more safe,
reliable, and efficient traffic will be
far more likely to continue using Uni-versity
instead of shifting to Royal.
Creating this incentive to use Univer-sity
Avenue instead of Royal Street is
imperative to ensuring student safe-ty,
alleviating vehicle traffic conges-tion
along Jefferson Boulevard, and
reducing conflicts with The Shrine
located at the corner of Royal and
Jefferson. However, USC plans to
construct a parking garage opposite
of the Shrine which will increase the
need to accommodate more pedes-trian
and bike crossings here.
Bicycle and Pedestrian volumes on Royal Street.

3344
Suggested Improvements for Royal
and Jefferson Blvd. Intersection
The issues along University Avenue
regarding safety are as follows:
1. Separating bicycles and pedestri-ans
on University Avenue in order
to reduce congestion, collisions, and
user conflict
2. Increase reporting of bicycle-bicy-cle
and bicycle-pedestrian collisions
in order to generate more accurate
safety data and quantifiable needs
and benefits derived from existing
and future safety programs and poli-cies
3. Provide safe and timely crossing
mechanisms along University Av-enue
at the intersections of Jefferson
Boulevard, 32nd Street, and 30th
Street
4. Creating incentives to maintain
ridership along University Avenue
instead of diverting traffic to Royal
Street
1. Add pedestrian gate east of Gate
4 so pedestrians are not in the gate
driveway.
2. Include pedestrian striping and
crosswalk within Gate drive, just
west of parking kiosk. Continue pe-destrian
striping along northwestern
curb for MRF building until it meets
up with sidewalk just west of MFR.
Add ADA compliant curb-cut ramp at
sidewalk for uninterrupted access.
3. Remove driveway for Gate 4,and
replace it a few feet to the south (and
just north of the brick pedestal) so
the sidewalk pedestrians walking
along Jefferson are aware of entry
into a major conflict zone.
4. Bike lane striping across Jefferson,
from Gate 4 to Royal; two ways and
split on east and west side of intersec-tion.
5. Add painted bike boxes on north
and south side of intersection at the
appropriate waiting zone.
6. Implement signal change for
pedestrians and bicycles to move
through the intersection ahead of
vehicles entering and exiting Gate 4.
Install signal change for vehicles exit-ing
Gate 4 to a standard red, yellow,
green, traffic light.
7. Remove west end of median on
Jefferson that currently intrudes into
crosswalk.
8. Add ADA compliant curb-cut
ramps for pedestrians at either end
of the crosswalk.

35
3.3 Implementation Plan for
University Avenue
Recommendation by Priority Cost & Level of
Coordination Implementation Recommendation (Description)
Phase I: 0-3 Years Short Term and Intermediate Improvements
Education and Collision Reporting Low
Orientation programs, signage and notices, bicycle safety
training courses; LAPD & DPS coordination
Crossing at Jefferson Blvd. Low/Medium Curb smoothing, consolidation and relocation of signal
poles
Cycle Tracks on University Avenue Medium Median reduction, lane striping and pylon installation
Crossing at Jefferson Blvd. High
Expand curb cuts, relocate utility box, paint bike boxes,
add lead signal for bicyclists
Raised Speed Tables at 32nd St. and 30th St. Medium Raised table installation, striping, signage
Crossing at Royal and Jefferson High
Install curb cuts, add signal changes, crossing striping,
pedestrian gate, and striping within gate area
Phase II: 3-5 Years Long Term Improvements
The recommendations that are of-fered
here are critical to improve the
safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in
the area north of the USC University
Park Campus. There are significant
safety concerns that are evidenced
by the high number of reported col-lisions.
However, the recommenda-tions
have different levels of funding
requirements and coordination with
other jurisdictions. Therefore, each
improvement and program has been
prioritized.
Recommendations that require less
investment appear earlier in the im-plementation
strategy because early
action provides forward momentum
for the plan. In addition, smaller
funding amounts are more easily
found. Other recommendations ap-pear
later in the implementation
timeline due to the complex coordi-nation
needed with other agencies
and higher funding required. Table
1 lists each recommendation in or-der
of priority. Additionally, we have
created a two-phase implementation
program in which to organize these
improvements based on the difficulty
and complexity of implementation.
Please note that the Phase I improve-ments
to the Jefferson/Hoover inter-section
(Crossing at Jefferson, Table
1) can be easily integrated into the
Jefferson Streetscape which is al-ready
planned in conjunction with
the University Village project. These
minor changes can be implemented
soon with low to no additional cost
because of the timing of our recom-mendations.
See Section 4.2.1 for
more details.

3366
3.3.1 Implementation Timeline
Phase I consists of the simpler, eas-ier
to implement programs and im-provements.
These include educa-tional
outreach programs, improved
collision reporting, and policy en-forcement.
These programs are easy
and comparatively inexpensive to
implement. They will also allow for
a smoother implementation process
for future improvements. It is expect-ed
that all elements of Phase I can be
implemented within one year of final
approval.
• Education and Collision Re-porting
The USC Bicycle Master Plan (2012)
reported on collision data and made
recommendations for ongoing edu-cation
programs for improved bicy-cling
behavior. Many of the issues
found at that time are still occurring
on a regular basis. Accurate collision
reporting informs both the bicyclists
and pedestrians, and the community,
including the University, and has the
added value of providing motivation
to develop educational programs
that serve to improve safety. Signage,
brochures and maps, are some edu-cational
components that can be im-plemented
as early as Spring of 2015.
The provision of orientation materi-als
and information, as well as mak-ing
available bicycle safety training
classes, should be implemented by
September 2015.
Educational campaigns, particularly
those aimed at incoming students
through orientation programs, are
paramount to the success of the bi-cycle
network and fully realizing the
potential of other infrastructure im-provements
to be implemented in the
future. Educational programs are low
cost, in comparison to physical infra-structure
development, and can be
used to not only encourage safe be-havior,
but to increase awareness of
forthcoming improvements to bicycle
facilities. While infrastructure im-provements
make up the bulk of this
report, their efficacy can be greatly
enhanced by simple and cost effective
educational programs.

37
Phase I - Intermediate Improve-ments
Phase I intermediate improvements
contain physical infrastructure devel-opments,
beginning with those that
are most critical to our project area
and least complicated to implement.
These improvements consist of the
least complex projects and take into
account the permitting process for the
Jefferson streetscape improvements.
Since the permit has not been final-ized
some minor changes are possible
especially for needed improvements
to safety, and for conformance to the
Jefferson Streetscape guidelines.
• Cycle Tracks on University
Ave.
Due to the higher costs associated
with physical infrastructure projects,
installation of the cycle track will
be conducted after educational out-reach
programs have begun. Since
this project will be entirely within
an area maintained by the Univer-sity,
there will be far fewer barriers
to implementation than some of the
other recommended improvements.
In light of these findings, it is recom-mended
that these cycle tracks are
the first infrastructure improvement
to be made, since they can func-tion
as independent bicycle facilities
with or without the more costly and
complicated infrastructure improve-ments
that require cooperation with
LADOT.
• Intermediate - Crossing at
Jefferson Boulevard
This intersection presents many
safety challenges critical to our
study area, and some mitigation
efforts can be implemented in the
short-term, while more extensive
design changes may follow later.
Due to the ongoing construction
at USC Village, this is an impor-tant
area to implement the recom-mended
safety strategies without
delay, even while recognizing a
larger funding need and increased
cooperation with LADOT in or-der
to implement any changes
to the existing street infrastruc-ture.
However, since the permit-ting
process for USC Village has
already been completed and any
significant changes to the devel-opment
plan are unlikely, we have
created an intermediate improve-ments
plan for the intersection
that can be further bolstered with
a long-term improvement project
in the future. In the short term,
basic capacity and access issues
will be addressed with low im-pact
improvements included curb
smoothing on the north and south
sides of the crosswalk, consolida-tion
of signal poles on the north
side, and relocating the signal
pole on the south side to remove a
bottleneck. These improvements
are shown in Section 3.2, Number
3. Please also see Section 4.2.1.
Short-term 0-3 years (2015-2018)

The long-term improvements are
comprised of the most complicated
and expensive projects that will ide-ally
3388
be constructed to finish improv-ing
and connecting the bicycle net-work.
These more complex projects
will require more funding and be
subject to a greater level of scrutiny,
thus they will likely require a longer
implementation period.
• Long Term - Crossing at Jeffer-son
Boulevard
More intensive long term improve-ments
include expansion of curb
cuts, relocation of the utility box to
the south of the crosswalk, painted
bicycle boxes, and new bicycle signals
which will provide a 4 second “head
start” crossing period for bicycles be-fore
the pedestrian crossing phase.
The overall cycle length will remain
the same, this 4 second all-bicycle
period will be derived by reallocating
2 seconds from the southbound traf-fic
phase and 2 seconds from the east
and westbound through phase.
This improvement has been pushed
behind the other projects due to the
slow and bureaucratic nature of multi-jurisdictional
projects such as this
in which the University and LADOT
both have a stake and oversight over
Long-term 0-3 years (2015-2018)
various portions of the project. Since
the Jefferson streetscape improve-ments
are already in the permitting
process, these more intensive im-provements
are unlikely to be short-term
implementations, thus, they
have been designated as long-term
improvements. While this intersec-tion
is among the primary concerns
for our study area, the timeline in
which the improvement is likely to be
completed forces us to prioritize oth-er,
more easily attainable goals, first.
• Raised Crossings (Speed Ta-ble)
at 32nd St. and 30th St.
Raised speed tables installed at the
32nd Street and 30th Street crossings
at University Avenue will provide im-proved
safety and efficiency for all
modes of transport. A temporary so-lution
may inform us further regard-ing
the exact design and the configu-ration
of the street lanes just before
the intersections. Some early work
to gain more insight into a preferred
final solution is recommended. An
education campaign for all users of
these intersections will be beneficial.
Early work can be implemented with-in
4 years, with a transition to the full
implementation occurring within 6
years.
Since these intersections have similar
jurisdictional issues as the Jefferson
intersection, they too are pushed fur-ther
back in the improvements pri-oritization
plan. Additionally, since
they create less of a bottleneck and
critical juncture compared with the
Jefferson intersection, they have
been pushed further back still. While
their timely implementation is still
critical for a fully functioning, effi-cient
bicycle and pedestrian network,
the feasibility timeline and cost func-tion
of the project makes it the least
important in terms of chronologi-cal
prioritization. Painted crossings
as an interim solution may serve to
improve safety while waiting for full
implementation.
• Crossing at Royal St. and Jef-ferson
Blvd.
Planning at this intersection is insuf-ficient
for the volumes of bicycle and
pedestrian traffic currently utiliz-ing
the intersection. The USC Gate 4
entrance is not designed well for pe-destrian
and bicycle access. The 2012
USC Bicycle Master Plan pointed this
out. These improvements include
ADA compliant curb cuts on all four
corners, pedestrian and bicycle only
signal (ahead of vehicle traffic), bike
lane striping and painted bicycle box-

39
es, as well as the addition of a pedes-trian
crossing on the west side of the
intersection. Gate entrance design
improvements can be implemented at
a later time because within that area,
improved efficiency is the main goal.
Again, since the Jefferson streetscape
improvements are moving through
the city process, some changes may
be able to be implemented sooner.
Again, this intersection faces simi-lar
jurisdictional issues mentioned
above stemming from the neces-sary
collaboration between USC and
LADOT. Despite the fact that the in-tersection
is performing very poorly,
it is outside of our primary focus, the
corridor of University Avenue. The
greatest priority is to address the
University Avenue connection issues
and provide direct connections to
the existing bicycle network through
this route. Royal Street remains an
important intersection in need of im-provements,
but its separation from
University Avenue makes it less of an
immediate implementation concern.

4400
3.3.2 Benchmarking and
Evaluation Strategies
Benchmarking and evaluation fall
into several categories. A designated
Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator,
as recommended in the 2012 USC
Bicycle Master Plan, will be best for
monitoring implementation of im-provements,
as well as monitoring
bicycle ridership, and following prog-ress
through the Bicycle Friendly Uni-versity
designation. DPS is the best
candidate for monitoring collision
and injury data, as well as coordinat-ing
with LAPD, and reporting data to
the state-wide database. As recom-mended
in the Bicycle Master Plan,
establishing a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee will also con-tribute
to assuring that benchmarks
are reached, and needs are assessed
accurately.
Completion of Recommended
Improvements
The simplest way to evaluate the suc-cess
of a plan is through measuring
the tangible developments produced
from it. Comparing the rate in which
projects are actually completed to the
improvements timeline released with
this plan will show whether they were
constructed ahead of schedule, on
time, delayed, or not at all. Keeping
track of when various improvements
are completed will play a role in how
other benchmarking strategies are
conducted. For instance, baseline
measurements on collisions and rid-ership
must be conducted before and
after each improvement. Not only
will this metric clearly show if the
plan is actually being implemented,
but it will also provide insight in how
to best perform future benchmarking
procedures based on the completion
of infrastructure improvements.
Monitoring Collision and Injury
Rates
In order to continuously monitor bi-cycle-
bicycle and bicycle-pedestrian
collisions and injuries, it is necessary
for the Department of Public Safety
to first engage in a stricter reporting
protocol to ensure that this data is as
accurate as possible. Injuries from
collisions involving pedestrians and
bicyclist need to be reported to the
state-wide SWITRS database used by
the Transportation Injury Mapping
System so hot spots and trends can be
identified. After this reporting proto-col
has been established, collision and
injury reports will be generated on a
yearly basis in order to show trends
in collisions and injuries. These will
be particularly illuminating during
pre and post improvement condi-tions.
This will show us how well the
infrastructure is working to actually
prevent collisions and achieve our
goal of creating a safer, more reliable
transportation network.
Monitoring Bicycle Ridership
This strategy is intended to evalu-ate
the impacts that infrastructure
improvements will have on encour-aging
more students to ride bicycles
to campus and to ride them in a
safe way. We have already conduct-ed
baseline bicycle and pedestrian
counts in which cyclist behavior was
also observed. These counts should
be repeated after each phase of in-frastructure
improvements in order
to see if there is a discernable effect
on ridership from providing these bi-cycle
facilities. Safety is often cited as
a common barrier preventing people
from riding bicycles in an urban en-vironment,
so if these infrastructure
improvements are successful in im-proving
the perceived safety of cy-cling
to campus, we would expect an
increase in bicycle ridership as well
as a decrease in injuries from colli-sions.
Benchmarking against other Univer-sities:
Bike Friendly University Status
It is important to continue updat-ing
the bicycle plan and strive to
provide cutting edge infrastructure
improvements and programs in or-der
to promote student safety and
maintain the University’s innovative
approach to student affairs and cam-pus
life. The first step is to become a
Bicycle Friendly University through
the League of American Bicyclists.
This will better position the Univer-sity
to meet with other schools and
compare best practices in bicycle de-velopments,
policies, and programs.
Engaging in discussions and com-parisons
of best practices will en-sure
that USC does not become com-placent
and will continue to pursue
more improvements for the benefits
of students and the greater Univer-sity
community.

41
3.3.3 Estimated Costs
Short-term Impovement Cost Estimates Long-term Impovement Cost Estimates
RTraiesaetdm Ceronstswalk at University Avenue and Cost of Project
3R0atishe Sdt Crereotsswalk at University Avenue and $ 100,000.00
32nd Street $ 100,000.00
Dedicated Pedestrian Gate at Jefferson
$ 2,087.00
Boulevard and Royal Street
Additional pavement leading through
Pedestrian Gate at Jefferson Boulevard and
Royal Street
$ 37,500.00
Striping along pavement through Pedestrian
Gate $ 9 00.00
Estimated 20% cost for construction $ 48,097.40
Subtotal for Short Term Improvements $ 2 88,584.40
Total for Short Term and Long Term
Improvments $ 5 00,470.80
Treatment Cost of Project
Two-way Cycle Track on University Avenue $ 164,036.00
Class II Bicycle Lanes on 32nd from Hoover
Street to Figueroa Street $ 6,680.00
Class II Bicycle Lanes on 30th from Royal
$ 5,240.00
Street to Figueroa Street
Additional Crosswalk on the west side of the
intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Royal
Street
$ 616.00
Estimated 20% cost for Construction $ 35,314.40
Subtotal for Short Term Improvements $ 2 11,886.40

4422
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN

1 2 3 4 Hoover Corridor 5 6 A
43
Chapter 4: Hoover Street
& Jefferson Boulevard
The Hoover and Jefferson entrance
to the University of Southern Cali-fornia
is one of the most heavily used
gateways onto campus. With the vast
amount of student housing, this cor-ridor
provides an easy access route
for students coming from Greek Row
and other neighborhoods to the north.
Dealing with the large volume of both
pedestrians and bicyclists coming
south to campus and leaving cam-pus
to the north on their way home
has led to traffic changes such as di-agonal
crossings and pedestrian-only
signals, providing additional safety
by freezing automobile traffic with a
pedestrian phase. Bicycles crossing
between campus and Hoover tend to
use the pedestrian phase and cross-walks.
While this is illegal under Los
Angeles law, it is rarely enforced at
this intersection. Conflicts between
bikes/pedestrians and cars are com-mon,
though less so than in other
North University Park areas due to
high volume and slower speeds. Re-cent
construction along Hoover has
Hoover and Jefferson on a typical day. This intersection contains
diagonal crossings and a pedestrian phase scramble. While Los
Angeles law treats bicycles as vehicles, most bicyclists at USC
coss during the pedestrian phase using the crosswalks.
low for improved amenities and safer
access for the large population of the
student population who choose an
alternative mode of transportation
than the automobile.
led to many safety issues that have
not been properly addressed during
USC Village construction, from 2014-
2017.
By assessing volume counts and ex-ploring
potential design options,
there are several improvements that
could be made in both the short-and
long-term . These changes would al-

Map showing screen-line locations of bike and pedestrian counts
44
4.1 Issues and Opportunities
4.1.1 Bike and Pedestrian Counts
The methodology for collecting data
for the Jefferson/Hoover/Univer-sity/
Trousdale intersection required
multiple manual counters, four
screen lines, recorded at three differ-ent
times of day. The time periods
for data collect were 7:00 – 9:00 am,
11:00 am – 1:00 pm, and 4:00 – 6:00
pm; the morning period and evening
period are traditional peak travel for
work purposes. The 11:00 am – 1:00
pm period is a better represents the
college students’ travel into and out
of campus. The data collection pro-cess
utilized 13 counters; multiple
days to collect the data and groups to
analyze data.
Existing intersection conditions at Hoover and Jefferson

45
stand that the high-volume of users
forces solutions to be more creative
and different than traditional in-tersection
or corridor treatments to
facilitate safe movement.
During the 4:00 – 6:00 pm time
period was the highest recorded bi-cycle
and pedestrian counts. More
of the bicyclist and pedestrians are
traveling north away from the cam-pus,
with most classes ending before
6:00 pm this makes sense. As was
mentioned before with the 11:00 am
– 1:00 pm time period, the massive
volume forces creative solutions.
4.1.2 Existing Conditions
A. Summary of Data Collection
Time Periods
During the 7:00 – 9:00 am time
period the majority of bicyclists and
pedestrians are traveling south onto
campus; this would be expected
for faculty, workers and students.
The bicycle and pedestrian counts
were their lowest at the beginning
of count period with higher counts
at the of h count period which coin-cides
with the beginning of classes at
9:00 am.
During the 11:00 am – 1:00 pm time
period the north/south movements
were relatively equal and both bike
and pedestrian movements were
extremely high. A comparison with
UCLA, a comparable campus exam-ple,
which only has 88 cyclists and
1500 pedestrians during its peak pe-riod,
further demonstrates the high
volumes at USC (LACBC, 2011). The
number of users, both pedestrians
and bicyclists, at this intersection
and corridor are much higher than
most locations through Los Angeles.
As such, it is important to under-
Aerial showing bike and pedestrian volume -
7:00am-9:00am

46
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Path on
University
University has a water feature that
creates a chokepoint restricting
movements and forces further con-flicts
by limiting capacity. There
is no delineation of space for dif-ferent
modes, so there is a con-stant
conflict of user and speed
due to the nature of the corridor.
• Campus Entry Hoover to
Trousdale
Jefferson has lower bicycle and pe-destrian
counts which is not sur-prising
and the majority of users
will utilize egress/ingress on-cam-pus
that facilitates their north/
south movement without the neces-sity
of going east/west on Jefferson.
B. Summary of Conditions of
Intersection and Corridor
• The construction at the intersection
and immediate corridor has the big-gest
effect on the current conditions
of the area. The construction has
removed both the sidewalk and the
bike lane on the west side of Hoover.
This also resulted in the partial clo-sure
of the intersection and remov-ing
the scramble intersection design,
further exacerbating the pedestrian
and bicycle conflicts. The east side
of Hoover has a sidewalk and north-bound
bike lane with existing park-ing.
One of the issues with the park-ing
is that food trucks parking there
which obstruct sight lines and can
cause congestion on the sidewalk.
11:00am-1:00pm
4:00pm-6:00pm

47
A walk audit and review of the USC
Bicycle Master Plan revealed bicy-cle
parking was only existent on the
University corridor. The lack of bike
parking along Hoover is an issue as
there is currently with destinations
along the corridor. Bicycle parking
should be provided at entry points
to buildings and existing activity
centers. Once completion of Phase
1 of the USC Village is completed
bicycle parking should be readily
available on the Hoover/Jefferson
entrance as well as ample bicycle
parking within the development.
When reviewing the TIMS data, one
notices that there have been a num-ber
of collisions within the Hoover/
University corridors an unsurpris-ingly
it is at the intersection of 32nd
street for both corridors. National
statics reveal that the majority of ac-cidents
occur at intersections. This
data might be further skewed as this is
TIMS data and it is reported by LAPD
or LA Sheriff’s department, which are
not likely the first responders to col-lisions
involving student at USC. DPS
would likely have more statics about
the collisions occur in this study area.
TIMS 10-year heat map for collisions

C. Risky Behavior by Cyclists
While large volume and limited ca-pacity
48
is the infrastructure issue that
needs to be addressed, dangerous
behavior by users contribute to the
safety issues at this intersection and
along the corridor. One of the main
issues is distracted users; both cyclist
and pedestrians are guilty of this. Us-ers
are not looking at what is ahead of
them rather they are looking down at
their phones, unaware of the danger
of oncoming traffic or traffic trying
to pass them. This can be worsened
by the use of head phones, again,
both bicyclist and pedestrian utilize
head phone while traveling. For cy-clist
it’s illegal, but most either don’t
know or don’t practice safe behav-ior.
Specifically for bicyclists, hold-ing
objects like coffee or a cell phone
minimizes the control of the bicycle
and can contribute to collisions.
• Current Construction Effects
USC Village construction, expect-ed
to 2014-2017, has removed the
southbound bicycle lane. Eliminat-ing
a major cyclist route has result-ed
in more riding on the sidewalk
and wrong way riding in the north-bound
bike lane. This risky behav-ior
creates a dangerous potential
for bike on bike collisions, or worse
bike on car collisions, if a motorist is
not expecting a wrong-way rider in
the bike lane or in the intersection.
Cell phone use by bikers is a common practice around USC

49
Current USC Village construction has led to a closure of the
sidewalk on the NW corner of Hoover and Jefferson
The main concern for the corridor is
safety. The infrastructure is not suf-ficient
for the high volume of users
at the intersection and the corridor
in general. At the intersection, there
is a small curb-cut that bicyclists and
pedestrians utilize and the current
crosswalks have deficient allocation
of space to accommodate the users.
This results in near collisions on a
regular biases and actual collisions at
times, the separation of modes at the
intersection would help mitigate that
issue. Also within the University cor-ridor
there is no delineation of space
for modes, so the speed differentials
cause modal conflicts that can lead to
collisions and injury for both cyclists
and pedestrians.
Current construction has intensified
the problem by reducing intersection
space and curb-cuts as well as side-walks
and bike lanes on the west side
of Hoover. By not providing a sepa-
~6’
Image Courtesy of Google Street View
do not want to ride in a general pur-pose
lane take to sidewalk riding and
riding the wrong-way in the existing
northbound bike lane. These practic-es
are very dangerous and will con-tribute
to the high rate of collisions.
Food trucks parking on the east side
of Hoover has created two major safe-ty
hazards; first it worsens sight lines
for users as food trucks are big than
normal cars, two it creates pedestrian
traffic on Hoover and with sidewalk
riding and the large amounts of users
along that street it increase conges-tion.
While these issues persist, there are a
multitude of opportunities to capital-ize
on. The high numbers of cyclists
and pedestrians within this corridor
provides for great reasons to design
great streetscapes with less parking
and more “place.” While construc-tion
may bring temporary issues, the
USC Village investment could feature
robust bicycle improvements that
provide equitable and safe transpor-tation
facilities for all users. As part
of the development Jefferson will be
undergoing improvements that can
incorporate improvements to the Jef-ferson/
Hoover intersection.
4.1.3 Summary of Issues and
Opportunities
rated bicycle lane or even temporary
bicycle facilities during construction
it further mixes cars and bicycles.
With many of the cyclists being in-experienced,
this can lead to unsafe
practices while riding in a mixed-use
lane. Additionally, those cyclists who
Current curb cut and obstacles that form a bottleneck for pedes-trians
and bikes

50
4.2 Proposed Street
Recommendations
4.2.1 Short Term Recommendations Photo-simulation showing installation of new extended curb cut
A. Hoover/Jefferson Intersec-tion
Improvements
The Hoover/Jefferson intersection
deals with the highest volumes of
bikes and pedestrians in the entire
City of Los Angeles. Much of this traf-fic
is generated by University Avenue,
so improving the design of this inter-section
will work to aid flows on both
University and Hoover. Additionally, the street clutter at the
intersection in terms of signs, poles,
and the large central fountain fur-ther
reduce the capacity of the con-nection
between University Avenue
and Hoover to Jefferson. This leads
to even more bottlenecks which spill
out to affect the entire intersection.
To improve this, the curb cuts must
be widened on both sides of Jefferson
and much of the clutter at the Univer-sity/
Jefferson intersection must be
removed. This will allow individuals
attempting to move northbound on
Hoover from campus to do so more
smoothly.
• Separate Bikes and Pedestri-ans
Also, within the University corridor
there is no delineation of space for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Because
of the speed differential between the
two, conflicts arise which can lead to
collisions and injury for both cyclists
and pedestrians. To solve this, Uni-versity
Avenue should separate these
uses. Just like with the curb cuts, this
action will also improve the ability of
those seeking to go northbound on
Hoover avoid the congestion of bikes
and pedestrians attempting to get
onto University Avenue.
• Improve Signage, road mark-ings
Finally, bicyclists riding southbound
on Hoover need to have better sig-nage
and wayfinding tools available
to properly navigate this complicated
• Widen Curb Cuts, Eliminate
Bottleneck
First and foremost, the curb cuts at
the intersection must be extended.
The volume of bikes and pedestrians
is simply too high for standard curb
cuts utilized by intersections with
much lower bike volumes to suffice
here. Because of the narrow entry-ways,
the throughput of the intersec-tion
is significantly reduced, forming
bottlenecks behind the curb cuts.
and relocation of signal pole to avoid conflict zone.
Photo simulation of North-east side of Jefferson intersection
with extended curb cut and consolidation of signal poles.

51
means cars come around this cor-ner
relatively fast, leaving the drivers
little time to see a southbound cyclist
waiting in the northbound Hoover
lanes.
With construction lasting for ap-proximately
three years, it is impera-tive
that there is a short term solution
to this. One option is to replace one
of the car lanes with a buffered bike
lane. While this would be the best
option, it would significantly reduce
capacity for cars on southbound
Hoover and may not be the most
feasible solution. However, a much
more implementable strategy would
be to paint sharrows on southbound
Hoover. This would give cyclists a
greater sense of safety that they have
a right to use the southbound lanes,
intersection. Southbound Hoover
consists of two lanes. The far left lane
is for left turns on eastbound Jeffer-son
only, while the right lane permits
both left and right turns onto Jeffer-son.
The right lane is also where all
cyclists queue up at the light. How-ever,
most southbound cyclists on
Hoover are not trying to navigate
onto either eastbound or westbound
Jefferson. Instead, most of them
make a left turn from the right lane
and then to head up the curb cut that
permits access into campus. This
tricky maneuver obviously cannot be
replicated by cars, so there is abso-lutely
no signage in the intersection
to guide cyclists in making this move.
In addition, the crowds that can form
near the curb cuts place the cyclist in
a difficult position to exit Jefferson
Blvd and enter campus. The cyclist is
forced to slow down, and sometimes
walk their bike within the intersec-tion,
while fast moving cars behind
them whip past to move eastbound
on Jefferson, placing the cyclist in a
dangerous position. Obviously, es-tablishing
signage and markings on
the roadway to lead cyclists through
the intersection and to alert motor-ists
that they will likely be making
this move becomes very important.
Establishing a bike box for south-from
the pre-construction volumes.
Cyclists are now turning to alterna-tive
routes such as McClintock, Royal
and University. Unfortunately, they
have also turned to using the north-bound
bike lanes of Hoover to move
south. This is a dangerous practice
that puts these southbound cyclists
in conflict with northbound cars and
cyclists. It also puts them into direct
conflict with cars turning right from
the east/west intersections along
the corridor as they are not looking
for bicycles coming from their right.
And, when these southbound cyclists
reach the Hoover/Jefferson intersec-tion
lights, they stop in the right hand
turn lane, which is especially danger-ous
because the right green arrow on
westbound Jefferson that is present
when Hoover has the green lights
bound turning cyclists would allow
these individuals to know where to
stop at the light, stagger them for-ward
when the light turns green, and
alert motorists to their presence.
• Ban Food Trucks on Hoover
Food trucks currently create two ma-jor
issues. First, they worsen sight-lines
for cyclists as food trucks are
larger than normal cars. And second,
they create standing pedestrian traf-fic
that blocks the narrow Hoover
sidewalk. By banning these food
trucks on Hoover, both of these is-sues
could be alleviated.
B. Southbound Hoover Im-provements
Outside of the intersection at Hoover
and Jefferson, cyclists face significant
constraints in navigating southbound
on the roadway. This is because the
current construction of the USC Vil-lage
has eliminated both the south-bound
bike lane and sidewalk that
used to exist, forcing cyclists to mix
in with fast moving southbound traf-fic
in a narrow lane. Because of the
perceived danger many cyclists have
about riding southbound on Hoover,
the volume of bikes on this stretch of
roadway has significantly declined
Photo simulation showing short-term addition of sharrows on
South-bound Hoover Street

reducing the chances that they would
instead ride in the northbound bike
lane. The sharrows would also alert
drivers that the roadway is utilized
by cyclists. Additionally, more “Share
the Road” signs could be placed along
the corridor adjacent to construction.
This awareness would lead motorists
to slow down and give cyclists greater
clearance when passing, increasing
both actual and perceived safety lev-els.
52
D. McClintock/Jefferson Im-provements
Because of the USC Village construc-tion,
much of the southbound traf-fic
on Hoover has diverted to south-bound
McClintock. McClintock’s bike
lane dumps cyclists into the intersec-tion
at Jefferson that has many of the
same problems as Hoover and Jeffer-son.
Pedestrian and bicycle volumes
are extremely heavy here as well.
While the access point at McClintock
into campus is much wider than at
Hoover, there is a very large speed
bump after the gates posing a major
obstacle to cyclists. If the cyclist does
not want to be jarred by riding over
the speed bump, they have to cycle
in the opposite lane, shoot a narrow
gap between the end of the speed
bump and the curb, or ride on the
sidewalk. All three of these scenarios
are extremely dangerous for the cy-clist,
and, because the sidewalks are
extremely narrow at the McClintock
entrances, the presence of a bicycle
on the sidewalk also puts pedestrians
in danger as well. Thus, one of our
major short term recommendations
is to either remove that speed bump
outright, or to at least take out sec-tions
of it which allow cyclists to ride
through while still being wide enough
C. Northbound Hoover Im-provements
at 28th, 30th, and
32nd
Unlike the southbound lanes im-pacted
by construction, the east side
of Hoover has both a bike lane and a
sidewalk. Although this arrangement
works in the short term, there are
several persistant problems that re-ally
can only be solved with long term
strategies, as will be shown later on.
However, in the short term, north-bound
Hoover can be improved by
providing better pavement marking
for some of the quick jogs that have
to be made across the roadway from
feeder east west streets that termi-nate
at Hoover. For example, cyclists
riding east on 28th St west of Hoover
have to make an unsignalized right
turn onto Hoover and then quickly
cut across two lanes of fast moving
traffic in order to make a left to con-tinue
eastbound on 28th St. Several
of these scenarios exist up and down
the corridor, impeding the non-arte-rial
east/west flow of cyclists. In order
to improve these conditions, placing
pavement markings that both show
cyclists how to navigate the intersec-tions
and alert motorists as to cyclist
presence would greatly improve safe-ty
on these difficult maneuvers.
to pose as an obstacle to vehicles.
Furthermore, the median that exists
on Jefferson west of McClintock forc-es
cyclists living west of the intersec-tion
into wrong way riding eastbound
towards McClintock. This places
them in a position to be easily hit by
westbound cars and bicycles on Jef-ferson,
as well as cars turning right
from McClintock onto Jefferson. This
further exacerbates the issues that al-ready
exist at the intersection.
Finally, the USC Village construction
has meant that the northbound bike
lanes on McClintock have been re-moved.
This puts cyclists into a nar-row
car lane with bad sightlines due
to the high fencing and curvature of
the road. Poor lighting at night makes
the sightlines even worse. Thus, this
stretch of a roadway must become a
definite priority to avoid a potentially
fatal collision. At the very least, shar-rows
and dashed bike markers must
be installed on McClintock north-bound
and in the Jefferson intersec-tion
to remind cyclists they can ride
there and alert motorists of cyclists.
When the USC Village construction is
done, McClintock could revert back
to its prior two bike lane format and
the parking could be reinstated.

53
4.2.2 Long Term Recommendations
While the strategies mentioned
above can be implemented relatively
soon, the following long term recom-mendations
call for improvements
that will primarily come after the new
University Village has been complet-ed
and the temporary issues associ-ated
with its construction will have
been solved. This project will signifi-cantly
alter the conditions along the
corridor necessitating new solutions
to improve the flow of all traffic.
• Protected Bike Lanes on
Hoover
First and foremost, our long term
plan calls for swapping the parking
and the bike lane on Hoover, creat-ing
northbound and southbound pro-tected
bike lanes. As the current bike
lane is within the door zone, this swap
would not only protect cyclists from
driver side doors swinging open with
a wider buffer zone, but it would also
protect them from the fast moving
Hoover traffic. We also recommend
removing the southbound parking
lane to allow for better bike lane and
car travel lane widths. With an added
sense of safety, bicycle traffic may use
Hoover instead of University to move
to and from campus, which would re-duce
congestion on University. Using
Photo simulation of long-term improvements at Hoover and
Jefferson intersection

54
for other uses along Hoover. How-ever,
in the long term, there must
be ample parking on the west side of
Hoover to serve the University Vil-lage
destinations.
• University & City Coordination
No matter the final implemented so-lution,
any pedestrian and bicycling
facilities along Hoover will have to be
integrated within the overall frame-work
of the USC Village. The pres-ence
of so much housing, retail, and
parking to buffer bike lanes has been
successful in many US cities and
would be a feasible solution here as
well. Protected bike lanes should also
be installed northbound and south-bound
on McClintock; there is ample
right-of-way in the street to accomo-date
existing automobile uses as well
as the expanded bike facilities.
• Tie in to University Avenue Cy-cle
Track
As a long-term recommendation, the
University Avenue cycle tracks would
tie into the improvements at the
Hoover and Jefferson intersection. In
order to accomodate the high volume
of bikes, the eastern crosswalk will
be split in half, with the eastern half
accomodating bikes and the western
half remaining for pedestrians. Bike
boxes will be placed at both ends of
the bike crossing to accomodate bik-ers
waiting at the light. Additionally,
bike-jogs will be used to allow bikers
travelling south on Hoover to join the
bike path, as well as those travelling
north to join the north-bound pro-tected
bicycle lane on Hoover.
• Bike Parking
Currently, bike parking is not an is-sue
along Hoover as there are not
many major destinations, as well as
dining destinations will significantly
alter the flows of automobiles, bi-cycles,
and pedestrians. Thus, long
term recommendations must be sure
to take into account these volumes
and the nature of the entry and exit
points for this development. Finally,
the proponents of these long term
Hoover solutions will have to be sure
to work with the University and the
City of Los Angeles in order to secure
implementation commitments and
to develop a design that fits in with
the rest of the city’s and schools in-frastructure.
Photo-simulation showing installment of new extended curb cut,
removal of obstacles and new bike box and lane onto campus

55
Proposed Hoover Street Section
Proposed McClintock Avenue Section

University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements

Similar to University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (20)

University Park and Jefferson Boulevard Streets Plan Proposes Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements