San Fernando Valley State College
THE GEOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS \\ OF A RAILR0l1.D GRADE SEPARATION IN NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA
A thesis submitted in pa:ctia.l satisfaction of the requirements for the Master of Arts in
Geography
by
Scott Harrison Wil.liD.ms
An•JU:.> t, 1970 The thesis o£ Sco~HarrisoQ Williams is approved:
Committee Chairman
San Fernando Valley State College
August, 1970
ii ACKNmvL-EDGMtJ~TS
The a'...lthor wishes to express his sincere appt:ecia- tion to the thesis committee, Professors Elliot Mcintire,
Arnold Court and Gordon Lewthwa.:Lte for their encom:agement, criticism and patience thr.ou<;~hout the development and drafting of this thesis. D-rs. McintirE~ c..nd Court deserve spec_i<\l credit for tolerating my persistent intrusion upon their timea
I arn indebted to Miss Ann Welling, Ivb::. Rob>:::rt: Frovin., lYir. Donald Ryan, and Mr. Michc;.el Swift, fox tl1ei:r~ efforts in prepa:r :ing the final manu.sc.r lpt.
i· £1 ~ o.. f' -·.! .. ,,..• -'1 • r r.j -f- ·i 1 I ctm- · gro·_ -.. e U..l. ~.-o my x.u·.:..,.~'-"s a ... l. . .. o.m~ 1 _y for rna.}~i11g t:be w:citing o:f this ·tb.esis, and in fc:..ct my entire scholastic E~ndeavo::c, a most memorable and The Donald Rya.ns deseTve special thanks in trds regar:d. Finally, J would like to thank my hea.uti:fuJ. and . ~ vivacious Wj.I e, under.~;ta.nding dur:l.ng the fo~LFlul<::~.tion 21.~1d co111pletion ox iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments iii Abstract viii 1. INTHODUCTION 1 1.1 Railroad Grade Separation Controversy l. la2 St&tement o£ the Problem 5 1.3 Underlying Causes of the CQntroversy 8 1~3.1. GTowt:h o£ the San Fernando Valley and <=t Grade Crossing Problem 8 Grade Separation Construction 0 Hindered by Legal Matters 1.0 2. TEE NORT·H.tUDGE GRi\DE SEFAPJ\TION: A QUESTION CYF' RELftT IVE NEED 22 22 2~1.1 Arguments Fa.vori.n·:J Underp;:;~ss· 22 Construction 2*1.2 Evidence Substa:o.tiating Arguments 25 2 4.2 The Case Agair•st G:rade Sep2.. ration 28 2.2.1 Arguments Agai~st Project 30 2.2.2 Lack o£ Evidence to Support These A:cgt::m.en.ts 35 · 2 • .3 .l";ssess:men t of Co~nmission Dec is ion Favoring Se_para"'cion 3. CHANGES TN T1<.AFF.IC FL01A CHA.Ri\CTERISTICS: LAi'-.fD USE IMPACT IIvlF'LICATIONS 41 3.1 Success o£ Grade Sepa:ra tion: Condit.iona.l. 41 3*2 Kffect on Sa~fety Conditions 41 f-f:''-(.' J.-~- . .,..1 T···-:- ·.r--F · -.. ("r-· :oc-+· .. 1 3fl3 I.~----'- ~··-'"' ,. Q.,. 1 . .3... -·- J_c ·JC:i.l9c-' ,,]_0.1 3 e '0 Trat"fic and Lc.md Lise Inter.re13.ted 49 c: 3 • .::> S 53 4 o 1 H.ev:I.e•N of Hi9hwo.y Impa.ct Studies 53 .:.L2 Hcvision of 1-lighwc,y Impact Stu.dy Techniques 54 4, 3 The Study Ar:er..\ 60 .~~~. 4 Land U~:;~:; CU",ssi£ ica:tion I<.mployed 63 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5. LAND USE CHANGE IN NORTHRIDGE 69 5.1 Land Use: 1900 to 1960 69 5.2 Land Use; 1960 73 5.3 Land Use: 1960 to 1965 78 5.4 Land Use: 1965 to 1970 82 5e5 A Comparison of Land Use Changes: Before and After Separation 89 5o5&1 Nort.h Reseda Boulevard Matrix 91 5.5.2 South Reseda. Boulevard Matrix 93 5. 5. 3 East Parthenia Street Ma·trix 95 5.5.4 West Parthenia Street Matrix 97 5. 6 Overa.ll Land Use Impact 97 5. 7 Bu~-:;iness Activity in Northridge 99 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMlVIE.I~DA.. TIONS 104 6.1 Observations: Decision-making Process Qualifies Conclusions 104 6 e 1 .1 Lack o£ Spatial Persnectives on Tra££ic Problems 104 6.1.2 Few Chz~nnels for C:r.:iticism cf Municipal Decisions 105 6 ~ 2 Reco·niruei1c1a t ions 1.09 6~3 Conclusions 111 6.3 .1 Grade Separation Need 111 6 ~ 3. 2 Tra££ic Imp:covements 112 6.3.3 f(ecovery of Business Distric·t 112 References Cited 11.7 App!?;ndix A 120 Appendix B 1::.~3 Appendix C 127 v 1 Photograph of the Reseda Boulevard Grade Sepa:r.·a tion 2 2 Dot Maps Showing Population G.r:owth in the San Fernando Valley: 1940 to 1960 9 3 f\·Iaster Plan of High'Nays and Free1'r2,ys in the San Fernando Valley 13 4 Map of the San Fernando Valley l ... ocatir1g Grad~<:-: Sei)C~.r<:ttj_ons ar1d Gra(Je Crossings on the Southern Pacific Coastal Rail Line 17 5 Street layout at Grade Crossing Site "Before, During and After Cc:nbtruction of ·the Underpass 24 6. Traffic Accidents on Res?da Boulevard Be£ o:c 2) Du:cing E\:cd After Unde:r:pa.ss Construction 43 7 61 8 Busin.:-~.ss Area L1 NoTthridge Purcb.ased £or Underpc:tss Const:cuction 83 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Chronology of Events Leading to the Completion of the Reseda-Parthenia. Grade Separation 6 2 Street Classification Inventory of the San Fernando Valley 15 . 3 Master Plan Highways: Suilllna:ry of Deficient Highway Improvements 15 4 Rate of Population Increase in North- ridge and in the San Fernando Valley 26 · 5 City o.f Los Angeles Graph Showing Correspondence Between Vehicular Traffic Flow and Crossing Gate Activities 29 6 Northridge Coalition Sampling of Rail- road Activities Across the Grade Crossing 29 7 The City's Estimated Cost of The Reseda Boulevard Grade Separation 34 8 The Northridge Coalition Proposal for Allocation of Grade Separation F'unds 9 Traffic Counts in Northridge: 1961 to 1969 45- .10 Land Use Classification Syst;em Employed in Study Area 64 11 Types, Groups and Conformations of Businesses by B:cian J. L. Berry 66. 12 Building Valuation in Northridge: 1956 ·to 1967 71 13 Number:· of Establishments, By Business Category, in Northr:idge; 1960, 1965 and 1970 75 14--17 Transition Hatl~ices Showing Land Use Changes in the Northridge Study Area Between 1960 and 1970 92 vii ABSTI&'\.CT THE GE.OGRAPHICJ\L Il\'IPLICATIONS OF A R~ILROAD GRADE SEPAR~TION IN NORTHI-UDGE, CALIFORNIA by Scott Harrison Williams Master of Arts in Geography August, 1970 A double underpass replaced a railway grade crossing on the Southern Pacific rail line in Northridge, California in 1966-1967 to alleviate auto-rail conflict. This thesis examines the consequences o£ such construction upon the Northridge business district, with special attention given to the arguments o:f a coalition o:f No1~thrid9e busin.:o;ssr.wn at hec:t.rings befo.ce the California Publi_c Utilities thc\t ad-· ditional grade crossings slw1.1ld be bui1t nearby before t:his 9r ade separation, and that this proposed scpar2:tion v.;cn;_ld prove detrimental to the adjacent business district. Traffic st;:~tistics show that the underpass iV3.s needed} and that vehicula.r traffic condi i:ions stcrrm:dng :f:rom auto- rail conflict at the crossing were.improved. Recon~;truc" tion of land use in Northridge before and after S·eparation, and intervievv:.Lng of J.oca1 businessmen a.nd City and Cow- mission officials, shows that construction accelerated v:iii. on-going land use trends and only slightly affected business activity. Finally, legal and bureaucratic obstasles preventrid the local coalition from effectively criticizing the C~ty's se?aration proposal because: (1) the City's coimnunity representative was not responsive to local opposition; . (2) the coalition could not compete with the City's techniC"al and professional rc::sources _; (3) the Cmnmission' s authority over the situation precluded consideration of alternate ,t~ proposals, and {4) the California State Street and Highway Code made it difficult for City officials to evaluate ·the issues objectively for financial reasons. ix INTRODUCTION This thesis exannn~~s the relationship between traffic and land use; more specifically the degree of change 1n traffic flow characteristics effected by a road network al te~cation, and how both these changes affected the spai~ia1 distribution of land use adjacent to the alteration. Also~ it is concerned with the ability of public officials to m2J~e decisions on tra.nsportation issues in full considerct- tion of the spa.tial inter-·relu..tionship bcJ.twecn road net-· work, traSfic flow, and land use changes. Between Decerrber 1965 and .July 1967 the Depcu:·tment of Enginc.;c.::r3JJ.fJ of th~::: City o::E Los AngE;les sub3t.i1:uted .ct r.::dl- crossing on the Southern Pacific Crn~any 1 s main coastal rail line in Northridge; CaJifornia (?igure 1). Two streets were affected: Reseda Bo~levard, the major north-south artE;ry and commerc.:i'_a.J business tho:r·ougb.fare in town, alo119 which buildings spread out in strip-like fashion; and F·e:n:thcnia StJ::-ect, a. minor: ee:'.-st-west thorou~{hJ"o.:ce which 1 3 the Southe1~n Pacific right of way. The project turned the level crossing on Reseda Boulevard into a two bridge com- plex; Reseda and Parthenia, which had intersected the Boulevard immediately to the north and south o£ the cross ing in dog-leg :fashion, subsequently descended below the railroad right of way thro-u.gh separate bridge structure~;. Construction simultane6usly involved the straightening out of Parth.enia, enabling it to intersect with Reseda at just one ·location immediately to the south of the R•2seda. bridge structure. Construction was preceded by litigation before the California Public Utilities Commission in late 1963 and early 1964 at priority a.nd application hearings fo:r separ a.tion ~ respr-:cti vely. In contrast to most proceedings of this nature, the proposal for substitution generated a great deal o:f connnuni ty opposit~:Lon. valved in the hearings: (l) the City (and nominally the County) of Los Angeles, which hD.d proposed the separation in early 1963; (2) the Southern Pacific Co~Jany, across whose right of way the separation would be built; and (3) a Northridge coalition that hac1 opposed. t:he idea since hearing of it on Tvt::lrch 22, 1963, when the City announced the plan in Valley newspapers. The Cii:y o5~ Los Ang('-;les claimed that traffic congestion, rail-automobile accidents 4 and movement o£ emergency vehicles across the tracks warranted a separation. The Southern Pacific Company supported the City's proposal because a. grade sep;_:;.ration would elinlinate one more impediment to the smooth. movei)lent of rail traffic created by the grade crossing; The North-· ridge group opposed the project contending that too few crossings c..nd/or separations existed in the west Valley to serve pr6perly the needs of motorists, that the substitu- tion o£ one for the other would not alleviate the problem; and that other streets deserved higher priority than did Reseda Boulevard. They claimed also that the underpa~s would be de·trimental to the Northridge business coiTliil-..:tni ty because detour routes would increase congestion during con- structionJ the project would remove a large numbex: of busin~sses £or right of way, and both would decrease the attractiveness and the ability of the business district to sustain itself. City officials atte:mpted to allay these fears, stress-· ing tha·t tb.e separation· was needed promptly, and that it would prove beneficial to business activity irt the area. Variov.s City departments supplied information to substan- tiate the need £or sepc'..ra tion on transportation grounds, but only briefly stated that the underpass would be an asset to the Northridge business district. HuweveJ.~, the 5 coa.li tion remained adamantly against ·the substitution pro- posal du.ring both hearings (Table 1) ~ 1.2 Statement of the Problem Because this separation was contested bitterly and with determination, in contrast to most hearings which generate little public debate, this thesis will attempt to det,?rmine: ( l) whether the grade separation was needed and whether the stated goals of the City we:re met; and (2) whether the substitution of a grade separation for a gr<.'>.de crossing affected traffic flow patterns and the concomitant viability o£ the business community adjacent to constrHc-- .tion. This study is viewed from two di££eJ:·ent, but rela t ...~d, perspectives. The first focuses on the spatial relati6ns bt~tvreen tra:ff:i_c problems stemming :from grade crossing di:f£-icult:ies <..\nd t.he nature of traffic and l2..nd use phenomena adjacent tc the crossing site. The second view- poL1t is concerned v.Ji th the ability of the existj ng poli.·tical decision-·IJE1.~-<;:ing channels to approach trafi.ic. p:r.ob1ems chorologica.l1y, th2-.t is £rom a. point of view tlE\.t incorporates into final decisions the spatial interrela.- tionship between tr:a.££ic di:fficulties in one location with those in a.nother and tbeir influence upon related phenc,mena.~ such as land use, 6 TABLE 1 CHRONOLOGY OF RESEDA-PARTHENIA GRJ.UjE SEPARATION 1. March 22, 1963--Newspaper report noting for mation of grade separation exploratory com mi·ttee. 2. April 2, 1.963--Resolution against Northridge grade separation unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors of the Northridge Chc:unber of Commerce. 3. May 23, 1963-·-S 4. Octobe:r 22, 1963-~-Public Utilities Commission priori·ty hearing for grade SE:parationo s. February 4, 1964---Public Utilities Commission hea.ring of application for grade separation. 6 ~ September 5, 1964--Corbin Avenue 9rade Cl~oss-· ing comple·ted. 7. December 26, 1965-·-Demoli tion of structures on excavation site begins. 8. August 1, 1967 ·--·Grade separation officially completed. 7 The remaining portion of this chapter examines some recent demo9raphic and land use developments in the San Fernando Valley that encouraged the City of Los Angeles' and the Public Utilities Commission to advocate the substitu- tion of gx·ade separation for grade crossing facilities. It also examines why controversy arose over separation in Northridge in spite of these developments. Having briefly shown why the dispute developed over The l(esedr.:-~. Boulevard underpass, the question of the justi fication for separation in Northridge is subsequently con .. s idered. in Cha.p·'b2r II. The arguments E•nd exhibj:ts presented by proponents for a.nd opponents to sepa.ratioh before thE: Public Utili ties Commission hearings are re- viewed and ev'::l.luated~ The effects of the grade substitutio:n. upon "'cx:affic flow characteristics} n~tely, safety, speed and congestion, art'! discussed in Cha.ptc:::: III~ This entails comparin9 traffic data be:t:ore and a:fter sepv.ration with projectLons made by City o££ic:La1s a:t tht'; lH~<:u:ings. The chapter con-- elude::~ with implicD.~c ions re~vu7ding the ililp<:tct on 1and usc that emc.u1a.te from t.hese £ indings ~ Th•2 following two ch<'\pter~; focu.s upon the im.pact i:hat structu:r:aJ. and traffic flovJ c:ha.nges have had upon. lD.nd use ad~acent to the construction area. 8 a IJle·thodological framework that can be employed to a.nalyze changes in the spatial character of business phenomena, and Chapter V discusses what changes have occurred in the business district in Northridge, and to what factors they can be attributed. The sixth and concluding chapter summarizes the pre- ceding chapters, and discusses the separation controversy in the context of the municipal decisio~1-ma.king process involving separation. Rapid growth of the San Fernando Valley imposed ar~ in- creasing burden upon the ValJey's transportation system, affecting among other things adequate access across the Southern Pacific coastal. rail line. All. crossing p):oblem was hindered by legal. and financial co·n-·· sfderations regarding the construction of railroad grade facilities~ A knowledge of these two factors is essential to an understanding of the grade substitution controversy that raged between Northridge and City interests. 1.3 .1 Growth of the San Fernando Vcd.ley and a Grade Crossing Problem The San Fernando Va.lley is a distinct physio~rraphic region of Southern Calii'ornia, separated from the Los AugE~1<:::s Basin by the Santz~. lVJonica Mountains (FiguTe 2 inse-t) FIGuRE 2 ...... NORTHRIDGE SA\ FER\A:\00 VALLEY POPL'LA TIO\ GROWTH : ~ ~:r~IL LOS 1940-1960 • ANGELES O NE DOT REPRESENTS 200 PEOPLE SCALE: ONE INCH REPRESENTS NINE MILES SOURCE ' PRESTON , RICHAR,D E ,1965. 10 ·The Valley encompasses 235 square miles of land, 220 miles of which are located within the city limits of Los Angeles. The remaining area is included within the City of Burbank and Universal City Movie Studio. The Valley's cultural- economic landscape is also distinct, having evolved in only a few decades from the pastora,l setting at the turn of ·the century to its present suburban setting, as a result of the functionil .and morphological e>~ansion of metropolitan Los Angeles. 1 Th•2 population growth o£ the Valley n·Jlects the rapidity with which this transformation has taken place; the population doubled between 1930 and 1940 from 7s,doo to 155,000, nearly trebled during the following decade to 402,000, more than doubled to 840,000 over the next ten 2 years, a.nd was projected to inc:cease to 1,090,000 by 19.70. this tremendous population influx, accompanied by an eve:c--growing dependence upon the automobile as a mode o£ transportation, encouraged and promoted the development of an unprec~:~dented low dens:i. ty suburban spr2.wl after Wo:d.d War II. Residen·tial coristruc"'cion encroached upon and engulfed agricultural land t·rom cast to west at an ever: 2.ccel ..-.:rating Xc•.te through the mid.~l960' s. By 1950 housing tracts hacJ spread half-way across the Valley. By 1960 the entire Valley had become an urbanized reg1on, and by 1970 on~y vestigial pockets of the Valley's agricultural past 11 . 3 rem2,ined (F1gure 2). The Va.lley has been subdivided using the rectangular one mile grid system. The transportation network most clearly reflects this grid, in that most streets are oriented north--south or east-west, and major and minor local highway alternate at hal£ mile intervals. T'No major Southern Pacific Company rail lines, the Central Valley·and coastal routes, were built diagonally across this grid arotind 1875 and 1905, respectively. The Central Valley J.ine offset the cardinal orientation of this grid patt~rn in the eastern end of the Valley; San Fernando Road ha.s paralleled thisline at close quarters, as have other major bouJ.evaJ:ds at greater distances. But, remarkably, the coa.stal line had no appreciable influence upon the bea.ring of major and minor highways in t.he ·western hc.l£ of the Valley, that is, roughly west of the San Diego Freeway (FigurE~ 2) • In fact, the west Valley is one of the fevv settled areas in the Western United States in which a maJor highway does not parallel the railroad. The rapidity with lNhich the San Fernando ValJey has developed demographicaliy and economically in a lovv density fashion has created numerous problems :for the Departments. of Tra.ffic, Planning, and Engine(::ring of tht~ City of Los Ang(:::les, dcpart.ments that are charged with the development 12 and maintenance o£ a transportation network that efficient-· ly interconnects all areas in the Valley by smooth £lowing vehicular traffi~. Although 649 miles of the Master Plan Highway System (composed of interstate, state and local freeways and highways that provide the major channels £or vehicular movement in the area) were in use within the Los 4 ..._, Angeles portion of the Valley by June, 1965, ~nere were also an average of 1.4 automobiles per household in the 5 Valley at that time (Figure 3 and Table 2). This large number of vehicles, reflecting the dependence upon the automobile for physical contact between widely dispersed facilities, put considera.ble strain upon the Master Plan System. In fact, forty-five pe~cent of the system was de- 6 ficient to some degree in 1965 (Table. 3). One weak point in the highway system has been the obstacle presented to the movement of no:rth--south automo-, bile traffic by the Southern Pacific coastal rail line, which trends diagonally through the Va.llc~y ~ northwest to southeast. 7 Since its completion in 1906, most north-south streets have been interrupted by the rail line. Most primary, but only some secondary, highways have crossed the tracks. This has considerably reduced access across the tracks, and has increased congestion on those streets crossing the tracks by t~he diversion o:f tra,£fic :from other j ·r· SCAL E ~ ~ : g 0 0 1110 ooll ooqo)::l o ~ oo 0 coo 0 ~: 00 oolooo oo ct o o o P o o cl eo o Po ootJ o o ~ o oo ll o o do oo' ~ L E GEND MAJOII "IGHWolY 'UI.!.. T ~ I>AIIl!AI..I..Y l loii PiftOV(O IIIAJ01'1 HIGH WAY UNIMPitOY!.Q StCO"' OAitT HIGHW.I.Y 'ULLT OJI PAIITIALLT IMPiftOV[O g: S[COHOAitY HI001WI,'Y UNIMPIIU)Vf:O CCC AOOP Tt O Plln:WAY IIQUTt: g~ 00000 Pltl!:t:W.lV STUDY IIOUU -f"'""'l I 1 -'~ .I ! ' ...J 0 FIGURE 3 ~1ASTER PLA0: OF HIGHWAYS A~D ~ "'"''"" I ~~~±i'REEWA YS I~ THE SAl\ FERi\Al\0 - I ~ -··--- I • vALLEY -~...... '? SOURCE: CITY OF L.A . , DEPT, OF TR AFFIC, 1906, 14 streets. The number o£ railroad grade facilities on the coastal line has continuatly increased to accorr.Jllodate the burgeon- ing growth o£ the Valley's population a.nd the increase o£ tra:ffic and settlement westwa.rd. Thirteen grade crossings were in use in 1917, and eighteen in 1918. In the latter year one other gra.de crossing had been replaced by a grade~ separation structure because auto and rail traffic volumes had ·increased to such proportions at this crossing that neither mode of transportation could con~ete £or the same crossing space without considerably impeding trafJ'"ic flow and creating a serious hazard. Between 1939 and 1970 automobile and r2.il traffic were separated at other pre- vious crossing sites through the efforts of state and local agencies to reduce the ever-incr~~asing congestion of traffic on major thoroughfares in the Valley. By 1970 there were seventeen grade crossings and ten grade separa-· tion structures in use, eighi; o£ ""che sep.=:u:ations having replaced older grade crossings. One grade separc:..tion lS currently being substituted for a grade crossing at Sepulveda Boulevard (Figure 4). The Southern Pacific Central Valley rail line con-- trasts with the coastal line with respect to grade facili ties. The east Valley is heavily populated, and therefore 15 TABLE 2 Street Classification Inventory San Fernando Valley June 30, 1965 Classification Miles Percent State Highways Freeways 45.6 1~7 Non·-Freewa.ys 24.9 0.9 Sub-Total 1 State 70.5 Q"~~ City Streets 1 Select System 508.8 Local Streets ~0~9.~ Sub-Total, City 2,578.5 97.-4- -:---::..=---== Total Streets, High'Nays, and Freeways 2, 649.0 1--·~··------·----~-----r=~------...-... ~ ,..,~.-..-oo-_.....-.....--.··--~~---..__...... _~--.. ---""'~"" The Select s·tn~et System includes most Master Plan major and seconda:r:y highways. Source: Traffic Department, City of Los Angeles, §:~n yef_e_an§;?_:'!.?-l.l.ey _!ran_~_o_:-r;_ta ti~~_!;_~9;; 1 ~,?5 =-~-~-~~-' 1966. TABLE 3 l\1aste.r Plan Highways Su..mma:cy of Deficient Highway Imp:<:"ovements PeT cent Miles Total Iviiles Total Master Plan Highways 649 Unimproved Segments 80 12 T\vo Lane Segments 215 33. Source: Tra.ffic Department, City o£ Los J\ngeles, §_~-E. ~n-~~do___ Val_l_ey _I£~~?_r:.or_!~:! iol~-~.!Y dy__ }.;..~.?.l?.:.~-~.?.!!2_: 1966. 16 traffic densities are fairly high. Yet grade crossing~ not gra.de separation, facilities accommoda.te the intersection of the railroad with major and minor highways, except at the juncture of the Golden State Freeway and the railroad where a separation structure was mandatory. Separation structures have not been substituted for grade crossings for two reasons. First, the east Valley street pattern is oriented in line with the railroad tracks, a pattern which d6es not cause traffic bottlenecks at the rail line such as those created in the west Valley where two streets inter- sect the tracks obliquely and in close proximity to one another. And second, San Fernando Road, by paralleling the line so closely, would render separation a very costly developm!:?nt. Although the number of grade facilities has continu-· a~ly increased, a serious problem still exi.sts in the recently developed westerr:; half of the Va,lley between Haskell a.nd De Soto Avt:~nues, whE.~re most secondary highways are sevex·ed and some primary higbwa,ys are. xeduced in width by the rail line. Most grade facilities are locat~~d one- hal£ milt! apart, in line with the dist2.nce between successive major and minor local highways. San Fernando Valley residents and business and industrial interests cont:inue to exert pressure on the Los Angeles City Council, FIGURE 4 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY GRADE SEPARATIONS A\D GRADE CROSSINGS CJN THE S. P. RAIL LINE N A SCALE iiiii!!!!!liiii 0 I • GRAD=: BASE MAP: SECURITY FIRST LEGEND NATIONAL BANK, 1960 •0 !::::::::::f:l ZONED FOR INDUSTRY-AUGUST 1960 ltii!!Mi[!ij!~i!l EARMARKED FOR FUTURE INDUSTRY GRADE DATA- RON HOLLIS, 1-' -...3 lB throu.gh their district representatives, to provide better access across the rail line. Northridge, Canoga Park and Chatsvmrth residents have clamored £or crossings at Lo·uise, White Oak, Wilbur, Tampa, Winnetka and (until 1964) Corbin Avenues, because o£ poor access to commercial and indus-· trial activity and thus to jobs, shopping facilities and recreational activities south of the tracks. trial As!'joqiation o£ the San Fernando Valley is currently preparing a case for the formation of a. special gradE:~ separation district to finance grade separation at various locations, especially at Tampa, Winnetka, and Mason Avenues, to provide more efficient access to industrial 9 property J..n. Canoga Par.. k_ (F'J.gure 4) • 1.3.2 Grade Separation Construction: Hindered by LegaJ. Mat·te}:S The Industrial Associ2.tion t s initiative to form a special separation district arises f:r:om fn.lstration over the slow progress in improving grade facilities in the west Valley. The impediments to construction arise primarily from the inability or unwillingness of state and local governments to adj·... 1.st J egal and financic:~.l cliff ercnces n>- la.ted to grade improvements 6 Most grade crossings c..nd gra.de separations built in the Valley a.re located within the city limits of Los An9eles (Figure 4), bu.t the City 19 cannot build acx:oss the railroad tracks without the ap 10 proval of the Public Utilities Commission. (See Appendix A for a discussion of the procedures to file for grade separation). The Commission favo:cs. grade separa·tions because they do not create hazardous conditions £or automobiles or trains and do not require a reduction in speed for through - -. 1. 1 .... r ·1 ·"' + 1. .., 1- C>. L. <.:.~ .J.. c ' as do crossings. In keeping with its policy to provide efficient, safe statewide rail service, the Comndssion has been reluctant since the mid·-1950 Is to . 11 grant approval of grade crossing proposals in the Vall~Y· The City of Los Angeles, on the other hand, resists build- ing new sepc:u~ations for obvious financial reasons: grade separations are much more costly t.han grade crossings (about $2,000,000, and $100,000, respectively, in the San Fernando Valley) and the state will supply its forty-five percent share of the cost only if the crossings have proven more hazardous and congested than most other cross- ing facilities in the state. These conflicting considerations of safety and finance have rc.eant that to date Tampa, Winnetka, l\'Ia.son and other avenues are still severed by the rail line. This empedi- ment to transit across the tracks to the west of Reseda Boulevard was the major cause for the 11 commotion'; in 20 Northridge. Local :merchants and residents argued voci:f- erously that more grade facilities, not the substitution of one kind o£ £acili ty £or anot;her, were needed to improve the west Valley transportation network. 21 References 1. Preston, Richard, "The Growth of the San Fernando Valley," Th~--~a~ifornia Geo9_!;_~h~~' Vol. 6 ( 1965), P• 59. 2. Security First National Bank, ~- Grovrt:r~-~ld Economi~ St~.!:~!-e of ___!E.~ Sa!l Fernando Valley a~~__!.~~- Greater _s;1~~d~le Are~, (Economic Research Department, Los Angeles, 1967), p. 35. 3. Preston, Richard, 91?.• cit., pp. 63-72. 4. Traffic Department, City o£ Los Angeles, §.~E-f'e!:.nar~ ~~lJ~-~y T:~af_fic ~ud~_!965-1985 (Los Angeles, 1966), p. 24. 5~ Preston, Richard, op. c~~, p. 70a 6. Pla.nning Department, City of Los Angeles, ~-- ci_!•; pp. 6-7 and .25. 7 o Planning Department, City o£ Los Angeles, ~E.!._~,;~!-·, Plate 11. 8. Information obtained in discussion with Mx· ~ Ron Hollis, Traffic Engineer with the California Public Utilities Commission, Department of Transportation. 9.· Information obtained in discussion with Mr. Walter A~ Burke, President of the Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley. 10. Public Utili ties Commission, State of Calii~ornia, !.:~~l __ ReiJ_~_:ct: 1965--1966 Fiscal Yea'c, pp. 88-90. 11. Information obtained in discussion with Ron HolJ.is. CHAPTER II THE NORTHRILGE .GRADE SEPARP3ION: A QUESTION OF RELATIVE NEED The City o£ Los Angeles argued quite effectively bE"~-· fore -'che Public Utili ties Commission that grade sepa:cat:i..on was urgently needed on Reseda Boulevard to remove auto-rail conflict at the grade crossing on the Boulevard. 2.1.1 Arguments Favoring Underpass Construction Attorneys for the City argued that the Reseda Boule- vard grade crossing should be replaced by an underpass grade separation complex because vehicular traffic £low had increased across the tracks, that this had concomitantly increased the conflict between vehicular and rail use of the crossing~ and that this had thus reduced -che safe and efficient operation of the crossing.* Traffic increases were generated by rapid population growth in the northwest portion of the Valley by the e:>,'Pansion o£ San Fernando *This discussion synthesizes the arguments and exhibits presented by the City of Los Angeles and the Northridge coalition before the Public Utilities Commission at hear~ in.gs of Priority and Application £or Grade Separa.tion, Case Numbers 7683 (Octobex 22, 1963), and 45808 (Febru.ary 4, 1964), respectively. 22 23 Valley State College (located one-half mile to the north east o£ the crossing) and by increased commercial and industJ;"ial activity in the area. Continued growth was pro- jected for each of these three factors, and-traffic engineers could foresee only a worsening of corigestion and sa:fety hazards at the cr.ossihg. The City claimed also that the nature of the area surrounding the crossing added to the problem. The cross-· ing was located in the midst of a small, light industrial and building supply district that spread out linearly along the rail line. Many of the businesses bordering the tracks required continual loa.dinq and unloading operations which periodically created a ba.r:rier to north···south tra:ffic flov.; on Reseda Boule·vard, and to east-west auto!ilobile movement on Paithenia Street as well. Parthenia Street did not cross the tracks, but was offset at Reseda Boulevard into segments to the north and south of the tracks (Figure 5). Traffic had to jog onto Reseda Bouleva1~d for 370 feet, and cross t:he tracks midway 'before continuing along Parthenia Street. This dog--lr2g condition magnified the problem at the grade crossing. The City argued that to remove the accident potential between rail and automobile traffic and to alleviate con- ge?ti.on, a double gra.de separation complex shov.ld be built FIGURE 5 STREET PATTER:\- BEFORE. DURil\G wI A\1) AFTER Ul\DERPASS CO!\STRCCTIO\ ui > > ~ ~ SJ~o ~ sour ---- ~ ---- PARTHENIA i ~ NAPA 0 STREET 1!11 GRADE SEPARATION SC.!~.LE: '12 INCHES REPRESENTS 1 MlLE. illll .. DETOUR EASEMENT IIIJ SLOPE EASEMENT 0 STREET RIGHT OF WAY ROSCOE 90ULEVARD SOURCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS tv ~ 25 that would enable both Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia Street traffic to flow unimpeded t.;nderneath the rail line and cross at a signaled intersection just to the south of the proposed separation (Figures 1 and 5). This strnc,tural aJ.teration would benefit the Northridge commercial dis trict, because business districts are unattractive and shops are inaccessible if traffic channels do not efficiently carry through traffic. The industrial area p~ralleling the railroad tracks would also be provided with better access. 2.1.2 Evidence Substantiating Arguments Numerous exhibits were submi t.ted 1n evidence to demon- strai~e that construction of the grade separation was necessary· if la11.d use and traffic developments were to re- main comp2.tible with one another. The Planning Depart:ment presented population data before the hearings to show that the Northridge area was experiencing consiQ.ex·able residen- tia1 growth (Table 4). The D·2partment projected that commercial and industrial land would. assume a greater per- centage of Northridge land use in the £utu:ce. It was also noted that San Ferr1W1do Valley State College would continue to grow and stimulate multiple :residential ancl commercial building activity. TABLE 4 Rate of Population Increase Total San Fernando Northridge Di~trict West Central Valley* Va.lley , +. Year ~~2:EE.. ---·-Growth ----Percent Ponulation Percent Population Percent 1930x 820 6,900 54,200 1940X 1,100 290 35 11,850 72 112,000 107 1950x 2,770 1,660 150 32,330 173 311,000 128 l960x 16,680 13,910 500 161,000 400 738,000 138 10/63xx 23,800 7,120 43 193,000 20 850,000 15 1970xxx 32,000 8,200 34 255,000 1,050,000 1980xxx 48,000 50 349,000 35 1,375,000 32 ·*Sum of Chatsworth, Northridge, Canoga Park, and Reseda Districts~ Xoecennial census: from City of Los Angeles Population Bulletin, 1961-1962, April 1, 1961 XXE_..selma tde popu lt··"a·lon: from City of Los Angeles Population Bulletin, 1963-1964, October 1, 1963. xxr-:~ l ~~oJec~e.· .,_ d popu_a t lon.· · from City of Los Angeles Population Bulletin, 1962-1963, July 1, 1963. Source: Transcript of The Reseda Boulevard Grade Separation Application Hearing (Case No. 45308), 1969. t\) (l\ 27 Traffic Department officials demonstr.':lted, using flow charts of the San Fernando Valley, that traffic trends corresponded to population and land use developments, traffic volumes had risen sharply between 1955 and 1963 and were projected to continue to rise, aJ.beit at a lesser rate (Appendix B-1). Flow charts were also used to illustrate how traffic flow would continue to increase on Reseda Boulevard, and to a lesser degree on Parthenia Str~et, as a result of population and land use changes in the area (Appendix B-2). Traffic counts were projected to increase between 1963 and 1970 from approximately 29,000 to 33,000 daily on Reseda Boulevard at the railroad grade crossing, and from approximately 11,000 to 1·1:, 000 daily on Parthenia Street, also at the grade crossing. By 1970, these latter figu.res were projected to increase to approximately 46,000 and 20,000, respectively. Although two freeways~ proposed for construction sometime in the 1970's, would reduc~~ the congestion of through traffic in the area their siphoning effect would be felt £o.r only a short time after their initial use because of increased traffic volumes. Officials of the Traffic Department. stressed that Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia Street were integral parts of the Mas-ter Plan of Highways and must provide~ in an 28 adequate :fashion, for the growing tra£fi.c developments placed thereon, and also exhibited dat2.. to demonstrate that frequent, some·times lengthy, and often inappropriate- ly timed use of the crossing by the railroad was causing considerable congestion and delay to motorists (Table 5). :The City's chart indicates that on one particular day there were fourteen train movements across the g:r:ade crossing, delc.ying automobile traffic :for an average o£ 3.5 minutes per movement. However., between 2:00 and 6:06 P.M.~ and thus during rising and peak hour traffic, trains blocked the crossing on four occasions £or an average o:f 8.5 minutes. A Police Department official and Ca.pta.in Davis of the F:Lre Department corrobora.ted this, claiming in addition that the crossing was an obstacle to the movement of emergency vehicles in the area. The Police Department (Traffic Division) provided accident data to prove that the crossing was hazardous to life and property. Between 1937 and 1963, twenty-four rail--auto accidents a.t the crossing had cc-.~.used eight deaths and eighteen injuries. 2.2 The Case Against Gra.de Sena:r:ation -· -----·---~----~~~-----·----·-~--~~~,S:-=---~~-... -.,...--.. A local coalition o£ businessmen and residents 1n Northridge contested this line of argument. Many of the 29 TABLE 5 CITY OF LOS ANGELES' MEASUREMENT OF AUTO AND RAIL TRAFFIC FLOW OVER THE RESEDA BOULEVARD GRADE CROSSING 30 .------~S=EP~T~E~M~8~E~R~1~7~,~19~6~3~ t t t t 25 t t + + m t 15 t VEHICULAR TRAFFIC COUNTS GATE CLOSURES (IN UNITS) 10 5 0 5 9 AM PM SOURCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HOURLY PERIOD ENDING DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION TABLE 6 NORTHRIDGE COALITION MEASUREMENT OF RAIL ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE RESEDA BOULEVARD GRADE CROSSING Date Time T~e of Train Time Interval Oct. 8 2:21 p.m. Switcher l Min. Oct. 8 2:23 p.m. Switcher l Min .. 6 Sec. Oct. 8 2:37 p.m. Mail Train 38 Seco Oct. 8 5:25 porno Passenger 51 Sec. Octo 9 7:46 a.m. Freight l Min. 48 Sec. Oct. 9 8:07 a.m. Freight l Min. 19 Sec. Oct. 9 8:19 a.m. Freight l Min. 51 Sec. Oct. 9 2:46 p.m. Switcher 29 Sec. Oct. 10 4:06 porno Switcher l Min. 24 Sec. Oct. 14 2:45 p.m. Switcher l Min. 44 Sec. Oct. 14 3:06 p.m. Switcher 56 Sec. Oct. 16 3:29 p.m. Freight l Min. 26 Sec. Oct. 21 12:30 p.m. Switcher l Min .. 39 Sec. Oct. 21 12:55 porno Switcher l Mino 21 Seco Sou'rce: Robert Van Anda (Coalition Member) 30 established and promin?::mt businessmen in the community were the most: active in the campaign against separation. .Many of them had vested interests 1n the area designated fot separation excavation, and while their actions "~Nere definitely influenced by personal interest in the area, there Wc\S an earnest concern £or the proper expenditure o£ City funds and the desire to see Northridge and the north-· west Valley benefit optimally by grade crossing or separa- tion construction. These individuals were quite active and influential in the local Chamber o£ Commerce, and it was logical that the Chamber spearheaded the movement· aga.inst separation. Some 1,300 Northridge residents and businessmen supported the views o£ this leadership, a:nd signed a petition calling for better allocation of the proposed Reseda Boulevard grade separation f·unds. Al th0ugh ·the group made valid criticisms of the City's arguments, it could not supply enough da·ta to ef£ ecti vely substan·tiate its position. 2.2.1 Arguments Against Project Th:i.s coalition ackno<,llledged that a separation vmuld eventually be needed at Reseda Boulevard. But, it argl.J.ed, the underpass was not as urgently needed as were additional c:.r:ossings at other streets. Ar1d it was contended that the unde:rposs would nei the1~ eliminate nor even appreciably 31 alleviate the problem o£ traffic congestion or safety at the Reseda Boulevard crossing area; the City would be treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause. It was the absence of crossings or separations, or both, at regular intervals along the Southern Pacific line which was generating the intolerable traffic conditions, they argued. Although Lindley Avenue crossed the tracks hal£ a mile to the east of Reseda Boulevard, to the west the closest crossing was three miles away on De Soto Avenue, and it was argued that congestion at Reseda Boulevard was in large part produced by the consequent funneling o£ north and southbound traffic £rom the west to Reseda Boulevard where it could cross the ·rail line before tur~ing back onto the intended route. Nor was relief in sights By 1970 it 1Nas reckoned tbat the northern hal£ of the Valley between Reseda Boulevard and De Soto Avenue would have a population exceeding that o£ the enti.xe Valley :tn 1947, yet there still would be fewer crossings in this area than there had been in the entire Valley in 19L.17. Northridge coalition m.e:::nbers also :feaJ:ed tha.t tra:-f£ic congestion on' Reseda Boulevard would increase considerably during construction even if a detoux rollte (included in the City's plans) were built. The anticipated aggravation i11 all probability would make the Northridge business 32 oi~ district (which\ was centered a :few blocks to the north the crossing) less attractive to shoppers and would lead to a decline in 6usiness activity. The removal of a large number c~f establishments for excavation and detour work would likewise affect the area detrimentally by reducing shopping activities which ·these businesses had generated. The coalition argued that the potential :for accidents at the crossing had already been considf~rably reduced by saf~ty measures, and that this fact invalidated one City argument in :favor o:f separation. After 1962, rail tra_:f:fic could no longer travel through the Valley in excess o:f sixty miles per hour, a twenty mile per hour reduction from the previously imposed eighty mile per hour speed limit. Furthe:cmore, since August, 1962, when automatic gates~ :first installed in 1958, had been adjnsted to inccease the ·time interval between the initial lowering o:f the gates and the passage o:f the train :from twenty to thirty seconds, no accidents h.::td been reported. One interested Northridge businessman recorded the number oi: trains that blocked the crossing at various times during the day, and timed the delay o£ Vt':hicular traffic (Table 6). He contended that congestion was not nearly as great as was claimed by the City and that switching trains were not as active as stated. The Northridge coalition argued that the City and County's share in financing the construction of the double grade separation, forty-five percent of an estimated $4,225,300, could be more e£:J.':"iciently spent to alleviate railroad-automobile problems. The coalition claimed that two g:r:·ade separations and two grade crossings at other streets could be built with the City and County's share· of the cost because valuable commercial-indus triz..l land would not ·have to be purchased by the City, and a detour would not have to be built and maintained since through traf.fic was non-existent at these locations (compare Tables 7 and 8 for City and coalition appropriation alternatives), The Nortln·idge group also objected to the unre2,listic cost estima·te o£ the proposed separation. They argued tha·t hidden costs were involved; a simila.r double grade separa- tion at Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Sherman Way in the early 1960 1 s had cost far more than the original estimate. The final cost of the Reseda Bouleva.rd-Parthenia Street Grade Separation was $5,600 s 000, almost onc.:~-third more than the estimate of $4,225,300 • . In spite of the coalition's persistent objection to the separation proposal, the City was firmly committed tq the project. Construction of the separation was approved on February 4, 1964 and building activity commenced at the 34 TABLE 7 Estimated Cost o£ Separation $4,225,300 Itemized: 321,000 surfacing, curbs, gutters, sidevvalks, excavation 60,000 sanitation sewers 228,000 storm drain 837,000 bridge structure and retaining walls (257,000 Reseda Boulevard and 500,000 Parthenia Street) 58,000 slgns, signals and lights 2,100,000 Right o£ Wa.y $ 4.;22s-·;3oo TABLE 8 Northridge Alternate Proposal l. A Grade separation a.t White Oak Cost approximately $1,0?3,000 2. A Grade separation at \'Jinn0tka Aveo Cost approxima.tely $750,000 3. A G:r:ade cx·ossing at Louise Ave. CosJc approximat2ly $90,000 4. A Grade crossing at Wilbur Ave. Cost approximately $90,000 Total cost approximately $1,953,000 35 .very end of 1965. 2.2.2 Seeming Lack of Supporting Evidence The Northridge group was at a considerable dis·· advantage in contesting the City's arguments for separa-· tion because it could not produce the technical information and p:r.ofessional testimony presented by the City at the hearings. A statistically valid counter-argument to Ci.~y claims couid not be effec·tively devised due to financial limitations and a lack of qualified personnel~* The California Public Utilities Commission approved the allocation o£ state funds towards partial payment of grade separation costs. But was the Commission's decision a wise one? Was the substitution of grade facilities at Reseda Bou.levard more desi:.ca.ble than the provision for better crossing facilities to the west of the Boulevard? -¥.-Data collected on ·the movements of ""'cJ:a.ins over the cross·· ing to contest the degree of delay to motorists claimed by the City was nei the~c systemat.ically obtained, nor complete, and wa.s thus inconclusive. A petit: ion~- s:i.gned by 1, 900 merchants and residents in the community, rejecting the separation proposal on the 9rou:nds ·that other sites in the area. deserved higher priority, was not acceptable to the Commission examiner on the grounds that it was hearsay· (Transcript, Priority Hearing, Case No. 7683, October 22, 1963, pp. 77-79). 36 While the answer cannot be conclusively stated, a tentative answer ca.n be drawn by assessing two qu12stions. Was the separation needed purely on the basis of traffic and safety conditions in the immediate area of the crossing? And were the separation funds allocated by the city' cou.rr'cy and state optimally spent to alleviate inadequacies in access- ibility across the west Valley tracks? Separation substitution was prerequisite to the re- m6val of safety hazards and to the lessening of del.eterious traf:fic conditions in Northridge stemming from vehicl:lar- rail conflict, and for two basic reasons. First, major transportation arteries, such as Reseda Bou1eva:rd, have been used to near ca.paci ty in recent years as a resul·t oE rapid suburbanization of the northwes·t Valley area. I~lediments to efficient traffic flow, such as the R?seda Boulevard grade crossing, only aggravated the · strained traffic problems. Railroad switching activity 1n Northridge blocked traffic on Reseda Boulevard when such activity coincided with peak traffic per:i_rJds and led to 1 ·traffic jams several blocks deep. The poor alignment of Parthenia Street with respect to the Boulevard and the crossing only magnified these traffic conditi6ns. Second, the Northridge opposition attempted to demon-· strate that the crossing was relatively safe after adjust- 37 ments in rail speed and gate timing had been made. However reports of U. S ~ Congressional subcommi t·tee hearings on thE:~ removc:d_ of grads crossings indicate that the potential for accidents at crossings cannot be entirely eliminated without separ.a·t.ion, because safety hazards stem in large part £rom human errors; these are impossible t.o eliminate 2 with signaling devices. Because safety considerations should be paramount in public projects, grade separations 3 are prefe:cabJ.e to grade crossing facilities. Northridge interests did not oppose separation o£ Reseda Boulevard, but felt that additional crossing £ac:i_lities to the west o.f the Boulevard were needed fir:.;t; it vJas a question of priori ties. It is difficult to determine whether or not Reseda Boulevard requir And the 1egitima.te civic-mindedness o£ each group was clouded by £in<:1nciaJ self -interest. The ~ity o£ Los Angeles was interested in obtaining state funds to build the underpass., But if the Northridge alternative o£ build·- ing tvw gra.de separations and two grade crossin9s had been a.dopted~ state funds would not have been available to finance these projects, and this despite the fact that the 38 City and County would not have had to appropriate more than their ·share of the Reseda separation costs. The City may have felt that if the Reseda grade substitution proposal had been postponed the priority rating of the project would have b<:·en jeopardized and it might not have qualified for state funds at some later date. Consequently, a measure of 1 expediency was injected into the City :; case for separation, irrespective of the legitimacy of Northridge claims. It does, of course, seem true that Northridge businessmen were equally open to the charge that personal interests influenced their position. Many of the business interests which were vocal in their opposition faced eviction from thei:r buildings if sepa:r.a.tion were approved. Indeed, about one-eighth of the entire business community within one-half mile of the crossing was so affected, a fac-t which. was naturally re:flected in considerable animas~· ity. It s.:~ems logical that this group would oppose separation and would look for alternatives to alleviat~ the problems confronting the community. Although the Northridge group lost the decision be fore th(o Public Utili ties Coramission, its position may have been ;::,:t least partially vindicated by several subsequent developments. First, it may well be significant that the City built a grade crossing on Corbin Avenue in Septembex· .39 1964 shortly after the hearings were concluded and fifteen months prior to initial separation construction on Reseda Boulevard, and it. seems clear that the hearings publicized the conspicuous lack of crossing facilities in the area and focused civic attention on the need for at least one ad ditional rail crossing to the west of Reseda Boulevard. Second1y, traffic on Corbin Avenue increased consider·~ ably after the grade crossing connecting north and south segments of the Avenue was.opened to through traffic in late 1964, and increased even more significantly during the construction period, a fact which suggests that potential Corbin Avenue traffic was channeled onto Reseda Boulevard before late 1964, "'chat it had added to congestion difficulties before then~ and ·that in all probabili-ty i·t would have made congestion still more noticeable in the separation area during construction ha.d that grade crossing not been built at that ti.me. But it is a cttrious fact that at no time in the Public Utilit::Les Corr.JD.ission hearings did the City acknowledge that ~ grade crossing was to be built on Corb:i.n Avenue! 40 References 1. Information obtained in discussion with businessmen and residents of Northrjdge. 2. Ue s. Congress, House Committee of ·Public Works, Subcorrmli.tt:ee on Roads, ~r~ng~~' Ninety First Con gress, First Session, May 15, 1969, p. 233. See also, George Bezkorovanig and Robert G. Holsinger, · "The Use of Stop Signs at Railroad Crossings, 11 Traffic Engineering, Vol. 37, No. 2, (November, 1966) pp.54-59 ·6-----·-- 3. Bucha.na.n ~ Colin, ].'~~ffi<:___ ~n _!S?~~!...:.?_ (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963), p. 19. CHAPTER III CHANGES IN TRAFFIC FLOW CHARACTERISTICS: LAND USE IMPACT IJVIPLICATIONS While ·the underpass was a pre-requisite to the amelioration o£ such traffic problems as arose :from c-:..u-to- mobile-rail conflict at the Reseda-Parthenia crossing, its construction was no assurance that overall traffic problems would abatE~, as was claimed by the City o£ Los Angeles. There were other £actors that would not·have been affected by substitution, as Northridge opposition demonstrated. True enot.:gh, the separation may have eased transportation problems in the vicinity of the tracks, but improvement of the situation was very much dependent upon whether or not such modifications could remove the important causes of broader traffic problems without generating fresh problems that might arise :from the very act of separation. The railroad grade separD.tion almost completely eliminated auto-rail conflict at the grade crossing (but not completely, because a. short time after its completion a freight train was derailed at the underpass and 1t was 41 42 sheer chance that it did not collide with automobile traffic on Parthenia Stree~. But the number of accidents on Reseda Bouleva:,:::d, in the vicinity of the grade separa- tion, increased after its completion. The accident rate rose from 0.130 accidents per month between Jinuary 1, 1964 and December 31, 1965 (before construction), to 0.178 accidents per month between August 1, 1967 and December 31, 1969 (aftE·r construction) at the intersection of Reseda B6ulevard and Parthenia Street (Figure 6). During .the intermediate construction period the accident rate was only 0.055 accidents per month. The increased accident rate after separation might be att.ributable to an increase in tra.ffic volume and/oJ~ speed follovdng the opening of the underpass, if such increases in fact occurred. Although traffic count data are limited. ($ince they are not available for many years at various locations, and values fluctuate from year to year where counts are available at a site) such data as are available indjcate that Reseda Boulevard traffic flpw increased twelve to thirty~eight percent over the nine year period for which data were accumulated between Roscoe Boulevard and Devonshire Street to the north and south of the separation, resp•2ctively (Tab1e 9). This corxesponds in magnitude to the accideni; rate increa.se of approximately FIGL.RE 6 TRAFFIC ACCIDE:\TS 0:\ RESEDA BOCLEYARD- BEFORE, DURil\G A~D AFTEI:{ CNDERPASS CO \STR CCT I O~ sour' c:J~oo~ -._ """~N -.--- sr"""r PA.Cu::IC ------ i SEPARATION N NAPA - GRACE SEPARATION ~::.Li:: : 1 • SLOPE EASEMENT 0 STREET RIGHT OF WAY ROSCOE 90ULSVARD SOURCE! CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPT , OF PUBLIC WORKS 44 thirty-four percent during this same period. If datv. at other intersections in the area had also indicated i similar correspondence between traffic volume and accident rate, the dependence of the latter on the former wou.ld seem probable. However, accident rates at nearby inter- sections did not reflect traffic volume increases; they were m1.;.ch lower. Data on traffic speed is not a.va.ilabl(~ for the study area. However, numerous basinessmen and residents in Northridge have repeatedly commented that t:raffic speed has increased from approximately twenty-five to thirty five miles per hour in the vicinity of the railroad tracks since separation. This increase seems proba.bl.e in light of the elimination of rough crossing conditions, the cautious approach of most automobiles to tracks, and the removal o£ the jog in Parthenia Str:eet. This velocity increase, accompanied by traffic volm~l.e 1ncreases, might account for the accident rise if other. factors were not involved. However, the sepaxation affected not only traffic speed, but driver visibility as well, and this may have crea-ted a dangerous potential for automobile collision. The underpass separation re- channeled traffic flow on Heseda Boulev<::~.rd and Parthenia TABLE 9 TRAFFIC COUNTS IN NORTHRIDGE - l96l - 1969 _ Street Segment 1961 . 1962 1963 1964 ------~------1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Reseda Blvd. At Nordhoff 20,760 22,500 25,800 "::\'* N/0 Parthenia 25,334 28,000~ 23,413 22,300 N/0 RRX-N/0 Parthenia 22:.ooo3 S/0 RRX-N/0 Parthenia 25,516 25 ,'126 4 2 At Parthenia 2 °u' A00., 24,200 S/0 Parthenia 25' '700 At Cll.ase 4 28,000 N/0 Roscoe 25,600 22,000 25,200 Norc1.'1off St. 3 At Lindley 20,ooo 10 24,145 W/0 Lindley 15,200 4 25,500 At Reseda 10,200 18,250 18,300 20,436 vUO Reseda 8,850 14' 300 At Corbin 9,700 LJ-ndley Ave. N/0 Roscoe 10,700 3 S/0 Parthenia 12,000 17,000 13,279 N/0 Parthenia 9:,500 S/0 Nordhoff 7,200 9,.500 Corbin Ave4 N/0 Nordhoff 4,600 20,890 N/0 No:rdhoff 6,300 At Nordhoff 11,000 S/0 Nordhoff 9,100 D~y+han~a ~~:::'"/(., 1 d.J..~ i.; ..: ...... -_ 13...... ' 340 *Notation used when more than one ~raffic count.was taken. Source: Traffic Department~ City of Los Angeles, Jraffic Count Manuals, 1961-1969. J:>.. lll 46 Street below the railroad tracks. The dip that resulted and the supporting structures for the railroad trestles together sufficiently reduced the time during which motorists could sight oncoming traffic and the traffic signal, and accurately judge when to safely make turns 1 onto either street. The grade separation may have therefore substitu·ted automobile accidents for auto-rail conflict. The speed and visibility of vehicular £low on Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia St~eet were altered by the underpass and these two factors may have been responsible £or the increased accident rat:e. However, the accident rate at the inter- section o£ Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia Street has always been less than the accident rate at the intersection of Roscoe and Reseda Boulevards, possibly because traffic volu!nes are greater in all directions there, thes crea t~ ing a greater potential £or collision. The accidsnt increase doE::s n:::>t detract :from the argument. for sepaxation, however, but rather tentatively indicates· that some structural feature of the underpass ma.y be improperly designed. 47 3.3 E££~ct on T:ra££ic Congest.ion Officials of the City of Los Angeles testified that the grq.de separation would reduce traffic congestion near the railroad tracks after its completion, and that conqi- tions would not be aggravated during construction because a temporary detour: would be built to the west o£ the Boule~· vard. Northridgers were skeptical about this at the t'ime . , . of the hearings, but in ~January o£ 1970 these same lilO.l··· viduals concurr,2d that the City's original prediction was vindicated. Traffic flowed more smoothly after the separa- tion was built (a £act partially evident in increased average auto speeds), and was not obstructed during the one-and-a-hal£ year construction period. Traffic count d2.ta sug·;wsts one possible explanation :fo:r the lack of 2,utomobile congestion on Reseda Bouleva.rd during this construction period, Dillllely the diversion o£ tra££ic :CJ:om the Reseda Boulevard crossi_ng to the crossings on Corbin and Lindley Avenues. In 1966, the first year of construction, tra:fJ:ic rose sharply on Corbin Avenue im- mediately to the nox"th o:f the recently completed (late 1964) crossing (Table 9). Traffic also increased on Lindley Avenue between Roscoe Boulevard and Nordhoff Street (in the vicinity of the railroad crossing) during this same period, but declined considr.::!ra.b1y a.:fi:er the end 0 4 u of construction~ Not only was the traffic flow of Reseda Boulevard diverted to the east and to the west, but Parthenia Street ·was completely closed to traffic £or a distance o£ three blocks to the east and one block to the west ot Reseda Boulevard. Businessmen in the area seem to be in unanimous agreement that there was a substantial attendant decline in through traffic on Parthenia Street to the east o£ the Boulevard. They also generally agree that traffic voluQes on the segment o£ Parthenia to the west of the Boulevard were not a.s dramatically affected because detour facilities were much less inconvenient. Unfortunately, the degree of diversion cannot be corroborated by traffic count data, since none were recorded. Thus, it is evident tha.t the substitution of grad~ facilities was successful in eliminating hazc.\rdous and congested traffic conditions stemming from a.tlto·-rail con- £lict at tr1e Reseda Boulevard grade crossing. However,. the success of the substitution must be qualified because: (1) the railroad bridge structures impaired the visibility of both vehicular traffic and traffic signals at the inter- section of Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia Street £or approaching drivers, and (2) the Corbin Avenue crossing was instrumental in diverting t:r:a.£fic moving ove1: the Reseda 49 Boulevard grade facility and thus in decreasing the potential for vehicular congestion during and after con- struction, even though it was not included ln the original separation proposal exhibited by the City. 3.4 Traffic and Land Use Interrelated It has also been demonstrated in numerous studies that traffic and land use are closely interrelated, that is, an alteration in either phenomena will induce a change in the other in a direction that will tend to absorb the original modification· and re·-establish functional compatibility be~ tween the two~ Mitchell and Rapkin noted that "••• various .kinds of activity based on the -·SO called land use-" generate di£J~erent amounts and kinds o£ traffic • • • randl ~- -' that a change in the amount of da.ily movement or in the facilities £or its, or an expected change in the trafJ:ic at a particular site, has a consider:abJe ef.£ect on the Joca- 2 tionaJ pattern o£ land uses~" The t:canspari:ation system, upon which the daily move- ment o£ this traffic depends, largely determines access- ibili ty of a site, because B.cute congestion reduces ready 3 access Jco stores.. The degree o£ obsolescence o£ the structural ~nd/or spatial dimensions o£ the system are im.po~ctant fa.ctors in the risE~ o£ traffic congestion. The 50 Reseda Boulevard grade crossing had become obsolete and incompatible wi-th burgeoning traffic and with the land use developments that generated the traffic. Logically, then, the obsolescence and subsequent renovation of the trans- portation system in Northridge may have affected land use in the area.• Empirical evidence substani.:iates the argument that· by improving tra££ ic conditions, that is) by reducing over··· congestion through the diversion of traffic to other more 4 aes1ran, . ,1 e rou~es,t b y expe d".1t1ng the flow of traffic efficiently through a business area, 5 or by reducing 6 accidents, business areas become more desirable places to carry on commercial and/or industrial business activity. (Such im.provc·ment may be financially ha.)~m:ful, hovvever, if tremendous traffic volulnes had made the area conspicuously exciting or known to shoppers, regardless of attendant conges' t.·1on ) • 7 Reduction in congestion and delay make traveling conditions less taxing on prospective shoppers and encourages, or a1: least does not repel, their use of an area. 8 Congestion reductions also in~rove ingress ~nd egress conditions, and make businesses more accessible to prospect1ve custo~ers. 51 3.5 .§.~Ea~_ation IEP-_a.ct on_Adj_aceni_:_Land Use Postulated Because the Northridge transportation network, upon which the movement of traffic in the area depends, was con siderably modified temporarily, and to some degree per~a nently, by the gra.de substitution, businesses may have been affected by the diversion o£ traffic and conditions attendant to construction. I£ the substitution did affect the area; the impact might have been registered in the changing spatial character o£ land use, retail sales and other characteristic phenomena of business in the vicinity of the substitution. The issue of the impact of grade substitution on the business community adjacent to it conunanded little atten 'tion £xom City representatives at the F-0.blic Utilities Commission hearings, even though traffic and land use C~.re known to be closely related to one another. It therefore seems incumbent to determine here whether or not the grade substi·tution modified, directly or indirectly, the spatial character of the business district. 52 References 1. This observation was offered in conversation by Captain Warren E. Davis, presently stationed at Engine No. Seven, Los Angeles Fire Department, whp had testified at the Public Utilities Commission hearings. 2. Mitchell, Robert and Chester Rapkin, Urban Traffic: fL.Fu,E~ion__ _?f La_Ed Use (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), p. 1. 3. Foster, Gerard J. and Howard J. Nelson, Vent_<:.r~ ~o~-~.rd_:_.~_S!_E,i12-_.9 _Iz~ ShoEt?ing_ Stree;_!.. , Real Estate Research Program,Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of California, Los Angeles, California, 1958, pp. 39-54. 4. Garrison 1 William Lloyd, e~J.:_., St~-c!~.es of _,ti_i;phwaz_ Deve~~'2}:HTI'~~.!_ an?.__ Econom:Lc Ch<~n<;;~e (University of Washington, Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Prf'=ss, 1959), p. l 09. 6. "Accident Reduction Increases Downtown Sales," Traf:[J:-_c En<)._.;L~:_~~EiE-!_g, Vol. 37, No. 7 (March, 1967), pp. 55-57. 7. Nelson, Richard L., Th§:__S~lP~!~_.2..f._Re:.!2:..~1._ Loc~-'-~-~-?n~. (New York: F. W. DodrJe Corporation, 1958), p. 45,, 8 o Mohring, Herbr:::rt and Mitchell Harwi tz 1 Highw.~>.y_ I?_~~:£J ~!.:;_..:_.,~~~?:_!.'1.:_'2.~]- y_t ~~§l-2~X r ame_w~ r~ (Northwest ern University) Chicago, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1962), p. 19. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGICAL FRAJ.\1EWORK FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS In D. re-..liew of tbe evolution and refinement of h~9hway impact si~udies, to determine how to best ana_lyze the impact of highvv-ay network alterations on the commercial structures of settlements, Powell noted that the hest and most re- fined studies included: ( 1) ''before and after" periods; (2) a controlled area; and (3) information on land val~a- ] tion, land use, retai.l saJes, population and traffic flow. A "before <:tnd a.:fte:r" approach is an essential compo- nent of an i-mpacT.. study because it helps determine whether recorded chan9es in land use and retail sales are products o:f changes :in the transport network, o:c whether they are manifestations some previously unaffected business trend. is thus used to g&,uge tbe tempo~-al signi£- icance of the traffic change in relationship to recorded + business changes. Each period should be a P.1ln~unum 0 _L thx:c,~~, but preferably o£ fiv;::~, years in length to a.llow adequate time for such si~v-;.i£icant changes in land use, retail sales activity, etc., that might emanate from the 53 54 network change (or any other cause) to develop to a degree sufficient to be measured. Highway research projects have also incorpora-ted a control area technique to determine whether changes in business character in the study area are a reflection of the highway change or of some business trend encompassing a larger area. Each of the five types of data accumula-ted by recent highway impact study teams·, over the two time periods and two areas, help gauge the interrelationship between t~affic and land use changes from different perspectives. Traffic count data detects whether traffic flow characteristics changed as a result of the transport change. Because traffic flow affects the accessibility of given locations, and because lcu'ld valuation, land use, and retail sales are interrelated indications of how accessible a site is to a surrounding area, the latter data. should be accumula.. ted to compare to traffic count data. Likewise, changes 1.n popu lation distribution affect the proximity of given locations to prospective customers and passersby, and thus are in strumental in modi.fying rz::;tail sales activity and should be included. Much o£ the data usE::d in these studies of im.p2,ct are 55 limited or not available for the Northridge area. First, the grade separation was completed only two and one-hal£ years ago, in July o£ 1967, one-hal£ year short of th~ minimum three year time period advocated by highway impact researchers. Second, use o£ a control area i~ not possible because conditions analogous to the Reseda Boulevard com.mercir.;l and industrial area do not exist at grade cross~- ings una-f£_ected by grade separation construction along the rail line. Even i£ there could be found a control area contiguous to or at some distance from the rail line, the limitations o£ maps and data in the Sa.n Fernando Valley make this approach impracticable. Third, retail sales tax data are not available for the NorthridgE"~ area separately, since tax receipts are recorded by the State Board of Equalization a.nd tabulated for public use by incorporated city unit. -x- And, fourth, the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Office has not re ... assessed North:ridge land -Ffa.x data are made available at the cost of $1.00 to $2.00 per account nurril:..)eJ~ t.hrough tb.e Research and Statist:ical Division of the Board o£ Equa.lization, Sacramento, California.. However, there are approximately ?:7 0 businesses in the study area at present, and to obi:ain. t.:tx data would entail a cost of bet\veen $370 a.nd $740, whi.ch is £in<:mcially beyond the scope of this project. And~ the data are accurate only three years past the present. 56 values 1n the immediate area of the grade separation since 1962 s Thex·e are a few exceptions, but these zoning cha;:1ges were unrelated to grade substitution. * The methodological approach developed to an2,lyze .the relationship between transportation and business changes in Northridge must obviously reflect these limitations of data.. The study is restricted by the availability of· dat2,, and the 'techniques used in recent highway impact projects must be modi:fied to accolllillodate and partially compensate for such limitations. Therefore, the £ollo·wing disc'Jssion deals primarily with changes 1n the spatial character of land use because of the lack of retail sales and land valuation d.::.1.t2. Land use was reconst:ructed and is dis- cussed relati,Te to somewhat modified 11 be£ore and after" periods, and is compared also with traffic and population trends in the area. Although retail sales data are not available, a b:rief discussion on the impact of the separa·- tion on business activity in the district is included. Land use W3S mapped for 1960, 1965, and 1970o June 1967, the date of completion of the sepa-ration, will not *Real estate agents in the Northridge area were unable to provide estimates of valuation changes in the area due to tb,e paucity of sales transactions consumma.ted. 57 serve as a ·temporal division for the before and after periods because, unlike limited access highway bypass con- struction-which usually does not greatly affect traffic' flow patterns and does not warrant the measurement of im- pact until after completion--separation substitution did modify ·traffic flow during construction, that is beginning in late December 1965. The s epa:ra tion impact, then, nu).st be mev.su:ced £rom the end of 1965. The grade separation structure did not permanently re-channel traffic flow (except in the slight reorientation of Parthenia Street to the sout:h o£ the tracks); the major impact after separ·ation stemmed £rom decreased congestion and increased traffic speed. There were definite difficulties in mapping land use in th~ Northridge area because of data source limitations~ Land use in 1970 was mapped from field survey do..ta compiled in January of t:ha... c year and presE~nted no di:f:ficv.l ties., However, 1960 a.nd 1965 land use could not be reconstructed :from maps or systematically filed data., eithe:c because of their non--·existence or their unusable form. Commonly used land use maps, such as Sanborn insurance maps'* *Sanborn lnsuran.ce Map coverage does not extend north of Victory Boulevard in the west San Fe:rnc=J.ndo Valley, except in special cases, in which a community had contracted for such maps~ 58 have not been compiled for the area, and City planning maps do not differentiate between zoning and use and are too generalized. Business directories and governmental agency materials could not be used because ·the study area was too small. Northridge Chamber o£ Commerce business directories could not be relied upon as primary source material because they are incomplete. City business license data either were not available or were not reliable due'to peculiarities in filing procedure. * Thus, the use of objective source material was precluded by the size and peculiar hature of the study area. Therefore, 1960 and 1965 land use maps are based on material obtair.ed in personal interviev\'S with Northridge businessmen. The source of the material is necessarily subjective because the reliability of the responses of each person was to some degree indeterminable. The inform&tion was collected and relied upon only after other data source possibilities were exhausted • .. *Business license data cards are filed systematically by address at regional City Clerk offices, and would be a valuable source of land use infc>rmation, except that cards are filed at these offices only for existing, operating . businesses. Those businesses that have vacated a given address have their license cards re-~:filed downtown in the central vault by name o£ occupant, not by address~ This means the information is virtually beyond reach. 59 Ea.ch businessman in the study area was asked to indicate how long he had been at that address; what business had occupied the building previously and for how long, until land use was traced back to 1960 for each. address. Data fro1-:1 the Department of Building and Safety, indicating when each building was erected and if other structures had preceded it, were used to determine how long this line of questioning should be continued. This initial information was checked in subsequent interviews with veteran Northridge businessmen. In this way, corrections and additioris were made. This material was then checked with Northridge ChambeJ: of Commerce business directories, because even t.hough they are incomplete, they categorize entries by function and are published annually. Although retail sales tax data a.re not 2,vailable :for Northridge to deter:mine what effect the grade sepa.ration had upon business activity in the study area, a discussion of land use changes should include mention of the finan cial impact of cons·truction on the area •. Because the 9rade separation may have affected the volv.mE: of business in the study area by divertin separv.tion on their business district, some note should be made of the spatial C'l.nd temporal character of business activity in the area. 4.3 The S~udy Are.~ The boundaries of the study area were delineated by noting where commercial and industrial land use was con centrated and by determining the distance over which the gra.cle separation could have conceivably affected business operation (Figure 7). Most connnercially zoned land in the study ar.ea borders Reseda Boulevard, while comme:ccial- industrial land is concentrated on Parthenia Street. Minor amounts o:f connercial-industrial land are also found of.f Parthenia Street, located close to the railroad tracks and the separat.ion area. The study area is, therefore: fairly well limited to the land bordering Reseda Boulevard and Parthenia Street. The delimi tat:ion of the ~rea will depend upon the linear extent of possible impact on eith~r traffic arte:ry. In a study on the impa.ct o£ the Ventura Freev1ay on land valuation adjacent to it ln the south San Fernando Valley, Dixon indicated t.hat the major impcKt was limited to one--~ hal£ mile on either side of the artery.~ The Reseda- Parthenia. grade sc~pa.ration project was a relatively minor transportation alteration in comparison with the 61 ZONES RESIDENTIAL- SINGLE FAMILY - LARGE LOT - RA f;•.••:•:•:•l RS Rl R2 1111111111111111 RD3 lMffR~M RESIDENTIAL MULT IPLE FAMILY RD2 mBA~?M R3-R4- CR CI-. C2- COMMERC IAL C 4 ~ C2 & P ( 1: 1) p t/:~:~//t);) P3 v:;;:::.rtt::~:@ CM Ml INDUSTRIAL M2 M3 * MAJ OR HIGHWAYS SECONDARY HIGHWAYS 61 ZONES RESIDENTIAL- SINGLE FAMILY- LARGE LOT - RA t; •• • •: •: •: •] RS RESIDENTIAL- SINGLE FAIMIL SINGLE FAMILY SMALL OT LOT [ Rl R2 1111111111111111 RD3 mtt~RMDII RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RD2R3R4 -lft#A§U#I CR - CI C2 - COMMERCIAL C4 ~ C2 & P {1: 1) p [{::::::~:~>=3{:1;:;) PARKONG [ P 3 F/:\~ih/.iJ INDUSTRIAL M2 M3 • "'AJOR HIGHWAYS SECONDARY HIGHWAYS FIGCRE 7 STCDY AREA PORTIO:\ OF . "ORTHRIDGE DISTRICT LAND USE PLAN SOURCE. LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 1967 62 construction of a freeway, and it would seem safe to assume that its measurc'.ble impact on land use would p:r:obably be 1 imited to cJ. distance less than one-hal£ mile. But in this instance hal£ a mile was considered a convenient distance over which to plot land use. Nordhoff Street.and Roscoe Boulevard, major east-west arteries, are located one-·hal£ mile to the north and south of the rail line, respectively, and the detour of north-south traffic around the con- struction area would logically use these arteries. Lindley Avenue is located one-hal£ mile to the east of the separa tion and traffic count data showed it carried a large num ber of detour vehicles bound north···southe Also~ indus·, trially built-up land to the west of Reseda Boulevard on Parthenia Street is concentrated to the east of Wilbur Avenue, one-ha.J_f mile to the west of the Bz")ulevarcL The no:rthern boundary was extended one block beyond Nordhoff Street on Reseda BouJevard because the contigu ously built-up commercial disi:::cict extends this distance beyond Nordhoff Street. The no:cthwest Valley 2,.rea has been developing rapidly and business communities tend to gravi tate tm¥ard areas of popula-'cion inc:rease unless inhibited from doing so by zoning or other restrictions. The Reseda- Parthenia gra.de separation, by removing a laxge numbeJ: of establishments near the railroad, may ha.ve contributed to ,;; ·:;;. '-'-' this shifto The various types of business activity found in the study area were categorized according to the Standard In dustrial Classification ( S. I. C.) sys·tem (Table 10). * Each type of business which was identified in the study area was keyed with an S.I.Ce number and a map symbol. Each map symbol corresponds to only one land use category, but each is a refinement of one of £our more generalized symbols. These :four symbols (circle, square, triangle, and sta.r) correspond to four generalized categories of land use: nucleated retail; consumer service; linear, arteria.l oriented facilii~ies; and firms involved in industrial, construc·tion, and business service. *The SGI.C. Manual is the basic source book for detailed land use breakdown for federal agency published repo:rts. This classifica_tion codes land use into £our diai_, t numbers. The first digit divides land use int~o major categories, and the following digits further refine the classification. The mapping o:f land usE~ in the study area necessita.ted a generalization of land use, and this was accomplished by breaking each establishment down to the first two digits only, and by grouping these business types into a small number of categories that could be easily grasped in symbolic foJ:m by the reader. 64 TABLE 10 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYED IN STUDY AREA Business Conformation ----~11d ~a.t~}~~------~------S. I. C. No e Trade General Merchandise 53 Food 54 Apparel 56 MiscE!llaneous Retail 59 Services Finance 61 Personal. 62 Professional 65 Governmental 67 Educational 68 Urban Arte:d.al Automotive 55 Furniture 57 Restaurant and Bar 58 Repair Serv:Lces 64 Recreational Light Industrial -.--~-----~-A-- .... ,,-._....,., ___ _.._...,._.,._ Industria.1 2 Industric:-~.1 3 Transportation 4 Lumber and HB.rdware 52 Business Services 63 Contract Construction 66 Vacant Structure 94 Residential 1 65 These £our categories were chosen because they accom- modate both research findings, which differentiate between several business ·conformations, and characteristics pecu- liar to the study area. Although the s.r.c. Manual dis- tinguishes between trade outlets and service ~stablishm~nt~ Berry and others have found that there are significant spa- tial associations between particular types of functions. 3 within these two major subdivisions. Berry categorized these spatial conformations as nucleated shopping centers, highway oriented associations, urban arterial districts, and automobile row areas (Table 11). The functions that agglomerate in nucleated conformations tend to be cen- trally located to serve the shopping and se;:vice needs of surrounding areas in a nested hierarchical arrangement. Other functions, such as auto:notive (gas, sales and supply) establishments, furniture stores, restaurants and bars, repair service stores and building and service firms, tend to locate along major traffic ribbons because much o£ their potential sales volume is dependent upon passersby. Just as nucleated conformations can be differentiated into neighborhood, community and regional centers, so can ribbon developments be di:f:ferentiated into highway oriented, urban ar·terial and automobile districts by the tyPes of :functional associations £ounclo 66 TABLE 11 TYPES, GROUPS AND CONFORMATIONS OF BUSINESSES BY BRIAN J. L. BERRY 1 Business tYPes Associated tYPe of SPOKEN EXAMPLES grouped center or district A B c D E F (a) Nucleated Shopping Centers General Store Grocery 1 1 2 Barber 1 2 4 Cleaners/laundry 1 3 3 Drugs Neighborhood 1 2 2 1 Hardware shopping 1 1 3 1 1 Beauty center 1 2 Bakery 1 4 Real estate and insurance 1 2 7 5 1 Variety 1 2 Clothing Community 5 6 Dairy shopping 1 Lawyer center 5 2 Jewelry 1 2 Post Office 1 1 Department 2 1 Shoes Regional 1 2 Sporting goods shopping 1 Bank center 1 1 Professional offices 1 1 (b) Highway-Oriented Facilities Gas 3 5 3 7 3 Restaurant Automobile 1 5 2 5 Motel service Fruit and produce districts stands 3 1 Building services and supplies 4 1 1 Lumber yard Space-consuming 1 Miscell. repair service incl. plumbing districts 1 Radio-TV sales and service 1 1 (c) Urban Arterial Districts Auto repair 1 2 2 Bars 3 2 1 1 Shoe repair 1 Furniture 4 1 1 Auto accessories Urban-arterial 1 1 Appliances oriented 1 3 1 Fuel Gift and novelty 1 Food lockers 1 1 2 Florists 1 1 2 Printing 1 Office equipment Arterials close and supplies to CBD 1 Funeral homes 1 Missions Second-hand stores "Skid-row'' {d) Automobile Row Functional Area New auto sales 8 Used auto dealers 1 8 I SPOKANE EXAMPLES ARE AS FOLLOWS: SOURCE: ANNALS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER GEOGRAPHERS, VOL. 49 (1959). PLANNED COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER LARGE UNPLANNED REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT MAJOR HIGHWAY INTERSECTION D MINOR URBAN ARTERIAL DISTRICT E URBAN ARTERIAL DISTRICT ALONG MAJO~ HIGHWAY F AUTOMOBILE ROW NUMERALS INDICATE THE NUMBER OF STORES 67 Reseda Boulevaxd is a major traffic artery in the west San Fernando Valley, and is becoming more important in this regard every year. To examine the possibility that urban arterial type businesses might have been evolving in a manner different from other type retail and service establishments, comtnercial buslness categories were grouped into three, not two, subdivisions to accorrunodate linear as well as nucleated developments. · The light industrial-·business services-construction complex was formed by grouping all land use that wa.s largely restricted to industrial zoned land. Building Supply firms were not catalogued under Berry's arterial grouping because the majority of these firms developed as a result of the break-in--bulk point at the rail station, and not in response to arterial traffic flow. Contract construction companies have developed around them in the industrially zoned land. Business service functions were included in the industrial grouping because they are fair~ ly restricted to tl1e industrially zoned land in Northridge and tend to be incompatible with trade and other service establishrnents. They are usually found in light industrial parks and, in fact, the 1960 Census of Population specifically differentiates between business services and 4 all other service functions. 68 References 1. Powell, Marion Lyle, Fre~_?.Y Im_Ea~!.~.~_2antc::__ M~ria._, Calif~~' M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography,. San Fernando Valley Sta·te College, Northridge, California, 1966, pp. 9-22. 2. Dixon, Le1.vis R., ,!.~~.:::2_d _Valu_~--~h~r.~.stes _NE;~r Fr~e~~~..::.~.' l\1~A. Thesis, Department o£ Geogra.phy, -San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California, 196~, pp: 58--59. 3. Berry, Brian ~J. L., 11 Ribbon DeveJ.opments in the Urban Business Pattern,"~' Association of American Geographers, Vol. 49 (June, 1959), pp. 145--155. See also Simmons, James, !_he Cha:99:!:£5l . Pa:tte:x;E__~;f R_~~~~:::::-=a!:t.?.E!:.' (University of Chicago, Department o£ Geogrr.tphy Research Paper No. 92, Chicago, Illinois; University of Chic3.go Press, 1964), and Nelson, Richard L., The Selection of g_et_~..:~l __~o~_:~_!}-0.~ (Ne-w York: F. \tJ .-·-1s;·dg~Corp;ration, 1958. 4. Iviurphy, Raymond, J."he Alner:~~E..... Cj. t:J:'..:.~.A~.!:J..fb~!2_ g~~.~~~~z (New York, McGraw, Inc., 1966), p. 258~ CHAPTER V LAND USE CHANGE IN NORTHRIDGE 5.1 Land Use: 1900 to 1960 Northridge originally devel.oped as a minor agricultur- al shipping depot on the Southern Pacific line during the first quarter of the twentieth century, during which time water £rom the Owens Aqueduct was transforming the economy of the Valley from dry farming to irrigation agricultu~e. Several agricultural processing plants were built on Parthenia Street, and a small trade and service center 1 developed on Reseda Boulevard near the rail depot. Prior to 1955 Northridge was a small suburban rural town, generally unaffected by the rapid suburbanization o£ the cast Valley a.£ter W9rld War II. In 1944 the Los · Angeles Planning Department referred to Nor"l:hridge as ''· •• a small, compact community with all of the amenities oJ:. a 2 self--contained countx·y town.'' Comm.erciaJly zoned land was limited to 2~ few blocks no;:th and. soutb of ·the tracks on Reseda Boulevard. Industxial land was restricted t.o the Southern Pacific right o£ way and land bordering Parthenia Street. 69 70 Commercial land use continued to be limited primar.ily to the "core" area on Reseda Boulevard until aftf::!r 1955. This was typical o£ commercial developments in the west Valley, where trade and service land use conformations developed in a beaded fashion (separate and concentrated) at the major intersections o£ each COimnuni ty. Prior to 1955 the population in the area. was too small to stimulate the extension of coiJLrnercial establishments along the major traffic arteries, and density of traffic flow did not 3 warra.n·t it. Northridge, with a 1930 population of 817, grew slowly to only 2,275 by 1950, still too small to encourage cornme:ccial building activity~ After 1955, building contractors dramatically changed the area within a £evv years. The annual valuation o:f buildin9 construci;ion incr~~ased substantially in No:ctln;idge between 1956 and 1960, although fluctuating from year to year (Table 12). Residential building permits accounted for approximately eighty--:five percent o£ the total for three of the five years, but only forty-five and sixty per- cent for 1958 and 1959 respectively. While the total non- residential valuation including new a.nd remodeling figures eclipsed tctal residr~ntial valv.ation in 1958, new residen- tial b-'-l.ilding penni t valuation always far exceeded new 4 non-residential valuation. TABLE 12 NORTHRIDGE BUILDING VALUATION 1956-1967 (in thousands o£ dollars) New Year Total Total Total Non- Residential New New Residential Residential Single/IVlul tiple Commercial Industrial 1956 13412 11666 1746 11012/160 243 llE\; 1957 13746 ll9ll 1835 10642/928 220 93 1958 18430 8570 9860 7701/499 675 491 1959 13€.21 8332 5489 6998/842 794 96 1960 17B28 15112 2716 13726/863 603 148 1961 19198 14095 5103 12505/993 2336 146 1962 18258 1372.9 4539 18713/4221 963 697 1963 18997 15137 3860 9714/4667 1695 70 1964 29150 ·25719 3431 18389/6317 1059 76 1965 37831 34402 3489 27846/5140 843 90 1966 20606 .1.1225 93Sl 9955/247 5349 2118 1966 (1st hal.f) 14827 8846 5981 8213/0 4645 31 1967 (1st ha;_:f_) 7~28 3122 .4406 2699/0 690 2880 ; Source: Security First National Bank, The Growth and Economic Stature of the San . . yernando Valley and the Greater Glendale.Area,----- 1968. ------ -...) I-' 72 As a result of this residential building activity, Northridge more than quintupled in population between 1950 and 1960, registering 16,628 residents in the 1960 Census L" 1 . 5 or Popu at1on~ This tremendous population increase IJ.las mirrored by increases of traffic flow in the Northridge a.rea (Table 12). Housing, population and traffic increases stimulated commercial and industrial development. The annual permit valuation of new commercial structures r.wre than q1..tadrupled between 1956 and 1960, reflecting residen- tial activity. Although industrial construction did not increase so markedly, permit valuation did incrE-;ase dramatically in 1958. The non-residential land use plan for Northridge was :r-eformulated shortly after 1955 to a.ccommodate this boomo Commercial zoning was extended to the north and south c;>f the core area on Reseda Boulevard. Indust1~ial acreage was increased along Parthenia Street, and corr.IJ.'nercial-·industrial land use Wts designated for areas to the northeast and · northwest o:f the grade crossing. Betv.,reen. 1955 and 1960, . new conuuE'.::rcial structures were built primarily to the north of the core because: (1) the greatest residential popula- tion increases were registered to the north; and (2) the San Fernando Valley State College campus site, a.dopted 1n 1958) was located just to the northeast of the core. 73 Residential and student populations ~ere projected to in- crease dramatically during the 1960's. Industrial estab- lishments were b"L~il t primarily to the west of Reseda Boulevard on Parthenia Street. 5.2 Land Use: 1960 Though the full detail of land use can scarcely be presented in the thesis for practical cartographic reasons, -l<- analysis of the detail reveals that by 1960 ap- proximate],y 250 cormnercia1 and industrial businesses operated in the study area. Of this number, the convc~n-- ience and shopping goods group accounted for 16.5 percent, services for approximately 32.5 percent, urban arterial *The 1960, 1965 and 1970 detailed land use maps, upon ·which the following discussion is largely ba.sed, will not be presented due to di£ficu1 ties with map scale and symboliza-· ·tion. These map~:> are quite det<:dled, since e.E~.ch a.ddress in the study area is classified as one of twenty-,th:cee business categories. There are four major groupings of business categories, denoted by one of four symbols. The twenty-three business types recogni?.:ed in the study area are denoted by re£j_ning the four generalized symbols. To reduce the size of the maps to dimensions compatible with the format of the thesis would jeopardize the legi bility and distinctiveness o£ tte refinements of the nmre c;~eneralize<~d symbols. These 1a.nd use maps have therefore been omitted from the text, but are available in the fil'?s of San Fernando Valley Sto.te College, Depa.rtment o£ Geo9raphy Map Library. Tr.:n1sition mat:rices, explained at the end. of this chapter, will compensate £or their absencee 74 facilities for. 20.8 percent, and the industrial comple~ for 28.9 percent (Table 13). Zoning restrictions caused a fairly sharp dichotomy between land uses on Reseda Boulevard and those on Pa.rth2nia Street, and the 1960 land use map indicates that the grade crossing roughly divided each street into two seg1nents with characteristically diffeJ~ent land use and density differsnces. On Reseda Boulevard, the densest ccHmnercial development in Northridge was north of the crossing~ while to the south connnercial buildings were seoarated by vacant lots or residential structures. The northern segment contained most of the convenience and shopping goods stores; approximc:.tely sixty percent o£ all markets, eighty per cent of c:~ll apparel shops, and seve:1 ty five percent of all miscellaneous retail stores (Appenc?-ix c.-1). Services were not so locationally concentrated, but the northe:rn segment slightly outweighed the southern section (approximately sixty to forty percent for finan~ cial services; fifty to thirty-seven and .one--half pe:rcent £or personal services; and f"i-fty-three to forty percent for professional services). Establishments categorized under -the t.n~ban arterial grouping weJ:e found more often on Reseda Boulevard, except a.utomobile repair service, which was concentrated on Parthenia Street to the east of 75 TABLE 13 NUiviB£1".\ Ol-t~ ESTABLISHIVIENTS,. BY BUSINESS CATEGORY, IN NORTHRIDGE: 1960, 1965 AND 1970 Business Conformation S.I.C. ---~~I.?:.§ Category____ . __ N_o_. 1960 1965 1970 Retail General Merchandise 53 1 Food 54 5 11 8 .Appa.rcl 56 15 14 12 Miscellaneous 59 26 32 27 46 (16~2%) 57 (15~%) 48 {13%) ---·-·-Services Finance 61 17 38 37 .Personal 62 32 41 30 Professional 65 30 66 69 Governmental 67 2 2 2 Educationzcl 68 2 4 79 (32~2%) 149 (40~%) 142 (38?~) Urban A:r:teTial ------~~-·-----~~--,..._=- Auto 55 11 16 17 Furniture 57 5 11 6 Restaurant/Bar 58 19 27 28 Repair Service 64 15 16 19 Entertainment 7 2 3 1 52 (21%) 73 (20%) 71 (19%) Industrial Light Indust.ry 8 8 8 Li9hJc Industry 3 19 16 36 ·Tr2.n.spo1:ta.·tion 4 3 3 3 Lumber/Hard.Nare 52 8 9 6 Business Services 63 1.0 25 28 Contract Construction 66 24 28 30 72 (30%) 89 (24%) 109 (2B~%) Vacancies 94 20 11 19 Total Number 249 368 372 Rc~sidential 23 22 13 76 the grade crossing. Neither the northern nor the southern segments of Reseda. Boulevard dorrrina.ted in this category, However, it was r.elatively more important and conspicuous to the south, simply because fewer establishments of all types existed there. Reseda Boulevard had begun to develop into a strip commercial business thoroughfare by 1960~ Traffic had in creased considerably between 1950 a.nd 1960 and the small comniercial core had expanded both north and south along the Boulevard. String street developffients such as this are characteristically described in terms o£ businesses located along ·traffic arteries with few extensions down inter 6 secting stxeets. The nature of the businesses bordering the street depends upon the relative importance of the street as a main traffic artery and as the center of a residential area. Portions of the strip that serve residential a.reas appea.r c\s nucleated beads within the linear ribbons. As business streets~ ribbons possess widely spaced convenience and shopping goods stores, and 7 as traffic arteries they serve to move vahicular traf£ic. Reseda Boulevard south of the rail line was develop- ing functionally as well a.s spatially into a commercial ribbon as described by Berry. Store frontage was dis- continuous, convenience and shopping goods facilities were 77 of minor importance, and service and highway oriented establishments (such as gas, automobile service and repair, and eating and drinking places) were dominant southward to the intersection of Reseda and Roscoe Boulevards, wher~ a small clustering of retail service outlets had recently been built. The northern se~~ent of Reseda Boulevard was not·· nucleated,. but it was the focal point for commercial activity in Northridge, and was beaded in contrast to developments to the north and south. In fact, the Los Angeles Planning Department designated .the area focusing on the intersection of Rayen Avenue a.nd Reseda Boulevard a community business center by 1958. The structure of the core fitted well into Be:;:-ry's community shopping center functionally, although spatially it was not nucleated. Parthenia Street could likewise be t=-unction.:;~.lly differentiated into two segments at Reseda Boulevard. Lumber and building supply firms concentrated at the grade crossing ir1 each oE the· four quadrants. However, Parthenia Stre8t ea.st o£ the crossing was older, more poorly d8vel. oped and contained a wider variety of business types than the segJ.oent west of the Boulevard. Retail trade and service establishments were interspersed with light in.dustrial, const~ruction and repai'r establishments 78 {Appendix C-2). A small neighborhood clustering o£ st Parthenia Street and Lindley Avenue. In contrast, Parthenia Street west of the Boulevard was more highly developed, particularly on the south side of the street, and was dominated by light industrial and business service functions to the almost complete exclusion of trade and service outlets and automobile repair establishments. 5.3 Land Use: 1960 to 1965 Between.l960_and 1967* the northwest San Fernando· Valley, composed of the districts of NorthY.·idge ~ Chats~- worth, a.nd Granada Hills, e>..'Perienced the highest popula- tion growth rates of all Valley areas. Northridge led all communi t.ies in percentage gain, increasing from 16,628 to . 8 29,2.66 residents. This increase was :reflected J.n N~n~t):n::-ic1ge building activity which more than doubled be- tween 1960 and 1965; most significantly in the last two years o Residential cons·truction dominated these figures, accounting for eighty ..;five percent o£ all pm:mit vaJ.-uation., Traffic on the major thoroughfares also tended to mirror this build--,.J.p (Table 9) • . ' -li-This section concerns the five year period 1960 to 1965. But popula,tion clat.c.J. is only availc-:J.bl(~ for 1960 and 1967, and not for 1965. 79 Non-residential building activity also increased $Ub stantially between 1960 and 1965. New cormnex·cial building permit valuation increased by approximately sixty-seven percent, although fluctuating considerably from year 'to year. New industri.al valuation dropped overall during the same period, bu·t it soared in 1962 as it ba.d in 1958. Between 1960 and 1965 most new commercial structures were built on Reseda Boulevard in a manner that tended to accelerate the trend to extend the densely built-up core area to the north and south in linear form. Some conmJ.ercial buildings filled in open spaces between buildings north of Rayen Street, providing an almost continuous commercial frontage :from the Southern Pacific right o£ vvay north to the beginning of the 9000 block. But most new commerci.:tl building activity was located on vacant land extending,for several blocks on either side of the core area. The· largest deveJ_opments were located adjacent to ·the in"cer section of Reseda Boulevard and Nordhoff Street. Another large development (a professional arts complex) went up south o£ Napa Street on the east side of the Boulevard~ Between 1960 and 1965 commercial and industrial businesses increased from appxoxima.tely 250 to 370 in num~.. ber. All business categories showed numerical gains, with the exception of apparel and indust:cia.l units, which 80 declined slightly (Table 13) ~ The reta.il (convenience and shopping goods) conformation increased in overall number, from fo:c·ty-six to fifty--seven, but decreased in strength relative to the total, from 16.5 to 15.5 percent. Grocery stores more than doubled in number, miscellaneous retail stores decreased relative to the total, and apparel stores lost both in terms of num.bers and pej:centages. Of all four major conformations, the service grouping increased most significantly, jumping from seventy-nine to 149 establishments over the five year period. This group increased from about 32.5 to 40.5 percent of all building units in the study area~ Professional services doubled in number from thirty to sixty-six, financial services more than matched this increase, increasing from seventeen to thirty--eight, and personal services increased in number from thirty-two to forty-one. The urba.n a:cterial highway oriented con:formation increased fxom :fifty-two to seventy-three ~:tares in number, vihich represented a one .percent decrease. Each of the four categories. experienced numerical g;:d.ns, most signifi cantly in the bar and food category, but only nominally in the other categories. The industrial-·construct ion.,business service complex increased numerically from seventyMtwo to eighty-nine 81 units, but decreased from twer1ty-nine to twenty-four per- cent of the total. The largest gain was made by business services, from ten to twenty-five in number, accounting for virtually the entire increase in this conformation. Several changes in the character of the area took P.lace between 1960 and 1965. First, the northern hal£ of Reseda Boulevard in the study area strengthened its sub stantial dominance over the southern hal£ in the conven- ience and shopping goods category (Appendix C-1). SecoDd, north and south Reseda Boulevard became reJatively bal~nced in the service grouping, primarily because of a gain in the professional a.nd financial service categories. However, the northern segment slightly strengthened its dominance in the p~rsonal se~vice category. Third:· the urban arterial grouping increased primarily south of the grade crossing, 1n the eating and drinking category, but it continued to represent approxima·tely twenty~:five percent~ of B.ll southern businesses due to the large service in...: crease. And fou17th, al-'chough very few bu·ildings were constructed on Parthenia Street between 1960 and 1965, Parthenia Street east o:f Reseda Boulevard became morE":! industrial and repair oriented - at least relatively ~· with the loss of five non--industrial, non--repair: establish- ments ~ P::u:thenia Si:reet west of the Boulevard gained 82 substa.ntially in the business service category, £rom six to twenty in number (Appendix C-2). 5.4 Land Use: 1965 to 1970 At the beginning o£ the second five year period (1965-1970) the City of Los Angeles began construction on the underpass. Several city blocks adjacent to and on either side of the grade crossing were purchased £or.exca- vation and slope retention purposes. Some land to the west of the excavation area was also condemned for detour facilties for Reseda Boulevard traffic (Figure 8). The land appropriated £or construction purposes cost . the City approximately forty percent of the £ina.l project cost o£ $5,600,000 because most parcels were improved com.. mercially ox industrially* Fifty--two businesses, representing appT:oximately fourteen percent of the 368 businesses in the study area, were forced to leave the condemned buildings, although three comrne::ccial tenants left some time prior to the day of eviction, leaving the units vac<:mt (Appendix C-·4). The razed area. differed a.ppreciably from su:crounding areas. lt was the olde3t section of town and had developed in response to the sta:tion depot. Many o:f the buildings dated from the 1920's or earli.er, and many of FIG URE 8 B US I~ESS AREA I:\ i\ORTHRIDGE U~ DERPASS ui PURCHASED FOR > " C O~STR UCTIOt\ ,:~'"' -----D"" i D A~EA PUR C HA S ED B Y CITY NAPA ~ STRS':T ------. w • GRACE SEPARAT I ON SCA L E:~ L~ I NCH ES R EP R ESE NT S 1 M IL E I~ E:J DETOUR EASEM ENT • SLOPE EASEMENT 0 STREET R IGHT OF WAY ROSCOE 90UL!::VARD SOURCE : CITY OF LOS ANGELES, OEPT . OF PUBLIC WORI t_he oldest shops were located i;here. Some of the business- es reflected the rural orientation that the community once ~ had ~·- a saddlery shop, a feed store and an old hotel. Much o:f the area was ei·the:c under-developed, as in the. case of the block to the southeast of the crossing, or else in 9 need of remodeling. Fewer than one·~half of the bu.sinesses ""..:hat were forced to leave the condemned area. (twenty--one out: of fifty-~two) reloca.ted in the study area (Appendix C-4) ~ Two lumber ya.:rds moved only a shm:t distance from. Reseda Boulevard, but of the remaining nineteen firms that moved at least one block from the construction area, eleven moved north, fou.r moved .soui:h ~ three waved east~ and one .moved WE!St. The predominant movement, therefore, w2.s J.n a no:ctlwrly direction, tov1a:cd most new connne:cciaJ. and residential developments. The busineSS('::S c-J..lso a.rca1ly dif£ E-~::cent:ia.ted by type in thei.r :reloca t:Lon; convenience and shopping goods stores c:~.ncl se~cvice e~d;abli.~;hments moved conspicuously to the no~th; arterially oriented concerns moved ei i:her south or east, but primarily south; and the only contract construction firm moved to the west. -X·It 1s inteot.·esting to no·Uo that the railroad dE~pot which had encouraged the growth of this oldc;:c c:n~ee. of town h;:vJ. been dem.oJ. ished in 1962, so;:newha.t :Less than four ye;c:~.rs be.:fore th:Ls arc.:>.c~ was demolished,, 85 During and after the construction period, the Valley continued to g:r:ow in population, albeit at a slower growth rate than previously. Between 1967 and 1970 the Valley's population wc,s projected to have increased from 1,376,000 to 1,566,000, with the greatest gains continuing to be 10 regJ.stere. d 1n . t h e west Val l ey area. In r~ ac t , th1e Chatsworth-west Valley area, which includes Northridge,·was expected to maintain its dominance over growth rate statistics, "••• accounting for thirty percent of the Valley's anticipated population gain during the 1970 dece:'..de., 1111 San Fernando Valley State College grew in studs·nt 12 population from 12,690 to 20,673 between 1965 and 1970. College growth has stimulated apartment complex develop- ments in the Northridge area, and has been an integral part 13 of the district's growth rate projection. Although traffic count figures are too irregular to be conclusive, traffic flow on Reseda Boulevard and other major streets in Northridge probably increased by thirty percent or so, partially the product of increasing student growth (Table 9). Building permit valuation data are only available for 1966 a.nd the first: half of 1967, but indicate an overall decline in construction for the district and the Valley, 86 especia.lly in the residential sector. Commercial con~· struction soared six-fold in 1966, but apparently slumped dramatically in 1967. Industrial building activity also increased considerably in 1966, but sustained its gain and rose sharply in 1967 (Table 12)~ Overall construction 14 activity was projected to subside in subsequent yea.rs. In 1970 there were 372 businesses in operation in the study area, only four above t.he 1965 figure. Building activjty had just compensated for the decline in building space demolished by separation construction (Table 13) .• The convenience and shopping goods retail grouping decreased numerically and in terms of percentage bet.ween 1965 and 1970 (£rom fifi:y~seven to forty-E:ight in number and from 15.5 to 12.9 in percent), but the overall per- cent age had already begun to drop betvreen 1960 and 1965. The numerical and percentage decrease in the last five years was directly attributable to the removal of stores by the separation but prob.s1.bly also reflects lon.g-term. business trends. Retail store size has been increasing to provide for a larger selection o£ goods, and these larger stores are concentrating in large, planned regional shopping The smaller stores fronting on business thoroughfares must either become more specialized in some manner or expect to capture less of the ma.rkcc;t. on C>/ This is especially true in the San Fernando Valley where there h2,s been an oversupply of coiilinex-cial building space . 16 £or the given population. The service grouping declined in overall number be- tween 1965 and 1970, primarily because the number of per- sonal service establishments decreased from forty-one to thirty in numbeT. This is just the reverse of the first period, and is partially attributable to the grade separa- tion demolition in which nine tenants were evicted (four were able to relocate but they replaced other stor:es g_oing out of business). Professional services increased only slightly, in contrast to ·the doubling from thirty to sixty-six in the first period -· probably a reflection of the saturation of the area during the first period. A professional office building was built at the southeast corner of Reseda Boulevard and Nordhoff Street in 1969 but there were also a number o£ va.ca.ncies in the ar:ea. The urban arterial grouping increased slightly in number between 1965 and 1970. Eating and drinking places increased significantly, even though the statistics do not reve<:\.1 it:, because this category was reduced in number most significantly by separation demolition. The industrial, construction and busin.ess service grouping of functions experienced greater ga.ins in the 88 1965-1970 period than the other three divisions, primarily becausE~ the industrial category (3) incTeased tremendously on Parthenia Street to the west of Reseda Boulevard. TI1is gain is re:flected by the building figures discussed above. No dramatic change in land use occurred over the second five year period~ Most changes that did occur re- sulted from the continuation of trends noted in the previous period. Northern Reseda Boulevard maintained numerical and percentage dominance in the retail gr.ouping, with very few changes noted (Appendix C-·1). So far as personal ~ervices were concerned, there was an increase north of the railroad right of way relative to the south, while financial and professional services maintained t.heir nu:mbe.r:s on eithe~c side of the :right of way. The service aggx~egate )~egistered an overall increase in the second five year period, in contrast to the south, because businesses which lt'vere displa.ced by the separation migrated predomw· inan·tly to the north, and because the Northridge area con.tinued to build up gradually to the northwest. Reseda Boulevard continued to dominate the a.rea in the auto-- artm:"ial grouping, Except in repair services which we:.re found more often on Parthenia Street east of Reseda Boulevard or off the Boulevard to the northwest o£ the tr:acks (Appendix C-2). This confo1:mc\tion declined 89 slightly - a .mere percentage point ·· but it tended to con- centrate more to the south o:f the separe>.tion, a trend v1hich continued that of" the :first :five year period. The indus- trial grouping remained on Parthenia Street because o:f zoning restrictions, and increased to the west o£ the Boulevard where land was available :for expansion. S.S A Comoarison of Land Use Changes: ----·-J·~·--·'0.--. ---~---·· ~ ...... oS ___.._ __ Be£ o_£~~E_<;l_ _!..£ t e:t.=:_~p a~ a ~2-_~r:_ Tables 14 through 17 . a.re transition matrices. Each provides a visual and statistical comparison of land use changes that took pla.ce between 1960 and 1965, a.nd between 1965 and 1970, on one o£ the :four major street seg1nents -x- radiating :from the separation area.. The upper haJ:f of each graph records the changes that occurred during the :first five year period and the lower half those changes registered during the second period. Each matrix schem:=:,tically incicates how each busines~ cate9cn·y chan.ged in the aggre9ai:e; how :fluctuations in existing building -l<-Tha.t section of th.e study area. located to the northwest of the construction area, not fronting either main traffic artery, is not covered by any o£ the matrices. The are0. was small enough and changed so little over the decade that the addition of another matrix or the inclusion o£ the data into one of the :four constructed matrices would not a:ff(c>Ct tb.e outcome appreciably. 90 space affected each category; and how the construction of new building space and_the demolition of older building space in the separated area affected the complexion of· business in the study a:cea. Each ma.trix is divided into rows and columns, each row or column corresponding to one particular category. of land use.. La.nd use for 1960 is subdivided into rows in the upper half of the matrix. Land use for 1970 is subdivided into rows also, but in the lower hal£ of the matrix. Land use for 1965 is partitioned into columns which cross 1960 and 1970 ro•Ns, thus providing the transition f:co:m 1960 to 1970 land use in the matrix. Each of the four matrices are different in the spatial distributi.on and clustering of tallies on the 9rid, reflecting the distinct, individual character of each of the business areas lining the four major road se~1ents in the study area. Numbers are clustered on the matrix representing No}:th Reseda Boulevard (Table 14) in both upper and lovver halves J.n retail and sprvice functional categories (located on the left hand side of the grid)e A lesser degree of clustering is evident in the service and auto~·arterial conformations on the ma.trix representing South Reseda Boulevard (Table 15). The matrix depicting east Pa.rthenia Streei: (Table 16) does not indicate a g:ceat deal of clustering around particular functions, but businesses are generally limited to auto-repair and indus- trial functions on the right hand side o.f the grid. The greatest de9ree of clustering appears on the west Parthenia Street. matrix (Table 17) in the industrial par- tion of the grid. Because each matrix is quite distinct, each of the .four grids is analyzed separately 111d th regard to changes during the decade. 5 • .5.1 North Reseda Boulevard Matrix An analysis of the north Reseda Boulevard matrix · leads to several conclusions. First, apparel, miscell~- neous retail and financial businesses seem to show the greatest degree of fluctuation of all categories in oc- cupied b1:lildings, and to the same degree 1n both pe:riods. Second, most new building space was filled by services during both pe:r.-iods, although the number of new building units declined in the second period. Third, tbe sepa.x:a.-- tion substitution resulted in the razing of buildings which appreciably affected three business categories: miscellaneous retail, personal services and eating and drinking establishments. r·tliscellaneous retail and personal services recovered by relocating to the. north, but the food and bar category did not recover to the same degree. 92 Explanatory note in using the following matrices: To determine how many establishments were included in a given land use class in any one of the fo~1.r quadrants in a particular year, find the column or row (depending upon the year) that corresponds to it and calculate the sum of the numbers included in each of the squares in that column or row. The degree to which each business category changed from one year to the next indicated by the degree of re- gression or dispersaJ. from the diagonal squares that trend from upper left to lower right in the upper half matrix (1960.-1965), and from upper right to lower left in the lov.J·· er half of ma.trix (1965-1970). I:f the street segment hc>,d remained identical from one period to the next, all tallies would be located in the diagonals. Conversely, if. all addresses ch~nged function, all tallies would be registered at some distance from the diagonals, depf'mding upon the category into which they were converted. The particular types of chan<.:ws in land use that were invol vE~d could be dctf.:nnined by noting the columns or rov1s into which the tallies were recorded. Noting which rows or columns gained or lost significantly is one good in dication of how business and land use changes are trending. Comparing how changes in the two periods di:ff ered suggests. how the grade separation affected la.nd use in the study area.· For an ex~1~le of the use of matrices substituting probability figures deTived from Iviarkov ·chain analysis i'or numbers of establishments, see Harold M. Rose, "The Structure of Retail T:cade in a Racially Changing Trade Area," G~~z.a:eh~_sal __8pz..lysis, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April, 1970), pp. 133-148~ TABLE 14 NORTH RESEDA BOULEVARD MATRIX Business s.I.c. Category ~ 53 54 56 59 -----61 62 65 67 68 55 57 58 64 z. ~ 2. ± 52 63 66 94 E. 91 General Merchandise 53 Food 54 3 Apparel 56 8 1 2 1 Miscellaneous 59 14 1 1 1• 2 Financial 61 9 1 1 Personal 62 1 13 1 1 Professional 65 1 15 Governmental 67 Educational 68 Auto 55 1 2 1 Furniture 57 1 1 0 \!) Restaurant/Bar 58 8 .....0\ Repair 64 2 Entertainment 7 Light Industry 2 Light Industry 3 Transportation 4 1 Lumber /Hardware 52 3 Business Services 63 Contract Construction 66 Vacancies 94 5 8 Residential R 2 Empty Lot 91 5 411 4 6. 6 2 4 1 1 1965 Empty Lot 91 3 1 3 1 5 2 2 3 1 1 3 2 Residential R Vacancies 94 2 4 5 Contract Construction 66 Business Services 63 1 1 Lumber/Hardware 52 1 Transportation 4 1 Light Industry 3 Light Industry 2 Entertainment 7 Repair 64 1 Restaurant/Bar 58 8 2 Furniture 57 1 2 Auto 55 2 1 Educational 68 1 1 Governmental 67 1 Professional 65 24 5 Personal 62 2 1 1 16 1 1 Financial 61 1 13 2 4 Miscellaneous 59 19 1 2 1 Apparel 56 7 1 1 1 Food 54 General Merchandise 53 5 columns in Upper and 1ower halves of this and the following matrices may not be equal because lots may have been divided or con solidated between the two five year periods. 93 Fourth, hc:\rdware and building supply, business services and contract construction services gave way to other services in the area, prob2o.bly as a consequence of incompatibility. The grade separation does not see.111 to have appreciably affected the business character in the north R~seda Boulevard quadrant; except by removing the older buildings which contained some busineases reflecting the former rural orientation of the area. Rather, the changes brought out by the matrix indicate trends of a broader perspective - the decline of small retailing ston~s in the Valley due to over··expansion and compe·ti tion from J:egional shopping centers~ 5.5.2 South Reseda Boulevard Matrix Of those buildings not razed by tb.e separation demolition, the matrix for the south Reseda Boulevard. quadJ;ant indicates that there lN<-..1.s grea_te:c turnover in building occupancy in the second period, re:flected mainly by declines in financial and personal services. The matrix indicates tha.t new building space was occupied priruarily by service and highway oriE-"nted business during both periods,, During the second period :fevwr buildings were constructed and a:cte:cial gx:oup functions accounted £_or a greater per- cent age o:f new occupancy than pJ:eviousJ.y. Th<:?. separation 94 TABLE 15 SOUTH RESEDA BOULEVARD MATRIX Business s.I.c. 53 54 56 59 61 62 65 67 68 55 57 58 64 7... 2 3 4 52 63 66 94 E. 91 Category ~ ------General Merchandise 53 Food 54 Apparel 56 l Miscellaneous 59 5 Financial 61 6 l l Personal 62 12 Professional 65 12 Governmental 67 l Educational 68 Auto 55 5 Furniture 57 0 ~ Restaurant/Bar 58 l 5 0'1 .... Repair 64 l Entertainment 7 Light Industry 2 Light Industry 3 l Transportation 4 Lumber/Hardware 52 Business Services 63 l Contract Construction 66 3 l Vacancies 94 Residential R 6 Empty Lot 91 l 10 2 18 2 l 4 2 l 2 1965 Empty Lot 91 2 2 4 l l l l l l 3 l 4 Residential R 2 Vacancies 94 l l 4 l 2 Contract Construction 66 Business Services 63 l l Lumber /Hardware 52 ' l l Transportation 4 Light Industry 3 Light Industry 2 .....0 0'1 Entertainment 7 .... Repair 64 l . l 2 Restaurant/Bar 58 l 9 3 Furniture 57 l Auto 55 6 4 Educational 68 l Governmental 67 Professional 65 16 6 Personal 62 l 3 2 Financial 61 l 12 l 2 l Miscellaneous 59 2 l l APParel 56 Food 54 l General Merchandise· 53 l ;;.• ·-' also directly eliminated some miscellaneous retail, finan-· cial and personal service businesses; this mirrored a development over the entire quadrant. In contrast to the northern quadrant, the grade sub stitution affected the complexion of the southern ciuadrant, although in the same manner that had been developing. M:.i_scellaneous retail, financial and personal services had been previously declining ccmd the separation only ac· cel~rated their decline ··- a catalyist in this regard. 5.5.3 East Parthenia Street Matrix There was almost no new building activity during either period on Parthenia Street to the east of the Boulevard, ,and the separation razed VE;ry few structures on this segment of road. The matrix indicates that there was a greater degree of business turnover in the second five year period as a result of the decline in service func- tions (except business services). This ch2,nge would ha.ve been registered whether or not the s12pa.ra.tion had been built, because the area was specializing more and more in repair and industrial categories, and services were not compatible wi-tl1 the trend. The separation was somewhat catalytic in its effect on land use 1n this quad:cant of the study area. 96 TABLE 16 EAST PARTHENIA STREET MATRIX Business s.r.c. Category ~ General Merchandise 53 Food 54 2 Apparel 56 1 1 Miscellaneous 59 1 1 Financial 61 Personal 62 4 Professional 65 1 Governmental 67 1 Educational 68 Auto 55 3 0 Furniture 57 1 0'1 Restaurant/Bar 58 1 1 3 "'..... Repair 64 8 Entertainment 7 2 Light Industry 2 3 Light Industry 3 1 3 1 Transportation 4 Lumber/Hardware 52 2 Business Services 63 1 1 Contract Construction 66 8 Vacancies 94 Residential R 4 Empty Lot 91 1 1 2 1965 Empty Lot 91 Residential R 3 Vacancies 94 1 1 1 1 Contract Construction 66 1 1 6 Business Services 63 1 2 Lumber/Hardware 52 2 Transportation 4 2 1 Light Industry 3 1 1 1 Light Industry 2 3 Entertainment 7 1 Repair 64 1 7 1 Restaurant/Bar 58 3 1 Furniture 57 2 Auto 55 1 2 1 Educational 68 1 Governmental 67 1 Professional 65 1 1 1 Personal 62 3 Financial 61 Miscellaneous 59 Apparel 56 1 Food 54 2 General Merchandise 53 97 5.5.4 West Parthenia Street Matrix The business complexion of west Parthenia Street re mained relativel~' intact during both five year periods v The matrix shows the same clustering o:f establishments, and the changes of category that v.Jere recorded were int"ra conformation2,l - i o e. aberrations :from the matrix diagona_l :fell into the same columns. The degree of fluctation was greater during the first period, as the deviations in the upper hal£ o£ the matrix: demonstrate. Thus, underpass con- struction a.ppar:ently had no a.ppreciable impact upon land use in this quadrant. 5. 6 pver~ll_ Lan~l2_?_~_Imp~E:!:_ As the four matrices helped to demonstrate, the grade separation substitution project p:cimarily acted as a catalytic agent in bringing about land use changes in Northridge. The changes weJ::e in progress when the project was begun, and its construction tended only to accelerate the rate at which the changes occurred. ThE: commercial business district on Reseda Boulevard was migrating north ward in response to populatjon growth and the underpass displaced a number o£ businesses, and the majority o:f those that re-established did so to the north. The business district had been moving away from the old, small town TABLE 17 WEST PARTHENIA STREET MATRIX Business s.I.c. Cate2orl ~ General Merchandise 53 Food 54 Apparel 56 Miscellaneous 59 Financial 61 Personal 62 Professional 65 Governmental 67 Educational 68 Auto 55 l 0 Furniture 57 lO ....0'1 Restaurant/Bar 58 Repair 64 l l l Entertainment 7 Light Industry 2 l l Light Industry 3 ll l Transportation 4 Lumber/Hardware 52 l Business Services 63 6 Contract Construction 66 l 10 Vacancies 94 Residential R l l 5 2 Empty Lot 91 10 2 ll 1965 Empty Lot 91 l 2 Residential R 5 l Vacancies 94 Contract Construction 66 l 12 4 Business Services 63 l l 13 l Lumber/Hardware 52 1 Transportation 4 Light Industry 3 2 10 4 6 Light Industry 2 Entertainment 7 Repair 64 l l Restaurant/Bar 58 Furniture 57 Auto 55 l Educational 68 l Governmental 67 Professional 65 Personal 62 l Financial 61 Miscellaneous 59 Apparel 56 Food 54 General Merchandise 53 core area, and eminent domain grade removed the oldest commercial buildings in town~ Reseda Boulevard was already functionally divided'at the railroad tracks to some degree. The retail center of towro. was located to the north and personal service estab- lishments were also primarily located there. Financial and professional service functions were becoming more pre~a- len·t to the south. Underpass construction increased the north's dominance in personal services due primarily to rapid expansion o£ apartments and so o£ residents north of the underpass, probably because o£ the college. Con·- struction also physicalJ.y separated the two areas more effectively than did the rail line. West Parthenia Street was not visibly affected by the reconstruction except in the removal of two residential complexes. And east. Parthenia Street was not directly a£- fected by public demolition either. However, the diversion of traffic from this section did make it difficult for some non-industrial, non-repa.i.r businesses Lo survive. According to bankers, real est2,te agents and various other business interests in Northridge, the grade sub- stitution affected not only those businesses displaced by" condemnation, but also the sa1es volume of those HJU businesses bordering the construction area. The detrimen- tal effect on business activity did not pervade the Emtire 8i:udy area, but was limited primarily to retail-service and arterial businesses fronting on Reseda Boulevard with in a couple of blocks on either side of the c6nstruction zone, and to retail, service and arterial businesses on Parthenia Street east o:f the Boulevard within about three blocks of the construction zone. Financial loss in b~siness was li.mited to the one and a half year construc tion period, plus one year after construction (probably due to there-patterning of shopping trips). This loss can logically be attributed to the diversion of through traffic from which retail, service and particularly arterial businesses derive some of their sales volume, and to environmental deterioration as in dust and noise emanat- i_ng from the constJ~uction area. The Reseda BoEleva.rd business area was mo1~e detri- mentally affected by separation than was Pa.rthenia Str Reseda is less industrial and much more dependent upon passersby for business. This is especially true of west Parthenia Street where industrial activity is heavily concentra-"ced. 101 Most businesses on R.eseda Boulevard within the three block area affected by -"che separation noted a slight de crease in business as a result of deleterious environmental conditions for shoppers. And o£ these, most stated that the construction really a££ected only the g:cowth potential o£ their business. Only a £ew bu.sinessmen indicated that the sepa.ration moderately or greatly reduced their business. The Northridge Chamber of Commerce stated that ·the detour facility, as well as noise and dust conditions, were not beneficial to businesses in the area. But offici.a.ls of the Chamber noted that business volume was declining mnon9st outlets anyway, due to ·the decline in viability o£ strip-commercial business dis·tricts, as a consequence o£ the growth o£ regional shopping centers and the over- exlJansion o£ retail units in the Valley. Ba.nk representa·- tives and real estate <:\gents also indicate<~ tha.t al"'chcn.l9h several businessmen decried the loss o£ business clue to the separation, the substi i.:ution may have been nothing more than a scapegoat £or their financial troubles sternming £rom other causes. 102 References l. See Height, Lewis, Settlement Patterns in the San Fernando Vall_ey, S_::>uthern California, Master's Thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952, for a discussion of Valley growth and development in the late nine teenth and early twentieth centuries. 2. Bennett, Charles, Los Angeles Planning Commission} "N. A. Pla.nning for the San Fernando Valley) 11 Weste~2__Ci.J::x.' Vol. 21 (April, 19.55), pp. l-·12s 3. Pre~ton, Richard, "The Growth of the San Fernando Valley," _faliforn_i~_Qeoc;;!E_:."lpher_, Vol. 6 {1965), p. 67. 4. Security-First National Bank, Los Angeles, Economic Research Department, ].:'h_e GEow_."!~h ~E~--~CO.E£.12?:-:1·5:... s~~.~:tm:_~. 9._:f__ §.. 6. Proudfoot, Malcolm, "City Retail Structure," Economic 9eo~L~~h,Z_, Vol. 13 (October, 1937), pp. 425-42s.----- 7. Ratcli:f:f, Richard, 11 Interna1 Arrangement o:f Land Uses, 11 ~~-::~an Land 1~-~i~.§.. (New York: McGraww·Hill Book Company, 1949), pp. 390-392. 8. S<:-ocuri ty ··Firs·t National Bank, £E...: ___ ci_!:_. , p. 35. 9. App:caisal,Division, Department o:f Land and Right of Way, City of Los Angeles, Individual appraisal re ports on each parcel condemned by the city £or grade separation constJ:uction. 10. Securi ty--Fixst National Bank, p. 35. .2~--c~!· ' . 11. Seem:· it y -Firs-t: National Ba.nk, S?.P.~~i:.!.. ' p. 6 • 12. Data obtained from Registrar's Office, Sa.n Fernando Valley Sta.te College. 103 13. Frischer and Linscott, Inc., Preliminary Traffic Re'!i:~~v of the San Fernando Valley _?tate College Master Plan (Los Angeles, 1966), pp. 1-9. 14. Security-First National Bank, ~i"~·, p. 13. 15. Simmons, James, The Changing Pattern of Retail L?.~.:.. tion~-' University of Chicago, Department o£ Geography Resea:rch Paper No. 92 (Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, University o£ Chicago), 1964, p. 96. 16. Preston, Richard, op. ci!., p. 72. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Obser::-2-.!io~~J:._sion-making Process pual i:f i.~:>-~? io~~ This study has examined several questions that were genera·ted by heated controversy over grade separation ap- proval or rejections in Northridge, California. Firstly, was the unde:r:pass needed, and were the objectives of reconstruction met? That is, did the project eliminate aut:o-ra.il accidents and increase overall safety in the crossing, a.nd did it reduce auto traffic congestion attend·- ant to rail movements across the previous grade crossing? Secondly~ was the separation beneficial to, or at least not det:rim(.:!nta l to, the Northridge business community bm:de·r:i.ng the area in which grade substitution took place? Before ans~ve.:cing these questions, several observat.ions will be made regarding the decision-making process that tends t6 qualify the conclusions. 6.1.1 Lack of Spatial Perspectives on Traffic Problems While grade separation was needed and the objectives appear to have been met, t.his deduction 'may be partially attributed to an indirect factor that was constantly 104 105 ir;norE~d or suppressed by the City and Public Utilities Commission officials before and during Commission hearings, namely, the Corbin Avenue Grade Crossing (Section 2.3). Had this crossing not been built just prior to substitu tion, the underpass might well indeed have been less successful. Traffic congestion might not have decreased but increased in the area dt:.e to reduced grade access on Reseda Boulevard during construction and to increase £low of traffic generated by west Valley growth. The decision made by City and state officials over separation totally disregarded the total spatial implications that, i£ traffic prob1erns in an area stem £rom limited maneuverability, the improvement of condi tion:3 other than lind ted accessibility wiJ.J. not aba.te the problem. This lack o£ recognition of the spatial inter:r:elationship - the total. and real impact - of traffic problems raises serious doubts as to the extent to which the decision-making process involved vli th separation can respond to heal thy criticism be;.sed on wider considerations. 6.1. 2 Fe-vv Channels £or Cri t:i_c:Lsm of Municipal Decisions At the time o£ the grade separation controversy, legi tim.2.te criticism. o£ the City's proposal found few effective channels. First, Northridge!s city councilman, 106 T?m Shepc:u::d, did not appear to represent or consider a large number of Northridge views on the g::ade separation. The Councilman had initiated and was the chief spokesman for the separation proposal. But he neither informed the community of his intentions prior to nor subsequent to his introduction of the proposal before the council chamber. After lea.rning of the proposal for the first time in news- papers, the coalition presented its opposition to the separa.-tion befoJ:-e the Councilman o The Councilman not only would not consider the coalition's arguments and alterna- ti ves, but apparently informed his colleagu.es on the coun- cil tho.t t1"1e coalition did not represent the majority of views in the district. Accordingly, individuaJ.s from the coalition we:ce prevented from speaking befo.:re the council, ostensibly because of inco::npatibility iNith the council -x schedule. Seconcll:y, regardless of the merits of either argument presented before the Public Utilities Commission, the Northridge coalition coold not con~ete with the technical material and professional testimony genera:ted by. the City to substantiate the need for separation (Section 2. 2. 2). The coali t:ion had nei the1: the financial resources nor the *rt is interesting to note that this Councilman is now 1n jail for having solicited a bribe while in office. 107 q~alified personnel required to prepare statistically valid s·tudies that would be competitive with City da·ta. This is not typical of the inability of other groups to compete with the benefit-cost analysis a:rguments presented by . 1 various governmental agencies. Thirdly, the Northridge coalition could not effective- ly voice its opposition to the Reseda-Parthenia railroad underpass pecause of the nature o£ ·the Commission's authority and view over the situation. The coalition attempted to dissuade the Commission from approving separa.- tion subst.i tution on the grour:ds that traffic congestion in the area resulted £rom too few grade facilities rather than from the lack o£ sepa:ra·ted auto and rail grades on Reseda Boulevard. The argument was logical, but could not be_ considered by the Conm1ission because it involved grade crossings (average cost $100,000) £or which the City was u~ willing to app:copriate funds, and new separations (costing several million dollaJ~s) would not qualify £or state funds because no previously used grade facility had been dangerous {Section 1.3.2). The Public Utilities Com- mission is obligated to consider alternatives to the pro- posed projects if, and only if, the local government will appropriate funds for these projects. The City was ad~ma.rrt1y aga.inst such alternatives and therefore the 108 Commission was fo:rced to eliminate these options from discussion. For example, lawyers for the Northridge coalition stressed at the first hearing that the Cornmission should weigh the Reseda Boulevard proposal against the dire ne~::d for other crossings to the v1es t • The City 1 s de£ ens e objected, claiming that the issue before the Commission was whether Reseda Boulevard required separation as urgen-'cly as other crossing sites in the state did; the matter of con- text· should be considered at the hearing for applicat.ion. • • I • ,..f • d h • • • 2 Th e Commlss:t.on s examJ..ner ai .lrme t lS pos1t1onc How- ever, at the hearing for application, before a di.fferent examiner, City lawyers maintained that the need for separa- tion had been proved at the previous hearing and that the matter of spa·:.:ial context wa irrelevant. The examiner 3 concurred! This raises a fourth point that financial motives prevented the City authorities from evaluating objectively the issues that generated the controversy (Section 2.3). Hegardless of the merits of the Northr:idge argument (which was not untainted by personal motivation), no state funds were available for the grade facilties proposed by Northridge individuals. Part of this problem stems from conflicting city and state perspectives regarding grade projects. By financing only grade separations at existing 109 grade crossings (except in the case of freeway construe- tion), and by making it more difficult for grade crossings to be built across rail lines,the state has biased the municipal government's decision against grade crossing and non-substitution grade separations, regardless of the desi:rabili ty of these facil ties rela:t:ive to vehicular traff'ic needs. One could rightfully argue that g:rade cross- ings do reduce rail traffic efficiency and do create haz~rdous traffic conditions. But no such objections can be leveled against non~·substi tution grade sepa1~ation p;co- jects. However, the state is obviously limited in its ability to pay for grade facility improvement, hence, the priority listing for dangerous grade crossings. 6.2 Recommendations Each of these problems reduced the ability of the public decision-mc,king process to consider the spatial considerations of the transpox-tation difficulties emanating from financial originso However, these problems can be circumvented by forming special bonding districts that would remove £rom the City the financial responsibility for sepa.ra tion construction¢ The sole reason for the dis- trict 1 s existence would be to finance grade separations; the issue of whether to build grade crossings or grade 110 separations would not arise. Thus, the district would be concerned with the question of the location of separations in areas most beneficial to traffic and land use needs. The Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley is currently attempting to form such a district to finance additional Valley separations (Section 1.3). Such a special district represents a constructive, legal maneuver to make public decision-making more compatible with the spatial realities of traffic problems and attendant land use accessibility problems. But this special district would not have statevlide jurisdiction, even though similar grade separation finan- cing problems might exist elsewhere in the state. State- wide remedy o£ this financial problem might be found in the rewording of Sections J89 to 191 o£ the California State Street and Highway Code, which pertain to grade separation substitution financing. The current Code specifically limits state financing of separation consi:.n.1c- tion to substi t;ution projects (Appendix A.). If provisions were made in the Code for allocation of state funds for non·-substi tution grade separations on the basis of traffic flow grounds, the need for a special grade .separation dis- trict might be proved unn(~cessary. Rewording of the Code would not jeopardize the removal of dangerous grade 111 crossings. Rather, priority hearings would determine whether public safety or public convenience and access limitations were more seriously impaired in any given year. 6.3 Conclusions It now remains to draw some conclusions, both ne9a- tive and positive, regarding the Northridge grade separa- tion. 6.3 ,·1 Grade Separation While these qualifications remain, the separation o£ grade facilities was needed to eradicate or at least alleviate traffic problems s·te:;mning £:rom auto-rail con- flict a.t the Heseda Boulevard grade crossing. Grade sepa- ration is prerequisite to the virtual elimination o£ auto- rail accidents, for much o£ the da.nger involved in c:r:'oss··· ing stems from human error ·· a factor that cannot be totally controlled by regulatory devices - and was the only means o£ eliminating vehicular delay which had stemmed from railroad switching activity in the contiguous industrial area (Section 2.3). Grade separation also was the best, albeit the most eA.1Jensive, method o£ realigning Parthenia Street with Reseda Boulevard and the tracks, a c.ondi "'cion that had plagued tbe Northridge area with traffic congestion 112 C' -:::l ) ( vee t 1on-· '--'') •-' • Congestion at the crossing partially was the result of the diversion of north-south traffic from west of Reseda onto the Boulevard to negotiate the rail line. At least one crossing to the west o£ the Boulevard had long been needed to remedy this sit:uation, but it was built only after considera_ble a"'ctention was focused on .the problem by Northridge interests. 6.3.2 Grade Separation Improved In retrospect, the completion of the grade separation did diminish traffic problems stemming from conflicting use of the grade crossing by automobiles and rail vehicles. Auto-rail conflict was eliminated (Section 3.2) and vehicul.a;: congestion subsided appreciably, contrary to the fears of the Northridge coalition (Section 3.3). However, the accident rate increased after the opening of the separation to traffic (Section 3.2). 6~3.3 Recovery of Business District The grade substi tut:ion did affect the spatial characteristics of the Northridge business district by catalytically accelerating on~-going trends in land use, (Sec-tion 5.5.5) and by depressing retail sales within three blocks of the affected area during construction and within a one year adjustment period thereafter (Section S.6)o 113 P~ior to separation, the business district had been be coming more functionally specialized by area, that is, north Reseda Boulevard was accounting for more nucleated retail and service functions, south Reseda Boulevard was becoming more urban arterial in character, east Parthenia Street was becoming more auto-repair and industrial in· character, and west Parthenia was becoming by far the dominant·area of industrial, contract construction and business service activity. It a.lso was developing toward the north. During sep.:u~ation fifty-two businesses (ap- proximately fourteen percent of the businesses in the study area) were displaced by public acquisition of land for underpass excavation. Approximately forty percent of these relocated within one-half mile of the grade crossing in a ~anner that fitted well into the on-going areal specialization of the district. The majority of businesses also relocated to the north, ln the direction of business dis·trict expansion (Section 5.4). The J.nitia1 loss of storess combined with the noise) dust and movement of heavy vehicles, reduced the att.ractive-. ness of th<:: area to shoppers; consumer and highway oriented facilties were affected most. But this short-term impact had no serious repercussions on the business dis- tr;Lct. By 1970 the study area had slightly more stores 114 than in 1965. Businesses were no longer plagued by detri- mental environmental conditions, and the area had ~om- pletely recovered financially (Section 5.6). Of the more than fifty businesses that were displ~ced by eminent domain proceedings, most did not own the proper- ty ·they wer(~ using and were not recompensed_ for dis- placement. Of these businesses, twenty--one relocated ·in the si:udy <;~.rea, some re-established elsewhere, and some just could not survive dislocation. In any cj.vic project the benefits gained by society must be weighed against the losses it incurs, and if the benefits that accrue from such a venture outweigh losses, the projE:ct plans should be impJ.emented. However, the major complaint leveled aga.inst urban renewal a.nd othe::; impJ~ovement projects is that no consideration is given to their immedia t.e effects on individuals~ For the North-· ridge sepe..r to their future. Neither Cit:y nor state helped find ne1N sites to othe:cv.rise ease· the transition. The propeJ:'ty owner was the only person to benefit. The local Chamber of Commerce took no official interest in the future of these businesses, although unofficially business leaders en- couraged relocation in the area of those individuals considered to be assets. But this encompassed only a 115 minority of business interests. ·while the construction of the Reseda-Parthenia grade separation involved two to three years of trauma for some businesses contiguous to the construction area, it pr~ved detrimental to many businesses displaced for excavation, and while it demonstrated the inability of individuals to 11 £ight city hall", the substitution will probably have a lasting, salu""cory effect upon the Northridge business district. 116 References 1. Altshuler, Alan Ac, The Ci:ty Planning Process: A Political Analysis (Ithaca., New York·, Cornell University Press, 1965), pp. 48-60. 2. Priority Hearing, QP• ci~$' p. 53. 3. Application Hearing, ~-~-...£:?::.!.•, pp. 67-68. 1. J. I Refer.ences Cited "Accident Reduction Increases Dovmtown Sales," Traffic _§.~g;Ln~i~_g_, Vol. 37, No. 7 (March, 1967), pp" 55-57. Altshuler, Alan A., The C~t~_Planning Process: Ayq1itical Analysis, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1965. App:caisa.l Division, Department of Land· and Right of Way, Ci.t.y of Los Angeles, Individual Appraisal Reports on Property Purchased for the Reseda-Parthenia Grade Sepa.ra.tion, 1965. Bennet, Charles, Los Angeles Planning Commission, "N A. Planning for the San Fernar1do Valley," ~i;:~~ Ci~y_, Vol. 21 (April, 1955), pp. 1-12. Berry, B:r:ian J. L., "Ribbon Developments in the U:cban Business Pattern," Am2_~1~, Associa.tion of American Geographers, Vol. 49 (June, 1959), pp. 145-155. Bezkoro-vanig, George and Robert Go Holsinger, "The Use o£ Stop Signs at Railroad Crossings," Traffic .}~-r~"'9.. L::2_~~:.::.. ing, Vol. 37, No. 2 (November, 1966), pp. 54---59. Buchanan, Colin, !!affic ir~ To~_!~~-' London: Her Majesty 1 s Stationery Office, 1963. Dixon, Lewis R., Lan~Val~-~:...Cl?..~~~~s -~-~~Ee:=::~_Y.~, M.A~ Thesis, Department of Geography, San Ferna.ndo VallE~y State College, Northridge, California, 1969. Foster, Gerald J. c=md Howard J. Nelson, V~_!..::!-E.~ Bo~}evaE_~: ~--~!2:_=!::r2<:L!Y~----S~..?..EE~!~2.....?._~~~~!~ Real Estate Research Pro<.:_1ram, Bureau o£ Business and Economic Research, University of California, Los Angeles, 1958. F'rischer and Linscott, Inc., _!?re1:.~-m:i:,!]a._~y __Tr_~~-c:_ __~':~_iew ?.£. !~!-:_;:';__~~f}: __!'"ern_~E-d~_Y~l~~_§_ta t~ Colle~~\1ast~£, published by the traffic engineering firm for San Fernando Valley State College, Los Angeles, 1966~ 118 Garrison, Wil1iamL., Brian J. L. Berry, Duane F. fvlarb1e, · John D. Nystuen, and Richard L. Morrill, Studi_~.s __ ~! Hi~I:wa~_Q_ev~lopment and Geogra.ohic Chan_9es_, Seai.:tle: University of Washington Press, 1959. Height, Lewis, Settlement Patterns in the San Fernando Vall.ey_,__ S~uthern Calif_~~~ M.A. Thesis, Departm!?nt of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952. Mi tchel.l, Robert and Chester Rapkin, Ur~~ffic: _!:.:. fu_"!::lct~9P_.£:f...J.:-a.nd Us_~, Nevv York: Columbia. University Prr2s.::;, 1954. Mohring, ·Herber-·c, and Mitchell Ha.rwitz, Highwa.L_!3ene~i!_:?_: Ar;; An~!_ical_ F~~meworl::_, Chicago: Northwestern Uni-· versity Press, 1962. Murphy, Ram.ond, The American City: An Urban Geog:canhy, --.. -...------~-···---~-~------·-----L.--.. ...- NeW York: McGra.w·-Hill, Inc., l. 966. Nelson, Richard L., .!_he Sel_ection of Retail Locations, New York: F. W~ Dodge Corporation, 1958. Planning Department, City of Los Angeles, Zonin2_~n~L~E~9.. U~~--~1_~~-L.:lJ)5~2___!_958_1_~~~-~-d 196_~, Los Angeles, California~ • Powell, Marion Lyle, Free~ay Im_pact on___ ~ant.a~. Maria_, -~~li:fo_rr~_ic.._, M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, San Fernando Valley State College, North:cidge, California., 1966, P:ceston, Rich,::~:cd, 11 The Growth of the Sa.n Fex:nando Valley," 2}1;.~.. -~.?·1~-~52._r~_i:~_GeogE_~he_:l_:".., Vol. VI (1965), pp. 59-72. P:r:oudfoot, r·.fa.lcoJ_m, 11 Ci ty Structure, 11 Eco~~?IT_J.ic Ge_.5?~<;J!'~El~y_, Vol~ 13 (October, 1937), pp. 390-392. 1 P·ublic llti.lities Commission, State of California, An:r;t~a~ Resort. 1965-1966 Fiscal Year, Sacramento, California. _,.,J... ,_•••-~·-'·---·------·•-·n•--,.~-·-----·--··---••••-- • ~---.-"--~·-----' T~~..::'::~.)s~jJ~!_ __z~ th_~-~s~d0 BoulevaE9--~~~d~~~ra~ .!J.~~.!~... Ef.~..:.(?E.. ~.!.¥_ 1-~~-~E.~ ..~-g_ {Case No. 7683), Los Angeles; 1963. · -···-····-----····, ?.::E.~~?:..?_~2::.L2.:t: __?..~.-~:l-:.":: ... B~ s g-~-~::_.?_?2-!:l.. ~Y.~_0 __ s~r ad~ ..29?~~:~c a__:-_ · !i~s~:.;t..J..2El?.L~s.-~tLc:?..:.: .. l2.~~~!-i~~5I (Case No. 45808), Los Angeles, 196-'L 119 H.atcli££, Richard, "Internal Arrangement o£ Land Uses," Urban___!:.a~~l _Econ~lir1c~, New York: McGraw-Hill Book · Cornpa.ny, 1949, pp. 390-392. Rose, Harold M., "The Structure of Retail Trade in a Racially Changing Trade Area," G~_E~ical Analysis, Vol~ 2, No. 2 (April, 1970), pp. 135-148o Security First National Bank, Th_e Growth and Economic St_~t'!-_re o£ the San Fernando Valley, Research Depart ment, Los Angeles, 1960o ----~-----·' ~_Q_rowt_!?- and Economic Statv.re o£ ·the San Fer12_.~ndo Valley an.?~.e G~eat_er Gl_(2ndal~_ _!l_re~, Research Department; Los Angeles, 1968. Si:n1m.ons, ,James, TI:~~1gi.ng Pattern of__ Re!a:L!: Loc~i~l_?_~, Uni ve:rsi ty of Chicago, Department o£ Geography Rese.ou:ch Paper No. 92, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Traffic Department, City of Los Angeles, §~E._F~r~~~~o . ":!_?_} l~y- TE_<::-!~~j._£_ S!::UdY 1 ?_?_~.::1985, Los Angeles, 1966. -----~~---' I-~~~fi£_~C~!-... _!a]?~s, 1960 through 1969~ Los Angeles~ California. U. S. Tec-hnical Comrni ttee on Industrial Classification, §_!~E~dar~__ !ndustri~l___ gl~i.£~_£~tio_l] f'.'I~~_al_ (Revision of 1945 edition o£manufacturing ind,J.stries and the 1969 edition of non-~manuf. APPENDIX A To encourage the elimination of existinghazardou~ railroad crossing conditions, Sections 189-·191 were ap pended to the State Street and Highway Code in 1957, which provides that $5,000,000 shall be included in the annual budget o£ the Department of Public Works for financing. the removal of dangerous gra.de crossings by grade separa. tions. An ave:r:-age of 40 applicants file for financial aid from this sum each year, and of these 10 meet the specified qualifications. Because each separation costs between $100,000 and $5,000,000 or more (the average cost is $2, 000, 000 in the San Fernando Valley and beca.use the state finances 45 percent of the cost, a priori.ty list has been set up to determine which crossings are most detrim.er:~tal to safe and efficient flow and automotive and rail traffic. The P'...Iblic U·tili ties CoiDlllission furnishes the Department of Public Works with the list and upon ~ts receipt the department and the Highway Commission d~_stribute the funds. The Pu.blic Utili ties Commission conducts two hear- ings to a.mend each year's priority list, one of applica tion for separation to determine the degree of need relative to existing grossing conditions, and the other of priority to determine the need for separation relative to 121 o:ther applications in the state. The order o£ the hear ings usually follows the above sequence, but this pro cedure. is not rigid. The local political body must prepare a case demon strating the need for the removal of the existing crossing at these hearings to qualify for state funds. The case should include: automobile traffic counts for a twenty four hour period; the numbe:c, type and timing of t1:ain movements for one typical day; tr1e number and dates of a.c- cidents at the crossing; the type of separation proposed; the preliminary cost of the project; the financial ability of the local body to finance its share of the project if approved; and a statement showing the need for ·the pro- posed improvement. l'he priority list that evolved from these presenta tions is based upon this tangible data~ but also upon some intangible factors, such as potential traffic generation, the relationship of the crossing to the city street pat tern and railroad opel:ation 7 the availability of al terna-· tive routes for traffic flow and the potential for future accidents. The Commission also considers other possible crossings which it feels are in need of separation in the a:r:ea. However, those crossings not endorsed by the co~porate political body will not be included because it 122 is felt that there will be little likelihood that the separation could be financed and constructed within the number.of years for which the priority list is valid. APPE:\DIX B-1 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY FLOW MAP 24 HOUR TOTAL 1955 CfTY rT LOS AHGEW DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC s' s TAYLOII, Cl l r Trolflc IEI'9• 124 >- ...... w I _J en _J ~ 0.. ~ <{ !!ii!l!!!! 0 :::E ,., >- w ...1 ...1 ~a. "' z om c APPENDIX B-2 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW IN NORTHRIDGE, CALIFOR lA 1953 VOLUMES 1970 VOLUMES NOitTH SCALE THOUSAHOS OF VEHICLES ON[ INCH IUPUUNTS 20000 V[HICLtS 1980 VOLUMES SOURCE: CITY OF LOS ANGELES. DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC APPENDIX C-1 NUMBER OF BUSINESSES ON RESEDA BOULEVARD Business Conformation S~I.C. 1960 1965 1970 --- -)1- -- ___a._n_d Cate9ory No. Out·X· In Out In Out In Re-tail General Merchandise (53) -/1 Food (54) 3/- 5/1 3/-. 5/1 *-)(• Apparel (56) 11/1 1/- ll/1 1/- 11/- Miscellaneous (59) 13/2 7/2 23/3 4/2 23/4 Services Finance (61) 8/6 1/2 19/15 1/2 20/1 Personal ( 62) 11/8 5/4 16/11 5/4 22/5 Professional (65) 16/11 -/1 30/32 -/1 28/33 Governmental ( 67) -/1 1/ 1/- Ed.ucational (68) ,/.L - 2/1 Urban Arteria.l Auto (55) 2/5 1/ 2/7 2/- 3/10 Furniture (57) 1/- l/1 5/1 2/1 3/1 Restaurant/Bar (58) 5/6 3/- 10/10 3/1 10/13 Repair Service ( 64) 1/- 1/1 1/2 1/1 1/4 Entertainment (7) Industrial Light Industry (2) Light Industry (3) -/1 ( 4) .,. Transportation \ , 1/- Lumber/Hardware (52) 2/- 2/1 2/1 1/1 1/1 Bu.siness Services ( 63) 2/- 2/- 2/2 Contract Consiruction (66) -/4 1/- -/3 Vacancies (94) 20/0 5/2 3/1 14/7 Residential 3/2 1/5 3/2 1/5 1/2 ·*Inside and outside of area purchased by City of Los Angeles **North/South of the Southern Pacific Rail Line APPENDIX C-1 PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESSES ON RESEDA BOULEVARD 1960, 1965 and 1970 Business Conformation S.I.C. 1960 1965 1970 and Category No. North-X----South-l<- No:tth South North South Retail General Merchandise (53) 100.0 Food (54) 60.0 72.7 9.1 62.5 12.5 Apparel (56) 80.0 6. 7. 85.7 7.1 91.7 Miscellaneous (59) 76.9 15.4 84.4 15.6 85.2 14.8 Services Finance (61) 52.9 47.5 52.6 44.7 54.0 46.0 Personal ( 62) 50.0 37.5 51.2 36.6 73.3 16.7 Professional (65) 53.3 40.0 45.4 48.5 40.6 47.8 Governmental (67) 50.0 50.0 50.0 Educational (68) 50.0 50.0 25.0 Urban Arterial Auto (55) 27.3 59.5 25.0 43.7 17.6 58.8 Furniture (57) 40.0 20.0 63.6 18.2 50.0 16.7 Restaurant/Bar (58) 42.1 31.6 48.2 40.7 35.7 46.4 Rep air Service (64) 13.3 6.7 12.5 18.8 5.3 21.0 Entertainment (7) Industrial Light Industry (2) Light Industry (3) Transportation ( 4) 33.3 Lumber/Hardware (52) 50.0 25.0 33.3 22.2 16.7 16.7 Business Services (63) 20.0 8.0 7.4 7.4 Contract Construction (66) 1·6. 7 3.6 10.7 *North and South of Railroad Line r t\: cc APPENDIX C-2 NUMBER OF BUSINESSES ON PARTHENIA STREET Business Conformation S.I.Co 1960 1965 l970 and Category N o. Out * In -)(- Out In Out In Retail --General Merchandise 5':!~_,, ( -x-*- Food ~-'5 4)\ 2 /1 2/ 2/- Appe,rel (56) 2/1 l/- 1/- Miscellaneous (59) 3/1 Services 1?.··lnance (61) 1/- Personal ( 62) 4/ 5/- 3/- Professional (65) l/1 2/1 3/2 Governmental ( 67) 1/- 1/- 1/ Educational (68) 1/- -/1 Urban Arterial Auto (55) 3/- 3/- 3/- Furniture (57) 2/- 2/- 2/l Resta.urant/Bar (58) 5/- 3/- 5/- Repair Service (64) 8/1 8/- 9/1 Entertainment ( 7) 2/- 3/- 1/- Industrial Light Industry (2) 3/3 3/3 3/2 Light Industry (3) 5/12 4/1.1 4/29 Transportation (4) -/1 1/1 1/1 , I Lumber/Hardware (52) l/1 1/- 2/l J..i- 2/1 Business Services (63) 2/5 -/1 2/19 -/1 2/20 Contract Construction (66) 8/12 9/13 5/22 Vacancies ( 94.) 5/- Residential 5/9 - · 5/8 4/6 -x-rnside and outside o£ area purchased by City o£ Los Angeles **East/West of Reseda Boulevard t \1,, APPENDIX C--2 PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESSES ON PARTHENIA STREET 1960, 1965 and 1970 Business Conformation Soi.C. 1960 --1965 1970 and Category No. O..:tt In Out In Out -- In Retail ---General Merchandise (53) Food (54) 40.0 - 18.2 - 25.0 Apparel (56) 13.3 - 7.1 - 8.5 Miscellaneous \.':),_9) 7.7 Services Finance (61) - - 2.6 Personal ( 62) 12.5 - 12.2 - 10.0 Professional (65'. ) 2.9 2.9 2.9 1.5 4.3 2.9 Governmental ( 67) 50.0 - 50.0 - 50.0 Educational (68) - - - - - 25.0 Urban Arterial Auto (55) 18.2 - 25.0 - 17e6 Furniture (57) 40.0 - 18.2 - 33.3 Resta1.irant/Bar (58) 26.3 - 50.0 - 17.9 Repair Service (64) 33.3 6.7 11.1 - 56.2 5.3 Entertainment (7) 100.0 - 100.0 - 100.0 Industrial r 0 ) Li9ht Industry \~; 25.0 37.5 37.5 37.5 50.0 25~0 Light Industry (3) 15.8 63.2 25.0 68.8 11.1 80.6 Transportation ( 4) - 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 Lumber/Hardware (5').:;_. J\ 12.5 12.5 33.3 11.1 33.3 16.7 Business Services ( 63) 20.0 50.0 8.0 80.0 11.1 70.4 (66\ Contract Construction ~\ _, / 16.7 50.0 32.1 46.4 27.6 65.5 APPENDIX C-3 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESSES TO THE NORTI-MEST OF THE GRADE SEPARATION Business Conformation s.r.c. 1960 1965 1970 and Category No. NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER--- PERCENT NUMBER-- PERCENT Retail General Merchandise 53 54 Food N 0 N E Apparel 56 Miscellaneous 59 Services Finance 61 Personal 62 Professional 65 3 4.3 Governmental 67 Educational 68 Urban Arterial Auto 55 1 5.9 1 6.3 Furniture 57 Restaurant/Bar 58 Repair Service 64 3 20.0 3 18.8 4 21.0 Entertainment 7 Industrial Light Industry . 2 2 25.0 2 25.0 2 25.0 Light Industry 3 l 5.3 1 6.3 3 11.1 1 Transportation 4 .L 33.3· l 33.3 1 33.3 Lumber/Hardware 52 1. 16.7 .Business Services 63 1 4.0 1 3.7 Contract Construction 66 3 10.7 2 6.9 Vacancies 94 APPENDIX C-4· BUSINESSES DISPLACED BY SEPARATION AND RE-ESTABLISHED IN STUDY AREA Displaced Businesses Re-established Businesses Business Conformation S.I.C. Number S.IeC. and Category No. Affected No. Number Retail Food 54 3 54 l 1 Apparel 56 J. Miscellaneous 59 7 59 6 Ser.vices Finance 61 3 Personal 62 9 62 4 Professional 65 l Governmental 67 l Urban Arterial Auto 55 3 Furniture 57 3 Restaurant/Bar 58 5 58 2 Repair Service 64 2 64 2 Industrial Light Industry 3 1 Lumber/Hardware 52 5 52 5 Business Services 63 l Contract Construction 66 3 66 1 Vacancies 94 4 (induced by imminent separation- previously three businesses in 59 category and one in 66 category) Residential R 6 ! (.; ~\