Comments on: Board Chair Villaraigosa Responds to Bike/Ped. Funding Requests http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:23:58 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: ingrid http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/comment-page-1/#comment-1597 ingrid Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:44:21 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/#comment-1597 how can we get them to amend that policy? I'm going to this thursday's board meeting BTW.... maybe i'll get a chance to speak this time! 07/24/08 Thursday Regular Board Meeting - Metro Board Room 9:30 a.m. http://www.metro.net/board/mtgsched.htm how can we get them to amend that policy?

I'm going to this thursday's board meeting BTW.... maybe i'll get a chance to speak this time!

07/24/08
Thursday
Regular Board Meeting - Metro Board Room
9:30 a.m.

http://www.metro.net/board/mtgsched.htm

]]> By: ubrayj02 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/comment-page-1/#comment-1591 ubrayj02 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:50:22 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/#comment-1591 It would take next to nothing for the Mayor to make the policy changes that would local agencies to have access to Local Returns funds, by amending the funding guidelines to allow bike and pedestrian improvements to access these funds. Come Villaraigosa - this is low hanging fruit! You can make this part of your spiel about how you are the "Greenest Mayor in America", or whatever. Here is a sample replacement policy for the section from last years' CFP guidelines: Bicycle and pedestrian projects may occupy the right of way, and may be allowed to reduce the Level of Service, Average Daily Trips, and "mobility" on that portion of right of way they occupy if the local agency can show that the following criteria will be met: automobiles will drive the less than the speed limit in the improved area fatalities and injuries from vehicle on bike, and vehicle on pedestrian, crashes will be reduced If located in a commercial business district - retail foot traffic and sales tax income will be increase Livability, as measured by a survey administered in a 300' radius from the improvement, will be improved (where livability is an index of social cohesion, general happiness, feelings of safety, a large "home" area for individual residents, and a general match of roadway users with census data). All the onus to prove these things is on the local entities - and the MTA staff can judge using these criteria before allowing LOS, ADT, etc. to be degraded. This amendment of MTA policy would be BETTER than a locked-in 1% - because it could be more lucrative and would allow for more sweeping changes in the way bicycle and pedestrian projects are discussed in policy making circles. It would take next to nothing for the Mayor to make the policy changes that would local agencies to have access to Local Returns funds, by amending the funding guidelines to allow bike and pedestrian improvements to access these funds.

Come Villaraigosa - this is low hanging fruit! You can make this part of your spiel about how you are the "Greenest Mayor in America", or whatever.

Here is a sample replacement policy for the section from last years' CFP guidelines:

Bicycle and pedestrian projects may occupy the right of way, and may be allowed to reduce the Level of Service, Average Daily Trips, and "mobility" on that portion of right of way they occupy if the local agency can show that the following criteria will be met:
automobiles will drive the less than the speed limit in the improved area
fatalities and injuries from vehicle on bike, and vehicle on pedestrian, crashes will be reduced
If located in a commercial business district - retail foot traffic and sales tax income will be increase
Livability, as measured by a survey administered in a 300' radius from the improvement, will be improved (where livability is an index of social cohesion, general happiness, feelings of safety, a large "home" area for individual residents, and a general match of roadway users with census data).

All the onus to prove these things is on the local entities - and the MTA staff can judge using these criteria before allowing LOS, ADT, etc. to be degraded.

This amendment of MTA policy would be BETTER than a locked-in 1% - because it could be more lucrative and would allow for more sweeping changes in the way bicycle and pedestrian projects are discussed in policy making circles.

]]> By: David http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/comment-page-1/#comment-1581 David Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:52:52 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/#comment-1581 The Mayor's response is typical of the problem with the region's transit system overall. Let all the local governments (politicians) fight it out for small chunks of the pie and you'll get what we have now...a disjointed system of rail lines that don't connect to each other. Thus the need for the Downtown Connector. What good are a bunch of bike paths that don't connect with each other. The answer is leadership Mr. Mayor. A concept that is obviously foreign to you! The Mayor's response is typical of the problem with the region's transit system overall. Let all the local governments (politicians) fight it out for small chunks of the pie and you'll get what we have now...a disjointed system of rail lines that don't connect to each other. Thus the need for the Downtown Connector. What good are a bunch of bike paths that don't connect with each other. The answer is leadership Mr. Mayor. A concept that is obviously foreign to you!

]]> By: ingrid http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/comment-page-1/#comment-1565 ingrid Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:13:03 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/#comment-1565 It sounds like the mayor is still resistant to the benefits of bicycling. Just a few days ago we have Boston's mayor pedaling around. London also has a "Bicycle Mayor".... what do we have here in LA? Tony "Cookies" Villaraigosa. Are we going to get through to the MTA Board next week? What about Sharrows? Can we ask that in light of the City Council's recent motion to put more sharrows on the road, that some of the sales tax increase be dedicated to that? Explain to them that failing to include bikes and peds in transit plans is a mistake. Here is a chance to fix that! It sounds like the mayor is still resistant to the benefits of bicycling. Just a few days ago we have Boston's mayor pedaling around. London also has a "Bicycle Mayor"....

what do we have here in LA?

Tony "Cookies" Villaraigosa.

Are we going to get through to the MTA Board next week?

What about Sharrows? Can we ask that in light of the City Council's recent motion to put more sharrows on the road, that some of the sales tax increase be dedicated to that?

Explain to them that failing to include bikes and peds in transit plans is a mistake. Here is a chance to fix that!

]]> By: ubrayj02 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/comment-page-1/#comment-1563 ubrayj02 Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:40:02 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/07/17/board-chair-villaraigosa-responds-to-bikeped-funding-requests/#comment-1563 Big surprise from Mr. Pico-Olympic one-way. "Local Returns" money not going to bikes has to do with the MTA's own funding guidelines! The Here is the relevant quote: <blockquote>"Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths - Construction of a bikeway and/or pedestrian path is prohibited unless the bikeway or pedestrian path is designed so that the sponsor can demonstrate that it will not have to be relocated or removed to allow for construction or operation of a future transportation project. This will have the effect of limiting bikeways to wider right-ofways and will require that the bike path and associated pedestrian path and landscaping be contained within a limited area along the outer edge of the right of way." -from pg. 19 of the MTA's 2007 Call for Projects guide</blockquote> The money dolled out during the call for projects is part of a biennial "Transportation Improvement Program Call for Projects" that is run through the MTA's TDI department. The whole thing is overseen by the MTA's Countywide Plannind and Development Department. This policy is total crap and is more fundamental to obtaining a locked in amount of money, I feel. Plus, it is easier to ask for a change to something like this! Big surprise from Mr. Pico-Olympic one-way.

"Local Returns" money not going to bikes has to do with the MTA's own funding guidelines! The

Here is the relevant quote:

"Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths - Construction of a bikeway and/or pedestrian path is prohibited unless the bikeway or pedestrian path is designed so that the sponsor can demonstrate that it will not have to be relocated or removed to allow for construction or operation of a future transportation project. This will have the effect of limiting bikeways to wider right-ofways and will require that the bike path and associated pedestrian path and landscaping be contained within a limited area along the outer edge of the right of way."

-from pg. 19 of the MTA's 2007 Call for Projects guide

The money dolled out during the call for projects is part of a biennial "Transportation Improvement Program Call for Projects" that is run through the MTA's TDI department. The whole thing is overseen by the MTA's Countywide Plannind and Development Department.

This policy is total crap and is more fundamental to obtaining a locked in amount of money, I feel. Plus, it is easier to ask for a change to something like this!

]]>