Earlier this week, the public records office of Metro refused a request by Los Angeles Streetsblog for a copy of the recording made by a Metro bus camera during the January 9th confrontation between a special needs woman and sheriff that led to the woman getting punched in the face.

A video caught by a “citizen journalist” shows the sheriff striking the woman with his fore arm while the woman is restrained by the sheriffs partners.  However, witnesses vary on what degree the woman instigated the incident.  Some claim the sheriff’s attack was unprovoked.  Others claim the woman was acting violently.  A copy of a tape that starts when the sheriffs enter the bus could tell a more complete story of what actually happened that day.

If the Sheriffs presence on Metro vehicles and stations is to keep us safe, Streetsblog believes the public has a right to know what happened in that incident and what actions are being taken to address that behavior.  Streetsblog will stay on top of this issue until we can report on the full story.

In the meantime, here’s the text of the legal code used to justify the rejection.  Sounds as though Metro and/or the sheriffs are facing a legal challenge.

6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the California Emergency Management Agency, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

• GOOD Video Illustrates Impact of Small Modal Shift on Congestion
• Long Beach Planning Ties Transportation and Public Health (Press-Telegram)
• LA County Declares War on Physical Activity on Beaches (CBS 2)
• “Think Labs” Hope to Make Planning More Accesible (LAist)
• California’s Biggest Bike Race Coming to California’s Least Bike Accessible City (Biking In LA)
• Yup, Planting Ficus Next to Sidewalks Was a Mistake (LA Observed)
• Man Tasered for “Meandering” in Freeway (Daily News)
• Redondo Beach Seeks Input for Aviation Blvd. Bike Lane (Daily Breeze)
• Coming Soon, BH Will Respond to Metro’s Response to BH’s Response to Metro’s Report on Westside Subway Tunneling (Patch)

Lahood speaks as Villaraigosa, Metro CEO Art Leahy and Metrolink CEO John Fenton look on, Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

In recent weeks, two competing pieces of legislation are moving in Washington, D.C.  The first, is moving through the House of Representatives on a series of highly partisan votes and is reviled by advocates for transit, walking, bicycling and complete streets for it’s over-the-top support for highway construction.  The other is moving through the Senate with unanimous bi-partisan support and funds a more balanced vision for transportation funding.

But in yesterday’s “sunshine” press conference, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, decided to look on the positive.

“It’s time for them to pass the surface transportation bill.  it’s time for them to pass America Fast Forward,” Villaraigosa offered in a deflection of a question on Congressional investigation of how Los Angeles spent some of its federal stimulus funds.  Later, responding to a direct question from Streetsblog about the partisan bill moving in the House of Representatives, Villaraigosa focused on Congressman John Mica’s (R-FL) support for America Fast Forward.

America Fast Forward is the mayor’s proposal to change and reform federal law to encourage federal investment in projects supported by local dollars.  Under the proposal, Los Angeles Metro would likely be able to accelerate the construction of transit projects funded by a sales tax passed by voters in 2008.

“I am still positive about the portion of the bill that expands the current $128 million to a billion dollars for the TIFIA program which is one of the programs that L.A. needs to accelerate the 30 years of transportation funding into a shorter period of time, hopefully a ten year period,” Villaraigosa began.

“I’m also heartened that he did include three of the five reforms that we have said are necessary to accelerate that program.”

The Mayor did touch on the controversy surrounding the House Bill, but refused to weigh in.   “I know there is some dissidence between the Senate and the House version, and I don’t want to get in the middle of that right now so I’ll leave it with a positive comment, for now.”

However, the non-partisan reaction to the “Mica Bill” didn’t stop Villaraigosa or LaHood from praising the legislation put forward by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her competing legislation moving through the Senate.

“I want to give a loud shout out to Senator Boxer for working in such a bi-partisan way to put together a surface transportation bill that got total unanimous vote out of her committee, 18-0″ proclaimed LaHood, responding to the same question.   “She has the ranking Republican on her committee, Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma.  That bill is going to be on the Senate floor.  It’s a two year bill.  It’s a good bi-partisan bill that addresses the transportation values of America.  That’s the way transportation has always been done. and I can’t give a big enough shout-out to Senator Boxer to working so hard with Senator Inhofe to get this bill to the Senate floor.”

Villaraigosa jumped in to praise the Senator.  ”Ditto to that, I was remiss.  Barbara Boxer doesn’t have a bigger fan than Antonio Villaraigosa.”

Both pieces of legislation have passed through the committee system in their respective chambers, but a final vote has not been scheduled for either.  While both the former Republican Congressman  and the man some feel could replace him as Transportation Secretary held their fire on the House Republicans, it’s clear that each favors the bill moving through the Senate.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Secretary Ray LaHood exchange a handshake during yesterday's press event at Los Angeles Union Station. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Delivering a “message from President Obama,” LaHood set the tone for a defense of the president’s vision for High Speeed Rail. “”High speed rail is coming to California,” Lahood began. “We will not be dissuaded by the naysayers or those that think that high speed rail is not the next generation of transportation.”

Later, noting that the President’s vision was larger than just a rail plan for California, LaHood talked of the California project as a model for the nation.  ”We believe the high speed rail corridor in California will be the role model for high speed rail in the country.”  Other rail projects won’t capture the country’s imagination as the California project.  For example, the proposed rail project in Illinois would increase rail speed from seventy to one hundred ten miles per hour.  California High Speed Rail will run at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.

Responding to complaints from Steve Gregory, a reporter from the conservative news talk radio station KFI, about the costs and ridership projections, Villaraigosa took the microphone to offer his own defense.  After noting that projections for Los Angeles’ subway and Bus Rapid Transit systems are both well above projections, he pointed both to local benefits of a statewide transit network and to the investments America has historically made in transportation over the decades.

“High Speed Rail in California is the natural extension of the 21st Century transportation system we’re building here.  For me, this is an easy one.  We need to get on this train.  We need to stand for the proposition that California needs to lead the way,” Villaraigosa opened.  ”Imagine if they had asked President Eisenhower to cost out the federal highway system in 2012 dollars.”

The Mayor’s verbal gambit to defend the $100 billion price tag for construction of the high speed rail line was seized on by Dan Richard, the executive director of the High Speed Rail Authority.  A recent report by the authority noted that the original $42 billion estimate for a project between Sacramento and San Diego was low.  Instead, a $100 billion estimate for a route between San Francisco and Los Angeles was more likely.  Richard noted that one third of the price increase was because current projections take into account inflation that is expected over the next thirty years of construction.

Despite the high cost projections for construction, Richard notes that the line will pay for itself during operations.

“All of our analysis shows that ridership will be strong.  Every high speed rail project in the world more than pays for its own operations,” Richard said in response to a question from a television news reporter.  ”Even under the most pessimistic projections, we bring in more money than it takes to run the system….none of us wants to launch a system that doesn’t have riders.”

If the goal of the press event was to change the debate on High Speed Rail from complaints about cost and management to a discussion of the benefits the line will bring, yesterday was a mixed bag.  While the press conference was featured on most nightly news telecasts, only one print publication, La Opinion covered the event.

On the way home from the press conference, I listened to Gregory’s coverage on the wildly popular “John and Ken Show.”  While Gregory stuck to playing unedited audio clips of the event, the shows hosts interrupted to lambaste the project as “the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars I’ve ever seen” and the Secretary as “a buffoon.”  At the end of the day, rail supporters were probably heartened by the show of political strength for the project, but the skeptics remained just as skeptical as ever.

A trio of speed limit proposals head to the City Council Transportation Committee tomorrow.  The proposals total 5.4 miles of city streets that would see a limit increase. Half of those miles would see a dramatic increase from 35 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The areas due for an increase are:

• Kester Avenue between Saticoy Street and Victory Boulevard (35 mph increased to 40 mph for 1.5 miles),
• Kester Avenue between Magnolia and Ventura Boulevards (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .9 miles),
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Coldwater Canyon Avenue (35 mph increased to 45 mph for 2.1 miles)
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .3 miles),
• Clybourn Avenue between Strathern and Cohasset Street (35 mph increased to 45 mph for .6 miles)

A team of advocates including representatives from Los Angeles Walks, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Ridazz, an online general assembly of concerned cyclists, is planning to lobby the Committee to hold back the limit increases.  Councilmen have begrudgingly passed similar increases in the past in an effort to support LAPD traffic enforcement.

Until 2004, speed limits were set at the 85th percentile of driver speed on a section of road rounded to the nearest 5 mile increment.  A.B. 529, authored by San Gabriel Valley Democrat Mike Gatto and passed last year,  allows municipalities to round the posted speed limit down no matter how the 85th percentile is to a higher limit.  For example, if the 85th percentile of drivers is driving at 39 miles per hour, and the municipality considers a 40 miles per hour speed limit too high for that stretch of road, it can “round down” to a 35 miles per hour limit.

Don Ward, one of the organizers of Ridazz, writes a personal story explaining why drivers shouldn’t be allowed to set speed limits based on their driving over what is safest for all users, a process Councilman Tom LaBonge referred to as “voting with their pedal.”

“When I think of the lunacy of setting 45mph speed limits on streets like Chandler or Kester or any of the other residential streets of LA I think fondly of my pops, a depression era man and pure fiscal conservative – may he rest in peace. He refused to drive more than about 25 miles per hour any where in LA. This would drive me absolutely bonkers,” writes Ward.

“To which he would chuckle and go into his spiel about the fact that he had carefully crafted his driving style in order to conserve gas, brakes and engine wear… In fact he was a scientist about it…. citing the Burbank traffic grid as the best suited for his methods. And it was true… I would see car after car race ahead of us at 40-50mph only to slam on the brakes for a red light that he eventually floated through on the green, passing those same impatient drivers who now revved their cars back up to speed only to repeat the same mistake again at the next light. “Those people are idiots” he would quip. “They’re wasting their money. Learn to time the lights sonny.” I miss my old man.”

My favorite "Buy Here Pay Here" promotional picture.

Last year, Ken Bensinger at the Los Angeles Times wrote a three part series exposing some of the business practices of these dealerships that create extra hardship for disadvantaged car buyers.  This year, he has continued to follow-up on the issue as these bills were introduced and begin to move in the legislature.  Here is a brief explanation of each piece of legislation:

A.B. 1447, Introduced by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-LA)

A.B. 1447 would actually change three parts of the business strategies of Buy Here Pay Here dealerships.  First, dealers would be required to post the selling cost of the vehicle on the body of the vehicle.  This would prevent dealers from setting prices at the negotiating table based on their estimate of what the seller could afford.  The legislation also prohibits Buy Here Pay Here dealers from hasassing references for the buyer after the sale, requiring cash payments in person from drivers and disabling and tracking cars with GPS systems of payments are late.

“This industry preys on people who have no other options for getting a car,” said Feuer.  “In many parts of our state, auto travel is the only way for parents to get to work on time, or to pick their kids up from school.  Instead of helping Californians get back on their feet by providing needed transportation, these dealers are promoting an endless cycle of debt and joblessness.”

Critics of Feuer’s legislation either argue that instead of passing laws to regulate the entire industry the state should focus on supporting existing laws or that the law is written so broadly that it applies to legitimate car dealerships who include LoJack with their car sales.  Bensinger talked to several opponents in his piece for the Los Angeles Times on A.B. 1447.

S.B. 956, Introduced by Senator Ted Lieu (D-LA)

Senator Lieu’s legislation focuses on the lending practices of the dealerships instead of the car sales.  By handling financing in house but being licensed as a car dealer, Buy Here Pay Here dealerships were able to get around many state financing laws and consumer protections.  Lieu’s legislation would:

• Impose regulations on dealers offering Buy Here, Pay Here installment loans by requiring them to obtain a California Finance Lender’s license, which would provide consumers with an array of protections.
• Limit used-car installment loans to a maximum 17.25 percent interest, which would give California the strongest cap in the nation.
• Change the way Buy Here Pay Here used car dealers are able to repossess vehicles to include grace periods and make it easier for buyers to reinstate a repossessed car.

“Unscrupulous dealers are pushing these types of previously unregulated loans to sell cars for far beyond market value, at interest rates as high as 30 percent,” explains Lieu.  ”They need to either find a conscience or display a sign: Rip-offs R Us.”

Representatives of the industry are arguing that Lieu’s legislation will make it difficult for dealers to sell to people with bad credit.  To here their argument, read the bottom of Bensinger’s article on S.B. 956.

A.B. 1534, Introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont)

Wieckowski’s legislation seeks to reduce the amount that dealers would mark-up their vehicles by arming buyers with information outlining the real value of the vehicle.  A.B. 1534 would require dealers list a value for the car based on a third-party valuation source, such as Kelley Blue Book or the NADA Guide.  The value would take into account the car’s model year, condition and mileage.  While it would provide knowledge to the buyer, it wouldn’t place any restrictions on what the car could be sold for.

This legislation is receiving the same argument from Buy Here Pay Here representatives, that any restrictions on their industry will reduce people of lesser-means’ ability to have access to a car.  It’s also receiving some more credible blowback from dealers worried that the wording of the law would require all dealers of used vehicles to be constantly updating stickers and signage to reflect the new prices.

The automobile industry is expected to weigh in on all three pieces of legislation, but all three bill authors remain optimistic that some legislation regulating this vampire industry will make it to the Governor’s desk.  That’s the value of having a paper with the reach of the Times shine the light on an industry that is doing more harm than good, no lobbying effort will ever be able to turn that light back off.

Beverly Hills Civic Center

(Note, the Beverly Hills Courier points out that they had the story first on Thursday evening despite my call that Patch broke the news. You can read their coverage, here. – DN)

Last Friday, word broke on Patch that a review of the geological studies on the Westside Subway commissioned by the city government of Beverly Hills came to different conclusions than the conclusions authored by Metro’s team of experts.  Exponent-Failure Analysis Associates concludes in the executive summary that:

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the public comment period.

In summary, it is Exponent’s opinion that additional effort is needed to accurately identify,  quantify, rank and mitigate the potential hazards posed by the proposed Westside Subway  Extension Project before one of the two presented alternatives, or a third alternative, are selected  for implementation.

A more detailed analysis of the 70 page study (available here) can be heard at tomorrow’s “Study Session” of the Beverly Hills City Council.  Those that don’t want to wait for tomorrow’s presentation can seemingly engage with City Councilman John Mirisch on the validity of the study by commenting on the Patch article.

Predictably, any action by either side in the on-going grudge match between advocates of the Westside Subway and government representatives in Beverly Hills was met with praise from one side and scorn from the other.  As both sides attempt to work through the other sides’ writings here are a few suggestions.

First: Let’s Agree That Neither Metro’s Experts nor Exponent Consulting Are on the Take

Somehow, it seems to have become a slur for expert geologists, seismologists and engineers to get paid to do studies or give opinions.  First, the NUMBY’s slurred Metro’s experts as being on the take, a charge that went all the way to the pages of L.A. Weekly.  But in return, subway-friendly publications made the exact same charge against Exponent.

Let’s say this, it’s highly unlikely that Metro’s distinguished review panel, which includes Dr. Lucy Jones, a federal employee not compensated for her work, or a publicly traded company that relies on a reputation as non-biased evaluators would risk their reputations for one project.

I’ll admit, that when I read the Patch article on Friday, my first reaction was “of course it says that the Metro report is flawed,” but fortunately I took the weekend to take a beat.  My assumption that the report is flawed because of who paid for it is just as uninformed as the comment from the Unified School District’s Board Chair article assuming the Metro study is based on bad data.

It’s certainly not unheard of for experts to disagree.  Saying “our experts are unbiased researchers; but their experts are bought and paid for” doesn’t really say anything.

Second: Beverly Hills Has the Right to Put Metro Studies Under Thorough Review

Whether they’re concerned about the impacts during construction, the rattling that could be caused by an active subway or whether it “just doesn’t feel right to dig under our school,” as one columnist offered; the City of Beverly Hills can and should submit every study to rigorous review.  At the same time, opponents of digging a tunnel under the school should wait until Metro has a chance to review the review before deciding that Metro’s studies are flawed.

Exponent had three months to review Metro’s documents, it’s only fair to give Metro a chance to review what Exponent wrote.

Third: The Back and Forth Is Going to Get Worse Before It Goes to Court

This is just speculation on my part, but I would posit that whenever the environmental reports are released by Metro that the public relations spin on both sides won’t deviate from what’s already been said.  I’ll also speculate that this whole thing is going to be determined by a court, not by geologic experts or Metro itself.  Judges tend to look down on super-heated rhetoric so it behooves everyone to remain calm.

Tuesday, Wednesday – Metro may have completed the final environmental documents for the Regional Connector, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have one last chance to weigh in before the design state begins in earnest.  You can click the link on the right to visit the Connector’s webpage, or click here to get information for a pair of public meetings on Tuesday and  Wednesday.

Wednesday – We usually don’t publicize events that happen down in Long Beach, but this event seems like such a combination of fun and activism that I couldn’t resist.  Women on Bike SoCal launches a program to double the number of women and girls riding bicycles.  The kickoff includes the announcement of a scholarship program for League of American Cyclists instructors that specialize in teaching women cyclists.  Sounds like a good start.  The kickoff starts at 9 A.M. at Bike Station.  Click here for more details.

Wednesday – Vroom!  More speed limit increases on the agenda.  Fun times for the City Council Transportation Committee as it meets at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall.  Get the details and the agenda, here.

Wednesday – The Living Room on Sunset Boulevard in Silverlake is hosting a fundraiser for the California Bicycle Coalition.  Get the details, here.

Thursday – City Planning and the LA County Department of Public Health are sponsoring a series of workshops on TOD in South L.A. around the Green and Blue Lines.  Get the details on this week’s meeting at Augustus Hawkins Park by clicking here.

Friday – Do you love CicLAvia?  I do.  Get the details on their Valentine’s Day fundraiser, here.

Sunday – L.A. Graffiti Artist LA graffiti artist Galo “MAKE ONE” Canote is back for another workshop! Learn about MAKE’S
creative process as he takes you on a journey into LA street culture and teaches you the fundamentals of letter structure and design.  Get all the details, here.

If there’s an event we missed, please email damien at streetsblog dot org.

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the public comment period.

On Tuesday, the House Republican leadership unveiled its version of the five-year bill. It isn’t just that this bill is so thoroughly partisan that it has no chance of being approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate; it’s that it is less a serious policy document than a wish list for oil lobbyists, and its funding proposals are so radical that they have been decried even by such conservative watchdogs as the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute andTaxpayers for Common Sense.

If you’re feeling angry about the state of transportation politics, reading the Times editorial is a good way to blow off some steam.  But don’t stop there, both Move L.A. and the Bus Riders Union have action alerts to help turn that anger into a little lobbying effort in advance of today’s hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee on transportation bill.

If there aren't changes to SCAG's plans, will there be another lawsuit? Time will tell.

When Attorney General Kamala Harris announced her office was supporing a lawsuit against the allegedly progressive long-term transportation plan passed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), it sent ripples through the transportation advocacy community.  Harris bluntly claimed that SANDAG can’t meet Greenhouse Gas goals set by state law by building highways now and other transportation options later.  She also noted the low amount of funding going towards walking and bicycling in the plan.

Locally, activists hope that the Attorney General’s decision influences long range planning at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG.)  The numbers and planning strategies between the SCAG draft plan and the embattled “final” plan at SANDAG are similar enough that the threat of another lawsuit looms large unless the SCAG plan undergoes some changes.

The SANDAG plan sets aside $2.5 billion for active transportation over the next thirty eight years out of a $214 billion dollar plan for the region.  That’s roughly 1.2% of the program for bicycle and pedestrian projects combined.  But SCAG’s number is even lower.  The local Long Range Plan allocates allocates $6 billion dollars for active transportation, 1.1% of the total $524.7 billion.

Safe Routes to School California leads the charge to increase the amount of funding for active transportation in the SCAG plan.  A recent post on their website encourages people and organizations to sign-on to a letter urging SCAG to increase the active transportation portion of the budget to five to eight percent of the budget, not 1.1%.

L.A. County Public Health Department explains how it came up with the $40 billion need estimate for the SCAG region. Basically, they took the bicycle and pedestrian need based on local bicycle and pedestrian master plans and funded Safe Routes to Schools plans to calculate a "per person" need estimate. Next, they combined that number with an estimated amount to create safe access to transit stations based on an estimate by the Center for Transit Oriented Development. You can see their presentation by clicking on the image. Safe Routes CA also has a detailed explanation

The SRTSCA ask isn’t just a random number.  The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health estimates that the funding need to create an adequate bicycle and pedestrian network in the six-county SCAG area is actually $40 billion, or 7.6% of the SCAG Long Range budget.

SCAG and SANDAG both wrote plans that allocated an impressive amount of resources towards transit expansion.  But each plan has a catch, the funds for transit are allocated at the end of the plan with highway funding coming at the start of the plans.

In the press release announcing her action supporting local lawsuits against the SANDAG plan, Harris notes that the SANDAG plan actually leads to an increase in greenhouse gases, the very thing these plans are supposed to battle, after 2020.  She then lays the blame for that increase at the feet of SANDAG’s addiction to more highway projects.

While greenhouse gases initially decrease in the plan, the EIR shows that after 2020, driving miles will increase and overall greenhouse gas emissions from driving will continue to increase at least until 2050.

The transit plan also prioritizes expanding or extending freeways and highways in its early years, largely deferring investment in public transit projects, such as transit, bicycle and foot paths, when funds may not be available.

The news is similar for the SCAG draft plan.  From the Safe Routes to Schools California blog (emphasis mine):

 The SCAG RTP allocates $6 billion for active transportation.  However, $4.8 billion or 80 percent of this funding is not available until after 2026.  In addition, for the years 2016-2025 the funding for active transportation will be half of what it is currently on an annual basis.

If you want to be involved in changing the SCAG plan, you could sign-up with the Safe Routes to School California’s letter campaign, or submit comments on your own or email comments by February 14 to RTP@scag.ca.gov.

Vea el Streetfilm sin subtítulos, aqui.

After sponsoring two Streetfilms of the first two CicLAvias, Los Angeles’ version of the open streets festival based on Bogota’s Ciclovia, Los Angeles Streetsblog faced a dilemma: How can we continue to cover the event that draws over a hundred thousand Angelenos to the streets?  The Answer? Make a Streetfilm that was accessible to Southern California’s large Spanish-speaking population.

¡Viva CicLAvia! consists of two parts.  First, narrator Mara Corina Arellano Colin explains the history and concept of Los Angeles’ amazing open streets party, including footage and photos from similar festivals in Bogota, Guadalajara, Mexico City, Brussels and Miami.  While the narration is a great explanation of the benefits and culture of CicLAvia, the soul of Social Impact Consulting’s efforts are the interviews with participants.

The next five minutes is a parade of Spanish speakers professing their love of CicLAvia.  Whether it’s the team from South Central’s Mendez Bike Shop, the traffic officer spreading his arms while explaining Viva CicLAvia, or Hollywood’s City Councilman Eric Garcetti; the broad smiles in the Southern California sun give a message in any language.  Giving people more chances to play in the sun is good for Los Angeles.

This Streetfilm marked another first for Streetfilms, a directly reader supported video.  L.A. Streetsblog asked its readers if they wanted a Spanish language film on CicLAvia, and when they said yes, the readers were challenged through a Kick Starter campaign to fund the film.  Needless to say, the readers came through.

Watch here without English subtitles.

• Bike Lanes Coming to Main Street in Downtown Los Angeles (LADOT Bike Blog)
• Gov. Appoints Three Person Panel to Dismantle CRA (Curbed, LAT)
• Michelle Obama Visits SoCal to Promote Healthy Eating (LAT)
• Coming Today: AEG Announces Convention Center Plan (Daily News)
• Public Transportation’s Hidden Gender Imbalance (Atlantic Cities)
• Lobbyists Set Spending Record in Sacramento (LAT)
• Today’s Urban Planners Explore How to Facilitate Pedestrian Desire Lines (The Economist)
• Ten Lessons From the World’s Great Biking Cities (Grist)

Claire Bowin

As you’ll see below, she also has some strong feelings on car parking minimums.

Read the first part of the interview by clicking here, and the second part by reading on.

A lot of planning and development decisions hinge on parking regulations, set by the Planning Department. Critics, including UCLA’s Donald Shoup, have shown these parking minimums to be inconsistent, unhelpful, and biased toward suburban auto-centric development. What’s in store for the future of parking in Los Angeles?

Ah, parking, one of my favorite topics. If you build it they will come- this has certainly been true with parking and cars. Communities, fearful of density and an influx of people and cars, are often the first to demand more parking- not realizing, of course, the self- fulfilling prophecy they’ve put in motion. But, now that we’ve got all these cars and parking lots how can we wean people off of them?

Fortunately, there’s a healthy number of Angelenos who have already reduced their driving habits and car addiction- 55.3% of households here own one or no cars! I love that statistic. It defies every assumption we have about ourselves. And it’s statistics like this that help us make the case to communities and politicians that perhaps we can reduce the amount of parking – especially in areas with high concentrations of land uses, transit, and low car ownership.

To further bolster the argument, we hope, we’re currently evaluating the parking utilization rates around six transit stations around the city. We don’t have the report back yet from the consultant but we know, from similar studies that were completed in recent years for the Downtown and Little Tokyo areas, that there is typically more than ample parking. There is often the perception that there is not enough parking because information about the location of public parking may not be easily visible, or people prefer to find on-street parking that is less plentiful but often cheaper. Too there may be plentiful parking available in private lots that are not available to the public. One strategy might be to work with property owners to make private spaces available to the public during the hours when demand for the private parking is light.

Once the parking research is completed this spring it should help us re-define parking standards in many of our TOD areas. Just as all TOD areas are not the same we don’t imagine that we’ll adopt a singular TOD parking policy.  Instead, we expect that we’ll establish standards that are tailored to each TOD and reflect the unique mix and intensity of its land uses as well as the frequency and density of transit and other modal options.

Does the city ever look at how much it costs to maintain all the streets, sewers, lighting, sidewalks, and other pieces of public property when making planning decisions? Do we try to plan city blocks that pay for themselves or are we dependent on outside funding, and let future generations deal with maintenance obligations?

I can’t admit that I’m well versed in all the intricacies of public works maintenance practices but given the much publicized deferred maintenance of our city streets, not to mention the number of street tree stumps that languish in our parkways (I’ve heard sometimes upward of 20 years!) that we have a funding problem. As I mentioned earlier I think identifying and implementing a capital and maintenance fund is critical in order for the city to fully implement the Mobility Plan. If you have ideas on how and/or where we should obtain the funding (increased gas taxes, property taxes, developer fees etc.) and what types of things we should spend the funding on, please visit ideas.la2b.org and/or attend the next Think Labs on February 25^th and March 3^rd.

LA has had it’s civic plaza and squares, and it’s quaint shopping streets of the 1890′s and early 20th century ruined by an overemphasis on moving cars. What is being done to give back the civic space that was taken? Is this a priority with anyone in City Hall? Do we measure, or even care, about the types of free interactions people have on the streets of LA – if not, why not?

Public space is most definitely a priority and it’s, as I highlighted in a previous answer, something that we’re definitely looking to facilitate as we develop and then implement the Mobility Element. In the meanwhile our Planning Commission President , Bill Roschen, and Simon Pastucha with our Urban Design Studio have been working with Streets for People to look at potential pocket parks that can be carved out of underutilized or remnant street width (similar to what was done in NYC).

How hard would it be to have noise from traffic become a major cause worth caring about in the Planning Department (or any department) in LA?

Traffic noise is certainly an unfortunate by-product of traffic. I was reminded of the impact of traffic noise when visiting NYC last spring. There was still plenty of traffic noise but the city was noticeably quieter thanks to a recent ordinance that banned non-emergency use of vehicle horns. And I can’t tell you how much nicer it was! Even the New Yorkers seemed happier than we typically give them credit for. But I digress, while I agree that walking or bicycling alongside of traffic, is far from pleasant I’d suggest that we focus our energies on providing safe and efficient alternatives to the automobile, which will them translate into less cars and less noise – well, that and perhaps we should also hope electric cars get cheaper and thus more prevalent so that whatever traffic does remain in our “Los Angeles of the Future” at least it will be quiet and won’t produce emissions. Then we’ll have clean air and quiet streets to boot!

Readers: Tell us about your background before coming to City Planning. You worked for Livable Places – you were once one of us – what was your proudest accomplishment there?

Bowin: While at Livable Places I had the wonderful opportunity of working on Olive Court, a 50+ unit affordable homeownership community located one block from the Pacific Coast Highway/Long Beach Boulevard Blue Line Station. The 1.5 acre site which is located directly on Long Beach Boulevard was not, at the time we purchased the property, zoned for housing. The community immediately behind the property was low-density residential and while I often argue that all development around a transit station doesn’t need to be housing it was a good solution here. I am pleased by many aspects of the project, particularly the outdoor community spaces that were designed as key features in the project. The architecture and landscape design teams, which were led by Eric Naslund and Walter Hood respectively, did a beautiful job creating a series of interlocking community spaces. Instead of allocating separate play areas and traditional climbing equipment for young children, the landscape was designed to encourage creative play, gardening, reading, and conversation.

Photo: Waltarr/Flickr

But Bloomekatz reports that lawsuit is the tip of the iceberg:

But there are four other cases pending that could leave the city on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Fixing all of Los Angeles’ sidewalks would be a daunting task: Officials estimate the cost of improving them all would top $1.5 billion. But advocates for the disabled hope they can make a measurable dent in the problem.

The article continues with a series of short quotes from pedestrian advocates, including L.A. Streetsblog Editorial Board Member Deborah Murphy, and disabled pedestrians struggling with the city’s broken network of sidewalks.

Next comes a quote from Council Member Bernard Parks who both criticizes the city for not investing in infrastructure and then excusing not making the investment today based on the city’s budget crisis.

However, Bloomekatz’s research puts lie to that particular claim.  The City of Sacramento dedicates 20% of its pedestrian funds to sidewalk repair.  That level of dedication can make a real impact on the State Capitol, and it could make a real impact here as well.

Los Angeles has a choice to make, it can fix its sidewalks now or it can wait for more court orders.

Claire Bowin

Because Bowin wrote such detailed answers, we decided to split her question and answer into two parts.  Today’s question and answer covers the public outreach for the Mobility Plan that are underway, Transit Oriented Development and Affordable Housing.  The last question, on affordable housing, is almost literally a dissertation on the issue and a must read for anyone that cares about housing, equality, development and TOD.  The second part of the series will run tomorrow.

Readers: The city’s General Plan 1999 Transportation element has all sorts of great language about livability, walkability, transit – but this plan language didn’t really end up with much in the way of results on the ground. How can the Mobility Element update underway do better?

Bowin: It’s amazing how much has changed in the past 13 years- LA is such a different place now than it was in 1999 and I think we’re finally moving towards a community that is truly multi-modal. Measure R’s passage, in 2008, demonstrated again how much Los Angelenos truly support a regional transit system. Measure R is also a good example of how important local leadership and dedicated funding are in ensuring that physical improvements actually get done.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out how important a strong implementation plan (read $$) is going to be if we really want to see the ideas in the Mobility Plan carried out. Without it we can have lots of lofty policies and goals but we won’t get the traction to actually make the many on-the-ground changes that are going to be needed to really attract Los Angelenos to try out new ways of getting around.

 How will the mobility plan assure that we are planning our streets as ‘places’ as well as mobility corridors for pedestrians, cyclists transit riders and drivers?

he mobility plan provides us a real opportunity to re-imagine and repurpose our cities streets. What we’re learning and hearing through the ideas.la2b.org website is that there is a tremendous interest in revitalizing our streets not only for pedestrians and bicyclists and transit, but as an integral part of our public realm. We’ve heard a lot from folks asking us to open some streets once a week, much like we do now for big events like Ciclavia or weekly farmers, and we hope that the plan can set the table for more frequent street openings.

We also want to redesign our streets so that we create permanent public gathering places. Our “main” streets or streets around transit are natural places for this. By widening sidewalks, creating plazas with active uses at the ground floor with concentrations of employment , educational institutions or residential uses nearby we’ll hopefully induce people to naturally spend more time outside, on the street, and not just during “events”. To do this we want to hear from the Los Angeles community about which streets they’d like to see transformed.

We’ve created all kinds of maps that tell us a lot about our city and we’re hoping that folks will come out to our Mobility Think Lab events on February 25th and March 3rd and give us feedback as to where they’d like to see more formal public places encouraged or established. Details about the Think Lab events can be found at our website at: la2b.org.

What flexibility does the City of LA have with regards to the incorporation of Complete Street standards in LA’s Mobility Plan? Can it enhance the standards, is there a minimum framework of Complete Streets standards that serve as a starting point? Is there a Statewide default Complete Streets standard? Can community advocates participate in enhancing LA’s Complete Streets standards?

The City has a lot of flexibility in terms of how we interpret and adapt the California Complete Street Act to our streets. As a complement to the Mobility Element we plan to develop new, Complete Street standards. A big problem today is that the street standards we have were adopted over 50 years ago when the car was truly king. Those standards have proved to be a huge impediment as we try to incorporate wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities into our rights-of-way.

While the state doesn’t establish specific street standards it does direct municipalities, when they update their transportation plans, to accommodate all modes and there’s certainly good examples of “complete streets” that have been implemented in communities around the country that we can look to for guidance.

We expect that many of your readers have lots of great suggestions as to what these new street cross-sections should look like and we certainly hope that we’ll be hearing from them over the next few months. At our first round of workshops coming up on February 25^th and March 3^rd we’ll be asking people to define for us what should be included in the new street standards. More specifically we’ll be asking folks to define for us what should be included in a street where we want to emphasize transit usage, or where we want to give priority for the bicycle.  We’ll also soon be using our ideas.la2b.org website as a place for people to give us ideas for the street sections.

 There’s often a buzz around Transit-Oriented Development, but TOD has happened minimally in the city of Los Angeles, and has often been hampered by L.A.’s car-centric planning codes. How can L.A. do more and better TOD?

The new Citywide Design Guidelines are a step in the right direction towards creating communities that are more supportive of pedestrian and bicycle activities. There are other TOD planning efforts that are currently underway in Warner Center, the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and along the Exposition, Green, and Blue lines that include new development standards that will facilitate a greater range and density of land uses, require projects to build to the property line, prohibit parking in front of buildings, establish active ground floor uses, and require that all buildings have pedestrian entrances that face the street and utilize transparent materials for a large portion of their ground level, street facing facades.

These new land use and design strategies are expected, once the economy begins to recover, to play a large part in stimulating robust growth around transit stations. We’ve also recently been awarded a grant from Metro to develop ten TOD plans around the Crenshaw and Exposition Phase 2 Stations and we’ll be underway with these this Spring. Stay tuned! Our suburban parking standards have certainly been an impediment to good TODs and I’ll tackle that topic in question seven below.

What can Los Angeles’s Planning Department do to ensure adequate supplies of affordable housing? How can affordability be part of future TOD planning?

In order to be a successful, vibrant City in the 21^st Century we need to facilitate the development of quality, affordable housing options for all of our residents. And, locating affordable housing near transit stations does make a lot of sense. But, how we accomplish this is often the subject of much contentious debate.

In the first part of the 20^th Century, government, with mixed results, took the lead in developing housing projects to house many lower income households. During the latter part of the 20^th Century a variety of strategies, including rent control, Section 8 subsidies, and tax increment financing have been established to increase the supply of affordable housing. More recently, market rate developers have been asked to shoulder some of the affordable housing burden by providing a percentage of their units to lower income households in exchange for a variety of incentives that have ranged from increased density and height to reduced parking, open space, and yard requirements.

Before I discuss the various strategies that we can employ to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing at transit stations, let’s first define what is meant by “affordable housing,” who typically builds affordable housing, identify who affordable housing is for, and evaluate what factors influence the cost of housing.

For the purposes of this conversation let’s divide affordable housing into two categories. The first is Affordable housing with a capital “A” which is housing that is rent restricted for at least 30 years. The other is affordable housing with a small “a” which is any housing that is available to a particular income group where the rent does not exceed 30% of their gross income. The advantage of Affordable housing is that its rent levels are restricted and therefore the low (80% Area Median Income-AMI), very low (50% AMI), and very, very, very low (35% AMI) income families who Affordable housing developments are typically oriented towards can be confident that their rent will not increase beyond what they can reasonably afford. Inflation and an increase in market demand can spur the rent of affordable units to increase the rent to the point where it is no longer affordable. (Note: Median income in Los Angeles for a family of four is roughly $68,000.)

Who is affordable housing for?  Well, everyone really. Regardless of their income (I’m talking about the 99% here) most households can’t afford to spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Even median, moderate (100-120% AMI) and workforce (up to 150% AMI) households often struggle to find decent, affordable housing but its truly the most vulnerable members of our society who are most at risk when there isn’t an adequate supply of affordable or Affordable housing targeted for their income levels. This vulnerable population can include a wide range of family and household types from the student, to the part-time worker, to the low-wage earner, to the self-employed, to those with circumstances that may impair their ability to work at all.

Who builds and/or owns Affordable and affordable housing? Affordable housing is mostly built by developers (both non-profit and for-profit) who have decided that they want to be in the business of building Affordable housing, have learned to navigate the complex rules of local, State and Federal housing programs to obtain the necessary financing to provide Affordable units, and have implemented good, sound management practices to ensure that their developments provide a safe, clean, and quality housing option. A smaller number of Affordable units are developed by market rate developers who elect to pursue an increase in their allowable floor area ratio (FAR) in exchange for setting aside a proscribed number of units for low or very low income households.

On the other hand, affordable housing occurs largely by happenstance, an older building with few or minimal amenities may have rents that are lower than, and thus more affordable, than newer-built housing, or a new building may be built with modest amenities in a part of town where the land prices are a bit cheaper. In these cases the rents may be actually equivalent to the prevailing “market rate” for that area but still within reach of a low or median income household.

Why is housing so expensive and what can be done to control the cost of housing? There are several factors that influence the cost of housing.  One major factor is the cost of land. Land prices are influenced by a variety of factors including location, the permitted land uses and floor area ratio (FAR). Another related feature is the amount of supply relative to the demand. An area with little supply and high demand (Westside) will typically have higher rents than an area with abundant supply and less demand (Riverside).

The number of units that can be built on a given parcel also influences the cost of housing. A developer needs to pay back his investors and/or the lenders who provided him/her the financing to purchase the land and design and construct the building and therefore the developer is typically going to build as many units as he is allowed. Because many communities are adverse to increases in density they often lobby to limit the number of units that can be built on a particular site.

For example, if the FAR of a particular site allows a developer to build a building of 100,000 square feet but the density cap limits the number of units he can build to 100 he’s going to build 1,000 square feet units. And let’s say that each unit is going to rent for $2.00/square foot. That’s $2,000 per month. But, if the developer wasn’t limited in the number of units he could build and instead he builds 133 units that are 750 square feet each at the same $2.00 per square feet those units would rent for $1,500.  The amount of parking required by a jurisdiction also dramatically influences the cost of housing. Parking, especially underground parking, can run as high as $45,000 per parking space and the cost of constructing this parking needs to recovered somehow and is typically passed on to the tenant or new owner which increases the rental or purchase price of a unit. Even surface parking isn’t free – it takes up land area that the developer paid for but can’t develop on.

So, what are our options and how do we facilitate the development of both Affordable and affordable units, especially in TOD areas where land prices are expected to increase?

To help encourage the development of more Affordable units we’re working with the Los Angeles Housing Department to see how we might further increase the amount of funding in the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Unfortunately, due to the reductions in the State budget, funding for Affordable Housing continues to dwindle and of course the recent elimination of redevelopment agencies has put a huge dent in the Affordable funding pot.

Affordable units can also be realized at TODs through the use of the Density Bonus Ordinance which provides up to a 35% density increase for projects that set-aside a percentage of their units as Affordable. The majority of projects that utilize the density bonus are completed by developers who obtain public funding but some Affordable units are also achieved by market rate developers who elect to include Affordable units in exchange for the increased density.

Because limited funding continues to constrain the number of Affordable units that can be built we’re also pursuing strategies that would expand the number of affordable units that could get built in TOD areas. Unfortunately, much of the housing that is getting built today is luxury housing that is outside the affordability of not only low-income households, but often stretches the resources of moderate and workforce households.

So, what strategies can we use to facilitate the development of affordable housing around TODs? Because we are talking about TODs we have the opportunity to try some things that most likely would not be welcome in other parts of the City. One way to keep rents lower would be to eliminate the density cap so that developers’ would be encouraged to build more, smaller units within their allowable FAR. To protect against units getting too small we could establish minimum unit sizes for each bedroom type. For example, we could limit a two-bedroom unit to no less than 750 square feet. We could eliminate or dramatically reduce the parking requirement. We could also require that parking be unbundled from the cost of the unit so that a household only needs to absorb the cost of renting the parking that they need. What better incentive is there to give up the car?