Mobility Plan 2035 envisions a multimodal transportation future, with enhanced facilities for walking, bicycling, driving, and riding transit. It sets an important Vision Zero policy target to eliminate all traffic fatalities in the city by 2035. The plan has numerous shortcomings, including continued road-widening, substandard crosswalks, and little in the way of actual assured implementation. Nonetheless, it has generated a backlash among car-focused Angelenos, who claim they are planning to go to court to undo its approval.
Posts from the City Planning Category
After a lengthy and contentious debate, the full Los Angeles City Council approved the city’s new Mobility Plan, the Transportation Element of the city’s General Plan. Mobility Plan 2035 replaces the city’s former transportation plan in effect since 1999. The final vote was 12 in favor, with only Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Gil Cedillo opposing.
The approved plan places a high priority on traffic safety, including making Vision Zero official citywide policy. L.A. is now committed to “decrease transportation-related fatality rate to zero by 2035.”
Public testimony was limited to 20 minutes, and was heavily in favor of plan approval.
A number of councilmembers offered amending motions that would have removed specific bikeway components from the plan:
- Councilmember Koretz continued to press til the last moment to remove Westwood Boulevard from the bikeway network. Ultimately, he forced a vote, which lost with only three councilmembers in support.
- Councilmember Gil Cedillo continued to press for pretty much all future Council District 1 bikeways to be removed from the plan, as his staff had proposed in committee last week. When Cedillo questioned Department of City Planning staff about these modifications, they responded that a change of that magnitude was likely to trigger additional environmental studies.
- Councilmember Curren Price proposed removing Central Avenue from the bikeway network
- Councilmember David Ryu proposed removing 4th Street from the bikeway network.
Other than the Koretz motion, which was voted down, the rest of the proposed amendments will be heard later, in a joint meeting of the Planning and Transportation committees anticipated in September.
Councilmembers Jose Huizar and Mike Bonin showed strong livability leadership in ensuring committee and council approval, and staving off piecemeal amendments. Ultimately, Huizar and Bonin were able to shepherd plan approval with only two council amendments. In committee, Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson added that the plan would include equity in implementation. Today, Councilmember Ryu added that plan implementation would consider public safety and community input in implementation. Read more…
Streetsblog readers may be familiar with earlier coverage including from when Mobility Plan 2035 passed the city’s Planning Commission in May. If current trends continue, the relatively-multi-modal plan may look archaic by 2035, but it is nonetheless a big step in the right direction today. The Mobility Plan includes Vision Zero, a program to eliminate all traffic fatalities by 2035. In addition, the plan creates a series of network streets prioritizing various modes including walking, driving, transit and bicycling. Once adopted, the new plan would replace the one currently in effect: the 1999 Transportation Element of the city’s General Plan.
The two committees are chaired by arguably the best livability leaders on the City Council. Jose Huizar chairs PLUM, and Mike Bonin chairs Transportation. In his introductory remarks, Councilmember Bonin decried that L.A. has been “too long autocentric” and that this plan helps the city to catch up with multi-modal transportation already increasingly embraced by the public. Staff leadership from the Department of City Planning (DCP) and Department of Transportation (LADOT) then presented the plan as a “balanced approach,” a “policy shift,” and a “recognition that we can’t build our way out of traffic congestion.”
Staff’s presentation was followed by more than fifty public comments. Similar to the Planning Commission hearing, the vast majority of speakers were in favor of adopting the plan as is, while a sizable minority, primarily focused on opposing Westwood Boulevard bike lanes, spoke against. Opponents stated that Westwood bike lanes would be “a disaster” and that the plan would not serve the “85 percent who must drive cars.”
Bonin and Huizar were adept in staving off two councilmembers pushing to undermine the plan’s bikeways. Councilmember Koretz, claiming to be pro-bike based on his late-1990s support of West Hollywood’s Santa Monica Boulevard bike lanes, repeatedly asserted that Westwood Boulevard should be removed from the plan’s bikeway network, and that Westwood Boulevard really needs 16.5 foot wide lanes. Councilmember Cedillo was even more aggressively opposed to bikeway improvements, sending staff to request that the committees remove nearly all of the plan’s designated future bike facilities in his council district: a dozen streets listed here. Reacting to Koretz’s prolonged insistence on eliminating his Westwood facility, Councilmembers Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Felipe Fuentes responded that they’d like to see the opposite – more facilities implemented sooner in their districts.
Ultimately the full plan was passed unanimously by both committees, with both the Koretz and Cedillo motions postponed to be heard later in committees. The approval included a handful of minor amendments, including one from Councilmember Harris-Dawson that equity be a key factor in facility implementation.
The full Mobility Plan is expected to be heard at the full City Council some time next week.
More coverage of yesterday’s plan approval at KPCC.
The City of Los Angeles is in the process of updating the transportation portion of the city’s General Plan. The new citywide transportation plan is called Mobility Plan 2035. The Mobility Plan was recently approved by the City Planning Commission. It is expected to go to a joint meeting of the City Council’s Transportation and Planning and Land Use Management committees next week, on Tuesday June 23.
Though it could go further, there’s a lot for livability advocates to like in the latest version of the Plan. More than the 1999 plan in effect today, Mobility Plan 2035 outlines a multi-modal future for Los Angeles, including complete streets, less road widening, and a Vision Zero commitment to make streets dramatically safer for everyone.
The latest version of the Mobility Plan has a great deal of support from a fairly diverse spectrum of interests – from active transportation allies to the business community. At the Planning Commission hearing, supporters included the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA), Lyft, the Sierra Club, T.R.U.S.T. South L.A., Community Health Councils, the L.A. County Department of Public Health, and many others. But, because the Mobility Plan shows a future that some Angelenos stuck in their cars aren’t used to, it’s starting to get just a bit of backlash, for example, this topsy-turvy CityWatch commentary.
The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Los Angeles Walks, and others, have called today “Mobility Monday L.A.” They urge people who bike, walk, use transit, drive, live, and/or breathe in the city of Los Angeles to contact City Council representatives and urge support for the plan. For lots more details, see the Bike Coalition alert page. Councilmember information and sample wording are after the jump. Read more…
Department of City Planning (DCP) staff emphasized that the city “cannot widen our way out of congestion” and that this multi-modal plan will provide choices, by making a “conscious shift toward complete streets.”
The commission heard just over thirty people provide public testimony on the plan; the vast majority of speakers spoke in favor of the plan’s livability components. Speakers urging plan approval included representatives of L.A. Walks, Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic (FAST), Pacoima Beautiful, T.R.U.S.T. South L.A., the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, the L.A. City Bicycle Advisory Committee, Community Health Councils, Climate Resolve, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the L.A. County Department of Public Health. Business interests in favor of the plan included the Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) and Lyft.
Livability proponents tended to emphasize the health and safety benefits of the plan, especially Vision Zero. The Vision Zero component of the plan would specifically “decrease transportation-related fatality rates to zero by 2035.”
One lightning rod issue that drew critical testimony was the inclusion of a half-mile of bike lanes on Westwood Boulevard between Wellworth Avenue and Le Conte Avenue, immediately south of UCLA. The Transportation Deputy for Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz attended today’s hearing, testifying specifically for removing Westwood Blvd from the Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) in the plan. About a dozen speakers expressed support for the Westwood Blvd bike lanes, with one speaker in opposition. Commission president David Ambroz asked DCP staff their opinion regarding the Westwood bikeway; senior city planner Claire Bowin recommended that the Westwood lanes remain in the Mobility Plan, but that they not necessarily be implemented right away. Ultimately the disputed half-mile remained in the approved plan, although Councilmember Koretz may push to remove it when the plan is heard before the City Council. Read more…
Your Moment of City-Planning Zen: Lulu Guides You Through the Community Plan Implementation Overlay Tool
How will South L.A. develop over the next twenty years?
It’s the question city planners working on the Southeast and South Los Angeles Community Plans have been asking themselves for the past several years. As draft plans move closer to finalization, the decisions they make now about how the communities will be structured and zoned will guide future growth, impact the creation of economic opportunity, safeguard (or change) neighborhood character, and (hopefully) enhance the quality of life there over many years to come.
The new video City Planning just released (above, also available in Spanish) explains the role of the Community Plan Implementation Overlay (CPIO) tool. Where the goals, policies, and programs of the community plans are aspirational, the video suggests, the CPIO can provide the teeth necessary to help bring the specific vision of a community or neighborhood to life.
The ten-minute, easy-to-follow video is narrated by a cheerful, animated Lulu (who sounds kind of depressed in the Spanish version), who claims to be a long-time South L.A. resident (she’s actually voiced by city planner Haydee Urita-Lopez). She explains that the CPIO puts restrictions on nuisance land uses, provides incentives for desired developments, and establishes rules that will guide the appearance of new (or remodeled) structures.
There is a brief tutorial on how the CPIO has broken up each of the communities into four districts — Corridors Districts, Transit-Oriented Districts, Industrial Districts, and Residential Standards Districts — and explains (briefly) how its rules will guide development in each. Read more…
Data lovers can now nerd out on a new website that collects Bay Area transportation data and puts it into customizable maps and charts to play with.
Vital Signs is part of an effort by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to make its performance measures and data more accessible to the public. It also lays the groundwork to measure the effects of Plan Bay Area, which was adopted in July 2013 after a state law mandated each region to produce a plan for smart growth oriented around transit.
The first rollout of the interactive website includes transportation data from a variety of sources, including the US Census. Land use data is scheduled to be added in March, followed in June by stats on the economy and the environment including job creation, housing affordability, emissions, fuel sales, and traffic injuries, according to Dave Vautin, a senior planner at MTC who is managing the project.
“This project is about transparency,” said Vautin. “We’ve opened up the data so anyone can do an analysis, mixing and matching data in about forty issue areas.”
Currently, users can inspect and play with data on commute mode, congestion, transit ridership, vehicle miles traveled, and pavement and road conditions.
I’ve been thinking about Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti’s recent motion to help Metro partner on joint development of affordable housing near stations. Also, Garcetti-ally L.A. City Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell expressed support for reducing parking requirements in new affordable housing developments along transit corridors, to “help lower construction costs and therefore rents.”
So, I figure it is time to offer some of my sage advice.
I don’t know that Garcetti, O’Farrell, Metro, or city departments need my advice, but I’ll go ahead and offer four suggestions on how Southern California can foster transit-oriented affordable housing. None of these are easy. They would involve different governmental agencies operating on different timelines. But perhaps a number of these measures could combine over time to overcome some of our systemic biases for sprawl and against infill transit-oriented development (TOD) and make a dent in L.A.’s affordable housing shortage.
1. Additional Metro Joint Development Sites
Garcetti’s motion [PDF] to the Metro Board of Directors encourages housing at Metro owned-sites on the five new rail lines under construction. These are good places for affordable housing, but there are a lot more joint development sites among Metro’s holdings. It is possible that some projects that I am not aware of could already be underway at some of these sites. Here are three categories of additional Metro site that come to my mind:
- Existing stations: Just in my Koreatown neighborhood, I’d like to see joint development of affordable housing on top of the Vermont/Beverly and Vermont/Santa Monica Blvd/LACC Red Line stations. These aren’t big vacant lots (like some of Metro’s Boyle Heights vacant lots, currently in early development stages) so housing would likely be directly over the station portal, similar to Hollywood/Western Red Line Station.
- Existing transit parking lots: I think that there are fairly low-hanging fruit opportunities for development at the stations that are at the end-of-line until further extensions open: Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line station and Culver City Expo Line Station. I know Metro tried and failed to jointly develop the San Fernando Valley Red Line parking lots, in part due to excessive replacement parking requirements. It’s going to take some creative architect/developer to balance some needs for parking at these sites (in the short run.) They’re not going to go from 100 percent parking to 100 percent housing overnight, but they should remain under consideration for future joint development, ideally, mixed-use affordable housing with retail.
- Existing Metro bus parking areas: It bugs me that, on prime mid-city real estate on Wilshire Boulevard at Shatto Place, immediately east of the busy Vermont/Wilshire Red Line station TOD, Metro has a large bus layover surface parking lot that appears 95 percent empty 95 percent of the time. It looks as though Metro employees park cars there, too. Yes, Metro needs bus parking in this area and I expect that bus parking inside a building isn’t easy; it’s going to need high ceilings, large turning radii, etc., but it is not rocket science. The Wilshire surface lot could be jointly developed as affordable housing on top of Metro bus parking, hopefully with walkable, maybe retail, frontage on Wilshire. There’s another similar bus parking site at 6th Street and Oxford, just around the corner from the Wilshire/Western Purple Line station.
2. Separate “Un-Bundle” Parking from Housing
Right now, when someone rents or buys housing in Southern California, the price automatically includes a couple of parking spaces. Whether you use them or not. For homebuyers, this can mean $20,000-$30,000+ per parking space. This parking is “bundled” with the cost of the housing. Cities can un-bundle the parking, with individuals and families renting/purchasing only as many parking spaces as they actually use. Un-bundling is L.A. City policy in some areas, mainly the recently-approved Cornfield-Arroyo Seco “CASP” plan area north of downtown L.A. Un-bundled parking is a staple in adaptive re-use projects downtown, too. If you live in a building that doesn’t have parking, and you need parking, then you rent parking space nearby.
The Los Angeles City Planning Commission hosted its initial review of the city’s proposed new transportation plan, called Mobility Plan 2035. The meeting included Department of City Planning (DCP) staff presentations, public testimony, and discussion by planning commissioners. At the end of today’s hearing, the Planning Commission voted to direct planning staff to:
- incorporate planning commissioner comments into a revised version of the plan
- create a separate document specifying priorities and implementation strategy
- return to the Planning Commission in April 2015, when the plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is expected to be complete
DCP has made 34 pages of revisions to the draft plan released two weeks ago. Planning staff stated that they expect to post the revisions document later today at the LA2B website.
It is encouraging that among its revisions the plan will use the broadly accepted meaning of Vision Zero, not the partial version proposed in the previous draft. The plan, as currently proposed, includes this goal:
Vision Zero: Decrease transportation-related fatality rate to zero by 2035.
Public testimony included representatives from various business groups, L.A. Chamber of Commerce, Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA), the L.A. County Business Federation, and others speaking in support of keeping the plan’s proposed Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN – profiled here.)
The L.A. County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and Cyclists Inciting Change thru Live Exchange (C.I.C.L.E.) supported the Bicycle Enhanced Network, and the plan’s overall “aspirations.” Los Angeles Walks founder (and Streetsblog L.A. board member) Deborah Murphy suggested that the plan needs to “go further,” including by outlining a clear “strict process” for making streets more livable.
Also testifying were South Los Angeles groups, including TRUST South L.A. and Community Health Councils, which supported the plan’s focus on safer streets. Read more…
The City of Los Angeles is updating its primary transportation plan, something it hasn’t done since 1999. The new Mobility Plan 2035, authored by the City Planning Department (DCP), will be before the city’s Planning Commission tomorrow.
There is some welcome stuff — especially in the vision statements — in the latest draft Mobility Plan. It is better than 1999’s plan. But what gets most stuck in my personal craw is road-widening.
This is 2014. Vehicle miles driven are declining. We’re building five rail lines. We spent a billion dollars widening the 405 Freeway only to experience slower commute times. Greenhouse gas reduction legislation is mandating sustainable communities. And Los Angeles is about to reaffirm its self-destructive policy of continuing to widen the crap out of the majority of our already built-out road network.
Briefly, how street-widening plans work in L.A.: Perhaps 100 years ago, someone (usually the city or developers) built a street. Let’s say said street was and is 50 feet wide. During the post-WWII car-centric planning era, following the latest car-centric traffic engineering standards, DCP decided that the 50-foot wide road should really be 60 feet wide. Someone buys a property on this street with the intention of tearing down the existing building and replacing it with a new one. DCP mandates that when that new building goes up, the developer must pay to widen the street to some or all of that now “missing” 10 feet, typically half of it, sometimes more. So, in this case, the developer loses a 5-foot strip of land which goes toward widening the street. Corner lots, perhaps the most desirable for visibility and foot traffic, often lose two strips of land, one for each street that they front. In theory, all of the properties on the street would be redeveloped and the whole length of the street would be up to the new standard, but that could take hundreds of years.
Civilized nations like Pasadena and even Downtown Los Angeles ended street widening practices a while ago.
Some folks already read this when I opined about it this past May, but one especially heinous example just three blocks from where I live, walk, and bike is Beverly Boulevard. In L.A.’s most population-dense neighborhood, alongside the Metro Red Line subway station, Beverly would be widened from 78 feet to 110 feet. Really. Beverly is just one of many streets that DCP wants to widen.
I urge the Planning Commission to reject the Mobility Plan unless it explicitly ends road widening.
Here are my top ten reasons to end road widening:
1. The City Can’t Afford to Maintain Wider Streets – Wider roads are more expensive for the city to maintain. With gas tax revenues at their lowest inflation-adjusted levels ever, transportation funding is scarce at the federal, state, and local level. The feds resorted to budget gimmicks, including “pension-smoothing,” to make up for huge transportation funding shortfalls. Los Angeles is looking to its own budget gimmicks, including closing parking tax loopholes, to fund street resurfacing, which L.A. already has trouble keeping up with. Though it is apparently on hold, L.A. was also looking to float a $3+ billion road repair bond.
The first thing we should be doing when we find ourselves in a hole like this is to stop digging. Stop the bleeding. Stop the road widening. Though roads seem cheap when the feds or developers pay to build or widen them, excessively unnecessarily wide roads come with excessive maintenance costs. They are ticking fiscal time-bombs for cities. (Thanks to Strong Towns for getting me thinking about this in this way.)
2. Widening Hurts the Local Economy – Street-widening requirements drive up the cost of new development. New housing, retail, etc., is not only required to pay to build a chunk of new street (up to 32 feet wide in the Beverly example above), but that development also loses that strip from what can be developed, meaning a smaller building footprint, so less housing, less retail… not to mention impacts on public projects: less park, less school, less library, less transit station, etc.
3. Widening Hurts Affordable Housing – A noteworthy subset of item 2 above, shaving that road-widening dedication off of housing parcels drives up the cost of housing. This is especially true in core older neighborhoods where streets are at sane dimensions but not up to the latest car-centric standards. As Mayor Garcetti pushes Metro to step up joint development of affordable housing at transit stations, let’s not dedicate a bunch more of that land to streets when it should go to housing.