Streetsblog Los Angeles

Technically, tonight's community meeting is on all of these projects. However five of them are expected to draw more attention than the others.

Tonight, city officials with LADOT and City Planning will present the environmental documents for five Bike Plan projects in West Los Angeles. Highlighting the list of projects is a proposal by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) to restripe 1.6 miles of Westwood Boulevard between National Boulevard and Santa Monica Avenue to create a “floating” bike lane in each direction. LADOT has said they would back such a plan if there were community support.

The proposed floating bike lane for Westwood between National and Santa Monica Boulevards. Image by LACBC via Rancho Park Online

Basically, if a floating bike lane were installed, the city paint what would at first glance appear to be multiple bike lanes. During different periods of the day, the street configuration would change. For example, during off-peak hours there would be car parking along each curb, then a bike lane, then two mixed use travel lanes and a turn lane, then another bike lane, parking, and the alternate curb. At rush hour, there would be two lanes in one direction and one in the other (it changes pending which rush hour) with a turn lane and bike lanes hugging the curb.

For more information on how floating bike lanes work, read this case study from San Francisco. It states that the design, while not perfect, generally works.

While not perfect, with its slightly confusing, unorthodox design, it successfully accommodates cyclists, part-time on-street parking, and motorists needing additional capacity during peak hours. It does so with minimal signs, leading one to conclude that while the design is unorthodox, it uses fairly predictable road-user behavior to its advantage. Cyclists naturally tend to stay to the right, and motorists will use a space even if it is not clearly for their use if traffic congestion reaches certain levels and the space is reasonably accommodating.

Following 150 riders attending the Ride Westwood! ride and rally the previous Saturday, the LACBC’s Eric Bruins attended the Westside Neighborhood Council meeting on Valentine’s Day to press for the “floating bike lanes.” In advance of his meeting, some on the Council circulated a letter deriding the plan, encouraging attendance and even stating that “even the local cyclists find the proposal unworkable.” More of the letter is available at Biking in L.A.

Despite the email blast, Rancho Park Online reported that most of the people in attendance that spoke were in favor of the proposed changes. Conversely, most of those on the Neighborhood Council were skeptical. Read more…

“I’m lonely,” a man half-jokingly testified at the LADOT’s Public Hearing in support of the First Year Bike Lanes last Thursday night. “My friends find [riding in the street] terrifying.”

Terror, safety, and loneliness seemed to be the major themes of the night for many of the 37 advocates that spoke in favor of implementation of the draft plans that would add several miles of bike lanes to Central and South L.A.

On behalf of fiancées, girlfriends, little sisters, partners, and friends — male and female — that were said to be “terrified” to ride streets that didn’t have lanes, many of those offering comments asked the planners to not only implement the proposed lanes as quickly as possible, but to take extra steps to make sure they linked up to other lanes and were protected lanes wherever possible.

Making the streets feel safe and welcoming to women was of particular interest to a number of speakers. Several mentioned knowing women who wanted to ride or would sometimes ride where lanes were present, but who refused to risk taking their lives into their own hands where there was no such infrastructure, even when accompanied by experienced friends or partners.

As one cyclist explained, he might have convinced his fiancée to take a dedicated bike lane to work, but he was not able to ride with her and his little sister recreationally, such as to a USC game, because there weren’t lanes connecting his home to the campus. He and other experienced riders felt that while the absence of bike lanes was manageable, having to constantly fight for space and endure harassment was frustrating and would be too intimidating for beginners. Most, they feared, would be afraid to try their hand at riding alone.

Others testified that it was precisely the existence of bike lanes had been instrumental in getting them to take their first rides in the street. One man from Los Feliz described how he began commuting by bike after observing lanes popping up around the neighborhood and realizing he could ride dedicated lanes the whole way to work.

Still, bike lanes alone are not enough to make people feel completely safe. Some speakers mentioned that even the green and buffered lanes downtown are conveniently disregarded when drivers have other priorities on their minds.

Protected lanes might be costly, said one man, referring to the presentation made by LADOT staff about the enhancements planned for Figueroa Ave., but the increased safety and the long-term benefits of encouraging more people to ride would outweigh them. Read more…

Map of proposed bike lanes scheduled for implementation in the first year of the 2010 Bike Plan (image courtesy LADOT)

When I think “Valentine’s Day,” I think “bike lanes.”

OK, maybe that’s a lie and I am more likely to think “CHOCOLATE!” than “Hearing to Support New Bike Lanes in South Los Angeles!” But this year, the LADOT has decided to help us all spice up our love lives by holding a hearing specifically designed to bring us closer to finding that special someone whose passions drive them to unique feats of heroism, like lobbying in support of the bike lanes in the Central and South areas of L.A.

OK, so maybe that is not completely true, either, and the folks at LADOT just happen to be some of the least romantically-inclined people on the planet. Either way, we still need your support!

The public hearing is one of four events created to gather feedback on the traffic and safety impacts of the nearly 40 miles of bicycle lanes evaluated in the recently released Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and scheduled to be implemented this year. The projects are spread around the city, including along Sunset Blvd., Vermont Ave, 7th Street, Cesar Chavez Ave., “strategic gap closures” like Venice Blvd, and Figueroa Ave., the city’s first proposed protected bicycle lanes or ”cycle tracks” (part of the MyFig Streetscape project). According to planner David Somers, lanes like those proposed along Sunset Blvd. will move us toward greater network connectivity by “provid[ing] a direct connection [from] the neighborhoods of Hollywood, Silver Lake, and Echo Park to Downtown by a continuous bikeway.”

Sounds great, right? So, why the need for you to drag your honey to a hearing? Read more…

Downtown view from the Blue Line (photo: sahra)

Tonight, the city’s Community Development Department (CDD), will hold a community meeting in South L.A. (details below) to present the 2013-2017 Draft Consolidated Plan and solicit feedback from residents about the Mayor’s proposals for how to spend millions in federal funds to assist very-low, low-, and moderate-income communities around the city.

Despite the low turnout at the first set of meetings, attendees hit upon many of the key issues affecting the area. At each gathering, residents highlighted the need for affordable housing, access to social services (mental health, elderly, family, and youth), access to various levels of job training and placement, and significant investments in economic development.

The emphasis on housing was certainly no surprise to administrators. City-wide, approximately 29,000 families are on the wait-list for public housing while 7,000-plus remain on the Section 8 wait-list, which has been closed since 2005. Residents were also concerned about the preservation of existing housing. At the Southwest L.A. community meeting, for example, the 14 attendees spoke about the need to ensure that new developments along transit or shopping corridors did not displace current residents. In the South and Southeast L.A. meetings, residents expressed the need for affordable housing that was also beautiful, with greenery and safe park spaces for families to enjoy.

Concerns about the state of South L.A. youth appeared paramount. In Watts, residents spoke about how youth suffered from a lack of access to mentors, services, job training or placement, arts education, recreational facilities and activities, technology in schools, and safe passage. Along the Vermont corridor, residents echoed many of these same concerns and also spoke about the need for greater assistance for youth in foster care, community centers, and the creation of safer environments, including gang violence reduction and a better relationship with law enforcement.

All of the communities wanted better access to good-paying jobs and the services (skills centers, etc.) that might help residents get hired for such jobs. And, in areas along growing transit corridors or undergoing a revitalization, like Southwest L.A., residents discussed their desire to see the city aid and protect existing business owners, facilitate more local business ownership, and protect and enhance existing community assets.

The concerns and aspirations heard at the meetings, as well as consultations with local organizations, business improvement districts, advocacy groups and service providers, hopefully help to give planners some site- and needs-specificity to some of the more generalized feedback about needs and priorities gathered via almost 1100 community needs assessment surveys. Read more…

39.5 miles of bicycle lanes on congested streets and the My Figueroa Project are headed towards environmental clearance following release of a DEIR and a new law signed by Governor Brown. Map via: The 2010 Bicycle Plan - First Year of the First Five-Year Implementation Strategy and the Figueroa Streetscape Project

When Governor Jerry Brown signed A.B. 2245 into law, a law allowing certain bicycle projects to opt-out of the CEQA process, the news was somewhat buried. On the same day, the Governor vetoed the “Give Me 3″ safety legislation that created a legal buffer between cyclists and passing automobiles earning the scorn of cyclists everywhere.

While the veto of Give Me 3 is still a sore subject, cyclists can take solace that the City of Los Angeles is taking advantage of A.B. 2245 to speed up bicycle, and even some pedestrian, projects in Los Angeles.

When the Department of City Planning unveiled the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the next five years of bicycle plan implementation and the My Figueroa! project, one small paragraph in Section II shows how the game has changed.

In September 2012, Governor Brown signed in to law Assembly Bill (AB) 2245, which allows re-striping of  urban roadways to proceed under a Statutory Exemption as long as a traffic and safety analysis is prepared  and hearings are held in affected areas…The city will not be certifying the EIR or preparing a Final EIR. Rather, Notices of Exemption will be filed pursuant to 1) California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.20.5 (c)(2) – for the bicycle lanes and 2) CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Sections 15301, 15304, and 15311 for the streetscape improvements proposed as part of the My Figueroa Project.

In plain English, the city is opting out of the lengthy EIR process for the rest of the certification and using the public outreach, traffic and safety studies to meet the requirements of A.B. 2245. This will save the city money and months of planning and allow many projects to move forward on an accelerated timeline. At this point, neither LADOT or City Planning were able to release a timeline on when each of these projects or the sensational My Figueroa! project will move forward. Read more…

Tracks at South Crenshaw Blvd. (near 67th), looking east. (photo: sahra)

At the end of 2012, LA/2B, the project to revamp the Mobility Element of the General Plan for L.A, announced they had narrowed down the feedback gathered during more than a year’s worth of public engagement to six draft goals and their corresponding policies.

The six goals include finding ways to put street Safety first, building a World-Class Infrastructure, providing better transit Access for All Angelenos, helping people, agencies, and businesses make better transportation decisions through Informed Choices, choosing policies that help us achieve a Clean Environment & Healthy Communities, and finding the best approach to promote Smart Investments in our transportation system.

Angelenos are invited to vote on the policies they feel will best move each of the goals forward. More importantly for South L.A. residents, perhaps, there are opportunities for people to add their thoughts on the goals or policies. Last August, I wrote about how LA/2B had struggled in their efforts to reach out to South L.A. Considering how much higher transit use is among South L.A. residents — almost 18% vs. 11% city-wide — and the fact that many users don’t have other means of transportation at their disposal, ensuring these voices make it into the mix is important.

Of greatest interest to area residents might be the opportunity to suggest improvements to the Draft Transit-Enhanced Network for North-South and East-West streets. Streets intended for enhancements that fully or partially run through South L.A. include: Read more…

The view from the Slauson stop, Metro Blue Line (photo: sahra)

Just before the Christmas holiday, the Department of City Planning released the Preliminary Drafts of the New Community Plans for South and Southeast Los Angeles. The plans, along with those for the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park area, together comprise the approximately 45-square mile South L.A. Planning Region. It is an area that Principal City Planner Faisal Roble acknowledged to Curbed in May 2012 had long been neglected with regard to planning (with the Crenshaw Corridor being the key exception).

That neglect is what makes the scope of what the city hopes to achieve in the region both incredibly impressive and somewhat confusing. Impressive in that the plans seek to encourage high-quality development along existing transit lines, preserve industrial sites to draw new jobs in clean tech industries, deal with blight and community-identified concerns (such as the prevalence of liquor stores, fast food joints, or auto shops), attract new businesses (such as sit-down restaurants and grocery stores) and encourage economic revitalization, preserve the residential character of stable and historical neighborhoods, promote walkability by reclassifying major streets and adding other ped-friendly improvements, and promote greater access to public transit (even as approximately 17% of residents already use public transit as opposed to 11% city-wide).

The goals are laudable and appear to be aimed at building a more livable and economically stable South L.A. while preserving the best elements of its culture, character, and community.

My confusion had to do with trying to understand how all of this was going to come to fruition. Past attempts to make over the area have yielded little in the way of results.

Despite public and private sector declarations of their dedication to the cause, few of the investments promised after the uprisings of 1992 managed to take root and bear any kind of genuinely transformational fruit.

More recently, the region was hit hard by the foreclosure crisis. Its residents were also the first to lose jobs in the recession, prompting the L.A. Times to declare last April that the economic outlook for African Americans in some parts of the area to be even bleaker than it was at the time of the riots. In the same piece, researcher Chris Tilly, director of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, makes the case that private investment is not particularly good at rescuing depressed areas. What is needed, he said, was a combination of “muscular public investment” (particularly in education) and strong economic growth. Read more…

A man, a beer, his bicycle, and his city. At Radio Rd. in Montecito Hts. (c) sahra

“Are they going to actually listen to what I have to say?” a South L.A. community leader asked when I talked to him about getting involved with the LA/2B project (the effort to integrate Complete Streets principles and community input into the Mobility Element of the City’s General Plan).

It is a question that many in South L.A. ask with regard to the City of Los Angeles.

Residents often feel that they haven’t been asked their opinion enough in the past. In instances when they have been asked, they are frustrated that their input never seems to materialize in the form of changes in their neighborhoods. Or, when changes do occur, they are not in line with residents’ needs or priorities.

So, when the City does genuinely want residents’ input on something, as it does with LA/2B, planners are finding themselves fighting a bit of an uphill battle. While the four LA/2B outreach events held in the Central and East Valley sections of the city earlier this year were well-received, smaller community meetings held in South L.A. have yielded few attendees and little in the way of results.

Other outreach efforts have not fared much better.

Of the 2500 “Great Streets, Great Neighborhoods” kits (asking residents to share their vision for their neighborhood, rank their priorities, and map out opportunities for and barriers to mobility) sent to neighborhood councils and other community groups in June, only about 50 have come back so far. While they expect more kits to be returned during September, planners know the feedback may be incomplete. In South L.A., as in many parts of town, the neighborhood councils can be out of touch with the needs or aspirations of the wider population that may occupy a lower socio-economic stratum and have fewer choices with regard to transit. Other community groups, while in touch with their constituency, may not have the capacity, resources, or time to hold workshops with residents for a project that isn’t directly linked to their normal operations.

Attempts to facilitate participation through an online portal have also largely failed to reach those in South L.A. While 80% of L.A. districts are represented in the 700-plus responses received online, there are “huge gaps” in participation from South L.A. and the East Valley, according to Jane Choi of the Department of City Planning.

In South L.A., the gap is due, at least in part, to the limited access to the Internet of some in the area and different use patterns of those online.

The kind of topics discussed on the site may also not have resonated with residents. Read more…