At 1:00 P.M. down at Metro Headquarters Board Room, the Metro Board Planning and Programming Committee will vote on a staff proposal to accept a "hybrid alternative" to the Route 2 Terminus project.  Last week, Streetsblog discussed the broken process that led to the "hybrid" where the community proposed a design that would have calmed traffic and added open space to the road but LADOT rejected that proposal because it didn't do anything to add capacity to the road.  Basically, all three agencies had to agree on a design, and despite Metro's approval of the local design, it had to "compromise" with the LADOT on what is now being called the "hybrid option."

There's just one small problem.  The "hybrid option" has never been studied, yet Metro now seems determined to push this option as the "locally preferred alternative."  Not only was this option not included in any environmental documents, it doesn't appear on Metro's project website and doesn't even appear on a documents on the alternatives that are being considered on the project website.

Unfortunately, Metro isn't just violating its contract with the community to have an open and transparent process by pushing an alternative that hasn't been studied; it's also possibly violating state law concerning environmental review.  After all, if agencies can just add an alternative at the end of the environmental review without studying it and declaring it the "preferred alternative;" then what is the point of the review in the first place?

The local community, which had worked hard on its own alternative that increased open space and viewed the road as a public resource, not a sewer to flush cars through, isn't going to give up without a fight.  The following excerpt is from a letter they sent to Metro staff and board members in advance of today's meeting.

Today's vote provides an interesting challenge for the Metro Board.  What is more important to them?  Voting to preserve the public process, empower a community and follow environmental regulations; or bending over backwards to widen a street and funnel even more traffic into a community that doesn't want it.

In the summer of 2008, when Streetsblog first announced its "1% for bikes, 1% for peds. campaign" in what would later be known as Measure R, we never thought that a year and a half later we would still be fighting that fight nor that we would be close to a partial victory.  

Tomorrow, the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee will be discussing how the city will program its share of the Local Return funds from Measure R.  Following the mayor's promise that Los Angeles would set aside a portion of its Measure R funds for non-motorized transportation; the LADOT and Council Members have been living up to Villaraigosa's promise by programming 10% of the city's Local Return funds for these modes in every version of the budget that has come to light.  Building on the campaign launched here last summer, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition has been organizing transportation, public health, and environmental groups to keep the 10% set-aside alive.

However, the process of actually allocating those funds has been a slow one.  It was back in May when Council Members Bernard Parks and Jose Huizar first proposed projects to be funded by Measure R and later in the month when then Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel outline for the city's Measure R share.  Over the next six months, different reports from the Chief Legislative Office have arrived spelling out a dire economic climate and different proposals for the city's Measure R funds.  Tomorrow, the city departments working on the proposed budgets are asking for another sixty day extension.  A copy of the proposal, with a project list to be funded at the end, can be found here.

So what's the hold-up?  Unfortunately, the sad state of the city's finances have complicated the issue of what to do with a new funding source.  The CLO's report notes that the city is expecting shortfalls in various transportation funds and has to raise a "local match" for some Measure R projects within city limits.

When it comes to raising funds for "local match," the city has to raise 3% of funds for construction of:

• Crenshaw Transit Corridor
• Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit
• Green Line Extension to Los Angeles International Airport
• Regional Connector San Fernando Valley 1-405
• Corridor Connection San Fernando Valley
• North-South Rapidways (Canoga Corridor)
• San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways Westside Subway Extension

According to the CLO, that comes to a cool $200 million.  Given the mayor's stated goal of completing all transit projects within ten years, the LADOT and Council will be under pressure to front-load transit funding which could lead to a reduced ability to set aside bicycle and pedestrian funds.

In addition, the city is expecting shortfalls from the two transit taxes that make up the bulk of the city's transportation budget which could lead to a delayed time lime for some projects and a combination of fare hikes and service cuts for the D.A.S.H. buses.

On top of that, remember those first motions by Parks and Huizar mentioned above?  Each of those motions directs Measure R funds towards specific projects.  In Parks' case it would fund intersection improvements near the Foshay Learning Center.  Huizar wants further study for the Downtown Streetcar.

Despite all of these projects pulling what are quite honestly a limited amount of Measure R funds, just under $21 million dollars for the current fiscal year, it's honestly surprising that the bicycle/pedestrian set-aside has lasted this long.  Maybe the tide is turning when it comes to setting aside money for non-motorized transportation at 200 Spring Street?  I guess we'll have to wait another 60 days to find out for sure.

During our ride on Friday, Steven Frien wondered a couple of times why there wasn't talk of having a bicycle lane on 1st Street running parallel to the Gold Line on First Street .  Later in the day, during The Source's review of our review of the Gold Line, Steve Hymon upped the score by asking why there wasn't better bike planning along the entire route.  After all, we know how much bike parking there is at every station, wouldn't it be nice to have a bike network to keep those racks full?

A look at the Draft Bike Plan shows a lot of opportunities for the area around the lane.  Those yellow dotted lines are "potential bike lanes," the purple one is a "proposed bike route," and the blue dotted lines are for "potential bicycle friendly routes."  However, dotted lines on a map are just dotted lines on a map.  LADOT confirms there are no timelines for any of these street improvements in East, L.A.  Now, we can rely on LADOT to work with Metro to do the right thing, or we can put some pressure on the agencies ourselves.

The first thing we can do is to use the public comment function at the Official or Unofficial Bike Plan websites to let the city know that East L.A. deserves a transportation system that is truly multi-modal and that the plan should move from paper to pavement quickly surrounding the extension.  However, just sending comments to city staff isn't going to get the job done.

Fortunately, the Gold Line has two representatives on the Metro Board of Directors, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina.  A little pressure on their offices will lead to a little pressure on Metro to get more involved in providing funding for a bike network for the Eastside Extension.  You can find contact information for Huizar and Molina at their official websites.

Of course, L.A. County has its own Bike Plan and public process.  We'll be back with a look at that plan and what the next steps for the Eastside Extension should be.

 It's not often that we cover news out of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), but a recent study funded by the City of Los Angeles and SCAG on the "last mile" problem has led to a report sponsored by the city that is all about getting people out of their cars. The report was presented by LADOT Chief Rita Robinson and Planning General Manager Gail Goldberg at a meeting this morning, then again by SCAG to regional stakeholders this afternoon.

While the report is progressive, it's rare to see a report talking about getting people out of their cars with a "City of Los Angeles" crest on it, it's just a report. While Robinson may like many of the ideas in the report, it's still up to advocates and elected officials to get these ideas off the paper and onto the streets.

Just after this morning's presentation ended, Robinson was speaking in front of the Transportation Commission about the massive cuts coming to LADOT. Even for a department that has the goal of moving as much automobile traffic as possible, now seems the perfect time to investigate low cost alternatives to get people out of their cars instead of expensive and time-consuming highway and road expansions.

The study team, led by consultants from Nelson Nygaard, was charged with focusing on the "last mile" problem. For those of you unfamiliar with the "last mile" problem, it is a term created to describe the barrier many car commuters feel to taking transit or other options to single-passenger vehicle commuting. Informally I call it the, "I would take the train but the closest stop is so far away from my house/office."

Broadly, the strategies studied should:

1. Get people out of their car
2. Provide incentives to help households avoid needing multiple cars
3. Help cities meet the standards of SB 375

From there the team came up with thirteen strategies that would help cities, especially Los Angeles, meet those goals. They then narrowed down the list of thirteen to a list of six strategies that aren't already being studied by another organization. The six transportation modes that SCAG, City of L.A. and their consultants want to expand are: casual carpooling, taxi's, car sharing, short-term car rental, bike sharing, folding bikes.

For a full copy of SCAG's presentation, click here. For a synopsis of the six strategies and some editorial commentary, read on after the jump.

Casual Carpooling - I honestly had never heard of this before, but apparently it's all the rage in the Bay Area. Areas are set up where people can meet to form a carpool in lots and other areas near freeways to decrease the amount of cars coming into the city. In other words, there would be space where I get on the I-10 on my way to Church on Sunday where I could pick people up that were heading to the Whole Foods which is close to my destination. With these strangers on board, I could use the carpool lane on my entrance ramp.

Taxi's - The study identified that the main fear people have towards using taxi's is the unknown cost of taking the vehicle. The report recommends requiring taxi's to charge based on distance traveled, "zone fares," instead of time traveled so that passengers would know the cost ahead of time. There was a concern on the SCAG call that drivers, already underpaid for their work, would balk at this sort of change.

Car Sharing - I think we're all familiar with ZipCar and its history. We've talked about it at length. However, the report recommended studying city-supported car sharing that would lead to reducing the city's vehicle fleet and save the city money. While that strategy is something that Streetsblog has discussed a couple of times; this is the first time we've seen it in print in a government document.

Short-Term Car Rental - Is similar to car sharing except you rent a car as though you were going to Hertz instead of being part of a membership organization such as ZipCar.

Bike Sharing - Who wants to bring a Velib to Greater Los Angeles? Wendy Greuel did at one point, but LADOT balked at both the price and the state of bike infrastructure in the city. The study identified several ways to encourage bike sharing in the big city. First, Los Angeles should clarify city code to allow bike share lockers and locations on government property. Second, they could allow developers to build in bike, or car, share locations instead of putting aside funds for road mitigation. Third, the city could embark on its own program and off-set the cost with advertisers.

Folding Bikes on Transit - Metro is studying a program that would subsidize the cost of folding bikes for transit users to get more bikes on trains and buses. Currently it is legal to bring a folding bike into buses or trains at any time. Not so for regular bikes.

The issues that sparked the most discussion were car sharing, short term rentals and bike sharing.  Because a public partner would be needed to bring, or in the case of car-sharing, expand, the program; each of these three ideas are low-cost to the local government be it a goliath such as Los Angeles or a smaller city such as Walnut.

Of course, the big issue is whether or not any of these ideas will ever see life outside of a presentation.  Hopefully, the city's involvement in the presentation will lead to taking the lead on implementation.

The community preferred Alternative D via The Eastsider

However, the progressives in Echo Park are pushing a plan that would actually increase open space and beautify the community. By changing the freeway bridge crossing above Glendale Boulevard into a public space with greenspace, enhancing the area around the historic Tommy Lasorda Field of Dreams; the community is pushing a third-way to deal with traffic instead of just looking at "expand" and "do nothing." The community-preferred-alternative, Alterntative D, was not included in the early environmental studies done by "transportation professionals" on behalf of Metro and were only included because of a massive community effort.

Earlier this summer, the residents seemed to have convinced Metro staff that their alternative was the best alternative and the agency pledged support at a community meeting. However, the community's plans were dashed last week when Metro held a presentation that The Eastsider dubbed, "(a meeting where) MTA officials will explain why the agency can't get behind the residents' proposal and will need more time and money to study yet another idea to untangle what's officially called the State Route 2 Terminus." Instead of sticking with "Alternative D," Metro is proposing a "hybrid" alternative that takes pieces from many of the proposals outlined in the environmental documents. The only community meeting, besides the Metro Board process which will begin at next Wednesday's Planning and Programming Committee Meeting, was the one held last week.

So what does the community think of the new proposed "locally preferred alternative?" According to The Eastsider, not much:

The idea, as presented to Lassen and other residents, keeps the bridge over Glendale Boulevard for motorists and realigns some other lanes. That would fall far short of what Lassen and others have wanted.

So what happened? Why the change in heart from backing a progressive community design to where we are now? Would you be surprised to discover that the black hat in the story is riding a horse named LADOT?

The Echo Park Community Action Committee's most recent newsletter laid out the positions and logic of all of the transportation agencies that are part of the Terminus Study. While it knocked Metro for supporting an alternative in public but not pushing it with the other agencies, and Caltrans for backing the hybrid; it reserved its harshest criticism for the asphalt-lovers at LADOT. Directly from the newsletter:

In addition to just ignoring the wishes of the community, the new design also ignores the initial purpose of the study which was, as local blog Red Car Property tells us was, "removing vehicle traffic from the southbound flyover ramp at the Terminus." Instead, the new plan could add traffic to a stretch of road that then-Council Woman Jackie Goldberg described as dangerous and unsafe.

Could you imagine the reaction if a similar plan were proposed for a street on the Westside? Residents there will go to the mat over removing some parking, bringing in their Council Members and making a key issue in a local council race. All of that begs the question, where is Eric Garcetti?

Two years ago I poked the LADOT and LAPD for not putting out safety tips for Halloween.  Sure enough, last year an email arrived in my inbox announcing the Department's advice to parents, children and drivers on All Hallows Eve.

The LADOT released some very similar looking advice for this year. After a list of good for young pedestrians and their parents; there's a quote from General Manager Rita Robinson encouraging parents to take the safety of their children seriously.

While there's nothing to argue with in the content of the release, there is something to say about what the release is missing.  There's eleven suggestions for parents and children and just a sentence for drivers.  The release should have spent more time on driver safety, after all it takes two to make a crash and distracted drivers are more of a menace tomorrow night than any other night of the year. 

To help out for next year, here are some suggestions for the Halloween 2010 release:

On Halloween evening, there will be more children walking the streets than any other night of the year, some of whom will be wearing dark colored clothing. The LADOT reminds drivers to:

1. Drive even more slowly than usual on surface streets and residential street
2. Have your lights on even if it's not dark
3. Pay attention to the road at all times.
   

Any other suggestions?  Feel free to leave them in the comments section.  The release can be found after the jump, which is a especially helpful because the link to the release from the Watch the Road website doesn't work.  (update: they've updated the link, it works here: ttp://www.ladot.lacity.org/pdf/PDF170.pdf)

TRICK-OR-TREATERS ON HALLOWEEN
LOS ANGELES (October 28, 2009)—

The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) wants to remind parents that Halloween is a great time to teach children about pedestrian and traffic safety.

LADOT has issued simple guidelines that will help safeguard children on Halloween night and whenever they walk in their neighborhoods at night.
1.    Adults should accompany children to make sure safety rules are followed.
2.    Cross streets only at intersections and look both ways before crossing a street.
3.    Walk within crosswalks.
4.    Wear white or reflective clothing so that costumes are bright enough to be seen at night by motorists.
5.    Add reflective tape to bags to collect treats.
6.    Choose costumes that are flame-retardant.
7.    Children should carry flashlights.
8.    Walk in well-lit areas.
9.    Remove any masks before crossing streets.
10.    Look before crossing driveways to make sure vehicles are not backing up.
11.    Never cross a street in the middle of the block or between parked vehicles.

The best safety lesson parents can teach to their children is to model the correct pedestrian behavior.
“Halloween is a great time to start,” said Rita L. Robinson, general manager, LADOT. “When children see their parents are cautious and looking both ways before crossing the street, children will internalize the value of being safe citizens,” said Robinson.

LADOT wants to remind drivers that pedestrian safety is their responsibility too and they should drive carefully whenever children are present. Every school day, LADOT crossing guards or traffic officers are assigned to monitor elementary school crossings for student volume, motorist traffic and other factors.

LADOT is dedicated to moving Los Angeles forward as quickly and safely as possible. Drivers, bus riders, bicyclists and pedestrians are encouraged to visit LADOT’s website at www.ladot.lacity.org for information about DASH, Commuter Express, bicycling in the City and an array of transportation services.

For more information about pedestrian safety, visit the Watch the Road website at www.watchtheroad.org.

Area commuters can visit the Department’s website for real-time traffic and parking facilities information. Real-time traffic reports are a product of LADOT, innovators of the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control System (ATSAC) technology.
###

The passage of Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan last week has helped heat up a national conversation about Los Angeles, how it grows, how it moves and the future of our Metropolis.  Of course, Diane Meyer's "World Without a Car" exhibit has people locally thinking outside the auto; but others are picking up the conversation such as the Transport Politic and Think Progress' Matt Yglessias. However, that debate shows us one critical missing link in our transportation planning.

We still don't know how Angelenos move from place to place.  For the most part, we're still reliant on census figures that only ask about commuting trends, traditionally under-count people of lesser means and definately under-count immigrants.  Recently, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, in their most recent report on how the city is going to spend its Measure R funds, reported that combined, 3.6% of Angelenos commute by bicycle or by walking in Los Angeles based on figures provided by the Southern California Association of Governments.  Outside of major projects or reports that require them, the city does not do bicycle or pedestrian counts leaving planners reliant on bad statistics or guesswork based on personal observations and biases.

When commenting to the Council on the report, I wondered how 96.4% of people commute without walking at all; but of course I realize that they are referring to the dominant mode in the commute.  However, that number shouldn't be used as an excuse to under-fund pedestrian improvements.  After all, the city worker that drives from the Valley to the large parking lot to the West of City Hall is reliant on safe crossings to get from his car to the office, just as the dedicated pedestrian is reliant on a series of safe crossings to get from place to place.

But if the city is reliant on census figures that over-count the number of car-reliant transportation trips, then advocates for car alternatives are always going to be behind the game.  For example, my wife is a car commuter when she's not on maternity leave, but I would estimate that less than half of her total trips involve getting in her car.  Trips to the store, park, Farmer's Market, gym, and around the neighborhood are done on foot or on bike.  The census, the data source relied on by the city, completely discounts those trips because it only measures commuter trips.

What do you see? A city transportation study would see one van. Photo: aisipos/Flickr

The situation has become so dire that the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition has begun measuring its own bike counts, and news organizations have begun running their own polls to try and get a picture of what's actually happening on the street.  While a recent poll by the LA Downtown News' results were similar to those completed by City Planning, the unscientific method of asking one's readers how they commute, will certainly lead to those results being dismissed.

Speaking of City Planning, the process that created the new Downtown Street Standards included bicycle and pedestrian counts and those standards are amongst the most progressive ones in the county.  The standards promote bike lanes, sidewalk widenings and open space.  When an agency bothers to actually check what's happening, the results are planning documents that favor "non-motorized transportation."  For more on the street standards, listen to Streetsblog interview the Urban Design Studio's Emily Gabel-Luddy.

As the city moves forward with it's Bike Plan and other community plans, it's past time that it begins gathering data on it's own about the effected areas.  Relying on the census and the guesswork of engineers who have looked at their job as finding the best way to move cars is only going to lead to wider roads, unhealthy communities and a rising Car Culture, even as that way of planning wanes in the major cities around the United States.

At last week's meeting of the City Council Transportation Committee, LADOT's Alan Willis presented on the status that the DOT has made with the owners of the Greek Theatre, Hollywood Bowl, Coliseum, Sports Arena, former Olympic Auditorium and Dodger Stadium in getting these traffic attractors to pay for their own traffic officers. In response to the budget crisis, the city has cut the budget to pay for special event traffic and parking officers for their events from $6 million to $2 million.

While the reasons for this cut have less to do with transportation policy and more to do with budgetary reasons; it's good and overdue to see the city ending what is basically a subsidy for drivers. After all, now that these agencies are going to pay their own way on traffic control, they'll probably pass the real transportation costs of the event on to the people that drive to the venue. 

Naturally, the response from the media is that Carmageddon may be upon us.

The Times ran the understated headline "Los Angeles budget crisis' main event: gridlock" for an article that actually took pains to explain that the change would lead to a very small decrease in the number of traffic officers on the street.  KPCC called the effort to force private corporations to pay for their own traffic control a "bailout," before a detailed article on the loans and other moves made by the Council to support the LADOT.

As a matter of fact, only the Sports Arena is going to opt out of paying for city traffic control officers so fans of sports, theater and music won't see much of a change on the street, but may eventually see a change in the parking costs as agencies seek the easiest way to recoup the costs of the parking control officers.

Signaled out for special praise both at the Council meeting by Willis and in the Times article was the Los Angeles Dodgers who quickly struck a deal with the city that removed only one person from one intersection leaving three traffic control officers at that place.  Howard Suskin, speaking on behalf of the Dodgers, explains.

"We believe that working cooperatively with the department of transportation that we have a deployment plan that will have no interruptions," said Howard Sunkin, senior vice president of the McCourt Group, which owns the Dodgers. "The level of service at those intersections for our fans and our neighborhoods will continue."

It's too bad that commitment to their fans doesn't extend to transit users.  You may remember that the Dodgers refused to lift a finger to continue last season's free Dodger Shuttle bus service and even sneered at the city's efforts at a public event.

The blogosphere has quite a few critiques of the plan including those by Stephen Box, Alex Thompson, Green LA Girl, and Dan Gutierrez. L.A. StreetsBlog has run various reviews (including one by this author) of the initial May 2009 maps, and last week featured Box's scathing article which declared that the plan "fails on three levels, based on content, based on process, and based on commitment."

The plan has a wide assortment of specifics - from mountain biking policy to signage specifications to commuting statistics, and much more. This article analyzes and enumerates problems with the bikeway facilities listed in the plan. The draft bikeway facilities are: non-committal in their language, sloppy, and perhaps illegal. Details follow after the jump.

Many Los Angeles bike advocacy successes in recent years have stemmed from facilities designated in the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan. These include bike lanes on Reseda Boulevard, Silver Lake Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard, and others.

Many of the plan's technical specifics end up being fairly malleable. For example, the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan approved a "program for meter mounted bicycle parking" but when LADOT bikeways staff encountered resistance on this, they, without amending the bike plan, smartly shifted to the familiar inverted-U racks.

Hence the facilities are a very critical part of the plan.

Bike Facility Language is Non-Committal

When the initial May maps were released, bicyclists reacted strongly to the classification of "currently infeasible" for most of the bike-lane-designated streets from the city's 1996 plan. Bike activists responded that this "infeasible" wording was inappropriate. The new September maps, contained in chapter 4 of the draft plan, responded to bicyclist concerns by changing the wording from "infeasible" to "potential" bike lanes.

In comparing the 1996 plan to the 2009 draft, the city's language for all bikeways has been downgraded. The 1996 plan shows bikeway facilities as "designated" while the current draft update calls them "proposed." If the city is serious about completing these planned facilities, it should carry forward the designation language into the current plan.

Bike Facility Chapters Are Sloppy

There are actually two different versions of the city bike plan on-line, and they're different, depending on how one accesses them. One can download the entire plan in one fell swoop, or download it separately chapter by chapter.

Here's a detail of page C9 downloaded as part of the entire plan:

Page C9 detail

Here's the very same page C9 downloaded as part of just Appendix C:

The very same Page C9 detail, but looking different.

These look very different, no? Which of these is available for review at the city's libraries? Perhaps the public should be given 45 days to review each version - so 90 days in total? These two appear to possibly be the same document, just sorted differently... or maybe one sorted and one randomized... but the author didn't have time to verify if they're actually the same list. Perhaps one of them has more bikeways than the other... difficult to tell.

Page citations in this article are based on the 2nd version - the separately down-loadable version - the one sorted in no discernible order. Your results may vary if you download a different version than the author.

Has any bicyclist out there ridden on the city's Avenue 88? Probably not, because it turns out that there is no Avenue 88 in Los Angeles. That doesn't stop the draft (p. C-19) from designating... er... proposing that bike lanes should go on Avenue 88.

How about Chanlder Blvd? Wiill Rogers Street? Sanland Blvd? Tenesse Ave? Murfield Road? These are typos, of course, and this author will probably have a typo in this article. In addition to their role in serving to promote Will Campbell's bike blog [sic], the errors make it difficult to search the document electronically.

The list of existing bike routes (page C-6 to C-8) is especially riddled with errors. It's missing the mile lengths for all these facilities. Many of the facilities are just wrong: has anyone biked the existing bike route on 4th Street from Olympic Blvd to Boyle Av? Probably not, because 4th doesn't actually intersect Olympic in Los Angeles. How about Griffin Avenue (located in Highland Park) from Burbank Blvd to Hartsook Street (both in the Valley)? No wonder they lack mile lengths... because these and another dozen or so listed just don't make any sense.

Then there are the maps.

The maps lack portions of the western end of the San Fernando Valley. Perhaps it's an honest error - it's difficult to fit the whole Valley onto 6 pages... but it actually drops an existing bikeway from the plan - the bike lanes on Burbank Blvd from Valerie Avenue to Valley Circle Blvd. A portion of Pacific Palisades is similarly omitted, dropping part of the planned extension of the beach bike path.

Introducing the Metro Gray Line?

The existing bike paths shown in the Sepulveda Basin are incorrect. It shows a bike bridge over the LA River that doesn't exist.

The Valley and South L.A. maps include street names, but the West and Central L.A. maps don't.

It now appears that the city has changed the maps since the original files were posted; today West and Central have street names. See for yourself - the old version is shown at the top of this article. The new maps are in Chapter 4 here.

This alteration, presumably done with good intent (to fix an error) brings up some questions: shouldn't document changes trigger at least a new 45-day review period? Shouldn't the review period start after the city finishes making changes to the documents that it has released? How do cyclists know that the city didn't downgrade another bikeway facility while they were revising the maps? The city did these sorts of downgrades between the May and September map versions - for example York Blvd went from Bike Friendly Street to Potential Bike Lane. Did it do additional downgrades between the September and October maps? It would build trust if the city would openly and transparently announce these sorts of post-release changes. The city should also leave the old versions on-line, so that bicyclists could double-check them.

The maps are inconsistent with the bikeway listing in the appendix. For example, on page C-16, Woodman Ave from Sherman Way to Chanlder [sic] Blvd is listed as a "proposed" bikeway so it should be in green, but the map shows it in orange, the color for a "potential" bikeway. The same is true for Centinela Ave from Mitchell Ave to Venice Blvd (page C-20).

Is the Wholesale Downgrading of Bike Lanes Legal?

The city is attempting to update the bike plan without subjecting the new version to environmental review. LADOT representatives have repeatedly stressed the plan can't remove any street space from cars, because that would subject the plan to an EIR which the city hasn't budgeted for.

At the same time, the plan downgrades (or in some cases omits) more than 60 miles of streets already designated for bike lanes. On page 41, the plan states a net loss of 57 miles of designated bike lanes, but the overall total is probably closer to 100 miles based on this author's rough calculations.

In the absence of environmental review, it may well be no more legal to upgrade bike designation than it is to downgrade bike designation. If the city is going to trash its prior plan, then it opens itself up to lawsuits from bicycle advocates.

At the October 6th BAC meeting, the Planning Department committed to reviewing this issue with the City Attorney.

Where Does the Plan Go From Here?

One possible solution would be for the city to merely add the new facilities in the current draft update to the previously designated facilities in the prior plan. This will likely not please many of the plan's most vocal critics who are openly calling to "destroy this bike plan" and start over... but, it could allow the money spent on this plan to result in a small step forward for the city.

While the city does this revision, it could also proof-read the plan, fix errors and inconsistencies, and publish a new draft. At that point, it should give the public at least 60 days to review and comment on the new version.

Last night, during an email conversation between myself, Stephen Box, Dr. Alex Thompson, Ted Rogers and Joe Linton; we were discussing the updated Draft Bike Plan now available on the official Bike Plan website.  Linton commented that the original draft maps, the ones that caused such large debate back in June, were no longer available on the website, all that was available was the updated Draft Plan.

However, both Dr. Thompson and Rogers had copies of the maps available on their hard drives; which they emailed to the group and I've uploaded to the Streetsblog servers.  Linton noticed that some streets were downgraded from the maps released last June in the current Draft Plan.  However, with the originally released maps no longer available on the official site, it would be nigh impossible for a member of the public to be able to comment intelligently on the differences between the original maps and the ones in the current plan.  So we agreed to help fill that gap.

The updated maps for Draft Bike Plan can be found on pages 5-21 here.

The original map for the Harbor Area can be found on Streetsblog's servers here.

The original map for the Valley can be found on Streetsblog's servers here.

The original map for the Westside, Central, and Downtown can be found on Streetsblog's servers here.

The Bike Writer's Collective huddles at last night's B.A.C Meeting. Photo: Stephen Box/Facebook

It may have been a few months late, but last night's review of the proposed new bike plan by the Bicycle Advisory Committee had enough fireworks for the fourth of July.

From BAC Chair Glenn Bailey to a small, but passionate group of audience members, a number of people expressed their anger about the plan - particularly about the short amount of time allowed for public review.

As a result, the committee voted to request an extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010, rather than the current deadline of November 6 of this year. The unanimous vote reflected unusual agreement between committee members who voiced support for the plan and those who expressed problems with significant parts of it.

However, all agreed that after the seemingly endless delays in releasing the plan, the public deserved more time to review the 212 page document. As Stephen Box put it, noting that L.A. allows more time to review new sanitation plans, it makes it appear that in the city's eyes, "Cyclists rate below trash."

While they said it might be possible to extend the deadline, none of the representatives of DOT in attendance claimed the authority to do so, nor did they explain the process required to get an extension.

A brief introduction to a very complex plan

The affable Jordann Turner from the Dept. of City Planning lead the council through a brief overview of the proposed bike plan, intended to replace the original 1996 bike plan that was reauthorized by the council in 2007 to remain eligible for federal funding.

As Turner noted, the goal of the plan is to create a continuous bicycle system that extends throughout the city, with a system of collector routes that would leave no resident more than a mile from the network. The plan also creates a technical design handbook that would provide design guidance for all bicycle types and roadway situations, and form a template for city agencies to follow.

He also touched on the conflicts inherent in off-road cycling within the city, as various groups, including cyclists, hikers and equestrians battle for limited trail space. Turner said the city had brought in a professional negotiator to try to develop recommendations that would accommodate all users.

In addition, the plan attempts to prioritize projects so they can be identified and move forward quickly as funding becomes available. And it was suggested that it's not difficult process to amend the plan, so if anyone thinks something was missed, they should offer suggestions on how it can be changed.

There was also talk that one more workshop may be scheduled for East L.A., though no details were available.

A mixed reaction from the committee

While a handful of committee members expressed satisfaction with the plan - and one member even suggested cyclists should be grateful for "what they have now" - several of the panel members expressed serious concerns.

Brad House, representing the 15th Council District, asked why the Cyclist's Bill of Rights wasn't included in the bike plan. Michele Mowery, Senior Bicycle Coordinator for LADOT, said that portions of the CBOR that the city has jurisdiction over were incorporated into the plan, while some parts that the city doesn't have jurisdiction over were left out.

That lead much eye rolling in the audience, particularly from Box, who later expressed amazement that any part of it would be "outside the city's jurisdiction," and questioned just what those parts could be.

Thirteenth District representative Joe Linton voiced his frustration that the current plan included 50 fewer miles of bikeways than the plan adopted 13 years earlier. "That seems like a retreat from the '96 plan, which was already a little whimpy." And he complained that streets that had formerly been listed as "designated" for bike lanes were now considered merely "proposed."

The real fireworks came from Chair Person Glenn Bailey, who showed visible anger as he complained about the short window for comments, noting that only a 6-day period was allotted for all four scheduled workshops. He went on to suggest that every Neighborhood Council in the city should receive the same bike plan CD that had been provided to the committee. "What would that cost? Twenty-five cents times 89? Let's get it out there."

And he drew a round of applause from the audience for insisting that the bike plan should have the rule of law if it's adopted by the council.

Police HQ bike parking, and other matters

While the bike plan took up most of the evening's discussion, more sparks flew when a motion was made to hold the next meeting at Deaton Auditorium in the new police headquarters downtown.

Box complained about inadequate bicycle parking at the new building, pointing out that the street level parking was at the far edge of the facility, behind nine planters and completely out of view from any watchful eyes. His wife Enci pointed out that no woman would feel comfortable leaving her bike there, especially after dark.

Bailey explained out that additional bike parking was included in the plans for the parking garage; however, he was not allowed access when he attempted to examine it. A motion was finally passed to hold the next meeting at Deaton, but to request that LAPD provide safe and secure bike parking prior to the meeting; Bailey also suggested that riders be allowed to bring their bikes inside the auditorium.

Other matters included requesting that space for bikes be maintained on Westwood Blvd during and after construction of the Expo line, and that bikes be accommodated in any redesign of Pico and Olympic Boulevards.

Tuesday night also marked the first meeting for Ramona Marks, the panel's newest member, and currently, the only woman on the panel, representing District 1. Marks is the current membership coordinator for the Friends of the Los Angeles River and has served as Treasurer for the Bicycle Kitchen.

Photo: Joe Linton

On Sunday September 20th, LADOT striped the northern half of their 1-mile project. New bike lanes were striped on Reseda Boulevard from Chatsworth Street to San Fernando Mission Road. In addition, the LADOT took this opportunity to stripe some of the stretch north of SF Mission Rd, most of the way up to the 118 Freeway. Unfortunately, they left a short gap at the 118 Freeway on-ramps and bridge, so the new lanes don't quite connect with the existing bike lanes on Rinaldi Street or the Reseda Blvd lanes north of Rinaldi.

The second (southern) half of the promised lanes - on Reseda Blvd from Chatsworth Street to Devonshire Street - are scheduled to be completed this Sunday October 3rd.

These new lanes are a great step forward for the community and for safer more complete streets, but there's still a lot of work to do. Even after the new mile is done, there will still be an approximately 4-mile gap, between Devonshire and Vanowen Street, remaining before the project is complete.

Photo:ShelbyWils/Flickr

There was a great deal of testimony from taxi drivers and their allies about the lack of transparency in the process, the miserable working conditions under the current taxi system, the important opportunity presented by this assessment, and the need to rescind the contract LADOT had awarded improperly. Taxi franchise owner representatives also testified. They refuted many taxi worker claims and urged that the contracted assessment proceed unimpeded.

LADOT General Manager Rita Robinson testified that LADOT had tried to follow the process. She stated that LADOT had made a verbal request to the outgoing Transportation Committee Chair then-Council Member Wendy Greuel. Council Member Greuel didn't schedule the item during the last couple weeks of her tenure, before moving on to become City Controller. GM Robinson then felt that LADOT was losing time and wanted to get work underway as quickly as possible, hence proceeded to award the contract to Nelson/Nygaard.

Council Member Bernard Parks expressed sternly that the city was about to spend $250,000 for an objective study to make progress in resolving taxi issues, and that if the process of that study is marred from the outset, then the results of it will be suspect, and the city will be back at square one. Council Member Paul Koretz emphasized the need for a transparent and open process. Council Member Tom LaBonge and committee chair Council Member Bill Rosendahl also urged transparency as necessary to build public trust.

By far, LADOT's harshest critic at the hearing was Council Member Richard Alarcón. Alarcón repeatedly pressed LADOT's GM and representatives as to why they had gone against the explicit instructions of the city council to report back to the Transportation Committee before awarding the contract. Alarcón exclaimed that the "contract is bogus at this point" and moved that the contract be rescinded. Koretz immediately seconded the motion.

There was some discussion, including from the City Attorney representative present, as to whether the Transportation Committee (as opposed to, more likely, the full council with mayoral concurrence) actually had the power to direct the LADOT General Manager to revoke a contract. GM Robinson took the high road in this exchange, though, stating that if there was a "consensus among committee members" then LADOT could "march in that direction."

The Alarcón motion wording was then reworded, per City Attorney advice, to direct LADOT to "exercise the 30-day termination clause" on the taxi contract. The motion passed unanimously.

Rosendahl then stressed that it was important that this issue not drag out excessively. He worked out a schedule with LADOT where the issue will come before the Taxi Commission on October 15th, and then come back to the Transportation Committee on October 28th.

Yesterday we reported on the ongoing debate over the Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes, but that's hardly the only item of interest on next Wednesday's City Council Transportation Committee Agenda.

For starters, after a slew of bad publicity surrounding the "trashed" state of the Orange Line Bike Trail, the city went out to bid on a new contract for both trail maintenance and maintenance for the city's transit facilities.  The LADOT is recommending that ShelterClean, the company that has held the contracts to maintain 5 transit facilities in the Valley including Chatsworth Station and Van Nuys Station, to maintain both their bike trails and their transit stations.  Here's hoping they do a better job keeping the Orange Line bike trail than their predecessors.

Also on the agenda is the hiring of more mechanics to operate Los Angeles' street parking meters.  Between the under-staffing, and expected attrition in the next year, L.A. could lose nearly $1.3 million in 2010 unless an exemption to the city's hiring freeze is given.  According to the math offered by the LADOT, the city would need to allocate just over $301,000 in salary, benefits and other costs to cover hiring three technicians.  However, the city would gain almost $650,000 in revenue from having more meters functioning correctly.

But perhaps of greatest interest to Streetsblog readers, the LADOT provides a report on, well, how the LADOT is structured and works.  After a brief explanation of the various sub-departments there is a flow chart that breaks down the organization of the leadership and offices within the department.

Normally, I wouldn't add a Flickr page to our blogroll on the right; but given that the LADOT press office is operating on a shoestring budget a flickr page from the LADOT General Manager could be a useful tool to get information out to the public.

While Robinson hasn't been as much of a target for criticism as some of the people that work at LADOT; she is the top boss at the department that has as great an impact on L.A.'s streets as any in L.A.

So far, the tweets have been less than exciting; a critic might note that her tweets from yesterday sound awfully similar to Streetsblog's.  Hopefully the feed gets more interesting as time goes on, and if it does maybe we'll start seeing similar accounts for Gail Goldberg, Art Leahy and other transportation decision makers.

So, a lot of you didn't like the Emmy Award Winning P.S.A. put out by LADOT in 2008 which showed a young girl getting hit by a speeding car because it put too much of the blame on the girl and not enough on the driver.  I thought it was a powerful piece, maybe because as an expectant father any image of a child being mauled by a vehicle is going to get my attention, and many commenters thought it was a missed opportunity to make a point about dangerous driving.

Fair enough.

But to be fair to LADOT, yesterday I was only covering the advertisement that won the Emmy.  Above, is a companion announcement focusing only on the driver's role in the crash.  If I were an Emmy voter, I would have voted for yesterday's featured ad over this one because the voice-over from the driver in today's sounds a little off to me:

My God!  How did this happen?  As a child, I was always in a hurry.  As I got older, I was always distracted.   And in the next second, I'll kill a little girl.

Then, the same film of a young girl in a pink soccer uniform getting slammed into by the driver is shown before the voice changes to another man, presumably one of the police on the scene.

Good driving behavior starts at an early age.  Traffic safety is everybody's responsibility.  Watch the road.

Given how we've mocked LADOT's previous Emmy Award Winning P.S.A., you might think this headline was sarcastic, but it's not.

The above Public Service Announcement, a surprisingly graphic advertisement that delivers a powerful message that no matter who is legally "at fault" drivers need to watch the road carefully or they could end up with blood on their hands. For pedestrians, the advertisement delivers a warning to look both ways, after all they're the ones who's lives are literally on the line.  For drivers, a plea to drive more slowly when children are nearby.

The video starts with a warning that the video may not be suitable for minors before we hear a child introduce herself:

Hi, I'm eight years old.  In the next fifteen seconds, I'm going to get hit by a car.  Look both ways before crossing the street.  Drive with caution around kids.  Traffic safety is everyone's responsibility.  Watch.  The.  Road.

In the moments before the Watch the Road tagline, we see the young girl who narrates the commercial chase after a ball and get slammed by a passing car.  The windshield implodes before we refocus on a gurney wheel rolling past a shoe.

Given the "cartoon violence" we've seen in some past P.S.A.'s, this new advertisement shows an agency willing to take a risk to prove a point.  The only complaint I have is that this P.S.A. ran in 2008 and I never heard of it until today!  Memo to LADOT, get this one up and running again!