New bike lanes on Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood - among the 12 new miles of bike lanes implemented in late 2011.

The good news: the city of Los Angeles is implementing more bike lanes than ever before. From July 2011 through December 2011, the city of Los Angeles has implemented 12.5 miles of new bike lanes. This is by far the highest total for any six-month period since at least 1996, and probably the most ever. For the past decade or so, the city has averaged roughly two-to-three miles of new bike lanes every six months.

The bad news: according to Streetsblog’s accounting, despite the stepped-up efforts, the city is not quite on track to fulfill Mayor Villaraigosa’s directive “to build 40 miles of bikeways a year” beginning with Fiscal Year 2011-2012.

After the jump, this article will enumerate just what new bikeway mileage has been done, and how the city may be able to get the 40 new bikeways pledged.

First some background.

Where does that “40 miles a year” come from?

Included with the March 2011 approval of the city’s “2010″ Bike Plan was a supplemental document called the Five-Year Implementation Strategy. That document was initially called the Five-Year Implementation Plan, later renamed the 200 Mile Implementation Strategy, then approved as the Five-Year Implementation Strategy (abbreviated hereafter as the “5-Year Plan.”) In August 2010, L.A. Streetsblog reviewed the initial draft of the 5-Year Plan calling it “ambitious” and “a big improvement compared to past performance.”

The 5-Year Plan includes 253 miles of bikeways that the city will implement over 6 years. Even though it’s called “5-Year” there was a year zero through year five, which, in initial drafts, corresponded to years 2010 through 2015… though this was removed when the 2010 Bike Plan approval dragged out into 2011. Still, the 5-Year Plan includes 250 miles to be implemented in 6 years, so, doing the division, this means 40 miles per year.

When the bike plan was approved in March2011, the 5-Year Plan’s “40 miles a year” number was announced by city staff and elected officials. Mayor Villaraigosa put the forty-mile figure in writing in a July 1st 2011 Mayoral Directive which states the city’s “commitment to build 40 miles of bikeways a year.”

Though the 40 mile number appears to be taken from the 5-Year Plan, but there’s no explicit connection between mileage and plan in the mayor’s pledge. The pledge is to build 40 miles. Note also that the pledge is “bikeways” – a catch-all term that can include all the various types of bike facilities from bike paths to bike lanes to bike routes to bike boulevards, etc.

In July 2011, L.A. Streetsblog reviewed city bikeway implementation under the assumption that the 40 miles pledged pertained to calendar year 2011. Upon publication of that article, mayoral and City Planning Department staff contacted Streetsblog and clarified that the 40 miles pledge clock didn’t start until Fiscal Year 2011-2012: July 1st 2011 to June 30th 2012.

Photo of the new Sharrows on Arden: Joe Anthony/Bike Commute News

In August 2011, LADOT announced it would implement 20 miles of sharrows - shared lane markings. The LADOT’s list of sharrow streets did not correspond to the city’s 5-Year Plan nor the city’s Bike Plan, both approved only 6 months prior. LADOT implemented the sharrows in October 2011.

Do the sharrows count toward building “40 miles a year” pledged?

Streetsblog queried LADOT about the sharrows and whether they count toward the 40 mile pledge. LADOT responded that “it is the City’s intent to include sharrows as a part of the Mayor’s commitment to implement 40 miles of bikeways this fiscal year.”

There are a number of reasons why sharrows wouldn’t count.

First, by doing sharrow projects not in the city’s 5-Year Plan, the city falls behind on the 5-Year Plan implementation. If the city does only half (20 miles instead of 40) of its 5-Year Plan’s annual mileage, then the very notion of calling it a 5-Year document is ludicrous. At the rate the city is implementing it right now, the 5-Year Plan is looking like at least a 12-year plan.

Another problem with the sharrows is the sheer annual mileage compared to what was approved last March. Sharrows are worthwhile, less so than bike lanes, but worthwhile. Sharrows are so worthwhile that the Mayor and Council approved 7.7 miles of them in the 5-Year Plan… that’s 1-2 miles of sharrows each year (7.7 miles divided by 6 years.) In the initial year, instead of implementing 1-2 miles of sharrows, the city has instead done 20 miles.  If LADOT can get away with 20 miles in the first year of plan implementation, what’s to keep them from doing all 40 miles sharrows the second year? If LADOT consistently downgrades what’s already been approved, it looks like a cynical bait and switch, disrespectful of the nearly six years of public process that went into coming up with the Bike Plan.

Why is the city ignoring the 5-Year Plan so soon, and relying so heavily on sharrows? It’s not clear. Only LADOT knows the real answer. Sharrows are cheap and quick, so it appears that instead of implementing what was approved, and instead of actually analyzing what treatments make sense for the bicycle network, LADOT is eager to fulfill the easiest quickest 40 miles they can do to fulfill the letter of the “build 40 miles a year” pledge, without actually paying heed to its intent of building out a network of safe comfortable places to ride.

But do the sharrows actually fulfill the letter of the pledge? The pledge includes the word “build” not the word “re-build.” If the city has a mile of existing bike route and it adds a mile of sharrows on that existing bike route, it still only has a mile of bike route. No new mileage has been added.

Re-doing existing mileage should not be counted toward the 40-mile pledge. If the city re-does the Westholme sharrows, or re-paints the Venice Boulevard bike lanes after a developer erases them, it doesn’t add any mileage to the bikeway network, hence it shouldn’t count toward a pledge to “build 40 miles a year.” The mayor’s pledge to “build” implies new mileage.

How much mileage did those October sharrows add to the city’s bike network? The city implemented 20 miles of sharrows in October 2011. According to the mileage listed in the city’s Bike Plan, 12 of these miles were already existing bike routes (see this spreadsheet for totals.) So the city’s ill-considered sharrows binge “built” only 8 miles of new bikeways (routes), and re-did 12 existing miles.

For this article, L.A. Streetsblog  acknowledges 8 new miles of bike routes, and does this begrudgingly (because, as explained above, based on the 5-Year Plan, the city approved implementing only 7.7 miles in 6 years, so 8 miles in 1 year still disrespects the approved plan and the process that lead to it.)

What has LADOT built since July 1st 2011?

As mentioned at the top of the article, the city has had a very productive six months for the start of FY2011-2012. With 12.46 new miles of bike lane built, it’s the most productive six months in at least 15 years, probably the most ever.

LADOT has completed their first bike lanes in Boyle Heights, Downtown L.A., Hollywood, Koreatown, and Westlake. While the majority of the projects have been straightforward, with no reduction in car lanes, a few have successfully reduced car lanes, and, in one instance, removed two blocks of San Fernando Valley curb parking. Inspired by Dutch ThinkBike sessions, the city has implemented its first significant buffered bike lane, and its first two pilot green-colored pavement projects.

While the process hasn’t been perfect, more than ever before for bike projects, LADOT has worked with Council Offices, Neighborhood Councils, the city Bicycle Advisory Committee, bike non-profit organizations including the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, businesses, adjacent cities, and others – all resulting in new facilities being implemented with a minimum of backlash to date.

Since July 1st 2011, LADOT has completed the following bike lane projects, listed roughly in the order in which they were installed:

• Wentworth Street - Wheatland to Foothill 1.3miles (Shadow Hills)
• Woodley Avenue - Saticoy to Sherman 0.28 mile (Van Nuys)
• Jefferson Blvd - La Brea to La Cienega 0.99mile (South L.A.)
• 7th Street - Catalina to Figueroa 2.2miles (Westlake-Koreatown)
• 1st Street - Boyle to Lorena 1.6miles (Boyle Heights)
• Cahuenga Blvd - Odin to Yucca 0.6mile (Hollywood)
• Reseda Blvd - Roscoe to Parthenia 0.5mile (Reseda)
• Tuxford Street - Lankershim to Glenoaks 1.3miles (Sunland)
• Vermont Avenue  – Del Amo to Knox 0.54mile (Harbor Gateway)
• Spring Street - Chavez to 9th 1.5miles (Downtown)
• Washington Place - Albright to Grand View 0.77mile (Mar Vista)
• Chandler Blvd - Leghorn to Woodman 0.88 mile (Van Nuys)
• TOTAL 12.46miles COMPLETED BIKE LANES

According to LADOT reports, the following additional new bike lane projects are slated for implementation in the very near future, likely within the current fiscal year:

• Aviation Blvd – Imperial Hwy to Century 0.98mile (LAX – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Devonshire Street – Reseda to Hayvenhurst 2.49miles (Northridge source – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Foothill Blvd – Wheatland to Wentworth 1.5miles (Lake View Terrace – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Main Street – Grand Blvd to city of Santa Monica 0.9mile (Venice - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Main Street – 9th to 16th 0.7mile (Downtown – per DLANC website)
• Porter Ranch Drive – Rinaldi to Corbin 0.5mile (Porter Ranch – per LADOT website)
• Rose Avenue – Lincoln to 4th 0.47mile (Venice - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• Vermont Avenue – I105 to 88th Street 2.1miles (South L.A. – per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• York Blvd – Avenue 55 to Figueroa 0.9mile (Highland Park - per Bike Plan Qrtly Report)
• TOTAL 10.54miles NEAR-FUTURE NEW BIKE LANES

All in all, based on what’s complete and what’s projected, the city of Los Angeles appears to be on track to reach a grand total of 31 new miles in its bikeway network in FY 2011-2012.

• Completed new bike lane mileage: 12. 46 miles
• Completed new bike route (sharrow) mileage: 8.04 miles
• Near-furure new bike lane mileage: 10.54 miles
• FY2011-2012 PROJECTED TOTAL BIKEWAYS BUILT:  31.04 miles

It’s a bit short of “build[ing] 40 miles a year,” but it’s a big improvement on past performance; and it’s making a significant difference in the commutes of Angelenos. While L.A. isn’t biketopia yet, bicyclists and drivers are seeing more new bike lanes and routes. The lanes make bicycling safer, and, overall, the infrastructure cues all road users to the fact that bicycling is legitimate and growing mode of transportation in Los Angeles.

Lastly, a gentle plea to Mayor Villaraigosa: if 31 new miles a year isn’t enough, and you really want to get to 40 new miles built this fiscal year, there are still quite a few relatively easy low-hanging-fruit bike lane projects out there awaiting implementation. Some are listed here. There’s still nearly six months left in the fiscal year.

From this...

...to this. And then back again. Photos via Flying Pigeon L.A.

Over the break, Josef Bray-Ali, of Bike Oven and Flying Pigeon Bike Shop fame, was bicycling on Venice Boulevard when he noticed something odd.  The bike lanes vanished on the north side of the road well before the usual terminus at Crenshaw Boulevard.  Furious, Bray-Ali took to the Internet to excorciate the city and Mid-Town Crossing mega development for sacrificing the lanes for the wishes of a developer.

After contacting LADOT about the vanishing lanes, a process apparently mirrored by other writers and members of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, they initially expressed confusion.  Days later, LADOT reported that the issue was that Mid-Town Crossing was working off diagrams from when it was originally cleared back in 2005.   The developers will pay for the bike lanes to be repainted on the repaved portion of Venice Boulevard.

Anyone interested in learning more about the saga of Mid-Town Crossing should check out this archive on Curbed.

So all’s well that ends well as far as Venice Boulevard is concerned, but the issue raises questions, none of which are good for the city.

The most obvious is, “what can the city do to make sure this doesn’t happen again?”  Jonathan Weiss, a Bicycle Advisory Committee Member, plans on raising that question to staff next week at the BAC’s Planning Committee next week.

Another question is how many old road designs are floating out there, approved but not constructed, that don’t reflect the city’s stated commitment in the 2010 Bike Plan to improving conditions for cyclists on all streets?

Photo:CICLE

Following a batch of applications this summer that included a lot more community outreach than in years past, the City of Los Angeles is looking for two transportation planners to work on a city-wide SRTS plan for one year.  The funding for the positions is part of the “bicycle-pedestrian set-aside” from the city’s share of Measure R “Local Return” dollars.  While there has been some grumbling that Measure R funds are meant to go towards Capital Improvements, spending money to improve the city’s woeful SRTS program was supported in committee by L.A. Walks, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the Safe Routes to School National Partnership (the Partnership.)

For now, a top priority is finding two people best able to fill the positions at LADOT.  The job applications can be found on the city’s website by clicking here.  The Partnership urges anyone interested in the positions to apply while noting that even with these positions, the Los Angeles is well behind other cities when it comes to dedicating staff for pedestrian improvements.  Even these positions will be somewhat split between bicycle and pedestrian work as bicycle access is a major component of SRTS planning.

Of course, hiring new staff is one step on a journey.  Cyclists well remember the frustration felt when seemingly progressive ideas disappeared from drafts of the Bike Plan before the city settled on a plan that was acceptable to advocates at the eleventh hour.  There’s no reason why a progressive Safe Routes to School Plan wouldn’t involve some advocacy campaign as well.

Photo: Patrick Pascal

The poor Spring Street Green Buffered Bike Lane.  The first “outside the box” bike project in Los Angeles has come under fire from just about everyone for the peeling paint and tire tracks that dominate a portion of the lane.  Even Midnight Ridazz hosts a thread entitled, “Green Lanes Are a Joke,” although opinions ont eh lane are mixed.  In order to bring some balance to the story, Streetsblog went out and found some actual riders of the lane to see what they had to say.

The reaction was mixed.  While just about everyone loved that the lane was there, just about everyone wanted to say something about the application.  Here are some of the comments we received, all without any editing from me other than some “bolding” for emphasis.

First up is Valerie Watson, an architect and Chair of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Complete Streets Committee rides the lane regularly:

As a Spring Street resident, I ride and walk down Spring several times a week.  It’s really remarkable how different it is.  Hard to describe, but it just feels like all traffic is flowing in a more calm, orderly way now.  The bike lane plus full time parking are a noticeable sidewalk buffer for the west side of Spring, and just walking down the street you can see how different that feels compared to the east side with cars zooming along the curb during rush hour where the parking is still under peak-hour restrictions.

Also, the 4′ bike lane buffer really makes a big difference for cyclist comfort – everyone is making a big deal about the green paint, but the 4′ buffer goes hand in hand with the 6′ of green to make this feel really different compared to a traditional 5′ bike lane.  Even though it’s still not the ideal – a separated cycletrack – it’s a step in the right direction. We should not forget that this is a 10′ bike lane - the width of a full vehicular travel lane – re-purposed roadway that is obviously benefiting all modes.

P was the first person to complain to Streetsblog about the paint condition.  Asked to follow-up on his experience, he writes:

I did re-ride the bike lane at the end of last week and much of the paint that was in the worst condition was reapplied.  I had intended to return again this weekend to give it a more thorough appraisal.

The quality of the repaint did not make me confident for the lane’s long term durability.  In addition, many of the potholes did remain (I will send you a picture of one such pothole between Temple & 1st which I took with my phone), particularly in the areas where new paint was not applied.  Most of the potholes were of a size that might fit an apple; some were the size of grapefruit.  Some of the surfaces surrounding bus stops were also unsafe.

None of these deficiencies are out of normal for most of Los Angeles’ streets, but I see these bike lanes as exactly the sort of infrastructure where bicyclists might expect better.  If you encourage bicycles to use a particular spaces, you take added responsibility for the outcomes that result.

Meanwhile, Allison Corona thinks the lanes would be better for the community if there were part of a network:

I live right outside the lanes and regularly use them to go to the grocery store or on a ride home from visiting family (they live in east LA so it’s the 1st St lane over and the Spring St. one on the way home). They don’t really go anywhere so it’s kind just used for a short period of time to commute withing the neighborhood.

It does feel a little bit safer since the buses and most of the cars aren’t really riding in the same lane as you as often as they were before.

I don’t know if it has really impacted me as much because I always rode down Spring St when it was an option. What it has been  good for is getting friends who are new to the neighborhood to be a little more comfortable riding to the grocery store or to restaurants that are in other parts of downtown.

Bicycling attorney Ross Hirsh writes:

Like I mentioned in my response to your tweet, the Spring St. green lanes are on my commute to get to my office in DLTA each morning.  Let me know what you’re interested in.

This was interesting: a fellow attorney who drives his car into DTLA via Spring Street each morning (and not a cyclist) was asking me how much I loved the new street markings–he said he thought of me when he first saw them. Obviously, I told him I think it’s great.  I asked him what his impression of traffic was like on Spring since they the green lanes were installed. He said unequivocally, that he has noticed no change in vehicular traffic whatsoever.  And he’s a tell-it-like-it-is kind of dude who certainly would have chimed in to the negative if that were the case.  Loved to hear that.

Hirsch also wrote in defense of the lanes on Midnight Ridazz:

That strip of Spring St in DLTA is on my commute to work. Would I rather have these green painted bike lanes–or not? No question Spring Street is better with them. More bikes, and I think traffic has slowed a bit. Prior to the green, Spring St. was very unremarkable and the traffic was very accommodating to bikes. Now, however, I see many more bikes using that street, and even non-cyclists see it as a very cool thing. Perhaps that may incentivize a few of those folks to give it a whirl. It’s a start. ‘

Last, we got a complaint via twitter from Nate Frogg, who complained not about the paint chipping but about buffering against traffic and not parked cars.

Spring street bike lane, shouldn’t the buffer be in the door zone? almost got hit by parked chp car door flying open

What are your experiences with the new Green Buffered Bike Lane on Spring Street?

Several of the commenters posed questions about the length of time the city says is needed for completing the Wilshire lanes. For example, Allison M asked “I’m trying to understand why it will take 2 years to do the upgrades and testing after the engineering is complete? Is this normal for BRT? It seems unnecessarily long.” I passed these queries along to the L.A. Dept. of Transportation, which is taking the lead on the project. Bruce L. Gillman, LADOT’s Director of Public Information, was kind enough to confer with the city staffers working on the project and passed along this response:

The schedule for the Wilshire bus lane project involves multiple City departments that work on the design, construction of the street widening, pavement reconstruction, engineering surveys, analysis and traffic management plan. None of which can be completed in a short period of time. That said, LADOT is working with our partners to expedite this project and will continue to push ahead to make Wilshire bus lanes a reality as soon as possible.

My thanks to Mr. Gillman for the prompt response.

“Bike Lanes in Major Streets”

“Closing Streets for Events”

“More showers and bike rental/parking stations”

Click on the image to visit the LA/2B homepage.

Is this a Livable Streets wishlist for the City of Los Angeles?  Yes.  But it’s also the topics highlighted by LA/2B, the interactive online discussion program employed by the LADOT and City Planning to solicit feedback on the city’s effort to update its mobility plan.  In an email to media and those using the website, LA/2B routinely lists the hottest topics on its message boards.  All comments left at LA/2B will be part of the public record when determining what will, and won’t, be included in the city’s long-term plans.

Whenever I visit the LA/2B site, the hot topics are always related to livable streets, and that the comments are overwhelmingly positive.  For example, the “hottest topic” at the moment is “Prioritize Pedestrians Over Autos” and has received twenty
“seconds” and 16 comments.    By my count the comments run 2:1 in favor of the concept.

While support has been strong for pedestrian, bicycle and open streets proposals, the numbers on the website aren’t enough to persuade legislators addled with a car culture mentality so if you want to join the discussion, there’s no time like the present.

To learn more about the nuts and bolts of how the BPIT prioritization website works, visit the LADOT Bike Blog by clicking on the above image

Meanwhile, LADOT Bikeways is fulfilling a promise made to its Bicycle Plan Implementation Team (BPIT) and has launched an online survey for cyclists and interested parties to prioritize what projects in the Bike Plan should be implemented first.  LADOT has come under some fire for placing Sharrows on a seemingly random set of streets so that in can reach the Mayor’s stated goal of 40 miles of bike projects every year.  As we’ve noted before, the massive Sharrows implementation weekend from earlier this year was not included in the 2010 Bike Plan.

Allowing cyclists to make their case for projects directly in a mass way, as opposed to defaulting to the work of a handful of bike advocates with the time and means to attend meetings in Downtown Los Angeles, seems a good first step to insure better implementation of the plan praised by cyclists at its passage last March.

Of course, “knowing is half the battle.”  For this brave new world of interactive comment gathering to be effective, LADOT and City Planning have to make good use of the knowledge they gain.

Ugh. Photo: Joe Anthony of Bike Commute News via Instagram

The culprit appears to be an overanxious LADOT who wanted to have the lanes ready for the Monday press conference, even though the weekend preceding the Monday event was a wet one.   In the week preceding the press event, officials warned that the conference could be moved if weather didn’t allow the painting to occur over the weekend.  Quality of paint shouldn’t have been an issue as L.A. spent $50,000 for the green paint job (according to the Times) which is ten times what Long Beach spent on its Green Sharrowed Lane.

Meanwhile other commuters are grumbling that the green paint, where it does remain, masks some large and deep potholes.   One reader, who I do not have permission to quote by name, wrote of the potholes and paint:

These conditions suggest that the creation of this lane is about a DOT that isn’t truly committed to better bike infrastructure, but instead is about political PR.  Otherwise, basic standards of construction and user safety would have been employed.  While the lane’s design is strong, the execution is exceptionally weak.

For its part, the LADOT is guaranteeing that lane will be repainted soon.  ”Rest assured LADOT crews will be back to touch up spots on Spring St,” writes Bruce Gillman, the LADOT spokesperson.  ”We are awaiting new paint to be delivered and a stint of dry weather to assure second application gets put down without too much moisture present.”

At this point, there is no timeline to repave the road.

Coming in four years...Image via Metro website

As far as I can tell two recent agency reports with updated information on the status of important transit-related improvements went straight under the radar with nary a word in the blogsphere or mass media (much like the poorly publicized TAP cards sold by bus operator pilot project I wrote about previously). Belatedly let me share you the latest on the Wilshire Bus lane project and the Patsaouras Gateway Plaza busway station:

An Oct. 9 memo from the L.A. Dept. of Transportation to the City Council gives an update on the status of the Wilshire BRT project: “Extensive roadway improvements on Wilshire Boulevard, including curb lane reconstruction and selective street widening, will be done before the bus lanes are installed. Design and engineering is scheduled to be completed by June 2013, followed by construction of roadway improvements, traffic mitigation measures, Transit Priority System upgrades, and bus lane striping and signage. The project is expected to be completed and operational by June 2015.”

Meanwhile buried in a recent Metro staff report is the news that to have it avoid impacting the ExpressLane demonstration the Gateway Plaza station for the El Monte busway will be delayed undergoing construction and is now not due to be open until mid 2015 at the earliest. What impact the recent FTA grant for the project could have on this timetable is unknown.

Some folks see that empty real estate and, in spite of the fact that they lack a bicycle, they figure “Why not? I’ll just use if for a few minutes, nobody will mind!”

All pictures by Stephen Box unless noted otherwise. This Picture by Barleye

Sunset Blvd. is home to a 5’ Bike Lane that is next to a 7’ parking stall, just enough room for these two LAPD officers who needed to go shopping at the Surplus Store in Silver Lake.

They might be forgiven the CVC 22502 violation (park within 18 inches of the right-hand curb) and the CVC 22514 violation (don’t block fire hydrants) and even the poorly written CVC 21211 which forbids Bikeway parking that impedes cyclists, but only if they can convince their supervisors that investigating a sale on Dickies qualifies as official business.

Hello, is this the Governor's Office? Photo: Jeff Jacobberger

The American Automobile Association has been around since 1902 and they are highly regarded for their roadside service and their courteous drivers.

The AAA driver parked in the Bike Lane above is probably making a quick call to Sacramento, thanking Governor Brown for vetoing SB 910, the legislation which would mandate a minimum three foot distance for motorists passing cyclists when the speed is greater than 15 MPH.

At least it's well lit...

L.A.’s Department of Water & Power has a bit of a reputation for operating according to their own “We are the Roman Army!” interpretation of the law but in this case, the law is on their side. The CVC 21211 prohibition on blocking bikeways facilities “does not apply to drivers or owners of utility or public utility vehicles, as provided in Section 22512.”

Well, almost. These DWP employees failed to put out the required warning devices so that late night cyclists heading west on Sunset wouldn’t come around the curve to find this truck blocking the Bike Lane. They also weren’t parked at a work site, as required by CVC 22512, instead simply impeding traffic while contributing to the local economy by consuming donuts at the adjacent 7-Eleven store.

Big trucks have a hard time fitting into the traditional 8’ parking stalls that are common in Los Angeles and they have an even tougher time on Sunset Blvd where the parking stalls are only 7’ wide.

The operators of these trucks have parked their trucks in violation of CVC 21211 which prohibits impeding cyclists in a bikeway but they are also demonstrating a violation of the rarely invoked LAMC 88.03 which specifies that vehicles must fit “completely within the confines or limits” of the parking space.

Even if the operator of a commercial vehicle were to find a street with parking wide enough to accommodate it, LAMC 80.69.1 prohibits trailer or semitrailer from parking in public place otherwise ordinarily used for vehicular parking. That 8’6” wide trailer simply does not belong!

The proper way to park these large trucks while they are “working” is to engage in “lane closure” and to use warning devices and traffic control to ensure that cyclists, motorists and pedestrians are all accommodated safely.

In some cases, a truck driver’s business will only take a minute or two, but that’s all it takes on a busy street such as Sunset to cause a conflict that can result in a collision. Yet the work needs to get done.

One would think that a city that has been around for more than a couple of centuries would have figured out how to accommodate the delivery of packages and the collection of trash without putting cyclists at risk.

But that would be a mistake.

Even on a big wide street such as Venice Blvd., the City of Los Angeles can’t figure out how to accommodate trash cans and cyclists at the same time, so it resorts to the strategy that has worked for so many decades, it ignores the cyclists.

Over the years, the LADOT has rejected requests to address the situation, arguing that the LADOT can’t cite the owners of the trash cans, after all they have no Vehicle Identification Number! Street Services could respond but they take 24 hours to respond and if they confiscate the trash can, the resident simply requests a new one from Sanitation and they are rewarded with a new can to replace the old can.

The bureaucratic pontificating by the LADOT, Street Services, Sanitation, the LAPD and anyone else with a piece of the street has failed to improve the situation in the least. Their collective incompetence has failed to even result in reflective markings on the dark cans so that cyclists are less likely to hit them in the dark.

Through it all, the Mayor promises 40 miles of Bikeway improvements each year for the next 5 years, a promise that means nothing if it isn’t complemented by a Mayoral Directive to the LAPD, the DWP, the LADOT, Street Services, Sanitation, and anyone else from the City Family that operates vehicles on the streets, instructing them to stay out of the Bike Lanes unless they’re on a bike.

Dutch Bicycle Engineer Hillie Talens leads a presentation at a packed City Council Board Room. I counted over 110 people in attendance.

Earlier today, Hillie Talens, a Dutch Bicycle Engineer, kicked off the two-day “Think Bike” planning workshop in Downtown Los Angeles with an interesting presentation at City Hall. The bicycle planners, which are different than traditional transportation planners who are focused on the automobile, will lead three groups in redesign exercises for Van Nuys Boulevard in the Valley, Jefferson Boulevard in South L.A., and parts of Downtown Los Angeles. The innovative program is sponsored by the Consulate General of the Netherlands in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the LADOT.

Talens’ entire presentation will be posted at the LADOT Bike Blog later, and we’ll link to it then. More exciting than the series of road treatments she outlined that are popular in Dutch cities was what she had to say about Los Angeles.

After comparing our situation to that of Miami, cities with wide streets and hotter-than-average climates, Talen discussed how Dutch planners are jealous of Los Angeles’ streets. The jealousy isn’t because of what we do with them, but what we could.

“As Dutch, we are envious of how much space you have,” Talens commented. “There’s a lot you can do with roads that wide.”

This statement is sort of remarkable to hear for transportation advocates. Too often, reformers are told that the city is limited in its options because there’s only so much space on the streets. But here, an expert in transportation options is telling us the opposite, that our streets are brimming with potential.

Think Bike is on a tour of sorts this week, and this team was in San Francisco completing a similar program earlier this week. Talens herself learned something new in the Bay Area and was excited about the “Parkletts” program where car parking spaces are permanently turned into mini-parks. L.A. Councilmen Jose Huizar and Jan Perry are pushing L.A. to consider a similar program and Talens vowed to take the program back to the Netherlands.

Over 100 people packed the City Council Chambers to hear Talens’ presentation, including LADOT General Manager Jaime De La Vega (who, like me, was probably thrilled not to be at the Metro Board Meeting), LAPD Sargent David Krumer, crews from LADOT Bikeways and Metro’s bicycle division, City Council staff and a who’s who of bike advocates ranging from LACBC staff to the Bike Oven’s documentary film crew: Josef Bray-Ali and DJ Chicken Leather.

Included in the attendees was Dale Benson, the head of bicycle planning at Caltrans’ District 7, who was excited about what he heard and the planning process of the next two days.

“It’s good to see Los Angeles thinking about new ideas,” he began. “It’s good to see them willing to think about the benefits of bikes.”

The session will end with a closing ceremony where the final designs will be unveiled tomorrow at 3:30 at the LAPD’s auditorium. We’ll have more coverage of Think Bike on Monday.

The LACBC prepared this graphic to show the road configuration and potential changes.

Tomorrow night, the Venice Neighborhood Council will debate, and possibly approve or reject a proposal by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to remove travel lanes on Main Street in Venice in an effort to calm traffic and create space for bike lanes.

The LADOT’s plan for the area would basically match the layout of Main Street in Santa Monica which already is a three-lane road with bike lanes and street parking.  However, if you’re riding south on Main Street in Santa Monica, the road loses its bike lane at the border with Los Angeles.  If LADOT gets their way, and they won’t without the support of the Venice Neighborhood Council, Main Street in Los Angeles would go from four lanes to two with a turning lane in the middle.  Car parking would remain, and a pair of 5 foot bike lanes would appear on the street.

Colin Bogart has been working on the Main Street Road Diet project for the LACBC now that he’s not full-time in Glendale believes the Road Diet is a natural extension of the road configuration already on the ground North of Venice in Santa Monica.

Not that the plan doesn’t have critics.  When the diet was first discussed, some members of the Neighborhood Council expressed concern that the new configuration would create more car congestion on local streets while others worried that the street would actually be less safe for cyclists.

The proposed bike lanes run adjacent to the car parking with little to no buffer between the cars and the bikes.  The bike lanes are only 5 feet wide and some cyclists, notably Bikeside President Alex Thomspon, worry that the “door zone bike lanes” create a hazard for cyclists.

“I’m unimpressed with the road diet plan,” Thompson, who also is an elected member of the neighboring Mar Vista Neighborhood Council, writes.  ”This is all LADOT can come up with to address the issue?  Herbie Huff wrote that 5 foot bike lanes next to 7 foot parking are not a big deal because the door zone on 85% of vehicles is inside of 9.5 feet (the dead center of a 5 foot bike lane next to 7 foot parking.)  Another way of saying that is that 1 in 7 doors covers more than half the bike lane.  How many parked cars do you ride past?”

The post diet car travel lanes are 11 feet wide each, prompting Thomspon to argue that the car lanes should be shrunk to 10 feet so the bike lanes could be widened to six or so that a foot buffer could be placed between the cars and bike lanes.  This would push a larger portion of the lanes out of the door zone.  LADOT staff responds that the street is used by buses and that a 10 foot lane would be too small for the buses to maneuver.  SM Spoke’s Gary Kavanagh recommended back in January that the LADOT consider a road diet and Sharrows over the bike lanes.

Earlier this year, LADOT conducted a bike count on Main Street in Venice and counted  730 cyclists in a 6 hour period. Yet, one Venice Neighborhood Council Committee still rejected the LADOT’s proposal because of concerns the diet would create cut through traffic congestion on other local streets.

Kent Strumpell, the appointed representative of Bill Rosendahl to the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, has been a long time supporter of the diet and argues that traffic is already so bad in Venice that cut through traffic won’t be more of a problem under the new plan.

“One of the concerns we’ve heard is that the project will cause cut-through traffic on adjacent streets,” Strumpell adds.  ”But when traffic is bad in Venice, those nearby streets already get saturated with congestion.  Making Main Street more inviting for cyclists will give frustrated locals a great way to get around town without getting stuck in their cars.”

Note:

WHO:  Venice Neighborhood Council Board of Directors monthly meeting
WHEN:  Tuesday, Sept. 20th, 2011, 7:00PM
WHERE:  Westminster Elementary, 1010 Abbot Kinney (just south of Main), Venice.

If you can’t make the meeting and wish to comment, email board@venicenc.org

Expect to see a lot more of this in 2011 and beyond. LADOT has promised to quadruple the number of Sharrows on city streets. Photo: LACBC

Yesterday, we featured a headline by our Joe Linton that pretty harshly criticized an LADOT Bike Blog posting from Monday about the LADOT’s committment to increasing the number of Sharrows on L.A.’s streets.  We summarized Linton’s post into a couple of questions and sent them on to the LADOT to get some clarification.  After all, the city is promising 20 miles of Sharrowed streets to be completed in the next year…what could be wrong with that?

Scanning Linton’s article, Streetsblog boiled down his questions and complaints to three main questions.  Would the Sharrows count towards the city’s, and Mayor’s, commitment to 40 miles of infrastructure a year, even if some of the projects aren’t in the five year implementation plan?  If so, does this mean projects are coming off the list, or is this in addition to the original five year plan?  What about the streets that are scheduled for bike lanes, but also appear in the city’s Sharrow list?

Here is LADOT’s response.

Yes, it is the City’s intent to include sharrows as a part of the Mayor’s commitment to implement 40 miles of bikeways this fiscal year.  Some streets that receive the sharrow treatment are too narrow for bicycle lanes such as Fountain St. and Arden Bl., and in that case yes the sharrows will be a permanent solution.  For others the implementation of sharrows may be an interim measure to getting a permanent bicycle lane installed while the public and political will are collected in support of installing bicycle lanes as called for in the 2010 Plan. It may take some time to complete the public process for some projects.

The Bicycle Plan is clear about our commitment to make Los Angeles a bike-friendly city. Sharrows are one of several tools that will be used to get us to the goal. Sharrows are cost-effective treatments that can be installed quickly, as we continue to work toward major bikeway improvements detailed in the plan. In some cases the newly installed sharrows will be complemented with other traffic calming devices as appropriate and as funding is available for Bicycle Friendly Streets.

The much debated five-year implementation plan that was fought and debated over so vigorously is being treated as an easily ignored guideline and not a set in stone implementation plan.  Groups such as Bikeside and the Bike Coalition lobbied hard for the implementation plan, and actually temporarily derailed the plan at the Planning Commission in part because they were concerned that the city didn’t wasn’t committing to the projects that would create the greatest difference.  Fears that the city is casting aside it implementation plan band doing so behind the veneer of increasing the Sharrows program is a real one.

In addition, the Mayor’s much publicized “40 miles a year” pledge was based on the implementation plan.  As Linton points out, there’s a lot of projects on the Sharrows list that aren’t part of the implementation plan.

However, there is good news.  The LADOT has not eliminated projects from that list, so if the environmental review for projects goes smoothly, the city could well see these projects as additions to the plan instead of replacements to parts of the plan.  To help assuage concerned advocates, the LADOT could prove what streets are best for Sharrows and which are best for bike lanes by releasing the road widths and traffic volumes for all 22 streets that will  receive the Sharrows treatment in the next year.

At this point, it’s too soon to know for certain whether the city is backing away from the implementation plan or not, but for some bike advocates, already nervous that many projects are undergoing a lengthy environmental review, the concern is growing.

When two Streetsblog sponsors get together, the world is our oyster. For more on the meeting, read this first hand review at g4do-g4do

Earlier this year, when the designs for South Figueroa’s My Figueroa project were released, Josef Bray-Ali wasn’t happy.  While many advocates celebrated designs that would, if implemented, result in segregated bike paths, transit-only lanes, pedestrian plazas (at a minimum), Bray-Ali saw another major investment in the Downtown and area around L.A. Live. Meanwhile, the portion of Figueroa where he worked and that he loved remained a traffic sewer, with five lanes of concrete and curbside parking blighting the area.

Now, with the city considering bike improvements for North Figueroa, Bray-Ali sees an opportunity to bring My Figueroa to North Figueroa.  Last week, a group of thirty community activists gathered in the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop to create an organization to do just that.  At the Flying Pigeon blog, Bray-Ali notes that the event expanded beyond the usual suspects with local businesses sponsoring the meeting by donating the chairs, tables, food, and other supplies.

“The city sees North Figueroa as a cut through for people that don’t want to drive on the 110,” Bray-Ali explains.  ”As a result, cars cut through the neighborhood without stopping, businesses suffer and the middle-class moves farther away.”

In other words, this is about more than a bike lane.

Bray-Ali’s vision includes bike lanes for certain, but also a road diet, wider sidewalks, better street crossings, all of would feed into the business areas and the transit network that already exists.  The Gold Line stops a few blocks from Bray-Ali’s shop, but the traffic it generates to North Figueroa businesses is scant.

Patch talked to a few people who attended last week’s meeting, and found enthusiasm high.

Bikeside is right, this "flow chart" explaining bike plan implementation needs to be retired.

Yesterday, the LADOT and City Planning made their quarterly update to the City Council on the progress of the implementation of the Bike Plan.  The Council’s Transportation Committee also moved a motion that would transfer $475,000 to LADOT’s overtime account.  Between the somewhat confounding report offered by the agencies and the revelation that bike projects have to be built on overtime, it’s no surprise that some advocates are anxious.

The funding motion addressed on Wednesday is a sort of good news/bad news motion.  The motion allows the transfer of $475,000 from LADOT project accounts to overtime accounts so that LADOT can install new bike lanes and Sharrows.  The good news is that these funds will see to the completion of eight bike lane projects totaling eight miles and nearly seventeen miles of Sharrowed Streets.

If implementation of these projects really does occur “in the next couple of weeks” it would be a great start for the city in the 2011 fiscal year.  The Mayor famously promised 40 miles of new bike infrastructure a year last March at the Bike Plan signing, a promise which has gotten off to a somewhat rocky start.  Knocking out 25 miles of that infrastructure in the first couple months of the year is a good sign.

But the “overtime” issue is a troubling one.

A couple of weeks ago I stood next to the Green Shared Lane in Long Beach talking with Long Beach’s Mobility Coordinator, Charlie Gandy.  I asked him how much it cost to paint a green lane on each side of a main drag through Downtown Los Angeles.  His answer?  ”$5,000.”  When pressed, he admitted that he didn’t know the labor costs, because “those are fixed costs with the city.”  In other words, painting bike infrastructure is just part of the job in Long Beach, and that saves the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in project costs.

As Bikeside Chris put it, “ As LADOT continues to bill the City for overtime, scarce Measure R, Transportation Enhancements, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality and Transportation Development Act bike improvement funds quickly become depleted.”  As the city over bills for bike projects now, it means less projects later.

The second major issue is that the LADOT and City Planning issued a report to update the Council on all the new bike plan projects underway and spent more time in the report talking about the public meetings they hold, open to the public but attended by insiders, known as the Bike Plan Implementation Meetings, which they just announced will be held quarterly rather than monthly.

But the update has drawn criticism more for what isn’t in the document than what is.

“We would have liked to see some updates on how they’re trying to fund the program.  What Safe Routes to School grants did the city apply for?  What about the Metro call for projects?” asked the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition’s Alexis Lantz.

Bikeside’s critique is quite a bit harsher, as they point out that nowhere in the update does it actually say when projects are going to be completed, how long the projects are, or how much they cost.  If you poke around the Internet a little, you can find more answers on the LADOT Bike Program website.  At least the documents on that website tell the reader how long the projects are.

No, really...what the heck is this?

So what should an update look like?  Lantz suggests something akin to the quarterly updates of PlaNYC, which not only gives much more detailed project updates, but also discusses the challenges the Apple faces as it tries to move towards sustainability.

But as we wait to see if the City can interpret its Bike Plan updates for the City Council and for the public in general, the bigger question is whether the city is failing to live up to the Mayor’s promise, or whether some shoddy updates are clouding a brighter picture.

We’ll stay tuned.

These are either going to be great bike lanes, or some of the worst in history. Photo: Joe Dunavan

Alert reader Joe Dunavan alerts that new bike lanes have appeared on Woodley Avenue heading south.  The pictured section is just south of the Van Nuys Flyaway.  These lanes-in-waiting will run for a half mile from Saticoy Street to Sherman Way, roughly a half mile.  They connect to existing bike lanes to the north on Woodley Avenue.

At first glance, these are some scary bike lanes.  They aren’t properly marked, and the signage clearly allows curbside parking.  Larger vehicles will make passing these parked cars nigh impossible without merging with the rest of traffic…and that’s to say nothing of the door zone.  LADOT staff explain that the reason for the partially completed lanes and parking issue is for the most obvious reason: the lanes aren’t completed yet.  Work orders to add no-parking signs and complete the lanes pre-existed this article and should be installed within the next week.

I guess this isn’t one of the areas that requires “additional study” before removing the car parking.

We’ll check back to see the completed lanes next week, but in the meantime there are more pictures of the existing lanes after the jump.  All pictures from Joe Dunavan.

Thanks to an ADA lawsuit settlement, crossings such as this one may become a thing of the past in L.A. Photo: Ubrayj02/Flickr

Crumbling sidewalks and intersections without curb cuts are a common problem in L.A., but they’re a lot more noticeable when you’re moving with wheels.  Whether it’s pushing a baby stroller, or doing some sidewalk bicycle riding, the lack of curb cuts is suddenly a major issue.  While its a minor inconvenience to someone who is healthy and pushing wheels by choice, people who suffer from some physical ailment can find the lack of a curb cut to be as daunting a barrier as a moat filled with crocodiles.

The state of Los Angeles’ sidewalks is in terrible shape, especially when it comes to following the American with Disabilities Act which requires cuts to make sidewalks accessible to those in wheelchairs.  But thanks to a proposed legal settlement between a group of disabled Angelenos and the City of Los Angeles things might finally be changing.

Rather than battle the plaintiffs in court, the City decided to settle out of court.  But just because the plaintiff’s are settling doesn’t mean that the City is getting off easy.  Assuming the court approves the settlement the city will have to:

• Place curb cuts or access ramps to intersections on 1,000 intersections in less than a year.
• The city will spend up to $4 million each year to improve pedestrian crossings and safety in high-risk areas that have more pedestrian traffic, such as the areas around schools, government buildings and parks.
• Over the next twenty five years, the city will bring all areas to compliance with the American with Disability Act
• The city will complete a survey to see what the needs and cost are to bring the city into compliance with the ADA.
• The City will create an advisory committee to monitor progress in complying with the new settlement
• The Superior Court will have final say, not the City, to decide whether or not the City is holding up its end of the agreement.

The city is playing things close to the vest, they very politely refused comment for this story, but Los Angeles’ advocacy community was effusive.  ”They’ve had plenty of time to fix this ongoing issue, it’s sad that a lawsuit is needed to get justice for pedestrians,” commented Deborah Murphy, the founder of L.A. Walks and Chair of the City’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee (although here she is speaking as the former and not the latter.)

Photo:QsySye/Flickr

By “plenty of time,” Murphy is referring to the decades of neglect that Los Angeles’ sidewalks have undergone, especially when it comes to the ADA.  Murphy and other advocates believed the city had turned a corner more than a decade ago with the City Council unanimously made a commitment in 1999 to use funds from a settlement with the tobacco industry to repair sidewalks and parks.  However, that commitment ended after the first year of a twenty-five year settlement and the sidewalks continued to crumble and fall more out-of-date with modern standards.

Another warning for the City of Los Angeles was the landmark decision in Barden v Sacramento.   Joan Barden and other plaintiffs sucessfully argued that the State Capital violated the ADA by allowing sidewalks to fall into disrepair.  The Ninth Circuit Court agreed , ruling that the ADA convers anything “a public entity does,” which includes the construction and maintenance of sidewalks.

“This is a great example that class action lawsuits can have a great benefit to the public,” commented Howard Krepack, a Partner with Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Fulton & Goldstein LLP.  ”This is a great thing for disabled or injured pedestrians, or anyone that regularly uses sidewalks.”  Krepack is not a class action lawyer.

Because the settlement impacts so many people, it literally impacts every disabled person that lives within or visits Los Angeles there will be a chance for the public to comment on the settlement before it is finalized by the court.  Krepack explained the process to me over the phone.

The court is going to want to hear from as many people as possible to make sure the agreement between the two parties is fair.  While the agreement does a lot for the state of the city’s sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, it also protects the city somewhat from future lawsuits.  There is a “no opt-out” clause in the settlement, meaning that “…members of the Settlement Class will not be able to opt out of the Settlement Class if the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement.”  But, there is a an opportunity for people to either protest (or support) the settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you can object to any part of the settlement. You can give the reasons why you think that the Court should not approve it. To object, you must send a letter or other document stating that you object to the settlement. Please be sure to include your name, address,
telephone number, your signature, a reference to the pending actions, the portions of the settlement to which you object, and the reasons that you object.

You must mail your objection (first class mail, postage paid), postmarked no later than September 7, 2011, to all of the following:

Clerk of the Court
Los Angeles Superior Court
600 South Commonwealth Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90005

David Raizman, Esq.
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
1800 Century Park East, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, California 9006

Mike Arias, Esq.
Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045

Morse Mehrban, Esq.
Law Offices of Morse Meharban
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025

From there, the Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on October 20, 2011, at the Los Angeles Superior Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005 in Department 324. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Our question and answer session with LAPD Sgt. David Krumer went so well, that we decided to do it again.  This time, incoming LADOT General Manager Jaime De La Vega has agreed to answer ten questions (the same number Krumer answered) submitted by Streetsblog readers.

As with Krumer, I’d ask everyone to remain somewhat respectful in their questions.  I’m not saying don’t ask tough questions, but let’s remember that De La Vega has volunteered to do this even though the Streetsblog audience has already shown themselves to be somewhat sceptical that he can reform the LADOT.

Questions should be in by Friday.  If there are more than ten, I’ll pick the “ten best” questions and send them to LADOT on Monday.

Out of the shadows. De La Vega, pictured here with Metro CEO Art Leahy, won't enjoy any anonymity as LADOT GM. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa just announced (although Streetsblog had it first earlier today) the appointment of long-time transportation aide Jaime De La Vega as his nominee for General Manager of the Department of Transportation.  De La Vega first appeared at City Hall as a member of then-Mayor Richard Riordan’s transportation team over a decade ago.  He has been the head of Villaraigosa’s transportation team since the beginning and is credited for advancing Measure R, the 30/10 and America Fast Forward initiatives, and saving the bike/ped set aside from the city’s Measure R funds when some City Councilmen wanted to remove it.

“The Department of Transportation is home to some of the hardest working and most innovative employees who are advancing cutting-edge projects throughout the City,” said de la Vega in a press release. “I look forward to working with them to fix what is broken within the management system.”  The entire release can be found at the end of this document.

De La Vega needs to be approved by the City Council before taking the reigns from Acting General Manager Amir Sedadi.  No hearing schedule has been announced, in fact the Transportation Committee is scheduled to weigh renewing Sedadi’s appointment at next week’s meeting.  There has been no announcement on who will be replacing De La Vega in the Mayor’s Office.

Here it is! Photo: Steve Hymon/L.A. Times

Oh, and in case you hadn’t heard, De La Vega owns a hummer.  I’m not planning on covering the hummer-issue again, nor making a thousand jokes about it over the next two years, so let’s get it out of the way.

This was apparently major news for awhile in the time before L.A. Streetsblog existed.  Even NYC Streetsblog got in on the act in a time when it was just called Streetsblog and was the only game in town for Livable Streets journalism.  I bring it up now not because I care (I don’t), but because it’s going to come up a lot the next couple of months because, as I said, it’s apparently big news.  For the record, he commutes by Red Line or carpool these days and his choice of motor vehicle is for recreation only.

After being tipped to De La Vega’s appointment last night, I reached out to transportation advocates for reaction and was peppered with “hummer” jokes and commentary, even though most saw the De La Vega appointment as a solid one for the Mayor.

Ok, now that that’s over with, let’s talk policy. 

De La Vega is a safe choice for a Mayor with two years left in his term.  De La Vega is a respected insider praised for his competence, not a minor achievement in City Hall.  He’s not a game-changer in the Sadik-Khan mode, but he also won’t be caught on tape slamming the City Council during budget season as having “reality deficit disorder.”

The major issue for advocates will be whether or not the LADOT continues to inch towards livability issues over the next couple of years, actually moves quicker to make L.A.’s streets safer, or goes back to the car-first mentality that gripped the department until recently.  While nobody is going to confuse LADOT for its counterparts in Portland or New York, the Department has made noise about, and gotten heat from angry drivers for, improving the lot for “non-motorized” road users.

Alexis Lantz, the planning and program director for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, writes, “We hope that Mr. De La Vega will continue to transition LADOT into an agency that really serves its mission of providing ‘for safe and optimal mobility of people and goods throughout the City of Los Angeles, in support of economic activity and a desirable quality of life…’ We hope that Mr. De La Vega will prioritize this work by allocating more staff to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit planning and implementation, and work to reorganize LADOT to create a safer and more livable City of Los Angeles.”

Villaraigosa also responded to the embarrassment caused by the “Gold Card” ticket fixing mini-scandal by appointing LAPD Commander Michael Williams, a 35-year veteran of the force to LADOT to review the management systems of the parking enforcement division.

“As a Commander and 35-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, I know the importance of running and managing an efficient division,” said Commander Williams. “I look forward to working with the LADOT parking enforcement staff to implement new systems for a streamlined parking enforcement plan.”

Also joining the team at LADOT is Jim Abalos, Personnel Director of the Personnel Department, who will be charged with assessing and reforming human resources functions, policies, procedures, and enforcement.

Working with Comptroller Wendy Greuel’s Office to complete a large-scale audit of the agency is one of Mr. De La Vega’s top priorities after approval by the Council.

MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA NOMINATES JAIME DE LA VEGA GENERAL MANAGER OF THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

LAPD Commander Michael Williams to Review Management Systems of the Parking Enforcement Division

Personnel Director of the Personnel Department Jim Abalos, to Assess and Reform Human Resources

LOS ANGELES – Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa nominated Jaime de la Vega General Manager of the Department of Transportation (LADOT) and announced that LAPD Commander Michael Williams will be temporarily assigned to LADOT to oversee the reformation of the parking enforcement division.

“Jaime is an experienced public policy leader and manager with extensive experience working in city government, reforming departmental operations, and developing and implementing transportation projects at both the local and regional level,” Villaraigosa said. “Jaime has the leadership, management ability, and dedication to the City of Los Angeles to successfully lead the Department of Transportation.”

Mr. de la Vega brings nearly two decades of experience working on transportation-related issues. He is currently Deputy Mayor for Transportation where he develops and implements surface transportation and aviation policy at the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Los Angeles World Airports.

“The Department of Transportation is home to some of the hardest working and most innovative employees who are advancing cutting-edge projects throughout the City,” said de la Vega. “I look forward to working with them to fix what is broken within the management system.”

Committed to transparency and accountability at the Department, Mr. de la Vega will work with City Controller Greuel on the top-to-bottom management review of LADOT.

Villaraigosa also announced that LAPD Commander Michael Williams – a 35-year veteran of the force with a law enforcement background that includes patrol, detectives and administrative functions within the Los Angeles Police Department – will be temporarily assigned to LADOT to review the management systems of the parking enforcement division.

“As a Commander and 35-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, I know the importance of running and managing an efficient division,” said Commander Williams. “I look forward to working with the LADOT parking enforcement staff to implement new systems for a streamlined parking enforcement plan.”

Also joining the team at LADOT is Jim Abalos, Personnel Director of the Personnel Department, who will be charged with assessing and reforming human resources functions, policies, procedures, and enforcement.

LADOT is currently working on the largest transportation infrastructure building project in City history including: doubling the amount of rail; finalizing the synchronization of the city’s traffic signals; supporting construction on the I-405 which will reduce daily commutes by up to 20 minutes;  and implementing the recently adopted City-wide bicycle plan.

Mr. de la Vega’s appointment is subject to confirmation by the City Council. Amir Sedadi will remain Assistant General Manager at LADOT.

To read the full list of "Package 1" projects, click on the image.

Last Friday, the LADOT responded to criticism of the city’s plan to commit to environmental review many of the projects outlined in the Bike Plan.  However, their response, and release of the first batch of projects that will be stalled while a review is completed, have created more anger and confusion than anything else.  Despite the assertions from City Planner Jane Choi on the Bike Blog and Claire Bowen on Streetsblog, most cyclists see this review as a waste of time.

Of particular concern is the idea of grouping together packages of bicycle projects to be reviewed at once instead of letting every project  go through what could be a quick environmental review on its own.  Choi defends that decision by pointing to the EIR for the San Francisco Bike Plan, but her explanation is causing more criticism than not:

San Francisco’s Bicycle Plan EIR cleared 30 miles of new lane projects for implementation. Each package will be limited to a similar size in terms of mileage due to cost, funding and feasibility. The draft proposed Package 1 has about 45 miles of streets.

“This is exactly the battle we fought to keep a mandated-stricter-review-standard out of the bike plan.” responded Joe Linton.  “It’s like a zombie back from the dead.”  Linton is referring to the battle at the City Planning Commission to get language removed that required the grouping of bicycle projects together to be reviewed.  Back in November of last year, Linton wrote about the importance of this language change:

Removing the distinction between the plan’s “proposed” and “potential” bike lanes, and deleting references to “required” CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act.) review.  This is actually a very significant change. Instead of the plan dictating a requirement for time-consuming review on all 500+ bike lanes in the “potential” category, these projects can now be reviewed individually, with the easier ones now cheap and quick and the more difficult ones possibly necessitating additional expensive review. The amount of review will be dictated by project specifics, not by heavy-handed clumping.

Others see this not as a test of bike plan projects, but as a way to avoid working on projects that could prove controversial.  “This is how bureaucrats test to see who has the most pull and who is willing to fight them all the way with this stuff.” wrote Josef Bray-Ali, a former City Staffer, founder of the Bike Oven and proprietor of the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop.

But if sending bike projects is a political calculation, and not a project delivery one, then Planning Staff may be miscalculating.  One advocate, who asked for anonymity, wrote, “The whole time the bike plan was passing through council they (staff) were so nervous that it wouldn’t pass, and it went through unanimously.”

Pushing the environmental review may actually create more political problems for city agencies, reporting on the City’s Budget meetings, Stephen Box writes about an exchange between Budget Chair Bernard Parks and city staff. “LADOT got taken to task tonight (Thursday) by Parks in the Budget Hearings for using Measure R money for staffing instead of actual projects.  Knowing that the LADOT is having a hard time actually spending the money and that the City Council is asking the hard questions, it’s time to dispense with the financial limitations argument that LADOT always puts forward and to demand that the Measure R money actually get put to work.”

Meanwhile, groups such as the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Bikeside are working behind the scenes to advocate for a streamlined environmental process for these projects, one that won’t take at least a year and begin in the fall. But their goal might be larger than just getting plans through the system.

Speaking if CEQA, Alexis Lantz from the LACBC writes, “We need to change the city’s threshold guidelines… and that goes beyond these projects and this issue – but I see it being the larger obstacle that must be challenged and changed in order to get these projects done easier and more cost effectively.”

As advocates jockey to change the city’s mind on sending bike projects through a review, it’s getting clearer and clearer that the Honeymoon between cyclists and the city might be coming to an end.

“The number one thing I was looking for was vision.  The number two thing was love of Los Angeles.  Everything else will work itself out.” explains Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announcing the appointment of actor, entrepreneur, and environmental advocate Ed Begley Jr. as the new General Manager for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.  A press conference is scheduled at City Hall at noon.  Coincidentally, the entire City Council will be in Van Nuys at the time.

Begley Jr. cheers on candidate Villaraigosa in 2001. Photo:Life Magazine

Begley seems like an odd choice at first, but consider that NYCDOT Super Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan isn’t a transportation engineer, but is trained as a lawyer.  The appointment of such a noted environmentalist and former Grand Marshall for the Los Angeles Bike Coalition’s River Ride, sends a clear signal what Villaraigosa’s priorities are for the rest of his term as it refers to transportation.

“People call the Caltrans building that houses my new team the ‘Death Star.’” Begley notes in the press release, “But now we’ll call it the Life Star.  The first thing we’re going to do is put some solar panels on that thing and use the energy to power some e-car stations in the parking garage.”

Even as I’m typing this, statements of congratulations are rolling across the wire.  Councilman Bill Rosendahl has just expressed his excitement, “to work with a man who was riding his bike when riding a bike was cool the first time.”  Councilman Tom LaBonge noted that “it’s good that someone who played football in high school is running with the ball for the DOT.”

Interim LADOT General Manager Amir Sedadi, a leading candidate for the job until this morning’s release, seemed almost relieved, “Have fun at those Neighborhood Council meetings on bike lanes and RV’s.  At least I won’t have to explain to Council Members why my boss is calling them “out of touch” and “braindead.”

Begley will also be replacing Councilman Huizar on the Metro Board of Directors, which will certainly come as a surprise to many other members of the Board who were unaware that Huizar served on the Board for the last two years.  “I thought the Mayor appointed the football guy,” supplied Supervisor Gloria Molina.

The press conference is scheduled for noon at City Hall, where Villaraigosa and Begley Jr. won’t have to share the stage with any Council Members who are trapped at Van Nuys City Hall for their monthly meeting in the Valley.  Rosendahl’s Transportation Committee has scheduled a confirmation hearing for April 20.