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?

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.

Image via LADOT Bike Blog

Via the LADOT Bike Blog comes a first look at the Spring Street Buffered Bike Lanes planned for Downtown Los Angeles. Having spent some time this weekend on the “bike paths” on 3rd and Broadway in Downtown Long Beach this weekend, I can’t tell you what a difference a buffer makes.

Even though these lanes aren’t quite the same as the ones in Long Beach, there’s a lot of excitement for the lanes, which the city has promised will be open for business by the end of the year. The excitement has led to a lot of speculation on when in December the lanes are going to open, although I’m starting to hear buzz that they might be open even sooner than that.

Starting last July, food trucks were pushed into private lots for Art Walk. Now they won't be allowed at all during the monthly event. Photo:Apple Guy/Flickr

Last month, tragedy struck during the monthly Art Walk in Downtown Los Angeles when a dangerous driver jumped a curb, crashed into a parking meter and killed a seven week old infant.  The tragedy shocked not just the Downtown and Art Walk communities, but the entire city.  Advocates pointed out that when you have a situation where vehicular traffic is mixed with thirty thousand pedestrians in such a short space as the core of Art Walk, between 3rd and 7th on Spring Street.

Responding the to safety issues highlighted by the crash, Council Members Jan Perry and Jose Huizar appointed a task force to look at safety issues.  Immediately following the crash, Art Walk participants, and some gallery owners, called for the streets to be completely closed off to car traffic during the walk.  However, that option wasn’t seriously considered for this month’s walk.  Instead, the task force focused on removing food trucks from the core of the event in an effort to spread out, and even thin out, the walking crowd.

Yesterday the task force and the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council , already pushed food trucks, already cornered into private lots, out of the core of Art Walk and on to the periphery to the north and south and parallel streets such as Broadway.  The presence of food trucks had nothing to do with the crash that killed the young infant, and if these private lots are used for their original purpose it could make the driver v pedestrian conflict even worse.  However, last month’s tragedy is being used as an excuse to do something many Downtown denizens have wanted for a long time, begin to push back against the festival that temporarily takes over their neighborhood.

This isn’t an art blog, it’s a transportation and street life blog, so let’s avoid debate about the true meaning of Art Walk and focus instead on how to make a major Downtown event work for the people that want to attend, and everyone else.

There are three interests here, and the reason that Art Walk patrons are on the losing end of the debate thus far is that the other two interests are both more entrenched and in this instance are allied.

The first two interests are almost always in conflict.  Pedestrians and drivers have been put in conflict in this area at this time.  Whether it’s because the city and leadership is too car obsessed to handle a pedestrian oriented event of this size, or because Art Walk has outgrown the area in which its situated doesn’t really matter.  What matters is that at this point, because of the size, rowdiness, time of day, or day on the calendar; Art Walk has lost the support of the third interested party.

The other interest is the community surrounding the Walk.  At Blogdowntown, Eric Richardson eloquently makes the case why Art Walk shouldn’t be allowed to take over the area, even for once a month, if its something the community doesn’t want.

Open that space up and the crowds will certainly show up to fill it. No one doubts that there is an appetite for a public party in Los Angeles.

In the process, though, we will be saying that Downtown, or at least the Historic Core, is no place for families and no place for professionals who may need to work on a Friday morning. We will prioritize food trucks and street fairs over the people and businesses who are in this neighborhood seven days a week.

To be short, Art Walk is so large, so unruly, that area residents would prefer the status quo of a car-clogged surface street over a large pedestrian-oriented festival.  For Art Walk to continue to grow and thrive, let’s not even talk about car-free streets, that needs to change.

Not having been to Art Walk since the crowds have swelled to their current numbers so I don’t have any easy answers how to create this change.  Art Walk’s efforts to stop the flow of free wine at the participating art galleries is a good step to make the streets safer, but it doesn’t do much for the Downtown residents who are taking issue with the Walk as it is.  My personal thought is that moving it to a Friday or Saturday night would help, but I’m sure that would create different issues.

How can Art Walk make peace with the Downtown community?  Leave your thoughts in the comments section.

My favorite alternative connects the black line running down Broadway to the yellow line snaking through South Central Los Angeles and around the Staples Center. See all the alternatives here.

Tomorrow night, the L.A. Streetcar team and Metro will hold a public meeting to discuss what options will be studied for a new streetcar system for Downtown Los Angeles.  There are seven options on the table, all of them serve a different need, and all of them will bring something new, or rather something old, back to the Downtown.

There’s plenty of information about the project and meeting online.  You can get the meeting details, read a short briefing put together by Metro, or visit the official LA Streetcar homepage and comment on the alternatives.  Last but not least, the streetcar boosters have their own webpage at Go LA Streetcar.

Last week, the mapping blog Big Map Blog, released an old map of the streetcar system from 105 years ago.  The quality of the old streetcar system has become something of an urban legend among transportation reformers.  People talk about the system as though it provided a universal transit system that was unrivaled.

And looking at the map, it’s easy to say why.

Yup, the old streetcars went to Staples Center. You can see a lot more of the 1906 map at The Big Map Blog.

But as impressive as the old streetcars were, it’s time to look forward, at what’s being offered by the current proposals. None of the proposals can replace what used to exist, but each of them brings something new to the table.

All of the routes have one thing in common.  Each segment contains a southbound segment on Broadway between 1st and 9th.  Originally, the idea of bringing back part of the old streetcar network was to “Bring Broadway Back.”  Metro has held true to that vision by including nine blocks of Broadway in every alternative.

With a backbone predetermined for Broadway, the most pressing routing issues become where to start and end the route.  Unlike 1906, Metro now has a subway running through Downtown with more light rail on the way.  With the Red and Purple Lines running to Union Station, does the streetcar really have to run there too?  Heck, wouldn’t it probably be faster for people training in to Union Station to grab a subway connector to Downtown instead of riding the streetcar the entire way?

As for a southern terminus, after seeing the tremendous vision for the Figueroa corridor earlier this year, it’s nigh impossible to not root for a the line to run down Figueroa to help fulfill that vision.

Do you have a favorite route? If so, feel free to discuss it below. All comments will be forwarded on to the LA Streetcar project team. Or, you can send a message to them directly at streetcarservice@metro.net.

At last week’s Art Walk, the monthly event where downtown art galleries open their doors to the public for free, thousands of people gathered to walk through the Downtown.  The event is changing the way people view Downtown Los Angeles, but last week, tragedy struck.

A two-month old infant in a stroller was killed when a Mercedes jumped a curb and struck the stroller and her mother.  It was initially reported that the driver would face no criminal charges, but later it was reported that he might face vehicular manslaughter.  The LAPD believes he was trying to parallel park front first when he hit the gas instead of the brake, careened into a parking meter, and then into a crowd.

Some have responded to the crash by calling for the walk to go carfree.  Others are claiming that Art Walk has become to large an event to be managed efficiently and should be closed.  Streetsblog had a chance to interview Mayor Villaraigosa on the phone today and we asked him about the crash (more on the rest of the interview tomorrow):

First, it’s obviously a terrible tragedy and our hearts go out to the family.  It’s irresponsible to blame Art Walk for this crash, from what I understand it was a freak accident…It’s too soon to talk about what, if any, changes are needed.  I know Art Walk is working with the city to make people as safe as possible when people are crossing the street.

Streetsblog contributor Brigham Yen advances the argument that the City should think of making Art Walk, at least part of it, car-free  on his self-named blog.  Yen points out that New York does the same thing in Times Square on weekends.  Commentors at other blogs are calling for a monthly mini-Ciclavia on Spring and Main Streets between 2nd and 9th, where the Walk regularly takes place.

While we certainly agree with the concept of car-free parties, it seems unlikey to happen in the short-term.  Remember that after each CicLAvia, which covers 7.5 miles, the non-profit group that programs the event is presented with a six figure bill.   While a lower bill would come for Art Walk, both Main and Spring Street host just under a mile of Art Walk.  Over the course of a year, Art Walk closures would cost more than the two CicLAvia closures.

Is anyone willing to bring the money to close Spring and/or Main Streets to car traffic in Art Walk?

If the City won’t pay for the closures, and they probably won’t, then it’s incumbent on Art Walk to figure something out.  The sponsor list for Art Walk doesn’t seem to be able to foot a $500,000 bill so the businesses who benefit from the walk would have to step in to the gap.

There are still five more Art Walks scheduled for 2011: August 11, September 8, October 13, November 10 and December 8.  Whether there are any significant changes to the event remains to be seen.

By this point, its becoming clear that for City Officials, the transportation planning for the AEG stadium is a secondary issue for the politicians who will approve a deal with AEG, possibly within the next 45 days.  While the Council is debating and discussing a lot of complicated issues, it’s taking its eyes off the ball when it comes to transportation planning.

It appears that the people making the decision on the stadium are most interested on the dollars and cents of the deal but that doesn’t mean they can afford to ignore the stadium’s impact on the community that surrounds the stadium site, a community where residents’ incomes are well below the national and city-wide averages.

Over the weekend, Councilman Bill Rosendahl published on Scribd a thirteen page letter from City Staff responding to thirty eight questions he had emailed them at different times.  Of those questions, one was about transportation, and it was about relocating car parking spaces.  Meanwhile, the clock continues to tick-down towards the AEG-created deadline of July 31 for the city and agency to reach an agreement.

One of the reasons the city should be demanding more details about the transportation plan now, before an agreement is reached, instead of during the environmental review process, is that AEG is still planning to push for state legislation that would disallow any lawsuits to be brought against its environmental documents, including a traffic and transportation study.  If the city moves forward with a deal with AEG before details of the transportation plan are known, it could be hard to fix a flawed plan later in the process.

In an editorial calling for a deal to be reached post-haste, the Los Angeles Times notes that AEG claims it could one day host the first Super Bowl where the majority of fans arrive via foot, but those dreams are just that without a plan.  After all, the Stadium will be located near the Staple Center, and while the Stadium will hold many more people than the arena, its worth noting that most attendees to these events get there by car.

Where it gets even more complicated is in AEG’s plans for boxing or wrestling or the Final Four. Those events and others like them take place at all hours and would put real stress on the area’s already groaning road network. Recognizing that, AEG has grand dreams of bolstering the public transportation options around LA Live and of hosting the first Super Bowl in history at which most fans arrive on foot, either from nearby hotels or from train stations or shuttles. It’s the council’s duty to see that those plans are not just selling tools but real proposals cemented in the ultimate deal, with AEG bearing its share of the responsibility for planning and funding them.

Streetsblog has outlined four ways that AEG can earn the public’s trust that the Stadium won’t create a Carmageddon whenever the stadium is full, and can do so in the next month.  Our ask includes commitments to a peer-reviewed traffic study, renderings for the pedestrian environment surrounding the stadium, a plan and budget for a bike valet, and a media plan to encourage transit.  If AEG can’t commit to these four low-cost but high impact items now, the Council should balk at any stadium plan or demand a promise that AEG doesn’t seek any exclusion from challenges to its transportation plan and review.

(The above video was prepared by the L.A. City Bureau of Engineering to explain the project. There will be a public meeting on the North Spring Street Bridge Improvement project on Tuesday, May 10, at 6:00 P.M. at the Lincoln Heights Senior Citizen Center at 2323 Workman Avenue.  For more information, click on the advertisement on the right.  Many of the details that have led to this compromise can be found in our first article on this project.)

The L.A. Conservancy, one of the leading voices opposing the North Spring Street Bridge Improvement Project, has broken its silence on its view of the new designs for the project proposed by the City’s Bureau of Engineering (BoE.)  Despite its long-standing opposition to changing the design of the historic structure, it seems the Conservancy is pleased with the efforts the BoE has made to maintain the original design and make needed repairs and upgrades to the bridge.

“We’re encouraged by the direction the Bureau of Engineering is headed,” notes Adrian Scott Fine, the director of advocacy for the L.A. Conservancy.

As we noted last week, the bridge has been a fixture in Downtown Los Angeles since 1927, but in recent years the City has been trying to change the structure by widening it, adding new sidewalks, bike lanes, and extending the mixed-use travel lanes from 9.5 to eleven feet.  The Conservancy has opposed the widening because earlier designs of the bridge would have greatly altered the character of the structure.

After losing a political battle last year, the BoE went back to the drawing board to create two new designs for expanding the bridge.  The first design proposed design widens the south side of the bridge, restripe the lanes to include a bike lane in each direction, widen the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge and add a sidewalk to the south side.  The second design spreads the widening out but has the same basic impact.  The bridge will still have four mixed travel lanes, two new bike lanes, and sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.

It’s the widening of the travel lanes that has created controversy for some transportation reform advocates.  The LACBC has written a letter that could serve as a template for those wishing to weigh in on the bridge.  In addition to bicycle connectivity, widened mixed-use lanes, and the cultural significance of the bridge, their letter can be read here.

Grace David, the Project Manager at the BoE and Tanya Durrell, Principal of Public Relations at BoE, objected to the argument that this project is about increasing car capacity noting that the 11 foot travel lane width is standard for a secondary highway (the street classification for North Spring Street) and they couldn’t use state or federal dollars for the project without widening these lanes.  Advocates the wider lanes will lead to faster traffic speeds and thus greater capacity even if there are no additional travel lanes added to the project.

As for the two designs, the Conservancy has a favorite.  As stated on their updated advocacy page for the website, “With the single-sided widening – the Conservancy’s preferred approach of the two options – the current 4-lane bridge would be widened by 21-feet on the south side only to accommodate 5-foot sidewalks, 5-foot bike lanes, and 11-feet wide travel lanes with a 4-foot wide center median.”

However, this doesn’t mean that the Conservancy has signed-off on the project.  Fine notes that there are still some concerns on how to make a wider bridge continue the historical tradition of the bridge.  “There are creative ideas churning on how to make that step at the Bureau,” Fine explains, “The devil is going to be in the details.”

Image via Farmer's Field

While the rest of the local media was busy going ga-ga over the press conference announcing that, if constructed, the Downtown NFL Stadium would be named after Farmers Bank, Patrick McGreevey and Jessica Harrison at the Los Angeles Times revealed that the developer’s for the Downtown Stadium are lobbying for the same exemption from state environmental lawsuits that rival developer Ed Roski earned for his proposed Stadium in the City of Industry.

As top executives from Anschutz’s firm roamed the Capitol to lobby for their project this week and a who’s who of power brokers in sports, business, labor and politics announced their backing for it in Los Angeles, dozens of activist groups were mobilizing against the billionaire builder, pressing legislators not to exempt AEG from provisions of the state’s environmental quality act.

In 2009, billionaire developer Ed Roski convinced the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger to exempt their stadium plan from any legal challenge even as the neighboring City of Walnut tried to use a lawsuit to force a more complete traffic study for his stadium.  Roski turned to the legislature and Governor who changed the law, just for Roski, so that his project’s environmental documents could not be challenged in court.

If AEG gets the same exemption that Roski did, and legislators are already lining up to do AEG’s bidding, it would be an even more egregious violation of the public trust than in the Roski situation.  Knowing ahead of time that the only people that would have to approve the environmental documents would be officials with the City of Los Angeles, there would be little incentive to insure that the review was top quality.  After all, Mayor Villaraigosa is already celebrating the stadium, and its unlikely that a review would get a serious review from the city if the review is completed during his term.

As the debate over whether or not to protect AEG from legal challenges to their environmental documents heats up, there will doubtless be a lot of discussion about what is “fair.”  If the Roski project was exempted from lawsuits, then it’s only “fair” that AEG be protected as well.  But the purpose of environmental laws isn’t about creating a checklist for rich people to check off before they do whatever they want to do, it’s about protecting communities, and people, from projects that would do more damage than good.

In other words, if the legislature decides to step in to legal issues again, then it should be judging whether or not an exemption is in the community’s best interest, not whether it’s “fair” to AEG.

For a copy of the flyer announcing their February meetings, click here.

I have to be honest.  If the My Figueroa project ends up fulfilling its mission of designing a people-friendly Figueroa Street from the southwest corner of Exposition Park to Downtown Los Angeles only by adding a couple of trees and repainting the crosswalks, I’ll be extremely disappointed.

The project team raised expectations by encouraging participants to last September’s community meetings to consider improvements to the corridor such as separated bike lanes and scramble crosswalks.  Then, in addition to partnering with Streetsblog Board Member Deborah Murphy, they announced that the architects for the project were the world renowned Gehl Architects out of Copenhagen.

Now, via a flier announcing February’s outreach meetings, they’ve released their first proposed sketches for the corridor.  Instead of five through traffic lanes, a planted median and some street parking, let’s look at the street that’s proposed in the picture above.  Instead of five lanes of yuck and some trees, I see two lanes of through traffic, a dedicated transit lane, a pedestrian plaza, a lane for local and bicycle traffic and then restaurant seating.  What a change that would be…

In short, this is a street that would serve people regardless of their favored mode of transportation.  If this plan comes through, South Figueroa will be Los Angeles’ first true complete street.  Generally, once cities get one street that looks like the one pictured above, residents from the rest of the city start asking “what about us?”

Streetsblog spent a lot of time in 2010 discussing how the culture of the city was starting to change.  If this project ever becomes a reality, then the change isn’t just coming.  It will have arrived.

Photo: Visual Terrain

How do Los Angeles’ residents want their city, and neighborhoods, to develop?  Are big projects that raise a lot of money for developers and provide entertainment and dining for thousands of people better than smaller developments that better serve the communities in which they are placed?

That debate has been a hot one for decades, not just in Los Angeles, but around the country.  Recently, it came up again after the L.A. Live development won a major international award in October for being a “Pinnacle of Modern Design.”  For Angelenos who favor more community-based development, the L.A. Live’s win came as a surprise.

Last month, the Urban Land Institute’s national office announced the five winners of their Global Awards for Excellence.  L.A. Live, the mega-entertainment development in Downtown Los Angeles, was one of the two winners from North America, because of its size and economic benefit to the part of the city just South of central Downtown Los Angeles.

For those of you that are unfamiliar, L.A. Live is a 5 million-square-foot sports, residential and entertainment district developed by the Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG.)  AEG is the same developer working on bringing an NFL Stadium to Downtown Los Angeles.  The $2.5 billion project includes restaurants, cafes, hotels and over 200 luxury residences in addition to such attractions as the “Grammy Museum.”

In their announcement, the ULI beamed that,

L.A. LIVE is a large-scale project that breaks the myth of being too big to succeed,” said Global Awards Jury Chairman Joseph E. Brown, Group Chief Executive of AECOM in San Francisco. “This development is a massive achievement that involved enormous participation from the public sector, creating an economically thriving asset for Los Angeles.

But not every Angeleno was thrilled with L.A. Live’s selection.  The California Planning and Development Report takes a completely different take on the development:

…the enormous development literally imposes a wall between itself and busy Figueroa Boulevard. Ostensibly public, LA Live is in fact sequestered from public life. Although nothing like LA Live was planned for in the South Park Specific Plan, LA redevelopment officials were eager to get a convention center hotel, which became the centerpiece of the development.

The main point of the California Planning and Development Report’s point is that just because L.A. Live is big and profitable, it doesn’t mean that it’s a good project for the city.  How can a development that is separate from the community in which it exists be considered a pinnacle of urban development?

As large projects are proposed, study and built around transit nodes in the coming decades as a result of “Transit Oriented Development” plans and the unprecedented growth of rail in Southern California, this debate will occur over and over again.  When it comes to development and urban design, is bigger better?

To AEG’s credit, unlike the outdoor retail/entertainment developments we see at the Grove and the Third Street Promenade, L.A. Live isn’t an inconvenient place to access by transit.  It always seemed odd at The Grove, which I used to be able to walk to, see a place advertise an outdoor trolley when there were only two bus lines that served the mega development.  L.A. Live, because of its location in Downtown Los Angeles has more bus lines running service and is even accessible via the Blue Line.

While accessibility via transit is one of the components that made L.A. Live a banner project for the ULI, it doesn’t mean the development itself is an accessible one.  Back when I lived in Baltimore, I used to joke with a friend (who is now a Baltimore City Councilman) that the city’s light rail line was to get well-to-do white people in and out of  Baltimore’s tourist areas and ballparks without having to see a single minority.  While I’m not saying that was AEG’s goal for L.A. Live, or even that L.A. Live deserves that comparison, the story does help make the point that just having a rail line doesn’t necesarily make a place accessible.

This point was also hammered by the California Planning and Development Report:

Business success is not contemptible, but it‘s not the only criterion for good urban design. A sense of public life, continuity with the surrounding city and increasing the level of pedestrian activity throughout the district are at least equally important. On those latter criteria, LA Live is a 1970s-style monster project in a 21st Century city. I think LA Live detracts from downtown, and deprives downtown of commercial activity and pedestrians-filled sidewalks.

Merchants and pedestrians both could have benefited from a similar development not conceived on the model of absolute control and privatism. But this enormous project seems to benefit itself only, while adding yet another bunker-like condition to downtown LA.

But in the end, I’ll leave it to you to decide, and debate.  Does L.A. Live deserve an award for being a pioneering development?  Or, in the words of CP&DR writer Morris Newman, does the project “stink.”

There's being a danger to yourself...Photo: Seattle Daily Photo.

The Downtown LAPD is at it again.

Downtown has long been known as one of the least pedestrian-friendly precincts. LAPD officers on the downtown beat have routinely ticketed pedestrians for such “infractions” as crossing an intersection against a flashing red hand signal while motorists breeze through red lights mere feet away; now the Division is proudly touting a new effort to crackdown on Downtown “jaywalkers” to reduce pedestrian crashes.

Unlike the commenters on the Times’ article announcing the “crackdown,” who assume this effort is a ploy to fill the city’s coffers to the tune of $191 per infraction, let’s take the LAPD at their word.  Let’s assume that this crackdown is about making the Downtown safer for pedestrians.  Then, let’s ask them to please spend more time enforcing the law against automobile drivers who are far more likely to cause a fatal crash than a pedestrian.

...and being a danger to everyone. LAPD should learn the difference. Photo:Los Angeles Times

An astute reader might note that the Times’ article, available on the paper’s L.A. Now page, quotes a Lieutenant Vernon who claims that in 2009 there were “three accidents involving a vehicle and a pedestrian in the downtown area between Nov. 25 and Dec. 31.  Two of those incidents were blamed on the person on foot and resulted in serious injury to the pedestrian, Vernon said. The third incident, which resulted in a pedestrian’s death, was due to a speeding driver.”

Wow, that means, based on this uselessly small sample size, that pedestrians are twice as likely to cause a crash than a driver.  It also makes you wonder which of these crashes were the fault of the pedestrian: the December 14th crash where a car jumped a curb and killed a photographer on the sidewalk or a November 26th crash where a woman was dragged over a half mile before the police stopped the driver after noticing the body.

Even if the LAPD had their facts straight, there’s still the question as to whether or not a “jaywalking crackdown” is the best way, or even a good way, to make streets safer.  Traffic expert Tom Vanderbilt, author of the book Traffic, argues otherwise.

So what can be done? The answer is not jaywalking crackdowns. These tend to be hard to enforce, lower the public opinion of the police, reinforce the idea of car dominance on city streets, and, most importantly, do not provide an effective bang for the buck. Indeed, the Netherlands, which has essentially legalized jaywalking, has an enviable pedestrian safety record.

Vanderbilt closes the above article by noting that media reports on crashes are often selective and slanted, and they discourage readers from digging beyond the assertions thrown out by reporters and the police.  Nowhere is that more true than in Los Angeles.

AEG says they're drawing inspiration from the Dallas Cowboys new stadium. Apparently that inspiration doesn't include a giant parking lot.

The Sporting News provides one of the first real looks at what plans entertainment giant AEG has planned for their proposed NFL Football Stadium that would be located in Downtown Los Angeles.  There’s some good news for those concerned that the new Stadium would be accompanied with a gigantic sea of parking, as most NFL Stadiums do.  According to the Sporting News:

If Downtowners want to see a Regional Connector Station at 5th and Flower, they're going to have to find the money themselves. Photo:Clovis Bouhier/PBase

Here’s a quick rundown of the major votes by today’s Metro Board. Each of these five motions were discussed at Streetsblog over the last couple of weeks, and links to those stories can be found at the end of each summary.  Streetsblog will have links to all news reports on today’s meeting tomorrow.

Westside Subway Locally Preferred Alternative/Environmental Studies
As expected, the Metro Board of Directors unanimously voted to approve the Westside Subway “Locally Preferred Alternative” as the 9 1/2-mile route to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Brentwood from the current end of the Purple Line at Wilshire/Western in Koreatown.  Despite over an hour of public comment from the Beverly Hills’ NUMBY’s, there was no decision made on whether the subway should have a stop on Santa Monica Boulevard in Century City or Constellation Avenue.

Yaroslavsky’s motion, which seemed to place the concerns of Beverly Hills regarding the Constellation Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard debate ahead of those of other communities, was amended by the author to urge the staff to provide a detailed account of the impacts of both alternatives through the Westside.  This would have happened regardless under the Final Environmental Impact Statement that the Board approved funding for today.  For background on this motion, read yesterday’s Streetsblog story or an update on today’s vote from LA_Now.

Regional Connector Locally Preferred Alternative/Environmental Studies
The Metro Board also approved the “Locally Preferred Alternative” and funding for the environmental studies needed for the Regional Connector.  The debate was dominated by Little Tokyo business groups concerned that “cut and cover” subway construction would disrupt the community and cost them business. Downtown interests and LA City Councilwoman Jan Perry also expressed concerns about the exclusion of the 5th and Flower stop from the LPA.  The Board narrowly voted to exclude the 5th and Flower for now, but left the door open to include it in the environmental studies, if local businesses raise the roughly $2 million needed for that part of the study.  For more background, read this story at Streetsblog or an update on today’s vote from Blog Downtown.

“BikeWood” Hub at Hollywood and Vine
The motion allowing the creation of a street level, highly visible Bike Hub a the Hollywood and Vine Transit Oriented Development passed without much discussion.  Streetsblog provided the background for this motion on Monday.

Ridley-Thomas Grade-Crossing Motion

Good use of everyone's time, Supervisors. Photo: Los Angeles County

The Metro Board quickly passed County Superviser Mark Ridley-Thomas’ controversial grade crossing motion that appeared to introduce a more “subjective” tone into the analysis of whether light rail should run at-grade or grade-separated at major street crossings.  Board Member O’Conner asked that the motion be tabled for a month so Board Members could have more time to analyze the motion.  But, after Metro staff argued that the motion was just a re-emphasis on community concerns from the current grade-crossing policy and that it would have no impact on how these decisions are actually reached, the Board voted to accept Ridley-Thomas’ motion.

During a public discussion segment, Southern California Transit Advocates’ policy director, Kymberleigh Richards, warned that the changes would lead to “days of public comment” over controversial crossings when communities felt their concerns weren’t being addressed.  We’ll have to wait and see if that prediction holds true once debate on specifics of the Crenshaw Line reach the Board in 2011.  For background on this motion, click here.

710 Tunnel Cost Estimate
Ha!  Najarian was listening to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, siting his “wisdom” as a reason to get a new cost estimate.  The official estimate was based on figures from 2006.  While Najarian was able to read his motion into the record, the motion won’t have a full hearing until the next Board Meeting.  For background on this motion, click here.

The demand for federal transit funding is so great in the U.S. that getting a project through the funding queue is a decades-long process. To give you an idea: 37 states have proposed 400 projects worth $250 billion, according to a recent report by the national nonprofit Reconnecting America, and at the current rate of federal investment building these projects would take 77 years.

The $100 million downtown LA streetcar is a newcomer to this game, and has to get in line and wait its turn – unless it attracts significant private investment, which can boot it to the front of the line and open up all kinds of funding streams. That makes last week’s fundraiser at LA Live a significant milestone.

The event at the Target Terrace was hosted by LA City Councilmember Jose Huizar, with Eli Broad, Rick Caruso and AEG CEO Tim Leiwecke, and attended by LA City Councilmember Jan Perry as well as a host of major property owners and reps from the downtown business improvement districts. Governor Schwarzenegger sent someone, as did Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, a longtime downtown streetcar champion. Enough money was raised to keep the nonprofit LA Steetcar Inc. in the business of moving the streetcar project forward during these lean years.

Modern streetcars in other cities have won significant private investment. Property owners along Seattle’s new South Lake Union Trolley (yes, she’s a SLUT) line paid for half the $52 million pricetag, massive development has continued along that line despite the recession, and the city has already planned more lines. Property owners in Portland, where the streetcar attracted $3.5 billion in private investment along the line, also raised significant funding – and almost 40 percent of the cost of the first segment came from increased parking fees – and have even traveled to other cities to preach the streetcar gospel.

Michael Powell, proprietor of the Powell’s Books in Portland, calculated the property owner benefits this way at a national streetcar workshop in LA two years ago: The number of pedestrians in the crosswalk in front of his store numbered three an hour before the line opened in 2001, he said. But when he counted again in 2008 there were 938 pedestrians. Meantime, 400 new businesses had opened along the streetcar line, 90 percent of which were locally owned – the vast majority owned by women and ethnic minorities. And in the meantime, he said, his property values had increased more than tenfold.

That kind of information snapped downtown property owners to attention, and they were all in attendance at LA Live, including Steve Needleman, owner of the Anjac Fashion empire and Orpheum Theater, and Michael Dilijani, owner of the LA Theatre – both of whom are LA Streetcar Inc. board members – as well as Andrew Meieren, designer and owner of the Edison Bar and new owner of the historic Clifton’s Cafeteria. The streetcar would run past their properties on Broadway, connecting LA Live to Broad’s new art museum atop Bunker Hill.

Consider the impact of a streetcar in combination with the downtown Regional Connector, due to open in 2019: Downtown LA could become a real downtown again. “Where does growth and major activity happen in cities? Around transit because there is no room for cars,” noted LA Metro’s Diego Cardoso, one of many enthusiastic transit builders in attendance at the LA Live event. LA Metro’s Robin Blair says once funding for the streetcar is secured building the line would take only two years.

Streetcar stakeholders do the calculus this way: They hope downtown property owners will agree to pony up half the cost of the streetcar and note that another $10 million has been committed by the CRA. And they believe they can get the remainder from the feds and other state and local sources. The streetcar is in LA Metro’s $40 billion long-range plan, which makes $25 million seem like chump change.

The streetcar is currently undergoing environmental analysis, and LA Metro’s Blair said much of the new route could be overlaid on old streetcar lines. It’s important to keep repeating – for those who insist that LA was built up around the car – that LA was actually built up around what was the largest electric trolley system in the U.S., with 6,000 trains running on 144 routes into four counties. It should also be pointed out that in those days, transportation averaged about 3 percent of the household budget, compared to an average of 19 percent today.

The Obama Administration looks much more favorably upon streetcars – they’re urban and urban areas tend to be Democratic – than the Bush Administration. Since Obama took office the US Department of Transportation has invested $258 million in streetcar projects in Portland, Tucson, Dallas, Cincinnati, Charlotte, St. Louis and Fort Worth.

Will the LA streetcars return? “The hosts came together because they know a good investment when they see it,” said Jessica Wethington McLean, executive director of Huizar’s Bringing Back Broadway Initiative. “They know a great downtown will make the city ­– and the region – stronger.” Added LA Streetcar Inc.’s Dennis Allen, “Look at it this way: Three of the most visionary minds in the real estate business are hosting this fundraiser, and it’s attended by important downtown property owners, business owners and real estate developers. Clearly the streetcar is going to be built. The only question is, ‘How soon?’”

Ma-ma-ma-MyFigueroa

What would you do if you had $20 million dollars and were tasked with turning three and a half miles of one of Los Angeles’ most iconic streets into the kind of street that encourages people to be outside?  That’s the question the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is asking at two workshops on Saturday, October 2, and next Tuesday, October 5, about Figueroa Street from the southwest corner of Exposition Park, past USC, and Staples Center in to Downtown Los Angeles.  Flush with $20 million in state “Proposition C” funds, the CRA is asking residents and business owners “what’s your Figueroa” and what do you want Figueroa to look like in the future.

While its easy to imagine what Figueroa could look like with $20 million in streetscape improvements and new crosswalks; the CRA is asking people to think a little outside the box.  For example, on the MyFigueroa Facebook page they actually provide a link to an article on separated bike lanes written by Aaron Naperstek for Streetsblog in 2006.  It makes me think of a Figeuroa Corridor with separated bike lanes, scramble crosswalks, and some greenery to make the street a place people want to be outside.  Heck, I’ll be disappointed if the project ends up being about paint at intersections and a handful of trees.

The people behind the outreach for the project have certainly been pushing an integrated campaign to draw participants to the public outreach.  In addition to mailing postcards throughout the corridor they’ve been active on the Internet soliciting feedback on a blog, twitter account and Facebook.  We’ll find out this weekend.  For more information on the public hearings, visit the Streetsblog calendar section, or any of the social media outlets linked to above.

Ramon Martinez, Jose Guzman, Hector Tobar and other Volunteers at City of Lights’ downtown bike repair space.  Photo: City of Lights

This morning, while preparing "Today’s Headlines" I came across a story in the Times about cyclist Jose Guzman, our friend Ramon Martinez and a day in the life of a day laborer on a bike.  I thought the story was a good narrative, and was probably a more relevant story about what happens every day in L.A. than the story about bus riders earlier in the week; but it was missing one thing.

"Where’s the reference to City of Lights?" I asked myself?  To someone who knows the program; they’re aware that much of the story was taking place in the downtown bike repair space, that City of Lights announced earlier this year.  But, I would bet that we’re lucky of 1% of the people reading the Times story could make the connection to the Bike Coalition’s Streetsie award winning program.

So, first thing’s first.  Let’s give credit to writer Hector Tobar for taking the time to paint a picture of the bike-riding day laborer, a subset of bike culture that accounts for a large percent of the people who ride bikes; but a small percent of those who show up to meetings to "be counted" when it’s lobbying time.

But let’s also take a second to remember that the unsung heros of this story are the folks at City of Lights, a mostly volunteer wing of the LACBC who are on the front lines of making this city a better and more inclusive place for all cyclists.  Drawing on some of the energy created by this story, they hoped to do a little fundraising for the bike repair space mentioned in the story.  You can read about what they need and how to help them out at their website.

A map of the project area provided by Deborah Murphy Urban Design and Planning

In a city that spent the last century paving over the natural landscape, the idea that a small swath of asphalt might be going green is a bit of an anomaly.

But that's what the Community Redevelopment Agency is proposing for a stretch of Grand Avenue in downtown Los Angeles' South Park neighborhood. The idea is to narrow the street between 9th Street and Olympic by two lanes -- and use the extra land for open space.

So far, there seems to be a push from some community advocates to make the park a "dog park," but nothing has been decided yet.  Deborah Murphy, the consultant for the project, outlined over the phone an impressive outreach schedule for the project which features five community workshops and a bus tour.  The first of those workshops will be held tonight at 6:30 P.M. in the Public Works Building, 1149 S. Broadway, Room SB6, and will focus on a brainstorming session devoted to prioritizing the features that the community wants to see in the new park. 

If you live in the area and can't make tonight's meeting, you should consider joining a bus tour of similar parks designed to spark more ideas and conversation on the future of the Olympic and Grand Linear Park.  The bus tour will meet on west side of Grand Avenue between 9th & Olympic Blvd.  This tour is one of several being planned by the CRA for different projects throughout the city.  For a more complete picture of all of the outreach for the Olympic and Grand Linear Park, as well as the Nevin Elementary School Park, Slauson-Wall Park, and Ord and Yale Street Park; visit the Streetsblog Calendar Section.

(Full disclosure: Murphy is the founder and executive director of Los Angeles Walks.  I serve as the Planning Director on the group's Board of Directors.)

For the full image, visit The Source.  If the page doesn't load, it's their server, not my link, that's the problem.

First announced at The Source, then covered at Blogdowntown, Metro staff unveiled a draft of what the Downtown Connector would look like if it were entirely below-grade.  Previous drafts, including a plan referred to as "the Underground Emphasis Option" had the train spending a lot of time at-grade in Little Tokyo.  Even the most underground option had The Connector coming above ground near First and Alameda before connecting to an at-grade station.  Blogdowntown explains the new alternative:

The new alternative would instead place a station underneath the Office Depot site, with trains continuing under the intersection as tracks split to emerge via portals along Alameda and in the middle of 1st.

The Alameda portal would be located north of Temple street, while the 1st street tracks would rise just east of Alameda, leveling off just past Hewitt. Some temporary track on 1st would allow the newly-opened Gold Line Eastside Extension to continue operating throughout construction.

Of course, there are still significant barriers before such a design becomes a part of the final plan.  Most importantly, it needs to be included in Metro's environmental review, a step the agency has yet to announce.  Second, the new plan would cost a cool $200 million more than the most expensive of the currently studied options.  Not surprisingly, even the expanded price tag didn't bother the Little Tokyo community that saw the design last night and voted unanimously to encourage further study.

Meanwhile, in Santa Monica, the City Council voted to endorse a location for the maintenance yard that will house Expo's light rail cars when they're not active on the line.  The surrounding community had argued that a residential neighborhood was a poor location for the yard, but as Curbed reports, via the Argonaut, there were some compromises.

Concessions have been made: A city official tells the paper that the "new planned location had been redesigned to eliminate 'wheel squeal' from the train and a car wash and cleaning platform would be relocated north of the Verizon property. A 110-foot sound barrier is also proposed to reduce noise from the train and the light rail yard."

Again, two issues remain before the light rail yard is a done-deal.  First, it's Metro, not the City of Santa Monica that decides where the yard goes.  Second, the station's new neighbors aren't done fighting.  Now they're concerned with a higher-than-originally reported level of methane gas in the area.

Nevertheless, tonight at the 7th and Figueroa Art Center, the same place that hosted James Rojas' Interactive Car-Free Model last year, the HABEAS LOUNGE exhibit will sponsor a series of discussion about the future of bicycles and public transportation in Los Angeles. Their speakers and presenters are an impressive list of names that Streetsbloggers will recognize, such as Josef Bray-Ali of the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop and Esperanza "Super Pasajera" Martinez of the Bus Riders Union, to some names we should discuss more here and don't such as Ilaria Mazzoleni of Sci-arc and the cast of charachters that lead CicLAvia.

The gallery will be open all evening as part of the Downtown Art Walk, but the presentations don't start until 5:45. Bonus points to the organizers for including transit directions and bike valet, but no driving directions in the announcement. Full details can be found after the jump.

Art Walk night @ HABEAS LOUNGE will be all about bicycles and public transportation. Pricey parking lots, scarce street parking, the threat of being towed...bicycle, metro and bus are THE alternative ways to get around DTLA and we want to hear what you think! This is the last in an 8 week series of events, "HABEAS LOUNGE: A PLURALISTIC DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES".

Advocates will be on hand to share their experiences and visions for transportation in LA, as well as challenges, from proposed master bike plans to everyday commuting. Participants include Guy Bagley (bicycle messenger/DTLA), Nathan Baird (MTA), Josef Bray-Ali (Flying Pigeon), Clifford Johnson (Asymptotia), Alex Kenefick (LA County Bicycle Coalition), Esperanza Martinez (Bus Riders Union), Ilaria Mazzoleni (SCI-ARC), Michelle Mowry (LA DOT), cooks from the Bicycle Kitchen, CicLAvia project members (Bobby Gadda, Sandra Hamlat,Adonia Lugo, Aaron Paley Stephen Villavaso), and YOU!

Take the Metro Red Line from the Pershing Square station to 7th + Metro or ride up 7th Street from the Art Walk to dialogue, discuss, debate, or learn ways to connect to the carless city.

A bicycle valet service will be provided by the LA County Bicycle Coalition. Show your support for 7+FIG's decision to allow the bike valet by riding your bike so you can use the valet.

During the event, check out the HABEAS LOUNGE, designed by Ilaria Mazzoleni: a cardboard sofa built from bike boxes by architect Nina Marie Barbuto, projections of classic/contemporary DTLA films selected by Linda Pollack and Maryam Hosseinzadeh, maps and bottled specimens from workshops by Katie Bachler, urban placemaking by James Jones, film footage of LA shot from a helicopter and a Pontiac G6 by Italian artists/architects ERGOT, an oversized Metro map, and more..