A trio of speed limit proposals head to the City Council Transportation Committee tomorrow.  The proposals total 5.4 miles of city streets that would see a limit increase. Half of those miles would see a dramatic increase from 35 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The areas due for an increase are:

• Kester Avenue between Saticoy Street and Victory Boulevard (35 mph increased to 40 mph for 1.5 miles),
• Kester Avenue between Magnolia and Ventura Boulevards (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .9 miles),
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Coldwater Canyon Avenue (35 mph increased to 45 mph for 2.1 miles)
• Chandler Boulevard between Lankershim Boulevard and Vineland Avenue (35 mph increased to 40 mph for .3 miles),
• Clybourn Avenue between Strathern and Cohasset Street (35 mph increased to 45 mph for .6 miles)

A team of advocates including representatives from Los Angeles Walks, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and Ridazz, an online general assembly of concerned cyclists, is planning to lobby the Committee to hold back the limit increases.  Councilmen have begrudgingly passed similar increases in the past in an effort to support LAPD traffic enforcement.

Until 2004, speed limits were set at the 85th percentile of driver speed on a section of road rounded to the nearest 5 mile increment.  A.B. 529, authored by San Gabriel Valley Democrat Mike Gatto and passed last year,  allows municipalities to round the posted speed limit down no matter how the 85th percentile is to a higher limit.  For example, if the 85th percentile of drivers is driving at 39 miles per hour, and the municipality considers a 40 miles per hour speed limit too high for that stretch of road, it can “round down” to a 35 miles per hour limit.

Don Ward, one of the organizers of Ridazz, writes a personal story explaining why drivers shouldn’t be allowed to set speed limits based on their driving over what is safest for all users, a process Councilman Tom LaBonge referred to as “voting with their pedal.”

“When I think of the lunacy of setting 45mph speed limits on streets like Chandler or Kester or any of the other residential streets of LA I think fondly of my pops, a depression era man and pure fiscal conservative – may he rest in peace. He refused to drive more than about 25 miles per hour any where in LA. This would drive me absolutely bonkers,” writes Ward.

“To which he would chuckle and go into his spiel about the fact that he had carefully crafted his driving style in order to conserve gas, brakes and engine wear… In fact he was a scientist about it…. citing the Burbank traffic grid as the best suited for his methods. And it was true… I would see car after car race ahead of us at 40-50mph only to slam on the brakes for a red light that he eventually floated through on the green, passing those same impatient drivers who now revved their cars back up to speed only to repeat the same mistake again at the next light. “Those people are idiots” he would quip. “They’re wasting their money. Learn to time the lights sonny.” I miss my old man.”

Beverly Hills Civic Center

(Note, the Beverly Hills Courier points out that they had the story first on Thursday evening despite my call that Patch broke the news. You can read their coverage, here. – DN)

Last Friday, word broke on Patch that a review of the geological studies on the Westside Subway commissioned by the city government of Beverly Hills came to different conclusions than the conclusions authored by Metro’s team of experts.  Exponent-Failure Analysis Associates concludes in the executive summary that:

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the public comment period.

In summary, it is Exponent’s opinion that additional effort is needed to accurately identify,  quantify, rank and mitigate the potential hazards posed by the proposed Westside Subway  Extension Project before one of the two presented alternatives, or a third alternative, are selected  for implementation.

A more detailed analysis of the 70 page study (available here) can be heard at tomorrow’s “Study Session” of the Beverly Hills City Council.  Those that don’t want to wait for tomorrow’s presentation can seemingly engage with City Councilman John Mirisch on the validity of the study by commenting on the Patch article.

Predictably, any action by either side in the on-going grudge match between advocates of the Westside Subway and government representatives in Beverly Hills was met with praise from one side and scorn from the other.  As both sides attempt to work through the other sides’ writings here are a few suggestions.

First: Let’s Agree That Neither Metro’s Experts nor Exponent Consulting Are on the Take

Somehow, it seems to have become a slur for expert geologists, seismologists and engineers to get paid to do studies or give opinions.  First, the NUMBY’s slurred Metro’s experts as being on the take, a charge that went all the way to the pages of L.A. Weekly.  But in return, subway-friendly publications made the exact same charge against Exponent.

Let’s say this, it’s highly unlikely that Metro’s distinguished review panel, which includes Dr. Lucy Jones, a federal employee not compensated for her work, or a publicly traded company that relies on a reputation as non-biased evaluators would risk their reputations for one project.

I’ll admit, that when I read the Patch article on Friday, my first reaction was “of course it says that the Metro report is flawed,” but fortunately I took the weekend to take a beat.  My assumption that the report is flawed because of who paid for it is just as uninformed as the comment from the Unified School District’s Board Chair article assuming the Metro study is based on bad data.

It’s certainly not unheard of for experts to disagree.  Saying “our experts are unbiased researchers; but their experts are bought and paid for” doesn’t really say anything.

Second: Beverly Hills Has the Right to Put Metro Studies Under Thorough Review

Whether they’re concerned about the impacts during construction, the rattling that could be caused by an active subway or whether it “just doesn’t feel right to dig under our school,” as one columnist offered; the City of Beverly Hills can and should submit every study to rigorous review.  At the same time, opponents of digging a tunnel under the school should wait until Metro has a chance to review the review before deciding that Metro’s studies are flawed.

Exponent had three months to review Metro’s documents, it’s only fair to give Metro a chance to review what Exponent wrote.

Third: The Back and Forth Is Going to Get Worse Before It Goes to Court

This is just speculation on my part, but I would posit that whenever the environmental reports are released by Metro that the public relations spin on both sides won’t deviate from what’s already been said.  I’ll also speculate that this whole thing is going to be determined by a court, not by geologic experts or Metro itself.  Judges tend to look down on super-heated rhetoric so it behooves everyone to remain calm.

This evening, eight street vendors will be open for business to raise funds so they can sell legally at a future evening farmers market in Boyle Heights. While the public munches on food like tacos dorados, and pupusas, their spent money will go toward helping the street vendors buy equipment and cover other overhead costs.  The vendors will be open from 5:00 to 10:00 P.M. in front of the offices of the East Los Angeles Community Corporation,  530 South Boyle Avenue.

To see a full sized copy of the poster, click on the image. For the Spanish language version, click here.

The street vendors sold food at the informal Breed Street Food Fair until the police forced them out in 2009.

“It actually created a safe market. People were more vigilant when they were in mass numbers. And then they weren’t prey to negative sources,”said Mike Dennis, ELACC’s director of community organizing. If enough money is raised – the goal is $15,000 – the evening farmers market could bring back a Breed Street style of community interaction, Dennis said.

The equipment most street vendors currently use don’t adhere to local codes for food vendors because they are makeshift.  These carts and stands are cost effective, they only cost a couple hundred dollars.  In comparison, the more expensive equipment that adheres to health and safety codes cost nearly $1,500 in most cases.

Boyle Heights resident Jessica Perez highlights the event  on her Mis Neighbors blog and gives her local take on the situation:  

Neighborhood street food vendors are a part of our everyday lives. They are our neighbors, our mothers, our friends, or simply a familiar face. And although not all community members agree with unlicensed street vending, and police have cracked down on them at higher rates recently, they’ve maintained a following.

–

Event: Boyle Heights Street Vendor Fundraiser

Where: East Los Angeles Community Corporation (530 S. Boyle Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90033)

When: 5-10 pm

Cost: 1$ entrance fee (the food is separate).

Eddie Solis leaves the Metro Red Line, which serves as one part of his hour-long commute from his day job in Hollywood to his home in Boyle Heights. Much of the inspiration for his band It's Casual comes from his observations from being car-free, a bus and subway rider, and a skateboarder. Photo courtesy of Eddie Solis.

A few weeks ago, the hardcore band It’s Casual posted “The Red Line” music video on Youtube and quickly caught the attention of local and national blogs for it’s simple yet creative critique of Los Angeles freeways. A current resident of Boyle Heights, guitarist and vocalist Eddie Solis sat down with Eastside Streetsblog to talk about how his car-free lifestyle inspires his music and how he encounters on his morning walks the smell of Boyle Heights tortilla factories.

You do a lot of music that’s very transit oriented; can you explain why you went that route?

Sometimes I think there’s a lot of content out there that’s too, I want to say, too fiction. Kind of make believe. And I notice all my favorite music that hits home to me in my heart and that I kind of step back and see these bands still going  . . . are bands that write timeless music with timeless contact that basically come from the truth of actual events and someone’s perspective. So I said I really want to find an avenue and report on it. And I go, wait you know what, my daily commute. I see LA different because  . . . I take the bus and subway everywhere. And the freeways are just sitting there, and people are in their cars just frustrated about it, but I’m just like sightseeing everyday. So I took that concept and said, “You know what, I’m basically going to report on what I see and interpret it.”

What kind of message were you trying to evoke when you were making “The Red Line” and then making the video?

For one thing, the lyrics explain the feeling I had. I remember one particular summer I would maybe catch a ride with a friend to go places, and I always noticed we were always stuck in traffic. And it was always to get from Hollywood to Downtown or in between. And I was like, “ Man, you have to ride the Red Line with me.” I validated my opinion by taking him on there and I remember seeing the 101 being a parking lot, and another freeway would be a parking lot. And I’m like “I’m able to get from downtown to Hollywood in 17 minutes, and it would take an hour for some people (or) 45 minutes.” My intent or my message was from real life experiences, and if I name check all the freeways, I’m going to identify the region within LA and people will get it.

So when we made the video, Rick Kosick, he’s the director, he scouted the locations, he had the vision, the video is all him. He really wanted to create visually what I’m saying vocally, verbally. The whole video took six months. I mean, keep in mind though he has a job, I have a job, and he went out and scouted locations and said here are the way we are going to do things. Rick wanted to create exactly what I’m saying but with full energy and movement.

Did you have any trouble shooting on the subway? What were the kind of reactions you got?

It’s funny you say that. We went in there, we were kind and courteous to everybody, and we didn’t have no problems. There was times on Saturdays at Union Station, where you know, the sheriffs were patrolling, and they talked to us: “So what are you guys doing?” And we told them the truth. He’s like, “Ok, well, do your thing.” Really I don’t know if that’s good or bad I’m saying that after letting us off. Cuz I don’t know.

As a resident of Boyle Heights, what kind of opportunities and challenges do you see for public transit users in Boyle Heights?

I would say from experience, and being hands on with public transportation, the opportunities first would be the (Metro bus) line 18 runs on the main artery in Boyle Heights, which is Whittier Boulevard. And to me that’s amazing because it’s 24 hours. And not only that, it runs so often and I believe like between the hours of (6 am – 12pm), they’re like every 10 minutes, 12 minutes. So you don’t need a schedule. You just get to a stop and they come.

As far as the challenges, the fact that after a certain time the 18 runs very infrequent. It runs once an hour. And that’s kind of rough. And I think the MTA should be a little more mindful because there are a lot of working class people out there that need to get form point A to point B. You need to serve them a little better because these people are using it to earn a living and keep themselves above water. Some of these people have to work over night, so make it every 30 minutes.

Take us through a walkthrough of a day in Boyle Heights for you. What do you see, smell, or hear?

On a regular weekday I get up and do a morning walk. And I grab my cup of coffee at the La Mascota Bakery which is like an institution for their tamales and pan dulce and stuff like that. And I’ll walk to Soto (Street) and, I gotta say that not only what I see but what I smell, is a key component, because there are so many tortilla factories and bakeries and it’s just like this, the aroma is just like an epic for your taste buds. I’ll walk back down Whittier Boulevard past east of Camulos (Street) toward Indiana and Lorena and I see a lot of exciting things. Independent businesses, I see different things coming in, skateboard shops which I think is very cool.

The goal of the Road Diet, a street that works for all users. Off to a good start. All Pics by Joe Linton

The first time I biked down Main Street in Santa Monica and then into the Venice Neighborhood of Los Angeles was the summer of 2008.  I was following Santa Monica Critical Mass and part of the comically over-aggressive antics of the SMPD included herding cyclists into the lane by buzzing groups of cyclists on motorcycles and cruisers until we passed into Los Angeles.  When we crossed the border two things vanished, the police presence and the bike lane.

Fast-forward three and a half years and the situation has changed.  While Santa Monica has sporadic Critical Mass rides, they don’t draw near the number of riders or police presence their predecessors dud.  And as of Friday night, the transition from Santa Monica to Los Angeles on Main Street is seamless for bicyclists.

At long last, the Main Street Road Diet is in place.  The former five lane configuration has been re-striped to have three through travel lanes, including a turn lane, two bicycle lanes and two lanes of car parking.  The road diet connects Windward Circle at the south end to the Santa Monica border, just North of Rose Avenue.  The diet is .8 miles long.

There are many reasons to consider “putting a road on a diet” by reducing the capacity for cars and increasing capacity for everyone else.  Usually, diets are completed on streets with lower traffic volumes and higher than average bicycle and pedestrian use.  By giving more space to bicyclists, diets don’t just benefit cyclists but also pedestrians who benefit from a better walking environment and car drivers who get to drive in a safer environment.

After other road diets drew opposition from neighborhood groups and ABC 7, LADOT met twice with the Venice Neighborhood Council.   The feedback they received was requests that the Diet either give more space to cyclists or abandon the diet for a series of traffic calming and Sharrows.  In response, LADOT increased the width of the bike lanes by six inches so that the bike lane and adjacent parking weren’t both the minimum widths.  The “compromise” plan didn’t leave critics happy, but at least made the project better than “minimum width for bikes, maximum space for cars.”

Joe Linton reviewed the lanes over the weekend for the Eco-Village Blog.  Some more of his pictures are available after the jump.

Kamala Harris

The agency declared victory, but many local advocates weren’t convinced.

“If this is a national and regional model, we’re in bad shape,” Dough McFetridge of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation grumbled to Streetsblog last November.  ”We have a need — a tremendous need — for transit right now, today. This proposal puts funding transit off into so far in to the future that many of us won’t be around anymore.”

McFetridge and other environmental groups pressed forward with a lawsuit claiming that the EIR for the plan was flawed because it didn’t take into account the impact new highway construction would have on vehicles miles traveled.  This week their lawsuit received a major boost when California Attorney General Kamala Harris joined their efforts.

“The 3.2 million residents of the San Diego region already suffer from the seventh worst ozone pollution in the country,” said Harris in a press release. “Spending our transit dollars in the right way today will improve the economy, create sustainable jobs and ensure that future generations do not continue to suffer from heavily polluted air.”

The lawsuit argues that the environmental review of the transit plan did not adequately analyze the public health impacts of the increased air pollution. The San Diego region already has a very high risk of cancer from particulate matter emitted by diesel engines and vehicles and there is no analysis as to whether this risk will increase.  By prioritizing highway expansion in the first years of the plan, SANDAG claims more pedestrian, bicycle and transit expansion in the plan even though those plans may never happen.  The bulk of the investment in transit and active transportation begins decades from now.

“The attorney general’s intervention in this case supports our argument that SANDAG’s plan is deeply flawed,” said Kathryn Phillips of the Sierra Club.  ”We’re encouraged that the State of California is serious about limiting air pollution and climate change pollution created by transportation in the region.”

While greenhouse gases initially decrease in the plan to the levels required by state law, the EIR shows that after 2020, driving miles will increase and overall greenhouse gas emissions from driving will continue to increase at least until 2050.  SANDAG claims that many of the miles of new highway projects should count as transit projects because many of the new lanes will be “managed” lanes similar to the Express Lanes coming to Los Angeles or HOT Lanes such as SR 91 in Orange County.  Because buses will have “congestion free” access to these lanes, SANDAG argues these are really transit projects.

The plaintiffs didn’t buy this argument.

“If we hope to avoid the worst of climate change, we must act aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage compact, transit-oriented development,” writes Kevin Bundy, Center for Biological Diversity. “The Attorney General’s office recognizes that SANDAG’s approach to transportation and land use development will do just the opposite. We can’t wait any longer to address these issues.”

Even those that offered tepid support for the plan last year see hope for a better plan in the lawsuit.

“The lawsuit should serve as a reality check for our region’s leaders to take smart growth planning more seriously,” writes Elyse Lowe with Move San Diego.  “Even in auto-centric, sprawled out San Diego, quality, location-efficient jobs and housing growth  must be served by quality transportation options to meet California’s legislated climate emission goals.  Hopefully the gut check from the (attorney general) will result in more sustainable land uses, and more funding toward transportation options.”

For its part, SANDAG hasn’t commented on the lawsuit other than brief comments from Encinitas Mayor and SANDAG Chair Jerome Stocks who tells Voice of San Diego that he is dissapointed in Harris’ decision to join the lawsuit but wouldn’t comment beyond that.

How will this lawsuit impact transportation at Los Angeles’ regional planning organization?  Streetsblog will examine that question on Monday.

In 2009, the gap between Long Beach and Los Angeles when it came to transportation planning was non-existent. While great data isn't available for the time since then, Long Beach has made great "leaps towards livability" starting with the famous Green Sharrowed Bike Lane. Photo: Russ Roca Photography/Flickr

“Los Angeles isn’t Long Beach.”

The previous sentence isn’t just completely obvious, for years it was a common excuse as to why Los Angeles wasn’t embracing bicycle and pedestrian friendly projects as quickly as its neighbor to the south.  A recent report by the Alliance for Walking and Bicycling shows that as recently as 2009, the sustainable transportation gap between the two cities wasn’t so great.  After all, it was the summer of 2009 that Long Beach installed the green sharrowed bike lane in Belmont Shores, kicking off an impressive  run of building progressive bicycle infrastructure and embracing other innovative programs such as the Bicycle Friendly Business Districts.

In 2009, a higher percentage of commuters were “people powered” in Los Angeles and the twenty year growth rate for bicycling was much hire in L.A. than in L.B.  Meanwhile, Long Beach was lost over one quarter of its pedestrians, while L.A.’s pedestrian decline was in the mid single digits.  Anecdotally speaking, Long Beach has probably reversed those numbers in the last two years.

As benchmark reports and other data come in future years, it will be interesting to see what gap, if any, opens between the two cities.  In the meantime, a quick comparison of Long Beach and Los Angeles from the “Bicycling and Walking in the United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report.”  Remember, all these numbers are from 2009.

Levels of Biking & Walking

Share of commuters who bike to work (pg. 45)

 National average: 0.5%

Average among cities: 0.9%

1. Long Beach: 1.0%
2. Los Angeles: 0.9%

Share of commuters who walk to work (pg. 46-47)

National average: 2.9%

Average among cities: 4.9%

1. Los Angeles: 3.5%
2. Long Beach: 3.0%

Growth/decline in bicycle commuters ‘90-’09 (pg. 205-206)
(should compare to population growth/decline)

National average: 64%

Average among cities: 116%

1. Los Angeles: 81%
2. Long Beach: 13%

Growth/decline in pedestrian commuters ‘90-’09 (pg. 207-208)
(should compare to population growth/decline)

National average: -12%

Average among cities: 3%

1. Los Angeles: -6%
2. Long Beach: -26%

Percent of traffic fatalities that are bicyclists (page 57 & 59)

 National average: 1.8%

Average among cities: 3.1%

1. Long Beach: 4.1%
2. Los Angeles: 2.4%

Percent of traffic fatalities that are pedestrians (page 56 & 62)

National average: 11.7%

Average among cities: 26.9%

1. Los Angeles: 31.9%
2. Long Beach: 30.9%

Bicyclist fatality rate (fatalities/10K bicyclists) (page 57 & 59)

National average: 4.2

Average among cities: 2.4

1. Long Beach: 2.8
2. Los Angeles: 1.9

Pedestrian fatality rate (fatalities/10K pedestrians) (page 56 & 62)

National average: 5.0

Average among cities: 4.0

1. Long Beach: 7.2
2. Los Angeles: 6.4

Percent of federal transportation dollars to biking and walking (page 86-87)

National average: 1.6%

Average among cities: 1.6%

1. Long Beach: 0.9%
2. Los Angeles: 0.6%

Per capita funding to biking and walking (page 86-87)

 National average: $2.17

Average among cities: $1.80

1. Long Beach: $1.48
2. Los Angeles: $0.43

Percent of adults who are obese

National average: 27%

Average among cities: 25%

1. Los Angeles: 26%
2. Long Beach: 26%

Table view. Photo: Joe Linton See more of Joe's Parklet Pictures at the end of the post.

Last Friday, January 20th 2012, Long Beach opened its, and Southern California’s, very first parklet. It’s located in Long Beach’s Retro Row district, on Fourth Street just east of Cherry, directly across from the Art Theater. It’s right in front of Lola’s Mexican Cuisine at 2030 East Fourth Street, LB 90814 (map.)

The way parklets work is that a curb parking space is replaced by a platform that serves as a mini-park. It’s a bit like a Park(ing) Day temporary park becoming a longer term mini-park. Parkets are fairly common in San Francisco, and now spreading all over, including, soon hopefully, Downtown Los Angeles.

Long Beach’s Bicycle-Friendly Business District program was initially working with Retro Row businesses to look at more extensive, more permanent traffic-calming and place-making solutions, such as bulb-outs. The cost was prohibitive and the time frame long, so they settled on cheaper and more immediate measures.

Long Beach’s first parklet cost $20,000 to permit and install. The cost was covered entirely by the adjacent business, Lola’s, which has also agreed to maintain and insure it. Lola’s is betting that the additional dining capacity will increasing their revenues more than the lost 1.5 parking spaces. The small loss of parking was actually offset; as part of this project, the city reviewed existing parking zones in Retro Row and was able to revise curb designations to create four new spaces (offsetting two new parklets planned.)

The parklet was designed by architect Michael Bohn of Studio One Eleven and was constructed by the contractor Jan Van Dijs. Studio One Eleven is working with two other Long Beach businesses to install two additional parklets expected this year: Number Nine and Berlin Bistro, both restaurants on Fourth Street.

The platform is an adjustable off-the-shelf deck product from Bison Innovative Products. The flooring atop the pedestal is plans of sustainably harvested wood. Between the dining area and the street are a series of large planters, with alternating succulents and grasses. The design is simple and functional.

On a cool late Sunday afternoon, though Lola’s restaurant was bustling indoors, only a couple of diners were out eating in the new parklet. Retro Row has a lot of pedestrians and cyclists, and sitting in the parklet makes for great people-watching in the middle of it all. Occasionally a loud motorcycle or fast-moving car interrupts the ambiance, but overall the new parklet presents a pleasant and delicious new experience.

Parklets and sidewalks.

Orange cone included

The efforts that Long Beach has made to become a “bike friendly city” have earned the city praise from sources both near and far. Joining the chorus is Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who recently completed a bike tour of the city with a film crew from his award winning “Zev Web” news blog.

The film features a lot of familiar faces, including the Bike Coalition’s executive director Jennifer Klausner, assorted members of the City of Long Beach’s bicycle team, Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and eventually the Supervisor himself. “There’s a lot we can learn from Long Beach,” he asserts.

But most of the video is footage from the bike tour with narration provided directly from mini-talks given by Long Beach’s mobility coordinator Charlie Gandy. The charismatic Texan proves a good tour guide as he weaves the team through Bike Station, Downtown Long Beach, the Vista Street Bike Boulevard and the Long Beach Bike Path.

The video feels so much like a Streetfilm that it provides a smooth update to Long Beach Shifts Cycling into High Gear, 2010 Long Beach tour completed by Clarence Eckerson Jr. The most dramatic difference has to be the Vista Street Bike Boulevard. In 2010, Gandy was able to provide plans and renderings. Less than two years later, city staff is already touting the safety difference of their road treatments.

Safety data does a world of good when arguing for more infrastructure. Not mentioned in the film is that the success of Vista Street has led to Long Beach planning six already-funded Bike Boulevards around the city.

Bruce Chan, second to the right, explains his group's model of Glendale Boulevard as a culturally rich roadway. Photo: Kris Fortin

While Jose Sigala, president of the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council, and architect Peter Lassen helped construct their group’s model of Glendale Boulevard from plastic eggshells and hair curlers, imagination came into conflict with reality. Lassen wanted to see a park sprout near the Glendale Boulevard exit of the 2 Freeway, but Sigala explained an affordable housing complex would already be placed in that same area.

“We’re going to do things ideally, and that means a park,” Lassen said.

Whether people struggled or found it easy to realize the future of a major thoroughfare in Echo Park, Saturday’s “Rethinking Glendale Boulevard,” sponsored by Echo Park Patch and the Latino Urban Forum, at the Echo Country Outpost allowed them to show their dreams of what the street could be.

Led by urban planner, and Los Angeles Streetsblog board member, James Rojas, participants were asked to create their ideal city out of toys and found objects, and then condense it with other members’ ideas to fit Glendale Boulevard. Middle-aged, children, and senior participants came up with big ideas such as closing the 2 Freeway to make it recreational space, and having streetcars run the length of the street.  Simpler ideas such as making a skate parks and petting zoos were also well received by the audience which included representatives from the L.A. City Planning Department and Eric Garcetti, the City Councilman for the area.

Here were some other notable ideas from the workshop:

Los Angeles CD 13 representative Eric Garcetti creates a model of Glendale Boulevard. In the brainstorming exercise, Garcetti proposed winding Glendale Boulevard to slow down traffic. Photo: Kris Fortin

The 2 Freeway/The Los Angeles High Line:

Many of the participants considered the 2 Freeway to cause the heavy congestion on Glendale Boulevard.  Many participants proposed closing the section of the freeway between the Interstate 5 freeway and Echo Park. In its place, people wanted to see a recreational area that includes walking paths, greenways and affordable housing. While New York has received praise for its conversion of an old railway to recreational space at The High Line, could freeways be the Los Angeles equivalent?

Glendale Boulevard as a winding road:

Councilman Eric Garcetti reflected on the areas history in his proposal for Glendale Boulevard to be a winding road.

“One of the first thing we did was to make the street not be straight anymore, and actually wind it,” Garcetti said. “It would slow people down and make it a more lyrical, waterway like element, which what this canyon was originally about.”

Glendale Boulevard as a destination:

The overarching theme in the workshop was that people wanted to slow the street down to make it more of a destination. Echo Park resident Matt Briskie said his group wanted to close small blocks adjacent to Glendale Boulevard to farmers market, and to place parking behind businesses to have more flexibility with altering road space currently occupied by parking spots.

“Just having this be not just a way to pass through Echo Park as people go on their way to work, but having this be a representation of what echo park is,” Briskie said.

Glendale Boulevard is a major part of Echo Park’s transportation network and community.  As the community and boulevard evolve, what hopes do you have for Glendale Boulevard?

Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

Los Angeles Streetsblog is hiring a writer to contribute a weekly column covering transportation and livability issues in the city of Santa Monica. The winning applicant will have a knowledge of progressive urban planning and transportation policy as well as a familiarity with Santa Monica city government. Stories can cover new transportation projects, political and community leaders in the area, transit oriented development, open space and parks and other issues that impact the public health and access to public space – all specific to the city of Santa Monica.

The position is a freelance contractor, publishing at least once a week. Funding is secure for at least one year at this time. Depending on Streetsblog raising additional funding, there some possibility for extending and/or expanding the position.

Anyone interested in the position should contact Damien Newton at damien@streetsblog.org.  All applications should include a letter of interest and two writing samples.  Applications are due by the Close of Business on February 7.

Here we go again.

The publicity wing of the Beverly Hills Unified School District, known as the Beverly Hills Courier (pgs. 1 and 24), is using the new tests being completed by the School District in an attempt to discredit the seismic tests completed last year by Metro.  Apparently, Beverly Hills’ paper of record isn’t done it’s groundbreaking reporting on the issue of “Beverly Hills vs. Metro” as this story follows their expose on Metro sending secret mailings throughout Beverly Hills that you could also download off Metro’s website.

To read the Courier's full coverage, or any of the excitement from last week's issue, just click on the image.

For those of you just joining this debate, studies unveiled October by a team of Metro paid for geologists and seismologists revealed that faults that run running underneath Santa Monica Boulevard made planning the Westside Subway along the route too dangerous to try.  After implying that Metro’s team was lieing, the Beverly Hills Unified School District announced that it was hiring its own team to determine whether it is safe to tunnel under their high school.

Fair enough, although I’m not sure what the end goal is here for the School District.  Do they really want to prove that it’s dangerous to do more development on school property?  Wouldn’t such a finding also endanger the same expansion plans that might be endangered by the subway?

Once the Beverly Hills Courier realized the School District was doing different studies than Metro, and doing more extensive studies at that, they wrote an editorialfront page article declaring that Metro’s studies were deficient.  Most damming of all, a statement by Metro showed that the agency even conceded their study was lacking.  Thus the headline at the Courier, “Metro Admits Santa Monica Blvd. Seismic Work Not Adequate.”

It’s little wonder that the article was authored by “Courier Staff.”  I wouldn’t want my name attached to that reporting either.

First, Metro admitted no such thing.  In fact, the statement that they provided the Courier, helpfully posted at The Source, barely mentions Santa Monica Boulevard and says the opposite of what the Courier says it says:

Metro’s initial fault investigations focused on the Santa Monica Fault on Santa Monica Boulevard and were appropriate for subway planning at this stage. Urbanization, including the presence of subsurface utilities, traffic and permitting precludes trenching in that location.

In other words, Metro can’t trench on land it doesn’t own without a permit which would be inappropriate at this stage of testing.   As for the big reveal that the BHUSD tests will be more accurate than the one’s completed by Metro’s team, Metro doesn’t argue this point, even conceding that “Trench information is useful because a continuous “face” can be mapped to more accurately locate the fault(s).”  So why didn’t Metro trench for its studies?  The BHUSD wouldn’t allow them to, giving Metro staff only one weekend to complete their work compared to the weeks of work access given to their team for trenching.  While Metro staff was allowed weekend access to the campus for studies, weekday access was more guarded presumably to allow students a better atmosphere for their studies.

Some other notes from the Courier article:

• The Beverly Hills Unified School District is not allowing Metro or independent consultants to be on-site during their trenching study.  No reason is given, but the Courier makes it sound as thought the BHUSD’s decision is based partly on their own frustration getting information from Metro.
• After Metro was refused access to the facility or to data, the Beverly Hills City Council asked for the same data.  This somehow proves collusion between the two against the School District.
• The trenches being dug on high school property will be over 100 feet long and 20 feet deep.  Some of the trenching will be done while school is in session.  One of the reasons for BHUSD’s opposition to the subway is that construction 75 feet underground might be disruptive to exchange students from Krypton.
• BHUSD Lead Consultant Tim Buresh sounds reasonable, articulate and competent.  A google search of his name finds him to be well qualified to do this sort of research.
• “Courier Staff” have reading issues.  Their article states, “The MTA refused to respond to The Courier’s request to explain why the more accurate trenching process was not used in the first place except to blame it on “urbanization.”
  Metro’s statement reads, “Metro’s initial fault investigations focused on the Santa Monica Fault on Santa Monica Boulevard and were appropriate for subway planning at this stage. Urbanization, including the presence of subsurface utilities, traffic and permitting precludes trenching in that location.
  For the tests conducted at Beverly Hills High School, BHSUD gave Metro limited access to the school property — initially one weekend only which was then extended to other weekends due to rain. Scientific analysis of trenches excavated to the proper depths (at least 15 feet) and spanning the entire width of the fault zone would take a minimum of 14 days and probably more.”
  I count three different reasons that Metro didn’t do a trenching study: the presence of subsurface utilities, the permitting involved in closing Santa Monica Boulevard for two weeks, and limited access to BHUSD property.

This rendering was prepared by opponents of the 16 mile plan to extend the 241 to the beach in Orange County. Proponents of highway expansion argue that the road will have a lot more traffic than pictured.

There was a saying my mentor Janine Bauer used to tell me when I was back fighting wasteful highway projects in New Jersey.  ”The public process for highway expansion isn’t over until the road is built.”  What she meant was that the monied interests in building expensive highway projects won’t stop no matter how often they are rebuked by oversight agencies or judges and will always find a new way to push forward.

No where is this better illustrated than in the case if the proposed Foothill South (SR 241) project in Orange County.  The 16-mile project was rejected by the California Coastal Commission, a state agency that reviews projects that could impact environmentally sensitive areas around the coast and the Federal Commerce Department back in 2008.  We should note that both California and the federal government were under Republican administrations at the time.

But that didn’t stop the TCA from trying again.  Back in October, the agency proposed a new plan to build the road extension without running afoul of those pesky environmental laws that so hamper visionaries who look at a forest and see a great place for a new road.  Instead of building the entire road all at once, they’re going to build it, and get it environmentally cleared in phases.

First up is a four mile extension of the SR 241 that would terminate “somewhere in the vicinity of Ortega Highway, though further studies and engineering would have to determine what street north of the highway the segment would feed onto.”

Back in 2008, the Foothill South Toll Road debate was all the rage in transportation planning in Southern California.  Nearly 6,000 people attended a public hearing hosted by the Commerce Department with L.A. Times reporter Steve Hymon liveblogging the event in advance of his coverage.  Later, in a pretty shocking example of government abuse, the TCA sent out hundreds of thousands of mailers to residents attacking the opponents of the expansion project.

Not surprisingly, the same opponents to the project in 2008 are opposed to it now.  In the leadup to the TCA decision to move forward with a four mile segment, the NRDC blasted the project at Switchboard.

To make matters worse, the TCA intends to fund this latest scheme through tolls based on an astonishing prediction of 41,000 average daily trips along the four-mile segment in the year 2035.  What the factual basis may be for this estimate along this single section is uncertain – the TCA hasn’t said – but it may have more to do with the amount the TCA’s bankers estimate would be required to green light construction than the amount reasonably expected in actual ridership.

Whether the TCA’s newest proposal has a chance to meet legal muster will most likely depend on whether or not it can convince oversight agencies that the 41,000 average daily trips is a real number.  The federal government frowns on segmenting projects to pass environmental muster, but does allow for small versions of large projects to be permitted separately if the project has value on its own, according to “Environmental Law,” a guidebook for environmental lawyers.

This graphic is less effective argument against highway widenings when the agency admits it

The project has also drawn the scorn of the Los Angeles Times, which lampooned TCA in an editorial right before the end of the year.

The toll-road agency isn’t barred from trying again with a different route, but that’s not easy. If the southern end of the road were moved a little to the north of San Onofre State Beach, it would pass through the built-out areas of the city of San Clemente. Moved a little south, it would pass through Camp Pendleton, and though the agency is talking to the U.S. Marine Corps about possible options, camp officials have been consistently resistant to civilian developments in their midst.

The Times editorial also notes that the TCA makes no bones that the road is necesary to support a 14,000 unit development in Rancho Mission Viejo.  This was apparently news to the developers who were trying to build a community that didn’t cater to the car-reliant and did cater to retired residents, those least likely to need a toll road to meet their commuting needs.

This new debate has many sad aspects to it.  Perhaps the saddest is a quote from a Patch article from a Taxpayer’s Association supporting the project.

“Toll roads are a prodigious gift to taxpayers,” he said. “They are at the top in terms of utility to taxpayers; if we don’t use them, we don’t pay for them. They enable free-flowing traffic which keeps the air clean and creates wealth.”

I wonder who does pay for publicly owned toll roads that nobody uses?  But as is so often the case, when it comes to the rush to support a massive highway projects, it’s not the facts that rule the public debate, but empassioned pleas that don’t always make a lot of sense.

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?

Click on the image to go to a pdf map of the Crenshaw Line. The half white arrow on the bottom left points to the optional station in Westchester

Let’s start with the basics.

The budget for construction of the Crenshaw Light Rail Line is $1.7 billion which will connect the Expo Line to the Green Line and eventually LAX.  The budget includes at least six stations.  Thanks to a new resolution passed by the Metro Board of Directors,the total number of “approved” stations has ballooned to eight, but the total funding still only guarantees six.

A coalition of community activists, Westside City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and County Supervisor Don Knabe scored a victory yesterday, when the Metro Board of Directors unanimously passed a motion “approving” a station in Westschester for the Crenshaw Light Rail line.  The Westchester station would be the farthest west station in the Crenshaw Corridor.

“I am thrilled to see that a Manchester/Aviation station will be included in the construction bids,” commented Rosendahl, who hosted an online petition to the Metro Board asking for the Westchester Station’s inclusion.  ”Hats off to Supervisor Knabe for his leadership and the Westchester community for their support.”

But for station supporters, the victory could ultimately be a hollow one.  Westchester residents were stunned to learn earlier this year that funding for the station was not included in Metro’s final project alternative and scrambeled to get the station included again.  Yesterday’s vote makes it possible for the station to be built, but doesn’t guarantee it.  While the resolution authorizes the station, it doesn’t require it.  Contractors bidding on construction can include the station in their bids, it wouldn certainly make for a stronger bid, but adding the Westchester Station isn’t a requirement to submit a bid.

Further dimming the odds of the station being built, the resolution also required that no bids come in that include Westchester Station that don’t include the Leimert Park Station.  In other words, a contractor would have to propose building eight stations with a budget for six stations for the Westchester station to be built.

One thing that is clear with the strange politics of the Metro Board of Directors is that one should never say never.  Could an odd coalition spearheaded by Leimert Park representative Mark Ridley-Thomas and Knabe emerge to raise more funds for the Crenshaw Line even though Ridley-Thomas made headlines calling for a County redistricting plan that would have forced Knabe from office over the summer?  Absolutely.

But for now, Westchester advocates are breathing a sigh of relief that they’re at least back in the running for a Crenshaw Line Station.

“I am thankful to see our only station was kept alive into the bidding process,” writes Westchester Neighborhood Councilman Denny Schneider.  ”We have all of the burdens of the train going through the community including the maintenance facility, now we’d like to be able to get onto the train.”

Photo of the new Washington Place Bike Lanes via Sherri Akers/Facebook

Finally, L.A.’s new commitment to bike planning brings some paint to the Westside.  Last Friday Joe Linton noted at the Eco-Village blog that the city had placed down markers for 0.77 miles of new bike lanes from Grand View Blvd to Albright Avenue, in my own neighborhood of Mar Vista.

By Sunday morning, the new lanes were already in place and captured on film by local green living advocate Sherri Akers.  If you see new bike lanes somewhere in Los Angeles, drop us a line at damien at streetsblog dot org.

The lanes meet up with newly implemented lanes on Washington Place and Bentley Avenue in Culver City.  This sort of inter-city coordination is going to be necesary for real bike mobility to come to L.A. County, especially the Westside which has Culver City and Beverly Hills surrounded by City land and Santa Monica between much of the Westside and the ocean.

Linton has more to say about the lanes, and bike planning on the Westside in general.  For more on these lanes, check out the Eco-Village blog.

What a difference a few weeks make.

Before the Thanksgiving break, Streetsblog reported on how many Westside bicyclists were concerned about bike planning for Phase II of the Expo Line.  While planning for the second phase of the light rail portion of the Expo Light Rail project is nearly 60% complete, the bicycle planning hasn’t really begun.   One of the main reasons for the delay is that Caltrans had not certified environmental documents needed before the bike planning could begin.  To make matters worse, the Culver City Bicycle Coalition complained that a planned bike-transit center for the Culver City station seemed to be dropped from the plans.

But much of that has changed.  Caltrans has granted the Categorical Exclusion (CE) needed for bikeay construction to begin, a prerequisite for the Expo Construction Authority to begin planning the bikeway.  The Authority also announced that it will soon create a long-promised bicycle advisory committee to help with the bicycle plans for Phase II.

To top it all off, a bike parking plan for the Culver City Station was presented, although advocates want to see a greater commitment to bring a bike-transit facility to Culver City.

“Both the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica have obtained environmental clearance for the bikeway project,” begins Gabriela Collins, spokesperson for the Expo Construction Authority.  ”Once the funding from both cities comes through, Expo plans to contract the bikeway design and construction to Skanska Rados, a Joint Venture, the current design-build contractor for the guideway.  The Bicycle Advisory Committee will be brought to the Expo Board for approval at that time.”

While many bike advocates cheered the news that the CE has been finalized, there are still some lingering concerns that the Expo Construction Authority wasted time waiting for environmental clearances for bikeways while the rail project planning moved forward.

Will this design ever become reality?

“The bikeway was inevitable, so it is unfortunate that preliminary engineering of the bikeway was not done at the same time,” says Jonathan Weiss, a member of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee.  ”How many bikeway options have been foreclosed because of this avoidable delay?  Thankfully, the City of L.A. has ramped up its support and unstuck the bikeway design.”

Federal funding for the bikeway project has already been guaranteed, so it would seem that the bikeway project could finally be moving forward.  However, there’s still one more hurdle that could be placed in front of the Bikeway.  There’s no guarantee that the group of homeowners that have sued to stall the bike project thus far could bring suit against the new CE as well.

Meanwhile in Culver City, a small campaign to urge the Construction Authority to bring a bike plan to the Culver City Expo stop has met with success.

“The Culver City station will have 10 bike racks and 8 bike lockers available to the public when the station opens in early 2012,” explains Collins. “The Clean Mobility Center (CMC) was deferred because its location conflicted with the construction staging area for the Venice Boulevard Bridge, which is being built as part of Phase 2.  However, the necessary provisions were made at the station site for the addition of the CMC in the future. “

Jim Shanman with the Culver City Bicycle Coalition wrote a letter to supporters after the last meeting of the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors noting that staff said that, “the CMC could conceivably begin (construction) as soon as the bridge is far enough along that the area in question won’t be affected by the construction, maybe as soon as 12 months.”

It may not have happened as quickly as some would want, but bikeway planning is finally underway for Expo Phase II in the City of Los Angeles.  Whether it’s in time to create the bike infrastructure cyclists want and deserve remains to be seen.

Signage at Santa Monica Boulevard and 14th Street in Santa Monica. Thanks, Andrew Ellis Miller

After years of being considered the most bike-friendly city in the Southland, Santa Monica fell behind Long Beach in recent years both in terms of infrastructure and cyclists imagination.  However, in recent months, the city once known as the People’s Republic of Santa Monica for embracing many of the most progressive ideals imaginable (at least in America) is playing catch-up.

First, there was the widely-praised release of a Bike Plan that promises miles of new bike lanes and more progressive designs to rival Long Beach.  Next was Bike Center.  Today, cyclists are noticing signage, on the street and on the poll, that give bikes a chance to be counted at intersections and get their own greens.

Reader Andrew Ellis Miller sends the picture to the right and reports that he’s noticing bike markings at intersections along Wilshire Boulevard.

Giving cyclists an equal chance to cross the street is one of the signs of a bike friendly city.  Not only does it increase safety, it decreases the number of times drivers will witness a fed up cyclist, frustrated at a long wait, choosing to cross against a red light.

Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr

Sixteen Occidental College students are rethinking designs for York Boulevard in Highland Park and Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock as part of Urban and Environmental Policy Institute transportation class.

I facilitated a workshop to have the students to approach transportation planning from a non-traditional approach. Rather than ask the students the typical question. “How would you improve transportation on Colorado and York Boulevards?” I asked a different question.

Usually, the first question would have created answers such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, bus service, more parking or faster traffic speeds. These are all great but they fail to understand how people want to use the street as public space.

Instead we took a comprehensive approach to the street design. I asked the students how would they envision these streets in 50 years?  From this point we can plan backwards and find create the right mobility and land use patterns for the streets.

By having the students investigate how they envision the role of streets in their lives in 50 years we received creative, innovated, in-depth comprehensive answers. 

Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr

The students sat at four tables with a sheet of colored construction paper. On a separate table was a pile of thousands of non-representational, materials. These materials were buttons, plastic parts of toys, Popsicle sticks, pipe cleaners, small fabric flowers and much more

The students were instructed to use the construction paper and materials to build a diorama of their ideal street in 50 years. I told the students that they were no wrong or right answers.  The students had twenty minutes to finish this first task.

The students walked over to the table of objects and started searching for the apppropiate materials or in some cases by inspired by the materials.  These colorful, tactile, objects triggered the student’s emotional connections to the environment. By seeing, seeking, and touching the objects the student’s emotions increased.  This process mimicked how they experienced the city.

Once the participants secured their materials they began building. During this time I asked the students if they needed help and walked around the room. Some of the students wanted to create the right answer from the material covered in the class but the instructor and my self insisted we want their personal preferences on street use.

Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr

After the twenty minutes they were gave a one-minute presentation to the group on their ideal street.  They stated their name and explained their model. One minute was good time limit because it allowed for every one to participate and kept the pace of the exercise. The shy students were less intimidated as well.

The students used the models to present their ideas by pointing to objects on the construction paper. The materials used are random to force creative thinking and create an equal/non-judgmental playing field where participants of all backgrounds can create non-traditional spaces and learn from one another.

The connections between objects and what they represented were fascinating to hear as they maneuvered through their models.

Since the students interjected their own personal experiences, memories, and random thoughts of places real and imagined, this became the most interesting part of the process.  It was powerful to watch the students explain with so much enthusiasm and conviction about their ideal street.

The student ideas varied. Each participant created his or her streets in his or her own terms. Some designs were ideal based. Some designs are specific, and literal.

Here is the list of the students’ concepts for their ideal street:

• Mixed Use/Complete Street
• Small Regional Plan
• Public Space
• TOD/Public Space/Complete Street
• Parking Management/Mixed Use
• Food on Streets
• Better Corridor Design
• Times Square/Streets for Entertainment
• Better Neighborhood Street
• Multi-use Neighborhood
• Better Land Use Planning
• Social Streets/Ped Friendly
• Michigan Ave
• Human Scale/Street Cars
• Eco-lodge/Nature in the City

Before the models were dismantled which sadden the students, they were documented in photographs.  This also led to next exercise where the students were placed in groups of to envision York, Colorado, and Occidental transportation. They students were tasked to bring together their best ideas to these places this was going to be done by each group discuss their ideas.  They were given a twenty minutes to complete this activity.

When the time was nearly over everyone gathered around the three tables to hear design solutions for York, Colorado, and Occidental College. Each group introduced the team members and walked us through their solutions. Each location had a different set of physical challenges that each group had to deal with. After each presentation the floor was opened up for questions from other students.

Many of their ideas from the groups seemed to focus on land use patterns and social activies on the streets. They created green zones, mixed-use, and ped/bike friendly streets. They also seemed to create streets that were destinations where you could patronize local businesses, take advantage of a community garden or places to hang out with friends to sit, rest, or linger. Moving quickly through the streets was not a goal of the students, which would be for a transportation planner.  The student’s ideas expressed a longing for a sense of community.

When some says they want a “nice street” that can mean many different things. This kind of exercise helps participants use specific adjectives and references which allows the facilitator(s) to understand the needs, desires and habits of individuals who live in a community.  In this case, the Occidental College Students envisioned different streets than the Boulevards that currently cross Northeast Los Angeles.  Their ides aren’t that different than advocacy efforts underway for North Figueroa Street by a group of community activists and businesses.  Residents and students are ready for change, is Los Angeles?

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.