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.

Last week, LA Eastside decided to take a poke at Metro and posted a series of fake signs in "local lingo" to help keep Eastsiders safe from the Gold Line Extension trains.  One look at the above example, and you can probably guess that the signs at LA Eastside are a parody.  However, not everyone got the joke, as evidenced by commenters at LA Eastside and the lecture posted today at The Source.

After explaining the situation, and before showing what real Metro safety signs look like, Fred Camino delivers Metro's stance:

Here’s the thing, Metro actually does takes safety very seriously and safety signage is there to inform and educate people about the risks around train tracks. You’ll find safety signage everywhere on the system, from the street running Gold Line to the underground Red Line.

The bloggers over at L.A. Eastside would do right by their readers and community by informing them that the signs are indeed a hoax. No one at Metro thinks we’re above criticism — but we would like to be criticized for things we’ve actually done.

Personally, I can see Metro's point if they're getting complaints about these fake signs.  But LA Eastside's point, that Metro didn't take every precaution for the communities through which the train now runs, is certainly fair game.

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday, C.I.C.L.E. announced that they are ready to take the next steps in advocacy when they announced their "North East L.A. Campaign."  Generally, C.I.C.L.E. has focused their advocacy efforts on helping people get, and stay, on their bikes by providing classes, workshops and social rides.  However, the group hasn't spent a lot of energy on traditional advocacy concerning engineering and enforcement issues.

At least in N.E.L.A., that is going to change.  While C.I.C.L.E. hasn't announced the goals or platform for the campaign, that is going to wait until after meetings with members and other cyclists in the community, the potential campaigns the Ciclists list are all engineering treatments.  Many of those treatments would be "first ever" for the City of Los Angeles if they were to come to pass:

- Bike Boulevard: implement a bicycle boulevard in NELA.

- Bike Parking: implement innovative bike parking in NELA, possibly bike corrals (proposed in this council motion.)

- Colorado: implement bike lanes on Colorado (east of Figueroa approved in 1996 bike plan,  interest in additional stretches from TERA  and others)

- Eagle Rock: extend the Eagle Rock Blvd bike lanes (in the draft 2009 bike plan)

- Figueroa: implement bike lanes on Figueroa (north of Ave 60 approved in 1996 bike plan)

- Fletcher: implement bike lanes on Fletcher Drive (approved in 1996 bike plan)

- Sharrows: implement sharrows in NELA, in appropriate places, possibly including the Eagle Rock Blvd bike lane gaps for right turns at York and Avenue 36.

- York: implement bike lanes on York Boulevard (approved in the 1996 bike plan)

If you have any ideas for C.I.C.L.E., feel free to leave them in the comments section.  However, if you want to commit to helping with the project, you should leave a note for C.I.C.L.E. at their blog.

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

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

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

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

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

The reviews are in on yesterday's opening of the Gold Line: the day was a rousing success.  Press accounts were universally positive.  Sometimes they focused on what a glorious and succesful day yesterday was by itself.  Other times they took a more universal view.  I wasn't at the opening, I'll make a point to ride the line during business hours sometime in the next two weeks, but I know you were so feel free to fill the comments section with your stories and opinions from yesterday's Golden party.

If you were like me and skipped the party, here's a sampling of the press coverage from yesterday.

• After Decades of Waiting, Their Train Has Arrived (Times)
• Video of Different Sites from Yesterday (The Source)
• Photoes of Different Sites from Yesterday (The Source)
  
• A Golden Reality (LA Opinion) 
• Why Are People Still Talking Subways (Human Transit)
  
• Workday Commuters Piling on Gold Line (LA Now)
  
• Times Editorial Takes a Shot at Molina Before Going Into Celebration Mode

(Editor's note.  Some people are asking why there isn't more on the bike amenities at the station.  The Source did such a good job on the lockers and racks issue that we didn't think it was necessary.  Read their review here. )

As many of you know, the Gold Line Eastside Extension is scheduled to open on Sunday stretching from the Little Tokyo Arts District to Atlantic Boulevard in Monterey Park.  Because of some controversy over the safety measures taken by Metro, a team of six cyclists including myself, Carlos Morales, Renee Morales, Browne Molyneux, Steven Frein, and Andrew Didia headed out to check out the new stations, and the area around them, for ourselves.  Andrew deserves some sort of prize for doing the ride on his birthday.  Browne's review of the ride will be available on The Bus Bench next week.

Overall, we had a favorable impression of the future Gold Line and see how it will be a boon for the communities through which it passes.  However, there were some safety concerns we had, especially at the Little Tokyo and Indiana Stations.

For the record, we're going to set-aside the issue of whether or not stations should be grade-separated with the exception of Indiana Station.  Indiana is the first station not separated after the two that are. 

Also, I timed every intersection to see if the timing was appropriate for pedestrians to get across the street.  The farther east that we went, the worse the signal timing was.  Our recommendation is that the city or Metro should do a study of all the crossing times at these intersections and re-time several of them.  In the meantime, the short signals on the east are going to create pedestrian/car conflicts.

There was also a general concern that there are no gates separating the trains from the pedestrian crossings.  For a pedestrian crossing the street, the site of a train coming at them, even if it stops, with nothing between them is a daunting one.  Without gates, pedestrians are in a more vulnerable position.

Last, we didn't look at the intersection from a driver's perspective.  If that's what you're looking for, call AAA.

We also noticed that there were workers installing signs and doing cleaning at every stations.  Some stations had power tools and even construction materials.  The best analogy I can give is that Metro is acting like I did in college when I was cramming for exams at the last second.  Maybe Sunday is too soon to open?

You can read our station by station review after the jump after a surprise impromptu interview with Los Angeles City Councilman and Metro Board Member Jose Huizar who happened to be giving an interview to a Metro camera person at Mariachi Plaza.  For all of my pictures, check out the LA Streetsblog Flickr pool.  Before the jump, let's here from Councilman Huizar on the state of the $4.5 million that the Metro Board put towards safety improvements along the Eastside Extension.

Honest question, if all the safety improvements aren't going to be done for a couple of months, why are we opening the station in two days?

We began the ride at Union Station and headed South to the Little Tokyo Station, where we had a series of concerns with the pedestrian crossing at Alameda and Temple Street. 

For pedestrians going east on the North side of the street, a wall creates a blind intersection for trains traveling South.  Mercifully, the tracks that are running feet from the crossings are going north so the pedestrian does have some space.

However, for everyone walking along the east side of the station, the northbound rail cars travel feet from you at all times.  You can literally reach out and touch the cars as they go past.

On the south side of the intersection, there is a pedestrian island separating the station from the street for pedestrians.  Unfortunately, the island is only a couple of feet wide.  A group of people standing on the island could easily spill out into the rail area.  Worse, a family, with the parents looking forward, could easily miss someone behind them taking a step backwards into the tracks.

As a whole, that intersection needs improvements.  Widening the island or using pedestrian gates to help keep people off the tracks are two solutions.  No matter what, this intersection is going to need some help.

The good news is this intersection was one of the worst we saw the entire trip.  I was a little worried when we had so many complaints from the first intersection we saw...

The intersection at the South side of the station was an improvement, although trains taking a right from first onto Alameda again cross so very close to the sidewalk.  There is another pedestrian island, but this time it's a much larger island.

It should be noted that both crossings had flashing "train approaching" signs along with wide, brick crosswalks and yellow uneven entrances to the crossings so vision impaired pedestrians have a warning before crossing the tracks or a street.  All of these amenities appeared at every intersection affected by the Gold Line.

From there we traveled east to the Pico/Aliso Station in Boyle Heights.

This hard hat had plenty of times to cross the six lanes of traffic and transit. </sarcasm>

Maybe we were distracted because the staff on hand at this station were the only ones that let us get up into the station of the raised ones.  From where we were standing, the intersections looked good.

We continued on first street down First Street to Mariachi Plaza.  The station itself blends beautifully with the iconic architecture around the plaza.  It looks great and enhances the plaza area.  Good work, architects.  Sadly, there were no mariachi's present at the time of our arrival.  Instead, we had Councilman and Board Member Huizar.

That's Browne, not the Councilman

Generally, we found both ground level stations for below-level rail to have adequate amenities.  Many of the problems that we note at stations are caused by adding a third mode of transit to an already busy street.  As I said earlier, we don't intend to make the argument that the line needs to be built below grade.  From a safety standpoint, it can't be a coincidence that the stations we felt most comfortable and safe around were the same ones that didn't have the train running on the street.  Even the crossing signal times seemed adequate.

Our next stop was Soto Station.

Soto station through steel.

Soto station has a huge plaza surrounding the station, but is sort of charmless.  Especially after the beauty of Mariachi Plaza, the giant empty plaza surrounded by fence architecture style seemed more like a prison than a transit stop.

Of course, by Sunday the fence should be down and according to some the plaza will be full of street vendors.  At the south side of the station were some benches so we assume that there's going to be something for those sitting to do in the rest of the plaza.  The layout of the station plaza reminded me of the Santa Monica/Vermont Station on the Red Line, and that station features a handful of street vendors selling hats, sunglasses, and food.

From there, we returned to at-grade stations stopping at Indiana.

Fencing on the far side

Our first reaction was, "why isn't this station built below grade?"  The poor quality of the street and sidewalks had us concerned.  When you add in the experience our friends at Curbed had here a couple of months ago, and there are larger problems.

The light rail, not at-grade again, comes down first and turns right into Indiana station.  After traveling south through the station, it then takes another right onto third.

In the middle of the station, passengers have the option to cross the tracks to get to the center island or to get back onto the street by crossing through a series of gates that you can push open.  True, there are large flashing lights when a train is coming, but at the least this crossing should be below or above grade and the fences should be closed.  Having gates that can be opened that easily is a recipe for disaster.

However, there's a larger issue with this station that would be best addressed by bringing in some progressive transportation engineers and changing the character of the three streets, First, Third and Indiana, that surround the station.  Even with large crosswalks, the area had a bad feeling to it, with traffic racing along the street and trains moving through the station just feet from the sidewalks.

Our next stop was the Maravilla Station.  The station itself, like the other raised stations at Pico/Aliso and the two that end the line, are located in the street so pedestrians have to cross the street to get to the station.  It seems that at all of these stations there is going to be conflict between pedestrians trying to get to the station and catch a train and cars, who may have a green light at the time, not looking for them.

Of particular interest at this station was the bike parking.  I'm standing in a circle with racks and lockers.  The Christmas tree is the start of the station.  See any issues?

Another note is that it was nigh impossible for seniors that we saw to cross Third all the way.  A pedestrian trying to get across from the north to the south might miss a train while jogging across the street, even with the signs.  Especially with the giant Christmas tree.

From here we moved the East L.A. Civic Center.  The Civic Center stop is going to have the same issues as the others with a mid-street station, but other than that we found the crosswalks to be wide and the signals to be strong.  A wide street again creates an issue for pedestrians.  Maybe the city should have a task force to address pedestrian signal timing around the stations?

For our car driving friends. Be careful making a left out of the Eastside Civic Center. The train is partially blocked.

Our last stop is the Atlantic Station, where the crosswalk signalization problem kicked into over-drive.  Because each intersection had a series of islands, there were times were it would take over five minutes to cross the street, and that was for Browne who is young and healthy.  A senior might well just give up on crossing altogether.

It may be the end of the line, but our friend the bus moves forward.

On the east side of the station, you actually have to cross a lane of traffic to get to a signal-call box.  I've never seen that before.

From there, we got back on our bikes and headed west toward Little Tokyo and Union Station.  To summarize our views and impressions:

1) The Gold Line is going to be a positive for the community.  The route was well chosen.

2) Our general concerns with the intersection timing should be addressed across the line by LADOT

3) Metro doesn't seem ready for the opening.  There was work being done on every station, and sometimes it involved construction equipment.  Maybe by tomorrow it will all be fine, but today it seems not yet ready.

4) There still needs to be a lot of work done around Indiana Station.  The crossing within the station should also be improved somehow.

5) The intersections around Little Tokyo also need to be addressed.  The one at the North side of the station seems particularly dangerous.

6) First could use a bike lane.  It's wide enough and it's a good idea to combine modes.

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..

When it comes to building new developments in the Bay Area, especially in San Francisco, the battle over limiting the construction of new parking spaces is pitched. Parking reform advocacy organizations like Livable City, which maintains a listserv populated by car-free and livable-city advocates keeping a keen watch on planning commission parking exemptions, have long encouraged city leaders to tighten the parking-to-unit ratios in dense neighborhoods flush with transit and bicycling options.

Photo: Matthew Roth

And who should they hang for granting variances permitting higher than 2:1 ratios, as happened last week when a two-unit home at 2626 Larkin Street in Russian Hill received permission from the San Francisco Planning Commission to build five parking spaces, one with a parking stacker for additional cars?

When these questions are asked of city planners and developers, like they were during the struggle to limit parking at 299 Valencia Street, advocates and political leaders are led to believe that it is impossible to finance new developments, particularly condos and non-rental properties, without the maximum parking ratio possible. Less parking, goes the developer refrain, banks will refuse to loan and the units will be impossible to re-sell.

Not all developers buy that argument, however, and some have buildings that disprove it.

"If you are doing a project next to BART or many buses, you really don't need to have a lot of cars," said Oz Erickson, Chairman of the Emerald Fund, Inc, a developer who has built more than 2,000 units in San Francisco. Emerald's newest development, a rental building at 333 Harrison Street in Rincon Hill, will be built with a .5:1 parking-to-unit ratio, even though the developer could appeal for a variance to build more parking.

Above all else, Erickson argued, a city should provide as much flexibility in developments as possible. "You really should be in a position where zoning laws do not require you to put in parking," he said.

Patrick Kennedy's Gaia Building in Berkeley has 91 units and only 35 parking spaces. Photo: jeremydw

Referring to cyclists and others who don't own cars: "I think it's important to provide them with an opportunity to live a car-free life if they choose to."

The community preferred Alternative D via The Eastsider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In what can only be considered a win for County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas the Metro staff is now recommending that light rail, not Bus Rapid Transit, be brought to the Crenshaw Corridor. Ridley-Thomas has been active behind the scenes and in front of the microphone pushing for adequate funding for light rail for his district.

However, just because a politician supports an idea doesn't mean it necessarily has the support of the communities he represents. For example, remember the vitriolic exchanges between Damien Goodmon and City Councilman, and former Ridley-Thomas opponent, Bernard Parks. So will Crenshaw run into similar opposition as Phase I of Expo? It depends who you ask. While some activists are thrilled to be getting light rail instead of "more buses," others question the proposed alignment.

At the Times' LA_Now blog, the Los Angeles Urban League gives the project a thumbs up:

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

This morning, I exchanged emails with Goodmon, who seemed supportive of the numerous below-grade crossings and stations for the project but also vowed to push on for further below-grade construction:

We applaud the inclusion of options into the Base LRT design, specifically the below grade Hyde Park portion, and the continued study of the remaining options. Our current focus is on getting the EIR to study the remaining portion between 48th and 60th that is not currently being studied for below grade, so as to avoid future delay from a supplemental environmental process.

For a list of all the grade crossings, visit the agenda for next week's Planning Committee meeting and head to page 5.

Goodmon also noted that there are other areas that might concern the community. Namely that the staff's recommended contractor is not from South L.A., undercutting Ridley-Thomas' boast of 8,700 new jobs and that any at-grade alignment is against the stated position of the City of Los Angeles and the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan. The resolution was sponsored by local City Councilmembers Parks and Wesson. A full copy of Goodmon's statement is available after the jump.

The full text of Clarke's email, and the videos are available after the jump:

Here is the view through operator's window during a preview ride in a Breda train on Los Angeles' Eastside Gold Line, last Friday, 11/6/09. The line
opens to the public next Sunday, 11/15/09. Go to YouTube and use the full screen and HD for the best ride!

Part 1 of 2 is Union Station to 1st & Lorena:

Part 2 of 2 is the rest of the way to 3rd & Atlantic:

The video skips time stopped in stations; total travel time was about 22 minutes for the six miles. Signal priority / synchronization was working well, with little or no train delay at most intersections. The most significant was waiting about 35 seconds to turn onto 3rd from the Indiana station.

For a series of recent construction photos and a map see my recent post at the Light Rail Blog.

Yesterday, a twenty-five year battle between the Los Angeles City Council and the development group Monterey Hills Investors may have reached the end of the road. The Council agreed to pay a settlement of $9 million for the land known as Elephant Hill. Instead of housing a 24-home subdivision as MHI planned, this twenty acres of green hillside in El Sereno will be preserved as open space.

At issue was the quality of the environmental documents for the project, that were consistently opposed by residents, environmental groups and city leaders. When the project was first proposed in 1984, it was a 13-acre project. As time passed, the project continued to grow to its current 24-acre size. The complaints against the project alleged that the developer's plan to strip existing ridges down to bedrock followed by extensive fill would endanger both the El Sereno community and workers constructing the site. The ridges rest on seemingly unstable geography and an underground stream. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that in 2006, workers installing fencing on Elephant Hill created a large sinkhole. In 2005, a worker was buried in a hillside slide in El Sereno.

For those opposed to the Elephant Hill Development the settlement is a clear victory for the city's efforts to preserve this land as open space. The settlement comes after the Council voted in August of 2008 to require the developers to undergo an extensive environmental review, despite advice from the City Attorney that they did not have the power to do that. In January of this year a judge agreed with the developers that the Council over-stepped its powers.   The developers counter-sued the city alleging that the lawsuit caused a delay which caused MHI to lose $8 million dollars while the city appealed the decision.

All of that may have come to an end yesterday.  While an attorney for MHI notes that the agreement wasn't finalized,  yesterday's decision by the Council was hailed as a victory by all opposing the development and fighting for their community and open space.

Elva Yanez, the Elephant Hill Campaign Coordinator, released a statement hailing the settlement.  Via the Latino Urban Forum:

This is a huge victory for the residents of El Sereno and the coalition of community and environmental organizations that waged a long and hard fought struggle. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to Councilmember Jose Huizar for his steadfast leadership as he championing residents' public safety and environmental concerns related to this development.

The residents of El Sereno have been afforded the environmental protections that are rightfully theirs. We are thrilled that this poorly planned project is not moving forward and environmental justice has prevailed!

Environmental Justice was also a theme of a quote by local Councilman Jose Huizar that appeared in today's Times. Meanwhile, the NRDC senior attorney David Pettit praised the El Sereno Community for their role in this long-coming victory:

Collective efforts of residents, community-based organizations and elected officials to protect public safety and require developer accountability succeeded in preserving one of LA's few remaining open spaces benefiting public health and the environment for years to come.

While it's a good day for El Sereno and supporters of Open Space, I can't help but note that it's a good thing that Monterey Hills Investment didn't have a Governor and Legislature in its back pocket.

Two weeks from today, November 13, a group of activists will pedal out from Union Station for points east to see for ourselves whether the soon-to-be-opened Gold Line East Side Extension passes our safety check.  The extension will open two days later on the fifteenth.  The ride is currently supported by L.A. Streetsblog, the Bus Bench and the L.A. Eastside Bike Club and will begin promptly at 7:30 A.M.  We'll cover the whole route of the extension, stopping at every stop to take pictures and discuss what we see.  Later in the day I'll post the "findings" of our ride here and I'm certain Browne will have plenty to add at the Bus Bench as well.

Anyone interested in doing some research before joining us on our rush-hour tour has plenty of ways to research the history of the project.  Metro held a "press only" ride earlier this morning that I'm sure will get significant coverage; even if they gave their own bloggers a pre-preview. Many of the complaints mentioned by Supervisor Molina at last week's Board Meeting can be found in this report, put together for Metro by independent consultants.  Whether or not Molina's attack had anything to do with the resignation of Rick Thorpe, one of Metro's executives signaled out in her presentation, is up for debate.  However, on his way out Thorpe responded to Molina's concerns in this report.

Or, if you want to read all the official information, you can find the Metro website for the extension here.

The ride is free, but I recommend bringing your own refreshments and safety gear.  If you're with a group that would like to co-sponsor the event, drop me a line at damien@streetsblog.org.

The first thing I noticed when I arrived at last night's Bike Plan meeting for the Westside was that the format had completely changed from the 2008 meetings.  In 2008 the format consisted of a public presentation and "Q+A" session which last time devolved into a contentious debate over the state of cycling and the ability of the city to deliver on its promise of better cycling in the city.  Last night there were three sets of posterboards manned by staff from Alta Planning or the city and tables with maps for people to draw comments.  All city and Alta staff took comments on large paper note pad.

"They're learning," joked Stephen Box, who helped organize protests about the public outreach and content of the plan in 2008 and the Bike Working Group meetings this year.  But LADOT Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery said the new format would allow for people who aren't usually heard to make their case:

It's been really great, because too often we don't hear from shy people...We're getting tons more comments than last time (in the winter of 2008) and it's been great for me.  People are sent to me with specific issues on their commutes, on their streets, and I can help fix many of those problems.

Jordan Turner, the point of contact for the plan, agreed with Mowery that the format was the right one and that comments continue to pour in, both good and bad.

We're hearing from a range of people, a range of comments from everything from people that like the plan to people that want us to start over.

When asked what has been a theme running through the comments from all the meetings thus far, Turner answered

People are focused on implementation.  They want to see stuff on the ground.  Most people seem happy that we're doing this, that we're thinking and planning, but what they really want is to see something happen.

Image: Land of Angle

Some of this stuff has been in a plan for thirteen years.  There's no time parameters anywhere.  When will this get done?

That's not to say that there weren't those in attendance who support the plan, or at least parts of it.  Biking In L.A.'s Ted Rogers noted that it's "a good start" while two LACBC Board Members gave the plan a qualified thumbs up.

Kent Strumpell, who also serves on the Bike Advisory Committee and on the Bike Plan Citizen Advisory Committee, after notied that the Bike Plan is just that, a plan, and not an enforcement document.  However, he pointed out that the matrix in Appendix B gives certain jobs and action items to specific departments creating accountability within the city.  He also noted that the plan creates policies that will empower local bike activists to get the most that they can from the developers and the city from project mitigation funds.

Giving a less enthusiastic pat on the back was Dr. Michael Cahn who managed to call the plan a "monument of seriousness and a monument of failure because it embraces incremental-ism."  Cahn did seem overall supportive of the plan opening with, "It's wonderful to sit down with a five hundred page pdf put together by smart people that takes bicycling a little seriously."

It was somewhat surprising to hear positive comments from two Bike Coalition Board Members, even if Cahn's was somewhat tongue in cheek, given the criticism the plan received in the LACBC's official comments.  But that was the way things went last night as the anger on the Internet and at previous forums wasn't outwardly demonstrated.  The most contentious thing I heard was a member of the city staff complaining to me about the labikeplan.com website and thanking me for "exposing it."  Oddly, the Bike Working Group also enjoyed the article.

I should note that in my survey of the room, there were more people that didn't like the plan than that did, however, most of them had comments on how the plan could be improved or parts protected instead of a demand that the plan be scrapped.  One time a cyclist approached Stephen Box asking how we could keep the City Council and Mayor from killing the plan.  I didn't get all of Box's response, but it was basically that we want the City to reject this plan and replace it with something that is more organic, progressive and aggressive.

Spending nearly all of the two hours circling the room, ease dropping and reading the easels, there were three comments that were repeated over and over again.  The first two seem right out of the Bike Working Group playbook, and the third was about the hot debate over whether bicycles belong on our trails.

The first two items were asking that the Cyclists Bill of Rights be included in the plan in its entirety and that the plan definitively state that all streets are for bicycles.

In December of last year, the City Council near-unanimously endorsed the Cyclists Bill of Rights and earlier the LADOT and City Planning had been directed by then Council Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel to include the document in the Bike Plan.  While the phrases from the Bill of Rights aren't included word-for-word within the plan, staff maintains that the "spirit" of the document is included.  That wasn't good enough for many of the cyclists in attendance as "Cyclists Bill of Rights" had more checks marked next to it than any other suggestion.  We'll have to wait and see whether or not it's good enough for current Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl, who introduced the Bill of Rights to the Council.

Calling for all streets to be declared "bikeable streets" also shouldn't be controversial.  After all, it is the law.  However, there still seems to be confusion from the motoring public on this point, just read the debate on this recent Mandeville Canyon comments thread, and you can see the concern.  A clear declaration from the city that cyclists belong on the road could, and should, be the cornerstone of any bike plan in any city.

The last issue that was raised over and over again was the inclusion of Chapter 3 of the draft plan entitled "Off-Road Bicycle Policies" which basically means policies regarding bike riding in city parks.  For many in the bike community, this is an issue of equity, public space and just the right to belong.  Others wonder why a recreational use is even being discussed in a transportation planning document. 

Lynn Brown, the National Trail Coordinator for Equestrian Trails Inc., explained that it's not a desire to keep cyclists from using public space, but a safety concern that is pushing her coalition, which includes the Sierra club and runners groups, to get chapter 3 removed.

We support multi-use trails when they are safe, but our trails are already extremely crowded with hikers, runners, equestrians, mommy-stroller groups...every group imaginable.  However, we're all moving on legs, moving at around five miles per hour.  When you add a wheeled extreme sport,  you create a catastrophically unsafe element.

Cyclists supporting mountain biking countered that the plan doesn't say that bikes should be allowed on trails, even if the trails in surrounding areas, for example in Orange County and San Diego, do allow bikes as well as the groups Brown mentions.

Of course, whether or not the Final Bike Plan incorporates all or none of these suggestions may not be known for awhile.  After the comment period ends in November, the city has vowed to continue excepting comments into the new year.  Then these comments will be compiled into a Final Plan.  Then the plan will go through another round of public comment before moving on to the City Planning Commission.  From there, it's on to the City Council Transportation and Planning Committees before finally going to the City Council at an undisclosed date in the future.  In the meantime, Box vowed that the Bike Working Group will continue to meet and work on an alternate plan.  Their next meeting is this weekend, while the next Bike Plan meeting is next week in Northeast L.A.  See our calendar section on the right for more details.

Opponents of expanding the I-710 near Pasadena to connect the road to the I-210 received a double dose of bad news in recent weeks from both the courts and our environmental governor.  First, Governor Scwarzenegger, between lecturing his wife about safe driving, found time to veto Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation that would have required any highway expansion in this area to take the form of a tunnel.  Second, a state court ruled against the lawsuits brought by South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge against the inclusion of funding for the I-710 expansion in Measure R.

First, let's check in with our Greenhouse Gas fighting Governor.  Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation, SB 545, would have required that any expansion of the 710 for the purpose of connecting to the I-210 would have to be below ground.  In addition to saving homes, there was a strong political reason for the legislation; it would have ended a fifty year old dispute between South Pasadena and Alhambra.  Alhambra has been one of the leading communities fighting for the expansion, hoping that the increased freeway would reduce traffic on its surface streets.  South Pasadena is one of the cities strongly opposing the project.

Despite the overwhelming local support for the legislation, the Governor vetoed the legislation saying:

This bill is unnecessary. The project development process currently being undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the appropriate vehicle to determine the scope and feasibility of a project to address the transportation needs in the I-710 corridor. This process provides ample opportunity for public involvement and input. There is absolutely no need to enact statutory restrictions that would mandate certain project design options or remove others from potential consideration.

While I'm sure Metro appreciates the vote of confidence, it should be noted that the transit agency supported SB 545 and sent representatives to Cedillo's press event celebrating the bill's passage.  Opponents and proponents of the project both viewed Schwarzenegger's veto as a bad thing.  Supporters wanted to quell the opposition of South Pasadena and opponents wanted one less thing to worry about.

One last note, neither Schwarzenegger or Cedillo cited the environmental benefits of the massive expansion in their statements.  Perhaps the 2004 report by Environmental Defense that labeled the expansion "one of the dumbest highway projects in the country" is getting through.

Meanwhile, a judge in Santa Barbara dismissed a lawsuit from the cities of South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge that the inclusion of the 710 expansion in Measure R was illegal because the project did not have a selected route or needed environmental clearances.  The judge ruled that the $780 million set aside for the project did not require Metro to build the project, especially if it never receives the needed clearances.  If the project doesn't move forward, the $780 million would most likely move to another highway project so it didn't change the allocation by mode that was part of the compromise that created Measure R.

The rejection of the lawsuit caught officials with the plaintiff cities off guard.  Representatives from South Pasadena testified at last week's Metro Board meeting, a day before the lawsuit was rejected, that they expected the 710 project to be removed from Measure R's expenditure plan.

(Editor's note: Originally, this was going to be a post written by Dana Gabbard about Metro placing their public Gold Line Eastside Extension documents online.  As I was writing the introduction, the story got away from me.  A deep hat tip to Dana for his help with this article and you can see the Metro presentation on the extension at the Transit Coalition Website.)

As was noted in Streetsblog's coverage of the Metro Board Meeting, and more with its own article at The Source, yesterday County Supervisor Gloria Molina held the floor for roughly a half hour, delivering a powerful rant against Metro staff concerning the soon-to-be-opened Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension.  Molina accused staff of pushing for the opening of an unsafe line for political reasons, and only doing work for certain favored members of the Board.  Meanwhile her fellow Board members, and L.A. County voters, received a lesser tongue lashing for intentionally short-changing the Eastside.

While I admit that I find Molina's monthly displays of self-pitying on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley, where admittedly I don't live so I'm hardly an expert on the area, to be an exercise in self-promotion; this time she came armed with reports and concerned locals to raise the question:  Is the Gold Line Eastside ready to be opened as a safe line?  The evidence seems to say that it is not.

Yesterday's rant was hardly the first time people have raised questions about the Extension.  Safety concerns have been raised by residents from Little Tokyo through the Eastside and into L.A. County.  This summer, Metro began to go into communities to explain why and how the Eastside Extension would be safe.  A good example of their public presentations can be found at Little Tokyo Unblogged. 

Many in the group were equally dismayed at the lack of barriers or gates to prevent an accident. MTA staff assured us, however, that gates are being evaluated, and that a study on the issue will be released in July or August...and there will be an opportunity for public comments.

The other questions that came up time and again were the lack of language-appropriate signage (some of the signs that were up did have Spanish translations). Many in the group expressed concerns over how local Japanese and Korean residents, most especially seniors, would be able to read the warnings. The MTA is also going to take into account the timing of pedestrian lights to enable seniors sufficient time to cross sidewalks.

The safety issued remained a simmering local issue as rumored opening dates came and went, but the arguments became more heated after Dakota Smith, the editor of the pro-development blog Curbed, which referred to the above quote from Little Tokyo Unblogged as "fear mongering," almost got hit by a train that was testing the tracks while she touring the future Eastside train stations.  Dakota seemed even more annoyed by the somewhat bemused attitude of Metro staff even as they tried to explain how the incident was her fault and the crossings are completely safe.

While Curbed was annoyed, local concerns were still being raised causing Metro to bring in a group of rail safety experts from San Diego, San Francisco and Arlington, V.A., to review the preparations being made for the opening, currently rumored to be November 15.  Their somewhat confusing findings could be summarized as: this line is safe, but here's what needs to be done to make it safer.  For example, the safety experts noted that ""no trespassing" signs were placed in appropriate places but advised that the wording on the signs be larger.  Yesterday, Molina admitted that she had no idea the status of these proposed changes, which undercuts her overall message that the staff isn't addressing safety concerns; especially since staff claims that they're working on it and the Board passed $4.5 million in funds to complete the improved safety standards earlier in the meeting.  The major fix will be miles of fencing separating the tracks from the community.  How they were planning on opening that line without fencing is beyond me.

Molina ended her rant by making the somewhat bi-polar claim that she would be at the opening of the line, whenever that will be, to share that moment with her community and assure them the line is safe.  However, she isn't sure the line is safe and called the line "sub-standard" several times.  If Molina had kept her comments focused her comments on just the Gold Line and the safety issues, and stayed away from re-airing her grievances for perceived slights going back over a decade; she could have pushed her message without the monthly beating of a dead horse and perhaps scored more points with Board Members, and advocates beyond her San Gabriel Valley Base.

In truth, Molina is still angry that back in the 1990's voters approved a transit funding plan which excluded an Eastside Subway, yet the same pols fought against an Eastside Subway are enthusiastically supporting the Westside Subway.  Her attacks on the Gold Line and staff are a fill in for calling out Zev Yaroslavsky or ranting against voters across the county for not following her sage advice to vote against transit funding plans, such as Measure R.  While transit advocacy groups and blog writers can decry her obstructionism tactics, the reality is; they have been somewhat effective. 

While she has been unable to move voters outside her base to vote against transit taxes, she was successful in getting what are now called "FAST Lanes" and the hundreds of millions of dollars of transit improvements off the I-210 in her district and on the I-110.  Hooray?  The problem is, that in cases such as this, her sense of victim hood, combined with other substance-free grandstanding from the state and congressional delegations, and outrage actually cost her constituents hundreds of millions of dollars in transit improvements for a "congestion pricing" plan that won't actually change traffic patterns at rush hour and actually increase capacity at other times of the day.  Is that really the sort of advocacy that the San Gabriel Valley needs on the Metro Board?

Earlier this week, the State Senate joined the Assembly in passing legislation exempting the 75,000 seat planned "NFL" Stadium in the City of Industry from having to undergo a CEQA environmental review before construction can begin.  Press reports on the politics surrounding the exemption were extremely even-handed to the point of obscuring some of the issues that created the controversy and fueled the anger of the surrounding communities.  Because Governor Schwarzenegger still has to approve the exemption, there's still some value in reviewing the history of the project and the politics that surround it.

Because it's not enough to just discuss the politics, as soon as I can find a copy of the traffic and transportation element of the environmental review that has occurred, Streetsblog will provide analysis of the work that has been done.

In 2004 Billionaire Ed Roski submitted an EIR to construct a retail and entertainment complex on the proposed 600-acre site that would be the site of the Stadium.  The EIR was approved by the City Council for the City of Industry, population 800. In 2008, Roski proposed an NFL stadium for the site, and needed to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report.  That report was certified by the Council in February of this year.  The City of Walnut immediately sued saying that they were unable to receive a copy of the EIR until 18 hours before the deadline.  That lawsuit was settled for $9 million in traffic and environmental improvements in the city.

However, a second lawsuit was filed by eight Citizens of Walnut calling themselves Citizens for Community Preservation Inc.(CCPI)  It was the threat of this lawsuit that "forced" the Senate and Assembly to grant a CEQA exemption for the Stadium, the first time the legislature has stepped in to resolve a legal matter in a CEQA lawsuit, opening the door for other rich developers to lobby their way out of compliance with environmental reviews.

The process that has brought us here has been a convoluted one, and hardly an example of great government.

First, the only body that will clear the environmental documents will be the City Council for the City of Industry.  Thanks to the legislature's help in giving Roski an end run around state law, a city with the population of 800 was the only body needed to certify the documents that will effect millions of people and will create an untold amount of pollution caused by people driving to the game.  Of course, because the environmental documents for the stadium are only a supplement to an EIR for a different project, the public hasn't even gotten a full local environmental review for the stadium.

Second, the reconcilement process between CCPI and Roski's Majestic Realty Co. were poisoned from the start.  Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is portrayed as a hero of compromise in most press accounts of the issue for not holding a vote on the exemption immediately and working with Majestic and CCPI to reach a compromise.  Steinberg has already taken credit for the $9 million payout to Walnut to resolve their case.

Of course, that Steinberg publicly stated that the Senate would pass the legislation if compromise couldn't be reached made the odds of such a compromise nigh impossible.  Think about it, would you bother compromising away millions of dollars if you knew that if you waited long enough the legislature would give you everything you wanted?

Third, the legislators don't seem to get that their injecting themselves into a lawsuit is an awful precedence even if their cause is just.  Curbed has the full statement by Senator Tempore Isadore Hall, III (D- Compton) after the vote that declares that they are "ready for some football," and contains this gem.

Exploiting a last minute legal maneuver, a group of eight residents sued stadium proponents and sought over $800 million in additional mitigation measures. Without the legislature relief in ABxxx 81, stadium proponents will continue to be bogged down by this frivolous lawsuit and will not be able to compete for an NFL team in early 2010.

Traditionally, it's a judge that decides what lawsuits are frivolous and which ones aren't.  I wonder what Hall's reasoning will be when other developers find environmental laws to tedious to be bothered with?

Another amazing quote comes from Senator Gloria Romero, last seen on Streetsblog complaining about congestion pricing and slamming the early efforts to create Measure R.

The vote came after a group of Walnut residents citizens couldn't reach a settlement on their lawsuit challenging the project's environmental study. "Like in football, at a certain point the clock runs out," said state Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles.

Great sports analogy Senator!  Of course, I'm unaware of any sports where the offices that create the rules can change the amount of time on the clock during the game, and it certainly isn't a feature of the NFL despite what Patriot fans might lead you to believe, but  now I know that if you were commissioner it's something we can look forward to.

Incidentally, if you're curious which of your local legislators are for sale voted for exempting billionaires from state laws, you can find the Senate and Assembly voting records for this legislation here.

Photo: Joe Linton

Long Beach's mobility coordinator Charlie Gandy has big plans. During L.A. Streetsblog's interview with Gandy, he mentioned a wide range of facilities and programs planned. These aren't far-off dreams. No. They're funded dreams, scheduled for implementation in 2010. Streetsblog will be there reporting on them.

The city has aggressively pursued bike funding, securing $15M in grants for bike programs and facilities. Highlights of these follow after the jump.

Photo: Joe Linton

Federal Stimulus Money for Bike Parking

Long Beach sought and was granted $248,000 in federal stimulus funding to install bike parking facilities. This will include 1,155 racks in all. The city isn't putting down a one-size-fits-all set of utilitarian staples, but is doubling up on functions - using bike racks secure bikes and also for celebratory place-making. There are coffee cup racks at coffee shops, pizza racks at Italian Restaurants, and various other whimsical functional designs.

The city is experimenting with a few fancy upright racks and taking away a few car parking spaces to put in bike corrals. No waves or pathetic front-wheel-only racks in the lot though. The project is already out to bid and expected to be completed in early 2010.

Additionally, Long Beach's more-than-just-parking BikeStation will be moving into their new and expanded facility in 2010.

Photo: Bikeportland.org

A Bike Boulevard Actually Called a Bike Boulevard

A few Southern California cities are planning bike boulevards, though neither Pasadena nor Los Angeles has the forthrightness to actually them bicycle boulevards. Each of these cities is instead using euphemisms. Pasadena's draft plan calls them Emphasized Bikeways; Los Angeles' draft plan calls them Bike Friendly Streets.

Long Beach is finalizing the designs for the Vista Street Bicycle Boulevard, which extends about two miles from Park Avenue to Temple Avenue. The city has been meeting with property owners and other stakeholders they're supportive of the project. It will include six new traffic circles, a new signal at Redondo Avenue, and removal and reorientation of various stop signs.

It's also planned for completion the first half of 2010.

Portland’s new (and first-ever) cycle track has been installed on SW Broadway near Portland State University. Long Beach's cycle track will have a 2-foot wide raised curb where this photo shows a striped area.

Following the innovative example of New York City and Portland, Long Beach has secured federal funding to build a protected bike facility - in essence a European-type cycletrack. They're actually doing a pair of one-way cycletracks on Broadway and Third Street in Downtown Long Beach. Each will extend slightly over a mile from Alamitos Avenue to the 710 Freeway.

To do this, Long Beach will remove a travel lane from each street. They'll build a 2-foot wide curb. Bicyclists will ride in their own protected roadway - located between car parking and the sidewalk. Bicycles will have their own bike traffic signals to prevent cars colliding with cyclists on turns.

This trailblazing project is beginning construction and expected to open in February 2010.

More to Come

The city is resurfacing the San Gabriel River Bike Path and connecting bike lanes across the northern part of the city. These combine with the beach bike path and the L.A. River bikeway to form a 22-mile loop around the city.

Long Beach is also doing new bike education programs in schools. They're hosting an annual April Bike festival. They're starting safe street handling courses targeted for fixed gear riders. They're developing bike training for Long Beach Police and Long Beach Transit Bus Drivers. They're even planning promotional campaigns aimed at teaching drivers how to safely interact with cyclists.

Streetsblog is looking forward to continuing to bring our readers news of Long Beach's successes.