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.

Santa Monica's AltCar Expo made it crystal clear, from a distance and in the parking lot, "The Car is King" and all else receives a token gesture and comes in a distant second.

I attended the 4th Annual AltCar Expo misunderstanding the concept and expected to find "Alternatives-to-the-Car" at the Expo, thinking that the promise of "Alternative Fuel and Transportation" would entail some shift in the auto-centric focus but I was wrong.

Attendees to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium event were promised cheap parking and upon arrival were greeted with abundant opportunities to test drive "alternative-cars" including automobiles that ran on electricity, hydrogen, cooking oil, good intentions and high-hopes. People lined up as beautiful men and women plied them with data and promises and assurances that by driving these beautiful "AltCars" they would seriously change the world. Immediately.

Hidden behind a bus and a large truck and at the very back of the parking lot was an area reserved for the "Alternatives-to-the-Car" such as the Segway, the electric bicycles and other options that were obviously secondary and obligatory and not even close to worthy of headliner status. Such was the priority of the Expo.

The LA Greensters, Hollywood's first all pedal powered transpo team, had a "double-wide" booth which Ron "the Sherpa" Durgin and Jeremy Grant turned into Park[ing] Booth, recreating the park that the LOAD[ing] Zone team hauled across LA as part of the Park[ing] Day LA celebration. Park[ing] Booth screened videos including Reel Sustainable, a documentary about sustainable film production, Park[ing] Day LA and the Crenshaw Crush, a Greenster organized discovery bike ride in the Crenshaw District.

We had a great time in "the Annex" and the folks that stopped by Park[ing] Booth were tickled to hear of the LA Greensters, the see the Xtracycles on display and to hang out in the Park[ing] Booth and to watch videos that demonstrated that the bike was a serious option for moving gear, for shopping, and for all of the basic transportation needs that come up in a community.

Bravo! All the congestion but without the pollution.

I took a lap to get the lay of the land and then I took a much slower lap and once I had dispensed with the automobiles, I found several non-vehicle booths tucked into the main room. The Clif Bar booth is always a favorite and although I was a wee bit jealous that they were in the main room while the LA Greensters were in "the Annex", I was happy to take advantage of their wares.

I came across a booth that featured a motor vehicle and I almost slipped right by until I realized they weren't promoting the vehicle but were instead washing it without using water. The Lucky Earth company sells a non-toxic, dye free, cleaning solution that is sprayed on your dirty vehicle and with a "spritz, spritz" and a "wipe, wipe" leaves behind a sparkling clean car with no wasted water. When my mild interest was met with an offer of a bottle, I declined and explained that I had no car to wash. They immediately switched bottles and gave me "Bike Wash" demonstrating very clearly that if these people were hosting the Metro's booth, there would be more people riding mass transit.

Lemonade, the catering company, got in the swing of things and enticed the "green" crowd to pay more for less by positioning a large poster at the beginning of the lounge that dramatized the impact of methane vs. the impact of auto emissions, positioning guilt as the appetizer for the vegan-fare that served as penance for the supplicants.

Lest there be any confusion, let me clarify, Ed Begley Jr. is still the reigning Rock Star of the Green Revolution and there were two booths proudly displaying a life-sized cutout of Ed, demonstrating that there are two kinds of green products on the market. Those that enrich Ed and those that don't. Ed was selling a system that reduced "phantom-power" waste and promised to reduce utility bills by 25% and Ed was selling a water system that promised to provide clean water. It was good to see Ed and I thoroughly enjoyed his water, especially since it was delivered in a cup that appeared to be plastic but was actually made from corn starch and was bio-degradable. I was thirsty so I drank a few glasses of water but I drank quickly, worried that the cup would start to fade on me as I drank. It all worked out and I was again in Ed's debt!

It was quickly apparent that there were three "castes" at the AltCar Expo with the "Alternative Car" in first position, the "Green Products and Services" in second position and the "Alternatives to the Car" in third position. Once I was clear on the lay of the land and on the structure, I settled in and simply invited folks to visit the "Annex" which I rebranded as the "VIP" room and things picked up accordingly at the Park[ing] Booth.

Sometime during the afternoon on Friday, I noticed an increase in the number of "men in suits" making repetitious laps around the facility and it dawned on me that it was time to go into "Guv mode." We tidied up our booth and repositioned our selves, spreading out and putting DJ Chickenleather in a lead position, now very grateful for the Lucky Earth bike wash!

Sure enough, just as the Expo closed to the public and just as the staff for the Metro, the Big Blue Bus and all of the other "clock in an go to work in a booth" folks had left the Expo Hall, a dozen large black vehicles pulled up and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped into the Main Room of the AltCar Expo and the show began. Booth by booth, car by car, the Guv strolled through the Expo, surrounded by an entourage that started off as a group of individuals but within minutes had taken on amorphous qualities and began to move an a singular entity featuring the head of the Guv and then two dozen feet, two dozen hands and a half-dozen cameras flashing at regular intervals.

Governor Schwarzenegger visited every booth featuring a car, a generator, a battery, a cable, and anything else related to moving motor vehicles, demonstrating the traditional commitment to the personal motor vehicle and the complete disconnect from the larger challenge of getting people out of cars and of providing transportation alternatives. The Governor spent close to an hour visiting the booths in the main room and he was methodical, almost Austrian, in his up-down, back and forth, survey of the AltCar Expo. Then the pace quickened and it was apparent that the Governor's visit was ending and the entourage headed toward the exit.

In a demonstration of the disproportionate energy and attention that is dedicated to traditional auto-centric transportation vs. alternative transportation, Governor Swarzenegger spent 55 minutes looking under the hoods of electric and hydrogen vehicles and two minutes talking alternative transportation. Of course, I'm grateful for those two minutes, especially because he spent them talking to the LA Greensters!

As the Yukons outside idled and Santa Monica's air quality dipped, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was introduced to the LA Greensters, Hollywood's first all pedal-powered transportation team, featured in Reel Sustainable, the documentary that asks the hard question, "Can Hollywood produce films sustainably?" The LA Greensters demonstrated that the answer is yes by hauling all grip and electric, camera and audio gear on Xtracycles and with trailers, supporting the full shoot from shopping at farmers markets to all production runs, using only bicycles.

The Governor smiled and nodded, said "Great!" and I'm convinced that for a moment he contemplated ditching the entourage and instead hanging out with the LA Greensters. Maybe next time!

Tomorrow and Sunday will mark the Fourth AltCar Expo & Conference in Santa Monica.  Admission is free and directions can be found on the AltCar's website.

In 2007, I went to the AltCar Expo in Santa Monica and reviewed it for Street Heat in one of my first posts and first ventures into transportation reform in Los Angeles.  While I won't be going to this year's for the obvious reason, watching the growth of the Expo from a neat demonstration of car toys to a more balanced look at alternative transportation has been interesting over the past couple of years.

True, this year's Expo will feature the usual "green" car-show and a bevy of speakers extolling the virtues of "green" driving; but it is also increasing the presence of non-vehicular transportation at the Expo.  A welcome sign that AltCar can mean "alternatives to the car" as much as "Alternative Cars."

If you have a chance this weekend, and you're not too busy going to see Crude or hanging out with David Byrne, the Expo can be a good, fun and informative way to spend some time.  I'm not sure if any of next week's freelancers are planning on taking a stab at reviewing the Expo, but if anyone wants to put their thoughts to paper please drop me a line at damien@streetsblog.org.

Photo: Brandon Wise/Daily Press

Responding to concerns over safety on a 12-block stretch of Ocean Park Boulevard after several pedestrians were struck over the past few years, City Hall launched a pilot project in which they condensed the busy corridor from Lincoln to Cloverfield boulevards from two lanes in each direction to one, hoping to calm the speed of traffic and eliminate some of the dangers posed in the previous configuration.

Nearly two years and several community workshops later, the project is still in its pilot phase, partly the result of an understaffed Transportation Management Division that lost two planners whose positions have yet to be filled. 

The Daily Press takes a neutral view on the controversy between motorists who complain about the traffic congestion and residents who view the 2007 narrowing of Ocean Park as a needed safety improvement.  If you read the article you'll see a rather dispassionate article examining both sides of the issue.  Given that, you might expect a rather even-handed evaluation from the Times.  You'd be wrong.

First, the headline of the LA Now post is, "Traffic is snarled on narrowed Ocean Park Boulevard," and second it only takes one quote from the Daily Press article.  Typically, it's the most inflammatory and pro-car one that you could imagine.

Lloyd Saunders remembers when Ocean Park Boulevard was his go-to route, driving on the neighborhood's main drag daily to reach any points east and west. Today, the 30-year Santa Monica resident avoids it at all costs, opting for other streets because of "bottleneck traffic" that he blames on the current configuration, which city officials changed from four lanes to two in December 2007. "It's hard to get onto Ocean Park because there's just a stream of cars," he said. "It's the sign of the times, there's so many darn people here (in the city) now."

Fortunately, the story does have a temporary happy ending as we wait for the final word from Santa Monica on whether to keep the configuration.  If you read the comments section of the LA Now, article; you'll find that as of this writing they couldn't find one person to back the position that there's something wrong with taking away a travel lane to slow traffic and increase bicycle and pedestrian access.

The Big Blue Bus is proudly sporting ads boasting of a new airport service.  The new route provides quite an increase in service coverage for the agency because they aren't talking about service to the local airport in Santa Monica or to LAX; but service to the airport in Houston.  Remarkably this service will cost riders only $15.  What a bargain!  I wonder how many stops there will be along the route.  If they'll stop in Vegas, I bet a lot of Angelenos will be interested.

Ok, so obviously there's been some sort of mix-up at the advertisement agency.  It's not a surprise, since many transit agencies use contractors to handle their advertising so I imagine this kind of slip-up happens from time to time.  Still, I've gotten a couple of emails about this sign slip, and as Dana Gabbard commented, 

And somehow they have been installed etc. and no one noticed they were for the wrong area...Beyond surreal...

Recently, the City of Santa Monica completed a series of speed surveys on it's streets, as required by state law.  The result might be a surprise to people that have followed the inability of the City of Los Angeles to maintain lower speed limits when these surveys are done.  In Santa Monica, fourteen street locations are seeing their speed limits lowered while speeds will be increased in only two areas: on Colorado Avenue between Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard and on Second Street between Wilshire and Colorado.

So what's the difference between Santa Monica and the Valley?  The main difference is that the road design is almost completely different.  When I'm traveling down streets such as Ocean or Main, I can't help but notice that almost every intersection has a marked crosswalk.  Several of the streets that are being slowed down have bike lanes, or at least signage encouraging cyclists to use the road. 

It's true that some streets are seeing an increase in some areas, but that's not a bad sign when one looks at the entire picture.  Santa Monica is controlling traffic flow by the way they design their streets.  They slow down traffic in many places and speed it up in a few others which will encourage automobile traffic away from the more pedestrian friendly areas.

That's a process that will lead to slower traffic speeds and slower speed limits when the time comes to do a state-mandated traffic survey.

In the Valley, we've seen almost no efforts to control traffic speeds and then a helpless shrug of the shoulder when the community is outraged that they're local streets are being made less safe by faster speeding cars.  The community may succeed in stalling the increases, but when the LADOT enlists the aid of the local division of the LAPD, who can't use radar to enforce limits unless they comply with the survey, eventually the City Council approves the speed limit increases.  Over a dozen Valley Streets have had their limits increased, with more on the way.

While the efforts of Assemblyman Krekorian to change the laws regarding speed limits are laudable, what would be better would be a culture change at LADOT to commit to designing roads that are built for all users.  A road designed for commuters, visitors and the local community will naturally see its speed limits maintained or lowered, even under the state's somewhat inflexible law that allows speeders to set the speed limit.

As much as we can appreciate what the City of Santa Monica is doing, it's not exactly a secret how to design safe streets.  Why just earlier today I read an op/ed in the Boston Globe that outlines such designs.  Maybe we should buy LADOT a subscription?

It finally appears as though the Expo Bike Path, the path that is going to run parallel to Phases I and II of the Expo Line is going to be built.  After the Expo Construction Authority punted on taking the lead on the project earlier this year, leaving the federally funded path to Los Angeles, Culver City and Santa Monica to complete the environmental reviews; it appeared the path might not happen.  After all, if construction couldn't begin by the time Phase II of the Expo Line began construction, the path would become unaffordable.  

However, the LADOT and City of Los Angeles seem poised to rush through the environmental review so that the path is ready for construction by the end of the calendar year.  Soon, a final design for the path will be available for public review as part of the NEPA process required before any federal dollars can be spent.

While a lot of work has gone into getting the path to this phase, and in addressing the areas where teh path will temporarily turn into bike lanes; there is still criticism of the path which will come up as the review process moves forward.  Of chief concern is the design of the path which has cyclists moving parallel and next to the I-10 for on portion of the ride and moves cyclists onto bike lanes on National for another stretch.  Despite the planner's intent that the path would connect the Downtown to Santa Monica, there has yet to be a public presentation of any plan to provide a feeder network into the path for cyclists looking to get in off local streets.

For example, the plan calls for bike lanes on Exposition Boulevard as it crosses Western, home of the controversial crossing of the Foshay Learning Center.  If you look at an overhead map of the area, you'll see that the Expo Line will run down the middle of Exposition and the bike lanes will run one-way parallel the car traffic.  That means that any student, teacher or administrator that lives west of the learning center would either have to ride in the wrong direction on Exposition Blvd, walk their bike or take a half-mile detour to safely enter the center at the start of the day.  The opposite is true for those living east of the school that want to bike home at the end of the day. 

My guess?  Most students will ride in the wrong direction on Exposition for the last leg of their ride, against the grain of traffic and contrary to what we're trying to teach them about safe cycling.

So if the planned bike path isn't the perfect solution, what is?  Last week on the "Expo Exposure" ride, the third annual "Bike Not to Work Day" ride, a group of thirty cyclists rode path of the future Expo line from Vermont Ave all the way into Culver City.  As the group of cyclists snaked down the residential areas of Exposition Boulevard, a similar thought was expressed by nearly every cyclist I spoke with: this street, running parallel to the light rail, would make a perfect Bike Boulevard or complete street.

The concept of a Bike Boulevard is a street that is designed not only for cyclists, but to give a community control of its streets and open space.  A great explanation of a Bike Boulevard can be found on the Bicycle Transportation Alliance of Portland's webpage.

Turning Exposition into a Boulevard would not impede residents from getting to and from their homes but would instead tie the community better in to the light rail line and encourage residents to embrace the rail and their local streets.  Such treatments would also make for safer crossings near Dorsey High School and the Foshay Learning Center by reducing commuter traffic near the schools.

It would take some work, but creating a series of complete, protected and community-controlled streets connecting the Downtown to Santa Monica, to provide cyclists a series of safety and equality while biking on our streets can be done.  However, it would take a major investment of time and brainpower by planners in all three cities.  The first step in getting that investment is asking and then demanding it.

The good news is that the bike path is on its way; but that still leaves the question of whether or not the bike path is the best thing the three Expo cities should be doing for cyclists and for their community.

Tomorrow, the Expo Construction Authority will vote on a "Final" route for Phase II of the Expo Line that will undergo an environmental study before final design and construction.  The staff has recommended, and the Board will almost assuredly follow their recommendation, that the they move forward with option "LRT-2" or in layman's terms a light rail option that will run down the existing right-of-way before turning down Colorado Avenue towards the coast. 

This route has long been a favorite of most locals and environmentalists because it provides the most direct, least costly and least environmentally dangerous route for the line.  Friends for Expo already have released a statement supporting the alignment and have set up a link for supporters to email the Construction Authority Board. Light Rail for Cheviot has also emailed supporters asking for their support at tomorrow's hearing and is pushing a secondary message of asking for a station at Westwood.

Thus far, the groups opposing the Expo Line have held their powder, although we can expect a response from them tomorrow.  Both the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association and Neighbors for Smart Rail have opposed a Westwood Station.

While tomorrow may end the debate over where the line will go, it does nothing to close other parts of the debate.  The future of the Expo Bike Path, the issues of grade separation and where to place maintenance facilities are all to be decided at a future point.

The Board Meeting will begin tomorrow at 2:30 pm downtown in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple, Third Floor, Board of Supervisors, Hearing Room 381B.

Several groups have sent Action Alerts to my inbox.  To read some of them, click through the jump.

Light Rail for Cheviot:

All Supporters of the Right-of-Way route for Phase 2 of the Expo Line:

THIS IS THE TIME WE REALLY NEED YOU TO SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE ROW!  THE EXPO BOARD IS FINALLY ABOUT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE ROUTE!

Please either turn out for the Expo Board meeting on Thursday, April 2, at 2:30 pm downtown in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple, Third Floor, Board of Supervisors, Hearing Room 381B, or email the Board members.  Use the addresses below to write them!

We formed to SUPPORT THE ROW, and that should be the MAIN MESSAGE. Also, WE WANT A STATION AT WESTWOOD - CHHA and NFSR are opposing it, arguing that only a station at Sepulveda is needed.  But we want to USE the light rail, not just watch it go by!  And this is your chance to tell the Board your views on the two main issues facing Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park:  at-grade or grade-separated at Overland, parking or greenway between Westwood and Overland.

Addresses:

councilmember.perry@lacity.org ,councilmember.wesson@lacity.org,councilmember.parks@lacity.org,seconddistrict@lacbos.org,zev@lacbos.org,pam.oconnor@smgov.net,scott.malsin@culvercity.org

Los Angeles County Bike Coalition:

Attention Cyclists: We have an important opportunity to demand that the Expo Bikeway is built!

WHAT: Expo Board of Directors meeting WHEN: Thursday, April 2, 2:30pm WHERE: Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration , 500 W. Temple Street, Third Floor, Board of Supervisors' Hearing Room 381 B The Expo Board will vote on a design alternative for Phase 2 (Culver City to Santa Monica) and they must address outstanding bikeway issues.  At this meeting, we need to get a commitment that they will build the bikeway. Please attend this meeting and speak in support of the Expo Bikeway project! You don't need a polished presentation; just let them know we need this and it needs to be done right.  Here are some key points: - The bikeway must be built with the Expo project.  Since it was not included in the Draft-EIR, we need a commitment and a plan from Expo on how that will happen. - Some intersections where Expo proposes the bikeway go have serious problems with road crossings: Venice & Robertson, Pico @ Gateway, Olympic @ Stewart.  Expo needs to work with LA and Santa Monica to find safe and convenient solutions. - Expo, Metro and the cities need to find funding for the bikeway so that it can be built at the same time as the rail line. - If the Expo Bikeway is not built at the same time as the rail line, costs will increase dramatically and construction difficulties could be created - The goal of the Expo project is to reduce auto use.  The bikeway is a critical component because it can deliver transit users to stations without car trips and provides a much-needed crosstown commuter bikeway.  We need as many cyclists' voices as possible to ensure the building of the Expo Bikeway!

Despite the elimination of transit subsidies from our Greenhouse-Gas-Battling Governor and the Democratically controlled state legislature, Metro is pushing forward with plans to expand and improve bus service thanks to increased funding from Measure R.  A report to the Metro Board's Measure R committee shows that just because the state has bowed out of the transit funding game, all is not lost for those who supported Measure R because they wanted better bus service.

While specific plans aren't yet available, you can get an idea from both the report and the handout to the committee what Metro's priorities are.  For example, they aren't saying, "increasing number of buses at rush hour for the 704 line" but are saying, "Wilshire Blvd. to address existing crowding."  Metro is expressing these priorities for the 20% of Measure R that is going towards bus service:

Clean Fuel Bus Purchases
Added Fare Freezes or Reductions
Added Bus Lines
More Frequent Service
Longer Hours of Operation
Restructured Bus Lines

Not sure how Metro is going to both freeze or reduce fares and meet the stated goal of their draft Long Range Plan to have their farebox recovery ratio rise to 33% by 2010, but other than that these look like the kind of changes people expected when they voted for Measure R.

Meanwhile, the picture is less rosy for other municipal operators.  Thirteen of the sixteen local transit operators are going to use all or part of their Measure R subsidy to "replace lost funding" including Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus and the City of Los Angeles' DASH service.

In the past couple of months the Santa Monica Police Department has cracked down on the monthly Critical Mass rides assigning at least a dozen officers every month to follow cyclists and basically harass them with nuisance tickets.  Oftentimes, these tickets are dismissed, and the extra effort costs the SMPD about $3,000 a month.

Well Critical Mass cyclists, you're in good company.  KTLA and The Times reports that the SMPD is now ticketing an equally pernicious group of lawbreakers, fitness buffs who meet in traffic mediums to stretch before runs.  If you're caught excercising in a medium, you can expect to get ticketed for $158.  Just as they do with Critical Mass, the SMPD actually stations officers who watch people work out everynight.  The cleary disbelieving reporter with KTLA ends his report by doing a couple of pushups and mock imploring his viewers not to tell anyone.

The video above catches the story, but if you can't watch video at work and are dieing to read about another way the SMPD wastes money to preserve their streets for cars and to protect the delicate sensibilities of homeowners, you can read the Times article here.

The City Council will take up the issue at their November 11 meeting.

Photo of Traffic in Santa Monica by Joel and Kristina's Flickr Page

(As we approach Election Day, LA Streetsblog will continue to take a look at the ballot propositions and measures that will effect transportation on this fall's ballot.  The following opinion piece is by LEED Certified architect Neal Payton.  The title doesn't leave a lot to the imagination as far as his views.  If you would like to write a piece on any local or state ballot measure that effects transportation, please contact damien@streetsblog.org)

Proposition T in Santa Monica is my Candidate for the Worst Urban Planning Idea of the Year. <

By Neal I. Payton

http://norift.blogspot.com

I know what you are thinking.  This title demonstrates a wee bit of hyperbole, that it’s a tad exaggerated.  Well let me explain my reasoning: 

Last Spring, an earnest and eager young man approached me as I was walking out of my local Trader Joe’s, shopping bags in hand, and asked, “Would you like to fight traffic in Santa Monica?  We’re gathering signatures to stop, ‘over-development’ by limiting commercial development in the future. It’s the Residents’ Initiative to Fight Traffic (RIFT).”  Well none of us wants to be overwrought, overweight, or overtaxed, but those are so difficult to control, so, while I didn’t sign the petition, I imagine the prospect of not being ‘overdeveloped,’ sounded pretty good to most of my neighbors, because a measure has shown up on the ballot in Santa Monica, this November under the innocuous sounding name, Proposition T.   

My biggest problem with the measure, which caps commercial development (retail and office combined) in the city to 75,000 square feet per year (about half of the current average), is that it wont’ work for its intended purpose --fighting traffic.   

Now the Proposition T proponents are clever and careful to correct me.  They don’t claim that RIFT will reduce traffic, only that it will slow the rate of traffic increase.  So, of course, we’ll never know if it has worked or not, because there is no base line  How do we know how fast traffic would have increased?  How do we know if Proposition T reduced that growth by 10%, 50%, none or even made matters worse?  Another way to frame their argument it seems to me, is that traffic in Santa Monica is terrible, and the RIFT backers have crafted a measure that will allow it to get worse slower than it would have otherwise gotten worse.  Sounds amazingly half-baked, as even my six-year old noted, who said, “that’s just dumb.” I mean if you went to a doctor, with a chronic and debilitating disease, and she offered you a therapy that would slow your rate of decline, but you knew that other therapies existed that, over time, would actually allow you to see an improvement, wouldn’t you fire that doctor? 

The Proposition T literature loudly proclaims, in bold type, “Our city’s own traffic consultant says we can’t fit any more cars or our gridlocked streets.” How is a measure that acknowledges a problem, but then fails to provide anything resembling an adequate solution acceptable? (By the way the City uses a lot of traffic consultants, so I’d like to know which one made such an inane and unprofessional remark.)   

In other words, why doesn’t this measure attack the root cause of the problem, which is how people get around, to work, to shop or to play?  We know that there are cities with far greater density with less traffic burdens.  The reason, this measure doesn’t attack the root cause, is that by doing so, the Prop-T advocates would acknowledge the value of  appropriately designed mixed-use development to the long term health of the city. This measure uses the traffic as a Trojan horse to fight something more at the heart of every development issue in the city, which is what kind of City does Santa Monica want to be? Proposition T backers, would like to put a wall around this city and freeze it as is.   

How do I know? Well again, look at the literature, from a recent “Yes Prop T” mailing, “And more development is coming, Lot’s more.  Our City Council just voted to INCREASE new building heights on all of our major boulevards from Wilshire to Pico to as high as six stories tall.”   

So what does this have to do with Proposition T?  Not one thing.  Proposition T does not in any way affect the building heights in the city.  This is just a scare tactic. It is intended to get the reader to distrust all developers, those interlopers, again from the brochure, “some from San Francisco and Beverly Hills,” who would continue to do work in this city, and contribute to its evolution and its tax base.  

It is pretty clear to me that if the well intentioned folks who crafted Proposition T had spent the time constructing a measure that would be truly effective at reducing traffic, they would not have chosen such a blunt instrument. Their tool is the product of a methodology born in the 1960's and refined slightly, over the next several decades, until its ossification in publications put out by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), that have been, dare I say it, fundamentally discredited by contemporary practitioners of the art and practice of City and Town Planning. 

The ITE's methodology, based on empirical data from the suburbs, assumed that a certain number of trips would be generated by each 100-200 square feet of office or retail space.  To this assumption, no mitigating factors were allowed (such as the fact that someone might walk from store to store, or from home to work, etc.). Moreover, these assumptions were applied pretty much equally over the cross-section of urbanism that covers virtually every metropolitan area of the country (from suburb to inner city).  The methodology also assumed that all parking would be free to the driver (at least seemingly free. See, The High Cost of Free Parking, by Donald Shoup, for a complete disputation of that assumption).  

Moreover,  residential development, which is unaffected by Prop T, will probably increase as a result  So if one thinks that voting for Proposition T, will somehow change or overturn what the Council has just passed than they are in for a disappointment. All that will be achieved is the certainty that this six-story development is almost exclusively residential, i.e., a mono-culture, of one use, where the possibility of realizing more walkable areas of the city are diminished. 

Is that all?  No. It also makes unlikely the possibility of creating more humane and pedestrian friendly edges along its most disgusting corridors, diminishes the city’s efforts to clean-up abandoned industrial lands, minimizes the likelihood of the purple-line subway extension into the city, reduces the city’s effort to fight global warming, is biased against lower income residents, and seriously stresses the city’s fiscal health. And oh, did I mention that because it’s based upon flawed assumptions and methodologies, it won’t work at reducing traffic?

Ballot Initiative Proposition T Seeks To Limit Commercial Development in Santa Monica

(Between now and the November 4th election, LA Streetsblog will be writing about as many local ballot measures that effect transportation that we can find.  Please email any suggestions to damien@streetsblog.org.)

A group of Santa Monica residents known as the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, tired of the overwhelming traffic they see caused by commercial development, have placed a measure on this fall's ballot, known as Proposition T, that would limit commercial development in Santa Monica to 75,000 square feet a year for the next 15 years.  Santa Monica, which is only 8 square miles large, has seen over 9,000,000 feet of commercial development over the last 25 years.

Opponents of Proposition T, led by State Senator Shelia Kuhl and the chair and co-chair of Santa Monica's Planning Board, claim the proposal would do little to help traffic because the major commercial developments that already exist in Santa Monica will continue to create traffic.  On top of that, developers will just build large residential developments over existing units replacing and wiping out existing affordable housing.

Right now, much of the debate has been between the two factions arguing whether the plan would reduce traffic and what cost the proposal would have for the people of Santa Monica.  What has been somewhat absent is a clear alternative to the proposal to improve the quality of life on Santa Monica's streets.

For example, a mix of a large affordable housing plan, an increase of bus service to major traffic generators such as the Water Garden and Westside Center, and continuing to invest in pon-motorized transportation infrastructure could have a larger impact on traffic demand than a proposition limiting development.  For those of us that watched last night's presidential debate, one might say this type of approach is the "scalpel approach" versus the hatchet of Proposition T.  Unfortunately, that's not the debate we're seeing, at least thus far.

Personally, I find this proposition to be too poorly written to pass even if a credible transportation engineer could prove that it would lessen traffic.  Hospitals are concerned it threatens their viability by limiting their chance to grow and the reality is there are a lot of good developments that can be built, especially transit oriented developments that should be put in place before the Subway to the Sea and Expo Line are completed.  I would be a lot more comfortable with this proposal if it had exemptions for TOD or other sustainable development plans.  In other words, try a carrot approach rather than a ban.

For more information and opinions about Proposition T, check out the website for the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City and Neal Payton's exhaustively researched No On Proposition T Blog.

Image: DooleyMTV/Flickr

Responding to the over-policing of Critical Mass in Santa Monica, cyclists took to the streets last Friday night to show the SMPD that sometimes following the letter of the law is the worst thing that can be done for traffic.  In what MetBlogs described as an act of "Civil Obedience" 60 cyclists got off their bikes and walked them across an intersection.  And walked them back across the intersection.  And then, they crossed the intersection.  When they were done, they crossed the intersection again.

The result was while cyclists paraded back and forth across an intersection, blocking traffic, handing out fliers, but apparently breaking no laws, traffic backed up for blocks.  Eventually the SMPD arrived at the scene, but by then the cyclists had scattered to another intersection in another part of town.  Watching the video, I did note that the walkazz did let buses go through and eventually cars just drove around the demonstration.

Alex Thompson has a full recap of the event and the history between SMPD and Critical Mass over at Westside BikeSIDE!.

It occasionally got ugly.  One motorist got out of his car, to argue with the Crimanimalz, and ended up in a 7 to 1 shouting match.  All night there were spates of ugliness, shouting matches that likely would have come to blows had the group of cyclists had a numerical advantage.  It wasn’t just motorists doing the yelling - at times there was a healthy dose of angry shouting from cyclists.

What do you expect?  Santa Monica residents have sicked their police force on cyclists like an angry guard dog.  The city has assigned 14 officers, on an overtime basis, to follow the ride each month, for 14 months.  The SMPD made no effort to contact riders at anytime before or during their 14 month campaign to eliminate the ride.  Officers stand apart at the ride, refuse to talk to riders and train spotlights and video cameras on their faces.

Brigitte Lauren and Lauren Larken Brave the Streets at Last Friday's Santa Monica Critical Mass

(Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a monthly series of ride reports on Critical Mass from throughout the region.  In April it was a family ride in Pasadena.  In May, I cruised the downtown with 200 of my closest friends in Los Angeles.  In June, it was soccer time in Venice.  This month, knowing the reputation of Santa Monica Critical Mass, I grabbed my pastor and my wife and headed off to the Santa Monica pier for three hours of well monitored riding.)

Sometime in the fall of last year Santa Monica Critical mass changed.  Gone were the days when it was perceived as a family ride, and the police presence increased dramatically.  Tickets, which were more often than not overturned by the courts, were handed out like candy in an attempt to stop the ride.

Last Friday, a group of well over 100 cyclists gathered at the cannon outside of the Santa Monica pier for August's installment of Santa Monica Critical Mass.  Several of the usual ride leaders were on vacation, so there was an impromptu decision that the ride would be "lady's night" with the female riders leading the pack.  Sara Bond, who I met at last month's ride in Venice, took the microphone and off we went into the streets of Santa Monica.

The Santa Monica Police Department, desperate to preserve the rights of motorists to maximum road capacity, was out in force to police the ride.  I counted four motorcycles, two squad cars, and four officers on non-motorized bikes; but a letter posted on Midnight Ridazz forums from the SMPD said their were 14 officers in total. 

Wow, more than a dozen police officers on the beat to watch hundreds of cyclists obey the law.  Too bad the cops themselves couldn't be bothered to do so.  I had a motorcycle, without flashers or sirens on, pass me withing three inches while I rode legally in the right lane.  If a car did that, it would be at least a shout of warning.  Since it was a municipal vehicle there will be a written complaint.

After the ride cleared Santa Monica and the group met in Venice, there was an informal count of tickets that were handed out.  14 in total were counted, and at least some of them were for infractions that don't exist.  One cyclist was ticketed for passing a car that was turning left in the right lane, which is not only completely legal it would cause a traffic jam if it weren't done on a regular basis.

Of course, showing that equal protection under the law is a nice theory but just real hard to put into practice, cars weren't treated the same as bikes.  There were at least five times I was sitting next to a police officer of some kind at a light when a car ran the red or turned left after a red.  Not once did an officer show a sign that they noticed.

To counter the police actions, riders followed the letter of the law to the point where they actually were more of a nuisance to the driving public than if they were riding as part of the flow of traffic.  At one intersection two police choppers going west blocked the intersection for nearly a minute while a group of cyclists sat at the north facing stop sign waiting.  Eventually, the bike riders moved through the intersection.  There were no cars waiting behind the bike riders.  However, there were at least eight cars backed behind the police motorcycles. 

In short, if you want your Critical Mass to be more than a rolling party this might be the ride for you.  Thanks to Santa Monica's ham handed attempts to stifle the ride, it has become a flashpoint  in the bicycle culture wars.  Pictures and a description of the actual ride will appear after the jump.

The ride itself was pleasant enough.  As we rode through the streets, pedestrians treated us as we were a parade cheering and shouting encouragement demonstrating a clear contrast between the citizens' reactions and those of their civil servants.  The ride went up and down many of Santa Monica's better known streets, but the group still got separated.  Riders would wait at intersections to direct those separated and eventually the group reformed at a traffic circle in one of the residential areas.

Tonight, the Santa Monica City Council will continue a discussion on the City’s “Shape the Future 2025" Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE).  Thanks to some organizing efforts by Alex Thompson and other Westside Cyclists, you can be sure that Santa Monica will be hearing plenty about bikes.  The meeting begins at 645 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 1685 Main Street.

Over at Westside BikeSIDE, Thompson discusses both the large and small changes that can take place that can be broken down into four points that every cyclist should ask for at the meeting.  Because of the low cost of many bike projects, the city can, and should, move on these suggestions before the LUCE is completed.

Thompson’s suggested outline include:

• Painted bike lanes and Sharrows should be common throughout the city.  The city can test the effectiveness of new bike facilities by piloting the project on Main Street.
• There are many places where it is difficult to lock up a bike.  Everyone should mention a favorite place where there is no place to safely and legally lock up.
• The LUCE does not address enforcement of laws upon motorists endangering cyclists.
• The LUCE recommends completing the unfinished bike network, and the city should begin as soon as possible by picking a part of the city with unfinished bike lanes and get to work immediately.

A crowd of over 100 people showed up to wish the Big Blue Bus a happy 80^th Birthday at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Anytime someone throws a party and Green L.A. Girl and Jerry Peace Activist Rubin all show up, you know it's going to be a good time.

The strong attendance at the party showed again how smaller transit agencies are able to ingrain themselves in the community. There were certainly many members of the audience that were city staff, staff at other regional transit agencies and the press; but many of those present were either passengers who planned on attending the event or pedestrians attracted by a band and some cake. Regardless, the enthusiastic cheering for politicians, staff and bus drivers showed a deep affection between the community and their transit system.

I'm sure the Big Blue Bus has many of the problems that plague transit agencies across the country, but it's also hard to picture the smiling bus drivers on stage that were loudly cheered by residents in the audience running down Enci Box or blowing past me at a bus stop because I didn't "look like on of their customers."

Before the speech making, the "Blue Notes" played some familiar tunes with the words re-written to be about the Big Blue Bus. My personal favorite was re-writing the car culture anthem "No Particular Place to Go," to play "Cruising and playing the radio; the Big Blue Bus is the way to go."

All of the speakers spoke about the positive role of transit in the lifestyle of Santa Monica residents, but the best speech showed another way a transit service can become part of the community. Santa Monica Councilmember Kevin McKeown decided to focus his time at the podium on romance and transit.

"How many high school students got their first kiss on the Big Blue Bus? How many couples cuddled on the Big Blue Bus," McKeown asked. McKeown then told a story about how the most romantic night of the month is when he brings home a monthly Big Blue Bus pass for his girlfriend.

Can anyone really Imagine any official in the City of Los Angeles telling the same story?

Photo: Damien Newton

Reports out of Santa Monica on the public meetings for Shape the Future 2025, a Land Use and Transportation Master Plan, continue to be encouraging. The Santa Monica Mirror reported last week that the March 1st meeting was well attended and that attendees asked for better bike, pedestrian and transit facilities.

Feedback showed that residents want: more balance between the fulfillment of commercial and residential needs, a bigger role for bicycling in the community, the creation of walking routes and maps of those routes, more safety concerns addressed with better lighting at night and better walking surfaces, widening of sidewalks, pedestrian links over freeways, transit maps and information at bus shelters, more local shuttles, alternative-fueled vehicles and temporary car use (flex cars), and ideas about how to manage parking (some favor fees, some don't).

Alex Thompson, of the Santa Monica Bikerowave and Westside Bikeside, attended the meetings and wrote about it at Westside Bikeside.

Thomspon loved the city's focus on better bike planning, but is worried that without specifics the city will balk when it comes time to fund and implement the plan. Thompson also worried about the effects some changes to the parking policy will have on the city. In particular, there were two changes that caused concern:

Increase on street parking by converting parallel parking to angled parking:

The last thing we need is more street parking. If Santa Monica's goal is "no net new auto trips" then why create more parking? FAIL. Furthermore, as bad as parallel parking is, angled parking is worse. Go ride Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills for an example. Try not to die. Angled parking destroys sight lines so that you can't see motorists, and motorists can't see you, so they pull out and hit you.

Parking fees are used to pay for constructing more parking:

There's a solar power concept called the breeder factory. A breeder factory uses the power of solar cells to manufacture more solar cells, as if the cells are breeding. Do we really want parking to breed? As an abuse of public space we should be asking that parking fees pay for positive improvements.

Thompson's last criticism is for the Shape the Future website. He argues that both the design and the frequency with which the site is updated need improvement. In February less than 20 people per day visited the Shape the Future site.

Photo: Alex Thompson