First, let me assure you that just because I'm moving farther west, Streetsblog isn't going to suddenly morph into a blog that only talks about the Expo Line, Santa Monica and the inner workings of the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council.  I'm not going to start wearing light blue and make sarcastic comments about USC.  Promise.

But that being said, I wanted to get a handle on my new neighborhood so I asked a group of Westside activists to give me some advice on what to look for in my new neighborhood.  Special thanks to Ballona Creek Renaissance's Jim Lamm, the LACBC's Kent Strumpell and Transit Coalition's Dr. Kenneth Alpern.

One complaint I heard over and over was that the West L.A. street grid is a disaster.  In order to try and protect the communities, there's a lot of effort going in to getting cars off the local streets and on to the main streets.  North-South arterial roads are particularly troublesome and overburdened with traffic.

Despite L.A. being the home to City Council Chair Bill Rosendahl, there hasn't been a strong push for more bike lanes nor Sharrows to appear on West L.A. streets.  This is particularly troublesome because while cycling is certainly on the rise, Westside motorists are amongst the worst in the city when it comes to sharing the road.

However, the Ballona Creek Bicycle Trail is growing and improving.  Lamm reports that The Del Rey/Mar Vista stretch of the creek from Sepulveda to McConnell now has three new gateways with more improvements in the works there and upstream.  There are of course plans to connect the Ballona Creek Trail to the proposed Expo Bike Trail which means, although I hadn't thought about it before, that one will be able to take a bike trail from Downtown L.A. all the way to Santa Monica or Marina del Rey.

Of course, there's no rail transit of any sort at the moment, and the bus service can be pretty spotty for longer trips, especially to the Downtown.  If I'm planning to take the bus, I need to get there a couple of minutes early because a missed bus means a missed meeting.

Density and development is also a major issue.  Because things are spread out and local retail is on the decline; it does mean that too many Westsiders feel reliant on a car. 

I've also been warned not to expect as many pedestrians as I'm used to in the Fairfax Community, but that there is a desire amongst residents for some better pedestrian planning and amenities.  That being said, not all of the traffic and development problems are the fault of the Westside.  Some major development problems go on across the borders in Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Culver City that create snarls for Westsiders.  I can't claim to be an expert on Westside development patterns, but I'd be willing to bet that goes both ways...

That last paragraph wasn't really a surprise...let's just say there's a reason we're moving next door to our church, a block from Ralph's and Whole Foods, and two blocks from the local K-6 School.  And if there's something I need and it's too far to walk, we do have the baby bike sitting and waiting for us.  Get ready Westside, because here we come.

Next Stop?  Court. Photo: Justin Walker/ Transit Coalition Discussion Boards

This petition challenges the Expo Authority'S February 4, 2010 approvals for the Expo Phase 2 project, as well as the Expo Authority and FTA's omissions in connection therewith. This petition seeks to ensure that the Expo Authority and FTA fully comply with the requirements of CEQA and NEPA prior to initiating construction of the Expo Phase 2 project. NFSR does not oppose the Expo Line per se, but opposes construction of the project without the opportunity for the public, the Expo Authority, and the FTA to have a proper and legally valid environmental study which, inter alia, factually discusses and considers a reasonable range of alternatives as required, including grade separations at key intersections.

Hearing the case will be Judge David Jaffey, who has previously ruled on transparency issues, and more notably ruled against opponents of the Orange Line in 2004.

Anyone awaiting word on whether the group fighting to stop or reconfigure Phase II of the Expo Line would file lawsuit doesn't have to wait until March 6, the last day they can file to legally challenge the certification of the Environmental Impact Statement approved by the Expo Board on February 4. At a meeting of Neighbors for Smart Rail last week, the organization was collecting checks and promising from the podium that a legal filing was in the works.

Reports vary on the amount of people in attendance at last weekend vary, but range upward to 250 attendees, almost all of whom were vocal about their opposition to the line. In addition to the lawsuit, the Neighbors for Smart Rail are planning a grassroots effort to inform the community, both residences and businesses, that the Expo Line will go through West L.A. at-grade. After the jump, you can read a full summary of the meeting from the "West of Westwood Homeowner's Association" an organization that is supportive of Neighbors for Smart Rail.

I want to thank the over 250 people who attended the NFSR meeting yesterday.

It was nice to see new faces but it was concerning to see how many people STILL did not know that if we do nothing the train would be coming through at grade (street level) in 5 years. Many thought it was going below grade or around us.

Soon we will be putting up lawns signs soon to let not only the residents but also the business community know that the train is coming at grade.

We encourage you to invite your neighbors and friends to a coffee. At this informal setting they will learn what the impact of a train running through here at grade every 2 1/2 minutes will have on them. Please let us know when you will have a coffee and we will have a representative there to help you. (Please see attached flyer)

We also need people to go door to door talking one on one with their neighbors. We will be having a meeting for anyone (included those who already signed up) interested in doing this. You will receive a packet with instructions and talking points.

We will also visual demonstrate the impact on traffic on the train at grade will have on our already congested streets and how it will increasing cut-through traffic. I have been contacted by both print and TV press to ask when we will be holding our demonstration.

We will be filing our lawsuit soon. Please remember we cannot do this alone we need your support.

EVERYONE MUST HELP

We know times are challenging right now. Attached is a Donation Pledge form that will allow you to make monthly payments. You can write a check or go to smartrail.org and click donate. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for you to donate.

Because we are tax deductable we are keeping a list of who contributes what.

What is the cost of NOT increasing cut-through traffic in our community
What is the cost of having emergency vehicles able to reach you without an added delay of waiting for a train to pass
What is the cost to be able to get on to Overland, Westwood, Military and Sepulveda from our homes
What is the cost of a good night's sleep not hearing bells and whistles
What is the cost of our children's safety

PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Make a donation NOW or be ready for the impact of Expo at grade in our community.

After years of debates, threats of lawsuits, contentious community meetings and even heated discussion on Streetsblog message boards; there was a feeling that yesterday's meeting of the Expo Board to debate the certification of the environmental documents for Phase II would be a momentous meeting.  Predictions of a 4-3 vote either for or against certification seemed a safe bet; with the exception of the Transit Coalition's Bart Reed who predicted a "blowout," everyone I talked to thought it would be close.

After nearly five hours of public comment and debate, the Board voted and the final tally was six in favor, zero against, and one abstention.  The abstention wasn't even made by a fully-vested Board Member, but a staff member from the office of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas who was empowered to vote in place of the Supervisor.  There was a vote on a Ridley-Thomas motion to delay, not reject, certification for three months that failed by the somewhat closer vote of 2-5, with Rosendahl joining Ridley-Thomas in support.

Instead of a close vote, the most controversial thing that occurred was a procedural move by Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks who blocked fellow Councilman Paul Koretz from voting on the measure.  Technically, until Phase I is completed, Parks and Council Woman Jan Perry sit on the Expo Board.  However it was widely believed that Parks and Perry would yield to their successors, Councilmen Koretz and Bill Rosendahl who's districts would be most directly impacted by the construction and operation of Phase II. 

While Perry yielded to Rosendahl, Parks decided to hold on to his seat for the meeting to, in his words, defend the grade crossing policy at Metro that was under attack from opponents to Phase II and Ridley-Thomas.  Whether that was the real reason for Parks' maneuver, or  a more political one such as wanting to prevent the expected "no" vote from Koretz or even to spite his formal rival Ridley-Thomas is unknown.  What is known is that Koretz was one unhappy Councilman.

After public comment closed, Los Angeles Councilman Herb Wesson, who chairs the Expo Board, allowed Koretz unlimited speaking time as though he were a seated board member.  Koretz took advantage with a strong attack on many of the parts of the environmental documents, especially the traffic study, that Cheviot Hills residents had spent hours attacking during public comment.  While he couldn't vote, some of Koretz's concerns were later addressed by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Rosendahl.  Koretz railed against the quality of the traffic studies at intersections, especially the crossings at Sepulveda, Westwood, and Overland.

Supervisor Yaroslavsky made a pair of motions that somewhat addressed Koretz's concerns.  The first requires further study of whether or not to elevate the crossing at Sepulveda Boulevard, which would cost an extra $17 million.  The second addresses the concerns of the group Expo Greenway and put off the decision on whether or not to have a parking lot or park space at Westwood Station.  Rosendahl seconded both motions, although he seemed ready to just support "park over parking" at Westwood Station.  Each motion passed unanimously.

Rosendahl's support was somewhat of a surprise to people closely watching the Board.  The Councilman had been a very vocal supporter of grade-separated intersections, but ultimately supported certification of environmental documents without elevating rail at the intersections.  He did use his vote to get assurances from the Construction Authority staff that they would create a Bike Advisory Committee to help with issues such as crossings, access to the bike path, and parking and an Urban Design Committee to help with the station design.  Some opponents of certification of the environmental documents focused their comments at Rosendahl for not sticking to his guns, but with the vote going against grade-separation with or without his vote, his political pragmatism might pay dividends for cyclists and residents in the future.

The major question that remaining, is whether or not there will be a legal challenge to the Expo Board's decision to move forward?  It's long been assumed that with the amount of money being raised, and their forceful public statements, that Neighbors for Smart Rail will move quickly to challenge the Board's decision in court.  The Times raised the issue in their coverage of the meeting, and while a final decision hasn't been announced, it does seem all-but-certain:

Robert P. Silverstein, an attorney representing a coalition of Westside homeowners' associations called Neighbors for Smart Rail, said his clients support extending the rail line but feel strongly it can be made better.

"I want to be clear that my client is not opposed to the project, but is opposed to it being built without below grade, grade separation between Overland and Sepulveda," he said at Thursday's public hearing of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority board. "Build it, but build it right."

If an announcement on a lawsuit is coming, you'll be able to read about it here at Streetsblog.  In the meantime, given all of the complaining I do about Board and Chair conduct at Metro Board meetings, I should note that not only did Councilman Herb Wesson do a superb job chairing the meeting and respecting everyone's views, but the Board didn't act like a group of school children who were eying the clock waiting for the recess bell.  Even with Mayor Villaraigosa announcing his layoffs, the City Councilmen didn't threaten to bolt the meeting if the public would just shut up and let them do their job and waited nearly five hours to cast their votes.  It's a positive sign that all seven Board seats cast votes, even if Ridley-Thomas needed a surrogate to do so.  The Metro Board would do well to follow their example.

Tomorrow's meeting of the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors promises to be one of the best-attended, most controversial and longest meeting of the body. The Board is scheduled to vote on approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Phase II of the Expo Line, and there are still many issues that are controversial with various constituencies. The meeting begins at 2:00 P.M. at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration at 500 West Temple Street. For those of you that plan on listening in at home, you can call in at (213) 974-4700 or (877) 873-8017. Spanish language call information and more details at the meeting can be found at the Expo Construction Authority's website.

If the FEIR is passed tomorrow, only a court order or loss of funding could stop construction of the controversial light rail line. While a close vote is expected, passage seems somewhat assured. There are seven voting members of the Expo Construction Authority, and only a majority is needed to approve the documents. Assuming that Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Santa Monica City Council Woman Pam O'Conner and Culver City Council Member Scott Malsin all vote in favor of the project, then only one vote is needed from Los Angeles City Council Members Herb Wesson, Bill Rosendahl, Paul Koretz or County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. Yaroslavsky has already announced his support on his blog.

So what issues need to be addressed? It seems as though the controversy over where to put a rail yard in Santa Monica has cooled off, but that leaves several controversies to be addressed.

The main obstacle to passage is the local advocacy group Neighbors for Smart Rail, that is an umbrella group consisting of local organizations and homeowners groups from areas such as Cheviot Hills and Westwood Gardens. Some of these groups have been opposed to the line for, literally, decades, and others have joined the effort recently. Their main concerns with the project, as outlined in an email to members, can be found here:

The report calls for all train crossings through our community to go at street level (at-grade), blocking traffic as often as every 2 ½ minutes, 22 hours a day at Overland, Westwood, Military and Sepulveda! They have not studied any below grade options and will consider elevating at Sepulveda only if someone else pays for it!

The FEIR document is woefully deficient and the data is flawed - it should not be adopted! We need your support to show the Expo Board that we care about our homes, our schools and the quality of life in this neighborhood. It's time to stand up and be counted.

Unlike some of the other groups attending tomorrow's meeting, Neighbors for Smart Rail aren't encouraging changes to the document, but its outright rejection. It is widely assumed that Neighbors for Smart Rail will be pursuing a legal remedy if they don't succeed tomorrow, but they're keeping that decision close to their vest and haven't said anything about future plans other than what happens tomorrow will determine their next steps.

So what changes would Neighbors for Smart Rail like to see? Their stated position is that grade-separated crossings need to be more seriously studied and approved for crossings at all major intersections and near schools. They note the high accident rate for at-grade rail crossings, most recently exemplified by a Gold Line crash last week.

Countering the assertions of Neighbors for Smart Rail is the pro-Expo group Friends 4 Expo Transit who have relentlessly pushed for the quick construction of the Expo Line from Downtown L.A. all the way to Downtown Santa Monica. They have been encouraging members to write the Expo Board, and show up tomorrow, to provide a counter-weight to the opposition. In response to Neighbors for Smart Rail, Friends 4 Expo write:

We've waited years for this alternative to horrible Westside traffic, that will serve this dense corridor's many residents, jobs, recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities, plus provide landscaping and a bike path.

Its opponents, after failing to detour the line from its straight path to Santa Monica, now demand unprecedented special treatment for one neighborhood under the guise of "Build it right or don't build it." But their prohibitively expensive, long deep tunnel beneath the existing railroad right-of-way has never been built on any modern U.S. light rail line and would threaten Expo's completion.

Another group concerned about the line's impact on traffic is the UCLA Bicycle Coalition. While the group expresses support for the concept, and writes that it's "pretty exciting to get a new train line in our 'hood;" they have serious concerns that the configuration will make cycling on Westwood Boulevard, one of the most heavily cycled roads in L.A. County, dangerous and daunting.

Current plans will reconfigure lanes on Westwood Blvd in such a way that it will be a pretty nasty road to bike on. We're asking the board to redesign the street here to preserve space for bikes, and to even add bike lanes. (More details in the letter below).

I know a lot of us bike on Westwood regularly, so we should rise up and demand that this road stay safe for bicyclists.

The cyclists are also asking their members to write the Board or attend tomorrow's meeting.

A third issue to be addressed, is the configuration of the station at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard. A group calling itself "Expo Greenway" is urging that instead of a parking lot the space around the station should be preserved as green space. "Park not parking" is the slogan, and a full detail of their plan can be read at their website.

Of course, there are other issues to be addressed, including the fate of the Expo Bike Path which will be approved if the FEIS is approved tomorrow but is not funded by the Construction Authority.  However, heading into tomorrow's showdown at Kenneth Hahn Hall, these are the groups that appear to be doing the most mobilizing.

If tomorrow seems a little short on stories here at Streetsblog, it's because we're planning on "live tweeting" the hearing via telephone.

I was somewhat heartened last week when coverage of the massive I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening Project actually mentioned the amazing amount of highway vehicle congestion that will be created by the project over its estimated three year construction phase.  However, I waited to write about the press coverage because I was hopeful that some writer would actually make the connection that the this project could actually create more congestion over the course of the construction than will be "relieved"before induced demand helps fill those new travel lanes back up.  Unfortunately, there is no such luck.  The news coverage ranges from, "traffic is going to be awful but at least everything is going to be so much better when it's done" to "traffic is going to be worse than they're saying because the government is always wrong about these sort of thing."  Unfortunately, nobody is taking on the government's claim that the project is going to permanently reduce congestion in the corridor.

Let's start with NBC 4.  In a January 11 story entitled "Reconfiguring the 405: Short Term Pain, Long Term Gain," NBC uncritically repeats the claims of Caltrans and Metro in an article about local closures resulting from the project.  If you believe the poll on the side of the article, which is about as unscientific a poll as you can find, it appears that the project doesn't have near the local support that Metro and Caltrans seem to think.  In the meantime, all we get from NBC is a promise of Long Term Gain, and a sentence from unnamed officials that the project is totally worth it.

In the Times, Ari Bloomekatz spends a lot of time talking to former Caltrans District 7 Director, and current Metro highway program director and dutifully passes along Failing's claims about the awesomeness of the project without criticism.  Actually, I take that back.  Bloomekatz does take a second to complain that the project is for carpools only and thus doesn't help eighty-five percent of commuters.  I used to complain about terms such as Road Sage and Bottleneck Blog to describe Steve Hymon's columns, but the car-centric transportation coverage from the Times these days more than earns those titles for their transportation beat.

One writer I can't take issue with as far as not just repeating statements from public officials is the outgoing transportation writer of the Daily News, Sue Doyle.  Doyle talked to a series of business owners along Sepulveda who are terrified of the three years of traffic that will clog the street in front of their business and a handful of "transportation experts."  None of the experts mentioned induced demand, and they uncritically passed along Caltrans and Metro's statistics, but hey.  At least Doyle took the time to ask someone else.  Sue, if you're reading this, you will be missed.

At news blog LA Observed, editor Kevin Roderick does take the time to note that the three year timetable is a best-case-scenario to finish the project.  Given that it's already behind schedule because of the rain we've seen recently, it's a little hard to believe that it's going to stay on schedule.  Roderick doesn't mention the obvious awesomeness of the project, must be why he's writing a blog, but he earns points for not uncritically passing off government spin.

Given the rapid evolution of media over the last several years, it's unlikely that I'll still be writing Los Angeles Streetsblog when the project is completed and the congestion has returned to "pre-2010" levels, but I promise you this.  When that day does happen, I'll come back and we can measure what took longer.  The construction of the new travel lanes and other capacity enhancements or the time it took for that expansion to become filled up.

(This is the first in a four part series following up on stories that have run through the year but aren't yet finished.)

Just because the word "Final" appears in the document name doesn't mean that the battle over the routing and crossings for the Expo Line have ended.  While the Final Environmental Impact Report predictably contained good news for supporters of getting the light rail line completed quickly, even the most enthusiastic supporters know that there are still opponents of the project that still have some arrows left in their quiver.

Karen Leonard, the co-chair of Light Rail for Cheviot, writes, "I'm very glad that the Expo Authority took neighborhood comments seriously and discussed the grade separation possibilities at Overland and Westwood at length and in detail.  Since LADOT now concurs with Expo that these
crossings should be at-grade, given the mitigations proposed, one hopes that NIMBYs in several homeowners' associations do not succeed in funding litigation and delaying the line significantly."

While Leonard is choosing her words carefully, she's referring to the coalition of affluent Westside neighborhoods that have rallied together under the banner of Neighbors for Smart Rail.  Friends 4 Expo member "Gokhan" takes a less-nuanced approach to defining NfSR's position in the Streetsblog comments section:

NFSR comes next. Terri Tippit, the veteran Westside neighborhood politician, Head of the West of Westwood Homeowners' Association and at times the President of the Westside Neighborhood Council, is the President of Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR). Collen Mason Heller of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association is the Vice President of NFSR. Her husband Larry Heller is the attorney for NFSR. NFSR has been collecting a lot of money in order to launch a lawsuit within 30 days of the certification by the board of the Expo Authority of the final environmental-impact report on the first Thursday of January. (editor's note, the date for approval has been moved to February 4)

Officially, the position of Neighbors for Smart Rail is not that the line shouldn't be built, but that the line needs to have safe (i.e. not at-grade) crossings near Westside schools as it rolls by.  Legal actions against the Expo Construction Authority in South L.A. have forced the agency to add additional pedestrian amenities near Dorsey High School.  However, thus far Neighbors for Smart Rail is playing it close to the chest.  The group is not quoted in any of the press accounts of the FEIR release and emails requesting comment for this article have not been returned.  I'm sure there will be a lot more on this story in the coming year.

The Expo Construction Authority has finally released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Phase II of the Expo Line with some key changes.  I'll spend more time reviewing the document and talking to some of the key players in the drama over the weekend and will be back with a longer story on Monday.  But for those of you that can't wait to start talking, here are the key changes from the press release, which can be read in its entirety here.  Or you can read the environmental documents in their entirety on the Expo Construction Authority Board website.

Meanwhile, here are the key changes from the Draft EIR per the Construction Authority's Press Release.

Inclusion of a design option that removes the park-and-ride lot at the Westwood station;

A Maintenance Facility design option which includes Santa Monica College and Verizon properties with a 100-110 foot buffer, providing additional protection from the residential community to the south of the proposed facility;

Accommodation of a continuous bikeway from the Phase 1 terminus to Santa Monica;

An additional grade separation at Centinela;

Addition of a 3rd northbound lane on Sepulveda for the at-grade crossing;

Inclusion of a design option for grade separation at Sepulveda if outside funding sources become available.

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.

Bus lane free. Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

Yesterday's full Los Angeles City Council meeting ran extraordinarily late due to a potential lawsuit between the Controller and the City Attorney. The council's Transportation Committee meeting, previewed last week here and here, was scheduled for 2:00 P.M. but didn't begin until after 4:30 P.M. By then, most of the Department of Transportation (LADOT) staff had left. Remaining were a little more than half of the initial 30+ yellow-t-shirt clad Bus Riders Union members, a half-dozen Comstock Hills homeowners, and a couple of bicyclists.

Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl apologized profusely for the delay, and, with fellow committee members Alarcón, Koretz and LaBonge in attendance, immediately launched into the most contentious agenda item: the LADOT's recommendation that the city move forward with full environmental review of the federally-funded peak hour bus-only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard.

Paul Koretz is the newly elected Council Member representing the city's 5th district, which includes the Comstock Hills, aka the "condo canyon," stretch of Wilshire between Beverly Hills and UCLA. The bulk of the opposition to the bus-only lane project has come from this area. Among the committee, Koretz was the most openly skeptical of the project - asking a number of questions, including if the project is a "disaster" could it be removed? LADOT staff responded that they "didn't want to go there" and reassured Koretz that their calculations showed a very modest impact on traffic. DOT stated that estimates show a 3-5 minute delay for cars driving the entire corridor, with a corresponding 24% reduction in the time it takes for a bus to go the same length.  Koretz ultimately moved the motion to fund the environmental study at Rosendahl's suggestion.

Council Member LaBonge questioned whether the route could go to other high-volume destination centers like Century City;  LADOT countered that Wilshire itself is a destination-rich corridor, indeed "the number one bus line in the United States."

Four Bus Riders Union speakers testified in support of the project and the important precedent it will set. Speakers representing the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition also spoke in favor. Homeowners expressed their displeasure at the planned bus lanes which they stated would be "dangerous" for residents getting into and out of driveways, and negatively impact trash trucks, mail delivery, ambulances, and fire engines.

Rosendahl diplomatically thanked speakers for raising important issues and suggested that the full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process would be where all these benefits and costs can get full public airing. The committee unanimously approved the motion for the project EIR to proceed, including directing LADOT to report back in 90 days. The motion (08-2595-S1) will now be scheduled for a vote of the full city council.

Running very late, the committee then spent less than three minutes approving LADOT's proposed contract for ShelterCLEAN to maintain the Orange Line Bike Path (09-2120) and continued the rest of the agenda to future meetings.

(Editor's Note: Linton is Chair of the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and is an unabashed supporter of the Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes project.)

At an early morning meeting, scheduled for 8:30 A.M. but not starting until close to 9:00, of the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee, both sides in the contentious debate over the fate of temporary traffic calming measures placed in near the Palazzo development in Westwood.

The battle between the Holmby-Westwood community and the extended Westwood Village communities.  The result?  The Committee decided to back Councilman Weiss, the extended community and the LADOT and voted to remove the traffic calming so that the field will be clear for a new round of negotiations. For more on the politics of the struggle, click over to Streetsblog stories from yesterday and last month.

Yes, from the people that claim the best way to slow down traffic is to increase the speed limit and that the best way to protect pedestrians in unsignalized crosswalks is to remove the crosswalk comes the new theory that the best way to improve an imperfect traffic calming plan is to rip up the traffic calming and start from scratch.

While the 60% of the residential community that voted to support the current traffic calming measures when it went to a vote were represented by a majority of the speakers, they received a less sympathetic response than last time.  The representative from the City Attorney's office rejected the resident's claim that the neighborhood protection plan agreed to by the community didn't rise to the level of a binding contract, and even if it did that LADOT has the authority to change the boundaries of the agreement.

As for the LADOT, they seemed content to rip out the current measures and start the public process over after a "cooling off period" so that the angry sides from the current disagreement can become friends again.  Once the kumbaya period is over the community can begin to put together a new traffic calming plan.

Probably the lowlight of the hearing came at the end when Councilman Tom LaBonge compared car traffic and traffic calming to damming a river.  Under his analogy, you can damm a river, but the water will flow somewhere else.  Of course, the goal of creating Livable Streets isn't just to damm that water, but damm it and reduce it.

Nearly a month ago, we discussed the efforts of local Councilman Jack Weiss and the LADOT to remove three temporary traffic calming measures that were placed on streets surrounding the Palazzo development to mitigate traffic on the streets surrounding the large, mixed-use development.  Before the traffic calming can be removed, it requires the blessings of the City Council.  When the Transportation Committee heard Weiss' motion to remove the signs and cones protecting LeConte, Weyburn, and Lindbrook avenues, the hearing wasn't going well for Weiss and his allies.  Thus the motion was pulled  so Weiss could try and negotiate an agreement between the communities.

Tomorrow, the motion is back on the agenda.  Despite some efforts to get the communities to sit down and talk about their disagreements, no meeting has actually been scheduled.  (Update: A meeting between the two sides and Weiss' office did take place last night.  The hastily scheduled meeting was put together after the City Council had scheduled tomorrow's hearing)

For those new to this issue, here's the crux of the problem.  As part of the agreement between the Palazzo Development in Westwood and the Holmby-Westwood Community, traffic calming measures were placed at the intersection between Weyburn Avenue and Le Conte, Weyburn and Lindbrook Streets to prevent cut-through traffic.  For the traffic calming to permanently remain, it would need the support of two-thirds of the effected community in an LADOT mail survey.

The "effected community" as described in the agreement voiced approval for the traffic calming measures by a margin of 72%-28%.  However, the LADOT's standard for measuring community support for traffic calming has a much larger area than what is described in the developer's agreement.  So, the LADOT surveyed a "compromise" stretch of the population which approved of the plan by only a 60%-40% margin.

Of course, by not sticking to either their standard or the protection plan approved in the development agreement, they're basically begging to be sued no matter how this turns out.  But that's another issue.

So what were the impacts of the traffic calming measures?  As expected, on the impacted streets traffic dropped dramatically.  Instead of a large increase, Le Conte, Weyburn and Lindbrook saw large decreases in traffic.  Since they were initially expecting increases, the Homby-Westwood came up with the odd looking estimate of a 124% decrease in traffic.

As you would expect, some of that diverted traffic found its way on to another local street, in this case Manning Street.  Manning was included in the area which supported the traffic calming by a 72% to 28% margin.

So, if not increased traffic, why are other Westwood residents protesting the traffic calming to the point of strong-arming their embattled City Councilman and enlisting the help of LADOTto make their point?

Based on what I heard at last month's meetings, the main reason is they want to be able to drive on Le Conte, Weyburn and Lindbrook and don't like the traffic calming present.  One resident testified that "it shouldn't take fifteen minutes to drive a quarter of a mile," and of course I agree!  It should take five minutes to walk a quarter of a mile. 

Others complained that there wasn't traffic calming on their streets too, but what I don't understand is why not lobby to protect your street instead of lobbying to "un-protect" someone else's?  When the LADOT representative joked that they would have to put traffic calming on every cross street to make everyone happy I clapped.  Apparently, she was joking.

However, the LADOT did make clear that once the traffic calming was removed, they would sit down with the effected communities and try to create a "Plan B" to secure the area.  Councilman Alarcon seemed somewhat incredulous at this statement, wondering why LADOT doesn't wait until after you have a new plan to take out the current measures.  What if they decide to put some, or all, of the measures back?  Wouldn't the city just be paying three times for one set of measures?

Unfortunately, this issue has become intensely personal between Holmby-Westwood and other parts of the area.  Accusations of trying to rig the LADOT's survey, of not caring for the safety of the other sides children and that the other side is outright lieing to protect their position were heard at last month's hearing. Even more shockingly, someone emailed me to question my talents as a writer.

Tomorrow's meeting is scheduled for 8:30 in the morning.  We'll see if the early hour tempers people's tempers and how Weiss and the LADOT plan to proceed.

The more I think about the LADOT's new plan for the Olympic-West Pico-East project the more I think they may have gotten things backward.  Starting last night, the LADOT began a series of public meetings to provide the public input on "scoping" for the environmental studies, i.e. gave the public a chance to weigh in on what alternatives they would like to see to alleviate automobile congestion on Pico and Olympic Boulevards.

Meanwhile, while the public is discussing what alternatives they would like to see studied, the LADOT is promoting a plan they've already written which would take away peak hour parking and re-time the traffic signals to increase vehicle flow between Fairfax and Sepulveda.  In other words, we're being asked to provide alternatives for the LADOT to study that would compete with the alternative they've already developed.

The format for last night's public outreach meeting for the new Olympic-West Pico-East transportation plan was different than the other meetings for the project I'd been to.  Instead of a public presentation and open microphone for comments, attendees were invited to walk around the room to discuss the projects with a series of consultants and LADOT staff.  Different stations were set up to discuss the different concerns people might have with the project.

The new format did little to reduce public complaints and anger about a plan that would ultimately increae traffic in their neighborhood.  One resident basically commandeered the "parking" station where an image of the project area was projected onto the wall; and used it to make his own case against the project.  Residents also gathered around the a table set up for people to provide written comments to the point where it was sometime "standing room" only.

While many of the complaints were still directed over the impact parking would have on business, builder Avi Schonwald complained that businesses along the corridor were cancling renovation and expansion plans because removing rush hour parking would endanger their ability to stay open.  Another resident complained that the traffic plan would convert local businesses to "part-time."

Paul Koretz talks with the voters.

This is interesting because if Koretz is elected, then both of the City Councilmen whose districts would be effected by the plan would be in opposition to it.  Bill Rosendahl is already on record opposing it.

Amongst the parking mania, there were some people that were concerned that the LADOT's current plan, while a long way from the original one-way street proposal, still placed too high an emphasis on cars and not a high enough emphasis on the community.  There were some interested in bringing bus-only lanes to the boulevards and others concerned that the increased traffic would make it more difficult for pedestrians to use the street.

Last, there was a group concerned that the project ends at Fairfax Avenue, a street that is only two lanes in either direction.  When faced with overwhelming traffic on Fairfax, the street is already congested at rush hour, will commuters cut through local streets to avoid the bottleneck that will be created when the boulevards become four lanes again?

Surprisingly, LADOT project manager Ken Hustings had an answer to the question of "why stop at Fairfax" that wasn't "politics."  Apparently Councilman Wesson, who's district begins at Fairfax in that part of the city, had already planned streetscape improvements for the median and the new lanes would destroy the striping.  This is the first time since the project was altered to cut out Wesson's district that I've heard an explanation for this change other than "politics."

There's two more chances for residents to voice their concerns or suggest alternatives at public hearings tonight and next week.  If you want to mail comments send them by April 20th to:

Mr. Ken Hustings, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
LADOT
100 South Main Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012

The LADOT will be back with it's environmental review sometime in the fall or early winter of this year.

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!

Last night, Westside Councilman Bill Rosendahl held a forum for residents of Del Rey to discuss their traffic concerns with officials with Caltrans and LADOT.  At first, I wondered why it was called a "traffic" and not "transportation" forum, but I soon learned why as the only question that wasn't about moving cars or widenings was from a gentleman complaining about planted medians.

However, the forum also provided a chance to observe the presumed-future-Transportation Committee Chair on his home turf, without being surrounded by other Councilmembers or the pretenses of City Hall.  And, he was pretty much the same guy that I've gotten to know from countless trips to City Hall and various other community hearings.  He pushed his favorite transit projects, both bus and rail, and bemoaned the role of city and state politics.  In typical Rosendahl fashion, he even turned the disappointment of not being appointed to the Metro Board into a positive...he's not going to owe the Mayor anything as Transportation Committee Chair.

So why is there so much car congestion on the Westside?  Rosendahl blamed the planners of the 1970's and 1980's for not building the transit projects that are now being plannned.

Rosendahl pushed four major transit projects as the best way to "fix" Del Rey traffic disaster, even as the community asked more and more questions about fixing bottlenecks.  The Councilman was more than receptive to relieving bottlnecks, but when discussing his own transportation plan stuck to what are probably old favorites to Streetsblog readers: a Green Line Extension to LAX, a completed Subway to the Sea, an Expo Line that reaches Santa Monica and a Rapid Bus Line for Venice.

He also pushed the building of more affordable housing so that the people that many of those who work in the 11th District can live here.  He also argued for better senior housing so that "we don't kick people out once they turn 60."

Meanwhile, the Del Rey community is one primed for transportation reform.  While there were a lot of concerns about car travel time, there were equally as many complaints about the secondary impacts of the highways on their lives.  The chief complaint: the noise.  All hours of the day and night, highway traffic intrudes on their lives, be it the 90 or the 405, a lack of sound walls and constant traffic has made the constant noise pollution a part of their lives.  The noise is so bad that in the words of one resident, "My dog won't even go out at night."

While Caltrans seemed interested in rechecking to see if soundwalls are needed in this section, the long term issues remain for Del Rey.  What can truly be done to relieve car congestion, and what effect, if any, long-term impact will there be from eliminating bottlenecks.

A new organization calling themselves "West LA for Change" debuted itself to thousands of drivers on the 405 by unrolling a 100 foot sign calling for a speeded up time table for the Subway to the Sea and Phase II of the Expo Line.  The group doesn't seem to limit itself to transportation advocacy, as their website promotes the group as:

a non-partisan coalition of West LA residents committed to building and maintaining a sustainable, healthy, just and prosperous community.

While they don't seem to have any more highway protests planned, there is a link to join their mailing list if you're interested in wearing a mask and pushing a message of alternative transportation.  To see the second side of their sign, promoting bikes as an alternative to those cars crossing the overpass, read on after the jump.

The Exposition Construction Authority, the quasi independent agency charged with building the Expo Line, will hold three hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement tomorrow.  There will be two more hearings next week, and each provide an opportunity to make your voice heard on what kind of Expo Line you wish to see.

The largest issue to be resolved is what alignment Phase II should take although other issues, such as whether or not grade crossings are built at-grade or below-grade and the future of the Expo Bike path are also up for discussion.

The environmental documents favor the construction of the light rail extension down Exposition Boulevard, along the existing Right-of-Way, an alternative also favored by Friends 4 Expo Transit.  However, some activists in Santa Monica are pushing for the train to go down Colorado Avenue to avoid passing close to their public schools.

The grade-crossing issue has been around for nearly as long as Expo has been under debate.  A group of homeowners and activists in the Cheviot Hills Area are insisting that no rail be built that isn't below ground because of safety and congestion concerns.

Last, but not least, the issue of whether or not the Expo Construction Authority will take the lead on building the bike lane that should connect the downtown to Santa Monica needs to be resolved.  The Expo Construction Authority seems to be backing away from a commitment to build it to avoid federal oversight.  However, bike advocates that have long-supported the bike trail urge the Authority Board, most of whom are elected officials to change the staff decision.

The calendar for the public hearings, and how to comment if you can't make them, can be found after the jump.  You can find the Draft Environmental Impact Statement here.

Wednesday, February 18, 5:00 P.M. to 8 P.M.
Santa Monica High School
Cafeteria
601 Pico Blvd
Santa Monica, CA
Parking available in the North Student lot on the north-east corner of the campus

Monday, February 23, 5:00 P.M. to 8 P.M.
Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services
Gymnasium
3200 Motor Avenue
Los Angeles, CA
Parking available on campus.

Wednesday, February 28, 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Webster Middle School
“Daniel’s Den”
11330 West Graham Place
Los Angeles, CA
Parking available in local school lot and off Graham Place and along adjacent streets

One of the Faux Streets, Closed to Car Traffic, at the Grove

The benefits of having an outdoor cathedral to consumerism located in your neighborhood, even one as pleasant and well-designed as The Grove, are debatable.  As part of the deal that brought the Grove to the Mid City West Community, the Grove had to provide just over $400,000 for local transportation improvements.  Their final transportation plan will be heard tomorrow at the City Council Transportation Committee, and putting aside the issue of whether the City required enough of The Grove for transportation mitigation for a moment, their plan looks pretty good.

The improvements, both planned and already constructed, feature a long list of pedestrian improvements and traffic calming improvements in addition to the city's ongoing love affair with traffic signal improvements.

In particular, the traffic plan calls for:

(1) speed humps at 66 locations, of which 37 have already been installed;

(2) RIGHT TURN ONLY restriction signs for east- and westbound traffic on First Street at Crescent Heights Boulevard;

(3) landscaped median island on 6th Street west of Fairfax Avenue;

(4) southbound left-turn phase for San Vicente Boulevard at 6th Street, timed to meter flow;

(5) electronic speed feedback signs on Crescent Heights Boulevard;

(5) (sic) and traffic signal metering at various intersections to increase delay on cut-through routes at a specific entry or exit to the neighborhood.

Photo: Reuben Cano/Flickr

Last night Metro and LADOT updated bus riders and travelers along the Wilshire corridor of their efforts to bring Bus Rapid Transit to Los Angeles' West Side.

If everything goes well, the project could enter its design stage in about a year.  In the meantime the agencies will be placing the project under an environmental review, select a final project description and approval from the Federal Transit Administration.  After a successful pilot program that ended last year and given the FTA's high opinion of Bus Rapid Transit projects; advocates hope that the nearly ten years of discussion and study will lead to bus only lanes from Valencia Street in the Downtown to Centinela Boulevard just outside of Santa Monica excluding the section in Beverly Hills.  Also, federal, state and local funds are already allocated for the project.

So what would Metro's BRT project actually do to Wilshire Boulevard?  The plan is to re-stripe Wilshire Boulevard to make the curb lanes in each direction bus only lanes.  In some areas the lanes would require no paving and in others there would need to be a slight widening of the street.  Seventeen intersections will be redesigned to improve timing and expand signal priority for buses.  Non-Metro buses would be able to use the bus-only lanes as well as Metro buses.

By removing buses from the snail's pace of rush hour traffic, Metro will be able to sweepingly reverse the trend of longer commutes for transit riders along the Wilshire Corridor.  Rex Gephardt, who oversees the Rapid Bus program for Metro, noted that bus speeds are declining by .5% to .75% every year in the corridor.  In 2007, LADOT experimented with a pilot program for 1 mile of the corridor and, unsurprisingly, the buses moved faster and ridership increased.  While the pilot program was canceled, the segment will be part of the final BRT project if approved.

Unsurprisingly, upper-class enclaves Santa Monica and Beverly Hills seem uninterested in putting bus-only lanes on the parts of Wilshire Boulevard that run through their cities.  While both have expressed interest in moving forward with a bus-only lanes after seeing how they fare in the City of Los Angeles and County parts of Wilshire Blvd.  Both municipalities followed a similar pattern when the city and Metro worked together to bring signal prioritization for buses to Wilshire Blvd.  Prioritization has been operating on Wilshire in Beverly Hills for nearly a year and will be in operation on other Beverly Hills streets  within the next 6 months.   Given the rave reviews BRT has gotten around the country and locally, it's too bad we won't see a full BRT route along Wilshire until after the city and Metro re-prove its worth.

The handful of speakers who spoke last night were excited about the project and, if anything, wanted to see it expanded.

Both speakers testifying on behalf of the Bus Rider's Union spoke about the joys of bus riding and want to see the bus-only lanes be added to the road quickly.  Joe Linton, speaking on behalf of Green LA, commented that bus-only lanes need to be supported by an attractive, walkable pedestrian environment and the lanes need to be well marked as open to bicycles to avoid the confusion that occurred when bus-only lanes opened in the Downtown.  Others testified that the bus system in the surrounding areas will need to be bulked up to support the BRT system just as it supports the subway and light rail systems.

In addition to the three meetings next week, people can give their opinions anytime by emailing wilshirebrt@metro.net.  The draft environmental review will be available for public comment in March of 2009.

Photo: LA Wad/Flickr

The meeting will be held at the Felicia Mahood Multipurpose Center, 113388 Santa Monica Boulevard, on July 14th from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. The Councilman's full advisory is available after the jump.

Who: Los Angeles City Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Homeowners Association representatives
Bicycle Activists

When: 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Monday, July 14, 2008

Where: Felicia Mahood Multipurpose Center
11338 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025

What: In the wake of a July 4 automobile accident that hospitalized two cyclists, Councilmember Bill Rosendahl will host a public meeting to bring cyclists, motorists and residents together to discuss ideas and proposals to make it easier for everyone to share the Mandeville Canyon Road.

City officials will welcome suggestions from all parties on how to improve safety on the narrow 5 mile roadway that is heavily used by residents, visitors to nearby recreation areas, and cyclists. Discussion will also focus on efforts to better inform the public about laws and vehicle code sections pertaining to cycling and sharing the road.

The specifics of the July 4 incident, which is being investigated by law enforcement officials, will not be a subject of the meeting.