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.

(Editor’s note: this is third in a monthly series of ride reports on Critical Mass from throughout the region.  In April it I rode Pasadena.  In May, Los Angeles.  This month was going to be Costa Mesa, but I decided to put it off until the fall so instead it’s the nascent Venice Critical Mass.)

At first, Venice Critical Mass seems like a weird off-shoot of the Critical Mass movement.  Many of the riders are also regulars at Santa Monica Critical Mass, which takes place the following week, there’s no rolling boom box, few people wearing bright colored costumes, and most of the ride didn’t actually take place in Venice.

But, once you do the ride, you realize it has what’s most important.  A sense of community as you roll through the streets, and a goal of reclaiming public spaces for everyone.  True, some of that public real estate was on the makeshift soccer fields and not just streets, but the theory is the same.

It was sometime after 8:00 P.M. when a group of about 75 riders pulled out of Winward Circle and rolled around the streets of Venice.  The group had taken an informal vote of whether or not to try and meet up with the Los Angeles Critical Mass group going downtown, or to stick to Venice, Santa Monica and West LA and have more time to hang out at the pit stops.  The group voted for the pit stops.

The ride itself was very much in the spirit of Critical Mass.  There was no real route planned, it just sort of veered around the streets until we ended up at a park, there were extra-legal efforts to keep the group together (read: corking) and everyone looked out for each other on the ride.

After about a half hour of riding the group pulled into Mar Vista Park.  There, we found a poorly lit field and set up some bags as soccer goal posts.  Incidently, my team won, 6-5.  At the end of the game, the ride split into two groups.  One went to meet up with the downtown riders, the others decided to stay west.

After a quick stop at a 7-11 on National Blvd., those that stayed west headed to Santa Monica City Hall for another soccer game.  Again, my team won but at such a cost, when trying to pivot on the mud I jammed my leg so I decided to call it a night and head home.  The rest of the group headed down to the gymnastics rings for an impromptu demonstration followed by arguments about whether chain friction and air resistance were significant on the rings, the remaining riders split up and went on their ways.

In short, the ride was different than what many would expect, but it was ultimately fun.  There were no run-ins with the police while shooting down the streets, although towards the end of the time at Santa Monica one cop wandered by to try and figure out what in the world we were doing.  While we probably spent as much time playing soccer as we did riding, at least for the first three hours of the ride, even the soccer was in the right spirit...we were using a public space for an unplanned community event.

Most importantly, the ride was safe and accessible to cyclists of all skill levels.  After a week where I logged about double my usual miles on the bike, my legs were tired after the first soccer game and I had no trouble keeping up with the rest of the group.  The ride itself is probably about 15-20 miles total, not a killer even if you’re not a regular cyclist.

Even if you don’t live in the area, Venice Critical Mass may be the right one for you if you’re a beginner or intermediate level cyclist.  There aren’t a lot of hills and the soccer provides break to rest legs, provided of course you skip the game, that may not be used to longer rides.  The riders are friendly, the route is safe and the police don’t see it as their mission in life to hassle riders.

Do you have trouble keeping all of the organizations that are lobbying around the Expo Line straight from one another? After all, there's Fix Expo, Build Expo, Friends 4 Expo, Light Rail for Cheviot, and Neighbors for Smart Transit...and these are just the groups I can think of off the top of my head. Well, now there's a new group, CREATE Expo Greenway which is advocating for more green space along The Exposition Right of Way (ROW) between Motor Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard.

On its "transportation" page the group explains how the vision of a Greenway meshes with the vision for light rail.

The broad and natural Exposition Right of Way (ROW) south and west of Cheviot Hills provides a unique opportunity to put this public land to several simultaneous, beneficial uses consistent with Metro's Planning Principles while connection communities.

This section of the ROW between the Rosa Parks (formerly Santa Monica) Freeway and Sepulveda Boulevard is uniquely wide - up to 200 feet wide. (Light Rail trains only use about 30 feet of that space.) Most of the ROW in this area has not been sold off, narrowed or encroached upon by Exposition Boulevard - unlike sections further east. The City of Los Angeles has retained much of this land (or easements on it), so there is ample room for multiple uses.

You don't need me to tell you that the battle over the future of the Expo Light Rail Line through the Westside has been pitched. It will be interesting to see how this new group effects the dynamic.

Image: Create Expo Greenway

Last night the Expo Construction Authority held a community meeting in the Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services Gymnasium, right in the heart of a community that has historically been opposed to construction of Phase II of the Expo Line.  As expected, it was hard to find a supporter of extending light rail from where Phase I ends in Culver City all the way to downtown Santa Monica.  In recent days, the Bottleneck Blog has done a great job of covering the controversy.

By now the story is an old one, large segments of West Los Angeles are worried that a light rail whisking through their community at 55 miles per hour will endanger pedestrians and slow traffic at intersections.  Because it goes through low-density residential areas, opponents argue that Expo is being built more for the residents of Downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica than it is for West Angelenos.  A group called Neighbors for Smart Rail also argue that the Expo Line could cut off access to the I-10.

On the other side of the issue are Friends for Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot who argue that light rail is proven, popular, and growing nationwide.  Over 800,000 people will live within two miles of the completed Expo Line which will provide a valuable transit option for the entire West Los Angeles area.  Last night Darrell Clarke showed me an image of gas prices at the corner of Pico and Barrington where regular was going for $4.83 per gallon and premium at $5.13.  The unspoken question was how could anyone be opposed to increasing transit when the cost of gas is going to price out middle and lower class car drivers in the near future.

Last night much of the opposition was about grade crossings.  Before public comment, the Expo Construction Authority gave a 45 minute presentation that was basically a defense of at-grade (street level) rail crossings.  There’s a lot of things Expo and local DOT’s can do to lessen the impact of trains crossing major streets at-grade such as increase the local road capacity by taking away street parking, fixing sidewalks and putting in traffic signals at nearby intersections.  In some areas, perhaps because of the increased road capacity, the Expo Authority actually predicted an increase of automobile traffic if the line is built as compared to the no-build alternative.

The authority also stated that 12 trains will come in each direction every hour during the peak period which, when combined with traffic signals, would result in stopped traffic on major roads over half of the time.  The authority then went through all of the crossings that they were still studying and made the case for at-grade crossings.

The audience was not impressed.

What happened next was a parade of speakers demanding grade-separated (above or below ground) crossings at either every intersection or just the ones in their community.  First to speak was Jay Handal, of the West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and President of the Neighborhood Association, who was upset that the study hasn’t also taken into account the large new developments going into West L.A. and the impact they are going to have on traffic in addition to the at-grade crossings.  He ended his comments with a plea to , “get these crossings above grade.”

Other speakers included a variety of local residents of all ages, races and genders.  Despite rushing through as much testimony as he could get in under the two-minute per speaker limit, Damien Goodmon ran out of time before saying everything he wanted to.  When the Authority told him time was up we got our first outburst from the crowd of the evening as the audience jeered the authority and shouted to “Let him talk!”  Many other times throughout the night crowd members would shout that the Authority was lying to them or demanding more time for particularly compelling speakers.

Even Ken Alpern, President of the Transit Coalition, called it “absolutely critical” that all grade crossings were grade separated.  Karen Leonard of Light Rail for Cheviot was dismayed that the crossing at Westwood would be at-grade although she made clear she supported whatever Expo settled on as long as the Phase II extension is built.

On top of all the complaints about at-grade crossings, members of the cyclist community also showed up to ask about the bike trail that will run parallel to the line.  Responding to a question from Kent Strumpell, the Authority admitted that there will probably be gaps in the bike trail which seems to me to be a mistake.  All one has to do is look at the overcrowded racks along the Orange Line to know what impacts a completed trail can have on transit ridership.

There were people at the meeting that were for the project, and meetings in a different area would be packed with speakers supporting the project instead of the other way around.  The Expo Line is perhaps the most controversial rail project in California and has fervent supporters and opponents throughout South and West Los Angeles.

To dismiss the community’s complaints as ineffective NIMBYism is a mistake.  Handal has already proven the muscle to kill a transportation project in court and the Authority is relying on a large grant from the FTA.  My guess is the FTA would be loathe to fund a transit project that lacks support in the local community.  While proponents of the line argue that grade-separating crossings would be too expensive to secure funding for the line, it could also be that opposition to any project without them could cause the project to never get funding anyway.

Image: Friends for Expo 

Tired of waiting for Metro to get serious about building an extension of the Green Line to LAX, a group of Westside politicians is looking to take the decision making authority on the extension out of Metro’s hands.

Their efforts took a big step forward late Tuesday night when the California State Senate heard and moved S. 1722 out of committee.  The legislation still has to be approved by committee in the Assembly in addition to passage by the full Senate.  S. 1772 is legislation that would create an independent authority, similar to the Expo Authority, charged with connecting the Green Line to the region’s largest airport.

Similar legislation died in the Assembly last year when Metro lobbied against the legislation, arguing that there isn’t enough money to build all of the projects people want and that Metro has its own system to rank projects. A Metro spokesperson tells the Torrance Daily Breeze that the Metro staff is recommending that the Metro Board oppose the legislation.

While State Senator Jenny Oropeza is the one sponsoring and promoting the bill in Sacramento, Westside Councilman Bill Rosendahl was in Washington, D.C. asking for a change to the law that would allow LAX to spend some of its own money on building the extension. Rosendahl hinted that the agency might be considering adding an additional parking fee to pay for the construction and doesn’t see the Green Line extension as an obstacle to Metro receiving the funds it needs. He tells the Daily Breeze:

"I don't want to, in any way, slow down anybody else's project," Rosendahl said. "The MTA has a very small pie, and people fight over the crumbs of the MTA. What we really need to do is grow the pie."

This is the second time this month that Rosendahl has suggested that the region isn’t getting maximum value out of its publicly owned parking. Even if you’re not interested in adding more transit options to LAX, if LAX does use parking proceeds to help fund an extension, it could make it easier for the city to move forward with much needed parking reforms.

Photo: Photo Avatar/Flickr

The community update meetings on the progress of Phase II of the controversial Expo Light Rail line are completed.  For anyone who like me was unable to make any of the three meetings, a copy of the presentation is available at the Expo Construction Authority's website. 

Even though there was no pushing and shoving this time, it's clear that both those that wish to kill the project if an at-grade crossing isn't in place at Dorsey High School and those that want the line built either way were not satisfied with the presentation from Expo Construction Authority Staff.  After the jump you can read letters from the Cheviot Hills Homeowner's Association and Light Rail for Cheviot after the jump.

First is the letter from Light Rail for Cheviot, dated March 28, the day after the first outreach meeting.

All,

The workshop last night at Daniel Webster Middle School was disappointing in one major respect:  the decisions about at-grade or grade-separation at Overland and Westwood along the ROW or existing Right of Way, alternative 1 for phase 2, are not yet made.  These crossings are getting "further analysis," as are the crossings at Barrington and Centinela.

The good news is that from the charts showing land acquisition needs and numbers of grade-separations proposed along the two routes, the ROW looks by far the more likely choice.  At-grade crossings on this route are being proposed at 26th St., Stewart, Sepulveda, Military, and Bagley, while the crossings at Cloverfield, Bundy, Pico/Gateway, Sawtelle, and Venice would be grade-separated (and there are already grade-separated crossings in place at Motor and National/Palms). It seems additional car counts are being conducted, and other factors like traffic lights, angles of crossing, etc. are being considered and reconsidered.

Another surprise was the proposed parking lot at Overland and Northvale, on the northwestern side across from Overland School.  This lot would accommodate 130-200 cars and it would be reached from Overland.  While this would certainly increase the car count on Overland, it would decrease green landscaping, and it would eliminate the Green Corridor
concept we have proposed.  Further strikes against the Green Corridor are said to be much of the ROW's status as a "floodplain" from Overland to Westwood, which would necessitate a pumping station and lots of money.  However, this status does argue for grade-separation at Westwood and perhaps Overland as well.

In other words, we still have no idea what will be proposed for these important crossings.  We do expect the criteria developed and used for phase 1 will be fairly applied and implemented for phase 2, and we await these decisions, which the Construction Authority people say will be out in "another few weeks."  They intend to address Neighborhood Councils and
Homeowners Associations when they make these decisions, and Light Rail for Cheviot expects to be addressed as well.

Please attend one of the next two meetings (April 1 and 3, 6:30 pm at Crossroads School in Santa Monica and Vista Del Mar Child and Community Services on Motor Avenue respectively) and check out the proposals.

Pay attention also to the lack of a bike path from Palms/National to Overland, to the parking lot at Sepulveda, perhaps smaller than it could be at 260-400 cars, and to the still "tba" parking lot at National/Palms.

Patience....but scrutiny, please.  This is going to be our light rail line and we want it to be the best it can be.

Karen Leonard for Light Rail for Cheviot

Next is a letter from the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association.  This letter was dated April 3rd, after the second meeting but before the third one.

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

The Expo Authority has held two meetings to announce their progress on Phase 2 of the Expo Light Rail project. There is one remaining.

The last of the Expo Community Workshops is this evening, Thursday, April 3, from 6:30 to 8:30 at Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services, 3200 Motor Avenue. Please come and register your concerns on this project.

Expo has revealed the following preliminary crossing decisions:

Overland Avenue: at-grade crossing across Overland Avenue at Overland Elementary School with a 200 hundred car parking lot directly across from the school. Please consider the impacts to pedestrian safety of this design, the impacts to the learning environment of the noise and vibration of trains every 2 minutes, and increased air pollution of blocked traffic on Overland.

Expo expressed problems with the expense of going under the storm drain at Overland, and with privacy and noise issues of elevating the trains. Please consider that there are 2 one-mile long train tunnels, 60 feet deep being built on the Eastside light Rail Extension in Boyle Heights. Why not here?

A station is planned on the right-of-way between Overland and Westwood Boulevard with another 400 car lot at the Westwood end.

Westwood, Military, Sepulveda and Barrington will run at grade. Please consider the impact of north/south traffic, cut through traffic, noise and vibration, loss of privacy to homes in the corridor.

Sawtelle, Pico/Gateway and Bundy will be elevated. The elevation at Sawtelle will require a 75 foot height to clear the 405 Fwy. The run up ramp to that height will be a massive structure inclining and declining as far as 1/4 mile to elevate that high without losing train speed. Santa Monica rejected a similar elevated design intended to go the 1/2 mile from the I-10 to the 4th Street terminus. They chose instead an at-grade route along Colorado Boulevard to the terminus. Please consider how two light rail tracks can be run down Colorado Boulevard when Expo rejected light rail on Venice to the Beach because Venice Boulevard was too narrow!

Please don't miss tonight's important meeting even if you can only come for a few minutes. Overland parents especially need to get involved. Expo planned this meeting in our neighborhood knowing that it coincided with Overland's Open House. Don't let them stop you from getting the facts and examining the impacts of this project on our school.

Stop by the Neighbors For Smart Rail table tonight to say hello and get more information on how you can impact this train project in our community.

Thank you.

Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association
Neighbors for Smart Rail

Image: Coyote 2012/Flickr

Responding to a letter from the LAPD and constituent complaints about crime, Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a resolution to the City Council that would close an entrance for the Ballona Creek Bike Path along Culver Drive between Purdue Avenue and Sawtelle Boulevard. The path begins at Syd Kronenthal Park in east Culver City and travels the river about 7 miles before meeting with the Coast Bike Path.

Speaking for the local community, Bob Thayer and Lou Corbin painted a nightmare scenario of the entrance's impact on their streets. Corbin testified that local gang bangers use the entrance as an escape hatch and lookout when committing crimes in the neighborhood. Neighborhood children have been attacked while coming home, houses along streets have been burglarized, and there were even some shootings because the gate is a hangout for drug dealers.

Residents also argued that permanently closing the gate shouldn't affect bicyclists use of the trail because there are other entrances close by, the nearest one being less than a quarter mile away.

Despite this bleak picture, bicycle advocates were sympathetic but unconvinced closing the gate will do anything but make the area even less safe. Cyclists encouraged increasing police patrols, adding cameras and lighting to the gate and other safety measures that would not change access to the Ballona Creek trail.

Enci Boxof Illuminate L.A. testified that, "Removing gates makes the trail and the community less safe. If as a pedestrian I see a gang up ahead, there's less ways to escape. We need to be opening up the river trail and put more eyes on the community."

Kent Strumpellalso argued that closing an entrance to a corridor would never be considered if there were a perceived safety problem because of a road entrance. "This is a transportation corridor, not a recreational corridor . . . moving the entrance to another location is like shuffling traffic around the neighborhood."

The cyclists were not without allies. LADOT Senior Project Coordinator Michelle Mowery testified that moving or closing the gate would have no safety benefits for the community, "We believe the gate will be cut open, and the wrong people will continue to use it." Stephen Box also read letters into the record opposing the trail closure from the Ballona Creek Renaissance and the Center for Land Use Interpretation.

Nevertheless, most of the council people present sympathized more with the community than with the cyclists. Only Councilman Richard Alarcón questioned whether the gate closure would work and what message the closure would send. "I hate to see facilities like this closed to the community because it's like saying to the gangs, 'we lost.'"

Councilman Rosendahl encouraged LADOT to hold a meeting with the community, cyclists, LAPD and the Del Rey Community Council to come up with a safety plan for the gate. Unless a solution is reached that makes the community feel safe within the next 30 days, Rosendahl promised to push ahead with his resolution. Because of the trails use an access to schools in the area, approval from the state might also be required before the gate can be closed.

Photo:Andrew.Harmon/Flickr