Skip to content

Posts from the Parking Category


Guide To Park(ing) Day 2015 Parklet Sites – Plus Metro Parking Update

Four Mid-City Park(ing) Day parklet locations hosted by L.A.'s Mid-City West Neighborhood Council.

Four Mid-City Park(ing) Day parklet locations hosted by L.A.’s Mid-City West Community Council.

International Park(ing) Day is not the massively humongous event it has been in past years in L.A. Nonetheless, there are still parks popping up in mid- and downtown. Below is a list of some Southern California park(s) to check out. (updated with additional sites! Some additional locations at

  • In Mid-City L.A., the Mid City West Community Council hosts four parklets open 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.:
    – District La Brea, at 115 S. La Brea Avenue – features three full street parking spaces, furnished with seating, a foosball game, ping-pong table, graffiti art demo, and yummies from TWIST and Front Porch Pops.
    – Miracle Mile Toys & Games, 5363 Wilshire Boulevard
    – OpenSpaceLA, at 457 N. Fairfax Avenue – open until 8 p.m.
    – Melrose BID, at 7753 Melrose Avenue
    Additional details at MCWCC.
  • In Hollywood, join HR&A LA will be park(ing) to celebrate Mayor Garcetti’s Great Streets initiative. The park takes place at Hollywood and Vine, outside the Hollywood Pantages Theatre from 12 noon to 6 p.m.
    There will be three spaces: a Think Tank to brainstorm Great Streets solutions with the Mayor’s team at a pop-up office with free WiFi and cold brew coffee, a “Barklet” with dogs up for adoption, and an L.A. Philharmonic virtual reality orchestra performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. Details on flier [PDF].
  • In downtown L.A., Alta Planning and Design will be on the corner of 7th and Grand with “The Sweet Spot.” Attendees are invited to come and relax with their lunch or a snack from 12 – 2 p.m., share their knowledge on hidden public spaces in Downtown Los Angeles, and eat some sweets! Attendees are invited to help populate a map of public spaces downtown. Share ideas and pose for pictures in Alta’s Sweet Spot Photo booth! Details on flier [PDF] below.
  • In Larchmont Village, Rios Clementi Hale Studios’ parklet will educate the public about the benefits of rainwater capture. Their parklet, open from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., is located  across the street from the firm’s office at 639 N. Larchmont Blvd. More details here.
  • In Pacoima, Pacoima Beautiful hosts a parklet from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Pacoima Branch Library at 13605 Van Nuys Blvd. More details here.
  • In Westwood, there will be a parklet from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in front of Simplethings at 10874 Kinross Avenue.
  • In Eagle Rock, there will be a parklet from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. in front of Bloom School of Music at 2116 Colorado Blvd.

Alta Planning hosts The Sweet Spot Park(ing) Day parklet in downtown Los AngelesDo you know of other locations we didn’t mention? Please post in the comments below.

Streetsblog L.A. will be touring some of these sites tomorrow. Follow @StreetsblogLA and #parkingdayla on Twitter for updates.

In other parking news, today Metro’s Executive Committee approved the agency’s revised Parking Ordinance [PDF] and Parking Fee Resolution [PDF], which is unfortunately even less nimble than the already rigid version that had been proposed in July. Instead of trusting Metro’s CEO to raise or lower parking prices, the modified parking ordinance requires a vote of the agency’s board of directors.

Yesterday, Metro’s Planning and Programming Committee approved a 12-month $620,000 contract [PDF] with Walker Parking Consultants to develop a Parking Strategic Implementation Plan for managing station parking for the next five-to-ten years. Perhaps a year from now Metro’s consultants will recommend a more nimble parking strategy.


Metro Saddles NoHo Station Redevelopment With $48M Parking Expansion

Metro's North Hollywood parcels, now up for possible redevelopment. Image via Metro

Metro’s North Hollywood parcels, now up for possible redevelopment. Image via Metro

In a recent post at The Source, Metro announced a new call for joint development at four large parcels of land at and adjacent to its North Hollywood Red and Orange Line Stations. Curbed L.A. reports that the NoHo parcels could include an estimated 750 to 1,500 units of housing, up to 12 stories tall. Hopefully, plenty of that housing will be affordable, based on Metro’s recently adopted joint development policies.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) will be a good thing for North Hollywood, for Metro, for Los Angeles. But is this truly TOD?

The issue here is parking.

Lots and lots and lots of parking.

The Source article completely misuses the term “replacement parking.”

The current NoHo lot has 957 spaces and another 194 spaces are in the process of being added on the north side of Chandler Avenue east of the current lot. Parking at NoHo Station is heavily used with most sites taken each morning and many NoHo riders say the parking makes it possible for them to take transit. If the current lots are developed, Metro plans to ask for 2,000 replacement spaces for transit riders in parking lots and/or garages to be constructed in addition to parking needed for residents and retail. That would almost double the current parking available at the station for Red Line and Orange Line riders.

What is “replacement parking”? When a development takes away existing parking, the developer may be required to replace parking spaces that have been taken away. Is asking for 2,000 spaces to replace 1,151 spaces credibly “replacement parking”? No. It’s a massive expansion. Cities and transit agencies (for example, BART [PDF]) generally require 1 to 1 replacement parking. Even 1 to 1 replacement hurts walkability, livability, and affordability.

Metro isn’t asking for replacement parking. It is asking for a massive parking expansion. A massively expensive parking expansion.

At an estimated cost of $24,000 per parking space in an elevated structure (amount from Don Shoup – and it will likely be upwards of $34,000 per space for any underground parking) then Metro is saddling this redevelopment with an up-front cost of $48 million, just for parking for Metro. As The Source mentions, that’s not counting additional parking for people who will live or shop there.  Read more…

1 Comment

This Week’s L.A. Transportation Committee: Vision Zero, Parking, CicLAvia

Los Angeles leads big cities in crash deaths. Image via L.A. City Vision Zero report [PDF]

Los Angeles leads big U.S. cities in crash deaths. Image via L.A. City Vision Zero report [PDF]

Yesterday’s Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee touched on a number of items related to Los Angeles livability. Below is a brief recap of highlights. All these committee actions still need to be approved by the full city council before going into effect.

Vision Zero and Pedestrian Enforcement – Council File 15-0546

This is the second committee hearing (June coverage here) for the laudable Bonin-Huizar motion that seeks to curb LAPD’s “fish-in-a-barrel” ticketing of pedestrians who violate antiquated state crosswalk laws.

Given that Mayor Eric Garcetti’s recent Vision Zero directive has brought departments together to focus on reducing collision deaths, committee time for this item was dedicated to a Vision Zero presentation by L.A. Transportation Department (LADOT) General Manager Seleta Reynolds.

Reynolds’ presentation was compelling, drawing from the city’s extensive Vision Zero report [PDF]. City departments are engaging a consultant to do a “detail dive into crash data.” The internal city Vision Zero Task Force will meet for the first time on Thursday, September 24. Also on Thursday, the city will host a public event featuring Reynolds and Leah Shahum, Executive Director of the national Vision Zero Network. Event details here.

The pedestrian enforcement aspect of the motion will be heard at a subsequent committee meeting.

Expansion of Express ParkCouncil File 13-0586

The committee approved extending Xerox’s contract to administer the city’s demand-based parking program, L.A. Express Park. Express Park will continue in downtown Los Angeles. It will also expand to Westwood (in the “next two months”) and to Hollywood (in about three years.)  Read more…


Some Thoughts On Metro’s Modest New Parking Policy Proposal

Should Metro parking policies

Metro is voting on a proposed update to its parking policies this Thursday. Metro Gold Line Atlantic Station parking structure. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

At this Thursday’s meeting, Metro’s Board of Directors will be voting on modest changes to the way the agency manages parking. Theoretically, these changes are expected to set the stage for increased parking revenue, which has positives for walkability and livability, but the devil may be in the details.

According to the staff presentation [PDF], Metro currently manages more than 70 parking facilities with more than 22,000 parking spaces. In 2016, with new Gold and Expo Line extension parking lots opening, this will rise to more than 25,000 spaces. 330 more spaces are added when the Crenshaw/LAX line parking lots open in 2019.

Metro Boardmember and Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana, at last week’s Executive Committee meeting, remarked that parking spaces cost Metro “$40,000 a pop.” And that’s just up-front costs, without ongoing maintenance and operations. Metro’s overall 25,000 space parking portfolio, assuming parking expert Don Shoup’s industry standard of $24,000 per space instead of Fasana’s higher number for above ground structures (some spaces cost a lot more than this, probably some cost less), cost the agency at least $600,000,000.

So, even under conservative estimates, Metro has spent more than half a billion dollars on parking spaces. Metro gives more than 93 percent those spaces away for free. Metro CEO Phil Washington and other Metro leaders increasingly frequently speak about budget shortfalls and the need for increased revenue, cost-cutting, and likely fare increases.

I’ve often written critically about Metro’s free parking as a massive unfair loss leader for the agency. What might be given more weight is analysis by transportation experts. Metro’s recent peer review by a panel of American Public Transportation Association (APTA) experts made the following recommendations that bear repeating here: (full APTA review coverage here)

  • Station parking is expensive to build and maintain, so parking costs should be [at least] partially recovered.
  • Easy parking encourages driving that first last mile; it’s better to re-direct parking resources to instead fund convenient, frequent bus service.
  • Free park-and-ride subsidizes higher income riders and decreases transit’s air quality benefits.

So… with looming deficits and expert recommendations, Metro is retooling the way it does parking.

Not quite.

The new Metro parking ordinance is unfortunately not so different from current practices. Read more…


A Look at Downtown L.A. Parking Enforcement Riding with LADOT

Officer Guerra and Sgt. Smith ticketing a parking violation on Spring Street. All photos by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Officer Guerra and Sgt. Smith ticketing a parking violation on Spring Street. All photos by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Earlier this week, I accepted an invitation to do a downtown Los Angeles bike-along with City of L.A. Transportation Department (LADOT) parking enforcement officers. LADOT also uses bicycle officers to do parking enforcement in the Valley, West L.A., and Hollywood. The parking enforcement staff downtown is 30 strong, all on bicycle.

Traffic Officer Michael Guerra has been doing parking enforcement in downtown Los Angeles for 17 years. Also accompanying us was his supervisor Sergeant Rodney Smith.

Officer Guerra rode Los Angeles City bike number 75

Officer Guerra rode Los Angeles City bike number 75

The officers rode on Giant brand bicycles, complete with the city seal and vehicle numbers. This got me thinking that there’s a system in place for managing a city bicycle fleet, perhaps other city staff could use a city bike fleet for short trips.

My first question to them was about handicapped placards. Is handicapped placard abuse really as prevalent as I’ve read? Parking expert Don Shoup has asserted that widespread abuse of handicapped placards is a serious barrier to making variable pricing work in downtown L.A. The officers responded that handicap placards were typically on 75 to 80 percent of cars parked in the Little Tokyo and Historic Core, where we were going. And they said it’s worse in the Financial District.

This was confirmed during our ride. Many blocks on streets we rode, including on First Street and Third Street, had all but one or two cars displaying a handicap placard. It’s difficult to tell if some or all of these are legitimate. Other LADOT officers have been involved in placard enforcement sting operations typically headed by the DMV. Based on the headlines, both media and law enforcement have little trouble finding widespread abuse. Sgt. Smith mentioned that, in the past, LADOT had tried to push for placard reform via the state legislature, but that it had not yielded any results, and it was no longer a top priority.

I also asked about how the city’s L.A. Express Park variable pricing program has affected their work. Though they were aware that prices were sometimes changing, the program had not really made things perceptibly different from an enforcement end. I thought to myself, perhaps the placards do impact managing pricing; with so much placard use, most drivers pay nothing and it doesn’t matter how much the going rates are.

It didn’t take long for the officers to find and ticket illegally parked vehicles. Guerra said that it varies a lot, but that he writes 20-30 tickets on a typical day, though typically a lot fewer when it’s raining, and sometimes more around the holidays when drivers frequently park illegally to run in to get last-minute shopping done. On weekends, he writes more tickets, typically 40-50 per day, but that is because there are fewer officers deployed than on weekdays.  Read more…


Donald Shoup Interview, Part 2: Pasadena, Ventura, Mexico City, A.B. 744

Joe Linton and Donald Shoup. Photo: Streetsblog L.A.

Joe Linton and Donald Shoup. Photo: Streetsblog L.A.

Donald Shoup, parking’s one and only rock star, is retiring from UCLA this year. Tomorrow, the college is sending him off with a fundraiser retirement dinner atop parking structure number 32. You can attend, and hobnob with Shoup himself, by donating to the Shoup Fellowship fund for future UCLA planning students.

Below is part two of my big exit interview with Don Shoup. Part one is here. The interview took place at the UCLA Faculty Center on Friday, May 15, the day after UCLA’s Complete Streets Forum, where Professor Shoup had been impressed with a presentation on the soon-to-be phased out car congestion metric, Level of Service.

Joe Linton: Many progressives want people to do the right thing for the right reason. If you look at New York City and how healthy people are, it’s because they walk. They’re not healthier because they’re choosing some healthy option. They’re healthy because the neighborhood around them was built for walking. I think you’ve managed to avoid that pitfall. 

Don Shoup: When it comes to public policy, doing the right thing is more important than doing it for the right reason. The best way to get people to do what’s right collectively is to make it the best thing for them to do individually. You have to give individuals a personal incentive to do what’s right for society.

When it comes to parking, you have to figure out how to stop giving everyone incentives to do what’s wrong for society. Removing subsidies for parking is one of the best ways to convince people to walk, bike, or ride the bus rather than drive solo.

For example, employer-paid parking is an invitation to drive to work alone. Parking cash out is a policy that makes it individually rational to consider all the alternatives to driving to work alone. I studied employers who began to offer commuters the option to choose the cash value of free parking rather than the parking itself. At these firms, 17 percent of the solo drivers shifted to carpooling, biking, walking, or riding the bus to work.

For many people, the only reason to do anything is that it’s best for them individually. And I think that’s why planners have to be more realistic about devising policies so the stakeholders will say, “I see what you mean – that’ll help me.” I think expecting people to do the right thing for the right reason leads to a lot of failure in public policy.

Most people who ride a bike do so because they enjoy it and want the exercise, not because it’s a sacrifice for humanity. But many people don’t mind driving or even like to drive, and parking subsidies increase the incentive to drive.

In my retirement, I want to live the way hobbits did; they spent all their time visiting all their friends who lived within a half a day’s walk. And if you are lucky, you can live almost that way in L.A. I live near campus and usually don’t leave Westwood. When I do go to other places like West Hollywood, Culver City, or Pasadena, I see there’s a whole other ecosystem going on in each neighborhood. There are a lot of little villages and you can have a wonderful life without traveling far from them. I’ve even seen real estate ads for houses saying “Park on Friday, walk all weekend.”

Because of traffic congestion I think more people are leading their lives in their own villages. But I do think we can greatly reduce traffic congestion. I’m a big fan of congestion pricing – which I think is the only thing that will reduce congestion.

Linton: Where do you see congestion pricing taking hold in Los Angeles?

Shoup: It already has taken hold – the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes on the Harbor Freeway. Solo drivers can use the ExpressLanes if they pay. The tolls adjust up and down to prevent the lanes from getting congested.

Linton: What’s interesting to me is that it was working really well as we were emerging from the down economy – the speeds were actually averaging above the speed limit – which they were proud of – those scofflaw motorists. This year and late last year, as the economy has picked up, they’re increasingly closing those lanes. They’re too packed.

Shoup: Yes. It’s because there is a cap on the congestion toll – $1.40 per mile. They now run up against that cap often. The price cap was politically necessary to begin with but there’s no reason to have a cap now, especially because the toll revenue provides many amenities on and alongside the freeway. Better lighting, better bus stops, and more frequent bus service.

Linton: Bike-share, too

Shoup: That’s right. So what’s the objection to raising the tolls now? The ExpressLane tolls provide about $2.3 million a month to run the extra bus service, bike-sharing, better bus stops, and things like that. If that’s what the tolls are providing, what’s the problem with raising the price for solo drivers when the freeway gets congested?

Linton: Where else do you think L.A. can expand congestion pricing? Additional freeway lanes? Other applications?

Shoup: They didn’t need to add lanes to the El Monte Busway and the Harbor Freeway for congestion pricing. I think we should convert more HOV lanes to HOT lanes. On the 405, we just spent a billion dollars to put in one new HOV lane. It took five years of construction with nightmarish traffic – and just think of the carbon emissions that created. It would be more sensible to convert one free lane to a HOT lane.

After the Level of Service talk [at the prior day’s Complete Streets forum] a consultant from Orange County asked “if they don’t use Level of Service metrics, how will they know where to build new freeways, new capacity?” I said if you have a congested freeway, you could try converting free lanes into HOT lanes rather than build more free lanes. I think Orange County made a bad choice in expanding freeways and keeping them free.

If we manage freeways better – the lanes that we have – we wouldn’t need any more. And they would provide revenue.

We ought to have signs on the bike stands, in the buses, and at bus stops saying “paid for by the ExpressLanes revenue.” People will see the toll revenue at work. The revenue goes to specific places for specific things. If we didn’t have the congestion tolls, we wouldn’t have these bicycles, this bus, this new street furniture, or something like that.

Variable parking prices are like congestion tolls, except instead of aiming for the right speed on the road you aim for the right occupancy rate for on-street parking –one or two open spaces on every block. It’s a lot easier to charge for parking than it is to charge congestion tolls. But most cities have the same price for curb parking all day long, or no price at all.

Linton: Have cities done a good job of adopting your recommendation to use parking meter revenue for improvements on metered blocks?

Shoup: Pasadena is a great example of using parking meter revenue to improve an area. You are probably too young to remember what Colorado Boulevard in Old Pasadena was like before the parking meters. It used to be a skid row.

There were wonderful buildings in terrible condition. Much of it had been urban renewed. The city tore out three blocks of Old Pasadena on Colorado Boulevard for an enclosed mall. Look at it from the air. What we think of as Old Pasadena is only what’s left of Old Pasadena – before freeways and redevelopment removed most of it.

Most of the buildings were empty above the ground floor. The rest of them were pawn shops, porn theaters, and tattoo parlors – there’s nothing wrong with that but it shouldn’t be your only land use. The city wanted to put in parking meters. The merchants said “no way – it’ll chase away the few customers we have – down to this enclosed mall you subsidized.” They argued for a couple of years. Finally the city said “if we put in the parking meters, we’ll spend all of the revenue for added public services on the metered streets. We’ll rebuild all the sidewalks and clean up the alleys.” The merchants said “why didn’t you tell us that before? Let’s run the meters until midnight. Let’s run ‘em on Sunday.” They were so excited when they knew they would get the revenue instead of going into the city general fund.

Linton: Revenue return is just one of the three main parking reforms that you recommend for cities. Explain those.

Shoup: I recommend three basic policies:  Read more…


Donald Shoup Interview, Part 1: Adaptive Reuse, Parking Cash-Out, Teaching

Selfie with Don Shoup. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Selfie with Don Shoup. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Donald Shoup is one of my heroes. He’s the authority on parking: how it shapes cities, how it enables driving, and how cities can fix the problems that parking policies create. He has a legion of followers who proudly call themselves Shoupistas. Shoup is retiring from UCLA this year. The college is sending him off with a fundraiser retirement dinner atop parking structure number 32 on Saturday May 30. You can attend, and hobnob with Shoup himself, by donating to the Shoup Fellowship fund for future UCLA planning students.

Below is part one of my interview with Don Shoup. The interview took place at the UCLA Faculty Center on Friday, May 15, the day after UCLA’s Complete Streets Forum, where Professor Shoup had been impressed with a presentation on the soon-to-be phased out traffic congestion metric, Level of Service.

Joe Linton: For many years, as a cyclist and bicycle activist, I didn’t really think about parking. I thought “I don’t park – it’s not my issue.” But then Beth Steckler, my boss at Livable Places, recommended that I read The High Cost of Free Parking. I did, and it really opened my eyes. It’s one of the few books that has really changed the way I look at cities.

Don Shoup: I think that most people are not interested in parking itself. So I’ve tried to convince them that parking is important for what really interests them, which may be affordable housing or climate change or traffic congestion or fuel consumption or accidents or health or whatever.

And I think that’s why people are beginning to pay attention to parking – because they can see it’s perhaps the easiest way to make improvements in what they’re concerned about.

Whatever the concern, I think the most politically feasible and most cost-effective way to advance the cause is often to fix parking.

I don’t expect many people to be interested in parking per se. Most academics have neglected parking because it has such a low status.

In universities, no matter how much we talk about justice and equality, there are strict status hierarchies. International affairs are the most overarching topic. And then national affairs are very important. State government seems provincial. Local government is totally parochial. And then in local government, what’s the lowest status thing you could talk about? That would be parking.

So I’ve been a bottom feeder, but found a lot of food down there.

And there’s so much to see if you just look at it very carefully. I think if you look at anything carefully you will find that it’s fascinating.

I am happy to think that you and others are seeing the connection between parking what you’re now interested in– the Level of Service metric for traffic congestion

Most of us are not interested in measuring the Level of Service at intersections. Nevertheless, at the Complete Streets forum yesterday, Chris Ganson, from the California Office of Planning and Research, explained why inappropriate LOS measures prevent infill development and why theyinstead encourage suburban low-density development.

Linton: I call it zombie engineering. Though it’s not just engineering, it’s also planning, design. There are so many practices and policies and rules that say we have to do the car stuff first and foremost, that they end up with a life of their own. You can get rid of Level of Service, and the next thing is going to be financing or something else. It just feels like a multi-tentacled monster — cut one off, and there are still a hundred more rules saying you have to accommodate car stuff first.

Shoup: Yes, that’s true. So long as the tentacles don’t regenerate, it is worth cutting them off.

I think part of the problem with zombie urban planning is that many people, including me, don’t have a strong visual understanding of the effects of something like Level of Service measures or parking requirements.

I was in Vancouver a couple weeks ago. I hadn’t been there for forty years. It was fascinating to see it looking a bit like Hong Kong, except …well, far better-looking. There are a lot of new high rises downtown – condos, apartment buildings, and office buildings. They have very wide sidewalks and not that much traffic congestion and [on] almost every block there will be a high rise. And you like it without knowing exactly why. 

Read more…


APTA Metro Review: Raise Fares, Consolidate Service, Charge For Parking

Metro's APTA review makes a lot of recommendations can balance the agency ... Photo via Wikimedia

Metro’s APTA review recommends how the agency can best prioritize services for low income bus riders. Photo via Wikimedia

When the Metro board approved fare hikes last May, it also directed Metro to engage experts from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) to study Metro’s fares and look into other revenue strategies. APTA experts completed their review recently, and presented their findings at last week’s Metro board meeting. Though the APTA review recommended approving Metro’s proposed fare increases, many of their findings contrast somewhat with present Metro policies.

The review sheds light on many Metro revenue practices, from fares to parking, and what their implications are regarding serving low-income riders. More details are available at the full review [PDF]; Metro’s summary [PDF], audio from last week’s board discussion (item 56 here), and The Source.

Metro Fares

Auditors characterized Metro’s challenges as “meeting state of good repair costs, which are going up as the system ages,” and paying down a “long term and growing debt service burden [due to] building out the system capital expansion program.” To meet these, the APTA panel recommended that Metro approve two proposed 25-cent fare increases, to take effect in 2017 and 2020. In addition, APTA recommended that Metro approve ongoing fare modification to match inflation, as reflected by the Consumer Price Index (CPI.)

The review also supported raising Metro’s student fare, which is currently frozen. APTA recommends that Metro partner with colleges and others to help offset the costs of student discounts. During the board discussion, though not explicitly mentioned in the review, one panelist suggested Metro consider adopting one practice used by other transit agencies: offering a discount fare for youth (such as up to age 18) that is not necessarily dependent on student status.

The review recommended consolidation of all of Metro’s discounts – senior, student/youth, and low-income – into a single discounted fare product. Means-testing for this (deciding who qualifies for discounts) could be done in conjunction with other governmental programs, such as school free lunch programs and/or utility discounts, thereby lessening administrative burdens for Metro and its patrons.

The review recommended trip-based discounts over time-based discounts. Low income riders are better served by, for example, a ten-trip pass than a weekly or monthly unlimited pass. Citing a New York study, the APTA panel noted that thirty-day passes tend to benefit higher-income riders. For example, even transit-dependent riders sometimes get rides in a car, possibly at times when Metro service is lacking. With trip-based discounts, these non-Metro trips save a Metro fare, and hence wouldn’t effectively count against a time-based unlimited pass.  Read more…


Cyclists, Hikers Urge Park Advisory Board To End Griffith Park Parking Trial

Standing room only crowd as park users rallied to opposed Griffith Park desecration of Mount Hollywood Drive. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Standing room only crowd as park users rally to oppose Griffith Park desecration of Mount Hollywood Drive. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Last night, over a hundred people who walk or bike in and near Griffith Park attended the Griffith Park Advisory Board meeting to express opposition to a current 3-week trial allowing cars on formerly car-free Mount Hollywood Drive. In an attempt to deal with the problem of “too much traffic,” the city of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP) has opened one mile of Mt. Hollywood to driving and parking.

A month ago, that quiet park road was off-limits to cars, and home to people on foot and on bike, and even coyotes and other wildlife. Today, it serves a parking lot.

DRP Assistant General Manager Kevin Regan stressed that spring break was the heaviest time of the year for Griffith Park, with car traffic sometimes backing up onto adjacent surface streets. “There’s a ton of people coming and there always will be” Regan stated. His statements tended to conflate “people” solely with cars and parking.

With the large standing-room-only crowd in attendance, and more than 50 speaker cards on the Mount Hollywood Drive item, the park board decided to cap testimony at 20 minutes.

Nobody spoke in favor of the pilot.

Many people expressed their deep affinity for Griffith Park’s serene car-free roads as a respite to the car-centric streets of Los Angeles. Weighing in against the trial were representatives from cycling organizations, including the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Finish the Ride, Ride to Recovery, and the city’s Council-appointed Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Though cyclists comprised the majority of the opposition, hikers and equestrians also expressed frustration with the trial. Friends of Griffith Park board president Gerry Hans spoke on his organization’s strong opposition, reiterating concerns raised in the FoGP’s comment letter [PDF].

A few speakers attributed the park’s worsening traffic problems to Los Angeles City Councilmember Tom LaBonge. LaBonge has had a heavy hand in steering Hollywood Sign tourist traffic away from the well-heeled Beachwood Canyon neighborhood, re-focusing it instead toward Griffith Observatory, then spilling onto Mt. Hollywood Drive.  Read more…


Griffith Park Traffic Response: Poorly Defined Free Parking Expansion Pilot

Cars parking and turning on Mount Hollywood Drive, until recently one of Griffith Park's car-free recreation roads. Photo courtesy Friends of Griffith Park

Cars parking and turning on Mount Hollywood Drive, until recently one of Griffith Park’s car-free recreation roads. Photo courtesy Friends of Griffith Park

The city of Los Angeles’ Griffith Park is a 4000+acre green-space gem at the heart of highly developed region.

Since the early 1990s, the park has had an extensive network of closed-to-cars paved roads that crisscross many of its wilderness hillsides. These roads offer a quiet respite from the city, plus incredible views. Like other car-free spaces, they are very popular with people on foot and on bicycle. Friends of Griffith Park’s board president Gerry Hans calls these roads “an unexpected mecca for passive recreation, especially bicyclists.”

The city of Los Angeles’ Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP, which as of press time had not responded to SBLA’s inquiry) recently began a trial that opened up a one-mile car-free stretch of Mount Hollywood Drive to driving and parking. This is the park road directly west of the Griffith Observatory.

The trial is poorly defined. DRP has yet to put anything in writing about it. In theory, DRP is testing out 200 additional parking spaces, which may someday become paid parking to help drivers access the park and to help the department capture revenue. The plan, as explained by Hans, is for DRP to eventually charge for parking at three locations: Griffith Observatory, Western Canyon Road, and Mount Hollywood Drive. Today, all Griffith Park parking is free, other than at the L.A. Zoo. Why the DRP is giving away free parking to test paid parking is unclear.

During the trial underway, park staff are surveying people who drive and park on the newly-gridlocked Mount Hollywood Drive. Hans reports that DRP personnel are refusing to take input from hikers and bicyclists present, surveying only motorists. The newly opened road, like many places with free parking, has been full of cars driving, parking, and turning around. It has already become an uncomfortable place for walking and bicycling.

The trial opened last Friday, March 20, and is set to last for three weeks.

What’s putting pressure on DRP to do something? It apparently has to do with the longstanding L.A. icon called the Hollywood Sign, which resides in an essentially inaccessible area of Griffith Park.  Read more…