A new motion introduced by Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Bernard Parks seeks to overturn the recent decision of the Police Commission to end the city’s wildly effective red light traffic camera program. Their motion is scheduled to be heard at tomorrow morning’s City Council hearing. The Councilmen claim that they can force the Police Commission to change their ruling, while the Commission claims the Council has no such authority. It was previously reported that a 2/3 vote of the Council, a full 10 votes, would be needed to over turn the Commission.
Parks, of course, has some history with the LAPD and Police Commission. Photo: Streetgangs.com
Cardenas has been making the rounds in the media reminding people that despite all the “ding-dong the witch is dead” partying, LAPD’s studies of the intersections with red light cameras showed a 62% decline in traffic crashes. Regardless of any concerns about the politics of the intersection selection or money the city is losing, that is an outstanding record.
Even with two Councilmen on Board, it would still be a political upset if the cameras are maintained. The Times implied that Parks and Cardenas are pawns of American Traffic Solutions, the company that maintains and profits from the cameras. Meanwhile, LA Weekly is lionizing the head of the Orwellianly named Safer Streets L.A. who do deserve credit for a well-run campaign to get the unanimous vote from the Police Commission last week. Safer Streets L.A. argues that the crash-reduction numbers are inflated and misleading. Read more…
Sibelius Park, a housing complex in Copenhagen, has cooperated with the Danish Crime Prevention Council to carefully define private, semiprivate, semipublic and public territories in the complex. Subsequent studies have shown that there is less crime and greater security than in other similar developments. Photos: Jan Gehl
Editor’s note: Streetsblog is thrilled to launch a three-part series today by renowned Danish architect and livable streets luminary Jan Gehl. The pieces are excerpts are from his book, “Cities for People” published by Island Press. Donate to LA Streetsblog and you’ll qualify to win a copy of the book, courtesy of Island Press. Visit the Island Press website to find many more great titles by the nation’s leading publisher of books on environmental issues.
Feeling safe is crucial if we hope to have people embrace city space. In general, life and people themselves make the city more inviting and safe in terms of both experienced and perceived security.
In this section we deal with the safe city issue with the goal of ensuring good cities by inviting walking, biking and staying. Our discussion will focus on two important sectors where targeted efforts can satisfy the requirement for safety in city space: traffic safety and crime prevention.
Throughout the entire period of car encroachment, cities have tried to remove bicycle traffic from their streets. The risk of accident to pedestrians and bicyclists has been great throughout the rise in car traffic, and the fear of accident even greater.
Many European countries and North America experienced the car invasion early on and have watched city quality deteriorate year by year. There have been numerous counter reactions and an incipient development of new traffic planning principles in response. In other countries whose economies have developed more slowly and modestly, cars have only begun to invade cities more recently. In every case the result is a dramatic worsening of conditions for pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
Above is a reaction to the Un-Conference from a UCLA “Bruin for Transit.” See Jeff Wood, from Reconnecting America and the amazing email update “Other Side of the Tracks” react to the conference at a StreetVid on YouTube.
I was lucky enough to spend my weekend in San Francisco at OpenPlans Un-Conference, Transportation Camp West. I should note that OpenPlans remains a strong partner in the daily production of Los Angeles Streetsblog.
At the un-conference, there was a split in the types of discussions presented in the open sessions. Some were on open data and some high tech issues that were a little over my head. The others were on some form of transportation wonkery. You can guess where I spent my time.
For those of you that have never been to an Un-Conference, and I’m already lobbying OpenPlans to bring the conference to the other city with a Streetsblog after programming two in New York and San Francisco, the format is designed to maximize conversation. For example, instead of a program built around power point presentations and experts talking on their favorite topic, the un-conference doesn’t have a break-out session schedule. Conference attendees propose session ideas and then they’re assigned a room and time slot based on the quality of their proposal and what else is being proposed. Often times when I present at a conference, I roll in late, make my presentation, and leave early. You can’t really do that at an un-conference. It’s the participants that make the program and the schedule isn’t created until the day begins.
On Sunday morning, I proposed my own topic and was given a chance to lead a group discussion. No power point. No panel of experts. Me and the dozen people that were most interested in “Language Matters: How to Gain Mainstream Usage of Livable Streets Terms and Ideas” sat down and talked.
After about ten minutes, it became apparent that my discussion team didn’t agree with my idea that we have to change people’s language to gain broader acceptance of Livability issues. Instead, they felt that we need to better frame livability issues in common language. In other words, rather than try to find ways to make people embrace terms such as “road diet,” “bike boulevard” or “pedestrian friendly streets” we should find terms that are easier to understand and embrace. That’s why you almost never hear anyone argue against “Safe Routes to Schools,” who would argue against safety for children?
Here again the un-conference format was helpful. By encouraging discussion instead of presentation, we were able to have a long and interesting discussion about strategy and wordsmithing. And we would have made Janette Sadik-Khan proud, because the theme we returned to over and over was safety, safety, safety as the idea to wrap every livable issue inside of.
There was one other ideas that I was thinking of for a Streetsblog article. After Saturday’s session and before I decided to have my own session on language.
First, in a session on public-private partnerships and livability, people were asked to describe their perfect livable street. Interestingly, the handful of Angelenos all talked about making streets that are safe and attractive places to be outside. But the San Franciscans in the group talked about the same issues and topics such as “access to food” or other features they wanted from the development in the area.
Not exactly ground breaking stuff, but it showed that in a city that is known for being a more Livable place than Los Angeles, their thinking about streets a little differently than a lot of us do in Los Angeles. But what was more interesting was when they described the road blocks to Livability, they had the same obstacles we face in Los Angeles: NIMBY’s, government and businesses that don’t see the fiscal advantage to complete streets, Drivers that will fight for every inch of street.
So what’s the lesson? That there might be a point when Livable Streets advocates don’t have to fight for every win, but that time is a long way off in the future. San Francisco, Portland and New York might be ahead of Los Angeles, but their advocacy community has to fight just as hard to advance causes and play defense as the advocates in Los Angeles.
The South Figueroa Corridor Plan proposes changes for more than just Figueroa Street.
A standing room only audience descended on the Fashion Institute of Design on South Grand Street to listen to a presentation from the embattled Community Redevelopment Agency for a ground breaking and popular proposal to transform the South Figueroa Corridor. When people discuss Los Angeles’ streets, they usually use terms such as “car-oriented” or “ugly.” The new South Figueroa, aka My Figueroa, would be a truly beautiful street designed for people to walk, bike wait for transit or just enjoy life outside as well as a way to shuffle cars from one area to another.
The South Figueroa Corridor Project covers three miles of South Figueroa from 41st Street to Seventh Street as well as a half mile of 11st Street between Figueroa and Broadway, a half mile of Martin Luther King (MLK) Boulevard just south of Exposition Park, and a half mile of Bill Robertson Boulevard from into Exposition Park starting at MLK Boulevard. While there are different proposals being studied for each part of the corridor, Oliver Schultze, from the world-renowned Gehl Architects in Copenhagen, promised that every part of the corridor would see some sort of improvement.
Good.
The project team offered three proposals for different sections of Figueroa, a “good,” “better,” and “best” options. Whether a segment qualifies for good, better, or best depends on the amount of funding available and the current level of street life in the segment. The good option consisted of an eight foot separated bike lane traveling the length of the corridor in each direction, an eighteen inch separator, car parking and bus bump outs, and a transit only lane for buses and streetcars. In addition to creating a safe place for cyclists, removing them from car traffic and the sidewalk, it also created a 22 foot buffer between the sidewalk and the first regular vehicle travel lane.
As Joe Linton noted from the audience, “I love that protected bike lanes are the base proposal.” Figueroa street would be the first street in Los Angeles to feature protected bike lanes. In fact, no city in Los Angeles County has these special bike lanes, although Long Beach is adding some as we speak. Read more…
Earlier this year, the City Council ordered city staff to create a list of changes to city and state laws that could help cyclists see justice after crashes. At the time, City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl referred to the motion as an anti-harassment ordinance, and hopes ran high that the city could create a three foot passing law, or could somehow further criminalize unsafe and aggressive behavior by drivers.
Cyclists are the most vulnerable users on our roads so we need to do everything we can to protect them. When a motorist feels aggrieved and engages in some type of senseless tit for tat behavior with another motorist it’s never appropriate or safe. But when that same motorist is engaging in that behavior with a cyclist it’s deadly. This proposal is designed to address that. It creates a private cause of action that allows cyclists who are victims of discrimination on the roadway to pursue the matter civilly rather than wait for law enforcement to act.
In plain English, this proposed legislation would give cyclists another legal leg to stand on and help them get legal counsel for civil suits. Generally, people who sue for a tort in civil court cannot recover attorneys fees, and so unless there are very serious injuries or unless the person suing is wealthy, it is almost impossible to get an attorney to represent you. By allowing for a recovery of attorneys fees, people might be able to get a lawyer to represent them even if they were only slightly injured, or did not suffer physical injuries.
Update: Ted Rogers adds that the ordinance would allow cyclists to pursue civil actions against drivers without a police report. I.E. that witness statements and other evidence would allow them to seek compensation.
Democrats are moving quickly on their plan to take a unified approach
to auto safety reforms in the aftermath of the Toyota recalls, with
Senate Commerce Committee members releasing a new bill today that would
quintuple the maximum existing penalties for carmakers who -- like
Toyota -- fail to promptly notify the public of defective products.
The
Commerce panel's bill, released today by panel chairman Jay
Rockefeller's (D-WV) office, also would authorize $300 million in
additional funding over the next three years for auto safety
enforcement and provide whistleblower protections to car industry
employees who notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) of possible safety risks.
The lifting of existing
caps on per-vehicle penalties is likely to please safety advocates such
as Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen, who have called for much higher penalties for automakers found to be in violation of NHTSA standards. Toyota has agreed to
a record-high $16.4 million fine for its slow response to the
widespread defects found in its gas pedals but did not acknowledge any
improper actions.
After a year marked by discord between the House and Senate
over the timing of the next federal transportation bill, another split
emerged yesterday over the timetable for taking up the Obama
administration’s plan for federal involvement in transit safety oversight.
Rep.
John Mica (R-FL) opposes the White House safety plan, but he also wants
to see it debated as part of broader transport legislation. (Photo: Orlando Sentinel)
Speaking
to the American Public Transportation Association’s (APTA) annual
conference, aides to both House infrastructure committee chairman Jim
Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. John Mica (FL), the panel’s top Republican,
said they aim to make the White House’s proposed transit safety
legislation part of the broader debate over restructuring federal
transport programs — an issue that may not come before Congress until next year.
But
an adviser to the Senate Banking Committee’s senior Republican, Richard
Shelby (AL), said he wants the transit safety bill to be "a
free-standing piece of legislation and not wait until" lawmakers can
agree on a long-term federal transport bill.
In remarks
that touched on the continuing impasse over that six-year transport
bill, Oberstar aide Amy Scarton asked APTA members to provide input on
the White House transit safety proposal, which has gotten mixed reviews
from transit officials. The safety legislation is set to move through
the House "as part of the long-term surface transportation bill," she
said.
Meanwhile, Mica remains opposed to the Obama team’s
strategy of asking state transit overseers (known as SSOs) to submit to
federal supervision if their programs are deemed out of compliance with
minimal safety standards, according to aide Joyce Rose. The Floridian
would prefer to bolster individual SSOs with grant money to avoid
"creating a new federal bureaucracy," she said.
Thanks to an excellent submission by Enci Box last year, we've had a couple of great discussions on women's safety on the streets, both for cyclists and pedestrians. However, we haven't spent nearly as much energy discussing safety for bus riders, especially women bus riders. Fortunately, Planetizen Editor Tim Halbur sat down to have an in-depth discussion of this issue with UCLA Professor Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. You can read the full interview at Planetizen, and I strongly recommend it for anyone interested in this issue as both Halbur and Loukaitou-Sideris do a great job. For those without the time to read the full interview, here's an except.
PLANETIZEN: So imagine I'm a transportation planner, and I'm
reading your interview right now on Planetizen. What would you urge me
to do?
LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: To incorporate women's voices into the planning
process. I was asked to speak at a conference recently specifically on
women's issues and transportation, and there were some women
transportation planners there who were saying, "Well, we have to look
only to universal needs." I respectfully disagree, because there are
specific needs. Transportation planners really need to look at women's
fears in transportation settings and know that there are things that
they can do to if not completely eliminate but reduce these fears.
These solutions involve policy, design, policing, and outreach and
education.
Of course, this costs money. But my work and the work of others has
shown that crime comes at hotspots: not every area is equally unsafe.
Transit agencies do audits every year, and they know where these
hotspots are. So when we talk about limited resources, they could
concentrate their resources on these areas.
Weird wording...what do they have to be afraid of? Losing a mirror when sideswiping a cyclist?
As we mentioned last week, there is reason for concern about the way the traditional media is covering the "bike v car" controversy in the wake of the verdict in the trial of Dr. Christopher Thompson. Sometimes there is a soft bias, such as in the wording of the question in today's "Question of the Day" by KABC and sometimes it is more pronounced on radio shows or other two-way communications.
The wording of ABC's question, "As a driver, do you feel safe when sharing the road with cyclists" implies both that cyclists are guests on the car's road and that cyclists pose a danger to people surrounded by several hundred pounds of metal. In the wake of a jury trial where a driver was convicted of intentionally causing a crash that hospitalized two cyclists, this implication is especially insulting. Considering that two of ABC 7's top six stories for today are of a driver killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk in Long Beach and of a driver crashing into a store front in Woodland Hills maiming a five year old girl; the question must come from someone who doesn't even watch ABC 7 to witness the devastation that out-of-control drivers, not cyclists, wreck on our streets. Or maybe those crashes were just "accidents" unlike the intentionally unsafe conditions that cyclists bring every time they pedal onto car's streets?
Ray LaHood likes the Eastside Extension…but will we? Image: The Fastlane
One week from today the Eastside Bike Club, Streetsblog and the Bus Bench will meet at the Union Station Entrance to bike the six-mile Gold Line Extension to document what we see concerning crossings and safety. I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the ride, so I’m going to answer as many of them as I can here.
If you have other questions, put them in the comments section, and I’ll answer them in the body of the article.
What’s the point of doing this ride anyway?
There’s been a lot of controversy over safety issues with the opening of the Gold Line Extension. When there’s a complaint or suggestion, the answers have either been that they’re going to fix that before the opening or that the person complaining was probably doing their nails and breaking the law. We’re going to ride at street level, witness what the crossings look like at rush hour and come to our own conclusions.
Why so close to the line’s opening? Won’t that minimize the impact of your findings?
This isn’t planned as an advocacy ride, more of a fact finding mission. By riding so close to the line’s opening we’re giving Metro as much time as we can to make all the improvements that they can.
When did you start hating/stop trusting Metro?
I don’t hate Metro. I actually think light rail is one of the safest forms of transit. But, that doesn’t mean we have to take everything they say at face value. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up really liking all the improvements and changes that have taken place over the last couple of months.
What’s the route?
The route is super simple. We’ll ride south to the Little Tokyo stop then head east on 1st Street all the way to the Indiana stop. Then we’ll head east on Third until the light rail ends at the Atlantic Ave. stop.
What do I have to do to join the ride?
Nothing. Just show up at the entrance to Union Station by 7:30 next Friday. If you’re under 18, you’re required to wear a helmet. Other than that, I trust you to decide how to protect yourself and if you’re ready to ride East L.A. at morning rush hour.
@CalBike @BicyclingMag I have to wonder about any list of bike friendly cities that includes L.A. and Thousand Oaks and not Santa Monica. in reply to CalBike17 hrs ago
