Photo: Brandon Wise/Daily Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California State Assembly recently passed legislation that will allow the family of victims of highway crashes to pay Caltrans to erect signs memorializing the fallen and reminding drivers to drive safely.  However, thanks to opposition from a group of what the Times terms "environmentalists," the legislation is actually watered down so that our state's highways aren't littered with signs ruining the view.

No, really.

"Our highways are not intended to be repositories for memorials," said Mary Tracy, president of Scenic America, a group that advocates against unnecessary signage. "A clutter of signs is the last thing we need along our roadways."

Critics of the bill also note that California already has dozens of signs that name freeway interchanges and bridges in honor of CHP officers and state engineers who have died. The state also has posted hundreds of "Adopt-A-Freeway" signs advertising that an individual or company is sponsoring cleanup of a stretch of freeway.

I'm not actually sure where to go with this story.  Should I point out the traffic calming value of crash memorials, or just wonder how many of these signs Scenic America thinks are going to be on the highways?  I know California's highways aren't exactly "safe" but "a clutter of signs?"

Here's the real kicker.  The state already allows for the "official" placement of DUI memorials, as though an alcohol-related deadly accident is somehow more tragic than one caused by an "accident."

The first draft of this legislation allowed families or friends of any any victim of a traffic fatality to pay $1,000 to have Caltrans officials place a sign at the sight of the deadly crash to both pay tribute to their loved ones and warn others to drive safely.  The families hoped that having professionals place the memorial would remove danger to the mourners and that the more professional signage would last the test of time.

In response to the opposition to this nefarious legislation that would allow families to safely memorialize loved ones killed on our highways, the legislature changed the text so that it now limits the number of new non-DUI memorial signs statewide to twenty a year and each sign can stay up for no longer than seven years.  I'd hate to be the official that has to tell a grieving widow that her loss just wasn't tragic enough to merit a memorial after this year's allocated number of signs has run out.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, there were 3,434 traffic fatalities in California in 2008.  While I'm sure that more of them occured on local streets than highways, I'm also sure that twenty signs a year is going to be much lower than the demand.

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.

Yesterday, three-fifths of the City Council Transportation Committee met to discuss the proposed speed limit increases for four stretches of roads in the Valley.  Sue Doyle of the Daily News does a great job describing the issues surrounding the limit increases, how the city pleads powerlessness even as crashes mount in the areas around the effected areas. 

However, there was even worse news than just an increase in danger for valley residents, we can expect similar changes to be coming to streets throughout Los Angeles.  Responding to a question from Councilman Bernard Parks about why all these changes are being focused in the Valley, LADOT's Alan Willis responded that the Valley is just the first place to see their streets re-evaluated under state law and the rest of the city will undergo a similar revue in the coming years.

In other words, just because you don't live in the Valley doesn't mean you won't be seeing speed limits go up in your neck of the woods.

While the City Council has expressed anger over the state law, and has vowed to get it changed, it's also been over eight months since this issue first came up at the City Transportation Commission and so far, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no legislation introduced at the state level that would change the requirement that speed limits be set at the eighty-fifth percentile to allow use of radar.

While we wait for the City Council to pick up the phone and call their state legislators, there's work you can do to protect your streets.  If there is a road where people are constantly speeding, call the police, your neighborhood council and your elected reprsentatives and demand that the speed limit be enforced.  The reality is that no matter the sign, people are going to drive as quickly as they can unless there is a consistent enforcement effort.  If you don't want a local speed limit raised, then work with the police to get people to stop speeding before the LADOT comes to measure the speed on the streets nearest you.

Westwood residents are furious with Councilman Jack Weiss and the LADOT over a resolution appearing on tomorrow's City Council Transportation Committee Agenda which would strip traffic calming off of local streets that were placed in February of 2008 as a "pilot program."  The Holmby-Westwood Traffic Committee had asked for certain traffic calming measures to protect their local streets from traffic created by the Palazzo mixed use development which features a Trader Joes and other retail in addition to residential.

In addition to removing the existing traffic calming, the measure in front of the city would also alleviate Caden, Palazzo's developer, from having to build further traffic reduction measures in disregard of an agreement between the city, Casden and the neighborhood homeowner's association.  By alleviating Caden's responsibilities, the developer could save a quarter of a million dollars.  So if someone ever asks you rhetorically what the value of keeping children safe on the streets is, now you know.  It's a quarter of a million dollars.

As part of the deal, the city installed traffic calming throughout the community including a restriction prohibiting eastbound and westbound straight through traffic on Le Conte Avenue across Hilgard Avenue, arestriction prohibiting eastbound and westbound straight through traffic on Weyburn Avenue across Hilgard Avenue a restriction prohibiting southbound to eastbound left-turns from Hilgard Avenue to Lindbrook Drive and a median island and a sidewalk bump-out on Lindbrook Drive at Hilgard Avenue.

While the traffic calming has been an unparalleled success,  the Holmby-Westwood Traffic Committee claims the measures reduced traffic by 124.3% according to the LADOT's own traffic data.  Yet, for the traffic calming to be permanent, it needed two-thirds support of the community.  Yet, when the LADOT did a mail survey of the target area, just over sixty percent asked that the traffic calming remain on the street.  Thus, the city's transportation planners are working with Councilman Jack Weiss to remove traffic calming from the streets.  Their plan has already been approved by the City's Transportation Commission.

Not so fast cry the residents.  The LADOT's area polled seems designed to make certain the poll wouldn't meet the two-thirds required.  Instead of the area bound by the original agreement with Palazzo, the survey stretched farther east into communities that don't see the benefits of traffic calming.  If the LADOT had restricted their survey to the immediate community, it received the support of three-quarters of the community.

In a letter to the Transportation Commission, the Homeowner's spell out their complaints with the LADOT's survey noting that people were unaware that supporting the traffic calming was "all or nothing" and that over ninety three percent of all respondents favored some form of traffic calming for the area.

The public outreach about the proposal to take away the traffic calming was, as is often the case when it comes to a proposal to speed up and increase traffic flow at the expense of safe local streets, abysmal.  The community didn't receive notice of the plan or its hearing in front of the CTC until three days before the first hearing, which was conveniently held hours before a Jewish holiday.

However, the hearing also provides an opportunity for the City Council.  Do they support the LADOT and Jack Weiss' plan to rip working traffic calming out of the ground, or do they look out for the best interestes of the community.  If they truly are legally required to remove the traffic calming, will they require a new transportation plan to protect the local neighborhood from the traffic created by large developments.  Their actions will send a clear signal to other communities as to what they can expect in the citycontinues to grow.

Hat tip to alert reader Jessica Meaney.

A video by Portugal's "Interactive Ninja" demonstrates a unique approach to crosswalk design.  In this video. some local activists use some spray paint and stencils to add the names of those pedestrians killed in crashes with cars.  The purpose is to both memorialize those who have fallen and to educate both pedestrians and drivers to be more aware of their surroundings.

As the city struggles to figure out the best response to the DASH crash that killed Gwendolyn Coleman, perhaps a more permanent memorial, such as the one in this video, is called for.

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

While the debate over the Ballona Creek Entrance was the most controversial part of yesterday's meeting, the content of the meeting was dominated by talk of bringing a greater bicycle emphasis to the city's Safe Streets to School's applications to CALTRANS, how best to implement a Bike Master Plan, the creation of a Sharrows program for Los Angeles and bringing better bike amenities to LADOT bus services.

For most of the meeting, optimism and hope were the dominant feelings in the room.  LADOT's Michelle Mowery noted that the day was historic one for cycling in Los Angeles because there had never been this many bicycle items on a city agenda.  LACBC representative Dorothy Le commented that the time is now to make the city more bike friendly.

The two main points of debate were discussion of the city's Bike Master Plan and a proposal by Eric Garcetti to increase bike markings on public streets.

However, just because optimism was king, doesn't mean that problems with the city's bike planning were glossed over.  Glen Bailey, a member of his Neighborhood Council and the city's official Bike Advisory Committee was especially critical of the city's outreach effort noting that while he had heard of the community meetings through the LABAC, his Neighborhood Council never received notification. The committee, later called the most bike-friendly Transportation Committee every by Council President Eric Garcetti, repeatedly pushed city officials to increase their outreach to the cycling community and Neighborhood Councils.

Councilman Alarcon expanded his complaints to attack the Los Angeles tradition of creating bicycle plans and never bringing them to fruition.  "I want to know when the bike plans we built in the 1990's are going to connect Sylmar to downtown."   The city completed a Bike Master Plan in 1996, but many of the projects listed have yet to be completed.

When Mowery countered that the vision for cycling in the city is constrained by political will, Alarcon countered, "I don't believe the City Council doesn't have the political will to do some radical things with cycling."

An Example of a Sharrow in Baltimore.  Usually Sharrows Are Placed Next to Street Parking

Councilman Garcetti kicked off testimony in favor of adding Sharrows to Vermont Ave., between Hollywood Boulevard and 4th Street, and Fountain Ave., between the 101 Freeway and Hoover Street.  After strong support was shown in public testimony, the committee voted to approve Garcetti's proposal despite some technical concerns from LADOT.  If anything, the committee members were so excited about the proposal they began angling to get Sharrows in their own district.

After three hours of debate on other issues, there was virtually no debate on Garcetti's proposal to investigate how to make city buses more bike friendly.  The Committee moved the proposal unanimously after Councilman Parks noted that there is still confusion about Metro's bikes on buses policy.

Overall the meeting was very positive.  From Councilmember LaBonge's rousing speech calling for European-like bike amenities, especially his call to turn every train station into a bike station; to Councilman Rosendahl's enthusiastic embracing of the Bicyclists Bill of Rights, the Committee seemed poise to bring real change to the way Los Angeles does its transportation business.  Of course, even if Sharrows, better buses and an improved BMP all come to fruition, these are just the first steps in making Los Angeles as bike friendly as cyclists deserve. 

First Photo: Alex Thompson

Second Photo: Damien Newton

 
From Streetfilms' animation division comes the third installment of traffic-calming shorts from Elizabeth Press. First she brought you chicanes, then the raised crosswalk. Now comes the diverter, which Elizabeth explains like so:

Diagonal diverters, half closures, entrance barriers, median barriers,
semi-diverters; traffic calming techniques come in all shapes and
sizes. They can help create more livable communities. As demonstrated
in this short animation, once the diverters are in place, traffic
decreases on the side street. Cars on the side street must turn left,
but cyclists can continue straight. This makes the side street safer
for cyclists and pedestrians.

Photo:Zebrasprocket/Flickr

Earlier this morning, Council President Eric Garcetti, department heads from the Department of Public Works, CALTRANS, LADOT and Metro joined the community surrounding Bimini Place and the Los Angeles Eco-Village to celebrate the completion of the East Hollywood Shared Street Project at a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The goal of the project, funded by Metro, was to improve access to transit centers on Vermont Street. The project met that goal and more. Bimini is now a street redesigned to give pedestrians and residents equal status with the cars, trucks and buses that rumble down this small throughway. Colorful street art marks the crosswalks, new macadamia saplings separate the street from the sidewalk, and pedestrians walk comfortably on new sidewalks.

The project, or as Eco-Village founder Lois Arkin calls it "Phase 1 of making Bimini a car-free street," runs on Bimini Place between 1^st Street and 2^nd Street. To redesign the street, DPW installed bump-outs at intersections, replaced concrete with a permeable surface on sidewalks on the west side of the street, planted new trees and landscape plantings, and relocated a street light. Garcetti's office has secured funding to replace the sidewalks on the east side of Bimini Pl. and the Eco-Village earned a separate grant for maintenance of the sidewalks.

The ceremony commenced across the street from the Eco-Village with Garcetti giving a history of the project and urban design before declaring that "today we make sidewalks sexy again!" A parade of public officials and advocates followed Garcetti to the podium, each promising that Bimini Pl. would not be a shared street island in a sea of asphalt, but a model for other streets around the city.

Not coincidently, the next street to receive the "shared street" treatment will be Heliotrope Avenue between Oakwood and Rosewood Avenues. This part of Heliotrope is just south of the Bicycle Kitchen and the rest of Heliotropes bike attractions and is also in Garcetti's district. If you want a shared street in your community, there are two things you should do. First, contact your councilmember and tell them your vision for your local street. Second, contact Metro and tell them that you imagine shared streets in Los Angeles County and they should increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the Long Range Plan. The draft plan allocates less than 1% of the budget for the next 30 years for non-motorized travel.

For more information on the Eco-Village of the East Hollywood Shared Street Project, check back with L.A. Streetsblog next week, when Bimini Place is the focus of the first L.A. Street Film.

Photo: Damien Newton

Clarence Eckerson files this report (and StreetFilm) from Melbourne, Australia:

This city really is wonderful. Art, happiness, liveliness, and good walking
everywhere (between daily runs and walking I am averaging about 10 miles
per day). The incredible thing is the TRAFFIC CALMING. Unless you are on a
real highway no matter where you go there is inventive and unique traffic
calming. If you are on a main road, ANYWHERE you turn off you hit textured
crosswalks, gateways, speed bumps, just really the way it should be. Check
out the video, featuring Kevin Luten from UrbanTrans, to get an idea.

We put on a Streetfilms night (hastily arranged) and we got about 35 people
from the govt. and groups to show up. I got emails from people apologizing
that they couldn't come! And one guy was the biggest fan saying his
favorites are Sasquatch and our clay animations. Due to popular demand, I
am giving another showing on Tuesday with a smaller group.

Today in 100+ degree heat I am going for a bike ride with a whole gaggle of bike
people and advocates. Should be fun if I don't die! 

Story Originally by Brad Aaron

Santa Monica Also Uses Ped. Decoys

USA Today reports on what other cities are doing to try and improve pedestrian safety, particularly in crosswalks. Below is the list of some of the innovative plans that are being tried throughout the country. Can you guess which one wasn't mentioned as part of the article?

• In Portland, Ore., where 49% of pedestrian injuries occur in crosswalks, police conduct monthly crackdowns similar to drunken-driving stings. Police identify an intersection where pedestrians have complained about motorists. They post signs warning drivers of "crosswalk enforcement ahead" and have pedestrian decoys try to cross the street. "If the drivers don't stop, a line of police on motorcycles will pull them over," says April Bertelsen, the city's pedestrian coordinator. Portland also has an "I Brake for People" campaign to educate drivers.

• St. Petersburg, Fla., partly attributes major reductions in pedestrian accidents to rapid-flashing signals that have raised the rate at which drivers yield to people in crosswalks to above 80% from about 8% at 18 marked intersections. The devices, which flash in an irregular pattern to alert drivers to pedestrians, will be field-tested next in Cambridge, Mass., Las Cruces, N.M., and Mundelein, Ill.
• Los Angeles, CA., The LAPD is targeting pedestrians who break laws and cross against a flashing signal. Even when they can make it across the street before the light turns to "hard orange," tickets are given to pedestrians who violate the law.
• Washington, where two women crossing Pennsylvania Avenue on a green light were killed last year by a city bus in a crosswalk, plans to add innovative signals developed by the city of Tucson at about 30 locations, says George Branyan, the city's pedestrian program coordinator.
• Phoenix is replacing 1,000 traditional traffic lights with countdown-timer signals that tell people how many seconds they have to cross. The signals could cut pedestrian accidents by up to 25%, traffic engineering supervisor Michael Cynecki says. "The countdown is so self-explanatory even a third-grader can understand it," he says.
• Denver, Knoxville, Tenn., and several other cities, have implemented a method in which all traffic at an intersection is stopped for about 30 seconds and pedestrians can cross in any direction.

So, which one of these is not like the others?

Photo: Santa Monica PD