Its difficult to create a safe mid-block pedestrian crossing, but there is always something you can do to make aModel Street Design Manual crossing safer. All images in this story come from

Over the past few months, we’ve checked in on the efforts of five communities in Los Angeles County to create more livable, walkable, bikeable and healthier communities through better transportation planning through the Los Angeles PLACE Grants.  However, Los Angeles County is home to 11 million residents, and less than 750,000 live in PLACE communities.

But that doesn’t mean that the LA County Public Health Department (LACDPH) doesn’t have a plan for the rest of the county.  Partnering with the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, LACDPH awarded a RENEW Grant to create a “Model Street Manual” to help the rest of the county, and anyone else who was interested, begin to think of their streets in a different way.

“It’s time we started designing our streets for people and quality neighborhoods instead of just cars,” explains super-planner Ryan Snyder, the lead consultant for the plan. “We hope the street manual will change the way cities here and across the US design their streets. The manual should be real a game changer.”

The manual starts with an explanation of the difference between traffic control devices, the application of which is controlled by the state, and traffic calming which isn’t.  The state’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices biases streets towards moving traffic makes installing traffic control devices a difficult undertaking.  Making a difference between traffic calming and traffic control is an important legal distinction, because if a municipality deviates from state rules, it could be found at fault in traffic crashes.

For example, stop signs, traffic signals, and flashing beacons are expected to meet minimum thresholds before application. These thresholds include such criteria as number of vehicles, number of pedestrians or other uses, distance to other devices, crash history, and more.

Traffic calming, such as speed humps and bump outs, don’t fall under the same restrictions.  Thus, municipalities are encouraged to adopt a strategy of slowing traffic to increase street safety as one of many practices to make streets safer for all users.

The manual also lists the benefits of adopting a true “complete streets” ideal when completing road projects.  The benefits are many, and this list is probably familiar to many Streetsblog readers, but seeing the list together creates a striking picture.

• The goals of designing living streets are to
• Serve the land uses that are adjacent to the street; mobility is a means, not an end
• Encourage people to travel by walking, bicycling, and transit, and to drive less
• Provide transportation options for people of all ages, physical abilities, and income levels
• Enhance the safety and security of streets, from both a traffic and personal perspective
• Improve peoples’ health
• Create livable neighborhoods
• Reduce the total amount of paved area
• Reduce streetwater runoff into watersheds
• Maximize infiltration and reuse of stormwater
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution
• Reduce energy consumption
• Promote the economic well-being of both businesses and residents
• Increase civic space and encourage human interaction

While the manual doesn’t give a list of the potential negative impacts of promoting living streets, we’ve prepared a list for comparison purposes.

• People driving cars will find it more difficult to drive dangerously

So how do we get from a traditional street design to one that emphasizes the first list of benefits over automobile speed?

It would take forever to go through all of the individual treatments available to municipalities, but the basics aren’t going to surprise any regular Streetsblog reader.

Sidewalk design in a dense residential area.

One of the main keys, of perhaps greater importance than bike lanes or large sidewalks, is the quality of the road intersections.  A disproportionately large amount of crashes occur at intersections and the design of the intersection can also lead to dangerous intersections throughout the street.  For example, many community activists point to a lack of stop signs and stop lights as the main reason a community is unsafe, but in many intersections, there are better options.  For example, traffic circles (aka roundabouts) is a superior treatment at many residential and other intersections.

Of course, providing a safe way for people to cross at an intersection is also paramount to creating safe streets, crosswalks, bike and pedestrian countdown timers, wayfaring signage and bike boxes (painted areas that give bikes priority at intersections) are all different treatments that provide a safer way for people to mix with cars in addition to a traditional crosswalk and pedestrian light.

Of course, the manual addresses Pedestrian Crossings, Bikeway Design, and Transit Accommodations as important components of creating a complete street.  A series of treatments are proposed that takes space currently dedicated to moving cars to moving people.  Bus bulb outs make it easier to get on the bus and reduces traffic speed in areas where pedestrians and cars mix.  Separated bike lanes gives bicycles their own space on the street.  Sometimes, the most impressive designs are the most basic.  The manual also gives sidewalk design guidelines for areas with different uses and densities, covering everything from office parks, to main street, to a suburban residential area.

My favorite chapter is on “Streetscape Ecosystem.”  A truly Livable Street is all about multiple uses in the public space.  I love the parts about creating furniture, waste cans, public art and shopping areas, the text about storm water runoff and rain water management is equally important.  After all, a Livable Street is a Green Street.

Last but not least is the density and land uses that surround the street.  Just as its important to build a street to match the existing development, its important to plan development to match a street.

Snyder describes the manual as a “game changer,” but its also a challenge.  No longer do communities have the excuse of not understanding smart growth principles or the claim that its “impossible” to change a street’s DNA.    The manual and its team have created a public framework for anyone to use.  The challenge to urban planners and transportation engineers everywhere is whether or not they have the courage to.

(Full Disclaimer: Two of the contributors to the manual, Deborah Murphy and James Rojas, are members of the LA Streetsblog Editorial Board.)

Glendale PLACE Grant Coordinator Colin Bogart shows off the new tri-lingual pedestrian safety markings at an intersection adjacent to Glendale City Hall.

This week’s series on the grants from the L.A. County Department of Public Health’s Policies for Livable and Active Communities and Environments (PLACE) Grants focuses on Glendale and their groundbreaking Safe and Healthy Streets Plan.

Glendale’s grant was different than most because it wasn’t the city that was actually awarded the grant, but the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC). The LACBC and the city worked together on the grant application. We’ll discuss the unique collaboration between the LACBC and Glendale tomorrow. On Friday we’ll discuss some of the physical changes that have happened over the last three years and that are currently underway.

Today, we’ll focus on Safe and Healthy Streets, the planning document passed unanimously by the city in June and how their plan sets a new bar for clean and green transportation planning in Los Angeles County.

For their part, the City of Glendale professes confidence and optimism that Safe and Healthy Streets will bring a change to the city’s transportation grid.

“People in Glendale are really frustrated by our record on traffic safety,” provides Mayor Laura Friedman. “It’s a way to get a grip on traffic safety in the city, and it’s probably the most cohesive effort we’ve ever had.”

The Baseline: Glendale knew it had a problem and was open to change.

When she first joined the City Council, Laura Friedman (pictured above) pushed for bike parking at City Hall. Now the City's racks are partially filled everyday by staff with a few spots held for visitors. The LACBC's Jen Klausner calls the racks "beautiful."

By its own admission, Glendale was in desperate need for a new approach to transportation planning. The unintended consequences of a transportation network that emphasized moving cars can be seen in the statistics. In Glendale, approximately 17.4% of adults (age 18+) are obese as are approximately 15.8% of children. An additional 46. 2% of adults and 17.9% of children are overweight. Many of Glendale’s health problems could be solved by a transportation system that emphasizes “people powered” transportation, but for years they weren’t ready to make the change. In 2008, almost 40% of adults in Glendale engage in minimal to no physical activity and 66.4% of adults drive to go on an errand less than one mile from their home.

Street safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is another major issue. Mayor Friedman, admits that Glendale has an “abysmal record of pedestrian safety.” From 2004 through 2009, there were 671 reported motor vehicle collisions involving pedestrians and 275 reported motor vehicle collisions involving bicyclists, according to data provided by the state. Of the pedestrian collisions, the primary collision factor (cause of the crash) was assigned to the motorist in 64% of the collisions; to the pedestrian in 22% of the collisions, and 14% of the collisions reported remain unknown or unclear.

Some residents believe that fear is one of the reasons that more people in Glendale don’t bike. “This is a unique city. We have a huge driving problem here, and the speed and the recklessness is beyond comprehension sometime,” commented Nathalie Winiarski. “We need a huge campaign to battle this.”

So how does Safe and Healthy Streets address those problems? Instead of a traditional transportation planning document, the kind that lists what streets get what treatments, Safe and Healthy Streets proposes a series of policy changes which shift the way the city views transportation, reprioritizes funding allocation that will ultimately lead to a changed city with a progressive transportation plan. Of course, a plan is only as good as the follow-through, but in the short-term Glendale staff and elected leaders seem serious about creating a different Glendale.

Which isn’t to say that Glendale abandoned traditional planning all together. Safe and Healthy Streets identifies the traditional “5 e’s” (education, enforcement, engineering, encouragement, and evaluation) of transportation planning, and then outlines specific policy changes to turn streets designed for cars into streets that are safe for all road users and to promote healthy lifestyles. The Safe and Healthy Streets plan closes with a section on implementation which is somewhat vague. Whether the plan becomes reality depends on the political will of Glendale’s elected leadership, which is currently committed to the vision.

While Safe and Healthy Streets embraces all 5 e’s, where it differs is how it treats engineering programs. Safe and Healthy Streets calls for an overhaul of transportation planning in Glendale so that the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. Even before the plan was passed, this new commitment was embraced by the planning and street services departments.

Engineering

The now-famous Mercedes dealership bump out. Work goes on in the street.

When it comes to the design of Glendale’s streets, the city didn’t wait until the plan was finalized to begin the long project of retrofitting its transportation network to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

“We’re happy with the document,” explains LACBC Executive Director Jennifer Klausner. “… we’re also happy with the real on-the-ground changes we saw during our partnership.”

The saga of the efforts of the LACBC’s efforts to get Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows) on streets in Los Angeles is familiar to most regular Streetsblog readers, but for those who are new here is a quick summary. It took over five years, dozens of public meetings, before LADOT finally relented. In Glendale, the third largest city in L.A. County, it took one private meeting. Sharrows are now on five streets in Los Angeles (although 20 more miles of Sharrowed Streets are in the works) and on five streets in Glendale.

The city’s success with Sharrows had another, almost psychic benefit to the city. Every single person I spoke with to prepare for this series brought up an attempt to put bike lanes on Verdugo Avenue over ten years ago that led to such a backlash that city staff literally cringed at its mention. But for Sharrows, the reaction was different. Mayor Friedman commented that “98%” of the feedback she received was positive.

Mike Nilson with City Planning, took it one step further, “Before Sharrows, people looked at bike projects as ‘taking away parking’ or ‘taking away car travel lanes.’” And now the city is ready to move beyond Sharrows and try adding bike lanes again. Plans are in the work for bike lanes as part of the Riverdale-Maple Greenway and a separate project is scheduled for Main Street.

As for the Sharrows, the city plans to continue to use them when bike lanes aren’t appropriate and has even placed them on some streets without car parking, a move that other cities in L.A. County believes violates the federal standard because Sharrows were originally designed to place bicycles in the safest part of the street.  In Glendale, they also serve to remind drivers that streets are for cyclists too.

Safe and Healthy Streets also calls for better crossings at intersections. When Glendale was planning to improve the intersection of Maple and Riverdale, the intersection was due for a new traffic signal, but thanks to the intervention of city staff and LACBC’s Place Coordinator Colin Bogart, the intersection underwent a dramatic change. Bump outs shorten the length of the Riverdale crossing so pedestrians aren’t as daunted and car traffic is slowed by the narrower street. Bike detectors are under the concrete so that cyclists don’t have to hop on and off the sidewalk to press a button or wait for a car to come along to get a green light. Signs direct cyclists how to navigate the difficult turn to stay on the existing bike route and future Greenway.

Another example is that when a Mercedes dealer was fixing the sidewalks in front of the dealership as part of an expansion project, City staff informed the dealership that they had to provide better pedestrian access along the street including bump outs to slow car traffic and provide pedestrians a shorter crossing along the city’s dealership row.

These small changes begin to add up to a changed street life in Glendale. It’s not as though the city has transformed from a car dominated transportation system to Copenhagen, but small changes add up over time. Sharrows, better crossings, traffic calming, these are all things that weren’t a part of Glendale’s plan a couple of years ago, but are all in the mix now whenever a transportation project is considered.

“I do believe the public works department is taking this very seriously,” Friedman says of the change in direction. “When I ask them ‘is this a complete streets project?’ they almost always say yes…That’s a change in policy for the city.”

City staff readily agrees. “The philosophical change is that now giving consideration to the bikes and pedestrians is standard,” provides Kevin Carter with the city’s Public Works and Engineering Department. “Every project that comes through, we’re looking at what can be done for bike and pedestrians.”

The next immediate step is the construction of a series of Greenways to connect Glendale’s three main parks. Construction of the Riverdale-Maple Greenway is part of their PLACE Grant, and is designed not only to connect parks but provide an east-west pedestrian and bicycle connection through a part of the city that is less affluent and has higher percentages of minority residents. Streetsblog will have more on the Greenway on Friday.

The next steps for Glendale are to revise its Master Plan to reflect this new commitment and pass a Complete Streets policy. Both items are currently being worked on by city staff.

In addition to clarifying Glendale’s policy of safe streets for all users, Safe and Healthy Streets also recommends major changes in how the city counts traffic to mirror the commitment to safe streets. Much as we see in Los Angeles and other cities around L.A. County, excluding Long Beach, Glendale traffic engineers decide whether a street is working based on a Level of Service calculation of how many cars the street moves. More progressive cities are embracing the idea that traffic counts should be people counts and the number of pedestrians, bicyclists and people on a bus are just as important as the number of people riding in cars.

The city believes all these changes will lead to more people walking and bicycling for local trips and history with other cities, both in L.A. County and around the world, backs up that claim. Or, put more succinctly the city believes that “If you build it, they will come.”

Enforcement:

Too subtle? Photo: Glendale News Press

In some ways, Glendale has become a state leader in the battle for safe streets. Over the past several years, the Glendale Police Department (GPD) and local Assembly Members have pushed for new legislation that would allow the city greater control over local speed limits. While larger cities have mostly stayed on the sidelines, the City of L.A. passed an ordinance and held a press conference in 2009 but failed to actually show up in Sacramento to lobby or testify in support of the legislation, Glendale has pushed and kept pushing for legislation that would make their streets safer.

Safe and Healthy Streets calls for the GPD to remain a leader in this fight, and calls for better training of officers on the rights of bicyclists and pedestrians. It also calls for a lighter touch when dealing with cyclists, especially younger cyclists, so the Department doesn’t discourage bicycling by cracking down on riders for minor violations. For example, the GPD will seek funding for lights and bike helmets to give to young riders instead of just ticketing them.

But cases over the last two years demonstrate the difficulties of enforcing traffic laws fairly in a world where many drivers routinely violate the law and many parts of the legal code are unclear.

In the days leading up to Easter of 2010, one Glendale officer literally dressed as the Easter Bunny and walked across the intersection of Broadway and Central. Motorists that failed to yield to the bunny were ticketed for their infraction and sent on their way. This outside-the-box thinking led to a lot of free press for the city, in Glendale and beyond, but was ultimately scrapped when City Councilman John Drayman complained. However, it’s an interesting case study in targeted enforcement, and it certainly demolished the argument often heard from drivers who violate pedestrian space. It’s awfully hard to miss a person in a bunny suit.

Would you think of this as a “Business District?” Image: Google Street View

The second story is a lot more tragic, and shows how Glendale law needs a change to protect cyclists. Safe and Healthy Streets explains the problem:

The City of Glendale’s Municipal Code 10.64.025 currently prohibits sidewalk riding in business districts. “No person shall ride or operate a bicycle upon any public sidewalk in any business district within the city except where such sidewalk is officially designated as part of an established bicycle route.” The existing law lends itself to confusion, as there are no specific boundaries in Glendale that outline where a business district begins or ends and most people are not familiar with the default definition of a business district as defined by the vehicle code. It also fails to address the needs of inexperienced or young riders who may wish to ride to a business destination.

California Vehicle Code Section 240 determines if a roadway is in a business or residential district. CVC Section 240 part C reads, “All churches, apartments, hotels, multiple dwelling houses, clubs, and public buildings, other than schools, shall be deemed to be business structures.” This determination means that neighborhoods with multi-family dwellings are considered business districts. This makes the current Glendale Municipal Code even more problematic since it opens sidewalk riders to citation and potential legal problems when riding in such areas.

Thus, when a rider was struck and killed in September of 2008 while riding on the sidewalk. The rider was in a clearly residential area, that is technically a business district under city law, so the slain rider was deemed partially responsible. Changing this law is considered of paramount importance and Safe and Healthy Streets gives several options to do so, including eliminating sidewalk riding completely so that there is no confusion.

While Safe and Healthy Streets provides guidance for the City Council, Mayor and GPD and not hard policy, addressing laws and enforcement issues is not something one sees in a planning report and is an example on how the Safe and Healthy Streets document is an improvement over a traditional Master Plan document.

Encouragement:

From the Safe and Healthy Streets website.

In some ways, the encouragement section reads like a traditional encouragement plan. The city promises to produce bicycle road maps, maps of pedestrian zones, Safe Routes to Schools maps and even mountain biking maps, while promising special events that highlight walking and bicycling. Where Safe and Healthy Streets has excelled isn’t in the planning of these events, but the execution that has happened in recent years.

Glendale doesn’t just have a Bike to Work Day and Bike Week as does its giant neighbor to the south and west, it has a Bike Month that had over 20 free events in 2010. It doesn’t program a Mayor’s ride once a year as part of a press event, it has them regularly (which is easier when you have a mayor that chooses to ride herself), the next one is on September 25. For a mid-sized American city to have a bike calendar similar to Glendale’s is unheard of, with official events on the calendar a couple of times a month year-round.

But Safe and Healthy Streets calls for more special events, so many that the events become less-special and more routine. Why have a “walk and bike to school day” when you can have “Walk to School Wednesdays” or “Car-Free Fridays?” Making these days a regular part of the calendar would require a strong partnership with the school district, but it’s a relatively easy way to combat childhood obesity and studies show that students learn more if they have some exercise before class.
Marc Stirdivant, who worked the LACBC on the initial grant, noted that more came from the rides than new riders, but also a new constituency. “Culture change also came as a result of the rides. Ice Cream Rides. Weekend Rides. Bike to Work Rides. All of a sudden there were 60 people and they all realized they were concerned about the same things.”

Education:

Go to the three minute point to see a PSA made by Glendale Grade Schoolers.

Much of the Safe and Healthy Streets proposed educational campaign is pretty standard fare, but where the plan shows some creativity is that it’s not afraid to grab on to some of the best practices of local municipalities.

In other words, the education component is about more than P.S.A.’s and snap bracelets that encourage cyclists to “ride right.”

For example, when someone gets a traffic ticket driving a car in California, they have the option to go to “Traffic School” to reduce the penalty they receive. Except for a few smaller cities, bicyclists don’t have the same opportunity. Safe and Healthy Streets pushes the city to change that for cyclists in Glendale.
When adopted, Bicyclists that are given tickets for traffic violations would have the option of attending a class on how to safely use a bicycle in traffic in lieu of paying the moving violation fine. Attendance at a Bicycle Traffic School requires a court order granted by the Traffic Court Judge and can only be issued once instead of paying the fine. Cyclists and pedestrians can pay anywhere from $100 to $200 per ticket, depending on the infraction. By attending the bicycle safety class the cyclist can not only save money, but also his or her life by learning essential safety rules. The cost of the program is negligible because the “students” will pay “tuition” to the school to cover expenses.

Safe and Healthy Streets also calls for the city to create bike co-ops similar to the Bicycle Kitchen, Bike Oven, Bikerowave, Valley Bikery and Bici Digna co-ops in the City of L.A. These storefronts serve not just as places where people can learn how to fix their bicycle, but also as social gathering points for cyclists to get together and places to hold bike-themed events.

Evaluation

Volunteer Guillaume Lemoine records a cyclist on Glenoaks at Grandview . Photo:LACBC/SaHS

One of the most important, and oft-overlooked, part of a plan is the evaluation stage and specifically who is going to be doing the evaluating. One of the main short-term recommendations of Safe and Healthy Streets is to create advisory bodies of city staff and residents to review and update the plan and hold the city accountable to implement the plan. Details on the makeup of each body is pending, the City Council will hear a recommendation on how to create the citizens’ committee this month.

Measuring the success of its bicycle and pedestrian program is something new for Glendale. “Before the PLACE Grant, people believed that nobody wanted this,” laughed Stirdivant when I asked about evaluation plans. Now the city is figuring out how to provide for a constituency that it didn’t believe existed three years ago.

However, the document does outline what criteria should be used to monitor the plan’s successes and shortcomings:

• Increasing the mode share of bicyclists in the City of Glendale
• Increasing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians recorded during the annual bicycle/pedestrian count
• Increasing the rate of school children walking or bicycling to school
• Increasing the rate of residents walking or bicycling to work, for errands, and recreation
• Decreasing the mode share of single-occupancy vehicular riders in the City of Glendale
• Coordinating with other programs, such as Safe Routes to School, to include schools as part of the yearly count
• Incorporating a Mode of Travel survey into schools as part of the City’s yearly pedestrian and bicycle count

How Will Glendale Do It?

Of course, the largest issue for any plan, be it a Master Plan or Vision Plan, or a hybrid such as Safe and Healthy Streets, is how the plan will be funded and who will see that it moves from paper to the street.

L to R: Mike Nilsson, Colin Bogart, Councilman Ara Najarian, Marc Stirdivant and Chuck Wike with Mayor Friedman's proclamation that May is Bike Month in Glendale

In some ways, Glendale is hamstrung by what ails every city in North America. The country’s budget crisis has hit Glendale hard with hiring freezes in place so the newly created position of Pedestrian and Bicycle Coordinator will most likely go unfilled for years. The City is looking for grant opportunities to help fund these positions, but so far has come up short. And even as the city embraced Safe and Healthy Streets, the city’s budget for transportation improvements was cut.
While many are enthusiastic about the plan, they’re also worried the funding issue could keep it from becoming a reality. Nathalie Winiarski, a resident of Glendale who worked on Safe and Healthy Streets as a Volunteer, explains. “I do feel the city is behind this. It’s a funding situation. I do believe everyone who I’ve come in contact with is very much in favor of this, but until the money is there we don’t know where it’s going to go.”

Which isn’t to say that funds aren’t available to do some great things. For example, Metro estimates that the City of Glendale will receive as much as $113 million dollars in local return funds from the 2008 county-wide transit sales tax. These funds may be used for a variety of transportation improvements including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety measures. Safe and Healthy Streets recommends that Glendale follow the lead of Los Angeles and dedicate 10% of that return to bicycle and pedestrian projects. L.A. is planning on its set-aside to cover a lot of the city’s Bike Master Plan, and Glendale could do the same for its Master Plan which is still being designed.

Measure R isn’t the only place Glendale is looking for funding. In 2009 the city received a nearly $900,000 grant from Caltrans to improve safe passing at six local schools. One year later, the GPD received over a quarter of a million dollars to better train officers about pedestrian and bicyclist rights.

The City has applied for and received two grants as part of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program for two projects. The first, in the amount $376,200, is for traffic safety improvements at the intersection of Honolulu Avenue, Verdugo Road, Montrose Avenue, and Verdugo Boulevard. This project will be completed in 2012. The second project, in the amount of $322,640, will upgrade traffic signal for motorist and pedestrian safety at the intersection of Wilson Avenue, Harvey Drive, and Broadway. This project will also be completed in 2012.

With funding tight, the city is reliant on outside funding sources and grants to make its streets fulfill the promises of Safe and Healthy Streets. There’s a long way to go, but if the City maintains the political will and manages to find the money, Glendale might, one day, be the model of a safe and healthy community.

In 2008, Bruins for Traffic Relief Rallied for the Measure R transit sales tax which despite earning nearly 70% of the vote barely passed. New legislation seeks to lower that threshold from 67% to 50%.

A series of amendments proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) to SB 791 would lower the threshold of voter approval for new taxes to fund transportation improvements from 67% to 50%.

“SB 791 empowers local communities to meet their local transportation needs, improve regional mobility, and invest in high-priority, job-creating infrastructure improvements,” said Sen. Steinberg.

News of this change broke over the weekend, and already transportation groups such as the Bay Area’s TransForm are already providing Action Alerts for Californians to contact their representatives in Sacramento.

The anti-congestion charge, in the form of per gallon fees on fuel paid at the pump, could be used to fund transit, bike and pedestrian projects, toll lanes, and the safety and maintenance of state highways and bridges. The charge would be levied on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel and, for electric cars, on vehicle registration, and could be implemented for up to 30 years.

Revenues could pay for transit capital, operations and maintenance; bicycle and pedestrian programs and projects; programs and projects that would demonstrably reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); conversion of carpool lanes to toll lanes; and improvements “relative to the maintenance, safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.”

“Almost half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation,” said Warner Chabot, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. “SB 791 will provide Californians with better transportation choices. It will lead to fewer cars on the road and will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill is an environmental milestone.”

As we’ve seen with other proposals that would allow expansion of transit, bicycling or pedestrian networks, there is unity between environmental groups, organized labor and business leaders when it comes to supporting “pro-transit” ballot initiatives.

“The transportation improvements that would be made possible by SB 791 would create desperately needed good jobs in California,” said Maria Elena Durazo, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “Every $1 billion invested in transportation creates about 47,500 jobs. SB 791 will put Californians back to work, especially those who have been hit hardest by the recession.”

In 2008, Los Angeles County became the most recent county to pass a tax to fund transportation improvements.  Because any voter approved fee requires two-thirds support, it was a long night for transit advocates on November 4, 2008 despite overwhelming support for the initiative.  For Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the coalition founded to support Measure R, Steinberg’s proposal is a welcome change.

“In 2008 voters in LA County miraculously voted to support the Measure R sales tax for transportation by a two-thirds vote in the throes of a collapsing economy.  But, it should not require a miracle to ensure the future of our transportation system and our economy,” said Zane. “This bill provides the opportunity for congestion reduction strategies that can be approved by a sensible majority vote, including expanded transit services or highway improvements.”

No hearing date has been scheduled for SB 791, but Streetsblog will cover this legislation if it moves through the Senate and Assembly.

Crenshaw Boulevard gets the Rojas Treatment. To see more pics from the Leimert Park model, visit the Latino Urban Forum Flickr Page.

Through creating this model I was able to explore the unique topography, vide, and urban form of Leimert Park, which is located in South L.A., nestled at the base of Baldwin Hills and located at the intersection of two diagonal streets Crenshaw and Leimert Boulevards.

The model captures the community’s majestic topography, and street pattern laid out by the Olmstead Sons whose father built Central Park in New York in the 1920’s. The diagonal streets crisscross with the grid to give a very unique pattern not found in many L.A. neighborhoods.

I highlighted the streets, landmarks, and the median islands with their tall trees, and other geographical features that visually define and create Leimert Park.

As an art piece I added some urban design interventions for creative thinking and provoke a response from the community. This also establishes the diorama as an art piece and not just a replica of the community.

I added bike lanes, pedestrian streets, and light rail down Crenshaw to create a healthier, sustainable community. Bike lanes crisscross the model making Leimert Park a bike hub for south LA.

I put the “Park” in Leimert Park by enlarging the existing small park by closing off Vernon to the south and 43rd Place to the north. I extended the park further south to the point or intersection of Crenshaw and Leimert Boulevard. The new park configuration is a triangle bound by Crenshaw and Leimert Boulevards.

To the north of the park I closed off Degnan Street from 43rd Place to 43rd Street. This is will create a nice pedestrian street leading to and from the park from other parts of the community.

Leimert Park was built in the 1920’s. Many of the homes, apartments, and shops are a fusion of southern Spanish and Tudor architecture styles. I attempted to enhance this urban design by introducing Afro-Caribbean styles, such as style of small urban mixed use buildings of Havana. This building style would fit well in scale, design, and use in the existing retail streets and help promote the pedestrian experience. I added a few Arab or North African urban design features. On the new Degnan Street I added a small water feature flowing in the middle of pedestrian way similar to the ones found in the Arab palaces like the Alhambra in southern Spain were water was venerated and remembered.

I kept the buildings along Degnan street vibrant and low scale to keep the friendly laid back vibe, while taller building were placed along Crenshaw which is a major traffic artery running north south. Crenshaw starts at Wilshire and diagonal crosses LA south until Baldwin Hills and it curves. From then it runs further south. The Crenshaw Light Rail will be added on this street.

The enlarged park will have a large pound and other iconic amenities were people could go relax, bring their children, and walk to the small shops to the north. I tried to capture the arid landscapes, and architectural style of the Havana, and North African and combine it with contemporary urban patterns to give the park a stronger identity.
On Crenshaw and Leimert Boulevards on either side of the park will be taller buildings for offices or housing that will frame the park, similar to Central Park in NYC.

From my two days of building the diorama at Leimert Park, I quickly discovered that “What Olvera street is to the Latino Community, Leimert Park is to the African American Community.”

This model is part of Folk Art Everywhere and is installed at Eso Won Bookstore on Degnan Street. This diorama creates a new perspective of Leimert Park and brings urban planning to a larger audience.

A station in need of improvement. To see the Sierra Club's ideas on how, click on the image.

If you’re looking for a vision for a sustainable transportation plan for the Downtown Stadium, you shouldn’t look to politicians or even AEG executives.  A group of Sierra Club activists, led by Jerard Wright Angeles Chapter Transportation Committee Co-Chair, have outlined a transportation plan that would fulfill AEG’s claims that Farmers Field will encourage more sustainable transportation options than a rival stadium plan in the suburban City of Industry.

The key to providing real rail transit options is a series of major upgrades to the existing station at Pico and 12th, a rail station that in the Wrights’ words, is a “20 year old station that looks like it’s 50 years old.”  The Sierra Club’s presentation asks for the environmental documents for the stadium to include major upgrades to the Pico Station, bike facilities at the events center and nearby facilities, and streetscape upgrades that actually encourage transportation uses.

“Win or lose this is something AEG needs to do,” Wright said referring to the impacts Staples and L.A. Live are having on the already stressed transit station, “If we’re really serious about making L.A. a transit city, this is one way to do that.”

The first step to creating a great transportation plan for Farmer’s Field is to recognize the importance of the Pico Station.  Currently, the station serves only the Blue Line (and soon the Expo Line) and it’s still overcrowded after Lakers games.  An NFL Stadium can hold nearly four times as many people as Staples Center, so even if the Regional Connector is years away and plans for a Downtown Streetcar are sketchy, the station will need major upgrades just to handle the demand for the Blue Line.  Once the Connector is built, the station will be a hub of activity on game day as fans will be able to access the entire Metro rail system from one stop.

The current design of the station won’t just create inconvenience for the thousands of football fans who wish to use it, it will also create a dangerous situation.  Queuing at the station entrances due to passengers paying their fares at the ticket machines on the station platform will lead to passengers stuck on the tracks without major renovations.  When you consider that many people exiting NFL Football contests or major concerts aren’t always in a sober state of mind, the problem gets worse.

To see a larger copy of this image, click on the image to open a pdf of the Sierra Club's full plan.

While the Sierrans propose four different options for the Stadium, it seems that in the long run the third option presented, the “Platform by Destination” design is best.  When the Connector is completed, passengers will be able to access  the Blue Line, Expo Line,  Foothill Gold Line and East Los Angeles Gold Line at one place.

The plan includes more than just transit improvements.  Wright notes that the progressive “Figueroa Corridor Project” ends mere blocks away from the transit center.  Extending the protected bike lanes, streetscaping and wide sidewalks just a couple more blocks to the center will create the pedestrian friendly atmosphere that will draw people to the Stadium.

In the end, the Sierra Club has its own list of three things that AEG needs to include in the final plan to pass muster with the environmental community.  Wright sees the list more as a guide on how to do things right more than a list of demands intended to hamstring the project.  “As AEG moves forward with its outreach and process, it makes sense for the Sierra Club to be involved,” Wright added, “I don’t want the mitigation component used as a scapegoat not to do anything.”

1. The project shall provide capital and operating expenditures of the adjacent Pico Metro Rail Station for modernization and facility upgrades to handle the larger demand of patrons using transit to access Farmers Field,
2. Improved streetscapes that encourage pedestrian mobility along Figueroa, Flower, Olympic, 11th, 12th, and Pico Boulevard for pedestrians to connect to and from transit facilities to Farmer’s Field,
3. The project shall fund bike parking, lockers and dedicated bike lane facility investment surrounding the event center

Councilman Rosendahl is holding a public meeting with AEG executive Tim Leiweke next Monday.  Streetsblog will be certain to discuss the Sierra Club’s plan with both of them and will give you their thoughts.

One slide from TransForm's Stuart Cohen's presentation yesterday. You can download the entire presentation here.

Streetsblog readers are likely at least somewhat familiar with many of the  connections between health and transportation; conference speakers explored those connections, with an emphasis on their impacts on underserved communities of color. This equity/transportation/health dialog was then tied into calls for action on local, state and federal campaigns.

After an introduction from CPEHN’s Ruben Cantu, speakers got underway with a presentation from TransForm‘s Stuart Cohen. TransForm is the kind of San Francisco Bay Area group that Los Angeles’ livability advocates should be jealous of - and should emulate. TransForm advocates for transit, walking, biking – focusing from local to regional to statewide. Cohen outlined trasportation/health connections, including somewhat familiar statistics: rising rates of obesity nationwide, declining rates of walking and biking to school. And some not as familiar: inadequate transit as a healthcare access issue (folks miss their clinic appointments when it’s difficult to walk or take transit to get there – more info here.)

Cohen expressed optimism over current initiatives from the Great Communities Collaborative to SB375 (CA’s greenhouse gas legislation), but stressed that strong coalitions, centered on health and equity, will be critical to success. Cohen also stressed that respected health professionals can be key in selling livability: when an environmentalist testifies about greenhouse gases, it’s generally not as effective as when a physician or nurse testifies about childhood obesity.

Next was a “panel of fierce women” (Ohland’s description) featuring Los Angeles based efforts toward transportation, equity and health – all of which have been covered at L.A. Streetsblog. Panelists included:

• Allison Mannos of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition – presenting on multiple bike advocacy campaigns, emphasizing the coalition’s innovative award-winning City of Lights program that organizes immigrant day-laborer cyclists, and how that program dovetailed with campaigns for planning and prioritizing bike facilities in Los Angeles’ immigrant neighborhoods.
• SunYoung Yang of the Bus Riders Union – presenting on BRU’s organizing successes in preserving and enhancing Metro clean-fuel bus service, and further campaigns for Bus-Only Lanes, Clean Air, and Climate Justice.
• Jocelyn Vivar Ramirez of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (and the L.A. Streetsblog board of directors) – presenting on EYCEJ’s coalition and community organizing work to combat the community impacts from international goods movement: from port pollution to 710 Freeway expansion to unsafe eastside streets.
• Gloria Ohland of Move L.A. (and occasional L.A. Streetsblog writer) – presenting on Move L.A.’s support of bus and rail and complete streets and complete neighborhoods.

A fierce panel: Ohland, Vivar-Ramirez, Mannos and Yang. Photo: Joe Linton

Break-out sessions followed, with a focus on how health, equity and transportation issues can inform legislative campaigns, including these current State Assembly bills:

• AB 441 (ensuring that health and equity are part of planning developent decisions)
• AB516 (ensuring state Safe Routes to School grants prioritize disadvantaged communities)

Conference details, including presentations, are available on-line at the CPEHN website.

All sorts of cities are embracing the "Great Streets" concept. Here, Jacksonville announces plans for a Great Street in their Downtown.

On Tuesday night, a group of urban planners, transportation engineers, and public health advocates convened at Metro headquarters to preview the fruits of an intensive two-day labor. Led by design consultant Ryan Snyder, this team of local and national experts had been working in Los Angeles to create a new and visionary streets manual for the streets of Los Angeles County.

Their effort was backed by a grant from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, through its RENEW initiative. Standing for “Renewing Environments for Nutrition, Exercise and Wellness,” the program aims to improve public health by making our neighborhoods more conducive to healthy and active lifestyles.

The presentation kicked off with an introduction from Ryan Snyder. He quickly got to the fundamental question: “Why do we need a new streets manual?” According to Snyder, the manual is the DNA of our streets, and it defines everything from where to place bike lanes to how wide a roundabout should be.

Seasoned Streetsblog readers know all too well that our current manuals make it hard to create road treatments that encourage safety and access for all road users. Snyder described those old manuals has creating streets that are “ugly and difficult to cross,” and “not something my grandmother could cross easily, nor an elementary school child.”

The goal of this committee was, therefore, to tear down the old design standards that require such inhospitable streets, and in their place, create standards that encourage the designing of great streets.

The new manual considers the full gamut of street design issues from the neighborhood scale right down to the material of the streets themselves. The following is a list of the new manual’s twelve chapters, which were previewed in three-minute presentations during Tuesday’s event. I’ve added just a few highlights from each speaker in attempt to capture a slice of what each chapter has to offer.

• Street Network Design: In terms of safety and livability, networks with numerous short blocks in a grid achieve much better outcomes than street networks with long blocks and numerous cul-de-sacs.
• Traveled Way and Intersection Design: Bike lanes and narrower car lanes can improve safety and “modern roundabouts” improve the comfort of intersections. Streets should be physically designed for slower speeds.
• Universal Pedestrian Access: Without precise design guidelines, obstacles to mobility, like utility boxes, start to crop up. A four-zone system — representing the curb zone, furniture zone, pedestrian zone, and frontage zone — can ensure that there’s always a passable sidewalk.
• Pedestrian Crossings: Simply put, pedestrians must have the ability to safely cross the street. Real and perceived safety is important and is not well reflected by crash data, i.e. “maybe no body gets killed here, because no one feels safe enough to cross.” Planners should use treatments that are proven to reduce crashes. Transit stops should always have good crossings, because trips typically begin and end on opposite sides of the street. Above all, evaluate the success of new crossings using performance measures.
• Bikeway Design: All streets are bicycle streets, and so all should be safe for bicyclists. Existing manuals tell us how to design roads for cars; this one will accommodate all users.
• Traffic Calming: “Design streets that self-enforce the behaviors that you’re looking to enforce.” Some of the physical measures that can achieve “self-enforcement” include: lane reductions, medians, refuges for pedestrians, bulbouts, curbless flush streets, flush medians, streets trees, lateral shifts, shared spaces, bike lanes, textured surfaces, back-in angled parking, valley gutters, roundabouts, mini-roundabouts, impellers, chicanes, medians, yield streets, pinch points, raised intersections, raised pedestrian crossing, and speed humps.
• Transit Accommodations: Planners should think beyond the station as merely being a portal to the service. Rather, transit should be integrated further into the community, using stops to anchor local activity. Use street treatments to enhance access to transit vehicles and provide accommodations for everyone arriving at stations. When it comes to travel lanes, think beyond the car to bus lanes, BRT, and streetcars.
• Streetscape Ecosystem: Utilize street features to help irrigate landscaping. Make irrigation equipment highly visible to educate everyone about the relationships between all the parts of the ecosystem.
• Re-placing Streets: Streets should be more than just a conduit for goods and people. Designs should “support activities and destinations in the streets” with design elements built at the human scale; provide a feeling of safety; invite activities on both sides of the street; and reward slow movement by lowering speeds.
• Land Use & Urban Design: Land use is “the great definer of street character and influences travel patterns.” Key design elements should focus on things like setbacks and ways that land uses can complete the public space — ground floor uses.
• Retrofitting Suburbia: The goal of retrofitting suburbia is to “suggest ways that existing cities can think about getting ready for a different economic and demographic future.” In neighborhoods with poor connectivity, break open sound walls and cul-de-sacs so that pedestrians can move more freely. Break through long blocks with additional and safe crosswalks. Above all, “high quality economic development comes to high quality streets.”
• Getting It Built: First, the public engagement process should become an authentic two-way process, in which the public are experts.

A word cloud of my notes generated by Wordle.

Seeing all those amazing plans, goals, and strategies, you may be asking yourself, “okay, but is any of it legally feasible?” In the past, so many great street designs have been rejected out of hand by traffic engineers, because of fears that municipalities would incur legal liability for not doing things “by the book.” Snyder, however, assured all in attendance that the designs in the new manual would all pass legal muster.

To wrap up the presentation, Snyder invited the audience to think of their favorite cities and the design features that make those places unique. To drive the point home, he asked, “when you go on vacation, do you go to a suburban strip mall? No, we go to great walkable places!” And that is precisely what this manual will help planners and engineers create.

And now, just a few final details on the manual: Everything will be professionally edited and laid out and should be available by this summer. The manual will be published digitally on the LA County website in two formats — as a Microsoft Word Document and an Adobe InDesign format — so that, in Snyder’s words, cities can “use it, adopt it, steal it, and plagiarize it.”

Bringing together transportation officials from 20 major cities to discuss progress on bikeway designs in the U.S. produced quite a few “aha moments,” said Birk. For one, transportation officials learned that many of the bikeway innovations they had been adopting from Europe aren’t as innovative as they had thought.

The protected bike lane on New York City's Ninth Avenue.

For example, Birk said, 20 American cities use bike boxes, one of the design features that isn’t specifically endorsed by the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the American Association of Highway Transportation Officials’ design guide.

“It’s not like it’s some fringe thing anymore,” Birk said.

She added: “There’s a comfort in knowing that your colleagues are on the same wavelength.”

Conversations throughout the course of the NACTO guide development process also revealed that federal officials aren’t as unfriendly to new bike treatments as many city-level transportation officials had expected. Federal transportation officials have indicated that many of the 20 bike treatments recommended by NACTO are allowable within federal guidelines — while not explicitly endorsed — and therefore eligible for federal funding, Birk said.

“They’ve basically green-lighted a few of them a yellow-lighted a few others,” she said.

Birk described the conversations with federal transportation officials as “really effective and positive.”

Over the course of the past two decades, transportation officials from Portland to Washington, D.C. had separately come to the conclusion that they needed to adopt some bike treatments that had originated in Europe, such as cycle tracks and bike signals. But the lack of a guiding document forced each city to rely on its own experimentation, Birk said.

The NACTO group began working on the guide about a year ago. The product of their collaboration contains renderings, street cross-sections and other tools that will help local engineers zero in on the best practices in new bike treatments in use across the U.S. This will be particularly beneficial for cities that have less advanced bike infrastructure, Birk said. Baltimore, for example, is taking measures to implement NACTO’s recommendations, following the lead of trailblazers Portland, Minneapolis, San Francisco and New York.

“We expect there to be a big groundswell of American cities that will adopt these bicycle treatments,” Birk said. “That will lead to increased bicycle use and that will significantly improve safety.”

Another benefit of NACTO’s guide is that is it digital and available over the web. It’s important to distinguish the guide as a living document because by the time many of these types of guide are printed, they’re already out of date, Birk said.

Birk said NACTO’s Cities for Cycling committee still has a long way to go and they plan to continue working. One issue that isn’t addressed in the new design guide, for instance is how to handle potential conflicts between bikes and streetcars and bikes and buses.

Rail L.A.’s “LA Beyond Cars” Exhibit from 89.3 KPCC on Vimeo.

We don’t usually announce contests here at Streetsblog, but this one seemed too good to pass up.

Rail L.A., the people that brought you the L.A. Beyond Cars exhibit in Downtown L.A. last summer, are looking for your ideas on how to make it easier to get around Los Angeles. It sounds like a pretty cool project, so I encourage you to send them some ideas.

The Prototypical American City, Los Angeles, is at a crossroads. It has grown from distant communities of missionaries and rancheros to a diverse yet separated community of suburbs, and now to an unhappily-joined community of industries and sprawl. The growth of Los Angeles as a de-centralized city has created a playground for the automobile – where no less than a six lane freeway will do, massive parking lots litter the built environment, and traffic strikes fear into anyone looking to traverse the city. It has rendered a city incapable of movement, a place where the freeway no longer allows freedom, but instead has resulted in a life informed by sigalert and strangled by traffic.

In response to the current state of the city, we are looking for a few sentences of imaginative and exotic ideas of what to do with a city beyond cars. How would you improve your environments? Perhaps with localized agriculture? A Linear Shopping Mall? Centralized Housing to encourage walking to work? 25 Selected ideas will be given to a team of artist, designers and architects, and result in a publication + exhibition of before/after collages envisioning a new pedestrian based Los Angeles. Go to www.railla.org/inmycity to share your idea or multiple ideas, and help us vision a new LA beyond cars.

To find out more about railLA and our scheduled events, go to www.railla.org.

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.

Better

While the base design is pretty amazing “for Los Angeles,” once we get into the “better” and “best” designs one starts to see some ideas that would turn Figueroa into a world class street.  The “better” segment begins to actively re-purpose space reserved for the private automobile and give it back to humans, or as Schultz put it moves “progressively into the carriage way.”  Instead of a separated bike path, there’s a much wider  “flex lane” which serves as a continuation of bike path,  pedestrian walkway and a very limited space for car traffic (deliveries, etc.).  The transit only lane for streetcars and buses remains in the proposal, after a wide divider for bike parking, street trees and other street beautification projects.

Best.

By the time we begin discussing the “best” segments, you might start thinking we actually live in Copenhagen.  Figueroa is shrunk to two traffic lanes, a transit lane and a large pedestrian plaza. The sidewalk is large enough for restaurant or coffee shop seating before we even get to the flex lane.  Then, there’s another space reserved for pedestrians or just sitting outside on a bench.  Schultze noted that in some segments of Figueroa, there will be 5,000 people walking through in just an hour and pedestrians make up the majority of street users.

From parking lot to public space.

For 11th street, Schultze proposes closing the segment to all traffic besides local traffic and deliveries by creating a “Paseo” as seen above.  Bill Robertson Boulevard would undergo a similar treatment, with the north end being closed completely and the south area turning into an adjacent “Olympic Park.”  As for MLK Boulevard, the team determined that the amount of car traffic would make reducing the travel lanes a more difficult proposal, but that other treatments could still transform the area.  In the above image, the project team unveils a linear park proposal that manages to keep most of the parking and still creates a different, more public, feeling for the space.

Jay Varata, the CRA director for the area, summed up the entire proposal by noting that this plan is “…a chance to do something very unique in Los Angeles.  A chance to look at pedestrian space in a new way.”

But the plan isn’t near the final design phase yet.  Currently the team is soliciting feedback from the first designs, getting cost estimates to complete their plans and will hold another series of hearings in April before selecting a “Locally Preferred Alternative.”  From there, the proposal will undergo final design before going through the hearing process for a final project.  Staff didn’t rule out the possibility that the project would be segmented or go through pilot stages in advance of a corridor long project.  However, Melanie Smith, one of the project consultants did note that, “This all needs to happen very fast.”

Friendly comments from the audience asked the speakers to put in more information about the safety benefits of the project to head off political opposition, work with the Downtown Streetcar team to make certain the pictured trolley line makes it from the poster board to the street, and work with planning to make certain the project doesn’t become an engine for gentrification.  The project team noted that the state grant they received to create this project was only possible because of the large amount of affordable housing present and planned for the corridor and that local agencies, including LADOT, are enthusiastic about the project.

Deborah Murphy, the lead consultant for the grant and a member of the L.A. Streetsblog Board of Directors, noted that the connectivity to transit, not just the streetcar, was a key part of the proposal.  “If we were having this meeting six months from now, everyone would be asking how this connected to the Expo Line.”

More concerned comments pressed the team about what would happen to displaced cars and what accommodations were being made for street parking for automobiles.  With the traffic plan not completed, the staff could only hazard a guess on the first question.  The second one was kind of a hilarious statement on the defensiveness of car culture warriors.  There are over 545 acres of car parking garages within a quarter mile of the project.  However, the questioner complained that these spaces were the “most expensive in the city.”  So why was the question so odd?  Because even a cursory look at the plan above reveals that the proposal would actually increase on street parking.

I questioned Schultze about that before the presentation.  After all, it was Gehl Architects who created the graphic illustrating all the car parking along the corridor that we featured last week.  He explained that creating short-term parking that it increases the customer base for business.  With 60% of Figueroa’s facades facing away from the street, creating foot, bike and car customers is a key part of transforming the street into a true public space.

Another question asked whether this was a contained project, or if we could expect more projects such as this in all parts of the city.  Earlier in the evening I joked with Schultze and Murphy that it was nice to discuss a project where Streetsbloggers were asking, “Why not us?” instead of “why us?” when discussing changes.  The team noted that the scope of this project is the Corridor, but they have received feedback from City Departments that this is the test case for a broader remaking of the city.

Murphy summed up the purpose of the program, and the city’s need to embrace this kind of change by noting that the city has invested in infrastructure for cars over all other modes for too long and that, “Everyone deserves a great place to walk, ride their bike, wait for transit or whatever.  We have a lot of making up to do.”

For a full copy of the map, click here.

(Editor’s note: If you want to dig a little deeper into the numbers on Metro’s customer satisfaction surveys, we have the full results in pdf form for bus riders, train riders, and everyone available for viewing or download. – DN)

Yesterday, Angie Schmitt, who writes the daily “Streetsblog.net” roundup, reported on an analysis that ranked cities based on the quality of the car commuting habits of its residents.  As usually happens with these sort of stories, the data shows that car commuters in Greater Los Angeles are taking it on the chin spending over $400 a month on gas and maintenance and losing 70 hours a year to congestion.

Ouch.

In direct contrast to the dire picture portrayed in the article on Bundle on car commuting, comes a survey of Metro’s riders, done on behalf of the agency.  The survey shows that  86% of respondents agree with the statement, “Generally speaking I am satisfied with Metro bus/train service.”

On one hand we have a picture of Los Angeles’ car drivers bogged down in traffic with their money flowing into the coffers of the oil industry.  On the other hand, we have a picture of Metro riders, content if not happy with their service and paying hundreds of dollars less.  Sometimes, I don’t even need to editorialize to make the point.

That being said, there are some cracks in Metro’s armor.  While The Source and LAist reprinted the good news from the survey off the press release, Streetsblogger and So.CA.TA. Board Member Dana Gabbard dug a little deeper into the numbers.  Over one fifth of respondents said they encountered a brokendown bus in the last month?  And what’s with the 65/35 split between English and Spanish speaking riders?  Gabbard’s full comments can be found after the jump:

It is a bit appalling 22% report encountering a breakdown in the past month and that 35% of bus riders report being passed up during the same period. Metro CEO Art Leahy has a ways to go to achieve the quality improvements that he has stated publicly are among his chief goals for the service Metro operates.

It is curious that TAP usage is 53%. Does this reflect a shift to paying per trip as the day pass lost appeal after it was boosted to $6?

It is no surprise 91% of those surveyed think Day Passes should be available on the buses. The sad aspect is the technocrats who have been in charge of the TAP program never grasped this and only belatedly are seeking to address this overwhelming need.

I guess that over half of those surveyed report being Metro riders for 5+ years dovetails with 75% stating public transit is their only means of transportation.

Given the demographics I observe riding the bus Metro needs to work to ensure future surveys include more Spanish speakers – a 65%/35% split of English and Spanish speaking users being surveyed leaves me with the impression that the sample isn’t representative.

The number of cars per person in Greater Los Angeles. For a full copy of the map, here.

Density. Vehicle Ownership. The number of cars packed into a small area.

These are concepts that we discuss often on Streetsblog. Thanks to a UCLA research project undertaken by Professors Mike Manville and Donald Shoup, we can get an idea of some of the challenges Los Angeles’ planners face in trying to ween our city off the automobile.

This article will look at the population density, car ownership per person, and car ownership per mile maps and charts.  At the top of each article will be a “Streetsblog sized” map for Los Angeles with links to maps for San Franscisco and New York for comparison purposes.  All maps are based on information from the 2000 Census.

A huge hat tip to Katie Matchett, without whom this article wouldn’t have been possible.

Population Density:

Click for population density maps of Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco.

Our first set of maps show the population density for the region. The greater Los Angeles region is often portrayed as a giant suburb.  When you look at the raw number for Los Angeles, as compared to New York and San Francisco, this characterization seems suspect.  After all, Los Angeles exceeds New York when it comes to person per square mile.

This table shows the total population, size of the urbanized area, and population density for each region. Note that while San Francisco has the highest population density, Los Angeles is more dense than New York.  However, when you look at the maps you’ll see that the population is spread relatively evenly throughout Los Angeles, while the other regions have dense centers with more sprawling suburbs.

In other words, when it comes to New York, our suburbs are denser than their suburbs; even though they have a much denser urban core.

It will be interesting to see in the 2010 census how much of a dense urban core has developed over the last ten years.  I suspect those dark green areas will continue to grow, but that nobody is going to start mistaking the Downtown with those of San Francisco or New York.

Vehicles Per Person

Click for the vehicles per person maps for Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco

It’s no surprise that New York had the lowest rate of car ownership per person, but I think that many people will be surprised to see that Los Angeles actually has a lower rate of car ownership than San Francisco. As with population density, vehicle density is more evenly distributed in LA than in the other two regions.

Matchett provides a couple of other facts about Greater Los Angeles, which further illustrates what does and doesn’t determine car ownership

The three tracts with the lowest vehicles per square mile and per person are located in Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles, and San Fernando. A closer examination of the demographics of each of these tracts reveals that while each has a fairly large population (between 300 and 1,000 residents), the tracts have hardly any workers or housing units. This suggests that they may contain institutional uses such as jails, where vehicle ownership rates would be very low. The downtown tract might also include homeless residents without vehicles.

The three census tracts with the highest number of vehicles per person are located in the cities of Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, and Norwalk. The Norwalk tract also includes primarily commercial uses and has only nine residents, so the high vehicle ownership rate is likely due to the tract’s low population. The two other census tracts with a high number of vehicles per person are located in some of the wealthiest communities in the Los Angeles region. Given the strong correlation between income and vehicle ownership, this should come as no surprise.

In other words, Los Angeles’ surprising low rate of car ownership seems to have more to do with income than progressive transportation ideals.

Vehicles Per Square Mile:

Click for vehicle per square mile maps for Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco

From a planning standpoint, this set of maps and statistics, combined with the first set of maps and statistics tells the most important story.  What is the impact of population density on car ownership?  As we try to provide alternatives to the automobile, it stands to logic that dense development is part of the key.

Oh, well this is embarrassing.  Matchett explains.

The pattern of vehicles per square mile in each region basically mirrors the population density: tracts with high population density also have a lot of vehicles. This is true even in New York, with its lower vehicle ownership rates.

Honestly, I was surprised by this result.  I wasn’t exactly stunned that this was true for Los Angeles, because our transit system still needs some development, but that car ownership in New York and San Francisco was still high in their dense, transit rich areas?  I didn’t have a great explanation for this, but fortunately Matchett supplied an explanation from Professor Manville.

From a policy standpoint, this suggests that simply increasing density is likely to exacerbate rather than mitigate congestion–something we see borne out by most congestion data. (Increasing density and congestion can sometimes allow people to make more trips while avoiding congestion, but the congestion itself is still bad). So the trick for transportation and land use policy is to find ways to pull apart density and vehicle use. That’s what pricing does, and that’s what minimum parking requirements do the opposite of. Parking requirements make it very easy for increases in density to move in lockstep with increases in vehicles, because new dwelling units automatically include housing for cars.

So there’s the challenge for our local planners and transportation engineers.  As Los Angeles grows and becomes more transit diverse in the coming years, the city, county and Metro needs to get rid of parking minimums in dense, transit-rich areas and find other ways to encourage people to not feel the need to own cars.  It sounds as though Metro ought to be urging cities to relax their parking requirements in the areas around their new rail lines or, at a minimum, get them relaxed for the developments on land that the agency owns.

SEPTA is forgoing new amenities to focus on making sure their trains don't end up like this one. Brownstoner

Last year, the Federal Transit Administration announced that the seven largest rail transit systems had a backlog of $50 billion in maintenance needs to bring them into a state of good repair. In June, the agency determined that nationwide, the backlog is nearly $78 billion.

Though these needed repair and maintenance projects may be less impressive to the public than major expansions, they are key to increasing ridership and decreasing costs.

Last week, FTA Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan told the North America Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum that the agency is linking good transit maintenance to its livability initiatives. Keeping systems in good repair, she said, is the foundation of safe, reliable rail service that can help draw new residents to vacated areas.

“When we’re looking at the opportunities for in-fill, particularly in our major urban areas, where we can take advantage of the infrastructure we already have, this is where State of Good Repair becomes a very key piece of a livability initiative,” McMillan said. “So it’s not just about building the new stuff into greenfield. It’s about investing and making transit a real value-added as part of these strategic re-investments in communities.”

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority boasts the oldest transit system in America, said Richard Davey, who heads up the MBTA. So maintenance is no small task for them. Ninety-nine percent of the MBTA’s five-year capital plan is for repair and maintenance, which is projected to decrease their debt burden.

Bringing existing infrastructure up to code isn’t always the most popular use of money, especially when agencies have to choose between maintenance and investments that riders perceive more easily. Jeffrey Knueppel of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) said his agency even takes heat for focusing on safety. “At times we are criticized for not expanding the system, and also at times for not doing the customer amenities projects that other agencies have done,” he said.

But he said prioritizing maintenance is by far the most efficient use of funds. Looking at SEPTA’s bridges, Knueppel said, “We have an opportunity now to rehabilitate most of them, rather than replace them. If we continue to defer spending on our bridges we’ll end up spending a lot more money later to replace these structures.”

So how to pay for it?

Several agencies, including the MBTA, SEPTA, and New Jersey Transit, are looking at their parking assets to augment existing income streams. They’re considering leasing or selling off some of their parking lots. In the Philadelphia suburbs, towns that find themselves short on nighttime parking want to enter into an agreement to use the SEPTA lots during the off-peak hours.

Meanwhile, the FTA is developing proposals on the issue and is beginning to train grantees on asset management, but access to money for repairs is still a difficult prospect for many transit systems.

Metro Rapid map.  Photo: RJM Connel/Flickr

Is that what transit in Southern California in the modern age has had as its goal? My long held suspicion is that transit as an alternative to the automobile is mostly an empty slogan that officials speak of but that as a practical matter receives little attention beyond lip service. And the great danger is trends may actually be leading us toward having transit use widen while officials and others aren't preparing for the many challenges this presents.

Our present public transit system is structured to meet two markets: peak hour commuters and the transit-dependent population (mostly made up of folks of modest means, seniors, the disabled and youth). Over decades service and funding structures have been built up predicated on that being the population it serves.

With the emergence of Metro Rapid and the growing grid of Metro Rail services the demographic that transit draws is widening. Which actually presents challenges, both political and practical.

A peek at what we may be facing is the huge spike in transit use that occurred when gasoline bolted past $4 a gallon in 2008 -- agencies struggled to meet the demand, often bringing out of mothballs old buses that had historically been part of a reserve fleet.

Because nearly all purchases of transit equipment by public agencies involve federal capital funding, rather stringent "buy america" provisions constrain the universe of manufactures that can bid. It can often be upwards of 24 months from when an order is made before deliver occurs, given the limited capacity to manufacture buses to serve the American market. Also most urban areas are extremely difficult to facilitate expansion of bus repair and storage facilities. Some of this is NIMBYism (folks don't want a bus yard in their neighborhood) plus in many cases plots of land large enough for a bus yard are few and far between (or entail the long difficult process of building on a brownfield). While many may think a lot more use of transit would be a good thing the transit providers right are now are nowhere near ready to handle it.

Then one tries to contemplate where the funding would come from to have transit as the main mode of mobility for a significant portion of the urban population. I think that takes us to about the limits of any possible prognostication being possible. Perhaps we need a more honest and engaged dialogue on these issues. I certainly think we are falling far short of that at the moment. The American landscape is evolving and I fear we are not remotely preparing for what it will need to fulfill its ultimate aim of better cities and better lifes for the people therein. Transit that is good enough won't cut it.

A private firm recently signed a deal with New Orleans officials to help run the city’s streetcars, seen above. (Photo: NYT)

Few definitive answers to those questions were on offer today at a transit panel sponsored by the Mobility Choice
coalition, which allies members of conservative-leaning think tanks
with a handful of environmental advocates and urbanists — but the
discussion yielded some provocative evidence of the fault lines between
public and private operators.

Principally sponsored by the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), the group describes itself as adopting "a fiscally responsible, free market oriented approach to expanding
competition among transportation modes for the purpose of reducing
oil’s strategic value."

American Bus Association (ABA)
Chairman James Jalbert, whose group represents private bus and
motorcoach companies, lamented that the U.S. DOT’s implementation of
its $10.5 billion high-speed rail program — which is expected to
receive billions more in federal funding in the coming years — did not
envision a role for private-sector firms that already provide
inter-city service.

"A good-quality system that could be
included in a rail project is now going to be run over by that rail
project," said Jalbert, also the president New Hampshire-based bus
company C&J. "We want to be part of the solution, but we need to be invited to the party."

Integrating
private bus operators into proposed passenger rail projects has to
start at the state level, where officials make the call on whether and
how to pursue federal bullet-train money, Jalbert added. He described a
potentially successful partnership between public inter-city rail and
private bus companies as a shared scheduling system, where passengers
could purchase tickets for rail during peak hours but an equivalent bus
journey during off-peak times, when operating a motorcoach could be
more efficient.

Tom JeBran, ABA vice chairman and president of Trans-Bridge Lines
in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, went further than his private-sector cohort
in suggesting that public transit agencies receive an unfair advantage,
thanks to their operating subsidies and exemption from the federal gas
tax.

"The only way I’d support" raising fuel taxes and
adding new interstate tolls to pay for nationwide transport
improvements, JeBran said, would be if both private and public transit
operators got an exemption from those new charges.

Robert Padgette of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
the transit industry’s leading D.C. trade group, fired back at JeBran’s
depiction of government subsidies that go only to public operators. The
U.S. DOT’s Section 5311 grants, Padgette noted, do make taxpayer funds available to smaller, private inter-city bus companies.

While
Jalbert distanced himself from JeBran’s push for a tax and toll
exemption for private operators, he could not help but answer Padgette.
The public subsidies for private inter-city bus companies average about
8 cents per passenger, Jalbert told the panel attendees. "With all due
respect," he quipped, "it’s butt dust."

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, right, with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) at left and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed at center. (Photo: White House Press)

Donovan’s announcement came during an address
to the Congress for the New Urbanism’s (CNU) annual meeting in Atlanta.
During his visit, the former New York City housing commissioner also
toured the BeltLine project, an ambitious local effort to convert former rail track into new light rail and trails.

In
his remarks to the CNU, Donovan depicted the integration of "location
efficiency" measures as a way to encourage housing developers to pursue
more mixed-use, denser construction.

"[I]t’s time that
federal dollars stopped encouraging sprawl and
started lowering the barriers to the kind of sustainable development
our country needs and our communities want," Donovan said. "And with
$3.25 billion at stake in these competitions, that’s exactly what they
will start to do."

Evaluating
the range of transport options available for prospective residents of
urban and suburban areas was among the central recommendations of a foreclosures report
released in January by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
That study was aimed at mortgage lenders rather than the government,
but Democratic lawmakers last year began pushing for HUD to insure more mortgages based on the properties’ "location efficiency."

Donovan said that HUD would use the new LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND)
system, created by the CNU, the NRDC, and the U.S. Green Buildings
Council, to measure the transportation potential of grant proposals. LEED certification has become an increasingly popular method of tracking the environmental sustainability of new buildings, although skepticism about the range of energy consumption of buildings with the LEED imprimatur prompted some revisions to the format last year.

FTA chief Peter Rogoff addressing cyclists at this morning’s Bike to Work Day events. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The U.S. DOT sent several senior officials to this morning’s capital-area bike events,
using the day to finalize a new expansion of eligibility for federal
funding of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure connected to transit.

Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) chief Peter Rogoff, who suited up for a
morning ride into downtown D.C., told fellow cyclists that "the Obama
Administration will keep supporting cycle-friendly policies because
they help connect communities in ways that are beneficial to everyone
at very little cost," according to a statement released by the U.S. DOT.

First proposed in November,
the FTA’s new policy for boosting federal bike-ped spending sets radius
surrounding a transit station in which bike infrastructure projects
would be eligible for aid at three miles. Pedestrian projects within a
half-mile of transit stations would be eligible for federal assistance.
The previous regulatory radius was 1,500 feet, in most cases.

Meanwhile,
nine national cycling and pedestrian advocacy groups released a letter
in advance of Bike to Work Day seeking extra clean transport funding
from the new Senate climate bill. The groups studiously avoided the
critical tone that the transit industry and state DOTs used on Wednesday
to seek a greater share of the revenue from the climate measure;
nonetheless, the bike-ped backers urged sponsors Sens. John Kerry
(D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to lift their legislation’s limit on
transport spending.

The
letter’s signatories — including America Bikes and the League of
American Bicyclists — began by lauding Kerry and Lieberman for
requiring that any revenue from their bill’s proposed new fuel fees be
spent on emissions-cutting transport projects.

Noting that
infrastructure investments from the bill’s new fuel fees would operate
under a ceiling of slightly more than $6 billion per year, the groups
added:

While we appreciate that this level of funding is greater
than prior climate bills, it still limits the ability of states,
counties, cities and transit systems to invest in sustainable
transportation. The market needs a stronger signal regarding the
importance of shifting our transportation modes to low- and no-carbon alternatives.

The
bike-ped advocates proposed an increase in climate revenue set aside
for transportation that would be commensurate with the estimated U.S.
emissions generated by the movement of people and goods — about 30
percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In
a release previewing its joint press conference with AASHTO, scheduled
for this morning, APTA said the Senate bill’s use of new fuel fees
for purposes beyond infrastructure, such as paying down the federal
deficit, "would harm efforts to pass
a new surface transportation bill and would also greatly impair the
ability of
states, counties, cities and transit systems to reduce our dependence
on foreign
oil and reduce transportation-related emissions."

The umbrella group for America's state DOTs, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has started a major new push for, you guessed it, more highways. The new campaign argues for highway expansion in urban areas as if fifty years of similar policies hadn't led to a dead end of sprawl, pollution, and oil dependence.

As described in an important post on Mobilizing the Region by Ya-Ting Liu of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, AASHTO has released a series of reports and a new website making "the case for capacity." The website is filled with friendly explanations of "what's so great about an interstate" and promises that "urban interstates are the new 'Main Street.'" As unbelievable as those claims must be to anyone living next door to the Bruckner Expressway or parked in traffic on the Cross-Bronx, AASHTO's stated intention to massively expand the urban highway system is all too real.

AASHTO argues that because America's population growth over the following decades will be concentrated in urban areas, state DOTs need to help more and more city dwellers get around. Their prescription? 30,000 more lane-miles of urban interstate. That's an increase of more than 40 percent over the 85,000 urban lane-miles that already exist. AASHTO also wants to build another 40,000 lane-miles to the non-interstate federal highways in urban areas. If Robert Moses were alive today, he'd probably arrive at the same policy response.

As Liu writes at MTR, more highways are not the answer to America's urban transportation needs.

If all AASHTO's projected growth in VMT were matched with new road capacity, you'd have to add 9,641 square miles of new lanes: an area the size of Maryland. That's not even including the space needed for parking spaces or shoulders. And it doesn't account for induced demand: Before long, those new highway lanes will just attract new drivers, as momentarily less-congested roads lead more people to organize their lives around car commuting, canceling out any congestion benefits new road capacity might offer.

Keep in mind that those 9,641 square miles would be located in urban areas -- where transit expansion and smart growth are most feasible. AASHTO says it supports doubling transit ridership by 2030. But the status-quo funding solution they're advocating will continue to siphon federal dollars into infrastructure that enables sprawl, not transit and walkable development.

In addition, every dollar spent on road expansion comes at the expense of repairs. According to a new study by U.S. PIRG, 63 percent of major urban roadways were in less than good condition.

Streetsblog spoke to AASHTO director John Horsley about his group's new report, and he gave a somewhat more moderate argument for expanding highways. Stay tuned for details from the conversation.

Does the Senate climate bill include a user fee? That depends on how the term is defined. (Photo: Pop and Politics)

The
central complaint raised by mainstream transport players boils down to,
as American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) executive director John Horsley put it in a statement, the Senate bill’s "preemption" of user-fee revenue that historically has gone into the nation’s dwindling highway trust fund.

"Congress
can ill-afford to consider any legislation that" siphons off money from
the trust fund, which has required more than $30 billion in
replenishment from the general Treasury over the past 18 months,
Horsley said.

Stephen Sandherr, chief of the Associated General Contractors — a backer of the Senate effort
to bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating
greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of congressional action –
echoed that sentiment in his own statement on the upper-chamber climate proposal.

"[B]y taking funds raised through the proposal’s new transportation fees
and committing all but a small percentage to unrelated spending, the
legislation leaves our aging and inefficient roads, airways and transit
systems vastly underfunded," Sandherr said.

But
does the Senate climate bill impose a user fee on transportation fuel
consumers? The text of the measure specifically requires "each refined
[fuel] product provider" to purchase emissions permits from the EPA on
a quarterly basis at a fixed price, with no permit trading allowed.
Horsley’s depiction of those charges as a "user fee" relies on the
considerable likelihood that oil companies and refiners would pass on
the cost of those emissions permits to consumers in the form of higher
gas prices.

In the meantime, how much of the revenue raised by the bill’s new fuel permits would infrastructure receive?

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association estimated last week
that the Senate plan would raise $20 billion from the new charges on
oil producers and refiners, with about $6.25 billion of that divided
into equal parts — one-third for the highway trust fund, one-third for
competitive federal grants similar to the TIGER program, and one-third for local land use projects, in the style of the so-called "CLEAN TEA" proposal.