It's not just controversial development projects, but also clean transportation and open space projects that are endangered by shuttering of CRA. Above image from the South Figueroa Corridor Project via Streetsblog archives

While the politics and drama surrounding the state’s decision to do away with Community Redevelopment Agencies has been a top news story around the state, there has been less attention paid to what will happen to various projects of the agency.  For Streetsblog readers, concerns about the future of various open space, bicycle parking and even the ground breaking South Figueroa Corridor Project are at the top of the list.

The main reason for the relative quiet on this issue is the most obvious: despite a February 1 execution date for the CRA, nobody knows what’s going to happen to the agency.  Yesterday’s news that the city’s government accountability office reccomended that the city not absorb the agency only makes the issue less clear.  The ball still lies with the Mayor and City Council on whether the city will step up or whether a successor agency led by a city and county appointed Board of Directors will see to the remaining projects.

The California Planning and Development Report outlines what options exist for cities dealing with the loss of their CRA’s under new state law and recent court rulings.

“It’s not like there’s an instruction manual for this situation,” supplies David Bloom, a spokesman for the CRA.  ”This is a very complicated and messy situation.”

As for the thinking of the political leadership of the city, the silence has been deafening.  Most of Streetsblog’s sources at 200 Spring Street have either skipped commenting or offered some non-informative answers such as the LADOT spokesman who offered, “The Mayor and City Council will decide what will happen next.”

In its most recent Call for Projects, Metro funded roughly 700 bicycle parking spaces along Expo Rail and other Measure R projects.  The bicycle parking program outlined by the CRA included plans for facilities similar to Bike Station in Long Beach, Bike Stop in Burbank and the mammoth Bike Center in Santa Monica.  What is the future of these projects?  Three weeks away from the dissolution of the CRA, even Metro didn’t have an answer.

“Metro is currently assessing the implications of the legislation abolishing CRA in terms of funding committed in Metro’s call for projects,” writes Gayle Anderson with Metro Communications.  ”The facts of each contract will determine if they will qualify as an existing obligation and thus can be funded. In some cases it may be up to the sponsoring city to determine if it desires to continue with the project.”

For now, transportation reformers have to wait and see what happens next.  Within the next couple of days the City Council should decide whether or not Los Angeles is going to take a leadership role or stay away due to the agency’s other obligations and pending lawsuits.  If the Council steps back, it will be up to the county to create a “successor agency.”

Residential food deserts

Earlier this year, there was a battle over a Fresh and Easy because the urban design was not welcoming to pedestrians. Urban design v healthy food access.

When UEPI, CRA/LA and Esperanza Community Housing Corporation mapped and analyzed food retail and transit routes in South Los Angeles, we found that food stores and restaurants were fairly plentiful on commercial streets but that many stores didn’t sell healthy and fresh items. Important work is underway in Los Angeles and California to attract more grocery stores to low income areas (and hopefully require chains to reinvest in underserved communities)  , to convert corner stores to allow small stores to stock more fresh foods , and to fund new and improved food markets.

Front yard farmers markets

Sights such as this might be common place in L.A. soon. Photo: care2.

A somewhat surprising realization from our study was that in Los Angeles, the most difficult place to find food is actually in residential areas where zoning prevents retail, including food retail. How can we allow sales of healthy food near where people live? The City Council recently took a step towards healthy food retail in residential neighborhoods by instructing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to “allow farmers’ markets to be permitted anywhere in a residential zone”. I’m not sure if residents will be allowed to operate their own ‘front yard farmers markets’ by setting a farm stand to sell food grown in their yard (as is allowed in a number of cities, including Seattle and Cleveland), or if there will be procedural requirements to qualify as a farmers market. Either way, it will be exciting if small scale farmers market spread in yards, driveways and streets in residential areas.

Corner lot markets and restaurants

Another way to increase walkable sources of food is to change zoning rules to allow food stores and restaurants to operate on corner lots in residential districts. Some cities allow limited commercial uses in residential zones just on corner lots.  New Orleans Residential Diversity Overlay Zone is designed to “sustain the historic character of residential neighborhoods that contained a few shops serving the immediate neighborhood.”

Richmond, VA has a medium density zone to “permit corner commercial uses that are limited in location, type and scale and are intended to provide for the convenience of neighborhood residents within walking distance, to respect the primary residential character of the neighborhood and to avoid traffic, parking, noise and other impacts that typically result from uses that draw patrons from outside a neighborhood.”Permitted commercial uses include grocery stores, corner stores, restaurants, bakeries but these establishments may not host live entertainment. I hope that Los Angeles can allow food stores and restaurants on corner lots in residential areas to promote food access and walkability.

Parking, street and store designs

The Crenshaw Fresh and Easy was resisted by some community members because the parking lot was not behind the store as it is in some of the other Fresh and Easy's Photo:Fresh & Easy Buzz

Current City of Los Angeles parking regulations require 1 parking space per 100 square feet of a restaurant (1 per 200 sf for a small restaurant of 1000 sf or less) and 1 space per 250 square feet of a food retail store. These requirements are lowered to 1 space per 500 sf in a community redevelopment zone. Even this lower requirement mandates over a hundred parking spaces for a typical sized large super market, adding to the size of a required lot, the cost of development, and indirectly, to the price of food. The City should eliminate all minimum parking requirements in all zones, especially for food establishments.

There are also numerous changes to street and sidewalk design that can make it more safe and appealing for people to walk or bike to shop. We need more and better bike lanes, bike racks, crosswalks, and street lighting; and lower speed limits,  traffic calming measures, and fewer curb cuts for parking lots and drive-throughs. Owners of stores and commercial real estate (assisted or prodded by planners, architects, and regulators) can also design retail environments that are welcoming and health-promoting. Elements like café tables, entrances facing the sidewalk rather than a side or rear parking lot, produce displays next to the door, and glass walls can help food stores:

• Fit in urban areas
• Be accessible to shoppers arriving on food, bike and transit
• Feature healthy foods in their connection to the surroundings.

This concludes the series on transportation and food access. Thanks to Streetsblog Los Angeles for running it.  Hope everyone has a happy thanksgiving and that together we can work towards a society that ensures good food for all.

Rendering of the Greenway from the Bureau of Sanitation's Watershed Protection Division's Concept Document via Expo Greenway

I have to admit that when Jonathan Weiss first described his idea for a Westwood-Expo Botanical Water Garden (WEBWG) at the Westwood Station for the Expo Line, I thought it would never happen.  Three years later, it would be a major upset if some sort of Botanical Garden wasn’t built at the station site, as the concept has gained traction even with groups opposing the rail line itself.

Today and tomorrow, WEBWG faces a new audience, the Proposition O Oversight Committee.  In 2004, the voters of Los Angeles passed Prop. O, which authorized the City of Los Angeles to issue a series of general obligation bonds for up to $500 million for projects to protect public health by cleaning up pollution, in the City’s watercourses to meet Federal Clean Water Act requirements.   The committee has an agenda item entitled “Discussion and Possible Action: Westwood-Expo Botanical Garden.”

Ryan Thiha, an Environmental Engineering Associate with the city’s Watershed Protection Division is the project manager for WEBWG and explains the project.

“The (WEBWG) is located on City owned properties located along Exposition Light Rail and Westwood Station Stop between Overland and Westwood,” Thiha explains.  ”The project proposes to divert, treat, and use dry-weather flow from Overland by using bioremediation such as plants, soil, and UV exposure (natural treatment process). Project also proposes educational display boards, pedestrian walkways, and outdoor classroom area where local students can come and learn about the ecology and local hydrology. In
summary, it provides environmental, educational, recreational benefits to local community, students, and Light Rail passengers.”

While the WEBWG concept has political momentum, the “no-parking” concept for the Westwood Station of the Expo Line was approved in March and the city unveiled its concept for the WEBWG in May, the project is not full funded.  Funding support from Prop. O could be the difference between having a beautiful and environmentally friendly park and a station surrounded by weeds.

WEWBG has important environmental benefits in addition to the benefits to the station.  It is these benefits that could attract the support of the Prop. O Oversight Committee.

The water garden would divert dry‐weather flow from now-buried streams and run it up and down city owned land adjacent to the Expo right of way helping to clean Ballona Creek and Santa Monica Bay,” explains Weiss via email. “The revived stream would support a restored ecosystem and enhance pedestrian and bike paths lining the Expo transitway.  Through interpretive signs and labeled trees and plants, the Water Garden would also provide educational opportunities teaching visitors about ocean-friendly gardens and yards that conserve and clean water.”

For full agenda listings for today’s and tomorrow’s meetings, click here.

It's official. Southland residents are sick of sprawl and massive highway projects. Source: Key Findings from Recent Southern California Survey on Transportation and Land Use Planning

Even as Los Angeles embraces an expanded transit and bicycle program, the rest of Southern California is still pictured as a sprawling wasteland of highways and subdivisions.  However, that’s not what the people that live in the Southland want according to a new survey released by Move L.A., the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.  Instead, Southlanders want the kind of dense mixed use development and short commutes over McMansions and sprawlways.

The survey, completed by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, shows that voters in the six county region served by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) overwhelmingly support expanding and investing in transit over investing in highways.  Even when voters backed highway spending, there was more support for a “Fix It First” approach than funneling more money into mammoth road expansion projects.

“If Southern California voters were in charge of our transportation plans, the region would look very different,”Amanda Eaken, NRDC’s deputy director of sustainable communities, added. that “Voters understand what so many studies have told us: widening roads will not solve traffic congestion. Instead, designing communities that increase our mobility and freedom — helping us to get out of our cars — is what will ultimately solve the problem.”

The survey was released just days before SCAG is scheduled to vote on the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan this Thursday.  The SCAG Region encompasses six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial, 18 million people and 38,000 square miles.  Organizations such as the three who commissioned this report and the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership have lobbied SCAG officials and testified at public hearings helping to create a far more progressive transportation plan than SCAG has passed in the past.

Move L.A. has analyzed the plan and offers support for its passage:

While the plan is good and seemingly signals that a new era is dawning in Southern California — one which could result in more housing and transportation choices for residents — the question is whether SCAG’s Regional Council will endorse it

Even so, the citizens of the SCAG region are well ahead of their elected leaders when it comes to a progressive transportation vision.

Many of those 18 million people are tired of the long commutes, tired of the endless highway spending, and anxious for a new way of looking at transportation.  Survey respondents were asked to imagine they were in charge of their region’s transportation budget, and to allocate a hypothetical $100 budget across five spending categories. Their responses indicate they would like to see a significant majority of the region’s transportation dollars allocated to expanding and improving public transportation and providing more bike and pedestrian infrastructure. While voters would allocate about 25 percent of funding to repair and maintain existing roads and highways, they would allocate less than 20 percent of the budget to expanding roads and highways.

Let’s just say that while the SCAG plan is a significant improvement over the current plan.  The 2008 RTP calls for a $1.8 billion investment in bikeways over 30 years while the 2012 draft calls for $6 billion.  However, the 2012 plan is allocating less than half of the 14.1% for bicycle and pedestrian projects that residents would allocate left to their own devices.

“Voters prioritize expanding public transportation as the most effective means of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution,” said Denny Zane, executive director of Move LA. “The findings also show that voters would prefer living in communities that are walkable and mixed-use even if this means living in a smaller home.”

Streetsblog will have an update on the Regional Transportation Plan after its passage on Thursday.

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.

When two Streetsblog sponsors get together, the world is our oyster. For more on the meeting, read this first hand review at g4do-g4do

Earlier this year, when the designs for South Figueroa’s My Figueroa project were released, Josef Bray-Ali wasn’t happy.  While many advocates celebrated designs that would, if implemented, result in segregated bike paths, transit-only lanes, pedestrian plazas (at a minimum), Bray-Ali saw another major investment in the Downtown and area around L.A. Live. Meanwhile, the portion of Figueroa where he worked and that he loved remained a traffic sewer, with five lanes of concrete and curbside parking blighting the area.

Now, with the city considering bike improvements for North Figueroa, Bray-Ali sees an opportunity to bring My Figueroa to North Figueroa.  Last week, a group of thirty community activists gathered in the Flying Pigeon Bike Shop to create an organization to do just that.  At the Flying Pigeon blog, Bray-Ali notes that the event expanded beyond the usual suspects with local businesses sponsoring the meeting by donating the chairs, tables, food, and other supplies.

“The city sees North Figueroa as a cut through for people that don’t want to drive on the 110,” Bray-Ali explains.  ”As a result, cars cut through the neighborhood without stopping, businesses suffer and the middle-class moves farther away.”

In other words, this is about more than a bike lane.

Bray-Ali’s vision includes bike lanes for certain, but also a road diet, wider sidewalks, better street crossings, all of would feed into the business areas and the transit network that already exists.  The Gold Line stops a few blocks from Bray-Ali’s shop, but the traffic it generates to North Figueroa businesses is scant.

Patch talked to a few people who attended last week’s meeting, and found enthusiasm high.

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.

Obviously, Tijuana could use some help with their planning. For more images from Rojas' workshop, visit the Latino Urban Forum Flickr Page.

On August 5^th and 6^th I facilitated a high-energy, successful community visioning activity for Camino Verde, a colonia in Tijuana organized by Reacciona Tijuana. This project started as a collaboration between Giacomo Castagnola, architect/artist and myself as part of an urban planning art exhibition being organized in October for the Museum of Latin American Art.

I wanted Castagnola to experience the new method of community engagement for urban planning I developed. Castagnola, based in Tijuana has many colleagues working in the realm of art and social change.  He identified Gabriela Posada del Real as a partner and she identified the project area. The Tijuana colonias are an ideal venue to implement this hands on method of community engagement.

Del Real identified Camino Verde as the project site. She is currently working there with Luis Garzón an artist painting houses and fences. She also has a strong relationships with the women of this community. Camio Verde is an informal neighborhood or colonia in Tijuana that developed along a dry creek similar to LA’s Arroyo Seco.  This creek forms a valley. On both sides of the valley homes and small business have developed along the hillsides.  The roads and houses developed organically embracing the topography shaping a unique landscape.

In the middle of the informal development is the dry river bed which creates a strong sense of place in the community since it proves both physical and visual open space. The major road with buses run along it and commercial business have developed along it.  On the weekend a weekend swapmeet has developed on this road and river bed.

The creek has been channalized with concrete similar to the LA River.  Garbage and graffettii fill the concrete channel, however many children play in it because it provides the only centrally located, flat open space in the hilly landscape.

Tijuana city officials want to cover the concrete river bed and create a much needed park and open space.

Our process was two fold. It was to engage the community in the urban planning process and hear their ideas about the place they live.

Our workshop took place outside on a small concrete soccer field adjacent to the river bed. The women of the community set up tables, chairs and a tarp for shade that was attached to fences on either side.  Four tables were set up in a square with color consruction paper placed on it. The building materials were placed in the middle of the square to allow for easy access.

A participant explains her model.

Our first workshop took place on Friday afternoon. It started at 3:00 and ended around 6:00 p.m.  We had over forty participants ranging from six to seventy years. The first workshop’s goal was to have the community members develop and create their own ideal city or neighborhood. Participants were given the task to design their ideal place in twenty minutes based on their personal knowledge, experiences, and needs. This time allowed participants to self-reflect by investigating the environment. There were no maps, pictures, scale, and no wrong or right answers, only that everybody build a 3 dimensional model.  Using a medley of recycled, vibrant materials, and colored construction paper, participants used their hands and minds to to build their ideal space.

The Camino Verde youth scrambled around the table to find their materials. The thousands of colorful, tactile objects were like candy and triggered the youth emotional connections to the environment. The adults followed. By using non-represent objects people were forced to be creative. Green yarn becomes grass, blue poker chips become the ocean, and hair rollers become apartments or office buildings.

By using their hands to build participant are allowed to investigate their relationship with the built environment. They can freely move objects to discover relations between activities and create small vignettes of urban life. Participants gain the greatest satisfaction from this process because they were able to translate memories, visions, and ideas from their mind into a physical form. Participants have an epiphany because they learn what creates their ideal space.

When they completed the design challenge they had one minute to present their individual solutions to the group. We went from table to table with a speaker to head each idea created. Participants created very complicated models. Unlike talking where you say a statement the models allow participants to develop comprehesive ideas.  For the youth the excerise was about playing. They aproach their models as if they were playing a game so it was easy for them to engage and build while it was a bit more difficult for senior citizens.

After each one presented, each table was tasked to present create one city using all the best ideas from each individual.  They also had to name each city.

Day Two Camino Verde Interactive Model

On Saturday morning from 11:00 to 2:00 we held a second interactive model building activity. Catagnola and myself created a conceptual model of the Camino Verde. The model was a thought provoking, diorama of the community. The model was designed for the viewer to ponder, explore, and participate in creating a vision for the community’s future.

We arrived an hour before the activity began to built a eighteen foot long by thirty inch model of the community. The Camino Verde interactive model was designed by Castagnola and myself as conceptual representation of this place that captured its landscape and urban form. The model was constructed from cardboard and foam core, and glue with the help of volunteers.

Trying to plan when a river divides a community.

The dry river bed was in the center of the cardboard model.  This helped the residents idenify their community.  The goal for the model was the residents would be able to bring their ideas from the prevouse workshop and place it in Camino Verde.

The Camino Verde interactive model was placed adjacent to the dry river bed on the same spot we facilitated the workshops.  Again the women of the community set up tables, tents,  and a tarp for shade.

The model was seen by many people shopping at the street stalls.  This was the perfect venue for participants to explore the community’s urban landscape

The installation also created an intimate scale that balanced out the cavernous open space of the valley. This set the stage for participants to discover what creates the place in they live. The installation enacted the river bed like any great public space where there was room for active and passive participation. People created their worlds while others watched the phenomena.

The hundreds of small, vibrant materials helped the residents visualize there community. Participants observed the miniature vibrant landscape for a few minutes and than they began to read the model as a map. They would begin to orientate themselves on the model/map with the help of the river. Once participants understood the diorama they began to interact with it and rearranged the building and landscape pieces on the model.

From this point on the viewer becomes the participant and projects themselves into the model. By the participants projecting their memories by touching and moving the small buildings on the model they began to investigate various urban forms that creates Camino Verde. They develop, and sculpture their own ideas about its physical nature.

The installation was a transformative experience for the inhabitants of Camino Verde. They received the diorama with great enthusiasm.  People contemplated the model and milled around it. They smiled, laughed and spoke to strangers about urban planning issues.  They stayed any where from twenty minutes to a few hours.

Every one brought their personal baggage to the diorama. Young men took risked and built tall, precarious towers or water parks. Women were the most enthusiastic because many of them never have this opportunity to build and create cities.  Many women thought about home and what that means to them by examining forms, shapes and colors.

Participants walked away from the model with a sense of accomplishment, hope, and empowerment. As peopled played –they dabbled, moved a few things around, talked about how cool it would be if only…. and then they moved some more things, see something new take shape, begin to have real conversations about re-envisioning the cities (“Wouldn’t it be great if…”)…. and finally, they and walk away realizing how empowering it is to “play” with these movable pieces, how truly dynamic and plastic (in the sense of changeable/adaptable) cities are, and how much potential this kind of exercise has for truly reinventing our cities.

Not everyone at the conference got the memo that it wasn't about encouraging speed. Photo: Michael Cahn

The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is like a daughter of Caltrans. The mothership builds the roads, then Traffic Safety comes on the scene, addressing the safety deficits with education and enforcement efforts. The OTS conference, scheduled every other year, is a forum which unites local government, safety advocates, and a whole lot of police officers. MADD, Mothers against Drunk Driving, set the tone. The 2011 Leadership Seminar was held last week in San Diego. The agency offers a number of scholarships covering tuition, travel and accommodation. I attended the Bicycle and Pedestrian track, other tracks covered DUI, drug impairment, collision investigation, engineering and leadership.

The good news is that California fatality rates are low, the lowest since 1949. The bad news is that pedestrians and cyclists are greatly over-represented in these crashes. Simply put: Speed and distracted driving kills.

In California we call it Complete Streets, on the federal level it is called Sustainable Communities (DOT, FHWA, HUD, EPA), the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health have PLACE and RENEW programs: They all describe broad policy goals that have grown together over the last few years. Together they offer a new framework to work for more transportation choices, improved air quality and public health. Traditionally, traffic safety tries to compensate for the defects of an infrastructure that is designed for unsafe speeds. Historically, OTS moves into action after the roads are built and drivers have yielded to the temptations of overbuilt infrastructure and high performance machinery. Attempting to move away from this position of the latecomer, OTS is now spending time on educating planners on street designs where safety standards for vulnerable users are not an afterthought, but included from the outset. The attempt to educate engineers and advocates on new engineering standards for streets that serve all users is part of a broad wave of new handbooks and guidelines such as Smart Mobility Framework, Complete Streets Manual, Model Streets Manual etc. They all try to encroach upon the hegemony of Caltrans Highway Design Manual, which is no longer considered sufficient in accommodating non-motorized road users.

Of course, many obstacles to the implementation of such policies can not be overcome with design handbooks. To ease the way of these grand policies into local reality on the ground, events like this OTS training seminar serve to share best practice with local agencies, and to equip transportation advocates with the tools that allow them to make their case locally. Yes, the advocacy community has a firm place in the delivery of these broad policies. You may think you just wanted your kids to get to school safely on a bike, but before you realize it, you have become a important piece in this complex puzzle of ending the national dependency of  fossil fuels.

How?

If this seminar is anything to go by, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) mapping will become an important avenue to include community based groups in this larger policy shift. The geography of social inequities, the digital analysis of environmental injustice is the tool of choice. Geographical Information Systems and community organizing are coming together to form a powerful brew: For instance, healthycity.org displays a wide variety of social indicators. Likewise, the Transportation Injury Mapping System tims.berkeley.edu is set to become a remarkable tool for crash analysis displaying and selecting road collisions in a compelling manner that can inform and guide planners and elected officials towards the enlightened choices we need. Through these tool the memory and the structure of traffic injuries and fatalities translates into prime political capital. Some bicycle advocates have known this all along: Witness the series of highly publicized bike fatalities in New York City which eventually paved the way for Sadik-Khan. But other advocates are reluctant to exploit this gruesome capital – during my tenure on the board of the LACBC I encountered this resistance: Many organizations do not see the benefit of dwelling on “roadkill” and prefer to look away. It is not about a morbid fascination with fatalities: it is about utilizing them properly to advance improvements and changes in culture.

At least for the OTS there is no “looking the other way” when a fatality occurs. We were treated to elaborate marketing tool called Communication for Pedestrian Safety. Funded by CA Public Health, NHTSA et al, it offers a timely reminder, and an elaborate tool, for advocates to be ready for the press when the next fatality occurs on our roads. Who would want to waste a valuable advocacy and education opportunity? With the right preparation you can direct the attention of the media onto the factors which contributed to this crash, especially those which can be addressed with enforcement or changes to the street design. This can transform a tragedy into the natural stepping stone towards a better and safer transportation system.

Design Guides, mapping tools, crash marketing. The fourth leg of the OTS stool is the police.

Removing the bias of California car culture from the mental system of law enforcement is not going to be easy. It has been said that it takes 20 hours to change the mind of a police officer. Those who represent the law on our streets are right by default, making it difficult to address the latent prejudice against non-motorized transportation from the equation. The conversation between safety advocates and police officers is not simple. We often speak different languages. Yet we urgently need to have this conversation. Police forces can benefit from the collaboration with community based organizations because they can carry the message much further. At the same time, pedestrians and cyclists are desperate for better enforcement of distracted or impaired driving. A local example where this collaboration was successful occurred in San Diego where the SDPD launched an effective campaign together with community groups in the wake of series of fatalities involving young children.

Perhaps future installments of the OTS seminar could specifically and expressly invite engineering and enforcement staff from those cities which lead the annual OTS statistics of bike and ped crashes, and tailor the remedial training to the statistically determined deficits in those high ranking cities. Some car-centric police departments still perceive the dangers of “traffic” as a natural force against which they are powerless. Not only do they become deaf to the safety concerns of the community, they also become immune to the improvements this training can yield for their city.

Traffic safety is really simple: Speed and distraction kills. Look again, and it is really complex, requiring dialogue between agencies which speak different languages, have different skills, come from different planets, all competing for the same piece of real estate, the street.  The OTS does a sterling job trying to facilitate these conversations and collaborations. The methodical background for this is the Strategic Highway Safety Plan which includes an ongoing process of identifying challenge areas (16 so far) and develops strategies to address them. But then step back for the bigger picture: “The risk of being injured or killed in a traffic crash is disproportionately high for members of certain groups as defined by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and cultural practices.”(OTS) Acknowledged or not, such findings put transportation advocacy firmly in the context of social equity issues: It is poverty which kills.

Dr. Michael Cahn is the Secretary of Sustainable Streets (www.sustainablestreetsla.org)

But the survey is also rife with contradictions. It reveals, for instance, that Americans retain their affinity for certain characteristics found mainly in suburbia: more than anything, they prize privacy, and they overwhelmingly prefer single-family detached housing.

Wading through the survey, it can be difficult to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Respondents said community characteristics are more important than the size of the home, with 88 percent saying location mattered more than size. And walkability was one of the traits people seek the most, with 66 percent saying the ability to walk to places in their community is important. High-quality public schools, the Achilles’ heel of many big cities and a primary driver of families to the suburbs, are also highly sought after. Meanwhile, “easy access to the highway” ranks just under good schools on the list of people’s preferences. And 53 percent want to be “away from it all” (as opposed to 34 percent that want to be at the “center of it all”). Slightly more people want a big house than a diverse set of neighbors.

Only 19 percent of respondents said they wanted to live in cities, with another 28 percent wanting “a suburban neighborhood with a mix of houses, shops, and businesses.” That means more than half prefer rural living, traditional suburbs and small towns. Those numbers might show that more people want mixed-use places than the market currently provides, but they also suggest more ambiguity than the claims coming from NAR and some urbanist circles — that the survey is proof that smart growth is the new standard.

Another way to read the survey is to compare this year’s results to past ones and see what’s changing. But the trends don’t all point in the same direction. The 2011 survey shows a modest increase in support for some smart growth principles over 2004 — for example, five percent more people this year said their community needed more public transportation (51 percent in 2011 versus 46 percent in 2004) and four percent more wanted more walkable amenities. On the other hand, two percent fewer said their community needed more low-income housing and one percent fewer wanted more places to bike. The most dramatic change, however, was that in 2004 only 19 percent wanted more big-box stores in their communities, and now, 28 percent do.

Buried in the report is some good news for transportation reformers: When asked what was the best long-term solution for reducing traffic, 50 percent said better public transportation, 30 percent said higher-density communities, and just 18 percent advised building new roads.

But the single most pronounced preference is the desire for privacy. And for most respondents, that means big lots and detached homes. Nearly nine in ten respondents said privacy from their neighbors was “very” or “somewhat” important. Eight in ten want to live in single-family detached housing and six in ten would accept the trade-off of a longer commute. Paradoxically, however, six in ten also said they would trade some square footage for a commute time of 20 minutes or less. (And what does “privacy” entail, anyway? Would protection from peeping Toms suffice? Freedom from things like shared laundry rooms and neighbors’ footsteps on your ceiling — experiences intrinsic to multi-family dwellings? Or do they want to able to get in and out of their houses without seeing their neighbors at all?)

Walkability to schools, stores, and restaurants was voted nice but expendable: six in 10 would rather drive to those things if walking would mean smaller lots. Seems like there’s still a lot of indecisiveness about how much people care about private space versus time on the road.

One lesson you can safely draw from the survey is that a lot of Americans just want it all: A house all to themselves and a nice walk to local amenities, a short commute and a neighborhood away from the bustle of the city.

How private is private enough? Photo: ilovebutter#

In the real world, you have to make choices. Much attention has been given to the survey question that asked participants which community they preferred: one with only single family houses on large lots, no sidewalks or walkable amenities, copious parking, and inadequate transit; the other with a mix of housing options, sidewalks, walkable amenities, limited parking, and nearby transit. Despite (in my opinion) a pretty heavy bias toward the smart growth option in the framing of the question, 43 percent chose the sprawl option and 56 percent chose the smart growth option. Taken in the context of other questions in the survey, many of those who chose the smart growth option must be okay with different types of housing in the area as long as they are living in a single-family detached house with a yard.

That question instructed participants to “assume that the quality of the schools, crime rates, and cost of house are exactly the same in the two communities.” What would have happened to those results if the suburban-style community had lower crime rates, higher-ranked schools, and cheaper houses per square foot, as communities like that usually do?

Ultimately, the survey results are an imperfect barometer of preferences for types of housing and neighborhood layouts. The best data about the demand for walkable, urban places comes from the housing market, and recent trends in residential construction show that development patterns are shifting to meet demand for urban neighborhoods.

Can the NAR survey help inform policies to shape future development? Urban theorist Richard Florida saw in the results a new dichotomy: “The choice isn’t between urban and suburban,” he wrote, “but between neighborhood and subdivision.” Indeed, the city still loses against the suburbs, but if we differentiate between different ways of building suburban neighborhoods, we begin to tease out the subtleties. “Retrofitted” suburbs with somewhat greater density, more transportation choices and a mix of uses could be a path to satisfy Americans’ contradictory preferences.

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.

Photo Credit: Madness Rivera

Many opportunities and challenges await Los Angeles, an amazing city.  At the forefront of these issues is transportation planning, or more specifically a lack thereof.

SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protect Act, is a great opportunity to elicit and collaborate among the many voices working and supporting livable communities throughout California.

As Los Angeles steps up its investments in public transit and high-speed rail, it is critical that these bus stops, stations and the roads that get your there, are accessible to everyone irrespective to demographics. To achieve significant mode split change, better public health and so on, we need bold leadership and commitment, leadership that uses our transit systems, walks and bikes. Having people drive to catch a train or bus is not the goal.

Transportation planning has revolved around two trips a day – home to work and work to home.  People, especially mom’s, tend to make 4-5 trips a day.  With strategic and coordinated efforts to sync up transportation and land use investments – many of these trips could be done by walking and/or bicycling, frequently trips that are under 3 miles.

12% of all trips in Southern California are done walking and/or bicycling – the majority walking.  If we want to get mother’s, grandparents, and kids out walking and bicycling we will need better infrastructure (such as cycletracks, bike boulevards, wide landscaped sidewalks, outdoor seating at cafes, great public spaces and so on).  Most people are not comfortable riding their bike next to heavy traffic.

Walking and bicycling needs to become a part of everyone’s lifestyle, not just the brave or hardcore but by regular people of all ages and abilities.  These trips could be fun and a way to bring physical activity back into our daily lives.

Los Angeles needs livable inclusive streets, multi-modal planning and leadership to move these concepts forward.  We need these issues to be addressed as legitimate concerns on the trips to City Halls, Sacramento, and Washington DC.

Now is a time to celebrate leadership, visionaries and the countless other people working to champion our community public spaces. The co-benefits that can be seen with walkable and bikable communities are tremendous and need to be planned with consideration of all.

We need more leaders from all sorts of backgrounds to champion’s livable streets efforts.   Adonia Lugo, a PhD Candidate studying Bicycling in Los Angeles, states it succinctly, “LA actually has a remarkably diverse network of people striving to improve conditions for cyclists.”

I’d like to celebrate all the people in our communities, colleges and universities, public agencies, non-profits, in their free time – that are working on these issues, some behind the scenes and some out in front.   To me, right now, there seems to be great collaboration happening among many groups, with potential for more.  All of those who worked hard to leverage dedicated funding from Measure R at the City of LA to support pedestrian and bicycle investments – thank you.  Now with a soon to be adopted Bike plan (that had tremendous collaboration) and potential for great pedestrian and walkablity investments, and 3 scheduled cicLAvia’s for 2011 – there is much reason to see there is indeed progress.

I’d like to say thank you to everyone who is out there contributing to this movement.  Come out and share your story, your  perspective and needs and thoughts – write a column for Streetsblog, send in a idea for a story, be a part of a movement striving to be inclusive with a common goal in mind – a even better Los Angeles.

The South Figueroa Corridor Plan proposes changes for more than just Figueroa Street.

A standing room only audience descended on the Fashion Institute of Design on South Grand Street to listen to a presentation from the embattled Community Redevelopment Agency for a ground breaking and popular proposal to transform the South Figueroa Corridor.  When people discuss Los Angeles’ streets, they usually use terms such as “car-oriented” or “ugly.”  The new South Figueroa, aka My Figueroa, would be a truly beautiful street designed for people to walk, bike wait for transit or just enjoy life outside as well as a way to shuffle cars from one area to another.

The South Figueroa Corridor Project covers three miles of South Figueroa from 41st Street to Seventh Street as well as a half mile of 11st Street between Figueroa and Broadway, a half mile of Martin Luther King (MLK) Boulevard just south of Exposition Park, and a half mile of Bill Robertson Boulevard from into Exposition Park starting at MLK Boulevard.  While there are different proposals being studied for each part of the corridor, Oliver Schultze, from the world-renowned Gehl Architects in Copenhagen, promised that every part of the corridor would see some sort of improvement.

Good.

The project team offered three proposals for different sections of Figueroa, a “good,” “better,” and “best” options.  Whether a segment qualifies for good, better, or best depends on the amount of funding available and the current level of street life in the segment.  The good option consisted of an eight foot separated bike lane traveling the length of the corridor in each direction, an eighteen inch separator, car parking and bus bump outs, and a transit only lane for buses and streetcars.  In addition to creating a safe place for cyclists, removing them from car traffic and the sidewalk, it also created a 22 foot buffer between the sidewalk and the first regular vehicle travel lane.

As Joe Linton noted from the audience, “I love that protected bike lanes are the base proposal.”  Figueroa street would be the first street in Los Angeles to feature protected bike lanes.  In fact, no city in Los Angeles County has these special bike lanes, although Long Beach is adding some as we speak.

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.”

Sara Daleiden gives direction at L.A. Live at Being Pedestrian last Saturday. Photo: Fred Camino/Flickr. Fred will have his own review of Saturday's event at The Source later today.

I also re-learned how to be a pedestrian by simply completing some warm up exercises for feet, hands, eyes and body.  The group learned walking etiquette such as passing oncoming pedestrians, crossing streets, and examining buildings.

As a transportation planner, I know we sometimes fail to discuss the experience of mobility. Mobility is always a number, time, destination, or formula. Yet mobility is a physical experience that we see, hear, tour and even feel.

This human experience is too often lacking in transportation planning today. That must be why it can be an unfulfilling experience.

Being Pedestrian taught us how our body experiences mobility as a physical action.

By walking backwards on a familiar street my world was turned upside down.  With the help of a partner who guided me through this process, every step became a conscientious movement. It felt like walking into oblivion as small cracks became big cracks and the slightest grade changes were jarring.

Muscles in my feet and calves I never feel were suddenly awoken.  What was front was back. It was like sitting on the bus facing back only I was walking.

Then, like children, we were taught how to cross the street by looking both ways, which I do not do every time I step into traffic with the signal. And like child’s play we tasked to match our feet to the stamped brick pattern on the crosswalk only to find out the time allotted for pedestrian crossing is woefully inadequate.

Shoulder to shoulder we took on the intersection of Figueroa and Olympic.  In unison we were to cross Figueroa on the wide crosswalk.  As the line of fifteen people crossed to the other side of street we discover the sidewalk was a fifth of the width of the crosswalk and could not accommodate all of use in a line.

Next we learned how to examine the height of a building from looking at it straight on. Our eyes traveled in a straight line from our feet up the wall eleven floors.

With a friendly hand salute to cars first left and than right we learned how cross street as friendly yet noticeable pedestrians.

After the invigorating walk we regrouped in the park for refreshments and a post-walk mapping and discussion exercise to share our pedestrian experiences.

Personally, I felt as if I had just completed a ballet on the streets and sidewalks of South Park. I become aware of my body as physical being embracing the space by using my senses rather than a predetermined set of movements that takes into account only the familiar.

A future San Jose Diridon Station with high-speed rail. Image: CHSRA

Editor’s note: Starting last week, and continuing through this one, we’re presenting a 5-part series of excerpts from Peter Calthorpe’s book, “Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change.” This is installment number two. Thanks to Island Press, a few lucky Streetsblog readers will be selected to receive a free copy of the book. To enter the contest, fill out this form.

California’s effort to implement its new greenhouse gas reduction laws has provided a comprehensive look at urbanism and its potential in relation to a range of conservation and clean energy policies. The Vision California study, developed for the California High Speed Rail Authority and the California Strategic Growth Council, measured the results of several statewide land use futures coupled with conservation policies through the year 2050.⁵ The results make concrete the choices before us, the feedback loops, and the scale of both benefits and costs.

California is projected to grow by 7 million new households and 20 million people, to a population of nearly 60 million, by 2050.⁶ It is currently the eighth-largest economy in the world and therefore provides an important model of what is possible. The study compared a “Trend” future dominated by the state’s now typical low-density suburban growth and conservative conservation policies to a “Green Urban” alternative. This Green Urban alternative assumed that 35 percent of growth would be urban infill; 55 percent would be formed from a more compact, mixed-use, and walkable form of suburban expansion; and only 10 percent would be standard low-density development. In addition, the Green Urban alternative would push the auto fleet to an average 55 miles per gallon (MPG), its fuel would contain one third less carbon, and all new buildings would be 80 percent more efficient than today’s norm. It does not represent a green utopia, but it is heading in that direction. The results of this comparison highlight just how much is at stake and what the costs will be.

Remarkably, the quantity of land needed to accommodate the next two generations was reduced 67 percent by the Green Urban scenario, from more than 5,600 square miles in the Trend future to only 1,850 square miles. By comparison, the state’s current developed area is 5,300 square miles.⁷ This difference would save vast areas (up to 900 square miles) of farmland in the Central Valley along with key open space and habitat in the coastal regions of the state. The more compact future means smaller yards to irrigate and fewer parking lots to landscape, saving an average of 3.4 million acre-feet of water per year—enough to fill the San Francisco Bay annually or to irrigate 5 million acres of farmland.⁸ Less developed land also translates to fewer miles of infrastructure to build and maintain. The annual savings would be around $194 billion for the state, or $24,300 for each new household—not including the costs of ongoing maintenance. In addition, the Trend future would cost more in police and fire services as coverage areas increase.

If we are to arrest climate change at about 2° Celsius, developed countries must reduce carbon 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Meanwhile, in the U.S. alone, population is projected to increase 140 million by 2050. That means that by 2050, per capita emissions must be reduced to just 2.7 metric tons per capita. To achieve this each person in 2050 must on average emit only 12 percent of their current rate. Image © Peter Calthorpe & Marianna Leuschel

Surprisingly, such a future would not dramatically change the range of housing choices available in the state. In fact, some would argue that the outcome would be more market responsive, providing a long overdue adjustment of housing types and prices. Specifically, while large single-family lots would decline from 40 percent of the total today to 30 percent in 2050, small-lot homes and bungalows would increase slightly and townhomes would double to 15 percent. Multifamily flats, condos, and apartments would actually end up the same, at around a third of the market. Overall, detached single-family homes would drop from 62 percent of all homes today to just over half. Many would conclude that this would be a reasonable shift, one ultimately making the housing stock more diverse and affordable—not, as some would argue, the end of the American dream.

In the Green Urban future, auto dependence drops dramatically—in fact, average vehicle miles traveled throughout the state would be reduced 34 percent, to 18,000 miles per household, from a Trend projection of 27,200. Closer destinations, better transit service, and more walkable neighborhoods all contribute to this significant shift. We would all still have cars, but they would be more efficient and we would use them less. The implication of this reduction in auto use is far-reaching. In terms of congestion, it is the equivalent of taking over 15 million cars off the road.⁹ There would be fewer roads and parking lots built, less land covered with impervious surface, and less runoff water to be cleaned and stored. The list of collateral benefits is long. In fact, the need for new freeways, highways, and arterials is reduced by 23,000 lane-miles, a saving of around $450 billion for the state.

Less driving means fewer accidents, in this scenario potentially saving around 3,100 lives and $5 billion in associated costs per year.¹⁰ Less driving means less air pollution and less respiratory disease.¹¹ More walking means healthier bodies and less obesity, affecting diabetes rates and all of its associated health costs.¹²

Most significantly, the Green Urban scenario reduces carbon emissions and comes very close to achieving the 12% Solution in the transportation sector of the economy. When the savings in vehicle miles traveled are combined with low-carbon/high-MPG cars, emissions for transportation drop from more than 260 million metric tons (MMT) to just 29. Moreover, we would consume 352 billion fewer gallons of fuel over the next forty years, for a saving of over $2.1 trillion. These numbers are almost too big to imagine, but by way of comparison, the proposed high-speed rail system running from San Diego to San Francisco is projected to cost $42 billion, less than one-fifth the value of the potential annual gas savings. Put simply, at a projected $8 per gallon in 2050, these gas savings represent around $6,100 in savings per household.

There is more. The efficient and compact buildings of urban development use less energy, produce fewer greenhouse gases, and cost less to operate. The carbon reduction in the building sector is projected to be over 62 percent less, not enough to achieve its share of the 12% Solution but a significant and necessary step. In total, the average household in the Green Urban future would save around $1,000 a year in utility payments. When this figure is combined with reduced auto ownership, maintenance, insurance, and gas costs, California households would save close to $11,000 a year in current dollars. With an interest rate of 5 percent in 2050, this could pay a mortgage of $200,000.

What is not to like in such a Green Urban future? For some, exactly the thing that makes most of these savings possible: a more urban life.

From Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change, Chapter 1, by Peter Calthorpe. Copyright @ 2011 Peter Calthorpe. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Notes:

5. Information about the assumptions, methodology, and results of the Vision California study and modeling tools can be found here.
6. California Department of Finance, “Population Projections by Race,” State of California. (accessed February 12, 2010).
7. Natural Resources Conservation Service, “National Resources Inventory 2003 Annual NRI,” U.S. Department of Agriculture. (accessed February 12, 2010).
8. San Francisco Bay estimate based on William Emerson Ritter and Charles Atwood Kofoid, eds., University of California Publications in Zoology, vol. 14 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1918), 22; agricultural data from Economic Research Service, “Western Irrigated Agriculture,” U.S. Department of Agriculture. (accessed April 1, 2010).
9. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, “Table 5-3: Highway Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT),” Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (accessed February 12, 2010).
10. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “National Transportation Statistics 2009” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009), table 2-1. The fatality rate per mile traveled is assumed to hold consistent from 2009 until 2050. Hospital costs data from National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, “The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002), 60.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “National Air Quality: Status and Trends through 2007” (Research Triangle Park, NC: EPA, 2008).
12. David R. Bassett Jr. et al., “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and Australia,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 5 (2008): 795–814.

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.

In a letter to friends and supporters posted on the Latino Urban Forum (LUF) listserve, one of Metro's most progressive planners, James Rojas, announced that he will be leaving the transit agency to create an urban planning high school in East L.A. Rojas may be best known to Streetsblog readers for his "interactive planning models" that have traveled around the world from Site L.A. to the United Nations' World Urban Forum in Brazil.  Ironically, Rojas announced his departure the same day I received a press advisory that Metro will feature one of his interactive models as the show piece of their "Dump the Pump Day" media conference tomorrow.

Rojas has been at Metro for twelve years and leaves with an upbeat attitude for the future. In the letter announcing his departure, he writes:

In 1997 when I arrived back to LA from after working 3 years in Eastern Europe on sustainable transportation, I had many ideas on how to change LA. With all your help I believe we are on the right track.

Through these various activities I have worked with some of the city's leading grassroots organization and visionaries who are changing the region's transportation, open space, cultural planning, art, and much more. The past decade has been an exciting time to be in LA and watch it change!

Streetsblog wishes Rojas the best with his future projects.  We're certain to be seeing him again, whether it be in the classroom, behind a model or through is work with the LUF.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) (Photo: The Washington Note)

The Livable Communities Act would provide
about $4 billion in competitive grants to coordinate housing,
transportation, and economic development policy with an eye toward
promoting sustainable development. About $400 million would be slated
for planning with the remainder funding implementation. The bill would
also create a new office within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development to guide and administer the programs. If passed, it would
strengthen the Obama administration’s multi-agency Sustainable Communities Initiative. 

At
today’s committee hearing representatives of the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association
of Development Organizations, and the National Association of Regional
Councils each strongly endorsed the goals of the bill. 

Witnesses
drew on professional experience — from trying to revitalize barren
neighborhoods in Indianapolis to managing the growth of a rural
Maryland county — to explain how federal policy could spur better
development where they live. The Hartford region, for example, is
investing in a new bus rapid transit line, said Lyle Wray, the
executive director for the region’s Council of Governments, but they
haven’t been able to tie the transit project to broader goals. "Linking
that opportunity to affordable housing, jobs, and sustainability is
what the Livable Communities Act would allow us to do," he said.

Describing
the bill today, Dodd stressed that integrated transportation and land
use planning can help address a host of challenges: high foreclosure
rates, climate change and oil dependency, deteriorating infrastructure,
traffic congestion, and the loss of farmland. Those problems, Dodd
argued, aren’t urban or rural. "One community can use the grants to
develop brownfields in a post-industrial area," he said, and "another
might create a livable town center or main street." 

Even so, Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), expressed doubt about whether his rural state would benefit under Dodd’s legislation.

After
acknowledging that sprawl is a problem, lamenting that in Montana
housing has replaced some of the best farmland, Tester pressed the
witness panel to explain how the Livable Communities Act would work for
a town like his, with only 700 people. The two representatives of rural
areas on the panel each suggested some sort of funding set-aside for
rural communities, an idea which seemed to intrigue Tester.

Two
other senators spoke who are not already sponsors of the bill. Sherrod
Brown (D-OH) primarily discussed his own legislation specifically
tailored to shrinking industrial cities, of which there are many in
Ohio, but seemed supportive of Dodd’s legislation. Mark Warner (D-VA)
told the committee that he supports the goals of the Livable
Communities Act, but would like to make sure that the bill is
rigorously defined. "Is it just squishy livability?" he asked. "Is
there a way that we can define this with metrics?" Witnesses assured
him that results like the volume of reduced greenhouse gases, acres of
preserved open space, and rises in property values can be measured.

No Republican Senators attended the meeting.