Tom LaBonge checks out info graphics on the Ideas LA/2B outreach plan for the 2014 Mobility Plan

This Saturday marks the first two of four of the introductory public meetings for the City of Los Angeles Mobility plan, set to be completed in 2014.  Maybe they learned something from the disastrous early outreach meetings for the Bike Plan in 2008, because this time enthusiasm is higher for the plan.

Much of that enthusiasm can be traced to the Ideas LA/2B website designed to solicit real two-way communication between residents and the people working on the plan.  The new mobility plan is a joint effort of City Planning and LADOT.  The Ideas LA/2B website is filled with dozens of conversations taking place between users, most of which are debating the value of progressive transportation changes such as embracing cutting edge bicycle planning or a standard street design that is more “complete streets” than “surface highway.”

But before city staff could take their message off the Internet and in front of the public, they had to stop by the City Council Transportation Committee.  While the Plan’s goal is to create a series of standards and projects to improve urban mobility, it was local concerns that dominated the discussion.

Jane Choi, one of the urban planners with City Planning, led the discussion.  ”Just as an outdated land use plan reflects outdated values, a new mobility plan needs to have a new vision for the city,” Choi said at the start of her presentation.  She repeatedly returned to the idea that this plan would create a “complete streets network” for Los Angeles by creating a series of street standards and streetscape manuals that would guide slow retrofit of the city.

Most excitingly, Choi said the plan would be based on new performance measures for L.A.’s streets, standards that decide whether a street is working based on the number of people, not cars, that are moved.

This weekend’s meetings are meant to balance the initial public outreach.  The Ideas LA/2B website has brought in a younger crowd than is usual in a typical mobility update.  Over half of all respondents are under 40.  Now, the four outreach meetings are designed to bring comments from a “traditional” crowd.

However, the outreach efforts weren’t enough for some City Councilmen.  After Councilman Bill Rosendahl asked for help promoting the LA/2B website through his social media outlet, Councilman Paul Koretz wondered whether or not there had been enough outreach to City Council staff.  Koretz, for example, was unaware that the outreach was going on and used the plan as an example of poor public outreach.

This five foot tall poster board urging people to be involved in the Mobility Plan is located between the elevators and the City Council Chambers.

Councilman Bernard Parks was also worried about the outreach for the project noting that there were no meetings scheduled south of Wilshire Boulevard.  Given that large portions of South L.A. also have low rates of Internet access, the Councilman argues that South L.A. needs it’s own hearing.

But the most resistance to the plan came from Councilman Tom LaBonge, who didn’t want to see any changes to the streets in the 4th District until there was an agressive outreach plan.  That the Movility Element won’t be completed until 2014 was lost from the discussion.“I don’t want to change anything in the 4^th District until we go private,” the Councilman offered. “I’m excited about new thinking, but I don’t want you to change anything in our district until we’ve looked at it from the big picture.”

From there, the Councilman returned to old themes, such as the need to preserve free flowing car traffic.  “I want to preserve the grid system.  7^th Street is fine, but I see what you’ve done to Spring Street.  Down at first street there’s a choke point, and we should be looking to remove choke points.”

But so far, comment on the website is trending away from multi-lane roads with fast moving car traffic towards streets designed to accommodate all road users safely.

“We heard a lot of support for new ideas that haven’t been implemented in our city yet, but are popular in other cities,” Chan added.

LA/2B will be holding outreach meetings on Saturday in Van Nuys and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.    Get the details for this weekend, and next weekend’s meetings, here.

(Video by Rob Adams. The whole project was made possible thanks to a generous grant from the David Bohnett Foundation.)

I have to admit, when City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl’s office first approached us about the Councilman taking a bike safety class, my first thought was “this will be hilarious.”  Despite being a strong supporter of cyclists rights at the City Council, Rosendahl would often declare that he hadn’t ridden a bike in over 30 years.  I pictured wobbling, and a lot of it

Well guess what?  His muscle memory is pretty strong.  The sixty-six year old Councilman hopped on my spare bike (yes, that’s my beach cruiser with the squeaky frog) and after about 30 seconds completely found his balance.  After an hour and a half of safe cycling instruction from Don Ward and Meghan Kavanagh, we took a ride from a Westside Church to the Councilman’s house on a mix of local roads, Barrington Avenue and Venice Boulevard.

As you can see, the Councilman even got to experience getting buzzed and shouted at by an irate van driver.  Welcome to the streets!  However, Rosendahl had a great time, shouting out to constituents as he pedaled through the Westside that “I’m learning to ride a bike!”  As we rounded the last corner on our route, I even heard two of my neighbors talking on the porch and one of them saying, “I didn’t know he could ride a bike…”

The good vibes from the Councilman’s ride must be spreading.  One week later, fellow Transportation Committee member Councilman Paul Koretz went on a ride for the first time in fifteen years during Carmageddon.

For the record, the cameo by Los Angeles’ Mayor Villaraigosa, who was injured in a bike crash nearly one year ago, wasn’t planned by either his office or us.  The Mayor was visiting a mutual friend who’s staying with the Councilman.

With his anti-harassment ordinance passed, Bill Rosendahl rides into the sunset. Photo: Tony Arranage

The City of Los Angeles actually taking the lead by passing laws before any other government body, protecting cyclists rights?  Unthinkable in 2008.  Unanimously passed in 2011.  ”If L.A can do it, every city in the country can do it,” Council President Eric Garcetti commented.

Fresh off completing a League of American Cyclists bike safety class, Rosendahl kicked off debate by explaining the need for the ordinance.  ”It creates a private course of action for cyclists who are harassed to pursue a civil course of action,” he explained, “This ordinance certainly is not a cure, but it is a crucial step in returning our streets to all users, and not just automobiles.”

The path to create the ordinance was a long one.  While the bill was introduced late in 2009, Rosendahl remembered that one of his first actions as Transportation Committee Chair was to hold a town hall meeting between cyclists and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck where cyclists complained about their near-universal bad treatment from the LAPD.  While the LAPD has made its own efforts in recent years, Rosendahl’s office worked on creating a 3-Foot Passing Law (now being considered at the state level) and now an anti-harassment ordinance.

Speaking in favor of the motion were representatives of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, the City’s Bike Advisory Committee and just regular cyclists who told their sometimes harrowing stories.

“Over twenty years cycling in this city, I can think of countless times I’ve been harassed,” began the LACBC’s JJ Hoffman, “I once had a superior at work who would everyday see me ride my bike.  She thought it was real funny to come up behind me in her Mercedes and honk on her horn really loudly and scare me.  She just thought it was funny.”

“I don’t have a steel metal box around me to protect me if something is thrown my way,” continued Ross Hirsch, the cycling attorney who worked with Rosendahl’s staff on this ordinance, “A pothole is all it takes.  A little bit of gravel is all it takes.  When I have a water bottle thrown at me to go down.  God forbid, if I fall in traffic, there it goes.  I need to get home safely for these guys.”  Hirsch gestured at his two sons, who flanked him at the podium.

It seemed every cyclist had a different story.  Ingrid Peterson talked about getting slapped by someone leaning out a car window.  Allison Mannos, also with LACBC, talked about not being able to get the LAPD’s attention after being harassed on the street.  Ted Rogers talked about a time a driver used her car as a weapon to attack him, and the LAPD wrote it up as “an accident” and was thus unable to get payment for his medical bills.  Even Councilman Paul Koretz talked about getting buzzed by fast passing traffic during his first bike ride in fifteen years last weekend.

Councilman Ed Reyes didn’t share any horror stories, but the anxiety he has when his children, mostly teenagers, take a trip on their bikes.Councilman Tony Cardenas echoed Reyes sentiment when he admitted he’s scared to let his children ride their bikes outside of the cul-de-sac on which he lives.

The rhetoric over the ordinance sometimes got confusing.  Rosendahl liked to say that “It’s about time cyclists have rights.”  While it’s a catchy sound bite, of course cyclists have always “had rights.”  The purpose of the ordinance was to give cyclists more protections and avenues to defend those rights in court.   Opponents of the ordinance, who were nowhere to be seen yesterday, complained that the ordinance created “special rights” for cyclists, even though it clearly didn’t.

“This is a historic moment for us,” Rosendahl ended, noting that this is the first law of its kind in the country.

The ordinance moves to the Mayor’s office for his signature.  Villaraigosa has previously stated support for the concept of an anti-harassment ordinance.

(Note: The Bicyclist Anti-Harassment Ordinance will be heard, and hopefully voted on, by the Los Angeles City Council tomorrow.  I will be on an airplane, but follow the LACBC’s Twitter Feed for news.  We’ll have coverage of some sort on Thursday. If you don’t know what we’re talking about, click here.)

First, the LADOT Bike Blog created a Facebook page for cyclists to tell their stories of being harassed on city streets.  Now, Councilman Bill Rosendahl, the Councilman who authored and pushed for an anti-harassment ordinance for the City of Los Angeles, is using YouTube to encourage cyclists to tell their story.

The idea is simple.  Assuming that Los Angeles passes the anti-harassment legislation tomorrow, other cities and states might choose to follow suit.  Los Angeles would be the first government body in the country to create a course of action in civil courts for cyclists harassed or endangered by scofflaw, dangerous, or just unruly drivers.  To help make the case to government bodies around the country, Rosendahl has started posting YouTube videos of cyclists talking about their experience on the road.  He’s encouraging cyclists to upload their own videos telling their own stories.  To get the ball rolling, Rosendahl’s office is hosting a video featuring the LACBC’s Carol Feucht with more on the way, including another by Biking In L.A.’s Ted Rogers.

Think the “It Gets Better” campaign, but for bikes.

Chris Kidd, who has been pushing the ordinance agressively on the LADOT Bike Blog, also weighs in on how cyclists telling their own story can be powerful.  ”In the abstract, in print, and online, it’s very easy for people to dehumanize and trivialize the harassment suffered by Angelinos who ride their bikes on our City’s streets. Too often, the caricature of a spandexed “cyclist”, a snobby hipster, or a scofflaw youth is cited as some sort of justification to harass people on the roads.”  Kidd writes,  ”We wanted to share peoples’ stories of harassment on Youtube to emphasize the humanity of those who ride bikes; we’re just like everyone else, and are deserving of the same rights and courtesy.  In making personal experiences with harassment more “real” through video testimonial, it also becomes that much harder for people not familiar with what bicyclists go through to write off harassment as infrequent or ‘not that bad’.”

Photo: See El Photo/Flickr/

With the Mayor’s proposal to lease out the maintenance, revenue collection, and profits of the city garages killed by the City Council earlier this year, the city has begun to move forward with other plans to maximize the revenue and efficiency of the city’s publicly owned parking spaces and lots.

On Monday, the City Council held a joint hearing of its Transportation and Budget & Finance Committee to discuss how to move forward with a parking plan that will help the city close its budget deficit and manage and maintain its parking facilities.  The Mayor’s office confirmed to Streetsblog that at this time there are no plans to move forward with any more leasing or privatization plans, although the city is looking to renew its contract with the current operators for its public parking structures.

Councilman Tom LaBonge made the case that parking and congestion are the most important issues that the Council deals with:

“How many people have been effected by crime in the last year?  I see two hands.  How many have been impacted by traffic and parking in the last 24 hours?  Everyone is raising their hands.”

The LADOT released its plans for future improvements to the city’s parking infrastructure in a annually updated five-year plan at the committee.   The press focused on a plan to continue to double the number of  “smart meters” which accept credit cards and can handle higher parking fees from 10,000 to 20,000 in the next year.  The city estimates that it will yield an additional $9 million in revenue in addition to the $50 million brought in last year.

All revenue generated by the city’s parking program is put into maintenance and expansion of facilities and then what’s left is transferred to the general fund.  One of the basic tenants of UCLA economics professor (and parking rock star) Donald Shoup is that funds generated by parking meters and garages should be reinvested in the communities where the parking is located.  While the city hasn’t seriously discussed following this model, at least one Councilman expressed some interest.  The Daily News quotes Westside Councilman Bill Rosendahl:

“My question is how can we get more revenue out of these parking meters,” Councilman Bill Rosendahl said. “And, if we do, we should make sure the areas where it is generated also benefits from parking.”

The city also wishes to expand its ExpressPark program, a pilot program in congestion parking for the Downtown which uses variable meter technology to set parking meter prices based on demand.  In a very Shoupian dynamic, the meter rates are supposed to insure that there will almost always be an open space for people looking to park at the street level and maximize revenue at the same time.  The cost to implement this program was $18.5 million, with $15 million coming from the federal government.

We should note that under ExpressPark, it is not uncommon for meter rates to be set at below what the rate was before the “congestion parking” went into effect.  Donald Shoup, whose theories and studies on parking policy have been the basis for ExpressPark and other programs, has documented plenty of places in Los Angeles where street parking is priced too high and motorists choose to park in neighborhoods instead.  Under a city-wide ExpressPark system, the cost of these meters would be reduced.

At this point, LADOT is not reccomending, and there was little enthusiasm from the Council Members present, to expand the program beyond the Downtown.  Throughout the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the city will monitor the success and challenges of the program Downtown.  If the program is deemed successful, DOT will proposeto expand the program, including the development of a Central Management System so the city can manage a larger, city-wide, system on its own.

Other issues that were addressed included the need to hire more people to maintain monitor the parking areas, as city staff estimate that each person in charge of enforcing parking laws actually provides a net revenue increase to the city and adding 1,500 new meters to loading zones and other areas identified in studies and also have community support.  Staff mentioned the area surrounding Cal-State Northridge, in the 12th Council-manic District represented by Greig Smith.

Photo:Bike Ridr

So what does the ordinance do?  Under current law, the only way a cyclist can recoup health-care and other costs after a crash with an automobile is to win a case in criminal court, which is nigh impossible unless either the LAPD or a group of independents witness the crash.  This ordinance lowers the burden of proof by allowing cyclists to sue in civil court which only requires that the cyclist prove the driver caused the crash.  To earn a criminal conviction, the only option under current law, the City Attorney or District Attorney has to prove not only the cause of the crash but also either intent, negligence or impairment on the part of the driver.

When the outline for this ordinance was released, Councilman Greig Smith grumped that it was “unenforceable.” However, the whole point of the law change is to make laws that exist actionable by providing a less stringent level of proof to win a case.  Cycling attorneys agree.  Howard Krepack noted that the law would be especially useful if it allowed for recovering of legal fees (it does.)  In other words, cyclists wouldn’t be on the hook for legal fees if they can make their case in court, which will attract more attorneys to bicycle law.

The new ordinance would also outlaw harassment of cyclists by vehicle drivers or causing a crash without actually touching the cyclist.  Remember that driver that wouldn’t yield and forced you in to the gutter where your tire got caught and you were forced off your bike?  That driver broke an existing law, but good luck having that case even get to court.  Under this ordinance, that driver’s actions would be actionable in civil court, and you can bring the case yourself.

However, the ordinance could use a boost in the public relations front because the media, and thus the general public, don’t understand it.  Generally, when this ordinance is discussed in the blogosphere it attracts a list of supporters.  When it moves in to more mainstream coverage, the comments read like a miniature version of the “war on cars” rhetoric heard in East Coast newspapers that happen to be owned by Rupert Murdoch.  When discussing this law with the press or car-loving friends, cyclists should remember these points:

1. This ordinance doesn’t cost the city anything, it only makes it easier for cyclists to recoup money from those that cause a crash or otherwise endanger a cyclist
2. This ordinance doesn’t create special rights for cyclists, it just makes it easier for cyclists to get justice after an existing law is broken.
3. While it’s called an “anti-harassment ordinance” it will not lead to lawsuits every time a driver and cyclists exchange words.  The cyclist must be somehow endangered by the exchange and he or she would still have to collect enough evidence and witnesses to make their case.

Tomorrow’s meeting begins at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall.  Streetsblog, and apparently the LADOT Bike Blog, will be live tweeting the event.

Bathed in light, Bill Rosendahl addresses Bikeside Speaks! last May at the Bikerowave. Photo:Sara Bond/Bikeside

Today, we approved a Bike Plan which provides more opportunities for people in Los Angeles.

More opportunities for people to discover the benefits of combining public transportation with a bike to finish that last mile.

More opportunities for parents and kids to ride safely on streets.

More opportunities for people to switch from gas to pedal power, burning fat instead of fossil fuels.

More opportunities for visitors to experience our wonderful weather on two wheels instead of four.

More opportunities to decide between a car and a bike for short trips.

And more opportunities to turn fear into confidence for those who are just plain scared to share the road with cars, like me.

Rosendahl has a history of supporting the counting of all transportation modes. Here he’s at the kickoff of the LACBC’s bike count project last year. Photo:boc/flickr

Sure, these opportunities currently exist for some, but not everyone. The Bike Plan establishes 200 miles of bikeways every five years offering greater mobility by extending the reach of the current network.

With this plan, we created more opportunities, and when I say we I really mean you. The vocal, organized and passionate bike community who demanded a better blueprint for bikeways in LA.

Your commitment and tireless work paid off. After several months of hearings, committees and revisions, our city has a bike plan that some say is as good or even better than most major cities. Because of you, the wheels are in motion for a truly multimodal city.

I want to publicly say thank you to all the people who took part in the civic process:

• Glenn Bailey
• Alexis Lantz
• Joe Linton
• Allison Mannos
• Aurisha Smolarski
• Kent Strumpwell
• Alex Thompson
• Don Ward

And the list goes on…

There are many, many people to thank for their vision and ability to re-think and re-imagine. Because of you, we developed the framework for a multi-modal system, providing for all modes of transportation and not just the automobile.

Regards,

Note 2: The clarification is now available, here.

A 11-2 vote for studying a BOL that is Westside Free.

After a two-hour debate, the Los Angeles City Council voted to accept a much-amended motion asking Metro to complete more studies of the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes Proposal before making recommendations to the Metro Board later this spring.

Following the Yaroslavsky Exemption of the Condo Canyon area from the Wilshire BOL proposal last year, Council Member Bill Rosendahl began pushing the idea that the entire Westside be removed from the proposal.  In January, he single-handidly moved a motion out of committee that the entire area be studied and that the city affirms its support for the 5.4 mile project that would exist east of La Cienega Boulevard.  That motion was heard, amended, and passed today.

The key change to Rosendahl’s original motion was removing the first provision affirming support for the 5.4 mile stretch.  Council Member Huizar suggested removing that sentence as it implied the Council wasn’t in favor of the complete route, which most members were.  It seems the intent of that language wasn’t to say the Council wasn’t opposed to the complete BOL project, as both Rosendahl and his staff argued repeatedly that the Council wasn’t taking a position, but was just asking Metro for more studies.

Other amendments included one from Tom LaBonge, who opposed Rosendahl’s motion until the Huizar Amendment, asking that San Vicente, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Venice Boulevard also be studied for “transit corridor” improvements.  Another motion came from Paul Krekorian, who was backing Rosendahl from the start, asking for more outreach to Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Condo Canyon and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to get them on board for a complete expansion of the project.

Because the proposal to the FTA never included Beverly Hills or Santa Monica, the study of the full project will not be completed until after the final route for this phase of the project is completed.  Speaking for Metro, Brad McAllister explained that Metro is already talking to Beverly Hills, but that the discussion is not in time to include them at this time.  Discussions with Santa Monica are not seriously underway.

The motion passed 11-2 with Council Members Richard Alarcon and Tony Cardenas voting in opposition.

From the start of the debate, even a casual observer could tell this was going to be a contentious one.  After one public speaker, Joel Epstein, Rosendahl rose and animatedly defended his record on transportation options.  Perhaps feeling the sting from today’s piece on Bus Only Lanes in the Los Angeles Times, he complained there was a lot of misinformation about his resolution and that all he wanted was a study of other options.

Advocates were having none of it.  Joining Brentwood resident Epstein were representatives of the Bus Riders Union, Green L.A., CALPIRG, and the NRDC in opposition to Rosendahl’s motion.  The feeling in the room was that this motion was a first step in removing the Westside from the BOL project.  Indeed, most of the debate was focused on whether the general public’s benefit of having a clean, sustainable and fast transit option on the Westside outweighed those of the car driving public; not whether or not having a study of the BOL without Brentwood was a good idea.

One of the more interesting testimonies came from Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic’s Hilary Norton, who argued that the project isn’t just good for bus riders, but for car drivers along the corridor.  Noting that the poor road condition makes much of what would be the BOL un-traversable anyway, she reminded the room that any part of the proposal that is excluded won’t be repaved and will continue to deteriorate.  While McAllister and LADOT’s Kang Hu repeatedly state that the project is about moving people, not just “cars” or “buses,” Norton reminded us that the project benefits anyone trying to drive the corridor.

...and then Kang Hu said dragons will come out of the sky and eat anyone caught in traffic if we just put a BOL in Brentwood.

Speaking in favor of the Rosendahl motion were residents of Brentwood and the Condo Canyon area of Westwood.  Carrying an armful of petitions, Brentwood Community Council Member Ray Klein continued to misquote LADOT Senior Traffic Engineer Kang Hu, even though he has been publicly corrected for claiming Hu has said that a segmented BOL project doesn’t have value.  Does it reduce the value of the 300 petitions when they’re carried by someone who continually mis-represents easily verifiable facts, such as what someone says?

Once the Council began its debate, it was clear that Rosendahl’s motion would  have difficulty passing without an amendment.  The first to speak was reliable Rosendahl-ally, Tom LaBonge who noted that while Beverly Hills isn’t part of the project, their peak hour parking restrictions on Wilshire create a “de-facto” Bus Only Lane.  LaBonge also encouraged the LADOT and Metro to more forcefully make the case that the project is a good one gesturing emphatically and encouraging the staffers to “Fight for it!”

Next up was Council Member Ed Reyes who peppered Hu and McAlister with technical questions, but also seemed to lean against supporting the Rosendahl motion as originally proposed.  Reyes described the supporters of the Rosendahl motion as “saying “no” this doesn’t help us, we don’t care if it helps everyone else.”

Following Reyes was Council Member Richard Alarcon, who sits on the City’s Transportation Committee but missed the hearing on this motion earlier this month.  Alarcon blasted Rosendahl and the motion noting the public support the City Council gave the 8.7 mile route just four years earlier.  “In 2007 we voted for 8.7 miles, now we’re going to turn around and say “no, just kidding.”  He also suggested, in jest, a motion that the City Council never complain about not getting its share of federal dollars ever again, after turning away a portion of the BOL projects.

More opposition came from Council Member Tony Cardenas who pushed Hu and McAllister on whether the 1.8 miles of BOL’s in Brentwood had value on their own and whether the Condo Canyon segment had value on it’s own.  After both gave an unequivocal yes, Cardenas praised Hu for sticking to his guns in the face of the Council.

After Council Member Jose Huizar’s amendment to remove any language implying the city’s support for the 5.4 mile BOL, the debate calmed down and eventually the motion passed with minimal opposition.  Speaking at the end of the debate, Rosendahl again defended his record, stated that the project won’t work in just the Brentwood Area, and blasted Beverly Hills and Santa Monica for not being on board.

The final study and staff recommendations, on a 5.4 mile “east of La Cienega route,” and of the same route with a 1.8 mile lane also in Brentwood will be heard by the Metro Board in April.

Will the Westside portion of the Bus Only Lanes survive?

(Update 4:04 P.M.: I just got the following message from Council Man Rosendahl’s Office.  We’re cheered to know he’s doing well, and wish him a speedy return.

FYI Bill is doing fine but still recovering from surgery.  He will not be in for the remainder of the week so we have continued the Wilshire BRT meeting to next Wednesday, February 2nd.)

This Friday, the Los Angeles City Council will debate whether or not to push Metro to remove the entire Westside from the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes Proposal, not just the Condo Canyon area the Metro Board has already removed.  The full agenda for the meeting can be found here.  The Bus Only debate is item #23.

Because this motion was moved to the Full Council without a vote at Committee, the Council will take public comment on the measure and the Green L.A. Transportation Working Group and Bus Riders Union will rally the troops to try to convince the City Counil not to listen to their own Transportation Committee Chair.

Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl is backing a plea from his constituents in Brentwood to remove the section of the Bus Only project running through “their” community.  After the jump are some facts about the project, and the debate about the project, to keep in mind as the debate moves forward.

1. When the Condo Canyon NIMBY’s got “their” part of Wilshire removed from the Bus Only project at last month’s Metro Board Meeting, they had at least had the courtesy to have a professional traffic study arguing that removing that small slice of Wilshire wouldn’t have a large impact on the over all project.  Both Metro and LADOT transportation engineers disagreed with that assesment, but at least Zev Yaroslavsky and the largely disinterested Metro Board had some basis for throwing their staff under the bus.  There is no traffic study to counter the studies done by LADOT and Metro showing that the Bus Only project would work in Brentwood.

2. The Brentwood Community Council and Westside Neighborhood Council are pretty confident about the outcome of the vote.  So confident that they had the guts to badly mis-state the position of the LADOT’s Senior Traffic Enginner on the 1.8 miles of Bus Only Lane scheduled for Brentwood while sitting next to him.  Kang Hu set the record straight, even if his “clarification” was summarily ignored.

3. The Federal Transit Administration agreed to fund 8.7 miles of Bus Only Lanes.  They then agreed to fund the project with the Condo Canyon area removed.  They have not agreed to fund the project with Brentwood removed as well.  When the Bus Riders Union says that, “Westside can’t compromise the project for the entire city because of their narrow self interest to priviledge their tailpipes over our lungs,” it’s because there is no certainty that the 5.7 miles of Bus Only Lane that would remain if Roendahl succeeds in getting a complete exemption for the Westside would be funded.

4. Rosendahl has spent the last six years backing the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes project and has switched positions after Yaroslavsky got the Metro Board to remove the Condo Canyon area.  Whether it’s because the Yaroslavsky Exemption put Rosendahl in a bad position politically or because he really believes that a 1.8 mile Bus Only Lane in Brentwood that’s not connected to other parts of the Westside; there is one thing that’s for certain.

When Yaroslavsky was pushing for the exemption, he hilariously played the role of martyr.  He claimed to be taking an unpopular stand for the greater good because if the Bus Only Lane didn’t live up to potential in Condo Canyon and the community remained opposed, then it would be easier for NIMBY’s to scuttle other Bus Only projects.  That argument took just over a month to completely unravel.

We’ll cover the meeting live on twitter.  The meeting starts at 10:00 A.M., but it could be hours before the debate on the Bus Only Lanes begins.

Despite a recent move to remove Brentwood from the Wilshire Bus-Only lanes plan, Rosendahl has been a friend to Streetsblog and a leader on a host of transportation reform issues.  We wish him a rapid recovery from surgery and for positive results from the Watchman installed in his heart.

His office’s press release on the surgery can be read after the jump.

LOS ANGELES – Councilmember Bill Rosendahl is doing well after doctors performed a breakthrough surgical procedure to treat atrial fibrillation.

Just three hours after surgery, Rosendahl was awake, alert, reading email on his Blackberry, and giving direction to staff regarding district projects, according to Mike Bonin, Rosendahl’s chief of staff.

Rosendahl is taking part in a clinical trial for a device called the Watchman.  Dr. Shephal Doshi, Director of Cardiac Electrophysiology at St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica peformed the procedure Thursday morning.

“Everything went as expected,” says Doshi. “The Councilmember did very well and had an excellent result. He’ll be home tomorrow and off the warfarin.”

For the past several years, Rosendahl has had atrial fibrillation – an abnormal heart rhythm which can cause blood clots and lead to a stroke.  Although he has felt fine, Rosendahl has been treated with a blood-thinning medicine called warfarin, which can have a range of side effects.

The Watchman, hailed as a breakthrough in bio-medicine, is 2-4 cm large and shaped like a tiny umbrella. General anesthesia is used during the 45-minute procedure.  Doshi will implant the Watchman in Rosendahl’s heart through a catheter inserted through the circulatory system from the groin.

Doshi says atrial fibrillation is part of the aging process, and many patients do not feel the irregular heartbeats until they are diagnosed by their doctor. According to the American Heart Association, atrial fibrillation is the most common of heart arrhythmia, affecting more than 2.2 million people in the United States. Doctors typically treat the condition using blood thinning medications which can reduce the risk of stroke but in some people can cause unpleasant side affects such as bruising or bleeding. The drugs can also impose limitations on a patient’s diet, physical activity and travel.

The Watchman procedure, which is used widely in Europe, Asia and Australia, is undergoing a clinical trial in the United States as an alternative treatment to warfarin.  Rosendahl qualified for the procedure earlier this week.

Doshi, part of the Pacific Heart Institute in Santa Monica, has one of the world’s largest experience with this procedure.

The Councilmember expressed his gratitude for the prayers and well wishes he received in his email inbox in addition to the posts left by constituents and friends on social media. The Councilmember is excited to return to work as early as next week.

Now with less Westside!

In an odd quirk of L.A. City Council rules, a Committee can “meet” with just the chair present and move legislation along to the full Council for a vote.  Thus, with the majority of the City Council downstairs debating how to frame the outsourcing of political will to raise parking rates in a way that didn’t make them look like a rubber stamp, Transportation Committee Chair Rosendahl served as a one man committee.  Rosendahl’s office explained to me that if the Full Council Meeting was still happening, that the Chairman would not ask all the witnesses who trekked Downtown to come back later and would hold the hearing himself.

Thus, Bill Rosendahl was able to move legislation that was written by Bill Rosendahl without other Council Members weighing in.  However, when a Chair moves legislation without a vote, it doesn’t meet the hearing requirement, so advocates will have another chance to testify win the hearts and minds of the Council.  Assuming the Council recommends removing the Westside from the BRT plan,  the Metro Board would still need to approve their staff exploring the option in environmental studies before it could go anywhere.  Metro staff assured the room that they would bring the city’s official position to the attention of the Metro Board.

Rosendahl spent most of the Bus Only debate arguing that because of the Yaroslavsky Exemption removing the Condo Canyon area from the project, it no longer made sense to have the Bus Only lanes in Brentwood.  While it’s true that it might look odd on a map to see Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and now Westwood exempted with Brentwood still getting bus only lanes, its also true that the 1.8 miles of Bus Only lanes that remain in the plans for the Westside do have value.

Taking center stage in yesterday’s hearing were Jay Handal of the Westside Neighborhood Council and Ray Klein of the Brentwood Community Council.

Klein stated not once, but several times, that LADOT Senior Traffic Engineer Kang Hu told the Metro Board that a segmented Bus Only Lane project would not work.  That argument was so persuasive that Rosendahl himself repeated it in his own statements on why a Bus Only exemption for Brentwood was necessary.

There’s only one problem.  Klein is either incapable of understanding plain English or was just lying about what he heard.  And since Hu was sitting a couple of feet away from him, he set the record straight when asked to respond to testimony towards the end of the meeting.

That’s not what I said.  If the one mile exemption is a reality, we want as much bus lane as possible.  One mile exemption creates an undesirable condition,  that’s why we were opposed (to the Yaroslavsky Exemption at the Metro Board.)

It will work…The bus benefit will still be there.

Let’s be clear what that means, Rosendahl is substituting the judgment of Klein, who has no background in transportation planning and has repeatedly mis-stated facts about the project, over the Metro and LADOT studies and testimony.  At least the Condo Canyon NIMBY’s had the decency to hire a transportation planner to tell them what they want to hear.  Klein is just making things up.

It’s important to understand because despite all the complaining about Santa Monica and Beverly Hills; the fact remains that the traffic studies show that 1.8 miles of bus only lanes in Brentwood will move more people quickly through the area than the current rush hour car lane.  In other words, the decisions of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills not to participate in the program has no bearing on whether or not this project works in Brentwood and whether it benefits the City of Los Angeles and its residents.

Meanwhile Jay Handal, representing a Neighborhood Council that is apparently fine with the gridlocked state of the roads, says that his NC would be happy to embrace a bus only project as long as Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and the rest of the Westside did too.  In other words, the Westside Neighborhood Council members are reactionary followers, not leaders.

That’s all fine and good, but when examining whether or not to believe Handal’s claim that he would embrace a perfect project and nothing else, we should note that the Westside Neighborhood Council has also opposed Phase II of the Expo Line and the Pico-Olympic plan to speed up traffic.  In other words, the Westside Neighborhood Council isn’t willing to try anything new, regardless of whether it’s a car or transit project.

The testimony of those two leaders was more than enough to win the day, despite the coalition of bus riders, cyclists, environmentalists, and residents who spoke in favor of keeping the Bus Only Lanes project in Brentwood.  The Bus Riders Union, National Resources Defense Council, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and UCLA Bicycle Coalition were all represented by members and staff who testified to the benefits that bus only lanes bring to the entire city: cleaner air, reduced asthma and increased mobility and transportation options.

As soon as the Full Council schedules a hearing on the proposal, Streetsblog will let you know.

Coming Soon? Photo: Get Reading

The motion just asks for city staff to, “the City should examine the benefits of allowing individuals to park in front of their driveways as a way to increase residential parking supply.”  My honest first reaction to this motion was disbelief.  At our first residence, our neighbors parked in front of their driveway everyday.  And the parking police were out in force because it was a neighborhood with strict parking permit requirements.

From a parking perspective, the trick will be how to advertise the permit system that would be required well enough to make it clear to other drivers that you can’t just block people’s driveways at will.  Some areas have very limited parking, and making best use of the lane, most of which is already being used for street parking, make some sense.  As long as it doesn’t end up impacting people’s ability to get in and out of their driveways because of any confusion that might be created.

That being said, the part of the street in front of someone’s driveway is a public space and should not just be given away, regardless of the local parking issues.  The permits should be appropriately priced to reflect the value of the land.  Unlike the current permit system, which allows vehicles to park along certain blocks without being ticketed, this system is essentially leasing a car parking space to a homeowner or renter.  The fee for such a space were it in a parking lot would be in the $100 a month range, and it should be for this proposal as well.

But funds from the permit shouldn’t be thrown into the black hole that is our city’s general fund, they should be reinvested in the community from which they come.  Beautification, streetscaping and even repaving costs could be paid for by charging people to lease a public space.  This proposal could end up being a win for everyone in the communities where this is implemented, not just the ones who own more cars than they have space to store.

Two other motions caught my eye when reading through the agenda.

First is the much-publicized motion by Paul Krekorian to signalize the deadly crossing of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Archwood, which has claimed two lives in the past year and left another young woman with severe injuries, this Wednesday’s City Council Transportation Committee Hearing deals with two issues dear to every car driver’s heart: on street parking and hybrid vehicle incentives.

There’s also a a 2007 motion by Councilman Bernard Parks and Council Woman Jan Perry that seeks to make it easier for city employees to purchase hybrid vehicles by having the city enter into agreements with dealerships for discounted purchases.  The motion also encourages a change in state law that requires city’s to reduce automobile trips by asking that hybrid car trips be included as a reduction.

It’s a sign of the times how old-fashioned this motion seems, just three years after it was initially drafted.  The debate at City Hall has moved past clean cars and on to encouraging bicycling and transit, in large part to the Mayor’s embrace of Measure R, 30/10 and, more recently, safe cycling.

Personally, I have no problem with this motion because it also includes language to make it easier for employees to purchase transit passes.  But hopefully Chairman Rosendahl, or one of the other bike-friendly members of the committee, take a moment to add some language about entering into agreements with bike shops to make it easier for employees to get bikes as well.

For the rest of the agenda, click here.

Any cyclist who has ridden the streets of Los Angeles with any regularity has a horror story.  Sometimes the story is because of negligence, such as a driver who passes too close or a taxi that pulls out of a parking space without looking.  Sometimes the story is caused by maliciousness, such as a hummer that drives through a group of cyclists or some kids in a truck that throw things.  These stories almost always end with the no consequences for the aggressor, because the police don’t like to file reports without witnessing the act.  No report, no legal recourse.

But now the City of Los Angeles is trying to change that sad trend.  The City Attorney’s office, represented by Judith Reel, is poised to create a draft ordinance that would allow for cyclists to file suit themselves for violent or aggressive actions directed towards them.   There’s a feeling that this ordinance only addresses “car v bike” issues, but the City Attorney clarified that it also applied to “a guy on the street corner throwing a rock and yelling ‘I hate cyclists.’”

Reel also went to great lengths to explain that the ordinance is not about making new things illegal, but making some things which are already illegal but difficult to enforce made more enforceable.  Also, because the ordinance creates civil law, not criminal law, there would be no cost to the city once the ordinance is passed.

All the C.A. needs to begin drafting is the approval of the City Council.  On Wednesday, the City Council Transportation Committee gave them the green light to start drafting.  However, they still need the approval of the Full Council and a hearing from the Public Safety Committee.

It seems unlikely that the full Council will reject the drafting of the ordinance, which will need another approval before it becomes law.  That means Monday’s 9:30 A.M. meeting of the Public Safety Committee is the only place that could stop the creation of the groundbreaking ordinance.

At Wednesday’s hearing, the potential ordinance began to take shape.  After testimony from Ross Hirsch, Glenn Bailey and Ted Rogers, the committee urged the C.A. to draft the ordinance for full review from the Council before potentially becoming law.  Hirsch suggested a $1,000 civil penalty if one is found guilty of violating the anti-harassment ordinance.  Despite the language that appears in the agenda item at the top of this article, the Council Committee urged a $1,000 minimum penalty for anyone found guilty of harassing a cyclist in civil court.

Other items which the Committee wanted to see involved in the new ordinance included attorney recovery fees, cost recovery for injuries or physical damages, and punitive damages for repeat offenders.

Streetsblog will report on the Public Safety Committee hearing on Monday.

Photo: Devildoc18/flickr

Earlier this year, the City Council ordered city staff to create a list of changes to city and state laws that could help cyclists see justice after crashes.  At the time, City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl referred to the motion as an anti-harassment ordinance, and hopes ran high that the city could create a three foot passing law, or could somehow further criminalize unsafe and aggressive behavior by drivers.

After the Chief Legislative Analysts office spent six months looking at different routes the city could take, their proposal is to draft legislation that will increase cyclists legal rights after a crash by making it a civil violation of the municipal code to discriminate against a bicyclist by unlawfully assaulting, threatening, or harassing a bicyclist, and create a private cause of action with attorneys’ fees for a violation.

Rosendahl explains the motion:

Cyclists are the most vulnerable users on our roads so we need to do everything we can to protect them. When a motorist feels aggrieved and engages in some type of senseless tit for tat behavior with another motorist it’s never appropriate or safe. But when that same motorist is engaging in that behavior with a cyclist it’s deadly. This proposal is designed to address that. It creates a private cause of action that allows cyclists who are victims of discrimination on the roadway to pursue the matter civilly rather than wait for law enforcement to act.

In plain English, this proposed legislation would give cyclists another legal leg to stand on and help them get legal counsel for civil suits.  Generally, people who sue for a tort in civil court cannot recover attorneys fees, and so unless there are very serious injuries or unless the person suing is wealthy, it is almost impossible to get an attorney to represent you.  By allowing for a recovery of attorneys fees, people might be able to get a lawyer to represent them even if they were only slightly injured, or  did not suffer physical injuries.

Update: Ted Rogers adds that the ordinance would allow cyclists to pursue civil actions against drivers without a police report.  I.E. that witness statements and other evidence would allow them to seek compensation.

Granted, this isn’t the kind of change that’s going to make streets safer for cyclists overnight, instead its aim is to help cyclists recoup some of their losses after the crash.  While this may increase the number of crash cases that go to civil court, and the size of judgments against unsafe drivers, the cases are still going to rest on properly written police reports.  And what about just trying to make streets safer for cyclists?  Wasn’t that the original point of pushing an “anti-harassment ordinance?”

Rosendahl’s office hasn’t given up on the idea of pushing for a change in state law that would mandate a “three feet passing law.”  Mayor Villaraigosa is on board with the idea as well, and cyclists around the city have seen the posters that beg drivers to “give me 3.”  Rosendahl himself mentions that there’s still a lot of work to do to make streets safe for cyclists, “It’s not a cure all but it’s one more step towards recognizing that our public streets are for all users not just the automobile.”

The report from the CLA will be heard by both the City Council Transportation Committee at next Wednesday’s meeting (October 27) and the following meeting of the Public Safety Committee (Monday, November 1) before heading to the full Council.  If the Council approves the report, the CLA could draft a formal motion that would make the law changes outlined above.

Back in January, the Public Safety Committee threw cold water on Rosendahl’s efforts to push for an anti-harassment ordinance.  In particular, Councilman Greig Smith and Councilman Dennis Zine seemed to believe that the effort was a waste of time because assaulting anyone is already against the law and sent a different recommendation to the City Council than the one of the Transportation Committee.

If that were to happen again, the Council would receive the reports and any accompanying motions from both committees and then can choose to accept the recommendation of either committee or forge a third path.  In January the two committee chairs, Smith for Public Safety and Rosendahl for Transportation, reached a compromise before the full Council heard the reports and different committee recommendations.

(Tip of the helmet to everyone’s favorite Dude on a Bike, Ross Hirsch, for helping explain the impacts of this proposed legislation to me.)

A small corridor made the meeting look more crowded.

(Note: There is a Bike Plan meeting tonight in South L.A. and Saturday in Van Nuys.  Check out the Streetsblog calendar for more information.  A list of Streetsblog’s complete coverage of the Bike Plan from the launch of this website can be found here.- DN)

In February of 2008, the LADOT, City Planning, and consultants Alta Planning held a series of four meetings on what was then called the Bike Master Plan to solicit feedback on what should be studied as the city embarked on a planning process that promised to lead to safer cycling throughout the city.  Eighty people showed up to a hearing at the Felicia Manhood Constituent Service Center, and the mood at the hearing was contentious.  Nobody could claim that there was a lack of passion in the room.

Twenty months later, the two city agencies and their consultants were back at the Service Center with an updated plan that had already been widely panned by the bicycle community.  This time, there was no power point presentation and no chance to give public testimony on the plan.  Nevertheless, nearly 50 people attended the meeting; most with bad things to say about the current draft of the plan.

Yesterday, a mere eleven months after the last round of meetings, the final round of public meetings kicked off last weekend in Hollywood.  Last night we were back in auditorium at Felicia Manhood.  An hour into the meeting, which consisted of the poster boards pictured above and a public comment period; not even two dozen people had signed in.  Even Alta Planning was nowhere to be seen.

Last night was proving the rule, not the exception, to a turnout slump.  City Planning staffer Jordann Turner confirmed that turnout was significantly lower than two dozen at the Hollywood Meeting held on Saturday although more of those that did attend took time to comment, and Streetsblog commenter Dennis Hindman noted that only four people took part in a “webinar” earlier that day.  What can be the cause of this low turnout?  Are cyclists so happy with the current draft of the plan that they didn’t see a need to turn out, or are they just exhausted after nearly three years of public meetings and delays?  The latter explanation seems unlikely, as gathered around the poster board people continued to wonder what exactly a “bicycle friendly street” is really going to look like and prognosticate that most of this plan won’t be completed anyway.

The highlight of the meeting wasn’t even the presentation given by city staff, but an opening comment by City Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl.  Rosendahl’s comments can be seen after the jump.

The rest of the public comment was short on speakers.  Six people testified, and one of the speakers was a Cheviot Hills homeowner who wanted to complain about the Expo Line Bike Path.  Another was Bike Advisory Committee Chair Glenn Bailey, who is appearing at all of the meetings to promote the BAC and deliver, over the course of six minutes, pieces of a large testimony.

There were some other notable comments.  Hindman noted that nearly 50% of the funds in the five year expenditure plan, covering from now until 2015, will be spent in the San Fernando Valley instead of the Downtown, Mid-City and Westside where there are already more people cycling.  Madeline Brozen, a UCLA planning student, noted that an unused rail along the San Fernando Road would make an excellent Rails to Trails program and took the time to mock a “bike route” sign on Ohio Avenue that points to the sidewalk.

Another interesting point was brought up by Eric Weinstein, a member of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and volunteer at the Bikerowave, who questioned why there was no language referencing “Complete Streets” in the plan.  With a state “Complete Streets” mandate going into law later this year, it seems odd that a Bike Plan, even one that contends that all streets are for bicycle use, would leave out language that any road project should study whether there should be a bicycle component.

The “Final” plan, including responses to public comment, will go to the City’s Planning Commission on November 7th and will also be heard by the Transportation Commission, two City Council committees and the Full Council before final approval.

Update: Tuner writes in with the following:

In regards to the Complete Streets Act, the draft Bicycle Plan contains numerous references to the Complete Streets Acts.  Chapter 2 (pages 33 and 34) describe how the implementation of the Bicycle Plan would fulfill the goals of the Complete Streets Acts.  Additionally, Chapter 4 (Policies and Programs) contain policies and programs design to implement the Complete Streets Act.  As an example Policies 1.14 and 1.1.6 contain programs that encourage the inclusion of bicycle facilities as Bicycle Friendly Streets and the inclusion of bicycle lanes as part of the reevaluation of the City’s street standard designations.

. Complete streets (chapter 2 page 33, 34 and numerous programs that reference goals of complete streets  (chapter 4)  ie   Street designation review to include bicycle lanes (1.1.4 and 1.1.6).

Thanks to the 2009 Call to Projects, the Figueroa Corridor could be getting a Bikestation. Photo: Jpchan/Flickr

Today’s City Council Transportation Committee Hearing has a couple of big-ticket items sure to earn ink.  A proposal to increase the city’s allotment of spaces for car-sharing has already been covered in LAist.  A second motion asking LAPD and LADOT to make certain that the President can’t shut down the Westside next time he needs to raise some money is even more press friendly.  But a one-page motion by Bill Rosendahl and Tom LaBonge represents a small step in changing the way the city plans its transportation projects, and will almost assuredly earn little press outside of Streetsblog.

Advocates have long complained that the City of Los Angeles seems to constantly be behind the game when it comes to progressive planning and applying for state and federal funds to make these projects a reality.  However, Council Members Rosendahl and LaBonge are trying to get the city ready for the 2011 Metro Call for Projects early by instructing LADOT to reach out to City Council offices to prepare a local project list.

The Call is expected to happen next month, so it’s not as though the City is getting a huge jump.  But the directive to involve the Council office could mean that the City’s project list won’t be the same one submitted in 2009, a practice that’s become too common with Safe Routes to School and other grant-based application proceses.  After all, the entire process takes six months, from call to funding, so a month head start is actually a decent lead.

But first thing’s first.  Metro defines the Call for Projects as “a competitive process that distributes discretionary capital transportation funds to regionally significant projects.”  Basically,  the various taxes and transportation fees collected at the county and state level have a set aside for local projects, and Metro is in charge of distributing those funds throughout L.A. County.  Thus, every two years Metro goes through this process of having a call where local governments apply for these funds.  Applicants are cities, Neighborhood Councils, other government bodies such as the CRA and even the county itself.  Every project has to fit into one of seven categories: Regional Surface Transportation Improvements, Signal Synchronization and Bus Speed Improvements, Transportation Demand Management, Bikeway Improvements, Pedestrian Improvements, Transit Capital and Transportation Enhancements.  In 2009, Bikeway and Pedestrian Improvements made up about 12% of the entire call.

Unlike other grant processeses, LADOT actually has a decent track record in bringing back Call for Projects funds.  When the city is attacking the merit-based Safe Routes to School allocation system, it points to its success getting Call for Projects funding.  So the good news is that if the city starts working early with local staff, we may see more enlightened projects than the widenings that make up over half of the City’s request from 2009.  The bad news is that the 2009 Call was $337 million.  The 2011 call is expected to be between $100 million and $120 million.

In this case, the LADOT and Council Offices aren’t the only players in the process.  An April story by the planning blog Tribuni Plebis encourages Neighborhood Councils to get involved in the Call and to put together some projects on their own.  As they note, the process from “Call” to allocation takes about six months and is mostly in the hands of the Metro Staff.

For more on the Call for Projects, read Metro’s page devoted to the Call, including information on how to prepare an application.

Kicking off the summit was a visit from former Mayor and recreational cyclist Richard Riordan and longtime former Bicycle Advisory Committee chair Alex Baum, presenting the current mayor with a set of training wheels as a gift from Lance Armstrong.

After brief remarks from the mayor, the meeting format quickly boiled down to about a hundred cyclists speaking for one minute each. This format is familiar to seasoned bicycle activists, but was unclear to a few cyclist speakers who expressed that it was indeed their first public hearing.

Attendees included a veritable who's who of Los Angeles' bicycling community. Included were representatives from the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), BikeSide, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC), International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA), Bicycle Kitchen, CicLAvia, Concerned Off Road Bicyclists Association (CORBA), and many many others. Putting in an impassioned appearance was Los Angeles City Council Member Bill Rosendahl - chair of the Council's Transportation Committee.

Overall the mood was very upbeat, with cyclists expressing a great deal of gratitude to the Mayor for convening the summit and addressing bicyclists' concerns. Public comment topics ranged from cyclocross to potholes to obesity to resurfacing to the cruelty of biking with restrained pets. This article doesn't attempt to catalog all the concerns raised by cyclists, but focuses primarily on the Mayor's reactions and stated commitments.

Mayor Villaraigosa initially expressed his past support for Los Angeles cyclists based on his leadership in setting aside 10% of the city's Measure R transportation sales tax "local return" funding. This funding is expected to total $19M over the next five years, and will go to both bicycle and pedestrian projects. The mayor pledged to use this money as leverage in seeking additional Metro bicycle project funding. He also committed to improve cyclist access to Metro rail and to complete bikeways in conjunction with Metro's future Expo Line and Orange Line extension.

The strongest recurring theme in the mayor's remarks was support for bike helmets. Villaraigosa frequently recounted details of his recent car-bike incident. Avoiding colliding with the taxi, he fell from his bike, initially hitting the ground with his helmet-protected head. His elbow struck next and was "shattered in so many places" that it "swelled to the size of a grapefruit." His physicians stated that its severity more resembled a motorcycle injury, then a bicycling one. The mayor spoke with deep conviction that his helmet had likely saved his life. Initially he pledged to appear in a public service announcement to encourage riders to always wear a helmet.

As the meeting proceeded, Villaraigosa's helmet support grew stronger. To the audible dismay of many cyclists present, he further ardently pledged to push for a statewide mandatory bicycle helmet law - a controversial subject. (Helmets are not required for driving or walking - both activities arguably with similar or greater injury risk than that of bicycling. Bicycle helmet requirements also tend to result in less bicycling, hence inadvertently result in less "safety in numbers" and overall decreased physical activity and public health.)  The mayor's helmet mandate support was most articulately criticized in the comments of cyclist Road Block, who pointed out that nobody wears helmet in European cycling capitals including Copenhagen, and that a better focus would be to create safer streets.

Though strong, clear and steadfast on helmet issues, the mayor was more hesitant with other pledges. At times, Villaraigosa paused indecisively over his words, apparently not accustomed to speaking about bicycle issues. Similarly, LADOT GM Rita Robinson, who often speaks persuasively on budgetary issues,  faltered in trying to describe what bike projects her department was implementing. (The mayor subsequently pledged to make a bike project listing with scheduled dates available online.) While these officials appear genuine in their support for stepping up the city's commitment to bikes, they just don't quite sound well-versed in the issues that bicyclists face... yet.

Robinson did commit to staffing levels necessary for implementing the city's pending Bike Plan, which DCP GM LoGrande pledged to fully release soon. The mayor stated that his first response the city's pending new Bike Plan was "30 years?" - expressing disbelief that it would take the city so long to become truly safe for cycling.

The mayor expressed "frustration" over the "bureaucracy" in the city's plan to hosting CicLAvia - a car-free event modeled after similar events the mayor enjoyed in Guadalajara, Mexico. Councilmember Rosendahl went one further in expressing that he was "embarrassed" when he compares Los Angeles' progress to that made by other cities, including Long Beach.

Cyclists wished the mayor a speedy recovery, hoping that he will be back up on his bike long before he convenes his future bike summits on "at least a yearly basis."

As someone who has been pushing hard for a "bicycling and pedestrian set aside" for Measure R funds from before it was called Measure R, I have mixed feelings about yesterday's City Council Joint Hearing with the Transportation and Budget & Finance Committees.

On one hand, it was gratifying to see the funding guidelines for how the city will spend its share of Measure R local return funds, including the set-aside, move forward to the full Council.  While it's true the set-aside will be re-debated next year, provided it passes the full Council, that will account for roughly $6.2 million dollars.  If spent correctly, that's a lot of bike lanes and ADA complaint curb cuts. 

On the other hand, at one point it seemed as though the proposal was going to be turned around to limit the amount of Local Return funds that could be spent on people powered transportation.  Without some timely intervention from the Mayor's office, what was supposed to be a big day for cyclists and pedestrians could have been a disaster.

For those just joining this discussion, during the debate at the Metro Board on the project list for what would become Measure R in the summer of 2008, bicycling and pedestrian advocates petitioned for a set-aside in the "Local Return" funds for "non-motorized transportation."  While they didn't get the set-aside, they did get a promise from Mayor Villaraigosa that the City would spend a sizable portion of its local return on bicycling and pedestrian projects.  What followed was a year and a half of hearings and negotiations, led by the Los Angeles County Bicycling Coalition, with assists from LA Walks and Stephen Box at crucial points, that led to yesterday's hearing and a future hearing by the City Council.

So what happened?  After a parade of speakers testified in favor of the bicycle and pedestrian set-aside being included in the city's Measure R spending guidelines, Councilman and Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl voiced his support for the set-aside.  But then a funny thing happened.  Transportation Committee Member and Budget & Finance Committee Chair Bernard Parks spoke against the set-aside, voicing concern that it would hamper the city's ability to do other projects.  His logic was that if you do the set-aside before making a final plan for how the set-aside would be spent that you might end up wasting funds on less deserving projects just to meet the guidelines.

Parks proposed changing the language to read that "up to 10%" of Measure R local return funds spent by the city could be spent on bicycling and pedestrian projects.  Parks' proposal would have turned what was supposed o be a guarantee of some funding for bike/ped projects into a limit on what could be spent on these projects instead.  Whatever Parks' intention, the result would have been a restriction of Measure R funds towards "people powered projects."

Councilman Greig Smith

Of course, the 10% is for cyclists and pedestrians leaving us with one of four options for the Councilman's statement.  He either can't read, didn't bother to read the legislation in front of him or listen to the speakers, doesn't know what a pedestrian is, or just doesn't care about cyclists so much that he couldn't hear anything else but "money for bikes."  I'm guessing it's the second option, but given his efforts to delay an "anti-harassment law" for cyclists, it could be the fourth as well.

Of course, is Smith wants to play the math game, he could declare that if cyclists are only 3% of transportation users, a low estimate for an urban area, than they should receive 3% of all LADOT construction programs.  Or, since 100% of people are pedestrians, that is all the LADOT should support anyway.

Moving on from Smith, Councilman Koretz spoke highly of cycling and told an anecdote about supporting a Council candidate 35 years ago in part because of his bike-friendly views.  He then joked that he didn't want to be walking into City Hall on his cane in 35 years complaining that he couldn't bike there because there were no bike lanes.

Still to speak were Councilmen Huizar and LaBonge with a 2-2 declared vote on the set aside.  LaBonge rose to speak and delivered a somewhat muddled speech that seemed to be leaning towards voting for the "limit" language instead of the "set-aside" language.  However, half-way through his testimony, he asked for some expert commentary from LADOT.

The LADOT ducked giving a firm answer. Something to remember the next time LADOT tells you they "want to be more like New York."

Next, LaBonge asked the Mayor's Office for their opinion, and Jaime de la Vega went to the witness table and delivered an eloquent defense of having a set-aside for bicycling and pedestrian projects.

(The set-aside) creates a discipline on how you spend money in the future.  This city should spend a disproportionate amount on transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects.

In other words, just like the rest of the Measure R funds, Local Return projects shouldn't be based on what the city is now, but what the city should be in the future.  Affter de la Vega's testimony, LaBonge voiced support for the set-aside, and soon Councilman Huizar, who also serves on the Metro Board as a Mayoral Appointee, did too.

While a 4-2 vote seemed assured, Rosendahl did accept an amendment that required that the city revisit the issue of the set-aside after 2011 to make certain that the city is able to spend those funds.  Of course, if the city isn't spending those funds, it's not for a lack of projects.  The city could declare that all of the set-aside was going to make sure that every intersection at the city has ADA compliant curb cuts and that would gobble up all of the set-aside even if the city didn't paint a single inch of bike lanes in the next two years.

That being said, yesterday's opposition creates uncertainty that the set-aside will pass the full Council.  Eight votes are necessary, and we can assume that there are at least four from today's vote, but where will the other four come from?  In the past, Richard Alarcon has voted for the set-aside, but so had Councilman Parks.  Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Ed Reyes have supported bicycling projects in their district, but haven't gone on record in support of this particular piece of legislation.  Councilman Paul Krekorian was a champion for cyclists and pedestrians with his "safe streets" legislation in Sacramento, but hasn't been put to any test in his Councilmanic district.  The list goes on and on.  With no date yet set advocates are going to have their work cut out to make certain the final version of the Measure R spending plan doesn't cut out the cyclists and pedestrians that were promised some much needed support 21 months ago.

A bike corral on York Blvd.  Rendering by Matt Schodorf

Due to Los Angeles City Council leadership and community advocacy, bike corrals may soon be coming to Los Angeles. The April 14th meeting of the city's  Transportation Committee is scheduled to hear a council motion on implementation of a pilot corral in Northeast Los Angeles. Here's the backstory on how that came to pass.

Matt Schodorf is a bicyclist and a small businesses owner. He and his wife own Cafe de Leche - a coffee shop at the corner of Avenue 50 and York Boulevard in Highland Park. York Boulevard, a former streetcar right-of-way, features old-school Main Street type buildings - very walkable with very little car parking. Schodorf noticed that many Cafe de Leche customers (and staff) arrive by bike and by foot. He got the city (LADOT) to install three of their standard inverted-U bike parking racks. Those racks fill up, with both bikes and dog leashes, so Schodorf kept thinking about how to increase the supply of local bicycle parking.

Matt's brother, Marc Schodorf, a car-free New Yorker, introduced Matt to Streetsblog. Matt learned about bike corrals from this Streetfilms video. Further internet research showed internet images of a bike corral in front of a Stumptown coffee shop in Portland Oregon.

At the urging of Schodorf, Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar  introduced a motion requesting that the city install a pilot bike corral on York Boulevard in Northeast Los Angeles (NELA.) The council motion was introduced in July 2009. Then C.I.C.L.E. convened its campaign for a bike-friendly NELA, bringing together various folks including interested individuals and many groups in NELA - Bike Oven, Flying Pigeon, Highland Park Chamber of Commerce, TERA - The Eagle Rock Association, and the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition. Read this LACBC blog article for an overview of the initial campaign meeting.

The NELA bike campaign chose two top priority issues: implementing the pilot bike corral and implementing bike lanes on the "four corners" of NELA - York Boulevard, Eagle Rock Boulevard, Colorado Boulevard, and North Figueroa Street.

Matt Schodorf, a rendering of a corral and Janette Sadik-Kahn. Photo: Ramon Martinez

Councilmember Rosendahl has scheduled the motion to be heard at the 2pm April 14th 2010 meeting of the City Council's Transportation Committee. C.I.C.L.E. NELA campaign participants are urging folks - especially business owners and building owners - interested in bike corrals to attend and speak in favor of the motion. Once approved by council, the NELA pilot corral could take at least a few months to implement. It will be an important precedent for implementing corrals at appropriate locations throughout the city. Thanks to Councilmembers Huizar and Rosendahl for moving this forward, and to their respective deputies, Edel Vizcarra and Paul Backstrom.

To get involved in the C.I.C.L.E. campaign for a safer more bikeable walkable NELA, join our google group, facebook group, or email joe@cicle.org.

Fed up with speeding traffic zooming through their local street, residents of the well-to-do Mt. Olympus Homeowner’s Association have approached the city with a plan to pay for the speed humps and speed feedback signs that would make a difference in protecting their street from speeding drivers of all stripes.  A motion to allow them to do just that was heard at last week’s City Council Transportation Committee Hearing, with a resolution expected at next weeks.

Because of the wide nature of Electra and Mt. Olympus roads compared to other roads through the Hills, commuters are using the route as an alternative to the arterial street, Laurel Canyon Road, to the west.  Jerry Lynette, a homeowner near that curve at the bottom-right of the google image, complained specifically that teenagers "playing in their father’s cars" take the turn at excessive speeds.  Just counting his experiences and that of his family, he counted six crashes that occurred getting into and out of his driveway because of excessive speeds.  Meanwhile, Homeowner’s Association President Mel Rumba complains that residents can’t let their children out in the streets.

After years of complaining, the Homeowners approached their Council Member, Tom LaBonge, about paying for speed humps and speed feedback signs on their roads themselves.  They expressed willingness to go through whatever procedural hoops the LADOT required, but just wanted some action done before, in one resident’s words, "this ends in blood."

But not so fast.  LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher warned that speed humps wouldn’t be appropriate, because of the grade of the hill, at the places the residents wanted.  Instead he proposed the LADOT complete a study on the best place to place the speed bumps, causing LaBonge and Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl to give them a two week deadline to report to the Transportation Committee with their findings.  That deadline expires one week from today.

Streetsblog has written a lot about the challenges communities in Los Angeles have in reducing cut-through traffic in their local streets; but if this effort goes nowhere, it would be a truly sad statement.  The community has the support of their Councilman, the Committee Chair for Transportation is thrilled about using this as a precedence throughout the city, and their own pot of money to complete the project.  If this project gets stymied, what hope is there for the rest of us?

To read more about this issue, LaBonge’s motion authorizing the community to pay for their own street care can be read here.