Streetsblog Los Angeles

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. Read more…

A new front in the debate over on-street bike parking opens this week with a motion by Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz that asks the city to study allowing residents to park in front of their own driveways and garages on the street.  The motion will be debated as part of the City Council Transportation Committee Hearing that begins tomorrow at 2:00 P.M. at City Hall.

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.

Read more…

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. Read more…

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

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.

Read more…

(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. Read more…

Despite the Monday 9am hour and the picture perfect weather, a standing-room only crowd assembled in the Metro Board Room for city of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's first Bike Summit.  Alongside Mayor Villaraigosa were Department of Transportation (LADOT) General Manager Rita Robinson, Metro CEO Art Leahy, Department of City Planning (DCP) General Manager Michael LoGrande, and  Police Department Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese sitting in for Chief Charlie Beck.

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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

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.