It's too bad that we often need to see this before we can see real pedestrian safety improvements. Photo:Daily News

The past week has been a dismal one for pedestrian safety issues.  One week ago, the K-Town Riders were probably peacefully planning out their ride, checking their tires, or otherwise going about their business with no idea the carnage that would be unleashed on them.  One week ago the fate of our city’s red light camera program was still uncertain.  But one week ago, one of the deadliest intersection in the city still didn’t have a traffic light.

Well, at least there’s some good news from the last seven days.

Over six months after Emely Aleman, 12, and Angela Rodriguez, 10, were crossing the street in a marked crosswalk when they were hit and tossed fifty feet in the air by a Jeep Cherokee.  Aleman passed away at the hospital, while Rodriguez is on the long road to recovery.  It was the third crash at the intersection of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Archwood Street. in 2010, down from four crashes in 2009.

Yesterday, Councilman Paul Krekorian announced that construction of a traffic signal at that intersection has begun.  Krekorian and School Board Member Tamar Galatzan, who ran against Krekorian for the seat he now holds, teamed together with the community to create the political pressure to expediate the light’s installation.  A council resolution in Aleman’s name was passed by the City Council late last year urging LADOT to install this signal as quickly as possible.

The Council District 2 blog quotes Krekorian:

“Last fall, tragedy struck our community when Emely Aleman was fatally hit by a distracted driver as she crossed the street in a cross walk,” said Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who represents the area. “That tragic accident occurred on a busy stretch on Laurel Canyon Boulevard that had long been in need of more safety measures. After the accident, I stood with Emely’s friends and family and promised that my office would work with LAUSD Board Member Tamar Galatzan to expedite installation of a streetlight at the intersection.”

Paul Krekorian poses with cyclists and the Bicyclists Bill of Rights after a press event for AB 766 IN 2009. Photo:Alex Thompson/Flickr

Bisani, center-right, poses with his three sons. Photo: AugustoBisani.org

It seems as though it were just yesterday, but in fact was almost a year and a half ago, that we were first discussing which candidate would replace Wendy Greuel as the City Council Member for the 2nd Councilmanic District, located mostly in the Valley.  Streetsblog sent surveys to each of the 10 candidates in 2009, eight of whom responded.  Paul Krekorian, who won that election and is running for re-election this year, answered our survey.  His only opponent this time, Augusto Bisani, finished 10th in that election and did not.

Bisani’s name is not a familiar one to Streetsblog readers, and perhaps to most of the people in the Second District.  He tells the Daily News that he doesn’t expect to raise a lot of funds for this election and slams Neighborhood Councils as not representing people’s views.  A complete reading of his campaign website doesn’t reveal even a mention of the city’s transportation issues, but of course it hasn’t been updated since 2009.

We know quite a bit more about incumbent Krekorian, and not just because he answered our survey last time around.

Krekorian was first introduced to Streetsblog readers when, as a Member of the Assembly, he led the ultimately unsuccessful charge to change the state law to protect local streets from speed limit increases.  He introduce the Safe Streets Bill, AB 766, legislation that aimed to deliver greater control to local municipalities in regulating speed limits. The bill was ultimately derailed in committee by the AAA and California Highway Patrol, but proved to be a galvanizing effort for much of the bicycle community, local police community leaders, and other members of the City Council such as Richard Alarcon and Wendy Greuel.

Despite Krekorian’s efforts, local city streets are still succumbing to higher speed limits. The higher limits meet state speed survey laws that are required before the police can use radar to enforce the law.

When Greig Smith introduced legislation that would have required Neighborhood Council approval for any bicycle projects, Krekorian worked with Smith’s office to Co-author a proposal that all city transportation improvements be reviewed by the public.   At the time, Krekorian said the motion “is a step toward creating an expanded community outreach process that gives a voice to neighborhood leaders throughout our city on transportation issues and in creating a future L.A. where bicycles and cars peacefully share the road.”

Krekorian is represented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee by Ayla Stern, who has been a force in the campaign to save the Wilbur Avenue Road Diet and is heavily involved with the Valley Bikery.  Like most of the Council, he doesn’t have an appointee to the Pedestrian Advisory Committee.  However, Krekorian is proud of Stern’s appointment…how many City Council Members actually write press releases about their BAC appointments?

But perhaps the issue of greatest importance to CD2 is getting the twice-deadly intersection of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Archwood Street in North Hollywood.  Despite it’s deadly reputation, most recently a young girl was killed late last year by a distracted driver in a spectacular crash that was covered by the media, the city wasn’t planning to place even a street light at the intersection until 2012.  Thanks to a resolution, and some behind the scenes work, the light is expected in the next couple of months.

The move to speed up Los Angeles’ streets continues unabated.  Less than a week after hundreds of people gathered at the L.A. StreetSummit to discuss how to tame traffic and make Los Angeles’ streets more livable, the City Council Transportation Committee is expected to hear, debate, and pass three speed limit increases in the San Fernando Valley at 2:00 p.M. this Wednesday in City Hall.  In a way, its kind of a sobering crash back to reality.  After a week of being reminded of what could be, activists are back to where we are…fighting speed limit increases that represent the exact opposite kind of thinking to what we talked about all weekend.

So what streets are up for a change? 

First up is Arleta
Avenue, in the Arleta community.  In the stretch
between Devonshire Street and Roscoe Boulevard, a cool
three and a quarter miles, the speed limit will be increased from
thirty-five to forty miles per hour so that radar enforcement of the
limit can be maintained. LADOT documented their efforts to
contact the local Neighborhood Council without getting much in return. 
It would have been nice if they had made the effort with other groups
that operate in that area, but this is where we are.  The Arleta Community is represented by Paul Krekorian in City Hall, who in the past has insisted that the neighborhood be involved in this process.  Whether the Neighborhood Council being asleep at the switch changes his view remains to be seen.   You can read all about the Arleta Avenue increase, here.

Next are two streets in Sun Valley, which is in the sixth Councilmanic District represented by Tony Cardenas.  The first is the world
famous "Hollywood Way" between Burbank city limits and Glen Oaks
Boulevard; which would also see an increase from thirty five to forty
miles per hour.  The local LAPD first signed off on the increase in
March of 2007, three years ago.  There’s some irony with this
particular increase, because just last week, Burbank implemented a road
diet on some of its local streets…which is the exact opposite of
increasing the speed limits as Los Angeles plans to do right up to Burbank’s doorstep.  You can read more about this proposal, here.

Last up is another increase from thirty five to forty miles per hour on Sheldon Street between Glen Oaks Avenue and Roscoe Boulevard.  This time, residents expressed concern that the area included a school zone, but LADOT assured them that the zone could and would remain at twenty-five miles per hour and signs would warn drivers as they approached.  How having drivers drop their speed limit fifteen miles per hour in a short period of time is safer than the way the street is now is beyond me, but that has never been taken into account in the state law.  You can read more about this proposal, here.

At least this time nobody can say they were caught off-guard by the increases.  After the strong push back against increases by the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council last year; this time it appears that LADOT did contact the local neighborhood council’s BEFORE coming to the City Council.  It doesn’t appear to have changed the results, but at least the City didn’t skip a step in its outreach process.  Unlike the Arleta Neighborhood Council, the Sun Valley Neighborhood Council did hear about the increases at a meeting and expressed their concerns.  Whether they’re willing to take the fight all the way to City Hall, as the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council and others before them have, remains to be seen.

For anyone reading about increases for the first time, the state has a law requiring that local speed limits be set at the eighty-fifth percentile of drivers or the local police cannot enforce speed limit increases.  In other words, the faster drivers go, the higher the limit goes.  Considering that it’s a rule of thumb that most drivers consider five to ten miles per hour over the limit "not speeding" the limits could well go up forever.  Efforts to modify this law were beaten back by traffic engineers, the California Highway Patrol and AAA.  It’s an insidious system, because in addition to encouraging drivers to speed, after all they can always just raise the limit in a couple of years, it also turns local police departments into cheerleaders for increasing speed limits because they don’t want to lose their ability to use radar for traffic enforcement.

When we last checked in with the City Council Transportation Committee, they decided to table a motion to increase the speed limit on Chandler Boulevard, where the limit would increase from 35 MPH to 45 MPH along the Orange Line, and Riverside Drive which would change the limit from 35 MPH to 40 MPH for its entire length between the Burbank border and Van Nuys Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. The Councilman for the area, Paul Krekorian, wanted a chance for the community to give input on the increases before the proposal went through, and now the increases are back on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting.

So what was the community's feedback? Unsurprisingly, they are concerned that faster speeds for cars will lead to roads that are less safe for pedestrians and cyclists, especially those observing a religious holiday, senior citizens, and school students. Last year, we saw the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council voice similar concerns but that didn't stop speed limits from being increased near schools, places of worship and shopping malls.

Those fighting the limit increases are in for a long haul. As we've seen before, the scapegoat for speed limit increases used by the LADOT and Council is a state law that mandates that a speed survey be completed every five to seven years and that the new limit be set within five miles per hour of the 85th percentile of drivers. Last year, Assemblyman Paul Krekorian sponsored legislation that would have changed the way limits are calculated across the state; but with Krekorian moving his offices from Sacramento to 200 Spring Street, a new leader on this issue has yet to emerge.

I've been corresponding on this issue with staff from Assembly Transportation Committee Chair Mike Eng, who have been nothing but polite and helpful despite the pounding Eng took on this blog after Krekorian's legislation was bottled in his committee last year. When I asked them if any new legislation had been submitted on this issue, they pointed me to committee staff who basically said, "not that we know of." Last week, over 400 pieces of legislation were filed before a 2/16 deadline, but to the best knowledge of both the Chairman's staff and Committee staff, none of them dealt with reforming the way the state looks at speed limit increases.

One reason that legislators may be hesitant to pick up this fight in Sacramento is because it looks to be a daunting task to get this law changed. First off, there are entrenched interests who will push back both officially, such as AAA, or unofficially, in the form of "expert testimony" given by our friends at the California Highway Patrol. Second, following the Transportation Committee's rejection of Krekorian's legislation last year, Eng and his Senate counterpart Alan Lowenthal held a special "informational" hearing on this issue in October of last year. Attached here, you can find an informational packet that was given to all legislators in attendance, which outlines a major hurdle to reforming the laws requiring speed limit increases.

The process for setting speed limits is guided by federal standards contained in the National MUTCD. Any change to the process in California must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration as being "in substantial compliance" with the National MUTCD. The process for setting speed limits on California streets and highways is contained in the Californiasupplement to the MUTCD, which is known simply as the California MUTCD. Caltrans is responsible for maintaining the guidance and standards in the manual and receives input on changes to the manual from the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC), an advisory body convened by Caltrans.

In other words, even if a legislator is successful in guiding reform legislation through the Assembly and Senate. And then is successful in getting our car-loving, jet-setting Governor to sign the legislation; before it can become law it must be approved by the Highway Division of the federal government. In the era of term limits, a legislator could spend his entire time in office focused solely on this issue and not get anywhere.

There are plenty of people who have argued that the problem isn't that the law doesn't provide enough flexibility to keep speed limits low, but that our roads in Southern California are designed to move cars as quickly as possible at the expense of other modes.  Thus, limits are going to keep rising on arterial streets until capacity issues cause them to slow down.  The response from those fighting the increases in Sacramento and locally has been that a legislative victory is a heck of a lot easier than reforming the LADOT.  However, if that's not the case, then the time is ripe for communities to take control of their streets through better design and traffic enforcement rather than focusing on the limits by themselves.

As mentioned in a post yesterday, the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee will vote tomorrow at 2:00 P.M. in City Hall on whether or not to raise speed limits on three local streets Chandler Boulevard, Riverside Drive and Beverly Glen Boulevard. In the past day, three outraged pieces have attacked the limit increases and challenged the Council to defy state rules that require the increases for the LAPD to use radar to enforce the law.

There is some debate over whether or not the speed limit changes at Beverly Glenn Boulevard are necessarily a bad thing.  Instead of just raising limits, the proposal seeks to normalize the speed along the road so that the limit is consistent and predictable.  In some areas, the speed limit could actually be decreased.  You'll note as you read some of the coverage of the increases, that some of the articles, notably the one by Stephen Box in City Watch, only refer to two of the changes as "increases" worth fighting.

For anyone that doesn't remember last year's fight over speed limit increases, allow me to summarize what's going on and where we stand.  Last year, a series of increases were proposed by the LADOT throughout the San Fernando Valley.  The shocked reaction of the local neighborhood councils and a coalition of bicycle and pedestrian advocates managed to stall some of the increases, but an arcane state law meant to stop small towns from creating speed traps requires regular engineering surveys that set the speed limit at the upper fifteenth percentile of drivers.  An attempt to change that law by Assemblyman, and now L.A. City Councilman, Paul Krekorian was stopped in committee.

And now here we are a year later, with new speed limit increases moving through the city's Transportation Commission and now City Council Transportation Committee with no fix at the state level in site.

Of more immediate concern, three local streets could become a more dangerous place to walk or ride a bicycle after a vote by the Council tomorrow. At LAist, Zach Behrens, who also served on the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council, explains the individual speed limit raises and some of the issues.

The most drastic proposal is for Chandler Boulevard, where officials want to see a speed limit increase from 35 MPH to 45 MPH along the Orange Line busway and bike lanes (a small section between Vineland and Lankershim would change from 35 mph to 40 mph, too, according to the proposal) . A proposal for Riverside Drive would change the limit from 35 MPH to 40 MPH for its entire length between the Burbank border and Van Nuys Boulevard in Sherman Oaks. And Beverly Glen Boulevard would see some increases and decreases along a short section, between Ventura Boulevard and Mulholland Drive.

LAist, also has a map of the changes and a quote from City Councilman Krekorian, who's new district will see some of the increases.

"I'm very concerned about increasing posted speed limits in my district where people are already driving too fast in the first place," explained Paul Krekorian, the newly elected Councilmember, who as an Assemblyman last year, introduced the Safe Streets Bill--it was later voted down--to give cities more flexibility in changing the limits. "This next round of proposed increases just makes me frustrated that the state legislation that I introduced did not advance because I think it would have given local governments the ability to protect public safety."

Also at issue, the traffic reports weren't up to the Councilman's standards.  The reports barely mention cyclists and pedestrians, even though Chandler Boulevard runs, for a brief time, along the Orange Line busway and bike lanes.

At Westside Bikeside, Alex Thompson posits that this is a major test for the progressive Committee Chair, Bill Rosendahl.  Will he resist the changes and push for a fix to the state law, or will he go with the flow as his predecessor did and let the limit increases go through?

At City Watch, after haranguing all parties involved in the limit increases, Box gets to the heart of the matter.  Because the city designs streets that are meant for cars and not for people, it's natural for drivers to move as quickly as they can.  Instead of just fighting the increases, communities need to fight for better streets.

It's at this point in the repetitious debate over speed limits that I'm challenged to offer other solutions. I typically start by saying "Bulb-outs, speed tables and road diets!" and the resulting confused look on the faces of those I'm talking with tells me that the transportation experts who are in charge of our streets have one tool in the toolbox and it is 50 years old.

Our City is in the middle of a budget crisis. Why don't we put this energy into pursuing funding sources that would allow us to improve the quality of life on our streets, that would allow us to put people to work, that would allow us to work together to make Los Angeles a walkable, rideable, livable city that works for everybody. It's time to put down the old paradigm and to work together to make people a priority.

If you're not planning on making it to City Hall tomorrow, you can either wait and read the results here at Streetsblog, or listen in via Council Phone at 213-621-2489.

Regular readers of Streetsblog are familiar with Assemblyman Paul Krekorian because of his efforts to change a state law which pressures the LADOT and LAPD to raise speed limits on local roads. While his legislation was stalled in the Assembly Transportation Committee, he has vowed to push forward with his efforts this fall starting with a public meeting on the legislation on September 15 in Burbank.

As you might expect, his questionnaire answer for the one on speed limits is pretty detailed. Other highlights include another Stephen Box reference and an aggressive stance towards improving streets for cyclists and pedestrians. His full answers are below, and you can see the other candidates' responses here:

1) When you commute to work, how do you do it? What percentage of the trips that you take don't involve an automobile?

While in the district, I drive a Toyota Prius. In Sacramento, I drive one of the Assembly's hybrid Camry pool cars when necessary, but I frequently walk home from the Capitol to my apartment (depending on how late I'm working).

2) Over the past year, a number of surface streets in the valley have had their speed limits raised. Are these increases a result of the natural order, or an interest that needs to be addressed? What, if anything can be done to reverse these changes?

These increases are (in part) the result of the state "speed trap" law that prohibits local governments from using radar enforcement unless they have set speed limits based on an updated engineering traffic study. The general practice for setting speed limits is to complete a study that collects data on vehicle travel speed, and the posted limit is then set at the 85th percentile of that speed plus five mph, barring certain extenuating circumstance. The effect has been an upward creep in posted speed limits.

To address this problem, I introduced my legislation, AB 766, which gives greater control to local municipalities to set and retain speed limits. Though that legislation has been shelved in the Transportation Committee due to pressure by special interest lobbyists in Sacramento, I remain committed to pushing for legislative fixes to the problem of speeding. In the meantime, I am pressing ahead with a Town Hall to develop community-based solutions to speeding in our neighborhoods. That forum is scheduled for Sept. 15 in Burbank. More information on the event is available on my website, www.assembly.ca.gov/krekorian.

I am the only candidate in this race to aggressively tackle the issue of allowing communities to better control their speed limits for the benefit of drivers, residents, bicyclists, pedestrians and others.

But legislation is only part of the answer. Stop signs and speed humps are welcome additions in some communities, but travel speed has a lot to do with road geometry and trip generators. So, for instance, people will drive much faster if the street is straight, the lanes are wide, and the traffic signals are far apart. Other ideas to reduce speeding that have been effective in some communities include narrowing streets by constructing medians or planters - which have worked well along Ventura Boulevard in Studio City. We need thoughtful solutions that will incorporate community involvement to effectively reduce the dangerous elements of speeding on our streets.

3) The city is currently studying leasing the rights to its parking meters and certain parking garages for a large cash payment up front. Do you support this kind of financing ideas, and if so what kind of conditions should be part of any agreement with a private firm?

I'm still studying this issue, but of course my support would depend entirely on the details of the arrangement, including the impacts on the affordability and availability of parking, the "payback" period of the upfront payment versus traditional revenue streams, the credibility of the financial and consumer behavior assumptions, etc.

4) What can the City Council do to reduce and prevent fatal crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable users?

I have focused on traffic safety throughout my Assembly career, including my AB 766 this session, and a previous bill targeted at grossly excessive speeding (adding a second violation point to the driver's record for speeding in excess of 25 mph over the posted limit). On the city level, I would continue to work to improve street safety for everyone who shares the road by aggressively implementing the bicycle and pedestrian master plans, ensuring that LADOT has funding to retain/restore their bicycle planning group and improving the visibility of pedestrians at pedestrian crossings.

5) The former Council Woman for CD2, Wendy Greuel, chaired the Transportation Committee. Do you want to be part of the Transportation Committee?

Regardless of what committee I might serve on, should I be fortunate enough to be elected, I plan to have an integral role in shaping transportation policy for the future of Los Angeles. That said, I would be very pleased to serve on the Transportation Committee and work on the mobility and environmental issues that are so important to our quality of life in Los Angeles.

6) One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familiar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?

My staff and I have worked closely in the past with many bicycle/pedestrian activists. I am a strong supporter of the Bicycle Bill of Rights and counted as official supporters of my AB 766 the Bike Writer's Collective and other groups. We have worked with others in the Bike Oven, C.I.C.L.E. and other organizations to improve street safety and my staff regularly seeks the input of transportation bloggers/experts to inform my opinions about transportation issues.

7) If you could change one thing about transportation in Los Angeles with the wave of a magic wand, what would it be?

My wish would be for Los Angeles to have a comprehensive and integrated mass transit system that serves every part of the city and fully integrates all modes of transportation (including rail and bus, together with bicyclist and pedestrian utility), and is user-friendly enough to provide an easy-to-use and practical means of getting from place to place throughout every part of the city without a personal auto.

Auto Club spokesman, Asm. Mike Eng

Despite the support of just about everyone in Los Angeles, A.B. 766 didn't muster the support to even come to a vote at the Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing yesterday.  How could such a slam dunk piece of legislation, a bill that would protect cyclists and pedestrians from the increased speeding of drivers, be such a non-starter with the State Legislature?

Unfortunately, the largest slice of the blame can be served to L.A. County Assemblyman and Transportation Committee Chair Mike "the 710 Tunnel Project Is Going to Happen Whether You Like It or Not" Eng and the Los Angeles City Government.  Eng allowed and encouraged the California Highway Patrol to act as an "expert witness" despite their clear disdain for the legislation and accepted their criticisms of "Safer Streets" as fact.  This luxury was not granted to the local police that testified concerning how current law is making their roads inhospitable to everyone, especially those of us that don't use a motor to get around, but including automobile drivers.

As for why the city is to blame, they managed to produce someone from LADOT to advocate concerning legislation that really only effects contractors and the summoned the city's official state lobbyist to stump for Assemblyman Blumenfield's parking legislation; but left the table empty for A.B. 766.  Where was Wendy Greuel, who announced at last week's press conference her intent to travel to Sacrameno and why weren't city lobbyists who were in the room ordered by Villaraigosa to the table?  That left the Enci and Stephen Box and Lieutenant Carl Povilaitis of the Glendale P.D. to do the bulk of the rhetorical lifting against the better recognized "expert" lobbyists from AAA and the Teamsters.  The lack of lobbying power demonstrated by the city has many of us wondering again, does the City really want to see this law changed?

However, none of this would have mattered if it weren't for the clear urban v rural v suburban divide that exists in Sacramento.

Krekorian testified that his bill would allow municipalities, provided they could show a clear danger to pedestrians, to not raise speed limits as a requirement to use radar as an enforcement mechanism.  Instead, if the only thing that had changed on the road was the average speed of drivers then the municipality could hold the limit at it's current speed.  In other words, drivers wouldn't be allowed to increase a speed limit by speeding.  This basic fact, that under current laws unsafe drivers are rewarded with higher speed limits was never addressed again.  In fact, the Teamsters seemed miffed that Krekorian didn't support the goal of ever increasing speed limits as cars can go faster and faster into the future.

However, after the AAA of Northern California, Southern California Auto Club and Teamsters were done their testimony, questions about "the science" of Krekorian's legislation were planted in the minds of the committee.  That it is the opposite of scientific to only take the needs of one user group into account didn't occur to most of the committee, because they've been brainwashed to think only of the drivers, who have a larger percent of the road share than here in Los Angeles.  To be fair, there probably aren't a lot of cyclists or pedestrians in some of their districts, which is why the support of Eng was so crucial and so clearly absent.

And so, listeners heard a parade of legislators talking about "speed traps" mimicking the testimony until finally the California Highway Patrol, the same organization that went into spastic fits when it accidently gave correct information about cyclists riding two abreast, took to the stand to bury A.B. 766.

The CHP, an organization that never met a cyclist it didn't think of as a traffic hazard, also attacked the "science" of Krekorian's legislation in the name of "providing expert testimony."  Not once did the CHP, nor the AAA or Teamsters, ever address pedestrian safety or explain how setting the limit at the eighty-fifth percentile of drivers was "scientific."  Incidentally, a list of how the Teamsters want you to vote in next week's elections can be found in their March-May newsletter which is linked to on the right of this page.

These were two of the three pictures available of Eng in his Online Press Room.

So let's start the clock now.  It's one day with no word on Eng's series of hearings on traffic safety.  I suspect only Krekorian's reputation as a fearless and tireless advocate for what he believes in is going to make this hearing a reality.  Left alone, it would probably become the "Bike Master Plan" of state politics.

Because Streetsblog is about providing answers, I'd like to present an email that was awaiting for me in my inbox this morning.  In it, Josef Bray-Ali outlines the changes that would both make A.B. 766 more palatable to rural leaders and strengthen the bill.  What follows is the text of his email, posted without comment:

Krekorian's AB 766 is flawed and it does not address the abuse of the Engineering and Traffic Survey that has raised the ire of Angelenos.

Here is how to fix it:

(1) DEFINE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLISTS SAFETY - per 1,000 car trips, per capita, per anything that is reasonable. Currently, nothing exists as a standard for "safety" in an E&TS. The Los Angeles DOT uses fatalities per millions of vehicle trips! They justify anything using standards like this and we end up with dead neighbors and friends.

(2) Offer scientifically proven methods of improving bicyclists and pedestrian safety, as follows (for pedestrians):

"Much is known about what design features place pedestrians at risk ... [h]igh speeds and high traffic volume, typical of busy roads, are also important risk factors.

Several kinds of environmental modifications offer great promise in protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. These can be divided into three categories: separating pedestrians from vehicles, making pedestrians visible and conspicuous to drivers, and reducing vehicle speeds ... [v]ehicle speeds can be reduced with traffic circles, narrowed traffic lanes, curving or zigzag roadways, raised intersections, and speed bumps. ... These techniques are collectively known as 'traffic calming'."
-pg. 117 - 119, Howard Frumkin, Lawrence D. Frank, Richard Jackson, "Urban sprawl and public health: designing, planning, and building for healthy communities"

There is plenty of good science that has been done on this issue that will allow the state to uniformly apply standards to our roads. A public hearing stapled onto a flawed process is a poor policy! Keep the public hearing if you must, but force Departments of Transportation and City Managers to ignore good science no more.

There's plenty of credit to go around for the stalling of A.B. 766.  For example, Committee Chair Mike Eng and Assistant Chair Kevin Jeffries made clear their bias in favor of the status quo.  After treating the California Highway Patrol as an "expert witness" despite their clear opposition to the legislation, Eng joined with the Auto Club of Southern California, Teamsters and AAA of Northern California to claim the "science" of the legislation was flawed.  Somehow, setting a speed limit based mostly on the desired speed of the most dangerous users of the road is more scientific.

To his credit, Eng vowed to keep this issue in the forefront of the committee's conciousness and will hold future hearings bringing in more "experts" to help craft legislation to fix the problem of speeders setting the speed limits.

I'll also briefly note that while Stephen and Enci Box, on behalf of the Bike Writer's Collective and the Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council, were joined by the City of Oakland and Lieutenant Carl Povilaitis of the Glendale P.D.; neither Wendy Greuel nor Richard Alarcon nor any representative of City of Los Angeles were present to speak on behalf of the City of Los Angeles.  Both L.A. City Council Members were present at last week's press conference, and Greuel's presence was expected today.

To give you an idea of how far we really have to go to bring about the transportation reform we need to see, Asm. Blumenfield's legislation that would require building owners to spell out the cost of parking when a cash-out program could apply drew heavy fire before passing 9-4.

Flanked by members of the City Council Transportation Committee, police from the Cities of Glendale and Burbank, an L.A. County Sheriff, leaders from community boards and a group of cyclists from around the city; Assemblyman Paul Krekorian strongly made his case for the passage of A.B. 766, the legislation that would empower the community to resist speed limit raises even if called for in an engineering survey.

Before turning the podium over to the Council Members and Police Officers, Krekorian praised the community for the tremendous support they've shown for this legislation.  Noting that powerful interests are aligned against A.B. 766, including the Auto Club of Southern California, the Teamsters and the California Highway Patrol, the support of the elected leaders and the grassroots is particularly important if we want to retake our streets from speeding motorists.

And let's face it, it doesn't get more grassroots than the support of neighborhood activists who live along the streets already effected by the city's increased speed limits or nearly a dozen cyclists pedaling to the press conference.  The cyclists present weren't a part of a coordinated effort by one of the city's "official" bike groups but was organized by the efforts of the Bike Writers Collective, especially Stephen Box.  The battle against speed limit increases has always been an effort from the bottom up, so it was good to see so many cyclists providing a backdrop for the event.  In the picture on the left, you can see Box and Eric Knutzen, two members of the BWC and two people very familiar to any regular reader of Streetsblog.

Krekorian pointed out how current law, which requires that speed limits be set at the eighty-fifth percentile of drivers creates a never-ending spiral upward for speed limits.  Via LAist:

"Unfortunately," Krekorian continued, "these traffic surveys take into account the average speed that drivers are using on that street, which means that as speeders continue to increase the average speed limit, local government feels forced to increase the posted speed limit. Of course, as soon as that happens, the speeders go a little faster and it's an endless cycle of mayhem on our streets."

As for the other elected supporters of the legislation, the strongest statement came from City Council Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel who declared that, "We have had enough!...This legislation gives us the right to control our own destiny and control our own streets!"  While we appreciate Greuel's support of A.B. 766, it would be better if she would also bottle up any pending speed limit increases until after Krekorian's legislation has had a chance to move through the committee structure in Sacramento and becomes a law.  Thus far, speed limit increases are continuing to be passed by the City's Transportation Commission, the Council's Transportation Committee, and the Council itself.  A particularly controversial increase was even passed by the full City Council earlier this week.

Also speaking at the event were Valley Councilman Richard Alarcon, who spoke movingly about how a speeder took the life of his infant son and the child's grandmother over two decades ago and Glendale Policeman Carl Poulaitis, who helped author the legislation.  Greuel, Box and Poulaitis are all traveling to Sacramento for A.B. 766's hearing this Monday.  If you want to help the legislation get past the committee, chaired by Assemblyman Mike Eng, a draft letter of support and a place to email it can be found here.

Now, as the Krekorian legislation cruises to its hearing in front of the Assembly Transportation Committee next Monday, a chorus of voices has risen in support of the legislation that would give the LADOT greater flexibility when it comes to raising speed limits.  The City Council has backed the legislation.  So has the Mayor.  And yesterday, a coalition of activists and writers added their voices to the push to get this legislation passed.

Some of the writers referenced regularly on Streetsblog, Biking in LA, Brayj Against the Machine and SoapBox were all part of yesterday's series of blog articles written in support of Krekorian.  All of the writers provided an email address, SafeStreets@BikeWritersCollective.com, so that readers can write their own letters to be presented to the Assembly by Stephen Box during the hearing.  Ron Kaye even provides a sample letter.

While next week is an important step in protecting our streets, it's far from the last stop.  After clearing committee the legislation needs to be passed by the full Assembly before going through a similar process in the State Senate.  Even once this legislation becomes law, we'll still have to contend with the LADOT, which in the words of Assistant General Manager John Fisher would have wanted to raise limits on many of these roads anyway.

Regardless, it's important to back Krekorian now to show our support for communities and safe streets.  A.B. 766 allows an entry for Neighborhood Councils in setting speed limits.  With the deck now stacked against safe streets, and more speed limit raises being moved by the city's transportation commission and city council, a speed limit increase on Zelzah Avenue is on today's City Council Agenda, the time is now to stand up for safe streets.  Thanks to Ron Kaye and the Bike Writer's Collective, taking that stand is as easy as a couple of clicks.

The legislation will be heard by the Assembly Transportation Committee Hearing on April 20.

I share the frustration felt by so many Valley residents who know that our current laws to address speeding are inadequate. 

Recent news reports have addressed this issue but failed to address a key component of what I am doing on the state level to try and fix what has been a pervasive problem on our streets.

On Feb. 26, I introduced legislation that will increase pedestrian safety by giving local governments an important tool to control speeding. Currently cities are required by state law to evaluate street speeds and adjust the limits if they want police to be able to use radar guns. If the study of a street finds that 85% of drivers are speeding, the city must raise the limit. The problem is, the law doesn't consider the public safety of pedestrians or those who live on or near city streets.

My Safe Streets Bill will allow local governments, through a public process, to consider pedestrian safety when reviewing local speed limits, not just the rising speed of passing motorists. Essentially, this measure would provide local governments with a means of increasing pedestrian and community safety by limiting increases in speed limits on local streets.  

If passed, the Safe Streets Bill would allow local entities to retain existing speed limits on their streets - instead of the state mandating a change every seven years - after public hearings show that a higher speed limit would not improve the flow of traffic, nor promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians. 

We are an ever-changing populous in which our communities are growing faster each day; it’s time we had legislation to allow local governments the power to keep our streets, our communities and our children safe from excessive speeding. The Safe Streets Bill will help deliver peace of mind that drivers, pedestrians and parents deserve on our streets.      

Assemblymember Paul Krekorian (D-Burbank) represents the cities of Burbank and Glendale, and the Los Angeles communities of Atwater Village, Los Feliz, North Hollywood, Silver Lake, Toluca Lake, Valley Glen, Valley Village and Van Nuys.

And, here is the fact sheet from Krekorian's office.

BACKGROUND

Many cities in California struggle to deal with excessive speed on local roads, which can thereby pose a significant threat to public safety.  One contributing factor is required periodic engineering and traffic surveys which can lead to an increased speed limit on local roads because many drivers continually drive faster than posted speed limits.  Under current law, local governments have only limited ability to adjust speed limits on local roadways to account for public safety. 

In 2008, in the City of Glendale there were 82 Pedestrian Related Traffic Collisions and 4 Pedestrian Fatalities.  According to recent data from 2001, nearly 20% of the traffic fatalities in California are pedestrians.  A major contributing factor in many of these fatalities is excessive speeding by motorists. 

EXISTING LAW

Requires that any section of road in which a local entity has adopted a prima facie speed limit, and the enforcement of the limit involves the use of radar, the entity must conduct an engineering and traffic survey every seven years.

THIS BILL

AB 766 would allow a local entity to retain existing prima facie speed limits on a street only if certain conditions are met.  In order to retain the existing speed limit, a local entity must conduct a public hearing and then make an official finding that a higher speed limit would not improve the flow of traffic, nor would it promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians.   

Additionally, this measure provides that if the local entity conducts a public hearing and makes an official finding, then the existing prima facie speed limit does not need to be rejustified by an engineering and traffic survey.

SUMMARY

This measure would provide local governments with a means of increasing pedestrian and community safety by limiting

increases in speed limits on local streets.  Under current law, if local law enforcement wish to use radar enforcement of a speed limit then an engineering and traffic survey must be conducted every seven years.  The local speed limit can then be modified based on the results of the survey.  Often times an engineering and traffic survey will show that motorists are consistently driving above the posted speed limit and therefore an increase in the speed limit is needed.   

This bill gives local governments some limited control over vehicle speed and safety within their jurisdiction.  Unfortunately, the current process does not place enough value on the safety of pedestrians and those who live on or near the street being surveyed.  This measure allows local governments, through a public process, to give consideration to pedestrian safety when the review of local speed limits occurs. 

This bill aims to provide local governments with an additional tool to keep the speeds traveled on local roads at a safe level for drivers, pedestrians, and communities as a whole.  This bill balances the ability of drivers to safely drive on City streets at a reasonable speed with the needs of residents and pedestrians to be able to access those same streets without an undue risk of a collision, thus enhancing both community safety and traffic flow.

BILL STATUS

2/26/2009: Introduced

4/20/2009: Assembly Transportation Committee 

SUPPORT

Sponsor: City of Glendale

For More Information

Office of Asst Majority Leader Krekorian

Jeremy Oberstein (818) 558-3043