Streetsblog Los Angeles

(Update: I got a little confused by the motion.  It will shut down through traffic on Yucca Street in Hollywood, between Las Palmas Ave. and Whitley Ave.   Cars are permitted, through traffic is blocked.  Curbed found me out. – DN)

In 1995, the City of Los Angeles installed some temporary traffic diverters at three intersections along Yucca Street to keep vehicular traffic and discourage other illegal activities that were too common-place such as drug dealing.  They closed the intersections with concrete bollards and later with attachable plastic traffic bollards.  Over the years, the experiment has been a success.  Crime rates on Yucca have dropped off while people-powered transportation has flourished.

View Yucca Street in a larger map

Seventeen years later, Councilmen Eric Garcetti and Tom LaBonge want to finally make the closures permanent while creating a more inviting place for cyclists and pedestrians.  The concrete bollards at the intersections of Yucca and Las Palmas, Cherokee, and Whitley Avenues has degraded creating a community eye sore and the temporary plastic ones are so beat up that in some cases drivers go right over them without even realizing that they are there.

The Councilmen hope that making the closure permanent, and working with the LADOT they can create more attractive and permanent ways to keep car traffic from using Yucca.  When pressed as to why they’re proposing to make the “temporary” closure permanent now, after 17 years of “temporary,” staff pointed to the poor shape of the bollards, a desire to improve the look of the three intersections, and a chance to make sure the intersections and Yucca Street work as a bicycle corridor.

For cyclists, Yucca Street already includes sharrows from Cahuenga Boulevard to Vine Street as part of a north-south bikeway connector. LADOT plans to create an east-west arm of this connector on Yucca Street by extending the Sharrows west to Highland Avenue. Staff for Garcetti believe this will create a comfortable corridor for bicyclists who wish to avoid busy Hollywood Boulevard and Franklin Avenue.

The City Council Transportation Committee will hear this motion as part of the regular meeting on Wednesday.  Streetsblog will follow-up on this story as it moves forward.

Visitors to Griffith Park over the last year have noted that there is some major construction going on near the Silver Lake Resevoir.  In order to protect Angelenos from any future plans to poison the water, the federal government is ordering that all open air resevoirs be taken offline and replaced with below ground ones.  That edict is creating constrcution projects in parks across the country, but in in Griffith Park it might alwo seal off parts of the park to bicyclists.

The city’s Department of Water and Power is currently working in Griffith Park to create a new underground reservoir so they can take the Silver Lake reservoir off-line. Roughly one year from now, DWP will be working in the northern tip of Griffith Park. That work will result in the partial closure of Zoo Drive from Riverside Drive to the west entrance at Forest Lawn.

During construction, which could last for at least a year, the street will be kept open for cars and other road users traveling eastbound into the park from Forest Lawn. However, cyclists will face a longer and more inconvenient route traveling west.

Westbound motorists, cyclists, and other road users will not be allowed to proceed past the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside Drive. Any motorist or cyclist traveling in the park westbound from the Zoo/Autry area will be forced to detour out of the park and across the 134 Freeway on Riverside Drive. Many cyclists use the stretch of road in Griffith Park from the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside to the west park entrance near Travel Town.

Instead of forcing a detour for west-bound cyclists, one solution that could ensure two-way access for cyclists and other park users (joggers, walkers, etc.) without requiring a significant detour for motorists AND maintaining motorist access to the Zoo and the Autry. Zoo Drive could be completely closed to cars and left open for cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers as though it were a multi-use path (or a street closure a la CicLAvia or like the weekend street closures in Golden Gate Park in SF.)  It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a park opened up some street space for bicycle and pedestrian usage.

Motorists could easily detour onto the 134 freeway in both directions. There are entrances and exits at Riverside Drive and at Forest Lawn Drive. Motorists traveling west-bound can easily get on the freeway, go to the next exit at Forest Lawn and get off. This will enable access to Travel Town, Forest Lawn Cemetery, or enable continued travel towards Warner Brothers studio parking and Barham Blvd.   Read more…

(The LACBC’s 4th Street Campaign has an open meeting tonight at the Halal Indian restaurant at 4th and Highland at 7:00 P.M. Just got word that the location has moved to Larchmont Bungalow, 107 Larchmont Blvd. Sorry for the last minute change.)

As a city that has for so long embraced car culture in its personality and planning, a change to pushing for bicycle and pedestrian projects is bound to create confusion and anger in some quarters and provoke a backlash from communities. After the battle on Wilbur Avenue in the Valley, where angry car drivers lobbied their City Councilman to remove a chunk of a road diet that proved popular with cyclists and the residents who lived on Wilbur itself.

LADOT expected to be on friendlier ground when pushing its concept for a Bicycle Friendly Street on 4th Street. Not only has the concept of a 4th Street Bike Boulevard has been a sort of holy grail for many cyclists, there are many more bike commuters on and near 4th Street than there are on or near Wilbur Avenue. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition has a campaign centered around making 4th Street safe haven for cyclists and Neighborhood Councils along the route have backed the concept of a bike friendly 4th Street.

A safe and attractive route off major streets connecting Downtown to the Park La Brea development in Fairfax would be a game changer for thousands of cyclists who would use part of the route or would use it to connect to other locales north or south of the route.  4th Street has even been home to one of Councilman Tom LaBonge’s annual summer rides named “Positively 4th Street.”

But the movement to create a Bike Boulevard on 4th Street, or Bicycle Friendly Street as LADOT prefers to call them, hit a major snag last month. An organized homeowner’s group in well-to-do Hancock Park put together a survey with some pretty slanted misinformation and followed up with a petition that attracted over 200 signatures in an effort to beat off bicycle and pedestrian signal lights at two dangerous intersections, 4th and Highland and 4th and Rossmore. Their combined effort spooked Councilman LaBonge’s office who pulled their support for the proposed signal changes and LADOT has dropped the proposal.

The difficulty in explaining new infrastructure is perhaps best exemplified by an article on the controversy between LADOT and the homeowners in the Larchmont Chronicle.  Everything from the title to the text creates more confusion about what LADOT is proposing.  Crossing signals for bicyclists and pedestrians are not traffic lights and they’re certainly not stop signs.

Some proponents of the concept of a completed Bicycle Friendly Street claim the Hancock Park Homeowner’s Association is against the project because of some sort of Not-In-My-Back-Yard syndrome. Others have speculated that the group was spooked that LADOT had only one plan, instead of a variety of options, for the signals and that the residents were reacting to a “design and defend” approach to transportation planning. The Homeowners Association didn’t respond to requests to comment for this story so all we have is speculation. Read more…

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. Read more…

For those in the livable streets advocacy community, no city council race has taken on more significance than this one. Here, LA Streetsblog presents a rundown of the two candidates and the livable streets issues at the heart of the race, so that you can make an informed decision.

The Incumbent: Tom LaBonge is an avid cyclist who organizes rides throughout the city and is a regular presence during Bike Week.  He’s also served as a stand-in for Councilman Huizar on the Metro Board of directors and has advocated for better bus only lanes on Wilshire Boulevard as well Olympic, San Vicente and Venice Boulevards.

The Challengers: Stephen Box was awarded LA Streetsblog’s 2009 Livable Streets Person of the Year Award for his leadership in the movement to make Los Angeles a better place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.  Tomas O’Grady is a second challenger and also has a strong record of community advocacy.   As Councilman, O’Grady will focus on improving L.A.’s crumbling infrastructure.

The District: Council District 4 is geographically diverse swath of Los Angeles in the heart of the city. Its physical center is the Hollywood Hills and Griffith Park, but its boundaries spill out erratically, capturing Toluca Lake, Universal City, and North Hollywood to the north, and bits of Hollywood, Hancock Park, Koreatown, Los Feliz, and Silver Lake to the south.

The Race: Over the last decade, a great deal has changed in the district. In 2000, the Metro Rail Red Line finally reached its terminus in North Hollywood, while advocates have spearheaded the transformation of 4th Street into a bike boulevard, and CicLAvia grazed the southeastern tip of the district.

Since elected to the City Council in 2001, Councilman Tom LaBonge has been a supporter — albeit an inconsistent one — of a sustainable transportation network that includes bikes. Read more…

Yesterday, the Daily News printed an odd opinion piece by 4th District City Councilman Tom LaBonge which outlined his views on how Metro should grow Los Angeles’ rail system in the coming years.  I say “odd” because the former Metro Board Member has to know that Measure R transit funds have to be spent on the projects listed in the ballot initiative passed in 2008, and it’s unlikely the agency is going to raise the funds for anymore transit projects in the near future.

Nevertheless, LaBonge does have some interesting ideas, such as monorail service to the Hollywood Bowl, an extension of the Red Line to the Valley and an extension of the Purple Line down to USC.  In fact, most of LaBonge’s article is about extending service to major trip attractors that are under served by transit.

So your homework assignment for the weekend is to assume you have a magic transit wand and could make any one change to our system, as it stands or post Measure R, and post it in the comments section.  On Monday, we’ll take a vote on which of the top suggestions is the best.  The overall winner gets a Streetsblog t-shirt!  Incidently, unless the Mayor breaks his arm trying to catch a train, that will be the only posting here until Tuesday morning.

Happy Labor Day!

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.

The City Council met today and discussed two cycling related issues.  The first was the ongoing discussion of whether or not the city should have a bike sharing program.  Second, the Council debated how to create an ordinance that would better protect cyclists from harassment.

As predicted, Councilman Rosendahl moved to "re-open" the public record on the anti-harassment ordinance so that the cyclists present can speak.   But first, the Council heard an update on the effort to bring "Bike Share" to Los Angeles.

Bike Share: After a lengthy public comment period, we finally reach the "bicycle" portion of the meeting.  Senior Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery is called to the front.  Apparently, Metro is also looking at a bike share program and have already identified an investor.  Metro and their investor are most interested in bringing bike share to Hollywood.  Meanwhile, despite bike share being brought up over a year ago, the LADOT still doesn't have an idea of where it would do its own pilot program.  If there were a community as excited about bike share as they are about Sharrows, this would be as large a scandal in the cycling community as the stall on Sharrows is.

While Mowery and Rosendahl skimmed the idea of bringing bike share to "around our college campuses," Council Woman Jan Perry is already ahead of the game.  Responding to a question from Councilman Tom LaBonge, Perry announced that her office is already working with a private investor to create a bike share corridor between USC and the Downtown.  This seemed to be news to Mowery, who asked that Perry's office coordinate with her and Metro to make sure that their plan is integrated with other efforts.

There were some other general comments on bicycling from Councilmen Dennis Zine, Ed Reyes, Eric Garcetti, Tom LaBonge and Greig Smith.  All of the Councilmen offered some praise for bike sharing and cycling in general.  Garcetti noted that his staff is also working on a bike share plan for Hollywood and mentioned the "S"word (Sharrows.)  Reyes offered praise for cycling and noted that the city needs to do more for its bicycle dependent population and praised the "City of Lights" Program.  LaBonge noted that an easier way to encourage cyclists to take transit and bike for the "last mile" is to make it easier for cyclists to take their bikes on buses and trains.

The Council was just hearing a report on the potential of bringing bike share to Los Angeles and was not asked or required to take any action.

Anti-Harassment: The Council opted for what we've been calling the "three step process," but did so with Rosendahl's consent and gave a real time line for a process to bring new laws designed to protect cyclists on our streets.  In other words, it seems that the Transportation and Public Safety Committees have agreed to work together on the best-possible ordinance.

Read more...

Yesterday, the City Council Transportation Committee met to discuss, once again, what the heck is taking so long to bring a Sharrows program to Los Angeles.  For over two years, the program has been a top priority for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, and funding has been in place for a pilot program for over six months.  Conversely, the above painted-lane Sharrows program in Long Beach took four months to move from Mobility Coordinator Charles Gandy's head to the street.

Of course, as we're often reminded, this isn't Long Beach.

Explaining the delay, LADOT Senior Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery stated that just because funding was in place, it didn't mean that the project would automatically move forward.  Because some of the money is to be allocated to LADOT, some to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and some to LACBC, there are a variety of bureaucratic issues that need to be worked out.  But we'll definately be Sharrows on some L.A. streets sometime.  She wouldn't say when, but definately sometime.  Maybe even this year.

Despite her somewhat dour presentation, Mowery tried to sound an optimistic tone. The wait would be worth it, that Sharrows would make the streets more safe.  When discussing a report by Alta Planning on the impact of Sharrows in Los Angeles, she said:

"...studies show that Sharrows do two things.  It moves cyclists out of the door zone.  It also, and this addresses Councilman LaBonge's point, has cyclists moving in the right direction."

Mowery was referencing a related story from Councilman Tom LaBonge where he complained about cyclists riding the wrong way in the street.  Despite an LACBC cycling counts report that showed that only six percent of cyclists travel in the wrong direction; this story ended up being a focal point of the meeting for much of the rest of the afternoon.

Before the public had its chance to speak, Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl tried to pin down the LADOT on a timeline and required that the department return next month days with an update.

"My problem is with the black hole of history (for this project) in the past.  I want an update in thirty days.  I'm impatient with this issue."

Next, the public had a chance to speak.  LACBC's Aurisha Smolarski testified that she had been in touch with the Bonet Foundation and SCAG, two of the major funders of the project, and that they are getting impatient as well.  However, there is a plan to begin the outreach associated with the program next month that would have the Sharrows on the ground in May.  This is hardly a lightning fast timeline.  Last May, Smolarski told me her dream was to have the Sharrows on the ground by Christmas of 2009, but when dealing with a buerocracy as large as LADOT, just getting them on the ground would be a victory of sorts.

Read more...