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.

This photo is looking west on Zoo Drive from Riverside Drive. If the City follows through on the proposed closure for west-bound road users, these cyclists will not be able to ride as pictured. Photo: Colin Bogart/LACBC

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.

Here's the intersection of Zoo Drive and Riverside Drive, looking north at Riverside as it goes over the 134 Freeway. You can see the eastbound freeway exit in the foreground and the on-ramp westbound in the distance. Photo: Colin Bogart/LACBC

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.  

Eastbound motorists who currently use Zoo Drive could get on the 134 freeway at Forest Lawn, go to the next exit at Riverside and get off the freeway again. This “detour” would take roughly one minute and allows motor vehicle access to the Zoo and the Autry. If the road is closed for all westbound road users, the detour for west-bound cyclists is significant, plus it effectively closes a large part of the park to members of the bicycling community.

This solution was first publicly proposed by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition at a recent meeting of the city’s official Bicycle Advisory Committee and received a warm welcome from the Committee Members and staff.  However, city staff won’t proceed with the proposal presented by the LACBC to the BAC without the approval of the local elected leader who has not given the okay.

Griffith Park falls in the Fourth City Council District, represented by Councilman Tom LaBonge.  LaBonge is a champion of an open Griffith Park, but hasn’t announced a position on the Zoo Drive proposal.  The Councilman’s Office declined to comment for this story.

While the proposed changes won’t happen for about a year, the transportation plans are being created now. During early construction of the underground reservoir, cyclists have been accommodated for over a year now. Special bike lanes were striped from near the entrance at Los Feliz and a temporary multi-use path was created parallel to Crystal Springs Drive between Park Center and the Zoo Parking lot.

While Streetsblog appreciates these efforts, it’s more important to provide long-term solutions than short-term ones.  The solution to keep Zoo Drive open for 2-way access for cyclists, pedestrians, and joggers on Zoo Drive seems so simple and yet still seems a proposal that is too far away.

Councilman Tom LaBonge directs traffic at the 2008 Tour LaBonge "Positively 4th Street" Ride. Photo:Ingrid Peterson/Flickr

(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.

But the real question is where does the campaign for a safe 4th Street go from here? Some are trying to revive the campaign for the signals at Rossmore and Highland, but the LACBC is hoping to move the campaign farther east to support the LADOT’s proposal for traffic circles in other parts of 4th Street before coming back west to complete the Boulevard on Hancock Park.

The LADOT is licking its wounds but promises to press forward in other areas of 4th Street and other projects. Traffic circles remain on the to-do list as does placing way finding signage along the route.

The Homeowner’s Association remains riled up. A contingent of Hancock Park home owners appeared at last night’s meeting of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee angered that an LADOT road crew installed Sharrows on Arden Boulevard in Hancock Park.

At the same meeting of the Mid-Wilshire Neighborhood Council where LaBonge revoked his support for the two traffic signales, he aproposed a road diet on 6th Street to the confusion of many as 6th Street and 4th Street are very different streets. Advocates have speculated that LaBonge is referring to a proposal to put 6th Street on a road diet and add bike lanes that was proposed by planner Ryan Snyder that would travel west from the end of the 4th Street Bike Friendly Street to Fairfax Boulevard. The Councilman’s Office declined to comment or clarify for this story.

But is there a larger lesson here? The lesson from Wilbur Avenue seemed to be that LADOT shouldn’t implement bike projects without informing the community. In this case, LADOT and its allies did go to the local Neighborhood Councils, but word didn’t filter down to the Homeowner’s Association until the project was farther along.  In areas where LADOT is proposing ideas that are new for Los Angeles, greater outreach is probably necessary than the LADOT Bike Blog and a handful of community meetings.

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.

Tom LaBonge addresses a group of predominantly Midnight Ridazz at the Storm the Bastille Ride on May Day, 2009. Standing just off to the Councilman's left is Box. Photo: Alex Thompson/Flickr

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.

Stephen and Enci in 2008. Yeah, I picked a shot where he still has the goatee. Photo via KPCC

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.

Last April, LaBonge supported setting aside 10% of L.A.’s share of Measure R funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. He also supported suspending the LAPD’s bike licensing program that had been illegitimately used to ticket those participating on group rides.

At the same time, however, he’s been more inclined to support education programs over tangible changes to the streets that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians. In a committee hearing, however, LaBonge once pressed LADOT Bike Coordinator Michelle Mowery to “name three bike projects that have worked,” a sign that LADOT had been slow to implement transformative bike projects.

LaBonge has been prone to his fair share of transpo head-scratchers too. A September 2010 op-ed in the Daily News detailed the councilman’s hopes for rapid transit in Los Angeles. It read like a half-baked wish-list of projects, many of which were redundant with Metro’s Long Range Plan or infeasible. It would have made more sense for LaBonge to use his standing to advocate for Mayor Villaraigosa’s much-touted 30/10 plan, which would accelerate construction on a dozen transit projects already on the drawing board.

When the mayor wanted to raise curb-side parking rates to fill the city’s budget shortfall, LaBonge advocated for cheaper parking. Perhaps because he’d rather raise parking prices to pay for expanded DASH service — that’s something most livable streets advocates can get behind.

And speaking of livable streets advocates, there’s the matter of LaBonge’s challenger in CD4, Stephen Box. Since LA Streetsblog’s launch in October 2007, Box has been a leader in this grassroots movement. In the last year alone, Box has helped to shape a robust LADOT Bike Plan — one that now features a backbone bikeway network — and to usher it to the finish line.

When Metro’s Transit Oriented Development project in Hollywood missed the mark on bike infrastructure, Box was there to ensure that the community bike room was done right.

From bike parking to sharrow placement, even the seemingly “small” details have gotten his attention. And this is important: By agitating for bicyclists’ and pedestrians’ interests, Box has kept elected officials, public servants, and developers honest.

And now he has the ear of the city’s elected officials. When the mayor touted that L.A. was the second safest big city in the country, Box called him out for ignoring traffic related deaths and injuries. Even Police Chief Charlie Beck has taken notice.

The Big Picture: LaBonge has been a relatively solid councilman on livable streets issues — he looks good compared to, say, Greig Smith — but he’s hardly staked serious political capital on realizing a more bike and transit friendly Los Angeles. On the other hand, you’d be hard pressed to find a single person in Los Angeles who has been as vocal, and successful, an advocate for livable streets as Stephen Box.

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.

Curbed makes the Tom LaBonge Transit Map based on his op/ed in yesterday's Daily News

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.

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.

A shot of a rack of Velib bicycles in Paris. Photo: SlimmerJimmer/Flickr

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.

Believe it or not, this was done with the offier's cooperation. Photo: digablesoul/Flickr

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.

Councilman Greig Smith, the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, kicked off the debate by re-stating his preference that the Council should require a joint report from LADOT and the City Attorney to create a report on what kind of ordinance the city could pass to better protect cyclists.  This plan, which was also backed by Councilman Rosendahl, will include opportunities for cyclists to provide input on what kind of harassment they see and the final report would say whether the law could be changed locally or would require a state fix.

When it was Rosendahl's turn to talk, he outlined the timeline.  First, the LADOT and City Attorneys will meet with cyclists to determine what the major issues are on the streets while drafting a report on where are local opportunities and where are state opportunities.  Next, and perhaps the highlight of the process, will be a February 24 "special" City Council Transportation Committee Hearing that will only deal with bicycling safety issues and will be attended by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.  There will also be a joint hearing between the Transportation and Public Safety Committees to hear the report by the City Attorney and cyclists before the final ordinance is drafted.  Speaking of his goals for the process, Rosendahl stated that "We have to change our culture about bicycling.  We have to work together."

Following the discussion from the Council Members, a score of members of the cycling community spoke about harassment, "hit and runs," and downright ignorance by the LAPD when it comes to enforcing the law. 

One speaker, Ian M., recounted how after being involved in a Hit-and-Run crash, he was able to get the driver's information, but not able to get the LAPD to take a report.  One officer told him he was "biking the wrong way," because he was biking with the flow of traffic and not against it.  As he moved up the chain of command, that logic was abandoned by the police, but officer insisted that no law had been broken despite the car driver assaulting him with a vehicle and fleeing the scene.

Speaking for the LACBC, Aurisha Smolarski urged that the ordinance include training for motorists in how to share the road with motorists and pushes the idea of a "three foot passing law" for motorists.  "In the work place we have anti-harassment law to protect us from sexual harassment.  No LAPD officer needs to be present.  But on the road cyclists have no such right."

After public comment was completed, three more Council Members, Reyes, Anthony Cardenas, LaBonge and Rosendahl spoke.  Reyes noted that the most common response to a cyclist being physically harassed or assaulted on the road is, at-best, indifference from the LAPD and that cyclists deserve more.  Earlier Reyes spoke about the vulnerability of seniors on bicycles, but this time he focused on younger cyclists who bike because it's their only option as "working-poor."

Cardenas asked the City Attorney to clarify that threats of physical harm, be they at someone on a bike or someone at a super market, constitute assault already in our municipal code.  The City Attorney commented that of course it is.  Cardenas also noted that a big reason to push this kind of law is to use it as an educational tool.

Councilman LaBonge pushed for greater cooperation between the LAPD and LADOT on the anti-harassment issue.  He also commented that cyclists are also endanger from "a public works standpoint" because theft of copper wire has left the L.A. River Bikeway to be without lights before Garcetti brought him back to the issue of anti-harassment.  LaBonge joked, "But I was being harassed by the darkness."  He then took a moment to grandstand asking that "Share the Road" signs be replaced with "Watch for Bikes" to cheers from the audience.

Rosendahl wrapped up the discussion with a crowd pleasing closing statement.  "The culture of the car is going to end now!  The purpose of this ordinance is to protect cyclists in a way that they haven't been protected before.  The LAPD hasn't been part of the solution, but sometimes has been part of the problem.  We're going to pass an ordinance that isn't going to be challenged and protects cyclists."

Check Back Here at 2:00 P.M. for updates on the Speed Limit Increases that will be in front of the Transportation Committee this afternoon.

Speed Limit Increases:  At the request of Councilman Paul Krekorian, in who's district the speed limit increases would occur, the two speed limit ordinances for Chandler Boulevard and Riverside Drive were temporarily pulled from the agenda.  As you might remember, Paul Krekorian, when he was an Assemblymember, sponsored legislation that would have allowed communities to control traffic speeds instead of the commuters traveling through the streets.

However, Dorothy Le of the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, Donna Casset, Stephen Box, Jay Goldberg, from the local neighborhood council, and Krekorian himself were permitted to speak against the ordinances.  Because the motions were not passed, there will be another chance to give public comment before a new vote occurs.  Bryan Gallagher, a senior transportation engineer for LADOT's Valley Division, testified that these studies and limit increases are necessary because of state law that requires that limits are set at the eighty-fifth percentile of drivers.  Under questioning from LaBonge, Gallagher gave a revealing look at LADOT traffic programming, when he discussed the theory of "big streets, big traffic; little streets, little traffic."

LaBonge rhetorically asked if "safety is the number one goal, right?"  Gallagher responded that, "Safety is the number one goal, but if studies show that if you set the speed too low, then you're actually increasing accidents."  This caused Councilman Paul Koretz to sarcastically comment that we should just stop enforcing the speed limits altogether if we're just making the streets less safe.

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.

Ramon Martinez defended the "wrong way" cyclists by noting that in the absence of a robust system, people are going to do what they deem most safe.  Of course, many times these people are wrong and putting themselves in greater risk, but Los Angeles had a system as intricate as those in other major cities such as Portland or New York, or other local cities such as Santa Monica and Long Beach, than fewer cyclists would make bad choices.

Another issue that arose was the "D.I.Y." Sharrows that appeared in Northeast L.A. last month.  LaBonge asked about them.  Mowery grumped that removing them will cost money, but that the city would do them.  However, Jeremy Grant testified that the Sharrows are actually working and that cyclists are riding safer on the "Sharrowed" streets because there is less conflict between modes.  Grant suggested that instead the city should either leave them be or make them official.  LaBonge responded that there's a legal issue in leaving them down, if a cyclist was involved with a crash in the area.  However, the Sharrows are still there, at least for now.

In other news, the Committee also discussed bringing a bike share program to Los Angeles, although it seems as though LADOT is counting on Metro to bring one to some of their transit hubs.  LAist has more details of their discussion here.

Rosendahl also let slip that February 24th is the tentative date for his "town hall" between cyclists and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.

Some ideas just refuse to die.  Less than a year after the City of Los Angeles moved to end it’s free-meter parking for hybrids program, a new proposal to allow only the highest tech and cleanest cars to park for free has resurfaced.  The Council resolution asking LADOT to study the program was introduced by Council President Eric Garcetti and sponsored by Downtown Council Woman Eric Garcetti and "Tom LaBonge for Bill Rosendahl."  Despite the presence of LaBonge and Rosendahl as sponsors of the legislation, they led Transportation Committee in expressing concerns with the newest free-parking for expensive, high-tech, cars scheme.

Garcetti’s resolution would apply to many less vehicles than the program that was scrapped earlier this year.  Instead of all hybrids that qualified for the state’s HOV exemption sticker, only the cleanest cars would qualify.  Only electric and zero-emission vehicles would qualify, cars which get a white sticker, pictured above, from the state.  While the state no longer hands out the more ubiquitous yellow stickers to fuel-efficient hybrids, it is still handing out the white stickers to those that can afford it.

One of the main objections that Council Transportation Committee Chair Bill Rosendahl had with the old free-parking plan when he single-handidly stood up to unanimous opposition on the Council and eventually succeeded in ending that program; was that the program was not encouraging people to buy hybrids but rewarding them for doing so.  Because there were no more yellow stickers being handed out, the program wasn’t providing an incentive for people to buy hybrid cars.  This argument resonated with the Council and the program was halted.

While that argument won’t have the same strength this time, there are still plenty of reasons to not give away parking to zero emission vehicles as an incentive for people to buy them.  While there are plenty of economic reasons and transportation reasons to not give away parking.

First, the economic ones.  While the city doesn’t yet know how much revenue they would lose if the program went forward, we do know that there would be some loss.  Conversely, we have no idea if the program would lead to one more zero-emission vehicle being purchased.  As the State Senate and Assembly begin debate on whether to renew the "Access Ok" program due to expire in 2011, Caltrans has admitted there is no way to track whether or not even one vehicle has been purchased as a result of their giveaway.  When asked, Amir Sedadi, representing LADOT, couldn’t give a firm answer as to how many cars had been purchased as a result of the city’s parking giveaway.

This argument had the most traction with the Councilmen present.  Councilman LaBonge, who is trying to reduce the parking meter hours for business areas in his district, expressed concern that this program would require higher rates for other drivers.  When reminded, Councilman Rosendahl remembered his quote to the Daily News last January that:

…there’s plenty of other great benefits to having a clean-fuel car. 
With the city budget in the shape it’s in, we can’t afford to leave any
‘gold in the gutter.’

From a transportation angle, such a proposal would also add Vehicle Miles Traveled (V.M.T.) to metered areas.  As Donald Shoup has taught, and Santa Monica has learned, when you give away parking you reduce the chance that people will pay for it elsewhere.  In other words, cars will cruise for spaces adding an average of a mile to each trip taken to a metered area by a white-stickered car.

Joe Linton raised a different concern at the hearing, quoting an old riddle.  "When does a Prius and a hummer have the same carbon footprint?  When they’re parked."  Linton’s point was that a parking space has a carbon footpring and environmental cost by itself and giving them away in the name of clean air is a bit of an oxymoronic idea.

I should note that the LADOT was officially "in favor of such a program" but Sedadi didn’t seem very enthusiastic about the program.  Several times he dodged a question from Councilman LaBonge about "what he would do," instead insisting he was happy to do whatever the Council wanted.

In the end, the LADOT was tasked with reporting back to the council about the costs and benefits of the plan at an unspecified date in the future.  The Transportation Committee seemed happy to wait to see if the state re-programs their "Access Ok" program before moving forward.  But waiting for the state might not be the best way to go.  Even if they do re-up the program, the lobbyists pushing for its extension are lobbyists for the auto-industry not environmental groups according to a report from the Sacramento Bee.

This morning Good Samaritan Hospital held one of the most popular events of Bike to Work Week, the Blessing of the Bicycles.  This marks the sixth year that Good Sam's has held this event to celebrate cycling, mourn the cyclists lost since last year's blessing and bring together some communities that don't often interact, communities of faith and the cycling community, at least once a year.  The event was co-sponsored by the LADOT, Los Angeles County Bike Coalition, Metro, REI and the Bike Kitchen.

The Chair of Good Samaritan's Board of Directors, Andrew Leeka served as master of ceremonies for the event and invited up a slew of speakers including Officer Gordon Helper, the head bike cop for the Olympic Division, "Junior and Armando" from John Liecthy Middle School, the officiants for this morning's ceremony and Carlos Morales from the East Side Bike Club.

Before introducing the speakers, Leeka handed out the Hospital's second "Golden Spoke" award for "innovation, commitment and contribution towards promoting bicycle safety throughout Los Angeles" to Councilman Tom LaBonge.  Leeka noted that LaBonge is an avid cyclist himself, has traveled through various European Citites by bike, and organizes "Tour LaBonge" every summer to promote safe cycling.

However, LaBonge has drawn fire for some of the positions he takes on cycling, including his support for licensing cyclists and for the bike ban at the Griffith Park Festival of Lights.  Let's hope LaBonge looks at this award as a challenge to become the cycling champion we need in the City Council over the next year and beyond.  A good place to start would be tomorrow's Transportation Committee Meeting.  For example, he could call for the release of the city's Bike Master Plan.  For first time Streetsblog readers, the city is eight months behind schedule for public release of the draft BMP for public review.

The blessing itself was done by the Reverend Jerry Anderson and Rabbi Ramin Sadeghi.  Sister Marie Quinn from the Daughters of Charity and the Venerable Suhita Dharma from the Dieu Phap Temple were scheduled to join the blessing but didn't make it.  After the prayer blessings, the cyclists were led in a brief ride around the block to remember those cyclists that were lost in the past year.  Since this was an "official city event," the ride included intersections corked by the LAPD.

For me personally, the highlight of the presentation was the speech given by Carlos Morales.  Morales spoke movingly about how cycling saved his life through exercise and the power and compassion shown by the cycling community at the Ghost Bike ceremony a couple of weeks ago.  Morales is also the publisher of The Voice Newspapers, which regularly covers cycling issues in East L.A., including the death and memorial for Jesus Castillo.

(As I write this I'm sitting next to the writers for Blogdowntown at a Starbucks a couple of blocks from the Blessing site.  So, if you want more coverage, head over to that site or for more images check out Streetsblog's Flickr feed.)