Well, it's time to make notes on that brilliant traffic-calming idea. The Intelligence Transportation Society of America (ITSA) kicked off a $50,000 "Congestion Challenge" today that seeks to pair social networking with innovative transportation policy-making.

Good solutions to this could net you $50,000. (Photo: ITSA)

But the most compelling aspect of the challenge is its approach to judging. Instead of subjecting entries to an evaluation panel that might be too tied to outmoded ways of thinking, the ITSA asks aspiring judges and contestants to set up their own Facebook-style profile pages (register for your own right here) and rate entries themselves.

The ribbon cutting for the $2.8 billion project was attended by Congressman John Culberson and Governor Rick Perry. The Houston Chronicle was there and got some choice quotes.

"This project, for all intents and purposes, is complete," announced Delvin Dennis, interim director of the Texas Department of Transportation's Houston District. "Tomorrow morning the (high occupancy-toll) lanes open. If you're not doing anything, take a ride on them."

Perry noted the roar of traffic below, above and around the crowd, which was gathered on a frontage road overpass.

"This is the sound of freedom we hear," he said. "These people need roads to get to work, to church and to school."

One kind of freedom Texans don't need, according to the state and Rep. Culberson, is freedom of choice.

Despite its size, the widened freeway adds "just one new 'free' lane, a pair of toll lanes and no significant transit improvement," said Robin Holzer, chair of the grass-roots Citizens Transportation Coalition.

"Too bad it does not have a space for a commuter rail like our design did," said environmental attorney Jim Blackburn, who tried unsuccessfully to force the state to revise its plans, add mass transit and lessen the project's impact on neighborhoods.

Some still hold out hope for the addition of light rail -- the transit authority chipped in to have overpasses reinforced for train traffic. But the Chronicle reports that Culberson, "whose ability to get federal dollars was crucial to the widening project, pledged not to give up a single freeway lane for Metro rail."

Culberson may not have much of a say after January, though, depending on the outcome of his tightening race for re-election. As it happens, Culberson challenger Michael Skelly made his fortune in wind energy.

Photo: Federal Highway Administration

Bike infrastructure can help overcome safety concerns, says Portland-area researcher Jennifer Dill.

How effective are bike lanes at enticing people to ride? Portland State University professor Jennifer Dill has been looking into that question for more than a year, and her research is starting to get some attention. Using GPS trackers to map more than 1,700 bike trips, Dill found that about half of all bike travel occurs on dedicated infrastructure like bike lanes or bike boulevards, even though such routes comprise only eight percent of Portland's street network.

Dill also conducted surveys about who rides most often and why people choose to bike or drive. She concludes that bike riding won't expand far beyond a core demographic of young men unless perceptions of safety change, reports the Portland Tribune:

According to Dill, most regular bicyclists are young men. This means that if the city wants to substantially increase the number of people riding bikes on a regular basis, it needs to reach out to young women and older people. And, Dill said, that is what public spending on bike infrastructure can accomplish.

All this may come across as confirmation of common sense (Portland DOT has based its bike network strategy on similar surveys), but the notion that dedicated bike routes make cyclists safer is not universally accepted. Proponents of "vehicular cycling" reject bike infrastructure forcefully, claiming that biking with traffic reduces collisions. They wield considerable influence over design standards at the federal level, and in Portland they have consistently opposed steps intended by the city to improve safety and boost bicycle mode share.

Dill's preliminary research [PDF] adds to the evidence that dedicated bike infrastructure matters. Without a bike network that makes everyone feel safer -- men and women, children and seniors, veteran and inexperienced riders -- it's hard to imagine that American cyclists will ever enjoy the safety in numbers that cities like Copenhagen have managed to produce.

You can find the full text of LaBonge's letter after the jump.  Emphasis added by Streetsblog.

One of the most crucial public issues right now for residents of the East San Fernando Valley is the development project known as Metro Universal on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority site. The project, which is directly across Lankershim from Universal City, is proposed in two phases:

• Phase I, to be completed by 2011, would include 1.47 million square feet of new commercial and residential space in a 24-story office tower and a ten-story production site; and two parking structures: one with 1,900 and the other with 1780 spaces including 800 for the Metro Station.
• Phase II would be completed by 2015 and would include either a 24-story office tower OR a 34-story hotel and residential project with 300 hotel rooms, 400 residential units, up to 11,000 square feet of retail and almost 1,800 parking spaces.

You may be aware that the DRAFT Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was released to the public on Mon., Aug. 25, 2008. It's important to note that this is a draft report, which means public comment is welcome for 90-days. I encourage you to read the report (posted online at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/Click on "Environmental" on the left side of the page and then on "Draft EIR") and submit your comments to the public record. A copy of the draft EIR is also available at three branches of the Los Angeles Public Library: the North Hollywood Regional Branch (5211 Tujunga Ave., LA 91601); the Studio City Branch (12511 Moorpark St., LA 91604) and the Central Library (630 W. 5thSt., LA 90071).

For the record, I am opposed to this project as it is proposed. My key concerns are density and trafficmitigation. It is notjust the scopeof the developmentthat is overwhelming- 1.47million square feet -- but whether traffic improvements are in place before any buildings are occupied.

Another key issue is prioritizing parking for those using the Red Line. After all, this land is owned by the MTA and the MTA's mission is to accommodate commuters' needs. Of course, I welcome NBC back to the City of Los Angeles and look forward to working with them and their developers to build a complex that works well for them and everyone else.

Additionally, the draft EIR for the Universal City Vision Plan, a 1.56 million square-foot commercial and residential development on the Universal property, is a separate document which may be released in the next few months. Please watch my weekly newsletters for information on how to comment on that report. If you have any question, please call my Planning Deputy Doug Mensman at (213)485-3337. Thank you for taking an active interest in this important issue in your community and city.

The Transportation Corridors Agency, an organization founded in the 1980's to help build more highways through privatization,  has thus far been stymied by local opposition from building a sixteen mile freeway extension for the I-241 through San Onorfre State Park by a coalition of environmentalists, surfers, concerned citizens and civil rights advocates.  From packing a 14 hour hearing on the project with over 3,500 opponents of the widening to lobbying government officials, the groundswell against the extension project in conservative Orange County has been impressive and effective.

However, toll road agencies traditionally don't roll after a major setback when there's a road to build, so the TCA is fighting back.  In addition to appealing the CCC's decision, they're also working to turn public opinion against their opponents by attacking them in mailers sent to Orange County households.  The best part?  The mailers are being paid for by tax payer dollars.

A TCA mailer sent to O.C. homes in July includes a photo depicting freeway gridlock. The caption reads, “Driving home just got harder,” and in bolder red text, “They don’t want you at ‘their beach’ even if it means double the time you spend driving home.”

Like other TCA opponents, Sierra Club attorney Mark Massara is outraged by the tactic. “The saddest part of their entire multi-million dollar ‘blame it on the surfers and environmentalists’ PR campaign is that it is entirely financed by public taxpayers’ dollars in the form of federal loans and gifts to TCA. What a sick scam: the public is financing a project the public is dead set against,” he complains.

The United States Secretary of Commerce will hear the TCA's appeal later this year.  A public hearing on the complaint was postponed after it was estimated that 10,000 people would show up for a hearing at a UC Irvine Auditorium that only holds 5,000 people. 

Image: OC Voice

But for transportation reformers, the news was bad. If Metro moves forward with this new budget, the amount spent on highway projects will be increased from 15% to 20% of the entire tax. Presumably the money will come from the "Local Return" budget line, further reducing the amount of funds available for bicycle and pedestrian projects. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion of setting aside any of the budget for bicycle and pedestrian projects.

To read the full text of Snoble's letter, read on after the jump. For a breakdown of the highway expenditures by region, check out the Bottleneck Blog.

Attached is a draft proposal for the highway portion of the new sales tax developed in response to the subregional equity concerns raised after the "discussion draft" Expenditure Plan was released on June 26, 2008. Overall, the new draft highway proposal assumes that 20% ofthe proposed new sales tax, as opposed to 15%, will be available for highway projects. The proposed highway program places a high priority on a geographic balance. As I indicated in my correspondence earlier today, we understand that you will ultimately require the transit capital projects to gain a complete picture of the geographic balance we are to recommend, but I cannot yet release that information due to the sensitivity ofthe negotiations now underway.

Subregional areas whose percentage share of the project specific portions ofthe sales tax that would be less than their population and employment burdens were granted a heavier highway investment to compensate for the potential geographic inequity. To develop the proposal, Metro staff relied upon comments made by Councils of Government in response to the draft 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), particularly those comments pertaining to projects included in the strategic or unfunded portion of the LRTP.

With a couple of exceptions for grade separation and interchange projects, the geographic focus ofthe proposal means that many highway projects will require substantial additional investment from other fund sources, such as public private partnerships, state, and/or federal funds. In many cases, the new sales tax funds would be used to develop the environmental and design portions of the projects.

Per AB 2321 (Feuer), the proposed highway expenditure plan also reflects mandatory sales tax funds for projects that already have full funding from Metro's draft 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan. For this set ofprojects, subregional areas can expect to receive a like commitment offunds for alternative projects as required by AB 2321. We understand that a consensus sales tax proposal is crucial to our ultimate success and we look forward to engaging in a full discussion ofthe proposed sales tax soon.

Despite concerns from residents living adjacent to the highway that a highway widening of Route 57 would ruin their quality of life, officials from the Orange County Transportation Authority and Caltrans will not change their plan to widen five miles of highway in Orange County.  The transportation officials pushing the project argue that reducing congestion will improve air quality by reducing the amount of cars sitting in traffic.

The theory that you can build your way out of highway congestion has been debunked by advocates and DOT's throughout the country.  When capacity is added to a highway, the traffic lanes actually are filled up by new traffic in a matter of years because new sprawl development will lead to more traffic which will lead to calls to widen the highway again.  This is called induced demand, and is proven everyday in Southern California.  How have past highway widenings helped car commutes near where you live?

That OCTA and Caltrans are promoting a project that will increase the amount of traffic on Route 57 isn't the only thing that has locals so concerned.  Residents are also concerned that the widening will remove a sound wall which keep carbon particulates off their windows.  One resident tells the register:

"At first, I think people just dismissed it as adding a lane. But look into it and you see that it's adding a merging lane, too, would take down our sound wall and it's a health hazard," said Kevin Campion, a resident in the Glenbrook neighborhood near the 57 and Birch Street.

Campion said many residents already have to clean windowsills of dust particles and bits of tire rubber that waft in from the nearby freeway. They are worried about recent studies that indicate "nano particles" could pose a more serious risk to respiratory health than previously thought.

"We're worried about our health, and we don't want the freeway any closer to make it worse," Campion said.

Is there any further proof that Southern California needs a true revolution in the way we think about transportation?  Caltrans and the OCTA are basically spending $140 million to widen a highway in the name of clean air, and at the same time advocate for alternative transportation are fighting just to get High Speed Rail or a sales tax increase partially dedicated to transit on the fall ballot?

Photo: Orange County Register

Stephen Box reports that last weekend's "Destiny in the Valley" conference, hosted by the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council, was a success. When a community comes out in force to discuss fixing their neighborhood through an improved and integrated transportation network, government agencies and elected officials take notice.

Stephen writes:

As for news, the "Destiny of the West Valley" Community Forum was a tremendous success.

Over 300 people joined us and demonstrated a significant commitment to making Woodland Hills Warner Center a great neighborhood.

The day began with the usual questions about 311 and potholes but after the "Panel of Visionaries" had presented and after Zev had urged them to take charge of their neighborhood, we ended up with an auditorium of community leaders asking "What next, what next?"

The Woodland Hills Warner Center Community faces a tsunami of development. The Westfield Village bulldozers are revving, the Warner Center Specific Plan update is underway and the 3rd densest employment center in the City is besieged with gridlock.

The community needs a plan to fight back and reclaim their streets.  To that end the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Community Council has assembled a panel of visionaries to discuss the problem and elicit feedback from the community at an open meeting this Saturday at the Kaiser Permanente Hospital Auditorium from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

The public is invited to join in the discussion on the issues and opportunities that challenge our neighborhood including traffic congestion, urban design, water reclamation, energy conservation, mass transit, accessibility, mobility, walkability and livability.

The panelists includes:

• Bart Reed, Transit Coalition Executive Director
• Joyce Pearson, Chair of the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council
• Denny Zane, the former Mayor of Santa Monica during the revitalization of the Third Street Promenade
• Larry E. Smith, Executive Director of North East Trees

Following the lead of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will consider a resolution making the case that bicycling should be integrated into our nation's transportation, climate, energy and health policy initiatives.  They will vote on the resolution at a conference that begins this Friday and ends on Tuesday, June 24.

The LACBC joins the League of American Bicyclists in encouraging cyclists to call their mayors and tell them you want this resolution passed.  The LACBC helpfully supplies the number, 213-978-0600, and email address, mayor@lacity.org, for Mayor Villaraigosa's office.

Of course, Villaraigosa isn't the only local mayor attending the conference, just scanning the list of attendees I see mayor's for Long Beach, Manhattan Beach and San Gabriel will all be present.  Every Mayor has an equal vote at the conference, so make sure to let  your mayor know that biking is important to you in the next couple of days.

Photo: Damien Newton 

Complete Streets advocates received a double dose of good news this week from Washington, D.C. For the first time ever, Complete Streets legislation is now introduced in both Chambers of Congress after the Safe and Complete Streets Act was introduced in the House of Representative. Meanwhile, the Senate version of the bill received its first Republican cosponsor.

Sacramento Democrat Doris Matsui introduced the Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2008. Unsurprisingly, Matsui's move was praised by transportation reform advocates, but her office notes that Complete Streets is popular with more than just bike riders, pedestrians and transit users. Her press release, the full text of which is available after the jump, quotes not just leaders of the Complete Streets movement but also clean air advocates and the AARP.

Meanwhile, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman became the first Republican in either the House or the Senate to cosponsor Complete Streets Legislation. Coleman joins Senators Tom Harkin (D-ID), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Thomas Carper (DUE) as cosponsor of S. 2686, the Senate version of the Safe and Complete Streets Act. Harkin introduced S. 2686 earlier in April.

Complete Streets laws would insure that all federal transportation dollars spent on road projects are used to improve conditions for all potential users of the road, car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and transit users. While Complete Streets has proven controversial nationally, it has been adopted by several states including California, Oregon, Illinois, Massachusetts and Virginia.

 The League of American Bicyclists has set up an action alert to help people contact their Senators in support of S. 2686. Currently, neither California Senator is a cosponsor.

A full copy of Matsui's release is available after the jump.

Rep. Doris Matsui Introduces Complete Streets Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Rep. Doris Matsui (CA-05) introduced the Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2008 to make the nation's roadways accessible to alternate modes of transportation. Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access to motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and riders of public transit.

"Once again, gas prices have hit record highs this week. As American families continue to feel the pain at the pump due to the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, they are driving less and less. By diversifying our roadways, we can provide real alternatives to travel by car," said Rep. Matsui.

The Safe and Complete Streets Act would require states that receive federal funding for their road improvement projects to implement complete streets policies. These policies ensure that any new road construction or rehabilitation efforts would accommodate the safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system.

The bill does not try to establish a one-size-fits-all policy. Instead, it accounts for variation from one locale to the next by requiring the projects to fit within the local community context. It also provides for clearly-established guidelines wherein a single project could be exempted from the complete streets guidelines, such as cases of the cost of implementing them would be prohibitive.

"We have very real challenges facing our country, and they are all interwoven. We now know that we must change our environmental and energy policy, and reduce our impact on the planet. By opening up our roadways to pedestrians and cyclists, we can help ease the congestion on our nation's roads," said Rep. Matsui.

The benefits of complete streets principles are well-documented and broad in scope. Complete streets:

• help increase the capacity of the transportation network by giving people more choices about how they travel
• are cost-effective infrastructure investments, and help avoid costly retrofits
• improve pedestrian safety for the nearly one-third of Americans who do not drive
• encourage healthy and active lifestyles
• fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging people to drive less
  

"We cannot continue our current course, placing undue burdens on our infrastructure and environment. We must take innovative steps to change how we live our daily lives, and ensure that we hand over a sustainable planet to the next generation," said Rep. Matsui.

The Safe and Complete Streets Act enjoys broad support:

"AARP greatly appreciates Representative Matsui's leadership in introducing Complete Streets legislation. Complete streets are safer and more user-friendly for everyone and help people of all ages and abilities stay safely connected to their communities."

- David Sloane, Senior Vice President of AARP

"The Safe Routes to School National Partnership is extremely grateful that Rep Matsui has introduced complete streets legislation. This bill will increase safety on our nation's roads for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, and will help children, who are among the most vulnerable roadway users."

- Deb Hubsmith, Director of Safe Routes to School National Partnership

"Complete streets will help people shift short auto trips to walking and bicycling, and that's essential for reducing pollution and carbon emissions. We're very pleased to be working with Congresswoman Matsui on this legislation, and we appreciate her leadership on this important public health issue."

- Larry Greene, Executive Director of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

"We commend Rep. Matsui for recognizing the importance of making the best investment possible with our federal transportation dollars. States and cities across the country have discovered that completing their streets for all users means safer communities that invite walking, bicycling, and taking transit - and that can help people cope with the rising price of gasoline."

- Barbara McCann, Coordinator of the National Complete Streets Coalition

The Safe and Complete Streets Act is supported by:

AARP, America Bikes, America Walks, American Planning Association, American Public Transportation Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, Breathe California, California Park and Recreation Society, California WIC Association, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Easter Seals, Friends of the Earth, League of American Bicyclists, Local Government Commission, National Center for Bicycling and Walking, National Recreation and Parks Association, Prevention Institute, Reconnecting America, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, Safe Kids Greater Sacramento, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Smart Growth America, Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environments, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Thunderhead Alliance, Transportation Alliance, Transportation Equity Network, Transport Worker's Union, Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Trust for America's Health, WALKSacramento, YMCA of the USA

Photo of a complete street in High Springs, Florida: Dan Burden

Fix Expo’s complaint can best be summed up by one paragraph in the press release:

"They found the money for the Figueroa underpass at USC and they found the money for overpasses in Culver City," said Carol Tucker of the Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners. "They find the money for everything and everywhere except South LA. Have they no shame?"

It sounds like the lawyers advising Fix Expo are two heavyweights. One is a former California lawyer of the year and the other a veteran of Labor/Community Strategy Center vs. MTA, which resulted in the consent decree which has guided Metro planning for the last decade, will be heading up the legal team.

A full copy of the press release can be read after the jump.

CITIZENS' CAMPAIGN TO FIX THE EXPO RAIL LINE
Led by Save Leimert, Expo Communities United & Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw Homeowners' Coalition
P.O. Box 8508 * Los Angeles, CA 90008 * Fax: 323.295.9467 * www.FixExpo.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 29, 2008

PRESS CONTACT
Damien Goodmon
xxx

SOUTH LA LEFT OUT ONCE AGAIN AS MTA INCREASES EXPO LINE BUDGET $54 MILLION
On the same day the MTA increased the Expo Line budget $54 million for an overpass in Culver City, a South LA community group announced they're going to court represented by Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal.

Los Angeles, CA – On Thursday April 24th, the MTA Board voted to increase the Expo Line budget by $54 million for a Culver City overpass, increasing the project budget to $862 million dollars for the 8.5-mile light rail line from Downtown LA to Culver City.  $4 million of the $54 million came from the City of Culver City, while the remaining $50 million came from State Proposition 1B, the $19 billion transportation bond that was passed by voters in November of 2006.  $218 million of the bond has gone towards the increase in the Expo Line budget, which was just $640 million six months ago.

"Prop 1B is the same resource we've been requesting MTA go after for grade separations in South LA since the day the bond was passed, yet they keep telling us there's no money," said Damien Goodmon, the Coordinator of the South LA community group the Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line.

"They found the money for the Figueroa underpass at USC and they found the money for overpasses in Culver City," said Carol Tucker of the Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners.  "They find the money for everything and everywhere except South LA.  Have they no shame?"

The vocal and growing Fix Expo Campaign is concerned about the safety and environmental impacts of the light rail line design as is passes through South LA primarily at street level.  They claim that the street-level design is unsafe and as evidence point to the MTA's Blue Line which at 91 deaths and 802 accidents to date is the deadliest light rail line in the country.

The close proximity of several schools to the rail line, namely Dorsey High School and Foshay Learning Center, has prompted action from School Board Member Marguerite LaMotte, the LAUSD Board of Education, LAUSD Parent Collaborative and UTLA all requesting grade separation at all or some intersections.

"No child will have to walk across and no car will have to drive across the Expo Line tracks in Culver City.  Yet South LA is being told we have to accept these safety risks," Goodmon said.

Child advocate and West Adams Neighborhood Council member Clint Simmons said, "Instead of insulting our intelligence by telling us they can't find the money to build underpasses in South LA, MTA should admit that killing black and brown kids, and ruining South LA school environments and communities is a part of doing business."

"They're spending more money in the 1 mile from La Cienega to Robertson than they are in the 4 miles from Vermont to La Brea," Goodmon said.  The group claims that placing the bulk of the safety hazards and disproportionate environmental impacts in majority-minority South LA community is "textbook environmental racism and against the law."

"We're going to court," Goodmon exclaimed as he announced that the group has signed an agreement with the international law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal, LLP.  The group's legal strategy will be headed by firm partners Ivor Samson, a recipient of the prestigious 2007 California Lawyer of the Year award, and Christopher Prince, who when he was at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was instrumental in the landmark environmental justice case Labor/Community Strategy Center vs. MTA, which resulted in a 10-year consent decree.

"This firm is huge, these guys are winners, and they know how the MTA operates," said Tucker.  "It speaks to the level of injustice that they've agreed to represent us pro bono."

# # #

This press release is available in Word document format at the following web address: http://www.expocommunities.com/info/pr-54million_increase.doc

The Expo Line Construction Authority will officially approve beginning the design of the aerial structure at the 2:30 pm May 1 Expo Authority Board Meeting: http://buildexpo.org/images/agendas/2008/1_May/5.e%20Culver%20City%20Aerial%20Structure%20-%20May%202008.1.pdf

The April 24th MTA Board action increasing the project budget is available at the following web address: http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2008/04_april/20080416P&PItem9.pdf

The full April 24th MTA Board agenda is available at the following web address: http://www.metro.net/board/Agendas/2008/04_april/20080424ARBM.pdf

A map of the census tract racial breakdown: http://www.expocommunities.com/info/Census_Tracts.pdf

The Expo Line Construction Authority presentation showing that $218 million from Prop 1B has gone towards the Expo Line (pg. 4): http://www.expocommunities.com/info/expopresentation-scrt.pdf

Ivor Samson, Esq. biography: http://www.sonnenschein.com/attorneys/index.aspx?aid=0001052
Christopher Prince, Esq. biography: http://www.sonnenschein.com/attorneys/index.aspx?aid=0003223

The 91 deaths and over 802 accidents are from MTA's Summary of Metro Blue Line Train/Vehicle and Train/Pedestrian Accidents, which is computed quarterly.

For more information go to www.FixExpo.org

Expo Line community forums will be held at Dorsey High School on May 22, 2008 and Foshay Learning Center on May 29, 2008.  Local elected officials have been invited.  Updates will be supplied.

While the New York Times is discovering a growing livable streets movement in Los Angeles, our Paper of Record’s transportation columnist, Steve Hymon, is ready to throw a party for a road widening project in Eastern Sierra. The widening will double road capacity from two to four lanes for 14 miles between Independence and Big Pine. It should be completed in 2009.

According to the article car traffic is light on the now two-lane stretch of road but that the road’s duel use as a truck route makes it more perilous. Hyman goes into detail about some of the horrific crashes that have taken the lives of motorists and passengers along the route, but in every example given, the fault of the accident lies on drivers who were driving recklessly not road conditions.

For example:

Take, for example, the crash near Olancha last August. A 23-year-old woman from Cerritos was driving a Toyota SUV on the 395.

Stuck behind an SUV pulling a trailer, she tried going around and rammed into a Mazda traveling in the other direction. A 14-year-old girl in her SUV died, as did a female passenger in the Mazda.

Or:

At midnight on Aug. 30, 2003, on a two-lane stretch of 395 near a well-known jerky stand in Olancha, a vehicle carrying two drunk men veered across the road and rammed into Margaret Hart's vehicle. Hart, 43, was killed instantly.

Or:

One of the CHP officers who responded to Hart's crash was Paul Pino. Four months later, on Dec. 30, 2003, Pino was sitting in his patrol car writing a citation to a trucker he had just pulled over on a nearby stretch of 395.

An SUV driven by a 20-year-old woman, who later said she was tired, veered off the road and plowed into Pino's car, pushing it under the truck.

The causes of these deaths were not that the road was only two lanes; the cause of these deaths were drivers who chose to break the law by driving while exhausted and drunk or that were in too much of a rush to safely pass another vehicle.

Towards the middle of the article, Hymon makes a plea that people urge elected leaders to consider safety when handing out transportation funds.  Instead, how about urging safety when enforcing traffic laws? This fourteen mile stretch of road may indeed by a deathtrap, but it also sounds like an area where state police should be handing out tickets like candy at Halloween.

A former city politics reporter for the Times, Hymon clearly thinks this "safety" project should have been completed years ago and feels justified in slamming CALTRANS once a spokesperson reveals that the project has been on the books since the 1950's.  Hymon wonders what’s taken so long to get this road widened..

A better question would have been, why are we still using solutions dreamed up over half a century ago to solve problems that exist today?

Photo: Kellogg Photography/Flickr

The Los Angeles County Bike Coalition is urging cyclists everywhere to submit comments on Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan. As we've noted here before, Metro isn't just a transit agency, but also the main transportation planners for LA County. While the current Draft Long Range Transportation Plan is long on deserving transit projects, the total amount of funds that will be available for bicycle and pedestrian projects is between one and two percent of the total budget for the next thirty years.

Of course, the plan is still a draft and changes can be made...which makes getting written comments to Metro by April 25th asking for greater investment in bicycle and pedestrian projects all the more important. The LACBC has put together some talking points and all of the necesary contact information that you can find after the jump.  If you're interested in reading my testimony, you can find it here.

Dear Fellow Cyclists,

As some of you may know, I have just recently started working at the LACBC as the Outreach Coordinator. I'm writing to alert you about an important county-wide planning process that needs your input immediately.

Metro has issued a Long-Range Transportation plan draft (www.metro.net) and has been holding meetings to get community input. Dorothy and I have been going to some of these meetings to make sure that Bicycles are included in their plan. They are encouraging us to give input into what we would like to see implemented.

They have indeed included a small percentage of the available funding to bicycle planning, but definitely not to the extent it should be. Right now only 2% of the budget is allocated to bicyclists and pedestrians. I have encouraged Metro to double the budget allocated for bicycle ways, lanes and routes, and that bicycle facilities and lanes should be included in all of their transportation projects.

I have spoken to Carol Inge, planning director at Metro and she agrees with us that we need to change the way people think, and get them out of their cars in order to reduce congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce green house gas emissions. What she needs is to hear from us, so that they can include our ideas into the plan. We need to tell them what we would like to see.

That is where YOU come in. LACBC needs you to write a letter today I have put together a couple main points that a few of us consider as key. If we come together on these, If enough of us speak up now, we will dramatically improve conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians today.

Here are some suggestions:

1) Increase the amount of money for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the strategic plan.

The budget allocated to bicycles should be at least $24 million a year.

Metro should commit to funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements every year- even using local sales tax monies if state monies are not available.

In order to create safer streets for cyclists we need more bike lanes and more bicycle facilities throughout the city.
Metro talks of "changing the way people think". But you need to make it possible for people to change their behaviors. We need to encourage people to ride their bikes. Designating specific parts of the road for bike use and shared use will encourage people to ride their bikes and incorporate the bicycle as a viable form of transportation. It will also improve motorist behavior about cyclists and improve cyclist safety.

By encouraging people to ride their bikes, you are addressing Metro's vision of creating a more "balanced transportation system", of reducing congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing our air pollution, and encouraging a healthier and better quality of life. Bikes are the solution.

The rest of the nation has realized this, the rest of the world has realized this. Now it's time that Los Angeles realize this. Metro can help make it happen. We would like to see at least $24 m/yr budgeted to making Los Angeles a cleaner and healthier city by increasing bicycle facilities and bicycle awareness throughout the city.

2) Every project initiated should include bicycle facilities, bike lanes, and bikeways to create alternatives to driving.
This would actually help to reduce extra spending if these initiatives are incorporated during the initial phases, instead of regarding it as separate projects.

Projects in all modal categories that include bicycle accommodations should be given more points in Metro's scoring criteria. For example:an RSTI project that includes bike lanes should be given more points in that category. A pedestrian sidewalk improvement project that includes bike racks should be given additional points, etc.

Include bikeways paralleling the Metro transit projects; include feeder projects; link public transportation hubs with bicycle lanes;
This addresses the needs of under-served populations.

Metro should provide funding for roadway resurfacing on regionally significant corridors. Poor road surface conditions create a larger hazard for cyclists than any other road user.

Email comments by April 25th to:
CalixR@metro.net
LITVAKJ@Metro.net
metroplan@metro.net

I encourage you to cc an MTA Board member. These elected officials need to hear your suggestions.
You can go to http://www.metro.net/board members for a list of current Metro Board Members.

Mail comments to Attn: Robert Calix, Transportation program Manager
One Gateway Plaza
Mail stop:99-23-2
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
Go to these upcoming meetings to get your voice heard:

LRTP Community Meetings

April 22, 2008, 6:30pm
North Los Angeles County
Larry Chimbole Cultural Center, Lilac Room - First Floor
38350 Sierra Highway
Palmdale, CA 93550

April 23, 2008, 6pm
San Fernando Valley
Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center, Room 1B
6262 Van Nuys Bl
Van Nuys, CA 91401

Thanks so much for taking the time to write, and for all of your support of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to get more involved.
Ride on!
Aurisha

Photo: Damien Newton

Passing committee is just a first step in allowing LA County to raise the funds they need to build all of the projects outlined in the Long Range Plan. Before any of these fees will be in place, Feuer's legislation would need to pass the full Assembly, the full Senate, be signed by the governor, placed on the ballot by L.A. County and passed by the voters.

Following a brief debate on whether or not animals should be allowed in the rears of pickup trucks, the Committee discussed A.B. 2321.

After a brief speech by Feuer introducing the legislation, Metro Board Member Richard Katz and a representative from the San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce both testified in favor of the bill.  Disappointingly, both testified about how the new funds would impact on automobile congestion. There was almost no discussion of how the funds could be used to provide alternatives to the automobile. When others were given the chance to briefly voice support for the legislation, CALPIRG representative Emily Rusch quickly commented that these funds could be used for a lot of deserving transit projects.

Other groups that voiced support for A.B. 2321 were the City of Los Angeles, California Transit Association, Metrolink, the City of Los Angeles, the Auto Club of Southern California, Environment of California, California State Council of Labor and the California League of Conservation Voters.  A.B. 2321 is expected to also get the support of the City of Beverley Hills which will vote on supporting the bill at tomorrow night's meeting. No organizations testified against the legislation.

The committee voted to move the bill to the full Assembly. Assemblymen Martin Garrick R-SD) and Bob Huff (R-Anaheim) both voted against the bill.

Next the committee debated A.B. 2558, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption Fee. The legislation would allow LA County to place an additional fee on vehicles that cause the most pollution in the form of a tax on gasoline or vehicle registration.  The bill was in for a rough afternoon as it took three roll calls for it to receive the needed eight votes to clear committee.  While the bill never had more Assemblymembers opposed to it than for it, it took Assemblymember Kathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) to change her vote at 5:55 P.M. almost four and a half hours after the hearing began to change the vote count from seven in favor and six opposed to the needed eight in favor with only five opposed.

Feuer was again joined by representatives of Metro and the San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce in promoting the legislation. Feuer noted that this bill would have a "transformative impact on transportation" in LA County by recognizing that certain vehicles do more damage to the environment and taking from those that do the most damage to support projects that lesson our impact on air quality, greenhouse gases and our transportation network.  After speaking with some of those opposed, Feuer agreed to amend the bill so that LA County has to put the measure on the ballot by 2012 or lose its authority and to place a sunset on the bill so that the fee will expire 30 years after its passage.

Also supporting the bill were a diverse group of environmentalists, labor groups and clean air advocates including the City of Los Angeles, California League of Conservation Voters, the Teamsters, CALPIRG, California Transit Agency, California Environmental Association, Planning and Conservation League, NRDC, the Coalition for Clean Air, and the California Association of Labor.

This time, there was significant opposition to Feuer's legislation.

Speaking for the Auto Club of Southern California, Tim Chang questioned whether a fee being placed on polluting vehicles was really a "fee" and not a "tax." A "tax" would require a two-third's approval by voters, while a fee would only require a majority. Chang also wanted a clear summary of how funds would be spent before the legislature approved the bill. Feuer later noted that on top of mandating that two-thirds of the proceeds go towards the construction of transit projects, his legislation does require a plan on how to spend the funds and an oversight authority.

Lisa Martin, representing the California Taxpayers Association, agreed with Chang that Feuer is talking about a "tax."  She also argued bill should be rejected because the state's laws limiting Greenhouse Gasses specifically states that no further fees should be assessed people to fight global warming.

Also opposing the bill were the California Chamber of Commerce, Western State Petroleum Association, California Independent Oil Association, BP, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The California New Car Dealership Association removed their opposition to the bill after Feuer accepted the amendments sun setting the legislation earlier.

On the matter of "fee" vs. "tax," Feuer responded that he has already asked the Legislative Council to opine on whether his legislation qualifies as a user fee. If they decide it is a tax, he will change the language before it goes to the Assembly floor for a full vote.

At the end of public comment, Feuer was questioned by Assemblyman Warren Furutani (D-LA) on why the bill is not receiving support from more municipalities. Feuer responded that he expects more support as the process of implementing the fee moves forward.

Assemblyman Guy Houston (R-Brentwood) rose to oppose A.B. 2558 but wanted to state for the record that he has supported carbon taxes in the past. The difference is that previous legislation, legislation that allowed an agency to place a fee on people without a popular vote, was discussed as an "air quality" tax and not a "climate change" bill.

Ultimately, Assemblyman Furutani did vote in favor of the legislation, which proved to be a vitally important one.  Without his support, the legislation wouldn't have passed committee even with Galgiani's change of heart.

Have you ever looked at a major construction project and wondered how it would affect your commute? Most times, those developments add a lot of traffic to LA's already congested roads, but unless you're living in one of five small zones in the city, such as the Warner Center, that require it; they don't bring in any money for transportation improvements.

Metro is looking to change that.

Since 2003, Metro has been working on the framework that would allow LA County municipalities to adopt "Congestion Mitigation Fees" which would be charged to developers based on the amount of trips their development will create. While Metro would create the guidelines, it will be up to individual municipalities to adopt the ordinances to create the program and collect the fees.

Nevertheless, the members of the City Council Transportation Committee expressed some concerns about the program at yesterday's meeting.

Councilmember Tom LaBonge expressed frustration that Metro would be placing barriers in the way of developers. After discovering that "Congestion Mitigation Fees" were being pushed by the state and not USDOT, LaBonge took Metro to task, "I feel the agency is getting away from stuff like building transit systems and road systems."

For Councilmember Richard Alarcón, the concern wasn't with the program, but with how fees would be spent. The Councilmember wanted to make sure that these fees wouldn't go into a general fund, but would be used for improvements in the community that sees the development.

Metro is still over a year away from presenting its final plan. In the meantime, they have prepared a series of "Guiding Principles" to help guide them in crafting the program. They are:

Fees should be structured to mitigate congestion from new development without discouraging economic development.

Fees are to augment other regional funds, not replace or redirect them. The intent of the Congestion Mitigation Fee program is not to shift regional resources or regional responsibility, but rather to help local jurisdictions mitigate the regional impacts of new development by increasing funding options that can generate needed revenue.

Local jurisdictions identify local projects with regional benefit consistent with agreed upon guidelines.

Local jurisdictions adopt, collect, and administer congestion mitigation fees. Local jurisdictions are responsible for adopting a fee program authorizing them to collect the congestion mitigation fee, and also retaining the congestion mitigation fee revenues in their own accounts.

Local jurisdictions build projects (or local jurisdictions may choose to participate in multi-jurisdictional or regional projects, if mutually desired).

Local jurisdictions with existing fee programs receive dollar-for-dollar credit for local projects with a regional benefit consistent with agreed upon guidelines.

Fees should be structured to support transit-oriented development, and to exempt mixed use and high-density residential development within 4 mile of rail stations consistent with CMP statute.

The program will be developed in a manner to encourage certainty and predictability among local jurisdictions, business, environmental and development communities.

Of greater concern than how the money is collected is how the money is spent. Metro will not be responsible for how jurisdictions spend their congestion fees, so it will be up to the individual communities to make certain that they are spent on projects that will move the most people and not just be a new set of funds to widen roads and highways.

Photo: Ax2Groin/Flickr

Meanwhile, Metro Board Chair Pam O'Connor was wearing her road pinks at her home court at Santa Monica City Hall for a call-in-show about Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan. Metro Live! was broadcast on LA City Cable Channel 36 and Santa Monica Channel 16.

Just like UCLA ended up winning after some shaky moments, O'Connor gave a strong performance despite perhaps over focusing on the benefits of TAP cards. We pick up the action, after the jump.

Metro Live! tipped off with a video explaining what the long range plan actually is. Afterwards, the first question to O'Connor centered on how to reduce congestion reduction strategies. The Board Chair came out firing with a defense of Metro's congestion pricing plans, "We've not valued, put a price on our roads...roads are used primarily by people driving alone in cars." UCLA held a 30-17 lead with 3:21 left in the first half.

The next question asked about trying to control job growth until the Subway to the Sea is built to Santa Monica. O'Connor commented that L.A. County needs to keep growing because of the two million people that will be added to the population in the coming decades. However, Metro and employers can work together to reduce the traffic impacts of new jobs through ride share, transit benefit and work from home programs.

As UCLA closes out the half with a 41-20 lead, O'Connor channels her inner-pedestrian advocate when she responded to a question about connectivity by stumping for better bicycle and pedestrian facilities. "We're all pedestrians at some point."

As halftime rolled on for the Bruins, the questions picked up on Channel 36. "Kris" asked about building double-decker highways to relieve congestion within Metro's right of ways. O'Connor, to switch sports analogies, hit it out of the park.

"Every time you build more freeways and add more lanes, and we could double-deck everywhere, that's not going to dig our way out of congestion," she replied. O'Connor went on to make another pitch for congestion pricing and compared paying more for roads in desirable hours to paying more for parking in desirable locations.

Metro Live! moderator Jack Lovejoy asked the next question wondering what chance the Long Range Plan has to fix our congestion problems. O'Connor responded honestly that Metro can build all the projects it can, but it won't make a difference if people don't change their behavior. Even if someone drives the most fuel efficient car in existence, it still has to be parked somewhere and still take up space while driving. O'Connor ended with asking people to try taking Metro once a week.

While the Bruins took to the court to prepare for the second half, O'Connor fielded questions about specific bus lines, reducing fares to make it easier to make change, and increasing service on the Orange Line to more destinations.

At the midway point of Metro Live!, viewers are treated to a second video presentation. This one focused on Metro's funding crunch. Coming out of the video O'Connor corrected one aspect of the presentation, the $152 billion that Metro has budgeted for is only for "Tier 1" projects. To build all of the projects it wants, Metro needs at least another $60 billion dollars.

Lovejoy then asked O'Connor about why people should support more transportation fees after supporting state transportation propositions in the past. O'Connor blasted state spending and pointed out that if Metro raises new funds through some sort of new fee or tax, the money will come right to the area, and won't be filtered through Sacramento.

O'Connor showed remarkable message discipline answering the next several questions from callers, questions about building more connections to The Valley and the Subway to the Sea, by stumping for more funds. UCLA has a 16-point lead, and there is 16:35 left in the game as Metro Live! goes to its second commercial break.

When Metro Live! comes back, the game is at commercial so the people channel flipping between the two get to watch O'Connor and Popejoy handle a question from an irate bus rider who complains about buses never making their schedule, the rudeness of drivers, and the lack of reaction from customer service. O'Connor does her best to field the question despite the caller repeatedly interrupting her, stumping for more dedicated bus lanes and encouraging people to call customer relations with any problems.

Following a question about why Metro isn't building light rail everywhere, O'Connor fields a tough question from 'Art' who wants to know what Metro is going to do about congestion. O'Connor, showing that message discipline, stumps for Assemblyman Mike Feuer's efforts to make it easier for municipalities to raise their own transportation funds. LA Streetsblog will focus more on Feuer's legislation on Monday.

There's 13:36 left in the basketball game, and UCLA is up by 15. During a quick video on the environmental benefits of taking transit at Metro Live!, UCLA pads that lead to 17.

O'Connor answers a question on how Metro can make it easier for people to take transit by pushing the TAP cards. It's the fourth question this evening that was answered by promoting the TAP cards.

Next up was a question on whether or not congestion pricing would cause more congestion. After all, Popejoy reasoned, you'll be pushing cars out of the carpool lane and into the regular flow of traffic. O'Connor responded that congestion pricing is the only way to preserve a potential congestion free commute and that it shouldn't reduce the number of carpoolers. Whatever the final congestion charge is will partially depend on the number of people in the car.

The last question was about the public process and oddly Channel 36 cut O'Connor's answer off to go to what I believe was a question and answer session on the book Zocalo. And when I say "cutoff" I don't mean that Popejoy politely cut her off, I mean that one second we're watching Pam and the next we're at commercial.

With ten minutes left to go in the game, UCLA is up by 13.

A Livable Boulevard is a street that isn't just designed to move cars, its designed as a center of place for transportation and the community. Livable Boulevards provide equal access to many transportation modes including walking, biking and transit. To protect pedestrians and cyclists, streets also have traffic calming and landscaping designed to slow down traffic. Development along Livable Boulevards emphasize mixed-uses, so that people can live, work, shop and be entertained without needing a car.

The concept of Livable Boulevards isn't new to transportation reformers in West Los Angeles. In the fall of 2006, the Westside Cities Neighborhood Councilheld a symposium arguing that for too long Westside cities thought about streets just as car throughways and not as community resources.  Rosendahl has a history of supporting the concept that streets are for people not just cars.  Rosendahl has supported "Livable Boulevard" concepts as an outspoken advocate for more transit options for the Westside, and by fighting the city's plan to speed up traffic on Pico and Olympic Boulevards.

Los Angeles has been slower than most major American cities to embrace multi-modalism. Metro's current draft long range plan devotes less than 1% of its budget toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. If the Council passes this proposal and the LADOT follows its mandate; perhaps the City of Angels will have a blueprint to help it say goodbye to a transportation culture dominated by the car and hello to more streets that are built for people and not cars.

To read more about Livable Boulevards, read this white paper presented at the Westside Cities Neighborhood Council symposium.