Pico/Olympic | Streetsblog Los Angeles

Posts from the "Pico/Olympic" Category

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1 Comment

A Flaw in Pico/Olympic Study?

At Monday's Pico/Olympic meeting one comment questioned the validity of LADOT's "pilot program" where they gauged the effects of re-timing the signals on the traffic pattern because the study occurred on Jewish holiday. DOT representative John Fisher seemed confused as DOT re-programs all pedestrian signals to take Jewish holidays into account. When he asked the audience "which holiday," there wasn't a clear response.

Well, let's set the record straight. The traffic study took place on October 2nd and 3rd, which are part of the Festival of Sukkot. Both days are in the second part of the holiday, known as Chol Hamoed. According to chabad.org, work on Chol Hamoed is permitted if, "would result in 'significant loss.'" I don't know enough about Jewish holidays to say whether or not this would impact the traffic study, but perhaps someone who reads this post could illuminate me.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4 Comments

Westsiders Get Riled at Pico/Olympic Meeting

by Damien Newton

Everyone Opposed, Raise Your Hand...You in the Back, We're Ony Counting That Once!

It seems that every time I go to a meeting focused on the Pico/Olympic Boulevard controversy the meeting gets a) more crowded and b) more confrontational. Last night, literally hundreds of residents and business owners packed a forum held by the Westside Neighborhood Council to hear about LADOT’s plan and loudly voice their objection. The plan would increase capacity on Pico and Olympic Boulevards by re-timing traffic signals, limiting left-hand turns and imposing restrictions on peak hour parking.

The format of the event was designed to limit direct interaction between LADOT and the audience to prevent an angry back-and-forth from dominating the meeting. Questions were written on cards and read by a moderator.

The crowd’s anger wasn’t just directed at DOT. The crowd jeered one of the plan’s chief proponents, and their local Councilman. Jack Weiss. Weiss was again conspicuous by his absence. The councilman’s representative did not speak to the crowd or attempt to answer any questions directed towards elected officials.

Also up for a verbal berating was Westside Neighborhood Council Chair and event moderator Terri Tippit, an opponent of the plan, who was under constant pressure to either read more questions, read less questions, explain what the question meant, or "shut up and let him (DOT representative John Fisher) answer the question.

I mention the crowd’s passion not as an condemnation of the event, which was as well moderated as could be expected, or the attendees; but to illustrate how heated this issue is for the people along the corridor.

If most of the emotion at last week’s meeting was over the issue of lost parking and its impact to the community, this meeting was dominated by fears of cut through traffic racing through local side streets. Fisher, repeatedly claimed that the plan was designed to reduce cut through traffic by increasing capacity on Pico/Olympic during rush hour so there would be no need to cut east/west through the community. Also, by limiting the left hand turns on intersections with smaller roads, north/south traffic will stay on larger roads such as Beverly Glen Blvd.

(ed: note: An original version of this article said "Motor Ave" instead of Beverly Glen Blvd. Motor Avenue will actually be seeing a decrease in cut through traffic because of signalization limiting left hand turns.)

The crowd was unimpressed, repeatedly questioning the proposal and wondering how bringing more traffic to the area (greater capacity=more traffic) will somehow help their current issues. Several times there were questions asking why traffic calming wasn’t used to keep cars off the local streets instead of this more complicated plan. The answer: traffic calming can help, but this plan will help more.

Business owners were similarly unimpressed with claims that the parking restrictions wouldn’t effect them in the long-term. Fisher pointed to dry cleaners along Pico Boulevard that currently thrive even with peak hour restrictions on parking. Locals noted that those cleaners have adequate off street parking, and that in a neighborhood that is mostly Jewish it’s pretty insulting to imply that they should pick up their laundry on weekends (when they can’t drive).

DOT couldn’t promise that the community would have a chance to do a full review of the plan before the City Council voted on it, after all the Council doesn’t report to LADOT; but did promise that they were not yet done their community outreach or tweaking the plan to meet the community’s approval. If "community approval" is the goal, they have a long way to go.

(editor's note: The above picture is of a "straw poll" that was done at the end of the meeting. For the majority of the event, there were no empty seats and the standing room extended into the lobby.)

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 No Comments

Want to Give Your Opinion on Pico/Olympic?

by Damien Newton

Street Heat and the Westside Neighborhood Council make participating in the public process a breeze. Just follow these simple instructions:

1) Click on the form above

2) Print the form

3) Fill it out

4) Fax it to the Council (who will copy it and send it along to LADOT) at 310-475-2126

These are official LADOT forms, so if you send them in, LADOT has to respond in some way shape or form. So if you have a question, then click, print, fill out and fax.

Thursday, January 10, 2008 5 Comments

City/Locals Clash on Pico-Olympic Plan

by Damien Newton

Could there be a better illustration of the divide between the DOT and the community?

As I sat and watched angry/scared locals from along the Pico-Olympic corridors testify against the Mayor's Pico-Olympic plan, I suddenly felt bad for LADOT Transportation Engineer Ken Husting. Basically, it shouldn't have been this way. The residents and business owners are passionate about the communities and if they had been brought into the process at the beginning, instead of after "legislation by press conference" maybe this whole mess would be playing out a different way.

Instead, roughly 80 residents showed up to Daniel Webster Middle School to give voice to their anger about the Mayor's plan to increase rush hour traffic flow on their local boulevards. The plan calls for eliminating parking, and improving traffic signal timing to add capacity during peak periods. Those testifying were more restrained than at the boisterous city council hearing back in December, but the anger was just as real. It should also be noted that while the Mayor sent a representative and LADOT General Manager Rita Robinson that neither he nor Councilman Weiss were present this evening.

The community's arguments/concerns could be broken down to 4 categories: "Don't Take My Parking," "The Phases Are Out of Order," "The New Pico Will Be Less Safe" and "Is Any of This a Good Idea Anyway."

Don't Take My Parking

The Pico-Olympic Plan is broken down into three phases. Ironically it's the first phase, removing peak hour parking to add an extra lane of traffic, that is the most controversial.

The businesses along Pico claim to be reliant on the rush hour parking to remain profitable. Estimates varied on how much business would lose (one business owner noted that reducing parking along Wilshire Boulevard to create a bus only lane reduced revenue by 20-30% to local businesses,) and business owners seemed less than placated by a DOT handout that the change would only have "initial adverse impacts to parking availability," and that "customers can adjust to the new parking restrictions as has occurred elsewhere in the city."

Sherman Jahan, owner of Pico Cleaners, argued that 90% of his business comes in during morning rush hour (to drop clothes off) and evening rush hour (to pick them up.) He also noted that when he temporarily lost street parking after the earthquake, his business never got lost customers back and he had to close one of his stores. Jahan also noted that morning and evening rush hour are when many residents in the predominantly Jewish neighborhoods go to Temple (located directly on Pico Street) and removing parking will inhibit their ability to attend religious services locally.

Actually, every speaker except one testified about the cost to the community and businesses of losing the parking along Pico Boulevard in some form or another. Much of the concern comes from the lack of parking in the neighborhoods surrounding these corridors. Thus the argument goes, if you take away their street parking, you eventually take away the businesses. If you take away the businesses and speed up the traffic flow...well, then you're just turning these boulevards into a mini-highway.

The other two phases are improving directional signalization (a two day experiment with better signal timing along Pico Boulevard yielded a 45% "more efficient" commute) and "peak directional flow" where the adjacent lane to the "preferred" lane is changed to a peak lane. In layman’s terms, one westbound lane on Pico would be made an eastbound lane and the opposite would happen on Olympic. The total cost of the project is relatively low; $2.1 million would cover all three phases of the project. Currently, LADOT is asking for only $600,000 to pay for Phase I and Phase II.

The Phases Are Out of Order

Residents also repeatedly asked why move forward with this plan in its entirety instead of just fixing the signalization at the intersections. In a pilot of the program last fall, LADOT found that it could improve traffic flow by 45% by just updating the signal timing.

"You say in your own report that you can add 6 miles per hour with better timing of the lights…that sounds like a significant impact to me. It’s unfair to them (businesses on Pico) to hurt their business without exhausting the traditional means," said Al Casas, chair of the West LA Neighborhood Council Transportation Committee.

Husting repeatedly responded that there's only so much you can do with signalization, and that the total effect of re-timing the signals wasn't what they were aiming for. After the Q+A was over he told me that during their October trial, there were bottlenecks in many of the areas that currently have parking, and that's why the parking restrictions have to go first.

The New Pico Will Be Less Safe

Another concern is the impact these changes would have on pedestrians along the boulevards. By increasing the speed and volume of rush hour traffic, both roads will become less pedestrian friendly and could provide barriers that would make the road virtually impassible, forcibly separating communities.

Faster traffic is also a greater hazard to pedestrians. LADOT claims that the signals will be timed to keep traffic from going faster than 35 miles per hour, a sort of traffic calming through signal timing plan. "These lights will be timed, if you go 40 miles per hour, you’re going to end up sitting at a red light," said Husting "We’re not encouraging speeding traffic along these arterials."

But Avi Schonwald, president of A.V.I. Enterprises, argues that the street really doesn't need any more speed, "Pico already moved very fast in the evening. People barely have time to park safely." After the meeting he told me that faster traffic will be a hazard to the Orthodox Jewish community in the area when they walk to weekend services during Friday night rush hour.

Is Any of This a Good Idea Anyway

Lastly, there are concerns that this plan would make traffic even worse than it currently is.

Tom Donovan, Chair of the West LA Neighborhood Council Planning Committee wondered whether or not this plan would induce demand in development density, noting that "trying to fix congestion by increasing capacity is like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.

Husting admitted that they don't know the full amount of traffic that will be induced or what impact the project will have on development standards, "We don’t know whether 5 miles an hour would effect developers decisions."

There were also concerns about whether or not the plan would induce more cut through traffic. LADOT claims that drivers will be less likely to use local streets for cut-throughs if the arterial roads work better. Some residents seem unconvinced, twice interrupting Husting with shouted objections while he explained this position.

LACBC Board Member Kent Strumpell brought an entirely different take to the debate. After complimenting LADOT for thinking outside the box, he painted a transportation vision that was probably more outside the box than anything else discussed in the room.

"This solution is all about the automobile. Cities are beginning to think of roads in a different way...we should look at a way to bring a complete streets solution to revitalize the area and reduce congestion."

When pressed by Councilman Bill Rosendahl, the evening's host and emcee, to tell the crowd what a "complete street" would look like, Strumpell explained that a complete street is "deisnged for all users and features inviting pedestrian environments, enhanced transit stops and facilities, bike lanes creating a beautiful area." Basically, Strumpell's vision, greeted by applause, was the exact opposite of the city's plan.

Next Steps for the Project

Councilman Bill Rosendahl, claims neutrality over what the plan should look like although he is enthused by any thinking outside the box on this issue and was doubly enthused by the turnout and testimony at this event. "This town hall tonight is my effort to bring together the Mar Vista neighborhood council, the West LA neighborhood council and my (local and appointedby the Councilman) empowerment Congress," said the Councilman.

The next step for the project will be next week when Councilman Jack Weiss holds his own community forum (more details on that later in the week.) LADOT will be releasing a report on the parking impacts, and a second community meeting for the City Council Transportation Committee, which could vote on the entire proposal as soon as next month. If the plan continues to move forward on an accelerated time schedule, the changes could be in place as early as this spring; however LADOT has promised to come back to the community with any changes before moving any new positions forward.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1 Comment

Pico/Olympic Meeting Announced

by Damien Newton

At the end of the committee hearing, Rosendahl announced the time and location of his promised public meeting on the Mayor's Pico/Olympic Plan. The meeting will be held on January 9 at 7 P.M., at Daniel Webster Middle School, 11330 West Graham Pl.

(photo from Los Angeles Times)

Monday, December 3, 2007 6 Comments

Community Slams Mayor, Weiss on Pico/Olympic Plan

by Damien Newton

"The medium is the message" is a well known saying among Public Relations theorists. In the story we're about to discuss, the medium used to send the message was the traditional media. By choosing that medium, the unintended message that the community received was "up yours."

When Mayor Villaraigosa and Councilman Jack Weiss held a press conference to announce their plan to aid commuter traffic on Pico and Olympic Boulevards they were looking to take a little credit for thinking outside the box to help ease gridlock. What they ended up doing was creating a firestorm in the surrounding communities and uniting landowner, resident, and businessman with a common goal: stop the Pico-Olympic Plan from ever seeing the light of day.

The blowback against the Mayor and his plan began today when a who's-who of community leaders, business owners, homeowner's groups, chambers of commerce and regular old citizens from the Pico Blvd. area flooded a City Council Transportation Hearing and spoke for hours about their concerns with the plan. While many people didn't like the plan, they were even more irritated with a grandstanding mayor (where have we heard that before...) for notifying them of the changes via newspaper and tv headlines without first holding a public meeting.

The number of people testifying was so great that the normal committee room was too small, and the hearing was held in the full Council Chambers. The DOT was asking for funding for Phases 1 and 2 of the Mayor's plan, which would standardize the rush hour restrictions along both roads, eliminating parking during rush hour, and re-time signals to give priority to east-west commuters during rush hour. The Committee promised not to move forward with the plan until after an extensive public outreach.

After a presentation by the DOT and Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega outlining the plan, Chairwoman Grueul opened the floor for comments. The over thirty commenters then strode to the microphone and proceeded to trash the plan, the mayor and the Council (or Councilman Weiss) in that order.

The best barbs thrown by testifiers were aimed at the Mayor. One resident, responding to de le Vega's rhetorical question, "why are we here today?" answered, "We're here today because we woke up one morning and saw the Mayor and Councilman Weiss smiling in the LA Times. That was our notification!" A member of Councilman Weiss' Pico-Olympic Task Force complained that the committee was hoodwinked. They were promised a full hearing process but were instead were "treated to policy by press conference."

The angriest people were the business owners along Pico Boulevard who see a speedier road with no parking as the death knell for their restaurants, shops and dry cleaners. "We already have a freeway system" one restaurant owner complained, "Stop trying to turn our surface streets into a second one and bankrupt all our businesses at the same time!" The owner of two dry cleaners complained that "70% of my business occurs between 7 and 9 in the morning and 4 and seven at night. If you take away my parking, you'll force me to close both shops."

Some of the other complaints with the plan itself included:

1) Restricting left-hand turns will create more people driving on community streets to avoid having to make three rights to get home

2) Pico and Olympic will become un-passable boundries for those that need to turn left off of them to get home

3)The real problem is the over-development in places like Santa Monica and Wesfield Mall (located conveniently in Councilman Weiss' Fifth District) and nothing is being done about that

4) The plan is just moving the bottleneck and won't impact traffic

5) Seven minutes (the estimated savings for commuters) isn't worth displacing hundreds of businesses

6) What effect will this plan have on ridership for the Expo Line?

Each councilperson reacted to the testimony in their own way.

The usually-affable Councilman Rosendahl sat off the center podium and just listened to the testimony. Rosendahl's district will benefit from the quicker commute and the Councilman will be holding a public hearing on January 9th to elicit more feedback. The meeting was criticised as being held too early by many speakers, but the Councilman did not commit to moving it to February or beyond.

Chairwoman Grueul focused on keeping the meeting moving along and making sure every speaker was heard. Somehow she managed to do this without the aid of a gigantic countdown clock. She also let speakers finish their thoughts if they went over the suggested speaking time of a minute. I hope her courtesy towards her constituents doesn't impede her career.

So the job of soothing people's anger fell to the HOT-Lanes-hating, parcel-tax-promoting, Councilman LaBonge. LaBonge tried joking (How do I get this many people to come to Parks and Arts?), teaching history (We didn't build our freeways correctly because of a strong homeowners group in Cheviot Hills, now we're doing what we can.), and stumping for his parcel tax (Who wants to see more transit?).

What worked best was responding intelligently to people's concerns and working with the one person who didn't testify against the plan (a representative from Metro) to make sure that Metro would work with DOT and the Council to hear people's concerns.

The future of the Mayor's congestion busting plan for the Westside is now in question as the opposition seems deep, angry, and well organized. What isn't in question is that its generally a bad idea to ignore your community groups and committees and talk to the newspapers before your constituents.