Streetsblog Los Angeles

SoapBoxLA

@DJB, if foldies are an option for people who live in areas with bike lanes and calm streets, what would you suggest for the people who live in Los Angeles?

November 13, 2009 at 6:16 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Hey, I see your point. Fear is one of the main things that keeps me off a bike. However, for people who live in areas with bike lanes and calm streets a folding bike subsidy could be just the thing to challenge their driving habit.

November 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

angle

@ DJB

It doesn't matter if you give away folding bikes for free as long as most people are scared to use them on our city streets. Without the foundation of safer and more accommodating routes, most people will continue to drive as if their lives depend on it, and as for as they will be concerned, it does.

November 13, 2009 at 4:15 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

SoapBoxLA

No word yet on the FIRST Team Westside's recommendations which never never mentioned foldies or loaners, just went straight for the BIKE CAR on the train. wOOt! bit.ly/45Ixn7

November 13, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

DJB

I went to another iteration of this presentation. The idea that caught my eye the most was subsidizing folding bikes. Apparently you can get one on loan from Metro if you agree to fill out a survey. In the discussion at this meeting there was a lot of talk about the need to expand bike parking, and to make sure that bike parking is covered and aesthetically pleasing. Also, apparently ever more bike valet parking is happening in Santa Monica :)

SCAG isn't the most powerful planning agency ever since most land use authority and money is at the county or local level, but it's useful to think about stuff besides the (difficult to implement) fundamentals of complete streets and density near transit.

November 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

SoapBoxLA

Rent a car, share a car, borrow a car, hitch a ride in a car...all of these solutions have something in common. I just can't put my finger on it. Hmmm. Anyone?

November 13, 2009 at 2:53 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

angle

All of this money and effort spent on endless studies and reports, and they all avoid the one thing that must be done to get people out of private automobiles: taking road space away from cars for other forms of transportation. All the rest is hot air.

I've finally come to the conclusion that there's a "bike sharing virus" that you can catch if you're exposed to a transportation committee. The only people who are immune are people who have actually used a bicycle for transportation.

November 13, 2009 at 1:10 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

ubrayj02

Until the underlying pro-car tilt we have in our transportation agencies are addressed head on, we're just talking about bureaucratic vapor-ware.

Here is a way to get more people to stop driving: have less of them killed when walking!

Wasn't there a post on Streetsblog a few days ago about the abysmal state of pedestrian facilities in LA? 25% of the deaths for !% or 2% mode split, or something like that. I mean, come on, stop killing your own people first then lets talk about this high minded crap that requires additional funding sources and staff time.

November 13, 2009 at 12:39 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

calwatch

Except SCAG has been thinking of it for 20 years. In the 1990's they came up with Smart Shuttles, the stupidest transportation idea ever. Basically these were fixed route buses that could also act as deviated service - combining the worst of both worlds. Fixed schedules that had no semblance of reality, the extremely high costs of demand responsive service, and non-competitive travel times due to all of the deviations. At the end of the program they dropped the whole deviated service concept and just started running on major streets like Vermont and Western, cannibalizing existing riders of existing transit.

There is one remaining Smart Shuttle today in the Rosewood area. The service performance is horrible - not even five riders an hour - and costs are excessive. Smart Shuttles, Maglev, Commuter Computer, and "public access vanpools" are some reasons why SCAG has no credibility in transportation circles, and why most local agencies wish that SCAG would just die.

November 13, 2009 at 10:59 am Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Juan

Eric,

I fail to see how building infill housing leads to an increase in energy usage versus business as usual (greenfield). Attached housing has lower energy requirements because of shared walls and building infrastructure.

All studies suggest the people drive less in dense environments near a regional destination with a diversity of land uses and transportation options. Only a subset of those moving into such developments will be car-free, but the presence of a car is not an indicator of 12,000 miles per year. Rather, each of those who move into these developments are highly likely to drive less than the regional average, and will certainly drive less than the greenfield development alternative.

November 13, 2009 at 10:17 am Link
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?

Eric Maundry

How building massive amounts of redevelopment infill in already high density cities per the edict of SB 375 is going to curb greenhouse gases is the question Sacramento never quite answered. The increase of electricity usage alone makes the idea seem absurd. Add to that the belief that people will somehow give up their cars because their new condo is next to a bus station truly is a leap of faith.

But the real source of doubt here is the sanctioning of high density development in what are currently low density cities. Some of the small cities along the Gold Line being an example.

That so many so-called advocates of public transportation have bought into this nonsense is discouraging. What we are seeing here is the power of the BIA and CAR style lobbyists in action, with the gullible buying in without raising a peep.

November 13, 2009 at 10:07 am Link
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?

Dan Wentzel

Last mile / first mile is very important. I'm glad SCAG is thinking of it.

November 13, 2009 at 9:58 am Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

ubrayj02

Oh good grief. Can anyone smell another vanpool program coming out of this effort?

I sure as hell can.

Why do bureaucrats love these high minded initiatives, but ignore the most basic, cheapest, and quickest solutions?

To make less people drive, you need to re-dedicate the right of way to other uses and re-prioritize how the city delivers services to different modes.

We don't need a high capital input gimmick - we need quality sidewalks and bicycle facilities at or near every single transit facility in the city. We need high quality bus shelters and wide sidewalks for a 1/2 mile around each train station.

We also need a Bike Plan that allows car parking and travel lanes to be reduced (especially on under-used arterials) in favor of bike, transit and ped facilities.

November 13, 2009 at 8:00 am Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Ron Kilcoyne

I would like to comment on the six strategies for addressing the last mile in the SCAG/LADOT report. Car sharing, bike sharing and foldable bikes on transit certainly are good ideas that can reduce vehicle trips or VMT. However I don't feel the other three strategies will do much to reduce VMT or vehicle trips. Here is why.

Casual carpooling: This has been gong on in the East Bay area since at least the 80’s. People driving to San Francisco would drive by AC Transit bus stops and BART stations picking up individuals who would have otherwise ride AC or BART into the city. It was a way for drivers to avoid paying a toll and get a faster trip into the city by using the HOV lane and for transit users to avoid paying a transit fare. It did nothing to reduce traffic. (Disclosure I worked in the planning department of AC Transit from 1980 to 1992 and served as Manager of Planning 1989 to 1992.) I used to get complaints from casual car pool drivers about our buses blocking their cars (the nerve of our buses blocking cars parking up people in a bus stop) and whenever I talked to with a casual carpool driver I asked why they drove and didn’t ride transit themselves. The answer I always got – their employer paid for their parking in Downtown San Francisco! This lead to a follow up question what if your employer didn’t’ subsidize your parking. The answer: I would ride the bus or take BART. Casual carpooling is also common in DC and like in the Bay Area it is transit riders who are using casual carpooling to avoid paying a fare.

Taxi: Zone fares (which is done in DC) or meter rates - if it’s a single party is going from A to B what difference is it if they are being driven in a cab or driving themselves – it is still a vehicle trip – no reduction of VMT. Also whether metered or zoned, taxis are still an expensive way to travel. Some cites do allow shared rides (I have experienced this in Denver and San Diego years ago don’t know if it still is in place). This could reduce vehicle trips because what would be separate vehicle trips are consolidated. A better idea is described below.

Car rental: Not sure why this is there, when car sharing is an option.

Which raises the question if this study is about the last mile why not include subsidized shuttles or shared ride taxis exclusively to and from transit stops. San Mateo County has done an outstanding job dealing with the last mile from BART and CalTrain in this manner. Some cities in Fairfield County of Connecticut also have extensive shuttles in place. I am sure there are plenty of other examples probably right in Southern Cal.

November 13, 2009 at 7:11 am Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Ron Kilcoyne

I would like to comment on the six strategies for addressing the last mile in the SCAG/LADOT report. Car sharing, bike sharing and foldable bikes on transit certainly are good ideas that can reduce vehicle trips or VMT. However I don't feel the other three strategies will do much to reduce VMT or vehicle trips. Here is why.

Casual carpooling: This has been gong on in the East Bay area since at least the 80’s. People driving to San Francisco would drive by AC Transit bus stops and BART stations picking up individuals who would have otherwise ride AC or BART into the city. It was a way for drivers to avoid paying a toll and get a faster trip into the city by using the HOV lane and for transit users to avoid paying a transit fare. It did nothing to reduce traffic. (Disclosure I worked in the planning department of AC Transit from 1980 to 1992 and served as Manager of Planning 1989 to 1992.) I used to get complaints from casual car pool drivers about our buses blocking their cars (the nerve of our buses blocking cars parking up people in a bus stop) and whenever I talked to with a casual carpool driver I asked why they drove and didn’t ride transit themselves. The answer I always got – their employer paid for their parking in Downtown San Francisco! This lead to a follow up question what if your employer didn’t’ subsidize your parking. The answer: I would ride the bus or take BART. Casual carpooling is also common in DC and like in the Bay Area it is transit riders who are using casual carpooling to avoid paying a fare.

Taxi: Zone fares (which is done in DC) or meter rates - if it’s a single party is going from A to B what difference is it if they are being driven in a cab or driving themselves – it is still a vehicle trip – no reduction of VMT. Also whether metered or zoned, taxis are still an expensive way to travel. Some cites do allow shared rides (I have experienced this in Denver and San Diego years ago don’t know if it still is in place). This could reduce vehicle trips because what would be separate vehicle trips are consolidated. A better idea is described below.

Car rental: Not sure why this is there, when car sharing is an option.

Which raises the question if this study is about the last mile why not include subsidized shuttles or shared ride taxis exclusively to and from transit stops. San Mateo County has done an outstanding job dealing with the last mile from BART and CalTrain in this manner. Some cities in Fairfield County of Connecticut also have extensive shuttles in place. I am sure there are plenty of other examples probably right in Southern Cal.

November 13, 2009 at 7:06 am Link
in response to No "Today's Headlines" Today

Onceaslug

Man, I so used to have the last miler disease before I got a folding bike (www.montaguebikes.com). Ride a little ways to the bus, fold for the duration of the ride and then ride about 1.5 miles on the other side. I could take public transportation the whole way but it would take over an hour an a half. With the bike though, I'm able to reach routes that were otherwise untouchable and reduce the commuting time to just over a half hour. I'm thinking about bumping it up and commuting by bike the whole way this winter.

November 13, 2009 at 6:54 am Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Eric Metz

@Lightbulb: streetcars offer huge circulation benefits and last-mile solutions for dense urban areas. Los Angeles Streetcar Inc (LASI)(www.lastreetcar.org) -- which has been mentioned a couple times on Streetsblog -- is diligently working to develop a streetcar system in Downtown Los Angeles. Take a look at the website for more detailed information, in addition to conceptual alignments we've generated. Streetcars are also huge supporters of economic revitalization, which is a major plus in this economy.

November 12, 2009 at 11:09 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Peter

Bike Sharing? Hasn't worked out so well in Paris...

November 12, 2009 at 10:15 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

Lightbulb

How about streetcars positioned around major train stops? Could work as feeder lines like buses without the bus bias

November 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm Link
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem

bikinginla

Hey, if I can survive my first radio broadcast, it should be a breeze for you. Won't be able to hear it live, but I'll make a point of downloading it next week.

November 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm Link
in response to Streetsblog on Bike Talk This Weekend!

David Pulsipher

We have to make ourselves a factor in mayoral and general city politics. There is no other way.

that's what i'm saying bicycle PAC.

November 12, 2009 at 4:23 pm Link
in response to Streetfilms: Shocker from New York. 200 Miles of New Bike Infrastructure Leads to More Biking

Sam

This could be a great idea in other Cities surrounding LA as well (hint). A big challenge for these cities is getting resources to safely close off large segments of streets, plus buy-in from local businesses and residents.

November 12, 2009 at 10:50 am Link
in response to Will L.A. Have Its Ciclovia? Signs Are Pointing to Yes

DJB

The root of the problem of walkability is a lack of density and separated land uses. It's quite right to say that these things tend to change slowly, but it's not impossible to fix the problem (especially if you move out of suburbia). Thousands of vibrant urban neighborhoods across the country today are testament to that.

Find a PART of your city that is already on the right track and build on that success. Make something to point to and say "if you lived there you wouldn't need to drive to everything". There are plenty of good precedents even in a place like LA.

November 12, 2009 at 9:42 am Link
in response to Tilting at Windmills in Minnesota

DJB

The best thing to do is get rid of minimum off-street parking requirements. Developers know how much motor vehicle parking they need to build to sell their units. They don't need planners telling them to build any more "for the public good".

We need to start moving away from the free street parking model and towards the model of paying to park on the street. That's the appropriate way to manage scarce street space in a dense area. As Shoup points out, returning the parking revenue to the neighborhood it's generated in can overcome some of the political backlash.

It's outrageous that we care more about making sure that every car has a home than we care about making sure that every person has a home.

November 12, 2009 at 7:26 am Link
in response to Best Practices: Bay Area Developers Ditch Parking for More Units

Ron

Thank YOU Damien and the rest of your growing crew for covering all of these issues. You've already left your mark in this town and the momentum is only growing for a mores sustainable land use and transportation system here in LA.

November 11, 2009 at 9:02 pm Link
in response to Thanks a Million

Ron

Yeah! CicLAvia in LA. I can't wait. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "where" and "when" and "how often will we repeat this fantastic experience for Angelenos". Oh yeah!

November 11, 2009 at 8:59 pm Link
in response to Will L.A. Have Its Ciclovia? Signs Are Pointing to Yes

Ron

Another missed opportunity to create a livable street in LA. One of these days we'll get it right.

November 11, 2009 at 8:58 pm Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

Fashionable Earth

We were there and loved it, esp our favorite - Tango!! Here are some pics: http://fashionableearth.org/blog/2009/11/11/alternative-car-expo/

November 11, 2009 at 7:45 pm Link
in response to Car Is Still King at Alt-Car Expo

Paul

If this happens and they increase traffic flow on Glendale, people can kiss their property values good buy.

November 11, 2009 at 7:38 pm Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

Jeff

Thanks Dana, that's good to know. I too hope the local community can sustain the fight.

I assume that any mention of tearing down the Route 2 spur is immediately met by two arguments: (1) it is too expensive and (2) tearing it down will increase traffic.

I say fine, let's test the traffic engineers' theory. Why don't we run a 3 month pilot program where Route 2 is closed to all traffic south of the 5 freeway, simulating its removal. At little to no cost, this allows us to see what the actual effects of such a project would be, both for local residents and traffic flow. Any further discussion about what to do with the Route 2 spur would be greatly enhanced by the real-time data produced from this pilot program.

November 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

walker o

Any fuel savings here in the usa is absorbed by compensatory use in asia. Carbon footprints of individual is not the key. The key is figuring out how much a policy will affect the pumping of oil out of the middle east oil reserves. Can anyone image that they won't pump those reserves dry? Thus peak oil will have a bigger impact on mpg in the end anyways and we will have produced the same amount of co2 emissions. The only only thing that will change that is 1 . cold fusion or 2. massive reductions in fertility rates in industrialized nations (or nations that export their offspring to industrialized nations). Cold fusion is a dream and policies to reduce fertility are taboo. We are screwed unless we get lucky or people decide to take on population growth.

November 11, 2009 at 3:11 pm Link
in response to Chrysler: Taking Taxpayer Money and Running Away From Cleaner Cars

bzcat

From a long term perspective, light rail on Crenshaw will enable meaningful integration of all of LA's rail lines and add more users to the system (netowrk effect) that BRT will not be able to match. With Crenshaw line in place, it will be possible for Metro to run trains from East LA all the way to Redondo Beach via LAX. Think about what that means in terms of uniting different neighborhoods and enabling transit mobility in LA County that buses (no matter how separated from mix flow traffic) will never be able to match.

November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm Link
in response to Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

walker o

I'm all for reducing the parking ratios in locations where there is no street parking for people to spill out onto or nearby neighborhoods for new residents to crowd with street parking. Lots of developers don't want to do parking because it is expensive and better to turn that into more housing units. It really really sucks when they do this and everyone still owns a car and parks around the block in front of the neighbors house making their lives lame.

If this is done in neighborhoods with street parking nearby there must be some sort of way to limit the use of those street spots by the new tenants of teh underparked development. Without that restriction you all are just letting the developers make a buck.

You need a lot of transit or lots of taxi cabs (aka CARS) to manage. Remember that.

November 11, 2009 at 2:55 pm Link
in response to Best Practices: Bay Area Developers Ditch Parking for More Units

walker o

For the same price, would you rather live in a nice safe rural feeling large lot town or in a nice safe urban skyscraper? I would rather live in a village not a city that people call a "village" because it sounds nicer.

November 11, 2009 at 2:42 pm Link
in response to Make Smart Growth Affordable by Building More of It

Dana Gabbard

Jeff, the neighborhood would prefer removal of the spur south of the 5 freeway. I remember attending a meeting at least 10 years ago when Villaraigiosa was the Assemblyman for the area. The community pressed for removal but it was clear Caltrans and LADOT would have none of it. I actually pointed to the residents due to a recently enacted reform of state funding (Senate Bill 45) that Metro prioritized most local spending through the STIP and Caltrans only dictated spending of the 25% reserved for inter-regional projects, so the Metro Board should be the focus of their advocacy, and they could ignore caltrans. Boy, the folks from Caltrans looked dumfounded at the news. Someone later told me news often spreads slowly in large bureaucracies. Sadly Metro has proven a helpless giant that has many powers it is loath to utilize. It is under pressure by electeds etc. that allows LADOT and Caltrans to dictate according to their priorities when they actually shouldn't be anything more than merely advisory.

To appease the auto obsessed LADOT traffic engineers the neighborhood proposed along with the removal of the spur that an elevated bypass (a glorified extended off ramp) linking the 5 and downtown be built that would siphon off the traffic that now floods into downtown via Glendale Blvd. It was an old idea that somebody named Ruben Lebraze (I know my spelling is off on that) had actually been able to get blueprints by some official entity done of it at one point, before the idea stalled. The ramp would skirt what is now the state park north of Chinatown and end near Union Station. The Gold Line and other development that have happened since may make the concept harder to do and or liable to objection by stakeholders of Chinatown and downtown.

My sympathy to the folks of Echo Park that are all these years later still fighting the good fight.

November 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

Brady Westwater

I am entering my 10th year Downtown with no car and while it has limited me in some of things I used to do - my living and working in a walkable area and not being dependent upon public transportation is the only way it can work for me.

And that needs to be the future of development in LA. Highly dense, walkable centers - connected by rail to other dense walkable areas. But one has to also realize and accept that the much of the rest of the city will still be largely dependent upon the car and that further increasing density in those areas will never make them dense enough for rail but will make too crowded for cars and buses to properly service those neighborhoods.

November 11, 2009 at 12:34 pm Link
in response to Without a Car in the World Public Program 3: Walking in LA with DJ Waldie - Tonight!

SoapBoxLA

First, call Councilmember Rosendahl. 213-473-7011. He needs to know that the police in his district are unable to support the cyclists who dare to ride Ballona. He also needs to know that the fenced in and secluded bikeway creates a hospitable environment for crime.

Second, remember that the City of LA (LADOT) fought all the way to the State Apellate Court to have bike paths such as Ballona declared "recreational facilities" and you ride at your own risk, they are not responsible for maintenance and repairs the way they are on the streets of LA.

Third, ride on the streets. It's safer and there are witnesses. The residents around Ballona can't get to you if you need help. You're fenced in! (btw, even in rural wilderness parks, there are mile markers but on the City of LA's Bike Paths, how do you identify your location?)

November 11, 2009 at 12:13 pm Link
in response to Cyclist Attacked on Ballona Creek Trail

ubrayj02

I know that the reasons for LADOT's heavy pro-car bias are complex, but I was reading from their playbook last night and think I found one of the many reasons they are so insistent on destroying the city they work for with private automobile traffic.

In the City's General Plan, in Chapter 6 "Street Designations and Standards", the City lays out all the legal parameters it will use to design and plan the use of the right-of-way.

LA uses a couple of general streetscape design guidelines - and their structure is interesting:
1. Pedestrian Priority Street Segments
2. Transit Priority Streets
3. Standard (vehicle priority) Streets

Unless otherwise noted, all the Major and Secondary Highway streets in LA are "Vehicle Priority".

Of these Standard (vehicle priority) streets, what does the city recommend as a minimum of performance?

"[T]he following minimum performance criteria are set forth for each street designation, expressed in both laneage and vehicular volume capacity for all arterial streets with intersections operating at level of service D or worse during peak hours; selection criteria for designations are expressed in average daily trips (ADT)."

"a. Major Highway - Class I
Selection Criteria: more than 50,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• four travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections
• 3200 vehicles per hour (vph) in each direction during peak hours
b. Major Highway - Class II
Selection Criteria
• Major highways (Class II) should typically be located one mile apart in a grid
system.
• 30,000 to 50,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• three travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections.
• 2400 vph in each direction during peak hours
c. Secondary Highway
Selection Criteria:
• Secondary highways supplement the through-traffic carrying characteristics of
major highways. They should typically be located one mile apart midway between
major highways in a grid system.
• 20,000 to 30,000 ADT
Performance Criteria:
• two travel lanes in each direction during peak hours
• left turn lanes at signalized intersections.
• 1400 vph in each direction during peak hours

So, clearly, you can see where the LADOT is coming from - they are seemingly obligated to shove as much of this car-only crap down our throats as possible, even when that will negatively impact our safety, our businesses, our air quality, and our quality of life.

Glendale is clearly a Major Class I highway - and no attempts have been successful at changing the designation of this street, have they? It would be great to great to see the council office take Glendale down a notch - and thus tie the LADOT's hands in this matter. Those guys will shovel as much sewage through our streets as the can get a way with!

November 11, 2009 at 11:56 am Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

John Penner

after visiting los angeles a couple years ago, and walking through the maze of and 'cant get there from here' gangways that is to be found in downtown los angeles - this is wonderful news - hall is right on about walkability, small block size, etc.

one thing i hope they dont forget in the 'Compact Urban' plan is -- BICYCLES -- there really is no oil crisis -- if people would just remember how great it is to ride bikes.

as a 10 year+ cyclist in toronto (yes - we bike through 80 degrees weather in the summer, and through the snow in winter...) -- including bicycle lanes -- so people can usefully get to work/bank/shopping -- would lessen dependance on oil --

i had a bmw 320i -- sold it -- got a bike ten years ago... best thing i ever did. never need to run like a hamster on a treadmill in a gym -- body feels great... zero car repair bills. zero gas & oil... no more oil crisis.

everything in toronto is located within 20-30 minutes bicycling distance -- so there's nowhere you cant go.. toronto island is the largest car-free community in north america -- people say it is so nice... so peaceful... until they notice that there are no cars... but there's a bicycle parked in front of every house... carts to get groceries... and its fun! so much more enjoyable than a car (well, yes, winters are a bear, but that's only two months out of 12) -- i'm sure you wouldn't have to deal with that in L.A. tho...

anyhoo -- all the best to you out on the west coast from toronto island. :-D

jp

November 11, 2009 at 11:34 am Link
in response to At CNU, Representative of Texas Legislature says “No Road Pays for Itself”

Jeff

Why not remove the spur south of the 5 freeway? Terminating Route 2 at the 5 would undoubtedly reduce congestion in silver lake and echo park and improve the livability of both neighborhoods.

November 11, 2009 at 11:12 am Link
in response to LADOT Values Capacity over Community on Route 2/Glendale Blvd. Drags Metro along for the Ride

DJB

Chrysler is one of the most ridiculous car companies in operation. Their MOST efficient vehicle, the Sebring mid-sized car, gets 21 city MPG and 30 highway MPG (fueleconomy.gov). This is obviously pathetic, and says nothing about the full life cycle environmental impacts of material mining, car manufacture, land use impacts (e.g. parking), and disposal, AND nothing about the safety impacts to cleaner transportation of more cars on the road.

Talk is cheap. Car companies should be judged based on what they put out, not the concept cars they make in Photoshop.

November 11, 2009 at 11:10 am Link
in response to Chrysler: Taking Taxpayer Money and Running Away From Cleaner Cars

Dan Wentzel

The BRT proposal would have been a lot of money for no significant improvement over what we have now.

Rail and bus are not the same thing and a seat on a bus is not the same as a seat on a train. Buses do not attract choice riders or economic development.

Metro made the right choice.

November 11, 2009 at 9:15 am Link
in response to Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

Rocky

This morning 11/11/09 at 5:30 I was riding the Ballona Creek bike trail as I do almost every Morning and someone walking tried to knock me off my bike (west of Ingelwood). I called 911 right away… waited 35 minutes and then left, at 6:45 the 911 dispatched called back to see if I still need response! Both I and the perp were long gone.

November 11, 2009 at 8:14 am Link
in response to Cyclist Attacked on Ballona Creek Trail

Wad

Mahatma wrote:

Any mode of transit performs awesomely on its own dedicated right of way, and with good reason -- it has no competition.

The Orange Line performs fabulously because it has its own right of way.

At the same time, Metro has maintained that the Orange Line has been over capacity ever since it opened. Ridership has been in the 20,000 range.

If that's the capacity limit of buses on their own guideway, L.A.'s ridership is too high to allow for other similar busways.

El Monte's capacity is much higher, but that's because it is fully grade separated and buses can only enter through 3 points.

That's the capacity limit of Orange Line at its current schedule. Metro can always propose to bump up service, but there's a throughput issue here and LADOT will now allow the Orange Line to back up signals for north-south streets in the Valley.

November 11, 2009 at 1:16 am Link
in response to Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

ubrayj02

I am really sad to see the myopia of moving people dominate this discussion. Crenshaw is a commercial corridor as well as a travel corridor - and I don't think that focusing on numbers of people moved at X rate per hour is the proper way to design for uses in the right of way.

I think it is foolish to talk about BRT versus Light Rail - when the basic discussion of how to bring "the good life" (as mentioned in the ceiling of the Hall of Mayors in City Hall) to local residents. Clearly, an auto-only focus on Crenshaw needs to be dealt with.

Instead of throughput, why not focus on things that actually affect the quality of life and the impact that travel has on local commerce?

November 10, 2009 at 11:09 pm Link
in response to Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

Joe Linton

Wooooot! Wooooooooot! It's great to see that this great idea is finally getting some traction! I wanna ride in LA's ciclovia next summer!

Some credit where credit due: CicLAvia is a project/committee/campaign that was initiated and is staffed by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition. The steering committee group includes C.I.C.L.E. (which I work for and which you should all become members of! end shameless plug), Green L.A. Coalition, and Community Arts Resources.

November 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm Link
in response to Will L.A. Have Its Ciclovia? Signs Are Pointing to Yes

Joe Linton

LOL at Josef!!!!

Bias aside... I do find it a little reassuring that 74% of drivers responding express that they're concerned about crashing into bicyclists... They should be kind of "afraid" and should slow down and be cautious.

November 10, 2009 at 10:11 pm Link
in response to ABC 7 Poses Backwards Poll Question While KPCC Takes a Second Try at Bike-Car Conflicts

Wad

Scott, the slow parts are the simulations of revenue service. The Gold Line will run as is.

Is speed going to be the make-or-break factor for the Eastside Gold Line? It might be secondary to service reliability.

A 22-minute train ride from Atlantic to downtown L.A. may not be a dramatic improvement over the 30 minutes or so a local bus would take, and probably comparable to the Rapid services on Cesar Chavez and Whittier.

What the Gold Line can do and what the area buses cannot, though, is run reliably. Metro Rail's on-time percentages are usually in the mid-to-high 90% range. The buses the Gold Line parallels (18, 30 and 68/84) have percentages in the 60s and 70s. The problem, as Calwatch has said before, has a lot to do with early buses as much as late buses.

Turn to page 128 of this document to see the OTPs for buses:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14037876/Overview-FY09-Q2

There might be a "flight to quality" in the short term, but ridership may be dampened by the poor north-south bus service off of Soto and Atlantic, as well as the problem of missing much of downtown. Lines 18 and 30/31 will take riders deeper into downtown and farther west than downtown.

One immediate fix Metro ought to make is to reroute Union Station-adjacent bus routes to Litte Tokyo for easier transfers.

November 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm Link
in response to A Cab-Eye View of the Gold Line Eastside Extension

Damien Goodmon

Mahatma:

I understand your concerns, but to clarify the BRT option proposed by Metro involved several assumptions and really was no better than the Rapid bus that already exists on Crenshaw Blvd. If anything it was the wasteful of the two options, with mixed flow running north of Exposition and likely in the Leimert Park area. In fact, many of the assumptions as to time travel were predicated on approval from LADOT and community. Both were clear that such approval would very likely not be given. The lack of compatibility with the mode of transportation on the Harbor Subdivision corridor was also a major impediment to BRT for this particular corridor.

DJB:

We've done an extensive amount on the FixExpo.org website citing stats and studies that explain that the Blue Line is far more likely to get in an accident than with a car, it is by far the deadliest rail line in the country in raw data, as well as per rider and per track mile, and in the last recorded year had an accident rate 275% higher than the national average for light rail.

RE: The rest

People are right to assume that when the Crenshaw Line is extended north to Wilshire, and possibly to Hollywood via the Pink Line alignment currently understudy in the Wilshire subway extension, it will blow not just BRT, but also very likely the Blue Line out of the water as far as ridership is concerned. Furthermore, extensions into the South Bay are funded in Measure R as well.

What we're looking at is Phase 1 of a two to three phase project that when completed 20 years from now will very likely be a 100K riders/day light rail line.

November 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm Link
in response to Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

alexis lantz

I say East Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park - let's do it!

November 10, 2009 at 5:32 pm Link
in response to Will L.A. Have Its Ciclovia? Signs Are Pointing to Yes

Recent Comments

Ron Kilcoyne

Ron Kilcoyne

Onceaslug

Peter

Lightbulb

Sam

Paul

Jeff

walker o

walker o

walker o

Jeff

Rocky

Word On The Street

Twitter Updates

Calendar

Subscribe

Eyes on the Street

Special Feature

Related Stories

About Streetsblog

Archived Articles

Categories

Blogroll

Blogs - Local Transportation

Blogs - Other Local

Government: Congress

Government: Local and State

Local News

National Blogs

Reform Groups

Regional Blogs