Streetsblog Los Angeles

Photo of Ciclists in NELA via C.I.C.L.E.

Yesterday, C.I.C.L.E. announced that they are ready to take the next steps in advocacy when they announced their "North East L.A. Campaign."  Generally, C.I.C.L.E. has focused their advocacy efforts on helping people get, and stay, on their bikes by providing classes, workshops and social rides.  However, the group hasn't spent a lot of energy on traditional advocacy concerning engineering and enforcement issues.

At least in N.E.L.A., that is going to change.  While C.I.C.L.E. hasn't announced the goals or platform for the campaign, that is going to wait until after meetings with members and other cyclists in the community, the potential campaigns the Ciclists list are all engineering treatments.  Many of those treatments would be "first ever" for the City of Los Angeles if they were to come to pass:

- Bike Boulevard: implement a bicycle boulevard in NELA.

- Bike Parking: implement innovative bike parking in NELA, possibly bike corrals (proposed in this council motion.)

- Colorado: implement bike lanes on Colorado (east of Figueroa approved in 1996 bike plan,  interest in additional stretches from TERA  and others)

- Eagle Rock: extend the Eagle Rock Blvd bike lanes (in the draft 2009 bike plan)

- Figueroa: implement bike lanes on Figueroa (north of Ave 60 approved in 1996 bike plan)

- Fletcher: implement bike lanes on Fletcher Drive (approved in 1996 bike plan)

- Sharrows: implement sharrows in NELA, in appropriate places, possibly including the Eagle Rock Blvd bike lane gaps for right turns at York and Avenue 36.

- York: implement bike lanes on York Boulevard (approved in the 1996 bike plan)

If you have any ideas for C.I.C.L.E., feel free to leave them in the comments section.  However, if you want to commit to helping with the project, you should leave a note for C.I.C.L.E. at their blog.

The senior Republicans on three of the Senate's four infrastructure-centric committees signed a bipartisan letter on Tuesday asking the leaders of Congress' upper chamber to call up a six-month extension of the 2005 transportation law.

Senate environment chairman Barbara Boxer. Photo: Politics Now

In the letter, Sens. Jim Inhofe (OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), and Richard Shelby (AL) joined Democrats in asking both parties' leaders to overcome the objections of a "small number of senators" who prevented quick passage of a six-month extension in September -- citing their opposition to using unspent financial bailout money to keep transportation programs running.

The senior Democrats signing onto the letter were: environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (CA), Commerce Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (WV), and Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd (CT). Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus also signed the letter, but the Finance panel's chief Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), did not attach his name.

A Grassley aide said the senator is concerned about the long-term financial health of the nation's highway trust fund and would prefer to address the issue in a multi-year bill rather than a months-long extension.

The political climate surrounding infrastructure investment, roiled in recent days by Democrats' new determination to pass job-creation legislation before the end of the year, remains highly uncertain. But the senators' letter signals that any new transportation spending is likely to be distributed using the same funding framework used in the 2005 bill, rather than through any revamped policy that might put roads and transit projects on a more equal footing.

The reason, simply put: If a six-month extension wins approval before the current stopgap transportation measure expires on December 18, a 2010 jobs bill could well be on its way to the president's desk by the time any broad reforms would reach the top of the congressional agenda.

However, the fate of any extra infrastructure spending was not mentioned in the senators' letter, which emphasized the importance of providing a steady funding stream that would "give states the certainty they need to plan and contract for" road as well as transit and bike infrastructure projects. A cancellation of contract authority triggered by the congressional inaction forced cuts to clean transportation budgets in more than 45 states.

Check out a complete copy of Tuesday's letter after the jump.

Continue...

Map of fault lines and recent earthquakes in Southern California. Map: USGS.gov

I wonder if it's still too soon to criticize the concept of digging a tunnel to connect the 710 Tunnel to the I-210.

To the absolute surprise of nobody that's ever dealt with a freeway agency, a study completed by Caltrans gives the green light, at least scientifically speaking, for California to have its very own big dig.  A geological study of the area determined that digging the tunnel is scientifically possible, although it does not give a recommendation on what of the five routes studied would be the best place to bury our taxpayer dollars in the ground.

The Times gives an overview of the problems with each zone. For example:

Zone 4 (San Marino/Pasadena): Active faults that cross the zone are the Raymond and Alhambra Wash faults.

There is one Superfund site in the southwestern end of the zone.

There are also six other sites with various levels of soil contamination.

Add in some public opposition and you have a challenge!  There's nothing that transportation agencies like more than dealing with a challenge!  So the project is an unpopular, environmental disaster that's going to require tunneling around some fault lines and super fund sites.  That's why we employ traffic engineers who know how to move cars.

Public hearings will be held early next year before the report is finalized.  Hopefully we'll get the word from Caltrans that it's ok to start criticizing the project sometime before then.

We've got a fine sampling of content from the Streetsblog Network today.

First, Steve Davis at Transportation for America reports on the meeting T4A and several of its partners had with U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood on Monday. The meeting was to deliver a petition with more than 4,100 signatures gathered after last week's release of the "Dangerous by Design" report on pedestrian fatalities:

U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood with James Corless of Transportation for America and Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition

With the petition and a copy of Dangerous by Design in front of him, LaHood listened intently as T4 America’s James Corless and others talked about the epidemic of preventable deaths -- and what we can do to turn the tide and keep pedestrians safe.

Secretary LaHood was hopeful that federal transportation policy can better accommodate all users and keep them safe, and that now is the right time to make that change.

“I think this Congress gets it now,” Secretary LaHood told us. “Certainly in part because of advocates like you.” He acknowledged that making the streets in our communities safe and accommodating for everyone dovetails well with the Obama administration’s focus on livability.

He stressed that safety is the top consideration for everything they do at USDOT and urged T4 America to take the report directly to Congress as they continue discussions on the full six-year transportation bill. He also asked for more copies of Dangerous by Design (on their way, Mr. Secretary!).

We'll be keeping an eye on developments.

• USC's Bike Enforcement: Questions Remain on Whether Its Legal, But Not Whether Its Ineffective (Daily Trojan)
• June Groundbreaking for Downtown's Civic Park (Curbed)
  
• Traffic Lights, Safety Laws, Keep Eastside Extension at 15 M.P.H. (The Source)
• Thieves Use Eastside Extension to Make Their Getaway (Times)
  
• State Faced with $21 Billion Budget (Times)
• No Resources to Deal with Hit and Run Epidemic.  Resources to Harass Street Vendors (Times)
• Investment Trends: Super-Rich Buying Up Rail, Roads, and Bridges (Globe and Mail, WSJ)
  
• NYPD Escort for "Amtrak Joe" Crashes on the Way to Daily Show (NYT, Post)

The city wants to use its Measure R Local Return for multi-modalism. Photo:

In the summer of 2008, when Streetsblog first announced its "1% for bikes, 1% for peds. campaign" in what would later be known as Measure R, we never thought that a year and a half later we would still be fighting that fight nor that we would be close to a partial victory.  

Tomorrow, the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee will be discussing how the city will program its share of the Local Return funds from Measure R.  Following the mayor's promise that Los Angeles would set aside a portion of its Measure R funds for non-motorized transportation; the LADOT and Council Members have been living up to Villaraigosa's promise by programming 10% of the city's Local Return funds for these modes in every version of the budget that has come to light.  Building on the campaign launched here last summer, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition has been organizing transportation, public health, and environmental groups to keep the 10% set-aside alive.

However, the process of actually allocating those funds has been a slow one.  It was back in May when Council Members Bernard Parks and Jose Huizar first proposed projects to be funded by Measure R and later in the month when then Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel outline for the city's Measure R share.  Over the next six months, different reports from the Chief Legislative Office have arrived spelling out a dire economic climate and different proposals for the city's Measure R funds.  Tomorrow, the city departments working on the proposed budgets are asking for another sixty day extension.  A copy of the proposal, with a project list to be funded at the end, can be found here.

Continue...

Democratic lawmakers are discussing the possibility of a one-year stopgap transportation bill but have yet to reach consensus on how to pay for the measure, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) said today.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) (Photo: Politics Daily)

Carper, speaking at a National Journal policy conference, said the prospects for short-term transport legislation still depend on finding a workable funding source. He mentioned an idea first floated last year by economist and Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson: increase the fuel tax by one penny every month.

Such a gradual increase, Samuelson wrote, would send a price signal in favor of fuel efficiency. Carper acknowledged that his colleagues didn't immediately warm to Samuelson's revenue-raising idea, but he also hinted that another economic stimulus measure paid for by deficit spending could be a non-starter in the Senate.

"Are we going to have another stimulus bill? I sure hope not, because it means we're in the tank again," Carper said, pointing to recent signs of an economic turnaround.

Carper, the lead sponsor of a proposal to give clean transportation 10 percent of money generated by a future climate change bill, also addressed rising pessimism about Congress' ability to pass carbon emissions limits before next year's midterm elections.

Continue...

Photo: Szoksnapshots/Flickr

I owe an apology to any Streetsblog readers that ride Metrolink.  While I was obsessing about bicycle and pedestrian access to the Gold Line, the Metrolink Board of Directors voted to delay a decision on a 6% fare hike.  After receiving thousands of complaints on the proposed hike, which would have been the agency's second in six months, to try and figure out how to make the cuts needed to maintain the current fare structure.  Congratulations, Metrolink riders.  You spoke out and the agency heard you.

Metrolink, which is the most expensive transit ride in the county, has bucked the trend of growing ridership in large part due to its high fares.  In its article about the Board's decision, the Times notes:

Ridership and ticket revenue on the five-county rail system have tumbled about 15% from last year because of job losses across the region and lower gas prices that enticed commuters back into their cars. Ridership is now below levels of four years ago, officials said. Ticket revenue is forecast to be $7.7 million below what had been expected in the current year's budget.

The agency also has increased expenses for safety improvements after last year's head-on wreck between Metrolink and Union Pacific trains that killed 25 and injured dozens more in Chatsworth.

Some early ideas that were floated at the meeting were renegotiating deals with contractors and trimming parts of the agency's budget.  The Daily News, showing its supply side, argued that the agency should consider cutting fares and it would increase revenues by bringing back former riders priced out of the service.

Streetsblog may be a couple of days late to the story, but that doesn't mean we can't help.  Leave your suggestions for the Metrolink Board to hold off a fare hike, and I'll make sure they get in the right hands.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka today called for more investments in infrastructure as one plank of a job creation proposal that he plans to bring to the White House employment summit next month -- as congressional Democrats continued jockeying over how and whether to pursue and long-term transportation bill in the coming months.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (Photo: Politics Daily)

Trumka, speaking at an employment conference co-sponsored with the Economic Policy Institute (viewable here), made infrastructure No. 2 in his five-point jobs plan. Pointing to estimates that the nation's unmet physical repair needs are nearing $3 billion, he said:

Every dollar spent on infrastructure employs workers all down the supply chain in construction, manufacturing, design and engineering – and we need to be sure these dollars create U.S. jobs and develop badly needed U.S. industrial capacity. And we need to invest in good green jobs – green technology, energy-efficient retrofits of public buildings and the smart power grid.

Before making his remarks this morning, Trumka talked job creation with House Democrats, who are still debating the timetable for a new federal transportation bill. The major sticking points, however, remain how to pay for the $500 billion legislation and whether infrastructure spending should be "front-loaded" into a shorter window than the usual six years.

Roll Call offers a map of the landscape today, which may sound familiar to transportation policy wonks:

Continue...

Image from The Fletcher Studio's presentation to Sci-Arc via Urban Insights

I usually don't pull story ideas directly from The Metro Library's daily headlines page, but this one was just too good to pass up.

Urban Insights L.A. reports on Other New Urbanisms, a symposium held last week by the Southern California Institute's School of Architecture's (SCI-Arc) ”New Infrastructure: Innovative Transit Solutions for LA” design competition.  Urban Insights focuses on the second place winner in the contest, who proposed building agricultural villages along freeway embankmnets throughout Southern California.

The Fletcher Studio, which won second place, proposed urban agricultural villages that would convert freeway embankments into terraced hillsides. Affiliated bungalow housing would be built alongside. These developments would be a new source of “green” jobs, employing farmers on a rotating, seasonal basis. Fletcher calculated that along LA’s 527 miles of freeway, there are approximately 960 acres of largely unused land that could be reclaimed as a productive landscape.

Predictably, many on the panel scoffed at the thought of Caltrans giving up that much space.  Unspoken in the article, and perhaps in the panel, is that if freeway embankments became regional job centers it would be a lot harder, politically, for Caltrans to continue its destructive attempts to widen first and ask questions later.  But in the same way that cyclists are no longer focusing their reform efforts at LADOT and have moved on to elected leaders; perhaps the target audience for this idea shouldn't be bureaucrats at Caltrans but the supposedly Green Governor to whom they report.

Oh, and Urban Insights, welcome to our blogroll.

Today on the Streetsblog Network, member blog UrbanCincy notes with deserved pride that Cincinnati was ranked the seventh-safest large city for pedestrians in the nation in Transportation for America's "Dangerous by Design" study.

But they aren't resting on their laurels. In today's post, they call on the city to improve pedestrian infrastructure further with the goal of increasing the percentage of people walking to work:

Walking in Cincinnati: It's good, and should be better still.

According to U.S. Census data, only 2.3 percent of the Cincinnati-Middletown Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) commutes to work by foot...

So if safety isn't the issue in Cincinnati, then what is it? The region as a whole does not boast very dense development patterns outside of Cincinnati city limits and a few other pockets like Hamilton, Middletown, northern Kentucky's river cities, and Norwood. Furthermore, the areas that are appropriately designed lack any clear amenities for pedestrians like crosswalk counters, scramble crossings at high pedestrian volume intersections, or curb bump outs. Another major detractor is the lack of barriers between pedestrians and motorists like bollards, trees/landscaping, or on-street parking.

I would also contend that the physical condition of our pedestrian surfaces is also a major factor. Fully taking advantage of the Federal Government’s Safe Routes to School program is a critical piece of the puzzle, but so is the ongoing maintenance of our pedestrian surfaces. This may be tricky in the low-growth Midwest and northeast, but solutions like rubber sidewalks provide long-term maintenance savings in addition to the overall improvement in surface quality for pedestrians.

• Orange County Doesn't Get That They Can't Widen Their Way Out of Congestion (Times)
  
• Highway Building Destroying Rainforest in Brazil (Planetizen)
• Daily News Editorial: Metrolink Should CUT Fares to Raise Revenue
• Bikes/Peds Compete with Street Furniture for Funding (City Watch)
  
• Reading the Tweets on the Gold Line Eastside Extension (The Source)
• Council Expected to Promote Charlie Beck to Top Cop Later Today (Daily News)
  
• Walkable Communities: The Key to Reducing Demand for Energy (TNR)
  
• Rational Concerns About Safety Seem to Guide Philly PD's Stepped Up Cycling Enforcement (Inquirer)
• Angels Flight Still Not Open, CPUC Meeting Next Week (Curbed)
  

The Gold Line crosses the L.A. River and heads toward Indiania on First Street within City Limits.

During our ride on Friday, Steven Frien wondered a couple of times why there wasn't talk of having a bicycle lane on 1st Street running parallel to the Gold Line on First Street .  Later in the day, during The Source's review of our review of the Gold Line, Steve Hymon upped the score by asking why there wasn't better bike planning along the entire route.  After all, we know how much bike parking there is at every station, wouldn't it be nice to have a bike network to keep those racks full?

A look at the Draft Bike Plan shows a lot of opportunities for the area around the lane.  Those yellow dotted lines are "potential bike lanes," the purple one is a "proposed bike route," and the blue dotted lines are for "potential bicycle friendly routes."  However, dotted lines on a map are just dotted lines on a map.  LADOT confirms there are no timelines for any of these street improvements in East, L.A.  Now, we can rely on LADOT to work with Metro to do the right thing, or we can put some pressure on the agencies ourselves.

The first thing we can do is to use the public comment function at the Official or Unofficial Bike Plan websites to let the city know that East L.A. deserves a transportation system that is truly multi-modal and that the plan should move from paper to pavement quickly surrounding the extension.  However, just sending comments to city staff isn't going to get the job done.

Fortunately, the Gold Line has two representatives on the Metro Board of Directors, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina.  A little pressure on their offices will lead to a little pressure on Metro to get more involved in providing funding for a bike network for the Eastside Extension.  You can find contact information for Huizar and Molina at their official websites.

Of course, L.A. County has its own Bike Plan and public process.  We'll be back with a look at that plan and what the next steps for the Eastside Extension should be.

When it comes to infrastructure improvements that encourage more people to walk or bicycle to transit stations, how long will commuters be willing to travel? The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has officially answered that question, proposing a significant expansion of the rules governing how close bike-ped projects should be to transit in order to receive government funding.

The BikeStation in Washington D.C., which provides parking and services for bicyclists who use transit. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The FTA's new rules, released for public comment on Friday, replace the previous definition of the so-called "structural envelope" surrounding a transit station.

In the past, regulators had tended to use 1,500 feet as the distance which "most people can be expected to safely and conveniently walk to use the transit service." But the Obama administration, stating plainly that the current radius is "too short," has proposed expanding it to a half-mile for pedestrian improvements and three miles for bicycle projects.

In its explanation of the new proposal, the FTA wrote:

The most successful and useful public transportation systems have safe and convenient pedestrian access and provide comfortable waiting areas, all of which encourage greater use.

Distances beyond the walkshed of public transportation stops and stations may in fact be within the range of a short bicycle trip. Providing secure parking and other amenities for bicycles and cyclists at public transportation stops or stations can be less expensive than providing parking for automobiles.

The proposed regulation also codifies a U.S. DOT definition of "livability" that Streetsblog Capitol Hill took note of when it was first mentioned by Transportation Secretary LaHood: "If people don't want an automobile, they don't have to have one."