Times Gives Voice to Die-Hards, But Ultimately Favors Safe Diverse Streets

An L.A. Times editorial invokes San Francisco's measure L as a "cautionary tale" for Los Angeles.
An L.A. Times editorial invokes tired arguments from proponents of San Francisco’s Proposition L as a “cautionary tale” for Los Angeles. But what about Proposition L’s many critics? Don’t ask the Times. Image via No on L via SBSF

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times published the editorial Sharing the Roads in L.A. Ultimately the Times favors moving patiently toward a vision that “puts pedestrians, cyclists and transit users on equal ground with drivers,” but some of the Times preamble undermines its welcome conclusion.

The start of the editorial quotes the proponents of San Francisco’s Proposition L, a Republican-funded regressive measure that calls for prioritizing cars and enshrining free parking. L’s deceptive rhetoric is to “Restore Transportation Balance” which seems to be code for “Let Us People in Cars Have All the Space Like in the Good Old Days.”

The Times editorial only gives voice to Proposition L supporters, ignoring its many detractors. Prop L is opposed by a broad range of S.F. political leaders. Critics warn that L’s policies will worsen gridlock, harm affordability, and degrade the environment.

From the Times editorial, quoting Proposition L’s backers:

Because 79 percent of [S.F.] households in the city have a car, proponents argue, wouldn’t it make more sense to dedicate more money to helping cars move faster and making it easier and cheaper to park them? Why have local transportation authorities created a “war on motorists” by removing street parking and traffic lanes for bike routes, while hiking meter rates and parking ticket fines? Enough already!

Maybe the Times only had print space for one side of this issue, so I’ll be helpful and feature some of the other side’s rebuttals. Here is Streetsblog San Francisco‘s take on that 79 percent number:

This [statistic] is a misleading and hyperbolic way to misrepresent policies aimed at giving San Franciscans better alternatives to owning cars. Another way to look at car ownership stats: 37.1 percent of households own only one car, so 58 percent of households own one or zero cars. Despite having a solid car-light majority, San Francisco already devotes most of its street space to moving and parking cars — mostly for free.

And how about that “war on motorists”? If the situation we face today is some kind of war on motorists, I am looking forward to the war on cyclists, pedestrians, and transit-riders. The one where we get all kinds of “free” stuff subsidized by other taxpayers, billion-dollar capital projects, space everywhere, etc. If anyone you know, editorial writers included, trots out phrases like “war on cars” show them these charts from Streetsblog New York City and Streetsblog Los Angeles.

Like some other recent Times editorials, yesterday’s seems to speak with multiple voices. This multiplicity of viewpoints is fitting, as it is reminiscent of L.A.’s streets. Cars, buses, shuttles, taxis, trains, bikes, feet, wheelchairs, and much more – all come together and share space on L.A. streets all day every day. Striking a safe, healthy balance that supports a world class city requires a dance, a dialogue, a negotiation.

As new LADOT general manager Seleta Reynolds often points out: it’s all people out there using our streets, so it can be unhelpful rhetoric to categorize everyone into neat stereotypes including: drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. When drivers park, they become pedestrians. Many cyclists become drivers when we carry lots of groceries. Reynolds also points out that drivers benefit from greater road safety and parking reform, and that many complete streets projects can reduce congestion.

Like the Times, I would favor “a consensus-building process” that leads to “a record of success” in streets that are great for all. I don’t remember a lot of Times editorials pushing for patient public consensus when many backroom processes were delivering car culture to our doorsteps, but, nonetheless: yes, today as ever, community consensus is important. Unfortunately, I think that the Times is holding Los Angeles to an impossible standard if it thinks that “even die-hard drivers” can be won over.  Sometimes, a few vocal critics is a sign that we’re getting somewhereSometimes, a greater good, like, say ending traffic deaths by 2025, means that a few die-hard people, like, say, Proposition L proponents, don’t always hold sway over what is good for everyone.

  • Don W

    I love the idea of what Seleta Reynolds is perhaps trying to say by characterizing all road users – drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians – as simply “people” sharing the space…. But Im troubled by that sentiment as well.

    I would like to see a revised statement from Ms Reynolds in which the pedestrian is given the top priority / top ranking. This is our default mode of travel. You can not revoke my right to walk. True, we are all sharing the public space but drivers are NOT equals with pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers enjoy a state granted / earned priviledge to operate machinery in the public space. Drivers should be made to understand their place in the public space as guests who cause harm to infrastructure and freedom of movement of those who choose not to or can not afford a car.

    We have some big tests coming up to see just how progressive the LADOT will be under Seleta, everyone is fawning and worshipping, but lets get down to business and see some changes.

    No more crosswalk erasures
    No more sneaking around with the LAPD and conspiring to raise speed limits
    Stop forcing 12′ car lanes through urban areas at the expense of Quality buffered bike lanes

  • mike_napolis_beard

    True, but we have to start somewhere, right? I think the key point is that the current way that we talk about this isn’t working very well. Once we reframe the conversation around “people,” as opposed to the conventional “cyclist,” “pedestrian,” and worst of all, “car,” we can start to gradually flesh out the conversation by talking about how different people choose to use the space and the tools that they use to go faster. It becomes abundantly clear in this context the stark differences between people who choose to (or can only) walk and the people who choose to drive.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Editorial: It Ain’t Easy Bein’ L.A.’s Green Bike Lane

|
The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial earlier this week entitled L.A.’s bike lane blooper. While the Times was generally supportive of L.A. City bike plan implementation, it did come out against green bike lanes in downtown Los Angeles stating that “the green lane spoiled the shots that made Spring the perfect stand-in for Anytown, […]

Five Things I’m Thinking About Transportation

|
When I last took a paternity leave, I returned with a brief column on some stories I would never get to flesh out that occured during my time off. Sometime after that, Steve Hymon started running an occasional “5 Things I’m Thinking About Transportation” series. I’ve rarely done it, but if it’s good enough for […]

If A Tree Falls In A #RoadBond, Do Editorial Writers Hear?

|
Today’s Los Angeles Times has two editorials that don’t quite go together. In the editorial South L.A. needs trees, the Times reviews tree removal underway for Metro’s Crenshaw rail line. Almost channeling their inner Lorax, the Times lauds the city and county’s “ambitious post-construction plans” for “planting twice as many trees as they remove, and adding […]
STREETSBLOG USA

Transit Vote 2016: California’s Transportation Funding Ballot Initiatives

|
We continue our overview of what’s at stake in the big transit ballot initiatives next week with a look at California. Previous installments in this series examined  Indianapolis, Seattle, Detroit, Atlanta, and Raleigh. All three of Streetsblog’s west coast editors contributed to this article: Melanie Curry of Streetsblog CA, Roger Rudick of Streetsblog SF, and Joe Linton of Streetsblog LA. Twenty of 58 California […]

LA Times Editorial: Councilmembers Should Not Be Tinkering with Bike Plan

|
I was excited to read yesterday’s pro-bike Los Angeles Times editorial entitled Some bumps in the road on the way to a bike-friendly L.A. The piece calls out Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo for stopping the approved North Figueroa bike lanes. The Times supports the “worthwhile objective” of  implementing bicycle infrastructure to make “the city safe […]

Planning Commission Approves L.A. City Mobility Plan, Includes Vision Zero

|
At its meeting this morning in Van Nuys, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission unanimously approved Mobility Plan 2035. The Mobility Plan is the official transportation policy component of the city’s General Plan. Before taking effect, the new Mobility Plan will need the approval of the City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) and Transportation committees […]