Mobility Plan Re-Approval Passes Joint Council Committee Meeting

John London talks about the importance of a bike lane to the safety of the community. Sahra Sulaiman/Streetsblog L.A.
John London speaking at a pro-Mobility Plan ride and rally last week. Photo by Sahra Sulaiman/Streetsblog L.A.

The city of Los Angeles’ progressive Mobility Plan 2035 was re-affirmed yesterday at a joint meeting of the City Council Transportation and Planning Committees.

In August, the plan was approved on a 12-2 vote of the L.A. City Council. Under the scrutiny of a lawsuit challenge, the city is in the process of removing some allegedly improper amendments and re-approving the plan. The plan’s critics have opined against the “luxury” of “lane-stealing” bus and bike riders. Supporters have rallied to keep the plan intact and to see planned bike lanes implemented on Central Avenue.

The committees heard nearly sixty public speakers commenting on Mobility Plan 2035, with sentiment split roughly 50-50 for and against.

Plan opponents, many mobilized by Fix the City – the group suing to undo the plan, criticized the plan for various reasons, including for “forc[ing] people to bike,” and for not prioritizing safety (which it very seriously does via its Vision Zero policy.) Opponents made dubious assertions that “bikes belong in the parks and are not a way of transportation in L.A.,” that “people over 65 cannot ride bikes,” and that bike lanes “are driving everybody crazy” and will “kill people.” One critic urged the council to overturn the plan on the basis of “overwhelming opposition” in the comments section of the L.A. Times website. A block of plan opponents, representing organizations in Councilmember Gil Cedillo’s First District, uniformly urged against plan approval on the basis that outreach had been insufficient.

Plan proponents testifying in favor included T.R.U.S.T. South L.A., Pacoima Beautiful, L.A. County Business Federation, L.A. Walks, L.A. County Bicycle Coalition, FAST, AARP, and others. Supporters emphasized the plan’s commitment to a “balanced network” with numerous mobility choices, plus improved safety, health, and equity.

Some councilmembers spoke against aspects of the plan, including Paul Koretz who dubbed it “for some areas an ‘immobility’ plan.” Committee chairs Jose Huizar and Mike Bonin held off calls for delays. When the votes were taken, the rescind and re-approve motion was approved.

The vote broke down by committee as follows: 

Planning and Land Use Management Committee – passed 2-3

  • For: Jose Huizar (chair), Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Felipe Fuentes
  • Against: Gil Cedillo, Mitch Englander

Transportation Committee – split vote 2-2

  • For: Mike Bonin (chair), Jose Huizar
  • Against: Paul Koretz, David Ryu
  • Not Present: Nury Martinez

The single committee approval sends the plan to a vote of the full council. That has not been scheduled yet, but is expected to take place after next week.

  • MaxUtil

    Ryu’s voting against it now?

    Nice to see that everyone that Cedillo’s office called in to testify got their talking points straight. Sounds like they’ve given up on any substantive complaint and are now just attacking the process.

  • SZwartz

    Many people do not realize that in a nation of laws, we follow Due Process. The call for Due Process is most often heard within the context of criminal cases. The same concept applies in non-criminal matters.

    There are established procedures for amending the City’s General Plan. Whether we like these procedures is not the issue at this point. They set down the path way which we have to follow. There are certain basic points which The City is ignoring. [As I know many city attys, I cannot believe that this process for MP 2035 came from the City Attys Office.]

    (1) Rescission — This is an amendment to the General Plan. A rescission, which subtracts something from the General Plan, must follow the same process as an amendment which adds something to the General Plan.

    (2) Once MP 2035 has been rescinded, it is gone from the General Plan. The City will then have a General Plan with no Transportation Element. That may or may not be permitted under the Government Code.

    (3) MP 2035 cannot be added to the General Plan without following the procedure to amend it. The City is not following the proper procedure. FTC exhaustively covered this legal issue in is letter to PLUM and HELP and CCLA also brought the legal issue to the committees’ attention. MP 2035 legally expired on August 21, 2015 which was 75 days after it was recommended. There is no such thing as MP 2035 any more. There is nothing which may be legally adopted.

    (4) If the City Council purports to adopt MP 2035, it will be void. Fix The City, HELP and CCLA and perhaps others will naturally sue.

    BTW, the issue of MP 2035 is not about bicycles vs cars.

    HELP and CCLA’s main points were:

    (1) false data – Garbage in, Garbage out. No one should want the next several decades of LA’s transportation based on false information,

    (2) adverse health impact of certain portions of bike lanes,

    (3) the need to study Virtual Presence as a form of transportation. The City did this in 1993 and it cannot avoid doing it now. In fact, the City sponsors a program aimed at Virtual Presence, see CityLinkLA. The City cannot exclude the role of advanced telecommunications as a form of transportation when the City itself has been treating it as a form of transportation for more than 20 years.

    Right now the City is soliciting proposals to construct such a network, albeit it appears to be woefully inadequate for our future needs. These vital interests may not be decided by a few politicos and the crony businessmen in some back room deals.

  • Chewie

    Typically NIMBY groups such as “Fix the City” use procedural challenges as a pretext for their disagreement with a policy decision that elected officials make. That appears to be the case here. At the end of the day, most people see through the smoke and mirrors. This isn’t about general plan amendment procedures. This is about resistance to the policy decision to have a less car-centric transportation system by some folks who, unfortunately, are too set in their 1950s vision of what kind of a city LA should be.

  • SZwartz

    It would be nice if you had some facts to support your feelings.

    You should take some time and think what type of society we would have if people were free to ignore due process. In fact, people have thought about it and the answer is; tyranny.

    Without due process, those with power do whatever they wish to those without power. Of course, I suppose we could repeal all of English Common Law and go back to pre Magna Carta days where there is no due process.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    The attempts by individual council members or groups suing the city to stop arterial streets from increasingly becoming more multi modal will do very little to stop that from happening. Its inevitable that a city of this size that has an increasing population will turn to encouraging multi modal use for major streets to help deal with traffic congestion. This is happening in large cities around the world. The problem of not enough space to accommodate an increasing amount of people traveling by car during peak hours is not going to be solved by people working on the internet at home and using a model of road use design out of the 1960’s that encouraged and prioritized car use when there were much fewer people living in the Los Angeles area.

    The current City Planning Commission would never approve a mobility plan that emphasized car use from curb-to-curb on all arterial streets. That would require a majority on the board that believes that excessive car use during peak hours is not the reason for the traffic congestion, but in fact a solution to it by making driving the priority so that more people will be encouraged to choose driving over all other modes of transportation. The commissioners are well aware that moving people individually in cars takes up far more space than walking, bicycling or transit. Idiotic arguments to the contrary are not going to persuade them otherwise.

    The absolutely stupid argument that bike lanes are causing adverse health effects overlooks the fact that the pollution on roadways is caused by motor vehicles and not by bicycle riding. If in fact pollution, which is caused by motor vehicles on major streets or freeways, has such dire health consequences, then people should not be living near them and they certainly shouldn’t travel directly behind motor vehicles where the concentration of polluted air from exhaust is at its highest.

    Nor is anyone with half a brain going to believe that its not cars that are blocking emergency vehicles along major streets, but those darn bike lanes that are on the side of the roadway next to the parked vehicles.

  • dexter

    Wouldn’t paying appropriate attention to due process then mean that in your original post you should have identified the “points” HELP and CCLA are alleging as CLAIMS?

  • SZwartz

    You are not showing an understanding why HELP and CCLA sued the City. You’re mixing FTC with HELP and CCLA. They have different approaches. The area where they overlap is that both say the city needs to follow the law and use accurate data.

    Otherwise, I think FTC and HELP/CCLA are addressing different issues. You can distort the issues, but the decider will be the judge. The City did not study the adverse health impacts of riding in major thoroughfares.

    Your idea of multi-modal uses of the same right of way was shown to be very dangerous. 100 years ago it was shown that when different modes of transportation use the same right of way, the accident rate climbs to unacceptable levels and traffic congestion clogs the streets. That seriously harms the city.

    The last thing the City needs to do is deter more businesses from locating in LA. When the #1 complaint of residents is traffic congestion, making traffic congestion worse is a very unwise idea for our economic health. Businesses cannot last in areas where their workers are dissatisfied.

    We saw this coercion approach in CD 13 and so many people voted with their feet that CD 13 ceased to qualify as a legal council district. While the road diet and bike lanes are more in FTC’s bailiwick, I do know that making the city a harder place to live for the vast majority of people is myopic public policy.

    The laws of human preference and freedom will have the final say — I see no reason that the results will not be the same elsewhere as they were in CD 13. On the plus side, CD 13 lost so many people that traffic actually improved for a couple years. But, then Garcetti gave the developers hundreds of millions of tax dollars to compensate for their losses in their mixed-use projects and that harmed Angelenos everywhere as we lacked funds to maintain our infrastructure.

  • Matti Asgarian

    Thank you Paul Koretz and David Ryu for your commitment to our community. It’s easy to forget Bonin started out as an aide to Ruth Galanter. What a loser.

  • ubrayj02

    Yeah, thank you Paul Koretz for being a hypocritical “environmentalist” and sycophant to the checked out condos owners of Westwood.

  • ubrayj02

    Blah blah blah. This isn’t a nation of laws. This is a nation of money buying power.

    If we had the resources to hammer the crap out of these guys during election season we wouldn’t have to deal with this crap. Instead, we’ve got every nobody NIMBY in the city screaming about how sad their lives are, how nobody cares about them anymore, how even their families don’t like them, and they have doubts about their pets feelings to; so, no bike lanes allowed! All they have is the drive-thru window at the pharmacy on their slow descent into being another well-cured human ham melted into their barcalounger when the guys at the LA Coroners office are called in after the neighbors complain about the smell.

    How about giving people who love this city, who depend on a functioning public space to enjoy their lives and make productive use of the time they have on this earth – how about giving us a chance here? The angry dandruff haired toads and the gloomy motorheads have had their century. It was mostly a failure in the 2nd half and it turns out you lost the game for your team and all teams to come for the next couple of decades. Let the cleaning crew take over now.

    So sick of all this talk about “process” when the process gets flouted with routinely when it comes to sidewalks, bike lanes, and anything other than a highway design for cars.

  • Matti Asgarian

    And NonProfit Industrial hacks like LA Bicycle Coalition, Pacoima Beautiful and Arid Lands Institute, sucking up to Fuentes and Martinez (whose Chief of Staff is a Padilla/Fuentes hack making Nury Martinez the placeholder) displace local interests forming Connect the Dots Coalition to steal money and influence from community members. The Valley is made of diverse ethnicity, not just illiterate Hispanics. The Armenians, Iranians, Russians and whites who’ve lived in the Valley are offended that Councils 6 and 7 hold Alex Padilla’s place catering to Illegals, impoverished and Illiterates while the jobless middle class foots the bill. Portland’s STAR System would have been applied if City of Los Angeles cared about an inclusive charrette that brought all the stakeholders together for sustainable transportation to comply with SB375. Instead, City of LA opted it’s usual closed, Top/DOWN with vested parties in a typical nontransparent mode of operation. The focus among pros is how people get around in a livable city. Not all this transport jargon to confuse and disparage community stakeholders. You don’t pit auto against walk against cycling. You focus on how do people live, what do they do and what do they need to get around. That was not applied here by the Bike Tyrants. There was a tool I shared with Great Streets team that would have facilitated a cooperative process – STAR. Santa Cruz used it to bring the city together when it was sued for its SB375 update. An out of touch, spoiled Palo Alto transplant like Eric Bruins lacks the full scope of understanding to bridge gaps with lifelong Angelenos, so LABC and all these other Tyrants push bike paths without a constructive dialog with community stakeholders. Thankfully, smart councilmembers understand it’s the community’s streets and to respect all stakeholders while trying to comply with the state’s SB375 Sustainable Communities Strategy mandate for landuse and transportation. And by the way, remember that little law you Bike Tyrants? This update is to comply with greenhouse gas reduction.

  • Matti Asgarian

    Koretz is the only Councilmember with a fulltime Sustainability aide. He picked a smart guy like Andy Shrader who helped form the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council and has dedicated his life to environmentalism. When the other councilmembers put paychecks behind their commitment, then come talk. Paul Koretz voted against SB1818 when he was in California Assembly and fought to correct it on City of LA council. Nothing beats a clean environment like someone affording a roof over their head. And Koretz gets how Cap + Trade is a JOKE. It’s not helping the environment at all. AB32 is just green-cover for polluters. Koretz spent an hour and half educating the morons on the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council about housing, civics, SB1818 and AB2222. Nury Martinez has never shown up to a NC meeting, and helped push out a qualified committee chair who would have bridged culture gaps – which is greatly needed in Van Nuys. Paul Koretz is dedicated to empowering communities, and I know because after a full day launching his Biodiversity Ordinance on Earth Day, he spent an hour and half with Van Nuys NC. LA bombed its rollout and there was no reason to. There are plenty of tools that could have been used for a full charrette approach that would have avoided lawsuits. When will the other councilmembers hire fulltime Sustainability pros?

  • Chris Wienberg

    All that may be true, but Koretz’s willingness to throw away non-personal-automobile projects whenever homeowners on the westside complain loudly enough means that Koretz only cares about the environment as long as it’s politically convenient.

  • Matti Asgarian

    Bullshit. What’s fighting to correct SB1818 about? So more people can afford homes since that law was a gift to developers. RENTERS benefit from his work to correct that mistake. Valley councilmembers don’t show up to Valley NC, and this guy dedicated an hour and half listening to stupid board members ask dumb questions. Unlike your lobby, this esteemed professional treated even the regards in the audience with respect. F the bike lobby. You all don’t get it – transport is about how we placemake and livability. Not your political agenda. You lost with the ‘all that may be true’ – you’re the one who look for political convenience. Why didn’t City of LA adopts a STAR approach to plan and implement a mobility plan for a law that passed in 2008?

  • Joe Linton

    I thought it was all about “forcing” everyone to bike! That’s in the plan, right?!?

  • Salts

    Koretz is not shy about saying he supported bike lanes on Santa Monica Blvd when he was on the West Hollywood City Council. All of a sudden now he opposes bike lanes n Westwood Boulevard that would be implemented in an identical fashion (without removing any vehicle lanes, on streets with busy bus traffic, pedestrian oriented area). Why would an “environmentalist” oppose bike lanes on Westwood Boulevard, especially when that same “environmentalist” supported an identical project just some miles east? He is a tool, made some bizarre deal with the Westwood NIMBY’s to halt bike lanes even if they don’t remove any space from cars. Paul Koretz is not an environmentalist, he’s a fat, selfish politician with no spine.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    Some of the highlights of comments from those opposing the Mobility Plan:

    A woman from the Studio City Neighborhood Council who said that the plan was not going to work in the valley. We have no transit in the valley.

    Funny, there is a subway stop called Studio City/Universal City station. The second busiest bus line in the Metro system is the Orange Line brt, which runs east/west across most of the valley.

  • Matti Asgarian

    Says the wimp hiding behind an avatar rather than use their real name. The problem with the Bike lobby throughout SoCal is that you don’t understand urban planning, livability, Smart Growth, what place-making is – the multimodal planning must meet users needs. Not just add bike paths. Paul Koretz is wise enough to hire Andy Shrader as fulltime staff, and to empower Andy to bring neighborhood-driven results. And Paul Koretz is an old school public servant who delivers results for average Angelenos. And you are a puss who hides behind a keyboard. The Mobility Plan must amend the General Plan to comply with SB375 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: NOT cow to Cyclist demands.

  • Matti Asgarian

    Saw that upvote, Joe. Not a Koretz fan, eh? How are ya? Hope you’re getting some family time with the wife and kiddo. Best – MA

  • Chris Wienberg

    It sounds like you could learn a lot about respect from Councilman Koretz, seeing as calling people “retards,” describing council board members as stupid and their questions as dumb.

    Koretz stopped implementation of the city bike plan, with no plan for an alternative. People *die* along Westwood Blvd but that’s OK as long as others can keep filling the air with pollutants to motor down Westwood unimpeded. Koretz voted against the Mobility Plan, including its comprehensive plan to introduce busway infrastructure, which would be a major game-changer to accomplish a more multi-modal LA. These actions are not defensible as an environmentalist, especially one who calls the environment their number one issue.

  • Matti Asgarian

    what she meant is that the timing of what is available isn’t conducive to use transit. Here’s an example: I used to live a block from where I’d board to take the Rapid Bus from Victory/Sepulveda to UCLA. I attend a lot of Sustainability events in Westwood, and on campus or Hammer Museum. I couldn’t use Rapid Bus because the times weren’t available to sync with night time events that I was interested in attending. As such, I had to drive and that sucked. Meanwhile, on a day I had to juggle an EPA charrette in El Segundo and make it to an afternoon meeting in the Mayor’s Office, I parked at the Expo Park/Ride at Jefferson and rode transit to CIty Hall. The transit isn’t functional in the Valley for the times when people need to use it. It fails the basic creed of transportation planning: What are people doing, and how can transportation facilitate where they need to go. It’s about livability, placemaking and how people balance work/life in a City created by a marketing campaign from automakers and real estate speculators. It’s not Oslo.

  • Matti Asgarian

    PC isn’t a priority for me. I had this same agro experience with the bike tyrants in San Diego. I know how pushy you all are. Most are transplants from out of state, and you don’t make any effort to blend or get to know longtime Angelenos. Koretz votes in support of the community goes to the Equity part of Sustainability. Community stakeholders of all modes of transport have a right to use the roads they pay for. The cyclists and pedestrians don’t contribute to DMV. I lost respect for the Bike lobby in LA when I had to expose Tomas O’Grady for being ill qualified to be councilmember.

    ETA just saw the people die along Westwood. That’s good. Population control is the best way to reduce carbon footprint. I’m not a Vision Zero advocate. I’m a climate advocate. The fewer people, the better for the environment. We’re headed for a 6th extinction, and so one or two less Angelenos actually means reduced carbon footprint from cradle to grave.

  • Salts

    Lol, like half the “bike lobby” has degrees in planning and eat this stuff daily, myself included. Let’s just say there are far more intelligent planners in the bike lobby than in the “sherman oaks” lobby or whatever “motorist-first” and “freeze everything in time” group you belong to (Fix the City, HELP, etc). We understand planning very well. Those who think bicycles aren’t part of the solution are the clueless ones.

    Could give less of a crap who Andy Shrader is, he isn’t sticking his neck out for sustainable transportation or UCLA student safety, nor is Paul Koretz. Yes, Paul is an old school politician, which means he cares about votes and nothing else. Too bad bicyclists aren’t “average Angelenos,” I guess their physical safety is less important than the warped perceptions of the Westwood NIMBY’s like Andy Schrader.

  • Matt

    UCLA is not in the Valley…

  • Matti Asgarian

    LOL. – – “San Fernando Valley’s transportation grid add non-stop
    rush hour service between Van Nuys Orange Line stations and Westwood.” This bus doesn’t serve students who need transport for evening classes. For the students at CSUN and the city college, the timing of the available transport sucks ass and they are limited sometimes in the class schedule they sign up for. This impacts their overall student charges. For me, no worries, I got back and forth for Hammer and UCLA events – but by car because the Rapid Bus doesn’t work in the evening (like around 8 pm).

    This was a lot of pretty ribbon and hasn’t really served Angelenos or Westwood businesses that would gain from additional foot traffic if more users reached them

  • ubrayj02

    Hah! The mighty bike lobby and our brash requests to make the streets safer for everyone so we might dare to ride out bikes between a massive rail station and the UCLA/Westwood area. This is the reason I stopped supporting “environmentalists” – so many of you don’t give a lickspittle for actual human needs beyond broad brush strokes for “clean air” (through techno-utopianism) and “green space” (unprogrammed green areas on an architects map or scary ‘nature parks’ in the middle of the built up metropolis).

    Don’t breach to the Mighty Bike Lobby about placemaking while expressing your deep support for an anti-placemaking councilmember. Why did he listen to those mindless old crones in the HOA’s in Westwood? Because he make $186,000 a year to do it. Nobody in the might Bike Lobby gets paid, and if they do it’s poverty wages they beg off of foundation grants. More likely than not it is a legitimate grass roots volunteer spirit that organizes the All Powerful Bike Lobby – which I think is what pisses so-called environmentalists off so much. Nobody shows up with this energy and enthusiasm for your stupid summits and events anymore because your fruitless anti-human agenda inspires nothing but guilt and more dumb hopes that iPhone apps and more laws will save us.

    You and Koretz belong to each other. Have fun choking on your list of AB’s and ALL CAPS ACRONYMS

  • ubrayj02

    I love how you’re basically throwing your hands in the air on this one and praising a man who has consistently stood against safe streets in Westwood. You are full of b.s. to the topping off point and it is spilling out of your head onto your keyboard.

  • ubrayj02

    Wow, all this sage advice from someone who has done, what, exactly in any domain in public life?

    Bike tyrants? I hope you feel that way.


  • Dennis_Hindman

    A major contention of the lawsuit by the HELP/CCLA is that the MPB 2035 asserts that between 2010 and 2012, The City population increased by 105,890 persons per year. Neither the Mobility Plan nor the EIR makes that assertion.

    It also states in the lawsuit that If the population trend for the prior decade continues, L.A. could have a smaller population in 2035 than it had in 2010. According to the Census Bureau the estimated population of the city of Los Angeles in 1990 was 3,704,000 and in 2010 it was 3,792,290. That’s a growth in population, not a decline. The population of LA continued to grow each subsequent year after 2010 according to the Census Bureau. It was estimated to be 3,826,423 in 2011, 3,861,678 in 2012, 3,897,940 in 2013 and 3,928,864 in 2014. The final Mobility Plan twice states the population of LA as 3.8 million.

    The lawsuit also states the Mobility Plan 2035 ignores the twenty (20) year population decline. There was no decline in population for the city of LA from 1990 to 2010 according to the Census Bureau.

    The lawsuit states that the Mobility Plan data is fatally flawed. No it isn’t, its the lawsuit that is using incorrect population estimates, not the Mobility Plan.

    This lawsuit will be shown to have no merit. The fact that there is a lawsuit made against the city does not therefore mean that the city did anything wrong. Anyone can file a lawsuit, no matter how ridiculous it is.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    Ex councilmember LaBonge was the only councilmember that employed at least two people to go out and fill potholes with shovels full of asphalt and then run the truck back and forth over it. That technique was a waste of money for the alley in back of where I live as the supposed repair only lasted no more than 2 months at most.

    What the councilmember accomplishes for transportation should be how they are judged. Just saying no to every change that community members state they are against does not take leadership, courage or vision. Ask these same councilmembers or constituents what could be done to improve the traffic congestion in their area and they haven’t got a clue. They are all for changes as long as it looks exactly the same as it was before the changes were made.

  • Matti Asgarian

    OMG – I love you, Ubray. Your passion. You crack me up – we should all be so lucky to care so much and not spend any time learning about a topic. You be you!

    I appreciate that anytime I’ve reached out to Councilmember Paul Koretz, for input or his time, despite having contributed exactly $0 to any of his campaigns and not living in his district, Councilmember Koretz has always made time for me, and the Van Nuys community when I was on the VNNC board. I appreciate his leadership with this Mobility Plan as it’s critical we get it right. And I greatly appreciate Councilmember Koretz service to our City and state, specially for his advocacy on behalf of renters abused in a speculative market.

  • Matti Asgarian

    DeBong sucked ass and his council district inserted David Ryu, who seems to be kicking ass. What the councilmember accomplishes for the CITY, as it’s their fiduciary duty to serve their district and the CITY, is how they are to be judged. I’ve met DeBong – he showed up after we’d planted about 10 trees at Griffth Park. Unlike Felipe Fuentes, DeBong didn’t get his hands dirty and actually plant the tress. But he did pass out buttons and maps to Griffith Park. As much as I dislike Fuentes’ politics and ties to Padilla, I can always say that man stuck around to plant some trees. And Fuentes didn’t hand out buttons.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    What has David Ryu accomplished for transportation in his district other than to state he is against changes to certain streets in the Mobility Plan? I’ve heard him repeatedly say that he is not going to do anything without checking with constituents to see if that’s what they want.

    The city of LA has a problem with traffic congestion due to too many people choosing to drive during peak hours. Ask the drivers and they will naturally say they want to drive during those hours. Caltrans did not take a opinion poll before they implemented on-ramp traffic signals to control how many vehicles enter the freeways during peak hours. These signals were installed to ensure that the volume of traffic on the freeways did not exceed reach full capacity. If that happens, then movement of vehicles will stop. If David Ryu was in charge of that he would ask the constituents and they would undoubtedly respond that they don’t want to be held up at the freeway on-ramps. He would then not have traffic signals at the on-ramps and the traffic would stop moving during peak hours on those freeways.

    If David Ryu asks constituents if there should be motor vehicle delays for people to cross the street, its very possible that the majority would say no since the most of the voters in his district choose driving as their main form of transportation. In which case, according to his doctrine, he would want many of the walk signals removed as the majority rules in his decision making. His sense of planning is by divinity rod.

    The problem of the demand of driving in the LA region during peak hours exceeding the supply of lanes is not going away. Freeways are not going to be double decked. Encouraging people to choose other forms of transportation during peak hours has been shown to reduce the demand for driving.

  • SZwartz


  • SZwartz

    The laws are not self-executing. There is a lot of corruption in Los Angeles and I do not imply that it is a cake-walk to rectify the wrongs.

    However, we do have many rights which people fail to use. SaveValleyVillage sued the city over’s its habitually deciding almost everything is secret which is contrary to the law call The Brown Act. 10-11-15 Valley Village Attacks City Hall Corruption

    While Los Angeles is far more corrupt than we realize, we are not living in a tyranny. Many of the ills which afflict the city exist because people allow the corruption to thrive. We have only a tiny handful of activists who notice that Los Angeles has the worse (sometimes only second worst) streets in the nation. They can realize that in a city no freezing rain, no snow, and no salt on the roads, something is seriously wrong in order for us to have bad streets.

    As the possible gate way to the Pacific Rim and our climate, LA should have the best streets in the city. We have the laws which allow us to address these serious questions and find out where all our money is going, but almost no one cares. As a result, the city deteriorates further.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    I mistakenly stated that the population in the city of Los Angeles in 1990 was 3,704,000. That was for the year 2000. It was 3,485,499 in 1990 according to the Census Bureau. Which is a increased population of 306,791 people from 1990 to 2010.

  • ubrayj02

    Oh great. You get to sniff his body odor FOR FREE! Wow. Color me impressed. This one time Tom LaBonge called me on my personal cell phone number to ask about some proposal I had written to measure the streets of LA. Oh, it was great. I revel in that moment. Except absolutely nothing happened afterwards. Savor your precious little meetings with the very important Paul Koretz.

    Do you remember who was in charge of his district during the Villaraigosa administration? How about the person during the Hahn administration? How about the person during the Riordan mayoral rule? How about when Bradley was in office? They all were so VERY important to sit down and meet with, after all, these councilmembers of CD5.

  • ubrayj02

    Yes, and in a year he will be mostly forgotten just like your precious “environmental champion” Koretz who, gasp (!), let’s you sit a room with him. Koretz has ensured that the lives of thousands of people commuting between UCLA and the Expo line will be in more danger than they would be if there were a road diet and bike lanes on Westwood. So you can stuff your “environmentalism”. We don’t need it. We need people willing to unshackle this city from a non-functioning status quo. Koretz isn’t one of those people.

  • Dennis_Hindman

    Here’s a link to a very insightful article about the Mobility Plan written by former LA planner, Dick Platkin:

  • Slexie

    They are coming from Victory and Sepulveda. That’s in the Valley.


Planning and Transportation Committees Approve Mobility Plan 2035

The city of Los Angeles’ progressive new Mobility Plan was approved by two City Council committees yesterday. The joint meeting of the Los Angeles City Council committees for Transportation and Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) both approved the plan intact, postponing decisions on sabotage attempts by City Councilmbers Paul Koretz and Gil Cedillo. Streetsblog readers may […]

L.A. City Council Plans Re-Vote on Mobility Plan 2035

Earlier today, Los Angeles City Councilmembers Mike Bonin, Jose Huizar, Felipe Fuentes, and Joe Buscaino put forth the procedural motion 15-0719-s11 [PDF] to rescind and re-approve L.A.’s Mobility Plan 2035. The motion comes in response to a lawsuit claiming, among other things, that plan amendments violated City Council procedures. Councilmember Mike Bonin, a proponent of Mobility Plan 2035 […]

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 […]