Addendums 2 p.m. September 25: Today's Public Works Committee meeting was canceled.
A trusted city Bureau of Engineering employee (involved in these city road widening reforms) contacted Streetsblog stating that this post is "fundamentally inaccurate." In follow-up conversation, the BOE staffer asserted that the proposed new policy would effectively end most street dedication road-widening, essentially not widening at nearly all sites where there are existing sidewalks/curbs (specifically at private development sites - not including city, Metro, or other public projects - and not affecting approved widenings already in the pipeline). The BOE staffer estimates that the proposal would end approximately 24 out of 25 future city-mandated widenings required at new private development.
The author, Joe Linton, further reviewed the proposal and didn't find that its language clearly and conclusively supports the BOE staffer's assertions. One significant wonky change that the author missed below is that the proposal would change street dedication for discretionary project approval processes (where today the city frequently requires spot widening) to more-or-less match by-right approval processes (which infrequently require widening).
Remember when the L.A. City Council approved a motion designed to stop harmful road widening? Back in March 2023, the council approved motion 22-1476 directing city departments to report back in 60 days on what steps the city needed to take to "eliminate spot road widenings."
L.A. City road widening contributes to many city problems, including current record levels of traffic violence deaths. The city's road widening policy adversely impacts new housing, retail, rail stations, bike paths, parks, etc.
In August 2024, the city's Public Works Department Bureau of Engineering posted an 11-page response to the motion. The BOE report basically boils down to keeping the current widening process in place. BOE recommends that the city not eliminate spot widenings, and just formalize existing practices.
The report mostly outlines how the city mandates lots of road widening (the motion did request the city's road widening criteria), then notes reasons not change this, including:
- ending widening could conflict with building code, future tree policy, and/or state law (see below)
- ending widening would require a public process and additional studies
- ending widening of hillside streets could impact emergency access and evacuation routes
- continuing widening would provide flexibility to "preserve existing desirable conditions" that may conflict with "rigid street standards"
The BOE recommendations amount to just leaving widening policy up to city staff to "exercise reasonable discretion." Meaning the technocrats who currently require widenings can keep on requiring widenings.
BOE's report uses a lot of technocratic city jargon to formally describe the city's road widening process (which it terms "promulgat[ing] Street Dedication"), like: "The total dedication required shall be the sum of the minimum acceptable half-roadway width and the... standard border for the subject property frontage" and "the existing roadway width may remain unchanged [in certain circumstances determined by BOE]."
The point of the council motion was to "eliminate spot road widenings" - to keep streets their existing width.
Staff are basically telling the council "no."
Why?
It's not entirely clear. A lot of it is perhaps momentum to keep doing things the way they've always done them.
Some of it may also be power. One aspect of L.A. City's current road widening process is that it gives city staff and council power; widening approvals are part of the city's discretionary power to approve or deny proposed developments. Road widening is only a small part of that much larger approval process. City approval process power can wielded for good (extracting community benefits from developments) or for evil (in some cases, council and city staff have extracted bribes from developers - though not specifically solely for road widening approvals).
Road widening is not the only (nor even the most important) discretionary approval; it is one chip on the bargaining table. Widening plays an outsized role in project impacts on transportation, mainly whether a project will improve or worsen walkability and street safety. It also impacts the bottom line: widening roads increases development costs (due to delays, construction costs, and reduced project footprint).
Fortunately, two things have changed since the City Council motion was approved in early 2023.
In March, voters approved Measure HLA, rejecting city leadership claims that it it would cost too much to make streets multimodal, safe, and accessible. HLA is neutral on whether roads are widened or not (though widening greater than 1/8 mile now triggers bus/bike/walk upgrades), but its passage does indicate that a majority of Angeleno voters support safe walkable streets.
Just this past week, the governor approved A.B. 3177, which effectively bans cities from requiring road widening at housing developments. The bill's language cites L.A. City road widening policy's harmful impacts on housing, including housing affordability. Widening roads in front of housing projects means less land, less housing.
Both A.B. 3177 and HLA demonstrate that when the city leaders - elected officials and staff - don't make streets safe, the public ends up going over their heads.
Will the L.A. City Council reaffirm the street safety policy goals in their own motion? Will they send this item back to city departments to re-do their proposal that matches neither the motion nor state law? Will councilmembers take a stand to make streets safer? Or will council accept the staff recommendation to continue the status quo? Tune in to tomorrow's Public Works Committee to find out.
Find committee meeting details at Streets for All alert and meeting agenda.
