Draconian traffic lane reductions in Playa del Rey and Mar Vista aren’t making neighborhoods any healthier or safer, they’re enabling the next tragedy
By John Russo, Jordanna Thigpen and Brooke Eaton
The authors are community organizers in Playa del Rey, Venice and Playa Vista affiliated with KeepLAMoving.com, formed in opposition to traffic lane reductions in Playa del Rey and Mar Vista.
Traffic reconfiguration opponents have plastered signs like this one (on Highland Avenue) throughout
Playa del Rey, Westchester and Manhattan Beach
Photo by Joe Piasecki
In last week’s issue of The Argonaut, Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Bonin justified his newly implemented “road diets” with an insulting diatribe about rich commuters from outside of our communities using our residential streets as highways. The truth is that Bonin’s “road diets” are wildly unpopular with his constituents and he refuses to admit it. He is replacing arterial lanes with bike lanes and parking on the premise that safety and commute times are mutually exclusive. Rather than objectively looking at facts, data and the numerous solutions that can truly make our streets safer, Bonin is misrepresenting details and using divisive rhetoric to force his personal ideals on us.
As part of the grassroots coalition fiercely opposing this injustice, we have a message for Councilman Bonin, which we bring from tens of thousands of residents of Playa del Rey, Playa Vista, Westchester, Venice, Marina del Rey, Culver City and Mar Vista: We are opposed to these road diets! We are the people who live with the increased congestion, increased pollution and longer commute times to and from work every day. It is our voices you refuse to acknowledge. It is our experiences you callously dismiss as hysterical and hyperbolic. You seem to have gone into hiding since implementing the changes, refusing to take calls from people who oppose your view. You even delete or block negative posts from your social media feeds. You send assistants to public events to take the flak, and ignore the fact that there are many less draconian ways for bikes, pedestrians and
cars to safely co-exist.
We challenge you to come to our neighborhoods and meet the patient who couldn’t make it to a critical doctor appointment, the hourly employee who lost her job, and the single mother who had to pay an extra $200 for childcare last week. Look them in the eyes and tell them they are having irrational emotional reactions to the new lane configurations. Come to Culver and Venice boulevards and talk to the business owners who’ve been trying to get a meeting with you. Listen as they say they may lose their businesses, their livelihoods, because sales are down as much as 25%, then tell them they are overstating the problem. Are you deaf to the impact you’ve had on hourly workers who use the affected streets? These individuals punch a clock and get paid for every minute at work. Their employers and coworkers depend on them being on time. How many people will lose their jobs because of your lane reductions?
And let’s not forget the most important users of these roads: first responders. Every second counts when police and fire departments drive to an emergency. Even seconds lost navigating the gridlock you’ve created can mean the difference between life and death. Why haven’t the lives that could be lost due to longer emergency response times been considered? And what gave you the right to essentially disable the Area G Tsunami Evacuation route?
Councilman, if you were really trying to prevent tragic deaths, such as the ones you have exploited over and over again in your communications, why didn’t you do something back in 2013? You visited Vista Del Mar then — two years before Naomi Larsen’s death — and identified it as a high-priority area for pedestrian safety improvements. You saw the LADOT proposal to install additional lighting and crosswalks, along with medians, barriers and “No Ped X-ing” signs. Still, you took no action. Repeated failures to follow traffic engineers’ recommendations put the city on the hook for $9.5 million. You now use Ms. Larsen’s death to justify your scheme, yet you wouldn’t testify at her lawsuit and face the family that lost their daughter as a result of the city’s negligence. Furthermore, the accidents you cite all took place at night (three out of four after midnight) on poorly lit roads without safe crosswalks. Your lane reductions would not have changed those conditions, which is why road diets are notably not among the DOT’s recommendations.
You say you want our streets to be safe. Yet on Culver alone we’ve counted 13 accidents in the past three weeks. Considering the six accidents per year
you cite to justify your plan, that’s shocking. How many more people must risk serious injury before you admit your “pilot program” is a failure? The sad fact is the “safety improvements” you have championed will not prevent the next tragedy. They’ve shortened the time until one happens again.
There are solutions that could go a long way toward improving safety and traffic flow for everyone. Your office and the DOT have been flooded with suggestions that include removing the parking on Vista Del Mar (there’s ample lot parking to assuage the California Coastal Commission), reducing the speed limits, adding lighted cross-walks, and installing green bike lanes on non-arterial roads. These are just some of the many low-cost improvements that can benefit all stakeholders.
You may envision a utopian future in which everyone rides bicycles everywhere. But that isn’t the reality of life for people with children, the elderly and the disabled, to mention just a few. L.A. doesn’t yet have the public transportation infrastructure to support the carless future you dream about. Mass transit is what your office should focus on, and we will stand with you if you do. We live and work on the Westside, and we know it is possible to meet the needs of commuters and enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Admit you made a mistake and restore our car lanes now. And restore our confidence in your judgment and leadership.
Thank you John Jordana and Brook.
LA used to have the red car, a reasonably efficient public transportation system-until very similar government officials dismantle that. Now they’re dismantling our roads.
This must end.
The Red Car was the most comprehensive system in the US – Pacific Electric Red Car In LA Covered 25 Percent More Mileage Than NYC’s Subway and it took us all the way from the valley out to Long Beach and the greedy bastards took it down.
I all honesty it needs to be noted – Los Angeles used to have a public transit system that covered about 25 percent more track mileage than New York City’s current subway system.
In its eco-heyday in 1945, LA had more than 900 hydro-electric Pacific Electric “Red Cars” that covered more than 1,100 miles, from Pasadena to downtown LA, Santa Moncia, Long Beach, Balboa and Santa Ana. It connected LA, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. In comparison, New York City’s subway today covers 842 miles.
So how did the City of Angels end up with the most pitiful transit system of any major U.S. city? GOOD QUESTION!!!!
I wholeheartedly agree with the authors. Yes, please “restore our confidence in your judgement and leadership” and correct this massive mistake as soon as possible. I deeply regret my past support of Mike Bonin and Eric Garcetti. We have been betrayed.
Hyperbole run amok. I live in Playa Del Rey and use Culver Blvd during AM & PM rush hour every weekday. My commute times are unchanged.
Impossible, unless you’re heading southbound in the AM and northbound in the PM (you do realize the predominate rush hour traffic patterns are northbound in the AM and southbound in the PM, right?). My commute has increased 15 to 20 minutes on average each way of my commute…that’s over a half an hour each day idling in traffic in your lovely little burg of PDR. Bonin is stealing people’s lives. Think about it, 2.5 hours each week of additional commute time. That’s 130 hours a year…over 5 additional full days sitting in a car in traffic. The impact of his poor decision is staggering.
Can you let us in on your secret? That way we can all do what you do and this whole thing would just go away. Thanks in advance.
Not impossible & no secrets.
Sorry if your commute has gotten worse but mine simply hasn’t.
Never great but not worse
I leave “lower” PDR @ 7-7:15 AM headed for the 405 fwy and return around 5:30 PM and any difference in time has been negligible if at all since the ‘road diet’ was implemented.
Perhaps Waze can show you folks from the South Bay an alternative to the essence depleting PDR route
P.S. Sounds like some changes are going to made to address some concerns – hope it helps
The real test will be in August/September when schools resumes. Traffic on these streets is always significantly lighter when school is out.
Yes, please do enlighten us. We would much prefer being sensible, rather than hysterical, and do whatever it is that you do that leaves your commute times unchanged. Also, for those of us (like my husband and me) who sometimes have to travel to and from Playa several times a day for work, this is seriously damaging our lives. Although we have been homeowners and taxpayers in Playa del Rey for 23 years, we may have to move and uproot our entire family, thanks to this abusive change.
Good to know that my longer commutes are only in my imagination, along with everyone else I have spoken to. I will try to find the right drugs to snap me back to the apparent reality that I’m not actually spending more time in my car.
Not hyperbole, reality! How can you tell us that what we are experiencing isn’t true?
Can I borrow your helicopter?
Exactly!
Mike Bonin is the perfect representation of the modern leftist politician. They could care less about what is actually good for their constituents, or what they want, all that matters is forcing others to accept an all powerful and all knowing government. I know many residents have emailed the city over the years for more lighting. The city doesn’t care. Pedestrian deaths are unimportant, unless they justify expansion of govt. and erosion of the rights of the people. This is why people get for voting straight Democrat here in LA. You get a former drug addict who has no clue as to what is good for the city he represents. Recall the SOB.
This is untrue. All streets are evacuation routes. This area is well past the zone.
Which patients have a longer commute? Do people living in Malibu need the Coast Highway expanded to 6 lanes?
The argument is flawed.
Yes, your commute time maybe longer. Think about moving closer to work.
Thanks for the advice John. I currently live 4.1 miles from my office…how much closer do you suggest I move?
“Think about moving closer to work.”
What an asinine comment.
I’ve lived off Venice Blvd for over 30 years.
LA is designed for cars and I don’t like 2 1/2 hours a week added to my commute for no reason.
How about you move to some Utopian bike society?
Perhaps a small village in the Netherlands would suit you better.
I love the idea that LA is designed for cars. But here’s what I don’t get: if it was in fact designed for cars, how come it is impossible to get around in a car? How come it is a horrifying place to walk or ride a bike? It seems to me more likely that LA wasn’t designed for any mode of transportation, and 70 years of trying to solve circulation problems by adding more vehicle lanes has just managed to make it an unpleasant place to live.
I am fascinated by commenters like “John” the are proponents of these changes. Can you just explain all the ways that these changes have benefited your life? I have not heard one person give me a logical/honest/true reason, not a single one, why these changes are for the better or how they have improved one single thing for anyone involved. I can list about a dozen reasons it’s worse for just about everyone involved: rush hour/gridlock times has about doubled both morning and evening, more pollution due to more idled vehicles, more accidents (a lot more), less business for area store fronts, road rage, waste of tax dollars, less time with family/at the gym/at work/etc. Why in the world are you in favor of these changes?
I’ll share a few reasons. First, I agree with others who have said their commute hasn’t changed. Mine hasn’t at all. Second, the Mar Vista shopping area is much safer for pedestrians now. The extra crosswalks and sheltered bike lanes have made it feel less like a game of Frogger and more like a neighborhood. I like that the traffic is slowed down and we aren’t having drivers bearing down on us when we’re in the crosswalk because the driver guns it to the next light with no concern for those of us who live here. The sheltered bike lane makes it much safer for kids to come out riding, too. I’m sorry you’re having a hard time with the pilot, but change is here and kinks are going to kink until they get smoothed out. Los Angeles is experiencing a transportation transformation that is long over due. We can all positively contribute or waste our time shaking our fists at the sky. Your choice.
In the month and a half since this ZeroVision idea has been implemented, I haven’t seen more than a half dozen bike riders during my morning commute north on the impacted areas of VDM, Pershing or Culver so not sure what kind of transportation transformation you’re referring to (unless of course said transformation is the ZeroVision road diets that are severely impacting tens of thousands of commuters). If you want safe bike lanes on the three above mentioned streets, put bike paths through the sacred Blue Butterfly Sanctuary and Ballona Wetlands, enviro-nazis be damned.
Thank you so much for standing up for the community. Councilman Bonin needs to respond to the swelling discontent concerning these changes. He imposed them on us without our input (100 allies out of 12,000 residents is not a democratic sampling) and now he is not listening to our critical assessments. My neighborhood is now more dangerous and polluted, and the drive time to work for all members of my family has increased by 15-30 minutes depending on the day. We have all written with suggestions to allow for the peaceful coexistence of bicycles and motor vehicles, and suggestions for safer crossings for pedestrians. We need changes in light signaling that could ease the congestion. The stretch of Culver between Nicholson and Jefferson is a mess. Cars can’t merge properly or turn and, as evidenced by the accidents, it is a danger to all who use it. Move the bike lanes to the north side of Culver so traffic can merge and so there is a dedicated lane for those heading to Jefferson!
Traffic collisions are the number one killer of children in Los Angeles. This is a public health crisis. Your commute does not take precedence over the lives of your fellow citizens. Do you protest when you have to take a few mintues to go through airport security? No, you do your part so that we can all be a little safer.
The number two killer of children is drownings, therefore if we follow Oren’s logic we should ban all kids from pools, bathtubs, Jacuzzis and the Pacific ocean. Kids will be required at all times to wear a plastic bubble surrounding them so they will never, ever ever, ever, ever be hurt .
PS Oren, I don’t go through “airport security” 2 or 3 times a day now do I? Now do your part by making analogies that actually make sense.
I don’t know why people are so sensitive. It’s just a couple kids lives – we are talking about commute times here!
That’s a disingenuous argument. The changes didn’t even address the safety issues, so how can you say the people who don’t like the road diet are against safety? This comment is chock full of logical fallacies: “Your commute does not take precedence over the lives of your fellow citizens.” Let’s see: ad populum, straw man, moral equivalence are just a few.
Well said John, Jordanna, and Brooke. No one can refute anything you’ve said. It’s the truth. Bonin remains in hiding.
Mr. Bonin, We don’t hate Bikes, We don’t want pedestrians to get hit by cars and We don’t want to move to justify your great streets nightmare. It is just about time or well past time to begin to think of the welfare of the business owner, working class and first responders, you know, those people that pay for all your ill conceived power trips.
There is no way not to see and experience that this drastic change is a stupid mess. If Bonin speaks of elitism then please explain why so many of the racer bicyclists come at you like locust screaming profanities if you are a smidgen in their way as they dangerously take over the roads? Is that not elitism?
Jeannie,
This is how bicyclists want cars to “share” the road. Roads were built for cars. Bike paths are for bikes. Venice Blvd. is a state highway (187) for cars, trucks, buses, etc.
Bicyclists think they are sharing their road with cars, but they don’t pay the gas tax that pays for the roads – unless they drive.
My thoughts EXACTLY!! I am all for increased pedestrian safety and increased bicycle use for commuting, but the changes on Vista del Mar and Culver have not made it safer for either, and in fact, have created many more unsafe conditions (u-turns and creation of “new” lanes where they don’t exist). Not to mention, this traffic is a real thing. It’s absurd. Yes, there are other routes– but the traffic is way worse now THERE too! There is gridlock at all hours of the day through PDR and all those idling cars cant be good for air quality or business. Regional transit planning is important, and Mike Bonin made these changes with zero input from people in the community outside of PDR (and even there, with very little input). This pilot was a mistake and should be undone immediately.
Thank you for voicing the concern, the feedback and hope for the majority of the Playa del Rey community. We have so very few ways in and out of our town and we are now trapped. Quite simply, we have the ocean and we have LAX – not many ways around it. My commute has indeed increased – during “summer light” to up to 30 min the evening. Getting in and out of PDR is no longer an easy task. It can take upwards of 30 min to go to the marina in off times. It now averages 18 min to go 1.6 miles where it used to be 7 – 8 min. For those that tell me my commute has not change, I invite you to ride with me to the office.
Additionally, the change in roads has increased road rage as people fly through neighborhood streets that are not arterials with no regard for pedestrians, children or stop signs. The increased dangerous driving in the past month is astonishing. Accidents on Culver Blvd have increased greatly.
There were other ways to slow traffic. Many. If only the Councilman would take calls from ALL his constituents and not just those that agree with this, they would hear suggestions. We all want safe traffic. That has never been debatable. What is up for debate is that a small group of neighbors put this change on 12,000+ and expect us to just live with it. Pollution has increased. Traffic accidents have increased. Businesses are hurting. Nothing about this has made this neighborhood safer.
Great article. Thank you, guys. Well said.
Extremely well written and well said! Bravo for the research and work that went into your analysis of the the not-so-great-streets that are being forced on people who had ZERO opportunity to weigh in on the faulty “great streets” designs –where needed lanes are subtracted and where parallel parking is made unsafe (and sometimes impossible) placed away from the curb (how crazy is that?) — instead of “great streets” they should be called “second rate streets” or simply “dangerous streets” –which is exactly what they are.
We all want extra safety and I think most of us are willing to compromise a little to get it. Road diets are not the answer. The traffic doesn’t disappear. It diverts to surrounding communities. In the case of PdR, commenters on other threads note that Westchester Parkway is underutilized. That may be true, but then what? Lincoln and Sepulveda are jammed. We’re already dealing with LAX construction and Scattergood construction in Westchester, not to mention construction of several major high density residential projects. We shouldn’t also have to shoulder the burden of converting PdR to a beaucolic seaside community. Yesterday, I sat on Culver headed towards PdR and watched pissed off drivers coming the other direction way too aggressively as they left the restricted area. No, the PdR Road Diet does not adequately address the stated safety justifications, but it definitely messes everything up. Alternative ideas need to be explored.
I choose to live in PDR because I like the neighborhood, and the small community. I commute to Beverly Hills. I live on Pershing and it is now difficult to get out of my driveway in the mornings because of traffic backup. My commute time to Beverly Hills has increased by 10-15 minutes. Why is that necessary? If this is about safety, how many people have been killed or injured on Pershing or on Culver between Nicholson and Jefferson in the past 5 years? Why intentionally create traffic jams and make it more difficult for PDR residents to get to work? I am very unhappy with this change.I don’t think it was well thought out. I had a great deal of respect for Councilman Bonin. That has changed. I was hoping to get a chance to speak with him at the Westchester fourth of July parade, but he failed to show up for it. I think he knew how unpopular he is right now.
Very well done. I have not seen one honest, rational argument for these changes that makes sense. Here is a letter that I sent to many parties involved a few weeks ago.
1. I completely understand the need to make Vista del Mar (VDM) safer for all parties. While I don’t agree with the decision to change that stretch from north of Imperial along the ocean from 4 lanes to 2, that change at least seems to directly attempt to combat the safety issues along that stretch. I have a few great alternative options however for that stretch:
1a. Do not allow any street parking on the east side of VDM. Instead create three lanes of traffic while still keeping the free parking on the west side of the street. Of those three lanes, two of them should always be set aside for traffic heading north, and just the one for traffic south. 99% of the traffic congestion along that stretch is a result of northbound traffic, the south is never really an issue.
1b. Take away all parking on VDM and change the parking in the lots down on the beach to free parking. Maybe even go as far as build another free parking lot on the beach. I can’t imagine the lost parking revenue ever reaching the $9.5M it would cost for another settlement so that is how it can be justified.
1c. Create two more lanes of traffic by expanding VDM east into the post-apocalyptic neighborhood next to LAX. There is plenty of room there and I can’t imagine that area is environmentally protected for any reason. The cost, again, could be justified by avoiding another $9.5M settlement.
2. Honestly the change to VDM is a pretty good idea/start. And to get right to the point this being one lane for now until better options are available is not really posing much of a problem for the commuters. It’s really all about bottlenecks, and this stretch being one lane is not the limiting factor or bottleneck on the commute. It’s what has been changed north of this area, starting at Waterview. If that stretch from Waterview through PDR up to Jefferson was opened back up to two lanes I can almost guarantee you that traffic would smooth out and the outcry would all but go away. Changes to VDM are a must as it’s been a very dangerous stretch for years, I don’t think very many will argue that. But all other changes are what is causing this outcry.
3. The changes to everything north of Waterview as well as Pershing is only distributing the problem. There is honestly nothing that can be done to stop rush hour/gridlock though Play del Rey. There will always be traffic issues through that area during rush hours. Even if let’s say half the cars decide on alternative routes, that area will still be saturated with traffic. For example when I get into my car every morning the first thing I do is check my google maps app on my phone. If the traffic through Playa is red, dark red, or purple I usually look for a different route. If the traffic through Playa is light red/orange/yellow then I choose that route. And I’m sure there are thousands that have a similar strategy. So essentially traffic will always trend to red there no matter what changes are made.
4. Have you guys/girls tried a traffic model or simulation for these changes? Again, going back to my first point, I am fairly confident that keeping VDM one lane while opening the rest back to two lanes would have a very favorable outcome to traffic flow. This would make that VDM stretch safer while also helping traffic congestion.
5. Displacing any % of traffic in that area will then negatively affect other routes such as Sepulveda/Lincoln/405/etc. So that will have an even larger effect tens of thousands more.
If you check with the Coastal Commission you will find that it is next to impossible to either reduce the parking spaces available on VdM or widen the Asphalt that is VdM. Remember that the parking on the beach is operated by the county.
As for Surfridge (“the post-apocalyptic neighborhood next to LAX”) that is now a Butterfly preserve. The streets that cut through it were open to allow traffic to access Pershing, but were closed shortly after September 2001 due to fears of terrorism. A pity as it was a great place to take photos of aircraft. Terrorists now have to park at the In’N’Out where they can do their evil deeds while enjoying a Double-Double.
i realize surfridge is a butterfly reserve. if you paved and additional lane on vdm and removed the equivalent area of old abounded surfridge streets. the blue butterflies, the citizens of the southbay and bonin would all get what they want. it would be very expensive considering gutters and drains and sidewalks and street lights etc would all shift east. it would require extensive research, studies and models stretching beyond playa del-ay. it would not be as simple and cheap as utilizing existing parking, bike baths, a few lower speed limit signs and timing existing traffic lights. but i’m not a politician comfortable spending other people’s money making mistake after mistake and not be held liable
I completely agree here. As a local resident I personally feel that had Mike Bonin done anything in his first term to fix Vista Del Mar then a lot of these other “fixes” wouldn’t have been necessary. To see the way Mike is beating his chest now and being the self appointed safety savior of CD11 is beyond repulsive. There are things that needed to be done and were way beyond overdue! These changes have fixed nothing and only created MORE problems. It has made residential streets less safe with increased “cut-though” traffic. There are things now that need to be fixed or reverted back to fix this mess! I know many people that have reached out to Mike Bonin’s office about legit changes that would actually help and we get no responses. All we get from Mike is blaming of the South Bay commuters, bike lanes to no where, increased traffic on neighborhood streets, and dragging his heals to fix anything. A major flaw that could be fixed right away since they took away car lanes in favor of bike lanes, is to EXTEND LEFT TURN LANES. Not making these left turn lanes longer to accommodate more cars waiting has added to MOST of the congestion everyone is now stuck with it. This plan was rushed at the last minute to try to do “something before summer”. So thanks for nothing Mike! If you can’t (or are unwilling too) fix this mess then step aside!
The road diet is managing to not only STARVE the business in Playa Del Rey, but also the residents trying to get home for dinner who are now stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. This is ill conceived and in no way addresses the issues it is meant to. Great response.
Well written article. I live in Playa as well and know that NONE OF US support these changes. The random people above who have commented in support of the changes are clearly working for Mike Bonin. Sad day for Mr. Bonin that he will not be an adult and accept a bad plan with worse implementation. We are all willing to accept him with open arms if he admits wrong and makes necessary changes to eradicate the perpetual state of grid lock that he has turned our community into. Please continue your efforts to put signs up and all legal options against this change…I have hundreds of people in the community waiting for an opportunity to recall Mr. Bonin and/or support a class-action suit against the changes/his office. Let’s make things right again. If not, I can assure you that houses will be going up for sale in the near future.
I live in PDR. I support safer streets. I’m not paid to do so, but would simply like my residential street not to be used as a high speed freeway.
Hot off the presses!!!!! From Mike Bonin!!!!!
Based on your input and the feedback of other neighbors in Playa del Rey, and on the recommendation of our traffic engineers who have vetted and analyzed the traffic data, LADOT is making an immediate change to the project that will address two of the biggest problems you have reported to us: gridlock on eastbound Culver Boulevard during the morning commute; and the abrupt and difficult transition from Nicholson Street onto Culver, which is causing additional congestion on Pershing Drive.
In order to address those issues, LADOT will restore a second eastbound lane on Culver Boulevard between Nicholson Street and Jefferson Boulevard, while keeping the new bike/walk lanes that run along the road. The additional lane will ease the morning commute, which is far more concentrated than the evening commute, and will make it easier and smoother to merge from Nicholson onto Culver. LADOT crews will restripe the lanes, and add bollards to both sides of the street to separate the driving lanes from the bike/walk lanes.
The restriping work on Culver Boulevard will begin tomorrow, and continue through Saturday and Sunday, in order to minimize the impact of construction on commuters during busier times of day. We’re doing this now because the feedback we received made it clear that there is widespread support for restoring a lane, and because we hope to have the improvement in place in time to make your morning drive next week easier and less stressful.
In addition to this important change, we are exploring a number of other suggestions to improve on issues that Playa del Rey neighbors have raised, including:
• Changing signal timing and turn lanes as people drive from Vista Del Mar to Culver and from Culver to Vista Del Mar, to help unclog that intersection and reduce congestion on both streets;
• Fixing the confusing transition from eastbound Culver onto Jefferson;
• Addressing concerns raised by the abrupt end of the bike lanes on Pershing;
Great article in the Argonaut. Totally agree with all that was said. Also, don’t forget the probable drop in property values of our homes. No one in their right mind would want to move to a neighborhood that they couldn’t get out of to go to work or take their kids to school. They will look elsewhere to live. We need a face to face town hall type meeting with Bonin ASAP! Call , email or drop by his office on Manchester near the library. Here is some info:
Bonin
1) (213)531-0042
council member.bonin@lacity.org
2) Jessie Holzer
(310) 575-8461
Jessie.holzer@lacity.org
3) Garcetti
(213) 978-0600
mayor.garcetti@lacity.com
It’s not just that mike has implemented a bad idea it that his response to the overwhelming opposition has been dismissive, insulting and cowardly. Where have you been, Mike? Why aren’t you showing up to the farmers markets and council meetings? Why do you resort to calling those who oppose this as somehow being in favor of people dying? Why are you unwilling to have an honest debate and consider that people may have legitimate grievances. Why are you unwilling to hear them? Don’t forget that a constituent who disagrees with you is still a constituent. You’re supposed to REPRESENT all of us.
Mike is not around because this change is not about safety. It’s about forcing people out of their cars. Grady more traffic so that they can get more funding for public transportation projects.
Player Del Ray is only one of the many rows the diet program on the city’s table. The plan is to create gridlock everywhere.
go to the open house held on July 29th by LADOT concerning PDR road projects! RSVP at https://www.safestreetspdr.org/rsvp/
The headline should probably read: Absolve People of Accountability and Personal Responsibility when they Get Frustrated and Don’t Like Something
Thanks for pointing out the fallacies that Mr. Bonin keeps making in his arguments. I wish he would engage more with the community members who disagree with him.
Bravo!
This response to Mike Bonin’s politically motivated op-ed and ham-handed project s both excellently written and true. Thanks for speaking out against this insane traffic disaster, which has pitted city against city for no other reason than Mike has encouraged that behavior and made the citizens of LA county choose “sides”. The project was a knee-jerk reaction to a lawsuit he could have avoided, it was not planned or communicated, and actually goes against DOT recommendations for safety. It factually doesn’t address the specific safety issues it set out to solve, and has directly and indirectly impacted the lives of tens of thousands of drivers ever day who use Vista del Mar, as well as those who use Sepulveda, Culver, Lincoln and the 405 as traffic was diverted. Bad idea, bad execution, bad communication.
The amount of opposition that has grown organically against Bonin’s bollards is interesting. He has finally picked a fight he cannot win and will lose support among those who viewed him as reasonable and hard working. His media persona has been challenged for the first time and his inability to admit he’s wrong and refuses to listen to residents who don’t want to sit in traffic all morning and all night is disturbing. When I first arrived in California in 1993 I took Venice to get to Century City and that took 45 minutes then. Last month I took at 5:45 AM Uber and it took me close to an hour to get to the Marriott downtown and most of the traffic was on Venice Blvd. Those who know me realize my commitment to bikes and biking. But you can’t expect white collar personnel who need to get to an office to bicycle to work. I work from a home office so I am spared the agony of a daily commute. As a member of the Venice Parking & Transportation Committee I sponsored a resolution that passed 3-0 to review this insane traffic change while demanding a Town Hall to address this regional policy that is strangling traffic west of the 405 Freeway.
PLEASE E-MAIL THE FOLLOWING TO REQUEST SUPPORT FOR UPCOMING MAR VISTA COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND VENICE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MOTIONS TO RESTORE VENICE BLVD TO THE FORMER 6-LANE CONFIGURATION.
COME TO THE MVCC BOARD MEETING AT 7PM ON JULY 11 AT MAR VISTA RECREATION CENTER.
THERE ARE SAFER BIKE LANE SOLUTIONS. LET’S UNDO THE CURRENT MESS AND BEGIN AN HONEST CONVERSATION. ONE OPTION IS TO USE FORMER RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND CITY/COUNTY/STATE OWNED LAND TO CREATE A PROTECTED NETWORK OF BIKE PATHS THROUGH OUR ENTIRE REGION.
Mar Vista Community Council Board
MVCC@empowerla.org
Venice Neighborhood Council Board
VeniceNC@empowerla.org
Mayor: Eric Garcetti
(213) 978-0600
mayor.garcetti@lacity.org
District 11 Councilman: Mike Bonin
(213) 531-0042
councilmember.bonin@lacity.org
LA City Council President: Herb Wesson
(213) )473-7010
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
All this “stuff” about safety, slowing traffic, etc. is nothing more than fake excuses to further the city’s true agenda of eliminating lanes throughout the city. Those of you who think “this is not my problem” will soon find yourself in similar circumstances in your own backyard…..unless we are effective in halting it NOW!!
Btw, excellent reporting of the irresponsible lane removals and resulting havoc!!!
I would love to see replys from those who are the bike riders who use the new bike lane on VDM. Why can’t you use the long established ( over 25 years) bike path that is along the lower parking lots? Is it because you want to “go faster” and the lower bike path is not straight so you can’t? Would you rather ride next to idiling cars spuing exhaust in your faces? Maybe you like the danger of being so close to a 2000lb machine.
I read where a couple of contributors have stated their compute time has not increased and even suggested someone move closer to their work. I’ d be interested to know where you work. Is it within walking distance of where you live? Or do you work as a shill for “Brainless Bonin”?
PLEASE take the time to answer these simple, easy to understand questions, I’m sure we’d all be interested in your well thought out answers.
Bill, those bike seats hurt your ass, but I don’t have to tell you about butt hurt.
Imagine nothing. How has YOUR LIFE been effected? You obviously work from home, which is a motorhome on Vista Del Mar. Quit worry about others, worry about yourself.
Thank you for the great essay accurately depicting the mess that Bonin has created in his district. There are some productive steps that must be taken in order to reverse this public policy of the existing LA City elected officials. The current policy aims to force automobile commuters out of their cars, but offers no practical alternative commuting solution, in fact leaving most commuters on their own to find their way.
The first step is to initiate a recall petition for Councilman Bonin. This link from the Los Angeles City Clerk (p 15) describes the recall process (http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/Initiating_Filing_Petition_Information.pdf). Signatures equal to 15% of eligible voters in Bonin’s district must be gathered to begin the recall process.
The next step is to organize to elect a slate of Los Angeles City Council members who are opposed to the existing anti-automobile policies of Mayor Garcetti, Bonin, and other LA City Council members. This may seem difficult, but the turnout for last spring’s re-election of Mayor Garcetti and Bonin was so low, that an engaged and motivated group of pro-commuter voters could easily have made the difference.
Let’s protest these misguided traffic policies in the short term, but let’s keep our focus on the ballot box, and organize for change.
One commenter asked for arguments in favor of encouraging cycling for transportation. There are many, at all scales, from the personal to the global: personal and public health (assuming no collisions with cars); less wear and tear on roads; encouragement of more compact urban development, which increases the tax base per square mile; reduction of the amount of public infrastructure that must be provided (roads, street lights, first responder coverage, etc.); reduction of carbon emissions both in terms of the carbon footprint necessary to produce the vehicle as well as the fuel necessary to propel that vehicle; zero particulate emissions. It’s worth noting that every transportation cyclist is benefiting not only her/himself. (S)he is also benefitting all of the motorists by not adding to traffic, or, critically, to carbon emissions. Conversely, everyone who opts to burn fossil fuels when there are other options produces a host of negative economic externalities, costing the taxpayers far more than (s)he pays, not the least of which is pollution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles
Cycling for transportation also has downsides: the risk of injury and property damage due to collisions with much larger and heavier vehicles such as cars; it’s more adversely affected by weather conditions such as rain or very hot days; travel range is limited by time and fitness.
The point of building cycling infrastructure is to provide the public with a way to enjoy the upsides without the very significant injury downside. Again, it bears repeating that every transportation cyclist benefits not only him/herself, but also (albeit minimally) every other living being on this planet. Every motorist does exactly the opposite.
I’ve also read through all of the comments opposing the new bike lanes and would like to address each.
“gridlock times has about doubled both morning and evening…road rage”: I guess that this is an exaggeration, but it’s almost certainly true that motorist traffic will be worse in the short term. However, gridlock is a factor of 1) the number of cars and 2) the available space for those cars. Providing more space for cars does not usually lead to less traffic – in fact, the opposite is more likely to occur: https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/. We’ve been trying for decades to devote more and more space, resources, tax breaks, subsidies, etc. to motorists, but congestion just keeps getting worse, and the failures of car-centric urban design are becoming too large to ignore. It’s time to develop and encourage the use of transportation alternatives, and, in a relatively flat city like LA, with an ideal cycling climate, it’s hard to argue that bikes should not be part of the solution.
“more pollution due to more idled vehicles”: it may be true that there’s more pollution and carbon emissions per vehicle due to idling in the short term, but it’s hard to take seriously the argument that free flowing consumption of fossil fuels in 2 ton vehicles is more environmentally sound than cycling. Global overheating is a real, serious problem that requires both collective action as well as individual action. Policies such as those that encourage recycling and discourage the voluntary wastage of resources such as water are widely accepted. Policies that discourage the necessary waste of fossil fuels and the promotion of alternatives to that waste should be encouraged whenever possible. We have already warmed more than 1ºC, which is more than halfway to the 2ºC point of irreversible impacts on people and ecosystems. The time to reduce carbon emissions was more than 20 years ago, but since we have insisted on the ostrich strategy of pretending that it’s not happening, it’s extremely urgent now.To oppose a transition away from the most inefficient (in terms of energy and in terms of space – see, for example, http://theconversation.com/which-transport-is-the-fairest-of-them-all-24806 and http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/media.thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/10175644/picoftheday0012-space-60people2.jpg?w=590&h=431) is to advocate accelerating our march towards 2ºC of global warming.
“more accidents”: this is dubious. Most data from here and abroad shows the opposite. In fact, it can be argued that the safest configuration of all is to mix all modes of transportation without any markings at all: https://www.pps.org/reference/hans-monderman/. To achieve this, however, it’s first necessary to have significant numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, because the increase in safety is premised on the diversity of modes of transportation. If only one mode is overwhelmingly dominant, it’s more dangerous for everyone, including motorists.
“less business for area store fronts”: this is also not backed up by the available evidence.https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/
“waste of tax dollars”: this is also dubious, and in fact, the opposite is likely true. Every tax dollar spent to encourage cycling over motoring is likely to produce not only savings in road maintenance, reduced infrastructure demands, and, crucially, reduced public health risk due to particulate and carbon emissions, but it is also likely to encourage the sort of dense development that increases municipal tax bases. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money
“traffic doesn’t disappear. It diverts to surrounding communities”: this is true only if nobody changes to cycling, which is unlikely. https://nacto.org/2016/07/20/high-quality-bike-facilities-increase-ridership-make-biking-safer/
“Property values [decline]”. This is also unlikely, and in fact the opposite is likely to occur. http://cityobservatory.org/the-economic-value-of-walkability-new-evidence/
“Majority rules” / “get off of our roads”: This one is just too myopic to take seriously. Yes, motorists are the majority, but not so long ago, smokers were also the majority, in spite of the dangers to themselves and to others. We’ve progressed beyond that point, and we’ll get past this one as well. The evidence against car-centric public policy is just too overwhelming.
“you can’t expect white collar personnel who need to get to an office to bicycle to work”. This is directly contradicted by almost every other major city in almost every other developed country, and it’s even contradicted by many major cities in the US, including some of the most economically vibrant ones. The increasing efficiency and availability of electric bikes only makes it easier for white collar personnel to commute by bike.
In sum, the arguments given to oppose the new bike lanes are unconvincing. If anti-cycling motorists can’t be brought to stop participating in creating traffic (while constantly complaining about the results of that participation), then perhaps they can be brought to see the sense of sheer selfish entitlement shown by insisting on their exclusive right to inflict harm on others, at the maximum speed possible.
How does reducing speed limits force drivers to obey? They don’t currently drive anywhere near what the already appropriate posted limits are. Additional crosswalks are already funded and the next phase of the project, but you know that already. You also know that your accident comparison numbers aren’t exactly correct, but you continue to tout them because it suits your narrative. You’ve created a narrative about ulterior motives that you have no backing for. Most importantly perhaps, is that you continually levy accusations of divisive rhetoric when your supporter groups are filled with hateful comments, name-calling and attempts to ruin business for anyone who openly disagrees with you.
Does Bonin drive?He reminds me of the idiots of Santa Monica city council. They have put all arterial streets on diets for decades! Stop the Insanity now!!
Upon initially hearing about the great streets initiative coming to Mar Vista, I was very excited. The idea of protected bike lanes and a more pedestrian friendly area was compelling, but the result has been a total mess. Here are just a few of the problems with the Venice Blvd. project.
– Venice Blvd. is a major bus route, and the express bus is one of the few ways people in Venice can actually use the Expo Line. That route was already notoriously off schedule, so much so that it would often take me 45 minutes to get from Lincoln and Venice to the Culver City station. Now the busses share only 2 lanes going through Mar Vista with numerous crosswalks. If part of the plan is to get more people to ride the train, why let your express busses get stuck in traffic trying to get there? (for comparison, in the 45 minutes it takes me to get to the Expo line by bus, I can drive all the way downtown and park for the same amount of money.)
– It is now nearly impossible to get out of the CVS/Mitsuwa parking lot to Venice Blvd. You can no longer get into the left turn lane to go left on Centinela because the cars are backed up so far into MV, and even turning right is dangerous because you have to cross the bike path to get into the second lane just to go West. Nobody will let you pull out if you are still in the driveway because its about 20 feet from the lane, so there everyone is, blocking the sidewalk, the right turn lane and a bike lane to turn right out of the biggest commercial development in Mar Vista. So what the alternative? The death wish of turning left on to Centinela across the Northbound lanes so you can either go South on Centinela, or West on Venice.
– People are confused about the parking, and need to cross the bike path to get to the meters. People on the sidewalk walk into the bike lane. If you are riding our bike down that section of MV, you are dodging a lot of people. Not to mention that when cars are turning right, they are crossing a blind bike lane. At least if the bike lane was next to the traffic you could see the bikes more easily.
– As many people feared people are avoiding Venice altogether now and just using Palms or Washington. That just adds to people criss crossing through side streets and everyone looses.
I live in Venice and go to MV nearly everyday for the store, coffee, farmer’s market etc… I am not some outsider who is commuting in.
I hope there is a solution that:
1. Makes it safer for bicycles, pedestrians AND cars.
2. Increase the efficiency of mass transportation.
3. Benefit local businesses.
4. Doesn’t ignore the reality that people sometimes need to drive (school, elderly, don’t live near a train, cannot spend 4 hours a day navigating mass transit and no I am NOT exaggerating cause that how long it takes to get back and forth to downtown from Venice)
Since I am poking holes in a plan that many probably well meaning people researched for several years at great cost to the city, I will make my suggestions.
My suggestions are
1. why not put the bikes in the center median like they did on Culver Blvd, make an extra bus lane and leave the other 2 lanes for cars?
2. How about you remove the parking altogether, add meters in an empty lot, use the extra lane for an express bus and bike lanes. That would remove the congestion from cars pulling on and off as often and make the bus faster.
3. Why not make Grandview the great street instead of a 6 lane road? If you want to build a nice main street feel, Grand View is perfect for it. No need to try and force a neighborhood street onto a major arterial road.
4. Move the post office. It’s a waste of fantastic space and sorta kills the whole neighborhood vibe. (joking, but not really)
Does anyone know how much money Bonin’s misadventures cost the city of LA (meaning LA tax payers)?