Despite Vista Del Mar reversal, residents sue the city and neighborhood council calls for restoring lanes
A week after a group of residents made good on their threat to sue the city over traffic lane reductions in Playa del Rey, the Neighborhood Council of Westchester-Playa officially called for restoring Culver and Jefferson boulevards to their former traffic patterns.
On Tuesday the neighborhood council voted 15-2 to ask L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin in writing that the lanes be restored — the rebuke coming despite Bonin’s intention to form a task force of residents, business owners and other stakeholders to hold public hearings on the lane closures.
The letter’s final draft excluded changes to Pershing Drive after several residents spoke in support of traffic-calming measures on that street, citing safety improvements and less congestion than when the lane reductions fist took effect in May.
At least 150 people turned out for the meeting, 80 of them contributing public comment. More than half the speakers opposed the lane reductions, many of them complaining about traffic congestion and negative impacts on local businesses.
“In the history of our neighborhood council, no single issue has energized members of our community to become active and involved in such significant numbers. Although perhaps a well-intentioned effort to increase safety, it is impossible to overstate the frustration currently experienced by the majority of residents and stakeholders in Playa del Rey,” reads the letter introduced by council member David Voss.
The city has already reversed highly unpopular lane reductions on Vista Del Mar, striking a deal with L.A. County to move street parking to the beach in order to resolve liability concerns that stemmed from fatal vehicle-pedestrian collisions.
The Safe Streets for Playa del Rey Initiative that impacted Culver, Jefferson and Pershing grew out of local traffic safety concerns.
“This did not come out of left field. This happened with a lot of community input,” Playa del Rey resident Susan Bowling, who participated in several of those discussions, told neighborhood council members during public comment.
Bonin has publicly apologized for inconveniences caused by the Safe Streets for Playa del Rey Initiative and promised regular re-evaluations of the project’s impacts, especially now via the forthcoming neighborhood task force.
But that doesn’t satisfy Keep L.A. Moving, the grassroots committee that filed suit last week alleging the misuse of county Measure M funds to implement traffic calming measures rather than repair streets.
“Measure M was sold to the public as a promise to fix our roads, not make them worse,” Keep L.A. Moving Director Karla Mendelson said.
— Gary Walker
The general sentiment that we hear while walking through the PDR neighborhood is that Bonin made a bad decision, then lied about, and defamed those PDR residents who opposed the anti-commuter lane closures. Bonin’s initial public behavior and statements on this matter have caused many to conclude that he lacks the good judgement and character required in a position of leadership.
I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to be a long time resident of Playa del Rey/Westchester and to have attended the neighborhood council meeting to present our opinions about the Road Diet. There is clearly rage, energy, and money behind the anti-road diet part of our community, although standing in line for about 45 minutes to have a chance to speak gave me a chance to talk with gentle people from both sides. I for one among many (half of those who attended by our count!) appreciate Bonin’s courage to address what has been a dangerous situation for everyone in our community. We are not homes between highways. Culver Blvd. is a quiet, beach adjacent street, surrounded by one of the last natural areas in Los Angeles. Bicycles and walkers count as much as cars. I wish you could have heard the man who went on and on about how much he loved driving his fast car through our streets as an ending to his performance at the meeting. We need community discussions, not lectures or demonstrations. I wonder if the people who are so angry and vocal have looked up the definition for the word “community.” That would be a nice start to this discussion. Yay Mr. Bonin. I hope this meeting was just a blip on your screen and you hold your ground to support those of us who agree with you.
Wendy – as someone who is very much against the “road diet” with the exception of maybe Pershing Dr., what I have found baffling is statements like this:
“I for one among many (half of those who attended by our count!) appreciate Bonin’s courage to address what has been a dangerous situation for everyone in our community”
Mike Bonin is the reason this situation has become dangerous. Our streets were safer before these lane changes were made. It’s not an opinion, it’s factual that we’ve had way more accidents in the span of a few months than a whole year before. I’ve had to listen people supporting Bonin claim anyone against the road diet is against safety and cares more about their commute than people dying. It’s utterly absurd. There are changes that make sense like the speed awareness signs and bike lane on Pershing Dr. We need more of those and less irrational changes like what has been done to the Culver/Jefferson intersection.
Mike Bonin did not embrace the community with these changes, and he ignored us. A small minority of people wanted this and now it’s obvious the majority of our town are against it.
Also this is coming from someone who has lived in PDR for 16 years. All of my neighbors and friends in Playa feel the same.
He tricked you into believing there was a safety issue. None of the changes implemented were recommended by the DOT, and none of them affect the pseudo-examples of danger that were presented.
You are a small, selfish minority, which you refuse to admit. This is why your plan is failing and the roads will be changed back.
Why is a woman who lives in Manhattan Beach, who loves and defends her calm walk streets there, and whose city council would never allow Playa del Rey residents to have a say in how slow vehicles must proceed through her town, concerned with our area so much that she lead a group called Keep LA Moving?
Karla Mendelson may have access to the financial resources to be able to oversee a campaign filled with false talking points. She’s obviously got funds to hire a fancy Century City law firm, but she doesn’t get to bully her way into our community and rile people up with inaccurate claims against the Safe Streets project that our neighbors have begged our Los Angeles leaders to implement.
If one reviews the exhibits to the lawsuit Mendelson signed as the representative of the group that sued the City of LA, you will see endless pages of traffic congestion. Really? That is supposed to persuade a Judge that a safety project should be abandoned in favor of a few minutes being added to someone’s commute? Traffic in Los Angeles? Ha!
Accidents (pedestrian or driver) between the hours of midnight and 3 am when traffic is almost nil will not be mitigated by lane removal. Carelessness will cause accidents anytime, anywhere, lanes or no lanes!!
Marcia, you live in Long Beach. You do not sleep in the Wetlands. Who are you to be throwing stones at glass houses!! We have had enough of your bullying!! Take care of your own backyard.
Mike Russell – you obviously don’t know me. This is my community. I’ve worked in Playa del Rey since 1995, and I moved to Playa del Rey from Malibu in 2004. Who is telling you these lies to spread?
One correction, there was not “a lot of community input” prior to these changes. There are 12,000 people living in Playa Del Rey and an additional 40,000 in Westchester who are also impacted by these changes. There was no involvement from the business community and not involvement of the Neighborhood Council. A survey was taken by about 150 people in Playa del Rey, and that survey never mentioned “Lane Removals”.
The item in the survey that meant lane removals was named “Roadway Repurposing” and 60% of the survey respondents were in favor of that. So, approximately 90 people out of 52,000 were in favor of this…if they really understood what that term meant.
So, with all respect to Ms. Bowling, when less than 1% of the population receive an email and decide to take the time to break away from their jobs and families to attend meetings in the middle of the week this does not equal “a lot of community input”.
If there really were a lot of community input prior to this why would over 8,000 people have signed a petition to reverse it and less than 800 sign a petiton to keep it?
John Russo
With the knowledge that it took 72 hours to mess Vista del Mar up and 6 weeks to fix it, the delay game is not something the community is willing to play. That is what the “task force” is, just a delay game. Bringing the law suit and soliciting the councils help was a last resort forced on the community, just like the road diet.
What occurred in Playa Del Rey (and Venice Boulevard) is merely the “tip of the iceberg” of the movement in Los Angeles to slow traffic and encourage bikers by changing traffic lanes to bike lanes in the name of “safety, zero pedestrian deaths, and less driven miles”. Such lane removals are destined for major westside thoroughfares, such as Lincoln, Sepulveda, Wilshire, Olympic, Pico, Manchester, and others, as has already occurred in many smaller and shorter streets, speedily, without community discussion and approval, in the name of “giving it a trial run”. However, the cost of such a trial run is exhorbitant, and the reversal of such is even more exhorbitant in terms of dollars, time, and inconvenience to commuters.
IT IS TIME FOR COMMUNITIES TO BECOME AWARE OF LOS ANGELES CITY GOVERNMENT (Garcetti and Bonin are thoroughly behind this) AND THEIR INTENTIONS TO PREVENT THE HAVOC THAT HAS OCCURRED IN PLAYA DEL REY AND VENICE BOULEVARD!! Prevention is easier than the cure!!
Nothing will satisy me other than Bonin’s ouster from office. He has torn this community apart and pitted neighbor against neighbor. Recallbonin.com!
To fully appreciate the nearly unanimous decision of the Neighborhood Council which represents Westchester and Playa del Rey, it is important to read the FULL TEXT of the letter approved by 15-2 vote and not just the headlines or snippets of the document:
“RE: NCWP Recommends Immediate Reversal of the Lane Reductions in Playa del Rey
Dear Councilmember Bonin:
We, the Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa, ask that with the exception of the changes to Pershing Drive, you immediately reverse the lane reductions in Playa del Rey and implement other strategies to improve the safety, efficiency, and accessibility of our roads for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. As representatives of your constituents and your elected advisory body, we believe strongly that this is the only remedy that addresses the constant, voluminous, community outcry on this issue.
In the history of our Neighborhood Council, no single issue has energized members of our community to become active and involved in such significant numbers. Although perhaps a well-intentioned effort to increase safety, it is impossible to overstate the frustration currently experienced by the majority of residents and stakeholders in Playa del Rey following the alteration of the streets and traffic patterns implemented two months ago.
Residents are experiencing significantly increased and oppressive traffic congestion, travel time, and collisions at all times of day – not just rush hour – and this is during summer, when school is out and we typically have the lowest traffic volume of the year. This takes precious time away from being with family with no real identifiable connection to an increase in safety that makes the sacrifice worthwhile.
Understand that we are all in favor of increased pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle safety goals of Vision Zero, but the exclusive use of lane reductions rather than alternative options cannot be afforded by our PDR community – least of all our PDR businesses. Furthermore, neither Pershing Drive, nor Culver Blvd. nor Jefferson Blvd. was prioritized by Vision Zero as being one of the “40 high injury corridors in the city” as you cited on NBC last week.
After two months and some attempted modifications, the massively overwhelming opposition in both our business and residential communities far outweighs the limited support we have heard in favor of the changes.
LOCAL BUSINESS IS SUFFOCATING DUE TO THE ROAD DIET:
Most urgently, our businesses which are the key to a vibrant Playa del Rey community are suffocating because of the oppressive traffic congestion and limited parking access that deters customers from patronizing their establishments during the “pilot” project. More than a dozen Playa del Rey businesses met with you last week to tell you firsthand how their businesses are suffering severe economic losses directly related to the “PDR Road Diet.” They are not satisfied with private apologies and are outraged that no consideration was given to the impact on business before the Road Diet was implemented. There are very real problems: Restaurants are seeing significant reductions in diners; gas stations cannot achieve minimum sales targets to meet their contractual obligations and retail businesses are experiencing severe losses of sales volume. We share their dire concern that the perception of Playa del Rey as a destination for business and pleasure is being permanently and irreparably damaged with every passing day. They reportedly requested immediate reversal of the roadway changes made two months ago, a request we share because we cannot wait for the Safe Streets Initiative Task Force to meet and then start considering what to do.
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS:
People are frustrated – not just by the changes, but at the feeling that their voices are not being heard. We were told that the Safe Streets pilot project would be evaluated at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals; through the PDR traffic and road safety survey your office is sponsoring (http://www.11thdistrict.com/preventing_the_next_tragedy); and a Town Hall meeting. To date:
1. Community Meeting – The community was grossly disappointed by the indefinite postponement of the LADOT Open House merely days before it was to occur. The July 29th community meeting would have been an opportunity for those in support of and opposed to the road changes to express first-hand accounts of the Safe Streets impacts, as well as hear directly from LADOT on the plans for PDR streets in the name of safety. The NCWP asks that you ensure the LADOT community meeting is rescheduled within the next 30 days, and that there is a mechanism for public testimony with a timeline for responsiveness to their comments.
2. Results From CD11’s Playa del Rey Safety Improvements – Initial Feedback Survey-You provided a mechanism for the community to register their opinion and suggestions through the survey sponsored by CD11 (http://www.11thdistrict.com/preventing_the_next_tragedy). However, as of this writing, the survey remains open and you have not revealed the results. We are concerned also that in discussions with constituents, there needs more outreach to inform community members of this survey including mailings as not everyone is internet connected and a timeline for when the final results of this survey including not only a summary but complete raw data will be released.
3. Online Surveys of Local Residents Show Overwhelmingly Opposition to the Road Diet – While we do not have the results of your online survey, we do have two others conducted on the Nextdoor website for Playa del Rey residents. One survey had over 400 participants and a second one almost 200 participants and each found by a ratio of more than 4 to 1 that locals (not South Bay commuters) do not support the Road Diet. While neither these surveys nor your survey are in any way scientific, the comments posted in the hundreds make it clear local residents want the Road Diet immediately removed and reversed.
4. CD11 Safe Streets for PDR Task Force – It would have been a great idea to have had such a task force meeting in public before implementing the road restrictions. After rolling back the Road Diet changes, such a task force can be helpful in assisting LADOT with ideas for safety, efficiency and accessibility without lane closures. But, we are concerned that the proposed membership selection process for the Task Force needs to be open, transparent, and balanced. The concern is to prevent the perception of creating a closed group comprised of hand-picked members to avoid public comment or “stack the deck” toward a pre-ordained outcome. We ask that the Neighborhood Council is given representation on the Task Force since they were created to specifically to advise the City Council and are comprised of elected representatives. If the community does not feel they were provided a fair and open process, they will likely not accept the outcome. We are further concerned that waiting 90 days for the task force to meet and make recommendations before any action is taken is another means of delay.
5. NCWP Safe Streets PDR June 2017 Motion – With your staff present, the NCWP passed the following motion on June 6, 2017:
Safe Streets PDR Motion to: 1) Request the implementation of mitigation measures designed to lessen the impact of the lane reductions on Culver Blvd. and Vista del Mar on the areas of upper Playa del Rey and Westchester; and, 2) Request that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and/or the CD11 Council Office immediately provide a copy of any traffic study done in advance of the commencement of the lane closures included in the Safe Streets Initiative; and, a) Provide any available data regarding traffic on the community streets impacted by the Safe Streets Initiative for the area bounded by Sepulveda to the East, Imperial to the South, Culver to the North and Vista del Mar to the West; and, b) Provide a detailed plan for traffic enforcement for the next 90 days; and, c) Provide written explanation of the feasibility of reducing Vista del Mar to one lane each way commencing South of Imperial Highway; and, d) Respond in writing to all community suggestions and questions given at this meeting; e) create an Ad Hoc Committee to develop alternative and immediate mitigation measures for the Safe Streets Initiative; f) and set metrics for the success of the Vista del Mar pilot restriping project.
Although your Field Deputy, Mobility Director and DOT representative were all present at the June Board Meeting when this motion was passed, by this letter, we formally request for the information set forth in the motion as well as other information requested herein.
CRITERIA/COMPONENTS OF SUCCESS:
Although labeled as a “pilot” project, the criteria for success (accept, reject, modify) have yet to be shared. We believe that the evaluation criteria should be safety, efficiency and accessibility.
a) Safety – Grade “F”. We ask that you implement all parts of the Vision Zero “toolkit” to improve safety without first resorting to removing traffic lanes. We can keep traffic moving while protecting pedestrians and cyclists at the same time. LADOT recently gave testimony relating to Vista del Mar listing a plethora of recommended safety improvements — without suggesting removing lanes in the name of safety. We strongly support better lighting, more crosswalks, pedestrian bridges, speed limit reductions and traffic enforcement. These and other safety improvements are lesser impactful ways of providing greater pedestrian safety that should be used first before taking lanes away. In the words of the LADOT official who spoke at our June 6th NCWP Board meeting, “We did what we were told to do by the resident group. We didn’t study it.”
We want to know exactly how LADOT is monitoring the number of accidents on Culver/Jefferson/Pershing/VDM – both before and after implementation of the changes. A total of 24 accidents have been documented since the commencement of the Road Diet over two months and counting – some with injuries. By comparison, you have cited to an annual average of 11 accidents.
LAPD data is different but show accidents nearly doubled year over year. From May 21, 2017 through July 31, 2017 compared to the same period in 2016 there was an increase in accidents from five in 2016 to nine in 2017 as reported on Pershing Drive between Imperial Hwy and Jefferson Blvd together with Culver Blvd between Vista Del Mar and Jefferson.
Both sets of data show that there have been more accidents after the Road Diet was implemented than before. If these statistics continue, it means Playa del Rey is experiencing a massive increase in accidents — contrary to the stated intent of the project.
Further, a sad reality is that drunk driving is a huge part of the risk to safety and yet, removing traffic lanes does nothing to solve the drunk driving problem. The City’s own Vision Zero Literature Review from March 2016 says that “Driving under the influence is a common contributing factor for collisions resulting in severe and fatal injury.” We need more law enforcement to reduce the severity of this problem, not fewer traffic lanes.
The impact on commuters is very real as demonstrated by their expressed outrage on social media and in every outlet on which they can find a voice from radio to newspaper. Unless and until it can be proven that there is a demonstrable improvement in safety, lane reductions cannot be viewed as a success. Presently, at best they can be characterized as counterproductive.
b) Efficiency – Grade “F”. The perceived portrayal of safety versus commute time is an inflammatory argument. Instead, the focus should be on reducing congestion without increasing risk to pedestrians or bicyclists. Time spent commuting takes away from family – and it does so each and every day of every week of the year. The tax payers recent passage of the multi-billion dollar Measure M to reduce Los Angeles congestion should be used to this end, not to reduce capacity and increase congestion. As stated previously, we fully support and need safety/protective measures. But if the issue is speed, then address it directly with law enforcement placed regularly and strategically throughout Playa del Rey. Removing lanes to reduce speed is ineffectual because it produces gridlock (as evidenced over the past two months). Gridlock is not safer nor is it better for the environment.
We can find better ways of slowing traffic without turning streets into parking lots. Surely speed reduction alone cannot be considered the determinant of success. If that is the metric of success, then 100% gridlock is the same as 100% better! We do have families to get home to and jobs to pay for the rent so we must be able to carry on our lives in an efficient manner.
In the further interest of efficiency, for many years the lower Playa del Rey business community has sought increased parking on Culver Boulevard. LADOT must investigate options for angled compact vehicle parking to provide parking spaces in close proximity to businesses on Culver. Angled parking was apparently dismissed early on because of the space required for two bike lanes. As discussed below, immediate efforts should be implemented to safely connect bicyclists to beaches, Playa Vista, and the extant seven miles of bike paths in Ballona. Congestion reduction and increased parking should be laudable goals – not enemies of safety. They should coexist through implementation of other safety measures as identified above.
c) Accessibility – Grade “F”. Unrelated to safety, improvements to access for bicycles and pedestrians is a good thing, but must be weighed against the impact it creates. For every family benefitting from better bike access there are scores of families who are losing precious time together to longer commutes. But we believe that in the project area we can accommodate improved access without removing traffic lanes (once restored).
The Ballona Bike Path and the Beach Bike Path together provide an uninterrupted path from Palos Verdes all the way to Culver City where the bicyclist can transit without ever once crossing a roadway with vehicles. A centerpiece of our efforts should be to make the Ballona path safely accessible to Playa Vista residents. If designed correctly, it would provide a safer, and more relaxing bike ride to the beach. Many helpful suggestions from the community have been made to achieve this “accessibility” goal instead of bike lanes through the wetlands at a fraction of the societal and economic cost of increased commute times.
CONCLUSION:
There was no sudden need to close down lanes on Pershing and Culver. Indeed, as noted above, the City of Los Angeles identified that these streets are not the priority for attention. The irony is that some of the support for the Road Diet has been from those who want a vital thriving downtown Playa del Rey yet the changes made are having the immediate and opposite effect. The reversal of Vista del Mar lane closures addresses the concerns of the South Bay while leaving your own constituents adversely impacted. However, the cut-through traffic on residential streets because of lane reductions remains a significant and dangerous problem. There is an overwhelming groundswell of opposition to the PDR pilot project as expressed to the NCWP. There is simply no question that the majority of the local community does not like it as it stands and wants the lanes restored without delay.
We are confident that you and your staff will respond to our questions and requests and facilitate other City agencies in being timely and responsive. More urgently, we hope that the flexibility you have already shown will be extended to reversing course and improving the planning, evaluation (both pre- and post-intervention), and proactive and transparent communication regarding the PDR Safe Streets initiative. The NCWP and your constituents look forward to collaborating with you in an alternate improved and comprehensive means of addressing safety, efficiency and accessibility other than the current pilot project reduced lanes.
Sincerely,
The Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa”
Thank you!
I don’t understand how this could have to do with Measure M. The timeline is all wrong for that. The safety improvements were done in May-June and Measure M sales tax collection didn’t start until July 1st.
Whatever the sources of funds, it is unwise to spend so much on a “trial basis” without HONEST, PRIOR community discussion and support!
RE: Measure M
1) Timing and perception. Garcetti and Bonin both campaigned for Measure M saying we needed to address congestion and on the platform voters agreed to tax themselves 120 billion dollars. Yet the first thing they do after the election is start removing lanes immediately making for the worst congestion we have seen in the area in years.
2) Diversion. Measure M funnels tens of millions of dollars back to the City of LA – but instead of using that to fix Congestion $27 Million dollars is going to Vision Zero including many more Road Diets all over LA. Mike Bonin actually pushed to divert 2/3 of that money to and the $27 Million was a “compromise”! So instead of $27 million dollars going to reduce congestion – it will now go to increase congestion!!! Not what the voters were told they were voting for!
“More than $27 million will now go to Vision Zero programs, including a critical $8.3 million for infrastructure improvements like streetscape redesigns, curb extensions, and road diets along the city’s 40 most dangerous corridors.
The funds will come from the local return money of Measure M, the transportation sales tax voters approved in November, and SB 1, a new statewide gas tax.
The plan was called a “compromise” by Councilmember David Ryu, who was part of a separate faction of councilmembers who argued that Measure M had been marketed as a way to fix roads and wanted two-thirds of the local return amount to be allocated to street repaving. Bonin had originally proposed an alternate plan to allocate two-thirds of Measure M funds to Vision Zero.” – LA Curbed May 18, 2017
Nowhere here is it claimed that Measure M funds were used for the project in PDR, and the letter rightly states that Measure M funds should be used to relieve congestion (as it was sold to the voters) rather than create it. I happen to agree with this. If they want money for Vision Zero to create gridlock, put that on the ballot and see if it passes.
Nowhere here is it claimed? Measure M on the last line of the article you’re commenting on. (It’s also claimed in the lawsuit filed by the person named in the last line of the article)
I live in PDR and it has been a complete nightmare getting to and from work. I work 10 miles away and it takes me 45 minutes (on a good day) to an hour (most days) to get home. It has not just added “a few minutes” to my commute. It’s added much more time than just a few minutes. If I took Culver to and from work it would take me well over an hour to get home. More like an hour and a half! That is insane! I should be able to get to Oceanside in that amount of time, not go 10 miles!! While I agree that more safety measures are warranted, I don’t feel that removing lanes was the answer. There have been more accidents, not less. People cutting through neighborhoods, myself included because there are only a few ways in and out of PDR. It delays emergency vehicle response times and has created more angry drivers. I guess if there is a tsunami we are really in trouble. And for those who think that everyone is just going to hop on a bike, they are delusional. Not everyone can ride a bike everywhere. And having lived in the area all my life, I can honestly say that I have only seen a handful of people biking along Culver. I agree that we should work to improve safety and access to the already existing Ballona Creek Bike path. I can attest to the fact that we were never given any chance to give input before this was implemented. First we heard anything about it was the day they were repaving the road. I hope the lawsuit is successful. And I for one, am tired of people who support this mess try to paint us who are opposed to it as not caring about safety. I want our roads to be safer- just not at the expense of substantially increased commute times. How about better crosswalks on VDM? How about actually doing something about all the people making illegal u turns just past Nicholson because they don’t want to wait to turn left? There have been a number of great suggestions to increase safety. Stop the madness!
I haven’t heard from a neighbor near my Playa del Rey home who likes the road diet, and we are grateful to the Neighborhood Council for listening to us. We all want safety, but this change has not been about safety (clearly, just look at the number of accidents since the change). I am frustrated by Mike Bonin, who failed to reach out to the community in an effective way before this ill-conceived plan was implemented, and I am even more frustrated by his lack of response to his constituents. I’d like to know what is really behind this disruption masquerading as “vision.”
I don’t appreciate being portrayed as selfish, entitled and anti-safety. We are working families who, like all residents of L.A., are just trying to get where we need to, and to go about our busy lives. We don’t need the extra stress and the reduction in quality of life that this has caused.
That said, it was wonderful to have a public discussion. I agree that not all the changes are bad. We can compromise on Pershing. That makes sense, as it is primarily a residential street. Vista del Mar, Culver and Jefferson are not. These need to go back to the way they were quickly.
This process was done poorly. If you compare it to the work LAX and the County have done regarding notice and input on changes for the airport and the Parkway re-development, there’s no comparison. Perhaps this time, more work will be done to get enough of the community to buy in on the changes, the conveniences and inconveniences both, to prevent such anger from recurring.
Would be nice if we had effective mass transit in place before the crusade of road diets forced people out of their cars. This is shamefully mismanaged and misrepresented..
Bravo to Westchester – Playa’s neighborhood council, for standing with the neighborhood they represent, and the concerns of that neighborhood. Mar Vista (with a similarly poorly thought out road diet bisecting the community) is banging on Bonin’s door with no answers.
Restore Venice Blvd. Lanes Signs Available…http://www.venicestakeholdersassociation.org/2017/07/signs-available-for-pick-up.html
This is typical of the unbalanced approach wished for and too often procured by the new wave of pro-bicycle-pedestrian and “safety” organizations. You don’t start making drastic changes that will do little but stall traffic and frustrate drivers in order to “slow traffic down” and create a utopian safety atmosphere by, in effect, creating a monstrous traffic jam. Vision Zero ideas must be applied with sensible restraint and good engineering that provides benefits for and is compassionate toward all three modes of transportation. Lest we forget, Vision Zero is the product of left-wing social welfare states in Europe where distances are shorter, cities and smaller, and cars are much less frequently used, with bicycles predominant.