Despite continued protests and now a lawsuit, the city is holding firm on Venice Boulevard changes
By Gary Walker
There are two kinds of people in Mar Vista these days: those who support the reconfiguration of Venice Boulevard as part of the city’s Great Streets project and Vision Zero traffic safety initiative, and those who are on a mission to unravel the changes.
At this month’s meeting of the Mar Vista Community Council, people incensed by the removal of traffic lanes to install protected bike lanes between parked cars and the sidewalk waved bright orange “Restore Venice Boulevard” signs, much as they’ve done at meetings since the summer of 2017. Three weeks earlier, the leader of a community group of the same name filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming public officials violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by implementing changes without proper review.
“This project has been a disaster and has divided our community. What it has done to our community is unforgivable,” Council Chairman Elliot Hanna, who joined the board after a wave of member resignations over infighting related to the controversy, said during the meeting.
Council members discussed whether to commission an independent traffic study and an Americans with Disabilities Act evaluation of the project, but ultimately tabled those ideas hoping that L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin, who met with a smaller group of council members last, would personally address the council in March. They want Bonin to host a public town hall discussing the Great Streets Project, which has been the subject of information sessions, community surveys and informal conversations at the Mar Vista Farmers Market, but still left many locals feeling in the dark.
Bolstered by a city Department of Transportation analysis finding fewer injuries to motorists and bicyclists in the first 12 months since implementation — including a 14% drop in collisions overall and a 75% drop in crashes at Venice Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, the busiest intersection of the .8-mile reconfiguration between Inglewood Boulevard and Beethoven Street — Bonin declared in December that traffic pattern changes will remain permanent.
“At this point I have to honestly tell you that the decision to make the project permanent has been made,” Bonin’s transportation deputy, Eric Bruins, reiterated to council members during the Feb. 12 meeting.
Great Streets opponents have complained that separating parking spots from the curb confuses motorists, creating safety hazards and discouraging patronage of local businesses, and that losing a traffic lane in each direction has increased traffic congestion.
The city’s report comparing May 2017 to May 2018 date with the 12 months prior found traffic volumes remained the same, resulting in only a roughly 30-second increase of travel times at peak hours.
A number of local business owners have spoken out against the project, some blaming it for their businesses going under, but the city report found that business revenue in the area increased by more than $3 million between the 2016 and 2017 calendar years and appears to be trending upward.
Selena Innoye, chief organizer of Restore Venice Boulevard and president of parent organization the Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network Board, which filed the CEQA lawsuit, says more study of the lane closures is needed.
“They’ve made the project permanent without community input and no public process. During the pilot project, there were enough concerns raised that the city should have conducted an environmental impact report,” said Inouye, a Mar Vista resident. “This has driven a wedge between the residents
of this community, and Councilman Bonin should come to Mar Vista to address his constituents.”
Mar Vista resident Vanessa Colosio Diaz, who is in her early 30s, observed during the meeting that opinions about the Great Streets project appear to have some correlation with the ages of residents and whether they own or rent their homes.
Younger people, who tend to be renters, seem to favor the more pedestrian-centric business district orientation, she said. By contrast, older people who own their homes and have lived in the community longer seem more likely to resent the changes — and control the dialogue about them.
“There are supporters who just aren’t as outspoken or feel too intimidated to speak out. I also think renters should have more representation. I’m tired of the intimidation factor by those that oppose the changes,” Diaz said.
I believe a little journalistic do diligence is in order Mr Walker.
The appeal was heard yesterday by the Transportation Committee, where I read a Resolution of Disapproval from the Mar Vista Community Council on how Great Streeets Venice Blvd was handled by Councilman Bonin. Also in attendance were the Zone 6 Director, who deplored the manner in which the project was rolled out and whose Zone is impacted by the project. Also speaking was the Zone 5 Director also deplored it’s implementation and approval process. The latter is also the co-char and longtime member of the MVCC Great Streets Committee.
A member of the Venice Neighborhood Council also spoke on the potential negative implications of the project for Venice. All these concerns will never be addressed given that the project has evaded the CEQA public process.
Mary Hruska (Zone 3 Director)
The officials responsible for the project need to be removed from office.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
Council Chairman Elliot Hanna says “This project has been a disaster and has divided our community. What it has done to our community is unforgivable,”
Obviously everyone can have their own point of view, but from my perspective, this was a case where a few hundred people had extremely strong feelings about the modification and it was in fact these people that divided the neighborhood. The road diet didn’t divide the community; an all-out brawl carried on for a year and a half by a small mob divided the community.
And rather than just admit defeat and allow the facts and broader community voices be heard, I’m guessing that the angry mob will take legal action and continue to divide the community.
Gary, it’s sad to see that you didn’t check the facts and instead parroted what Bonin and the LADOT are saying. Accidents are not down, accidents and injuries are up by more than 20% since the implementation of the road diet on Venice Blvd all the while traffic volume is down by 15%. This is accirding to CHP data which by law is submitted to the statewide database by the LAPD.
Bonin looked at less than 6 months of post road diet data from 2017 and claims business is booming. Why not tell us what the numbers were by year end 2018? Because after 18 months business isn’t booming, it’s dying. 21 businesses have left the 0.8 mile stretch since the implementation of the road diet, mostly small local businesses
Mike Bonin and the LADOT are lying and their own data proves. Look past the glossy graphics and dig into the 140+ page data appendix and the truth us right there. The “Great Street” isn’t a success, it’s a failure by every measure.
What’s not to love?
See the data here:
http://www.KeepTheUSMoving.com/accidents-up
It’s funny the folks who are against this project talk about the VAST majority of residents are against the project. However, I see little sign of great numbers. I see a few vocal zealots shouting about it. I went to look at the meeting materials which included all public comments. Since the meeting was in the middle of the day, it is fair to note without prejudice that most coments were sent in. I counted them. There were about 65 notes in favor of keeping the Great Streeets Treatment and about 19 opposed. 3 to 1. If it were a tax on the ballot, it would have passed.
Change is hard and takes a long time. I understand this is painful for the folks who are against it. However in the long run it will be better for all.
Washington Boulevard or Washington Place is about 1500-1800 feet from Venice its entire distance through Mar-Vista. Palms Boulevard is about the same distance on the other side. Either can serve as an excellent bypass to the bike lane area for people who are in a big hurry.
The best thing about Bike Lanes protected by parking is that the drivers of cars being parked SUDDENLY get very careful about “dooring” vehicles bearing down on them. When those vehicles were bicycles, the damage was almost exclusively to the bicyclist, and after all, aren’t they just a bunch of weenie Socialist snots who deserve it? But “dooring” an SUV can get the driver of the dooring car killed or maimed, so suddenly it’s a big problem.