A year after losing traffic lanes on Venice Boulevard, things have only gotten worse
By Selena Inouye

Calculations by Restore Venice Blvd. cast doubt that tightening traffic flow has reduced collision rates
Inouye is a retired social worker and chief grassroots organizer for the road diet opposition group Restore Venice Blvd.
Venice Boulevard isn’t a neighborhood street. It’s a former state highway whose purpose is to allow people to travel from their neighborhood to all the other places they want to go in Greater Los Angeles.
Sunday, May 20, marks one year since Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation installed a road diet on Venice Boulevard between Inglewood Boulevard and Beethoven Street under the guise of making the street safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers.
They called it Great Streets and Vision Zero. They said it would enhance neighborhood character, improve access and mobility, increase economic activity, promote greater community engagement and result in a safer community.
Today, Venice Boulevard is a visually confusing mess of bollards and white and green paint. Drivers can’t figure out where to drive or park and can’t see the bicyclists behind the parked cars in the reconfigured parking lane. Cyclists often choose the sidewalk over the protected bike lane. And the sidewalks still need repair.
This road diet — these lane thefts — aren’t making Venice Boulevard safer.
Why? Traffic is like water: it travels along the path of least resistance. Removing vehicle lanes restricts flow and causes gridlock during peak travel hours on the weekdays and weekends. Emergency vehicles get stuck in the gridlock. Restore Venice Blvd.’s Neighborhood Traffic Watch program has seen what appears to be an increase in fender-bender and chain reaction accidents because of it.
So now locals, commuters and the Los Angeles Fire Department redirect their trips to keep off Venice Boulevard. Cut-through traffic flows onto adjacent residential streets, where kids play and neighbors walk their dogs. Local small businesses struggle because their customers avoid Venice Boulevard, and six have closed their doors for good.
Our community is very concerned.
When we point out the project’s lack of transparency, ask questions and attempt to hold those in charge accountable, we are characterized as drivers unconcerned about the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Never mind that all of us are pedestrians at one point or another, or that most cyclists own cars too.
We’re very concerned about the 15 cyclists involved in accidents in the new protected bike lane, according to our Neighborhood Traffic Watch. There are those who think the old bike lane was much safer. We think we know why. The L.A. Department of City Planning Complete Streets Design Guide says protected bike lanes should be applied: “… along streets with long blocks and few or no driveways or midblock access points for vehicles.”
We’ve counted. There are 43 driveways and 10 un-signalized intersections on Venice Boulevard between Inglewood and Beethoven, creating 53 conflict points between cars and bicycles.
Did those in charge prepare us for their lane thefts? In Mar Vista they collected 450 surveys, but failed to ask, “Would you support removing vehicle lanes from Venice Boulevard?” They did some pop-up outreach at the Mar Vista Farmers Market, CicLAvia and a few coffee shops, but in Venice and other surrounding neighborhoods they did no outreach at all.
We submitted a California Public Records Act request on Aug. 8, 2017: 283 days later, no response from LADOT. What little we got from Councilman Bonin’s office revealed that certain members of the Mar Vista Community Council and Mar Vista Chamber of Commerce knew about the lane thefts but chose to keep them quiet.
The city’s top-down planning approach to this pilot project shows they didn’t care about community engagement. And they might have gotten away with it if it weren’t for the widespread public outcry.
As of the six month mark, LADOT data shows the road diet was not working. Using data presented at a March 2018 Great Streets Open House, the city-run website veniceblvdmarvista.org and a road segment rate calculation formula that considers collisions and traffic flow, we have calculated that:
• Collisions per 1 million vehicle miles traveled went up from 3.00 pre-project (May 20, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016) to 3.22 post-project (May 20, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017).
• Injury collisions per 1 million vehicle miles traveled went up from 1.95 pre-project to 2.33 post-project.
The pilot project on Venice Boulevard, what LADOT General Manager Seleta Reynolds calls “the gold standard” for Vision Zero, isn’t working. But that isn’t stopping Mayor Garcetti from asking for $91 million for Vision Zero in the 2018-19 city budget.
We’ve asked several times for our councilman and LADOT to hold a town hall meeting so we could come together as a community to get the answers to the questions that we have been asking since day one. But they refuse.
Councilman Bonin and Mayor Garcetti, you said this was a one-year pilot. Time’s up! Stop imposing on the goodwill of the residents of Mar Vista, our neighbors in Venice, Del Rey, Culver City and Marina del Rey, and all the pedestrians, cyclists, commuters, emergency responders, businesses, beachgoers and tourists using Venice Boulevard.
Return Venice Boulevard to its previous configuration and put an end to the gridlock, cut-through traffic, increased collisions and injury collisions, negative impacts to our local small businesses, and all the other collateral effects.
It’s time to restore Venice Boulevard. And if this matters to you, now is the time to make your concerns known to Councilman Bonin, Mayor Garcetti, LADOT and the Mar Vista Community Council. Join us at restoreveniceblvd.com to learn how.
Dear author,
Thank you for your concern for transportation issues in our community and your hope to decrease traffic fatalities. My biggest concern with this article is the blatant lack of statistics when reporting average values before and after the installation of the bike lanes. As a PhD student I have been talk to take any number with a grain of salt, and given the strong political stance behind this piece it is hard to take the changes at face value. What are the confidence intervals on those values? What is the error in sampling data? Each of your reported statistics is in changes of a fraction of a crash or incident per million. Any reporting of data should be reported correctly and as an institution of journalism it is disrespectful and unfair to your readers to blatantly report means without some form of error estimate. Using “facts” and numbers that are not scientifically rigorous to support a political value judgement obfuscates the line of fact and personal political opinion. I have much skepticism in your calculations because of this.
Zack,
if you want to know the pre/post accident tally and how it stacks up with historical averages I can recommend a few places to check.
1) CHP SWITRS data base – this is the California Highway Patrols database for all accidents in the state of California. This database can be sorted in excel to pull out just accidents along the road diet’ed section of Venice.
2) http://www.KeepLAMoving.com – I’ve done the mining of the database mentioned above and have compared accidents and injuries from the previous 5 years to the first 7 months of the road diet (the time for which data is available) and both accidents and injuries are up over historical averages.
3) http://www.veniceblvdmarvista.org/evaluation – If you don’t believe me this is the LADOT’s evaluation of the data . Their analysis shows that while there has been 15% drop in daily volume the accident and injury rate has not changed from the previous year. And if you calculate the 5 year average you get a similar result (though not identical) to what you get using SWITRS data.
The LADOT data set also shows that 4,500+ cars per day have left Venice Blvd and are now on the surrounding neighborhood streets. And if you use the CHP SWITRS database to analyze the history of accidents and injuries on these streets you can see they are trending up as well.
Hi Zack,
I do share your concerns and I have posted a detailed explanation here: http://www.restoreveniceblvd.com/p/six-months.html Feel free to email me at restoreveniceblvd at gmail dot com if you have any follow-up questions or find any errors.
Selena
I would like to know specifically which neighborhood council members knew of the lane closures and a bit more about the source of your information since the accusation was made.
Hi Joseph,
The document I am referring to is the Venice Blvd California Environmental Quality Act Exemption filed on February 1, 2017. Here is a link to our Google Drive where you can view the document: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ONkaUR16lny9T-pxkKGL2zyoGJRJ_ByP
On page 5 it says: “The Pilot was developed in coordination between Mayor Garcetti’s Great Streets Initiative, Council District 11 and
LADOT with the support of community organizations and private consultants. The project developed after 442
community surveys, 4 public workshops, 3 outreach displays, 2 walk/bike rides and regular input from the Mar Vista
Community Council.”
The community organization that they are referring to is the Mar Vista Chamber of Commerce, which applied for and was awarded a Great Streets Challenge Grant in 2015. The Make It Mar Vista event on November 28, 2015 was actually the demonstration project for what we have on Venice Blvd today. http://marvistachamber.com/make-it-mar-vista/
Selena
As the title of the demonstration project suggests, it demonstrated the the lay out of the project for all to see. It’s too bad that people didn’t pay attention, and it didn’t stay up longer. The author is twisting the facts here to get people angry, and play the victim. The project should stand, or fall on its merits, or weaknesses, not an invented soap opera.
Hi Greg,
Are you the same Greg who was quoted in this March 22, 2017 Argonaut article “The Future Has Two Wheels”?
https://argonautnews.com/the-future-has-two-wheels/
I read that article and saw no mention of the impending lane thefts on Venice Blvd.
Seems to me that article would have been a perfect opportunity for Mar Vista Community Council Board members Rob Kadota, Damien Newton and Greg Castelnuovo-Tedesco to fully inform the community about what was going to happen in May 2017.
And I think you’ll agree it’s going to be hard for the community to judge this pilot project on its merits without the release of the project data from LADOT.
Thanks for the name drop!
I was telling anyone that would listen about the plans for the road diet for about two years before the project was under wraps. I was excited to see a road diet plan play out on the Westside. The first time I wrote about it on Streetsblog, a website read by 2000 people everyday, was in August of 2008.
https://la.streetsblog.org/2015/08/12/with-ciclavia-in-the-rearview-mirror-mar-vista-plans-for-a-pop-up-great-street/
” A graphic included on Bonin’s blog post shows a Venice Boulevard with protected bike facilities, bump-outs for pedestrian crossings and transit lanes, and plenty of space for outdoor seating. “All one has to do” is remove a car-travel lane in each direction.”
graphic I mention links to this:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ant/pages/743/attachments/original/1438966479/Safety.png?1438966479
After I was appointed to the MVCC board, I continued to talk about the road diet. I even drew a representation of it on a marker board for an intern/reporter at the Argonaut at a committee meeting in March of 2017 (I’m sorry, I can’t remember the committee, but it was either Transportation and Infrastructure or Bike Mar Vista).
I am truly sorry that more people didn’t know about the changes for Venice Blvd before they happened. But I can say that I did the best I could with the resources I had and that many members of the NC did as well.
Uhm, make that August of 2015, not August of 2008. I wrote the first story in August of 2015.
Right on.
I am affected by this disaster road diet every single day! If Garcetti and Bonin wont listen to us, then it is time to remove them from office. We’re not stupid, we know the real reason for this road diet. They want to close down all of the mom and pop type businesses who are paying “low” rents in old buildings. When they all go out of business, then the big developers can come in and knock down the buildings and build brand new high rent multi-use buildings that are becoming so prevalent in the area and changing the areas culture, jacking up rents and chasing away longtime residents. We need to be heard!
Thank you Selena for posting this informative and much needed representation of what residents of Mar Vista are experiencing. As you stated the offices of Mayor Garcetti, Councilman Mike Bonin as elected officials utterly failed to create an environment which was inclusive of community input putting into question the integrity of both. To make matters worse, they have opted to politicize the programs, further driving a wedge in the communities mentioned. Where’s leadership, where’s the vision?
Bonin and Garcetti are useless jokers. Both need to go. We need Venice Blvd returned to the way it was.
CHANGE it back
So sick of politicians using us poor citizens as lab rats for their nefarious plans!!!
It seems they think there’s no business except government business.
Did you hear about the Beverly Hills developer just arrested for bribing politicians?
Another recent discovery that further testifies to the disturbing lack of transparancy on the part of City Hall on this issue. is that the city had another choice and chose not to take it.
When the city comissioned Fehr and Peers to provide possible plans to addresss safety and enhance the neighborhood experience on Venice Blvd, they were presented with several plans.
One of them was the current one, in which a lane is removed. The other kept 3 lanes of traffic and created a protected bike lane by reducing the median.
The 2 plans still exist in the West LA Traffic Improvement and Mitigation Plan, which is heading for it’s final stages of approval with the City Council this summer.
go to http://www.westsidemobilityplan.com/documents/
Read the Livable Boulevards Streescape Plan (Feb 2018), pages 5-48 and 5-49
Why was this never presented to the community???
It flies in the face if the great pains the City has taken to promote Great Streets as a grass-roots, bottom up project.
Mayor Garcetti is quoted, in a 2015-2016 post on the Great Streets Website, as saying “We look forward to working with more neighborhood stakeholders to develop and build upon vision for each corridor. Great Streets will be a bottom-up and community-based process. After all, no one knows more about our neighborhoods than you”
Where was the other option in this “process”? Guess the city actually believed they knew better in the end.
Here’s the second paragraph of the Brown Act:
“The people of the State do not yield their sovereignity to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know”
I posit that the lane reduction was far cheaper and more expedient than the other option.
This is a poor argument indeed, since the city has already spent upwards of 40 M on Vision Zero/Great Streets, and the Mayor is asking for another 91 M.
It’s about transparancy Mr Mayor.
You know there’s another option, Mr Mayor. Do the right thing for Mar Vista and take the politics out of it.
The road diets on Venice is nothing but a political move that has caused economic havoc, SEVEN business closures.. yes, 7!!! Gridlock and an overall eyesore.
Bonin is a crony who serves the McCorps & developers while turning Mar Vista into a blight.
Now he wants to erect 700k condos for section 8 housing in Marina Del Rey…. who pays? Taxpayers.
1. Who is paying for this luxury buildout? Taxpayers
2. Who will subsidize rents? Taxpayers
3. Who will pay the outrageous property taxes? Taxpayers
Who does it benefit? Developers
They could easily build 10x the housing PLUS programs to teach skills by building inland. Instead, Bonin & developer pals see an opportunity for waste & fleecing of the taxpayer.
the expiration date on this ill-advised and deceptive “pilot project” is here. The City, Mike Bonin and LADOT forced this down stakeholders’ throats with little outreach and NO MENTION of taking away traffic lanes. And what are the results? Chaos, confusion, and danger. Just like what Selena says. In unfortunate timing, ANOTHER business announced its closure this week. But as #gridlockGarcetti cavalierly says, “Businesses come and go.” So much for a thriving community.
Bring back the lanes!! Great article Selena. Surprised to see that the Argonaut was brave enough to publish the truth!
“Mister Rogers did not adequately prepare me for my neighbors”
Some people like this project, others do not. It has been discussed, voted on by the MVCC board numerous times and re-discussed ad nauseam.
So if your point of view does not match others what to do? I have seen what appears to be childish tantrums, causing major rifts in what previously had been a very functional neighbor hood council. What would Mister Rogers do?
Hi Roy,
I think you know why we’re in this predicament. You said it yourself in your MVCC candidate statement from 2012:
“What issue do you feel most strongly about and what’s your position?
Traffic and the impact of proposed projects. I want make sure projects fit and that the people they impact are aware and are heard.”
Source: https://patch.com/california/venice/mar-vista-neighborhood-council-candidate-roy-persinko
The feedback I have heard is this project doesn’t fit, people are being impacted on a daily basis and the community is not being heard.
So what can we do to change this situation?
This is happening across the state…we need to stop it at the state level. I am running for the California 62nd State Assembly and have been actively opposing road diets and Vision Zero. Currently the City of Los Angeles added 91 million to promote and continue implementing road diet madness.
Its time for a change. Quality of Life over Social Issues. Lets fix our problems first.
We are NIMBY.
Al Hernandez
Candidate for California 62nd State Assembly
http://www.votealhernandez.com
Thank you Selena for coverage and writing article. I hope it doesn’t end here!
Maybe next time cite ‘ restoreveniceblvd.com ‘ link closer to the article beginning as well.