You lose 10-25% parking due to the altered sight triangles and associated additional daylighting. A 3’ buffer is required, and cyclists can’t leave the lane to pass, so they need to be wider to allow passing. So 5’ for a painted bike lane vs ~9-12’ for protected. Worthwhile tradeoff nonetheless
Those are ~3-4’ lanes (gutter is excluded from width). It’s about whats comfortable and safe for all ages and abilities. AASHTO/NACTO emphasize it for a reason. Passing in intersections, where the risk is highest, is dangerous design. Getting pressed by a commuter on an e-scooter is stressful, etc
NACTO and AASHTO now emphasize this need, but cities made their own outdated standards years ago and dismiss it.
Broadway’s other main issue is not rebuilding curb ramps to dual unidirectional, meaning things like protected intersections/corner islands become nearly impossible to include.
My thing is that cities around here haven’t learned the importance of designing for side-by-side riding/passing in PBL width. 6’ is fine for a few blocks, but not entire corridors like Westwood or Broadway that need to accommodate young kids, elderly patients, commuters on e-bikes, e-scooters etc.
SMC is supposedly adding some student housing on their parking lot, but if they keep Airport Ave where it is now (which is what phase 3B seems to show), then that entire strip to the south also needs to be dedicated for mixed use. I’m sure the Mar vista homeowners would despise it, which I love
Koretz also removed Westwood blvd from the mobility plan’s protected bike lane network. I’m thankful Katy has pushed it forward anyways, but the recent 99 ranch crash goes to show that those delays=lives lost
Oh god
As a resident I’m confident that it would be supported by the current council. A few have even semi-seriously expressed interest in a Wilshire tram, but I think that is because they view D line as infeasible in the next 20 years. It’s still top of WSCCOG priorities for a reason
Vista Del Mar
2017: City installs then removes safety improvements
2021-2025: More people die
Pershing Dr
2017: City installs then removes bike lanes
2026: Pregnant mom killed
Westwood Bl
2015: Koretz removes Westwood from Mobility Plan
Today: 3 killed
michaelschneider.medium.com/las-darkest-...
Proud to introduce #AB1740 to modernize coastal permitting in urban, transit-rich cities to support climate oriented transit and housing policies.
Thank you to sponsors @cityofsantamonica.bsky.social, @streetsforall.org & @abundanthousingil.bsky.social!
Not necessarily true, the operations plan has always been that there will be an separate Merced-SF service as part of phase 1, and an SF-Sacramento service via san jose-gilroy-merced-modesto-stockton after phase 2 (Link21 could ultimately change the latter plan, but thats not certain)
Static Decal YIELD RIGHT OF WAY TO BUS
@cityofsantamonica.bsky.social Big Blue Bus becomes the 1st agency in the state to add yield signs to buses, saving time at every stop. Thanks @caltransit.bsky.social for sponsoring the state bill authorizing and @electdanhall.bsky.social and @nzernitskaya.bsky.social for moving this locally for me!
Like @nickandert.bsky.social, I've spent too many hours with 1930s drawings to find storm sewers, pipelines, etc in LA. A county-wide unified "3D Underground" utility map seems like something that could streamline planning from megaprojects to DIY home improvements www.enr.com/articles/620...
Idk, preliminary ESFV design had dangerously wide 12’-14’ lanes and 10’-14’ “TBD Areas” that will prob end up being 8’ parking. Space for straddle bents or pillars, and I imagine catenary could be integrated into viaduct where needed to save width (like at stations). Def not $4B
Los Angeles is almost certainly the worst governed major blue city in the entire country at this point
ideal would’ve been a modified alt 4 on van Nuys. Alt 4 was 4.2B cheaper than alt 5, so I’d expect modified alt 4 to be significantly cheaper, even with a more difficult portal. Could even add back a station at magnolia (instead of Sherman way for better spacing and not duplicating ESFV)
Not in lower density sprawl. Most new light metros (like STC) are majority elevated where feasible. Vancouver skytrain, Montreal REM, much of grand Paris express, Taipei, etc. Quicker and cheaper to build, so if we ever want to see non-measure M projects in our life we need to embrace elevated
That would be an awful outcome. It’s so important for the future to get those mainline connections at Van Nuys and Norwalk with rapid transit (I do not consider ESFV rapid transit in its current state)
Not the view in this case, but the sunlight
I don't take fully underground as a win. LA loves to keep transit and riders out of sight. Now we have to pay a few billion more dollars, get less stations, and ensure transit riders do not see the light of day because SOHA didn't want to see a train. Sets a dangerous precedent for phase 2 as well
Q&A3: “Public entities should not structure the scope of work to avoid ADA obligations to provide curb ramps when resurfacing a roadway… resurfacing only between crosswalks may be regarded as an attempt to circumvent a public entity’s obligation under the ADA…”
Of note, it is explicitly illegal to do this according to the DOJ/DOT joint technical guidance Q&A. And as soon as a crosswalk is touched, the curb ramp requirement still applies.
2013 DOJ/DOT technical guidance: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta....
Follow up Q&A: archive.ada.gov/doj-fhwa-ta-...
I agree if feds don't approve an alternative plan at mixed-traffic stations, then that would definitely preempt CPUC and they will issue a ruling. But until then, CPUC was very careful in their wording of "this regulatory requirement is preempted in this instance by federal requirements"
Caltrain must've gotten approval from feds to use mini-highs on public track, and were even building mini-highs into early 2025. As another example, metrolink newly-built Burbank airport station to 8" ATR while these 49 CFR 37.42 was in effect, on publicly-owned track shared with freight
In the SBCTA case there is no freight, and therefore ADA preempted by requiring level platforms (it specifically says "preempted in this instance"). With freight, ADA would not preempt because ADA requirements could be met while still complying with 26-D, so an exemption would still be needed
Clearly not true. For example, none of caltrain's or metrolinks platform mods on public track since this requirement have included level boarding (so they meet (b) via (c) and got approved as in (d).
Paragraph (b) and (c) seem fairly clear to me
The ADA only requires boarding from level platforms for stations that do not share track with existing freight, like Arrow. For mixed traffic, the requirement is only 8" platforms and provisions to allow accessible boarding (lifts, mini-highs, etc), so I think CPUC would still need to approve
I got a very different impression from the DOT study. Their point seemed to be that there is a conflict, but imperfect mitigations exist.
Blue cities should tear up the roads in front of ICE facilities and then start decades of community engagement and input sessions to rebuild them. Let's harness our core competencies.