LA Transpo Slowed to a Crawl by Outdated and Ignored Laws

GETTING THERE FROM HERE-Reform of the City Charter or its Bylaws is almost certainly in order, but it's no secret that the City of LA … for all its hype about being for "sustainable living" and being "environmentally-friendly" … is burdened by a host of either outdated laws (which encourage inappropriate overdevelopment) or ignored laws (which are conveniently skirted to allow and enable inappropriate development).  

The following agenda item is the primary motion to be considered and discussed this Thursday, July 9th, from 7:15 - 9:00 p.m. at the next meeting of the Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee.  The meeting will be held in the second floor auditorium (Room 200) at the West LA Municipal Building (adjacent to the Felicia Mahood Center, and near the intersection of the Santa Monica Blvd. and Corinth Ave.). 

The public is invited to attend, and other council districts, neighborhood councils and grassroots organizations are encouraged to either attend or discuss the topics and talking points below among their own constituents. 

Quality of life, environmental issues, mobility, affordable housing, and economic empowerment are vital for the average resident to succeed in any city, including that of Los Angeles.  Hence the following will be addressed, discussed and debated this Thursday night:   

Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee Motion/Talking Points for Future Discussion with LA City Transportation Committee Chair and Metro Boardmember Mike Bonin: 

1. Transit Zones:

     a) Focus most new housing to scale-appropriate transit stations and transit corridors, with appropriate parking and no "upzoning" of adjacent low-density residential areas in order to protect community character.  Parking considerations should be based on "real-world" figures, and any allowance of reduced parking based on transit-oriented development (TOD) should be legally required to have residents' parking enforced, and with this enforcement appropriately funded. 

     b) These Transit Zones are to be implemented as part of the overall Community Plan update process, and with the understanding that Transit Neighborhood Plans shall be allowed to be separate from this process.  

     c) Workforce housing should be among the highest of priorities, if not the highest of priorities to allow pedestrian access of workers from their homes to their places of employment, either directly by foot or indirectly by bus, rail, and/or bicycle. 

     d)  Limit transit zones to 1/4 mile around rail/transit stations and limit the definition of commercial zones only to those streets that line the corridors. 

     e) Restricted parking permits may be required of developers to fund in perpetuity, in order to prevent residents of TOD projects from parking cars and impacting adjacent residential neighborhoods.  If parking cannot be created, then developers must fund an equal funding level to either promote remote parking or to build better transit-related amenities. 

     f) Transit-adjacent development, and transit-oriented development (TOD), should never be allowed to use transit as a way to avoid proper and legally-required mitigation funding. 

     g) Most TOD projects will be mixed-use and contain office/retail space to maintain job base in Los Angeles. 

     h) TODs and corridor projects shall have appropriate transitional height and stepbacks to reduce impact on adjacent residential. "Buffer zones" may also be indicated and necessary to preserve residential/neighborhood character. 

     i) Redefine and enforce and update "Senior Living" parking and transit-dependent requirements to better meet needs of seniors (and to allow both ensured mobility for seniors and ensured public safety by offering alternatives for those too old to operate automobiles), and while also updating regional parking needs. 

2. Encourage telecommuting, such as incentives for telecommunication hubs (allowing both residents and commuters to work online from a nearby communal location, and to create appropriate monitoring by employers to ensure legitimate work productivity). 

3. Encourage/enforce/audit Traffic Demand Management Plans and Transportation Management Organizations. 

4. Develop regional Mobility Hubs with mass transit, zip-car, bike rental, and parking (not free but at market-rate, although subsidization by employers should be encouraged, perhaps with tax incentives). 

5. Improve transit rider amenities - shelter, security, bathrooms, technology/real-time schedules. 

6. Coordinate Metrolink and MetroRail rail/bus to allow first-rate pedestrian connectivity between the Metrolink and MetroRail networks, as well as between trains, buses and DASH lines.

7. MetroRail line from West LA / LAX to Valley, and a direct MetroRail (or Metrolink) line from LAX to Union Station via the Harbor Subdivision Rail Right of Way.

8. Restore/establish a Commuter Mass Transit Fee on all new residential (with inflation increases). The cost would be ~$20,000 per condominium.  

            a) These fees should be spent on transit projects, either creating or enhancing new or existing transit lines such as DASH lines or enhancing access to existing transit, and with a local nexus to the proposed project rather than being diverted to the City general fund, or to any Citywide transportation fund.   

             b)    Require TIMP fees for all projects. Require that their expenditure for Mass transit or other, be of an amount and type of expenditure that will actually mitigate all additional traffic caused by the project.

9. Increase / enforce penalties for non-compliance with traffic conditions in development projects/CUP's (Conditional Use Permits).             

10. Require traffic studies for all projects, and use a correct L.A.-based traffic generation ratio.  

            a) Require traffic studies, traffic  mitigation plans and, where applicable TDMP’s for all projects, including Senior Living, Assisted Living, Affordable and workplace housing and TOD. In the studies use correct LA based traffic generation ratios.  

            b) Presently, the LADOT uses national statistics and says it doesn’t have the money and sufficient employees to work up LA trip generation rate statistics--this arrangement must be corrected, and any surveys and parking/traffic census funded.  

            c)  Post all such traffic studies and plans on the internet so the public can see for the first time the cumulative traffic arising from development. Now only one or two large projects per year get any publicity at all. These Traffic studies properly indexed could be a simple add on to the just implemented LA City online Building and Construction permit website  

            d) Traffic generation ratios should be legally and strictly enforced, and off of 2015/2020-based LADOT models rather than from 1955 or other antiquated models. 

            e) The LADOT shall be appropriately funded, expanded and empowered (with changes to the City Charter and Bylaws, when appropriate and necessary) to limit or block Planning initiatives and Planning-approved projects that interfere with environmental laws, water/electricity/sewage, traffic/parking, and other infrastructure limitations. 

            f) The Department of Building and Safety shall also be appropriately funded, expanded and empowered (with changes to the City Charter and Bylaws, when appropriate and necessary) to limit or block Planning initiatives and Planning-approved projects that interfere with environmental laws, water/electricity/sewage, traffic/parking, and other infrastructure limitations. 

            g) Impacts after construction shall be audited with additional fees assessed if impacts exceed those that were projected.  For example, is the actuality of bicycle commuters or variable (staggered) work days the same as forecasted?  Was the forecast in the traffic study based on historical figures from other similar developments after their completion, and after their true traffic impacts were able to properly documented and tabulated?   

            h) The use of LOS in addition to required VMT measurements to accurately count projected traffic is critical in order to establish accurate and "real-world" traffic impacts and counts. 

            i) If an EIR is required, City shall select and manage the consultant and the developer shall reimburse the City for full cost.  

             j) LADOT to improve its optimization of traffic signal controls using the ATSAC tool they now have. (Atomized Traffic Surveillance & Control) 

Comments and secondary points to be promoted, pursuant to the topics above:

a. Establish that density and height limitations for the Expo Transit Corridors must be different than that for the future Wilshire Subway/Purple Line, because the Expo Line has an unavoidable ceiling in transit capacity that limits its ability to carry over 90,000-100,000 riders/day--unlike the Wilshire/Purple Line which can carry  2-300,000+ riders/day when it is completed. 

b. Create two "secondary Union Stations or secondary Metro Centers"

     1.  "Union Station West" at Exposition/Sepulveda (future intersection of Expo and north-south rail lines, as well as within close proximity of the Wilshire/Purple Line Subway and the 405/10 freeways).

     2. "Union Station South" at LAX/Metro Transit Center at 96th/Aviation (future intersection of Green, Crenshaw, LAX and potential north-south rail lines to Valley and/or South Bay, as well as to a potential LAX-Union Station Metrolink or MetroRail line along the Harbor Subdivision Rail Right of Way). 

c.  Improve transit rider amenities - shelter, security, bathrooms, technology/real-time schedules. Establish either commercial and/or Metro (public/private partnership?) to create jobs yet ensure both safety, security and cleanliness of key Metro stations. 

d. Require Metro Eastside Light Rail Extensions to have stations within pedestrian access to Metrolink stations, and to coordinate Metrolink service with the Eastside Light Rail Line Extension.  

e. Study connection of eastern Metro Green Line terminus to Norwalk Metrolink station (with funding from LA as well as Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), in order to link LA-adjacent cities and counties with convenient rail service. 

 

(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the  nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at  [email protected]   He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)