Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) Transportation and Infrastructure committee proposed three motions regarding the “Great Streets” project that has sharply divided the neighborhood and made enemies of those who use or previously used Venice Blvd from Beethoven to Inglewood.
The motion that requested data was approved. Two motions that would have restored the lanes to Venice Blvd were sent back to transportation and infrastructure committee. The motion that wanted a safety study of the bike lanes also went to the bike committee.
It was stated that the board had voted 11 July to maintain the “Great Streets” pilot project for six months.
By Elliot Hanna, Community Director of Mar Vista Community Council
We all know that the Venice Blvd “Great Streets” implementation has polarized our community like nothing we’ve seen in quite some time. Some groups want things restored to the way they were. Other groups like the new implementation the way it is and don’t want any changes at all. In my opinion, neither position is tenable.
Let me state clearly that I support the goals of reducing pedestrian and bicyclist deaths and serious injuries. I believe that everyone will agree with that. To think otherwise violates basic human decency. The disagreement is not about the goal but the implementation.
Many people will say that at the July 11th MVCC meeting, people who attended were split roughly fifty-fifty between supporting and opposing the implementation. They’ll also tell you that the e-mail received was split roughly the same way. I don’t dispute that but respectfully suggest that it isn’t a statistically valid random sampling. Based on my talking to people on all sides of the issue including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, business owners, supporters, and opponents, I believe the split to be more on the order of two to one opposed though the only way to be certain is to commission a scientific survey on the issue using statistically valid methods, which I support. That said, there are ways for us to come together to make this a win-win situation for everyone. First, let’s list the features of the implementation that don’t seem to be particularly controversial:
1. Four new crosswalks
2. Community art installations
3. New trees
4. Thirteen new trash and recycling receptacles
5. Weekly overnight street sweeping
6. A New bus shelter with wi-fi
7. Streetlight banners
8. Sidewalk upgrades
9. Fourteen new bike racks
10. A Solar-powered soofa bench
No one that I’m aware of – certainly not I – is suggesting we undo any of that. The major controversy is the elimination of the third lane of traffic in each direction and the unintended consequences it’s caused.
LADOT’s statistics regarding speed vs. potential for death or serious injury are correct. It’s a fairly simple law of physics. Furthermore, I agree that Venice Blvd. is not a freeway and people should not be driving on it as though it is. However, speed and throughput are two separate things and both must be considered. Unfortunately, the statistics I’ve seen only address the former.
One day, there may be sufficient options for travel along or near Venice Blvd that make it unnecessary to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. Perhaps, those options will include a rail line or something similar. I look forward to that but that day is not today. For most people, automobile travel is still their only option.
It’s also important to understand that a “Great Street” requires thriving businesses. As I alluded to earlier, I spoke with employees or owners of various small businesses and most reported a noticeable downturn in business since Venice Blvd was reconfigured. That’s simply not sustainable.
That’s why the motion I’m offering at the September 12th MVCC meeting is written as it is. I encourage you to read it. It’s Item 13.n on the September 12th agenda which can be found at http://www.marvista.org/docs/34485419-9138.pdf. I believe that we can restore the third lanes, restore the reasonable flow of traffic, control speeds, protect pedestrians, and protect bicyclists. It simply requires the community to come together with officials from LADOT to devise a better implementation. My motion is not designed to create winners and losers. It’s designed for everyone to win something.
So, I hope we can all come together to make Mar Vista better for all of us. I respectfully ask that you consider supporting my motion.
The major television stations were there to cover this.
A standing-room-only crowd gathered at the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) meet to hear Restore Venice Coalition motion that would restore Venice Blvd to three lanes each way as opposed to the two-lane configuration that has occurred as a result of the “Great Streets” project.
Bikers, owners of bike shops, bikers representing bike organizations, Playa del Rey residents, Venice residents, and residents and business owners of Mar Vista were present to provide pros and cons for the motion presented. People were given one minute and then 30 seconds because there were so many people.
The result was that only three of eleven MVCC board members voted to restore Venice Blvd to its original three-lane configuration. The three voting for were Hollie Tilson (represents area closest to Venice), Michelle Krupkin (co-chair of both Great Streets ad hoc committee and Transportation and Infrastructure committee) and Ken Alpern (co-chair of Transportation and Infrastructure committee).`
The others wanted to wait for one year until they had more data. It sounded like a one-year trial but was mentioned at the meet that it was going to be a two-year trial. It was previously reported to be reviewed in three months.
Another motion was made and approved to have all data turned over to MVCC for analysis.
“Data” was not defined. Is it accident, incident data? Is it “feel good,” “calming” data for those who live and work in area. No previous accident, incident data was provided before or after the ‘Great Streets” initiation. Restore Venice Coalition has requested traffic data from Los Angeles Department of Transportation.
Nat Gale, principal project coordinator for Los Angeles Department of Transportation, will present LADOT data on the first month of Venice Blvd “diet,” as some call it. The meet will be held at Saturday, 22 July from 1-3 pm at Windward School, 11350 Palms Blvd.
“Great Streets” is billed as a place where people want to come to shop and businesses consequently make more money. The even “larger picture” to this story is that 82 percent of the business owners do not like this. Their sales are down. One owner said she doubted if she would survive the year. People, businesses are not cozying up to the idea of this small town effect. It is hurting them. See article.
Mike Bonin spoke first to explain the process; a representative from Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) spoke next. The LADOT spokesperson explained in theory why this would be a calming and safety effect based one of Newton laws of physics.
Venice Blvd was State Route 187
Venice Blvd, formerly State Route 187, is the major thoroughfare between Lincoln Boulevard in Venice, which is Route 1, and Interstate 10 in the South Robertson district. It has affected, according to one speaker, 19,000 daily commuters from all over the area. Chris Cerbo produced documents showing the number of commuters to be 32,000. Several speakers were from the Playa del Rey area and were caught with, not only the road diet there, but Venice Blvd.
The State “relinquished” Venice Blvd to the City for the “Great Streets” program as requested by Councilman Mike Bonin. The “Great Streets” is in line with Mayor Eric Garcetti’s streetscape design for pockets of Los Angeles. LADOT Director Seleta Reynolds was hired to implement “Great Streets.” Councilman Mike Bonin lives in Mar Vista.
Downturn in Business
But the “Great Streets” project that was to give Venice Blvd in Mar Vista the “small town effect in the big city” has resulted in not just traffic calamity but downturn in business activity.
Several business people spoke and said their business income was down. One owner who spoke owns the Mar Vista, Venice Grind, and MV Grab and Go and he said his business income was down. Ace Hardware said his business was down 4 percent from last year. One lady said she did not think she would survive the year.
Car traffic has diverted thru neighborhoods
The car traffic, which will continue, has diverted to side streets to the chagrin of those residents who live on the side streets. “Divert bikers to the side streets, not cars,” one commenter said. People still have to go from A to B; the questions is what is the fastest way. Emergency vehicle response time has increased according to one commenter and he had seen emergency vehicles using the bike lane.
One commenter said “if you really want to slow down traffic, change the speed limit.”
Sounds like it is all for the bikers, pedestrians
It appears the “Small Town” effect has succumbed to mean protect bikers, safety for pedestrians. Although, one commenter mentioned that a wheel chair has to go off the curb at the corner and navigate the bike lane to the pedestrian traffic cross walk.
One speaker did say there had been bike incidents and a skateboarder accident since the new configuration. But no one presented accident figures for previous years or since implementation of the “Great Streets.”
Members of the “Restore Venice Coalition,” headed by Kenneth Marek, did their own survey of the “Great Street” businesses in Mar Vista.
Their survey of 55 businesses showed that 82 percent were opposed to the lane reduction while 9 percent were in favor and 9 percent did not care.
Note that one of the purposes of the “Great Streets” program is to increase business income because the program slows down traffic and produces a “small town effect in a big town.” If the businesses are not happy and go out of business or leave because of lack of business, there is no longer a “Great Street.”
Kenneth Marek, on behalf of the Restore Venice Coalition, presented the motion last night at the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council to restore Venice Blvd to three lanes each way. The council had only three members who voted for the motion. This meant that the configuration would remain the same to complete a one- or two-year trial.
Mar Vista Community Council will meet Tuesday, 11 June to hear a motion by their “Great Streets” ad-hoc committee to restore the “Great Streets”– Venice Blvd back to six lanes.
The question is will the restoration take place quickly or will it be for the one-year trial period.
At the June Mar Vista Community Council meet the community and those who use Venice Blvd voiced their dislike for the Venice Blvd “Great Streets” diet.
The following night the MVCC “Great Streets” ad-hoc committee met and wrote a motion to restore Venice Blvd to its original six lanes.
