TABLE OF CONTENTS:
WHEELIE BAD PLACEMENT: A Critique of Certain Bike Lanes in Los Angeles (not ALL bike lanes.)1/24/2019 WHEELIE BAD PLACEMENT: A Critique of Certain Bike Lanes in Los Angeles (NOT ALL bike lanes.) Bike lanes are one of the most common features of multi-modal transportation systems, usually implemented as part of “great streets” or “road diet” programs in urban areas. Bike lanes provide a dedicated space for bicyclists and other small-wheelers to travel at top speed, while also being (somewhat) separate from cars and freeing up the sidewalks for foot commuters. However, the selection processes are flawed for some bicycle lanes in Los Angeles.
There are a few inherent effects brought on by the placement of bike lanes in busy commercial areas. First, it reduces the amount of parking in proximity to businesses. If these spaces are not replenished in some way, that particular block or stretch of roadway develops a reputation for scarce parking, and so folks park their cars (and possibly shop) elsewhere. Second, traffic builds up in the “dieted” area, making circulation more difficult—from left turns, to lane changes, to clearing lanes. This in turn can make dispersal more difficult in the case of an emergency, like an auto and/or pedestrian involved accident, and subsequent arrival of emergency vehicles.
0 Comments
ON BIRDS AND BICYCLES: and the Current State of Multi-Modal Transportation in Los Angeles12/31/2018 I. BOO-BOOS and LOL-SUITS Some urbanites have been whining about the interruptive economy again. What is the ire of the loud, vocal minority and their elected officials this time? Electric scooters. Pictures depicting the numerous ways to destroy and dispose of these very dangerous inanimate objects are all over the internet. Cities and townships around the country have debated how to regulate the scooters; others have banned them outright. Los Angeles, for one, can’t seem to figure out what it wants. ===== In August of this past year, Councilmember Koretz, who represents a decent chunk of the Westside, motioned to temporarily ban the scooters, saying that the riders were wantonly dumping the scooters and breaking safety precautions by, among other things, riding without helmets. Despite Koretz’s assertion that “100% of riders” in his neighborhood do not wear helmets, no data or photographs were provided to substantiate this. Councilman Englander, who represents the upscale Northwestern San Fernando Valley, seconded Koretz’s motion. Just over a month later, the Council voted to RETAIN the services from the more than a dozen scooter companies operating across the City—most prominently Bird and Lime. However, in the usual California fashion, the Council attached a long list of —mostly reasonable— regulations that scooter companies operating within City limits must abide by. Then, in late October, Bird and Lime were named as do-defendants in a complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging “gross negligence” and “abetting assault.” The plaintiffs are private citizens who claimed that Lime and Bird, together with the City of Los Angeles, enabled injury to the plaintiffs (“abetting assault”) by allowing devices known to be hazardous to operate on City streets. McGee, Lerer, and Associates, who are representing the plaintiffs, are ambulance chasers who have a dedicated page on their website for scooter accidents. So, this newest lawl-suit is not the result of “Suzy Q, Joe Schmo, and some of their friends got hurt so they sued the City”, but a savy law firm. The outcome of this LOL-suit is still pending. ===== Given the success of these scooter companies (Bird scooters for their part have logged well over 10 million rides) it is strange that so much effort would be channelled towards limiting the scope of their products. It also seems quite intolerant to be inconvenienced by something so small, just because it occasionally ends up in your driveway. There are, definitely, reasonable objections to some aspects of the scooters’ operation, such as their top speed of 15 miles (24 km) per hour, their presence amongst sidewalk traffic, and the tendency of some riders (though not all) to ride without helmets. These are warranted concerns that nobody should dismiss. ===== I propose we should ask ourselves two questions: 1) Does the occasional instance of injury at the hands of these scooters warrant a downright ban; and, on a related note, 2) Are the occasional negative consequences brought about by these scooters ones that are unique to scooters? The answer to both questions is “no”. Bicycles can travel faster than 15 miles per hour. Bicyclists can strike pedestrians and can be struck by cars. They can ride without helmets. ========================================================= Councilmen from affluent areas… with a small number of complacent constituents…grieving about problems not unique to scooters…who are then represented by lawyers specializing in boo-boos. Let us stop pretending all of this furor is about trying to curb some grave danger to people and society. The lawsuit is just plain old opportunism, but thats a different discussion. What is truly preventing these scooters from being a viable way to safely get around is not the product itself, but the current state of shared transportation in this City. ========================================================= II. How to Make Scooters Work AND Make Them Less of A Liability a. Pedestrians and Drivers The truth is, the scooters are a great idea because…well…people ride scooters in this City. Whether you are in a middle-class neighborhood like East Hollywood, or a more working class neighborhood like South Central, people of all ages ride scooters for leisure, errands, interaction with others, and to/from school or work. When I was a kid, Razor scooters were the bomb, and they still are: across class, across race, across gender, and across age. As soon as bike sharing became a thing, I awaited the day when scooter sharing would be as well. The problem is that shared, multi-modal transportation in LA is broken. It is certainly has improved and will continue to improve, but you can’t just stick an agenda into the middle of a mess and have it work. ===== In the first place, LA pedestrians tend to be annoyed by cyclists and scooterists riding on sidewalks. This needs to change. The City of Los Angeles allows riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, unless the cyclist does so “[…] with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property” (Los Angeles Municipal Code, 56.15). Presumably, this ticket for cyclists to ride on the sidewalk extends to scooters. Still, either through pressure or the lack of room, riders are relegated to roadways— which, lets face it, are unsafe. Few districts in Central Los Angeles have stellar pedestrian safety records. Scooterists and cyclists who do not want to take the risk of riding in the street are therefore left without many choices. Second—I’ll throw critics of the scooters an olive branch here. There are many cyclists and scooterists who do not follow the rules of the road and/or do not take safety precautions. The DMV’s FFDL 37 states: “Although bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists and are subject to the same rules and regulations, it is crucial that bicyclists pay attention to traffic signs and signals and follow all rules to reduce the risk of collisions, while on the road.” However, DMV FFDL 37 dictates that only minors have to wear helmets. This needs to change if minors are to be allowed on the streets while riding bicycles or scooters. Now, there are also many cyclists and scooterists who do obey the laws and safety precautions. The problem is, infringements are seldom enforced. Not that they necessarily should be, since the police should be enforcing other laws and not running after folks on bikes and scooters. ===== b. The Scooter Companies (and Other Incidental Considerations) In an ideal world, drivers, cyclists, and scooterists alike would take it upon themselves to share the road and abide by safety precautions. However, since this is unlikely to happen on a large scale anytime soon, there are some other incidental situations that should be considered by the providers of the scooters. First of all, the scooter companies need to address the helmet issue. One one hand, they could permanently attach a helmet to the scooters with a cable—only they would have to figure out a system that is both comfortable and will not strangle the rider. Alternately, scooterists could sign an ultimatum when they download the app saying that they will either wear their own helmet, and if they choose not to, they will not sue the company or their local government. Secondly, there needs to be some kind of assurance for unassuming property owners. In the incident that a scooterist or bicyclist injure themselves upon a sidewalk or parkway in front of a home or business, those property owners should not and cannot be liable. California state law permits many residents to maintain and utilize the spaces in front of their properties. However, many do not have the money to maintain them, or are otherwise uninterested in doing so, and thus should not be held liable for potholes, cracks, tree roots, or other obstructions that would cause riders to bail. ===== IN CONCLUSION, I love the idea of a shared electric scooter system. From my experience growing up all over this City, scooters are a safe and appealing method of transportation across class, race, gender, and age. The injuries incurred by the scooters’ operation, while they should certainly not be ignored, occur relatively infrequently when compared to the tens millions of rides completed: certainly not at a frequency that warrants outlawing the scooters.
Instead, pedestrian safety improvements should be put in place that preserve the flow of traffic while also ensuring a safe path for cyclists and scooterists to do their thing. Sensible transportation planning should guide pedestrian safety improvements, such as European-style “traffic calming”. Dedicated travel lanes should by implemented in low density neighborhoods that are along major corridors (see my blurb on erroneous bike lane placement, coming soon). < HYPERLINK> A great deal of responsibility also falls on anyone and everyone who uses the road. Everyone must signal lane changes, halt at stop signs, stay within their lanes, and the like. Scooterists and bicyclists should wear helmets for their own good, and to prevent frivolous wrongful death suits. Service providers may consider writing waivers that release them from liability and implement an ultimatum about wearing helmets. Finally, Riders should use their judgement when approaching each block of sidewalk, assessing whether riding there would inconvenience the people presently occupying it. And don't mind the butthurt anti-gentrification folks who oppose transportation sharing. Don't bother with them. They're intolerant. They just don't want people they don't know exploring "their" neighborhoods. In present-day Los Angeles, moving houses—as in, physically moving a house—seems unfathomable. The LA traffic and built environment make moving something so massive seem precarious, if not impossible. The fact is, if your house has a wooden frame and is in good structural condition, it can be done. The house is lifted off the perimeter foundation with hydraulic jacks, placed on stacks of pallets for placekeeping, and ultimately lifted onto a flatbed truck designed for oversized loads. The logistics of moving the home is the difficult part: the routes to travel, traffic slowdowns, obstacles along the way, and other factors. In late-19th and early-20th century Los Angeles, building a house was a big deal. People from all over the country and around the world came here to claim their piece of the Western frontier. This is one of my favorite photographs of all time. It depicts some 19th century mansions of Bunker Hill, dwarfed by modern skyscrapers in the background, being prepared for relocation. Old Los Angeles comes face-to-face with the New Los Angeles. This piece notes some observations about the structural relocation permits of Los Angeles from 1905 to present. The principal observation is that relocation permits, as a whole, are more common the farther back in Los Angeles history you go. There seems to be a few reasons for this. -- The most pressing reason that relocations were more common during the early 20th century is the fact that homes were were built with quality, boasting hardwood foundations, ornate architectural styles, and often bearing the name of famous architects. Many homes from this period were owner-built, adding to the home’s sentimental value. Another reason that relocations were more common in the early 20th century: the City’s built environment was less fully developed. (Above: Hill Street at the Turn of the Century) The obstacles normally presented by neighboring houses, freeway overpasses, and overwhelming congestion would have been absent. Not to mention, residential land was plentiful all over the City, at least until after World War Two. No need to purchase a plot of land elsewhere—or to demolish and rebuild—just move the existing house! An example of this occurred in Echo Park in 1925, when a one “R.R. Sutherland” sold his house in the 1400 block of Waterloo Street in Echo Park to Mrs. Gertrude Franck, who already owned a house in the 1400 block of Mohawk Street—directly over the hill. Mrs. Franck simply propped up the Mohawk Street house, moved it northeastward into the parallel alley, and onto Waterloo Street via an empty parcel between the two streets. Mrs. Franck then had the Mohawk house plopped right onto the front setback of the Waterloo lot, with no effect on the original 1907 residence on the rear of the lot. And BAM. Just like that, a guest house and a master house. This precisely demonstrates another reason that relocations were more convenient and common in the first half of the 20th century: the City’s practice of front and rear lot setbacks. In exclusive Central LA neighborhoods, homes were required to have a minimum footage of front, rear, and side setbacks on their lots. Thus, a relocated home could be placed on the front or rear of another lot without having to demolish the existing one. ___ There were other monetary factors that made these early homes worthwhile moving. To encourage large, good-quality constructions, some homeowner’s associations even established minimum construction valuations, i.e. the cost to build the house had to be above a certain threshold. It was not until the Post-World War II era of Los Angeles that the Central Los Angeles began to decline due to rapid suburbanization and general neglect, and property values plummeted. Some mansions and other gems in historic districts like Bunker Hill and Alvarado Terrace were moved elsewhere, but for the most part, they were seen as relics of an old era. ___ In short, relocations were more common the farther back in Los Angeles history you go. There are a few reasons for this, mostly economic. Homes of the era were built with quality and often by famous architects, making them valuable assets until the post-World War II decline of many Central LA neighborhoods. Furthermore, Prior to the 1940s, relocations were more of an option due to the availability of empty land, the practice of lot setbacks, and the absence of obstructions like heavy traffic and the engineered environment. ___ BONUS: How to Move and Preserve a Historic Home for $100K !?
In closing, and since these economic interruptions seem so discouraging, let me pitch something here. The cost for an empty parcel in a single-family neighborhood in a trendy Central LA neighborhood ($25,000 to $100,000) and a structure relocation ($50,000 to $250,000) could be about the same price--or less—as a purchasing a property in most districts of Central LA—which is an average of $520,000 to $590,000 as of 2018, according to real estate analytics company CoreLogic. This is assuming, of course, that you contacted the owner of a soon-to-be demolished home and obtained it for a greatly diminished price or no price at all. This is what the owners of a parcel of land in Eagle Rock did in 2005. They moved a house from 258 Mission Road in South Pasadena—which was slated for demolition—onto their corner lot on Figueroa and Oak Grove. I remember being in high school and seeing this home being lowered onto the lot and the lot being engineered to accommodate it. It was a long process, but the owners preserved a beautiful Turn-of-the-Century home. They moved it 3.5 miles—in network distance—for $66,500 and paid $5,200 in permit fees. They spent about $5,400.00 for hillside grading to fit the shape of the house, $1000.00 to reattach the electrical systems, and just under $10,000.00 for various landscaping costs. And that, my friends, is how you can relocate and preserve a beautiful old house for about $98,000.00. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2020
Categories |