Koretz Called to Account on Bike Lanes

by Calla Wiemer

At last year's annual meeting of the Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowners Association (WSSM HOA), Councilmember Paul Koretz announced he was authorizing the LA Department of Transportation to study bike lanes for Westwood Boulevard between Santa Monica and Pico. In a turnabout just a few months later, however, he canceled the study. At this year's meeting on June 18, he was called to account.

The Councilmember offered two justifications for the cancellation. One was that he realized that incorporating bike lanes into Westwood Boulevard would only make the situation more dangerous. The other was that he recognized an "overwhelming consensus of the community" in opposition. In light of these considerations, he determined that regardless of any LADOT findings, he would not approve bike lanes for Westwood Boulevard. There was thus no point wasting time with a study.

Photo: Wayne Howard

Let us explore each of the Councilmember's reasons for canceling the study in turn. That the current road configuration presents grave dangers to cyclists is well documented. The six block stretch of Westwood Boulevard that runs through the WSSM neighborhood has in recent years yielded an average of four collisions involving cyclists per year according to police report data. On a per mile basis, this rate is more than 20 times that witnessed on LA County roads generally.

The Councilmember did not explain why he believes striping bike lanes would make the situation even more dangerous. Currently, travel lanes are shared in spaces too narrow for motorists to overtake cyclists without crossing into adjacent lanes. Defining separate lanes for bikes would alleviate the conflict between motorists and cyclists. Granted, to carve out space for bike lanes, something would have to give. A proposal LADOT was to have studied involves floating bike lanes – a design the Councilmember is on record as judging "far too confusing" for LA motorists. The design has been implemented with success in San Francisco, however. If our neighbors to the north can manage it without danger, you would think Angelenos could too.

The beauty of the floating bike lane design is that it allows for flexibility in the allocation of space between mobility and parking. Westwood Boulevard is already subject to time-of-day restrictions on street parking. With more than 90 percent of parking currently provided off street, property owners have long since adapted to meet the need. Parking can be provided off street while mobility cannot. Any sacrifice of mobility for street parking thus calls for careful consideration.

Questions as to the dangers of alternative road configurations and the trade-offs among competing goals in road design are complicated. LADOT employs professionals whose expertise should be fully brought to bear to address these questions. Relying on the realizations of one councilmember is not enough.

Koretz’s second justification for canceling the LADOT study was an ostensible "overwhelming consensus of the community" in opposition. The hundreds of riders who brave Westwood Boulevard daily on bikes would surely be surprised to discover the ease with which their interests can be overwhelmed in the view of the Councilmember. Moreover, those in favor of bike lanes extend well beyond the cycling community, or even the would-be cycling community taken to encompass those who would like to ride Westwood Boulevard but are deterred by present conditions. All who drive Westwood Boulevard regularly have the experience of getting stuck behind cyclists and wishing them out of the way. For motorists too, then, bike lanes are the answer.

Formally, UCLA as an institution has registered its backing of Westwood Boulevard bike lanes with the Councilmember. The university energetically promotes the use of alternatives to the private automobile for its 60,000 daily commuters. When the extension of the Expo Line opens next year, a bike connection through the Westwood corridor will be essential for moving rail commuters the last two miles to the campus. UCLA students have mobilized in support of bike infrastructure through the UCLA Bicycle Coalition which boasts a Facebook membership of more than 300.

The sentiment of the local business community is difficult to gauge because interests south of Santa Monica Blvd are not organized to speak with a representative voice. Anecdotal signs of support for bike lanes have been apparent. Pitfire Pizza, for example, provided free food to over 100 participants in the Ride Westwood campaign of February 9, 2013, an event the Councilmember's deputy took in from the sidelines. More generally, much evidence has been marshalled to show that bike lanes are good for business along commercial corridors such as Westwood Boulevard. Reasonably, then, business owners ought to be fans of bike lanes.

One public hearing was held to solicit citizen comment on Westwood Boulevard bike lanes, this taking place on February 19, 2013. Those speaking for and against seemed about evenly divided in numbers (although the opposition was certainly louder).

With support of bike lanes for Westwood Boulevard so much in evidence, an "overwhelming consensus" in opposition would require a counterforce of a scale difficult to imagine. UCLA is, after all, the largest employer in Los Angeles after government and contributes $12.7 billion a year to the local economy. To understand the influences at work on the Councilmember, a group of UCLA students filed a public records request for all communications of the District 5 Council office pertaining to bike lanes. Covering the period February 24, 2010 to November 22, 2013, the file runs to 1035 pages. It is tough to read through all this material let alone infer any consensus from it. Views are presented on both sides of the issue with a relatively small number of people dominating the input. The most vocal opposition comes from the leadership of the Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowners Association.

One problem with this whole scenario is that the few who run the WSSM HOA carry such disproportionate weight in the Councilmember's assessment of public opinion. Another problem is that a group constituted on the basis of homeownership in a diverse neighborhood of single family homes and condominiums, young and old, cyclists and non-cyclists would take such a strident position on bike lanes. As a member of this homeowners association myself, I am an indication of the range of opinion that exists in the neighborhood with regard to bike lanes.

In a more positive vein, Mayor Garcetti has identified Westwood Boulevard through the Village for Great Streets treatment, which means creating a more welcoming environment for all road users. And the Expo Line will open next year with a station at Westwood Boulevard to offer no car parking. All this means that bike riders will be plying Westwood Boulevard in ever increasing numbers. At some point, even the leadership of the WSSM HOA may wish to see bikes in their own separate spaces. To achieve the best possible outcome for accommodating all road users, we need to involve the experts at LADOT and encourage the councilmember to lead a process of public discussion as he promised to do a year ago when he first authorized the study.

Calla Wiemer is a consulting economist and serves as a community liaison for the UCLA Bicycle Academy. She may be contacted at cjwiemer@hotmail.com.