Construction Updates

[wad]

sodha said:

The worst thing about placing parking lots around Metro stations, it prevents people who do have great transit access to going to their destination. I'll give you a prime example. I live in downtown and travel to Santa Clarita for work.

Do the Santa Clarita commuter buses work for you? Santa Clarita is one of only two agencies in Southern California that runs its commuter buses in both directions during both rush hours.

[LAofAnaheim]

I tried the buses. I could get to the Town Center in 10 minutes, no problem. However, I missed my Metrolink train on the return trip twice b/c the bus was delayed. Luckily, my pals were coming from LA so I could hitch a ride with them.

[Mac]

But in my case, I think I would like a parking lot, especially when the nearest station to me in the future would be Atlantic, as I live in Monterey Park. Sure, I could take the 260, but its a hefty walk from my house(15 mins over hills). I live closer to route 70 on Garvey than I do Atlantic, but thats quite a walk too. Granted, there is a Monterey Park Spirit Bus stop a few blocks from me, and those buses only run like once per hour. Even the quickest way walking and taking public transportation from my house to the future Atlantic Station is no where as fast as me driving: 5-7 mins. It takes me already 8 mins walking to get to route 70. But don't get me wrong, I only belive in parking lots when it is needed, and when driving is more practicle. But I don't think we should be build huge GIGANTIC ones like Sierra Madre Villa, plus more than half of the parking spaces there are empty.

[whitmanlam]

They can put in parking lots where it's feasible. And have parking meters with a 10 hr maximum to deter overnight parking. Most commuters wouldn't mind putting in a few quarters, as it's still cheaper than Downtown.

Parking will be very expensive once the Expo and Redline move further west. Land is very expensive in those places and parking is scarce as it is.

A good transit station needs frequent bus service every 10-15 minutes or so. Also must be walkable for the passengers who get off the station. They should not have to walk across a sea of cars to get to work.
Furthermore, high density areas like on Wilshire, should have more bike racks, taxis, or better yet a Flex Car program to add more transit options.

[wad]

sodha said:

I tried the buses. I could get to the Town Center in 10 minutes, no problem. However, I missed my Metrolink train on the return trip twice b/c the bus was delayed. Luckily, my pals were coming from LA so I could hitch a ride with them.

I didn't mean the feeder buses.

I meant the 7XX express buses. Line 794 is the reverse-commute bus. It leaves from Union Station and gets to the Town Center in less than an hour. It saves a transfer. There's also now one trip middays.

[LAofAnaheim]

I looked into bus schedules, the best being 1.5 hours. As much as I love public transportation, I will be reasonable and take a car when needed.

Back to parking lots, I gots to thinking this weekend. I went from downtown to hollywood via the Red Line on Saturday night and the trains had a pretty decent size crowd. Definitly mixed income on my earlier train (8:15 pm) than the late night (12 am). If we continue building park-and-ride lots, you'd lose the off-peak ridership. Why would I, or anybody else living near Metro, exit at a park-and-ride lot? If there was housing, entertainment, etc... at a station, then I'd take it. So, I think the park-and-ride lots affect off-peak ridership negatively.

How come you live far from the nearest Metro rail stop? Wouldn't you rather move in closer? It will cost a lot more, but your house value/quality of life will definitly increase. If the price is too high, it's b/c a lot of people regulate development (fear of traffic bs), so we cannot build a decent amount of housing near rail stations, so that prices will depress a little. As long as NIMBYs win out, house values in downtown/hollywood will significantly increase, whereas special government-backed projects (i.e. LA Live!, Grand Avenue) will be our only new projects, and the in-fill projects who don't get government subsidies (i.e. Concerto, 717 Flower), have much less of a chance being built. The LA housing scarcity continues.....

[JerardWright]

sodha said:

phattonez said:

We should eliminate street parking near our transit lines or put very expensive parking meters there. Actually, I like that idea more. Wherever there is easy accessibility by rapid transit (either Metro Rail or Metro Rapid Bus) we should make parking meters at something like $1.00 for every 15 minutes. That's still cheaper than many parking lots I've seen.

No, No, No. We should not eliminate street parking. That's what I'm saying. Elimination of street parking = creation of parking garages. How much more of a car dominated society we want? If you go to other great cities, they have street parking to supplement the lack of parking garages. It creates vibrant streets with people walking all the time. A parking garage prevents somebody from having to walk onto the street. They go into the garage, take the elevator into their store/mall, and never see them on the street. I'm taking this from the urban development p.o.v. It's horrible seeing that 16 story parking garage at Grand Avenue & the 10 freeway. How many more of these monstrositious do we need? Simple thing, start opening up more street parking, and we can slowly get rid of parking garages. You would definitly see more vibrant streets with PEDESTRIANS if people have to walk the streets.

Opening up more street parking? That is balderdash,in fact street parking costs a hell of a lot more than the parking structure. There are cities throughtout the world who don't cave into this notion of having street parking everywhere along the major boulevards, but instead they enforce this little subtle trick, they make the lanes narrower! Narrow lanes means more cautious driving. Cautious driving means slower speeds. Slower speeds means improved pedestrian safety and flow crossing these streets and on the boulevards. All the parking structures do is promote a reduction in traffic congestion and problems for folks circling around looking for street parking spots and with clever things like working with businesses to promote parking validation it helps the small businesses around the lot or structure.

[JerardWright]

sodha said:

Back to parking lots, I gots to thinking this weekend. I went from downtown to hollywood via the Red Line on Saturday night and the trains had a pretty decent size crowd. Definitly mixed income on my earlier train (8:15 pm) than the late night (12 am). If we continue building park-and-ride lots, you'd lose the off-peak ridership. Why would I, or anybody else living near Metro, exit at a park-and-ride lot? If there was housing, entertainment, etc... at a station, then I'd take it. So, I think the park-and-ride lots affect off-peak ridership negatively.

How come you live far from the nearest Metro rail stop? Wouldn't you rather move in closer? It will cost a lot more, but your house value/quality of life will definitly increase. If the price is too high, it's b/c a lot of people regulate development (fear of traffic bs), so we cannot build a decent amount of housing near rail stations, so that prices will depress a little. As long as NIMBYs win out, house values in downtown/hollywood will significantly increase, whereas special government-backed projects (i.e. LA Live!, Grand Avenue) will be our only new projects, and the in-fill projects who don't get government subsidies (i.e. Concerto, 717 Flower), have much less of a chance being built. The LA housing scarcity continues.....

Again to my original point that all these desirables of activity near the subway will be based upon the planning of its surroundings. A parking structure like it or not is a neccessary evil because it promotes the density and consolidation of the surrounding lots for other uses. If the structure can bare a more than it covers that provides mitigation to add the affordable housing or add more units to the complex without addditional $$$ which improves the financing of the smaller privately built projects because of the surplus of parking at the structures that the private developer doesn't have to spend an arm and a leg to provide.

[LAofAnaheim]

By having the lack of street parking, the City has to invest in larger public parking garages (i.e. eyesores). I agree with you that narrow streets are good....fantastic! I like that too. I think the best example is what South Group has done at 11th & Grand. But, what they also did is add in the street parking component.

I live across from Ralphs. People park in the underground garage, go upstairs, grab their groceries, take the elvator back to the underground and drive off. I never see them step on the street. To create a lively, more inviting, pedestrian friendly city, we need more visibility of the pedestrians. Downtown LA has such a limited number of street parking compared to other great world class cities. To make up for it, we take up huge space for parking lots/garages, and prevent the development of nice office/residential bldgs. Have you ever walked Flower & Hope between 7th & 8th street? Look at the parking lots/garages. It's deadzones.

If you owned a business, why would you want a storefront business that has no street parking? Wouldn't it be more viable for you to lease inside a mall with a parking garage? I don't know...but I'd rather see people on the street, which creates a pedestrian-friendly town that people in LA would love to have.

If no street parking, then I would suggest bus only lanes. At least, those are meant for the non-automobile commuters; and still prevents our local roads from becoming highways. But, to remove street parking would be to kill our street activity, and that would be a detriment to the image of Los Angeles.

Have you been to San Francisco? See how many people are on the street? Notice there is a serious lack of parking garages? B/c people are forced to drive around on city blocks to find street parking. I love it. You either see people on the street, or driving becomes such a hassle, thus people take Muni or BART. In LA, with convenient parking garages and abundant parking (i.e. cheap), the LA Metro has a more difficult time to compete with the personal automobile.

[dasubergeek]

sodha said:

By having the lack of street parking, the City has to invest in larger public parking garages (i.e. eyesores). I agree with you that narrow streets are good....fantastic! I like that too. I think the best example is what South Group has done at 11th & Grand. But, what they also did is add in the street parking component.

Have you been to Studio City, which is home to one of the more heinously anal-retentive homeowners' associations? The street parking on Ventura was insufficient (and there are plenty of people walking around), so a parking structure was built behind where Albano's used to be (you can't miss it, talking about eyesores, Albano's was in the building with the giant garlic bulbs on it). You can hardly see it from the street, and after you park you end up right on the sidewalk with all the other pedestrians.

I live across from Ralphs. People park in the underground garage, go upstairs, grab their groceries, take the elvator back to the underground and drive off. I never see them step on the street. To create a lively, more inviting, pedestrian friendly city, we need more visibility of the pedestrians. Downtown LA has such a limited number of street parking compared to other great world class cities. To make up for it, we take up huge space for parking lots/garages, and prevent the development of nice office/residential bldgs. Have you ever walked Flower & Hope between 7th & 8th street? Look at the parking lots/garages. It's deadzones.

To create a lively, more inviting, pedestrian-friendly city, you need to have more than just Ralphs. Grocery stores aren't exactly pedestrian-friendly places -- think of the carts and whatnot that usually require a bigger setback from the street, or else increased building size (and rent, and prices) to compensate. I agree with you that the parking lots downtown are eyesores, but my solution to that is to put them in the centres of blocks with driveways, not to do away with them altogether. You can't force people to take transit very easily -- and if you take away parking capacity downtown, people won't take transit, they'll just drive to a more car-friendly place.

If you owned a business, why would you want a storefront business that has no street parking? Wouldn't it be more viable for you to lease inside a mall with a parking garage? I don't know...but I'd rather see people on the street, which creates a pedestrian-friendly town that people in LA would love to have.

A storefront business only technically has the parking that's next to their frontage, so that may be 2 or 3 parking spots. That doesn't drive enough business in, so a parking structure benefits everyone on the street -- if there are 45 spots on a block with 15 stores, that's an average of 3 spots per store. Compare that with a parking structure that lets people out onto the street instead of directly into stores, which may have 100 spots, which drives more business.

People in LA aren't willing to fight for parking every hour of every day the way they are in SF or NY. You know as well as I do that one of the primary questions of going to a new restaurant, club, store, whatever, is "What about parking?"

If no street parking, then I would suggest bus only lanes. At least, those are meant for the non-automobile commuters; and still prevents our local roads from becoming highways. But, to remove street parking would be to kill our street activity, and that would be a detriment to the image of Los Angeles.

Very little is worse for, say, a restaurant than having a bus idling outside. Can you imagine wanting to go for dinner in some nice cozy Italian trattoria, and then all you can hear through the windows or walls is buses roaring up and down? Bus-only lanes work on major streets, but on a close, slow street like we're talking about here it's a major hindrance for businesses, not to mention that pedestrians are nervous around large vehicles.

Our image is one of a car-centric culture. Ask anyone outside of SoCal how Angelenos get around and you'll get answers ranging from "They drive, of course, it's practically the law there" to "I've seen L.A. Story! Even if it's just up the street they drive!" And much as I would like it to be different, downtown is not a social hub; it's a business hub and it dries up and blows away every night at 7 PM.

Have you been to San Francisco? See how many people are on the street? Notice there is a serious lack of parking garages? B/c people are forced to drive around on city blocks to find street parking. I love it. You either see people on the street, or driving becomes such a hassle, thus people take Muni or BART. In LA, with convenient parking garages and abundant parking (i.e. cheap), the LA Metro has a more difficult time to compete with the personal automobile.

I used to live in San Francisco, in the Tenderloin. There was no lack of parking garages, and there's no lack of them in New York, either. They're just expensive, and they're expensive BECAUSE the street parking was scarce.

Also, let's be quite clear that much of San Francisco is built on a "city" scale -- taller buildings very close together -- the way LA is not. Even the more spacious parts of San Francisco are more like unto Mid-City than like unto West LA. The suburbs, however, are a different story -- remember that San Francisco is a much smaller city, both area-wise (10% of the land area of Los Angeles) and population-wise (20% of the population of Los Angeles), than LA, and the suburbs (San Mateo, San Rafael, Walnut Creek, etc.) are much more car-centric than the city itself.

Also, people make the mistake of thinking that San Francisco MUNI and BART reach all parts of San Francisco. They don't. They go down the eastern shore, pretty much. Transit works better in SF, part of which is due to the smaller area to cover, but it doesn't work consistently well and in fact is overrelied-upon -- meaning that when I wanted to get to work, I had to take the 38 Geary bus, and usually had to wait three or four buses before there was room even to squeeze on. It's one thing to prevent cars from parking easily, but if there's no easy way to get places people will seek alternatives elsewhere.

[JerardWright]

sodha said:

By having the lack of street parking, the City has to invest in larger public parking garages (i.e. eyesores). I agree with you that narrow streets are good....fantastic! I like that too. I think the best example is what South Group has done at 11th & Grand. But, what they also did is add in the street parking component.

It helps them for that street to be a One-way street.

I live across from Ralphs. People park in the underground garage, go upstairs, grab their groceries, take the elvator back to the underground and drive off. I never see them step on the street. To create a lively, more inviting, pedestrian friendly city, we need more visibility of the pedestrians.

Because there's nothing else there surrounding the Ralphs! The Ralphs IS the streetlife right now and even that is poor example because most shoppers would buy a large quantity of groceries and held down to their cars to unload. Until the other buildings and retail spaces surrounding the Ralph's open up then this will be the case. I'll suggest waiting 6 more months before going back with that argument. Then coming back again when a couple of the towers with it's ground floor retail components spring to life.

Downtown LA has such a limited number of street parking compared to other great world class cities. To make up for it, we take up huge space for parking lots/garages, and prevent the development of nice office/residential bldgs. Have you ever walked Flower & Hope between 7th & 8th street? Look at the parking lots/garages. It's deadzones.

That's a poor example because that is 70's Modernism at it's worst! Have you walked around Old Town Pasadena with it's parking structures with Ground floor retail? Hardly deadzones. That goes back to good design implements and coordinated zoning.

I was just in Chicago where street parking is not the norm along the major boulevards or even some of the side streets and there are parking structures with Ground floor retail along the streets improving the streetlife. Washington DC same thing, Vancouver B.C. and Portland same thing.

If you owned a business, why would you want a storefront business that has no street parking? Wouldn't it be more viable for you to lease inside a mall with a parking garage? I don't know...but I'd rather see people on the street, which creates a pedestrian-friendly town that people in LA would love to have.

It depends on what business I'm providing. If it's something that requires the street to make delieveries or drop off items, then all that's needed are Loading zone placards. If I have a plentiful parking supply that's steps away from my business then that helps my business and other business get whatever items they may need them and stroll down that street to possibly purchase or window shop at other items while on route to the parking structure. I guess Old Town Pasadena or Santa Monica didn't improve it's walkability and promote pedestrian friendly streets along the BUSIER streets by leaving street parking there. And their structures were poorly designed not mimicing any of the surrounding areas and pedestrian scales to help them fit the urban fabric.

[whitmanlam]

That Ralphs supermarket isn't exactly transit friendly, it's like 3 blocks from the 7th/metro subway station.

What's worse, the shopping carts can't be taken beyond the front door. Though this is a theft deterrent, it prevents people from pushing their groceries to their apartment, and further inhibits pedestrian shopping.

[Elson]

whitmanlam said:

That Ralphs supermarket isn't exactly transit friendly, it's like 3 blocks from the 7th/metro subway station.

What's worse, the shopping carts can't be taken beyond the front door. Though this is a theft deterrent, it prevents people from pushing their groceries to their apartment, and further inhibits pedestrian shopping.

You're totally mistaken. I already see a lot of Downtowners push their self-owned vertical shopping carts home (the supermarket also sells 'em).

Three blocks, in the scope of things, is transit-friendly; most planners consider a 6-block walking radius as accessible.

You're seriously underestimating the impact of the Downtown Ralphs. It's on'y been open three months and is already one of the top-5 revenue-generating stores in the entire Ralphs chain. Have you ever even been there? The place is amazing.

[Elson]

dasubergeek said:

And much as I would like it to be different, downtown is not a social hub; it's a business hub and it dries up and blows away every night at 7 PM.

FYI, just a few years ago, that quote ended with "5 pm" - So that means things ARE changing.

[JerardWright]

whitmanlam said:

That Ralphs supermarket isn't exactly transit friendly, it's like 3 blocks from the 7th/metro subway station.

What's worse, the shopping carts can't be taken beyond the front door. Though this is a theft deterrent, it prevents people from pushing their groceries to their apartment, and further inhibits pedestrian shopping.

Actually that helps the urban shopper/commuter because most of the walk-in traffic will only carry about 2-3 bags tops, just enough to comfortably walk to the subway station and hold on to the groceries on a crowded train. I know, I'm one of those statistics and I'm 3/4 of a mile away.

That also helps Ralphs sales because folks will be shopping there more frequently rather than the suburban mentality of buying enough for a week or two because the market is to far to walk which promotes additional pedestrian activity. Also during the lunch hours, Ralphs is extremely active and at night it's picking up quite a bit despite none of the other surrounding shops are open yet.

[bluelineshawn]

elson said:

whitmanlam said:

That Ralphs supermarket isn't exactly transit friendly, it's like 3 blocks from the 7th/metro subway station.

What's worse, the shopping carts can't be taken beyond the front door. Though this is a theft deterrent, it prevents people from pushing their groceries to their apartment, and further inhibits pedestrian shopping.

You're totally mistaken. I already see a lot of Downtowners push their self-owned vertical shopping carts home (the supermarket also sells 'em).

Three blocks, in the scope of things, is transit-friendly; most planners consider a 6-block walking radius as accessible.

You're seriously underestimating the impact of the Downtown Ralphs. It's on'y been open three months and is already one of the top-5 revenue-generating stores in the entire Ralphs chain. Have you ever even been there? The place is amazing.

He's even more mistaken than that. From what I've seen you are in fact allowed to push your cart out of the front door and go around the corner to the parking lot.

And downtown isn't the type of place where you should allow people to leave the store with the carts (nowhere is really, but that's another story). 100% of them will disappear and you'll be left with a bunch of crappy, rusty carts that'll look like they were used by the homeless for a couple of years.

[Elson]

deric8 said:

whitmanlam said:

That Ralphs supermarket isn't exactly transit friendly, it's like 3 blocks from the 7th/metro subway station.

What's worse, the shopping carts can't be taken beyond the front door. Though this is a theft deterrent, it prevents people from pushing their groceries to their apartment, and further inhibits pedestrian shopping.

Actually that helps the urban shopper/commuter because most of the walk-in traffic will only carry about 2-3 bags tops, just enough to comfortably walk to the subway station and hold on to the groceries on a crowded train. I know, I'm one of those statistics and I'm 3/4 of a mile away.

That also helps Ralphs sales because folks will be shopping there more frequently rather than the suburban mentality of buying enough for a week or two because the market is to far to walk which promotes additional pedestrian activity. Also during the lunch hours, Ralphs is extremely active and at night it's picking up quite a bit despite none of the other surrounding shops are open yet.

It's also an example of a modern supermarket -- it not just only has grocery items, but a pharmacy, a florist, an extensive liquor section, a deli, a cafe, a bookstore, etc.

It's also already expanded its operating hours, and is on track to be open 24/7 in due time.

[wad]

elson said:

It's also an example of a modern supermarket -- it not just only has grocery items, but a pharmacy, a florist, an extensive liquor section, a deli, a cafe, a bookstore, etc.

It's also already expanded its operating hours, and is on track to be open 24/7 in due time.

Ralphs has also said that the downtown store is already one of its highest grossing in Southern California, and it raced to the top in the shortest time ever noticed by the company (one operating quarter).

Downtown was dismissed by the supermarket management because no one in their companies knew how to make such a business work. Even Ralphs and Vons both started in downtown, but both left by the time the streetcars were dismantled. Neither knew how to make a downtown market work again!

They claimed that a supermarket built without large seas of parking in the front was unfeasible. But Ralphs has taken chances with more "urban" settings, while Safeway and Supervalu, the parents of Vons and Albertsons, respectively, still are reluctant to build urban markets.

Some of the more urban designs of Ralphs, where parking is still provided but tucked away from the street view, include the "Ralpha-Beta" on Wilshire Boulevard in the Miracle Mile (it was opened by Food-4-Less as an Alpha Beta in 1994 for one year, before it merged with Ralphs) and the one across from the Hollywood/Western Red Line station.

[tonyw79sfv]

The Hollywood/Western Ralphs was opened as a TOD for the Red Line station; the store opened around 1999 - 2000.

[Elson]

wad said:

They claimed that a supermarket built without large seas of parking in the front was unfeasible. But Ralphs has taken chances with more "urban" settings, while Safeway and Supervalu, the parents of Vons and Albertsons, respectively, still are reluctant to build urban markets.

Even for people in cars, the Downtown Ralphs is amazing. If you're able to score a curbside parking space out in front, that's a way more convenient spot than parking in any conventional supermarket lot!

Ralphs also has an "urban" location in Downtown SD, which is sort of what the Downtown LA Ralphs was modeled after.

[LAofAnaheim]

I still have to defend my points here. I'm in San Francisco right now and I notice 3 things:

1 - They have anti-gridlock zoning as well, damn. Except, they don't have that cute name "anti-gridlock zoning".

2 - Tons of parking meters for street parking

3 - Difficulty in finding parking garages.

I still 100% believe street parking brings vibrancy to city streets. Parking garages hide the pedestrian from the street. Especially when urban autopias are created with a parking focus (i.e. Grove, 3rd Street, and Old Town). What makes city streets great in LA, is the storefront retail and the ability to park in front of a store. Plus, it slows down street traffic, and prevents the need for humongous parking garages. Have you ever seen a 20 story parking garage like 1100, Grand Avenue (grand & 10 freeway), or at El Segundo in other MAJOR cities? Our parking garages are bigger than office/residential bldgs in some U.S. cities. They take up valuable space that could be used for a nice office/residential bldg, giving that "wow" factor to a city. Being in SF right now, I'm so excited to see these nice bldgs w/ lacking pedestal parking below (i.e. 1100 Wilshire....ew).

I am reasonable though...parking garages will never go. Heck, it's needed in some areas. But, street parking, there's something fantastic and "citylike" about it. On 9th street, when "anti-gridlock zoning" is in place, cars rush by at 50 mph, no s***. Whereas, when street parking kicks in, you do notice a slowdown in speeds. The road has then got a pedestrian focus, and not a highway focus. And, its great seeing people get out on the street, instead of hiding in a parking garage, and never seeing them step outside (i.e. 7th & Fig, Macys Plaza, downtown Ralphs, etc...).

That's my stance and I'll stick to it. I will love to advocate for more street parking. I'm tired of 5 lane mini-highways on our city streets. That's not a city...that's a suburb. I don't want LA to continue its surburban focus, we need to focus on city-like development and pedestrians. I hope street parking give people alternatives and reduces the need for elephant garages.

[kenalpern]

Here's where I'll have to agree to disagree. Wouldn't a line of trees and/or hedges, with a widened sidewalk, be a much smarter way to separate the pedestrian from the cars? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective, considering how expensive streetside parking is, and how erratic it can be?

I really don't view a line of cars to be all that beautiful, and I am NOT anti-car.

[LAofAnaheim]

kenalpern said:

Wouldn't a line of trees and/or hedges, with a widened sidewalk, be a much smarter way to separate the pedestrian from the cars? Wouldn't it be more cost-effective, considering how expensive streetside parking is, and how erratic it can be?

Ken...I totally agree. Look at 11th Street in downtown, great example. The street is only 3 lanes wide, with 1 lane dedicated to on-street parking. The sidewalk is wide with trees lined up. I have absolutely no problem with that, and I would love to see more. I fail to see how street parking is "expensive"? The city gets a return on street parking compared to $0 return on the lane being an expressway.

[kenalpern]

A great question, and others on this Board (Bob Leabow, where are you?) can answer that better than I can. In short, the commerce and land value equals several thousand dollars (I've heard up to $10,000) for a space each year, compared to if it had the ability to enhance mobility or be used by pedestrians, etc.

I forget the specific numbers and formulae, so I hope that others can jump in and correct me, but my understanding is that this expense is along the same lines that developers fear to create and provide parking spaces--it's land, square footage, etc. that can be used for so many other things.

Certain places can have all the streetside parking they want, but in land-poor and congested L.A., I'd think that streetside parking--with lots of irrigated, healthy and beautiful trees on the curbs is one of the first things that should go.

[LAofAnaheim]

What my concern is....why do we need 4 to 5 lane mini-highways in the city of Los Angeles? I agree we need trees on sidewalks. I 100% agree with you. What I'm saying is that this anti-gridlock zonging we have makes our EXISTING 1 lane into an additional highway lane, thus INCREASING SPEEDS along corridors, a detriment to the pedestrian. I was walking across 8th street on Flower and cars were racing to the 110 freeway. Some guy had to screech his car to stop. That's b/c with a lack of street parking, we created a miniature highway in the CITY.

And, I agree with Jerard, we need more narrow streets. So far in my time in SF, I've only seen one 4 lane street each way...that's Market Street. All others are no more than 3 lanes and one lane dedicated to street parking during non-rush times. So, it's only 2 lanes of traffic. Very pedestrian friendly.

[JerardWright]

I was walking across 8th street on Flower and cars were racing to the 110 freeway. Some guy had to screech his car to stop. That's b/c with a lack of street parking, we created a miniature highway in the CITY.

That is because it's one way street with narrow sidewalk buffers for pedestrians, we make the sidewalks wider and add the trees, I gurantee a more pleasing environment and 10% reduction in speeds. Double this speed reduction by converting this same narrow one-way auto speedway back to a two way street. Now this only occurs when the street lanes are narrowed because the visual perception is altered and drivers have to drive more carefully.

[kenalpern]

Ah, now I see your point. No, I really would NOT want any streetside parking anywhere in Downtown (or just about anywhere else) to be converted to just another lane of speeding cars to create a quasi-freeway. That does not a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere make!

A much better usage for that space would be for a bicycle/bus lane, which would have some traffic but overall less so than the single occupancy vehicle lanes, and this would add to an ideal tree/hedge barrier of separating the moving vehicles from the pedestrians.

I suspect the two of you and I are pretty much all on the same page here.

[LAofAnaheim]

Haha....after a full week, I think we finally agreed on this. Yes, thanks for seeing my point. A bus only lane, bike lane, curbside parking, whatever....that would prevent the development of miniature highways in the cities.

[roadtrainer]

sodha said:

Haha....after a full week, I think we finally agreed on this. Yes, thanks for seeing my point. A bus only lane, bike lane, curbside parking, whatever....that would prevent the development of miniature highways in the cities.

;D Hey you guys!!----I thought construction updates were for construction updates, not an ending discussion on Ralph's stupermarket! Sheese!! Can't a guy get an update on the final part of the bridge over the river Kiawi(los Angeles)? Or on the bridge crossing the great divide aka the 101 freeway? Come on guys give me an update,!! Sincerely The Roadtrainer

[Mac]

The bridge over the 101 is just about done. I'm not sure whats going on about the 1st street bridge.