A Little More Perspective on Spring Street and Contraflow

Thank goodness someone does their homework. I'm enjoying your blog more and more.

OK, as a proponent of the bus lane as they currently stand, here is my little rebuttal.

Yesterday I got a copy of the report that has all the traffic data in it, and quickly realized I'm not currently a transportation engineer. If I was I'd be able to pull out my copy of the Highway Capacity Manual, turn to the formulas for arterial lane capacity, and punch the numbers in with accounting for light cycle times, turn interference, etc. But I don't have the HCM, and nobody's paying me to do that sort of thing, so for now I'm going to take their word for it. They took the counts, and they've run those numbers in the simulation. So for now, I think it best to accept their word on peak hour needs.

Unfortunately, I am (speaking in my private capacity and not as a member of any city or county government I am currently employed in). The HCM is designed for maximum traffic flow, but the assumptions are based on theory that may not apply to downtowns. You especially have to look at trip generation and their assumptions (presumably they projected for future development). You also have to understand that congestion is NOT necessarily a bad thing. And, of course, that we don't build for maximum capacity in this town, else the 405 would be ten lanes in each direction, right? So the "capacity" argument is the wrong way to go, since you have stated that you want walkability, not necessarily freeway style capacity.

(And by the way, I'd love to take a look at the study, since I haven't been able to get a hold of it. Please send it to the email address shown.)

The planned changes on Spring and Main do not involve physically altering the street. They simply take striping changes. That means that down the road changes can be made.

But history shows that this will be VERY difficult to re-educate residents once this has been done.

Six months after they implement the new striping, DOT will go back and run a post-project analysis. They'll go back out and do another traffic count, and see how actual traffic flows correspond to the simulations they did beforehand. If at that point traffic data looks different than it is currently projected to look, changes like peak hour parking on the east side of Spring street can be examined.

But that doesn't take into account the bus lane. Once you get rid of the bus lane, you can't easily put it back. There is some concern with safety in the bus lane, which I share, but placing a replacement of equivalent capacity (the bus lane on Main and preferably Spring, 24/7 like the current Spring Street contraflow lane is) is important.

After these changes are made, Spring Street will have more parking than it does currently. That's important. There are downsides to the plan, but this is a definite upside.

Correct; parking does calm traffic down. The issue is that will the entries and exits reduce capacity? That is the real problem with on street parking: not the space the cars take up, but the blocking of the other lane of traffic as an Angeleno attempts to figure out parallel parking.

The Downtown traffic structure will inevitably be changing. MTA is currently looking at how to change their routing structure to send less buses through Downtown. Such changes will reduce bus volume, and the traffic data I've seen shows this to be as much as 10% of Historic Core traffic.

It should be noted that the reason that MTA wants to send less buses through downtown is solely financial, not made for the riders' or residents' benefit or anything like that. They see lines overlapping each other on the map and want to force some people off to make the other buses fuller. Bus service is important in a Downtown. Inexpensive off street parking for short terms (and actively discouraging long term, workday parking) is good too. I would like to see a comprehensive traffic management plan that incorporates some "lessons learned" from Portland, San Diego, and other successful urban downtowns.

The one thing you are neglecting in your discussion is the riders. I'm sorry, but there is a qualitative difference between Spring Street and Main Street. Main Street is still, in a politically correct term, "has a greater perception of crime" than does Spring. Have you talked to some of the bus riders waiting on Spring? Some of my colleagues have (see web link), and they report that they don't like Main. They see congestion problems, especially during the midday and during special events, when Main can get crowded, and without a bus lane they are stuck in traffic. During a special event, often the only thing that is moving is that Spring Street contraflow lane. Everything else is locked up solid, which doesn't help bus riders any.

Reductions in bus volume would also allow for a consolidation of stops and a reduction in the amount of red curb. That in turn means more meter spots of the street, and more turnover spots for people to use when accessing the shops and eateries that need to continue to develop along the street.

Except that there are only going to be a handful of spots for the number of businesses that are going to pop up. And inevitably you will have people circling the block waiting for them to open up, causing more traffic congestion.

Not to mention that even with the most grandiose consolidation attempts, you are not going to reduce the stops substantially. There are not enough stops for the buses to begin with, and any thinning of stops will be met with opposition from businesses that depend on transit use and on the Bus Riders Union. And consolidation of bus streets, a dream for many Historic Core residents, to Broadway like some are advocating would result in chaos and reduced access to deliveries for Broadway businesses. You need to spread out the buses in order for the streets to work.

In summary, I think it's important that we take this step and then continue to work with DOT and the MTA to craft a street infrastructure that works for both vehicular concerns and those of Downtown. This is a process, not a one-step deal.

Agreed, and thank you for participating in the discussion. We'll see where this goes.

I would certainly think that adding a southbound Type II bus lane would help transit travel times, and I would think the Type II bus lane on Main would have better times than the Type I currently on Spring. Maybe I just miss them, but I don't see many special events on this side of town tying up Main midday. I don't see the need for a 24-hour bus lane on Main or Spring. I just don't think there's anywhere near the volume to demand that. I live here and walk Spring at all hours, so I feel comfortable with my grip of the traffic.

On weekends there is a lot of special issues. With filming, some streets west of where you are get closed, and traffic naturally flows eastward. Same with stuff like road races, Fiesta Broadway, etc. You may not see special events in the Historic Core but the stuff that happens in the main Downtown spills over. At night, sometimes slow people looking for clubs or the freeway slow the bus down (remember it can't just swing around because it has to make the stop, and can't see at night). 24 hours is an advantage that many cities have. As Downtown becomes a 24 hour destination, it needs to treat transit as a 24 hour commodity (or at least a 7 day a week one).

Plus you have to look ten, twenty years from now. The contraflow lane is, as our action alert correctly notes, a victim of its own success. It was originally designed for El Monte Busway buses to go from the old Greyhound station at 6th and Los Angeles to the Busway. When the Busway buses shifted westward to Grand/Olive to reflect the westward move of the financial district, the contraflow lane was used to route local buses. The contraflow lane does move buses faster. We have timed buses at peak periods northbound from 9th Street to 1st Street and found a measurable difference. Most notably, buses on Main have to fight right turning traffic waiting for pedestrians to cross and have to dodge delivery trucks, none of which is present on Spring. Yes, some of the problem is caused by near side stops, but more far side stops would just lead to some more angry businesses. The traffic lights, which sometimes are out of sync northbound, don't help Spring much, yet the ancillary stuff on Main still makes Spring win.

It should also be noted that LADOT DASH contractors were not contacted about this move. LADOT DASH actually causes some of the problems because they stop at every street, while many MTA buses skip stops along the corridor.

The other problem with this is that the talk in the staff report about dumping more buses on Broadway is nonsense. Broadway is already at transit capacity at peak hours. Without any signs, it has become a de facto transit lane, since any driver will definitely be stuck behind a bus, and most likely many buses.

I don't think I'm forgetting the riders in my assessment of the situation. I am one of those riders. I routinely take the 83/84/85 up to Chinatown, the Dash D to Union Station, or the 38 down to USC. Main St. has had a well earned reputation, but the area is changing fast and that change would be accelerated via improvements that could be made with transit funds earmarked for this project.

Yes, but look at the timing of this. This is all supposed to happen before the end of the year. Are we to expect that city contractors are going to put up all the lights, benches, etc. necessary to make this a safe place? This includes better lighting on the east west streets too, since many of the people taking Spring and now Main buses are coming from shopping on Broadway. I don't think so.

IF there was a contingency that lights would be installed and extension of the walking security team, especially during afternoon and evening hours during winter, I would consider it.But right now Main is much worse than Spring, and six months is not enough time for it to shape up. (And Los Angeles Street, one of the listed alternatives in the staff report, is at least an order of magnitude worse than Main.)

I am suspicious of the LADOT poll myself. I would like to see a) if this was a true random sample or just a "convenience" sample; b) what kind of questions they asked, and c) if they bothered to gather opinions from the Spanish speaking population by using their language.

Is this a perfect project, of course not. I criticized it in the Downtown News and I've criticized it here and the fundamental issue of a 5-lane freeway through the Historic Core hasn't changed. That's a battle that must continue to be fought. I do think, though, that the fundamentals of this project are sound.

And I don't. Downtown is a transit hub, for historical as well as logistical reasons. Not you perhaps, but we have talked to several downtown residents who have made it clear that they don't want to be a transit center for all of Los Angeles County. Unfortunately, that's too bad, because Downtown is still the largest employment aggregation in the five county Los Angeles region. Maybe less than other cities like New York, but it still is. And there is not enough room nor access on Figueroa, Flower, Grand, Olive, Hill, or Broadway for all the buses that must come downtown, so some of the buses will end up on Spring or Main. Period, stop, end.

(Actually, the two-way idea of Spring DOES make sense. It has worked well on Hill, and it would make sense on Spring, because it is close to the rest of Downtown. Los Angeles would then be converted into a southbound street in order to provide the appropriate traffic balance.)

Mea culpa. I did the action alert you saw and I distributed it to riders of the DASH D.

In retrospect I should have included information on who it was from and how to contact us. I think I was anxious to share information with users and get them involved PDQ out of concern that LADOT was trying to assert the whole situation was a done deal.

BTW I am on the mailing list for the Transportation Commission and had to go back and look for the agenda item that dealt with the lane. It was a generic "amend LAMC code section" that gave no sense of what was being proposed beyond it dealt with the lanes, and flew right under my radar screen.

I am embarrassed I talk of a "contra-flow" on Main, when I should have just spoke of a bus only lane.

We had little information at first. LADOT was very slow sending me the Operational Analysis.

"Slanted"? Well, I have a problem with folks who say they support vibrant downtowns or even say they are transit advocates while expressing NIMBY-like attitudes against bus service and pro-parking.

Our little group gets by on very little in terms of monies and persons doing the work. In re your criticism of the flyer: if we fall short at times, I just keep in mind that we have to pick ourselves up and try to do better next time. At least we tried to share information with users, which LADOT has totally neglected in their rush to implement this proposal.

I am no expert, but I have read mountains of transportation reports over the past 11 years in my role as a citizen activist. In my view the Operational Analysis is a weak basis for the proposal. Very little solid data. And a lot of unsupportable assertions.

And I think LADOT is aware how shaky the foundation of this proposal is. I say that because they have expressed more concern about opposition than I have ever seen from LADOT, which often is autocratic and autocentric. They even want to have me tour Main St. to see it isn't "that bad".

Which misses the key point I have made in both letters I sent the Council--I suggest the proposal be put on hold while a comprehensive study of downtown traffic issues be undertaken. Piecemeal shifting of bus service, etc. is not how we should be dealing with this difficult situation. If removing the lanes are part of such a "big picture" plan I would at least feel we were doing it for the right reasons.

I have to be out of town so I'll miss the Committee meeting. But I have faxed a letter, which is also posted on the front page of the SO.CA.TA website, sharing some of the concerns our gropup has.

In the end the city will do whatever it feels like doing. But at least one pro-transit group shared concerns before whatever action is taken occurs. So if the thing becomes a debacle the standard excuse of local government officials (i.e. "We had no idea" or "No one told us") to avoid responsibility will not work.

A very interesting discourse gentlemen. It is refreshing to see the logical exchange of competing without things coming to a slugfest.

This Spring Street Debate, is a perfect example of an opportunity to use the Portland transit model. When faced with this crisis in the early 70's Portland decided to turn 5th and 6th streets in to a Transit Mall. With public social spaces and dedicated shelters with simple but elegant amenities. I think for at least Hill and Spring Streets should be a short temr/long term look at what to do to stimulate a growing residental population yet keep the existing retail components that make these great Downtown Streets. This not only zone growth and focus attention and new developments but create a stimulating model for other parts of Los Angeles, such as 8th Street or Alvarado Street.