Boyonabike!

Life beyond the automobile in Southern California

Archive for the category “multimodal commuting”

2016 Highlights

As 2016 comes to a close, it’s time for taking stock of the year’s developments in car-free transportation in the San Gabriel Valley.

Arcadia Gold Line station.

Arcadia Gold Line station.

At the top of my list is the opening of the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to Azusa.  This brought the Gold Line closer to my house, and allows me to take the train for part of my commute to work at Cal Poly Pomona.  The rest of the trip is on Foothill Transit‘s extensive bus service in the east San Gabriel Valley.  The Foothill Transit 280 and 486 buses run every 15 minutes during peak times, and their new buses are quite comfortable.  The new commute cuts about 15 minutes off my old route through El Monte Bus Station and allows me to bypass the infrequent service of the Metro 487 bus line.  The bike portion of my new commute is also shorter, which makes it more manageable on a regular basis. The easy bike ride to/from the Gold Line now allows me to get around car-free much more easily.  I’ve been heartened by the ridership I’ve seen–including many more people doing multimodal bike-transit commuting east of Pasadena.

Cal Poly bus stop before and after.

Cal Poly bus stop before (top) and after (bottom).

busstop2

New bus shelters at Cal Poly Pomona.  For too long, Cal Poly’s bus stops on Temple Ave. provided no shelter and little more than a splintered old bench for bus riders (see pictures).  As a result of student activism and new campus leadership, there are two new bus shelters at the main campus bus stops on Temple Ave.  This is certainly a step in the right direction and I’m modestly hopeful for additional progress on transit and bike access to campus.

Thanks to the work of many local advocates, progress toward new bike plans have been made in Pasadena, Monrovia, and La Verne.  With better infrastructure, I’m confident we’ll see an uptick in bike ridership, which in turn should lead to even more bike infrastructure in the future.  Despite these small victories, the pace of change in the SGV is so slow and incremental that it barely registers today. Too many streets are unsafe for cycling and too many destinations are hard to get to by bike and when you arrive, they often lack basic bike amenities like bike racks.  It’s easy to feel angry about the lack of good bike infrastructure that places people at risk and deters others from riding in the SGV, but there are good people working to change this, and they must be given due credit.  The advocates at BikeSGV, for example, have done some wonderful work organizing community rides, setting up the Bike Education Center in El Monte, advocating for complete streets, and bringing a multi-city open streets event to the SGV.  They honored me this past year with an award for my bike advocacy, an award for which I was hardly worthy, but profoundly honored, nonetheless.  I draw hope and inspiration from these fellow advocates.

More protected bike lanes, like this one in Santa Monica, are needed in the SGV.

More protected bike lanes, like this one in Santa Monica, are needed in the SGV.

Education and outreach.  In 2016 I was involved in an alternative transportation project at my daughter’s high school and an alternative transportation conference at Cal Poly Pomona. I also was privileged to speak on “cycling and social justice” to a group of inmates in a Prison Education Project at the invitation of one of my fantastic colleagues at Cal Poly, political science professor Dr. Renford Reese.  In general, I found many of the people I spoke to open to the message of bicycling, walking, and transit for healthier communities. Spreading the message of the many benefits of car-free alternatives was deeply gratifying.

Scott Schultz of BUSted Los Angeles speaks to students at Cal Poly's alternative transportation conference in November.

Scott Schultz of BUSted Los Angeles speaks to students at Cal Poly’s alternative transportation conference in November.

Measure M.  The half-cent sales tax for transportation passed in Los Angeles by a healthy margin (approx. 70 percent voted yes).  This will mean expansion of Metro rail, local bus service, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.  Measure A, a countywide tax for parks, also passed, which means LA County will have funds for turning many of its now-barren flood control channels into “linear parks” with multi-use paths. Such victories give me hope.

Notable Books and Films of 2016:

  • Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment by Winona Hauter. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand why hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) of oil and natural gas is neither safe nor a “bridge fuel” to sustainable energy.
  • Routes of Power: Energy and Modern America by Christopher F. Jones.  Technically, came out last year, but it was new to me this year, so I’m including it here.  Jones, an historian at Arizona State University, weaves a fascinating story of how the infrastructure of fossil fuel was created in the United States, and offers a deeper understanding of how energy transitions take place–essential knowledge as we transition away from a carbon economy. His research also underscores the central importance of pipelines for the delivery of fossil fuel and the expansion of the carbon economy, and thus the importance of blocking the construction of new pipelines in the fight for a livable climate and clean water.
  • Street Fight: Handbook for an Urban Revolution by Janette Sadik-Khan.  The lively story of how Sadik-Khan, former transportation commissioner for NYC, overcame opposition and redesigned many of New York’s streets to be more bike and pedestrian friendly.  Essential reading for any alternative transportation advocate.
  • Before the Flood (documentary film) directed by Leonardo DiCaprio.  Surprisingly good climate change documentary that doesn’t let Westerners’ high-consumption lifestyle off the hook.
  • Bikes vs. Cars (documentary film) directed by Fredrik Gertten.  Technically released Dec. 2015, but wasn’t available until this year.  If you want a good primer on why bikes are and must be a key component of sustainable urban transportation as told through the eyes of several bike advocates in cities around the world, this film is for you.

Thought for 2017: Every bike used for transportation is an instrument of peaceful revolution, every car-free trip a step towards a more equitable, sustainable future.

Loving LA The Low Carbon Way

LovingLA

Loving LA The Low Carbon Way: A Personal Guide to the City of Angels via Public Transportation, by Grace E. Moremen & Jacqueline Chase, (Claremont, CA: Dreamboat Press, 2015).

This delightful little guidebook will take you to some of L.A’s wonderful world class attractions as well as lesser known out-of-the-way places—all of it car-free.  For those unfamiliar with LA’s transit system, the book (and the companion website) offers a primer on LA transit, and illustrated, easy-to-follow directions.  For those familiar with LA’s transit system, the book offers a few surprises, and while I’ve done almost half of these car-free trips, I’m looking forward to trying the others.  Either way, there’s no better way to really see LA, or any city for that matter, than by taking transit, walking, and/or biking.

Loving LA begins with a basic overview of LA geography, including its freeways, the downtown area, and the immediate neighborhood of LA Union Station (which forms the hub of all of the book’s adventures).  The authors note the irony of their map of the freeways, “those very things that we are trying to avoid,” but they may help car-free travelers who are used to orienting their knowledge of LA geography around its freeway system.  Since transit systems orient themselves around “hubs” (i.e., key transit stations) and “spokes” (transit lines) the book provides an easy-to-read map of Union Station and how to find the various bus and rail lines located there.  They explain the basics of transit in LA, including how to use a TAP card, fares on different LA bus lines (LA Metro, LADOT DASH buses, and Santa Monica’s Big Blue buses).  They also have a handy website with maps and updates that allows you to find more information or access via any mobile device.  Once you’re armed with the basics, it’s time to explore any of their 24 adventures in LA car-free!

I love the book’s low carbon mission and the way it illustrates the interconnection between car-free travel and a true embrace of the city.  However, LA’s car-free culture is moving so quickly, that future editions will want to include the extension of the Expo Line to Santa Monica, and the emergence of bike share programs in Santa Monica and Downtown LA (scheduled to expand to Pasadena in 2017).

Metro Bikeshare, DTLA. (Photo: StreetsblogLA).

Metro Bikeshare, DTLA. (Photo: StreetsblogLA).

Indeed, while the authors do mention the accessibility of bikes on transit, these adventures largely ignore the bicycling option, which leaves an unintentionally misleading impression that transit combined with biking isn’t an equally useful way to see the city.  They note, for example, that the Huntington Library and Gardens is “too far away” from transit (in this case, the Gold Line or the 1.4mi to Metro and Foothill Transit bus lines on Colorado Blvd.), and thus advise readers that “a car will be necessary” for that trip.  It’s a shame they don’t offer some advice on the feasibility of using a bike to solve these “first mile / last mile” gaps.  Doing so would extend the reach of their low carbon adventures.  Even if Moremen and Chase don’t themselves bike, they might consider including information on the availability of bike parking (and bike share) at their destinations for those who do.

That said, this book is a wonderful little guide to seeing the sights of LA car-free.  Moremen and Chase have written a car-free love letter to LA with the intimacy one can only have outside the confines of the private automobile and its damnable freeway/parking lot matrix.

Moremen, an LA native, writes that despite LA’s troubled history, seeing LA car-free makes her optimistic for the city.  LA’s burgeoning transit system “makes its beauty and its resources more accessible to people in various ways.”  Chase, a transplant from Greenwich Village whose car-free spirit would make Jane Jacobs proud, has come to appreciate the way public transportation could reveal “the gems of this city, many hidden in plain sight.”  Outside the confines of the automobile culture, Chase writes:

I have come to know LA on a more human scale as we have journeyed through the neighborhoods on foot and by bus, light rail, and Metrolink.  The urban myth that people in big cities are unfriendly was definitely debunked for us.  On each of our adventures we have found the people of LA to be helpful and friendly.  LA is one great city! [xviii]

I love this book because it reflects the growing car-free movement in the quintessential “Car capital of the world,” and reveals the richness of social life outside that stultifying, unsustainable mode of transportation.  One cannot help but be caught up in their enthusiasm and that sense that comes from really seeing the city for the first time, of simultaneous independence and social connectedness that comes from getting around a city car-free.

So what are you waiting for?  Get this book and a TAP card, ditch the car, and fall in love with LA!

Self-Driving Cars

Google-self-driving-cars

Often when I discuss my alternative transportation with people, I get a similar response: “what about self-driving cars?”  At one level, I know people are often just making conversation, but it strikes me as funny that the first thing they think of as an “answer” for problems caused by the automobile is simply substituting a different kind of automobile, as if that makes a difference.  Part of this is an overriding faith in technology to solve problems created by, well, technology.  Part, however, is an inability (or unwillingness) to think in terms beyond the status quo.

At a dinner a couple of years ago, one husband of a colleague of mine, an architect in a prominent L.A. firm, proceeded to instruct me how driverless cars would mean “you people” (meaning bicyclists) “won’t need bike lanes anymore.”  He predicted self-driving cars would be universal within five years and the safety of people on bikes and people on foot wouldn’t be threatened by dangerous or distracted drivers.  The techno-utopia was right around the corner.  Leaving aside for a moment the absurdity of the claim that fully autonomous vehicles will become universal any time in the near future (hybrids, which are a much smaller technological leap, have been widely available for over 15 years, but currently make up less than 5% market share in the U.S.), the subtext of his comment struck me as a way of saying that “you people” (bicyclists) should stop complaining about bike lanes, already.  You’re not going to need them and, besides, roads are made for cars.

More recently, a colleague who professes to be an environmentalist asked me what I thought of self-driving cars.  I told him about the possibilities as well as the drawbacks and when I gently suggested that he might occasionally consider taking transit, he balked.  “I don’t like transit,” he flatly told me.

Even some bicycling advocates have been bitten by the driverless car bug.  A recent exchange on Twitter is instructive:

My bike advocate friends need not worry that they’ll have to “push for self-driving cars.”  What historian Peter Norton calls Motordom (the complex of automobile interests), now combined with the tech industry, is already strongly pushing for it.  Bike advocacy organizations, already stretched thin, should not waste precious resources doing the work of the car companies for them.  Many of my fellow citizens are slavishly ready to follow the pied piper that will allow them to continue their car-dependent lifestyle.  Finally, the promised land where we can all sit in our individual metal boxes and text to our hearts’ content.  Lord knows, they don’t need a “push” from bike advocates.

Such comments, and they’re part of the media discourse on alternative transportation, too, are a dead giveaway that the design of cities around the automobile has made us not only geographically but psychologically dependent on them.  The mere thought of living without a car sends many people into a panic.  I’m reminded of the character in one of James Howard Kunstler’s post-apocalyptic, post-oil, post-car novels who is so despondent about not being able to drive that he sits in his car in the driveway every day and pretends to drive.  One day, unable to cope with the thought of life without his beloved car, he blows his brains out in the driver’s seat.  As a commentary on many Americans’ abject psychological dependence on the car culture, Kunstler is spot on.

Last weekend, transportation planner Gabe Klein spoke at UCLA and was later interviewed about self-driving cars by the L.A. Times.  Like many people, Klein thinks that self-driving cars are coming—maybe not in 5 years, but eventually.  However, unlike most people, Klein does not view them as a panacea for our transportation woes.  So while the Times headline writer breathlessly touted driverless vehicles as “the future of LA transportation,” Klein was far more circumspect in his interview.

When asked to assess LA’s transportation system, Klein first and foremost bemoaned the way we’ve replaced LA’s transit system with the car culture, calling it a “complete planning failure”:

Look at the original rail network in Los Angeles. It was robust. But during the past 70 years, there has been a complete disinvestment in public transit until recently. When automobiles came in, streetcars became less desirable. On the back end, we are paying the price today. There’s been a complete planning failure. Sprawl does not work. There is also induced demand. That means you can’t build your way out of traffic congestion. New highway lanes just fill up.

Asked if there was nothing we can do to “defeat this gridlock,” Klein responded that any future transportation system—including one that involved driverless cars—must invest in transit and reduce car usage:

The single-occupancy car is not good. Do we want to keep buying the cow, when what we really want is the milk? We need to develop a car-light lifestyle. Uber, Lyft, driverless vehicles, robo taxis are steps in that direction. Even Bill Ford Jr. will tell you that the single-occupancy car is not the future.

When asked what the role of driverless cars should be, Klein emphasized “widespread car-sharing” driverless car rentals, taxis, and such.  What he did not say is that everyone should own one and assume we’ll continue our same commuting habits.  “There could be a dystopian future,” he pointedly noted, “if we sell everyone an autonomous vehicle and not reduce the number of cars on the road.”

How to reduce the number of cars on the road?  “Increase the cost and inconvenience of owning and operating a car,” mainly by making drivers pay for all the externalized costs their cars create.  Instead make cities more compact, more walkable and bikeable.  Invest in “expanded transit systems and more compact development that brings homes, workplaces, shopping areas and recreational opportunities closer together.”

Here’s the key thing about self-driving cars: they must be seen as a bridge to a car light or car free life, not a continuation of business as usual.  Some of the most prominent advocates of driverless cars, such as Sebastian Thrun, one of the developers of the Google Car, has said that he envisions self-driving cars “doubling or tripling” the number of cars on the road, because, presumably, they’ll be able to drive closer to one another.  Others have envisioned a looming “congestion disaster,” as one might predict using driverless (and passenger less) cars to, say, run errands while their owners are at work.  How walkable or bikeable would such streets be?  How livable would such cities be? Where would we find space to park all of them?  Would they exacerbate the tendency of cities to sprawl outward, since owners would be free to spend their longer commute time reading, texting, or surfing the web?

The problems of cars involve a whole range of land use and space issues, not only what comes out of the tailpipe, or the danger they pose on the roads, or the enormous waste of resources they represent, it is that they are space hogs whose inevitable result is unsustainable sprawl and the evisceration of social life in the city.  Having everyone move about sitting inside his/her own climate-controlled metal box is a fundamentally antisocial means of mobility.  It’s one of the key reasons drivers become selfish, dangerous, and often rude “owners” of erstwhile public road space.  The whole discussion of driverless cars ignores the question of transportation equity.  That is to say, is mobility a right, or is it a privilege reserved for those who can pay for the private box in which to move about?

One cannot design streets and cities for cars and for people at the same time.  Prioritize one or the other and design accordingly.  Switching to self-driving cars will not resolve this fundamental conflict.  Indeed, it may exacerbate it.  The answer to sprawl and eviscerated cities is not driverless cars, it is transit and walkable, bikeable communities.  Unfortunately, for many, the message is slow to catch on.

Grading Pasadena’s Transit Stations

Researchers at UC Berkeley have released a study of rail transit stations in California’s metropolitan areas and the results, while unsurprising, are nonetheless revealing.  Researchers graded transit stations based on criteria such as the walkability of the surrounding area and the percentage of people who live or work nearby who use transit.  Additional criteria such as the density of jobs and housing nearby, the land use policies in the surrounding area, and public safety were also included.  The study highlights the importance of encouraging more mixed use development close to transit (called transit-oriented development, or TOD), as well as prioritizing safe pedestrian and bike access to stations in order to encourage transit use and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Stations were given a numeric score and then assigned a letter grade based on the score and its comparison to similar stations (that is, residential-area stations were compared with other residential-area stations, and so on).  I looked up the scores of Pasadena-area Gold Line stations (6 stations in Pasadena and 1 in South Pasadena).  I’ve written extensively on previous posts about the relative lack of good bike access to the Gold Line stations in Pasadena in general and in East Pasadena in particular.  The study gave me a chance to compare my own perceptions with the study’s more comprehensive approach.

The new Gold Line stations on the extension are not included in the study, insofar as they are not yet in operation.  The highest ranking station in the LA Metro area is the Westlake/MacArthur Park Red Line station, with a raw score of 88.20 and a letter grade of ‘A.’  The worst score was the Wardlow Blue Line Station in Long Beach, with a raw score of 31.63 and a grade of F.  I’ll list the Pasadena-area stations and their grades below, from highest to lowest, then offer some thoughts on the grades.

  1. Fillmore                         B-    (56.83)
  2. Lake                              B-    (56.03) 
  3. Memorial Park             C     (54.13) 
  4. Del Mar                         C      (50.53) 
  5. Mission (S. Pas)           C-    (51.30) 
  6. Sierra Madre Villa        C-    (45.73) 
  7. Allen                              D     (41.73)  
Not much room for bikes on this "bike route" at the Del Mar Gold Line station.

Not much of a “bike route” at Del Mar Gold Line station.

My initial reaction was one of slight surprise that Fillmore and Lake scored higher than Del Mar and Memorial Park stations.  I would need to look more closely at the scoring criteria and the individual data, but I can only assume Fillmore and Lake scored higher because of their proximity to large employers, whereas Memorial Park, Del Mar, and Mission are closer to small businesses and residences.  The study notes that the grades are curved, which is probably why Mission scored higher than Del Mar but has a lower grade, though I don’t fully understand the study’s curving criteria.  Another factor may be that Pasadena is likely to encourage more TOD near Del Mar station, whereas South Pas is unlikely to encourage newer development in Mission’s charming historic district.  Despite this, in my opinion, Mission has far superior pedestrian and especially bike access from surrounding streets than Del Mar.

Looking north on Sierra Madre Villa at entrance to Pasadena Gold Line station.

Sierra Madre Villa entrance to Pasadena Gold Line station.

I’m in complete agreement with the ranking of Sierra Madre Villa (SMV) and Allen stations at the bottom of the pack.  Pedestrians and bicyclists from the surrounding community may be forced to cross busy freeway on/off ramps to access either of these stations and, as I’ve complained about before, there are no bike lanes on any of the approaching streets to SMV, and virtually none at Allen (near Allen station there are two completely unprotected gutter bike lanes on noisy, busy, high-speed, stressful access roads that run along the 210 freeway—not bike-friendly).  For that matter, the same is true of Lake.  Like much of Pasadena’s existing bike infrastructure, it looks passable on paper, until you actually try to ride it in weekday rush-hour traffic.  Some of this should be improved as Pasadena’s new bike plan gets implemented, but that may take years and will not do much to help the intolerable bike situation in East Pasadena, the forgotten stepchild of Pasadena’s bike plan.

The report recommends that local governments encourage TOD and mixed-use development and remove “excessive parking requirements” in areas adjacent to rail stations.  Pointedly, the report also calls on local governments to “improve walkability and bicycle access in rail station areas by shortening blocks and building safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.”  Hear, hear!

To be fair, Pasadena is in the process of developing a new plan for more TOD near the Allen and SMV stations, which is most welcome.  Unfortunately the city has met fierce resistance from a small number of car-dependent suburban residents of Hastings Ranch’s cul-de-sac neighborhoods who can’t imagine that anyone would occasionally walk, take transit, or bike, and who can’t be bothered to take their foot off the gas long enough to avoid hitting a pedestrian or cyclist on their way to the freeway.  They see nothing wrong with driving everywhere all the time and think it’s their god-given right to do so.  And they want plenty of “free” parking when they get there.  They’re convinced the only solution to too many cars is wider roads and more parking lots ad infinitum.

The recommendations of the Berkeley report should be heeded by cities and provide yet another piece in a growing body of literature that documents the essential need to shift our transportation and development strategies from the sprawling car-centric model of the past to a healthier transit-oriented model of the future.  Let us hope city officials have the courage to stand up to narrow-minded NIMBYs who can’t see past the end of their steering wheels.

New Transit Developments

The future of car free or car light living in the San Gabriel Valley depends on expanded transit and its integration with networks of pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and a good network of bike lanes.  In the last month Metro has unveiled several new transit oriented amenities in the San Gabriel Valley that are steps in the right direction for sustainable transportation in these communities.  I offer here a brief overview that, while laudatory, includes some critiques and suggestions for making them even better.

First is the completion of the Gold Line extension in the San Gabriel Valley from its current terminus in East Pasadena to its new terminus in Azusa.  The Gold Line extension will have stations in (from west to east) Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, and Azusa.  This will connect these foothill communities to Metro’s growing transit network and, if past experience is any indicator, draw significant ridership from surrounding communities.  Trains will not begin running until some time in Spring 2016, but the track is laid and the stations are completed.  I attended the dedication ceremonies for the Arcadia and Monrovia stations and checked out the facilities.

Arcadia Station

Arcadia Station

The Arcadia station at the corner of Santa Clara and First Street, is well situated to encourage transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented development, if the city of Arcadia is willing to steer development in this direction (not a sure thing, given the city’s traditional suburban car-oriented mentality).  Nevertheless, it has the potential of becoming a destination area for the city, and is a pleasing design, with a clock and pedestrian plaza in front.

Bike parking at Arcadia station.

Bike parking at Arcadia station.

Bike access is slowly improving, with new bike lanes on First Street for several blocks north and south of Santa Clara.  The city needs to extend the network of bike lanes east and west, as well as further north and south of the station if it wants to have meaningful bike connectivity to the station.  Bike parking is conveniently located and plentiful.

Monrovia Gold Line station dedication

Monrovia Gold Line station dedication

My reaction to the Monrovia station is a bit mixed.  The city of Monrovia has plans for a “Station Square” transit-oriented development, which should lend itself to pedestrian access to the station, but at the moment the most notable thing about the Monrovia station is its gigantic parking structure.  I suspect more money went into building this storage structure for empty cars than went into the actual station itself.

Parking structure dominates Monrovia Gold Line station.

Parking structure dominates Monrovia Gold Line station.

I was also a bit disappointed in the bike parking.  While there are numerous bike lockers available for rent from Metro inside the parking structure, one must rent these from Metro by the month, meaning it will only be useful for a small proportion of regular commuters.  I’ve often thought that Metro should allow daily/hourly rentals for at least a portion of its bike lockers.  After all, I usually take my bike with me on the Metro, but there may be occasions when I’d like to ride to the station and keep my bike secure in a locker for an evening in LA, for example, and retrieve it when I return.  Paying a monthly rental fee for such occasional usage doesn’t make much sense.

Artsy-fartsy bike racks.

Artsy-fartsy bike racks.

The station has a small number of artsy new bike racks that consist of curved metal poles with round holes that may or may not be very practical.

A practical option for locking bikes?

A practical option for locking bikes?

Most bicyclists locked their bikes to the railings in the parking structure instead, an indication that Metro’s artsy racks might be more artistic than practical.

At this time Monrovia is preparing a new bike plan with input from the local bike advocacy organization, Move Monrovia, but as yet there is no wayfinding signage for bikes and no bike lanes near the station.

El Monte Bike Hub grand opening.

El Monte Bike Hub grand opening.

Metro also opened its new Bike Hub at the El Monte Bus Station.  The Bike Hub is a membership-based amenity that provides a space for basic bike maintenance, repair and secure indoor bike storage conveniently located at El Monte station.  It is the first of several Bike Hubs that will be located at transit stations around Southern California.

Secure bike storage at El Monte Bike Hub.

Secure bike storage at El Monte Bike Hub.

These new transit and bike facilities are small but significant steps forward for the San Gabriel Valley.

Bike Week 2015

The annual national Bike Week event always provides a good opportunity to reflect on the state of bicycling where I live and ride.  On the one hand, things are moving much too slowly in terms of the implementation of good, bike-friendly infrastructure where I usually commute.  On the other, there are hopeful signs that change is in the air.

Campus bike week events at Cal Poly Pomona, where I teach, highlighted the continuing need for complete streets and improved campus access for bikes, pedestrians, and transit users.  The campus transportation director has yet to embrace bicycling and transit as anything but last resort options and instead is spending more than $41 million on a new parking structure.  Moreover, campus transportation officials were largely absent from the student-organized bike week events.  Nevertheless, the LA County Department of Public Works (DPW) has recently proposed a road diet and protected bike lanes (!) for Temple Ave., a major thoroughfare that runs next to campus. The campus also has a new President and there are signs of a willingness to work with local transit agencies to possibly bring bus service closer to the heart of campus.

Rendering of possible protected bike lanes on Temple Ave between Mt.SAC and Cal Poly Pomona.

Rendering of possible protected bike lanes on Temple Ave between Mt.SAC and Cal Poly Pomona.

 

Bike week at Cal Poly kicked off with a roundtable discussion of alternative transportation visions for Cal Poly.  The discussion was organized by the University Cycling Coalition and included representatives from Foothill Transit, the City of Pomona, the LA County Department of Public Works and LA Co. Dept. of Public Health, advocacy group Bike SGV, Students for Quality Education, Cal Poly’s sustainability coalition, as well as students and faculty from Cal Poly and Mt. San Antonio College (Mt. SAC).

Cal Poly's University Cycling Coalition leads a discussion of alternative transportation during Bike Week.

Cal Poly’s University Cycling Coalition leads a discussion of alternative transportation during Bike Week.

Attendees heard a presentation from students pointing out the desperate need for alternatives to exorbitant parking rates, the university’s lack of action on a bike master plan (called for during last year’s bike week), and marginalization of transit access and transit users.  Despite the university’s own 2007 “Climate Action Plan” (CAP) that calls for reducing single occupancy vehicle use by 30%, the number of students who drive to campus alone has remained at 80% since the report was released.  Clearly, what is needed is leadership that will help this university make good on its commitment to reduce its reliance on the automobile for transit to/from campus.

The major takeaways from the discussion were:

1.  Improve transit access to campus.  Currently, Cal Poly is served by 6 bus lines (2 Metro, 4 Foothill Transit), and working with Foothill Transit to establish a stop for the nearby Silver Streak express bus would make it 7.  What the campus needs is an on-campus bus station that is conveniently located, has shelters and benches, and is well-lit for safety at night.  Bus riders currently stand in the dirt on Temple Ave and wait for buses.  A campus that has $41 million for a new parking garage surely has money for decent campus bus stops.  Students for Quality Education (SQE) is calling for subsidized student bus passes, provided by many other campuses, including neighboring Mt. SAC.

2.  Bike Lanes.  Major streets on and around campus are designed to maximize automobile flow and speed.  As a result, they are dangerous and extremely uncomfortable for cyclists.  The County DPW has a draft plan for protected bike lanes on Temple Ave, a major thoroughfare near campus. The county is seeking the University’s support for the proposed Temple road diet as part of its grant proposal.

3.  A Bike and/or Mobility Master Plan Committee.  Campus activists called for this last year, with nothing to show for it from the previous campus administration.  Without this, we are at the mercy of a car-centric Transportation department.

After the roundtable discussion, students led a rally and march to the campus transportation office to demand more transit, bike, and pedestrian access to campus.  It was inspiring to see students take the initiative on alternative transportation issues.

Cal Poly students call for more transit access, and bikeable, walkable streets near campus.

Cal Poly students call for more transit access, and bikeable, walkable streets near campus.

On Thursday of bike week, the University Cycling Coalition hosted a well attended and stimulating panel discussion on “Cycling and Social Equity,” that featured several big names in the LA cycling advocacy community.  Panelists Tamika Butler (Executive Director of LACBC), Erika Reyes (Ovarian Psyco Cycles), Maria Sipin (Multicultural Communities for Mobility), and Don “Roadblock” Ward (Wolfpack Hustle), all discussed the importance of cycling as a vital part of an equitable transportation system.  Panelists agreed that investment in transit-friendly, bike-friendly, and walkable neighborhoods and streets is a social justice issue and that these investments should not be limited to upscale, or gentrifying communities.  They also urged advocates for alternative transportation to get a seat at the table where transportation decisions are made.  “If you don’t have a seat at the table,” LACBC Director Butler told the audience, “you’re probably on the menu.”

(l to r) Tamika Butler, Erika Reyes, Maria Sipin, and Olivia Offutt discuss Cycling and Social Equity at Cal Poly Pomona.

(l to r) Tamika Butler, Erika Reyes, Maria Sipin, Don Ward, and Olivia Offutt discuss Cycling and Social Equity at Cal Poly Pomona.

 

Not only was I inspired by the energy of the student advocates, I was heartened to see the continued growth of this vibrant movement on campus, even if it is currently being ignored by the University’s transportation officials.  Change is in the air, even if car-centric attitudes remain stubbornly persistent.

Bike Week Log

Monday, May 12:  Rode to school with my 8th grade daughter, as we do just about every Monday morning for the last year or so.  The ride takes us about 35 minutes, but affords us a nice father-daughter time together, especially when we’re on some of the quieter streets on the route.  The middle portion of the ride is on a busy, moderately high-stress Sierra Madre Blvd between Michillinda and Victory Park, where auto speeds can reach more than 40 mph.  Even though this street has bike lanes, as I’ve argued before, they’re inadequate, and the intersections have right turn lanes that bicyclists must steer around if you’re not turning right.  Right-turn lanes themselves aren’t so bad, but high traffic speeds for right-turning cars are.  A green right-turn arrow at the intersection of S.M. Blvd. and Sierra Madre Villa means cars barreling down the road into the right-turn lane don’t need to slow down.  Clearly this wasn’t designed by anyone who ever walks or rides a bike.  A myopic car-focus on intersection design is the cause of this poor design.  As long as the City of Pasadena’s DOT does not address high-stress streets like this, bicycle mode share in this part of the city will not increase.  The street is plenty wide enough for buffered bike lanes, but the will has been lacking at Pasadena DOT.  Once we get past the high-stress part, though, it is a glorious ride.

After school, my daughter notices that her rear tire is completely flat.  My wife picks her up from school and when she gets home I show her how to inspect her inner tube.  We find no puncture, and reinflate the tire.  Problem is chalked up to (most likely) middle school boys letting the air out of her tire.  Little do they know their little prank enabled my girl to learn how to fix her flat tire.  We had a good laugh and she remains undaunted.

Good news released this day, too.  A new report from the LACBC documented a healthy 7.5% increase in L.A.’s bike ridership since 2011, including big increases on routes with new bike infrastructure.  L.A. is moving in the right direction, thanks to advocacy by groups like LACBC.

Tuesday May 13:  An early day today, with an unexpected multimodal commute disaster that turned out positively.  I’d planned on taking the early bus and get to Cal Poly Pomona in time for a roundtable discussion with University officials and students about how to make the streets around Cal Poly safer for bicyclists.  I take a Metro bus that stops near my house and transfer to a Foothill Transit bus that takes me to Cal Poly for my morning commute.  That way I don’t get sweaty in my work clothes.  I almost always ride my bike back home from the El Monte bus station at the end of the day.  It’s all uphill, but the hour-long ride from El Monte is a good end-of-day workout and de-stresser.

This morning I text message Metro and the bus is supposed to be at my stop in 10 minutes.  It takes me about 4 minutes to ride down to the bus stop from my house and I leave with plenty of time to spare.  However, as I get within about 50 feet of the bus stop, I see my bus fly by.  Today the damn bus is 4 minutes early!  This bus only runs once every half hour, and I really need to get to work early today.  I take off on a sprint after the bus.  There’s a stop about half a mile down the street and if I can catch up, I’ll make it.  About half a block behind the bus, I yell for the passenger at the corner to tell the bus to wait.  I guess she doesn’t hear me and the bus takes off.  There’s a traffic light in another mile … if the bus catches the red light, I just might be able to catch up.  Pedaling furiously, I watch helplessly as the bus sails through the intersection on a green light.  I, on the other hand, catch the red.  Should I ride back home and drive to work?  Hell no.  Since I’ve already gone more than a mile toward the station, I decided to ride the rest of the way to the El Monte station, where I can pick up the Foothill Transit bus (which run every 15 minutes) and avoid being too late.  To my surprise, the ride to EMS is much faster (and less strenuous) than the ride home, because it’s almost all downhill.  Morning traffic is not too heavy, and, while I don’t beat my bus there, I do make it in time to catch a subsequent Foothill Transit bus to Cal Poly and I’m only 15 minutes late to the meeting (rather than 30 minutes late if I’d waited for the next Metro bus).  I also learn that if I miss my Metro bus, I can ride to EMS.  Metro, you let me down today.  My bike didn’t.

Gwen_Bike Week

Wednesday, May 14:  An uneventful multimodal commute today.  Buses were on time and not too crowded.  This afternoon Dr. Gwen Urey and I led a workshop on bicycle safety for students.  About 7 or 8 showed up and it was covered by the student newspaper.  Best part was I got to wear my “Bike Week Volunteer” t-shirt.  Bike culture at Cal Poly Pomona is still small, but I’m impressed and heartened with how it is steadily growing.  Temps in LA were in the low-100s, but I rode home after sunset, had plenty of water, and the ride allowed me to unwind.

Bike2WorkCPP

Thursday, May 15:  Bike to Work Day at Cal Poly Pomona.  Did my regular multimodal commute, but I proudly wore my “One Less Car” T-shirt, which the students loved as I rolled up to the B2W table the University Cycling Coalition had set up.  The students were offering free bagels, coffee, and orange juice to all bike riders, and there was a great feeling of camaraderie among the participants.  It was inspiring to see Rob, one of my colleagues, ride to work from Pasadena, despite the heat.  I know it is a small thing, but it is nice to get a little recognition for doing the right thing when so much of the time our car-centric society is either hostile or indifferent to our existence.

Friday May 16: Stayed home, caught up on work.

DorkySelfie_HB

Saturday May 17:  The only time I used my car this week.  Drove to the beach for an early morning surf session. Afterwards, rode my bike along the beach bike path to Huntington Beach, where I bought a gift certificate for a beach cruiser rental for a friend.

Final thoughts on Bike Week 2014:  Last year during bike week I was feeling thoroughly discouraged.  The death of a student cyclist at Cal Poly and the lack of safe bike infrastructure on the streets around the university seemed to make a mockery of the week’s festivities.  This year, the challenges have not gone away, but I see signs of hope.  A new student-led bike advocacy club at Cal Poly has reinvigorated the discussion of bike infrastructure around the university and two young colleagues of mine, one of whom is in my department and both of whom have offices near mine, regularly ride to work.  The city of Pomona has a new bike plan, and there is renewed discussion of a bike path along a nearby creek that would provide a safe route from the Pomona/Claremont area to campus.  Near my home in the San Gabriel valley, bike advocacy is still small, but it is growing and showing signs of influencing local decision-makers.  Groups like Bike SGV, Move Monrovia, and the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition are organizing and advocating for bike and pedestrian friendly streets.  I now have been certified as a bicycle safety instructor and have found new opportunities to teach bike safety to the next generation.  Finally, I’ve been consciously focusing on the positive in my own life, avoiding the enervating negative energy that can paralyze me as I try to move (literally) in a positive, sustainable direction.

These are reasons to be cautiously optimistic this Bike Week.  The movement continues.

New Year’s Resolutions

I’m not one for New Year’s resolutions.  I mean, I’ve always figured if you’re going to do something, why wait for the new year to do it?  That said, the new year does enable us to look back on the previous year and set some goals for the coming year.  Here are some thoughts as 2013 turns into 2014.

2013 was a year full of hope and frustration.  Nationwide, bicycling for transportation has continued its upward trend.  Just to name a few examples, San Francisco saw a 96% increase in bicycling mode share between 2006 and 2013, Chicago installed the first miles of protected bike lanes, and New York City launched its tremendously successful bike share program.  In California, Gov. Jerry Brown finally signed a law mandating a 3-foot buffer when motorists pass bicyclists on the street, which is a good start.  In Los Angeles, progress has been much slower, though new bike lanes have been installed from San Pedro to Eagle Rock and just last month LA installed its first protected bike lane in the 2nd Street tunnel.   LA County, in consultation with Bike SGV (one of the area’s growing bike advocacy organizations), is drafting an ambitious new regional bike plan for the San Gabriel Valley that focuses on connecting bike access to transit hubs.

Unfortunately, the news was not all good in 2013.  Motorists continued to kill pedestrians and cyclists at an alarming rate, and two of those deaths hit especially close to home for me.  Last February, Cal Poly Pomona student Ivan Aguilar was struck and killed by an allegedly distracted driver while cycling on a campus road.  Last summer 25-year-old Philip O’Neill was struck and killed on Del Mar Blvd. in Pasadena while riding together with a friend on what turned out to have been their first date.  However both of these tragic, unnecessary deaths may yet spur positive change at Cal Poly and in Pasadena.  Cal Poly has now installed its first bike path on campus, and a new student organization, the University Cycling Coalition, has been formed, for which I serve as a faculty advisor along with my colleague Dr. Gwen Urey.  This new student group has lots of youthful, positive energy among its student members and I see good things happening in the future.

There’s also a new advocacy organization in Pasadena, the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, formed in response to the outrage that followed the death of Philip O’Neill, and the group has already worked with the City Council to call for a stronger bike plan in that city.  Another local advocacy group, Move Monrovia, was also formed in 2013 to encourage bicycling, walking, and transit in that city.  Among Move Monrovia’s first priorities is working with city staff and elected officials to improve bike and pedestrian access to the planned Monrovia Gold Line station, set to open in 2015.  Both of these organizations show a lot of potential to reshape how people get around in their cities.

So much remains to be done, and the car-centered mentality of most Americans (especially those over 40) remains unchanged, but there are enough hopeful signs, especially among young people, to prevent the paralysis of despair.  When all else fails, I found hope and joy gliding along on my bicycle, alive to the sights and sounds of my world.  I found fellowship with the many others out there who are leaving the automobile behind and enriching their lives as a result.  I find such wonderful people online and in person.  We’re flying under the radar, but we’re out there and we’re growing.

As we round the corner to 2014, here are some of my goals for the new year:

  • Get Organized:  Any positive change comes through organizing.  This means continuing to work with local bicycle advocacy groups and build on our modest successes of 2013.  We need better infrastructure and better laws.  There are more streets that can be made safer for pedestrians and people on bikes.  Three words: protected bike lanes.  We must also redesign our roadways to slow traffic speeds and significantly toughen the penalties on drivers who injure or kill vulnerable road users.  And, while we’re at it, let’s stop calling these preventable collisions “accidents.”  Organizing for effective transit advocacy will also be a major goal.
  • Get Hot:  One of the reasons alternative transportation is so vitally necessary is the looming crisis of climate change and the need to radically change our habits and behaviors to reduce carbon emissions.  This won’t be done by fluorescent lightbulbs and EVs alone.  It’s going to require changes to the way we live and how we get around.  This will require driving less and flying less.  This will also require rethinking the sprawl-and-freeway model of development.  This means rail, transit, bicycling, and walking.  This doesn’t mean cars cease to be used, it means that we need to design our infrastructure around people, not cars.  We don’t have time to wait.  The sooner people get wise to this fact the better.  I vow not to waste my precious time and energy on people who aren’t hip to this.
  • Get Moving:  I’ll continue to ride my bike and take transit where I need to go.  With apologies to friends, family members, neighbors, and co-workers, I’ll be a pain in the ass and gently encourage you to do the same whenever possible (and it’s more possible than you think).

Best wishes to all in the new year.  And remember, when the world gets you down, ride your bike.

Parking or Transit?

A new study by researchers at USC showed that people who live within half a mile of LA Metro’s new Expo Line were driving significantly less—as much as 40% less than they did prior to the opening of the light rail line.  They also drove less, and had a lower carbon footprint than those who don’t live near transit.  This is excellent news, and most welcome to those of us who understand that driving is not hard-wired into Angelinos, but is a result of an infrastructure that has been built almost entirely around the automobile for the past 80-odd years.  The study showed that infrastructure matters.  If we build it right, we maximize the chances that many more people will leave their cars at home and take transit more often.

The study also contained some important insights about infrastructure around transit stations.  For example, the study found that those who walked to the Expo Line stations showed improvement in health as a result of the approximately 20 minutes of daily moderate physical exercise they got walking to and from the station and their destination.  The study also found that connectivity to bus networks increased use of the Expo Line.  One of the factors that decreased a person’s likelihood of walking to the station was the existence of a large arterial roadway with heavy automobile traffic that had to be crossed in order to reach the station.  Crossing streets with heavy automobile traffic is intimidating for many people, and in such cases, they wind up taking their cars instead.

So, if we want to increase the use of a light rail transit (LRT) facility, the study strongly suggests we should design it to be comfortably and safely accessed by bus, walking, or bicycling.  This means providing easy connections to bus transit, prioritizing safe pedestrian and bicycle access, and reducing heavy automobile traffic on streets around stations.  Improved bus service and a network of bike lanes leading to a station can significantly increase the radius of people who use those means to get to an LRT station.  On the other hand, if we want to decrease the likelihood that people will walk or bike to an LRT station (thus decreasing the health benefits that accrue), design it primarily around automobile access.

What about those people who live beyond the half-mile radius around a light rail station.  Unfortunately, for many Southern Californians the default answer is to promote automobile access.  Take Ms. Leda Shapiro, whose letter to the L.A. Times in response to the study complained that the study didn’t emphasize “the common practice … of parking your car at the station and taking the train.”  Ms. Shapiro apparently misses the point that the study, for good reason, was trying to measure how many people didn’t drive to the station, Ms. Shapiro then reverts to a car-centered default position in her understanding of the role of transit:  

It is time to demand that parking structures be built so we can park and ride and get our cars off the freeways.  Buses … do not run often enough outside normal working hours or are too unreliable.  Many more people could ride the train outside that walkable half a mile if there was parking available (even with a small fee).

While she’s not wrong to bemoan the paucity of good bus service in many areas of our city, I would argue that after a point, more automobile parking is actually counterproductive.  A major problem is that at a certain point plentiful automobile parking and (as the USC study demonstrated) the resulting heavy auto traffic may discourage people from walking or biking to the stations.  

But the problem of prioritizing automobile parking is broader than that.  Large parking lots and parking structures tend to make the approach to the stations more distant and time-consuming for people arriving on foot or bicycle, who have to travel further to reach the platform, and contend with entrances to the station designed for cars.  Moreover, the large physical footprint of a parking lot makes it more difficult to build transit-oriented shops and apartments within convenient walking distance of the station, because the function of the station changes from being one that is comfortably accessible on foot to one that is primarily accessible by car.  Light rail patrons who arrive by car are less likely to patronize small shops nearby, because they’ll get right in their cars and leave.  If they want to shop, they’ll be much more likely to patronize shopping centers with plenty of parking, perpetuating the auto-centered sprawl model of retail development.  Thus, stations with large parking lots don’t lend themselves to the kind of mixed-use development that entices people who live nearby to walk or bike to those local shops.  Let’s not forget that local shopping keeps more dollars in the local economy and creates local jobs, unlike the Wal-Mart style of retail centered around shopping by car.  Build transit for cars and we lose the virtuous cycle of car-light living and replicate some of the worst aspects of the automobile-centered lifestyle, such as sprawl, traffic, parking lot purgatories, and unhealthy sedentary travel habits.

Light rail transit should be designed to gradually shift people away from car dependency, not continue it.  If we want to get more people to use transit and further reduce traffic, our carbon footprint, improve our health, and our local economy, we should not “demand” more car parking, as Ms. Shapiro wants, instead we should demand more frequent and longer running local bus service to transit stations, more bike lanes and low-stress bike routes to those stations, good bike parking, and pedestrian-friendly streets in the surrounding neighborhoods.  The good news is, those pedestrian and bike-friendly infrastructure improvements are much less expensive than the infrastructure that must be built to accommodate significantly more car traffic.  And if we subsidized local bus transit to the same degree that we currently subsidize automobile parking, we could afford more frequent bus service.  And make no mistake, more frequent bus service is essential to make our cities less car-dependent.

So here’s a dilemma: do we build multi-billion dollar parking structures at all LRT stations that significantly raise the cost of building those stations?  As UCLA economist Donald Shoup has demonstrated, there’s no such thing as “free” parking.  What if the additional costs of building a large capacity park-and-ride facility (and they are considerable) make extending our LRT system so much more expensive that it becomes politically difficult to build more light rail?  I guarantee you, Ms. Shapiro and other car-dependent citizens will raise a ruckus if they have to pay parking fees sufficient to recoup the full cost of new parking facilities, so parking costs will likely have to be subsidized to entice them to bring their cars to the station.

I’m not saying new transit stations should lack any automobile parking, but motorists should be required to pay the full cost of providing parking.  Perhaps parking structures could be located away from the station, reducing traffic and the physical footprint of the station itself so that it is more convenient and welcoming for people arriving by bus, bike, or on foot.  Perhaps a few stations (at the end of a line, for example) might provide extensive park-and-ride accommodations while others should be designed primarily around transit, walkable, and bikeable access with a minimal amount of car parking.

We should pay close attention to the USC study’s encouraging results.  It proves that we can design transit and the surrounding infrastructure in a way that has the potential to alter people’s transportation choices.  Designing stations primarily for automobile parking may bring a few more drivers to the station in the short run, but it unfortunately tends to negate the other, more virtuous choices.  It is a trade-off we should carefully consider when building new LRT stations.

Car-Free Weekend

Santa Barbara Open Streets

Saturday, my family and I went on a road trip to Santa Barbara for my wife’s birthday.  Instead of driving, we did a multimodal trip with trains and bikes, and rode our bikes along a car-free Cabrillo Blvd. in Santa Barbara’s first “Open Streets / Calles Vivas” event.  It’s a great low-stress way to visit Santa Barbara, and since there are a number of bike shops in SB that rent bikes, a shoreline bike path, and some (relatively) new and improved bike lanes in town, it’s a great way to visit this charming beach city.

Our multimodal commute started with the Gold Line in Pasadena, where we boarded the light rail train Saturday morning and headed to LA Union Station.  Gold Line trains have plenty of space for bikes in the space between the rail cars or in specially designated areas where seats have been removed.  The train ride is a little jerky at times, so it’s a good idea to pack a bungee cord or nylon cargo strap if you have more than one bike to keep them from falling over.  This also allows you to sit and relax instead of standing next to your bike.

photo-3

We got to Union Station with plenty of time to pick up the Amtrak train to Santa Barbara, and easily loaded our bikes onto the baggage car, which had space for about 8 bikes on it.  Amtrak allows you to take your bike on board, but you must make reservations ahead of time to ensure that the train will have enough space for your bike.  On the return trip, Amtrak expected more bikes, so the train was equipped with a larger baggage car with space to accommodate many more bikes.  On both legs of the trip Amtrak conductors were extremely helpful.  There is no extra charge for taking a standard bike on the Amtrak, though some larger bikes, such as cargo bikes, tandems, and recumbents will have to be disassembled and packed in a cargo box and Amtrak charges a baggage fee for these.  However, for most people, taking your bike on board is no problem if you have a reservation.

During the approximately 2-hour ride to Santa Barbara, we enjoyed the scenery, chatted with each other, got snacks from the snack car, and, with free wi-fi, surfed the web.  There was plenty of legroom and I enjoy being able to get up and walk around on the train (something you can’t do in your car).  The upper deck of the train allows for some magnificent views of the coast along the way, and we saw sights we’d never seen before on the many car trips we’ve taken to SB over the years.

When we got to the Santa Barbara station, we rode our bikes down the new State Street bike lanes to Cabrillo and joined the Open Streets event in progress.  Cabrillo is usually choked with traffic, but we were able to enjoy the scenery, stop along the beach wherever we wanted to, and see Cabrillo as we never had before.  There was a sense of freedom and relaxation that comes over you when you don’t have to worry about cars.  Oh, and despite the thousands of people along the route, it was quiet without the noise of cars.  You could actually hear the soft murmur of the surf as you rode along the boulevard.  It was a wonderful family experience.

How surprising then, when I read some negative comments a few people posted in an online article about the event in a local Santa Barbara newspaper.  These people disapproved of closing Cabrillo to automobile traffic, claiming, among other things, that it hurt local businesses.  These comments were not only short-sighted, they were flat-out wrong as far as I could tell.  We ate at a restaurant on the Santa Barbara pier that was doing a booming business from people walking and bicycling.  Arts and crafts vendors along the route also seemed to be doing a good business as well (I should know, my wife bought some jewelry, too).  We saw people from all walks of life and all ages, smiling, laughing, getting exercise in the beautiful weather, and creating a sense of fun and community that you don’t get when everybody’s in cars.  As for myself, this was the most fun I’ve ever had in Santa Barbara.  Usually I’m stressed after a 2-hour drive from LA, stressed from dealing with traffic in town (caused, needless to say, by too many cars—not too many bikes), and stressed from trying to find a parking space on a weekend.  This time, however, it was a much more enjoyable experience.  Not having to deal with the car and traffic was liberating.

I guess some people are threatened by anything that suggests there’s another way to get around town besides cars.  Every community has people my mother used to call “crabapples” and the internet seems to bring them out of the woodwork.  I hope Santa Barbara doesn’t give in to the cynicism of such narrow thinking and continues to support, and even expand, this wonderful Open Streets event.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: