THE CITY COUNCIL IS STILL REVIEWING the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update to the city’s general plan.
During his presentation last Tuesday, Jeffrey Tumlin, a principal in Nelson\Nygaard, the land use and traffic management consultant working on LUCE, told council that “no new net peak vehicle trips” was a stated LUCE goal. “The transportation system is running up against the peak capacity limitations of our ability to move cars through it. So, we can’t accommodate more peak period trips, so lets not plan to.”
What? Councilman Ken Genser joined in. “There isn’t room to put much more cars, unless we start widening streets which I don’t think we are going to do ….”We don’t have to widen streets, Mr. Genser, we just need to undo the damage that you and your political cronies have fostered in your many years on the dais. Then, we could increase street capacity, accommodate more trips and maybe even serve some of those other transportation modes, too.
Over the years, Santa Monica has narrowed and removed vehicular traffic lanes, installed landscaped medians on major thoroughfares, added speed bumps and turn inhibiting, corner curb bumpouts, refused to coordinate traffic signals and more, much more. For years, a “car free Downtown” was a goal of the Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights political organization whose members (including Genser) make up the majority on the council. With this history and now LUCE, there’s only one way to change course. I’m talking elections.
Tumlin said, “Transportation is not an end in itself, but a means by which we achieve the larger goals of the community — particularly the sustainability goals imbedded throughout the plan. And, looking at sustainability, not just at it’s ecological component but also its social component and economic component.” No wonder City Hall does nothing positive about traffic. Transportation planning here isn’t about transportation — it’s about environmental movements, social interaction and the mixing of the masses. If only I knew.
At least one councilman feels about LUCE the way I do. Bob Holbrook responded, “The question of pedestrian movement trumping automobile movement … No!” This prompted Tumlin to jump to his feet. “We don’t say, ‘No one mode trumps another mode.’ It’s about issues of balance. Is it appropriate to inconvenience one group to provide convenience to another?”
It is in Santa Monica where the city has “inconvenienced” motorists for three decades. We who depend on our own transportation are not only trumped, we’re abused and tortured in the name of social justice. LUCE just ratchets up the pain.
Playing up to the bicycle lobbyists in the audience, Tumlin told council the Planning Commission suggested “every street should be a biking street.” The commission felt that cyclists of all ages and abilities should feel comfortable on the streets “whether this be achieved by dedicated bike paths, dedicated bike lanes or sufficient traffic calming.”Once again, resources needed by the vast majority of us would be misappropriated for the exclusive use of an elite “pro-environment” few. And, this from our own Planning Commission, no less.
Holbrook responded, “We can’t take more blacktop or concrete away from vehicles at this time …. Most of us [refer-ring to the 90,000 people living in Santa Monica] need to get somewhere at some time during the day.” It seems Holbrook has a better handle on planning than the dreamers on the Planning Commission and those working on LUCE.
Addressing concerns about significant slowing of vehicle speed and its impact on police, fire and ambulance response time, Tumlin suggested adding additional response resources including new fire stations, reallocating personnel and traffic signal overrides to help maintain nationally mandated standards for emergency response. This is called fixing a mistake by expending even more resources. How sustainable is that?
All the double talk and contradictions about creating the perfect traffic mix extends to parking. While promising that parking will be available to all, a key element of LUCE is de-coupling parking requirements from new construction. Housing and commercial developers could provide less on-site parking on the specious theory that lower parking requirements lowers construction costs and cheaper housing, for example.
For years, local developers have been trying to do away with on-site parking because less parking means more space for leasing, ergo more profitable buildings. Where will vehicles go, on maxed-out streets where Tumlin and LUCE promise that parking will be easier for residents, workers and visitors? Go figure.
I don’t like this vision of the future. More density. More development, Orange County style cookie-cutter neighborhoods with apartments above “neighborhood serving retail” (boutiques, Pinkberries, wine bars and trendy shops), less space for the primary mode of transportation and more cars searching for on-street parking.
The good news? We’re “not trumping motorists.” Yeah, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 14, 2008. Read the original PDF.