Motonormativity 2

I wrote an LA Voter newsletter (for members of League of Women Voters in Los Angeles County) article about Motonormativity and the way that local, state and federal governments reinforce it with their laws and actions. 

Professor Ian Walker wrote in the 2023 paper, Motonormativity: how social norms hide a major public health hazard, “Decisions about motor transport, by individuals and policy-makers, show unconscious biases due to cultural assumptions about the role of private cars - a phenomenon we term motonormativity.” 

His results were replicated in in the US by Professor Tara Goddard in the 2024 paper, Windshield Bias, Car Brain, Motornormativity: Different Names, Same Obscured Public Health Hazard. 

Past WIG speaker and public health researcher Isabella Chu, MPH, also spoke about the hidden public health hazard that is the top killer of US children. Indirectly, through air pollution and involuntary inactivity by making active transportation (walking, cycling) dangerous, cars may be the top killer of people in the developed world of all ages. 

Transportation, mainly private automobile use, is the largest contributor of CO2 emissions in Los Angeles County and the largest source of PM2.5 pollution (except in the occasional years when particulates from wildfire smoke affects populated areas of LACO.) 

Yet, all this is invisible to most people and especially law and policy makers. In California, it is legal to kill with a car as long as you were not intoxicated, were not speeding, and stayed at the scene of the death. This applies even if a driver kills a cyclist in a crosswalk. 

ILO wrote a letter to Metro’s Board of Directors for omitting protected bike lanes on the Vermont Ave BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) project plans. The City of LA’s Mobility Plan 2035 (adopted in 2014) promised to address identified shortcomings by 2035 by implementing the plan as each section of the roadways had work done. The Mobility Plan showed Vermont Ave would receive both a protected bike lane and a bus priority lane. 

Vermont Ave is infamous as more people die on Vermont Ave due to traffic violence than in the entire state of Vermont every year. (This does not include deaths due to pollution and other indirect deaths.) The LA Times explained the situation in Lawsuit filed against L.A. over lack of bike lanes, claiming Measure HLA violations. 

Local actions are even more important as we can no longer count on the Feds to help us. Under the Reagan Administration, Federal transportation dollars were allocated in a rigid formula of 80% to highways and 20% to transit. 

The Secretary of the Department of Transportation is Reality TV and Fox Business personality, Sean Duffy. He made headlines recently when he rode the NYC subway with NYC mayor Eric Adams and subsequently told Laura Ingraham on Fox News that "even big men don't want to ride the subway." 

In fact, riding the subway is 30 times safer than driving and riding the bus is 66 times safer than driving. 

“Most transit trips include active transport (walking and/or cycling) links, and transit users tend to walk and bike more in total than motorists (Lachapelle et al. 2011). These modes have relatively high per-mile casualty rates, although this risk is largely offset by reduced risks to other travelers and improved public fitness and health, so per capita crashes tend to decline and overall health and longevity increase with more active travel in a community (Rojas-Rueda et al. 2011).” 

Transit is so safe that a 1% increase in transit mode share would result in a 2.75% reduction in road deaths. 

State lawmakers show similar characteristics of motonormativity. Until September 6, 2023, Californians could purchase EVs (electric cars) secure in the knowledge that they would receive guaranteed rebates of up to $7,500 for each EV, and that these would stack on top of Federal rebates of $7,500. The income cap was $200,000 for joint filers. California passed out over $1 Billion in EV rebates. 

Contrast that with the California eBike incentive, which has an income cap of $61,320 for a family of 2, and which exhausted the entire $10 Million allocated to eBikes within minutes. eBikes received only 1% as much money as EVs, despite global research showing that dual-mode households drove 19% less than before they obtained an eBike. 

As I explained in my speech at the Women’s March on March 8, 2025, 

 “Transportation is a climate and feminist issue. CA DMV data shows that women will spend twice as many years aged out of driving as men. Yet, our cities have not built infrastructure for people who don’t drive. 

… Car dependency is not just ruinously expensive, but it’s destroying the planet, and preventing nondrivers from fully participating in society. Women, as primary caregivers, are paying the time tax of chauffeuring people around. Protected bike lanes are mobility lanes, suitable for children on bicycles and seniors on mobility scooters alike.   

Local government decisions have kept us isolated and stressed.”

Who lives in those apartments without parking?

 I have written many times previously about Parking Angst in the Los Angeles region. 

But, I want to write a quick post about why we should permit new homes without parking. 

Why do we vacation in places without parking and then deny ourselves the pleasure of living in a car-light place in everyday life? People who live in places that look like this (photo from Livable Communities Initiative) do use cars and get deliveries in trucks. It's just that they park on an alley or a remote lot/garage and deliveries take place when foot traffic is low. 

I hear often from people that this won't work in LA because our area was built around cars. So let me tell you about two people I met who live in LA and don't own cars. 

Person #1 without a car: 

I met him several times while he dropped off or picked up his grandmother at League of Women Voters events. As I got to know them better, I learned that the grandmother is 100 years old and has no children nearby. He is her only relative nearby; he lives in an apartment 1/2 a mile away and rides a bike over to her house. 

He drives her car to take her on errands (they can do their grocery shopping together) and appointments. He rides a bike or takes the bus otherwise.  He lives on a major Metro LA bus line that runs every 10 minutes, which in planner speak is a High Quality Transit Area (HQTA). Click on the link for an interactive map of HQTAs in SoCal. 

A car parking spot in this area--close to jobs, transit, and the beach--is very expensive because of the high cost of land. You trade off building housing for people or housing for cars. The grandson chose to live without a car, saving the cost of car ownership and parking. It's a win for him, a win for her (because she has someone close to look after her), and for the community (he works in the arts, which has been struggling in high rent areas). 

Allowing cheaper housing without parking is clearly a win-win-win in this case. 

Person #2 without a car:

I only met her briefly in Koreatown, but she made quite an impression on me. I was walking from a meeting at Wilshire Center to the Metro B/D station at Vermont and Wilshire. She passed me slowly on her e-scooter while wearing scrubs and a backpack. I caught up to her as we waited to cross Vermont and Wilshire to reach the subway station. We chatted. Then she folded up her scooter and ran into the station, disappearing into the crowd.

She lived in an apartment in Koreatown where parking is a la carte. Her landlord wanted $300/mo (2019 prices) for a parking stall in a garage and she wondered how much she needed a car vs a nice apartment in a newer building.  

[Do the math on the $100,000 cost per stall for a multi-level parking garage, then double it for underground parking. $300/mo is not an unreasonable price to recoup the cost of building that parking.]

She was wearing scrubs so I assumed she worked in healthcare. She said that she was charged for parking at home and at work. In contrast, her workplace paid for transit passes. She added car payments, insurance, gas, parking, maintenance. She could save so much money, she could rent a car two weekends per month. 

She sold her car and bought her own e-scooter to get back and forth to the train station quickly. I asked her how often she rented a car. She said that, she met a boyfriend who has a car. They take weekend getaway trips in his car. On Sundays, they run their errands together and he drops her off at her house with her groceries. She budgeted for rental cars, but didn't need them. She saves the money instead.

She basically had a 2018 version of this heavy duty, but slower speed scooter, purchased from Best Buy on Black Friday. It cost about one month of parking and she thought it was an excellent value. 

Faster speed means heavier motor and more acceleration (could be dangerous if you are inexperienced or lose your balance). More range means heavier battery to haul on buses and trains. If you are just going (first and last mile) to transit, and can charge at home or at work, there is no reason to get a longer-range battery. Just buy an extra charger and leave it at work. 

She convinced me. I bought a similar e-scooter, just in time for Covid and staying at home for Zoom meetings. You can see a picture of my husband riding the e-scooter and me riding my first e-bike on this SBCCOG Story Map. 

Before you say, gotcha. 

I know that neither of these people live car-free because they rely on someone else with a car. Both of these people live in car-free households, but occasionally share a car with another household with a single car. That's 0.5 cars per household. Why does Redondo Beach require 2.25 parking spaces per studio apartment?

It is possible for some people to live car-light or car-free most of the time, even in LA. Why should we enact all these minimum parking rules to make housing more expensive or impossible to build? 

Wouldn't it be lovely if our children could stay near us in coastal California instead of moving to a Red state so that they could afford housing?

Open Space is Working Land

The framing of Eastern Sierra housing crunch: With all this open land, why are so many workers living in vans? made me scream internally in rage. 

In Mono County "more than 90 percent of the land is owned by conservation-minded government agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the federal Bureau of Land Management and, most controversially, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power." 

Public open land is usually not developed for a reason. Read the legal definition of Open Space. Most importantly, Open Space has value for ecosystem services (that may indirectly help humans). 

Open space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores, banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands.

One of the reasons for acquiring US Forest Service lands is to protect watersheds for downstream users (farmers and urban users). If you don't see any buildings or roads on it, the land is working as intended. I don't want to get into a debate about whether it is appropriate to divert water from the Eastern Sierras for the City of Los Angeles. But, if this is the headwaters for a water supply (one of many) for 4 Million people, it is correct to protect the upper watershed from housing development & the roads necessary to service the housing. The USFS lands protect watersheds for other downstream users, including wildlife and farmers. 

Mono County is over 2 million acres, 94% of which is publicly-owned.  This leaves 120,000 acres of privately-owned land that could potentially be used for housing. About 7,500 people reside in the Mammoth Lakes region and another 35,000 visit annually. You can easily find enough space to house workers if you build densely enough in already-developed areas. The only thing preventing you is imagination and bad zoning. (You will also have to do some infrastructure work, but it will be much less than if you continued the sprawl development pattern.)

The population density of Mono County is 4 people per square mile. Even if you add in visitors (vacation home owners), the density is still < 20 ppl/sq mi. In contrast, my census tract in suburban Los Angeles County has 18,000/sq mi. If you use only the 6% of private land, that's still only ~500 ppl/sq mi. I know that some of the land is not suitable for housing, but there is still lots of room to build infill housing if the local government were to allow it. 

Not allowing denser housing in town, near the jobs, is causing the homelessness euphemistically called "Van Life". Small towns can build social workforce housing so that workers won't have to compete with vacation home buyers. Salida, CO is doing that. They are building UP--allowing mixed use housing above downtown commercial space. They purchased land downtown to build a 100% affordable workforce housing project. Why don't the Mono and Inyo county towns do something similar? Infill workforce housing of < 100 units is exempt from CEQA (Class 32). 

I was incredulous when I learned that the communities did not have public bathrooms and showers. It would not take that much space and $ to build public bathrooms and showers. Colorado mountain towns often have laundromats that sell showers. (So refreshing after a backpacking trip.) Why don't the CA towns build their own public showers or partner with a laundromat to add showers?

Don't whine about others so you can perpetuate sprawl. Make bathrooms and showers available in the short term. Upzone the small towns and keep everything compact, affordable and sustainable. 

True Cost to Own 2

I just heard a cringe podcast where they were discussing lack of street parking near our city's high school. One speaker said that, our region is hilly, and eBikes help with that. But not everyone's family can afford an eBike so many kids have no choice but to drive. 

This is a classic case of car brain where people no longer notice the high cost of car culture and car ownership. 

When our teen daughter was added to our car insurance policy, our premiums when up ~$2,000/yr even without adding another car. If your teen can delay becoming a driver by just one year, you can buy a decent eBike, lock, lights, and panniers. You will also save hundreds of hours chauffeuring your teen. 

Another year, another AAA "Your Driving Costs" report has dropped. It's time to update True Cost to Own. The cost of owning and operating a new vehicle in the US has increased to $12,182 in 2023.  New cars cost 4.7% higher than in 2022, but used cars went down in price. 

Remember, this is an average over the entire US, and Los Angeles tends to have higher insurance and fuel costs (both gasoline and electricity). This is also for the average new car sold which, at $34,876, is significantly cheaper than the typical new car I see in our school district (Tesla Y, ~$45,000-$52,500). 

The typical behavior in our area is for the parent to buy a new car and give their old car to the teen. Then they park the old car out on the street, making street parking even scarcer. It's not more people making street parking scarcer. It's more cars. 

I'm doing the calculation a bit differently this year, inspired by a LA Times article about a Culver City High School teacher that had their students run the numbers on car ownership over a lifetime. I don't get into the messiness of predicting inflation rates or marginal tax rates. 

Suppose you don't buy that new car and save that money instead in a balanced mutual fund. Using the Vanguard Benchmark Returns on Target Retirement Funds, you can expect to get ~8.25% long-term returns 

Using an online Savings Calculator, assuming 

Annual Savings: $12,182

Annual Increase in Savings: 3% (car costs have been going up faster than that)

Returns: 8.25% from balanced funds above

Taxes: 0% (if in tax-advantaged retirement account)

Then you have $1,0983,667.47 in year 24. 

Start when you turn 16, and save a million dollars by 40. 

In 50 years, age 66, the car-free saver will have $11,199,484.63. 

But, wait, you can save $18,264 pre-tax (33.3% combined CA+Fed tax rate) while $12,182 car costs are post-tax. But then you pay taxes on withdrawal from retirement accounts. So the amount will vary, but the message is the same. Living car-free or car-light (my family) is a huge money saver. 

Now I want to talk about the really pernicious part about car ownership, the externalized costs borne by others. 

This is painfully obvious to me every time I go to city council to beg for a bike lane and am turned down because "poor people need a free place to park their vehicles" on the public streets. 

I am charged the same price for my groceries whether I use the supermarket's huge and hugely expensive parking lot. I walk or bike to post of my groceries. I even bike to Costco for some of my trips. Yet, I pay for that parking lot. 

Even though road wear is proportional to axle weight to the 4th power, I am paying property taxes to maintain my city streets even though I get around on a 50# eBike instead of a 4,500# electric SUV. 

A 2020 Harvard Kennedy School study found that Driving is more expensive than you think. "Massachusetts' car economy is roughly $64.1 Billion, with more than half of that coming from public funds."

"Using publicly available data, the authors put the annual public tab at $35.7 billion, which amounts to about $14,000 for every household in the state. Those that do own vehicles pony up an additional $12,000 on average in direct costs."

You might nitpick that Massachusetts is snowy and snow plows are expensive. But, a 2021 Ulupono Initiative study in Hawaii found that "Public costs amount to roughly $15,000 per taxpayer ($24,400 per household), annually, even if they don’t own a car."

Furthermore, "Personal vehicles cost an additional $16,200 per household per year. With the public costs above, each household’s costs total $40,600 per year (or 51 percent of pre-tax income)."

Then there is the opportunity costs of the land. "Land value of public lands dedicated to road, highways, and parking is $3.9 billion, covering about 14 percent of the available urban land in our state."

Next time you see me bicycling for groceries, thank me for subsidizing your roads and parking. And drive carefully and slowly around cyclists. Dangerous road conditions are what's holding back the 60% of the public that is "interested but concerned" about riding bicycles. The more of us that are bicycling; the fewer cars in front of you, competing with you for parking, polluting your air, costing your city big bucks in road repair and climate change adaptation...

California AB 1909 states: 

“Existing law requires the driver of a motor vehicle that is passing or overtaking a bicycle to do so in a safe manner, as specified, and in no case at a distance of less than 3 feet.

This bill would additionally require a vehicle that is passing or overtaking a vehicle to move over to an adjacent lane of traffic, as specified, if one is available, before passing or overtaking the bicycle.”

Drivers are required to pass cyclists with at least 3 feet of clearance (and that is from the furthest point of my bike, including handlebars and cargo).  If there is more than one lane, drivers are required to change lanes before passing cyclists, just as they would do when passing another vehicle. This is why it makes sense for cyclists to ride 2-3 abreast in a pack instead of strung out in a single file line. Drivers can pass them in a shorter distance, making it safer and more convenient for everyone. 

This is now in California Vehicle Code 21760. 

When too much water leads to water scarcity

 Like clockwork, every time we have a big rainstorm, I read news stories and hear people talk about all the "wasted" water running out to sea or out of the arid area. I understand the frustration, but want to highlight some of the complexities. 

For instance, Southern California received quite a bit of rainfall ~10 days ago as the remnants of Hurricane Hilary swept through. We received 2.5" according to my backyard rain gauge. I'll write more about that in a later post (already started drafting it). 

But, I thought it would be interesting to show what happened near Palm Springs, where Interstate 10 was washed out after the area received half of their annual average rainfall in 6 hours. Interstate 10 was shut down for miles due to flooding and mud. 

One of the surprising things to water neophytes is that less water is captured in torrential rainfall events than in more normal, smaller and slower rain events. 

This is why water professionals are so worried about climate change. Climate models forecast, and our recent experience verifies, that SoCal will get about the same average annual rainfall as in the past--but it will come in fewer and burstier storms like we experienced in August and January/February 2023. 

In arid climates, it makes more sense to store the water underground to minimize evaporative losses. Palm Springs exists due to a large aquifer and faults that allow the groundwater to seep to the surface. After unsustainable groundwater pumping, the Coachella Valley developed percolation ponds to spread imported river water to refill the aquifers. In this way, the aquifer has stabilized. 

This land works remarkably hard precisely because of it's geology. It has the surface to aquifer connection that allows it to function as a percolation pond. But it's also a transportation corridor because it has the surface water needed by overland travelers. 

Can you see the percolation ponds, wind turbines, solar farm, Interstate 10, and the railroad tracks in this aerial photo? That's five uses, not counting housing and related services. 

You can also see wind turbines in this photo from another percolation pond just to the south of this one. 

The transportation corridor is here because of water, but it's also at risk because of water. You can see the Site of the Original Palm Springs RR Depot in this aerial photo, along with Whitewater Canyon, which feeds the Whitewater River that eventually drains into the Salton Sea. 

It's more dramatic in the terrain contour map. 

The people are here because the water is here. 

The water is here because the mountains are here to squeeze the water out of the sky. 

The mountains are here because the faults are here. 

The water reaches the surface because the faults are here. 

It's all interconnected, but I'm digressing again. 

This is about why we couldn't capture most of the water from bursty rainstorms into the aquifer. 

Turbidity and Water

You know how lake beds have very fine soil impermeable (or only slightly permeable) to water? This allows them to hold the water. Watch Who Fills Your Taps as Kathy Kunysz explains how, when water comes pouring off the mountains, the larger gravel falls out first, and then the finer silt settles into clay layers (aquitards). If you don't keep the finer particles out of your spreading basin/percolation pond, they clog up and cease to function. 

If you don't have time to watch this 75 minute video, you can view the slides. 

In order to preserve the percolation pond, they had to redirect the muddy runoff AWAY from them, so they didn't capture most of the runoff. This happened in January 2023 and again in August 2023. 

If the rain comes too fast, and the water contains too many fine particles, then you can't capture it in percolation ponds. More and more of our rainfall is going to come from these bursty storms. 

The good news is that they water was diverted around the percolation ponds and sent downstream to feed the shrinking Salton Sea. If we preserve and restore coastal wetlands, that silty water can replenish the marshes, build up the coastline, and help protect us from sea level rise and storm surges. The bursty flows can scour out the waterways, remodeling/refreshing wildlife habitat. 

It's all good. 

Waste is in the eye of the beholder. If you look at it in terms of what's valuable to humans, you aren't seeing the whole picture. 

But, it also means we have to work harder and and spend more money to capture the same amount or less water, due to climate change. The people who told you that we couldn't do anything to stave off climate change because it was too expensive played the American public for chumps and we fell for it. 

The ghost of wells past

Remember when I wrote that I wasn't that worried about PFAS chemicals in my drinking water? I'm still not worried about it. But several things stood out when I looked at the 2022 Hermosa Redondo Water Quality Report. 

I expected to see small (but safe) amounts of Uranium from the imported drinking water purchased from Metropolitan Water District (via West Basin Municipal Water District). That's a blend of Colorado River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water. For myriad reasons, water from the 4-corners states in the Colorado River Basin contains Uranium and Radium. 

But, why does my local groundwater contain more Uranium than the water imported from the states where we used to mine Uranium, and make and test bombs? I posted that question on the social media platform formerly called Twitter and had my answer in minutes. 

I found a map of active water wells from LA County Dept of Public Works. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to download the map and combine it with other data so you'll just see a screenshot. Look at the 3 aqua balloon pins near the right of the map, just west of Inglewood Blvd. 

Now look at the map of Oil Wells (Inside LA County) from City of Los Angeles GeoHub. 

See the old oil wells that used to operate in the vicinity of the active water wells? 

EPA: Radioactive Waste Material From Oil and Gas Drilling

Rocks in and around certain oil- and gas-bearing formations may contain natural radioactivity. Drilling through these rocks or bringing them to the surface can generate waste materials that contain radioactivity.

I'm drinking a blend of local groundwater and imported river water with an average of 2.3 pCi/L and 1 pCi/L of Uranium respectively. 

The federal EPA Maximum Contaminant Load (MCL) for Uranium in drinking water is 20 pCi/L (one trillionth of a Curie per Liter; a Curie is a measurement of radioactivity). However, there are measurable increases in negative health outcomes for water above the EPA MCL Goal (MCLG) of 0.43 pCi/L. 

This is concerning but not panic inducing (at least for me.) Reverse Osmosis (RO) reduces contaminants in water, including Uranium and PFAS chemicals. RO also reduces the calcium salts responsible for Water Hardness. Anything above 300 ppm (parts per million) is considered hard water. Imported river water is semi-hard, at ~200 ppm, but the groundwater here is 380 ppm. 

I would be happy to pay for RO treatment of household water. The small extra expense would reduce wear and tear on my home's plumbing and my housecleaning time. It's a worthwhile tradeoff. 

[The EIR for West Basin's abandoned plans to build a desalination plant estimated that the RO-treated ocean water would have saved customers an average of $300/year in reduced plumbing and appliance replacement expenses. Coastal NIMBYs enjoying 100% imported river water blocked the plant despite support from inland communities using very hard groundwater like mine.]

Today's LATimes features an excellent profile about Adel Hagekhalil, general manager of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. He talks about the existing three pipelines that bring water from the Delta, Owens Valley and the Colorado River. He advocated for developing our "Fourth Pipeline" of local water sources. 

I fully support that vision; it's an achievable goal. But let's not kid ourselves that it will be easier or cheaper. There are tradeoffs for everything, as I learned from the Water and Infrastructure Group lecture series I co-organize. Understanding Drinking Water Quality taught me the limits of conservation. Groundwater 101 and Measure W taught me the difficulty of developing *new* groundwater supplies. San Diego's Pure Water and LA County Sanitation Districts taught me the challenges of water recycling. 

I'm willing to pay a little bit more to stop dewatering faraway places, to honor our treaties with Tribes, for higher quality water, and for more reliable and secure water supplies. We have the technology to do all these things, but financing it is going to be the biggest hurdle. Middle and higher income users will be fine. 

But, I ask you to join me in overturning Proposition 218, which constrains our ability to buffer lower income people from the impact of higher utility bills. We need to figure out a way to spread the costs equitably, which includes overturning Prop 218 and securing State and Federal funds to help low-income users. 

Guidance for the Metro Active Transportation Corridor: Redondo Beach Blvd Survey from a Local

Urgent Action Alert 

Deadline Extended to May 30, 2023 May 15, 2023 so read on and fill out the survey now 

I need you to fill out a public input survey about a vital active transportation project for Redondo Beach and surrounding cities in the South Bay region of Los Angeles County. This is our chance to reverse some of the damage wrought by past auto-centric road design in North Redondo Beach and allow those who can ride a bike to make school and shopping trips with confidence that they can make it home alive and in one piece. 

There's also a Story Map about the Redondo Beach Blvd Active Transportation Corridor Project with more information. 

Short version if you are in a hurry:

The current street allocation with car parking on both sides and massive SUVs speeding down our streets is not safe or welcoming for cyclists. The proof is in the declining bicycle mode share. 

When filling out the survey, select the options that give a protected bike lane every time. Scroll down past the background info to see my recommendations and why. 

Paint is not protection. Never select an option with a paint-only bike lane in the door zone. If someone opens a door, a cyclist in the door zone will be knocked off their bike and suffer grievous injuries. If they swerve to avoid the door, or are knocked into the traffic lane, they could be killed. No one wants to be killed or have their child killed while riding to school. 

Two-way cycle tracks are a good option, particularly near schools. When kids are arriving or leaving school, there will be a lot of traffic congestion on all modes. But cars are particularly dangerous. The less car traffic they cross while leaving the congested area, the safer they will be. Keep them on the school side of the street, with wide lanes so that there is passing room in the bikeway (keep the kids out of the car traffic lane). 

Plastic poles are not physical protection, but likely the best we can get as a first step.  Plastic poles can be replaced with bollards or concrete barriers later if we allow enough buffer space to install the plastic poles in the first place. Do not let the perfect get in the way of actions we can do right now. 

You can skip the background (but I hope you read it when you have more time).  

Background: The Connection with Schools

The project area below was originally going to be along the old freight route from Redondo King Harbor to the inland rail routes, but Ripley was found to be too steep (several areas with 15% grades) to be feasible for safe cycling. 

A Redondo Beach traffic study determined that 30% of the city's AM/PM peak traffic is the child school run. This travel corridor includes

• Adams Middle School: 1066 students: 6-8 grades
• Washington Elementary School: 801 students, K-5
• Jefferson Elementary School: 509 students, K-5

That's almost 2400 K-12 students arriving and departing each day on this corridor. 

But that's not all, because all students in Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) attend Redondo Union High School (RUHS) in South Redondo Beach*. Jefferson ES students also attend Parras Middle School south of RUHS. 

Assuming 350/grade at Adams MS and 90/grade at Jefferson ES, 

350*4 + 90*7 = 2030 students cross 190th Street to attend school and return home each day. 

About half of all RBUSD students traverse this corridor every school day.

But that's not all; El Camino College (ECC, 22,000 students, many from the Beach Cities) is on the eastern end of this travel corridor. Some RUHS and MCHS students do concurrent enrollment and take classes at ECC while they are in HS. Due to many factors, including cost and lack of housing at UC campuses, a large number of students are enrolling in grades 13/14 at ECC before transferring to a 4-year college/university. 

When filling out the survey, think about what you would send your kid to school on. Think about what you would be comfortable riding on as you accompany your younger child to school or run your errands. I ride this area 1-2x/week to run errands in North RB or West Torrance. I want better infrastructure for my safety, too. 

Watch this video of the horrifying existing conditions as ridden by two fit MAMILs (Middle-Aged Men in Lycra). Would you ride these steep hills? Next to fast-moving busy traffic?

 

Here's another video of the area where Kyle, an area father, rides his kids to preschool. 

My opinionated guide for the survey choices and why they matter: 

Every cross-section shown is facing either Eastbound or Northbound.

Q1: For the westernmost portion of the corridor, which alignment(s) do you prefer? 

I picked D because that would give us a 2-way cycle track on Lilienthal and the longest length of protected bike lanes on 190th. 190th St is also the only way to avoid steep hills. 

The problem with B: The first video shows just how steep Ripley is. Notice that the lead cyclist on a light road bike has trouble getting up the hill (and the trailing cyclist with the camera is on an eBike). Going up a 15-16% grade is difficult, but going down them is downright dangerous. Do not send kids on this route. 

A and C are better, but still steep in some sections. Also, if those are the official routes, there will not be likely any road changes except Sharrows, which are shown to be more dangerous than not doing anything. 

Only Option D along 190th St will yield any road space allocation for cyclists. 

What is a Sharrow? 

Why are Sharrows so dangerous? 

Q2: The proposed street section for 190th St (Alignments C and D) is shown here. How satisfied are you with this proposal?

I picked Very Dissatisfied: These cross-sections are looking towards the east, with Torrance on the Right Hand Side (RHS) and Redondo Beach on the LHS. Cars are coming down the hill from Flagler and often speeding 50 eastbound mph. People drive with the sun in their eyes during the morning and evening commutes. Do you feel safe with just paint and plastic poles designed to bend when run over by vehicles?

I recognize that people living in the apartments in Torrance on the right need overflow parking, but let's swap the bike lane and parking lane. Install a parking-protected bike lane like this one in Long Beach on the Torrance side with breaks to preserve sight lines at each driveway or street crossing. 

On the RB side, I'd like to see real bollards or a curb. Imagine something like these without the parking lane. Images courtesy of National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). 

Q3: Select Option 1, the 2-way cycle track on the east side, next to Washington ES. 

Option 1 provides separation from cars, and is wide enough for passing, and allows parents to ride side by side with a child gaining confidence in their bike skills. In 2-way cycle tracks, people riding opposing car traffic are facing approaching cars, so they can see and react to dangerous drivers. It would be better to have solid protection here, but Option 1 gives us room to retrofit with more solid barriers later. 

Option 2 puts kids in the door zone on one side and makes them cross the street to get to school. It's a dangerous situation. 

Q4: Select Option 1, the 2-way cycle track on the east side, next to Washington ES.  

Don't be distracted by the stock visualization image with a tall solid wall. There is currently short solid wall on the parking lot side and a wood and rope fence on the road side. 

Option 1 gives a clear place for kids to ride that is physically separated from cars. The 2-way cycle track would replace the wide grassy area.

Option 2 is sharrows in a place where drivers are more focused on making a turn at Ripley than cyclists approaching from behind them. 

Motorists trying to make a right turn will pull over to the right, trapping cyclists behind them. Small children on bikes and tall, boxy hoods on todays trucks and SUVs mean that parents may not be aware of cyclists in front of them. This has led to an epidemic of frontover crashes where drivers run over people in front of them because they can't see them over their hoods. Or, they look at their screens and forget that there are children in front of them. 

Option 2, sharrows, is a safety disaster. 

Q5 on Ripley: Pick Option 1, the 2-way cycle track on the Adams MS side

Option 1 keeps the kids on the school side as long as possible. It also preserves the car unloading curb space that people are currently using. 

Option 2 puts kids in the door zone, at precisely the time that kids being driven to school are unloading. This is a safety disaster. 

Q6: Grant Ave from Inglewood to Kingsdale; I am very dissatisfied but I selected other and explained why we need solid protection instead of plastic bendy poles

They are proposing paint, a buffered (space separation) and plastic bendy poles. 

This is better than existing conditions, but not safe. Cars pick up speed heading downhill and frequently misjudge the curve, so they end up sideswiping cyclists in the bike lane. We really need a concrete barrier on the downhill (right hand) side. 

I ride by bike to shop at the Galleria and this is the scariest part. I saw a guy almost get killed here. If we want more people to bike through this area, which connects to shopping, the South Bay Transit Center, and the 300 new homes under construction, then we deserve solid protection in this dangerous area. 

I gotta break for lunch but I'm going to hit Publish on this so you can get started. I'll finish after lunch. 

...

I'm back. Stay with me because we are on the home stretch, but the most dangerous one that crosses the 405 Freeway and has the most high-speed traffic. 

Q7: Artesia Blvd from Kingsdale Ave to Redondo Beach Blvd pick Option 2.  

Existing conditions are awful and you see very few cyclists brave enough to ride here. If they do, they are often on the sidewalk, conflicting with pedestrians. 

Option 1 puts cyclists next to vehicle lanes, but protected with a concrete curb. Pedestrians and cyclists would intuitively understand where they are supposed to be, as faster bike traffic is at the street level. However, this would interfere with bus stops. 

Option 2 puts pedestrians next to the vehicle lanes, but also next to the bus stop. Trees would provide shade. There could be some confusion with pedestrians wandering on the bike path, but that can be solved with good signage.

Our community has experience with pedestrian and bikeways next to each other in the North Redondo Beach Bikeway (NRBB). While there is some spillover, people have already learned where pedestrians and rollers have priority on the NRBB. Option 2 will work best for us and we already know how to use it. 

Q8: Redondo Beach Blvd from Artesia Blvd to Hawthorne Blvd. Is a tossup but both Options are so much better than the status quo.

Option 1 pits cyclists against pedestrians, but provides 2-way access to Walgreens and Starbucks. It's not terrible as long as cyclists slow down when passing pedestrians and motorists exiting the parking lots look both ways. 

Option 2 provides a clear separation between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists are curb-protected on the eastbound RB side, and parking-protected on the westbound Lawndale side. However, coming westbound from Walgreens/Starbucks, people will likely bike on the sidewalk until they meet the 2-way cycle track. 

Although you lose a traffic lane, it's not the cyclists' fault. One can just as easily blame the space allocated to free car storage (on-street parking) and a turn lane. Motorists are losing a travel lane to other motorists, not cyclists. Don't forget that. 

Option 1, the 2-way cycle track, provides a better alternative not suggested by Metro for the next section. 

Q9: Redondo Beach Blvd from Hawthorne Blvd to Prairie Ave. I am Very Dissatisfied & propose a better solution. 

Although the status quo is very bad, we shouldn't rush into the proposed door zone bike lane next to high-speed traffic heading to the freeway onramps. It is extremely dangerous. This will greatly reduce the number of people brave enough to ride to Alondra Park and El Camino College. 

If there is enough room for on-street parking, then there is enough room for a parking-protected bike lane. That may require narrowing the car lanes a bit, but that would also inhibit speeding, making that stretch safer and quieter for all road users. 

The freeway onramp is on the north side of RB Blvd. A 2-way cycle track on the south side of RB Blvd would keep cyclists away from the crazy line of cars trying to merge onto the 405 on-ramp. Suggest that in Q11. 

Q10: Redondo Beach Blvd from Prairie Ave to Dominguez Channel. Pick Option 1, the 2-way cycle track on the North side, next to the park and El Camino College. 

Option 1 puts cyclists next to the park and ECC. Although it is shown with plastic bendy straws, it can easily be fitted with bollards or a concrete curb for better protection when cycling to and from evening classes at ECC. 

Option 2 puts cyclists in the door zone, where they can be knocked into fast-moving traffic and killed. Drunk or malicious drivers can also harm cyclists easily with only "paint as protection". 

Q11: Additional Comments: This is where we ask for a protected 2-way cycle track on on the south side of RB Blvd between Hawthorne and Prairie. 

What do you need to be comfortable bicycling this corridor? Tell them!

Keep in mind that younger Beach Cities kids will probably only ride the western side of this corridor, west of Inglewood or Kingsdale. But older teens and young adults may need to ride to ECC or to retail jobs between Kingsdale and Crenshaw. 

There are a lot of children and seniors in Lawndale and Torrance who would benefit from these bike facilities, whether they are riding a bike, trike or mobility scooter. 

We should make this corridor welcoming for ages 8-80. 

Think about who needs to travel through this corridor and at what times. What kind of cycling facilities do they need to get there comfortably and safely?  What about seniors in mobility scooters or electric wheelchairs? Would you like to see food delivery robots in the bike lane or more food delivery by privately-owned cars?

With better bike facilities, I may choose to bike to stores further east than I currently feel safe. Every trip I make by eBike instead of car, I am "sparing the air", not taking up road space in front of you, and not competing with you for parking. 

Another thing that excites me about this project is that it connects us to the Dominguez Channel. In a separate project, LA County Public Works will be extending the bike path along the channel southwards. It currently goes north to 120th St, past Amazon, Space-X, Lowe's and to the Metro Green/C Line. A southbound channel bike path would connect to the Harbor Gateway Transit Center, with very fast connections to the Silver/J Line to USC/Expo Park (15 min) and Downtown LA (20 min). Harbor Gateway TS is already linked up to CSU Dominguez Hills. This is a large step forward for a transportation transformation for the South Bay. 

Bike lanes benefit you even if you don't ride a bike, but your neighbors do. 

Bike lanes will save you time currently spent chauffeuring your kids short distances. 

Bike lanes will benefit your kids because students who get exercise before school do better. 

Bike lanes will benefit you when you age out of driving. 

Bike lanes may allow your family to shed one car, saving you over a million dollars per lifetime. 

Finally, I want to close with this terrific video of a #BikeBus led by Coach Sam Balto in Portland. 

https://twitter.com/CoachBalto/status/1656353963489501190?s=20

This bike corridor will touch the lives of half the students in RBUSD and can be transformative for the way our community gets around. If half of our households can shed just one car, we would be richer, our street parking and traffic congestion problems will evaporate, our air and water will be cleaner, and we will have done our part to slow climate change. Oh, we'll be fitter and happier, too. 

* A very few students living in North RB attend Mira Costa HS in Manhattan Beach, but only if MBUSD will take them. 

True Cost to Own

This post was inspired by a Twitter exchange with a Culver City resident who was able to shed one of her family's two cars due to the Move Culver City Project to reallocate space from cars to transit (bus lanes), active transportation (walking/biking) and micro-mobility (scooters, wheelchairs). 

Culver City's city council balance changed from 3/2 in support of this street space reallocation to 3/2 opposed. The new city council wants to reverse the street space allocation and give 100% of the public space to cars again despite the city's own data that transit and bike use grew explosively while car use declined.  Read the Move Culver City Mid-Pilot Report.  

I think reversing Move Culver City is a big mistake for many reasons, but I will just get into the financial angle in this post. 

Car ownership is so normalized in US society that I think we stop paying attention to how much it's really costing us. When AAA published their annual report "How Much Does it Really Cost to Own a New Car 2022", it surprised many people. [2023 Update is even grimmer, $12,182/year]

There were the usual arguments that not everyone buys a new car. But, this assumes the average new car sells for $33,301 when Kelley Blue Book reports that the average car price set a new record in December 2022 at $48,681. Car and Driver reports that Los Angeles drivers pay $681/year more for car insurance than the national average.  

$10,728 is an underestimate for the cost to own a car in Los Angeles. That price also does not include the cost of a parking spot, which you are paying for whether it's a line item in your budget or not.  Everyone seems to complain about parking, even though Los Angeles has more homes for cars than for people. 

If households with multiple cars can shed one car, they can save $10,728/year. 

Median Culver City household income in $97,540 with a marginal tax rate (CA+Fed) of 33.3%. 

Owning a car costs $16,084/year pre-tax. 

If that money were put in a tax-deferred retirement savings account every year for 30 years, that household can accumulate just under $1 Million! 

I assumed that the money was saved in a Vanguard Growth and Income Mutual Fund (VGIAX) earning about 6.54% over the last 20 years or 10.78% over the last 10 years. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI inflation calculator says inflation ran 2.65% over the last 20 years. 

Using a conservative 4% above inflation estimate for VGIAX, the Bankrate Compound Interest Calculator shows that the household that was able to shed a car winds up with $916,300 after 30 years in their retirement savings account. Yes, you do pay taxes as you withdraw that money, but that's a huge chunk of money nevertheless. 

In Summary, if Move Culver City allows families to shed one car, then that is a $1M gift to the families in Culver City. 

Reversing/removing the street improvements--making buses too slow to use and bicycling too dangerous to attempt--forces families into cars again. If they have to own a second car again, then Culver City families lose $1 M. 

Elected officials should think long and hard about whether they want to force car dependency and costs onto their residents. It's not good for residents, it's not good for the planet, it's not good for the city. Finally, I don't think it's good for the elected officials' ability to get re-elected.