Los Angeles MTA

[Westsidelife]

Metro Rail, Metro Orange Line Set New Ridership Records as Commuters Balk at Paying High Gas Prices

July 11, 2008

Metro Rail ridership records were set on several rail lines in June 2008 as commuters and others parked their cars and opted for cheap and fast service to avoid high gas prices. The Metro Red and Purple subway lines, the Metro Gold and Green Lines all set weekday ridership records and the Metro Blue Line fell just short of a record. Metro Orange Line buses also set a ridership record.

Last month 309,000 passengers boarded Metro Rail trains on an average weekday, up 12.8 percent, compared to a year earlier. About half of those riders (153,928) rode the subway, which connects downtown Los Angeles and Universal City and North Hollywood via Hollywood with a spur to Wilshire and Western.

For the second month in a row, the Metro Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena, set a new ridership record with 26,338 average weekday boardings, up 31.8 percent in June 2008 over last year.

"The cost-effective, convenient alternative to driving propelled the Gold Line to an all-time high in ridership," said County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Michael D. Antonovich.

The Metro Green Line connecting Norwalk and El Segundo nabbed a record with 44,034 boardings, and the Metro Blue Line, which travels from downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach, experienced its second highest ridership with 84,353 average weekday boardings.

The popular Metro Orange Line, a 14-mile busway that operates like a “train on rubber wheels” from North Hollywood to Woodland Hills in the San Fernando Valley, boosted weekday ridership by 4.4 percent over last year to 26,596 boardings.

An even better measure of Metro Rail’s growing popularity is to compare total boardings for the fourth quarter of FY2008 (April-May-June) with the fourth quarter of FY2007. Metro Rail ridership surged 7.13 percent.At the same time, Metro bus ridership, which had been lagging following last summer’s fare hike, bounced back. It’s still down 1.96 percent for the quarter compared to last year but it had been down as much as 7 percent in previous quarters.

Metro schedulers observe that a sharp drop in Metro Day Pass sales has resulted in bus riders making fewer extra discretionary trips, however, Metro Rail has consistently gained new commuter riders eager to avoid pain at the gas pump. Combined Metro Bus and Rail ridership was just about even in the fourth quarter compared to a year earlier.

The combination of cheap fares and fast service competitive with driving is luring more riders, according to Metro officials who note that Metro’s $5 day pass is about what a gallon of gas costs and if thecost of fuel, vehicle depreciation, maintenance, insurance and parking are factored in, those who use public transitor opt for vanpools or carpools can easily save well over $6,000 a year by getting rid of one of the average family’s 2.5 cars and trucks.

[milquetoast]

November ballot may be full of tax, bond measures

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 12, 2008

abbreviated:
As he supports the new anti-gang tax, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has also been pushing for a half-cent countywide sales tax increase to raise at least $30 billion over three decades for road and rail projects, including his much-touted subway to the sea.Villaraigosa, who saw administration of the city's anti-gang programs transferred to his office July 1, has been trying to persuade officials throughout the county to line up behind the half-cent sales tax increase, which would direct billions of dollars to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

That measure has been put in danger as representatives of the San Gabriel Valley and the Eastside have warned that their communities might not see enough of a benefit from such a tax. Similar rumblings have come from Long Beach and cities immediately north of it.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

Los Angeles Times

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Wright Concept

Maybe it depends on what the pedestrian sees and feels when they are walking that 1/2 mile. If it is a pleasant environment -with street trees and adequate lighting, trash recepticales- taking a few bags of groceries 1/2 mile in 20 minutes is reasonable because the walk home can be a recharging experience. If that 1/2 mile corridor is a shithole, then of course they'll drive. However that shithole won't get any better catering to folks isolated by driving through this shithole instead of them walking In the shithole so they know they'll have to do things to make them better with better pedestrian treatments.

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??

Welcome to Brooklyn where I never drove(no car) and had to walk to the grocery store sometimes in freezing temps and w/ snow on the ground......







and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:


street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind. It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality.


And so then these people who don't want to walk or do anything out of their comfort zone should shut the fuck up about traffic and just sit and rot inside their deathmachines whilst in traffic. -"Kid A"

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??
...and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:

That's funny, that is funny..... here's a history lesson on the early attempt at mass transit in Los Angeles...

July 12, 2008

LAistory:

The 1925 "Hollywood Subway"

Think LA's relationship with underground rail transit began with the first tunnels blasted out to make way for the Red Line? Think again! LA's first subterranean transit system was a short stretch of tunneling dubbed the "Hollywood Subway," which moved its first passengers under the city in 1925 via electric interurban rail cars.

http://laist.com/2008/07/12/laistory_the_19.php

Lindsay William-Ross/LAist

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind. It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality.

While I agree with the antiseptic generalization, people live in Los Angeles because of the things perceived there that they demand. Street receptacles, lights, trees. It's all illusion, this life, so you want the things you want... to be around you- if you can manage it.

People also live there so they don't have to run into Biggie Smalls on a stoop, or try to walk a half mile in the snow or the absolute teeth whitening heat of Las Vegas, where I live.

Are there enough facilities within the half mile distance of most people there? I'd almost feel like I would need a concealed weapon toting my groceries back to my home no matter where I live. Or is that just me.

I could certainly use the exercise and I wouldn't mind walking in rain either. I don't think Angelenos are used to public confrontation, or social gathering- yet

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Damn! Where did you people grow up.....Mayberry??

No South Central LA and lived in Chicago for 6 years.

Welcome to Brooklyn where I never drove(no car) and had to walk to the grocery store sometimes in freezing temps and w/ snow on the ground......







and had to walk by people sitting on their front stoop who looked like this:


street recepticles and pretty street lights were 'bout the last thing that was on my mind.

There is a difference between adequate lighting and pretty street lights, because if the pretty street lights don't work what good has it done?

I find people sitting on their porches/stoops a welcoming thing when walking because of this interaction, others with the antiseptic mentality usually find it welcoming because it says we enjoy this street and are making the best of it.

It's sad what an unrealistic view of the world that car culture has ushered in. It's almost this antiseptic type of attitude where not only do you not want to be inconvenienced but you tend to have such limited exposure to your fellow citizen that you become laughably out of touch.
There really isn't any way around it......most of us are within 1/2 mile of a grocery if not closer what keeps us from walking are built in class prejudices and the needed by most assurance of our peers. In other words, because other people are not doing it....so we won't either mentality..

Very true about Car culture but how hard is it for a city to meet the simple demands of its citizens to put in a street light, not a pretty street light, but a street light?

[klamedia]

LA is full of street lights.....let's move on from that argument.

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true. Toll the roads, ban free parking, reduce parking requirements in residential and even allow some units to pass on parking all-together, enforce alternate street parking on every street within the City of LA, ban front facing parking lots, provide density bonuses, continue to provide employer incentives to work with transit, create bike lanes countywide, encourage mixed use development, group auto repair shops and auto dealers into specific zones, eradicate drive-thru's, put the affordable housing initiative back on the ballot and continue until it passes and give breaks to developers who build affordable/workforce housing........and on and on......

[klamedia]

So life in L.A. depends on a car? Hardy souls prove it just ain't so
By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 07/13/2008 12:36:37 PM PDT


Click photo to enlargeG. Maximilian Zaru does not own a car, and uses the bus and... (John McCoy/Staff Photographer)«12»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REACT: Could you live without your car?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a city obsessed with the automobile, living in Los Angeles without one - on purpose - seems unthinkable, unreasonable, maybe even a little nuts.

But with the days of low-cost gas gone and no national alternative-fuel plan at hand, living car-free is one way some Americans pursue their own energy plans to help save money.

Globally, a car-free movement is afoot to shrink dependence on automobiles and create places where vehicles are unnecessary.

Locally, however, the car-free idea breezes into Los Angeles on Earth Day and other environmental days and floats out 24 hours later. Some say the county's public transportation system is too limited to make living without a car possible.

But some from all walks of life are deliberately living car-free in Los Angeles and have no regrets about their lifestyle change. They shared their stories with the Daily News.

Teacher hopes his dates like green - and the bus

Growing up in Los Angeles, G. Maximilian Zarou dreamed of the day he could sit behind the wheel of his first car.

When he was finally old enough, in 1992, he bought a junky 1972 Ford LTD that got about eight miles to the gallon.

For seven years he poured cash into the "money pit" before the jalopy finally died. While the fifth-grade schoolteacher saved for another set of wheels, he relied on buses and friends with cars to get around.

But once he had stockpiled the cash for new wheels, Zarou


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chose not to bother. He'd started viewing cars as luxuries, not necessities. "I've never regretted it. There are so many reasons not to have a car. There's pollution. The war. And also the cost," said Zarou, 32, who gave up driving in 2000. "I don't pay for parking. I don't get tickets. Whenever gas prices go up, it doesn't affect me."

The decision not to own a car prompted other changes in Zarou's life. He deliberately moved to an apartment just steps from the Red Line subway station and works two bus stops away from the rail.
Door to door, it's a 45-minute commute from his place in East Hollywood to Hoover Street Elementary School downtown. His transportation costs $70 a month.

When visiting his grandparents in Palos Verdes, Zarou rents a car. Those are the times when the tension involved with driving hits him.

"It adds to your stress level," he said. "But on the bus, I can read and look around the city. I don't feel like I can do anything to beat this traffic, so I stop worrying about it."

Dating without a car can pose problems. He tells women from the start of relationships that he lives car-free - a fact that some dates find adventuresome.

Zarou said that if the type of car he owns is important to a date, then she's the wrong woman for him.
"Dating is a little awkward, because women aren't that impressed when you meet them at the restaurant and accompany them on the bus," Zarou said. "But I hope people respect that decision."

Clean-environment advocate pedals the policy he preaches

Joe Linton scrapped his car 16 years ago in favor of his four bicycles, buses and rail, but to this day some friends give him directions for using freeways as if he still drives.

The reality of his preferred, car-free lifestyle doesn't always sink in with others. Many are baffled to learn that it's possible to live without a vehicle in Los Angeles.

"It's somewhat uncommon for people of means to choose to be car-free. People are surprised," said the 44-year-old downtown Los Angeles resident. "But I think it's become less surprising in the last couple of years than in the 1990s."

Linton, who works in environmental policy and advocacy at Occidental College, sold his car in 1992. He made the life-changing decision after experimenting with mass transit for nearly two years while putting only 700 miles on his car odometer - a period he calls "car light."

He has learned that once someone figures out how to commute without a motor vehicle, divorcing the car lifestyle comes easily. His monthly transportation costs are less than $100, mainly for bicycle parts, bus and rail fares.

Still, there are limits.

"You have to plan ahead a little more, and you can't really do a party in Pasadena and a party in Santa Monica on the same night," Linton said. "You have to pick one or the other. It does make me more local."

Cycling up to 100 miles a week for work and recreation, Linton has collided with cars three times. One crash dislocated his shoulder. Two other accidents left him unscathed but damaged his bike.

But he glides through the traffic-clogged streets of Los Angeles on his bicycle unafraid. Determined. Proud.

"If I'm biking at midnight or at rush hour, it takes me the same time to get somewhere," he said. "There's no worry to leave before 5 p.m. to avoid traffic. It's pretty much set."

When it comes to saving money, college student, 19, walks the walk

Shelling out $45 to fill the gas tank on her small hatchback drained Christina Campa's wallet until January, when she reached the point of no return.

Handing the keys back to her father, who gave the Pierce College student the 1994 Saturn as a gift, the 19-year-old decided it was time to walk. Everywhere.

"I couldn't afford it anymore. Having a car was a bill I could do without," said Campa. "I figured if gas prices keep going up, I'm going to have to change my lifestyle eventually, so I had better do it now."

Working at an outdoor gear store less than a mile from her Northridge home, the political science major strolls along the sidewalk to her job in customer service. She walks to friends' houses and to the store.

Though she's been nearly crushed two times by left-turning vehicles and seldom sees her 6-month-old brother and her mother living in Lancaster, she's pocketing an extra $200 a month by not buying gas.

Rarely stepping out of the San Fernando Valley, Campa hops on the bus - costing up to $30 a month - for errands across town. When she misses the bus, she walks.

"I feel more fit, and I have a lot more money now that I'm not spending it on gas. That helps a lot," Campa said. "It was a burden to think about. Now it's something I don't have to think about."

Bicycle Bob Pierce has a van for sale; he quit drviving it about four years ago Idling in traffic and watching his gas-gulping van get less than 10 miles to the gallon spurred Bob Pierce to start living car-free four years ago.

Now known as Bicycle Bob to friends, the 54-year-old metal buyer pedals to work, grocery stores - even out to lunch every Friday behind a caravan of colleagues driving their cars to a treasured Mexican restaurant.

And when valets greet the lunch bunch and take car keys, Pierce hands over his steel-frame bicycle. It's parked at no charge aside from a tip, a small price to pay to remain free of a motor vehicle.

"It takes me five minutes longer to get to work on my bike than it does to drive," the Chatsworth man said of the two-mile commute. "But it doesn't cost me anything other than food for the calories to ride."

Gas cost less than $2 a gallon when Pierce made the switch, so he's unsure how much money he has saved since he ditched his car. His transportation costs reach about $70 every two years for new bicycle tires, plus occasional bus and train tickets.

Still, most of his savings on gas have been wiped out by rising food costs and the generally high cost of living in Southern California.

"I can't imagine how people can still drive a car with the price of gas and have a savings account," Pierce said. "It has to be check-to-check, unless you're fortunate enough to have a high-paying job."

Grocery shopping every two weeks, Pierce lugs home the ice cream, bananas and frozen pizzas in a wagon trailer hitched behind his bicycle.
He generally travels no farther than the San Fernando Valley on weekends and remains loyal to his bicycle-riding lifestyle, rain or shine.

Meanwhile, his 1970 Volkswagen van sits with a for-sale sign in his driveway collecting dust. "It has three-fourths of a tank of gas in it," he said. "So the price just went up."

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by klamedia

LA is full of street lights.....let's move on from that argument.

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true.

You've just killed the patient. Do you have a defibrillator?

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by klamedia

I'm convinced that the only way to truly horde people onto mass transit is to limit their options.....sounds anti-American but it's true.

Any cyclist would tell you that we need more options, so would people on the Westside, and people in the SGV. We need to be able to walk, bike and take rapid transit, not a pseudo-rapid bus.

Not that making motorists pay their fare share (getting rid of free parking and increasing the gas tax) is a bad idea.

[croyboy]

i don't think that we can get people using our mass transit system by limiting our options. we should instead give more options.

in the future, gas emmisions won't even matter because we will be using alternative unharmfull "fuels" to get our vehicles going: like hydrogen or electricity (i don't mean to dismiss our current fueling problems).

people who do decide to drive are annoyingly circling the streets longer looking for better parking. parking should be provided in better ways that still allow a pedestrian friendly environment. like ramps from the street that connect to a parking structure in the center of a block but is surrounded with retail outside facing the sidewalks topped off with office or residential units (maybe both). rail works with this as well, underneath or even through the parking structure, undergound or above the street.

in our city centers, i still believe there should be some kind of cost to parking even at one's place of residence. i'm still unsure of what our tolling for freeways should be in the future. freeways divide communities already with one side of the freeway and the other side, but now the destinations would be divided as well. if you go anywhere it would cost extra. maybe tolling would help for now, but i might like to see it gone once funds are in place or at least more easy to come by with public transit ridership

many people that i've talked with, whether they drive or take public transit would still like an extended/expanded rail system and finished freeways (the 710 for example) as well as better parking

it's the options that will help us. public transit nore cars will help us by themselves. kind of like the human body: we can't work with just blood, or just hormones, or just nervous impulses... we need it all

[phattonez]

The way I see it, fast cars inhibit our two most efficient modes of transportation: walking and cycling. So the slower car go the better. It cuts down on pollution and brings more walkable areas.

The way I see it, we have two options. Either we should raise gas taxes an insane amount so that motorists are paying all the costs of driving (costs of roads and maintenance and costs from accidents and costs for death, however you can do that, and costs for suburban development and resulting groundwater pollution and urban heat island effect, basically, the external costs) which adds up to a ton of money (even more than Europe pays) (we would need all of this money to continue building roads and widening to combat increasing traffic congestion), or we can make our roads more inhibitive of car travel (though still allowing it) and make them more friendly to our much more efficient modes of transportation (in this case gas taxes would still need to be raised, although not nearly as much because all you would really need to pay for is maintenance of roads).

Democrats must agree, Libertarians must agree (otherwise driving is a form of socialism), and Republican must agree (otherwise they look like left-wingers). The sad part is, no one agrees because our country doesn't take seriously these other, more efficient modes of transportation and coddles us with low gas prices.

[croyboy]

Originally Posted by phattonez

Democrats must agree, Libertarians must agree (otherwise driving is a form of socialism), and Republican must agree (otherwise they look like left-wingers). The sad part is, no one agrees because our country doesn't take seriously these other, more efficient modes of transportation and coddles us with low gas prices.

with that, i'd have to agree.

though i don't know if the current economy can handle extreme price raises. not just for the personal vehicle, but for shipping and trucking. i do believe most delivery should be delivered by frieght train, but we need the network for that to be improved (it should be worked on).

[phattonez]

No doubt we'd have to keep the road network around for freight (even though we could put a lot more on rail), but there would be no reason to have wide roads in our more residential areas.

As for paying for freight travel, we do it now without gas tax covering all of it, like it should. So couldn't we just continue that system for freight? But I really stress pushing more freight onto rail. This way you could electrify it and GREATLY reduce pollution, especially here. Freight trucks are notoriously dirty, and freight rail is too. Electrifying freight would be a godsend.

[klamedia]

It's the attitude that we have a right to consume and waste in such an outrageous fashion that will either force us into having less options anyway(depletion of resources) or it will kill us. The idea that we should have an infinite range of options therefore and infinite amount of energy to power those options is a complete lie.......the American dream needs to be finalized. And the exaggerated version of the American dream, one that states "you can have it all" has now spread worldwide and it's simply killing us or will kill us at some point.
Either we come up with some alternative energy that doesn't have harmful waste in its equation or we begin to severly limit our options towards the use of our traditional industrial era means of energy i.e. oil, coal......

Even if we began to use solar cars we would still have a limit on how many we could put on the road at one time. The truth is that one must curtail all sorts of personal freedoms while wantingly being a part of a collective, inwhich I believe a city to be.

[croyboy]

Originally Posted by phattonez

No doubt we'd have to keep the road network around for freight (even though we could put a lot more on rail), but there would be no reason to have wide roads in our more residential areas.

As for paying for freight travel, we do it now without gas tax covering all of it, like it should. So couldn't we just continue that system for freight? But I really stress pushing more freight onto rail. This way you could electrify it and GREATLY reduce pollution, especially here. Freight trucks are notoriously dirty, and freight rail is too. Electrifying freight would be a godsend.

agreed

[croyboy]

Originally Posted by klamedia

It's the attitude that we have a right to consume and waste in such an outrageous fashion that will either force us into having less options anyway(depletion of resources) or it will kill us. The idea that we should have an infinite range of options therefore and infinite amount of energy to power those options is a complete lie.......the American dream needs to be finalized. And the exaggerated version of the American dream, one that states "you can have it all" has now spread worldwide and it's simply killing us or will kill us at some point.
Either we come up with some alternative energy that doesn't have harmful waste in its equation or we begin to severly limit our options towards the use of our traditional industrial era means of energy i.e. oil, coal......

Even if we began to use solar cars we would still have a limit on how many we could put on the road at one time. The truth is that one must curtail all sorts of personal freedoms while wantingly being a part of a collective, inwhich I believe a city to be.

i'm not necessarily saying "infinite", but more options is more my aim.

yes we could get damn close to running out of resources pretty fast, especially since we are not the only ones requiring dirty fuels lately.

those in charge of certain areas of economy pretty much know that getting fuel has become competitive and the resources are becoming more scarce. we all know that change is not only forced upon us by our own lifestyle changes, but by the fact that it won't be physically provided for us or at least not enough of it.

i'd say the american dream is the same now as it was starting out or maybe it just can't ever be finalized and continues evolving. if you want to be able to drive anywhere or do anything in general, you can, there's just certain restrictions especially with costs. it may be luxury, but these are still important industries that should be evolved or built upon. same with public transit. the dreams or sayings are not necessarily lying, but these things are harder to come by today. the american dream is your own, but i don't really even think of it as the american dream... it's just not my mindset. my dreams are my own.

you wanna live in the city, you gotta know your personal limitations and be MORE aware of what's around you. suburbs are better for the personal vehicle. and i'd have to say that los angeles suburbs are poor examples of the traditional or common american suburb. our suburbs are way more crowded then the norm. the point is no, you can't have both (if you're a regular 5 to 6 figure joe like everyone else). it's either the city or the burbs for you, unless you pull off the 7 figures and lead a life with two loves in it, being two homes.

[milquetoast]

July 14, 2008

More Taxis for Los Angeles?

On Wednesday, the City Council will be voting on a six-month taxi cab pilot program for downtown and Hollywood. But the Department of Transportation has a concern, according to a report (.pdf) of theirs: "There is a possibility that during peak hours, key lanes of traffic could be impeded by taxi operations generated by the pilot program." LA Times Road Sage Steve Hymon translates: "They're scared silly of anything that may slow down some bloke in a car."

LAist

[phattonez]

It's a part of the anti-gridlock zoning. If you can't park in that 3rd lane during rush hour, then it doesn't make much sense to have taxis stopping there.

That being said, anti-gridlock zoning is a joke, turning our roads into virtual highways.

[milquetoast]

July 14, 2008

Tensions Flare as Rosendahl Cancels Bicycle Meeting

blog.wired/crimanimal

Cyclists from around the City were looking forward to Councilman Bill Rosendahl's Community Forum scheduled for tonight and it was that significant citywide interest that may have been responsible for causing the Forum to be canceled.

It was last Wednesday that Councilman Rosendahl called for the Forum in response to the significant outcry over the Mandeville Road Rage incident of July 4th that left two cyclists badly injured, the motorist facing multiple felony charges and the community divided, with many shocked at the motorist's behavior and others complaining that the cyclists had it coming.

LAist broke the story a week ago and the debate roiled. The LA Times article of Wednesday has received over 600 comments to date, many of them vehement in their criticism of the cyclists in this incident as well as of cyclists in general. The LAWheelmen received an email from a woman stating "HOORAY FOR THE DOCTOR. It's about time you lawless bunch of crayolas get what you deserve! There are several of us current and former La Habra Heights residents ready, willing and able to testify on behalf of the doctor. YOU DON'T OWN THE STREETS, don't follow the law and are a blight on society."

By Friday, Rosendahl had changed the venue of the Forum in response to the anticipated crowd and then on Saturday, the Forum was canceled with the explanation that officials of the homeowner groups and bicycling clubs expressed concern that "the tenor of media coverage and of blog posts would make a Monday public meeting counter-productive."

A commenter by the moniker Beekeeper expressed disappointment with Rosendahl's decision saying "There is no respect for bicyclist's right to use public roads and the Public Forum that could have occurred could have been a opportunity to address the concerns of bicyclists."

Through it all, there had been much debate online as to the reasons behind the cancellation and cyclists have refocused their energies on other opportunities to raise awareness such as today's Storm the Bastille ride.

Riding from all over the City, cyclists will be gathering at the Santa Monica & Vermont Red Line Station and riding to City Hall for a noon rally where they will present the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and urge the City of LA's leadership to join the cycling community in making LA a great place to ride.

Zach Behrens/LAist