March 24, 2008 6:19 am
Does A Bikeway Access Gate Closing Alone In Los Angeles Make Any Sound?
Posted by Will under biking, disgraceful, politics, updated
Maybe not, but this cyclist makes some noise about it.
My friend Stephen Box, tireless cyclist and cycling advocate and founder of the Bike Writers Collective (BWC), attended what he related the next day on the LAist blog to be something of a contentious March 18 meeting of the L.A. Transportation Committee regarding Councilman Bill Rosendahl’s motion to close a Ballona Creek Bikeway access gate at Culver Drive west of Sawtelle. Rosendahl put in the request in response to residents’ complaints that it made their adjacent neighborhood more vulnerable to crime.
When BWC member Eric Richardson brought the proprosal to the collective’s attention the day before the meeting, its members including myself, were decidedly put out by what we considered to be a short-sighted and ineffective solution that will remove the bikeway from its community far more than it will reduce crime. At the same time it was also understood that one gate is something of a little battle to pick. But as one gate’s closure can lead to another and another, I took immediate action the evening of March 17 to scope out the section of bikeway in question, with an eye towards identifying the various access points available and distances in between them.

Entering the bikeway eastbound at the entrance from Inglewood Avenue the first somewhat discreet access I found was a third of a mile away at Coolidge Avenue pictured below, where Culver Slauson Park is located. I then traveled under the 405 Freeway overpass to the gate Rosendahl wants closed at the meeting of Culver Drive and Purdue Avenue.

The distance from Coolidge Avenue to Purdue Avenue is a fifth of a mile. In other words, even if one subscribes to the belief that locking a gate will successfully eliminate any criminal element present from accessing or escaping the adjacent area, it is readily negated by the fact that there’s another opening just 1,000 feet away.
Next, let’s take a look at the Culver Drive gate and immediate fencing and see why even Rosendahl’s motion succeeds and the gate is shackled it will have little of its intended effect.

As pictured above, the material is simple chain link. On top of that the gate is about five feet all. The fencing that extends east and west of the gate is just as short but its built up from a concrete footing to give it a total height of about six feet. As a barrier this offers little in the way of security. Not only can the chain link be cut but with the concrete base serving as a boost step the fence is basically ready to be climbed over and quickly by any properly motivated hoodlums.
So what’s the solution? Do we close the Coolidge Avenue gate, too? Or perhaps do we spend money the city doesn’t have to increase the Culver Drive gate’s height? Surprisingly enough you can see in the following picture this has already happened on Culver Drive another fifth of a mile upstream beyond Sawtelle Boulevard at Beloit Avenue.

Beyond the noticeable difference in height between this fencing and gate along Culver Drive east of Sawtelle and the one seen in the previous image, it’s also very important to note that the gate is already closed and locked. This was not just a one-day occurrence. It was shackled shut when this picture was taken March 17, as well as when I rode by it on the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st. While I’m not privy to the circumstances regarding its closure, it’s not hard to imagine the residents of these streets perhaps lobbying for it for the same reason as their neighbors on the other side of Sawtelle are doing now.
But wait, there’s more! A tenth of a mile eastward and one comes to the inexplicably locked gates of the bikeway exit into the southbound lanes of Sepulveda Boulevard.

Entering and exiting has been denied every day this week as well. So unless one is willing to risk clambering over the upended shopping cart seen at the left of the frame (placed there perhaps by some enterprising cyclist or pedestrian or gangmember), in order to exit the bikeway you’ll have to travel under the Sepulveda Boulevard overpass and double back to the street an additional third of a mile.
For the healthy walker, jogger or bike rider this is no big deal. But let’s take a look at the potential of a worst-case scenario that involves someone injured on the bikeway in the vicinity of Sawtelle. Whereas there should be two methods of egress available to the injured person – at Beloit Avenue and Purdue Avenue – Beloit isn’t and now an exit at Purdue is in danger of disappearing. Furthermore, the only options are for the injured person to somehow get all the way under Sepulveda, go under the overpass and double back to the entrance, or make it the other direction to Coolidge Avenue.
And what if it’s a matter of emergency personnel trying to assist an incapacitated person at that point on the bikeway. It isn’t hard to imagine the potential delays that could occur if paramedics are prevented from coming to someone’s aid because locked gates block there way and force them in opposite directions and greater distances to gain entry.
While that might seem overdramatic or an exaggeration, it all goes to the matter of accessibility and whether we want to allow this important resource to be further separated from the community it serves, under the false pretense of protecting it.
I certainly can empathize with the citizens that Stephen reported on who at the meeting expressed fear over the present conditions, and I think Councilman Rosendahl is absolutely obligated to find a way to protect them. But he should redirect his sights away from the easy target he’s focused on and instead explore proactive opportunities that can be used to reduce the level of crime purported to exist there.
With two access points already locked down, closing what would be a third in a row to the Ballona Creek Bikeway is not one of those opportunities.
UPDATED (03.25): Coincidence? I think not. On my way in to work after a doctor’s appointment yesterday afternoon I exited the bikepath accessway to the northbound lanes of Sepulveda Boulevard and found the previously locked gate to/from the southbound lanes open:

Not completely visible about a tenth of a mile beyond it is the still-shackled gate at Beloit Avenue and Culver Drive.
13 Responses to “ Does A Bikeway Access Gate Closing Alone In Los Angeles Make Any Sound? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Streetsblog LA » Today’s Headlines
March 25th, 2008 at 6:26 am[...] Detailed Article on Ballona Creek Bikeway Controversy (WildBell) [...]
-
Pingback from Mid-Week Round-Up | Los Angeles Metblogs
March 26th, 2008 at 10:35 am[...] own Will Campbell opposes the closing of an access gate to a bike path. Why does the city seem so determined to discourage bikes? [...]
-
Pingback from Streetsblog LA » Community and Cyclists Clash on Ballona Creek Trail Gate
April 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am[...] Photo of Entrance by Will Campbell [...]
-
Pingback from Streetsblog » Expansion and Gate Closures on Bike Themed City Council Agenda
July 7th, 2008 at 1:01 pm[...] Needed Safety Amenity or Hotbed of Gang ActivityThis Wednesday at 2:00 p.m., the Los Angeles City Council’s Transportation Committee will meet and there’s four important bike-related matters on the agenda. The most controversial of those issues will be the final debate on whether or not to close the entrance to the Ballona Creek Bicycle Trail along Culver Drive between Purdue Avenue and Sawtelle Boulevard. Residents living adjacently to the entrance have charged that because it provides an escape route, the entrance has become an attractive place for gangbangers and miscreants to gather and conduct illicit activities. At past meetings, residents have described drug deals, home invasions and even a shoot out that all occurred in their neighborhood as a result of the gate being opened.For their part, cyclists argue that closing the gate will make the trail less safe for users and do nothing for the community. The police seem unable, or unwilling, to step up enforcement in the neighborhood which is the preferred solution for both the local and cycling communities.Back in March the committee held a hearing on a resolution to close the trail, sponsored by local Councilman Bill Rosendahl. The committee ordered the LAPD to work with the community and cyclists to devise a compromise, after making it clear the Committee favors the position of the community. The LAPD’s “compromise” position is to close the entrance for 90 days and see what, if any, impacts it has had on crime. In addition to the closure, there’s three items on the agenda that should make cyclists smile.First, is the motion by Council President Eric Garcetti and Councilman Ed Reyes ordering LADOT to pilot a Sharrows program. Sharrows are pavement markings that encourage cyclists to travel outside of the “door zone” in areas where there is parking and remind cars to “Share the Road” with bicycles. The pilot program consists of placing Sharrows on Vermont Avenue, between Hollywood Boulevard and 4th Street and on Fountain Avenue, between the 101 Freeway and Hoover Street.Second, Councilman Reyes is seeking to use the city’s Bicycle Master Plan to bring modern bike amenities, such as Bike Boulevards and a Bike-Share program, to his district in East LA. Once these facilities prove as popular as they are in other cities, the programs would be expanded city-wide.Also on the agenda is a Garcetti backed motion that would require that LADOT examine how to fit more bikes on DASH and Commuter Express buses. Both bus services are controlled by the city.Photo: Will Campbell [...]
-
Pingback from Streetsblog
July 10th, 2008 at 9:56 am[...] The LAPD Testifies on the Gate ClosureYesterday, the City Council Transportation Committee followed the advice of the LAPD and voted to approve a trial closure of one of the entrances to the Ballona Creek trail along Culver Drive between Purdue Avenue and Sawtelle Boulevard. An amendment by Committee Chair Wendy Greuel requires that a detailed series of goal posts be put in place to measure the closure’s success before the resolution comes before the full Council.After months of debate since this issue first appeared on the Transportation Committee Agenda in March, the local LAPD commander wrote a letter to the City Council urging them to “temporarily” close the gate for 90 days so that they could assess it’s impact on the community. But not providing any other alternatives other than a closure, the LAPD did the Council and local Councilman Bill Rosendahl a disservice; forcing a clash between trail users who view the gate as a safe entrance and exit from the trail and those living adjacent to the gate who view it as a hotbed of gang activity because it provides an extra escape route.Much of the testimony from the bike community was similar to what’s been said before. Concerns were raised about the safety of people on the trail, the potential crashes that would occur by forcing all those wishing to enter or exit the crash to do so off more heavily traveled roadways and even if the safety measure was needed at all. Local bike advocate Howard Hackett pointed out that it had been more than 100 days since the Transportation Committee first addressed the potential closure and there had been no crime reported in the area. How could a closed gate over a 90-day period improve on that record?In response, the LAPD’s representatives admitted that crime in the area has gone down 46% in the first two months of 2008 compared to the same time period in 2007.Oddly, in response to questions about why the gate closure would be a full-time closure and not just at night, the LAPD responded that crime in the area is a 24-hour problem and not just isolated to evening hours. This is a direct contradiction to comments made by Lou Corbin, whose house is directly across the street and is a leading proponent of gate closure, at previous meetings where he stated that the problem is during the day when people aren’t home and their houses get vandalized and burglarized. There was no effort to contradict Corbin at previous meetings when the debate was about whether or not increased lighting could improve the crime situation in the area.The meeting also featured a sharp exchange between Councilman Richard Alarcon and Rosendahl over whether the community had done enough to warrant the city stepping in. Alarcon fixated on the lack of a community watch program and forcefully argued that closing access to a public amenity before the community had tried policing itself was the wrong way to go about things. Rosendahl noted that the police in his district get no funds from the city’s gang prevention program and we should support their request for a closure. Alarcon also asked the million-dollar question for which there is no reply, “If they don’t have trouble breaking into a house, how are they going to be stopped by a fence?” Earlier, Alex Thompson testified to the ease of using bolt cutters to quickly making a whole in a chain link fence. Other bike advocates wondered how difficult it would be to just jump or climb the four-foot obstacle to get to the trail.Before ultimately voting to move the motion forward, Wendy Greuel commented on the incomplete nature of the LAPD’s proposal. Greuel was concerned that if the evaluation was limited to asking the community if it “felt more safe” that the gate would remain closed forever regardless of its impact on safety. Before a final vote the committee agreed that a detailed evaluation criteria would need to be in place before the council could give final approval.One issue that remained unresolved was whether the closure could impact future funding of trail projects in the city. This point was brought up multiple times during testimony; but when a Metro lobbyist was asked point blank if this were the case, he replied that he would have to look it up.In the end, the Committee moved the proposal by a 4-1 vote, with Alarcon voting against. Actually, I’m just assuming the vote was 4-1 and not 3-1-1 or 3-2. Councilman Parks didn’t move for most of the debate and never spoke. Some of those in the audience wondered whether or not the Councilman had fallen asleep. Regardless, the full council will take up the issue later this summer. First photo by Alex Thompson.Second photo by Will Campbell. [...]


March 24th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Excellent story!
That chain-link fencing is one of the bleakest elements on that bike path.
More access, lots of people, trout-hunting expeditions, pretty soon that Creek would set a new standard for revitalization!
March 24th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I was very upset at the end of the meeting. The committee completely ignored the danger that locking the gate can have on the path users. Children, older people and women. The agenda only focused on cyclists vs. home owners. I used the path a couple times and never again! I used the LA River path a couple times and never again! As a woman, I have no escape route in a dangerous situation. As a woman, I feel too isolated, not protected. There would be no witnesses if someone would knock me over. Nobody would hear me if I would scream for help.
I’m resentful that this was ignored by the committee.
People who are up to no good like to hang out in places that are isolated. That are difficult to access by others. Closing more gates will make the river less safe and more prone to unwanted activities.
If Rosendahl would want to help and protect the neighbors, he would help revitalize the river, which will bring the property value up, make the river a destination point and would benefit not just the home owners but also bike path users, businesses and the city.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Rolling the path just a couple of hours ago I saw that the gate was closed at Culver, and Sepulveda. Lame. Bolt cutters.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Imagine if they gated and locked the onramp to the freeways in L.A.?
“I’m sorry folks, criminals use this here road. It’s safer if it’s locked up.”
I’ve had this happen to me a few times in the Arroyo Seco bikepath in Highland Park.
I won’t go into details, but they made me late by locking the gate, and I spent a good fifteen minutes on several separate occasions beating the shit out of their gates. I haven’t seen them locked (except when it rains - the bike path is in a river bed) since.
Bolt cutters indeed! Midnight ninja mission?
March 27th, 2008 at 12:11 am
How ’bout Rosendahl stop stealing funds away from LAPD, and have them actually arrest and prosecute scum, rather than protecting them?
Closing gates does not prevent crime. Any elementary school principal knows that - it only keeps the law-abiding out.
Strict law enforcement, with lots of visible beat/bike cops, responsive to the citizens, is the best way to secure the streets. But we need to know that LAPD will actually answer their phone, show up when we call, and arrest the scum.
In my experience, thanks to Rosendahl, they just drive by and wave.
March 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I received the below after writing to Rosendahl expressing my displeasure over the possible closing. We need to get a large amount of people there:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting the Office of Councilmember Rosendahl
regarding the Ballona Creek bike path. A public meeting will be held on
Thursday, April 3rd 6-7:30pm in Councilmember Rosendahl’s Westchester
Field Office located at 7166 W. Manchester Blvd.Westchester, CA 90045 to
discuss community concerns. Representatives from the Los Angeles Police
Department and Department of Transportation will be present. I encourage
you to attend and share your perspective.
If you have any questions, please email or call me.
Regards,
Nicole A. Velásquez
Field Deputy
Councilmember Bill Rosendahl
City of Los Angeles, 11th District
7166 W. Manchester Blvd.
Westchester, CA 90045
PH: (310) 568-8772
FAX: (310) 410-3946
EMAIL: nicole.velasquez@lacity.org
http://www.councilmanrosendahl.com
March 31st, 2008 at 12:07 am
I got the same letter Greg and I’m bummed I’ll be out of town next week and unable to attend. I did forward it on to my fellow pedalers in the Bike Writers Collective and I believe one is planning to be there.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The bike path neede more traffic not less in order to become safer. Residents of the Mar Vista Housing project and students from Culver City High School are among those that may be terroizing bicyclist as well as residents along the bike path. In my opinion the path is too isolated. More public access not less is required. How about some commercial development?