Step by Step

tep by Step- members of LLAPA became involved with Step by Step to give voice to concerns including but not limited to : bicycle path/ walking path along Avenue P and 170th Street East.

LINK to more information: Step by Step , Los Angeles County

STEP BY STEP LAKE LOS ANGELES IS FUNDED

WITH GRANT MONEY

NO TAX DOLLARS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS GRANT

By Shirley Harriman 3/21/2018

LLA Step by Step Phase 1 is ready for presentation to the County’s Chief Executive Officer for approval and then on to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to approve.

Step by Step has held several public meetings in the community and many articles in the Lake LA News and Facebook posts. The work has been going on for close to 4 years. There are more projects in the program than space to itemize here. The entire community benefits from this Pedestrian Plan.

A critical part of the proposed infrastructure is traffic control at LLA’s three schools. Each school will have continental striping on the roadway and a rapid flashing beacon system to control motorized traffic during the time students are coming to school and upon dismissal.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health needs to know how the community feels about the importance of the projects. Your opinion is important.

Please take the survey. Thank you.

Link to take survey


Step by Step Marches On

By Shirley Harriman 3/21/2018

Step by Step Marches On

By Shirley Harriman 3/21/2018

Lake Los Angeles – A meeting of the Lake Los Angeles Step by Step LLA Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was held Tuesday evening March 20 at Sorensen Park.

The main topic of discussion was the Pedestrian Plan Prioritization Methodology. To prioritize is to rank projects for implementation, properly and accurately indicate the needs and vision of the plan as to safety and equity, organize the projects into logical tiers with elements of complexity, implementation responsibility, questions for need of future studies and serves as support for funding application that would underwrite future planning, design and actual construction.

Criteria categories are Focus Community (disadvantaged community status), Public Health, Safety Roadway Classification, Demand, Community Outreach and feasibility. Each criterion has a description attached and determines the maximum possible points. An example would be: Project is located in an area with a median income less than 80% of the statewide median (<$49,191). Project is in an area that is among the most disadvantaged 25% in the state, according to CalEnviroScreen.

Breaking it down, these are the results:

Focus Community 10% of total, Public Health 10% of total, Safety 25% of total, Roadway Classification 5% of total, Demand 20% of total, Community Outreach 10% of total and Feasibility, 20% of total = 100%.

Joining the CAC was Erika Schwerdt representing the Spanish speaking residents of LLA and Jenny Mendez as an active LLA community member.

Erika Said, “I will be posting surveys for specific questions that I will run through the Project Coordinator Miguel Ramos first to get more Spanish speakers involved; and that includes the Spanish speaking elderly and disabled. I am also reaching out to the special needs community to make sure they get involved in the outreach process.” To draw more community involvement and include everything possible is the goal.

Jenny remarked, “It was a great experience to be able to hear first-hand of some of the positive changes that are to come to our community.”

Items and projects were organized by corridors. For the work to be done on each corridor, itemizing makes the organization and scheduling efficient and singles out those projects that can be done quickly and first. Each corridor has a Prioritization Score. In addition to this analysis, the question asked was what the CAC felt was their priority. All agreed that our schools were our top priority.

Corridors and scores are:

165th Street East, priority score 50.0

170th Street East, priority score 62.0

180th Street East, priority score 47.5

East Avenue N, priority score 40.0

East Avenue N-8, priority score 40.0

East Avenue O, priority score 54.4

East Avenue P, priority score 60.0

East Avenue Q, priority score 50.0

Sorensen Park, priority score 57.5

Each corridor has a number of projects, their location, corner/leg, their project description, estimated costs and priority score. For example 165th Street corridor has one project: ‘Install 2-way shared-use path to connect to path along the wash, add buffering treatment such as western style fencing, strategically placed to prevent vehicle incursion.’ That is one project. However, it is estimated that the cost will be $100,000 so it is a very large project. 170th Street East has 11 projects.

Looking at the mapping, teacher Mary Hanna suggested continuing the shared-use pathway that is already planned on East Avenue N-8 from 170th Street East to wrap around 165th Street East and continue eastward on Avenue N to 170th Street to accommodate students who walk to and from school in that area. The map depicts the extended shared-use pathways and new installations. On the map a term that is used elsewhere but not in LLA is “Sidewalk”. That will be changed in the next printing of the Plan.

Mary Hanna also asked that since the project was started over three years ago, another added consideration that needs to be part of the consulting and planning is the increased truck traffic through Lake Los Angeles. Although the truck traffic follows rules of the road and speed limits, consideration needs to be given to the mix of the heavy volume of trucks on the road with passenger cars and trucks, school busses and pedestrians.

Los Angeles County Health and Public Works agreed that the pathways are too narrow and plan to widen them all to 8’0” to accommodate walkers, strollers, golf carts and motorized chairs, etc. The CAC agreed that our shared pathways should be blacktop, as opposed to concrete, to stay as close to the “rural” atmosphere as possible.

The meeting’s discussion of additions and suggestions to the tentative plan were noted by Coordinator Ramos to be shared and consulted with Public Works.

It should be noted that the Plan is tentative and not yet approved. The final vote will be forthcoming from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) in the very near future.

The total estimated cost for projects at this point is $1,771,000. In addition there are some projects that do not have a dollar figure attached to them but rather noted as “varied”