(Disclaimer: In his personal time, Joe Linton, the editor of Streetsblog Los Angeles, has taken it upon himself to challenge the city\u2019s implementation of Measure HLA by appealing to the Board of Public Works and in court. When Streetsblog reports on matters where Linton is directly involved, the pieces will be written by either Damien Newton or Sahra Sulaiman.)<\/p>\n
Two years after Los Angeles voters overwhelmingly approved Healthy Streets Los Angeles aka Measure HLA<\/a>, the fight over how \u2026or whether\u2026 the city is implementing the law is increasingly shifting to courtrooms and appeals hearings.<\/p>\n Measure HLA is a Los Angeles law that requires the city to implement its Mobility Plan whenever it undertakes significant street work, such as resurfacing. Approved by voters in 2024, the measure was intended to ensure that city projects automatically include improvements like bike lanes, bus lanes, crosswalks, and other safety features, rather than relying on separate funding or political approval. However, since the law passed, the city has done little to actually implement it.<\/p>\n In the past week, safe streets advocate Joe Linton filed a new lawsuit<\/a> challenging what he describes as city-created loopholes undermining the measure. At the same time, the Los Angeles Board of Public Works rejected yet<\/a> another<\/a> round of appeals seeking to force the city to comply with HLA during street projects.<\/p>\n New Lawsuit Targets \u201cLoopholes\u201d Like Large Asphalt Repair<\/p>\n The latest lawsuit takes aim at the city\u2019s interpretation of what kinds of street work trigger Measure HLA requirements. This is the second lawsuit filed by Linton against the city over Measure HLA. Some preliminary rulings from the first suit may be announced later this month or in May.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the two years since Measure HLA became law, the city has only installed 300 feet of Mobility Plan improvements,\u201d Linton wrote. \u201cI grew frustrated with the city\u2019s use of various loopholes \u2013 especially large asphalt repair, and terming street reconfiguration \u2018restriping without other improvements\u2019 \u2013 so I filed another lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n At the center of the dispute is the city\u2019s shift away from traditional street resurfacing toward something it calls \u201clarge asphalt repair,\u201d or LAR. Instead of fully repaving streets, the city often repairs portions of roadways \u2014 a change advocates argue is designed specifically to avoid triggering both accessibility and HLA requirements. In a short video created for Streetsblog, Linton explains some of the frustration he and others have felt over \u201clarge asphalt repair.\u201d<\/p>\n For Streetsblog, Linton narrated this video explaining the frustration and confusion over what is, and isn\u2019t, Large Asphalt Repair.<\/p>\n The lawsuit also challenges the city\u2019s interpretation of other exemptions, including claims that certain projects amount to minor restriping rather than meaningful street redesigns.<\/p>\n Appeals Rejected, Again<\/p>\n While the courts may ultimately decide the broader legal questions, advocates are also attempting to enforce HLA through the city\u2019s administrative appeals process \u2014 with little success.<\/p>\n Last week, the Board of Public Works considered three new appeals related to street projects that advocates argue should have included Mobility Plan upgrades. All three were denied.<\/p>\n The appeals focused on street reconfiguration projects that exceeded the threshold length that typically triggers HLA requirements. Advocates argue that these trigger HLA, therefore require bike\/bus\/pedestrian improvements.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a summary of the three appeals that were outright rejected last week:<\/p>\n Hyperion Avenue<\/a>: Linton argued that striping changes made during speed table installation shifted vehicle lanes closer to cyclists, effectively reconfiguring the street and triggering Measure HLA requirements for bike lanes and accessibility improvements. The city rejected the appeal, classifying the work as \u201crestriping without other improvements,\u201d which is exempt from HLA.<\/p>\n