Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated instance of a prohibited pedestrian crossing in Los Angeles, where the focus is invariably on maximizing automobile throughput.

In general, more mixing of pedestrians with other modes tends to legitimize the role of pedestrians, slow down drivers and reduce crashes. But of course it’s not effective if the pedestrians are just tossed into a mix that favors cars. It seems pretty clear to me that the solution to this is to calm Alameda enough so that you can have multiple crosswalks and still be safe.

One more note: The reason L.A. Street and Alameda are laid out so weird: these streets were among the first in L.A. and were laid out around 1780. Little thought was given to future growth.

In fact, that wacky curve in L.A. Street wasn’t there before the Hollywood Freeway was built, around 1950. Before that, the two streets just met at a non-perpendicular angle, as did Alameda and Main Street, two blocks north. Main was also reconfigured to make a turn so as to hit Alameda at a 90 degree angle.

I always ignore those “crosswalk over there” signs, since it is legal to cross at any intersection, marked or not. (Unless it specifically says you can’t, which this does, I guess.)

I’m probably just lucky that I haven’t been hit by a truck or gotten a ticket. I do wait for the walk signal on the other side of the intersection and I do try to lock eyes with the drivers that are trying to turn right or whatever so they know what I’m doing. I figure if I ever get caught I’ll plead ignorance.

We just thought it was bizarre that there would be any “no crossing” signs in front of a major train station, but there’s obviously a disconnect between our New York sensibilities and reality in L.A. Hey, AAA gave us an award for pedestrian-friendly design, and I’m starting to get why.

Here’s the route we took (yes, we probably should have gone into the grand plaza leading up to the station, but we had no idea what we were doing).

But Alameda is one of the major thoroughfares into and out of downtown LA, and Olvera Street/Union Station aren’t really “popular pedestrian destinations”. As I said before, most everyone who arrives at Union Station arrives by other means – and the parking for Olvera Street is on the other side of the Plaza.

The pedestrian traffic there isn’t really all that heavy – it’s just that what pedestrian traffic there is tends to be inattentive and distracted, while many of the drivers are half-lost, confused civilians, or cab drivers in a hurry.

I’m sure the whole street could be massively reconfigured to improve pedestrian access while bollixing up (aka “calming”) traffic flow, but it would then be a major bottleneck, unlikely to lead to anything resembling “calm”.

So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Even former poorfeaders could use a Preview.

And, yes, I agree that crosswalks are important for livable neighborhoods – but “a crosswalk at every corner” isn’t always good policy.

Indeed, official policy in LA is that every intersection is a legal crosswalk, whether it’s marked or not – with the (relatively rare) exception of corners where crossing is specifically forbidden by “No Crossing” signs – as is the case here.

Those exceptions are almost in places where oddities of the roadway configuration present unusual hazards to pedestrians – as this one does.

MRS-MAN (#20) has the basics of it, but you should also bear in mind the Plaza (that big round tree-lined thingy west of the intersection), and Olvera Street – the pedestrian-only street north of the Plaza – are well-known semi-historical tourist attractions.

(I say “semi-historical”, because Olvera Street is a 1930s-era attempt to create a tourist attraction – a Mexican-style open-air mercado – as a sort of “historical theme park” built around a number of genuine historical buildings, including some of the oldest surviving structures in Los Angeles. The Plaza and its surrounding buildings are the core of “old Los Angeles” – the Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles, the agricultural settlement founded to support the Mission San Gabriel.)

And of course Union Station itself is also a substantial (though generally under-appreciated!) tourist attraction.

The painted crosswalk, you will notice, leads to the side of the street you need to be on in order to get from Union Station to the Plaza and Olvera Street.

A great many of the people crossing Alameda at that corner will be tourists, headed from Union Station to Olvera Street or vice-versa.

A great many of the cars driving in and out of Union Station will be Angelenos – but not necessarily downtown locals – picking up or dropping off travelers.

Both of these groups are likely to be unfamiliar with the area, and distracted by having their attention on other things – their visitors, their destinations, trying to puzzle out the signage to see which way to go, and so on.

Couple that with the unusual configuration of the street that MRS-MAN notes above – essentially a single divided street with a very wide median, encountered just after rounding a substantial curve – and you have a recipe for car-vs.-pedestrian encounters with unfortunate and potentially tragic consequences.

Thus, the “No Crossing” signs posted on the corners that don’t really lead to useful destinations, and the single legal crosswalk that goes where most people are really headed, whether they realize it or not.

And though Union Station is a major transit hub, very few commuters will be arriving on foot – mostly, they’ll be arriving on some form of transit, as I noted above.

“Livable neighborhoods” are important – and the very recent completion of new infill mixed-use retail/housing projects in that area will make that even more important in years to come – but clinging to some simplistic rote principle like “a crosswalk at every corner” is just foolish when it’s liable to get people injured or killed.

What about the other potential crosswalks? Well, if a crosswalk were put in place at the northern part of the southern intersection or the southern part of the northern intersection, that would leave pedestrians in the median, which disappears as L.A. St. heads to the south. So that does not leave pedestrians a good place to go.

What about the southern part of the southern intersection (where the picture was taken). Well, a crosswalk there would lead pedestrians to walk on the eastern side of L.A. Street. But a few feet further south, there is a huge on-ramp to the northbound 101 freeway. Cars turning from L.A. street to the 101 would be a danger to the pedestrains, so the city eliminated the sidewalk on the eastern side of L.A. street in this area. To discourage more pedestrians, they also prohibited the crossing where you were trying to cross.

I was more concerned about getting run over. I mean there were other people walking in the area. Maybe we were just in a bad part of LA for walking.

We should go back to LA some day and get one of the locals to show us how to have a good time there without a car. I think people are too mean to LA. Let’s give it a chance!

You were walking around the Plaza dragging your luggage? Looking for a Starbucks?

Hahahaha!

This gets better by the moment.

It’s a wonder you weren’t mugged and dumped behind a warehouse somewhere.

Next time, just a hang a sign around your neck that says “CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO GET TO DISNEYLAND?”, and maybe some of the locals will take pity on you and send you off to Anaheim, where everybody’s nice to tourists, and all the corners have crosswalks.

[I'd put smileys on several of the lines above, because, really, I kid - but your blogging software would just turn them into hideous little GIFs. So you'll just have to imagine how amused I am by all this. Thanks, you've really made my day.]

Dude, are you serious? This is LA.

What – do you think people walk to Union Station?

We take the Subway. Or the Light Rail. Or Amtrak. Or the Metrolink. Or the Flyaway Bus. Or the Rapid Bus. Or the DASH Bus. Or a Local Bus. Or a ZipCar. Or a taxicab. Or a pedicab.

(And, yes, sometimes we even drive our own cars.)

But walk?

I mean, seriously: you come to LA, to Union Station, the very heart and hub of modern-day LA transit, to do a feature on “Transit-Oriented America”, and all you can do is complain about the crosswalk placement?

This really cracks me up.

I’m not Pete, but I’ll weigh in quickly on the S.F. parking compromise. It’s a step back, but a baby one–most importantly, it would preserve the progressive downtown parking restrictions that the original initiative would have gutted, and won’t let homeowners extend driveways through bus stops (no, really–that was proposed). And, there’s a much greater step forward for local transit on the November ballot. So a lot of us here are feeling like we dodged a bullet. The original initiative would have passed if for no other reasons than its backers had money to burn, and that as much as we might like to deny it, San Francisco is still part of California.

Anyway, great series.

The Fisher Initiative (aka “Parking for Neighborhoods”) appears to be dead in the water, after a compromise worked out by the president of our Board of Supervisors – another ballot measure will surface in February that will allow some new parking, but not the horrendous changes that were written into the November proposition.

Thanks for that info, Pete. Can you tell us whether that compromise measure is any good? It sounds like any new parking allowances/requirements would be a step back from what you currently have.

Probably harder to see from ground level. From your photo it looks like you were on the south side. Oh so close!