Dear Editor – Why I Supported Option One for MOVE Culver City

Dear Editor, 

The Culver City Council meeting on April 24 was both uplifting and heart-breaking. It was uplifting to hear from so many younger Culver City residents who have chosen to reduce or eliminate their use of cars, not because it’s easier or more convenient, but because they are committed to doing their part to reduce the greenhouse gases that already are causing severe climate impacts. It was inspiring to hear my neighbor, Culver City High School senior Ava Frans, tell the Council “We are one of the first generations living with constant climate anxiety. As a result, we involve ourselves in our community to create actionable change.”

The March 2023 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasized the urgency of accelerating action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The evidence is crystal clear, the science is unequivocal – it’s just the lack of political will that’s holding us back from the bold action that’s necessary to avert a climate catastrophe.” (

The meeting was heart-breaking because the majority of our City Council members demonstrated lack of political will in voting to remove the Move Culver City protected bicycle lane and add back a lane for cars. No one is insisting that all local residents give up their cars, but one of the most effective things individuals can do to mitigate climate change is to drive less. (

The fallacy of the shared bike/bus lane approach endorsed by the City Council majority is the assumption that it will attract the same number of cyclists as the protected bike lane. Multiple studies have found that perceived safety is the most important factor in urban bicycle use. Protected bicycle lanes (often called bicycle tracks in Europe) are strongly perceived to be the safest, and they are the most effective in attracting new riders. (Hull & O’Holleran,

I was getting ready to try cycling again for the first time in 45 years, but at age 70, there is no way I would risk riding in a lane shared by the largest vehicle on the road. The Move CC pilot showed cycling increased 57% from 2019; that is a meaningful increase, considering the combined impact of the pandemic and rainfall exceeding normal in September, November, and December 2022 ( We could have expected cycling to increase further as weather improved and more people became aware of the protected lane.

The irony of adding back a lane for cars is that it will not reduce congestion in downtown Culver City, due to induced demand. Although travel time may decrease initially, Waze and Google will redirect traffic flow to the additional lane, especially given that the City of Los Angeles has just added separate dedicated lanes for bicycles and buses on Venice Boulevard where it parallels the Move CC corridor.

Three members of our City Council showed that:

· They do not prioritize climate change and its impact on future generations;

· They do not understand the necessity of reducing driving – even in car-dependent California – to achieve climate goals;

· They do not care about equity and investing in solutions that serve area residents with the fewest resources;

· They do not believe data collected and analyzed by accepted methodologies, but substituted perceptions and anecdote;

· They do not understand the widely accepted principle of induced demand.

Rosalynn Carter said “A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.” We have a moral obligation to do our part to mitigate climate disaster. Unfortunately, three of our Council Members showed us they are not great leaders. Voters will remember.


Jeanne T. Black, PhD, MBA

The Actors' Gang