City Planning Department has extended comment period for LA's Draft Bike Plan. This is good for cyclists, great for neighborhoods!
Three weeks after the deadline for public comment on LA's Draft Bike Plan ended, Jane Blumenfeld, City Planning's Acting Deputy Director, reversed position and announced an extension on the public comment period until January 8, 2010. This reversal signifies a victory for the bike activists, the community groups, and the neighborhood councils who rose to the occasion, calling the initial 42-day comment period on the 563 page Draft Bike Plan an insult to the civic engagement process. In the grand scheme of things, it would be easy to dismiss LA's Draft Bike Plan as a simple document that humbly addresses the needs of a niche transportation mode. Hardly the stuff of the LA visionaries who are frothing at the mouth as they position themselves to spend billions of dollars on mega-transit projects, quickly and quietly and fueled by the conviction that they know best. But that would be a mistake.
LA's Draft Bike Plan has the potential to benefit the city as a whole, for cyclists and non-cyclists alike, and the process for developing the plan, as well as the final document, is important for several reasons.
First, LA's Draft Bike Plan has gone a long way toward establishing a reasonable and meaningful minimum standard for public comments on the planning that impacts our communities.
The Department of Transportation and City Planning initially released the Draft Bike Plan with a 42-day comment period, clearly demonstrating a cavalier approach to the public participation process.
With neighborhood councils requiring 60 days just to cycle through a monthly committee meeting and then a monthly board meeting, the chances of NC review were reduced to nil.
Bloggers seized on this failure and issued the challenge. This simple rallying cry brought together bloggers, the NC Action Summit, the Valley Alliance, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the CD11 Transportation Committee, and neighborhood councils from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to Studio City to Mid-City West to Palms to East Hollywood to Encino to others too numerous to list.
Result: a meaningful process for public engagement and a meaningful comment period.
Second, LA's Draft Bike Plan has the capacity to bring a sense of scale to the streets of Los Angeles by addressing them from the perspective of a single human on a bike.
Developing a powerful Bike Plan demands that we look at the city from the ground up, starting with the movement of people instead of adding them as an afterthought.
For too long, the streets of LA have been evaluated simply on their ability to hold more cars and side streets have been evaluated based on their ability to absorb overflow and cut-through traffic. The development of LA's Bike Plan demands that we grapple with the tough questions and decide how people will live and work and socialize and move about the City of Los Angeles.
This discussion positions multi-modal transportation choices as the starting point for LA's Transportation and Planning departments.
Result: streets that are for people, supported by real transportation choices.
Third, LA's Draft Bike Plan is just one of many plans. After all, Los Angeles is a "City of Plans."
There are 35 Community Plans, then there are the Specific Plans, complemented by the Master Plans, supported by Vision Plans, all overlapping and lost in the melee created every time the Mayor and the City Council initiate a Trash Plan, a River Plan, a Sidewalk Plan, a Tree Plan, a Golf Plan or a Lighting Plan.
Toss a couple of mega-plans such as the Harbor Plan or the NBC-Universal Plan in the mix and it's evident that the only people who benefit from this scenario are the consultants who churn plans as if City Hall has unlimited shelf-space, complete with unlimited dust.
The development of LA's Bike Plan comes complete with community calls for integration. It comes with challenges for real implementation, not just as an exercise in required planning but as the first real step in improving the quality of life in our communities.
Result: integrated Community Planning supported by a commitment to implementation.
Finally, LA's Draft Bike Plan is already serving as a reminder that as much as Los Angeles is the land of diversity, it is also the land of Common Ground.
Regardless of geography, culture, language, economics, professions or modes of travel, the people of Los Angeles all share the same desire to travel freely and safely on their streets. Some walk, some ride, some drive, some take mass transit and all will benefit from a robust Bike Plan with a real vision.
After all, cyclists simply want well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris.
They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.
They want to patronize local businesses that offer accommodations for cyclists.
They want great routes to schools, jobs, city centers and residential communities and they want a great relationship with law enforcement so that the streets are free of crime. In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for the community.
Result: the establishment of common ground and the development of real community.
INFO: The journey to a better Bike Plan continues and if you'd like to participate, visit LABikePlan.com to download a copy of the Draft Bike Plan.
To participate in the development of LA's Best Bike Plan, join the LA Bike Working Group in Hollywood on Saturday, December 12 at 2pm. 1711 Van Ness Avenue, Los Angeles, 90028.
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) Photo credit: Photo by Lucyrk in LA via LAist Featured Photos on Flickr
City Council President Eric Garcetti is raising eyebrows as he tosses obstacle after obstacle at Hollywood's proposed car-share program, only to have reality contradict his objections.
Bechir Blagui, the operator of Hollywood Rent A Car, went to City Council last week to ask for help in establishing an electric car charging station on Hollywood Boulevard, located at a dedicated parking space, that would support his proposed electric car-share program along with the electric cars of those in the community.
Garcetti responded to Blagui's request for help by offering moral support tempered by the admonition that state law regulated the establishment of electric charging stations on the street. He offered to work together with Bechir to change the vehicle code and to make it happen. "That's why we're here!"
A visit to Montana Avenue in Santa Monica yielded the discovery of two electric charging stations, positioned on the sidewalk and supported by dedicated parking spaces, all in direct contradiction to Garcetti's "state regulated" reality and his claim of the need for a change to the law.
When a photo of the Montana Avenue charging stations was forwarded to Garcetti, he responded, "This is a great example of a public charger on the street (I've used it many times!). This is an open-to-the-public example (different than a dedicated space for an individual business), but a great example that it can be done."
What happened to the "Let's work together to change State Law!" objection?
Meanwhile, Assemblyman Mike Feuer's Transportation Deputy responded to Garcetti's "state law" objection by saying "I checked with our legislative director in Sacramento and he does not know of any such legislation."
Garcetti's "it can be done" affirmation came on the tail end of a revised objection, claiming Bechir's request was for a "dedicated space for an individual business." Bechir responded by pointing out that his request was not for an exclusive space but for an open charging station, accessible to the public. Either way, it turned out to be irrelevant.
A visit to Adams Boulevard just north of USC yielded the discovery of two parking spaces, on the street, empty and supported by signage that indicated they were for the exclusive use of the ZipCar Company, all in direct contradiction to Garcetti's ""individual business" reality and the need to maintain "open-to-the-public" parking.
There are approximately a dozen parking spaces in the USC neighborhood and approximately a dozen more in the UCLA neighborhood, all designated as ZipCar spaces and supported by Tow Away signs.
The parking spaces are in densely populated areas where parking is at a premium, most are on the street while some are on school property and some are in City controlled parking structures.
The City's ability to offer dedicated parking spaces for car-share programs is supported by State Law that went into effect on January 1, 2007. California Vehicle Code Section 5205.5 specifies that cities have the authority to reserve public, on-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of vehicles participating in a car-share vehicle program.
Bechir's quest for a Hollywood car-share program, offering electric community cars, supported by a charging station on Hollywood Boulevard, open to the public and accessible 24 hours a day, has led him to the LADOT, the DWP, Councilman LaBonge's office, City Council President Eric Garcetti's office, Assemblyman Mike Feuer's office, the City Council, the streets of Santa Monica, the neighborhoods surrounding USC and UCLA and all he has to show for his travails is a request from Garcetti's Transportation Deputy to do more research for a meeting next month.
Why is it so difficult to get support for a car-share program in Hollywood? Does the City of Los Angeles have an exclusive deal with ZipCar?
Just last year, Mayor Villaraigosa announced a partnership with ZipCar and gushed "Los Angeles may be the car capital of the world, but through this partnership among universities, ZipCar and the City of Los Angeles we are opening the door to make car ownership optional for people who live or work here."
"Providing alternatives to car ownership will help improve the environment and the city's traffic congestion," Villaraigosa said.
Unfortunately, ZipCar is only interested in offering cars in the USC and UCLA areas and the maximum number of vehicles was projected to be less than two dozen in a city of four million people.
It has been over two years since the City of Los Angeles authorized the LADOT to solicit car-share companies to participate in a "one-year car-sharing pilot in the City of Los Angeles."
In the letter that went to the "big four" car-share companies, the city claimed the right "to grant exclusive car-sharing service rights to a single provider or non-exclusive rights to several providers in each pilot area depending on the level of interest in each area."
At first pass, there were no takers but a second effort yielded the ZipCar company and a thin commitment of 20 vehicles, located at USC and UCLA. The pilot program was initially scheduled to start in mid-February 2008 and was projected to last for one-year.
If ZipCar is only interested in providing car-share services to the USC and UCLA neighborhoods, is the City of LA "holding" the Hollywood neighborhood and considering offering it as an exclusive territory to a car-share company?
Is the LADOT relying on City Attorney advice that the City of Los Angeles can "sole source a contract for car-sharing service" as it conducts the "pilot project" at USC and UCLA?
Does the USC/UCLA project prevent car-share programs from being implemented in other areas of the city?
Perhaps the City of Los Angeles is waiting for the W Hotel and Residences on Hollywood Boulevard to open. Several years ago, during the community outreach phase of the project, locals were assured that traffic mitigation measures such as a car-share program and a bike-share facility were to be incorporated into the development.
Of course, that was during the "courting" phase, now that construction is nearing completion, one must take those early "promises" with a grain of salt.
Maybe Garcetti is holding Hollywood's car-share program in reserve for the Clarret Group's Blvd 6200 Project. Two years ago, in an interview with The Planning Report, Garcetti gushed, "This is a very important development for Hollywood. It is probably the largest residential development that I’ll work on in my time."
Garcetti apparently negotiated a $2 million Clarett contribution to the Hollywood Mobility Trust Fund along with a commitment to host a car-share program on Hollywood Boulevard.
Whatever the explanation, the people of Los Angeles deserve straight talk and real solutions, not false obstacles and the run-around.
(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)
Jane Blumenfeld, Acting Deputy Director for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, has announced that the City Planning staff will be taking comments on the Draft Bicycle Plan until January 8th, 2010. This is a significant victory for the bike activists who immediately reacted when the Draft Bike Plan was initially released with a November 6, 2009 deadline for comments.
As recently as November 4 at the Eastside Bike Plan Workshop hosted by Councilman Ed Reyes and the Bike Oven, City staff were passing out comment cards that specified the November 6, 2009 deadline. Blumenfeld has all along acknowledged that the City of LA would take comments but the issue raised was that there is a big difference between "accepting" comments and "incorporating" comments.
The extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010 comes with the assurance that comments will be incorporated into a "revised" Draft Bike Plan that will be released in February of 2010 and that the community will then have two more months to review the Bike Plan before City Planning holds two public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission.
For many bike activists, the single greatest flaw in the Draft Bike Plan was the exclusion of the public in the process. Neighborhood Councils around the city took the Department of Transportation and City Planning to task for releasing the $450K Bike Plan with only 42 days of comment period. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (LABAC) voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period.
Shortly after the release of the Draft Bike Plan, Dr. Alex Thompson presented the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the NC Action Summit and called on the Neighborhood Council leaders to act quickly to declare the short comment period insufficient and prohibitive. NC's from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to East Hollywood to Mid City West to Woodland Hills-Warner Center all issued resolutions with the common theme, "the public needs more time!"
Perhaps the most robust and pointed resolution came from the CD11 Transportation Committee who took the 42 day comment period to be such a insult that they issued the following recommendations:
I. Recommendations to L.A. Bicycle Plan 1) The new L.A. Bicycle Plan should extend and enhance the 2007/2002/1996 Plan. Currently, it is a step backward from previous plans in both language and bicycle lane mileage. 2) The deadline for public input must be extended from November 6th (42 days of input) to January 8th (in excess of 90 days). 3) Every street is a street that cyclists will ride. This is the language of the Long Beach Bicycle Master Plan, currently a great success. 4) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should go through a full programmatic EIR. This will make its ambitions eligible for off the shelf and last minute funding, as well as open the possibility of reducing parking and travel lanes in some locations. 5) Retail should be a positive element in scoring streets for desirability of bikeways. Cyclists want to go to similar destinations as motorists. 6) Bicycle routes should be eliminated as a designation for the City of Los Angeles. 7) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should have predetermined annual performance measures included within it. These performance measures should not allow for the spontaneous designation of streets as Bike Friendly Streets without significant enhancement. 8) Neighborhood pilot projects must be included as an approach for experimenting with street treatments.
II. Recommendation to Change the Designation to a Different City Entity to Oversee the L.A. Bicycle Plan Because the LADOT has shown a bias in favor of the movement of automobiles over the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee therefore concludes that the LADOT is woefully inadequate to effectuate a new Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles, and recommend the City designate a different entity to implement this important task, and to provide sufficient human and financial resources to do so.
It's great to see the process work. Now, we can get busy creating a Bike Plan for the City of Los Angeles.
Here is the letter from Jane Blumenfeld:
Thank you for your interest in the update of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan. We'd like to share with you information about the next steps so that you can continue to participate in the development of the Plan.
City staff will take comments on the draft Bicycle Plan (which can be read on line at labikeplan.org) until January 8th, 2010. After January 8th, staff will begin to prepare a revised Plan (including the maps) based on all of the input that has been received through the website, at workshops, in letters, e-mails, and on comment cards. We anticipate releasing a staff report and a revised Draft Bicycle Plan in February 2010 and giving all interested parties two months to review the revised plan. We will then hold 2 public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission (one in the Valley and one near downtown) to hear your comments on the revised Plan.
Following the 2 hearings, the City Planning Commission will hold a public meeting in the spring to act on the revised plan. Staff will provide the Commission with information about the comments made at the two public hearings and any additional proposed modifications based on input received.
Following the City Planning Commission's action, two City Council committees will act on the City Planning Commission's recommendation for the Bicycle Plan: the Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) and the Transportation Committee. Their recommendations will then be considered by the full City Council.
Please contact Jordann Turner at 213 978-1379 if you have any questions.
Jane Blumenfeld Acting Deputy Director Los Angeles Department of City Planning 213 978-1272
The City of Los Angeles is the "Capital of Homelessness" and yet the non-profit groups who endeavor to create and operate Permanent Supportive Housing facilities are left to fend for themselves in communities that want solutions "anywhere but here" to a problem that is most often, simply ignored.
This past week the Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center made another appearance at the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, this time with modifications and adjustments to their proposed facility on the border of the East Hollywood and Silver Lake communities, all in an effort to pick up the approvals of the NC's as they work their way through the process of developing their property and opening a Permanent Supportive Housing facility. One would think that organizations committed to addressing and ending homelessness would be visiting Neighborhood Councils to pick up commendations for their humanitarian work but instead they regularly encounter the "Planning and Land Use" wrath typically reserved for developers who want to circumvent the Community Plan and rack up variances that disrupt the neighborhood.
In fact, based on Hollywood alone, it would seem that the Supportive Housing non-profits would have an easier time getting their projects off the ground if they would simply add a liquor license, incorporate a Medical Marijuana dispensary and wrap the building in Digital Billboards. Based on results, those projects would slide right through the process. But not if the word "homeless" is used.
Periodically, a Permanent Supportive Housing facility opens up to great fanfare and for a day or two it appears that Los Angeles is getting tough on homelessness.
But the brutal reality is: one out a hundred people in LA is homeless. The numbers fluctuate and progress is made but LA is still the "Capital of Homelessness."
Adding insult to injury is the fact that LA will not tolerate homeless cars yet homeless people are simply ignored. Unless they set up camp in their car and then it becomes a violation of the prohibition against living in a motor vehicle. (LAMC Section 85.02 states: "No person shall use a vehicle parked on or standing upon any City street or upon any parking lot owned by the City of Los Angeles or under control of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors as loving quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.")
Desperate times call for desperate measures and Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a motion that would revise LAMC 85.02, allowing the City of LA to create "discrete and distinct" areas of the city where people would be allowed to park and sleep overnight.
Ideally these "areas" would be supported with restrooms, staffing, security, and social services.
Councilman Richard Alarcon referred to the concept as a "homeless shelter without walls" and the description seemed to earn the approval of Transportation Committee members Paul Koretz and Bernard Parks. As for the motion, it didn't enjoy the same support.
Rosendahl's motion is based on similar "homeless parking lots" conducted in other cities such as Eugene, Oregon and Santa Barbara.
Booker Pearson of Upward Bound House was standing by to offer his commitment to "hosting" the pilot project that was reduced from a citywide proposal to a CD11 proposal by the Transportation Committee.
The idea of setting aside public streets that are "open" to people who will live in their cars is certain to stir passionate and intense debate.
The very notion that parking lots will be used to "park" homeless people will definitely improve attendance at neighborhood council meetings as this proposal is certain to stir great discourse and debate.
Through it all, it's important to remember that doing nothing about homelessness costs more than aggressively acting to provide long-term comprehensive solutions.
As Los Angeles grapples with unemployment, foreclosures and a budget crisis that threatens the stability of the city, we have no choice but to act decisively to end homelessness now.
These are the times when leaders with vision are needed. Compassion would be a nice add to the mix, but courage and vision are essential. Anyone at City Hall care to step forward?
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net ) ◘
A City Watch article combined with 60 seconds of public comment resulted in an adjustment to the proposed Measure R Local Return budget, yielding a $7.3 Million increase in Bike/Ped funding.
At issue is the Mayor and the City Council's Transportation Committee's commitment to bike and pedestrian advocates that 10% of Measure R Local Return funds would be set-aside for Bike/Ped projects.
The 10% commitment had advocates celebrating but a check of the math revealed a small $7.3 million problem, the LADOT had calculated the 10% on net funds yielding $10.8 million over the next 5 years instead of on gross which would yield $18.1 million.
I wrote of the error for CityWatch but even my nearest and dearest pointed out that it was difficult to read at best. Apparently what mattered is that Councilman Alarcon's staff read it and they were engaged.
I showed up for Wednesday's Transportation Committee ready to debate the LADOT's spread sheet and to fight for the $7.3 million but the conference room on the 10th floor was dark. It turned out that the City Council was still in session, debating Medical Marijuana. The long delay gave me the opportunity to attempt to engage other bike/ped advocates in a discussion of the misleading math that made up the preferred Measure R Local Return budget and to prepare for public comment.
Public comment at City Hall is typically an exercise in futility that ranges in effectiveness somewhere between Pony Show theatrics to a cry for help. Because of the late hour we were given 60 seconds to make our case before the Transportation Committee, a tough window on any day, made tougher because I would be discussing a $181 million dollar budget gross and net calculations and unrelated funding for mega Transit projects.
I gave it 60 seconds of summary, the buzzer went off and I concluded to silence. Then, as I stood to leave, the City's Legislative Analyst said "You're right." I waited but that was it. I asked "So then you'll fix it?" It was that simple. "Yes."
It took a City Watch article to get their attention, it took a half day of milling about City Hall for 60 seconds of public comment and it resulted in $7.3 million in additional funding for bike/ped projects.
I'm convinced, more than ever, we must pay attention and we must stay engaged!
The Measure R feeding frenzy has just begun and LA's Department of Transportation has already created a cloud of confusion as it sets out to convince the City Council that when distributing $181.2 million in Local Return funds, the 10% Bike/Ped allocation amounts to $10.8 million. (Shouldn't it be $18.1 million?) The LADOT continues by referring to the Administrative Cost of $3.5 million as 2% (fair enough) and the Local Match set-aside of $73.4 million as 3% (not even close!) This bit of financial alchemy demonstrates the LADOT's knack for telling the truth, only the truth but not the whole truth.
At issue is the distribution of the Measure R Local Return funds which amount to 15% of the $30-40 billion that the Metro will collect over the next 30 years as a result of the half-percent sales tax increase that was approved by voters last year.
Relying on the Metro's revenue estimates, the City of Los Angeles anticipates collecting $181.2 million in Local Return funds over the next five years and is poised to approve a plan at Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting that will lay down a budget for the funds that have been accruing since this past July.
During the contentious process that preceded the approval of Measure R, the 15% Local Return was conceived in response to the objections of the communities and constituent groups. They argued that Measure R would cost them money but yield them no specific returns.
By design, the 15% Local Return funds would empower locals with funds to support the projects that were not specifically included in the Measure R budget and long range transportation plan.
When the Measure R Ordinance was presented to the voters, Local Return projects were defined as "major street resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction; pothole repair; left turn signals; bikeways; pedestrian improvement; streetscapes; signal synchronization; and transit" and it was to be distributed on a per capita basis.
Demonstrating a bookkeeping style that must be the envy of Hollywood Studios and Three Card Monte dealers alike, the LADOT and its Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) partners are proposing a budget that calculates on gross revenues when necessary to diminish (admin costs just 2% of gross,) on net proceeds in order to enhance (bike/ped funds are fully 10% of net,) and on unrelated figures in an effort to distract (3% local match is based on another budget!)
Most disturbing is that the IDC proposes to start the process of budgeting for the anticipated Local Return revenue by funneling 40.5% ($73.4 million) back to the Metro to satisfy LA's "3% local match contribution" to the Measure R "mega transit/rail projects" which include the Crenshaw Transit Corridor, Canoga Transit Line, and the Subway to the Sea Projects. (this is where "3%" actually amounts to 40.5%)
There are three significant problems with this the LADOT and IDC proposed budget:
First, the immediate and local transportation needs of LA communities should not have to compete with the "mega" projects of the region. The Local Return funding was established to prevent the project vs. project drama that is divisive to the community. The Local Return funds must be spent on Local Return projects, not siphoned off for "mega" match obligations.
Second, playing fast and loose with the percentages leaves naive bike/ped advocates lined up with their porridge bowls, thinking that when the LADOT promises 10%, it means 10%. It doesn't. It means 6%.
The only way to fix this is to take the $3.5 million in Administrative Costs and the $3.8 million in Council Office Discretionary Funds, and add them to the current $10.8 million bike/ped allocation. This totals $18.1 million, which amounts to 10% of the anticipated Local Return of $181.2 million over the next 5 years.
Third, this whole process demonstrates the real need for a Transportation Vision that commits Los Angeles to a robust and comprehensive transportation system, one based on equality and a commitment to creating real transportation choices for everybody. At the federal and the state level, the simple standard is to accommodate people of all modes all the time.
Yet in Los Angeles, cyclists compete with street furniture for funding, pedestrians compete with transit passengers, motorists compete with each other, council districts compete with their constituents, and city departments simply grab their budgets and hide.
The people of Los Angeles need to demand a real Transportation Vision, the LADOT needs to step away from the cash-box, and the bike/ped advocates need to count their change before they leave the window.
(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
California State Assemblyman Mike Eng of the 49th District is the Chair of the State Assembly Transportation Committee which oversees the work of the state Office of Traffic Safety, the High Speed Rail Authority, and the Departments of Transportation, Motor Vehicles, California Highway Patrol and Air Resources. He also serves on the California Transportation Commission.
Apparently he is unaware of the congestion issues, air pollution issues, safety issues and simple access issues that many in the LA County area encounter on a daily basis. If he was, he would give up on the promise of "free parking" when promoting his community events such as his Legislative Town Hall at USC on Wednesday evening which comes complete with the promise "Parking is free of charge at USC, just simply tell them you are attending the town hall."
If Assemblyman Eng wants to make a real impact on the future of transportation in Los Angeles, he'll offer pedestrian, bicycling and mass transit directions to his event. If he really wanted to make an impact, his invitations will come with the promise "the Metro is free of charge, just simply tell them you are attending Assemblyman Mike Eng's Town Hall."
How is it that the most powerful people in town can negotiate free parking to their events but they can't get Metro passes? Why do they validate for parking but never reimburse for mass transit?
The world as we know it will change when we demand that those in power get out of their cars and walk, ride a bike or take mass transit to the events that they host in our communities.
To urge Mike Eng to embrace the future of transportation, call Annie Lam of Assemblymember Eng’s Office at (916) 319-2049 or e-mail her at Annie.Lam@asm.ca.gov.
But most of all, if you really want to make a difference, get out of your car and embrace the future of transportation by walking, riding a bike or taking mass transit.
Btw. here is how you can get to USC without a car:
Metro Red Line 7th and Fig. Get to street level to 7th and Flower, take the bus 81, 381, or 442 from there to Jefferson & Fig.
Other bus stops for USC: 204 & 754 stop at Jefferson & Vermont
102 & 550 stops at Exposition & Vermont
38 stops at Hoover & Jefferson
From either of these stops you can walk onto the campus.
A local merchant's idealistic efforts to implement an electric car-share program in densely populated Hollywood has hit speed bump after speed bump, leaving him low on funds, high on frustration and ready to pull the plug on his dreams.
Four months ago, Bechir Blagui rented a storefront office on Hollywood Boulevard, across the street from an auto body shop, another auto body shop, an empty lot and a liquor store. His goal was to host a car-share program for locals and tourists alike, providing electric "community" cars that could be rented by the hour or for the day. He intended to support this vision with an electric charging station right on Hollywood Boulevard that would allow his patrons as well as others in the community to pull right up, charge up and take off, leaving no emissions behind.
Bechir's idealistic journey to nowhere started with a visit to City Councilmember Tom LaBonge's office where he received referrals, several of them. He was referred to the local office of the LADOT and after a site visit, the local LADOT engineer referred him to another department within the LADOT. After all, parking spaces are one thing, parking meters are another! He filled out forms and offered a letter of support from his landlord and from the neighboring businesses on the block. His request was finalized and the long period of silence began, one that continues to this day.
LaBonge's Department of Referrals also sent Bechir across Hollywood Boulevard to City Council President Eric Garcetti's office. After all, Garcetti had just introduced a motion to City Council saying "the City should take action to help accelerate the adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), battery electric vehicles (BEV), and other zero emissions vehicles in Los Angeles..." Bechir spoke to Garcetti's Deputy who referred him to the Transportation Deputy and another long period of silence began, one that continues to this day.
Hollywood Rent-a-Car is located in LaBonge's district but apparently the commitment to making LA the Greenest Big City is a commitment that belongs to Mayor Villaraigosa and so when push came to shove, LaBonge's staff suggested that Bechir would be better served taking his vision of sustainable transportation to the Mayor's office if he wanted help getting a loading zone and a charging station, all in support of a locally owned and operated business that provides a congestion relief solution to the community. After all, an economic solution, an environmental solution, a congestion solution, a transportation solution, all rolled into one business on Hollywood Boulevard is not the kind of thing a Councilman would waste time on.
Bechir's business plan is based on a simple car-share concept that has proven successful in several different formats, most impressively in the Bay Area where members of CityCarShare pay a membership fee, which allows them to enjoy access to a car without having to own, maintain, register, insure, and store a vehicle. Since most vehicles spend 95% of their life parked, waiting to be driven, the most immediate benefit of a car-share program is to the local community because the need for abundant parking is reduced significantly. This was the benefit that drove Bechir's commitment to include a car-share element to his business. After all, it's Hollywood, long on dreams, short on parking!
There are many car-share programs operating around the world, from ZipCar to Connect to WeCar to FlexCar and Bechir set out to add an element of environmental sustainability by featuring electric cars and a charging station that would also be available to the public. Good for the community, good for the neighbors, good for the customers, good for business. Or so he thought.
Somehow, LA's high-altitude approach to becoming the "Greenest Big City" has failed to reach street level and Bechir found himself standing alone on Hollywood Boulevard, wondering what it was going to take to bring an electric car-share program to Hollywood Boulevard. He wasn't alone for long.
Dave Kaufmann of EnVironmental Motors joined Bechir and is ready to put electric community cars to work in Hollywood saying "The future of EV cars is here and they are now competitive in speed, distance, price and safety."
Enid Joffe of Clean Fuel Connection also joined Bechir and is ready to install a charging station on Hollywood Boulevard saying "Hollywood is the center of the world and this is where people demonstrate the art of the possible. There's a tide coming and Hollywood Boulevard is the perfect place for LA's first electric car-share program."
Missing from this Green Vision is the City of Los Angeles.
One would think that the Mayor's vision for a sustainable future would result in our City's leadership embracing the individuals who choose to be a part of the solution.
One would think that instead of waiting for pie-in-the-sky solutions that will take decades to arrive, Los Angeles would embrace the small steps of individuals that add up to the large leaps of progress for a Great City.
But most of all, one would think that in this time of economic crisis, the City of LA would get out of the "anywhere-but-here" referral business and would embrace the future of "let's-make-it-happen" as the first steps of a long journey to establish Los Angeles as a Great City. Perhaps even a Great Green City!
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net ) ◘
Last year, on July 4th, Dr. Christopher Thompson drove his car down Mandeville Canyon and came up behind two cyclists, pulled alongside and exchanged words then pulled in front and slammed on the brakes, seriously injuring both cyclists and telling the police officer who first arrived at the scene that he did it "to teach them a lesson."
That same week, as Paul Moore rode his bike south on Bundy Drive, a motorist approached him from behind, overtook him and then turned right, slamming him to the ground.
Unlike Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson, the cyclists in Mandeville Canyon, Paul didn't get up. In fact, before the day was over, surgeons would remove a section of his skull, storing it in a refrigerator for later reattachment, all in an effort to alleviate the cranial swelling and bleeding. That evening Paul slipped into a medically-induced coma that allowed his brain to rest and recover.
By Monday morning, news of the Mandeville Canyon incident had spread and by early afternoon, LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood before the press and proclaimed "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!"
Concerns that the case would be handled as a traffic collision instead of a criminal act were cleared up by the LAPD's Captain Eaton who flanked Councilman Rosendahl and assured the public that this was a road rage incident that would be investigated as a felony criminal assault. This show of force went a long way toward reassuring the cycling community that justice would be pursued.
As for Paul, he slipped into the pool of anonymity that comes with being one of 550 LA Fire Department medical transports that occur each day in the City of Los Angeles. Of those 550 transports, approximately 100 of them are the result of a traffic collision and they include motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Paul was just one of many.
The public clamored for more information on the Mandeville Canyon incident, the press responded with radio, television and newspaper coverage. The blogs were filled with activity and comment sections had to be shut down because of the intense debate and personal animosity that took place.
Meanwhile, Paul's wife worked quietly to investigate the circumstances that left her husband lying on the street with multiple broken bones and a left frontal lobe injury that resulted in Aphasia which is the inability to form words.
It took two days for Rosendahl and Eaton to step up to the microphone and to address the Mandeville Canyon incident. It was eight days before Paul's wife received the Police Report in the mail with information on Paul's collision.
The report detailed the location, the motorist and the cyclist. There wasn't much else there except that Paul's bicycle had been transported to the Fire Station. It's curious that the bike wasn't considered evidence but, of course, that would imply an investigation.
Paul's wife went to Fire Station #59 and found Paul's bike with very little damage. One of the firemen looked in the log, found the incident number, and said the team who responded to the accident was not working, except for the Captain who was out on a call.
Paul's wife left and called Capt. Cessor, introducing herself and asked about Paul and the traffic collision. She asked if Paul was conscious when the LAFD arrived at the scene but Cessor responded "Can't answer that. Can't answer anything medical due to confidentiality."
Questions about who called 911, what happened to Paul's helmet, which corner the collision occurred on yielded a response that was completely discouraging.
Cessor informed Paul's wife "I don't know where your questions are going, so I'm going to refer you to the Arson Unit as they are the legal experts." She passed over the phone number for the Arson Unit adding "They probably wouldn't have any information about this accident."
By now, Rosendahl was calling for a Cyclists' Town Hall to address the issues that cyclists encounter as they ride the streets of Los Angeles. He went on to convene the Mandeville Task Force that would look for ways to mitigate tensions between cyclists and motorists. He continued all the way to the Transportation Committee and then the City Council where he urged his fellow Councilmembers to incorporate the Cyclists' Bill of Rights into the city's Bicycle Plan.
Paul's family spent the same period of time struggling to navigate the medical system and the insurance labyrinth and the emotional journey, celebrating the fluttering of eyelids and the twitches and grimaces that they counted as the signs of Paul's recovery.
Paul left UCLA and went to the Barlow Respiratory Hospital and then back to UCLA and then out to Casa Colina in Pomona. Through it all, his family was by his side, playing music, talking to him, struggling to communicate and to encourage and to maintain hope through the recovery process.
Periodically there would be some activity in the Mandeville Canyon case and members of the cycling community would hold vigil at the LAX Courthouse, hoping against hope that justice would be served and reporting back on the developments.
As for Paul, justice was limited to battles his family and his doctors fought with the insurance company's grievances and appeals representatives, quite a tough position for the victim of a crime.
Apparently, when Rosendahl told the world "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!" it didn't include Paul Moore, a cyclist whose life was ruined by a motorist who "right-hooked" him in violation of CVC 21750 which specifies that “the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle…”
The Cyclists' Bill of Rights claims, as right #4, "Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."
This past week, the cycling community threw a virtual Twittertape parade when the jury in the Mandeville Canyon trial came back with a guilty verdict on all seven charges for Thompson including Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Mayhem. Thompson was considered a flight risk, denied bail, remanded into custody where he awaits sentencing.
Unfortunately, there are many more cases out there, including the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on PCH, the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on Glendale Boulevard, and the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist in Santa Clarita.
Add to the mix the motorists who are charged with hit-and-run assaults on cyclists on the Westside and in Echo Park and Downtown and the Mandeville Canyon case starts to look like the exception, not the rule.
Most alarming is the simple fact that Paul Moore's life was destroyed by a motorist who right-hooked him just 1500 yards from Bill Rosendahl's Westside office and Paul never made it past dispatch statistic for the LAFD team that transported him to UCLA. He spent 6 months in the hospital, he lost the ability to move and to talk and his family was left to struggle with his recovery and with the surgeries and with the seizures and the financial struggles and the insurance battles, and in the midst of all of the debates over equality and justice, Paul was completely forgotten.
"What about Paul?"
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
Anyone who has made the journey to City Hall to offer public comment knows how frustrating and unfulfilling the experience can be. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation for members of the public who attempt to navigate the cumbersome system that appears designed to service everyone except the serfs who dare to approach the sovereigns.
The recent round of Bike Plan (draft) Workshops has proven to be as frustrating and insulting as any of the "public enragement" exercises the City of LA typically hosts.
Guests to the four LADOT/Planning sponsored events were given the opportunity to walk around in a circle, looking at sections of the 563 page plan in three ring binders, viewing sample pages on poster board on easels, and scanning large map sections of the city.
This superficial overview of a complex element of the City's Transportation element of the General Plan came complete with snacks and the opportunity to offer feedback to the staff and consultants who then made note of the comment. At least they were supposed to take notes.
One attendee came prepared with a formal comment from her organization only to experience a consultant who attempted to "fix" her feedback, suggesting that she was wrong.
Critics of the Bike Plan Workshops note that in a city of four million people, there must be a more effective mechanism for communicating the details of a cumbersome document. There must be more effective tool for examining maps and there must be a more effective way to engage the public and allow a robust conversation to take place.
Participants have pointed out that the "view and comment" process prevents people from discussing, sharing, engaging and learning.
Through it all is the simple charge that a 42 day comment period seems designed to simply "qualify" as public engagement but that it fails to offer the public the opportunity to actually review the Bike Plan (draft) and engage the community and the neighborhood councils in time to offer intelligent and informed opinions.
As the grumbling continues and with the official comment period ending on November 6th, a group of kids from the Westside has risen to the occasion with a solution that gives hope for the future.
The FIRSTteamWestside (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) is a group of kids who prepared a presentation that they intended to give at the Bike Plan (draft) workshops.
Their mission was to develop a plan to improve local transportation. They did the research and they prepared and they discovered that the public workshops were not the robust public arena they desired so they adapted.
Their coach reports “The kids were hoping to give a presentation at one of the "public forums" but were badly disappointed when they found out that members of the public would not be allowed to speak so they posted it on YouTube and submitted the link at labikeplan.org.”
They also inspired and they challenged and they raised the standard for civic engagement. Oh, yeah! They made some good points too!
This feedback and presentation to the City of Los Angeles Bike Plan is one of the ways the team has shared its research project with experts, policy makers and the general public.
Unfortunately, the City of Los Angeles doesn't trust its staff with access to YouTube!
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate … and, writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net) ◘
The City of Los Angeles took another swing at the public hornet's nest when it released LA's Draft Bike Plan, a 563 page document that cost $450,000 and took two years to complete, stirring such public contempt that the cycling community simply put down the protest signs, formed the LA Bike Working Group (BWG) and set out to draft "LA's Best Bike Plan" in open workshops around the city.
The first challenge to the efficacy of LA's commitment to mediocrity came when LABikePlan.com appeared, hosting the same Draft Bike Plan as the city's LABikePlan.org website and the same opportunity to submit comments to the city, but also offering links to articles that criticize the Draft Bike Plan process and content.
The second challenge came when cyclists met in Hollywood to dig into the city's Draft Bike Plan, breaking it up into manageable chunks, a process made necessary by the significant size and the limited comment period of 42 days. (It ends on November 6, 2009)
It took a couple of hours but there came a point at which it became obvious, the best place to start is at the beginning and for the Bike Plan, that meant a do-over, this time a DIY (Do It Yourself) do-over!
The third and most recent challenge came when cyclists met downtown this past weekend to refine the many contributions from the diverse group of participants into a focused vision that would serve as the foundation for LA's Best Bike Plan.
Embracing a democratic and participatory process, the work product of four groups was refined into 23 points which were simmered down to a foundation of three that serve as the platform for LA's Best Bike Plan.
1) "Consider every street as a street that cyclists will ride."
2) "Build a Backbone Bikeway Network as the engineering focus in the immediate future."
3) "Los Angeles must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years."
In the time it took the staff of City Planning and the Department of Transportation to organize its out-of-town consultants and to stage the four Draft Bike Plan workshops, the LA Bike Working Group had gathered input from the community, established teams with specific focus, and positioned a platform based on equality.
This may seem like a "Bike Culture" victory that benefits the few but it represents much, much more and it benefits the city as a whole.
City staff dismiss critics as "trashtalkers" and argue for mediocrity by pointing out that "not everybody is an angry cyclist." This demonstrates the cavalier manner in which our city is (mis)managed. As Laura Chick pointed out "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."
Today it's the Bike Plan, tomorrow it's your Community Plan, last week it was Cloud Computing, next week it'll be Golden Parachutes. The bottom line is this, the leadership of Los Angeles is counting on our indifference to maintain the status quo and to avoid accountability.
Whether you ride a bike or walk or take mass transit or ride in a car, we all benefit from citywide support of cycling as a transportation solution, as an environmental solution, and as a community building solution.
Great Streets are well maintained, they're shareable, they have moderate traffic volumes and speeds, they result in lower crime rates, and they benefit local businesses, resulting in healthy, sustainable and complete communities.
If you believe that Los Angeles should be a Great City, it is imperative that you join with other constituent groups such as the cycling community and support their pursuit of greatness. After all, this is Los Angeles, why settle for anything less!
This isn't the first time that the DIY movement has been active in Los Angeles. Past efforts have resulted in Sharrows (shared-lane markings) in Echo Park and in Highland Park, a DIY Bike Lane on the Fletcher Bridge and a community park at Wilshire and Vermont.
In other cities, the Official Urban Repair Squad (OURS) has taken to improving the streets of Toronto, leaving behind a Bike Lane in their first engagement and a note saying "Our agents inform us that your city is too busy patting self on backside about 2001 bike plan that they don't bother to make any bike lanes. We come to make roads safe for citizens of Toronto. We hear city is broke. We fix. No charge."
Residents of Hawaii's Kauai island reacted to the government's $4 million and two-year long plan for the repair of a vital road as unacceptable and so they fixed it themselves in eight days for free. Their livelihood was threatened, their intelligence was insulted and their spirit of self-sufficiency was engaged.
As for LA's Draft Bike Plan, the apologists stand in the background and murmur "it's not that bad" and "there's some good stuff in there" and the cloud of mediocrity just gets thicker.
LA's Bike Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the city's General Plan and the current Bike Plan was drafted in 1996, readopted by City Council in 2002 and again in 2007.
Many funding sources, from both the federal and state levels, require that proposed bike projects be part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan.
This enthusiasm for plans is motivated by the desire to qualify for funding and then the enthusiasm fades. The current Bike Plan is effective until December of 2012.
In the last 13 years, LA has spent $65 million of Bikeways funding which has produced 13 miles of Bike Paths (one mile per year!) 54 miles of Bike Lanes (four miles per year!) and one mile of Bike Route (136 yards per year!)
Critics charge that the money has also funded the LADOT's Bikeways Department of a dozen people who are best known for their "Why You Can't Have What You Want" PowerPoint presentation which positions cyclists as adversaries with other modes rather than as a "Common Ground" transportation solution.
As for next steps, the bureaucrats are off in search of rubber stamps while the LA Bike Working Group continues to work on "LA's Best Bike Plan."
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net) ◘
If Mayor Villaraigosa rode a bike, the current process for updating the LA's Bike Plan would be a lot different. For starters, it would have the Mayor's attention and that alone would be a significant shift, but most importantly, it would be incorporated into the Mayor's campaign for turning LA into a Great City.
1) The Mayor has committed to making LA one of the safest big cities and if he rode a bike, he'd realize that the place to start is on the streets of LA. They're one of the most dangerous places in the city.
People die on a daily basis. It's no longer news. The public as a whole is desensitized to the fact that our streets are a battleground and that nobody is free from the conflict. LA is a city under siege.
If the Mayor were to jump on a bike and attempt to pedal from City Hall to the far reaches of his kingdom, he'd quickly realize that the real opportunity to make Los Angeles a safer city for everybody would be to start with the streets of LA and that would result in a Bike Plan with real vision, with real imperative language and with a real commitment to moving people safely. That would be good for the Bike Plan and it would be good for LA.
2) The Mayor has committed to making LA the greenest big city and if he rode a bike, he'd realize that the place to start is with our air. Breathing LA's air is one of the most significant threats to our health.
Long time residents take it in stride, repeating the "It used to be worse!" mantra that has become the battle cry for mediocrity.
If the Mayor were to look at the city from a bike, he'd realize that supporting alternative transportation is key to greening our city and it that would result in a Bike Plan with a real commitment to the environment and to supporting positive transportation choices.
3) The Mayor has committed to supporting the well funded and long term expansion of LA's mass transit system and if he rode a bike, he's realize that one of the simplest and most inexpensive ways to complement the effectiveness of mass transit is to close service gaps and to offer people more choices.
Cycling is a gap connecting option that allows mass transit passengers to travel more efficiently and it requires little effort to support. If the
Mayor were to use a bike to get from his home to the Metro, he'd realize that simple innovations to accommodate rather that to alienate cyclists would go a long way toward improving the efficiency of the transit system as a whole. This would result in a Bike Plan that strongly positions cycling as a transit solution and would establish strong standards rather than weak suggestions.
4) The Mayor has committed to making the creation of jobs his number one priority and if he were to show up for one of the Bike Plan workshops, he'd realize that the simplest place to start would be to have the City of LA actually hire locals.
The Bike Plan is being developed by consultants from Portland, San Francisco, and Colorado and the city staff who are guiding the process come from Inglewood, Santa Clarita, Fullerton and Long Beach.
If the Mayor were to ride a bike on the streets of LA, he'd realize quickly that there is no "high-altitude" approach to creating a great Bike Plan. It requires rubber on the road experience and it requires local knowledge of not just the streets and the community but of the political landscape.
The people who are in LA after the office is closed are the people who are in the best position to create a robust and powerful vision for LA's Bike Plan. Hiring local would result in a great Bike Plan and it would put Angelenos to work.
Safer streets, a greener city, more efficient mass transit and the creation of jobs!
The Mayor's proposal to dump the city's current email system in favor of a $7 million Google "cloud computing" platform is about to slide through City Council. It demonstrates a short-sighted willingness to invest in technology as a substitute for a commitment to training city staff in a larger communications strategy based on LA's Connectivity Vision. If you haven't heard of LA's Connectivity Vision, it's because LA doesn't have one.
Typically, a vision would drive goals and strategies and eventually result in the selection of tools, which would then be put to work by well trained people, all embracing specific responsibilities and working toward a common goal. (See video report .)
LA's approach is to embrace new technology in the hopes that old habits and older paradigms will simply fade with the click of a "system upgrade" button. If only it were that simple.
The City of LA has been using Novell's Groupwise email system and software since the early days and is currently in possession of an upgrade that LA has failed to implement. The upgrade, the training and the maintenance that supports the upgrade, and the promise of a 10% reduction in future licensing fees have all been offered by Novell over the last year in an attempt to keep the Los Angeles contract.
Novell is the third largest provider of email systems, after IBM and Microsoft, and relies on servers to support the email system.
The Mayor's proposal would replace Groupwise with Google's Enterprise email system and would also include an array of services that start with Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, Google Docs, Google Sites, Google Video, Google Message Security, and Google Message Discovery.
Google is new to the corporate email support industry and LA represents the "big fish" account in Google's aggressive pursuit of large clients.
Google relies on cloud computing (off-site storage, hosted by Google, accessed by internet) to support the array of services they offer, a small but significant issue that has critics screaming "You're going too fast!"
Personally, I'm a huge fan of Google. I switched to the Gmail this past year and I'm still discovering great features that enhance productivity and efficiency.
I love Google Docs and its ability to allow participants to work on the same doc simultaneously.
Google Calendars are wonderful and I have private calendars, public calendars and multiple user calendars for organizations. The best part is that all of these services are free! Well, they are to the common folks but that's because Google is very good at generating revenue by mining our data and then targeting us with advertising.
I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that but the robust array of brilliant Google services are free to the public because we are an unwitting audience to the Google family of sponsors.
Herein lies the rub! Critics charge that it is foolhardy to give all of LA's records and data to a company known for its ability to mine data without proven guarantees of security and privacy and without huge financial penalties for service failures or security breaches.
As the City Council grapples with the financial impacts and the security concerns and the operational obstacles of a switch from Novell to Google, there are some advantages to Google that will probably distract the decision-makers at City Hall.
● Gmail offers users the ability to consolidate several email accounts into one. This alone probably justifies the switch. The Mayor can get his Mayor@LACity.org emails along with his SanAntonio@Hotmail.com and his YoTony@yahoo.com emails, all without having to signout and then back in to check each account. This feature is part of the City's $7 million deal and it's also free to the public.
● Gmail filters and labels make it possible for a busy world leader to organize incoming emails, separating requests from constituents, offers from investors, advice from the unions, demands from developers, threats from the City Attorney, lolcats from the City Council and alibis from City Department Managers into their respective folders.
Gmail's system is the best and it provides the pro and the novice alike an unparalled system for workflow management and efficiency in communications.
● Gmail accounts are actually multiple accounts, a feature that allows both city staff and common folk to register once and then to take advantage of multiple (unlimited!) email accounts.
SanAntonio@gmail.com is also SanAntonio@googlemail.com. One Gmail account can now be used to open multiple Twitter accounts and fans can follow @Villaraigosa, @SanAntonio and @YoTony without the interns having to open separate email accounts for each Mayoral Twitter account.
● Google Alerts are a great way to monitor the world without having to actually participate in the conversations that can take up soooo much time.
Simply set up a Google Alert to let you know anytime somebody refers to you or the topic that you're tracking. City leaders and average folks alike will get an email notifying them of conversations that reference them or their issues.
This is a very powerful "hot-line" tool that will get an official's attention in the early hours of the day. Use their name and get on their alert!
● Google Talk allows you to see who's online and to chat with them at all hours.
Imagine how efficient the City of LA will become if the Mayor can see who's working late and who's closing down early!
When LA goes from its ten-to-four operating style to 24-7, the public is going to see accountability like never before. The best part is the fact that the public can participate. Google Talk is for everybody. (If the Mayor lets you in!)
● Google Docs is a wonderful tool for collaboration. I wrote this document on Google Docs, I invited my wife to read it, she was able to edit from her computer and when we were done, we simply invited CityWatchLA and the document became this article.
Real time collaboration, one master with no derivative copies, multiple contributors, multiple formats, organized filing system, and nothing to get lost on a hard drive. As with all Google Treats, free to the public, not to the City!
● Google Calendars are the best and I have several, all overlayed so that I can identify schedule conflicts, but all unique so that I can keep some private, some shared and some public.
The Mayor could even link his Facebook account to his Google Calendar so that the events automatically sync up. When his friends on Facebook invite him to a neighborhood council meeting or to a soiree at LALive, the event will show up on his Google Calendar. Of course, he'll need to be specify which calendar he wants to use, the official calendar or the "other" calendar.
I could continue with the Google cheerleading but it's important to remember that LA will become Google's biggest Enterprise account. The proposed Google system is experimental and unproven for a city the size of LA.
Other cities use Gmail but only as an email backup system. The City of LA is in no position to spend $7 million on a "cloud computing" experiment that leaves privacy advocates storming the gates of City Hall, not Google.
If Google wants to land the "big fish" account, they should offer up the Enterprise system at no charge to the City and they should take the prestige of servicing the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful nation in the world as their reward!
Missing from this City Council debate over Novell vs. Google is the simple fact that technology is no substitute for vision and skills. Learning to type fast does not make one a great novelist.
The strategy of "bigger and faster" upgrades coupled with enthusiastic and forceful campaigns, all employing the same habits and skills will only result in "more of the same" but delivered with "bigger and faster" enthusiasm.
Any successful company or organization of any significant size has a leader in charge of communications, not just technology, but of the greater need to connect with the public, the audience, the market, the world, and with itself. We need that leader.
In the land of the well-connected, Los Angeles is suffering from a severe case of disconnect. All the bells, whistles, and new-tech tools will not change that. LA needs a Vision for Connectivity.
Artist Diane Meyer challenges the primacy of LA's auto-centric transportation system and puts the spotlight on the "alternative" element with her 18th Street exhibit "Without A Car in the World" (100 Car-less Angelinos Tell Stories of Living in Los Angeles). Pairing beautiful lifestyle portraits with poignant and pithy interviews, Meyer brings to life the wide variety of subjects, ranging from the idealists who eschew the automobile as part of a lifestyle commitment to those who live car-free lives because of economic, legal, and health limitations.
The timing of "Without a Car in the World" is especially relevant, coming on the heels of Mayor Villaraigosa's legacy battle for a regional transportation plan that has communities throughout the county fighting over projects and funding, and engaging in parochial high-altitude bombing, all claiming to represent the "common man" but demonstrating at every turn a commitment to representing those who already have the freedom of choice.
Meyer's show features the invisible constituency, the 30% of LA's population who have no choice, who will never show up at a High Speed Rail press conference and who will never travel to One Gateway Plaza to address the Metro Board with 60 seconds of public comment. Instead, their stories are told on the gallery walls of a Westside gallery, 18th Street Arts Center, one with a great reputation for stirring the public discourse and featuring art that engages the community.
My wife Enci and I were honored to be selected as subjects and we rode our bikes to the opening of the show, pedaling over with a couple of friends who were also featured.
For a while, it seemed like a family reunion, there were so many friends from so many walks of life and from all over Los Angeles. But slowly the "glow" wore off and our focus moved to the subjects that we didn't recognize, the "invisible" Angelenos who travel quietly and patiently, simply attempting to get home safely to their families each night.
Just to the left of our portrait, right in the center of the gallery, hung a picture of three men, day-laborers, who tell of getting picked up for work, transported to a strange neighborhood where they toil for long hours, getting paid in cash and then having to figure out their way home, late at night, strangers in a strange land!
A blind man tells of sitting on the bus bench, listening to the pitch of the oncoming engines, rising to meet every bus, never knowing which one is his and always wondering about the ones that don't stop.
A man in a wheelchair boasts of his intimate knowledge of sidewalks and curbcuts and his ability to get around, never in a direct line but navigating the obstacles that the average person simply steps over and ignores.
Balancing it out are stories of a skateboarder who tears up shoes but loves to skate everywhere, cyclists who celebrate the freedom of riding the mean streets of Los Angeles and social creatures who thrive on the camaraderie found on mass transit.
Urban planners and social scientists smile as they take the high road, positioning their small footsteps as the beginnings of the impending transportation revolution. Some spoke of their transportation choices as simple economic decisions based on priorities that favored tuition and family over autos while others used mass transit and bragged of the work they were able to complete while commuting.
But the story that established the baseline against which the success of LA's transportation system must be judged was told by a gentlemen who simply explained "I'm on the bus six, seven hours a day. MTA doesn't see what we see, they need to come from behind the desk, take a two or three day trip, get on all the buses, see how they aren't on schedule, they're always crowded ..."
When we arrived at the opening of the show, we were honored, but by the end of the evening, we were humbled.
Enci and I ride bikes in LA because we choose to ride, we "Storm the Bastille" and we celebrate our freedom and we lay claim to the streets, reveling in the growing numbers of cyclists who often share the "See you on the Streets!" greeting that has become our battle cry.
But after meeting so many people who walk, roll, pedal and use mass transit simply because they have no other choice, I realize that we also ride for those who can't attend the Pedestrian Advisory Committee or the Bike Plan Workshop or the Metro Board hearings.
We ride for the significant number of Angelenos who have no choice, who have no voice and who represent the failure of LA's Transportation System.
LA's weakest and most vulnerable community members live in fear, sometimes unable to simply cross the street. If LA is to become a Great City, it will start with a commitment to mobility as a civil right, a basic guarantee of effective transportation choices that extends to everybody.
Until then, Los Angeles is simply a city under siege.
Note:
Without A Car in the World continues through December 11. 18th Street Arts Center 1639 18th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net) ◘
The City of LA's recently released Draft Bike Plan has stirred so much controversy, the cycling community moved right past "public comment" and convened the LA Bike Working Group in an effort to simply go to work drafting "LA's Best Bike Plan."
Drawing people from all over the city and from all walks of life, the first Bike Working Group (BWG) took place this past Saturday in Hollywood, one of the communities that the LADOT and City Planning continue to overlook as they schedule workshops for the Draft Bike Plan process.
The BWG opened up the Draft Bike Plan for discussion and then drew the participants into the process of actually creating a real Bike Plan, rather than simply commenting on somebody else's version. From the opening vision to the need for imperative language, to the standards and designations to the tools for implementation, the entire document is open to revision or replacement.
The release of a "plan" is no news in Los Angeles, a city where at any given moment there are a dozen Community Plans in various states of revision along with an assortment of Master Plans, Specific Plans, Strategic Plans, Overlays, Surveys and Zones, all of which demonstrate that if nothing else, Los Angeles has big plans.
Typically generating little interest from the community, plans such as this are usually decent paydays for a consultant, all in fulfillment of some funding mandate that requires a municipality to maintain a "City Council approved Transportation Plan" in order to qualify for funding that will likely get cobbled together with other funding sources, all of which slips into a murky mess that defies oversight.
According to the Draft Bike Plan, in the last 13 years the City of Los Angeles has spent $65 Million on Bikeways amenities. During that time they have built "13 miles of Bike Paths, 55 miles of Bike Lanes and 6 miles of Bike Routes." I'm sure there are other elements in there such as bike racks, bike maps, little blinkie lights and racing socks. But $65 Million? This Draft Bike Plan is a cry for help, better yet a cry for an audit.
As the LADOT and City Planning come up on the two year anniversary of the initiation of the Draft Bike Plan process, it is apparent that this plan is worse than a mess, that it is a boiler-plate document rife with mistakes and lacking even the simplest attempt or ambition to improve over the old 1996/2002 Bike Plan that currently reigns as the Bike Plan of record.
Two weeks ago at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson presented, as one of the six action issues on the agenda, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. He called on the neighborhood council members at the Summit to take the CBR to their respective NC's for endorsement and then he went further, urging them to ask for a longer comment period for the just released Draft Bike Plan and to use the CBR as the starting point in their examination of the plan.
Since that time, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to ask the City of Los Angeles to extend the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to a minimum of 90 days in order to allow the NC's to analyze the plan and to offer comments.
The City's Bicycle Advisory Committee also voted unanimously, this time to "demand" an extension of the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to 94 days, ending on January 8th, 2010.
As neighborhood councils grapple with their committee and board schedules in an effort to add their voices to the call for a lengthened comment period, a survey of the Draft Bike Plan revealed the true motivation for the enthusiastic push for an accelerated approval process, the document is a pro forma mess!
The LA Bike Working Group will convene again on Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 1 pm to continue with creation of LA's Best Bike Plan. For information visit http://LABikePlan.com.
As for the other issues from the NC Action Summit, the next meeting of the Rate Payers Advocate Task Force will be on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday). For more information visit the DWP Ratepayer Advocate.
Also meeting on the 24th is the Sidewalk Repair Task Force, at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the Sidewalk Repair Program.
Meetings location: Hollywood City Hall 6501 Fountain Avenue Hollywood, CA 90038
(Stephen Box is a cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
In park-poor East Hollywood, LA's Bureau of Street Lighting service yard on Santa Monica Boulevard is looking very attractive to community members who think the large 4.2 acre storage space is the perfect location for a park.
Last month the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council hosted two Park[ing] Day LA celebrations and one of them was on Santa Monica Boulevard, across the street from the Cahuenga Library and right in front of the Street Lighting service yard. Their message was simple. People need parks and in a densely populated neighborhood surrounded by three elementary schools, it's strange to see so much LA city property used for storage while kids are playing in the streets.
The idea of converting the Street Lighting service yard into a park is not a new idea. Years ago, Proposition K was passed, positioning three decades of funding "to develop recreational opportunities for our city's young people." When Councilmember Mike Hernandez initially positioned Proposition K, he called on the other Councilmembers for projects and cobbled together a list that included the development of the Street Lighting service yard for soccer fields. Prop K was quite controversial and there were charges from the public that the money wouldn't be spent on the proposed projects and would instead turn into another City Council slush fund. The assurance at the time was "The City Council must ultimately approve every Proposition K expenditure. We are the ones who will be accountable to the public for the proper use of those monies."
Last week, City Council President Eric Garcetti's staff took a couple of dozen community members on a tour of the Street Lighting service yard, offering a backstage view of the very busy service yard. The invitation referenced the "great deal of interest in locating green space/park space/community space at this site" and promised that Garcetti's office would be working with the CRA "to undertake a study in that direction that looks at creative, collaborative possibilities." All of which was in stark contrast to the repeated comments from Heather Repenning, Garcetti's District Director of Community Development, who took several opportunities to state firmly that they would look at opportunities to accommodate some green space but that in no way would they compromise the efficiency and efficacy of the Street Lighting service yard.
All of this is in stark contrast to the Prop K commitment and to the City Council motion of 2006 which stated "The conversion of the site into a park would serve to improve the aesthetic quality of the local community." The motion directed staff to identify a new location for the service yard and specified that once the service yard is relocated, the existing site can be converted to much needed park space.
It appears that the framers of Prop K thought the Street Lighting service yard would be a great place for a park. It appears that the City Council thought the Street Lighting service yard would be a great place for a park. It also appears that the community thinks the Street Lighting service yard would be a great place for a park.
Yet City Council motion 06-07-07 expired on August 25, 2009 and simply died, mortally wounded by City Council inactivity.
There's no doubt that the Street Lighting service yard provides an invaluable service. Approximately 80 Street Lighting trucks call the lot home and every morning, they load up with poles, fixtures and supplies and head to the four corners of the City of Los Angeles, from the Harbor to the Westside the the far reaches of the Valley and to the Eastside, confirming that East Hollywood is indeed the center of Los Angeles. They repair or replace about 75 light poles each month that are damaged or destroyed by motorists in auto collisions. They replace burned out light bulbs and they conduct routine maintenance in order to keep approximately 5000 miles of LA's streets illuminated for our safety and comfort.
There are approximately 400 different street light fixtures used on the 5000 miles of LA street that the Street Lighting maintains and they store approximately 200 of those fixtures at the East Hollywood service yard. Some are rare and historic fixtures that require custom repairs at the welding shop. Some are common such as the cement or aluminum poles. Some are experimental and the light yard is also used to test the new LED lighting, low impact lighting, solar panels and solar wraps, all of which represent some of the changes that are taking place in the Bureau of Street Lighting as new technology drives new solutions to the old public safety commitment of illuminated streets.
The Street Lighting service yard has been in this location for decades. It has grown over the years, taking over space that formerly served as film production facilities, as restaurants, as apartment buildings and as a gas station. There is no more room to grow and the yard now counts among its neighbors a convalescent home, apartment buildings, and a a library. There really is no place to grow.
Meanwhile, every morning the local kids walk past a chain link fence topped with razor wire as 80 large utility trucks leave the service yard to take care of the lighting needs for the entire city.
The Bureau of Street Lighting needs more room and the local community needs a park.
One would think that the opportunity here would be win-win instead of the either-or situation that Repenning works to deflect when she repeats the "community green space as long as it doesn't interfere with the efficiency of Street Lighting" mandate for further development of East Hollywood green space at the Street Lighting service yard.
It was not too long ago that the City of Los Angeles, as it grappled with the budget crisis, surveyed the City-owned property and looked for opportunities to divest itself of unused or under-utilized property. Surely that information could lead to a large facility that could accommodate the Bureau of Street Lighting and supporting their invaluable contribution to the quality of life in Los Angeles while at the same time allowing for the development of the 4,2 acres of service yard into a great park for East Hollywood.
The City Council motion of 2006 directed General Services to identify property that could be used to accommodate the Bureau of Street Lighting service yard and property was identified but the motion died. It simply died.
This area is part of the Specific Plan Area of "Vermont / Western Station Neighborhood Area Plan" and the property is earmarked for redevelopment into "public elementary, secondary or high schools; police stations and related uses; parks and recreation facilities, including bicycle paths and walking trails, nature trails; park land and lawn areas; children's play areas; picnic facilities; athletic fields (not to exceed 200 seats); senior citizen centers, community centers, clubhouses; swimming pools, libraries; tennis courts; rest rooms; gyms; camping facilities; museums; aquaria, observatories, planetaria and zoos."
Perhaps there is an opportunity here for the community to partner with the Bureau of Street Lighting and to look for a way to support and to even enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the people who bring light to our community. Perhaps there is a way to repair and store the special, historical and architectural lighting fixtures and poles without having to service the entire city from one location. That only serves to make all commutes equally inefficient. Perhaps there is a way to explore inventory management innovations so that the Bureau of Street Lighting can more effectively service the communities that have unique lighting needs.
All of which would free up the East Hollywood Bureau of Street Lighting service yard so that the Prop K commitment can be kept, so that Council President Eric Garcetti's City Council motion can be honored and so that the community of East Hollywood can enjoy a park within walking distance of their homes and of their schools.
The wheels of justice grind slowly and sometimes it's hard to believe that the system is working but a survey of the legal landscape in LA County reveals that there are several cases working that should be of great interest to the cycling community. Danny Jimenez, local cyclist and lawyer, says "victims are often discouraged by the difficulty in obtaining justice but when the system works, it's encouraging to see a Judge and a Prosecutor and a Jury doing their job and doing it well."
In the last year and a half, there have been several drunk driving and road rage incidents that have shaken the cycling community, leaving a trail of dead and broken bodies behind along with a general feeling of frustration and despair for the friends and families of the victims.
Dr. Christopher T. Thompson is charged with 2 counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) 2 counts of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury (243d) reckless driving (23103a) and reckless driving causing specified injury (23105a) and Mayhem (203) all stemming from the Mandeville Canyon Road Rage incident that left two cyclists broken, bleeding and lying on the road. Thompson's case is slowly working itself through the system at the LAX Courthouse. Today, they will pick a judge to replace Judge Cynthia Reyvis and will then hear pre-trial motions. Tomorow, they start jury selection.
Alejandro Hidalgo is charged with vehicular manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) (23153b) in the death of Jesus Castillo on Glendale Boulevard and his case is coming up in the Downtown Criminal Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 30 at 8:30 and no trial date has been set for this case.
Robert Sam Sanchez is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in the death of Rodrigo "Rod" Armas and the injury to his son, Christian Armas on PCH and that case is coming up in the Malibu Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 20 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.
Marco Antonio Valencia is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) and in the death of Joe Novotny on Bouquet Canyon Road in Santa Clarita and that case is coming up in San Fernando Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 28 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.
Jim Azpilicueta is charged with two counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in an incident that caused a cyclist to sustain significant injuries including severe damage to her face. The arraignment is set for October 14 at 8:30 am.
There is another case pending in the Hit-and-Run with Serious Bodily Injury (20001a) incident that left Roadblock lying on Glendale Boulevard after being hit from behind and flipped into the air, landing with just enough consciousness and awareness to catch a partial license plate of the car as it sped off into the distance. The arraignment is set for Nov. 2 at 8:30 am in Dept. 60 Metro Court.
Missing from the dockets of the Southland Courthouses is the infamous Hummer vs. Cyclists case. The LAPD response to the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident received much attention and resulted in a City Council motion directing an LAPD report on police activity and the resulting investigation. It also stirred a Storm the Bastille ride to City Hall, three visits to the Police Commission, and claims filed with the LAPD Inspector General. But it did not result in a court case.
This is why cyclists need the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The CBR has picked up endorsements from the City Council, from the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and from neighborhood councils around LA. The CBR claims as right #4 "Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."
Now is the time for the cycling community to embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and to insist that it be included, as written, in LA's Draft Bike Plan, just released and already under attack for having a 42 day window for public participation and not using imperative language that will support the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.
Pay close attention to what's happening in City Council, in the Courts and, most of all, on the Streets!
The largest and most expensive police building in the United States is about to be dedicated and as the world watches, the LAPD's ignorance of basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards will be revealed. The new headquarters are located across the street from LA's City Hall and the 10-story, 500,000-square-foot building has a beautiful open plaza featuring drought resistant plants and a zen garden theme that creates a sense of calm in the middle of the busy and congested city center. It also features a bike parking area that violates basic CPTED standards as well as simple bike parking standards.
CPTED is the simple philosophy that crime can be prevented by designing an environment so that criminal behavior is not supported by hiding places, blocked vision and isolation. The LAPD headquarters have installed bike racks that are as far from the front door as possible, to the left and out of sight, around the corner and blocked by nine large planters and surrounded by a wall that would hide a bike thief who was working on the bikes. Topping off the poor design is the existence of a 8' by 8' setback in the wall, creating an ideal hiding place. As for the racks themselves, they are positioned so tightly that anybody parking a bike there has a ready alibi for handling other bikes because they simply don't fit, falling far short of the basic standards established by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycling Professionals.
The ultimate irony in this is that the LADOT is also across the street and they, along with City Planning, are in the process of developing the Draft Bike Plan for 2009 which would replace the 2002 Bike Plan. Both Bike Plans have bike parking standards and even go so far as to give the LADOT responsibility for communicating these standards to other city departments.
A simple visit to a park, to a library, to a fire station, to a regional City Hall, to Parker Center is enough to demonstrate that there is no citywide standard for something as simple as bike parking, all while the City has a person in charge of Bike Parking.
One might forgive some of the old wheel bender "toast" racks or the useless "wave" racks or the simple inverted U racks that get installed incorrectly, rendering them useless and serving only to remind cyclists that they simply don't belong. But as the City of Los Angeles prepares to hit the spotlight and to dedicate the most enormous and expensive monument to modern crime prevention, it seems sad that they forgot to consider CPTED.
The area just to the west of the plaza is the wrong location for the bike racks. They belong no more than 50' from the main entrance, they must be visible to those in the lobby, to those passing by and to the guests who visit the LAPD headquarters. They must be safe, convenient and secure. It's not just about bikes any more, it's about the LAPD's reputtion.
The Bike Writers Collective is calling up the LA Bike Working Group to take on LA's Draft Bike Plan, reviewing it, discussing it, and then working together to make it a powerful visionary document that supports the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. All LA cyclists are invited to join in as the spirit of Government 2.0 takes over the Los Angeles City College Faculty Lounge at 1pm this Saturday, October 17, 2009.
The Draft Bike Plan was released on September 24th and the comment period is scheduled to close on November 6th, a window of 42 days for public participation. This is the first of many objectionable elements to the Draft Bike Plan and the City's idea of civic engagement. The LA Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to "demand" that the comment period be extended until Jan 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also voted unanimously to support the fight for an extension of the comment period. Now it's up to the cycling community to prepare those comments.
Riding a bike in Los Angeles has always been a demonstration of self-sufficiency and independence. At first it simply meant carrying a spare tube, some tools and a pump. Somewhere along the way it grew to include carrying a pocket guide to the law, some key phone numbers and some bail money. Then the Department of DIY took things into their own hands and now the cycling community finds themselves confronted with the fact that if they want a decent Bike Plan, they're going to have to make it themselves.
Cyclists can take a look at the complaints and the criticism of the Draft Bike Plan, from LAStreetsBlog and again on LAStreetsblog to CityWatchLA to WestsideBikeSide to BikeGirl. But the most important thing they can do is to take a look at the Draft Bike Plan, (editor's note: If you want to compare the "original" maps from earlier this summer with the current ones that were quietly downgraded, you can find the original maps here.) download it to their laptop and then to ride over to the LA Bike Working Group and to dig in. We'll start as a group then we'll break into smaller groups and we'll work through the plan and create a vision for Los Angeles, by cyclists for cyclists.
Portland is currently going through the same Bike Plan update process as Los Angeles and they have 11 Working Groups, 1 Steering Committee and 1 Technical Advisory Committee, all working together to ensure that the Bike Plan is a robust document that represents the desires of the cycling community. Somehow the City of LA got consultants from Portland but not the spirit of community nor the commitment to an open and engaging process. Now is LA's chance to change that and to create a Bike Plan that truly supports cyclists and their rights on the streets of Los Angeles.
LA Bike Working Group, 1 pm on Saturday the 17th of October, 2009. LACC Faculty Lounge, right in the center of the campus which is right in the center of LA. To plan your visit via public transportation, go to metro.net. The Red Line drops you off right by the College at Santa Monica & Vermont.
The LA Bike Working Group, made up of cyclists from around the city, is meeting this Saturday in East Hollywood to develop grassroots recommendations for the LA's Draft Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which is part of the City's General Plan.
City Planning and the LADOT recently released the Draft Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which is part of the city's General Plan. Cyclists charge that the 42 day comment period is insufficient for meaningful review and significant contribution, further charging that the entire process is simply a charade and that the Draft Bike Plan actually proposed less bike lanes and bike paths than the old Bike Plan. Two weeks ago, Dr. Alex Thompson presented the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the NC Action Summit as one of the six issues that were on the agenda for action. The CBR received a 50-1 endorsement and it was at that point that the neighborhood councils were asked to support the cyclists by 1) calling on City Planning and the LADOT to extend the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan to 90 days 2) calling on City Planning and the LADOT to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the Draft Bike Plan and 3) asking for a inventory of the Craft Bike Plan improvements within the neighborhood council boundaries.
Since then, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to call for an extension of the deadline for public comment. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to call for an extension of the deadline for public comment. Neighborhood Councils are working to agendize the call for an extension along with the call for an inventory of their community, all while the clock ticks.
The hard charge here is that in many cases, the Draft Bike Plan has actually removed bikeways amenities from the plan, resulting in a retreat rather than an advancement, which makes one wonder why it takes a $450K plan in order to do less, rather than more.
The cycling community is asking for support in developing a powerful visionary document that will begin with "Consider all streets as streets that cyclists will ride." and that will continue with real language of imperative rather than simple suggestions and hopes and wishes. This plan, like all plans, belongs to the people of Los Angeles and it must be a plan that reflects the wishes of the community.
It must be an improvement, it must integrate with the other plans that cover the community and it must have teeth. ●●● As for the other topics covered at the NC Action Summit those working groups are scheduled as follows:
● The Rate Payers Advocate Task Force which will meet on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the DWP Ratepayer Advocate.
● The Sidewalk Repair Task Force will also meet on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the Sidewalk Repair Program.
● The Budget Reform Task Force will meet on November 7 at 1 pm, immediately following the LANCC meeting. (1st Saturday) For more information visit the City Budget Reform.
● The Medical Marijuana Task Force will meet on November 14 at 1 pm, immediately following the PlanCheck meeting. (2nd Saturday) For more information visit Medical Marijuana.
● As for the 1/2 Off Initiative, the campaign is moving forward and the organizing committee is taking on volunteers and funding. For more information visit Half off Initiative.
To follow upcoming NC Action Summit events visit the calendar at the NC Action Summit website.
(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephe@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
New York City's Transit Authority welcomes surfers on the subway while LA's Metro Rail management works to limit cyclists from the rail system. One large city embraces people and their "stuff" while LA looks squarely at cyclists and their gap-closing transportation solutions and says "you are a congestion problem."
Steve Lopez of the LA Times tells a story of an old LA surfing buddy who now lives in New York City and still manages to catch a wave or two, rising early to catch the A Train in Harlem and carrying a 7' surfboard all the way to Roackaway Beach in Queens. Somehow she is able to navigate the NYC subway system without the support of the NY Surfers' Advisory Committee or any other transit activists, she simply rides the subway and it all works out.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, cyclists are in limbo, waiting for word on the Metro's proposed limit on cyclists which would only allow two cyclists per rail car. The proposal was originally presented to the Operations Committee on July 16th by Mike Cannell, General Manager of Rail Operations. At that time, the Metro Board's Operations Committee directed the CEO to present to the Board by September 30, 2009, the following:
(1) A comprehensive legal opinion of all risks posed by MTA' s accommodation of bicycles, wheelchairs, luggage, strollers, et al.; (2) A review and report on bike-an-rail policies adopted by other large transit properties in the United States; and (3) A unified plan to ensure that our rail operations are as safe as possible for all users, including a specific bike-on-rail policy.
The odd thing about this directive is that is didn't instruct the staff to consult with the Metro's own Bikeways division. Does the Metro know that it has a Bikeways Division?
The Board, after some prodding from the public, modified the instruction to gather input so that it included, among others, the cycling community!
September 30, 2009 has come and gone. I made sure to let Mr. Cannell know that I would like to be included in the "cycling community" input process. Since then I've heard nothing.
I made a few inquiries, I sent a few emails, I finally filed a Request for Public Records (RPA) and the response I received was this:
"Unfortunately, after much searching, Records Management has no documents to provide on this matter since the relevant Metro personnel have not yet received all the information to make an informed decision. Therefore, we will close your request at this point. You may contact me at (213) 922-4880 or lord@metro.net if you have any questions or comments."
About the same time that the Records Management department says there is nothing to look at, I'm reading a report that Mr. Cannell submitted quietly to the Metro's CEO and the Metro Board, way back on August 27th, 2009.
I'm not sure how this "non-report" qualifies as the fulfillment of the Board instruction or how this would qualify as "gathering input from the cycling community" but it is apparent that it was done so quietly that even the Metro's Records Management department was unaware of the action.
Ultimately, all snubs and fumbles and RPA failures and misunderstandings aside, it's a sad day when a surfer in Harlem gets more respect from the local transit authority than a cyclist in Los Angeles who simply wants to close those service gaps and get to work on time or home to the family.
It's time for the Metro to form a Metro Bicycle Advisory Committee and it's time for the Metro to embrace cyclists as transportation solutions.
The impact of the impending Social Media Revolution is limited by the widespread lack of basic computer skills and it is imperative that we start at the beginning if we are to "Get Connected".
That was the lesson that Enci and I learned as we hosted two "Get Connected" sessions at the NC Congress on Saturday, presentations that covered an overview of the most popular Social Media tools and then strategies for putting them to use as outreach tools to create community. From the beginning, it was apparent that the biggest obstacle for neighborhood councils as they grapple with the websites, blogs, networking groups, and online communications was the simple fact that their "audience" has such varying levels of internet savvy. The message may be there but the audience is still adjusting the virtual "rabbit ears" and wondering "is this thing on?"
The "Get Connected" sessions were held in the Public Works Chambers, a wonderful venue filled with an eager and receptive audience and supported by a great crew from Channel 35 which made it a real pleasure to present "the 7 Secrets of Social Media" and "NC Strategies for Social Media." The first question gave us pause and made us realize how far from "Connected" we really are.
"What does the little button with the phone on it mean and will I get charged if I click on it?" one attendee asked as we attempted to dive into the sophisticated tricks of #hashtags and conversation searches. We paused as the audience member explained "I look at the screen but I'm afraid to click the buttons. What do they mean?" It was evident we had a long way to go and it was in the other direction!
Another guest simply asked "How do I make little pictures turn into big pictures? I can see the picture but I can't see what's in it!" Sophisticated strategies for linking photos, tagging photos and creating contribution groups are obviously lost when the audience can't see the results and again, we turned and went the other direction.
An NC Board Member asked how much some of the websites that we designed would cost and was shocked by the low prices explaining "We gave this guy $7500 for a web site and we still don't have anything to show for our money. We still don't have a website!" The websites we featured in our presentation were simple, inexpensive and allowed community contribution, and dispensed with the need for a webmaster. The Board Member shook his head and walked out of the room.
On Saturday, at the NC Congress, Enci and I learned as much or more than the most attentive and engaged members of the audience.
We learned that there are 89 neighborhood councils out there, all forging their own path in the world of the Wild, Wild Web. There is no guidance on sourcing for website creators, webmasters or web access. There is no legal guidance on NC Forums and the legality or illegality of activity within those forums. There is no Brown Act advice for activity within Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, Webinars and other online arenas which vary from open to moderated to closed.
Neighborhood councils receive no support or guidance or direction on one of the most basic NC expenses and one of the most vital tools, all while they are told to communicate faster, communicate better, communicate more effectively!
We learned that the individuals out there are struggling to connect with their families and friends. One guest at "Get Connected" asked if we could help him use the computer to find his relatives because there was a death in the family and he didn't know where to start. If the lack of basic access to the internet and the lack of simple computer skills is holding people back from simply chatting with their loved ones, what makes us think that more sophisticated social media tools is going to start an outreach revolution in the neighborhood council system?
We learned that simple fear of identity theft is an obstacle that is quite common and is preventing a large number of people from participating in Social Media opportunities but that a little guidance on privacy, security and controls can give people a great deal of confidence.
All this talk of NC Board members failing to take the online ethics training makes me wonder if the failure rate is simply because there are a lot of people who won't simple stand up and say "What button do I click?" There is a huge assumption out there that by tossing something up on a website, it is now universally accessible. I'm now firmly convinced that this couldn't be further from the truth.
If the neighborhood council system is to flourish and to reach its potential, it will happen because we connect and create a strong community and for that to happen, we must make sure that everybody has basic computer skills and simple access to the internet. Anything less allows for division and separation in our community.
If the neighborhood council system is going to get on the Social Media revolution, it is imperative that we start with internet access and computer skills, for everybody!
(Stephen Box … and his wife Enci … are experts on “Social Media” and the web world. They are the creators of Get Connected and have provided hours of help to neighborhood council members and other groups. Stephen Box writes for CityWatch and can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
Saturday's NC Congress will offer two "Get Connected" sessions that unlock the mysteries of Social Media, providing an overview of the most popular social media tools in the first session and then applying specific advanced strategies for using the tools to connect neighborhood councils with their communities. The first session of "Get Connected" is at 10 am in the Public Works Chambers on the 3rd floor of City Hall and promises to introduce the Social Media storm and cover the most popular applications such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Ning. This is an introductory overview of the Social Media arena and will empower attendees to select a tool or three to include in their communication toolbox.
The second session of "Get Connected" is at 1:45 pm, again in the Public Works Chambers on the 3rd floor of City Hall, this time digging into specific strategies for using the most common Social Media tools for creating community, engaging stakeholders, maximizing the impact NC communications, enhancing the demographic spectrum of the neighborhood council, and getting more message with a limited budget.
There's something for everybody, from individuals who just want to connect with their friends and family to those who are responsible for driving NC website traffic, managing email campaigns and creating blog content. During the day, "Get Connected" will cover internet footprints, networking sites and effective communication in the digital arena.
For more information on "Get Connected" visit http://ConnectTheLinks.com
(Stephen and his wife Enci are social network experts. Box writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)
Gail Goldberg, Director of Planning Jane Blumenfeld, Citywide Planning Division Department of City Planning City of Los Angeles
Dear Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Blumenfeld:
The Bicycle Advisory Committee of the City of Los Angeles voted unanimously at its regular meeting of October 6, 2009 to “demand” that the Draft Bicycle Plan Update comment deadline of November 6, 2009 be extended to Friday, January 8, 2010.
The reasons for this action include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Only six weeks were provided for review and comment on a Draft Plan that has taken 18 months to release, including four months after its promised “end of May” release date; 2. The BAC and its subcommittees only meet once every two months, a sixty (60) day cycle; 3. The Draft Plan was released less than two weeks prior to the full BAC meeting, thus providing inadequate time for a thorough review and submittal of comprehensive recommendations by any BAC subcommittee prior to such meeting; 4. The next regular BAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2009; 5. The Draft Plan is a very detailed and lengthy document, containing 195 pages of text and 17 pages of maps citywide as well as a 351-page appendix; 6. The BAC members have not been provided printed copies of the Draft Plan; 7. Some BAC members do not have the ability to print out a document of this length, or at all; 8. The maps are difficult to read online; and 9. There are only a very limited number of printed copies of the Plan available for public review (only at the nine regional City libraries and two City Planning offices).
These are significant challenges to providing meaningful input. The BAC is composed of 19 members appointed by each Councilmember and the Mayor and serve as volunteers without compensation. An extension of the comment deadline will allow the BAC to submit its recommendations in a thoughtful, orderly manner. I believe City Planning and the BAC share the same goal of achieving the best possible Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles. You can assist by extending the comment deadline to January 8, 2010.
Thank you.
Glenn Bailey, Chair Bicycle Advisory Committee City of Los Angeles
For all the talk of Share the Road and Equality and supporting all modes of travel, Los Angeles falls so short on the most basic of accommodations for cyclists that it is acutely evident that there are two castes in LA, those who arrive in private automobiles and those who don't. Those who arrive on foot, by mass transit and on bicycles are definitely the square pegs in a society full of round holes and those in charge continue to greet us with suspicion and hesitation and often simple contempt as the non-motoring public continues to assault the stability of the community.
On Tuesday night, flush with victory after sitting through hours of LA Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting, several cyclists rode from the LAPD's Parker Center (a facility that has a new "wave" bike rack which fails the city's bike plan specifications for adequate bike parking) in search of sustenance and nutrition. The cyclists rode the deserted streets of downtown LA and found themselves at 5th and Flower which features Weiland Brewery Underground, a wonderful restaurant and pub that serves great food long after the rest of the downtown dining opportunities have closed shop. The Weiland website also features abundant driving instructions and directions to the automobile parking. As for bikes, not a mention.
Arriving at 5th and Flower, the cyclists crossed a fairly deserted and typical downtown business district courtyard and elected to access the underground community from the south side. With no bike racks near the entrance, they locked their bike to a rail that surrounded the courtyard and that already hosted a couple of bikes. They chatted with a security guard who wore a blazer and carried a clipboard and grew confident that this was a safe place to lock their bikes.
Then "Gilbert" appeared. With a smile on his face he informed the cyclists "If you leave your bikes here, they will be gone when you return." Thinking he was referring to the safety of this area, the cyclists looked around but it was well lit, it was close to the entrance, it was in the most traveled area of the entire complex and there were already bikes there indicating that others also considered it to be a safe place. Gilbert clarified "If you leave your bike there, we will cut the locks and take them."
Under what authority does a security guard threaten to impound personal property? This community is notorious for bike thieves and the community policing map for the area indicates that 5th and Flower is the best place in Los Angeles to donate your bike to those who do not fear the presence of "Gilbert" or any of his blazer-wearing, clipboard-carrying team of "Just say No!" greeters. Why can't they treat those who walk, ride or take mass transit with the same respect as those who arrive with thousands of pounds of personal property?
If a motorist parked his car illegally would "Gilbert" and the clipboard team break in and roll the car off into City National Plaza McGuire impound? I think not! This particular property is the home of Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic (FAST) a non-profit organization addressing congestion in Los Angeles. The Chairman of FAST is James A. Thomas, President and CEO of Thomas Properties Group, which has an interest in the City National Plaza. What type of disconnect is there if the guy who owns the property and runs the organization is funding the RAND report that advises our leadership on ways to reduce congestion while "Gilbert" does everything possible to make sure that those who bring their bikes are treated with contempt and threats. Why would I attempt to bring hard earned money to the tenants of City National Plaza if guys like "Gilbert" are just doing their job, reminding cyclists that they are 2nd class citizens who stand to lose their personal property if they choose to secure it within 50 feet of the entrance to the establishment.
On Wednesday night a group of cyclists, including a "newbie" who was on his second big time adventure on his new bike, journeyed to the Linwood Dunn Theater on Vine, part of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a fantastic organization with a lot to be proud of including the documentary series which featured The Garden. The Linwood Dunn has no bike parking and the Academy Security staff instructed the "newby" to put his bike alongside the hand rail on the entrance ramp. (This was a crime at the City National Plaza!) Upon entering the building the first Blue Shirt promptly instructed the cyclists to put their property including the water bottles back in the car. When it was pointed out that cyclists rarely also have cars, four Blue Shirts scratched about a bit and wondered aloud what to do next. They elected to take the water bottles (nice metal canisters) refusing to allow the cyclists to simply empty them and then looked at the array of bike tools as if they were oddities from another civilization.
Bottom line, the Blue Shirts seem to think their job is to say "No!" and that advancement comes with their enthusiasm for saying "No! No!"
The Linwood Dunn Theater is in the middle of Hollywood and one would think that as we look for ways to encourage people to walk, ride or take mass transit, the simplest thing we could do, would be to welcome them as they reach their destination rather than look at them as if they are 2nd class citizens who dare to challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle paradigm. In fact, Moray Greenfield, Director of Operations for the Theater explained "It's Los Angeles. Of course we're going to tell people to put their belongings back in the car!"
The Linwood Dunn Theater is in the middle of some sort of remodel or construction work which means that they should have a building permit. The Certificate of Occupancy will then depend on the property being brought up to code, which will include bike parking at 2% of available automobile parking and as close or closer as the nearest handicapped parking space. Ultimately, cyclists don't need a lecture on private property everytime they ask for routine accommodations, they simply need some respect. When the operator of a facility asks cyclists to simply accept the policy of the property owner, it's more than appropriate for the cyclist to ask the property manager to comply with municipal code.
A little respect would prevent dueling policies and codes and allow us to work together to make sure that Angelenos have multiple choices and opportunities to select the mode of transportation that suits them best. At the minimum, a little respect for everybody, even the 30% who don't have access to a motor vehicle.
After the excitement at the Academy, the cyclists took off for the Palms on Hollywood Blvd. where the security guard said "Don't lock your bikes to the railing, put it in the garage out back." Of course, this means using the wheel-bender bike rack that prevents the frame from being secured, that uses the wheel to support the bike...in other words, no.
The manager on duty simply rolled her eyes and told the security guard that it was alright for the cyclists to lock up to the rail, in plain sight of the front door and close to the traffic area. She had been through this before, apologized for the property owner's idea of bike parking and welcomed the cyclists to the restaurant.
What's it going to take to encourage people to ride bikes in Los Angeles? A little respect, a little accommodation and an end to the 2nd class treatment for those who dare to move about Los Angeles on foot, on a bike or by mass transit.
Santa Monica's AltCar Expo made it crystal clear, from a distance and in the parking lot, "The Car is King" and all else receives a token gesture and comes in a distant second.
I attended the 4th Annual AltCar Expo misunderstanding the concept and expected to find "Alternatives-to-the-Car" at the Expo, thinking that the promise of "Alternative Fuel and Transportation" would entail some shift in the auto-centric focus but I was wrong.
Attendees to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium event were promised cheap parking and upon arrival were greeted with abundant opportunities to test drive "alternative-cars" including automobiles that ran on electricity, hydrogen, cooking oil, good intentions and high-hopes. People lined up as beautiful men and women plied them with data and promises and assurances that by driving these beautiful "AltCars" they would seriously change the world. Immediately.
Hidden behind a bus and a large truck and at the very back of the parking lot was an area reserved for the "Alternatives-to-the-Car" such as the Segway, the electric bicycles and other options that were obviously secondary and obligatory and not even close to worthy of headliner status. Such was the priority of the Expo.
The LA Greensters, Hollywood's first all pedal powered transpo team, had a "double-wide" booth which Ron "the Sherpa" Durgin and Jeremy Grant turned into Park[ing] Booth, recreating the park that the LOAD[ing] Zone team hauled across LA as part of the Park[ing] Day LA celebration. Park[ing] Booth screened videos including Reel Sustainable, a documentary about sustainable film production, Park[ing] Day LA and the Crenshaw Crush, a Greenster organized discovery bike ride in the Crenshaw District.
We had a great time in "the Annex" and the folks that stopped by Park[ing] Booth were tickled to hear of the LA Greensters, the see the Xtracycles on display and to hang out in the Park[ing] Booth and to watch videos that demonstrated that the bike was a serious option for moving gear, for shopping, and for all of the basic transportation needs that come up in a community.
Our neighbors in "the Annex" ranged from a design team that built a electric assist bicycle capable of 35mph, a woman who conducts weddings on bikes, BikeRoWave bike co-op, the, a Dahon folding bike dealer and other "Alternatives-to-the-Car" folks. Meanwhile, in the main room...
There were cars. Big cars and fast cars. Cars from the major manufacturers and cars from small startups. GM had a booth, Daimler had a booth, Mini had a booth, a guy named Bob had a booth and they all promised motor vehicles with incredible performance but without the petrol.
Bravo! All the congestion but without the pollution.
I took a lap to get the lay of the land and then I took a much slower lap and once I had dispensed with the automobiles, I found several non-vehicle booths tucked into the main room. The Clif Bar booth is always a favorite and although I was a wee bit jealous that they were in the main room while the LA Greensters were in "the Annex", I was happy to take advantage of their wares.
I came across a booth that featured a motor vehicle and I almost slipped right by until I realized they weren't promoting the vehicle but were instead washing it without using water. The Lucky Earth company sells a non-toxic, dye free, cleaning solution that is sprayed on your dirty vehicle and with a "spritz, spritz" and a "wipe, wipe" leaves behind a sparkling clean car with no wasted water. When my mild interest was met with an offer of a bottle, I declined and explained that I had no car to wash. They immediately switched bottles and gave me "Bike Wash" demonstrating very clearly that if these people were hosting the Metro's booth, there would be more people riding mass transit.
Lemonade, the catering company, got in the swing of things and enticed the "green" crowd to pay more for less by positioning a large poster at the beginning of the lounge that dramatized the impact of methane vs. the impact of auto emissions, positioning guilt as the appetizer for the vegan-fare that served as penance for the supplicants.
Lest there be any confusion, let me clarify, Ed Begley Jr. is still the reigning Rock Star of the Green Revolution and there were two booths proudly displaying a life-sized cutout of Ed, demonstrating that there are two kinds of green products on the market. Those that enrich Ed and those that don't. Ed was selling a system that reduced "phantom-power" waste and promised to reduce utility bills by 25% and Ed was selling a water system that promised to provide clean water. It was good to see Ed and I thoroughly enjoyed his water, especially since it was delivered in a cup that appeared to be plastic but was actually made from corn starch and was bio-degradable. I was thirsty so I drank a few glasses of water but I drank quickly, worried that the cup would start to fade on me as I drank. It all worked out and I was again in Ed's debt!
It was quickly apparent that there were three "castes" at the AltCar Expo with the "Alternative Car" in first position, the "Green Products and Services" in second position and the "Alternatives to the Car" in third position. Once I was clear on the lay of the land and on the structure, I settled in and simply invited folks to visit the "Annex" which I rebranded as the "VIP" room and things picked up accordingly at the Park[ing] Booth.
Sometime during the afternoon on Friday, I noticed an increase in the number of "men in suits" making repetitious laps around the facility and it dawned on me that it was time to go into "Guv mode." We tidied up our booth and repositioned our selves, spreading out and putting DJ Chickenleather in a lead position, now very grateful for the Lucky Earth bike wash!
Sure enough, just as the Expo closed to the public and just as the staff for the Metro, the Big Blue Bus and all of the other "clock in an go to work in a booth" folks had left the Expo Hall, a dozen large black vehicles pulled up and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stepped into the Main Room of the AltCar Expo and the show began. Booth by booth, car by car, the Guv strolled through the Expo, surrounded by an entourage that started off as a group of individuals but within minutes had taken on amorphous qualities and began to move an a singular entity featuring the head of the Guv and then two dozen feet, two dozen hands and a half-dozen cameras flashing at regular intervals.
Governor Schwarzenegger visited every booth featuring a car, a generator, a battery, a cable, and anything else related to moving motor vehicles, demonstrating the traditional commitment to the personal motor vehicle and the complete disconnect from the larger challenge of getting people out of cars and of providing transportation alternatives. The Governor spent close to an hour visiting the booths in the main room and he was methodical, almost Austrian, in his up-down, back and forth, survey of the AltCar Expo. Then the pace quickened and it was apparent that the Governor's visit was ending and the entourage headed toward the exit.
In a demonstration of the disproportionate energy and attention that is dedicated to traditional auto-centric transportation vs. alternative transportation, Governor Swarzenegger spent 55 minutes looking under the hoods of electric and hydrogen vehicles and two minutes talking alternative transportation. Of course, I'm grateful for those two minutes, especially because he spent them talking to the LA Greensters!
As the Yukons outside idled and Santa Monica's air quality dipped, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was introduced to the LA Greensters, Hollywood's first all pedal-powered transportation team, featured in Reel Sustainable, the documentary that asks the hard question, "Can Hollywood produce films sustainably?" The LA Greensters demonstrated that the answer is yes by hauling all grip and electric, camera and audio gear on Xtracycles and with trailers, supporting the full shoot from shopping at farmers markets to all production runs, using only bicycles.
The Governor smiled and nodded, said "Great!" and I'm convinced that for a moment he contemplated ditching the entourage and instead hanging out with the LA Greensters. Maybe next time!
On Wednesday evening, Zócalo will host an evening entitled "The Curse of Oil" at the Skirball Center and featuring a discussion with Peter Maass, New York Times Magazine writer and author of Crude World, all in a demonstration of sublime irony or in a ridiculous display of complete disconnect.
Zócalo has a tremendous track record for bringing brilliant guests and invigorating topics to the community, hosting films, discussions, panels and presentations in a wide variety of venues.
In honor of Wednesday's subject matter which will take a look at the unhappiness that oil-producing nations experience as a result of the oil production, from Nigeria to Venezuela to Angola, Zócalo has selected a venue that is inhospitable to those who elect to travel free of the "Curse of Oil!"
The Skirball Center is a wonderful facility but it is located in a location that is difficult to walk to, challenging to ride to, fairly inconvenient to those who travel by mass transit and is promoted with the promise of free parking. In other words, bring a motor vehicle. Burn some fuel, park for free, embrace the irony, gnash your teeth as we examine the injustice of oil production and then burn some more fuel to get home. Your awareness is all that is needed to change the world, not a shift in your behavior, just a wee bit of guilt as you tool down Sepulveda Boulevard in your fossil fuel burning motor vehicle.
Zócalo is a Spanish word that means Public Square. We know that LA is lacking in public space that would qualify as a "public square" but surely Zócalo could have done better, especially for a program that promises to "explore the consequences of gas-guzzling, the paradox of plenty, and how to cure our addiction to oil."
I love the Zócalo programming and have enjoyed a screening of The Garden at the Laemmle Music Hall, an evening with Tom Vanderbilt at the Actor's Gang, and panel discussions at the Central Library and at the Endowment Center, all easily accessible to those on foot, to those who ride bikes, to those who travel by mass transit and even to those who arrive in motor vehicles. The Zócalo Public Square is a wonderful organization and it hurts to criticize them, almost as much as it hurts to watch them commit the gaffe of the oil-addicted.
I expect this from City Hall, from our elected officials, from the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, even from the Metro but to have Zócalo host an event on oil-addiction and then host it in an environment that favors the oil-addicted and is inhospitable to the point of absurdity to those who dare to put down the oil is simply unacceptable.
Zócalo, meet us at One Gateway, the Endowment Center, Union Station. Offer transit passes instead of free parking, host this event at a venue with a well lit sidewalk that encourages pedestrians. Make it a standard to host your events at locations with bike parking. Stop with the free auto parking and walk toward the light!
At last night's Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, the LABAC voted unanimously to "demand an extension of the comment period" effectively moving the deadline from 42 days to 94 days. This action from the LABAC is the same action that neighborhood councils throughout the city are taking and speaks volumes to the amount of energy that is wasted in Los Angeles on simply getting the process adjusted so that the public can participate.
That element of the development of the City of LA's Draft Bike Plan aside, now the real work begins and here are my recommendations for the Draft Bike Plan.
First, lose the softly worded vision and replace it with the simple call for "Consider every street in Los Angeles as a street that bicyclists will use."
All planning, design, engineering, supervision, maintenance, law enforcement, and enhancement must be driven by this simple principle and it must resonate through the many city departments that have any responsibility for our streets and the people who use them.
Second, put the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, as written, in the Draft Bike Plan.
Any objections are simply internal and bureaucratic and the argument that LA doesn't have authority over some of the rights is simply not true. LA has law enforcement, LA has mass transit, LA has streets, LA legislates and LA enforces and LA has influence over judicial activity. But regardless of LA's real and self-imposed limitations, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights is a simple enunciation of rights and it belongs in the Bike Plan.
Third, the Draft Bike Plan must use real language of commitment and that the soft words that dilute the potential effectiveness of the plan be replaced by words that have real meaning and that are absolute.
Fourth, it is imperative that we accept the insignificance of the Draft Bike Plan and start this process by backing up and asking how we can position it so that it has any meaning in the larger landscape of Los Angeles. We must be willing to stop the process and to engage in an EIR that will position the Bike Plan as a document that has authority and can withstand Level of Service challenges and that can be used to hold departments accountable.
I offer several examples of how the current Bike Plan is currently completely disregarded by the LADOT, by Planning, by the LAPD, by the Harbor Commission, by literally anybody with a plan who is doing anything in Los Angeles!
1) San Pedro Waterfront Development Project: The Port of Los Angeles just approved the San Pedro Waterfront Development Project which comes with a price tag of $1.2 Billion. Was there any consideration for cyclists in this plan? Did they incorporate the Draft Bike Plan into this plan? Over the 10 year development journey for the SPWDP, was there ever any synchronization between City Planning and the LADOT and the Port of LA to ensure that the needs of cyclists were addressed in the mobility element of the SPWDP? The Port ignores the Bike Plan.
2) Warner Center Specific Plan Revision: LA City Planning and the LADOT are in the process of updating the Warner Center Specific Plan with an initial budget of $500K. The process includes traffic studies, environmental studies, strategic economics impact evaluation and urban design. Was there any consideration for cyclists in this plan? Did they incorporate the Draft Bike Plan into this plan? Over the recent development journey for the WCSP, was there ever any synchronization between City Planning (Tom Glick) and the LADOT (Armen Hovanessian - Sr. Traffic Engineer) and the Consultants to ensure that the needs of cyclists were addressed in the mobility element of the WCSP? City Planning and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.
3) Topanga Canyon Boulevard: LA's 2002 Bike Plan classified 9 miles of Topanga Canyon Boulevard as Class II Bike Lanes. Caltrans provided the engineering and the funding for 9 miles of bike lanes and instead elected to pursue peak-hour parking. Do the LADOT's Sr. Traffic Engineers have the authority to override the LA Bike Plan? When there is conflict between the Bike Plan and the priorities of the local LADOT Traffic Divisions, who resolves the conflict? The LADOT ignores the Bike Plan.
4) Orange Line Bike Path: The Bureau of Engineering is in the process of widening Victory Boulevard east of Balboa Boulevard, with combined widening of 8 feet to accommodate the addition of a westbound left turn-lane and a bus bay adjacent to the Victory/Balboa Park & Ride Facility. Improvements include construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC pavement, street lighting, and striping. The roadway widening has reduced the radius of the curb return resulting in a new access ramp that is smaller than the old ramp. The City's position is that ADA access ramps are mandated by the Feds with only one priority, providing equal access to the disabled community to City services, and that sidewalks are considered a service per the courts. Is this section of the Orange Line Bike Path a sidewalk or a Bike Path? Is there a Bike Plan standard for curb cuts on Bike Paths? Is there a standard for Bike Paths and intersections? Is there an engineering protocol for Bike Paths vs. Street Widenings? Is the Orange Line Bike Path protected by the Bike Plan and who is responsible for maintaining its integrity? The Bureau of Engineering ignores the Bike Plan.
5) LAPD Headquarters: The new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters is nearing completion and includes bike racks on the north side of the building. The position of the new bike racks is out of sight of the LAPD staff and is tucked behind a large wall, several large planters, a small wall, violating the Draft Bike Plan standards and basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards. This building is across the street from the LADOT headquarters. Does the Draft Bike Plan call for the LADOT to communicate with the other departments in the City of Los Angeles so that the proposed standards become a reality? Is there any attempt to integrate the different departments within the City of LA so that there is some uniformity to the application of law, code, design standards, engineering standards, maintenance standards, accommodation standards and will it be with the same enthusiasm that the LADOT worked with the LAPD on the new bike racks or can we expect something more meaningful? The LAPD and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.
6) LADOT Headquarters: The City of LA recently reconfigured the intersection 2nd and Los Angeles which is the SE corner of the LADOT's headquarters. The drainage grate is the old style of parallel bars that will accept a narrow bike tire, creating a danger for cyclists who ride in the curb lane and roll across the drainage grate. At the same time, the LADOT has been embarking on a funded journey to swap out the old drainage grates with new cross-hatched grates that are purportedly safe for cyclists. Is there a standard for drainage grates in Los Angeles? If there isn't, why not? If there is, who enforces it and why are the old dangerous style being installed on new road projects? Who is responsible for integrating the many departments who have a piece of the streets? How do we change policy and address these situations more comprehensively? The BOE and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.
7) NBC Universal Development: NBC Universal Execs have announced plans to spend $3 Billion on developing their property in Universal City, allocating $100 million to traffic mitigation measure so that the project has a positive impact on the community, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the LA Bike Plan calls for a Bike Path alongside the LA River, an amenity that the NBC Uni folks oppose and there proposition is to cut the Bike Path and redirect it so that it is no longer a continuous LA River Bike Path. Do the NBC Uni execs have the authority to trump the Bike Plan? Who is entertaining these proposals and how does it happen away from public oversight? What good is the Bike Plan if years of development of the River Path can be interrupted by NBC Uni Developers? How do 38 community groups speak with unanimous opposition to this development and LADOT Bikeways doesn't step in to hold the Bike Plan as a document that must be reckoned with or is it a meaningless document that carries no weight? NBC Uni ignores the Bike Plan.
8) LA has plans, lots of them. The Southern California Association of Governments has a plan, Metro has a plan, LA has a General Plan. There are 35 Community Plans, lots of Specific Plans, and Master Plans for everything from Golf to Lighting to Parks. Toss in a Transportation Element and a Strategic Plan and all that's missing is a Printing Master Plan that would deliver all of these plans to the many people and departments and agencies and authorities who simply can't keep up with the dueling plans.
LA's Draft Bike Plan is not worth the dust it will collect as it sits on the shelf. For it to have any meaning, it must be given teeth and it must be integrated with the other plans that currently trump the Bike Plan. This is the missing element if for making the Bike Plan a document of significance. The evidence is there, even the departments responsible for the Bike Plan ignore it. Only fools repeat the same behavior and hope for a different result.
Ladies and Gentlemen, LA's Draft Bike Plan, brought to you by the fools who brought you the last Bike Plan.
LA's Bureau of Street Lighting has confirmed what many have claimed, East Hollywood is the center of the city. Street Lighting revealed this fact during a recent tour of their Lighting Yard Facility on Santa Monica Boulevard, between Madison and Virgil.
It is from this maintenance yard in this densely populated and park-poor community that Street Lighting is able to service LA's lighting needs, from the Harbor to the Eastside to the Westside to the far reaches of the Valley, repairing and replacing the 75 light poles that are damaged by automobiles every month, replacing burned out bulbs, conducting routine maintenance and keeping 5000 miles of streets illuminated and servicing 400 types of lighting fixtures, all from this 4.2 acre slice of prime real estate.
Meanwhile, the residents of this community which is one of the densest in the city, with one of the highest percentages of renters, with over 100 languages spoken, with 25% under the age of 18, also finds itself vying for the title of park-poorest community in Los Angeles. The Light Yard is across the street from the Cahuenga Library, there are three elementary schools within walking distance and the area is surrounded by apartment buildings.
The idea of moving the Light Yard to another plot of land is not a new proposition and the idea of building a park on Santa Monica Boulevard is also not a new idea. What's new is the groundswell of attention that drew community members out in the early hours for a tour and a discussion of next steps, all in an effort to address the fact that 4.2 acres of open space are being used to store "stuff" while children play in the street.
The Park[ing] Day LA team meets on Thursday, October 15 at 7pm to address "Green Space, Open Space, and Public Space" and to discuss next steps for the "East Hollywood Greens!" For more information, visit http://ParkingDayLA.com or email info@ParkingDayLA.com.
Saturday's NC Action Summit was a tremendous success from my perspective and I learned a great deal. It was an ambitious event, literally 10 pounds of meeting packed into a five pound agenda and as the emcee, I found it to be quite a challenge to keep things on track. Ultimately, I'm proud of the organizers, the participants and of the results. The NC Action Summit set out to create a forum for neighborhood council stakeholders to take on the issues that are relevant to the community, all with "Less Talk, More Action!"
That was a worthy goal but the first thing I learned on Saturday is that the "talk" is an important part of the "action" and the trick is not to limit, but to balance. There is no way to get to action without accommodating the public's need to be heard, to clear the air, to sound off and to deliver the anecdotes, the experiences, the defining moments that stirred the passion and prompted the public to give up their Saturday to get involved. It all starts with talk and it is, for many people, the action. I've learned to respect the important role 'talk" plays in "action."
The Summit had quite an ambitious agenda and we structured a schedule that in hindsight, could have been a tad more flexible.
Some issues went quickly, some went slowly and some were quite intense and were schedule busters.
I've been to meetings where success is based on adherence to the schedule, I've been to meetings where success is based on addressing every item on the agenda and hearing from every person. The real test of the NC Action Summit's success will not be based on our schedule or our open participation, it will be based on our ability to translate the event into results and I'm very optimistic.
We worked the agenda, people participated and I've learned that the event will be judged based on the next 90 days.
The event had something for everybody and for me, I was quite pleased with the outcome for the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Dr. Alex Thompson, member of the Bike Writers Collective, Co-founder of the BikeRoWave, and Co-author of the CBR gave a presentation and engaged in a robust interaction with the public.
For all of the focus on action, this interaction was as valuable because we were able to hear concerns, misunderstandings, fears, new ideas and great suggestions, all of which we never hear in traditional settings at City Hall, Council Committee or Departmental presentations.
The Cyclists' Bill of Rights received a 50 to 1 vote of endorsement and Thompson gave a call for action, urging the audience to get their respective neighborhood councils to call for an extension on the city's Bike Plan comment period to 90 days, currently scheduled for 42 days and closing on November 6th, effectively leaving the NC's out of the comment loop.
The proposed comment period would end on Jan 4th allowing community members to evaluate the Bike Plan, take it to committee and then the board, offering an opinion on the Bike Plan and the improvements or lack of improvements in each NC.
Jeff Jacobberger offered to assist NC's in evaluating the Bike Plan and in inventorying any proposals or projected improvements in the community and the Bike Writers Collective will send speakers to any NC with the Cyclists' Bill of Rights on their agenda for endorsement.
I'm really encouraged that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights received such a great reception from the community and I'm also encouraged to see the cycling community engaging the neighborhood councils and looking for common ground.
At the end of the day, for all of the issues and all of the discussion and all of the commitment to action, the most significant part of the day for me was the fact that I had participated in the maiden voyage of LA's Government 2.0 and that real change is on the horizon.
Saturday's NC Action Summit was the significant first step.
LA's Draft Bike Plan is a huge document of thin ambition, relying on controversy over process to distract from the fact that it lacks vision, it lacks substance, and it lacks the teeth necessary to bring about any change.
The Draft Bike Plan was released last week, an hour before the end of the day on the eve of furlough Friday, giving city staff the opportunity to "drop and run" and providing a three-day cooling off period before they had to answer for the long overdue, hotly contested and controversial document. Commissioned in December of 2007, the Bike Plan is part of LA's Transportation Plan which is an element of the city's General Plan. As the consultants so eloquently explained during the community workshops during March of 2008 that kicked off the Bike Plan process, the Bike Plan is a critical funding document that must be updated in order to qualify for funding. As for positioning it as a powerful visionary document with implementation teeth, city staff has never expressed such ambition.
The limited opportunity for robust community involvement at the onset, the long, dark and silent period of time when the plan went overdue, the release of Bike Plan maps that positioned "infeasible" as a standard for the future of LA bikeways and the promise of another limited public access comment period have all fueled great gnashing of teeth and provided great fodder for the blogs.
This Saturday, at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson will address the Draft Bike Plan when he presents the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights for endorsement and for inclusion in the Bike Plan. At the Transportation Committee and at City Council, staff was directed to position the CBR as the foundation for the Bike Plan but as the city’s consultant from Alta Planning so eloquently put it, “We don’t work for the City Council.”
Now that the Draft Bike Plan has been released we can evaluate it and I contend that it fails on three levels, based on content, based on process, and based on commitment.
CONTENT:
Missing from the Draft Bike Plan is the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a vision document that has picked up endorsement from neighborhood councils and community groups throughout Los Angeles, working its way to the City's Transportation Committee where staff was directed to include it in the city's Bike Plan. It is missing. In its place is a plaintive whimper of a vision that simply asks for consideration. At the Federal and State levels, Equality is positioned as the foundation of mobility planning but here in Los Angeles, cyclists can look forward to a future based on "consideration."
Long Beach, by way of comparison, has a Bike Plan that opens boldly by stating that the City of Long Beach "Consider every street in Long Beach as a street that bicyclists will use." It continues by establishing a policy to integrate its bikeways facilities with surrounding communities, a significant commitment given the fact that LA County cyclists have 88 municipalities to traverse and synchronicity is important if cycling is to be a viable transportation choice.
From the missing Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the boiler-plate data and specs, the Bike Plan not only misses the big picture but it also fails to establish itself as the authoritative document that could be used to settle some of the minor Bikeways controversies that have arisen of late in Los Angeles.
The Draft Bike Plan does demonstrate a bit of creativity, unfortunately it's creative accounting. By using the collective term "Bikeways" which includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, Bike-Friendly and Good Wishes, the Draft Bike Plan can claim a significant improvement over the old plan. But apples to apples, LA's old Bike Plan had 452 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. The Draft Bike Plan now has 400 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. That's a decrease. Adding Bike Routes and Bike-Friendly streets to the mix is bad math and engineers should know better. The simple fact is, LA slid backward and Topanga Canyon Boulevard was designated for bike lanes on the old plan, the engineering and funding was in place and the LADOT rejected it, electing to downgrade it to "infeasible" and finally "possible" but in reality "never."
From the vision to the details, LA's Draft Bike Plan is hundreds of pages of very pretty, shelf-ready Bike Plan, destined to collect dust.
PROCESS:
The Draft Bike Plan’s short comment period prevents Neighborhood Council involvement, simply by shortcutting a process that essentially requires a full month cycle for committee meetings and then a full month cycle for Board Meetings, simply to offer feedback. The cavalier manner in which the 89 Neighborhood Councils are dismissed from the process speaks volumes.
As if often the case, staff cry budget blues when explaining why the community meetings are limited but then fail to take advantage of Neighborhood Council regional meetings such as the NC Action Summit, the NC Congress, NECA, the Valley Alliance, the Westside Alliance, the Harbor Alliance, the South LA alliance, LANCC, the Citywide Alliance and PlanCheckNC.
It’s not hard for city staff to find the public, if they’re really sincere about finding us. The hard charge is simple, do they really want the public involved?
Through it all, it should be noted that the LADOT is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Neighborhood Councils in which 60 days is the minimum period of time for comment on small projects and the amount of time increases with the significance of the proposal or plan. It is telling that the Draft Bike Plan is given less than the minimum time, giving it less significance than simple neighborhood improvements or variances.
The Draft Bike Plan refers to "respect and consideration" as the essence of the vision and it is imperative that the City of Los Angeles bring those words to life now, not down the road after the Draft Bike Plan has gone through the process.
APPLICATION:
The value of LA's Draft Bike Plan is in its ultimate impact on the streets of Los Angeles but we have little hope that real change will occur and, in fact, we have evidence that it is a document with no teeth carrying little commitment from even its departments of origin.
The 2002 Bike Plan called for 9 miles of Bike Lanes on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. Caltrans provided the engineering and the funding for the Bike Lanes but the City of Los Angeles declined, electing to go with peak hour parking. The City of Los Angeles rejected funding for the Topanga Canyon Boulevard Bike Lanes
All the talk of bikeways amenities, support for cyclists, steps taken by the city to encourage cycling as a viable transportation choice are contradicted by the simple fact that nobody from City Planning of the Department of Transportation found the courage to simply cross the street to offer some advise to the LAPD on the positioning of their bike racks at the new Police Headquarters.
Granted, one would think that the LAPD would be familiar with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) but such is not the case. The bike racks are as far from the front entrance as possible, around the corner and behind a wall, in an area that offers refuge to someone who would want to hide and wait for a victim.
LA's Bike Plan has long given the LADOT the responsibility to communicate to the city departments simple bike parking standards. To this day the Library Department, the Fire Department, City Hall, Rec and Parks, and the 45 City Departments that compete with each other for autonomy can't agree on how to position a bike rack if they even have bike racks.
This does not speak well for the Draft Bike Plan's ability to serve as the platform that will bring together the dozen departments that have a piece of the street that the cyclists of Los Angeles, hereafter known as transportation solutions, must navigate in order to get home safely at the end of the day.
Conclusion: LA's Draft Bike Plan is thin on content of substance, is the product of an ongoing flawed process, and avoids at all turns any attempt to position itself as a document of change with a real plan for implementation. It is an exercise in civic enragement designed to qualify the City of Los Angeles for Bikeways funding that will then simply fall into the co-mingled coffers of the LADOT, a department that has failed to establish or support cycling as a viable transportation choice in the City of Los Angeles.
(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ) Photo: farm4static.flickr ◘
It's a sad day for Caltrans, a really sad day for the cyclists of the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee!
Caltrans District 7 Director Doug Failing announced his resignation from Caltrans today, informing the Caltrans staff of his move to the Metro where he will serve as the Executive Director of the Highway Program.
Doug Failing is an uncommon man, open and honest and forthright and direct and so completely driven by integrity that he inspires those around him to reach for greatness.
He began working for Caltrans many years ago as a brand new Engineer and one of his first assignments was to stand on the freeway on-ramps with flyers that explained how the Diamond lanes worked. He has come a long way since those early days.
Somewhere along the way he earned a reputation for his commitment to "on time and under budget" performance which complemented his pursuit of innovations in management, funding, communications and technology.
More specific to my endeavors, Doug Failing is the man responsible for bringing together cyclists from Ventura and Los Angeles Counties to form the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, a group that he leads and that meets bi-monthly to advise him on cycling issues in the District 7 region. His commitment to making "routine accommodations" come to life and actually mean something for the cyclists on the road set a standard against which all others will be compared.
I am truly sad to see Doug Failing leave his post at Caltrans, I think it is a tremendous loss for the Caltrans team and for the community as a whole. At the same time, I know that the Metro's new CEO, Art Leahy, is making a smart move by positioning Doug Failing in a power position.
Ultimately, this move is based on what's best for Doug and his family and I trust that he finds his new position rewarding both professionally and financially.
We all owe Doug Failing a big round of thanks for his contributions at Caltrans.
Stephen Box
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Doug Failing
My friends,
I've recently had to make one of the most difficult decisions of my career. I will be leaving Caltrans at the end of this month, October. My reasons for leaving are solely financial. We have always been on the low end of the pay scale in Los Angeles, but the added burden of the furloughs is harming my family. I will and have personally sacrificed much for the Department, but I will not sacrifice my family.
I want to tell you all about how proud I have been to be your District Director and to have lead and worked with you for all these years. No matter what the challenge has been, District 07 has risen to meet and overcome the obstacle. Not only are you doing better work than any other group I know of, you are being innovative in bringing new technology to use in reducing congestion, building better pavements and solving transportation problems. You are also leading the state in helping stimulate the economy by putting construction people to work and have developed new programs to make sure we do more and better business with California Small Businesses. Maybe I had a little bit to do with coming up with some of these ideas, but you made them work. I have to tell you that it is critical that you continue to be the voice of innovation and creativity in transportation, not just in California, but in the nation.
I have accepted a great position as the Executive Director of the Highway Program at our partner agency, Los Angeles County Metro. I expect that we will continue to be able to work together in the future.
Crenshaw Crush drew cyclists from all over the city to Leimert Park, home of the Drum Circle, for a bike ride that introduced riders to the history, the culture, the politics and the people of the Crenshaw District.
Aubrey Provost, the 8th Council District representative on the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee, has spent years sitting in policy meetings discussing plans and proposals and finally he decided that the best thing he could do to improve cycling in Los Angeles was to simply get people on their bikes. He enlisted the support of the LA Greensters and the Crenshaw Crush was on.
A Crush is a great big hug and that's what 75 cyclists gave the Crenshaw Community as Ron "the Sherpa" Durgin of the LA Greensters led a 20+ mile tour that started with the Florence and Normandie epicenter of the LA Riots where Aubrey gave his first hand account of one of the lowest points in LA's history. It was a sobering moment that set up the highlights of hope and success that followed.
The cyclists included the East Side Bike Club, LA Grange, Real Ryda's, Major Motion and Cynergy Cycles along with the LA Greensters and a load of unaffiliated but new best friends, some from far away and others from down the street. They ranged in age from 7 to 70 and in skill level from beginner to core.
Jeremy Grant of the LA Greensters led a poker ride and at every fork in the road where Ron took the flat route, Jeremy would lead the poker riders on a mad hill climb, five in all, adding miles and hills and the Baldwin Dam to their journey. Somehow they caught the flatlanders at the pit stops every time.
Along the way, the Crenshaw Crush got some miles in before stopping at USC's Exposition Park and the Rose Garden. Aubrey regaled us with tales of days gone by when the Rose Garden was a race track and the uptown/downtown social center as well as the days when it almost became a parking lot. We took off and the Poker Riders disappeared while we took the long slow route to Crenshaw.
The Crush at rest. Photo: Stephen Box/Facebook We pulled off a side street onto the sidewalk of Crenshaw and Aubrey gave a shout out to Marilyn of Marilyn's Soul Food and as she described her restaurants and her history in the neighborhood, she was joined by staff carrying huge trays of the largest and plumpest chicken wings, enough to feed an army. The aroma of fried chicken attracted a few pedestrians who couldn't resist joining the crowd. It was hard to leave Marilyn's.
The two groups rode together for a spell, exploring the Expo Line route and taking a pit stop at Dorsey High. The Expo Line has been quite a hot topic and there is a great deal of unresolved tension surrounding current plans for the pedestrian access in the area. For those who have been following the debates, the arguments and the hearings, all of the information pales in comparison to the understanding that comes from simply riding a bike down the quiet streets that surround Dorsey High or the Foshay Learning Center and then trying to navigate the busy streets that surround the community. It should be required that all planning debates are settled with a bike ride.
We stopped at the the new Fire Station 94 but the station was empty, all trucks were out on a traffic "incident" which is an all too common experience for this arterial-locked community surrounded by uncrossable streets and traffic that moves at freeway speeds alongside schools, rec centers, parks and residential neighborhoods.
In stark contrast to the intense traffic and midday heat, we rode to the Village Green, formerly the Baldwin Hills Village now a National Historical Monument. Built in 1942, the design theories that gave birth to the Village were known as the Greenbelt Movement and were a direct response to the need to provide moderately priced housing for a rapidly growing urban population while addressing the problems created by the automobile.
If only we knew now what we knew then!
Parking was invisible, we didn't see any cars once we pulled of Rodeo, and as we walked through the Village we could feel the air cool, such was the effect of the tree canopy. Almost 70 acres, two-thirds dedicated to green space, resulting in 80 buildings with over seven hundred units, all softened by the Urban Forest and open green space.
All community planning meetings should include a field trip to Village Green. Architectural students and artists continue to make the trip as if to remind themselves that it is indeed possible to build a community that separates pedestrians and automobiles, putting a people first focus on the community.
On the far side of Village Green, we looked up at the hill to where the Baldwin Hills Dam once stood, until it collapsed in 1963 and swept the community below, destroying the homes and killing five people. Aubrey was telling us a story of the Dam and how he came to live in the area but before he could finish the story, somebody yelled "Bike Race" and he took off to the top of the hill with others in pursuit. Meanwhile, some of us looked at the Village Green and contemplated a nap while we waited on the Poker Riders.
Once regrouped we headed out and passed a couple of Fire Trucks who invited us back to Fire Station 94 for some ice cream, finally! We fueled up and headed out for a tour of the Leimert Park Homes, in search of former Mayor Tom Bradley's home. This was perhaps the most surreal part of the Crenshaw Crush, streets so quiet that we could hear the conversations of cyclists in the distance, peaceful in a way that is rare in Los Angeles. The neighborhood was designed by Olmstead & Olmstead, the architect and master planner of New York City's Central Park. Each street had a different tree theme. One street had all Magnolia Trees, another had all Jacaranda, the next was all Palm Trees. Absolutely inspiring!
The Leimert Park Homes were restricted to white residents until 1948. Notable residents include John Singleton, Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald as well as former Mayor Tom Bradley who lived ther until his death in 1998. His home, like all of the others, was modest in size but the tree in front was definitely the largest on the block!
We returned to Leimert Park where the Real Ryda's Lowrider Bike Club hosted a bike show featuring their full complement of lowriders and hoppers. Bikes and trikes and sound systems and chrome forever. Absolutely stunning bikes!
Along the way, kids on fixies tested themselves against the roadies on the poker ride, the lowriders cruised in style while the eastsiders corked the intersections and riders volunteered their stories of where they worked, were they lived and the history of their community.
Aubrey and his wife Melba were such great hosts, they inspired others to follow suit. Carlos Morales of the East Side Bike Club says plans are already under way for the "East Side Abrazar!"
Construction is finally underway for Hollywood's new Homeless Healthcare facility, located at Hollywood and Van Ness. The property has been empty and dormant for years so the community is anxious to see the 32,000 square foot, state-of-the-art LEED facility completed as soon as possible. The project is Prop F funded with a budget of $30 million and plans call for sustainable innovations such as a "green roof" which will set new standards for City of Los Angeles properties.
The Hollywood Homeless Healthcare facility will not only provide primary medical services to those in need, it will service the patients at their home, or in the case of the homeless, at the location in which they find themselves in need. Also known as Fire Station #82, the three story Regional Fire/Paramedic Station will be large enough to house 16 firefighters per shift. The new fire station replaces the smaller Bronson station which is staffed with four firefighters and two Firefighter/Paramedics at all times. Occupying a tad over 7000 square-feet, the single-bay station requires the firefighters to jockey equipment on a regular basis. Opened in 1951, the old Fire Station #82 predates the 101 Freeway by three years.
Since then, the demands of Hollywood have changed dramatically and FS #82, which is responsible for nearly 2 square miles of Hollywood, all the way into Griffith Park and up to the Hollywood sign, now handle a busy mix of high density residential and commercial properties along with undeveloped hillside and urban wilderness.
Through it all, the Hollywood Fire Department finds fully 40% of its assets dedicated to the medical needs of the homeless population. With little or no access to traditional healthcare, the homeless population typically allows medical needs to progress to the point of "emergency" at which the Fire Department provides immediate primary medical care.
Transporting the homeless patient to one of the local hospitals, of which there are many (healthcare is now the largest employer in Hollywood, recently passing the entertainment industry, ironically making Hollywood the Healthcare Capital!) the FD typically must return to repeat the duty when the indigent patient is unable to access followup treatment for whatever medical problem started the cycle.
During the development of the proposed Villas at Gower, which would provide permanent supportive housing along with medical and rehabilitative services, Capt. Fry of the Hollywood Fire Department reiterated the need to spend wisely on the medical needs of the homeless and pointed out that it's cheaper to plan ahead and to invest in solutions than to ignore the homeless and then to rely on the more expensive and inefficient attention that the Fire Department can offer, which is basic at best and falls far short of providing a long term solution.
Dennis Culhane, University of Pennsylvania Professor of Social Welfare Policy, has written extensively on the subject of permanent supportive housing for the homeless and has demonstrated that it is more expensive to ignore the homeless than to invest in solutions.
For those of you more likely to read Esquire Magazine than medical journals, Professor Culhane was featured in the 2005 Genius Edition as one of the brightest minds in our country for his work developing and promoting long term solutions to habitual homelessness.
In simple terms, Culhane demonstrates how the current system incentivizes shelter entry, and in some cases, long shelter stays, instead of prevention. Current funding paradigms encourage prolonged transitional housing with no demonstrated benefit. He contrasts this with the "Housing First" model that has been very successful in areas with significant populations of chronic homeless, sometimes using rehabilitated hotels as the facility and addressing community blight and homelessness at the same time.
In the Los Angeles area, there are several architectural firms who have made a name for themselves designing Supportive Housing facilities, including Killefer Flammang Architects, Koning Eizenberg, Pugh + Scarpa and Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects.
Developers such as the Skid Row Housing Trust, A Community of Friends and Step Up on Second typically cobble together funding and rely on the star power of the Architects to come up with facilities that they can position as sustainable, innovative architectural assets to combat the resistance they sometimes encounter from the community when the subject of housing for the chronic homeless is brought up.
Through it all, the funding has to appear and the development team has to break ground and in Hollywood there are a few success stories but there are a lot of failures.
As the dirt lot on Gower sits empty, waiting for A Company of Friends to break ground for the Villas at Gower, Step Up on Second is poised to remodel Hollywood's former Galaxy Hotel on Vine, creating 44 modern efficiency apartments offering permanent housing and social services for the mentally ill homeless in Hollywood.
The solution is four-part, requiring a strong funding partner, a strong development partner, a strong operational partner and incredible political will. It takes four out of four. When we find the team that can deliver all four, we should grab them and give them our full support!
(Stephen Box stands vigil on the City of Angels and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
On Sunday, September 27th, we celebrate the history, the politics, the culture, the personality and the community of Crenshaw with a bike ride of discovery and celebration. Join us and visit beautiful neighborhoods, significant community spaces, historic sites, local favorite hot spots, institutions of knowledge, and the homes of heroes and legends. Dust off your bike, bring the family, get there at 8am for bike tune-ups, the ride starts at 9am. There will be pit stops with hosts, who will share stories of their neighborhood.
For those who want a challenge, there will be a poker ride with some miles and some hills. Both casual and competitive cyclists are invited to join in a celebration of the community.
--Sunday, September 27, 2009 --8:00am – 1:00pm --Leimert Park --Meet @ Crenshaw Blvd. & Vernon Ave.
The Crenshaw Crush starts at the Leimert Park Village Drum Circle and heads off to Florence & Normandie where the most destructive American riot of the 20th century broke out ten years ago. The ride visits Exposition Park, stops at Chef Marilyn's Soul Food Express, and passes Susan Miller Dorsey High School, named for the first female superintendent of the LA public school system.
Traveling along the Exposition Light Rail Transit Line, cyclists will visit Village Green, also known as the Olympic Village, and then will ride over to the Baldwin Village, also known as "the Jungle." It's rumored that Magic Johnson will take a lap or two with the group around his Theatre before cyclists visit the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza which is the oldest regional shopping center in the country.
Father Martini of the Transfiguration Catholic Church is waiting to bless the cyclists and will then join the ride which will visit the Leimert Park Homes, designed by Olmsted & Olmsted, the architect and master planner of New York City's Central Park. Restricted to white residents until 1948, notable residents include John Singleton, Ray Charles, Ella Fitzgerald and former Mayor Tom Bradley. The ride ends at the beginning, the Leimert Park Village Drum Circle.
The Crenshaw Crush … because in some vernaculars crush means: Big Hug.
(Stephen Box is a cycling advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)
It must be tough to buy a gift for LA's Department of Transportation. Caltrans tried but the gift was rejected. At the very least, the LADOT could have just accepted it and then rewrapped it and regifted but instead they just straight up said "No!" It's enough to make one wonder if Caltrans will be sending gifts to the LADOT anytime in the near future.
At issue are the bike lanes that Caltrans funded and engineered and wrapped up with a bow and tried to have delivered to the City of Los Angeles.
Topanga Canyon Boulevard runs through Woodland Hills in the West Valley and is also known as California State Highway 27. It belongs to the State of California and Caltrans is responsible for it but, as is the custom, defers to the local authority with regard to improvements and integration into the local transportation system.
Doug Failing, Director of Caltrans District 7 which includes Los Angeles County and Ventura County, was the featured speaker at a Great Streets Forum held last year in Woodland Hills. Hundreds of people turned out for inspiring presentations and discussions of Great Streets and how they are designed, the features that make them great, the designations that bring them to fruition.
A member of the audience who lives close to Mulholland Drive asked what it would take to make Topanga Canyon Boulevard a Great Street. Mr. Failing responded by describing a street with open setbacks, wide sidewalks, parkway separation, bike lanes, traffic lanes and a median strip with shade trees and greenery, all delivered in a way that integrates with the activity of the local community as the boulevard weaves through the west valley. The room erupted in applause. Pat Smith, the Urban Planner who has been working with the Warner Center Specific Plan was there and when she takes notes, she simply draws what she hears. The person sitting next to her watched her sketch the "reimagined" Topanga Canyon Boulevard and said quietly "I'm going to Art School!"
Caltrans embarked on a local improvement campaign and, as guided by the City of Los Angeles Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which in turn is part of the General Plan, generated the money and the engineering for Bike Lanes on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. The Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Topanga Canyon from Mulholland Drive to CA State Highway 118, a distance of about 9 miles. That's a fairly significant bikeways improvement and a significant connector in a densely populated area.
The LADOT's traffic engineer in charge of the west end of the San Fernando Valley is Ken Firoozmand, a legend in Valley Bikeways Improvements who has been in the news lately for interupting the development of the Reseda Boulevard Bike Lanes. Again, the Bike Plan called for bike lanes on Reseda but as the local LADOT authority, Firoozmand overruled and determined that the area would benefit from peak-hour parking instead of the bike lanes. A report was generated that indicated the bike lanes were not going to happen and the cycling community stormed the local Neighborhood Council, wrote letters, made phone calls and Allan Willis, LADOT's Principal Transportation Engineer for Valley Traffic Operations dismissed the whole brouhaha as "trash talk." Councilman Zine dismissed the concerns of cyclists as based on rumor. Councilman Smith was simply silent. Then the "Report" turned up and the Bike Lanes were back in play.
As the cycling community engaged in an end-zone victory dance, the LADOT was apparently in the clubhouse toasting Firoozmand and Willis, giggling at the gullibility of the cycling community, and plotting the next evisceration of LA's moth eaten Bike Plan, due to be replaced with a newer "Infeasible" Bike Plan sometime between last year and never.
Ken Firoozmand is from LADOT Operations. He has authority over the streets in the West Valley. Bikeways is part of LADOT Funding. They simply don't have the heat to make the Bike Plan come to life. This is evidenced by the simple fact that when push comes to shove, bikeways improvements disappear from the landscape. The consultant engaged by the City of LA to develop LA's new Bike Plan opened the process by describing the need for a Bike Plan as "a funding requirement." The Bike Plan wasn't presented as a tool for changing the world, simply as a device needed to qualify for grants. She then went on to specify the 17 points of compliance that were necessary from a funding perspective. But all of the funding in the world doesn't translate into bikeways improvements if the Engineers in charge believe in pushing motor vehicles at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. The city picked up $1.25 million of Bicycle Transportation Account funds for the Fletcher Bridge bike lanes (0.25 miles of bike lanes!) The money did not result in bike lanes on the Fletcher Bridge. (The Department of DIY gave it a shot but they were removed!)
My simple question to the LADOT is this, if you're not going to use those Topanga Canyon Boulevard bike lanes, can I have them? I'd like to put them to work and it seems a shame to have them go to waste! I can think of so many great places to place 9 miles of bike lanes.
The City of Los Angeles is in the middle of a budget crisis, something the public hears about at every opportunity as the newest excuse for mediocrity becomes part of the bureaucratic vernacular. It's times like this when the best thing community members can do is to step up and to lighten the load of the overworked and underpaid municipal workers who must also grapple with long commutes to their own communities.
This is when Government 2.0 takes over, the time when folks simply make it happen and that is the simple mandate of the Department of DIY.
The Department of DIY, authorized by the City through its inactivity and failure to perform, has seized the opportunity and the empty dirt lot on the corner of Wilshire and Vermont, proudly announcing that this is the future home of the Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter Community Park. This corner lot is huge dirt lot and it sits at the busy corner of a densely populated and heavily traveled transit corridor. Currently surrounded by sand bags and chain link fencing, the large sign proudly proclaims:
COMING SOON: A PARK FOR THE PEOPLE
The City of Los Angeles is pleased to announce the future home of the Alprentice ‘Bunchy’ Carter community park in collaboration with Park[ing] Day and their vision of a greener, brighter, more democratic Los Angeles.
Amenities will include permit-free vending, a skate/bike park, community garden plots, farmers market, jogging path and sports field. There will be AA, Crafts, Senior and Nutrition programs.
LA's Department of Water & Power has dusted off the Holiday Light Festival decorations and is busy investing the public's money in the event that won the "Eco-Moron" award last year for its ability to drawing idling vehicles in such numbers that Griffith Park, the adjacent communities and the 5 freeway all sit in gridlock for hours each evening of the holiday season. As the Park Rangers and the Department of Transportation grapple with the traffic, the DWP claims the "Going Green" title and then proceeds to go after more of your green.
The Griffith Park Holiday Light Festival is an old tradition, dating back to Councilman John Ferraro who visited San Antonio during the holiday season and came back all enthralled with the idea of a public light festival. In hindsight, it's only too bad that he didn't visit a city with Great Streets, one with holiday lights and people walking and talking and having conversations and singing and enjoying a human-sized people based festival. Of course, it's not too late to make some changes!
The Greater Griffith Park NC, the Atwater Village NC, the Los Feliz Improvement Association, the Oaks Home Owners Association and community members representing hikers, runners, cyclists, equestrians, and folks who simply like to breath clean air when standing in the middle of the America's largest urban wilderness park have joined together to ask the DWP to simply have motorists park their cars in the Zoo parking lot, then get out and walk through the Festival. The simple move to a pedestrian based festival, with ADA accommodations, would relieve the community from the idling queue that approaches the park from the south. It seems so simple!
The DWP's Public Affairs office, very nice folks who have one of the hardest jobs imaginable, putting a shine on the DWP's policies and programs, gave this year's version of "Why you can't have what you want but here is something shiny to distract you!" presentation, again to a full house and again to well-articulated arguments for the same old vehicular based paradigm for enjoying the great outdoors.
The Bike Writers Collective objects to the DWP's Griffith Park Holiday Light Festival for a few reasons, first because it excludes cyclists from the vehicular nights based on the recommendation of the LADOT that it is too dangerous to have motor vehicles and bicycles on the same road. This becomes a principle issue since one of the basic rights cyclists claim is the right to ride on the streets of Los Angeles. The DWP claims that it is exempt from the law and can exclude cyclists which leaves cyclists charging "The DWP is trying too hard to find a legal loophole to do something absurd, prevent cyclists from riding bikes in traffic that moves so slowly, the road resembles a parking lot."
Plans are already underway for a protest ride, The Festival of Rights, which will take place on Friday, December 18. The protest ride, which gathers at the Mulholland Fountain where cyclists decorate themselves with lights, has become an annual tradition and this will be the third year (2007 and 2008) that the absurdity of a vehicular light festival at the expense of the community, the pedestrians and the cyclists will be challenged by the cycling community. Cyclist should be cautioned that the ride is not without risk, participants who elect to breath while riding will be subjected to greenhouse gases, auto emissions and noxious odors.
As for the larger issue of the "Pedestrian Friendly" event that local community leaders have been proposing, endorsing and working to bring to fruition, the DWP Commissioners, the DWP Management and Councilman Tom LABonge have all been notified that the Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council has polled the community and concluded with a resolution calling for the "complete environmental reform of the annual LADWP Light Festival in Griffith Park."
Today is election day here in Los Angeles and the residents of Council District 2 will be voting in a special election to select a Councilmember to fill the seat vacated by the former Councilmember Wendy Greuel when she was elected as LA's City Controller. LA's Cyclistas will remember Greuel as the chairperson of the Transportation Committee, a fairly jovial group of people who endorsed the Cyclists Bill of Rights, reorganized the Bicycle Advisory Committee, repealed the Bike Licensing Law and jumped up and down and made the appropriate noises when we Stormed the Bastille. Ah, this has been such a great year!
Today, the mix of power shifts ever so slightly but possibly significantly. It all depends on the voters.
Los Angeles has a Mayor and a City Council made up of 15 Councilmembers. A significant number of those in office are lame ducks, politicians in their last term who can't run for reelection. The person who wins the CD2 seat is in a position to set the tone for the next round of candidates who run for the even numbered seats in 2011. That's seven seats and the person who wins today will be setting the pace for that race. As for today, there are ten candidates and it's a bit late to try to cover the many issues and the many positions and the many debates and the many forums. Suffice to say that there are two kinds of candidates, those who embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and those who don't.
Allow me to present video comments from four of the candidates followed by text from two of the candidates. Of the remaining four candidates, they had their chance, they had their opportunity, they missed out on the Cyclistas of Los Angeles and that's on them..
If you live in CD2, please, vote for those who love their local cyclists, after all, as printed in the LATimes:
Love your local bicyclists
By Stephen Box December 27, 2007
The most elegant solution to L.A. traffic is simply to pedal to where you need to go. If cycling is not for you, at least give some respect to those who choose to ride. Here's why: Cyclists are the "indicator species" for a healthy community.
Cyclists favor well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris. They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.
Surveys in San Francisco found that local businesses benefited from "traffic calming" through their districts, which included accommodations for cyclists.
Finally, an increase in the number of cyclists in a neighborhood -- which means more eyes on the street -- has a direct relationship to a reduction in crime.
In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for your community.
Now get out and vote! (Los Angeles’ Second Council District stretches from Mulholland Drive in the Hollywood Hills to Big Tujunga Road in the Verdugo Hills. Communities include Lake View Terrace, La Tuna Canyon, North Hollywood, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sunland, Sun Valley, Tujunga, Valley Village, Valley Glen and Van Nuys)
Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familiar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?
A: I consider Stephen Box to be my advisor on these issues and would surely appoint him to Transportation, or recommend him in advisory capacity if given the chance by the voters. I would also consider Stephen to be on the staff for CD-2 if he was interested. Should he desire to remain an unpaid adviser, better for the city budget, but I personally think his input and dedication are worthy of a city salary.
Q: One of the ways that a City Council Member can effect change for non-motorized users is by appointing informed activists to the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Are you familar with community activists who could best serve an appointed position on these committees?
A: Yes. During the last several months on the campaign trail, I have had the pleasure of meeting so many activists who care so much about the future of our community. This includes the indefatigable Stephen Box who educated me about the importance of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, of which I am a supporter.
Hollywood's leadership has made commitments to "stimulating development" and "ending homelessness forever" but a simple glance at the construction sites for the W Hotel and the Villas at Gower reveals that the commitment is uneven.
The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is a massive mixed use project at the corner of Hollywood Boulevard & Argyle, spread over five acres and in the final stages of completion.
The project has relied on public funds to get off the ground, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political muscle in order to navigate and overcome the significant objections and concerns of the community.
The rapid construction and the abundant integration of huge, lucrative billboards in the structures exoskeleton bear witness to the simple fact that when the leadership of this city want something done, it gets done.
Two blocks away, on Gower Avenue just north of Hollywood Boulevard, sits a large empty dirt lot that was the former home to apartments, affordable housing and the local Traveler's Aid office, all razed in order to make way for the ambitious Villas at Gower, a permanent supportive housing complex that uses an innovative "housing first" approach to addressing the needs of the chronic homeless.
The failure to break ground at this site and the absence of progress in addressing homelessness in Hollywood, in spite of the infusion of public funds, CRA use of Eminent Domain and incredible amounts of LA's political talk, the project lies dormant with nothing but dirt clods, sandbags and a chainlink fence. Witness to the fact that when the leadership of this city doesn't care, nothing gets done.
Both projects have been in play for years. Both projects came with a great deal of controversy and both projects had significant interaction with the community in order to engage the local residents and to purportedly pursue solutions that were robust and came with significant neighborhood support.
Both projects came with support from LA's leadership and yet, at the end of the day, it is evident that when it comes to developing luxury housing for the "haves" and supportive housing for the "have-nots" Councilman Eric Garcetti's enthusiasm is uneven and inconsistent, in spite of the tough talk and in spite of the strong verbal commitments.
Based on results, often harsh but always fair, it's safe to say that when it comes to revitalizing the community of Hollywood, developers will always have a partner within the city of Los Angeles. The homeless are on their own.
This imbalance in priorities leaves local residents to fend for themselves as they deal with issues such as blighted properties, homelessness and public safety.
Conspiracy theorists might propose that the cumbersome public process is designed to wear out the community opposition and to cause the public to simply exhaust themselves before wandering off to howl at the moon over some other civic issue, leaving the politicos and their development partners to play hard and fast with the public funds that serve as redevelopment seed money for ongoing revitalization shell game.
Countering that argument is a quote attributed to former City Councilmember Ruth Galanter "Whenever I hear rumors of a conspiracy, I simply attribute it to incompetence."
Four years ago, a rumor of the CRA's proposed Gower homeless facility rippled through the community. Quick research was done and the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council convened a community meeting to address the proposed site, the facility, the services and the concerns of the community.
As in most cases, the lack of information allowed rumor and fear to run rampant and to generate a great deal of misinformation, resulting in hundreds of people all worked up and yelling and ready to fight, not knowing what the fight was but committed to protecting the status quo from the unknown.
I naively invited the local City Council staff, thinking this was something that would interest them, unaware that they were behind it. Three CD staff members attended the meeting, silently, and it wasn't until later that I discovered that one of them was engaged to a board member of the neighborhood council who served as co-chair of the PLUM committee. What a small world. What a learning experience!
As a member of the Villas at Gower Community Advisory Committee, I've been there through thick and thin, jumping at short notice to participate in meetings that address everything from the project scope to the selection of development partners to the selection of the architect to, hopefully the development of the project.
Four years is quite a long time for volunteers and life has a way of taking over. The local CD staff has turned twice and the CRA's project manager retired and we're on our second architect. Through it all I think I've learned a few things.
1) The community engagement process might not really be a charade, but it looks like one, it feels like one and it acts like one. If it's not a charade, it's simply incompetence.
Sadly this demonstrates that the CRA is either unable or unwilling to engage the neighborhood, to develop community support and to involve locals in the revitalization of Hollywood, an endeavor that is fueled with our money.
Community meetings seem designed to exhaust the community, giving everybody the opportunity to sound off and to relieve themselves of any objections.
If that's the case, the potential partnership and the contributions of the community are lost on the final project and the ultimate result is a disengaged community, less likely to come to the aid of the CRA when it needs help. (Such as last month when Mayor Villaraigosa staged a press conference on top of the Music Box with the W Hotel in the background, fighting to salvage the CRA's funds from the State budget brouhaha.)
2) The development process is ripe for abuse and the rewards go to those who work the system best, not those who are best qualified.
The first architect on the Gower project, Michael Maltzan, was referred to in a review as possessing a "bedside manner that exceeded his body of work." He lived up to that evaluation, charming the CRA, the community, the development partners. The guy was a rock star. He was also a better negotiator than the CRA, demonstrating that bedside manner trumps architectural talent but that the ability to manipulate the system trumps all.
We were well on our way down the concept and design path when the CRA discovered that their contracts had never actually been executed. Much work had been completed and yet there was no binding contract. It was at this point, that Maltzan upped the ante and claimed he couldn't do the work without a significant increase in his fee. The guy is good! He worked the CRA, squeezed them and proved to be a formidable negotiator. Then he walked, unable to get his fee. A long waste of time journey that could have been avoided if the CRA was motivated or skilled enough to negotiate at the same level as those who do this for a living.
3) The partnership process seems based on a pursuit of low-maintenance rather than high-performance relationships.
The CRA worked with McCormack Baron to develop and manage Metro Hollywood, a mixed-use project at Hollywood & Western. Two of the four ground floor spaces have never seen a tenant, the property manager seems unaware of the homeless encampment just to the west of the building's front door, the open space serves as a public restroom for the squatters, and overall perception of the community is that the facility contributes to the blight in the neighborhood. Yet the CRA just entered into a $15 million relationship with McCormack Barron for another TOD project, based on the success of Metro Hollywood. How are these relationships reviewed?
How is performance measured?
Is it simply based on the applicant's ability to navigate the system or is it because of the robust and successful projects and the relationships with the community?
4) The success of the CRA's projects is based on the completion of brick and mortar construction but rarely evaluates any sense of connectivity with the community.
Along the journey on the development of the W Hotel, the community pushed for innovations such as a Bike-Share facility in the W, a Car-Share facility in the W, all-walk phases (ped-scrambles) at the intersections surrounding the W, delivery services for local shoppers, all small elements in the grand scheme of things but enhancements that speak to the commitment to integrate with the local community. Those improvements may be coming, there may be better ones on the way, we just don't know about them.
What we do hear is abstract information that doesn't impact the individual on a personal level nor does it engage the individual in a relationship. Five acres, $500 million, 400 jobs, 400 rooms, 150 condos, all high-altitude stats that sound great but that fail to address real quality of life metrics.
How does one cross the street?
What does the street feel like from the pedestrian’s perspective? What's it like to walk down Argyle at night?
Can the occupants of the fortress see the people on the street or is it another "two worlds" concept?
Are there amenities for the Metro passengers or is this the clash of cultures? What's the impact of all of those billboards on the community?
How does the W circumvent the moratorium on billboards?
How can the community respect authority if the W manipulates the system?
5) The mandate of the CRA, to revitalize blighted communities using public money, seems to be lacking a clear standard of blight and a clear standard for performance.
For all of the zestful enthusiasm for employing large numbers of construction workers to build large fortresses, there seems to be little effort to pursue the softer and more difficult elements of blight, the human elements.
First, what is being done to reduce homelessness? There is no simpler definition of blight than to simply ask, "Are people living on the streets?" If so, get to work. But get them off the street, don't simply move them over two blocks to a different site!
Second, are the quotidian needs of the locals being met on the boulevard?
If the CRA keeps investing in facilities that don't connect with the communities, one might try to call it commerce, one might try to call it economic revitalization but the street comes alive when the locals have a reason to shop there.
The streets are safer and more attractive when people have a reason come to walk down the sidewalk and visit the bakery, grab a coffee, buy a book, pick up some flowers, visit with friends in the hospitable public space.
The projects must be evaluated on their contribution to the economic mix of the community and their ability to stir activity on the streets. "Bigger is better" is the mantra of cancer, not of development from the perspective of the individual human who must live and work and walk in the shadows of the fortresses that fail to engage the neighborhood on a personal level.
6) The final stage of development, one that the CRA and Legacy Partners is currently engaged in, is to negotiate the "Community Benefit." This is so odd. The project itself is supposed to be a community benefit so why is it getting shoehorned in as the red carpet is getting unrolled and the Chamber is preparing to cut the ribbon? Wouldn't "Community Benefit" be the foundation of the project, driving all actions, decisions, partnerships and results from that point on?
Apparently not.
The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences is in the process of committing to a "Community Benefit" that consists of an agreement to hiring local. Those local hires will be paid a living wage, obviously qualifying for accommodations at the W Residences and giving new meaning to "local.
As for the folks who are waiting to go "local" over at the Villas at Gower, no word yet on the groundbreaking, no word yet on housing options for the homeless, no word. Simply no word.
Hollywood, from the residents to the merchants to the tourists to the homeless, deserves better, and it's up to us to raise the standard.
(Stephen Box is a planning and transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)
Tuesday's City Watch article on the jurisdictional disconnect and the blight at the Hollywood & Western Red Line Station prompted a fast & furious response from the Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, who has only been in his post for a few months but who has gone on record as saying public safety and customer service are the priorities for the Metro on his watch. His performance was true to his word.
Leahy responded immediately and within hours, the Metro's Head of Rail Operations, Mike Cannell was on the phone, collecting details and that evening team of maintenance workers swarmed the Hollywood & Western Red Line station with industrial scrubbing machines, truck mounted steam cleaners, hoses, scrub brushes, mops and an abundant amount of old-fashioned elbow grease.
Hollywood and Western-BEFORE:
When the steam had cleared, Cannell led a team of a dozen Rail Execs on a victory tour of the facility, accompanied by the LASD's Red & Gold Line Supervisor, Lt. Sue Young. Mitch O'Farrell and Angela Motta of City Council President Eric Garcetti's office joined the survey and it was apparent that, at least for a couple of hours, Hollywood was again the center of the Universe.
Hollywood and Western-AFTER:
Over the two day period that followed the City Watch article it became painfully apparent that there was a real problem. Capt. Bea Girmala of the Hollywood PD didn't visit the location but instead sent Sgt. Tango who gave his impression of the jurisdictional boundaries, an opinion that was promptly contradicted as the Senior Lead Officer, Armen Sevdalian showed up and made his declaration.
Lt. Young walked the property and was joined by Sgt. Walker, the lead officer for the Red Line, and they agreed that the boundaries were irrelevant, they were law enforcement officers and they believed it was there responsibility to enforce the law.
Young was a commanding presence and I have no reason to doubt her but the fact remains, it's the boots on the street that give weight to her words and we don't see those boots or their influence much in Hollywood.
The Metro has a $67 million dollar contract with the Sheriff's Department. It's the LASD's second largest contract, after the judicial system contract, and it should count for something.
One would think that the Metro would be in a position to call the shots, to direct the LASD, to set the priorities but this is where the disconnect starts. Are the priorities fare evasion or public safety/customer service?
Are the staffing levels set for rush hour priority or are they set for late at night when stations are lonely and deserted, hospitable environments for those who favor isolation and neglect?
Is Hollywood, with a half dozen stations and huge volumes of traffic, getting its fair share of supervision?
While those macro questions work their way through the process, the immediate opportunity was evident, McCormack Baron, the property managers, had never given the LAPD or the LASD a simple Trespass Authorization Letter, a routine bit of business that allows the LAPD and the LASD to enforce trespassing violations without having to wait for the Property Manager to complain for each incident.
With a straight face, Mirna Mendoza, the Area Manager of McCormack Baron, said she had no idea that the letter was needed and then proudly stated that she has them on file for all of the other properties she manages. Both the LAPD and the LASD left her with a request for Trespass Authorization Letters.
McCormack Baron is not new to the property development and management business but one would have to wonder if they are any good at it. The Hollywood and Western location has two street level vacancies that have been empty for seven years, ever since the Metro Hollywood building opened.
The Neighborhood Council has extended a request to open one of them as a community center, an office for the NC that would have desks for the Senior Lead Officer, the community partners that offer services, the non-profits that work to improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. This would keep a presence in an otherwise deserted area of the property, but those requests have fallen on deaf ears. Instead, the homeless encampment flourished and the area developed a reputation as the place to score drugs.
Metro Hollywood is a CRA project and the CRA is again working with McCormack Baron which makes one wonder what criteria is used to evaluate the potential multi-million dollar development relationships the CRA relies on as it spends our money to address blighted communities.
Mayra Rivera, the CRA's representative for Metro Hollywood, was non-committal and deferred to the CRA's development partners when complaints over the developers failure to perform came up. The CRA is actually the tenant for one of the empty spaces, a space that sits empty while the responsibility hot potato get shuffled back in forth.
In all fairness to McCormack Baron, they have bigger fish to fry and Hollywood is way off the radar.
The CRA's glowing endorsement of McCormack Baron has resulted in another project, Taylor Yard Transit Village, which comes with a check for $15,094,990. This money is to be used to develop a "Transit Oriented Development" and based on their success at Metro Hollywood, McCormack Baron is moving on, funded with our money!
Meanwhile, at Hollywood & Western, the flurry of activity included Metro executives, LASD supervisors, LAPD supervisors, CRA supervisors, McCormack Baron supervisors, City Council President Eric Garcetti's Director of Constituent Services and Area Deputy, repeated contact from Mayor Villaraigosa's Transpo lead, Borja Leon, all of which resulted in one very clean and shiny Metro station.
Missing from this huge response from everybody who has a piece of the Metro Rail is County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. Emails and phone calls to the Supervisor and his staff went unanswered and there was no response from his Transportation Deputy.
Yaroslavsky sits on the Board of the Metro and one would think that he would be interested in the $67 million contract with the LASD, with public safety at Metro Stations, with homelessness issues within his district, heck with having his staff simply answer his emails or returning phone calls.
As you can see from the attached video, as Hollywood Makeover ended, the escalator is still out of order, the intercom is still out of order, the homeless encampment is still occupied, the human waste still runs freely and the Sheriff is nowhere to be found.
The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Board convenes on Monday night at 7pm. On the agenda is the Metro's Hollywood & Western Red Line station, an action item. East Hollywood NC has three Metro Rail stations within its boundaries, more than any other Neighborhood Council.
Typically this relationship is celebrated and it should be.
The Metro's Hollywood & Western Red Line station and the TOD Development that sits above it should be the catalyst for community revitalization, not the weight that drags it down and certainly not the source of the very blight that the CRA is meant to address. (Stephen Box stands vigil on the City of Angels and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘
EAST HOLLYWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM AND GOVERNING BOARD MEETING
CityWatch, Dec 1, 2009
Posts
