Green LA Talks the Talk but Can't Walk the Walk

When the Green LA Coalition schedules a general membership meeting, one would think they’d go out of their way to set an example, using the event to establish a standard for sustainable behavior. After all, Green LA represents “over 100 mainline and cutting-edge environmental and environmental justice organizations that provide vision, expertise and community support toward making Los Angeles the greenest “Big City” in America.”

Tomorrow, the general membership converges on the Metropolitan Water District building and, if the Green LA invitation is any indication, they’ll be arriving by private auto and taking advantage of the promised parking.

It may be a simple issue, it may seem petulant to point it out but…the promise of parking is, based on positioning, more important than the promise of a robust agenda or an interesting headliner.

Incidently, the headliner is Controller Wendy Greuel, who has just finished a long tour of duty as the Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee. Her stated vision for Los Angeles is a city where…

…citizens can walk to nearby subways, bus stops and light rail stations that will drop them a few blocks from their offices. She envisions seamless bus routes that allow workers to save time and stress in the morning. She envisions a Los Angeles accessible to all residents, no matter their income level or location. She envisions a network of bike lanes that crisscross the city and provide easy access to restaurants and movie theaters.

If that vision is going to become a reality, things are going to have to change within the environmental community.

1. The environmental community must start at home and with the little things if it expects the world around it to change. It’s up to the environmental community to establish the standards and to be the first to step up and to embrace the change.
2. Offer an invitation that gives pedestrian, cycling and mass transit instructions on the invitations. Reimburse and reward for the good behavior rather than validating for bad behavior.
3. Take the environmental commitment all the way through the event and make a point at every opportunity. Forgo the ubiquitous plastic bottles of water, pass on the plastic cups, replace the plastic utensils and styro plates and coffee cups and make a real statement with the simple welcome reception.
4. Drive the message in every action, in every communication, in every email, in every opportunity, whether symbolic or significant, it all adds up and it demonstrates commitment.

Things are also going to have to change within the City of Los Angeles family.

1. The City of LA will never be the Greenest “Big City” if it doesn’t make some BIG commitments to start with the LITTLE things.
2. When public officials take part in public events, it is imperative that they set a standard for access, for mobility, and for sustainable behavior.
3. With all of the energy spent coordinating schedules, sending bios, fine-tuning agendas and all of the other details that go into planning an event, include in that process a simple standard that the facility and the event meet basic sustainability standards.
4. When the leadership of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Nation in the world put their collective shoulders behind alternative transportation and sustainable events, it will resonate.

Tomorrow, the membership of Green LA will arrive at the Metropolitan Water District building, located at the edge of Union Station, and they will enjoy a tasty breakfast.

It has been almost 4 years since Green LA formed with the mandate of advising Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, and his staff and appointees on how to transform Los Angeles into a national leader in environmental health and equity.

If that’s gonna happen, Green LA is going to have to start at home!

CityWatchLA - Greuel Scolds Transpo for Dismissing the Public

CityWatch, June 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 49

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel chastised representatives from both the Transportation and the Planning Departments, saying "We've got a room full of people, all claiming to have been left out of the Bicycle Plan Update process. You can't call that the result of effective outreach!"

This took place at a "Special" meeting of the Transportation Committee scheduled for 8 am on what turned out to be Laker Celebration Day. A glance at the agenda indicates that it must have been Greuel's intention to wrap up all of the cycling issues in one big meeting, as she approaches the conclusion of her reign as the Transportation Committee Chair and prepares to take over the City Controller helm. Unfortunately, Councilmen Parks, Alarcon and LaBonge were no shows and it was left to Chair Greuel and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to navigate a busy bike agenda that included the Bike Plan, Bikeways funding, Bike Parking, Abandoned Bikes, the efficacy of the Bikeways Department and the LAPD's relationship with the cycling community.

When it came time for the LAPD to report on their training for LAPD officers on cycling rules and regulations and to report on recent incidents between the LAPD and cyclists, Greuel called for the LAPD to step up and ... they weren't there. Somehow it was the LADOT who knew the LAPD weren't going to attend the meeting, not the Councilmembers, an interesting revelation in the realities of our City Government.

Greuel at first moved the item to another date but the room erupted in protests from people who wanted to be heard. She took public comment on the item and heard from a long list of people who called on the LAPD to support cycling as a transportation choice and who called for better education of the LAPD on the specifics of the California Vehicle Code that cause so much confusion on the streets.

Attending the standing room only meeting were cyclists from all over the city representing a wide range of cycling interests and expressions but united in their desire to see the City of LA support cycling as a transportation solution. They were joined by representatives from homeowners associations and neighborhood councils, as well as cycling organizations and a variety of advocacy groups.

We’re all here noted one participant because "we just want to be involved in making our streets better places to ride and our communities better places to live."

When speakers complained of the consultant-driven process that has kept the public from participating, Rosendahl sat up and called for the consultants to step forward. Nobody moved. Not the consultants in Portland, not the consultants in Berkeley, not the consultants in Colorado, and not the consultants in San Francisco. They just couldn't hear the call.

Rosendahl found this to be disturbing and he began digging into the money. "How much have we paid these consultants?" he asked the Transportation and Planning representatives. When he heard that the City of LA has already paid out 80% on a plan that all at the table profess they have not yet received, he was not happy. He called for the consultants to show up next week at the regularly scheduled Transportation Committee meeting to account for the money, the contract and the Bike Plan.

The Department of Transportation was well represented at the meeting, in spite of their claim that this is a Planning Department process. Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT was flanked by Haripal Vir, Michael Uyeno, and Carolyn Jackson, all of whom were there backing up a Bikeways staff that claimed not to have the Bike Plan. As for the Planning Department, GM Gail Goldberg, who said last month "The Bike Plan will be out in two weeks!" was nowhere in sight and in her stead were two Planning reps with a feeble PowerPoint presentation that should have been entitled "Smoke and Mirrors."

In a meeting that stretched for three hours in spite of the 60 second limit on public comment, cyclists took opportunity after opportunity to share their experiences riding the streets of Los Angeles and stressing the need to address the significant safety issues that cyclists confront every time they roll onto the streets, it was a comment overheard after the meeting was adjourned that was the most revealing.

"Well, I guess we survived that one!" said one LADOT staff member to another … demonstrating clearly that from their perspective … it's meetings such as this with calls for accountability that pose the most significant threat, not the streets of LA. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

CityWatchLA - The Valley on Speed

CityWatch, Apr 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 28

Our City's leadership, elbow firmly on the pulse of the community, is considering LADOT/LAPD proposals to increase speed limits on several Valley streets.

As neighborhoods throughout LA recoil in shock at the recent wave of pedestrian deaths, our City Council Transportation Committee continues to ignore the simple fact that speed kills.

On Wednesday afternoon, Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilmembers LaBonge, Rosendahl, Parks and Alarcon, will decide if the speed limits on Victory Blvd., DeSoto Ave., Balboa Blvd., and Zelzah Ave., should be increased. Zelzah Ave. was recently in the news as the location where Victoria Santos, 60, stepped into the crosswalk with a green light, only to be struck and killed by a motorist in a pickup truck.

Lassen's speed limit was increased by City Council action last year along with streets throughout the Valley.

Zelzah's speed limit was almost increased last year but an uproar from the community resulted in the proposal getting pulled at the last minute.

The speed limit proposals seem to come in small batches of up to six streets, usually spread out so that only one or two increases occur within any Neighborhood Council area. In spite of this low impact approach to increasing the speed limits throughout the Valley, NC's have gone to great lengths to oppose the increases. Woodland Hills-Warner Center NC has appealed to the LAPD, the LADOT, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Committee, all in an effort to prevent the speed limits in their community from being raised.

The City Council put their relationship with the Neighborhood Councils in perspective when it ignored the wishes of the people and raised the speed limit on Mulholland.

As for the upcoming increases, the LADOT and the LAPD argue that their hands are tied, that State law treats all cities alike, from Mayberry to Los Angeles, and that if we are to certify our streets for radar and lasar speed limit enforcement, we must raise the limits.

Los Angeles is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world. For our leadership to claim helplessness is to argue for mediocrity.

People are dying in our crosswalks. Our streets aren't safe for our most vulnerable of loved ones. Now is the time for our leadership to work with the Neighborbood Councils to make our city safer, not faster!

Councilman Zine has introduced a resolution calling for a revision to the law governing the establishment of speed limits. It won't go anywhere until the City Council joins him in making this resolution a priority.

LADOT Bikeways "Under New Management"

On Tuesday, February 3, 2009, "Storm the Bastille" will celebrate its 2nd anniversary of bike rides to the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee, all the while banging the drum and fighting for an open and inclusive process for bike advocacy and fighting for the reorganization of the long dormant and ineffective BAC.

It was a long and arduous journey but along the way the City Council responded to the clamor. The Transportation Committee and the Planning and Land Use Committee intervened, resulting in an action that reorganized the BAC and directed departments from Planning to Rec & Parks to Public Works to the City Attorney's office to assign and direct staff to support the efforts of the "new" BAC.

Along the way, Paul Meshkin was named as the new head of the LADOT Bikeways Engineering Group. Paul is returning to Bikeway's and to this position and we are optimistic that the City Council directed reorganization and his leadership will result in a successful LABAC.

Attached is a copy of a letter I submitted to Paul this week.

*************************************************************************

Paul,

Congratulations on your tour of duty as the head of the LADOT Bikeways Engineering Group. I hope you are successful in revitalizing the department and I look forward to working with you.

As for the opportunity ahead:

1) The City of Los Angeles has an early notification system in place so that members of the community can simply sign up and then receive an email with the agendas of the City Council, the Council Committees, the Commissions etc. I realize that the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee has a long tradition of using the US Postal Service in order to deliver little packets of printed matter including agendas and clippings but those days are so long gone. We have a new president, he twitters and the time has come for the City of Los Angeles and the BAC to join the revolution.

Please, take advantage of the technology and let's start communicating effectively and let's truly engage the public in the business of the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee.

2) The City of Los Angeles has property throughout the City. There is no reason to continue to use the cold and inhospitable Parker Center auditorium unless your real objective is to alienate the public in an environment that is best suited for catching pneumonia. The simple standard for a meeting place is that it is accessible on foot, by bike and by mass transit. There are many facilities that fit the bill and we have had the conversation before. If the location choice is made based on what suits the staff of the LADOT best, then you are simply demonstrating that the BAC belongs to the LADOT and not the people of Los Angeles, a charge that has been leveled in the past.

Please, pick a new location for the LABAC meetings. While you're at it, get the committee meetings out of the LADOT offices and hold them in the evenings when the public might actually attend them. Put the public first and watch the BAC actually become an effective advisory body.

3) The City of Los Angeles has a Bikeways department but the LABAC seems confused as to where bikeways facilities come from and how they appear. Perhaps now would be a good time for the Bikeways department to clarify its role, its function, its responsibilities in the grand scheme of things. Many on the BAC are surprised to discover that the Bicycle Plan is a Planning document, part of the Transportation Element, a part of the General Plan. hence the need to keep Planning involved in the BAC business or visa versa.

Please, clarify once and for all the many departments who have a piece of the streets and let the BAC know who does what and how it all works, or in many cases, doesn't work.

4) The City of Los Angeles is a big place with 6500 miles of streets. It would be great to have an idea of where we stand with regards to bikeways amenities and infrastructure. Especially since we are the advocates who are urging our elected officials, from local to federal, to support our communities in the development of robust transportation projects that truly revitalize and stimulate our communities. Yet we don't even know where we stand with regards to bikeways status, let alone performance and goals.

Please, give us an inventory of the City's bikeways assets and a report on the progress that was made last year along with the goals of this upcoming year. It would seem that this would be the most basic of information, especially if we are to work together to change the world. "Where are we, what's going on and where are we going?"

5) The City of Los Angeles has almost 90 Neighborhood Councils, all of whom are filled with volunteers who operate under that same basic Brown Act, Conflict of Interest, Ethics standards as our City Council and Commissions. Somehow the NC's are able to function with some degree of success under these rules and regulations while the LABAC seems to flounder. The last meeting had the Brown Act getting abused while the Committee argued over how to make a motion.

Please, bring in the City Attorney as the City Council has recommended, train the BAC in the Brown Act and then get serious about putting the debate over process to rest and let's get busy changing the world.

6) The City of Los Angeles, in its infinite wisdom, created the Bicycle Advisory Committee in 1973. Along the way, a Charter was adopted and it refers to an expectation that BAC members "regularly communicate in writing with their respective council member and staff as well as the Mayor's Office and staff." Copies of this correspondence was to be forwarded to the Bikeways Section of the LADOT.

Please, make the BAC member reports for 2008 available as soon as possible. This goes a long way to determining where we are so that we can agree on where we want to go. In light of the upcoming agendized elections, it would seem that this small performance standard would also be of relevance as we evaluate candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair.

7) The BAC is an advisory body yet the bulk of the committee's activity seems to be listening to reports. The cycling community is regularly directed to the BAC by departments including the LAPD, the City Council, the Planning Department and the City Attorney when issues related to cycling in the city come up. To that end, it is imperative that the BAC get in the business of representing and of offering advice to the City of Los Angeles. In order to accomplish that, topics must come before the BAC before they are history. Everything from the Bicycle Plan workshops to the reorganization of the BAC seemed to take the BAC by surprise this past year.

Please, put the agenda in the hands of the committee so that the public can get items on the agenda in a timely fashion. Whatever the process is, it must be open and transparent and it must be clearly articulated. The agenda is not a secret document developed behind closed doors. Items on the agenda must be for discussion and for action if the BAC is to truly become effective.

8) The City of Los Angeles is in the midst of updating the Bicycle Plan, a process that was to include two workshops that seemed to have fallen off the landscape. In fact, the entire plan seems to have disappeared off the radar. The civic engagement element is one of the most important elements of the process and the cycling community has been quite vocal about the poor outreach in the first four workshops. Under "NEW!" the LA bike plan website offers a summary of public input from April of '08. That's not really news and it's not really new.

Please, communicate loudly and clearly the status of the Bicycle Plan and ensure that the outreach to the public will be more effective and inclusive than the first four sessions and the second two sessions that disappeared.

9) Streets are currently being resurfaced and striped. Western, Hollywood, Vermont, Edgemont are just some of those in Hollywood that have recently received a facelift. We're told that this is the best time for bikeways striping and yet...no bikeways improvements. Are the different departments talking to each other? Are the plans for bikeways improvements on hold? Are the priorities for the different departments our of sync? What happened to the promise of Sharrows?

Please, reveal the immediate plans for the Sharrows in Hollywood and let's work together to make them happen.

The upcoming "Storm the Bastille" ride on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 will be our two year anniversary! We've been riding to the LABAC meetings and banging the drum, all the while hoping that the BAC would become an open and inclusive and effective body, committed to supporting cyclists and improving the quality of life in Los Angeles.

I look forward to working with you to make this happen.


Stephen Box
323-962-6540
http://twitter.com/SoapBoxLA
http://profile.to/stephenbox/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenbox
http://BikeWritersCollective.com
http://SoapBoxLA.blogspot.com
http://illuminateLA.com

CityWatchLA - Hey! I’m Talkin’ Here

CityWatch, Dec 5, 2008

Vol 6 Issue 98

Recent events at City Hall reveal a disturbing trend, one where the City Council speaks and the City Departments nod, smile, and then continue with business as usual, ignoring the directives and instructions of the Councilmembers.

In July, I attended a Transportation Committee meeting and spoke in support of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. I was pleased with the Committee response, the highlight of which was Committee Chair Greuel's instruction to the LA Department of Transportation and Planning staff to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the City's Bicycle Master Plan. In the hallway, following the meeting, I was shocked to hear a consultant working on the Master Plan explain that the work had already been done, that some of the basic principles were already included in the Plan but that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights would not be included "as written." I protested, referring to Greuel's specific instruction but the consultant dismissed it saying "We work for the department, we don't take direction from the City Council." Ouch!

In September, the Education and Neighborhoods Committee took up the issue of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Neighborhood Councils and the Department of Transportation. The DOT had been directed to report on the MOU and instead turned in a report that never actually mentioned an MOU. DOT GM Rita Robinson and Department of Neighborhood Empowerment GM BongHwan Kim appeared and engaged in a dialogue with the Committee. The session concluded with Committee Chair Richard Alarcón directing the DOT to respond again, this time with a definitive departmental report on the development of an MOU and he gave a 60 day deadline. The report was due in November and yet there has been no response.

Last month, the Transportation Committee responded to complaints from the community that the LAPD was citing cyclists for riding without bike licenses and yet was unable to provide cyclists with a system for procuring the licenses. Chief Paysinger stood before the Committee and smiled as Councilman LaBonge, Councilman Rosendahl, Councilman Parks and then Committee Chair Greuel all asked the Chief to simply suspend enforcement until the City Council could review the law and address the public's complaints. The Chief refused. The Committee then responded quite vehemently that the process wasn't working and repeated the request, emphatically. The Chief smiled and politely refused.

Last week, the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee convened, this time operating under the City Council directed new rules of order. In response to complaints that the BAC had gone adrift and was no longer functioning according to its mandate, the City Council had intervened and directed the Department of Recreation and Parks, Department of Public Works, the City Attorney, and the Planning Department to staff and/or support the BAC in its endeavors. This specific directive from the City Council was ignored by each of the departments and the BAC fumbled through the meeting, unclear on their agenda, how to make a motion, when to hold elections and how to operate under the Brown Act, all the while looking around the empty room for the support promised by the City Council. A promise broken when City Staff simply ignored the City Council's direction.

I believe in our City Government. I've got skin in the game. I regularly attend Council and Committee meetings, speaking in support of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, in opposition to proposed speed limit increases, in favor of greater NC participation in the process and on the many issues that are relevant to me and to my community. I encourage others to do the same, all the while professing my belief that it is important for us to participate in the system and to partner with our representatives to improve the quality of life in our communities.

I also believe that our representatives have an obligation to represent. I fully expect our City Councilmembers to respect us by taking the power that we entrust in them and by putting it to work. I fully expect our City Council to speak and then follow up to ensure that their words mean something, after all, they're spoken on our behalf and I'm convinced we're worth it.

Elsewhere in the City, words mean something. When the City Librarian says return the books, failure to comply results in a fine. When the DWP says pay your bill, failure to respond results in a loss of power. When the DOT issues parking tickets, failure to pay results in an impound.

And yet...when our City Council speaks...what's the penalty when our City Departments ignore them?

Transpo Committee - Character Reveal

Last Friday's Transpo Committee meeting was significant, so significant that it warrants another pass, this time to take a look at the three groups who were represented at the meeting and the "character" that was revealed by their participation and performance.

1) The City of Los Angeles was represented by members of the Police Department, the Department of Transportation, the Planning Department and Office of the City Attorney, all of whom contributed to a stunningly cavalier and obstinate display of arrogance and hubris.

Swatting off the requests of the public as little more than the babbling buzzing of the ignorant masses, DOT staff did little other than to demonstrate a commitment to more studies, more reports, more funding requests and more staff. This prompted Committee Chair Greuel to comment "Less studying, more working!"

Planning sidestepped a discussion of integrating the the Bicycle Master Plan into the Community Plans by babbling about meetings and presentations and recommendations, all of which hid the simple truth, the BMP sits on a shelf, a lonely funding tool with no teeth. Supah!

Not wanting to be left out of the big reveal, the Deputy City Attorney referred to the Cyclists' Bill of Rights as "a laundry list of issues!" that would require review, something she had not had the time to do. The motion was introduced over 4 months ago! In all fairness, she has been busy, writing ordinances allowing for the speed limit increases throughout the Valley.

But at the end of the day, it was Chief Paysinger who gave the greatest reveal of character when he went before the Committee, avoided responsibility for the inability of his department to administer the bike licensing program and then refused to suspend enforcement at the request of the Committee.

What kind of job security do these people possess that they can simply duck the hard questions, blow off the charges of the public, ignore and reject the instructions of the Committee? Apparently, it's iron-clad and part of the "business as usual" work-ethic for the City of Los Angeles.

If nothing else was accomplished, the meeting was a brilliant reveal of character for those who spend so much time and effort maintaining the status quo and resisting the efforts of the community to make LA a great city to ride. Thanks for the reveal!

2) The Transportation Committee was represented by Chairwoman Wendy Greuel, Councilman Parks, Councilman Rosendahl and Councilman LaBonge. It was a crazy day, with Greuel opening the meeting solo, LaBonge arriving late and leaving early, Rosendahl and Greuel stepping out to work on budget business and the items on the agenda coming non-sequentially and rapidly, with public comment limited to one minute. 60 seconds! WooHoo!

When that many people from the public show up, the Committee doesn't need the LADOT, the LAPD, Planning or the City Attorney to go and do a study, it simply needs to open up the mic and start engaging the public in the business of making Los Angeles a better place to ride.

The Committee members revealed to the public that 1) they are willing to accept words and studies and excuses over performance and results and 2) they will give instructions and then back down when they are rejected. This is not the leadership that the City of Los Angeles needs!

3) The Cyclistas! They came from all over, with a wide range of experiences and attitudes and goals. But they turned out and they sat for hours, all for their 60 seconds of opportunity, in which they appealed for a Bicycle Master Plan with teeth, support for a bike-share program, meaningful street improvements that would actually support and encourage cycling as a transportation solution, a repeal of the City's bike licensing law, a Sharrows program and the adoption of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights "as written - as ridden!"

They listened to excuse after excuse on why things can't be done. They listened to LADOT explain that they can't paint Sharrows because they don't know if the paint will be slippery prompting one cyclist to comment "Have they never spoken to a cyclist before?"

Another cyclist referred to the LADOT as the department of "Yes We Can't!" while another referred to their presentation as the "Why You Can't Have What You Want" Bicycle Plan.

Through it all the public witnessed City staff that not only lacked any commitment to improving the City but actually demonstrated a resistance to any call for improvement or change, all the while asking for more staff and the public witnessed City Councilmembers who asked the hard questions and gave specific instructions but then accepted excuses and non-answers and outright rejection from City staff.

This was the proverbial fork in the road and the cyclists could have looked at the status quo maintaining agents of mediocrity and grown discouraged by the system but instead the experience resulted in a display of resolve, immediately, that night, the next day and in the days since.

It was on Kill Radio the next day that the cycling community was urged to kick it into DIY and DIT gear, taking responsibility for getting the City going. In discussions on Midnight Ridazz, LA Streetsblog, the LATimes Bottleneck Blog, SoapBoxLA, BikinginLA, Westside-bikeSIDE, sic, MikeyWally cyclists are demonstrating that the time is nigh, that change is on the horizon and that the agents of change are the cyclists and that they are gonna make it happen.

illuminateLA audio

Character Counts!

"See you on the Streets!"

Bike Writers Collective at Transpo Committee

Yesterday's Transportation Committee endorsement of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was a significant victory for the Bike Writers Collective and marked the culmination of a journey that began in January of this year when the BWC was formed and when we first set out to change the world, one bike right at a time.

The rights articulated in the CBR already exist and are guaranteed by Federal, State and Local laws, regulations and policies so the City of LA endorsement is not necessary in order to "create" or codify any of the rights but is instead a significant symbolic gesture that informs the cycling community and affirms to the Community as a whole that cyclists ride as equals and with the support of our leadership.

The Transpo Committee's Special Meeting had much more on the agenda but for me, it was all derivative of the endorsement of the CBR.

Item #1 on the Agenda was the LADOT report on the Bicycle Master Plan. Our complaint has long and loudly been that efforts to engage the community were feeble...

CBR #8 Cyclists have the right to be actively engaged as constituent group in the organization and administration of our communities.

Item #2 was the LADOT report on the possibilities of a Bike Share program for Los Angeles, a program for which I have no confidence the LADOT could administer let alone simply sub out. Keep in mind, this is the department that can't simply provide bike parking at city owned facilities, all of which is already required by Municipal Code.

CBR #10 Cyclists have the right to end-of-trip amenities that include safe and secure opportunities to park their bicycles.

Item #3 was the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Nuff said! Endorsed and sent to the full City Council with the blessing of the Transpo Committee.

Item #4 was a request for a report on the City's bikeway infrastructure and proposals to increase biking opportunities as a viable transportation option.

Duh! There was a SRO crowd of cyclists there to offer a report..."It sucks!" As for increasing opportunities to increase biking opportunities...?

CBR #1 - 12!!!

Seriously, treat cyclists as equals and support equal access, provide educated law enforcement, prosecute those who endanger, injure and kill cyclists, provide routine accommodations, involve cyclists in the process, provide signals and signage, proved mass transit access, get serious about providing bike parking and always defend the 1st and 4th amendment rights of cyclists.

Item #5 was a motion relative to the current status of the City's bicycle licensing program.

This one will get a post of its own, it's such a hot topic, but for now, suffice to say...

The current bike licensing law is simply an opportunity to harrass cyclists by enforcing a law that is badly written, contradicts the state's Uniformity Code and is thereby invalid, has no real purpose other than loss prevention, can't be followed because the LAPD is incapable of providing the licenses...

CBR #11 Cyclists have the right to be secure in their persons and property, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as guaranteed by the 4th amendment.

(This item allowed us to see the cavalier nature of the LAPD as Chief Paydinger simply rejected the Committee's admonitions to refrain from enforcement until the Council had rules. LaBonge asked and then backed down when rejected. Rosendahl asked loudly and was rejected. Parks interjected that the LAPD was acting appropriately if they acted to refrain from enforcing until the issue was settled. Paysinger smiled and ignored the Committee!)

Item #6 was a report relative to a Shared Lane Pavement Markings (Sharrows) pilot program.

CBR #2 Cyclists have the right to equal access to our public streets and to sufficient and significant road space.

(This item allowed the LADOT to show its colors as they reported that "painting the sharrows and encouraging cycling might interfere with the movement of the motor vehicles and would subsequently cause traffic congestion.")

The last three items on the agenda dealt with the Rand Corp's report on "Short-Term Strategies to Reduce Traffic Congestion in Los Angeles" (ride a bike!) a report on the Dodger Stadium shuttle service and a report on charter bus services.

I have no comment on the last three because we were all in the hallway celebrating the endorsement of the Cyclists Bill of Rights!

It was a great day! PC, Danny, Luis and Alan came up from the LB/San Pedro, Alex, Candy Cane and Sara rode over from the Westside, Sexy Jr. & Sr. came from the NW Valley, Rhode Bloch, Angle, Trickmilla, Mr. Rollers, Rev. Borfo, DJ Chickenleather and Veronica, cyclists from Caltrans, cyclists from the Metro, cyclists from Reyes and Garcetti's offices, loads of familiar faces and lots of new faces (Ted) all showed up and spoke up and took a huge step to changing the world as we know it, one bike right at a time!

"See you on the Streets!"

Under the Radar!

KTLA covered the debate over the proposed speed limit increases in Woodland Hills and took an interesting approach which was to point out the folly of the current paradigm of speed limit enforcement.

I met Chip Yost up on Wells Drive so he could look at the lovely, quiet residential neighborhood that becomes a raceway when it's used as a cut-through during rush hour. Complaints about the speeding motorists led to an LADOT speed limit survey (during off-peak hours and with unobstructed flow of traffic) which resulted in a recommendation to increase the speed limit to match the prevailing speed of traffic.

The LAPD concurred, the Council office concurred and the City Attorney prepared an ordinance raising the speed limit.

Wells Drive was one of a half dozen West Valley speed limit increases on the Transportation Commission agenda for October 23 but at the last minute the agenda was revised and the items were pulled. (I had emailed the LADOT on October 21 requesting information on the 6 proposals...coincidence?)

The speed limit proposals were re-agendized for the November 13 Transportation Commission meeting. Before the Commission could act, LADOT's John Fisher and the LAPD's Officer Williams stood together and asked that the Wells Drive proposal be pulled from consideration. (KTLA had filmed Wells Drive on November 10...coincidence?)

Both Chip and I requested from the LADOT a list of surveyed roads. Chip's list doesn't have Wells Drive listed on it. Curious! In fact there are a lot of streets that aren't listed. Fisher reports that there are 700 streets for which speed zone surveys are maintained. Why is Chip's list missing over a 100 streets?

Anyway...Chip's report indicates that Councilman Zine of the 3rd District "supports changing state laws, and today introduced a motion at city council supporting a review of how to improve the way speed limits are determined."

If this is true, then something good may come out of all of this brouhaha. Until then...

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Special Transpo Meeting Full of Cycling Issues

CityWatch, November 21, 2008

Civil Rides
By Stephen Box

LA's Transportation Committee meets today (Friday) in a special meeting to weigh in on an agenda that is full of cycling issues, all anchored by a motion to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The Cyclists' Bill of Rights was penned early this year by members of the Bike Writers Collective, a group of bloggers and bike activists who write about riding in Los Angeles. Based on simple existing laws, standards, principles and directives, the Bill of Rights was created by the Collective as a tool for engaging the community in a discussion of the rights of cyclists and as a mechanism for engaging the City's leadership in a commitment to support cyclists and their place on the streets.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights has spent a lot of time on the road this year, picking up endorsements from East Hollywood, Silver Lake, Atwater Village and Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Councils along with the Caltrans and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committees and then finally ending up in the Ventura County Bicycle Master Plan.

The CBR has been featured on KCRW and KFI radio as well as the KCAL and KTLA news. It has been featured in the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, the London Times and the London Telegraph newspapers as well as blogs in San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Australia, New Zealand and India.

Along the way the CBR inspired cyclists in Florida to initiate a petition urging the State legislature to adopt the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. It also inspired a local Harley Owners' Group to write their own Bill of Rights, a trend that has continued with the LA Horse Council now riding under the Equestrian Bill of Rights.

It has been a long journey and today the Cyclists' Bill of Rights comes home, to the City of Los Angeles' Transportation Committee where cyclists will converge from all over the City to urge the members to endorse the CBR and recommend it to the full City Council for adoption.

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights really needs no endorsement, after all it's simply full of rights cyclists already possess when they ride but it's important to the cycling community that these rights are recognized and supported by our City's leadership.

To that end, the Bike Writers collective is asking the City Council's Transportation Committee to 1) endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights "as written - as ridden!" and to 2) direct the LADOT to incorporate the Cyclists' Bill of Rights "as written - as ridden!" in the city's Bicycle Master Plan.

Cyclists have scheduled two group rides to City Hall, one from the Westside and one from East Hollywood. Those unable to "Storm the Bastille" can follow the CBR's journey on Twitter, on Facebook and on Midnight Ridazz.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Transportation Talks One Game, Plays Another

CityWatch, Oct 24, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 86

LADOT Watch
By Stephen Box

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Rita Robinson’s Transportation Department has no intention of letting the neighborhood councils and the public into City Hall’s decision-making inner circle. Not even as the advisors the City Charter mandates them to be.

The alternate conclusion would be that there just aren’t enough bright bulbs in the Department to connect the dots: City Charter to City Department to Neighborhood Council.

That DOT’s interest in the public’s voice is as shallow as a one-ply tissue came into focus again this past Wednesday. The LADOT staff went before the City Council's Transportation Committee to deliver a report on the prioritization of transportation projects and programs. They also gave a demonstration of the LADOT's contempt for Neighborhood Councils.

During a discussion of funding strategies, a member of the public pointed out that the LADOT's process consists of working with the Mayor's office, the Council offices and Bureaus of Engineering, Street Lighting and Street services to determine the City's priorities. The LADOT makes no effort to actually work with the public in spite of the fact that applications typically get better ratings if there is community support for the project. Examples were offered such as SAFETEA-LU, Metro's Call for Projects, Safe Routes to School and BTA funding, all of which are specific in recognizing community support as a rating factor.

Rosendahl commented that consulting the community seems like a "no-brainer" and referred to his Westside Regional Transportation Committee as a model of community engagement.

Committee Chair Greuel commented that in the past the City has obtained funding for projects, only to find out too late that a particular project was unpopular in the community. Bad projects with no local support result in lost funding.

Councilman Alarcon simply asked "Where's the buy-in?"

Greuel repeated the question to Michael Uyeno, asking "Does the DOT involve the Neighborhood Councils in the process of prioritizing projects for funding?"

Uyeno paused. "In the past we have looked to the Council offices to deal with the Neighborhood Councils. There are so many! I assume the Council offices know the issues."

Through this entire exchange, the LADOT's leadership's behavior communicated clearly their position on Neighborhood Councils.

LADOT's General Manager, Rita Robinson was unresponsive, sitting silently in the audience. Haripal Vir, head of LADOT's funding department, followed suit, sitting silently in the front row. Assistant GM Amir Sedadi was in sync, also sitting silently in the front row. Next to Ms. Robinson, also silent, sat the LADOT's Neighborhood Council Liaison. (How easy must that job be? "Did you talk to the NC's today? No? Excellent! Keep it up!")

LADOT's leadership demonstrated the lack of responsiveness that Neighborhood Councils have learned to expect.

Against this background of silence, Jim Clarke, Intergovernmental Federal Relations for the Mayor's office, jumped up and walked over, saying to the members of the public, "I'm going to work with you. Here is my email. I'd like to meet with your Neighborhood Council on transportation funding opportunities." That is how it's done!

It is acutely apparent … even to some former LADOT supporters … that the Neighborhood Councils will have a working relationship with the LADOT when the NC's insist on it and then fight to make it happen, not a moment sooner.

(Stephen Box is a transportation activist and a CityWatch Contributor. He can be reached at: Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - LADOT Dragging Their Feet on LA’s Crosswalk Death Traps

CityWatch, August 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 65

Who’s Listening to the Neighborhoods?
By Stephen Box

A little over six years ago, Jennifer Liu finished her school day at Granada Hills High School, walked off the campus and into the crosswalk at Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street where she was hit by a car.

The impact of the collision was so great that the halves of her brain were separated. Her collarbones snapped, her ribs were broken and one of them speared her right lung. Blood trickled out of her ears and nose.

Jennifer spent five weeks in a coma. Against the odds, she awoke, relearned everything she knew and went on to graduate from High School and then from College. Looking back on the incident outside Granada High School, Jennifer wonders if the collision wasn’t God’s way of saying, “Slow down, stop racing.”

Jennifer’s father, David Liu, came out of the experience committed to improving the Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street crosswalk. Community members, school staff and school supporters joined him in the fight, all in an effort to have the City of Los Angeles install a “smart” crosswalk, one that would alert motorists to the presence of a pedestrian.

The battle has not been easy.

Last year the City Council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the city has had funding for the work for years.

LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher blamed the 2001 hiring freeze for putting them behind schedule and explained that the department had picked up the pace on special projects since hiring an additional 13 workers in 2006.

One councilman angrily responded, "Our Department of Transportation is one of the slowest, most bureaucratic departments in the city. I am constantly banging my head against the wall to get them to do what I want them to do."

As for Zelzah and Kingsbury, ground was broken months ago, equipment was installed and the “smart” signal remains wrapped up and inoperable.

Community advocates, parents and school staff are frustrated with the situation, one that is aggravated by the LADOT’s recent proposal to raise the speed limit on Zelzah Avenue, all as the community works to calm traffic and address the congestion in the area.

The LADOT pleads helpless in the speed limit raising proposal, pointing out that they merely conduct the engineering and traffic surveys that are required as a condition of certifying the speed limits, all in accordance with state law as a condition of using radar to enforce speed limits.

Which means, the LAPD can’t use radar on speeding motorists until the speed limit survey certifies the speed limit, but the large number of speeding motorists “vote with the gas pedal” and the new speed limit is set at the 85% mark so the speed limit is raised. Now the LAPD can use radar on the motorists who are now not speeding because the speed limit just got raised.

All of this on Zelzah Avenue, which still does not have a functioning “smart” crosswalk at Kingsbury.

Through it all, community members are asking the LADOT, the Transportation Committee and the Transportation Commission how all of this takes place without community involvement.

Two weeks ago, the Transportation Commission rejected three LADOT requests for speed limit increases in the West Valley simply because they had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils as part of the process.

Last week, the Transportation Committee had six LADOT requests for speed limit increases on the agenda. Members of the community spoke in opposition, arguing that the proposals had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils, that the proposals were in conflict with efforts to calm traffic and establish walkable, rideable, livable communities and that the criteria for evaluating appropriate speed limits was outdated and ineffective.

The Transportation Committee pulled the Zelzah Avenue proposal and then approved the other 5, including Reseda Avenue, which would increase the speed limit from 40 to 50 mph alongside a bike lane.

Community members continue to ask the hard questions:

Who sets the priorities for the Department of Transportation?

Why are the Neighborhood Councils not involved in evaluating and advising the city on transportation projects in their communities?

What is the LADOT’s record for delivery on Safe Routes to School projects and what happens to the funding on projects that the LADOT fails to deliver?

(Stephen Box is a long-time community issues advocate. Box writes for CityWatch.)