Caltrans7 Bicycle Advisory Committee "Open Space"

Bike activists from Bikeside presented the crowd-sourced LA Bike Map, a Hit-and-Run campaign, and the pedal powered LA Greensters, all as part of the inaugural Caltrans District 7 "Open Space" brown bag session to complement the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Caltrans 7 BAC meets monthly, typically on the 4th Friday and addresses cycling issues from planning and engineering to education and funding.

Dale Benson, Caltrans District 7 Local Assistance Coordinator for LA and Ventura Counties, hosted the Open Space session and intends to make it a monthly lunchtime tradition to help activists, planners, consultants, and representatives from different municipalities and agencies develop stronger relationships and greater regional connectivity.

Dr. Alex Thompson, the founder of Bikeside, LA's only 501(c)4 Bike Lobby, gave a hands-on presentation of LABikeMap, an online tool that allows individuals to log on and enter the data from their experience on the road, from bike theft to road rage incidents to hit-and-run collisions to road conditions. The program is loaded with existing collision data extracted from the LAPD files and from SWTRS but the most interesting data is the "data dust" that typically falls from the system. By creating an opportunity for individuals to participate without having to wait on an overloaded law enforcement system that may not be responsive to non-emergency calls, LABikeMap creates a solution that benefits any of the agencies and departments that have a piece of the road, even those who simply need good data in order to seek funding for neighborhood improvements.



Sara Bond gave a reprise of her BikesideSPEAKS presentation of a Hit-and-Run campaign, an initiative that addresses both the large number of hit-and-run incidents on our streets and the difficulty victims face in seeking justice. Sara demonstrated that the successful prosecution of drunk drivers has actually incentivized hit-and-run behavior because of the inequity in penalties and in prosecution. Drawing on local incidents such as Ed Magos on 2nd Street, Roadblock on Glendale Boulevard, Jesus Castillo on Glendale Boulevard, Jen Diamond on Sunset Boulevard and Louis Bianco on La Cienega, Sara personalized the issue and dramatized the need for a review of the law, of the enforcement policies and of the mandate to prosecute.



Enci Box introduced the LA Greensters, an all-pedal powered transportation team that originally formed to support the transportation needs of Enci's film "At What Price" which was shot sustainably in East Hollywood and is the subject of the "Reel Sustainable" documentary. The LA Greensters have not only demonstrated that human powered transportation is a viable choice for the Entertainment Industry, but has gone on to participate in everything from Park[ing] Day LA to the South Bay 350 to the AltCar Expo to the Santee High School sustainability education project. The LA Greensters demonstrate with their projects that cycling can be more than a simple commuting choice, that it can also satisfy utilitarian needs efficiently and sustainable.



Plans are already underway for June's Caltrans 7 "Open Space" on June 24th from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm and again featuring three different presentations, this time from the Planning perspective, Regional, Local, and crowd-sourced.

As for the May Caltrans 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee's regular meeting, the theme was "Cyclists and the Law(enforcement)" and featured LAPD's Sgt. Krumer, the cyclists/LAPD Task Force liaison and a presentation of the new LAPD online training on cyclists and their rights to the streets of Los Angeles. Chief Charlie Beck received the Cyclists' Bill of Rights while still a nominee for Chief along with a request that he address LAPD policies for cyclists. He responded quickly and effectively, forming the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force and placing it in Operations with significant heat.

Sgt. Krumer detailed the progress that has been made over the last six months including some of the policies that address issues such as "non-contact traffic injuries," a clarification of inter-jurisdictional authority (Metro vs. Cyclist) and a clarification of inter-departmental enforcement issues. The LAPD was joined by the CHP's Officer Vince Ramirez and Burbank PD's Motor Officer Justin Meadows for a panel discussion on Cyclists and the Law(enforcement), offering up the different approaches to the same issues, safety for cyclists on the streets.



The Caltrans 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee was formed several years ago by then-District 7 Director Doug Failing and has met regularly to address engineering, educational, planning, funding, and law enforcement issues that impact cyclists on the streets in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Failing enjoyed great success with the BAC and he is now at the Metro, an agency that has experienced a "strained" relationship with the cycling community. He recently initiated a Metro Bicycle Roundtable series in an effort to engage the cycling community and to work on developing Metro policies, planning, and projects that support cycling as an integral element of the Metro's Transportation System. We hope that he enjoys the same success at the Metro that he enjoyed at Caltrans.

LADOT and City Planning revisit "The errors of the past!"

The LADOT and City Planning have a "secret meeting" planned for a select number of bike activists along with representatives from three city council offices, all in a clear demonstration that the public process is of low priority in the ongoing saga of the City of LA's Proposed Bike Plan. (aka the $450,000 two year long uncoordinated journey of professional malpractice led by the Department of "No!")

At issue is the meeting that is planned for this Tuesday @ 4:00 pm (shh! It's a secret!) where the LADOT and City Planning are intending to "preview" the new and improved Proposed Bike Plan, the one that Michelle Mowery, LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator, referred to on KPCC Radio last week as having elements that the public hasn't seen yet. That doesn't speak well for the two year long process of gear-grinding and other infeasiBULL planning injustices.

There are two explanations for the upcoming "secret meeting" process for the Proposed Bike Plan unveiling:

1) The LADOT and City Planning have forgotten how the community meetings went in 2008, when community members complained vocally and with great enthusiasm about the fumbled opening process that was limited to four meetings of two hours each, light on dialogue and heavy on post-its and poster board. These meetings serve as a low point in the civic engagement process and perhaps the LADOT and City Planning completely forgot that to exclude is a huge mistake. Perhaps they forgot that excluding the public is a bad idea and the 'secret meeting" is the result of simple incompetence.

2) The LADOT and City Planning might remember clearly that the participation of the public raises the expectation and sets a standard for performance in excess of the departmental intentions. Bike Activists have long held that the Proposed Bike Plan process was flawed from the beginning, when the Bikeways Un-Coordinator drafted the scope of work, put it out to bid, selected the consultant, supervised the consultant, refined the initial Bike Plan proposals, implemented the infamous "Infeasible" status and then retreated into the "budget crisis" retreat that allowed a regrouping, this time claiming that there was no more money for the consultant. Perhaps the "secret meetings" is a simply calculated attempt to circumvent the public process and to get to the finish line.

Either way, this "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

City Council President Eric Garcetti, PLUM Committee Chair Councilman Ed Reyes, and Transportation Committee Chair Councilman Bill Rosendahl are currently participants in the "secret meeting" and their staff are collecting the names of "friendlies" (three per CM!) who can meet with LADOT and City Planning for a limited review of the Proposed Bike Plan. The Councilmembers would be well advised to reconsider their affiliation and inadvertant endorsement of this "briefing" that is, at best, a simple case of incompetence but at worst, a demonstration of subtrefuge.

The City of Los Angeles has a Bicycle Advisory Committee, one made up of 15 people representing the 15 Council Districts and 4 more people who represent the Mayor. The 19 members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee met just last week and the City of LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator submitted a written report on, among other things, the Proposed Bike Plan. No mention was made of this "secret meeting" but that is probably because it is...a secret! How is it that the LABAC is left out of the loop? That's standard operating procedures for the LADOT and City Planning, both of which consistently fail to involve the very people our elected officials have designated as their representatives and advisors.

There is one more possible explanation for the "restricted" access of the "secret meeting" and that is the sheer size of the Proposed Bike Plan is too much or average mortals. At several hundred pages of bikeways planning fodder, light on vision but heavy on background information, the Proposed Bike Plan even has a diagram of a four-way stop intersection, just in case none of us have ever seen one. The Proposed Bike Plan has proven mildly interesting but painful to print, and even more tedious to read, all as one hopes that the vision for Los Angeles will magically appear if one simply sticks with it. Perhaps the "secret meeting" is limited to speed readers, those who can digest hundreds of pages of Proposed Bike Plan in a single sitting, offering insightful feedback and recommendations that will make us all proud and that will make LA a great place to ride.

That leaves us with three possible explanations for the "secret meeting" scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

1) Incompetence
2) Subtrefuge
3) Technocratic Superiority

Regardless of the explanation, the "secret meeting" is a flawed process, consistent with the LADOT and City Planning journey, but completely unacceptable to the people of Los Angeles who deserve accountability, responsibility, and the opportunity to participate in the process and on the delivery of the final product.

This "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

A Tale of Two Cities: LA's Metro vs. NYC's MTA

Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/October 10, 2009

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.

"See you on the Metro!"

LABAC Demands Draft Bike Plan Comment Period Extension

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


c: Bicycle Advisory Committee

LA's Bike Plan - Return to Sender

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.

Doug Failing Resigns from Caltrans and Moves to Metro

Photo by Mr. Roullier

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.

Doug Failing

District 07 Director

Photo by Mr. Roullier

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?

CityWatchLA - Welcome Sign Comes Down at Board Meetings

CityWatch, Nov 7, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 90

DWP Watch
By Stephen Box

This past Tuesday I traveled to the DWP Commission meeting in order to request a repeal of the ban on cyclists during the DWP's Griffith Park Festival of Lights. This was my 4th visit to the Commission this year in an effort to lift the ban and this is my third year of fighting to lift the prohibition. (I've also gone to the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, Councilman LaBonge, San Antonio and the Parks, Rec and Open Space Committee, all in an effort to sway the DWP)

I arrived late to find a thinly populated room with Commissioner Forescee Hogan-Rowles chairing the Commission, Commissioner Lee Kanon Alpert to her left and Commissioner Wally Knox to her right.

The Commission Chambers, traditionally a full house, was thinly populated and those in attendance seemed distracted and bored with a couple most certainly taking a nap.

I tried to sign in for public comment but my opportunity had passed so I attempted to turn in a speaker card for the last item on the agenda, only to be informed that they heard that item at the beginning of the session because of the large number of people who turned out to speak. I asked how many people turned out and was told seven. That included Councilmembers Garcetti and LaBonge.

With little to do but watch, I settled in and was immediately struck by the new tone and demeanor of the proceedings.

A couple of contracts come up for approval which prompted DWP GM David Nahai to address the issue of conflict of interest and DWP Chief Operating Officer Raman Raj's relationship with DWP vendors. Nahai began an overview of the process to ensure that all contracts were executed openly and transparently and in accord with the DWP's ethics policies, only to be cut off by Commissioner Alpert who said "I know Mr. Raj, I've had conversations with Mr. Raj and I've experienced his commitment to an ethical style of operation. I don't need to hear any more, Mr. Nahai. I trust Mr. Raj and I trust you."

Commissioner Knox leaned into the microphone and offered his endorsement saying "I echo Commissioner Alpert's comments."

Chair Hogan-Rowles beamed, the speaker who was preparing to speak was relieved, the issue was put to rest and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the contracts.

Long gone were the days of the (Commissioner Nick) Patsauoras-Nahai tension. Days when one could show up a half hour late and still make public comment. The DWP Commission had morphed into a mutual admiration club with checks and balances and oversight replaced by a new love fest environment. All that was missing was a round of Kumbaya and some Graham Crackers and milk.

The meeting adjourned and the room cleared, quickly.

I found myself standing in Commission Chambers with Nahai and Knox and so I took the opportunity to present my case for the repeal of the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park during the DWP's Festival of Lights.

Mr. Nahai made eye contact, listened, nodded and seemed to be interested. Knox paused for a moment, looked at Mr. Nahai and dismissed me with the simple comment "Cyclists have been given concessions and access to the Festival. They're allowed in on Bike Night." He then nodded, turned and left the room. Apparently he thinks that cyclists should celebrate the holidays on Nov 25th. He's wrong.

Since I had the opportunity I charged ahead and pointed out that a DWP ban on cyclists violated State Law (CVC 21 - Uniformity Code which precludes municipalities from restricting cyclists unless expressly permitted) Griffith Park Charter (transportation “kept within the reach of the most modest means.”) and simple logic. (who on earth can defend a ban on cyclists in an urban wilderness environment, all in an effort to make way for more automobiles who will then spend 90 minutes in a traffic jam)

Nahai responded that stakeholders had responded favorably to the DWP's "Bike Night" access plan. I pointed out that there were no stakeholders in favor of the "Bike Night Preview" on November 25th and that, in fact, I had the support of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee in lifting the ban. I pointed out that the significant stakeholder attitude was one of opposition to an auto-centric Festival.

I stated clearly that the DWP's ban on cyclists was simply indefensible and asked him to lift it. To his credit he never wavered but simply acknowledged my argument and promised to investigate. I thanked him and turned for the door. As I crossed the room, he called out, "By the way, I admire and respect your tenacity."

The ball is now in Nahai's court. Here's hoping the holidays are happy for everybody in Los Angeles, including the cyclists.

(Stephen Box is an important cyclist advocate in Los Angeles and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - LA City Council Commits to Cyclists

CityWatch, Oct 31, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 88

BikeWatch
By Stephen Box

LA's City Council took time at the end of a long session this past Wednesday to approve a motion directing the reorganization of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, a simple act that demonstrates a new commitment to engaging the cycling community in the process.

The motion passed unanimously but that didn't stop debate, albeit one-sided and supportive, with Councilman Ed Reyes taking the lead in addressing the needs of cyclists for support from our Transportation and Planning Departments. It was Reyes who originally moved to reorganize the BAC and it was his office who got involved, attending meetings and offering suggestions on how the process could be more inclusive and open to the public.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl followed Reyes and held nothing back as he spoke of the City's obligation to provide cyclists with safe access and accommodation, pointing out that he was spending that evening with the Mandeville Canyon Task Force and working with the community to integrate cycling as a viable means of transportation. Rosendahl spoke passionately of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights (Co-Presented by Rosendahl, Garcetti and Greuel and seconded by Reyes and Parks a little over three months ago) and its journey through Committee as it heads to the Council floor, all the while positioning the BAC motion in the context of LA's transportation opportunities.

The BAC reorganization motion directs the BAC to elect officers, it directs the Transportation and the Recreation and Parks Departments to staff the BAC with support from the Planning Department and with Public Works directed to address the concerns of cyclists. It further assigned the City Attorney the responsibility of addressing the Brown Act and offering support as appropriate or when requested. It's not quite the document it was when introduced, having gone through committee three times, but if it clearly communicates a Council commitment to supporting an effective BAC, then so be it. (The motion directs the BAC to hold elections on Feb 15, 2009 - a Sunday!)

The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been around since the Bradley Administration and in recent years it has been the subject of charges that it has grown insignificant or benign. Critics pointed out that in 2007 there were only 10 actions coming from the BAC; six times the minutes were approved and four times the Committee voted to send a letter although no letters were drafted that year.

In February of 2007, cyclists staged the first "Storm the Bastille". The cyclists were ruled "out-of-order" and the heat was on.

For the last 20 months cyclists have been meeting at Santa Monica & Vermont (named Red Quarters after the Red Line Station) and "Storming the Bastille," riding to the BAC meetings and engaging the DWP and DOT staff in a long and arduous debate over the Brown Act. The battle started with simple access to meetings and then access to the agenda and the minutes and then the simple ability to weigh in on items on the agenda. It was the BAC’s institutionalized reluctance to engage the public that brought the City Council into the picture, a sad reflection on the City staff who supported the BAC and an even sadder indication of how far we have come and how far we have to go, all in the pursuit of access to the process.

It is apparent that the cycling community has a few City Council Champions fighting for the rights of cyclists, and some of these Champions are up for reelection. Perhaps we will see the Cyclists' Bill of Rights become a campaign issue, an opportunity for the cycling community to Bike the Vote!

INFO: The next Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee is scheduled for December 2, 2008 @ Parker Center @ 7pm. There is no automobile parking, which troubles the BAC members more than the public. After all, we'll be riding bikes! If you don’t have a bike, take the Metro and we’ll go out for tacos after the meeting.

(Stephen Box is a transportation activist and a CityWatch Contributor. He can be reached at: Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net. You can also join the Bike Writers Collective who wrote the CBR on facebook.)

Riding a Bike Improves Intelligence

People ride bikes for many reasons. Some ride recreationally, some socially, some for exercise and some as a transportation and environmental solution.

Through it all, the average cyclist is usually able to explain to their non-cycling friends why riding a bike in the city is an appealing, liberating, rewarding and positive experience.

Missing from these conversations is an over-looked benefit to riding a bike in the city and that is simply the elevation of intelligence that occurs as a cyclist starts getting in some serious mileage.

Witness the "Bike the Vote" event this past Saturday when a motley crew of cyclists gathered at the Eco-Village for a bike ride to Marsh Park in Elysian Valley. A simple ride turned into a conversation with City Council President Eric Garcetti on the significant ramifications of an Obama for President vote and ranged from transportation to health care to Iraq to the power of the people to speak up and to make national politics personal and to have meaningful input on the outcome. "Hey, cyclists, it's time to change the world!"

Witness the "Storm the Bastille" ride this evening when cyclists will gather for a ride to the Boardroom of the DWP where they will challenge the Mayor's reps and the City Council reps who gather for the Bicycle Advisory Committee to truly represent the cycling community. "Storm the Bastille" rides take place throughout the County and cyclists have Stormed the Pasadena City Council, the Beverly Hills City Council, the Santa Monica City Council and with great regularity, Los Angeles at many levels, always discussing with great eloquence the issues of the community.

These simple rides bear wintess to the fact that in taking a ride the average cyclist usually ends up discussing law ("Hey! CVC Section 21 restricts a local authority from enacting or enforcing any ordinance unless expressly authorized in the CVC. You can't restrict cycling on this street!") politics ("Well, Obama has actually uttered the word "Bicycle" in public. Let's look at his record on the Environment.") physics ("Actually, torque is measured in pound-feet, not feet-pound which is the unit of measure for energy/work.") math ("Is Alex really a professor? Maybe he can help me decide between a 39/14 and a 53/19.") economics ("Actually, street calming measures that benefit cyclists also benefit local merchants as demonstrated in the Valencia Street improvements in SF.")

Ultimately, in going for a ride, cyclists connect. They connect to the street, the community, the environment and with each other. Through it all, cyclists develop an acute sensitivity to their surroundings, borne out of pure survival instincts and that sensitivity inevitably leads to the Battle Cry, "Hey, I've got rights!"

That's right, cyclist have rights. We have the right to ride these mean streets and we have the right to ride safely and with the support and respect of our community, our leadership and our law enforcement.
This is the Year of the Cyclist and this is the year that we claim and proclaim the Bicyclist Bill of Rights!