The Politics of Inertia

CityWatch, Aug 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 68

RETHINKING LA - One of the most important City Hall survival skills is the artful dance of inertia, the ability to steer clear of any responsibility for progress while maintaining the appearance of support.

For the City Councilmembers, this skill is best demonstrated by their enthusiastic response to literally any proposal or proposition when it’s introduced. Then the Politics of Inertia takes over and departmental reports are ordered, cost impacts are studied, staffing requirements are analyzed, and eventually any good idea dies of old age in a dusty stack of council committee droppings.

For the departmental staffers, this skill requires the artful avoidance of “yes” and “no” answers, all while maintaining a flurry of activity that includes scurrying from meeting to meeting with the obligatory beleaguered look on the face and an armload of reports and charts as evidence that an important mission is underway.

Staffers typically invoke three specific tools of inertia in their commitment to avoiding progress; budget impacts, security concerns, issues of liability.

As for budget concerns, we get it. The real question is “Does City Hall get it?” The public knows that things have costs, that everything has an impact on the budget. Yet when it comes to establishing priorities and engaging in oversight and accountability, the crickets chirp. Until the public asks for something and then the first line of defense is “Well, you know, we’re in a budget crisis!”

Security is a concern to everybody but it also turns into an obstacle that is used to restrict access, not facilitate public participation. It’s easier to for the public to get into Sacramento’s Capital Building than into LA’s City Hall, as if it’s the public that should be feared. Meanwhile, the most recent murders on city property have been at the hands of city employees and the most recent acts of sabotage were city staff labor actions directed at the LADOT.

The City of LA has armed guards in charge of dispensing visitor stickers, demonstrating that the illusion of Security trumps the limits of Budget at the “Department of No!”

Liability is the last line of defense, used when all else fails as a way to avoid progress and now synonymous with the “ability to lie.” Community members advocating for progress find it hard to overcome the “liability” objection, after all, it sounds so “responsible.”

If liability was really a concern, the City of LA would stop rejecting transportation innovations requested by the public and start restricting the actions of the Mayor, the City Council, and the LAPD.

LA’s City Council just got taken to task in the California Court of Appeal for exceeding its authority, resulting in a court reversal and the Judge's opinion that “the City Council abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law.”

The LAPD was taken to task by U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson who ruled that the “Superheroes” on Hollywood Boulevard had a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment right to remain on the public sidewalk free from LAPD persecution.

As for the Mayor, the City Attorney failed to impress on him the danger in accepting free tickets from companies with lobbyists in City Hall or contracts with the City. While the public clearly understands the liability involved when one attends a taping of American Idol or a Spice Girls concert, the Mayor didn’t and it resulted in California's political watchdog recommending the largest combined ethics fine in the agency's history.

Pound for pound and dollar for dollar, objections of liability are typically the line of defense as City Hall defends the status quo and fights to avoid progress.

Professionals in all endeavors must contend with the limitations of budgets, with obligations to provide a safe and secure environment, and requirements to conduct business legally and responsibly so that there are no issues of liability. But at City Hall, they’re not standards for performance, they’re tools for avoiding responsibility and sidestepping progress.

The Mayor rises above the fray with a unique strategy that trumps the simple bureaucratic tools of those in City Hall’s hamster wheel, he employs the most powerful weapon of inertia, “Press Conference!”

Villaraigosa’s twist on Burnham’s “Make Big Plans!” directive is to make really big plans, plans so big that the responsibility for actually delivering on them will fall on those in the next generation.

Villaraigosa has bounced from promise to promise, assuring Angelenos that LA is the Greenest Big City, the land of Sustainable Industry, home to a million trees, and just recently he discovered the entertainment industry and now he has a plan for supporting film production!

You can’t turn a ship that isn’t moving and Villaraigosa is currently at the helm of the Capital of Inertia, a city so stuck in the quagmire of bureaucracy that even with his muscle behind a Mayoral Directive, simply implementing LA’s Bike Plan with paint on the street won’t be complete until he’s 93 years old. Of course, that’s only if it doesn’t run into budget restraints, security and safety concerns, and liability issues.

LA’s future belongs to the bold, to those who are willing to confront mediocrity and to challenge the veracity of the objections that get thrown at the feet of progress. It’s up to the public to reject false obstacles and to demand progress.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

LA’s Stealth Bike Plan

LA’s Bike Plan is of such importance to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that on July 1, 2011 he issued Mayoral Directive #20 and instructed LA’s departmental leadership to make the Bike Plan a priority.

Little did he know, the Bike Plan that was approved earlier this year was nowhere to be found.

And then, quietly and without any fanfare, the Bike Plan appeared on July 11, on the City Clerk’s website and on the LA Bike Plan website. No notice, no email, no press conference, no fuss, just a simple and subtle appearance that makes one wonder, why the sleight of hand?

The Bike Plan Implementation Team has been meeting for six months to discuss outreach, priorities, funding, interdepartmental synchronicity and other issues related to the deployment of LA’s Bike Plan, a tough task to accomplish without an actual Bike Plan.

On July 5th, at the July BPIT meeting, I asked about the Bike Plan and when we could expect to see the final version, the one that was approved by City Council and classified as an amendment to the City’s General Plan. The one that included all of the corrections, modifications, changes and additions.

Crickets chirped and staffers made excuses including “It’s at the printers and these things take time.”

A digital document held up at the printer?

It may have been the BPIT debate, perhaps it was the Mayoral Directive #20, we may never know what prompted city staff to quietly replace the old draft version of the Bike Plan with the final official Bike Plan. But it’s out in the open now!

Mayor Villaraigosa has been bragging about LA’s Bike Plan. Take a look at the final version of the Bike Plan and take it to your neighborhood council and work with them on local priorities. Most of all, imagine the day when we can point to the streets and brag about the fact that LA is the City with a Backbone!

What a Difference a Few Years Make: A Journey to Relevance

LA’s Bike Plan has already caused traffic congestion, clogging the steps of City Hall as the Mayor, the City Controller, and a full peloton of Councilmembers stood before the press on Wednesday to declare “Los Angeles is on the path to becoming a world-class city for bicycling.”

What a difference a few years make! It has been ages since I innocently visited City Planning Publications to purchase a copy of the General Plan’s Transportation Element ($15) in an effort to locate the current Bike Plan. As I flipped the pages, I found a placeholder that indicated where the Bike Plan would be if it were worth printing. (It wasn’t) Thus began the journey to relevance.

Three years ago, the LADOT hired a consultant from Portland to guide the City of LA in the process of developing a new Bike Plan. At the first meeting, before a standing-room-only crowd, the consultant opened by stating, “We’re gonna have to move fast, we have a lot of ground to cover and we don’t have much time.”

It was at this point that Alex Thompson, President of Bikeside, jumped to his feet and interrupted the consultant with the simple challenge “Why not?”

That became the battle cry of the community as LA’s Department of “No!” led the Bike Plan development process.

“Why not?”

Along the way, the LADOT spent $400,000 on the consultant’s Bike Plan, one that was eventually scrapped.

Meanwhile, the community banded together under the banner of the LA Bike Working Group and developed a crowd-sourced vision for connectivity, one that transitioned into a City Planning process that involved people from all walks, er ...rides.

LA’s current Bike Plan is a victory because of its content, most significantly the Backbone Bikeway Network that will bring together greater synchronicity of basic city services on the big streets that already move people of all modes.

The Bike Plan is also a victory because it is the result of a community driven process, one where people of all modes and perspectives had a voice in the process. In fact, the City Hall peloton also included folks from the Bikesiders, the LACBCers, Midnight Ridazz, the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, C.I.C.L.E., the Valley Bikery, the Bicycle Kitchen, and Pacoima Beautiful demonstrating the power of a common ground approach to planning.

Most important, the Bike Plan is a victory because it offers the City of LA an opportunity to pursue funding that will make our streets work for everybody, whether they walk, ride a bike, take mass transit or use a personal vehicle.

After all, streets that are good for cyclists are good for everybody.

Cyclists favor well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris. They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for both motorists and pedestrians.

Surveys in San Francisco found that local businesses benefited from "traffic calming" through their districts, which included accommodations for cyclists.

Finally, an increase in the number of cyclists in a neighborhood -- which means more eyes on the street -- has a direct relationship to a reduction in crime.

In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for your community and LA’s Bike Plan has the capacity to do something that no other plan has ever done, connect the plans.

LA has a General Plan, it has Community Plans, it has Specific Plans, it has Master Plans, it has Vision Plans, it has a River Plan...it is a City of Plans! They compete, they contradict, they confuse and now is the time to connect them!

Imagine if the Bike Plan were to be used as a model for engaging the community in the process, for bringing some connectivity to the many plans, for preserving the character and personality of our neighborhoods and for providing a toolbox of transportation solutions that blend with our local land-use priorities so that neighborhoods are empowered, not overpowered.

The long and arduous journey to the finish line for LA’s Bike Plan has clearly demonstrated that a group of outsiders can move City Hall. News of this success story has resonated throughout the country, but what’s most important is what happens on the streets of LA.

Now is the time to work with neighborhood councils, community groups, homeowners associations and Angelenos of all modes so that the spirit of connectivity can resonate through Los Angeles.

While the City Hall peloton stands at the finish line press conference, our greatest opportunity is to establish this as the beginning, not the end, of a significant journey that will continue to connect Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

City Planning Embellishes Reality

LA's Department of City Planning is filled with some of the most creative people in town, folks who regularly turn out innovative and imaginative work that entertains, inspires, and stirs passion.

Unfortunately, the work falls under the category of "fiction" because of its limited connection to reality. I offer as an example the Planning Department's staff report on the City of LA's proposed Bike Plan.

City Planning staff reports are like movie trailers, they offer a quick preview of the upcoming proposal so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation in advance of the actual "screening." Seasoned film audiences know that there are three types of trailers;

Teasers that offer a glimpse of what can be expected.

Spoilers that offer up the entire plot and leave nothing to be discovered.

Impostors that offer up an entertaining journey that bears no resemblance to the actual film.

City Planning's Bike Plan staff report falls into the Impostor category, offering the Planning Commission an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality.

1663 miles of Bikeways - the cameo: Planning Staff promise 1663 miles of Bikeways, a claim that includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes. Bike Paths are very expensive off-road facilities that cost more per mile than what the Bureau of Street Services spends to resurface a mile of our streets. Bike Routes are the streets that get a little green sign that says "Bike Route" indicating that the Bikeway mileage has been pumped up. Bike Lanes get a commitment of 56 miles and an additional "speculative" 511 miles which indicates they will end up on the editor's floor. This Bike Plan relies on a cameo appearance by recognizable talent, and then surrounds it with 1663 miles of language that lacks substance and commitment.

Bicycle Boulevards - the knock-off: Planning Staff acknowledges that the public clamors for "innovative bicycle treatments" including Bicycle Boulevards. They are low-density local routes that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Rather than actually include Bicycle Boulevards in the proposed Bike Plan, City Planning offers up "Bike Friendly Streets" as a knock-off substitute, the equivalent of featuring "the other, other Baldwin brother" in Slap Shot IV.

Cyclists' Bill of Rights - the inspiration: Planning Staff acknowledge that the City Council directed the LADOT, Planning, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the City Attorney and the LAPD to report back on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. This City Council directive was ignored. Instead Planning Staff dismisses some principles as redundant while claiming that others are included. This is true in the same sense that the works of Shakespeare are also in the Bike Plan, after all he used the same alphabet and if properly rearranged, one could find A Comedy of Errors.

Backbone Bikeway Network - the theme: Planning Staff acknowledge the work of the LA Bike Working Group in creating the Backbone Bikeway Network which is positioned as a commitment to connectivity. Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.

Complete Streets Act - the surprise ending: Planning Staff acknowledge the powerful cultural shift that has resulted in innovative multi-modal transportation funding and policy. This includes the Complete Streets Act which supports the rights of all those who use the streets, from pedestrians to cyclists to mass transit passengers to motorists. It's only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?

The Department of City Planning's Bike Plan Staffing Report is a good read. It's interesting, it's informative, and it's a complete work of fiction.

In the grand scheme of things, LA's proposed Bike Plan is the equivalent of bad script turned into a bad film, supported by a great trailer that merely needs to get an opening night audience in order to recoup its investment. Then, it goes straight into the bargain bin at the 99¢ Store.

Metro/LADOT prefer the imports over the locals

Los Angeles is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, and yet when it comes to transportation planning, apparently the experts are nowhere to be found.

Consider the Metro's upcoming Bicycle Design Workshop taught by John Ciccarelli, a well-regarded professional from Santa Clara County. Are there no professionals in Los Angeles who can address Bicycle Planning? Ryan Snyder lives mid-city, has served on the local neighborhood council, is a nationally recognized planner with experience in active modes, knows the streets and the people and yet he gets passed over. Ron Durgin is a League of American Cyclists certified instructor and his Sustainable Streets organization has planning and education street cred and yet he gets passed over.

How about the Metro's recent Bike to Work Week which was coordinated by the Inland Transportation Services company, a transportation demand consulting organization that claims "extensive experience in the management, implementation and administration of regional rideshare programs." They hail from Riverside County. Based on the Metro's miserable mode-share performance, perhaps it's time to give another consultant a shot at coordinating the Metro's TDM projects. Of the Metro's 9200 employees, 155 ride the Metro to work, 39 bicycle to work, and 36 walk to work. Surely there is a company in Los Angeles County that can beat those numbers.

The Metro isn't alone. The City of LA authorized the LADOT to enter into a contract with Bellevue, WA's Ilium Consulting and to produce a Bike Map with a cost "not to exceed $400,000." Ilum Associates was selected because of its "extensive experience in the production of maps for use by the public." The City Council approval took place in December of 1996 and since then, Ilium and the LADOT have apparently wandered off the trail as the funded Bike Map of Los Angeles has not appeared. Ilium, it should be noted does other marketing work for the LADOT. Apparently nobody knows the street of LA like the folks in Seattle. Are there no cartographers in Los Angeles? Are there no marketing companies in Los Angeles?

The City of LA is currently in the process of developing an updated Bike Plan, supported by Alta Planning with principals hailing from Portland and Marin County. Again, the City Council approved an LADOT initiated contract with the contractor, this time for $450,000, and one that relied on folks from far, far away to join us here on the streets of Los Angeles so they can help us locals find our way. Granted, Alta ended up hiring local folks to execute some of the work, the same thing a local company would have done if it had been awarded the contract, but the City of LA/Alta contract is executed between the Portland/Berkely principals and the City of LA. Isn't there an LA based transportation and planning company capable of handling this kind of work? Further complicating matters is the LA Bike Plan website, complete with an admin address in Portland. Does the City of LA not even own its websites? This is especially unfortunate since Alta Planning has moved on, claiming its work is done, and leaving an "Infeasible" Bike Plan in its wake.

The US Department of Labor reports that the unemployment rate in Washington State is 9.9% and the unemployment rate in Oregon State is 11.7%. Meanwhile, here in California, the unemployment rate is 13%. Why is it so tough for the Metro and the LADOT to hire local? Los Angeles is the center of the universe with people from around the world working hard to get here, to the capital of creativity and innovation. It's time for our transportation authorities to respect the people they purportedly serve by putting them to work.

LA's Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa claims that building a smart transportation system means "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" but the real question is "Who gets LA's transportation jobs?" The people of Los Angeles know the streets of LA, we know the traffic patterns of LA, we know the needs of LA and we know LA. We know the destinations, we know the communities and we know the people. Why do we have to watch from the sidelines while the "imports" bring transportation planning to the natives of Los Angeles?

We deserve better! We deserve accountability! We deserve a commitment from the Metro and from the LADOT that the work done in our communities will be done by locals and for the locals, not to the locals.

Bike Week gives way to Bike Life

Bike Week is over and the Metro planners have driven back to the office, the LADOT employees have tossed the leftover Bike Week supplies, the consultants are cashing their checks, the press is busy covering Lindsay Lohan, and LA's law enforcement is banking shifts in anticipation of the upcoming Memorial Day traffic.

As for the cyclists, Bike Week has simply given way to Bike Life, the ongoing and long term campaign to change the world by focusing on LA's streets, making them safer for cyclists.

For all of the attention that Bike Week draws, the real test is the following week. Who rode to work on Monday? How many people at the Metro plan to get out of their car and give bike commuting a shot this week? How many staff at the LADOT will justify that $50 LA City Parking Buyout by hopping on a bike and riding to work? Seriously, this is the week to count the cyclists, to measure the impact of the huge Bike Week focus that took meeting after meeting after meeting of Metro and LADOT staff, all on the clock in the midst of a huge budget crisis, all so they could drive their cars to the Bike Week events.

Forgive me for my cynicism, but this is the week that either justifies the efforts of the Bike Week promoters or challenges the effectiveness of their efforts.

I'd be willing to forgive the Metro and the LADOT their commitment to their cars if they would just give us a good turnout of staff at this Thursday's Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee and next Tuesday's Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee. But, based on results, the attendance will be thin, very thin. Last month's Caltrans7BAC meeting drew the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator for just a few minutes and was unable to hold her attention, in spite of the fact that Topanga Canyon Boulevard was on the agenda. As for the Metro, nobody attended. The prior month, LADOT Bikeways was unable to send staff to the LABAC meeting, in spite of the fact that the Bike Plan was on the agenda. The Metro hasn't sent staff to the Bicycle Advisory Committee of LA, the largest city in the State of California, for a couple of years. How's that for priorities!

And yet, the LADOT and the Metro are able to send staff in quantities sufficient to invade small countries for fun stuff, as long as it interests them, and as long as it takes place in the daytime. Have these people never heard of flex-time? Come in a little later, stay a little later. Better yet, split up and stop sending so many people to the same meetings, send them where they might benefit. Best of all, send them where the public might benefit.

This Thursday, Alex Thompson will be presenting the LA Bike Map during the "open space" brown bag lunch session at the Caltrans 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee. Enci will follow with a presentation on the LA Greensters. During the BAC, Sgt. Krumer of the LAPD will be presenting "Cyclists and the Law (Enforcement)." One would think that the crowd-source mapping technology, the pedal-powered transpo team, and the LAPD Cyclist Training would interest Transportation Professionals, yet the Metro and the LADOT seem to find the Caltrans 7 BAC of little interest.

On Tuesday, Jeremy Grant will be presenting the Backbone Bikeway Network during the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Backbone is a simple Vision for Connectivity that is a revolutionary commitment to the destinations that involves the LADOT, the Metro, Caltrans, the LAPD, the LASD, the Bureau of Street Services, the Department of Public Works, Street Lighting, the CRA, and just about anybody else who has a piece of the streets.

And yet...

Based on the past, expectations are low that the Bikeways staff from the Metro and the LADOT will be in attendance at either of the upcoming opportunities to engage the community and work with them on making our streets a great place to ride.

I think it's time for that to change. I think it's time for the Metro and the LADOT and also LA's Department of City Planning to consider the cycling community a constituent group, just like they do neighborhood councils, homeowner associations, community councils and others. Cyclists may not be a geographic group but as a common interest group, cyclists deserve the same respect and attention that other groups get.

I regularly meet Planning Department staff at neighborhood council events. Apparently the budget crisis hasn't prevented them from engaging in planning work in the community. Yet when the LA Bike Plan, which is part of the Transportation Plan which is part of the General Plan which is the responsibility of the Planning Department, comes up, we hear "Budget Crisis!" as the excuse for not sending staff to the Caltrans7 BAC or the LABAC.

I really think it's time for that to change and I'm calling on the Metro, the LADOT, and the Department of City Planning to work with the cycling community to make the streets of Los Angeles great places to ride. I'm calling on the Metro and the LADOT and City Planning to keep that Bike Work commitment going and to embrace Bike Life, the idea that what's good for cyclists is good for the community, all year long!

Bike Week has given way to Bike Life, let's make it happen!

CityWatchLA - Transpo Commission: Caught in the Blind Spot

CityWatch, Mar 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 20

LA's Transportation Commission has a rich legacy of "consent agendas" that routinely rubber stamp the LADOT's proposed speed limit increases with out so much as a question, a bit of discussion, a suggestion for traffic calming or even an acknowledgment that our streets are getting fast, very fast. Yesterday's Commission meeting saw the LADOT's Assistant General Manager arguing that the City of Los Angeles was challenged by aging infrastructure and personnel limitations. He spoke affirmatively in favor of "embracing the new technology." Of course, he was defending the department's parking meter performance, not the City's ability to control speeds on the streets of LA.

When it comes to speed limit controls, the LADOT still embraces the State's 50 year-old speed trap law and an antiquated and ineffective approach to public safety that requires the presence of a law enforcement officer in order to control the speed of traffic.

I challenged the Commission to at least have a conversation about traffic calming, to simply ask if there is a correlation between traffic collisions and the streets picked for speed limit enforcement.

It would seem that if the Transportation Commission has the authority to approve speed limit increases, they would also have an obligation to review the overall philosophy for which streets are selected and in determining if those streets are in sync with the Community Plans, the Bike Plans, the surrounding TOD projects.

In other words, "Does the City of Los Angeles have a big-picture strategy for effectively establishing speed limits and for effectively enforcing those speed limits?" (The answer is no!)

The W Hollywood, LA's largest Transit Oriented Development project, just opened. It's located over the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station. TOD projects have a purported emphasis on cycling and pedestrian access and yet Vine isn't eligible for speed limit enforcement and Hollywood's certification will expire in a few months.

In the works for over a decade, did the LADOT not know the W Hollywood would be opening?

Glendale Boulevard is a brutally fast street and recent hit and runs have taken down two cyclists, resulting in the death of one. Yet the speeding traffic continues and the speed limit certification will also expire in a few months. Van Nuys, Foothill, Oxnard, and Pico are all set to expire in the next three months.

The current approach to speed limit enforcement is based on the State's Speed Trap Law.

1) Certify the speed limit by surveying the current traffic and setting the speed limit so that 85% of the motorists are considered legal.

2) Maintain the speed limit certification in order to use radar/laser speed limit enforcement.

3) Only enforce the speed limits on streets with current certs (500 street segments of streets out of 7200 miles citywide, approximately 10% of LA's total street mileage is eligible for speed limit enforcement using radar/laser)

Even if one believed in the current approach to making our streets safer, the City of LA's implementation is so bad that in some cases, one can be ticketed for speeding on one side of an intersection but not the other.

Streets such as Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Roscoe, Laurel Canyon, Magnolia simply aren't eligible for speed limit enforcement. In Hollywood, speeders on Vermont and Western won't be getting tickets. After next week, motorists in a hurry should use Fairfax because the speed limit certification expires on the 19th.

The City of Los Angeles currently embraces an approach to speed limit enforcement that simply doesn't work. The LADOT is unable to maintain the speed limit certifications for the streets of Los Angeles and the LAPD doesn't have the personnel necessary to enforce speed limits on the streets of Los Angeles.

The Transportation Commission is at a fork in the road. It can take the road to irrelevance, one marked by rubber stamping agendas that approve anything proposed by the LADOT, or it can take the road to innovation and responsible oversight, asking the hard questions and demanding that the LADOT and the LAPD work with the community to make our streets safer for everybody.

Raising the speed limits on our streets is not a solution to controlling speeding traffic. It is simply the perpetuation of behavior that simply does not work.

It has been said that repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result is the sign of insanity. In this case, the LADOT and the Transportation Commission are repeating the same behavior and claiming that it will make our streets safer.

Our streets are unsafe, the City of LA is repeating the same behavior, it's beyond insane, it's professional incompetence.

(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

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!

CityWatchLA - LA's Best Bike Plan - "Bringing home the bacon!"

CityWatch, Jan 5, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 1

Anyone who cares about the quality of life on the streets of Los Angeles, whether they ride a bike or not, has a vested interest in the development of LA's Bike Plan. More importantly, anyone who cares about LA's budget crisis, whether they care about the streets or not, has a vested interest in the development of a powerful visionary Bike Plan for Los Angeles. Any bike related funding requests made at the Federal, State or County levels are immediately challenged by the simple hurdle "Is this proposed project part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan?" If the answer is no, the project is summarily disqualified for funding and Los Angeles then watches the money go to other cities that have laid down a bold vision for their community, that have written powerful proposals for transportation and that have made a commitment to going after the funding and bringing it home to make their streets safer and more effective for everybody.

LA's current Bike Plan was developed in 1996 and is part of the Transportation Element of the City's General Plan, a state mandated document that directs the growth and development of the City of Los Angeles. The Bike Plan was updated and re-approved by City Council twice and is current through 2012. In a rare demonstration of enthusiasm, the LADOT's Capital Funding Department initiated a Bike Plan update process a couple of years ago, secured funding, hired a consultant, and partnered with the Planning Department on the development of the Draft Bike Plan.

This is in stark contrast with the LADOT's enthusiasm for actual Bikeways projects and over the last 13 years, the City of LA has picked up about $65 million in Bikeways funding which has resulted in 13 miles of Bike Paths and 55 miles of Bike Lanes. Critics charge that this demonstrates a complete lack of commitment to developing a "bikeable LA."

LA is nothing if not the City of "Big Plans" which include the General Plan, the 35 Community Plans, the Master Plans, the Specific Plans, and many Vision Plans. In this environment, the Bike Plan is a small and obscure document, a funding document, yet it contains within it the potential power to provide connectivity, not just to the cyclists who want to ride the streets of Los Angeles, but to the many plans that sometimes overlap, contradict, overrule or simply fall short. In other words, the Draft Bike Plan is the missing link.

The public comment period for the $450,000 Draft Bike Plan closes this Friday, and the consultants, the LADOT and City Planning will then go to work, reviewing and considering your comments for inclusion the Draft Bike Plan that will then be presented to the Planning Commission. Of course, that is contingent on them receiving your comments by this Friday.

Critics of the Draft Bike Plan claim that the document "aims low and still falls short" and charge that, if nothing else, the $450,000 Draft should at least be an improvement over the old plan. While it's easy to find people who agree that the new Bike Plan should be an improvement over the old Bike Plan, it's hard to find people who will wade through the 563-page document.

Of those who have read the Bike Plan, the response has been consistently negative, varying only in intensity. Among the harshest critics was the "LA Bike Working Group" and which conducted four public workshops to engage the public and to develop "LA's Best Bike Plan," resulting in 35 significant recommendations that were pared down to the following 12 principles.

If these sound reasonable, please go to LABikePlan.com and send them in as your recommendations for LA's Draft Bike Plan. If not, I would love to hear your opinion. Either way, I hope you'll take a moment to give your opinion.

The 12 PRINCIPLES of "LA's Best Bike Plan"

1. Genesis:
Every street is a street that cyclists will ride.

2. All City:
A Backbone Bikeway network will be the engineering focus in the immediate future

3. Action
LA must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years

4. Transformation
Neighborhood pilots projects to create pockets of ultra bike friendliness, including bike boulevards

5. Strength
Any new plan should go through a full programmatic EIR

6. Intelligence
Evaluate success by measuring progress against goals, timelines, bike counts, and collision data

7. One Generation
Get em' young - building a car-free army from LA's youngest generation - beginning at the school level

8. Justice
LAPD will undergo mandatory 8 hour training in cyclists' rights and laws concerning cyclists, and practical bike training.

9. Execution
Move Bikeways out of LADOT

10. Democracy
Have the plan voted on by cyclists, or the NCs

11. Complete
The six Es - Equality, Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation - are the structure for the plan.

12. Equality
The Cyclists' Bill of Rights is the foundation for the plan

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Neighborhoods Win Input Extension on Bike Plan

CityWatch, Dec 1, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 98

City Planning Department has extended comment period for LA's Draft Bike Plan. This is good for cyclists, great for neighborhoods!

Three weeks after the deadline for public comment on LA's Draft Bike Plan ended, Jane Blumenfeld, City Planning's Acting Deputy Director, reversed position and announced an extension on the public comment period until January 8, 2010. This reversal signifies a victory for the bike activists, the community groups, and the neighborhood councils who rose to the occasion, calling the initial 42-day comment period on the 563 page Draft Bike Plan an insult to the civic engagement process. In the grand scheme of things, it would be easy to dismiss LA's Draft Bike Plan as a simple document that humbly addresses the needs of a niche transportation mode. Hardly the stuff of the LA visionaries who are frothing at the mouth as they position themselves to spend billions of dollars on mega-transit projects, quickly and quietly and fueled by the conviction that they know best. But that would be a mistake.

LA's Draft Bike Plan has the potential to benefit the city as a whole, for cyclists and non-cyclists alike, and the process for developing the plan, as well as the final document, is important for several reasons.

First, LA's Draft Bike Plan has gone a long way toward establishing a reasonable and meaningful minimum standard for public comments on the planning that impacts our communities.

The Department of Transportation and City Planning initially released the Draft Bike Plan with a 42-day comment period, clearly demonstrating a cavalier approach to the public participation process.

With neighborhood councils requiring 60 days just to cycle through a monthly committee meeting and then a monthly board meeting, the chances of NC review were reduced to nil.

Bloggers seized on this failure and issued the challenge. This simple rallying cry brought together bloggers, the NC Action Summit, the Valley Alliance, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the CD11 Transportation Committee, and neighborhood councils from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to Studio City to Mid-City West to Palms to East Hollywood to Encino to others too numerous to list.

Result: a meaningful process for public engagement and a meaningful comment period.

Second, LA's Draft Bike Plan has the capacity to bring a sense of scale to the streets of Los Angeles by addressing them from the perspective of a single human on a bike.

Developing a powerful Bike Plan demands that we look at the city from the ground up, starting with the movement of people instead of adding them as an afterthought.

For too long, the streets of LA have been evaluated simply on their ability to hold more cars and side streets have been evaluated based on their ability to absorb overflow and cut-through traffic. The development of LA's Bike Plan demands that we grapple with the tough questions and decide how people will live and work and socialize and move about the City of Los Angeles.

This discussion positions multi-modal transportation choices as the starting point for LA's Transportation and Planning departments.

Result: streets that are for people, supported by real transportation choices.

Third, LA's Draft Bike Plan is just one of many plans. After all, Los Angeles is a "City of Plans."

There are 35 Community Plans, then there are the Specific Plans, complemented by the Master Plans, supported by Vision Plans, all overlapping and lost in the melee created every time the Mayor and the City Council initiate a Trash Plan, a River Plan, a Sidewalk Plan, a Tree Plan, a Golf Plan or a Lighting Plan.

Toss a couple of mega-plans such as the Harbor Plan or the NBC-Universal Plan in the mix and it's evident that the only people who benefit from this scenario are the consultants who churn plans as if City Hall has unlimited shelf-space, complete with unlimited dust.

The development of LA's Bike Plan comes complete with community calls for integration. It comes with challenges for real implementation, not just as an exercise in required planning but as the first real step in improving the quality of life in our communities.

Result: integrated Community Planning supported by a commitment to implementation.

Finally, LA's Draft Bike Plan is already serving as a reminder that as much as Los Angeles is the land of diversity, it is also the land of Common Ground.

Regardless of geography, culture, language, economics, professions or modes of travel, the people of Los Angeles all share the same desire to travel freely and safely on their streets. Some walk, some ride, some drive, some take mass transit and all will benefit from a robust Bike Plan with a real vision.

After all, cyclists simply want well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris.

They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.

They want to patronize local businesses that offer accommodations for cyclists.

They want great routes to schools, jobs, city centers and residential communities and they want a great relationship with law enforcement so that the streets are free of crime. In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for the community.

Result: the establishment of common ground and the development of real community.

INFO: The journey to a better Bike Plan continues and if you'd like to participate, visit LABikePlan.com to download a copy of the Draft Bike Plan.

Visit BikeWritersCollective.com to download a copy of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights.

To participate in the development of LA's Best Bike Plan, join the LA Bike Working Group in Hollywood on Saturday, December 12 at 2pm. 1711 Van Ness Avenue, Los Angeles, 90028.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) Photo credit: Photo by Lucyrk in LA via LAist Featured Photos on Flickr

LA Bike Plan - Round 1 to Bike Activists

Jane Blumenfeld, Acting Deputy Director for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, has announced that the City Planning staff will be taking comments on the Draft Bicycle Plan until January 8th, 2010. This is a significant victory for the bike activists who immediately reacted when the Draft Bike Plan was initially released with a November 6, 2009 deadline for comments.

As recently as November 4 at the Eastside Bike Plan Workshop hosted by Councilman Ed Reyes and the Bike Oven, City staff were passing out comment cards that specified the November 6, 2009 deadline. Blumenfeld has all along acknowledged that the City of LA would take comments but the issue raised was that there is a big difference between "accepting" comments and "incorporating" comments.

The extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010 comes with the assurance that comments will be incorporated into a "revised" Draft Bike Plan that will be released in February of 2010 and that the community will then have two more months to review the Bike Plan before City Planning holds two public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission.

For many bike activists, the single greatest flaw in the Draft Bike Plan was the exclusion of the public in the process. Neighborhood Councils around the city took the Department of Transportation and City Planning to task for releasing the $450K Bike Plan with only 42 days of comment period. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (LABAC) voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period.

Shortly after the release of the Draft Bike Plan, Dr. Alex Thompson presented the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the NC Action Summit and called on the Neighborhood Council leaders to act quickly to declare the short comment period insufficient and prohibitive. NC's from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to East Hollywood to Mid City West to Woodland Hills-Warner Center all issued resolutions with the common theme, "the public needs more time!"

Perhaps the most robust and pointed resolution came from the CD11 Transportation Committee who took the 42 day comment period to be such a insult that they issued the following recommendations:

I. Recommendations to L.A. Bicycle Plan
1) The new L.A. Bicycle Plan should extend and enhance the 2007/2002/1996 Plan. Currently, it is a step backward from previous plans in both language and bicycle lane mileage.
2) The deadline for public input must be extended from November 6th (42 days of input) to January 8th (in excess of 90 days).
3) Every street is a street that cyclists will ride. This is the language of the Long Beach Bicycle Master Plan, currently a great success.
4) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should go through a full programmatic EIR. This will make its ambitions eligible for off the shelf and last minute funding, as well as open the possibility of reducing parking and travel lanes in some locations.
5) Retail should be a positive element in scoring streets for desirability of bikeways. Cyclists want to go to similar destinations as motorists.
6) Bicycle routes should be eliminated as a designation for the City of Los Angeles.
7) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should have predetermined annual performance measures included within it. These performance measures should not allow for the spontaneous designation of streets as Bike Friendly Streets without significant enhancement.
8) Neighborhood pilot projects must be included as an approach for experimenting with street treatments.

II. Recommendation to Change the Designation to a Different City Entity to Oversee the L.A. Bicycle Plan
Because the LADOT has shown a bias in favor of the movement of automobiles over the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee therefore concludes that the LADOT is woefully inadequate to effectuate a new Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles, and recommend the City designate a different entity to implement this important task, and to provide sufficient human and financial resources to do so.

From WestsideBikeside to BikeGirl to illuminateLA to the kids from FIRSTteamWestside to SoapBoxLA the community has responded clearly to the cavalier behavior of the LADOT and City Planning.

It's great to see the process work. Now, we can get busy creating a Bike Plan for the City of Los Angeles.

Here is the letter from Jane Blumenfeld:

Thank you for your interest in the update of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan. We'd like to share with you information about the next steps so that you can continue to participate in the development of the Plan.

City staff will take comments on the draft Bicycle Plan (which can be read on line at labikeplan.org) until January 8th, 2010. After January 8th, staff will begin to prepare a revised Plan (including the maps) based on all of the input that has been received through the website, at workshops, in letters, e-mails, and on comment cards. We anticipate releasing a staff report and a revised Draft Bicycle Plan in February 2010 and giving all interested parties two months to review the revised plan. We will then hold 2 public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission (one in the Valley and one near downtown) to hear your comments on the revised Plan.

Following the 2 hearings, the City Planning Commission will hold a public meeting in the spring to act on the revised plan. Staff will provide the Commission with information about the comments made at the two public hearings and any additional proposed modifications based on input received.

Following the City Planning Commission's action, two City Council committees will act on the City Planning Commission's recommendation for the Bicycle Plan: the Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) and the Transportation Committee. Their recommendations will then be considered by the full City Council.

Please contact Jordann Turner at 213 978-1379 if you have any questions.

Jane Blumenfeld
Acting Deputy Director
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
213 978-1272