LA’s City Hall: Mired in the Moment … Missing a Vision for the Future

CityWatch, Jan 6, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 2

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s ongoing budget crisis has allowed a triage mentality to permeate throughout City Hall, framing the ongoing debate over our future in the negative and conditioning the public to focus on what they can give up rather than what they want.

Each year the Mayor’s office gathers with neighborhood council representatives to solicit feedback on the Mayor’s Budget, a process that typically starts with “Where can we cut City Services in order to balance the budget?” and concludes with “Well, we had no choice!”

Along the way, the public is re assured that the decimation of city departments and the continued restriction of city services are inevitable and acceptable, after all, “We’re in the middle of an economic meltdown and it’s not our fault.”

This results in a commitment to the negative, a focus on the worst case scenario and a complete abdication of responsibility, all of which leads the city to engage in cost recovery revenue enhancements that are predatory and regressive.

If the City of LA is going to weather the current storm of unemployment, homelessness, home foreclosures, collapsing infrastructure, and crisis-mode delivery of city services, it must start with a resolution to get positive.

There are some who have set their focus so low that simple survival is considered a worthy accomplishment but I would contend that demonstrates a lack of vision and a failure to commit to success.

As the current budget process gets underway, it’s reasonable to ask a few hard questions of the Mayor, of the departmental managers, and of our City Council.

1) What successful municipal authorities have weathered the same economic storm that put LA on the rocks and what can we learn from their success?

Hint: Look to the LA County Board of Supervisors and take note of the contrast between the different strategies for prevailing during economic turbulence. The Supervisors negotiate contracts that will work through thick and thin while the City of LA squanders when it’s ahead and issues promises when it’s behind.

2) What successful municipal authorities have increased revenue without inflicting higher fees, fines, and penalties on its residents and businesses?

Hint: Look to Boston and take note of their economic growth, an increase of 4.8% in 2010, and their ranking as the sixth most economically powerful city in the world. Boston has created an “Innovation District” that is designed to bring major biotechnology business to town while LA still struggles with permits for sidewalk dining outside small cafes.

3) What successful municipal authorities have increased efficiencies in the delivery of city services without increasing costs?

Hint: Look to Long Beach and try to find the Department of Transportation. You won’t. You’ll find Public Works and within it you will find people working together on transportation, engineering, street services, etc. You’ll also find funding experts who represent a city 1/8th the size of LA yet when they go to the same funding sources, they ask for five times as much as LA and they get it. They prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work.

The people of Los Angeles have a right to leadership that is focused on a vision for the future, not simply a deferential survival of the storm, but a strong commitment to highly functional city machine that delivers city services and moves LA forward, confidently and successfully.

It’s time to reject the traditional budget triage and to reframe the debate, starting with the tough questions for the Mayor, the City Council and the department chiefs.

The LA Times took a shot at asking the candidates for Council District 15 some tough questions, but years of service to a sinking ship has left the editorial staff unable to come up with anything other than “Is there anything the city currently does that it should no longer be doing?” and “One more time: Because you acknowledge we have to cut something, is there anything the city doesn't need to do? Anything we could or should cut or leave to someone else?”

Missing from the interviews are questions that address a vision for LA’s future, the establishment of goals for the city and its departments, oversight and accountability of those performance goals, and a firm commitment for establishing outside revenue streams.

Of course, it’s not up to the LA Times to hold City Hall accountable, it’s up to us, the people of LA, and it starts with a resolution to reframe the debate and insist on a positive approach to the future that is built on a Great City vision.

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

405 Closure: A Tale of Two Tweets

CityWatch
Vol 9 Issue 57
Pub: July 19, 2011

RETHINKING LA - The much anticipated weekend closure of LA’s 405 freeway caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the threat of Carmageddon loomed heavy on the horizon and officials unleashed a barrage of “stay home” warnings in every format imaginable including relentless email blasts, repetitious press conferences, and electronic sign messaging throughout the countywide freeway system. As the world watched,@Jet Blue airlines seized on the opportunity and offered “jetpool” flights over the 405 between Burbank and Long Beach airports for $4. This press coup drew a challenge from @GaryRidesBikes who suggested that cyclists could beat a jet in door-to-door travel time. @TomVanderbilt, author of “Traffic, Why we Drive the Way We Do” and Slate columnist, accepted Gary’s tweet as a Top-Gear style challenge and, as the world watched, the race was on.

Jet Blue passengers @OhaiJoe and @EzraHorne hopped in a car for the ride to the Burbank Airport, while@WolfpackHustle cyclists rode from Burbank to Long Beach in a #flightvsbike race that saw Jet Blue CEO@davidjbarger join the flight to welcome the racers. (rumors that the Jet Blue pilot was racing the cyclists for pink slips were unconfirmed)

Ignoring the “stay home” advice of the naysayers, Gary entered the race representing the pedestrian/mass transit mode and walked to the Red Line, where he rode for free to the Blue Line, transferred for the ride to Long Beach where he then walked the final leg to the Long Beach Lighthouse. Total cost - $0.00.

The Wolfpack cyclists, an elite group of athletes who averaged 24+ mph on the ride to Long Beach, took an oath to ride legally, as did Gary who crossed all streets with the signal, prompting Vanderbilt to tweet “Where is@garyridesbikes? Probably stuck at one of those epic LA pedestrian crossings. #flightvsbikes”   The cost of the Wolfpack ride included lots of coffee, donuts, and a celebratory refueling that may have included malted beverages.

As the dust settled, the cyclists won in 1:34, the ped/transit combo placed at 1:54, and @Jennix, who surprised the field with her stealth entrance on inline skates, showed at 2:34. Jenni is no stranger to long distance skating and leads “The Night Skate” rides on the streets of LA.

Meanwhile, the airline passengers enjoyed a record 12 minute Jet Blue flight, but experienced connectivity issues that included the traditional security maze and a taxi-cab driver who couldn’t find the Long Beach Lighthouse, the large navigational facility that is traditionally used as a guide to travelers. Joe and Ezra ended up walking the final leg for a 2:52 fourth place finish. Their $4 Jet Blue tickets included consolation prizes of cake, snacks, and Jet Blue gift bags.

@WolfpackHustle reveled in their victory by noting “Meanwhile... our politicians and police cowered and bit their nails, telling people to stay home and avoid this beautiful weekend.”

@JetBlue proved to be good sports about the race and asked for a rematch, this time racing from LAX to JFK.

As for the taxi-cab driver, his inability to help travelers in the first/last mile connection of multi-modal transportation demonstrates the big opportunity to be found in little solutions, such as the Wolfpack offer of $8 bike rides back to Burbank.

While other cities embrace bikeshare programs, pedicab networks, jitneys and streetcar connectors, LA continues to invest in transportation philosophy that is fully a generation behind in commitment to modal choices and connectivity.

If there is anything to be learned from Carmageddon’s peaceful non-appearance it’s this:

1) Angeleno’s are resilient and innovative - Time after time, whether it was the ‘84 Olympics, the Northridge earthquake, the Metro strike, or the shutdown of the 405, there are many ways to get around LA and it’s up to LA’s leadership to support great sustainable choices.

2) Great choices support sustainable behavior -  If LA’s leadership were to give walking and cycling the same support that they just gave the $1 billion widening of the 405 freeway, LA would experience traffic congestion relief at a fraction of the price and Angeleno’s would have great multi-modal choices.

3) Metro Works - Increasing service frequency and offering free rides through anticipated congested areas yielded positive results, demonstrating the folly of the recent Metro service cuts. Dollar for dollar, the cost of offering service pales in comparison to not offering service.

4) Celebrate the local economy - Theatres offered $4.05 tickets, bars offered $4.05 beverages, and neighborhoods citywide celebrated the opportunity to slow down to a local pace, enjoying the many local attractions that can get missed as one races to the Woodland Hills Costco.

5) Freeway Closures Rule - The success of the 405 closure had such a positive impact on life in the Los Angeles basin that some suggest it should be a regular event. A poll at Bitter Lemons yielded an 84% favorable response to the question “Should Los Angeles make Carmageddon a Regional Holiday and shut down the 405 once a year?”

6) Carmageddon is now Karmageddon - We reap what we sow and as Doug Failing, the Metro’s executive director of highway projects, pointed out “There is not a lot of elasticity in the system, even on the weekends.” The 405 closure just demonstrated the efficacy of a multi-modal commitment combined with a behavioral shift. A billion dollars of freeway widening is going to have a hard time competing with that kind of impact. The choice is ours.

Los Angeles just experienced a significant triumph of the Complete Streets philosophy, one that embraces all modes of transportation and commits to supporting choice as the essential element of a transportation system with the “elasticity” that our freeway system lacks.

As for next steps, it’s time to congratulate the State of California, the County of LA, the City of LA, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and everyone else involved with the 405 closure for demonstrating that when it matters, they can work together to make it happen. Now it’s time for them to put that same focus on making the streets of LA a great place to go for a walk, to ride a bicycle, to catch a bus, to hop on a train, to get to the airport, and yes, to drive a car.

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

Breakin' the law and proud of it!

One would think that those about to break the law would be discrete about it, but when law enforcement and municipal authorities get busy abusing rules and violating rights, some of them do it with bravado and confidence, announcing their actions with confidence.

The City of Los Angeles recently released a flyer and an accompanying email that informs the public "No bicyclists allowed within the construction zone along PCH" which violates the California Vehicle Code and the Caltrans standard for access and accommodation. It is incumbent on the City of LA to provide for all modes and taking one group off the street is not a solution, no matter how well-intentioned. It demonstrates that those in charge are either cavalier or uninformed. Either way, it's not only illegal, it's unsafe and the variable K-Rail traffic plan is a tragedy waiting to happen.

The City of Malibu takes a different approach to breaking the law, allowing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), which is responsible for PCH through the City of Malibu, to enforce laws that don't exist. In response to a complaint that cyclists were not riding single file (not required to, no such law) the LASD incorrectly advised the City Manager that riding side-by-side was illegal. In response to a complaint that cyclists weren't riding on the shoulder (not required to, no such law) the LASD incorrectly advised the City Manager that cyclists are required to use the shoulder when one exists. This novel approach to law enforcement has further exacerbated an already tense environment by adding confusion and misinformation to the mix.

The City of Santa Monica has a unique style for breaking the law, taking valid laws and then cranking them up to the point of absurdity. Santa Monica, as permitted by state law, cites cyclists for not having bike licenses. But then Santa Monica goes on to exceed their authority by requiring anyone riding through the city to obtain a permit (state law limits bike license requirements to residents) and then applies a penalty that exceeds the state mandated $10 maximum with a threat of six months in jail and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

The City of Thousand Oaks finds California Vehicle Code very confusing and gets highways and roadways mixed up, applying both inappropriate and fictional standards to cyclists who ride bikes "the wrong way" on sidewalks, explaining that cyclists must ride to the right of vehicular traffic traveling in the same direction. (sidewalks are non-directional) The penalty for this offense is $180.


The City of Los Altos Hills is one of the proudest offenders, they actually took paint to the street and wrote "No Bikes" in very large letters on El Monte Road, a popular cycling route. To their credit, Los Altos Hills quickly reversed their ways and removed all the offending paint, disappointing the cyclist who pointed out that simply removing the "NO" would leave a nice affirmative on the streets.

The City of Pasadena chose the public hearing process as the venue of choice for their assault on the law, scheduling not one but two readings of their proposed restriction on cyclists, all as a result of congestion and conflict at the Rose Bowl. Invoking the non-existent rights of a municipality to restrict cyclists from riding side-by-side, the City Council twice weathered the storm of public outrage that ran into the late night hours before conceding defeat.

The City of Burbank adds a stern touch to the Chandler Bikeway with their "Walk Bike" signage at crossings, enforcing a non-existent law with white rectangular regulatory authority. While their stated intention is "safety" for the cyclists, perhaps it would be safer for all concerned if the motorists were instructed to exit their vehicles and push them through the intersection. Meanwhile, the conflict on the Chandler Bikeway can be found...on the path.

The City of Los Angeles took note of Burbank's misuse of regulatory signage and ordered yellow advisory "Walk Bike in Crosswalk" signage that they posted on Jefferson Avenue outside USC, apparently in an effort to support the estimated 15,000 cyclists who ride to school. While good advice is always appreciated, this advice is hardly good and it comes with the threat of a $250 ticket for violating a warning! The LADOT installed the signs and the LAPD supported the effort by working with USC's Department of Public Safety to enforce the mythological law. This dubious partnership has resulted in an empowered DPS which now operates with an inflated perception of their legal authority, to the dismay of those who know the law.

The City of Los Angeles is no stranger to the controversy over cyclists riding in the crosswalk. Last year a cyclist rode across the street in a crosswalk in a residential community, only to be struck by a right turning DWP truck and killed. The LAPD determined that the cyclist was the "primary cause" of the incident because "she was riding a bike in a crosswalk in violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road." the LAPD PIO went on to explain that "Cyclists must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic." The City Attorney's office continues to support this position, even when contradicted by CVC 21650. Meanwhile, the City of LA and the Metro continue to build bike paths such as the Orange Line that take cyclists across intersections in crosswalks.

The City of Los Angeles is in good company when it comes to misunderstanding crosswalks. Conor Lynch was recently killed while crossing the street midblock. The LAPD was quoted by the LA Times in pointing out that Conor was not crossing the street in a crosswalk. This may have been true, but it reflects a misconception that midblock crossings are "jaywalking" violations but they're not. Streets are for crossing unless between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signal devices or law enforcement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEPmomM1YvQ

The City of Long Beach went beyond inappropriate flyers and signage, selecting YouTube as the appropriate venue for a demonstration of their creative law enforcement strategies. Some might cringe when hearing the LBPD Officer state "You know what, because you’re argumentative, I’m gonna give you another ticket. And then you can fight two tickets." A punitive ticket, clearly explained by the offending law enforcement officer!

The LBPD officer sets the tone for the interaction by informing the cyclist "You were impeding my traffic." In doing so he clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of CVC 21656 "On a two-lane highway...a slow-moving vehicle...behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway..."

The LBPD officer goes on to misquote the law, telling the cyclist that the California Vehicle Code says "‘bicyclists must ride to the right side of the road." It doesn't. CVC 21654 says "...any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb... "Or" is a mighty big word.

Cyclists in the LA Area are acutely aware that the legal landscape is quite uneven. Different agencies, authorities, and departments vary greatly in their interpretation of the law and their enforcement strategies. LA County is home to 88 municipalities and the number of different law enforcement authorities is quite large. Within the City of Los Angeles, a cyclist may encounter officers from departments that include CHP Troopers, State Park Rangers, County Sheriffs, Harbor Police Airport Police, School Police, Library Police, General Services Police, City Park Rangers, and of course, the Los Angeles Police Department. Collectively, they enforce the law. Individually, they operate according to their own priorities and interpretations.

This is why the cyclists of LA need the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that starts the conversation affirmatively, with a foundation of rights that are already codified in the constitution, the CVC, departmental directives, policies, and municipal codes.

LA's pilot Sharrows project demonstrates need for Standards and Accountability

(photo by Joe Linton)

What a production!

LA's first official Sharrow on Fountain Ave., heading east from Western, directs cyclists toward the first pothole. The rocky road continues because the Sharrows line up with the right tire track of the motor vehicle traffic, typically the most worn area of the street.

In the other direction, the first Sharrow on Fountain Ave., heading west from Vermont, places cyclists in the right turn lane, a lane that doesn't continue through the intersection. This sets up the cyclist for a "right-hook" collision and directs them into the back of the upcoming parked cars.

Along the way, cyclists enjoy Sharrows that are consistently 12' from the curb but vary in distance from the center line of the street by a distance that ranges from 18' to less than 7' which results in a meandering journey down Sharrow Lane.

Making the journey more interesting is the fact that the placement of the Sharrows is not context sensitive, failing to take into account anything other the presence of on-street parking and the distance from the curb. Road conditions? Potholes? Varying intersection treatments? Water Mains? Driveways, parking lots, destinations, human behavior, anything? Nothing!

The LADOT's Bikeways Department has committed four significant missteps in the opening moves of LA's nascent Sharrows program. How about some standards!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to move cyclists out of the Door Zone, define the Door Zone and set a standard for the position of the Sharrows based on the stated intent to clear the Door Zone. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to move cyclists to the correct lateral position on a non-sharable (side-by-side) lane, define the correct position and set a standard for the position of the Sharrows based on the stated intent to correctly position the cyclist in the travel lane. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to alert road users within a narrow traveled way of the lateral location where bicyclists ride, one would think that there would be some signage supporting the Sharrows. R4-11 "Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs fit the bill. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows it to reduce conflict and improve safety on the streets for all road users, define the behavior that is desired and then set a standard. Passing distances? Predictable riding? Here come the Standards!

Standards are good for the success of LA's pilot Sharrows project, they are good for the success of the larger commitment to implementing Sharrows throughout LA, they are good for developing project oversight tools, they are good for engaging the community by clearly communicating expectations, and they are good for cyclists and other road users because they offer real tools for evaluating the successful implementation of LA's pilot Sharrows project.



Local cyclists look to the City of Long Beach and ask why Los Angeles can't have a Green Shared Lane that serves as "an invitation to ride" but at every turn the answer is "No!" Yet the person responsible for saying "No!" is anonymous, hidden from the public. Now is the time for the LADOT's Bikeways Department to 'fess up and reveal the truthfulness in their rejection of the Green Shared Lane. Who is in charge of the Department of "No!" and why can't Los Angeles have creative and innovative transportation solutions that truly support cycling on the streets of Los Angeles? Why must the LADOT's Bikeways Department consistently resist any effort to move forward with transportation innovations? Why must it be always be a fight to move forward?

Local cyclists look to the City of Hermosa Beach and ask why Los Angeles can't have Sharrows in the center of the travel lane supported by signage that reinforces the rights of cyclists to control the lane. The R4-11 sign has been requested by cyclists before but the LADOT's Bikeways Department responds with an unattributed "No!" that serves as a deterrent but comes with no transparency or accountability.

If nothing else, this Fountain Ave. Sharrows journey has demonstrated the need for the LADOT's Bikeways Department to:

1) develop, implement, and communicate Sharrows standards, with clearly stated goals and expectations. This must be coupled with some form of oversight and accountability. Take a look at Oakland's Sharrow Standards for an example.

2) develop and reveal a clear hierarchy of authority so that the people of Los Angeles know who is in charge, who they must appeal to, who is responsible and who is accountable. The LADOT's Bikeways Department is in charge when convenient, they play victim when it gets heated, they feign helplessness when convenient, and they go missing in action when there is controversy.

Who would have thought! Sharrows have the potential to reinforce good behavior for cyclists, good behavior for motorists, and good behavior for bureaucrats. Not bad for simple paint on the streets!

CityWatchLA - Find a Bright Spot and Clone It

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

Fast Company magazine features an article by columnists Chip Heath and Dan Heath that proposes a counter-intuitive approach to problem solving, especially when the problem is one of significant size.

Find a bright spot and clone it.

That's the first step to fixing everything from addiction to corporate malaise to malnutrition. A problem may look hopelessly complex. But there's a game plan that can yield movement on even the toughest issues. And it starts with locating a bright spot -- a ray of hope.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a budget crisis that calls for complex solutions of revenue enhancement, of systemic efficiencies, of budget cuts, and of staffing reductions, I looked to our neighbors for that "Bright Spot" and I found Long Beach.

Long Beach and Los Angeles compete for the same money and yet somehow Long Beach seems to come out ahead of LA. For example, LA and LB both submitted proposals to the Metro during the Call for Projects, asking for money to install bike racks on sidewalks throughout the respective cities. Both Long Beach and Los Angeles were awarded money but Long Beach's award exceeded LA's by a factor of 40 to 1 per capita.

The result is that Long Beach received money from the Metro's Call, paid their Public Works employees to install the bike racks, and went to work improving the quality of life in their community.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles took the smaller award, gave it to a contractor, decided that supervising the contract was too much work and suspended the program, citing the budget crisis as the cause.

Long Beach put their city employees to work with a well-funded program, Los Angeles churned paper and folded.

There are a couple of Bright Spots here that should serve as "Rays of Hope" as we look for long-term solutions to the budget crisis.

Long Beach filed ambitious requests for funding. The project is simple, the installation of inverted-U bike racks, but the request was comprehensive and it did three things; it put people to work, it served as a traffic congestion solution, and it contributed to a street revitalization program. With half a million residents, Long Beach has a population one eighth the size of LA but they asked for five times as much as Los Angeles (40 to 1 per capita) and they prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work. It took no more time or energy or paper to ask for the larger amount of money.

It took a simple commitment to actions that resonate.

A bike rack may not seem like a comprehensive solution to our budget crisis but if installing them puts people to work, if the money to pay people to install them is there for the asking, why aren't we putting in more bike racks?

Is it time to shift from a problem focus to a solution focus? is it time to look for flashes of success?

We can deliberate, we can pontificate, and we can negotiate but if we want to change course, it's important that we look for success stories and bright spots, then we must duplicate them.

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