LADOT: Driven to Distraction

CityWatch, July 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 53

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s Department of Transportation has been busy at work in our communities, removing crosswalks, increasing speed limits, dodging critical audits, and fixing tickets through the City Hall Gold Card program.

So busy, in fact, that they continue to miss the well intended and even better funded advice offered by the State of California on how they can bring Safe Routes to School money to the streets of LA, grants that would result in streets that are safer for children who walk and bicycle to school.

The federal (SRTS) and state (SR2S) Safe Routes to School programs have a simple mandate, to empower local communities as they work to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and routine activity. The funded projects include roadway and sidewalk improvements as well as education and encouragement programs.

The City of Los Angeles has a notoriously poor track record with Safe Routes to School programs and has repeatedly drawn the ire of the City Council for simply failing to perform. Four years ago Councilman Grieg Smith exclaimed "Our Department of Transportation is one of the slowest, most bureaucratic departments in the city, I am constantly banging my head against the wall to get them to do what I want them to do."

This outburst came in city council chambers when it was revealed that funding was in place to improve nearly three dozen of LA’s most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren but the work had not been done. LADOT’s Assistant General Manager John Fisher defended the department by explaining that the department was busy with regular and routine projects. “Safe Routes to School programs are ‘special’ projects.”

David Anderson, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said "Nothing is more important than the safety of children, which is why Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration are reviewing the projects administered by local agencies to determine actions for improvement."

Two and half years ago, the LADOT received a review from Caltrans that categorized LA’s proposals as “Boilerplate, cookie cutter applications with identical wording.”

The City of Los Angeles was taken to task for sloppy work such as attaching the same generic letters of support to each application in lieu of conducting actual community outreach and generating project applications with the participation of the impacted neighborhoods. “SR2S and SRTS applications must be prepared from the grass-roots ground-up, not from the top-down, as it appears the City of L.A. applications were.”

LA was also called out for disguising vehicular flow improvement projects as pedestrian and cyclist safety enhancements. “The City of Los Angeles consistently stuck to the same limited number of tools that generally favor traffic operation over safety.”

One of the reviewers wrote “As a resident of the City of Los Angeles it pained me to give low scores to my own city, but I did not feel poor applications could be given passing scores. Doing so would ensure no improvement in the future.”

That sentiment is rare in City Hall where the “Fair Share!” mantra reigns supreme and the commitment to quality proposals and efficiently implemented programs falls by the wayside.

The City of LA entered this most recent Safe Routes to School funding cycle on the “Red Flag” list, ineligible for funding because of a failure to implement prior funded projects. In short, LA qualifies for funding but fails to put that money to work on improvements and education that would make our streets safer for children as they walk and bicycle to school.

After exerting more energy beating the system than it would take to simply excel at the Safe Route to School program, the LADOT is now off the “Red Flag” list and in the process of delivering the current roster of Safe Routes to School projects, all of which work together to demonstrate a complete failure to improve since the last round of funding.

The LADOT is the lead department for LA’s Safe Routes to School funding. Theoretically, the projects can come from the community but, in practice, the process takes place within a committee made up of City Council and City Department representatives, resulting in projects that were recently approved by LA’s Transportation Committee with only cursory oversight.

The deadline for the current SRTS funding cycle is July 15, 2011 which leaves no time for active participation from the community on the prioritization of projects or input on the specifics of individual projects. LA will be submitting 10 infrastructure and 2 non-infrastructure proposals, apparently excluding parochial and private schools from the process as if those children don’t have the right to safe streets that accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

When staff from Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the LA Unified School District (LAUSD) and Ventura County collectively take the City of LA to task for consistently failing to perform in the Safe Routes to School funding program, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s program.

When the City Council takes the LADOT to task for waiting until the last minute to involve the council offices in the process, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s process.

When the City of LA repeatedly conducts the business of the people in a manner that excludes the public while applying for grants that require the participation of the community in developing the applications, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s Department of Transportation.

Most importantly, when the LADOT is busy defending itself against charges of inappropriate use of Measure R funding, double-dipping on federal funds, and other roadside distractions that consume management energy and focus, it’s worth taking a look at our streets and asking Mayor Villaraigosa “Who’s in charge of making our streets safer for our children?”

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

CityWatchLA - Mayor’s 30/10 Vision: Is Metro Up To Task?

CityWatch, Mar 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 24

Mayor Villaraigosa recently traveled to Washington DC to drum up support for the "30/10" plan that would enable the LA Metro to put 30 years of Measure R Transportation funds to work on an accelerated 10 year schedule that would a bring a dozen mega-projects to life within the decade.

All that is needed is federal backing for the creation of a Transportation Bank that would then loan billions of dollars to the Metro based on the anticipation of sales tax revenues from the future. Voters approved the Measure R ½-cent sales tax last year but the typically long term nature of transportation planning, funding, and construction meant that many voters would not see the Measure R projects become a reality. The "30/10" plan would change that. And, in addition, would produce jobs now.

This is the kind of vision that could change the landscape of LA County in many ways, not just in terms of improved connectivity but also by stimulating employment and improving the community economically and environmentally.

The tough question is not "Can the Mayor pull off the funding coup?" The really hard question that nobody is asking is this, "Can the Metro bring a dozen mega-projects to life within the decade?" It doesn't look good.

1) The Metro's own staff doesn’t believe in the Metro.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the Metro's own staff are less likely to walk, bike, ride the Metro's bus or rail system or car-pool than the general public.

What is it about going to work for the Metro that prompts them to engage in behavior that is at odds with the mandate of the Regional Transportation authority?

Approximately 7% of the general public rides the Metro but only 1.6% of the Metro staff takes advantage of the free Metro pass and then puts it to work.

If nothing else, having 9200 staff members ride the Metro would offer a supreme opportunity for oversight and feedback but somehow the Metro can't even convince its own staff to "Go Metro!"

2) The Metro's customers don't believe in the Metro.

Whether it's the zoo-like gates, the illusory TAP cards, the erratic service, the behavior of bus operators on the streets, the inter-departmental confusion or the painful Board meetings, Metro patrons have plenty to complain about and the Metro's own survey reveals that the Metro serves people who simply have no other choice.

Granted, that's a huge simplification and there are plenty of satisfied Metro passengers who travel regularly and effectively and without complaint. Unfortunately, they are not in the majority and that is the simple test that the Metro can't pass.

When the majority of Metro passengers ride because they have a choice, not because they have no choice, then and only then will the Metro have a system in place that should be super-funded and taken wide. Until then, slow down and focus on the details.

3) Metro’s commitment lagging.

The Metro's commitment to a multi-modal transportation system is lagging behind that of the Federal and State government, leaving in doubt the Metro's ability to bring a robust and comprehensive list of mass-transit projects to life in 10 years. In fact ramping up the funding and the schedule would be the motivation for cutting the multi-modal corners even more dramatically.

The Metro must commit to supporting all modes of transportation, beginning with those who walk. Pedestrians turn into Metro customers if they can access the system but that requires a commitment to walkable streets. Are the standards in place?

Cyclists are gap connectors that increase systemic capacity but their ability to become Metro customers depends on simple accommodations including access to rail cars, functional racks on buses and bike parking at Metro stations, the holy grail of cycling! "Is there any room left for the cyclists?" has been the Metro's approach to bike planning for too long. That must change.

4) Lack of oversight.

The Metro's lack of oversight and casual approach to the details are causes for slowing down the process, not accelerating it, and now is the time to implement systemic changes in the way the Metro engages in the business of planning, building, and operating our regional transportation system.

From blocked emergency exits to homeless encampments to safety hazards to malfunctioning equipment, the Metro's inability to accept feedback and respond effectively allows the system to muddle along, desensitizing patrons and normalizing mediocrity.

From bike paths to escalators to security cameras to intercoms, the Metro should be in the business of checking, double-checking and ensuring a high level of performance, not simply offering excuses. Unfortunately, offering excuses is the Metro's current strong suit.

The Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station is considered a "flagship" station which makes it especially unfortunate that ribbon cutting on the W Hollywood, LA's largest Transit Oriented Development caught the Metro off-guard.

Only now, after repeated calls from the public, is the Metro attempting to engage Operations, Planning, Security and Real Estate to ask the tough questions such as "Who has the little key for the toilet paper dispenser?" and "Where do the LAPD have authority and where does the W Hollywood security have authority and where do the LASD and the Metro Transit Police have authority?" along with the popular "Where do the cyclists park their bikes?"

This project has been in the works for over a decade and it is only after the ribbon cutting that the Metro responds to complaints and actually conducts a site survey to evaluate their responsibilities and their shortcomings.

5) Not talking to authorities.

The Metro's inability to synchronize with local authorities, municipal transit operators, law enforcement departments, developers, property managers, and with itself is a cry for intervention, not for funding. LA County will have a Comprehensive Transportation System in place when a passenger can ride smoothly throughout the region without having to pay over and over again, experiencing the shortcomings of a Balkanized environment that leaves casual passengers and tourists scratching their heads and wondering "Why can't we get along?" Is there nobody (C'mon Tony!) that can pull it together?

Funding the Metro now with 30 years of anticipated Measure R proceeds would be like offering the Hatfields and McCoys moonshine and guns.

Now, more than ever, the Metro must engage in a diplomatic mission that results in a regional ticketing process that integrates all transit operators.

Now is the time to synchronize the local authorities so that effectiveness is the goal and competitiveness is ended.

Law enforcement must end the petty "blinders" approach to responsibility that results in enforcement gaps and confusion on the streets.

The Metro's Real Estate department must take responsibility for the performance of its development partners and not simply execute contracts and walk away from the communities that suffer from TOD failure.

But most of all, the Metro needs to get it together and stop the inter-departmental game of hot potato that occurs when a customer makes a complaint.

A recent call regarding the missing bike parking and lack of maintenance at the Hollywood & Vine Station was sent from Bike Planning to Real Estate and back to Bike Planning and then to the Sheriff and then back Real Estate and then to Operations. The Mayor's staff got involved and suggested taking it to the Metro Board.

Is it any wonder the Metro Board hears petty complaints? No one else can handle them!

The Mayor's 30-10 vision, if funded, has the potential to change the way LA moves. But only if the Metro is able to rise to the occasion and become the requisite partner in greatness that can match the big vision with a big commitment to the details.

At this point, the vision is in place, the funding is in play, and it's up to the Metro to rise to the occasion.

Go Metro! Or, Metro be gone!

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

Measure R Funding Followup - It Pays to Check the Math!

A City Watch article combined with 60 seconds of public comment resulted in an adjustment to the proposed Measure R Local Return budget, yielding a $7.3 Million increase in Bike/Ped funding.

At issue is the Mayor and the City Council's Transportation Committee's commitment to bike and pedestrian advocates that 10% of Measure R Local Return funds would be set-aside for Bike/Ped projects.

The 10% commitment had advocates celebrating but a check of the math revealed a small $7.3 million problem, the LADOT had calculated the 10% on net funds yielding $10.8 million over the next 5 years instead of on gross which would yield $18.1 million.

I wrote of the error for CityWatch but even my nearest and dearest pointed out that it was difficult to read at best. Apparently what mattered is that Councilman Alarcon's staff read it and they were engaged.

I showed up for Wednesday's Transportation Committee ready to debate the LADOT's spread sheet and to fight for the $7.3 million but the conference room on the 10th floor was dark. It turned out that the City Council was still in session, debating Medical Marijuana. The long delay gave me the opportunity to attempt to engage other bike/ped advocates in a discussion of the misleading math that made up the preferred Measure R Local Return budget and to prepare for public comment.

Public comment at City Hall is typically an exercise in futility that ranges in effectiveness somewhere between Pony Show theatrics to a cry for help. Because of the late hour we were given 60 seconds to make our case before the Transportation Committee, a tough window on any day, made tougher because I would be discussing a $181 million dollar budget gross and net calculations and unrelated funding for mega Transit projects.

I gave it 60 seconds of summary, the buzzer went off and I concluded to silence. Then, as I stood to leave, the City's Legislative Analyst said "You're right." I waited but that was it. I asked "So then you'll fix it?" It was that simple. "Yes."

It took a City Watch article to get their attention, it took a half day of milling about City Hall for 60 seconds of public comment and it resulted in $7.3 million in additional funding for bike/ped projects.

I'm convinced, more than ever, we must pay attention and we must stay engaged!

CityWatchLA - Truth Getting Lost in the Measure R Feeding Frenzy

CityWatch, Nov 17, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 94

The Measure R feeding frenzy has just begun and LA's Department of Transportation has already created a cloud of confusion as it sets out to convince the City Council that when distributing $181.2 million in Local Return funds, the 10% Bike/Ped allocation amounts to $10.8 million. (Shouldn't it be $18.1 million?) The LADOT continues by referring to the Administrative Cost of $3.5 million as 2% (fair enough) and the Local Match set-aside of $73.4 million as 3% (not even close!) This bit of financial alchemy demonstrates the LADOT's knack for telling the truth, only the truth but not the whole truth.

At issue is the distribution of the Measure R Local Return funds which amount to 15% of the $30-40 billion that the Metro will collect over the next 30 years as a result of the half-percent sales tax increase that was approved by voters last year.

Relying on the Metro's revenue estimates, the City of Los Angeles anticipates collecting $181.2 million in Local Return funds over the next five years and is poised to approve a plan at Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting that will lay down a budget for the funds that have been accruing since this past July.

During the contentious process that preceded the approval of Measure R, the 15% Local Return was conceived in response to the objections of the communities and constituent groups. They argued that Measure R would cost them money but yield them no specific returns.

By design, the 15% Local Return funds would empower locals with funds to support the projects that were not specifically included in the Measure R budget and long range transportation plan.

When the Measure R Ordinance was presented to the voters, Local Return projects were defined as "major street resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction; pothole repair; left turn signals; bikeways; pedestrian improvement; streetscapes; signal synchronization; and transit" and it was to be distributed on a per capita basis.

Demonstrating a bookkeeping style that must be the envy of Hollywood Studios and Three Card Monte dealers alike, the LADOT and its Interdepartmental Committee (IDC) partners are proposing a budget that calculates on gross revenues when necessary to diminish (admin costs just 2% of gross,) on net proceeds in order to enhance (bike/ped funds are fully 10% of net,) and on unrelated figures in an effort to distract (3% local match is based on another budget!)

Most disturbing is that the IDC proposes to start the process of budgeting for the anticipated Local Return revenue by funneling 40.5% ($73.4 million) back to the Metro to satisfy LA's "3% local match contribution" to the Measure R "mega transit/rail projects" which include the Crenshaw Transit Corridor, Canoga Transit Line, and the Subway to the Sea Projects. (this is where "3%" actually amounts to 40.5%)

There are three significant problems with this the LADOT and IDC proposed budget:

First, the immediate and local transportation needs of LA communities should not have to compete with the "mega" projects of the region. The Local Return funding was established to prevent the project vs. project drama that is divisive to the community. The Local Return funds must be spent on Local Return projects, not siphoned off for "mega" match obligations.

Second, playing fast and loose with the percentages leaves naive bike/ped advocates lined up with their porridge bowls, thinking that when the LADOT promises 10%, it means 10%. It doesn't. It means 6%.

The only way to fix this is to take the $3.5 million in Administrative Costs and the $3.8 million in Council Office Discretionary Funds, and add them to the current $10.8 million bike/ped allocation. This totals $18.1 million, which amounts to 10% of the anticipated Local Return of $181.2 million over the next 5 years.

Third, this whole process demonstrates the real need for a Transportation Vision that commits Los Angeles to a robust and comprehensive transportation system, one based on equality and a commitment to creating real transportation choices for everybody. At the federal and the state level, the simple standard is to accommodate people of all modes all the time.

Yet in Los Angeles, cyclists compete with street furniture for funding, pedestrians compete with transit passengers, motorists compete with each other, council districts compete with their constituents, and city departments simply grab their budgets and hide.

The people of Los Angeles need to demand a real Transportation Vision, the LADOT needs to step away from the cash-box, and the bike/ped advocates need to count their change before they leave the window.

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

CityWatchLA - Metro’s Identity Crisis

CityWatch, July 14, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 56

The Metro is proposing to take LA's cycling community for a ride, one step forward and two steps backward, all in a misguided effort to revise the Metro's bikes-on-rail policy.

Current Metro policy prohibits cyclists from bringing their bikes on rail during peak hours (6:30 am - 8:30 am and 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm) a policy that is rarely enforced or even acknowledged based on the anecdotal presence of bikes on most Metro light rail during these hours.

The Metro is proposing to remove the restriction, a simple action that should be hailed by the cycling community with cheers of "They like us! Right now, they really like us!"

But a quick survey of the eight-page handout for the proposed policy revision revealed the small print, the details, the motivation for the out-of-character "What have we done for the cycling community lately?" posture of the Metro. Under the "enhance safety" bullet point, the Metro addressed safety by slipping in a universal limit on cyclists with a two bikes per rail car limit. This means that the last Red Line train from NoHo in the middle of the night, one that typically has two cars, would be limited to 4 cyclists.

The late night trains are typically light on passengers but heavy on bikes. It also means that during busy times, cyclists would be racing back and forth on the platform with their bikes, counting cyclists and looking for the "light" rail car. Hardly a safety improvement on the platform!

There are a couple of significant issues here, bigger than the simple specifics of where the bikes go and how many fit.

1) Bikes are a form of transportation. Cyclists are able to get around the city and fill Metro service gaps because of their bikes. Metro passengers are able to get farther and to fill service gaps because of their bikes. We should be supporting the potential synergy here, not limiting its efficacy by excluding cyclists with limitations that apply to no other user group.

Mike Cannell, the General Manager for Metro Rail Operations, explained that with the increase in ridership on the Metro Rail, space has become increasingly scarce. Good point. He pointed out that with the success of the Flyaway from the airport, more and more passengers are taking luggage on the Train. Good point. He pointed out that when you add strollers, carts and ... gasp ... one time he saw a guy with a Christmas tree, we're really now all competing for limited and finite space. Good points!

BUT...bicycles are a transportation solution. When the guy can ride his Christmas tree from the train station to his home, it should be in the same category as the bicycle, but until that day, bikes support and enhance the Metro Rail service as a form of complementary, not just alternative, transportation. All else is "stuff" and to limit bicycles to two per car while not limiting strollers, wagons, luggage, and other personal property demonstrates a clear attitude of "What are we gonna do with all of these cyclists?"

Cannell continued by pointing out that the presence of "all of these bikes" was a violation of the fire and penal codes because of the blocked doorways. He was asked if It was the "blocked doorways" that was the violation or if it was "the bikes blocking the doorways" that was the violation. He responded that it was the bikes. When pressed, he repeated that the prohibition was against bikes, not people or luggage or strollers or Christmas Trees, but against bikes.

Cannell's team pointed out that the space on a rail car is finite and a bike takes up space, thereby reducing Rail Car capacity. Cyclists countered, "By riding a bike, cyclists complement the Metro and close service gaps in the system, thereby increasing Transportation System capacity!"

Crickets chirped when the Metro staff was asked if anybody had actually counted cyclists on buses, on rail, and on the streets and if there was any information or data to support this discussion and the proposed policy recommendations.

The Metro doesn't count cyclists because, apparently, cyclists don't count.

2) The Metro has an identity crisis. Anyone who visits the Metro with any regularity is reminded of the old tale of the Elephant surrounded by the blind men. Essentially, six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body.

The blind man who feels a leg says "It's like a pillar!" The one who feels the tail says "It's like a rope!" The one who feels the trunk says "It's like a tree branch!" The one who feels the ear says "It's like a hand fan!" The one who feels the belly says "It's like a wall! The one who feels the tusk says "It's like a solid pipe!"

The Metro is the proverbial "elephant." The Train folks exclaim "The Metro is a Rail System supported by bus connectivity."

The Bus Operations folks exclaim "The Metro is a Bus System that saturates the region with connectivity but competes with Rail for operating funds!"

The Training folks exclaim "It's a conflicted environment with everybody in our way!" The Real Estate folks exclaim "It's a development opportunity supported by transit!"

The Parking Lot folks exclaim "Seriously, look around. It's a parking lot supported by transit!" The Outreach folks exclaim "It's an opportunity to engage and to create community!" The Pedestrian folks exclaim "Hey, where's the elephant?"

The Bicycle folks exclaim "Don't anger the elephant!" Through it all, the local municipalities and agencies look at the elephant and see an ATM that's gonna dispense $40 Billion of Measure R money over the next 30 years, all to projects based on the Metro's priorities and oversight.

The Metro, by design, is our Regional Transportation Authority. It's an "elephant" and all of "the blind men" are correct. It's many things, but first and foremost, it is responsible for creating and funding a Transportation System that services all modes, using all methods and moving all people.

Federal funds along with Measure R funds put the Metro in a significant position of power and the character of our regional Transportation System is due to the priorities that are established at the top. The Metro funds everything from freeways to bike lanes to educational materials to the trees that make it more pleasant to walk to the bus stop.

Based on results it is evident that the Metro has meandered in its commitment to creating a Transportation System with a "multi-modal" commitment to moving people.

There is hope that this is going to change. The Metro has a new CEO, Art Leahy, and a new Chairman of the Board, Ara Najarian, both of whom have a reputation for innovation and a commitment to civil service.

Leahy and Najarian now have the opportunity to work together to integrate the many opinions of "the blind men" into a cohesive vision and mission for "the elephant." It's on them to create a real regional Transportation System that is committed to moving all people using all modes and that is committed to improving the quality of life for our communities.

Their first challenge is on the horizon and will come up this Thursday in the Operations Committee when the limit of the number of cyclists comes up for a vote. As Cannell puts it, "This system wasn't built with cyclists in mind."

The Metro now has the opportunity to address that oversight and to integrate cyclists as transportation solutions into a real Transportation System. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

CityWatchLA - MTA: Take Me to Your Leader

CityWatch, June 12, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 47

Those who doubt that the City of Los Angeles is a ship adrift in treacherous waters need only visit the Metro Board to watch our Captain in action and they'll leave convinced that we are in dire straits.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa shows up late, insults the public, lectures other elected officials, wanders off when the discourse fails to hold his attention then returns to pontificate before simply disappearing, all in a clear demonstration of the leadership style that the Los Angeles depends on as the city faces down biggest challenges of this generation. Granted, chairing the Metro Board is just one of San Antonio's many responsibilities but given the significance of the most recent regular Board Meeting and the $3.7 Billion budget they had on the agenda, one would think that he would at least stick around for the vote.

The Board meeting in question was scheduled to start at 9:30 am and the public was greeted with a sign that stated "The Metro wants your input" and then another smaller sign that stated "public comment cards will not be accepted after the start of the board meeting." With the Metro Boardroom filled to capacity at 9:30 and the overflow crowd sent to the cafeteria, the Metro's staff stopped taking cards and left the public to watch as the Boardmembers trickled in and finally reached quorum just shy of 10 am.

Props to the Governor's representative, Caltrans Director Doug Failing and Councilman Jose Huizar, both of whom were on time and ready to grapple with the future of transportation in LA County. They were joined by newly seated County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas and collectively they served as the welcoming party for the other Boardmembers who drifted in as if their participation was a casual afterthought with little significance or impact on the lives of those who packed the room.

County Supervisor Don Knabe picked up the gavel and called the meeting to order, San Antonio still missing in action. He tried to knock a few items off the agenda, obviously stalling and then he took public comment, scheduled for the end of what looked to be a minimum of a three hour meeting and moved it to the beginning, mixing it up with public comment on agenda items.

This didn't bode well for members of the public who were counting on speaking at the end of the meeting and he called out names of people who couldn't get back into the main room in time to grab their 60 seconds of glory at the microphone.

During the confusion, San Antonio slipped in and took control of the meeting. Well, he gave it a shot. As the Metro's budget came up for discussion and action, he looked at the comment cards and then addressed the crowd, challenging them "Do you really need to speak on this item? We're in danger of losing quorum and if you speak it will only take up valuable time?" He repeated this challenge three times, growing more direct and condescending each time.

At one point, a member of the audience yelled out "I took the day off to come here and I'm going to address the Board!" Another member of the audience yelled out "I'm an elected official, just like you, and I'm here to speak on behalf of people who voted for me and expect me to represent them! I'm going to speak!" That guy is going to go far if he keeps that up!

When the dust had settled, the public had the opportunity to talk, the representatives of the surrounding communities had also spoken and San Antonio had slipped out the back door, leaving the remaining Boardmembers to approve the budget and set the course for the Metro.

Keep in mind, the Metro Board consists of heavyweights including the five County Supervisors, representatives from Glendale, Santa Monica, Lakewood, Duarte, the Governor's appointee, Doug Failing and San Antonio and his three appointees, Richard Katz, Jose Huizar and Rita Robinson.

One would hope that the Mayor of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world would be able to lead this crew of seasoned veterans of the system in an orderly meeting, especially as they sit on Measure R funds that amount to tens of billions of dollars of OUR money, all precariously positioned and awaiting their leadership and vision and execution. One would also hope that these leaders would also keep San Antonio in check but such is not the case.

All the more reason for the people of Los Angeles to step up and to take responsibility for the future of this City and to ask the hard questions, "Who's at the helm and why are we headed for the rocks?" (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘