Can Wendy Greuel Run on Her Record?

CityWatch, Aug 16, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 65

RETHINKING LA - LA’s 2013 Mayoral Race is barely underway and already City Controller Wendy Greuel has declared herself the leader of the pack based on her ability to raise campaign funds.

Of the declared candidates, Greuel has surged ahead with a war chest of $518,000 while City Councilwoman Jan Perry has collected $457,000, investment banker and former Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner reports $405,000, and attorney and conservative radio talk show host Kevin James has amassed $91,000.
Given the City of LA’s dire budgetary straits, the ability to raise money is a valuable skill, one that would certainly demonstrate Mayoral chops, but only if consideration were given to the source of the money and the obligations that come with it. To that end, Kevin James ( http://www.kevinjamesformayor.com ) claims the high road, pointing out that his money comes from small donors, not the traditional power brokers, special interests, consultants and developers.

With County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, City Council President Eric Garcetti, and Developer Rick Caruso still on the sidelines, the promise of a hotly contested Mayoral race means that candidates will work overtime to control the conversation, shifting the topics to areas of comfort.

All Mayoral candidates will need to make their case as change agents, establishing a vision for the city, influencing the culture of City Hall, and wrangling the three dozen city departments together in the efficient delivery of city services.

For Greuel, this means avoiding at all costs a discussion of the LADOT and its performance under her oversight, first in her role as the Chair of the City Council’s Transportation Committee and more recently in her role as the City Controller.

Greuel will have to explain the LADOT’s track record for failure on Grant proposals, something that has been addressed in Metro Call for Projects, in Safe Routes to School Funding, in Highway Safety Improvement Project funding, and in its last-minute and unambitious approach to transportation engineering.

Several years ago, Greuel actually introduced a motion to the City Council directing the LADOT to communicate with the City Council on transportation funding, demonstrating her inability to overcome the LADOT’s culture of arrogance when it comes to working with others. Funding cycle after funding cycle, the LADOT would wait until the last minute and then release the proposals, using the impending deadline as an excuse for rejecting feedback and requests.

At another point in Greuel’s tenure, she discovered that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan, a structural deficiency that explained the LADOT’s lack of vision and proactive work. Much was made of the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan and its potential positive impact on funding, on implementation, and on efficiencies.

Greuel went so far as to schedule an all-day, one-topic City Council session to grapple with the need for a Strategic Transportation Plan, eventually funding a scheme the put consultants to work and the audience to sleep. Since then, the public tosses and turns but not much has changed.

During Greuel’s tour of duty as the Transportation Committee Chair, the City of LA raised speed limits with such regularity, local advocates were worn out protesting the semi-monthly hearings. Greuel’s Committee relied on a 50-year-old transportation philosophy and failed to utter even a whimper as speed limits were raised over and over again.

While LA was raising speed limits, Federal and State laws were going into effect that supported Complete Streets, engineered for pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit and motorists. Greuel could have embraced this shift in transportation philosophy, but she didn’t. Instead, the City of LA gets dragged, kicking and screaming, toward the future while the LADOT argues for its limitations.

There are three levels of City Departments in LA, the Proprietary Departments (Harbor, Airports, DWP), the Charter Departments (Police, Fire, Public Works, Library, Rec & Parks, Planning, DONE...), and the Ordinance Departments (Transportation, Building & Safety, Animal Services, Zoo, General Services, etc).

The Proprietary Departments typically have their own revenue, budgets, law enforcement and gravitational pull. Any potential Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to control these departments.

The Charter Departments were created by City Charter and their existence is codified by law, amendable by referendum, and sometimes funded by mandated budgets. They exist to deliver city services to the people of LA and any strong Mayoral candidate will need to demonstrate the power to support efficient performance.

The Ordinance Departments were created by City Council action, put into existence to perform a specific function, and they cease to exist with the same simple process. The LADOT was created in 1979 to coordinate “the City’s various ground transportation and ground transportation-related activities.”

The LADOT is Greuel’s Achilles heel, the Ordinance Department that has defied her leadership and maintained its course, even when she moved from the City Council and was elected as LA’s City Controller.

Armed with a completely new level of authority, Greuel now had the opportunity to move from Transportation philosophy and into oversight of the LADOT’s budget. This should have been a smooth transition, after all, Greuel had served on the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee, giving her a unique insight into the machinations of the city departments when it comes to protecting budgets and headcounts while avoiding accountability and charges of double-dipping.

Unfortunately, Greuel’s performance was limited to press conference audits that chipped at the tip of the iceberg but that failed to address the larger pattern of contempt and misconduct.

As the City of LA put a freeze on staff travel, the LADOT continued to export PowerPoint presentations to communities far and wide, as if the city with the worst traffic congestion is in a position to advise others on transportation. Did Greuel catch it?

When one of the largest funding streams of the generation, Measure R, came into play, the LADOT presented a budget for LA’s “Local Benefit” share of the Countywide half-cent sales tax revenue, taking a little extra from the cyclists and pedestrians and shifting it over to LADOT administration. LADOT proposed $10.8 million for bike and ped projects instead of $18.1 million, a “mistake” of $7.3 million. Did Greuel catch it?

As the LADOT took its turn before the City Council’s Budget & Finance Committee earlier this year, Bernard Parks took the Department to task for spending Measure R money on staff instead of projects. As the people of LA ask “Where are our Measure R ‘Local Benefit’ projects?” the LADOT is busy spending the money on staff. Did Greuel catch it?

Most recently, the LADOT went to City Hall to ask for overtime pay in order to implement the Bike Lanes and Sharrows that are part of the Mayor’s commitment to making LA a great place to ride. How can it take overtime to do the work? If it were extra work, perhaps it would require extra staffing, but the City of LA has been collecting millions of dollars for Bikeway projects for years. Where did the money go? Did Greuel catch it?

To be fair, Greuel has audited the LADOT and she has come up with some pretty damning reports.

The LADOT is charged with wasting $855,000 outright while going over budget by nearly $2.5 million on a contract to equip parking enforcement vehicles with GPS systems, of course, the LADOT argued that it took place under previous management.

The LADOT is charged with failing to collect on parking tickets, a pattern of casualness that costs the City of LA $5.4 million in revenue, according to Greuel.

The LADOT is charged with a failure to maintain an inventory of parking meters, a problem that makes it impossible to evaluate the LADOT’s performance. Greuel contends that the City of LA owns 36,000 parking meters but that the LADOT must put “controls in place to adequately ensure collections are being made from all parking meters, and those meter payments are being deposited directly into the city’s bank accounts.”

Greuel also took the LADOT to task for its Gold Card Desk, a program that fixed tickets for City Hall insiders. Of course that audit backfired when Greuel’s Council office was accused by the Mayor’s office as being a participant, a charge that was denied by Greuel. Either way, it turned out to be a tough row to hoe, either the Gold Card Desk existed and functioned as an insider ticket fixing program and Greuel was ignorant or it existed and Greuel was a participant.

The audits are a sign of activity, but it’s important that Greuel do more than stand by and yell “Fire!”

The LADOT is still on course, moving forward in its traditional cavalier manner. It continues to fumble outreach, it remains focused on staff levels while avoiding performance standards, and it continues to reject neighborhood council requests, using the classic “Contact the Mayor's office and Council office. This is due to the budget that has been adopted by them.”

Wendy Greuel is an energetic campaigner and her track record for raising funds speaks volumes to her ability to connect with her audiences.

But if she wants to be taken seriously as a change agent, a Mayoral candidate that possesses the ability to turn a city around, it is imperative that she start right now by following through with the department that has been her responsibility for almost a decade, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

For Mayoral Candidate Wendy Greuel, the LADOT is where the rubber hits the road.

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

Brown Act Crusader Rosendahl Could Set the Standard with His Own Transportation Committee

CityWatch, July 13, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 55

RETHINKING LA - Councilman Bill Rosendahl is to be commended for his recent attempt to force the City Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposed Downtown Stadium and Event Center to conduct its business openly, transparently, and in compliance with California’s Brown Act.

That being said, his journey down the moral high road will be smoother if he applies the same open-door standard to the business that takes place within his Transportation Committee.
Rosendahl’s Brown Act campaign was set in motion when a representative of the Office of the City Attorney opined that “ad hoc committees of this City Council are not bound by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act -- the state law that guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in meetings of local legislative bodies.”
Almost 60 years ago, an editorial in the Sacramento commented on the proposed Brown Act, saying:

A law to prohibit secret meetings of official bodies, save under the most exceptional circumstances, should not be necessary. Public officers above all other persons should be imbued with the truth that their business is the public’s business and they should be the last to tolerate any attempt to keep the people from being fully informed as to what is going on in official agencies. Unfortunately, however, that is not always the case. Instances are many in which officials have contrived, deliberately and shamefully, to operate in a vacuum of secrecy.

Since then, the Brown Act has been revised, enhanced, clarified, amplified, debated, ignored, embraced, manipulated and periodically rediscovered.

Rosendahl’s recent rediscovery of the Brown Act resulted in his opinion that “while some may argue it is legal for the City Council to form ad hoc committees that have the right to waive or ignore public notice and information requirements, doing so would break faith with a public that rightly expects and deserves transparency in its government.”

Well said! Only Ralph M. Brown could have said it better, and he did, in the introduction to the Brown Act:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Rosendahl’s role as crusader for the Brown Act set him up for a symbolic win but a practical loss as his motion for transparency failed in City Council Chambers amidst protests and shock from Councilwoman Jan Perry who prefaced her comments by saying “Mr. Rosendahl, I consider you a good friend.” Then the Brown Act hit the fan and Rosendahl’s motion was sent to committee where those who voted in opposition to Brown Act transparency will control its progress.

Rosendahl has an opportunity here, one where he moves beyond simple Council Chamber debate and actually sets a standard for City Hall, starting in his Transportation Committee.

The City of Los Angeles engages in the business of transportation in a process that is within the oversight of the City Council’s Transportation Committee. The City of LA competes for federal, state, and local funds through competitive programs that include Metro’s Call for Projects and the Caltrans administered Safe Routes to School.

For years, LA's transportation strategies, funding applications, and project implementation have been controlled by the Interdepartmental Task Force Committee (“the Committee”) made up of representatives from the Mayor's office, the Council offices, the Bureaus of Street Lighting and Street Services, the Chief Legislative Officer's office, the Chief Administrative Officer's office, Transportation, Water & Power, and the City's Redevelopment Agency.

"The Committee" typically engages in the business of the people with three motivations, desperation, deadlines, and diplomacy.

Typical recommendations from “the Committee” come with the caveat that “there wasn’t much time, we did the best we could,” resulting in proposals made with a commitment to expediency over effectiveness. This cycle of desperation is the result of an ongoing inability to plan ahead for looming deadlines.

“The Committee” then dilutes any hope of a regional commitment to a strategic transportation plan by requiring that every council district get a piece of the pie, whether or not it makes sense.

All of this takes place in secret, away from the public, in spite of the fact that the City Council and the Transportation Committee have both directed “the Committee” to conduct its business openly.

Several years ago, the City Council directed the Transportation Committee, lead department on “the Committee,” to keep the City Council informed of its planning, priorities, and performance. That display of bravado failed to yield meaningful results, a position that the DOT defended by arguing “We had no time!”

Three LADOT General Managers in a row have tendered the same defense as they exclude the public from the process of proposing, prioritizing, and presenting transportation projects for funding, all as the Transportation Committee directs them to engage the neighborhood councils in the process.

One might argue that the participation of the public in the process might slow it down, a fair point to make that fails to acknowledge the simple fact that projects with community support perform better in the competitive funding process.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the current actions of “the Committee” fall far short of acceptable and are starved for the infusion of accountability that would come from opening the process to the public.

Years after the LADOT revealed that the City of LA had no Strategic Transportation Plan in place to drive the funding proposal process, the LADOT still meanders without guidance.

Years after the City Council demanded to be involved in the process, “the Committee” continues to offer tepid proposals that lack commitment, vision, innovation, community support or any hope of successfully competing for transportation funding.

For too long, the City of LA has relied on the “fair share” approach to transportation funding, arguing that it deserves the money simply because of its size. This has resulted in an internal process controlled by city staff that recycles old failed proposals and debating process in order to fund projects that lack vision, support, and efficacy.

It’s time for the people of LA to raise the standard for transportation planning, to participate in the process of planning, presenting proposals for funding, prioritizing projects and evaluating performance.

Rosendahl’s role as champion of the Brown Act demands that he seize this opportunity and open business of the Transportation Committee to the public by bringing “the Committee” from behind closed doors, opening its business up to the community, and embracing the public as partners in the business of the people.

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

CityWatchLA - The Politics of Crosswalks

CityWatch, Oct 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 85

This past week the paths of two teenagers tragically crossed when sixteen-year-old Conor Lynch attempted to run across Woodman Avenue where he was hit and killed by a car driven by an eighteen-year-old motorist who then fled the scene.

The LA Times ran a brief article that included a quote from the LAPD indicating that Conor "was jogging across Woodman Avenue midblock and not at a crosswalk." This simple statement set off a flurry of reader comments that demonstrates the mythology of crosswalks and the subjective nature of transportation engineering.

The readers can be divided into two camps; those who empathized with the motorist and those who empathized with the pedestrian. To be sure, it was evident that all agreed that the events were tragic all around but the blame was frequently assigned to one or the other party based on understandings or misunderstandings of the law regulating the simple crossing of a street.

Some readers saw the jaywalking as indicative of fault, commenting "If it is true that Conor was jaywalking then it was his fault and I feel really bad for Moran."

Others saw the motorist's behavior as the cause, commenting "People drive too fast in the rain and careless all day and night in Los Angeles."

The details of the incident are still under investigation but it is apparent that attitudes and opinions vary widely on the rules of the road, the definition of jaywalking and the efficacy of crosswalks.

Rules of the Road: Pedestrians are permitted to cross the street mid-block. The exception is in locations that are between intersections that are controlled by traffic control signal devices or law enforcement officers.

Obviously, it's never a good idea to step out into the street without checking for traffic, but the notion that mid-block crossings are illegal is simply incorrect. Streets are for crossing, at the intersections in marked crosswalks, at the intersections in unmarked crosswalks, and also in between if the adjacent intersections aren't traffic signal controlled. In other words, the standard is: our streets are crossable unless restricted.

Definition of Jaywalking: Some people refer to pedestrians who cross the street against a red light "Jaywalkers" while others use the term for those who cross the street outside a crosswalk.

Either way, it is simply a "nickname" that is not codified in our vehicle code or municipal code and is actually an antiquated term of derision. 90 years ago, a "jay" was a hayseed who didn't understand the ways of the city, typically accustomed to cutting across fields and village lots.

As for the definition of jaywalking, it's vague and varies, and is about as useful as a discussion of jaydriving. In other words, it reinforces attitudes without clarifying the rules of the road.

Efficacy of Crosswalks: The City of Los Angeles has long been engaged in a debate over crosswalks and their usefulness, resulting in the see-saw battle that sees some advocating for the addition of more crosswalks while the LADOT looks for opportunities to remove crosswalks.

A visit to the City Council's Transportation Committee will yield a wealth of transportation mythology that supports increase of speed limits and addresses the dangers of crosswalks with the explanation that "Crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security."

This phrase has been repeated by transportation engineers and then parroted by councilmembers for so long that it has become accepted as the truth and serves as the core bias that supports the current campaign to increase speed limits, widen streets, and remove crosswalks.

The "false sense of security" theory can be traced back to the 1972 "Herms Study" which included a bit of unfortunate speculation that has taken on a life of its own.

When Herms discovered that there were more pedestrians struck (per person crossing) at marked crosswalks than at unmarked crosswalks, he failed to account for the fact that the crosswalks are typically installed where pedestrian/vehicle conflicts are an issue.

That unfortunate open question has been misinterpreted to the point of absurdity, motivating an entire generation of traffic engineers to dedicate their careers to removing marked crosswalks and failing to provide new ones, all in the misguided belief that they are dangerous and that pedestrians are better served on unmarked crosswalks.

Our councilmembers are quick to reject community pleas for safer streets by stating authoritatively "Our studies show that there are more injuries to pedestrians when there is a crosswalk than when there is no crosswalk. You see, crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security." This is typically followed by a "yea" vote on speed limit increases and street widenings.

At issue is the simple fact that our streets are dangerous, not just for pedestrians, but for everybody.

As speed limits increase, motorists have less time to react to pedestrians and require more distance to stop.

Last year the LAPD conducted a pedestrian sting on Reseda Blvd.

An LAPD officer in plain clothes would cross the street in the crosswalk and motorcycle officers waiting on the side streets would cite motorists who failed to yield to the pedestrian. The LAPD couldn't keep up with the violators.

The unfortunate thing about this sting is that many motorists were traveling under the speed limit but they didn't have the reaction time or the stopping distance necessary to make a safe stop before the crosswalk.

Watching a City of LA vehicle skid to a stop, it was apparent that this street was engineered for conflict.

It's evident that the rules of the road are widely misinterpreted by the general public, typically reinforcing our particular perspective or bias.

The term "jaywalker" is often used but rarely understood, further perpetuating misunderstandings between motorists and pedestrians.

Of greatest concern is the fact that our streets have become politicized, with traffic control decisions being made by people who simply repeat old fallacies in support of the current paradigm of traffic control and the resulting engineered conflict.

The tragic death of Conor Lynch has stirred a debate in our community over how the streets should work and how pedestrians and motorists can both find their place in the mix. It's a worthy conversation and the simplest way to honor Conor is to seize this moment and to work together to make our streets safer for everybody.

(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.)

Hey Dude! Where am I supposed to store my stuff?

The real conflict on the streets of Los Angeles isn't between people trying to get somewhere, it's between people who think their right to store private property on the streets of LA supersedes the rights of others to safely get to their destination.

Witness the brouhaha on Topanga Canyon Boulevard over the bike lanes that have been engineered and funded, only to get the veto from the local LADOT Traffic Engineer because he would rather use the curb lane for traffic during rush hour and then for parking during the off-hours. This is referred to as "peak-hour parking" and it is one of the most common excuses used by the LADOT when they argue against implementing bike lanes or sharrows. Curbside parking takes precedence over humans on their way to a destination.

Sunset Blvd. is a very popular route for cyclists and the bike lanes are a hotly contested real estate all the way through Hollywood, East Hollywood, Echo Park, Silver Lake and on into DTLA. For all of the traffic encountered on a ride from the westside to the bestside, the real conflict occurs as cyclists dodge the doors that open from parked vehicles, or the valets who put their signs and cones in the bike lanes or the armored car outside the Bank of America or the Bands' vans outside the Echo or the too-wide Catering trucks or the too narrow parking lane or the 18 wheelers outside the Olive Motel or any of the many other surprises that occur because the curb lane is not for travel but for the storage of private property.

No developer can make it through the community engagement process without promising and over-promising parking not just for those who live or work or shop at the development but for those who will be impacted by the project and simply consider parking as the currency of land-use negotiations.

Dr. Donald Shoup of UCLA has risen from academic obscurity to rock star status as a result of his work studying the economic impact of free parking on a community. Always guaranteed to both entertain and inform, Dr. Shoup is also capable of inflaming the sensitivities of those who feel the very fabric of all they hold near and dear threatened as Dr. Shoup extols the evils of free parking. His best selling book "The High Cost of Free Parking" challenges the notion that our streets are designed for the storage of private property. He is also responsible for California's oft neglected and poorly enforced parking buyout law, a scheme that requires employers who provide employees with free parking to consider it a perk, a benefit that has a cash value. Once that value is determined, the employee has the right to elect to take cash instead of the parking space.

We live in a society that tolerates homeless people but criminalizes homeless cars. The County of Los Angeles has seven parking spaces for every registered car, all on the off chance that you might want to shop at the Montclair Plaza on Christmas Eve and, heaven forbid, there better be a convenient parking space there for you! This commitment to stimulating the asphalt industry has resulted in an urban heat island effect that has seen the temperature in areas such as LA's West Valley increase over time as the streets widen, as the parking lots increase in size and as the continuing development of auto-centric infrastructure perpetuates the "Pave paradise, put up a parking lot!" mantra that positions the storage of personal property as one of the basic rights of a civilized country.

As communities evaluate the allocation of public space and discuss the purpose of streets and the impact of parking on their neighborhood, the real opportunity for conflict typically arises when curbside parking is discussed. Events such as Park[ing] Day LA have become popular challenges to the status quo, causing people to reconsider the primacy of curbside parking. Park(ing) Day is an annual event celebrated around the world that involves people of all walks taking curbside parking space and turning them into parks for the day, all in an effort to stimulate discussion on everything from urban planning to the environment to community to public space allocation to the need to make streets more people friendly.

Through it all, small battles get fought, little accommodations are made, and the status quo gets tested. Sometimes it's simply a matter of reclaiming words such as the phrase "closed streets" which the LADOT uses when referring to the restriction of motor vehicles. Community activists now call a street with no motor vehicle traffic an "open street" because it has been freed, the neighborhood is no longer under seige. A "closed street" is one full of motor vehicles and void of humanity.

Sometimes the small shift is in allocation of space. We live in a city where taxis, FedEx and UPS, tour buses, morticians, catering trucks, delivery trucks, school buses, and other special purpose vehicles all get special curbside accommodations, after all, they're key to the smooth operation of our city! But when a local merchant suggests taking a curbside parking space and using it exclusively for the storage of bicycles, we discover the proverbial line that dares to be crossed.

Known as a Bike Corral and consisting of a traditional curbside parking space filled with bike parking racks and surrounded by bollards to protect the bikes, Bike Corrals are popular land use solutions in many large cities such as San Francisco and New York City. Here in Los Angeles, the proposal to install a single Bike Corral in Northeast LA resulted in a hearing at the City Council's Transportation Committee where the critical implications of this assault on all that LA holds near and dear (curbside parking for motor vehicles!) were dissected and reviewed by our City Council leadership and LADOT elite.

The battle isn't over, the "camel's nose" proposal to convert a curbside parking space into bike parking must still go through the City Council and then it must be studied, reviewed, analyzed, and reported on, perhaps resulting in a permit for permanent residency on York Avenue. That's right, a permit!

CityWatchLA - End of the Road for the LADOT!

CityWatch, Mar 16, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 21

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with the impact of the largest budget crisis since the Great Depression, it is imperative that departmental redundancies be eliminated. The place to start is LA’s Department of Transportation.

Established in 1979 by City Council ordinance, the LADOT was originally charged with “coordinating the City ‘s various ground transportation and related activities.” Along the way it has evolved and grown, picking up a gravitational force of its own, resulting in inter-departmental tensions and a city-family competitiveness at the expense of the community. Three simple reasons for absorbing LA ‘s Department of Transportation into other City departments:

1) The City Charter calls for the existence of many City Departments and provides for their funding and specifies their responsibilities. The LADOT is not one of them.

In times of lean, the Ordinance Departments are the first to go, especially if their services are or can be provided by Charter Departments.

Now is the time to get behind the LAPD, Public Works, City Planning, and other Charter Departments, remembering that the City Charter is what sets the course for tough times and is the blueprint for becoming a Great City, not just a survivor. Double down on the departments that are part of the City’s DNA and eliminate duplicated services and redundant administrative structure.

2) City Departments must focus on core priorities.

The LADOT is entrenched in activities that are provided by other departments or agencies resulting in robust turf wars and funding battles that only waste money and impede progress.

International Peace Treaties are negotiated and signed with greater ease than an inter-agency deal memo with the LADOT.

From bike lanes to street closures to community plans to housing developments, Team LADOT will show up in numbers that simply stagger the process.

Consolidate, reduce the conflict, focus on the objectives and get behind those that get it done.

Street Services already provides Safe Routes to School programming and they do the work.

City Planning is already responsible for the City’s Mobility Plan, let them handle transportation planning.

The Metro provides transit services and LA has four seats on the Metro Board. Start getting along with the Metro and work with them! The Bureau of Engineering already builds the streets, support them. Street Services is repairing and maintaining, they’re already on it!

3) City Departments must demonstrate a proficiency.

The LADOT has instead offered a lackluster enthusiasm for its core priorities, a casual approach to the implementation of funded programs (Safe Routes to School, Fletcher Bridge, Ventura Boulevard, all funded but stalled), an oblivious approach to parking lot oversight (Pershing Square, Hollywood & Highland), a cavalier approach to parking lot fee collection ($75 million outstanding?) and a completely irresponsible approach to the maintenance of LA’s City’s Parking meters (20% failure rate?).

The LADOT’s Capital Funding Department showed up late to the Metro’s Call for Projects arguing before the Transportation Committee that “We didn’t know there would be a funding opportunity!”

Two years later they offered the same argument when they missed out on Stimulus money.

If the City of Los Angeles is serious about qualifying for its fair share of Federal and State funding, it will move to consolidate and synchronize its efforts and stop competing within the City Family for limited funds while smaller cities with less resources go big and bring home the money.

The LADOT’s Planning Department handles an integral element of land use - mobility, but their mandate is often at odds with that of City Planning. Community Plans must have authority and that means that the transportation element must be incorporated and balanced, not forced on the community. Dueling philosophies and departmental debates only hurt the neighborhoods and it is imperative that City Planning includes both planners and transportation engineers.

The LADOT’s Traffic Department provides a service that should simply be assimilated into the Public Works Department. After all, they already build and maintain the streets. Street signals, street signs, traffic controls, are all elements of great streets, just like curbs and striping and safe grates.

It should not take interdepartmental bureaucracy simply to stripe and signalize an intersection.

The LADOT’s most recent innovations include a personnel tracking system and a geo-tagging program that identified the many parking meters.

If the LADOT is struggling to account for its staff and for its revenue producing assets, perhaps its time to ask if other departments might do a better job. After all, it was the BOE who helped the LADOT identify and account for its many parking meters.

Maybe General Services could improve on the LADOT’s 80% parking meter performance rate.

Perhaps the Office of Finance could take a shot at collecting parking revenue and fees. It would be hard to do worse!

Great Streets, Complete Streets, Green Streets, Safe Streets and Shared Streets are all mobility innovations that are part of making LA a Great City.

Now is the time to evaluate the many Departments who have a piece of the street and to refine LA's process for providing safe and effective streets for everybody.

Transportation and Mobility are much too important to be entrusted to LA’s Department of Transportation and LA has no money to be wasted on a Department that simply duplicates the services that other LA Departments either provide or should provide.

LADOT, it’s the end of the road.

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

CityWatchLA - Rosendahl: “The Culture of the Car Ends Now!”

CityWatch, Jan 29, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 8

Declaring "The culture of the car ends now!" City Councilman Bill Rosendahl invoked the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and took a giant leap at pursuing a city ordinance that would prohibit the harassment of cyclists. He drew applause from council chambers as he articulated several examples of the behavior that he wants to forbid on the streets of Los Angeles.

1. Knowingly throwing a projectile or discharge at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle;
2. Threatening any person riding a bicycle verbally or by use of his/her vehicle for the purpose of injuring, frightening or disturbing the person riding the bicycle;
3. Knowingly placing his/her vehicle within 3’ of a bicyclist while passing or following;
4. Making physical contact with a bicyclist from a moving vehicle or the roadway either by physical person or use of an implement;
5. Knowingly placing a person riding a bicycle in concern of immediate physical injury;
6. Knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a risk of physical injury or death to the person riding a bicycle.

As cyclists offered testimony of their experience riding the streets of Los Angeles, they were echoed in their concerns by members of the City Council who agreed that the City needs to do more to support the cycling community.

Councilman Ed Reyes recounted his experience as a child getting hit by a motorist as he rode his bike.

Councilman Rosendahl reminded the council of the Mandeville Canyon Road-Rage incident that brought the issue of harassment of cyclists to the forefront.

Councilman Paul Koretz stood in support and declared "We need to send a clear message."

Rosendahl brought it home saying “We’re going to give cyclists the support they should have been getting.”

It seems simple, after all, who can stand in favor of harassment of any kind, but the devil is in the details.

The proposed "anti-harassment" motion, which simply directs the generation of reports on the development of an ordinance has made it through the Transportation Committee but hit a speed hump at the Public Safety Committee which recommended further study. The City Council voted to essentially direct the City Attorney and the LADOT to continue with the generation of reports.

As cyclists recounted their experiences turning to the LAPD for assistance when they experienced road-rage, aggression from motorists, threats, assaults and even hit-and-run collisions, Rosendahl responded by saying "The LAPD hasn't been part of the solution, but sometimes has been part of the problem." The LAPD had no response, they weren't there. Somehow the LAPD and the District Attorney were left out of the process, leaving the LADOT as the lead and the City Attorney deferring in the development of an anti-harassment ordinance that requires enforcement and prosecution support. Some might even suggest that it requires support from Sacramento.

The real value of this ordinance lies not in its chances of becoming law but in the fact that the harassment of cyclists is being discussed, prompting some to murmur "This is how it starts!"

Complementing the City Council's slow but steady pursuit of a more bikeable Los Angeles was the City's ongoing study of Bike Sharing, an endeavor that prompted Council President Eric Garcetti to refer to great bikeable cities such as East Hollywood, Paris and Long Beach. (Not often that those three are mentioned in the same breath!)

The bike sharing concept is an old one even in Los Angeles where college students can "rent" a bike for the quarter, studio employees can "share" a bike while on the lot, tourists can "borrow" a bike from some hotels, and bikes "for hire" exist in several locations.

None of these are as visible as the programs in Paris or Munich or Leon but perhaps that's the real opportunity for the City of LA, to support those small operators who are already in the bike share business with promotion and marketing support.
•••
Capping off the "anything but the budget" day at City Hall was the Transportation Committee's showdown over the speed limit increases in the Valley. On the agenda were proposals to raise the speed limit on Riverside Drive (up to 45 mph) and Chandler Avenue (up to 50 mph) in an effort to certify the streets for radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement.

Cyclists were joined by members of the community, all braced with arguments against the City of LA's continued pursuit of increased speed limits as a tool for enforcement, but the debate faded at the request of Councilman Krekorian who wanted to pursue other options, such as his AB 766 Safe Streets bill which he introduced last year when he served as the Assistant Majority Leader in the State Assembly.

The bill did not make it to the finish line but the message was clear, the 50 year old speed trap law needed to be revised so that local authorities can set speed limits with greater sensitivity to the local community. Not all streets should be raceways, not all streets should be fast cut-throughs, not all streets should be hospitable for speeding motorists.

Councilmembers Krekorian and Koretz both asked the hard questions and seem to understand that there are methods for slowing traffic other than simply raising the speed limits and then relying on traffic officers with radar/laser enforcement.

Now is the time to pursue traffic calming methods, many of which represent funding opportunities such as Safe Routes to School, Highway Safety Improvement Program funding and Office of Traffic Safety grants.

Road diets, bulb-outs, speed tables, pedestrian enhancements and other innovations are not just tools for safety, they are also opportunities to put people to work, to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods and to bring funding into the city coffers.

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

CityWatchLA - LADOT Puts the Pedal to the Metal on Speed Limits Increases

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a financial crisis of epic proportions and the Departments within the city struggle with the triage that results from the impending induced exodus of approximately 3000 employees, the Department of Transportation gallantly marches forward, continuing the good work of raising speed limits and removing crosswalks, all in an effort to make our streets safer and more effective for motorists. It's been a while since the last flurry of speed limit increases made their way through the City Hall meat grinder that regularly sees speed limit increase proposals head from the Department of Transportation to the LAPD to the local Councilmembers to the City Attorney to the Transportation Commission to the Transportation Committee and then to the City Council where the rubber stamping concludes with an ordinance proposal that raises the speed limit on a local street, all in an effort to maintain the right to use radar/laser speed limit violation enforcement on the streets of Los Angeles.

On Wednesday the City Council's Transportation Committee will consider speed limit increase proposals on Riverside Drive (up to 40 mph) and on Chandler Boulevard (up to 45 mph.)

These speed limit increase proposals are for streets that fall partially in Council District 2, newly minted City Councilman Paul Krekorian's district. Krekorian is the author of AB766, the Safe Streets bill that he took to the State Assembly last year when he served as Assemblyman for the 43rd District and in his role as the Assistant Majority Floor Leader for the State Assembly. Krekorian's Safe Streets bill saw the support of both Glendale and Burbank and also enjoyed the support of local community members, neighborhood councils and the cycling community.

Essentially, Krekorian argued that local communities should have more authority over the establishment of speed limits.

The City of Los Angeles gave quiet support to the Safe Streets Bill but when it came up in the State Assembly's Transportation Committee, the City of LA's LADOT representative in the room sat silent, as did the City of LA's legislative representative.

Their silence spoke volumes and served as a powerful contradiction to the LA City Council resolution passed in support of AB766.

As for the upcoming speed limit increase proposals, one of them is for a street that runs alongside the bike lanes that are part of the beginning of the Orange Line, a cycling commuter route from the Red Line station in NoHo that runs across the valley.

One would think that a major transit hub would be a great place to encourage alternative modes of transportation. But such is not the case.

The streets get wider, the speeds get faster, the environment gets more hospitable for motor vehicles and downright hostile for anybody who dares to walk, ride a bike or take mass transit.

As for the Transportation Committee, Chairman Bill Rosendahl has an opportunity to demonstrate that his stated commitment to making Los Angeles a more walkable and bikeable city is a real commitment that comes with action, not just talk.

It'll also be interesting to see what influence Councilman Paul Koretz of CD5 will have over the process, especially in light of his stated support for a robust Bike Plan that lays down a real vision for a bikeable city.

Will Koretz suggest that the Bike Plan be consulted and used as a guide for evaluating speed limits and street designations?

Inevitably, when the subject of speed limit increases come up, somebody launches into a long discussion of California Vehicle Code Section 40802(b) and the need to raise speed limits in order to justify enforcement of the speed limit by radar.

This tired monologue concludes with the explanation "Our hands are tied, we've got to raise the speed limits if we want to enforce the speed limit!"

I don't know when the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world rolled over and became so helpless but I'm not buying it. I believe that there are many things Los Angeles could be doing to control speeding motorists and to making our streets safer for everybody.

It's at this point in the repetitious debate over speed limits that I'm challenged to offer other solutions. I typically start by saying "Bulb-outs, speed tables and road diets!" and the resulting confused look on the faces of those I'm talking with tells me that the transportation experts who are in charge of our streets have one tool in the toolbox and it is 50 years old.

Our City is in the middle of a budget crisis. Why don't we put this energy into pursuing funding sources that would allow us to improve the quality of life on our streets, that would allow us to put people to work, that would allow us to work together to make Los Angeles a walkable, rideable, livable city that works for everybody. It's time to put down the old paradigm and to work together to make people a priority.

On Wednesday, tune in to City Phone at 2:00 pm (213-621-2489) and listen along to see if Transportation Chair Bill Rosendahl will take the lead in rejecting the proposed speed limits and if Councilman Paul Koretz will support him.

Councilman Richard Alarcon has already voiced his support for Krekorian's Safe Streets bill so it will be interesting to see if that translates into a "no" vote on the proposed speed limit increase.

Maybe Krekorian will show up to argue for Safe Streets.

Who knows, the LAPD might even show up to explain how public safety is one of their basic commitments and how increasing speed limits doesn't increase safety or save lives.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

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

CityWatchLA - ‘Love Me if You Will; Hate Me if You Must; But for God’s Sake, Don’t Ignore Me’

CityWatch, Nov 20, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 95

The City of Los Angeles is the "Capital of Homelessness" and yet the non-profit groups who endeavor to create and operate Permanent Supportive Housing facilities are left to fend for themselves in communities that want solutions "anywhere but here" to a problem that is most often, simply ignored.

This past week the Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center made another appearance at the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, this time with modifications and adjustments to their proposed facility on the border of the East Hollywood and Silver Lake communities, all in an effort to pick up the approvals of the NC's as they work their way through the process of developing their property and opening a Permanent Supportive Housing facility. One would think that organizations committed to addressing and ending homelessness would be visiting Neighborhood Councils to pick up commendations for their humanitarian work but instead they regularly encounter the "Planning and Land Use" wrath typically reserved for developers who want to circumvent the Community Plan and rack up variances that disrupt the neighborhood.

In fact, based on Hollywood alone, it would seem that the Supportive Housing non-profits would have an easier time getting their projects off the ground if they would simply add a liquor license, incorporate a Medical Marijuana dispensary and wrap the building in Digital Billboards. Based on results, those projects would slide right through the process. But not if the word "homeless" is used.

Periodically, a Permanent Supportive Housing facility opens up to great fanfare and for a day or two it appears that Los Angeles is getting tough on homelessness.

But the brutal reality is: one out a hundred people in LA is homeless. The numbers fluctuate and progress is made but LA is still the "Capital of Homelessness."

Adding insult to injury is the fact that LA will not tolerate homeless cars yet homeless people are simply ignored. Unless they set up camp in their car and then it becomes a violation of the prohibition against living in a motor vehicle. (LAMC Section 85.02 states: "No person shall use a vehicle parked on or standing upon any City street or upon any parking lot owned by the City of Los Angeles or under control of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors as loving quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.")

Desperate times call for desperate measures and Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a motion that would revise LAMC 85.02, allowing the City of LA to create "discrete and distinct" areas of the city where people would be allowed to park and sleep overnight.

Ideally these "areas" would be supported with restrooms, staffing, security, and social services.

Councilman Richard Alarcon referred to the concept as a "homeless shelter without walls" and the description seemed to earn the approval of Transportation Committee members Paul Koretz and Bernard Parks. As for the motion, it didn't enjoy the same support.

Rosendahl's motion is based on similar "homeless parking lots" conducted in other cities such as Eugene, Oregon and Santa Barbara.

Booker Pearson of Upward Bound House was standing by to offer his commitment to "hosting" the pilot project that was reduced from a citywide proposal to a CD11 proposal by the Transportation Committee.

The idea of setting aside public streets that are "open" to people who will live in their cars is certain to stir passionate and intense debate.

The very notion that parking lots will be used to "park" homeless people will definitely improve attendance at neighborhood council meetings as this proposal is certain to stir great discourse and debate.

Through it all, it's important to remember that doing nothing about homelessness costs more than aggressively acting to provide long-term comprehensive solutions.

As Los Angeles grapples with unemployment, foreclosures and a budget crisis that threatens the stability of the city, we have no choice but to act decisively to end homelessness now.

These are the times when leaders with vision are needed. Compassion would be a nice add to the mix, but courage and vision are essential. Anyone at City Hall care to step forward?

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

LADOT to Motorists - "Prepare to Accelerate!"

The City of LA, in its infinite wisdom, has again used “But it’s State Law!” as an excuse for employing the popularity contest disguised as science approach to the establishment of speed limits on local streets.

On Thursday, August 13, at 10 am, the City of LA’s Transportation Committee will be considering LADOT submitted proposals to increase the speed limits on 16 of LA’s streets.

The debate over State Law, speed traps, the 85% rule used to establish speed limits, the need for speed zone certification in order to utilize radar/laser for speed limit enforcement has taken place locally, in Sacramento and there’s no reason to rehash that discussion here.

What’s most important is to simply ask the LADOT why the rush to clear the 16 proposals so quickly and so quietly?

1) Assemblyman Paul Krekorian is hosting a “Safe Streets Workshop” on Saturday, August 22, in an effort to update residents on AB 766, the Safe Streets Bill, which addresses the local community’s desire to have control over the establishment of speed limits in their community.

Why not wait until after the workshop? Why the rush?

2) LA’s neighborhood councils and the Department of Transportation have been hard at work, developing an MOU between the NC and the DOT. The NC MOU Negotiating Team and the NC Transpo Reps meet this Saturday, August 15, in an effort to establish a working relationship that includes parameters for notification.

Why not wait until the after the MOU is signed? Why the rush?

3) The speed limit revisions are for streets that have had expired certification for as much as 2 years. Of the 6500 miles of streets in LA, only about 700 street sections are speed zone certified. The current system is so ineffective that it begs for an enlightened restructuring. The current process relies on strategies that are 6 decades obsolete.

Why not wait until LA has a better process? Why the rush?

At the end of the day, the current process for increasing the speed limits on the streets of LA is an exercise in bureaucratic rubber-stamping.

The LADOT keeps a watchful eye on approximately 700 speed zone certificates, with approximately 100 of them expiring each year. As the certs expire, they ask the LAPD if they’d like the radar/laser authority in order to enforce the speed limits on those streets. The LAPD says “Sure!”

The LADOT then asks the Council Office if they’d like the LAPD to enforce the speed limits on the respective streets with expired speed zone certs. The Council Office says “Sure!”

The LADOT then asks the Transportation Commission to agendize the proposed speed limit increases and they typically turn up on the consent agenda, meaning that unless the public shows up and bangs the drum, the Transportation Commission will say “Sure!”

The LADOT will then take the full complement of DOT Brass, supported by engineers and handlers, to the City Council’s Transportation Committee where the DOT will explain “The motorists have voted with their gas pedals!” The speed limit proposals will get a cursory review and the Transportation Committee will say “Sure!”

Meanwhile, residents wake up to find that their streets are now “freeway alternatives” and that the speed limits have been revised in order to reflect the speed of the speeders. The public will discover that all of this took place with no public participation. The public will say “Wilco Tango Foxtrot!”

For more information on the proposed speed limit revisions/additions:

http://ens.lacity.org/ladot/transagenda/ladottransagenda25661793_08132009.pdf (pdf download)

The following agenda items are the proposed speed limit revisions/additions:

13. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Paxton Street between Arleta Avenue and Foothill Boulevard

14. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Gladstone Avenue between Maclay Street and Polk Street

15. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Glenoaks Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and the City limit south of Hubbard Street

16. Ordinance Approval – Recommended establishment of speed limit for Day Street between City limit east of Amanita Avenue and Silverton Avenue

17. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revisions for Beverly Glen Boulevard between Ventura Boulevard and Mulholland Drive

18. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Arleta Avenue between Devonshire Street and Roscoe Boulevard

19. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revisions for Sunland Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard/Newhome Avenue and Vineland Avenue

20. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Riverside Drive between Clybourn Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard

21. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Sheldon Street between Glenoaks Boulevard and Roscoe Boulevard

22. Ordinance Approval – Recommended establishment of speed limit for Summitrose Street between Fairgrove Avenue and Mt. Gleason Avenue

23. Ordinance Approval – Recommended establishment of speed limit for Apperson Street between Haines Canyon Avenue and Newhome Avenue

24. Ordinance Approval – Recommended establishment of speed limit for McVine Avenue between Ellenbogen Street and Foothill Boulevard

25. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Polk Street between Eldridge Avenue and San Fernando Road

26. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for Hollywood Way between the City limits of the City of Burbank and Glenoaks Boulevard

27. Ordinance Approval – Recommended establishment of speed limit for Hatteras Street between Hazeltine Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard

28. Ordinance Approval – Recommended speed limit revision for San Fernando Road between Sepulveda Boulevard and Cohasset Street (excluding segments within the City of San Fernando)

CityWatchLA - LADOT Demonstrates Need For Department of DIY

CityWatch, June 5, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 45

The City Council took another swing at LA's antiquated bike licensing program, taking the House of Molasses one step closer to a complete repeal of the controversial law. 

Cyclists have long complained that the Bike Licensing program was ineffective, pointing out that the licenses weren't actually available and that a database of registered bicycle owners wasn't actually maintained. 

Critics went further pointing out that the law was so poorly written as to require anyone riding a bike through LA from a neighboring community to purchase a bike license and that the fine of $160 for riding a bike without a license exceeded LA's authority under state law. Through it all, the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Police Department maintained a contract with Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for a program educating the public on "the need to register their bicycles." Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in recent years promoting a program that doesn't even exist! 

The issue came to a head last year when the LAPD pulled a group of cyclists over and began citing them for riding their bikes on the streets of LA without bike licenses. The cyclists charged that the citations were a form of harassment, that the LAPD pulled them over and then had to search the book until they could find an infraction. 

The editor of Los Angeles Magazine was on that ride and he detailed the incident and the "retaliatory tickets" in a feature article in the January edition of the magazine. 

This was the proverbial last straw and cyclists organized a "Storm the Bastille" ride and over 100 cyclists filled the City Council's Transportation Committee chambers and charged the LAPD with bias based policing, detailed the absurdity of the bike license program and called for its repeal. 

The LAWeekly was there for the meeting and wrote of the event quoting Rhode Bloch who at one point referred to   the LADOT's Bikeways Department asking "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" [Link] 

Streetsblog wrote of the event finding the showdown between Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to be one of the highlights of an emotional and energetic committee meeting.    

Through it all, the LAPD stood their ground! 
 
The cyclists persevered, charging that the process itself was the punishment, that cyclists either take the ticket and pay $160 (in person!) or take a day off from work to fight the ticket. Either option was unacceptable, especially since their only crime was to challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle by daring to ride a bike on the streets of LA in front of the LAPD. 

For nine months the controversy has simmered and this past Tuesday the Council motion calling for an ordinance repealing the law finally made its way to the full City Council. Phew! 

In spite of the fact that the Councilmembers all agreed on the need to repeal LAMC 26.01, they took the time to engage in a bit of pontificating that left audience members shaking their heads. 

Councilman LaBonge jumped to his feet and immediately shifted the debate "to the children" and pointed out that if a child was hit by a car while riding to school, how would we know the identity of the child? While this doesn't really address the complaint that the LAPD was writing $160 tickets to adults, all of whom carried ID, he raises a good point. 

But the bike license solution is hardly an effective solution to the "child identity" dilemma, especially since kids  borrow bikes, become separated from their bikes and sometimes ... gasp ... even walk to school which leaves us waiting for the LaBonge shoe license proposal. 

Councilman Zine stepped up to regale the audience of his glory days on the beat and of the times in which he was able to return stolen bikes to their owners, all because of the bike license program.   

Unfortunately much has changed since those days and the defunct bike licensing program is no match for the many techniques that today's cyclists employ to deal with bike theft. I was reminded of Rhode Bloch's exclamation at the Transpo committee. "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" 

Cyclists these days use a variety of techniques for "marking" bikes so that they can be identified and reclaimedby their owners. In fact while the LAPD is still relying on a cigar box filled with receipts and index cards, cyclists employ a variety of online resources to support safe cycling in the City of LA. Imagine if the City Council were to actually work with the cycling community! 

Cyclists can register their bike at stolenbikeregistry.com list their stolen bike on totalbike.com post or text incidents with motorists on BikeX post locations of crashes, hazards and thefts at Bikewise, email in Metro incidents to Metro@illuminateLA.com or hit-and-run incidents to HitAndRun@gmail.com 

All of this speaks volumes about the strained relationship between our City's leadership and the cycling community. 

As for the DIY movement in the cycling community, Bicycling Magazine recently highlighted the exploits of LA's Department of DIY and the recent short lived Fletcher Bridge bike lane improvements that were installed in the middle of the night and at no cost to the City of LA. 

The LADOT responded with uncharacteristic swiftness and the offending bike lane was painted black and the supporting signage was removed. Bicycling magazine quoted the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator as saying the DIY incident "lost goodwill." 

Rosendahl took some time during the bike license debate to address LA's relationship with the cycling community and he asked the same LADOT Bikeways Coordinator about the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that he has been championing since the horrendous Mandeville Canyon incident of last year that left two cyclists broken and bleeding, purportedly at the hands of a motorist who found their lane positioning offensive. 

The Bikeways Coordinator responded that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was still under review because there were a few items that gave them some concern and they were reviewing the document with the help of the City Attorney. This is the same document that opens by claiming "Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear." One can only wonder if it's the "travel safely" or the "free of fear" that gives the LADOT staff cause for concern. 

Rosendahl pressed on and went after the City's long overdue Bike Plan. When he asked the LADOT how many miles of BIKE PATHS there are in Los Angeles, the LADOT sidestepped the specific question and  instead responded "About 5% of the City's roadway network has a bikeways facility on it." 

(There are 6,500 miles of roadway in Los Angeles. There are 51 miles of BIKE PATH and there are 142 miles of BIKE LANE.) 

At the end of the day, the long, slow and cumbersome repeal of the City's Bike License law drove home the simple message that if the City of Los Angeles is going to become a bike-friendly city, it will be a Department of DIY project.  

“Cyclists across LA have until June 12 to review and offer suggestions to city planning officials on proposed new bike lanes that would traverse the city.” Complete LA Times report here .  

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

CityWatchLA - LA Speed Limits: Business as Usual

CityWatch, Pub: May 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 40

Fresh on the heels of a move to liberate the department of any responsibility for LA's Safe Routes to School program, the LADOT stands before the City Council with proposals to increase the speed limits for Zelzah and Balboa Avenues.

These controversial proposals have been struggling through the process, picking up significant community opposition and stalling, first in the Transportation Commission and then again in the Transportation Committee, all while other speed limit increase proposals have sailed through the City Council. The proposed speed limit increases are the result of the state- mandated speed zone surveys, all required in order to use radar/laser for speed limit enforcement. State law provides that the speed limits be set so that 85% of the motorists currently driving that street be considered legal. This often results in speed limits being raised as motorists "vote with the gas pedal!"

It was just a week ago that Assistant Majority Leader Paul Krekorian's AB766 - Safe Streets Bill had its day in the Assembly Transportation Committee. This bill proposed that communities should have the opportunity to convene a public hearing and, if determined that an increase in speed would be detrimental to pedestrian and cyclist safety, to simply retain the speed limited as posted.

The Safe Streets Bill arrived in Committee with significant support from Los Angeles. The Mayor and the City Council both endorsed the Safe Streets Bill. The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council unanimously endorsed the Safe Streets Bill. Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilman Richard Alarcon both stood with Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and called for equality as the underlying principle to rely on when establishing speed limits.

Greuel complained that under current law, "We only get two choices and they're both bad. Raise the speed limits or stop using radar!"

Alarcon spoke of establishing speed limits based on equality and called for a process that weighed the needs of everybody, including pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit passengers.

The Safe Streets Bill was opposed by the AAA, the Teamsters and the CHP, all of whom defended the status quo as being completely reasonable. Transportation Committee Chair Mike Eng agreed saying the speed trap law has worked for the last 30-50 years and there was "no reason to mess with the science."

The Safe Streets Bill failed to pick up approval and it remains in the Transportation Committee of the California State Assembly. The bill now goes to a public hearing which pleases supporters who want to get the topic out into the public arena for a robust discussion.

Both Krekorian and Alarcon joined the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils this past Thursday and engaged in a robust discussion of the bill. Krekorian indicating that he was calling for the State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on the Safe Streets Bill be held here in his district.

As for the City of Los Angeles, it's business as usual. The Zelsah and Balboa speed limit increases are on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 10am. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Dude, Where’s the Bike Plan?

CityWatch, May 12, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 38

It's been almost six months since the LADOT's Bikeways staff went before the Transportation Committee and announced that LA's Bicycle Plan would be presented to the community in January of 2009. January has come and gone and the four promised community meetings haven't taken place, the draft document hasn't been delivered and the community hasn't been given the opportunity to participate in the process.

LA's Bicycle Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles and it is intended to guide the city in the development of a citywide bicycle transportation system as well as support efforts to fund bicycle projects and programs.

The Bicycle Plan is funded with Transportation Development Act funds to the tune of $450,000 and the work is being performed by Alta Planning, a consulting firm based in Portland and Berkeley. The City's Department of Planning is the lead on the project although it's the LADOT using Prop C funds to pay for their staff to work on the project.

Cyclists have gone on record with great hopes that the "2008 Bicycle Plan" would be a powerful document full of vision and commitment. Instead they have been rewarded with silence and exclusion.

Most recently, the Bikeways Division of the LADOT went before the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee to explain their "closed" meetings conducted by consultants from Colorado, all as part of the Bicycle Plan public engagement initiative. Committee Chair Tom LaBonge expressed concern with "closed" meetings being held as part of the Bicycle Plan process, especially in City Hall. He deferred to the City Attorney who also expressed concerns with the process and suggested that the LADOT report back to the committee in 30 days. LaBonge concurred and gave the direction.

In response to criticism of the process, the Bikeways rep leaned into the microphone and said "It should be noted that the Department of Planning is the lead on this process."

The four public workshops held early last year were met with significant criticism and charges of weak and ineffective outreach. The meetings were held with such little notice that even the City's own Bicycle Advisory Committee had no warning and couldn't agendize the workshops or act to support or contribute.

The consultant from Portland came under fire during the first session when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding document, perhaps music to the ears of bureaucrats but hardly the battle cry of a room full of cyclists who want to know how to make LA a great place to ride.

She continued by dividing cyclists into four groups, failing to acknowledge what's often referred to as the "invisible" cyclist, the Workforce Cyclist. They don't ride for fun or to change to world or to get some exercise, they simply ride as an economic necessity and they often ride late at night, unsupported and often unclear on rules of the road or right of way.

Things got worse, not better, at the second workshop and that was the last LA heard from Portland.

Since then, Alta Planning has been busy with the Pasadena Bike Plan, the LA County Bike Plan and who knows what else.

Meanwhile the cyclists in LA wait for a Bike Plan that was supposed to be delivered to the City Council month ago. But before it gets to the City Council, there are supposed to be four public workshops and a trip to the Transportation Committee which means that the Bike Plan might end up being a year late!

Perhaps the consultant from Portland with all of the funding experience was correct when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding tool although we never imagined that it was the development of the plan that would be the funding opportunity.

Regardless of their motivations for riding, cyclists are transportation solutions. It's time for Los Angeles to look beyond the funding and to support cyclists with a Bicycle Plan that is full of vision and that is matched with a commitment to making Los Angeles a great place to ride. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Bike Path to Blight Path … and No One to Blame

CityWatch, Apr 28, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 34

The Orange Line Bike Path is 14 miles of bureaucratic "no-man's land"  and a jurisdictional "hot-potato" that has departments and agencies  scrambling for cover as the City's Transportation Committee asks "Hey! How did the Bike Path turn into a homeless encampment?"

Critics long ago warned that building a bike path with a fence on one   side, a wall on the other and surrounding it with bushes and trees   that grow up and out would result in an environment that is unsafe   for pedestrians and cyclists but hospitable to those who favor seclusion and a place to hide.

Those warnings were ignored and the predictions came true. The Orange Line Bike Path is now so overgrown that in some areas such as Van  Nuys, it is populated with homeless encampments. Making things worse is the close proximity of a recycling center and two liquor stores.  All very convenient for the campers but at the expense of the pedestrians, the cyclists and the local residents.

Two months ago, the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council convened a meeting   to address the situation, a meeting so well attended by agency and department reps that it seemed certain that the Bike Path was to be  cleaned up and reclaimed. Such was not the case.

This past week, the Transportation Committee jumped into the fray and convened a meeting to determine what went wrong and who is going to   fix it. The LADOT took the hot seat and explained the difficulty in supervising maintenance contracts and of working with the Metro and Rec & Parks and how the abundant overgrown landscaping wasn't their fault.

The LAPD was represented, Councilman Cardenas was represented and the Neighborhood Prosecutor, Tamar Galatzan also  appeared but nobody could explain who was in charge, who had authority and who had a plan.

Councilman Alarcon cut to the chase at one point in the "Who's  responsible?" debate and said simply "If it's LA's Bike Path then we  should take care of it!"

That should have been the point at which everybody stepped up but  instead we were treated to another round of "Yes, We Can't!"

Unfortunately, the Groupthink that prevents agencies and departments   from being "negative" and just calling it as they see it is still in   play and the LADOT, the Metro, the LAPD, the LASD, the Neighborhood   Prosecutor, the BOSS, LAHSA, the Councilmembers and anyone else with   a piece of the Bike Path are still having polite meetings where they dance about and explain why they're not responsible.

The Orange Line Bike Path has been around for a little over three  years. It was designed and built by the Metro and the LADOT Bikeways Department was there through the entire process. In fact the LADOT is so proud of the Orange Line that they have a presentation they take  to conferences taking credit for its success. Somewhere along the way, the responsibility for the Orange Line was formally transferred  to the LADOT which, based on results, dropped the ball.

Perhaps it's time to call in the DWP and have them cut down the  forest, relandscape with drought tolerant plants and create a 14 mile long demonstration garden on water conservation. Maybe we could plow it all under and plant a 14 mile long Victory  
Garden and use the wide stretches for a Farmer's Market.

Whatever we do, it is imperative that the LADOT stop paying its contractors until they execute their contracts.

It is also imperative that the LAPD clarify with dispatch and the  patrol officers that the Orange Line Bike Path is not the  responsibility of the Sheriff but is the responsibility of the LAPD.

If the Van Nuys area is to be cleaned up, it would also be wise to have the Neighborhood Prosecutor work with the ABC to address the two  liquor stores that cater to the "campers" and who are a blight on the  community.

As long as blight is on the radar, the recycling center has had a negative impact on the area and yet it continues to operate. It's time for us to work together to make our abatement programs work for  the neighborhood.

Most of all, we've got to get over our fear of raising the standards and offending other departments. We've got to evaluate performance  based on results, not on bureaucratic endurance. We've got to stop   settling for mediocrity and we've got to reach for greatness.

The Orange Line Bike Path is either a monument to our mediocrity or   it’s an opportunity to demonstrate our greatness. Either way, it's our   call. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

Glossary:

LADOT - The Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Within the  LADOT is the Bikeways Division, responsible for the Orange Line and  other bikeways facilities.   http://www.ladot.lacity.org

Metro - The Countywide Metropolitan Transit Authority. They are the  major operator of bus and rail service in Los Angeles County. http://www.metro.net/index.asp 

LAPD - The Los Angeles Police Department . They are responsible for the Bike Path. When calling 911 from a cell phone remember that it goes to the CHP. Program 213-928-8206 or 213-928-8208 into your cell phone so that you can get to LAPD dispatch quickly.http://www.lapdonline.org

LASD - The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. They are a County Agency under contract to provide services to the Metro. They patrol the Metro Stations, they are responsible for the busway and they respond if there is an incident on a bus. They are not responsible for the Bike Path. http://www.lasd.org

BOSS - LA's Bureau of Street Services. They are responsible for the 6500 miles of streets within Los Angeles. They pick up the abandoned furniture and they factor into this scenario on the Orange Line because of the homeless encampments and the amount of furniture that must sometimes be removed. You can reach them by calling 311. http://www.lacity.org/BOSS 

LAHSA - The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority is a joint powers authority representing both the City of LA and the County of LA. You can access social services by calling 211. http://www.lahsa.org

Rec & Parks - The Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks is sometimes mentioned when discussing bike paths because bike paths are often considered recreational facilities. In fact the LADOT fought all the way to the State Supreme Court to have bike paths declared recreational facilities so that the City would not be liable for injuries resulting from design or maintenance negligence. (Prokop vs. City of Los Angeles) LA prevailed and bike paths are now funded with transportation funding but then declared recreationa facilities. Meanwhile, Rec & Parks has little to do with bikeway facilities except when Bikeways was looking for someone to handle the Orange Line maintenance. http://www.laparks.org

ABC - The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues and regulates liquor licenses. If the two liquor stores along the Orange Line Bike Path in Van Nuys are contributing to the problems, it must be documented and the ABC will consider this when evaluating the licenses. If the LAPD and the Neighborhood Prosecutor aren't documenting the incidents and their relation to the liquor stores, the ABC can't do its job. The local ABC agent must be involved in the Orange Line Task Force. http://www.abc.ca.gov

VNNC - The Van Nuys Neighborhood Council meets every month and on May 13, the full Board will convene to address the issues of the  community. Expect to see reps from the offices of Padilla and Cardenas and Villaraigosa as well as Bikeways, the LAPD, the Metro, the City Attorney's office and anyone else with a piece of the Orange Line Bike Path. http://vnnc.org