CityWatchLA - Transpo Commission: Caught in the Blind Spot

CityWatch, Mar 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Fast Times in the San Fernando Valley

CityWatch, May 1, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 35

LA's Transportation Commission just approved three more speed limit increases in the San Fernando Valley, this time for Roscoe Boulevard, Sherman Way, and Tampa Avenue.

The proposals were on the Board's consent agenda, meaning they would have passed without discussion but for the fact that a member of the community showed up to object.

Two of the newest Commissioners, Jaime J. Rodriguez and Grace E. Yoo, both voted against the proposed speed limit proposals, indicating they would like more information.

Stephanie M. Rodriguez, John Frierson, and Board President George E. Moss all voted for the proposed increases which left D. Malcolm Carson in position to defeat the proposals or to affirm the increases.

Carson gave a fairly comprehensive speech agreeing with the many objections to the speed limit increases including the need to consider the safety of pedestrians and cyclists when raising speed limits. He also agreed that LA should consider other mitigation techniques such as road diets, traffic calming, and other complete streets tolls, all of which looked like he was going to vote against the proposals.

Then he reversed his position saying so much time had been invested in the proposals that he didn't want to stand in the way, an explanation he also used last time when he approved another round of speed limit proposals in the West Valley.

The fact that two of the commissioners would want more information on the State's "Speed Trap" law, the need to reconcile the speed limit with the prevailing speed in order to use radar and laser, and other options for facilitating compliance with the 85% rule should speak volumes in terms of the need for a public conversation on speed limits in our communities.

Department of Transportation’s Assistant GM, John Fisher, instead defers on the community's desire to get involved in the establishment of speed limits by saying "As we all know, the setting of radar-enforceable speed limits can become a very emotional issue."

The recent spike in pedestrian deaths on the streets of LA indicates that fear is a very rational response and the LADOT's failing to consider the people who live on the affected streets, walk on the affected streets and ride bikes on the affected streets is a failure to serve the needs of the community.

Deputy City Attorney Shelley Smith demonstrated the need for public participation when she advised the new Commissioners on the proposed speed limits. Smith positions the speed limit increases as a simple vote for or against radar enforcement. She has been contradicted on this point in the past by then-Commissioner Andrea Alarcon and this time by Commissioner Carson but Smith continues. Having prepared the Municipal Code amendments that are on the table, one might question her objectivity when advising the Board on how to vote.

The discussion over speed limit increases should never turn into a debate over the use of radar or laser speed limit enforcement. In fact, this entire debate is borne from a desire to put the most effective law enforcement tools in the hands of the LAPD. At issue is the hasty, uninspired and lazy rush to simply raise the speed limits rather than to explore the other options.

Here are the issues:

1) The community must be involved from the beginning of the process. Speed limit certifications are expiring every year. The community should know what is coming up and how many streets are currently expired and not eligible for radar/laser enforcement. (some have been expired for years so to refer to people who fight the speed limit
increases as obstructionists is disingenuous)

2) The process should always start with a conversation of the full tool-box of mitigation tools, from bulb-outs to safety islands, diagonal parking to bike lanes, speed tables to stop signs, traffic calming to road diets. These options must be explored first and in every instance, speed limit increases must be positioned as a last resort and with the full participation of the community.

This past year the City of Los Angeles approved approximately 20 speed limit increases and is prepared to process another dozen.

Meanwhile traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies and communities throughout the state are working to revise the "speed trap" law and to give local communities more control over their streets.

It's time for the people of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to work together to take a leadership role in developing Safe Streets for everybody. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Speed Limit Increases Hit a Speed Hump

CityWatch, Nov 18, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 83

LA Traffic Watch
By Stephen Box

The Transportation Commission's consent agenda for this past Thursday hit a speed hump when the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Police Department withdrew the first of six proposed speed limit increases and the remaining five were pulled from "consent" because of a public comment card.

The proposed speed limit increases are the result of speed limit surveys conducted by the LADOT as required by the State in order to utilize radar and laser speed limit enforcement. When the prevailing speed is in excess of the speed limit, the speed limit is adjusted so that 85% of the motorists are now driving legally. Opponents to this process argue that 1) the LADOT has no business raising the speed limits on residential streets used for cut-through traffic 2) there are other traffic calming techniques that would bring the prevailing speed of traffic and the posted speed limit in sync 3) the 85% rule that the LADOT relies on when setting the speed limits is in the process of being reviewed and potentially revised at the State level and, 4) the community MUST be involved in the process of evaluating the speed limits and traffic in the neighborhood.

The LADOT was well represented with GM Rita Robinson flanked by two Assistant General Managers, John Fisher and Amir Sedadi, along with LAPD Officer Troy Williams, the Radar/Laser Coordinator for the Valley Traffic Division, and Senior Transportation Engineer Randall Tanijiri. This formidable team was assisted by Shelley Smith of the City Attorney's office who stated "What's being presented to you is the opportunity to enforce the speed limit."

Commissioner Andrea Alarcon took issue with the Assistant City Attorney's representation of the situation and countered "We're voting to increase the speed limit."

The LADOT gave a lengthy presentation on the need to increase speed limits in order to use radar/laser, and worked hard to create an "anti-radar - safe streets" dichotomy, one that failed when Alarcon pointed out that we all want safe streets, this is simply a discussion of how we make them safe and how we engage the community.

Commissioner D. Malcolm Carson was tenacious in establishing that radar enforcement is not the issue and that it has significant support. He argued that there must be other mechanisms for bringing the prevailing speed of traffic in line with existing speed limits and that these options must be explored with the community's support before there is a rush to simply raise the speed limit.

At one point in the discussion, a reference was made to the objections of the community to the speed limit increases and Robinson waved her hand at the single member of the public at the table and said "He's just one man." This comment was revealing for LADOT and its record of engaging the community.

Robinson also failed to acknowledge the dozen emails protesting the speed limit increases and the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council Board Resolution calling for a moratorium on the speed limit increases until LADOT involved the community and began giving 60 day notices of proposals for speed limit increases.

At the end of the day, the five proposed speed limit increases for the West Valley failed to pick up the approval of the Transportation Commission.

Commissioner Carson and AGM Fisher agreed to work together to establish policies for exploring other traffic calming techniques that could be incorporated into the process and to also review the process for engaging the community.

Unfortunately there was no agreement for Robinson and the LADOT to better listen to and involve the public in the process.

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

CityWatchLA - Neighborhood Council to LADOT: “Slow Down!”

CityWatch, Nov 14, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 92

Safe Streets Watch
By Stephen Box

On the eve of the Transportation Commission's meeting to consider speed limit increases for a half dozen streets in the west Valley, the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council Board voted to call for a moratorium on the increases until the LADOT includes the Neighborhood Councils in the process and provides 60-day notification of any proposed changes.

The vote came at the Board's regularly scheduled meeting and just six days after the LADOT notified the NC Board of the proposed speed limit increases for streets such as Mulholland Drive, Corbin Avenue, Saticoy Street, Wells Drive, White Oak Avenue and Fallbrook Avenue.

At issue was the simple fact that the LADOT has spent a year engaged in the process of evaluating the streets, conducting speed surveys and preparing recommendations for the City Council office, the LAPD and the City Attorney, but never notified the Neighborhood Council until the week prior to the Transportation Commission's meeting to approve the recommended speed limits.

Officer Troy Williams of the LAPD attended the meeting and spoke in favor of the speed limit increases saying "Speed limits enforced by radar must be justified with speed limit surveys and the surveys indicate that the speed limits on these streets are too low."

Meanwhile, CityWatch readers have been emailing their comments to both the state and local level, calling for a revision to the 85 percentile rule used to set speed limits, for the use of alternative methods of traffic control and for greater involvement of the community in the process of setting local speed limits. Here’s a sampling.

• "How long is government going to accommodate those who break the laws at the expense of the rest of us." --Chatsworth
• "This goes directly against the Complete Streets law and only favors motorist. Wendy Greuel was at the Mid City West board meeting last night, and stated that LADOT no longer abides by the philosophy of "speed up cars" - She said that was a thing of the past" --Mid City
• "I don't know if my street is one of the 20 being contemplated to have speed limits raised based on the speed of the idiots who careen through our neighborhood but it is a sorry day when those agencies that are responsible for planning have totally dropped the ball, and now seek to solve a problem by further risking our safety. What next when they break the new limit - increase it again?" --Granada Hills
• "Our practice of setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile in conjunction with our radar rule, has contributed to making our streets unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, seniors and children walking to school." --Local Traffic Engineer
• "While I do not pretend to know the ins and outs of the state laws that regulate speed limits on residential streets in Los Angeles, I do know that I want to have input to the speed limits in my neighborhood. I, as well as my 1,100 neighbors in our homeowner association, know our neighborhood better that a bureaucrat who answers to the state government in Sacramento..." --Mid City
• "Please allow local communities the right to decide their own neighborhood traffic protocols." Toluca Lake
• "Speed limits for our streets should be set based on the unique character of our streets, our woodsy neighborhood and our friendly community while accommodating the many pedestrians and cyclists who use our serene streets. Note that many of our Toluca streets DO NOT have sidewalks." --Toluca Lake
• "WHY WERE OUR VOICES NOT HEARD? The Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council and the Woodland Hill Homeowners Organization are both well-known and active groups that are entitled to be informed of and involved in any discussion on choices and decisions related to the safety and livability of the community." --Woodland Hills
• "I have been unable to get my Councilwoman of the City DOT to do anything about the degradation of safety due to increased traffic volume, excessive speed, design flaw and disregard for safety of the local neighborhood by a majority of the motorists who use it." --Tujunga Canyon
• "Glad to see you are fighting the good fight." --ReACT (Residents Against Cut-thru Traffic)
• "Provide local communities real tools for traffic enforcement including a "soft floor" on the 85th percentile rule, a reduction in the reliance on the 85th percentile rule and support from Caltrans in the use of alternative methods of traffic control." --All City

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

CityWatchLA - Mrs. Robinson– It’s Time to Start Talking

CityWatch, August 19, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 67

LA Transpo
By Stephen Box

For the last three weeks, the agendas of the Transportation Commission, the Transportation Committee and the City Council have contained LADOT proposals to increase the speed limits on streets throughout the San Fernando Valley.

In spite of the almost year long effort that precedes the speed limit proposal’s appearance on the agenda, this is often the first time the community has heard of the speed limit proposals and the 72 –hour notification process doesn’t give much time for reaction.

At issue are the speed limit surveys that the LADOT performs in order to certify the speed limits of local streets in order to issue certificates that allow the LAPD to enforce the speed limits with radar.

The process consists of the LADOT asking the LAPD if they would like to continue using radar. “Sure!”

The LADOT notifies the affected City Council office by email that they are providing the LAPD with the means to enforce the speed limits. “Great!”

The LADOT works with the City Attorney to write the new ordinances for the increased speed limits that resulted from the speed limit surveys. “Excellent!”

The speed limit increases are presented to the Transportation Commission and traffic engineers explain the very efficient process. “Bravo!”

The same speed limit increases are now presented to the Transportation Committee and the same traffic engineers explain the same very efficient process. “Encore!”

The City Council musters a quorum and the proposals are bundled up and approved as part of the consent calendar and a very tight year-long process takes place with nary a speed bump…unless the community finds out!

Three weeks ago, the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council noted the agenda items referring to speed limit increases on three streets in the West Valley and sent a letter to the Transportation Commission saying, "These proposals were never presented to the Neighborhood Council.” How does the NC advise the City on the delivery of services if the LADOT doesn’t present to the NC?

The Transportation commission voted unanimously to reject the LADOT proposals and advised the LADOT to communicate with the neighborhood council.

Two weeks ago, several speed limit increases appeared on the agenda for the Transportation Committee. Members of the Bike Writers Collective showed up to speak in protest but the protests fell on deaf ears.

The Transportation Committee voted unanimously to approve the LADOT proposals, pulling only the Zelzah Avenue proposal. (Subject of School, NC and Chamber objections, pulled at the request of Councilman Smith)

Last week, the Transportation Commission met and the West Valley speed limit proposals were back on the agenda. The speed limit proposals hadn’t been presented to the Neighborhood Council Board for input and in fact the WHWCNC had met the night before and approved a motion opposing any recommendations that don’t first come to the NC for approval.

The Transportation Commission, to its credit, grappled with the issue but ultimately resolved that it is not within their authority to require the LADOT to interact with the Neighborhood Councils.

The Commission voted to approve the LADOT speed limit increase proposals (Commissioner Carson voted against the proposals, not just because they had not gone before the NC’s but because of his concern with the larger issue of “raising the speed limits” and the significant impact on quality of life in the community)

Over the last three weeks the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council has been joined by the Granada Hills South NC, the Northridge East NC, the Granada Hills Chamber of Commerce, LAUSD Board Member Tamar Galatzan and concerned community members who all believe that the LADOT should involve the community in the business of the community.

Rita Robinson, General Manager of the Department of Transportation, acknowledged that the current system does not require the LADOT to present its projects and proposals to the Neighborhood Councils but that she was open to exploring possibilities for better communication.

The City Charter provides that information from the City Council, Council committees and City boards and commissions should be sent to Certified Neighborhood Councils as soon as practical so that they are afforded as much opportunity as is practical to provide comment before decisions are made. It also provides that City department officials should have periodic meetings with neighborhood councils.

It is now up to the Neighborhood Councils to establish a standard for communication and a process for making it happen.

Perhaps the place to begin is the already existing unsigned Memorandum of Understanding between councils and Robinson’s LADOT. The MOU could set the minimum standard for communication.

LADOT. Neighborhood councils. It’s time to start talking. Care to join me?

(Stephen Box is a long-time community issues advocate. Box writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)