CityWatchLA - Transportation Talks One Game, Plays Another

CityWatch, Oct 24, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 86

LADOT Watch
By Stephen Box

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Rita Robinson’s Transportation Department has no intention of letting the neighborhood councils and the public into City Hall’s decision-making inner circle. Not even as the advisors the City Charter mandates them to be.

The alternate conclusion would be that there just aren’t enough bright bulbs in the Department to connect the dots: City Charter to City Department to Neighborhood Council.

That DOT’s interest in the public’s voice is as shallow as a one-ply tissue came into focus again this past Wednesday. The LADOT staff went before the City Council's Transportation Committee to deliver a report on the prioritization of transportation projects and programs. They also gave a demonstration of the LADOT's contempt for Neighborhood Councils.

During a discussion of funding strategies, a member of the public pointed out that the LADOT's process consists of working with the Mayor's office, the Council offices and Bureaus of Engineering, Street Lighting and Street services to determine the City's priorities. The LADOT makes no effort to actually work with the public in spite of the fact that applications typically get better ratings if there is community support for the project. Examples were offered such as SAFETEA-LU, Metro's Call for Projects, Safe Routes to School and BTA funding, all of which are specific in recognizing community support as a rating factor.

Rosendahl commented that consulting the community seems like a "no-brainer" and referred to his Westside Regional Transportation Committee as a model of community engagement.

Committee Chair Greuel commented that in the past the City has obtained funding for projects, only to find out too late that a particular project was unpopular in the community. Bad projects with no local support result in lost funding.

Councilman Alarcon simply asked "Where's the buy-in?"

Greuel repeated the question to Michael Uyeno, asking "Does the DOT involve the Neighborhood Councils in the process of prioritizing projects for funding?"

Uyeno paused. "In the past we have looked to the Council offices to deal with the Neighborhood Councils. There are so many! I assume the Council offices know the issues."

Through this entire exchange, the LADOT's leadership's behavior communicated clearly their position on Neighborhood Councils.

LADOT's General Manager, Rita Robinson was unresponsive, sitting silently in the audience. Haripal Vir, head of LADOT's funding department, followed suit, sitting silently in the front row. Assistant GM Amir Sedadi was in sync, also sitting silently in the front row. Next to Ms. Robinson, also silent, sat the LADOT's Neighborhood Council Liaison. (How easy must that job be? "Did you talk to the NC's today? No? Excellent! Keep it up!")

LADOT's leadership demonstrated the lack of responsiveness that Neighborhood Councils have learned to expect.

Against this background of silence, Jim Clarke, Intergovernmental Federal Relations for the Mayor's office, jumped up and walked over, saying to the members of the public, "I'm going to work with you. Here is my email. I'd like to meet with your Neighborhood Council on transportation funding opportunities." That is how it's done!

It is acutely apparent … even to some former LADOT supporters … that the Neighborhood Councils will have a working relationship with the LADOT when the NC's insist on it and then fight to make it happen, not a moment sooner.

(Stephen Box is a transportation activist and a CityWatch Contributor. He can be reached at: Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Another Crash at the Hazeltine Avenue Raceway

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 85

Different Kind of Toll Road
By Stephen Box

At 9 pm on Tuesday a week ago, residents of Hazeltine Avenue in Valley Glen raced from their homes in response the sound of a crashing vehicle on the street.

They found wrecked parked cars, collateral damage left in the wake of a speeding southbound motorist who lost control of his vehicle in this quiet residential neighborhood. A pickup truck was hit so hard, its rear axle came loose. It was pushed into the Hummer that was parked in front.

All of this took place in the same location where a hit and run driver took Michael Duffin's life three weeks ago as he left his parked car and attempted to cross the street to his home. CityWatch story.

As local residents searched for victims, one neighbor ran down the street to the front yard where the speeding motorist's vehicle sat, only to find it empty. The driver had fled on foot, abandoning the vehicle.

When the dust had settled, several dozen neighbors stood surveying the debris and wrecked vehicles on their street. It became apparent that this is a neighborhood under siege as one woman commented, "There is no way my kids are gonna walk to school now!"

If we are to be a City of Greatness, it starts with reclaiming our streets, our public space, and working together to ensure that people can enjoy their neighborhoods without living in fear.

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

CityWatchLA - LA’s Transpo Department Leaves $1 Million Unspent Bucks on the Table--Now Lost

CityWatch, Oct 17, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 84

Scapegoating
By Stephen Box

The City of Los Angeles lost approximately a $1 million in Safe Routes to School funding, simply by failing to execute the funded projects.

During the 2000 and 2001 cycles of the SRTS program, approximately $3 million was awarded to LA but the LADOT left one/third "on the table" meaning that it wasn't spent and that it's lost, not just to LA but to all applicants throughout the state. Money that could be spent somewhere, making it safer for children to walk and ride a bicycle to school.

All totaled the LADOT has qualified 31 projects in the last seven cycles of the SRTS funding program for a total value of approximately $11 million. Of those 31 projects, 11 have been completed. Of the remaining 20 projects, 10 projects are "underway" while five have simply been "initiated" and the remaining five show "no activity."

Through it all, the LADOT has taken an interesting tack, claiming that the City of Los Angeles should be getting awarded more money, simply because it's their "fair share" of the State SRTS pool. All this while failing to demonstrate a commitment to completing the projects and putting the awarded money to work in our communities, where it belongs.

In July, LADOT reported to the City's Transportation Committee and indicated that it works closely with the City Council offices on the selection of the projects but gave no indication that they had spoken to Neighborhood Councils or involved the public in the process. The Department report was heavy on a "Fair Share" complaint, arguing that the money should be allocated based on population rather than on project merit or on performance.

Imagine that, funding based on performance! The LADOT prefers the "Fair Share" approach.

In spite of the LADOT's commitment to keeping the dialogue limited to the funding aspect of the SRTS program, the public appeared and argued that the Neighborhood Councils had not been involved in the process and that there was no opportunity for the community to get involved in promoting projects.

Councilmembers Alarcon, Greuel and Rosendahl all gave the LADOT directions to include more projects that promote cycling as an option for kids to get to school and to involve the community in the process of selecting projects and working together to promote those projects. Committee Chair Greuel pointed out that something as simple as bicycle parking at schools would go a long way to promoting cycling as a viable option for kids.

LADOT's General Manager has continued with the "Fair Share" battle cry, appearing before the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition a couple of weeks ago and referring to the huge size of LA and the small size of the SRTS funds, all the time failing to note the large number of projects that have not been completed or the absolute absence of community involvement in selecting those projects.

Through it all, it's important that we keep in mind that this isn't about the LADOT, this isn't about the Transportation Committee, this isn't about SRTS funding, it's about creating a community where kids are safe walking and riding a bike to school.

Councilwoman Greuel reminds us, in her most recent newsletter, that it's simply not safe out there for kids. "In 2006 alone, 192 children Citywide were injured while arriving at or departing from school."

Dr. Enrique Penalosa, the former mayor of Bogatá, claims "Cars are to children today what wolves were to them in the Middle Ages. Is that the best we can do after 5000 years of urban history?" Penalosa is credited with transforming Bogata into a model city by raising the standard for greatness saying "the measure of a great city is not its buildings or freeways but whether a child is safe walking or riding a bicycle."

It's up to us as community leaders to "Partner in Greatness" by fighting to ensure that our children are safe and free of fear.

It starts with us working together to promote innovative SRTS projects that improve our communities and it continues with us judging the LADOT based on performance. Often harsh but always fair!

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

CityWatchLA - The Sound of Death on LA’s Streets…and No One is Listening

CityWatch, Oct 10, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 82

LA Traffic
By Stephen Box

Two weeks ago, in the early evening of a warm Friday night, Michael Duffin parked his car on Hazeltine Avenue, across the street from his home in Valley Glen, a quiet residential community in the south Valley of Los Angeles.

He pulled up behind two of his neighbors who had just parked on the street and who were standing next to their cars engaged in a conversation.

Hazeltine Avenue, in the half-mile stretch between Oxnard and Burbank, is a dimly lit street with parking on both sides, one lane of travel in each direction and a median strip to accommodate left turns. It has no crosswalks, no stop signs, no signals, no speed bumps, nothing to slow down the traffic that flows unimpeded through the neighborhood. Duffin exited his car holding a bag from Burger King and began to cross Hazeltine mid-block between Hatteras and Emelita.

He made it two-thirds of the way and was in the northbound lane when a car traveling in excess of 60 mph hit him, throwing him 80 yards up the street. He landed at the corner of Hazeltine and Emelita.

He never saw it coming. His neighbors across the street never saw it coming. They reported hearing the sound of an impact “like a car hitting another car. It was loud and it was solid. We looked and then we saw Michael lying in the street.”

The driver of the car never stopped. Michael Duffin was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Michael was not alone. Two hours later Jose Silva left a sporting event at Cathedral High School in Chinatown and began to cross the street when he was struck by a speeding car as it ran a red light, hitting him with such force that he was thrown forward and then hit again by the same car. The driver of the car never stopped. Jose was pronounced dead at the scene.

Unfortunately, these incidents aren’t unusual or even uncommon. In fact they’re barely news. In the days that followed, a motorist racing down La Cienega at 125 mph crashed head-on into a mini-van, killing himself and severely injuring the two occupants of the other vehicle.

On Victory Boulevard, a motorist traveling at 90 mph lost control and hit a tree so hard that a front wheel broke off and flew into the bedroom of a nearby home. The motorist was killed. The occupants of the home were unharmed.

Our streets are engineered to move traffic. They are filled with high-performance vehicles operated by low-performance motorists. In terms of lives lost, only cancer and heart disease have a higher toll than traffic.

Recent debates over speed limit increases in order to provide for radar enforcement fail to address the fact that our streets are engineered for speed and our neighborhoods are under siege.

A decade ago, a motion was introduced to the Los Angeles City Council, recognizing that with the continuing growth of the City “traffic problems such as excessive speed, commuter shortcuts and spillover from commercial developments are becoming increasing serious in residential neighborhoods and are adversely affecting the quality of life more than ever before.” The motion went so far as to call for traffic-calming measures including “speed hump installation, narrowing of paved roadways and the installation of speed-limit signs and other measures designed to discourage unnecessary traffic in residential neighborhoods and reduce the speed of vehicles traveling through them.”

It concluded by calling on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to protect residents “from traffic flows that are excessive or inappropriate for their neighborhoods” and to create a Neighborhood Calming Section.

Since then, there have been many innovations in traffic calming techniques including roundabouts, ped scrambles, pelican crossings, bulb-outs, safety islands and shared streets.

Since then, community members are becoming more emphatic about reclaiming their streets, about creating neighborhoods where kids can walk to school, where streets are crossable and where the quality of life is more important than maintaining “alternate routes.”

Since then, community members have become more active and educated and committed to promoting innovations in transportation and not just those who have traveled to Europe. One only has to visit West Hollywood to see bicycle boxes and pelican crossings, roundabouts and safety islands that make one slow down just to watch, in envy, as environmental solutions provide equality for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and mass transit passengers.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the LADOT is busy installing ped scrambles in ten different locations throughout the City. Ped Scrambles are all-walk phases of an intersection that provide pedestrians with the option of crossing the intersection diagonally.

While the LADOT is to be applauded for its implementation of the ped scramble, members of the community are left wondering how this all came about with no contact with the community. It’s not that the idea is bad, it’s just that the community might have some insight as to the best intersections, based on first hand experience.

All of which brings us to the real opportunity for innovation in transportation in Los Angeles and that is to engage the community in the process.

Its local community members that know which Franklin Avenue valets are racing through which side streets at midnight. They’ve got a proposed solution, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local community members that have Woonerf plans already drawn up, all in an effort to reduce the speed of the cut-through traffic on their residential street, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local cyclists who can tell you that there are 34 streetlights burned out or missing on the Cahuenga Pass, making dodging the uneven manhole covers and potholes difficult at night, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local bus passengers that can tell you which intersections are tough for bus connections and great for ped scrambles, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local pedestrians who can tell you which streets are simply not crossable on foot, if anyone is ready to listen.

The people of Los Angeles deserve more from the LADOT than an email address and the opportunity to submit questions, if properly formatted and vetted by committee, board and then chair.

The people of Los Angeles deserve the right to participate in the vision for their community … from the beginning, and that includes our plans for how we move, how we get about and how we share our public space.

It’s time for the LADOT and people of Los Angeles to partner in making our streets great places for walking, for riding, for living and for sharing, for all modes of travel. For making them safe for the Michael Duffins and Jose Silvas. And the hundreds of other who will follow to their sad ends if the LADOT doesn’t engage the community and take action now.

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

CityWatchLA - An MOU with the Transpo Department a Must

CityWatch, October 2008

NCs and the DOT
By Stephen Box

Proponents of an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the LA Department of Transportation and the Neighborhood Councils need only look to the City Council for inspiration and reassurance that a document codifying an agreement to work together is not only wise, but necessary. Two years ago, at about the same time that earlier incarnation of a Neighborhood Council MOU with the LADOT sat unsigned and collecting dust, the City Council noted that during the Metro's Call for Projects process, "inadequate outreach was done, which did not allow the Council sufficient time to analyze and thoroughly review the City's proposed project submission list. In the future, it is critical that internal coordination occur to ensure that there is consensus on all projects that are submitted for funding and that Metro's submission deadline is met."

The City Council then acted to "ensure adequate Council input and review," a standard that seems reasonable and responsible.

A few months later, as the LADOT presented the proposed projects to the Transportation Committee, 15 members of the cycling community showed up and protested, pointing out that the entire process had taken place without the community being involved. The proposed projects, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, had been assembled with no public support and were being submitted for approval without little time for public review.

The LADOT countered by explaining that the Metro Call for Projects had come up so suddenly that they had to scramble to assemble the projects for submittal. The 2007 Call was the first since 2001 and the DOT simply had no time to prepare.

It was at this point that the simple question was asked; "Doesn't the LADOT have a comprehensive plan or a vision for LA's Transportation?"

Crickets chirped.

The General Manager of the LADOT acknowledged that the preparation of the transportation projects was based on funding opportunities, not on a Strategic Transportation Plan. This explained why the public was excluded from the process. There was no process. It all came to light when the community insisted on getting involved.

We've come a long way since then. The Department of Transportation has a new General Manager. The City Council has held a single-topic session to focus on creating a Strategic Transportation Plan.

However, as for the community, the NC's continue to watch from the sidelines. Sometimes, if the NC's are quick, they can ask questions and perhaps even offer advice!

Ultimately, if the situation is to improve, it is up to the NC's to make the same demands that the City Council made, a process to ensure adequate Neighborhood Council input and review and a working group to oversee the relationship. A demand that the LADOT obey the City Charter and provide notification to NCs in sufficient time for them to consider the issues and provide the advice they are mandated to give.

History indicates: An NC MOU with the DOT is a must. If it's good enough for the City Council, it's good enough for the Neighborhood Councils.

CityWatchLA - Brown Out at the DWP

CityWatch, Sept 26, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 78

City Ignores the Law
By Stephen Box

Legendary rock band Van Halen, at the peak of its popularity, was taken to task by the media when it was discovered that Van Halen’s contract contained a provision that called for a backstage bowl of M&M’s, but with all of the brown ones removed. Often dismissed as Urban Legend, Van Halen lead singer David Lee Roth confirms the story as true, quoting article #126 of their production contract which specifies “There will be no brown M&M’s in the backstage area, upon pain of forfeiture of the show, with full compensation.”

As for the charge that this was evidence of the lavish and whimsical demands that Rock Stars made on promoters, Roth responds the ban on brown M&M’s was far from frivolous and was instead simply a quality control measure, implemented to guarantee adherence to a contract that was complicated and included complex technical specifications.

In short, when the band arrived in town, they would stop backstage and look for the bowl of M&M’s on the craft service table. If they found brown M&M’s, they knew it was time to line check the entire production because there were sure to be technical problems. Sometimes they might be minor, sometimes they might threaten to destroy the show and sometimes they might be simply dangerous.

There’s a lesson here for the members of the public who attend meetings covered by the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state law that guarantees the public the opportunity to participate in government meetings and deliberations.

Simply announce to the Security Staff at the entrance that you are a member of the public attending a public meeting. The Brown Act specifies that the members of the public have the right to attend public meetings without having to provide their name or any information.

Last month I attended the DWP Commission meeting in order to appeal to the Board to lift the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park during the DWP Festival of Lights in November and December.

I approached the Security Desk and was asked to sign-in. I smiled and identified myself as a “member of the public, here to attend a public meeting.” The guard didn’t smile and instead informed me that I needed to show identification and sign in. I responded that I was a “member of the public, here to attend a public meeting.” He repeated his position, I asked for a Supervisor, the Supervisor supported the Guards position and I showed identification and signed.

When it came time to speak before the Commission, presenting my claim that the DWP is violating state law (CVC 21) by banning cyclists from the streets while leaving them open to motor vehicles, I pointed out that the DWP was also violating state law, the Brown Act, by refusing to allow me to attend the DWP Commission without showing identification and signing in.

General Counsel to the DWP, Richard M. Brown (no relation to Ralph M.) responded quickly saying “you’re absolutely right! According to the Brown Act, the public has the right to attend meetings without having to identify themselves or provide identification.”

I pointed out that I was there to ask the DWP to stop violating state law at Griffith Park only to find the DWP violating state law at the DWP Commission. The remedy or “cure” for the Brown Act violation is to re-agendize the meeting and reconvene at a later date. I passed on requesting the “cure” but I did ask them to adhere to state law and lift the ban on cyclists in Griffith Park.

My request drew a meeting with Councilman Tom LaBonge, DWP staff and Recreation & Parks staff, all who reiterated that the ban on cyclists would stand.

At the next DWP Commission meeting I repeated the “I’m a member of the public and I’m here to attend a public meeting” request. This time it only took four members of the DWP security detail a consultation with the supervisor, a series of back and forth requests to sign in, a discussion with regards to providing me with an escort and …voilá…I was free to attend the DWP Commission meeting without signing in. This was progress!

I spoke my piece and then DWP Commission Chair Nick Patsaouras graciously noted that this was my second visit the DWP Commission on the same topic and instructed staff to put my issue on the agenda “so it can be resolved.”

As I left the meeting, I had the opportunity to chat with the Deputy Counsel to the DWP, Joseph A. Grajevich, and I pointed out that progress had been made but that it was still an ordeal to invoke the Brown Act at the DWP. He shook his head and said they were working on it. I reminded him that the law was 53 years old and at this rate, I was worried that they would never get to my real concern, the ban on cyclists during the DWP Festival of Lights.

He asked me who was in charge of the DWP Festival of Lights. I chuckled and responded “If it’s successful, there will be many departments responsible, if it’s controversial, it will be an orphan.”

The journey is far from complete. I’ll be at the next DWP Commission meeting on October 7 and I look forward to presenting my proposal to lift the DWP ban on cyclists.

I hope you’ll join me, not just in fighting for my cause, but also in claiming your rights under the Brown Act and in ensuring that those in power are reminded at every opportunity that the Brown Act is a real law and that we expect it to be enforced.

“See you in Chambers!”

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

CityWatchLA - Is LADOT Violating the City’s General Plan?

CityWatch, Sept 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 74

LA’s Cyclists: ‘Count Me In’
By Stephen Box

LA Department of Transportation’s Bikeways Coordinator stood before a room full of cyclists gathered for a Bicycle Master Plan workshop and explained, with a straight face, that the City no longer did traffic counts on cyclists because “the company that did the counting went out of business.”

It was unclear at the time if this meant that there simply was nobody left to do the counting or if the technology of counting things has disappeared when the company went out of business.

LA’s City Council, in 2002, implemented a Bicycle Plan that directs the Department of Transportation to conduct traffic counts including bicycle counts at intersections along designated Citywide Bikeways for comparison purposes.

The Plan further specifies that traffic studies conducted as part of DEIR’s or other environmental clearances include bicycle traffic counts if the intersections are located on Citywide Bikeways.

The Plan further directs the DOT to undertake annual bicycle parking counts at public bicycle parking facilities.

The Plan concludes by directing the LAPD and the LADOT to track bicycle accident reports as part of Bicycle Plan monitoring. It also specifies the creation of an accident report map as a means of pinpointing safety enhancement needs.

And yet, as the City of LA is in the middle of updating the City’s Bicycle Plan, an element of the City’s Transportation Plan, all of which is part of the General Plan, the City has no data.

The Hawthorne Effect, tested in the 30’s, found that when something is measured, it improves and when it is measured and reported, it improves exponentially.

Other Cities have demonstrated the effectiveness of this principle by laying down a goal, establishing a starting point, keeping count and evaluating success based on performance.

Mayor Daley set out to make Chicago the most bicycle-friendly city in the United States. He established goals for improvement and he measured performance by counting and is responsible for installing 10,000 bike racks, more than any other city in the United States.

San Francisco’s vision to establish the highest per-capita bicycle use in North America includes having the Municipal Transportation Agency measures the effectiveness of this campaign by counting cyclists. The MTA reports that cycling on Market Street increased 31% from last year to this year, demonstrating that the City’s efforts to ensure that cyclists feel safe and welcome on the streets were successful.

Meanwhile, the LADOT can report with thorough detail where we stand on funding but when it comes to accounting for those dollars, nothing. No performance reports. Nada.

What happened to the Sepulveda Reversible project and were any cycling counts included in that project? How about the Safe Routes to School projects? Were cycling counts included to determine if the efforts were effective? How safe are our streets and how many cyclists have been injured or killed in traffic collisions on the streets of Los Angeles?

What is our record for moving people, not simply motor vehicles, through the intersections of Los Angeles? Do we even count people?

The only way the City of Los Angeles will ever improve conditions on the streets is if we evaluate based on performance, not simply the funding or completion of projects. Effectiveness has to be based on real numbers.

As for this cyclist, I know I count and I expect to be counted!

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

CityWatchLA - LaBonge: Lights Out on Cyclists in Griffith Park

CityWatch, Sept 5, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 72

But, It’s the Law?
By Stephen Box

Councilman Tom LaBonge declared the Griffith Park Holiday Festival of Lights "unsafe for cyclists" on Wednesday and reaffirmed the ban on cyclists saying "the cars would be moving slowly, the cyclists would be riding fast and the motorists would be distracted. It's just not safe!" With the Holidays fast approaching, LaBonge convened a long overdue meeting, inviting reps from the DWP and the Department of Recreation & Parks to sit down with Equestrians and Cyclists to iron out details for the upcoming Festival of Lights.

LaBonge cut right to the chase and asked the Equestrians what they wanted and they responded with a reasonable enough request. They want to ride horses through the Festival of Lights, "after dark!"

There was a bit of discussion on the logistics of automobiles and pedestrians and horses all in the same area and finally it was agreed that the Equestrians would ride along the river, come up by the Ranger Station and then ride through the Festival, but only from 5pm to 7pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. This compromise seemed to satisfy all parties.

Then LaBonge turned his eyes on the Cyclists and asked what they wanted and they also responded with a reasonable enough request. "Abide by State Law. When the streets are open to motorists, ensure that they are also open to cyclists." There was more than a bit of discussion and none of it moved toward a compromise.

Joe Salaices of Rec & Parks explained that the streets had been reconfigured to accommodate the motor vehicle traffic, leaving no room for cyclists. He went on to explain that cyclists are known to ride "25 miles per hour between the cars" and that the difference in speeds between the cars and the bikes is just too dangerous!

Kimberley Hughes of the DWP pointed out that there will be a Bike Night on November 28th so that "the kids can ride their Big Wheels, parents can teach their children to ride their bikes and families can enjoy the Festival together."

The Cyclists rejected the "Bike Night" offer, prompting Rory Fitzpatrick, LaBonge's Chief of Operations, to call it a stalemate. LaBonge again asked for a compromise but the cyclists simply responded by explaining that they have no authority to negotiate State Law.

LaBonge pulled out a memo from the City Attorney's office, unsigned and on plain paper with no letterhead, and claimed that it authorized him to ban cyclists from the Festival of Lights. He passed out copies of the memo and repeated his claim that "the streets of Griffith Park aren't City streets!

The meeting concluded with the following arrangements being made for the different user groups.

Pedestrians will have 14 nights of vehicle-free Festival ending on December 7th.

Motorists will have access to the Festival beginning on December 8th and running until December 30th.

Equestrians will have access to the Festival on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, from 5 – 7pm, also beginning on December 8th.

Best of all, this year, special provisions are being made for man’s best friend. The bridle trail will be set aside for the exclusive use of dogs (and their humans) on the 14 Pedestrian nights.

Ultimately, there are many ways to enjoy the upcoming 2008 Griffith Park Festival of Lights. Guests can come by automobile, they can walk, they can ride a horse, they can even come by dog sled. They simply can’t ride a bike through the Festival.

Somehow this makes sense to Councilman LaBonge, the self-proclaimed best friend of LA’s cycling community. LaBonge, on his website, proudly proclaims “We could solve so many of the challenges facing Los Angeles right now if more of us rode bikes. We could take a big chunk out of air pollution, traffic and our waistlines, too.”

He then turns around and asks the City Attorney for support in banning cyclists from the streets of Griffith Park, a request that is met with the simple caveat “it is by no means certain that a court would agree.”

The author of the “Bicycle Ban” memo suggests arguing “the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing.” In other words, cyclists are banned in order to provide for the safety and protection of the permitted motorists.

Another proposed argument is the idea that the law allowing for the prohibition of certain vehicles (heavy trucks that might damage streets) get flipped and used to prohibit bicycles, again for safety purposes.

The final claim is that the Festival of Lights is a group activity, “specifically designed to attract and permit vehicles to pass through and view the lights” and that cyclists aren’t part of that group.
It’s hard to believe that LaBonge can read this memo and hold it up as a credible support for the ban on cyclists.

Ultimately, the Festival of Lights is an autocentric environmental nightmare that fills the park with idling automobiles, clogs the adjacent neighborhoods, chokes the air with exhaust fumes and causes congestion that is significant enough to shut down the freeway!

The Festival of Lights is also the City of LA’s gift to the people of LA, and to the horses of LA, and to the dogs of LA, just not to the cyclists of LA!

Cough, Cough! Here’s wishing LA Green Holidays!

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

CityWatchLA - LA’s Bicycle Plan – Read Between the Lies

CityWatch, Aug 26, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 69

Transportation Politics
By Stephen Box

The City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of updating its Bicycle Plan, also known as Chapter IX of the Transportation Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles.

To the uninitiated, the Bicycle Plan sounds like a hopeful planning document with the potential to lay down policies and plans that will integrate cycling as a transportation solution, complete with positive environmental impacts, health benefits and congestion relieving results.

To those who have been paying attention, the Bicycle Plan more closely resembles another LADOT funding scheme, short on vision and long on opportunity to fund uninspired roadway projects with the limited funds made available for Bikeways projects.

Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT, offers her support for the Bicycle Plan explaining that it will allow the Department of Transportation to apply for the State’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding.

Mia Birk, the consultant from Portland who facilitated the Bicycle Plan workshops earlier this year, opened the session by explaining that the Bicycle Plan was necessary to qualify for BTA funding, and then went into an overview of the “17 points of compliance” necessary to qualify for funding. Was this a funding seminar?

Most recently, LADOT’s Bikeways Coordinator appeared before the City Council’s Transportation Committee to report on the progress of the Bicycle Plan update process and reported that the Bicycle Plan was necessary if the City was to qualify for the Metro’s Call for Projects and the State’s BTA funding opportunities.

This “focus on funding” might be a good thing if it resulted in the means to develop and implement a “vision” that resulted in an improved environment for cyclists.

Unfortunately for the community, the results are not there.

For example, the LADOT has succeeded in funding only two projects using BTA funds out of the $50 million made available statewide over the last 7 years.

The first funded project was in the 05-06 funding cycle and was for a section of the LA River bike path with an award of $500,000.

The second was in the 06-07 funding cycle and resulted in an award of $1.25 million for a quarter mile of bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge, a project that was referred to as having a total value of approximately $7 million. (Bike lanes are essentially painted lines supported by signs and the cost typically runs $50K per mile)

The LADOT took the $1.25 million for the quarter mile of bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge and then applied to the Metro for the same project, calling it a “Bikeway Improvement” and asking for approximately $7.5 million, referring to the total value of the project as $20 million.

In other words, the LADOT has funded a Bridge-Widening project using Bikeways Improvement money by disguising it as a Bikeways project.

It is against the backdrop of the extravagant Fletcher “bike lane” project that cyclists ask about simple improvements to the cycling environment such as better curb lane maintenance, traffic signals that recognize cyclists and more bike parking throughout the city.

It’s unfortunate that cyclists have to rely on specific funding and aren’t simply included in all roadway design, improvements and maintenance projects. That day will come soon.

In the meantime, the meager funding set aside for cyclists ends up cobbled together to fund projects that fail to demonstrate a commitment to cyclists as much as they demonstrate a commitment to road widening.

The Bicycle Plan has the potential to be a significant and powerful document, full of vision and promise and hope.

For that to happen the Bicycle Plan needs to start with Equality as the principle that drives all Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation options and choices.

(Stephen Box is a cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - Bicycle Plan Advice for the Advocate

CityWatch, Aug 22, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 70

The Feedback Cycle
By Stephen Box

Feedback, both pro and con, is great. Especially if it leads to a discussion, a dialogue, a conversation that gets the issues out and into the public arena where they belong.

My CityWatch article on LA's Bike Plan stirred some great feedback, some of which I'd like to share with you.

• "C" … cut right to the chase and offered up "Bulls---!" as his simple and succinct response to my claim that "The Bicycle Plan has the potential to be a significant and powerful document, full of vision and promise and hope."
• "JL" … went to the other extreme and offered a lengthy response, agreeing with the main points: "1) the LA City Bicycle Master has flaws, 2) LA City’s pursuit of state bicycle funding (BTA – Bicycle Transportation Account) has been flawed, and 3) the massive-multi-million-dollar infrastructure approach to bike lanes on Fletcher Drive is very deeply flawed…" and then defending LA's Bike Plan by claiming "the bike plan has resulted in the meager numbers of bike lanes that we do have on LA City streets. We wouldn’t have the bike lanes on Silver Lake Boulevard, Griffith Park Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard and Venice Boulevard had we not had them in the plan, and had not advocates (in those cases, the LACBC circa 1998-2002) fought for them."
• "LL" … was concerned about the Bikeways improvements in the area and the impact on the community, especially if it was going to impact parking for the businesses on the Atwater Village side of the Fletcher Bridge. He was also confused by the BTA funding and was under the impression that the bridge was due for seismic retrofitting but that it was funded by Prop G money. Of greatest concern to him was the simple fact that so much was going on in the neighborhood, but without his knowledge. "LL" is active in the community, owns a business within sight of the bridge and is of the opinion that the community should be involved in decisions that affect the neighborhood.
• "OF" … had questions but never revealed his opinion on the issues, simply concluding our email exchange with words of encouragement. "I'm enjoying reading many of your recent City Watch pieces. I hope you're having fun writing them."
• "RM" … clarified the funding issue by asking "Didn't you realize that the Fletcher Bridge is 40 miles long? That's why its Bike Lane markings cost $7 M." He offered that the price would be even higher if Leonardo Da Vinci where still alive to work as a subcontractor, painting stripes for the City of LA.

I still haven't heard from "GO," a Traffic Engineer who took me to task last week for my position on public participation in the “science” of transportation. Last week he wrote "While I may agree that the methodology of the existing system could be improved it is not something to leave to a local plebiscite." Of course, the week isn't yet over!

(Stephen Box is a 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)

CityWatchLA - LADOT Dragging Their Feet on LA’s Crosswalk Death Traps

CityWatch, August 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 65

Who’s Listening to the Neighborhoods?
By Stephen Box

A little over six years ago, Jennifer Liu finished her school day at Granada Hills High School, walked off the campus and into the crosswalk at Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street where she was hit by a car.

The impact of the collision was so great that the halves of her brain were separated. Her collarbones snapped, her ribs were broken and one of them speared her right lung. Blood trickled out of her ears and nose.

Jennifer spent five weeks in a coma. Against the odds, she awoke, relearned everything she knew and went on to graduate from High School and then from College. Looking back on the incident outside Granada High School, Jennifer wonders if the collision wasn’t God’s way of saying, “Slow down, stop racing.”

Jennifer’s father, David Liu, came out of the experience committed to improving the Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street crosswalk. Community members, school staff and school supporters joined him in the fight, all in an effort to have the City of Los Angeles install a “smart” crosswalk, one that would alert motorists to the presence of a pedestrian.

The battle has not been easy.

Last year the City Council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the city has had funding for the work for years.

LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher blamed the 2001 hiring freeze for putting them behind schedule and explained that the department had picked up the pace on special projects since hiring an additional 13 workers in 2006.

One councilman angrily responded, "Our Department of Transportation is one of the slowest, most bureaucratic departments in the city. I am constantly banging my head against the wall to get them to do what I want them to do."

As for Zelzah and Kingsbury, ground was broken months ago, equipment was installed and the “smart” signal remains wrapped up and inoperable.

Community advocates, parents and school staff are frustrated with the situation, one that is aggravated by the LADOT’s recent proposal to raise the speed limit on Zelzah Avenue, all as the community works to calm traffic and address the congestion in the area.

The LADOT pleads helpless in the speed limit raising proposal, pointing out that they merely conduct the engineering and traffic surveys that are required as a condition of certifying the speed limits, all in accordance with state law as a condition of using radar to enforce speed limits.

Which means, the LAPD can’t use radar on speeding motorists until the speed limit survey certifies the speed limit, but the large number of speeding motorists “vote with the gas pedal” and the new speed limit is set at the 85% mark so the speed limit is raised. Now the LAPD can use radar on the motorists who are now not speeding because the speed limit just got raised.

All of this on Zelzah Avenue, which still does not have a functioning “smart” crosswalk at Kingsbury.

Through it all, community members are asking the LADOT, the Transportation Committee and the Transportation Commission how all of this takes place without community involvement.

Two weeks ago, the Transportation Commission rejected three LADOT requests for speed limit increases in the West Valley simply because they had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils as part of the process.

Last week, the Transportation Committee had six LADOT requests for speed limit increases on the agenda. Members of the community spoke in opposition, arguing that the proposals had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils, that the proposals were in conflict with efforts to calm traffic and establish walkable, rideable, livable communities and that the criteria for evaluating appropriate speed limits was outdated and ineffective.

The Transportation Committee pulled the Zelzah Avenue proposal and then approved the other 5, including Reseda Avenue, which would increase the speed limit from 40 to 50 mph alongside a bike lane.

Community members continue to ask the hard questions:

Who sets the priorities for the Department of Transportation?

Why are the Neighborhood Councils not involved in evaluating and advising the city on transportation projects in their communities?

What is the LADOT’s record for delivery on Safe Routes to School projects and what happens to the funding on projects that the LADOT fails to deliver?

(Stephen Box is a long-time community issues advocate. Box writes for CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - They Never Promised US a Rose Garden

CityWatch, August 5, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 63

Department Violates the Charter
By Stephen Box

(“We’re not required to notify neighborhood councils’ on proposed speed limit increases.-Rita Robinson, Department of Transportation General Manager.”)

It's been three years since my wife and I joined representatives from four Neighborhood Councils and sat down with the senior Management of LA's Department of Transportation to develop a memorandum of understanding, all as part of USC's Civic Engagement Initiative.

Dr. Terry Cooper and his team from USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development facilitated the event which spanned several months, (including two holiday weekends as some of the LADOT staff repeatedly pointed out) and included moderated team building exercises designed to encourage empathy and a win-win working relationship. The participating NC's were Silver Lake, Hollywood United, Northwest San Pedro and Mar Vista, each sending five representatives who met on weekends with a team from the LADOT led by Assistant General Manager John Fisher and Senior Transportation Engineer Glenn Ogura.

Through it all, I found the opportunity to develop relationships with the members of the LADOT and the other NC's to be of tremendous value, a benefit that I value to this day. I also thought the final work product, the LADOT/NC MOU, was of value and I was proud to have participated in its creation.

The journey was not without drama with some neighborhood council reps demanding that the process include the Department of Planning and threatening to withdraw if changes weren't made. The NC reps also found that the DOT representatives were unwilling to accept terms such as "major project" and "significant impact" without great debate that resulted in a watered down MOU.

Ultimately, we completed the process and produced a document that was approved by the participants and then sent to the respective NC's and the Department of Transportation for endorsement.

The Boards of the four councils each approved the MOU and I was honored to be selected by Hollywood United to serve as its NC rep, serving as the primary contact for the DOT.

The project leader, Thomas Bryer, called to invite us to USC's Rose Garden for a small ceremony to commemorate the signing of the MOU and the commencement of the "new" relationship between the NC's and the LADOT.

The ceremony never took place.

Since then, Bryer finished his work at USC. He is now known as "Dr. Bryer" and is a Professor of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Gloria Jeff has come and gone as LADOT's General Manager and the department is now led by Rita Robinson.

As for the NC's relationship with LADOT, not much has improved. The LADOT recently appeared before the Transportation Commission with recommendations for speed limit increases in the valley. Ms. Robinson was asked if the department had notified the neighborhood councils of the proposed changes and she responded, "No. We are not required to notify the neighborhood councils of actions such as this."

Perhaps it's time to revisit the City Charter.

Meanwhile, we wait, acutely aware that the LADOT never promised us the Rose Garden. Read the proposed NC/DOT Memorandum of Understanding here .

(Stephen Box is a community activist and a contributor to CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - Mandeville Simmers

CityWatch, July 2008

Cyclists Rights
By Stephen Box

On July 4th, two cyclists riding down Mandeville Canyon Road encountered an angry motorist who proceeded to cut them off, slamming on his brakes and causing one cyclist to careen through the air crashing to the road in front of the car while the other cyclist crashed into the car putting his head through the back window.

The cyclists ended up in the hospital, the motorist ended up facing multiple felony charges , and the resulting media storm revealed significant animosity and disagreement in the community over cyclists and their use of the road.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl jumped into the fray with the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights in hand saying “Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear.” He scheduled a Town Hall to address the issue, spoke eloquently at the Transportation Committee of cyclists’ rights and then at week’s end, he introduced the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights to City Council.

Through it all, an online debate was roiling and had grown in intensity to the point of absurdity. LAist shut down its comment section while the LATimes racked up over 700 comments, some of the hateful threats.

The LAWheelmen received a message from "Nina" saying "HOORAY FOR THE DOCTOR. It's about time you lawless bunch of crayolas get what you deserve! There are several of us current and former La Habra Heights residents ready, willing and able to testify on behalf of the doctor."

Over at the LATimes "Buckshotty" wrote "If you seen my rocket ripping up the canyon you better gtf out the way or we'll be coloring all of your spandex red with biological dye, feel me?"

On Saturday, a press release went out indicating that the Town Hall meeting was cancelled citing concerns from officials with homeowner associations and the bicycling clubs that train on Mandeville Canyon that “the tenor of media coverage and of blog posts would make a Monday public meeting counter-productive."

The Town Hall meeting was replaced with a Task Force which convened its first meeting with approximately 30 people in attendance including representatives from LADOT's Bikeways Department, LAPD, a rep from the City Prosecutor's Office, a Public Works Commissioner, a criminal psychologist, the LA County Bicycle Coalition, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, Velo Club La Grange, the South Bay Wheelmen, Team Helens and Councilman Rosendahl and staff.

Within hours of the conclusion of the Task Force meeting, notes from the meeting had been blogged by the Bicycle Advisory Committee's representative and a significant online dialogue took place questioning the efficacy of the Task Force and the results of the meeting.

Critics claim the Task Force failed to establish that cyclists have the right to take the lane, that cyclists are not prohibited from riding two abreast and that double solid yellow stripes on the road means no passing.

At MidnightRidazz , Nathan Snider commented "How can it be that, in a meeting spurred on by a driver assaulting two cyclists, not a single one of the cyclists' recommendations relate to driver behavior?"

"Kyber" added "Wow. That dialog (sic) between residents and cyclists went really well. Talk about blaming the victim?"

Over at StreetsBlog Jeffrey W. Baker wrote "I'm not sure I understand what happened here. Some guy attacked and severely injured two bicyclists, and the proposed solutions are bicyclist education and repaving the road? Non sequitur."

Those more diplomatically inclined argue that it makes sense to bring cyclists and homeowners together and to share in the responsibility for addressing the conflict while those with good memories point out that the Mandevillians have a long history of "tension" and that Rosendahl is the third Councilmember to form a task force to address conflict in the Mandeville Canyon.

The upside of this three week long journey is that the community is talking and the world is watching. From the LATimes to the UK Telegraph, the Bike Writers Collective has been recognized for the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Councilman Rosendahl has championed the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and, in spite of all the criticism, he has proven steadfast in working toward a solution.

As the debate over the road rage incident, the cancelled Town Hall and the Task Force simmers down, the same cyclists who initially drove the "road rage" story have met with Councilman Rosendahl's staff and plans are now being made for the Town Hall meeting.

Through it all, we are reminded that our streets are the new public space and our ability to share that space is one of our greatest opportunities for revitalizing and redefining our communities.

"See you on the Streets!"

LAist - Road Rage Motorist vs. Cyclists on Mandeville Canyon Road

LAist, July 7, 2008

On July 4th, about 300 cyclists gathered at the Manhattan Beach Starbucks for a Holiday Ride to the top of Mandeville Canyon Road in Brentwood. The Holiday Ride is a regular event that takes place 5-6 times a year drawing cyclists from all over the greater LA area.

Mandeville Canyon, off Sunset Blvd., is a steep and challenging ride and the crowd quickly thinned out with some cyclists racing to the top while others rode socially, catching up with old friends and savoring the journey.

On the descent, a cyclist in the back fell, breaking his collarbone and injuring himself seriously enough to require medical attention and a ride to the hospital in an ambulance. Christian Stoehr, 29, and Ron Peterson, 40, stayed behind until the ambulance arrived and then they began their descent down the hill.

Christian Stoehr recounts "We were riding downhill at approximately 30 mph when a car came up behind us, must have been doing 50 mph, and the driver started honking at us. We moved to the right in single file within seconds and the motorist pulled along Ron and started screaming at him. He then pulled in front of us with 3-5 feet to spare and slammed on his brakes, giving us no time to stop. I swerved and almost made it, clipping the car and flying through the air and landing in the street. Ron had no room to move and he went straight into the back of the car, putting his face through the back window."

The driver of the vehicle stopped his car and continued the tirade, identifying himself as a Doctor but never offering medical attention.

Ron told the motorist to turn off the car and Christian sat on the hood of the car, afraid that the driver would drive off. The motorist continued the tirade, telling Christian to get his bike out of the street. Christian reported that they were afraid that the motorist would leave the scene.

A third cyclist, Chris Roberts, rode up and stepped in to make sure the motorist didn't leave. Christian collapsed on the side of the road as the ambulance from the top of the hill pulled up with the first injured cyclist. Paramedics jumped out and administered first aid.

Christian was banged up, collected road rash and was unable to move his right arm. Ron reports that "my nose was separated to the point that it was hanging off my face. They moved it to the side and pulled glass out of my face. My front two teeth are broken, they found a piece in the backseat mixed in with all the glass. I've got 90 stitches in my face."

Both cyclists ride with Synergy and both are accomplished racers. Ron is a CAT1 racer and former State Champion with 14 years of racing experience. Christian has a couple of years of racing under his belt and says "Ron is my racing coach and just a couple of months ago he conducted a safety class with exercises to teach us better bike handling skills. This meant I was better prepared to take evasive action and I almost made it! Ron had no room to move and ended up hitting the back of the car, putting his face through the back window."

Christian says "It'll be months before I can ride again, I was looking forward to some of the upcoming stage races but the season is over for me. Not only that, I'm a camera and steadicam operator so I'm going to be unable to work for months."

Their bodies are broken, their bikes are totaled but their resolve is stronger than ever.

"This isn't the first time that there's been an incident like this." says Ron. "In fact two cyclists from LAGrange were recently run off the road by a motorist who fits the same description as this one. They reported it but no charges were filed. Same road, same situation. We've got to work together to prosecute this guy to the full extent of the law before he kills somebody!"

LAPD: The Heavy Hand of the Law!

“While riding a bike for transportation is a tribute to many of the basic ideas upon which this country was founded - common sense, self-reliance, and closeness with the land, to name a few - it is also, in many ways, a slap in the face to contemporary American culture.” Robert Hurst in “The Art of Urban Cycling"

A large group of cyclists rode down Sunset Boulevard. If they had been driving automobiles, we would call it traffic, congestion, rush hour, our quotidian dose of gridlock, LA's legacy or any of a number of names. But they're on bikes and the ride is called the LA Critical Mass. It's a regular bike ride consisting of cyclists who ride for all sorts of reasons, coming from all directions and riding as a group through the streets of Los Angeles, all in a celebration of the fact that "We are Traffic!"

The LAPD responded to the sudden presence of so many cyclists by sending 12 Officers in 6 squad cars. They picked out the most threatening and dangerous cyclist in the crowd and immediately went to work making the streets of Los Angeles safer for motorists.

"CD" indicates that the approaching officers greeted her by screaming at her "Do you have any warrants out for your arrest? Are you on probations? Do you have any drugs or weapons on you?" They ordered her to put her possessions on the ground, to put her hands on her head, then turned her around, grabbed her wrists and put her in handcuffs.

They called for a female assist who then grabbed "CD" and told her to "spread'em" and then "very thoroughly frisked me everywhere, saying that she was searching for drugs and/or weapons!"


"CD" was given a ticket for "STOPPING ON SIDEWALK BLOCKING TRAFFIC" which is an infraction. (The Officer may have mixed up Crosswalk and Sidewalk - Excellent!)

There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario, the first being that it is completely unbelievable that "CD" posed a such a threat to the 12 police officers that it was necessary to submit her to such a thorough and humiliating experience.

The second thing that is wrong with this scenario is the fact that the Police Department has a very specific protocol for dealing with an "Illegal Assembly." If the 12 Officers who responded to the LACritical Mass made a decision that the ride constituted an illegal assembly, law enforcement present at the scene must then announce to the crowd that the crowd must disperse. The Dispersal Order is very specific on the process.

Nowhere in the Dispersal Order does it say, "pick someone from the crowd, handcuff her, yell at her, frisk her thoroughly looking for drugs and weapons, then issue her a poorly-written ticket for an infraction."

"CD" reports that two guys stopped to make sure everything was okay and that they stayed until the end. "Thank god. I didn't even know them. Which is always a great reminder of how amazing some people are."

The amazing people of Los Angeles deserve better from our Police Department.

If you're a fan of the 1st Amendment, give City Council President Garcetti a call and ask him to look into this case. It's summer time, the evenings are warm, it's entirely possible that there will be groups of cyclists on the streets. It would be great to have a well-informed Police Department capable of dealing with a crowd without having to get aggressive.

If you're a fan of the 4th Amendment, give City Council Transportation Chair Wendy Greuel a call and ask her to look into the case. It's always a good time to be secure in our persons and property, free of unreasonable search and seizure.

It's up to us to work with our Leadership in making Los Angeles a Great City.

Call Council President Garcetti @ 213- 473-7013 or councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Call Councilwoman Greuel @ 213-473-7002 or councilmember.greuel@lacity.org

SLNC Endorses Cyclists' Bill of Rights! LAPD Stomps on Them!

Watch Commander Donatoni points.

Andrea, Officer Stine, Officer Corona and Paul.

Sgt. Harrington supervises the release of cyclist #1. Paul remains in custody for 15-20 minutes. (Photos by Alex Thompson.)

This past Wednesday evening, the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council became the 2nd NC to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, sending a message to the City of Los Angeles that "We need to do anything we can to support cyclists!"

It was a great evening, warm air, lots of energy, and Scoops was still open. Some rode to HelMel, others to TrenWay, plans were made for next weeks ride to pick up the 3rd NC endorsement at the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council and eventually everybody went their own way.

A little after midnight, the phone rang. "They're handcuffing cyclists!" my wife yells.

Alex Thompson is on the phone, he was part of a group of three, riding home to the WestSide from TrenWay when they came across a cyclist they had earlier passed on the road, this time he was standing on the side of the road with LAPD officers and in handcuffs.

Just him and the Police, late at night, no witnesses.

Paul Bringetto later recounted that he found himself wondering "How would I feel?" and that prompted him to return, get off his bike, walk down the sidewalk and identify himself to the Police, offering himself to the detainee as an observer.

Rather than accept, deny, or simply act confused and ask for a supervisor so that they could get some guidance, they chose to handcuff Paul and then began to search him, his backpack, all as Paul said he wasn't giving them permission to search his bag.

Meanwhile, I've got Lt. Donatoni, the Watch Commander of the Hollywood Station, on one phone while Enci is on the phone with Alex, giving me updates as I go round and round with Donatoni, urging him to take responsibility for his unnecessarily aggressive Officers. (Alex and Andrea are watching from a distance)

Lt. Donatoni and I take some time to get settled into a conversation where we can work together to calm the situation down. He was at first defiant, flip, and accusatory, pointing out over and over that I'm not on the scene so how do I know what's going on?

I keep pointing out that I don't know what's going on, I simply want the Watch Commander to get a Supervisor to the scene and I want him to be accountable for his Officers and I want him to take responsibility for asking the simple questions, why handcuffs?

He slows down and instructs me to have Alex approach the Officers and request a Supervisor. Alex does and reports back that the response is "No, and if you don't leave, you'll be arrested also." I point out to Lt. Donatoni that his instructions and the officers responses are out of sync and that this is on him and requires his intervention. He gets a supervisor to the scene.

The specifics of the incident belong to Paul, Alex and Andrea. they will fill in the details as they report on the incident from their perspectives. But for now...

Ultimately, Paul was handcuffed, searched and detained, eventually being released on the street with a ticket for an equipment violation on his bike. It took them 20 minutes to think of a violation. Somebody is trying too hard!

(He approached the Police on Foot. He was a pedestrian. The ticket is retaliatory. Sgt. Harrington records the incident as "Stopped for Equipment Violation." I later point out that Paul wasn't stopped. He walked up the Officers. On foot. With a bike.)

I head over to the Station and get Lt. Donatoni to the front desk. Paul arrives and brings his bike to the counter with a headlight blazing and asks for the "correctable" ticket to be corrected. Donatoni says they don't do that. We ask who does. He doesn't know.

We ask to file complaints. We argue about the rights of a "detainee" to observers. We argue about the circumstances of the incident that evening. We point out that his instructions to ask for a Supervisor are rejected by his own Officers.

We ask if they also handcuff, detain, search and go through the personal property of other stopped for infractions such as talking on a cell phone or driving a car with expired tags or a burned out tail light. Crickets chirp.

We ask again to file a complaint and we're told to sit down and wait. The clock ticks. Officer Russell #1 and Officer Russell #2 sit at the front counter working on computers. From the clicking sounds, I can only imagine how cool their MySpace pages must be!

It's now way late. We talk about the frequency of the incidents in which cyclists encounter the Police and end up in an adversarial relationship simply for thinking that the streets are ours to ride as equals and that the Police are there to support our rights and our safety.

In February, cyclists delivered the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, left the building and were riding to Pure Luck from downtown when a Lt. from Rampart pulled the group of 4 over and informed them that it wasn't safe for cyclists after dark. He resented not hearing a thundering round of "Yes Sirs" and informed the group "one of you is going to take a ticket." Nice. Mikey Wally took one for his pedals. He now rides brake-free, pedal-free and guilt-free!

In May, a female cyclist is handcuffed and searched thoroughly for "drugs and weapons" as she stands crying on the street and ends up taking a ticket for "stopping on sidewalk blocking traffic" which is an infraction. (the ticket was poorly written, I think the officer got sidewalk and street mixed up. Not a big confidence builder!)

Now again, on the heels of another Cyclist's Bill of Rights endorsement from the community, the Police step up aggressively and write punitive tickets for what purpose?

It's Hollywood, late at night, there must be lots of opportunities to make this a great neighborhood. I'd suggest they start by supporting cyclists, giving them all of their support instead of aggressive and heavy handed violations of our rights.

I recently visited Piper Tech, the City facility that includes the LAPD's Hooper Heliport and the Police Garage. Here are some pictures that should serve to remind LA's finest that it is crazy out there, our streets are crowded and we need to work together. Give it a break, welcome the cyclists, support the cyclists, get out of your squad car and go for a ride yourself! It'll be good for everybody!

See you on the Streets!

BWC Picks up 2nd Cyclists' Bill of Rights Endorsement from Silver Lake NC

Stephen (BWC,) Enci (BWC,) Alfredo, Elson, Alex (BWC,) Erik (BWC,) Colin, Mark (BWC) and Michael

The Silver Lake Neighborhood Council became the 2nd NC to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights as presented by the members of the Bike Writers Collective and a delegation from the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council. EHNC was the 1st NC to endorse the CBR and they have demonstrated themselves to be leaders among the NC's in fighting to make our communities great, not just for cyclists but for all modes.

Alexis and Erik

As usual, the ride started at REDquarters, the Redline station at Santa Monica & Vermont, this time only traveling a short distance to the SLNC Board Meeting at the Micheltorena Elementary School Auditorium where Alexis and Erik of the SLNC Transportation Committee stood by with motion in hand for 1) a resurfacing project in Silver Lake and 2) the endorsement of the Cyclists Bill of Rights.

Elson took to podium saying "I know SLNC has a reputation for being a progressive NC, so this president of the 1st NC to adopt the CBR hopes to see you become #2 tonight!" He also pointed out that the CBR has no official authority but just like the 232 year old document that we will be busy celebrating on July 4th, it takes time to grow and establish awareness - so we're doing it one community at a time.

Alex, co-author of the CBR, urged the SLNC Board to affirm to cyclists who live here, work here and travel through the neighborhood that the NC cares about them and wants to engage them in the Silver Lake community. Alex's photoset of the evening.

Enci spoke of her experiences riding the streets of Los Angeles, both good and bad, and urged the Board to endorse the CBR as a starting point in stirring neighborhood discussions of equality, shared space and a spirit of community, all of which will ensure that LA is a great place to ride.

Erik spoke of the need for equality, pointing out that on the ride over to the meeting, he passed a long rubber hose stretched across the street, used to measure the number of vehicles that pass through our streets. "But they don't count cyclists. In fact they don't count seniors walking to the store, they don't count children walking to school and they don't count the many people on a bus, simply the bus."

There's something wrong when we don't measure the effectiveness of our streets on the people who use them but simply on the number of vehicles. When it's all said and done, the CBR is about equality. We count!

The Board then discussed the CBR, asking if this was the Bill of Rights or the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Common question, simple answer. The Bill of Rights, just like the Bill of Rights for the United States, is a simple list of basic human rights, and addresses the issues and elements that are basic human rights, civil rights and which serve to support an environment of equality. You're not opposed to equality, are you?

Spencer Strauss had a bit of difficulty with item #8 and item #9 and ultimately voted against the CBR.

#8) Cyclists have the right to be actively engaged as a constituent group in the organization and administration of our communities. (apparently he doesn't have a AAA card, a Union Card or belong to any group that acts to represent its membership. Even the SLNC Board has fellow Boardmembers who qualify for their At-Large seats based on a variety of interests in the community)

#9) Cyclists have the right to full access for themselves and their bicycles on all mass transit with no limitations. (Spencer was concerned about the future. What if lots of people start taking the Metro and we reach capacity and it's full and everyone wants to ride a bike. - Wow! Is that a problem or a solution? Meanwhile, City Council President Eric Garcetti has just introduced a motion urging the Metro to remove its ban on rush hour access for bicycles. Spencer has his elbow firmly on the pulse!)

After Spencer spoke, other Board members spoke up affirmatively and firmly. "Cyclists deserve the full support of the Law!" said Gale Jaffe. Elizabeth Bougart-Sharkov said "This is the way to urge the City to encourage pedestrians and cyclists and to improve our community. I support it!" Bea Gold cut to the chase saying "We need to do anything we can. I'm in favor."

And so it passed, 16 to 1, with Boardmember Michael Ray Menjivar joining the group in the hallway, asking about the next NC ride and prompting a few cries of "One of Us!, One of Us!"

Stakeholder Norman Chramoff, an elderly gentleman who had arrived on foot, joined the cyclists in the hallway saying "I think we should all be riding bikes! It would make it safer for all of us! Thank you! What you're doing is great!

As the Board continued with its business, the group broke up, some riding to Tren Way, some riding to Scoops and some to Pure Luck.

As for next steps, on Thursday, July 10th, @ 6pm, we meet at REDquarters and ride to the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council for the 3rd NC endorsement.

See you on the Streets!

LA County Tests Bicycle Donor Program

LA County Public Health is so committed to encouraging physical activity that it has constructed an innovative Bike Donor facility on Melrose Avenue.

The program consists of several bike racks, on County property, hidden from those on the street by the wall, and as far from the building entrance as possible so that Security can't interfere with the Bike Donor program.

Unsuspecting County Health clients enter the Disabled entrance (they're not driving a car = handicapped) and lock their bikes to the bike racks. They leave and walk around the building to the entrance and conduct their business.

Those in need of a bike simply crouch behind the wall, take their time liberating the bike from the rack, walk through the gate and ride away, courtesy of the County Health Bike Donor Program.

By the way, LAMC 12.21 requires City Facilities to provide parking for bicycles (2% of required automobile parking and as close as the closest off-street automobile parking) but this is County Property. They have their own rules!

See you on the Streets!

Bike racks accessible from the sidewalk but not from the parking lot.

Wheels are wheels!

A sidewalk with little activity and little interference from passersby.

Again, a sidewalk with little activity and little interference from passersby.

The "people hole" in the side of the imposing Public Health fortress.