CityWatchLA - Wilbur Ave Bike Lane Brouhaha an LADOT Conspiracy?

CityWatch, Oct 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 81

"I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence." -Former L.A. councilwoman Ruth Galanter

A simple Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) resurfacing project on the Valley's Wilbur Avenue and a Department of Transportation (LADOT) "road diet" have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest, resulting in a clash of cultures that continues to escalate, drawing both CD12's Councilman Smith and LADOT's departing GM Rita Robinson into the fracas. Nine months ago, the BOSS notified local agencies and utilities that Wilbur Avenue, between Devonshire and Chatsworth, was scheduled for a facelift. After allowing six months to pass, ensuring that there are no construction conflicts, the BOSS went to work performing a street improvement that typically brings cheers from the community.

The Department of Transportation, which has three sections engaged in the business of designing street plans, (only two of them subscribe to the BOSS notifications!) jumped on the street resurfacing opportunity and implemented a "road diet." Wilbur went from two lanes in both directions to one lane in each direction, a left turn lane, and bike lanes on both sides.

All this took place quietly. No outreach, no coordination between the LADOT and the neighborhood councils or the CD12 council office or the cycling community or the local PTA or the local NASCAR chapter. No coordination took place between the LADOT's Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways divisions. Nobody notified the City of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee. Nada!

The LADOT argues that they simply took advantage of an opportunity to engage in a "road diet" and to add bike lanes and that they should be congratulated, not criticized. "After all," says LADOT's Assistant GM John Fisher, "the 1996 Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue and we had a very small amount of time to design and implement a new striping plan. We had no time for outreach."

Conspiracy theorists tend look at situations such as this and wonder if the LADOT simply dropped bike lanes onto Wilbur as part of an engineered conflict strategy, killing any hope of a bikeway network, resulting in an "I told you they don't fit!" declaration and allowing a return to "business as usual."

Realists, like Galanter, will look at this situation and simply chalk it up to incompetence.

1) LADOT Incompetence: Wilbur Avenue has been designated for Bike Lanes since '96 and yet the LADOT Bikeways division never developed a striping plan. 14 years is a long time and yet the LADOT claims they had no time for outreach because the resurfacing work was a surprise to them.

DOT Operations subscribes to the BOSS resurfacing notification yet DOT Bikeways doesn't. The simplest and cheapest way to introduce bikeways facilities to the streets of LA is to work cooperatively with other departments.

2) Outreach Incompetence: The LADOT has a Bikeways Project Coordinator who somehow has the time to travel, from Sacramento and Chattanooga, giving presentations on facilities that don't exist in the City of Los Angeles.

It would seem that the highest priority would be on coordinating the divisions within the LADOT, the LADOT with other city departments, and the City of LA with the people who actually walk, ride bikes, take mass transit and drive the streets.

Most importantly, it would seem that coordinating transportation issues with the people of Los Angeles would be a priority but, based on results, such was not the case.

For all of the billion dollar transportation solutions on the horizon, the simplest opportunity for the people of LA to improve access and mobility is to focus on "human infrastructure," information and education that results in small behavioral shifts, all adding up to safer streets, greater communication and cooperation, and enhanced effectiveness for all modes.

The Wilbur Avenue incident is the epitome of arrogance, imposing a solution on the community without input and then framing the situation as a win-lose proposal.

It created a situation that consumed incredible amounts of energy and time, not from the folks who are on the clock, but from the community, all because the LADOT is evidently incapable or unwilling to simply engage the community in the solution.

"Road diets" are not new and the notion that moderate speeds increase capacity and through-put is counter-intuitive but true.

The fact that property values go up as speeds go down and the fact that local residents can cross the street safely and enjoy active transportation when cut-through traffic is eliminated are all missing from the conversation because the conversation never took place.

The LADOT must embrace a "Common Ground" approach to traffic engineering or the Wilbur Incident repeat itself in other neighborhoods.

3) Council Office Incompetence: Councilman Smith has come forward to argue that the bike lanes don't make sense. In fact, he went so far as to introduce a motion that would require all bikeways improvements to go to the local neighborhood council for approval. This from a guy who has worked the hardest in city council to keep neighborhood councils from gathering steam.

He has championed speed limit increases in his district over neighborhood council objections. But now, they become his ally (or tool) in fighting the LADOT who acted against his wishes.

Smith objects to the bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue, claiming cyclists are only 2% of the population and that they shouldn't get more than their share.

He forgets that when discussing Measure R, he fought to have the funding for bikeways improvements reduced below 0.75%, again arguing that cyclists should only get their fair share.

He apparently subscribes to the win-lose theory of transportation planning (wait until he finds out about the Complete Streets Act!) and is simply confused on what constitutes "fair share."

The upside to Smith's involvement in the brouhaha is his motion that now directs all transportation projects in the community to the neighborhood council, a position that empowers the community and introduces accountability and oversight to the mysteries of transportation.

4) LA Times incompetence: Sandy Banks wrote a column bemoaning the Wilbur Avenue "improvements" and demonstrates the casualness that is all too common at the LA Times. While the general public may not care too much about the difference between bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths, one would think that journalists would at least attempt to differentiate between a $2K bike route and a $1.5MM bike path. (Wilbur gets neither but that doesn't stop the LA Times from getting them mixed up)

The LA Times refers to 400 miles of existing bikeways facilities, projects the addition 40 more per year for the next 20 years, and predicts a resulting 1600 miles of Bike lanes and paths. Whew! Too much cut-and-paste on the Mayor's press release! The reality is this, there are currently 58 miles of paths and 157 miles of lanes.

The proposed Bike Plan will result in 157 miles of paths and 213 miles of lanes. The Mayor's promise of 1600 miles includes 511 miles of studies, 101 miles of routes, and 651 miles of friendly streets. Step away from the Kool-Aid!

Banks (and the Times) can be forgiven the sloppy grasp of transportation designations and mathematical failures but the LA Times column inadvertently justifies "road diets" with when it protests the impact of the bike lanes on Wilbur.

Banks writes "For years, Wilbur Avenue had been a free-flowing community secret, a commuter street that bypassed the congestion of Northridge's main routes. Then a "street improvement" project last month turned our speedway into a parking lot."

The Wilbur "road diet" isn't a tool for benefiting cyclists, it's a strategy for getting Banks and other motorists to slow down, to stop using the smooth-flowing street as a cut-through alternative to the arterials that are congested. It is a tool for returning streets to the community, to the people who live in the neighborhood.

Through it all it is evident that the real clash of cultures is not between cyclists and motorists, nor is it between locals and cut-through traffic. It is between City Departments that operate with complete arrogance combined with contempt for the public and Neighborhood Councils, empowered by the City Charter to advise the Mayor and the City Council on the budget and the delivery of services.

The Wilbur Avenue fracas is dismissed by many as a tempest in a local neighborhood teapot but the impact will resonate throughout the city. This could be good for neighborhood councils, it could be good for local residents and merchants who are most directly impacted by cut-through traffic, and it could be good for people of all modes if we can work together and establish common ground.

For that to happen, it's important that puff pieces such as LA's proposed Bike Plan are analyzed for accuracy and held to a performance standard.

It's imperative that the Bike Plan be incorporated into the community plans and that it is integrated into LA's strategic transportation plan. Most importantly,

LA's proposed Bike Plan must satisfy the Complete Streets Act which goes in to effect on Jan 1, 2011.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

LA's Sharrows Campaign goes astray before it's underway...

The City of Los Angeles is finally getting close to implementing a Sharrows pilot project, complete with study methodology, data collection, analysis, and evaluation. Phew! All this in order to get Sharrows painted on the streets of Los Angeles.

Sharrows, for the uninitiated, are "Shared Lane" markings that typically consist of the image of a bicycle with a chevron on top but sometimes use a cyclist in a little "house." The Sharrow communicates good lane positioning (theoretically) and is meant to encourage cyclists to ride in the lane and out of the door zone. The Sharrow is also meant to communicate to the motoring public that cyclists belong on the street, in the lane, and out of the door zone. The debate over Sharrows typically comes down to the proper lane position for cyclists. The minimum positioning for the Sharrow is typically 11' from the curb line which is 3' from the edge line of the typical 8' parking stall. Not really outside the door zone! Cycling activists who favor riding completely out of the door zone contend that 13' from the curb line is the appropriate minimum position for a Sharrow.

Many cities have implemented Sharrows as a tool for supporting cyclists as a vital and viable element of a comprehensive transportation system. San Francisco, Long Beach, Portland, Hermosa Beach, Pasadena, Austin, and even the sovereign state of Highland Park have Sharrows on their streets. In some cases the Sharrows went down without much forethought or before/after behavior evaluation. In other cases, the process included significant data collection and analysis.

San Francisco did a study in 2004, collecting and analyzing videotape of cyclists and motorists before and after the installation of Sharrows on 6 different streets in San Francisco. The stated goals of the Sharrows pilot project in San Francisco were to:

• Improve positioning of both cyclists and motorists on streets without bike lanes;
• Reduce aggressive motorist behavior;
• Prevent wrong-way bicycling;
• Prevent bicycling on sidewalks.

The pilot project and the study were successful, revealing the most significant impact was on the behavior of motorists who increased their distance from the parked cars on the right side of the street by 50%.

Of course, this was San Francisco and there is no way that the City of Los Angeles could use this study to justify Sharrows on the streets of LA. After all, San Francisco is smaller than Los Angeles, they have different sensitivities, their paint is unlike our paint, there is not much LA can learn from SF!

The US Department of Transportation is also studying Sharrows in six cities around the country including Austin which recently installed 70 Sharrows along with cameras that will collect data so that the USDOT can evaluate motorists and cyclists and their ability to figure out on their own how Sharrows work.

According to the National Associations of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and their Cycling for Cities initiative, more than 76 American municipalities are now utilizing Shared Use Lane Markings to encourage cyclists to ride in a safer lane position, to alert road users to the correct lane position of cyclists, to move cyclists our of the "door zone" of parked cars, to encourage safe passing by motorists, and to alert all road users to the presence of cyclists. without taking up any additional road space.

In city after city, a simple survey reveals that every city had an objective when they implemented their Sharrows program. In Seattle, Sharrows were a "friendly reminder from the Seattle Department of Transportation to drivers: Leave room for those who choose to pedal their way around town." In Portland, "the explicit purpose of sharrows is to educate drivers that bikes belong in traffic lanes." From Wisconsin, "Sharrows remind moptorists that bicycles belong on the street." From the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices comes the explanation "This pavement marking indicates the appropriate bicyclist line of travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient clearance."

Along comes Los Angeles, led by the LADOT, and implementing a Sharrows pilot program takes on a completely new meaning. First of all, the emphasis seems to be on impacting the behavior of cyclists, not motorists. In light of recent objections to Sharrows, such as the LADOT's stated fear that they will interfere with the flow of traffic and that the paint will be slippery, the fact that SCAG and the LADOT are partnering in a study that evaluates the behavior of cyclists and not of motorists leaves one asking the question, "What is the purpose of the pilot project?"

In San Francisco, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to improve the position of both cyclists and motorists. It was also to reduce aggressive motorist behavior.

In Austin, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to study the ability of cyclists and motorists to figure out how the Sharrows work.

In Los Angeles, it appears that the purpose of the Sharrows program is to impact the behavior of cyclists. That reeks of the LADOT's mandate to normalize the behavior of LA's motorists and to demonize the behavior of LA's cyclists. Will the AAA come along to help, bringing volunteer motorists to help in analyzing the shift in the behavior of motorists? Why is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world engaging in a "scientific" study of a pilot program that commenced with no purpose, that fails to evaluate motorists, that consists of little commitment, and a casual approach to supporting cyclists in Los Angeles.

Based on Austin's size, Los Angeles should be putting down over 400 Sharrows and installing cameras to study the impact on the behavior of both motorists and cyclists. Better yet, Los Angeles should be asking why Austin has a better relationship with the USDOT and why Austin is getting federal support in studying the impact of Sharrows on motorists and cyclists.

Barring a partnership with the USDOT, perhaps Los Angeles could simply take a look at the Bellevue Sharrows study which documents traffic volumes for both motorists and cyclists along with traffic speeds.

From Austin to San Francisco, from Bellevue to Long Beach, Great Cities are doing Great Work and they all have great ideas that should inspire Los Angeles to engage in a Sharrows pilot program that raises the standard, not just for the implementation of Sharrows but for the process of evaluating pilot programs. Come on LA, raise the bar!

Most of all, remember that on congested streets, surface markings will be hidden by...vehicles! If the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported by signage such as the BAFUL (R4-11) that reinforces the Sharrows message and reminds motorists that cyclists have the right to use the full lane. If the LA version of the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported with a clearly defined campaign goal, with an inspired mechanism for collecting and analyzing robust data on the behavior of all modes, and with the enthusiastic (not reluctant!) support of the City of Los Angeles.

LA City Council - "Failure to Deliver"

Los Angeles is a City that loves to order departmental surveys, concept reports, project studies, recommendations and proposals. What Los Angeles doesn't do well is deliver.

It's been two and a half years since the LA City council, over the objections of the LADOT, acted decisively and made it illegal to park in a Bike Lane in Los Angeles. Unfortunately the LADOT and the LAPD are still ill-equipped to enforce the ban and the ordinance remains irrelevant.

It's been a little over three years since the City Council approved the contract with Illium and Associates for Bike Maps which we argued would be redundant since the Metro does county-wide maps that are of better detail and quality than the city maps. The City Council moved forward and approved the $400,000 contract but that was the last movement to be made. Three years later, is Ilium developing those maps? Is Alta Planning also developing Bike Maps as part of the Bike Plan process?

Last year CM's Huizar and Perry said "I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the General Services Department, be requested to develop a mass parking policy and designate an efficient place and manner to lock up large number of bicycles for individuals who come to City Hall as a part of a group." Maybe it was just a joke and we fell for it. Ha, ha! Seriously, how hard is it to lock up bikes at City Hall? Too tough for the LADOT to figure out. They study, we wait.

It's been over 18 months since CM's Garcetti and Reyes got all interested in Sharrows and said "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings," also known as "sharrows," pilot program. So far, nothing except that the plan to engage in a study is almost underway. Meanwhile, Long Beach has put in colored Sharrows and the Department of DIY has put in homemade Sharrows.

It's been 18 months since CM's Greuel and Garcetti were inspired by the bike-share programs of the Great Cities they visited, returning to LA and commanding "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Transportation to examine the feasibility of creating a bike sharing program in the City of Los Angeles and submit recommendations to the Transportation Committee within 45 days." Tough talk! New Transportation committee Chair Rosendahl liked it so much, he gave the same instructions to the LADOT last week.

Meanwhile, on February 24, Claremont and Covina will be cutting the ribbon on "Bikestation Claremont and Bikestation Covina, the first bicycle and alternative transportation center “network” in the United States."

It would be great to have the City Council's Transportation Committee visit Claremont and Covina for the Bikestation ribbon cuttings but the 24th is an important day in LA, everybody will be on the 10th floor as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck visits the Transpo Committee. Will he have the Hummer vs. Cyclist report from last year?

It's been almost a year since a group of cyclists encountered a motorist behind the wheel of a Hummer, sans license plate, and ended up in a Wilco Tango Foxtrot encounter. Three times the Transportation Committee has directed the LAPD to appear to report on the incident and the subsequent investigation but in all three appearances the LAPD neglected to bring the actual LAPD report, resulting in a lot of "I don't know. I'll have to check." responses. Will Beck produce the report? Will Rosendahl follow up on the failure of the LAPD to respond to his instructions?

It's been over a year since the City Council embraced the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and boldly directed "the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Planning Department, Department
of Public Works, and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, in consultation with the City Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report with recommendations on how to
incorporate the principles enshrined in the "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." That went nowhere fast.

The City Council has demonstrated clearly that it is incapable of following up on the many instructions it puts in play. Hence the need for community oversight. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that LA's Budget, the delivery of services, and the civic process itself be open and transparent. The public must be at the table.

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

CityWatch, Jan 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Krekorian will show up to argue for Safe Streets.

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

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatchLA - LA’s DIY Bike Plan

CityWatch, Nov 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 90

The City of Los Angeles took another swing at the public hornet's nest when it released LA's Draft Bike Plan, a 563 page document that cost $450,000 and took two years to complete, stirring such public contempt that the cycling community simply put down the protest signs, formed the LA Bike Working Group (BWG) and set out to draft "LA's Best Bike Plan" in open workshops around the city.

The first challenge to the efficacy of LA's commitment to mediocrity came when LABikePlan.com appeared, hosting the same Draft Bike Plan as the city's LABikePlan.org website and the same opportunity to submit comments to the city, but also offering links to articles that criticize the Draft Bike Plan process and content.

The second challenge came when cyclists met in Hollywood to dig into the city's Draft Bike Plan, breaking it up into manageable chunks, a process made necessary by the significant size and the limited comment period of 42 days. (It ends on November 6, 2009)

It took a couple of hours but there came a point at which it became obvious, the best place to start is at the beginning and for the Bike Plan, that meant a do-over, this time a DIY (Do It Yourself) do-over!

The third and most recent challenge came when cyclists met downtown this past weekend to refine the many contributions from the diverse group of participants into a focused vision that would serve as the foundation for LA's Best Bike Plan.

Embracing a democratic and participatory process, the work product of four groups was refined into 23 points which were simmered down to a foundation of three that serve as the platform for LA's Best Bike Plan.

1) "Consider every street as a street that cyclists will ride."

2) "Build a Backbone Bikeway Network as the engineering focus in the immediate future."

3) "Los Angeles must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years."

In the time it took the staff of City Planning and the Department of Transportation to organize its out-of-town consultants and to stage the four Draft Bike Plan workshops, the LA Bike Working Group had gathered input from the community, established teams with specific focus, and positioned a platform based on equality.

This may seem like a "Bike Culture" victory that benefits the few but it represents much, much more and it benefits the city as a whole.

City staff dismiss critics as "trashtalkers" and argue for mediocrity by pointing out that "not everybody is an angry cyclist." This demonstrates the cavalier manner in which our city is (mis)managed. As Laura Chick pointed out "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

Today it's the Bike Plan, tomorrow it's your Community Plan, last week it was Cloud Computing, next week it'll be Golden Parachutes. The bottom line is this, the leadership of Los Angeles is counting on our indifference to maintain the status quo and to avoid accountability.

Whether you ride a bike or walk or take mass transit or ride in a car, we all benefit from citywide support of cycling as a transportation solution, as an environmental solution, and as a community building solution.

Great Streets are well maintained, they're shareable, they have moderate traffic volumes and speeds, they result in lower crime rates, and they benefit local businesses, resulting in healthy, sustainable and complete communities.

If you believe that Los Angeles should be a Great City, it is imperative that you join with other constituent groups such as the cycling community and support their pursuit of greatness. After all, this is Los Angeles, why settle for anything less!

This isn't the first time that the DIY movement has been active in Los Angeles. Past efforts have resulted in Sharrows (shared-lane markings) in Echo Park and in Highland Park, a DIY Bike Lane on the Fletcher Bridge and a community park at Wilshire and Vermont.

In other cities, the Official Urban Repair Squad (OURS) has taken to improving the streets of Toronto, leaving behind a Bike Lane in their first engagement and a note saying "Our agents inform us that your city is too busy patting self on backside about 2001 bike plan that they don't bother to make any bike lanes. We come to make roads safe for citizens of Toronto. We hear city is broke. We fix. No charge."

Residents of Hawaii's Kauai island reacted to the government's $4 million and two-year long plan for the repair of a vital road as unacceptable and so they fixed it themselves in eight days for free. Their livelihood was threatened, their intelligence was insulted and their spirit of self-sufficiency was engaged.

As for LA's Draft Bike Plan, the apologists stand in the background and murmur "it's not that bad" and "there's some good stuff in there" and the cloud of mediocrity just gets thicker.

LA's Bike Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the city's General Plan and the current Bike Plan was drafted in 1996, readopted by City Council in 2002 and again in 2007.

Many funding sources, from both the federal and state levels, require that proposed bike projects be part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan.

This enthusiasm for plans is motivated by the desire to qualify for funding and then the enthusiasm fades. The current Bike Plan is effective until December of 2012.

In the last 13 years, LA has spent $65 million of Bikeways funding which has produced 13 miles of Bike Paths (one mile per year!) 54 miles of Bike Lanes (four miles per year!) and one mile of Bike Route (136 yards per year!)

Critics charge that the money has also funded the LADOT's Bikeways Department of a dozen people who are best known for their "Why You Can't Have What You Want" PowerPoint presentation which positions cyclists as adversaries with other modes rather than as a "Common Ground" transportation solution.

As for next steps, the bureaucrats are off in search of rubber stamps while the LA Bike Working Group continues to work on "LA's Best Bike Plan."

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

RELATED STORIES

● “Bikes and Cars: Can We Share the Road?” – LA Times LINK .
cydo

CityWatchLA - LA’s Bike Plan: Lacks Vision, Teeth

CityWatch, Oct 2, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 81

LA's Draft Bike Plan is a huge document of thin ambition, relying on controversy over process to distract from the fact that it lacks vision, it lacks substance, and it lacks the teeth necessary to bring about any change.

The Draft Bike Plan was released last week, an hour before the end of the day on the eve of furlough Friday, giving city staff the opportunity to "drop and run" and providing a three-day cooling off period before they had to answer for the long overdue, hotly contested and controversial document. Commissioned in December of 2007, the Bike Plan is part of LA's Transportation Plan which is an element of the city's General Plan. As the consultants so eloquently explained during the community workshops during March of 2008 that kicked off the Bike Plan process, the Bike Plan is a critical funding document that must be updated in order to qualify for funding. As for positioning it as a powerful visionary document with implementation teeth, city staff has never expressed such ambition.

The limited opportunity for robust community involvement at the onset, the long, dark and silent period of time when the plan went overdue, the release of Bike Plan maps that positioned "infeasible" as a standard for the future of LA bikeways and the promise of another limited public access comment period have all fueled great gnashing of teeth and provided great fodder for the blogs.

This Saturday, at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson will address the Draft Bike Plan when he presents the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights for endorsement and for inclusion in the Bike Plan. At the Transportation Committee and at City Council, staff was directed to position the CBR as the foundation for the Bike Plan but as the city’s consultant from Alta Planning so eloquently put it, “We don’t work for the City Council.”

Now that the Draft Bike Plan has been released we can evaluate it and I contend that it fails on three levels, based on content, based on process, and based on commitment.

CONTENT:

Missing from the Draft Bike Plan is the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a vision document that has picked up endorsement from neighborhood councils and community groups throughout Los Angeles, working its way to the City's Transportation Committee where staff was directed to include it in the city's Bike Plan. It is missing. In its place is a plaintive whimper of a vision that simply asks for consideration. At the Federal and State levels, Equality is positioned as the foundation of mobility planning but here in Los Angeles, cyclists can look forward to a future based on "consideration."

Long Beach, by way of comparison, has a Bike Plan that opens boldly by stating that the City of Long Beach "Consider every street in Long Beach as a street that bicyclists will use." It continues by establishing a policy to integrate its bikeways facilities with surrounding communities, a significant commitment given the fact that LA County cyclists have 88 municipalities to traverse and synchronicity is important if cycling is to be a viable transportation choice.

From the missing Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the boiler-plate data and specs, the Bike Plan not only misses the big picture but it also fails to establish itself as the authoritative document that could be used to settle some of the minor Bikeways controversies that have arisen of late in Los Angeles.

The Draft Bike Plan does demonstrate a bit of creativity, unfortunately it's creative accounting. By using the collective term "Bikeways" which includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, Bike-Friendly and Good Wishes, the Draft Bike Plan can claim a significant improvement over the old plan. But apples to apples, LA's old Bike Plan had 452 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. The Draft Bike Plan now has 400 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. That's a decrease. Adding Bike Routes and Bike-Friendly streets to the mix is bad math and engineers should know better. The simple fact is, LA slid backward and Topanga Canyon Boulevard was designated for bike lanes on the old plan, the engineering and funding was in place and the LADOT rejected it, electing to downgrade it to "infeasible" and finally "possible" but in reality "never."

From the vision to the details, LA's Draft Bike Plan is hundreds of pages of very pretty, shelf-ready Bike Plan, destined to collect dust.

PROCESS:

The Draft Bike Plan’s short comment period prevents Neighborhood Council involvement, simply by shortcutting a process that essentially requires a full month cycle for committee meetings and then a full month cycle for Board Meetings, simply to offer feedback. The cavalier manner in which the 89 Neighborhood Councils are dismissed from the process speaks volumes.

As if often the case, staff cry budget blues when explaining why the community meetings are limited but then fail to take advantage of Neighborhood Council regional meetings such as the NC Action Summit, the NC Congress, NECA, the Valley Alliance, the Westside Alliance, the Harbor Alliance, the South LA alliance, LANCC, the Citywide Alliance and PlanCheckNC.

It’s not hard for city staff to find the public, if they’re really sincere about finding us. The hard charge is simple, do they really want the public involved?

Through it all, it should be noted that the LADOT is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Neighborhood Councils in which 60 days is the minimum period of time for comment on small projects and the amount of time increases with the significance of the proposal or plan. It is telling that the Draft Bike Plan is given less than the minimum time, giving it less significance than simple neighborhood improvements or variances.

The Draft Bike Plan refers to "respect and consideration" as the essence of the vision and it is imperative that the City of Los Angeles bring those words to life now, not down the road after the Draft Bike Plan has gone through the process.

APPLICATION:

The value of LA's Draft Bike Plan is in its ultimate impact on the streets of Los Angeles but we have little hope that real change will occur and, in fact, we have evidence that it is a document with no teeth carrying little commitment from even its departments of origin.

The 2002 Bike Plan called for 9 miles of Bike Lanes on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. Caltrans provided the engineering and the funding for the Bike Lanes but the City of Los Angeles declined, electing to go with peak hour parking. The City of Los Angeles rejected funding for the Topanga Canyon Boulevard Bike Lanes

All the talk of bikeways amenities, support for cyclists, steps taken by the city to encourage cycling as a viable transportation choice are contradicted by the simple fact that nobody from City Planning of the Department of Transportation found the courage to simply cross the street to offer some advise to the LAPD on the positioning of their bike racks at the new Police Headquarters.

Granted, one would think that the LAPD would be familiar with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) but such is not the case. The bike racks are as far from the front entrance as possible, around the corner and behind a wall, in an area that offers refuge to someone who would want to hide and wait for a victim.

LA's Bike Plan has long given the LADOT the responsibility to communicate to the city departments simple bike parking standards. To this day the Library Department, the Fire Department, City Hall, Rec and Parks, and the 45 City Departments that compete with each other for autonomy can't agree on how to position a bike rack if they even have bike racks.

This does not speak well for the Draft Bike Plan's ability to serve as the platform that will bring together the dozen departments that have a piece of the street that the cyclists of Los Angeles, hereafter known as transportation solutions, must navigate in order to get home safely at the end of the day.

Conclusion: LA's Draft Bike Plan is thin on content of substance, is the product of an ongoing flawed process, and avoids at all turns any attempt to position itself as a document of change with a real plan for implementation. It is an exercise in civic enragement designed to qualify the City of Los Angeles for Bikeways funding that will then simply fall into the co-mingled coffers of the LADOT, a department that has failed to establish or support cycling as a viable transportation choice in the City of Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ) Photo: farm4static.flickr ◘

LADOT to Motorists - "Prepare to Accelerate!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - 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 - 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.

Good For Bikes! Good For Business!

Several years ago, the City of Los Angeles embarked on an ambitious campaign to provide bicycle parking throughout the city in order to encourage cycling as a form of transportation. Cyclists were grateful!

In 2004, the LADOT installed over 800 Inverted U Bike Racks bringing the Citywide total to 2500 bike racks in the City of Los Angeles.

In 2005, the LADOT promised to install another 600 Inverted U Bike Racks, all on city-owned property, usually sidewalks of adequate width. Cyclists were pleased!

Somewhere along the way the Bicycle Parking Program became low priority for the Bikeways Department of the LADOT and the bike racks began collecting dust in a warehouse in Van Nuys. Cyclists didn’t say anything.


In 2006, the Bikeways Coordinator for the LADOT Bikeways Department explained that the Bike Parking Program was on hold because of staffing issues. (The Department consists of a Coordinator, a Lead Engineer and 9 other Engineers!) Cyclists still didn’t say anything.

In 2007, the Bicycle Advisory Committee for the City of Los Angeles met for its regular bimonthly meeting in the Board Room of the DWP Building. Cyclists spoke up!

As part of a ride called “Storm the Bastille” the cyclists gathered at the Santa Monica/Vermont Red Line Station and rode to the BAC meeting, this time prepared to focus their Public Comment energy on the subject of Bike Parking in LA. Representing communities from San Pedro to Highland Park to Hollywood to the San Fernando Valley, the cyclists asked the LADOT to revive the dormant Bike Parking Program. Cyclists called on the LADOT to act!

The City of Los Angeles currently has an average of 6 bike racks per square mile. Cyclists complain that in spite off all the talk, the City has failed to offer the most basic support for the cycling community; safe and secure parking facilities. To make it worse, it’s still illegal to lock your bike to a parking meter in the City of LA.

The Inverted U Rack is simple, it doesn’t take up much room, it’s cheap, it’s effective and it works.

If you’d like to see more of these bike racks in Los Angeles send an email to bikeracks@illuminateLA.com with the following info:

Name of business:

Contact name:

Telephone:

Email:

Street address:

Nearest Cross Street:

LA Council District:
(Council District Map)


If you’d like to know more about Bicycle Parking take a look at the recommendations from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

www.bfbc.org/issues/parking/apbp-bikeparking.pdf


See you on the Streets!