CityWatchLA - Sun Sets on Hollywood Bowl Easter Sunrise Service: Public Getting Priced Out of Own Property

CityWatch
Vol 8 Issue 27
Pub: Apr 6, 2010

In a sign of the times and victim of the economy, a 90 year-old Hollywood tradition falls in the cultural forest and nobody is there to hear it hit the ground.

The Hollywood Bowl Easter Sunrise Service is, or was, a tradition that predated the Hollywood Bowl itself. It was 1919 when the Hollywood Community Sing organized an Easter Sunrise Service on a residential street in the hills off Franklin Avenue. The event was such a great success that the next year the Sunrise Service was held on Olive Hill in Barnsdall Park and LA's Philharmonic Orchestra performed for an overflow crowd of thousands that prompted organizers to look for a larger venue.

In 1921, the Sunrise Service was held in the Daisy Dell on land owned by a group of local art patrons, including Charles E. Toberman, the "Father of Hollywood." Hugo Kirchhoffer, director of the Community Sing, remarked that the acoustics were naturally good because it was shaped like a “huge bowl.”

That inaugural Sunrise Service and that simple comment were the simple seeds that resulted in the transformation of a rickety stage in a field of weeds and grass on a rocky hillside into a cultural icon that is world renowned and is part of LA's cultural heritage.

The success of the first Sunrise Service led to a series of summer concerts at the Bowl, creating the Symphonies Under the Stars program.

Along the way, some of the most famous architects have contributed to the Bowl's legacy, starting with Lloyd Wright who built the Bowl's first band shell out of left-over lumber from a production of "Robin Hood" and the second band shell with movable panels allowing the shell to be "tuned." More recently, Frank Gehry contributed to the perpetual pursuit of the original perfect acoustics with his fiberglass spheres design.

The Hollywood Bowl exists today because of the contributions of many, including Otto K. Olesen, inventor of the Klieg light system, and George Eastman, founder of Eastman Kodak, but most of all, because of the many people who gathered in the Daisy Dell on an Easter Sunday morning at dawn and participated in a simple Sunrise Service that was open and non-denominational and free of charge, simply a celebration of Easter.

There are three things that are alarming about the cancellation of the 2010 Hollywood Bowl Easter Sunrise Service:

1) It happened without so much as a whimper. "There, but for the Grace of God, go I!" should be the warning to the people of Los Angeles County.

What next? Will Galleries close with little more than an obituary to announce the passing?

Will Theaters close without so much as a Swan Song performance?

Will Museums cease to engage the public and simply serve as monuments to their benefactors? Will Libraries close and serve out their days as cultural warehouses?

Will access to our Parks and our Community Centers become a thing of the past?

How does the 90 year-old, non-denominational, open and free to the public, Hollywood Bowl Easter Sunrise Service simply fade into nothingness without an alarm from the community?

Purportedly, the non-profit organization that hosts the Sunrise Service was unable to come up with the funds to host the event. Typically, up-front funds secure the Bowl and attendees contribute everything from the Cala Lilies that decorate the stage to the staff who facilitate the event to the financial support that pays the bills. This year they simply didn't have the up-front money to secure the Bowl.

2) It happened because volunteerism is actually a profession.

As heady as those days of Daisy Dell must have been, since then the organization of public events has become such a bureaucratic nightmare that the days of "Let's put on a show!" are long gone and community leaders find themselves simply outgunned and understaffed in today's byzantine morass of red-tape.

For over two decades, Norma Foster has been the champion of the Sunrise Service, serving as President and Producer through the highs and the lows, but she suffered a massive stroke just days before last year's Service and her absence left a huge hole that simply didn't get filled.

Well meaning folks are learning the hard way that volunteerism requires training and expertise that is on the same caliber with the professionals who compete with the public for the same space and the same funding.

If "Volunteerism" is to flourish, it will be because our leadership invests in the community and offers training in fundraising, in planning, in administration, and in grass-roots organization. If it's left to "the volunteers" to provide these services to "the volunteers" then we will discover where the true leadership exists.

3) It happened because the public is getting priced out of its own property.

The Bowl belongs to the County of Los Angeles. In other words, it belongs to the people. Just like the Zoo, the Museums, the Galleries, the Parks, the Music Center, Olive Hill, the Libraries, and all of the wonderful programs and assets that we take for granted, simply because they've always been there. It's not likely to continue.

Now, more than ever, it is imperative that the people of Los Angeles look around and consider that the streets they travel on, the sidewalks they walk on, the public space they enjoy, are all in jeopardy of being restricted and that the public is in danger of engaging "the highest bidder" in a competition for the simple elements that make up a Great City.

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

Metro Struggles with Connectivity

The Bus Riders Union (BRU) has taken the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to task, claiming that the results of an “informal and unscientific” survey indicate that people pay too much and wait too long for Metro Bus service that earns a “D” in overall performance.

Art Leahy, Metro’s CEO, responded with the rarely used “we suck less than you claim” defense, offering up the Metro’s own survey as evidence that “on-time performance had improved from 65% in July 2008 to 72% in July 2009.”

The dueling surveys competition pits the BRU’s random sampling of 2,600 bus riders against the Metro’s systemwide survey of 15,800 but does little to clearly evaluate the performance of the Metro.

Leahy claims satisfaction rates of 85% while the BRU claims that 26% of the passengers gave the Metro an “F” for on-time service and that 75% gave the Metro a “C” for overcrowding.

The Metro comes out clean in this debate as Leahy asks to be graded on the curve, invoking the “we suck less than other big cities” defense, a distracting and effective ploy that typically leaves critics speechless as they absorb the fact that perhaps it is worse elsewhere.

Of course, this strategy only works if the critic has never, ever left Los Angeles and ridden the transit systems of other big cities. Having just spent several weeks Down Under, riding trains, trams, buses, ferries, monorails, pedicabs, bikes, and even cars, I am convinced that if the Metro were to be graded on the curve, compared to other transportation systems, it would receive a failing grade.

While Leahy and the BRU continue with the “she said/he said” debate, everyone including the LA Times passed on the opportunity to simply review the Metro’s survey results, compiled by an outside consulting firm. It doesn’t look good!

23% indicated that the bus being ridden during the survey had broken down in the last month. 72% indicated that they didn’t have access to a car. 80% indicated that they were commuting to work.

The majority of Metro passengers indicated that they ride 5+ days a week, that they have been riding for 5+ years, that they must make a transfer to complete their journey and that they are between the ages of 23 to 49.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that with a 23% failure rate, the Metro gets a passing grade from the polled passengers only because they have low expectations.

The vast majority of the passengers polled have no choice. Where are all of the people who have a choice and why don't they choose to ride the Metro? The true test of a world-class transportation system is when it can actually get people out of their cars and provide them with competitive transportation options that truly work. Imagine people saying “I’ll take the Metro!" instead of "I have no choice!”

There are two problems here.

First, the Metro evaluates its performance based on an annual survey conducted by outside consultants in a manner that appears to have more of a validation function than real operational value.

This is hardly the behavior of an organization committed to excellence and it falls far short of qualifying as efficient communication or an effective management tool.

A real commitment to performance would start with the establishment of measurable standards and goals. It would include mechanisms for self-evaluation, for systemic evaluation and for public input. It would take place in real time, constantly updated and revised, and both the goals and the results would be made public.

Companies from Starbucks to Southwest to Apple to UPS to Trader Joe’s to Nordstrom are known for their exacting standards, their attention to detail and for their ability to set their own goals, evaluate their own performance and to successfully lead in their fields.

None of these companies succeeded by waiting for the year-end report and then debating with customers over their performance.

The Metro’s reliance on “pencil & clipboard” technology creates the illusion of efficiency but falls far short of demonstrating a serious commitment to any significant analysis of performance metrics. The handcount of passengers and wristwatch analysis of schedule needs to go the way of the rotary phone and the mimeograph machine.

Second, the Metro’s relationship with its passengers requires a mediator in order to facilitate communication.

The Metro maintains a crack team of clipboard wielding supervisors throughout the system, apparently recording something of importance as they sit in those air-conditioned and idling SUV’s, watching arrivals and departures, but they are not available to customers nor do they interact with customers. When approached, they offer up the 800 COMMUTE number with instructions to call the Metro.


The problem here is that the Metro only takes customer service calls from 8:00 am to 4:15 pm, Monday to Friday, hardly the hours when customers would need to call the Metro. Adding to the frustration is the fact that the Metro never invested in an answering machine, not even the old mini-cassette model! Forget about voice mail, feedback is simply not accepted after hours!

The Metro’s reliance on annual performance surveys creates the illusion of a relationship with the Metro’s real partners, its passengers, but they have no meaningful opportunity to offer feedback unless it's at the convenience of the Metro or at the annual survey or if they can find the email address on the Metro’s website.

If the Metro were serious about customer feedback, it would employ the full spectrum of social media tools. The Metro’s survey indicates that 68% of passengers were holding a cell phone as they completed the questionnaire with a pencil.

The average fast food restaurant gets feedback around the clock and all year long, immediately after the transaction, by asking patrons to call, text or tweet their comments.

Meanwhile, the Metro still gives out pencils. On an annual basis!

Imagine a Metro that connects with passengers, communicating via cell phone all schedule disruptions, arrival times, route changes. Imagine a Metro that gets feedback from passengers at bus stops and on buses who call, text, tweet, email, and communicate efficiently and effectively their concerns, issues, complaints and commendations.

These days, one can text the White House, order pizza, make reservations and even tweet God with a confession. (It must be tough to keep the sin under 140 characters!)

If the Metro is serious about getting graded on the curve, it needs to prepare for a failing grade.

MX, the newspaper that is distributed to transit passengers in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, reports on transit authority performance and they have real numbers to work with.

Brisbane, for example, received 6588 complaints in the past financial year. The 444 route from Bellbowrie received 163 complaints and the 375 to Windsor received 156. Meanwhile, there were 681 commendations.

Brisbane’s TransLink management has specific information on drivers who divert from their routes, fail to pick up passengers, smoke, use cell phones or are rude or aggressive, all based on real time communication from passengers.

The Lord Mayor of Brisbane went on record saying that TransLink does a fantastic job serving commuters but added “If people do have an issue with a driver - or any council employee – they can let me know and it will be dealt with.”

If the Metro’s CEO, Art Leahy, is serious about improving the Metro, from on-time performance to cleanliness to courtesy, he’ll echo the Lord Mayor and make himself available to the public saying “let me know and it will be dealt with.”

But most importantly, he will leave behind the dueling statistics and subjective surveys and he will establish the Metro as a world-class transportation system by providing Metro passengers the ability to communicate in real time and around the clock, by phone, by text, by tweet, and by email.

Metro vs. Cyclists

This past Monday, Enci and I were riding south on Vermont, a couple of hundred yards north of Prospect.

We were riding southbound on Vermont in lane #2 alongside parked cars at approximately 3:25 pm in light traffic. I was in the lead, Enci was in second position and the bus was in third. I heard Enci scream, I looked back and saw a bus behind me but not Enci. I pulled over and the bus passed me, pulling to the curb just yards further on. Then I saw my wife riding down Vermont.

Bus Operator #25119 had just "asserted" himself into the #2 lane at the expense of my wife's position and in doing so, forced my wife to choose between the side of the bus, the parked cars or simply braking to avoid getting hit by the bus as it came from behind alongside her and then simply merged right toward her.

Tough choices!

This incident drew a Metro Supervisor, two Sheriff's Deputies, an LASD Supervisor, LAPD officers from both Hollywood (4) and NorthEast (2) and an LAPD Supervisor. Quite a significant show of force!

The Bus Operator was long gone when the first LAPD officers responded to my call. As we stood on Hollywood Blvd. talking to the officers, Operator #25119 came back on his return route, graciously slowing down and waving, apparently enjoying the spectacle. Imagine his shock when Officer Lee WALKED off in pursuit and pulled the bus over.

Through it all, we experienced a cloud of jurisdictional confusion over who takes the report and law enforcement confusion over whether or not it's a crime to run a cyclist off the road.

I went to the Metro Board on Thursday to address 1) this incident 2) the issue of training and oversight of bus operators on safe interaction with cyclists on the road 3) the jurisdictional confusion 4) feedback opportunities for the metro on weekends and holidays.

It was a crazy session, public comment was scheduled for the end of the meeting and then moved to the beginning. It was a full house with overflow in the cafeteria. They moved public comment from the end of the meeting to the beginning and all of a sudden I heard them call my name. I was prepared for a two minute speech but they cut us down to 60 seconds and so I gave it my best.

I went over my time and kept going, committed to hitting the 4 points and I thought County Supervisor Knabe was trying to cut me off, then I realized he was calling over Jack Gabig, the Division Manager, who motioned for me to follow him out a side door. For a moment I flashed on that scene from Casino and imagined a bunch of Metro Operators waiting "backstage" but with RoadBlock and Courage flanking me, I figured I was in a good position.

Mr. Gabig spent half an hour taking my complaint and I'd like to think we're on our way to starting a relationship between cyclists and bus operators, one that puts our safety before their schedule or convenience.

Attached is an email I sent as a recap of that meeting.

Mr. Gabig,

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me at the Metro Board Meeting and for discussing the details of my complaint.

I wanted to recap the specific elements so that you can address them or direct me to the appropriate person.

1) Metro vs. Cyclist incident from this past Monday. My wife was riding her bike south on Vermont, in contol of the #2 lane, when she was run off the road by Operator #25119.

From our first encounter with a Metro supervisor to those we speak with along the journey, it is made clear that this is a personnel issue and that we have no right of access to the Metro file or process.

I contend that Metro passengers and those on the streets and sidewalks also have rights and that the Metro can surely balance the personnel limitations with appropriate resolution and communication of this complaint.

Further to the potential claim that this is a personnel issue, I would contend that this is, first and foremost, a criminal complaint.

2) Metro Training and Oversight: This incident, along with similar incidents, indicates a need to address the training and oversight of the Metro's Operators. From honking unnecessarily to passing unsafely, CVC violations must not be tolerated, especially when they endanger the lives of cyclists.

The Metro's manual calls for 3 to 4 and a half feet of passing room for cyclists but some operators still "assert" themselves and squeeze cyclists.

The Metro's manual refers to "cyclists and other road hazards" indicating a culture of primacy that results in unsafe and illegal behavior.

3) Jurisdictional confusion must be resolved: Once again, we experienced jurisdictional confusion as my call to LAPD resulted in 1 Metro Supervisor, 2 Sheriffs, 1 LASD Supervisor, 2 NE LAPD Officers, 1 NE LAPD Supervisor, 4 Hollywood LAPD Officers.

One shouldn't have to watch law enforcement officers debate jurisdiction in order to report a crime. One shouldn't have to know the system in order to get the full support of the system.

If there is a memorandum of understanding between the LASD and the LAPD with regards to jurisdiction on the streets, the rail lines, the busway and the bike paths, please consider this a formal request for that MOU.

4) Metro Customer Service is cumbersome and ill-equipped to handle simple complaints, as evidenced by the deluge of tweets, messages, emails, texts and verbal stories I received over the last 3 days that conclude with "I tried to contact the Metro but I gave up!"

One would think that from a simple loss prevention position, the Metro would want a customer service system that yields good accurate data on safety and performance.

And yet...the current system doesn't allow someone to call in during the evening, on weekends and holidays. There's not even an answering machine in place!

Most important is the need for significant improvement in acknowledging complaints and reinforcing the process by communicating resolution, even if in general terms. But there must be some confirmation that the process works.

I thank you for your help in addressing this specific situation and the larger opportunity of the relationship between the Metro and cyclists.

As I mentioned today, cyclists and bus operators move at the same speed across town and share the curb lane so it's imperative that we develop a relationship based on equality and respect.

I look forward to working with you.