Traffic in LA.: Most Vulnerable Angelinos at Risk

CityWatch, Jan 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 5

RETHINKING LA - One of the simplest ways to reduce the traffic congestion that surrounds LA’s schools in the morning and in the afternoon is to support children as they walk and bicycle to school, yet the City of LA continues to engage in a charade that’s all talk and no walk (or ride!)

All it would take is to fix the sidewalks and repair the streets that kids walk and ride as they commute to and from school. Add some refuge islands and roundabouts and streets would be safer to cross. Complement that with some speed tables and shared street design and our streets would work better for everybody.

Typically, the debate over the delivery of city services comes with LA’s standard “budget crisis” excuse but in this case, there is significant federal (SRTS) and state (SR2S) funding that can be used to support children as they walk and bicycle to and from school.

Safe Routes to School is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and there is funding to provide infrastructural improvements as well as funding to address distracted driving through education and enforcement. Programs that educate and encourage parents, teachers, administrators and students on pedestrian and cyclist safety also qualify.

The City of LA is a notoriously weak performer in the competition for SRTS and SR2S funds, not only failing to qualify for its proportionate share but then defaulting when it does qualify by failing to execute the funded projects.

Funded parties are given four and a half years to spend the money they qualify for or they get “red-flagged” and are suspended from further grant cycles until they clear their past projects.

The City of LA spends more time arguing for extensions and exceptions than it spends simply working on the streets, enforcing the law, educating the community, and encouraging healthy and safe behavior.

This bureaucratic traffic jam within the City of LA has resulted in lost revenue and a missed opportunity to reduce traffic congestion and make our streets safer for everybody.

During the last funding cycle, the City of LA failed to even submit funding applications that would demonstrate a citywide commitment.

As if broken sidewalks and busted streets are hard to find!

In the competitive Safe Routes to School funding process, projects that come with community support do better than those that are simply proposed by traffic engineers seeking funding for routine scheduled roadway improvements.

Yet the City of LA has the audacity to set a deadline for community nominations that falls on this Friday, January 20, 2012.

How does the City of LA expect the community to engage in a process that offers no real opportunity for real participation?

Surrounding communities (the ones that beat LA in the funding competition) have formed Safe Routes to School organizations that engage the community in ongoing campaigns that use the funding process to educate the community.

Children who walk and bicycle to school are more likely to reach the recommended goal of 60 minutes of physical activity each day, they will arrive at school energized and ready to learn, and they take an active role in their well-being.

What does the City of Los Angeles have against Safe Routes to School funding and why is it so reluctant to get competitive?

Last year, a group of community advocates took a Safe Routes to School project to the City of LA in search of support and a commitment to enter it into the pool of submitted projects. It was an ambitious project, one that proposed improvements to a busy arterial with four schools within walking distance.

The traffic engineers looked at the project and expressed a lack of interest, advising the advocates to take it to the Council office for support, after all, “We get paid the same whether or not this project gets funded. The difference is this, if it gets funded, we have more work to do.”

The honesty is refreshing but the revelation is contemptible.

To charge the City of LA with a lackluster commitment to LA’s most vulnerable mode share, children walking and bicycling to and from school, is a harsh charge but the evidence stands.

The City of LA’s infrastructure is unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists and the token gestures at improving the walkability and rideability of the neighborhoods around our schools fall far short of a commitment to our children.

The City of LA’s performance in past Safe Routes to School funding cycles pales in comparison to smaller surrounding cities with smaller staffs who somehow are able to translate a real commitment to public safety into great projects. LA, on the other hand, turns in weak projects, complains about “Fair Share,” and then fails to spend the money when it eventually qualifies.

The City of LA is currently in the process of preparing for the State of California’s Cycle 10 SR2S process which comes with a deadline of March 30, 2012. (City of LA has given community members until January 20, 2012 to submit their projects)

The City of LA has two months to come up with innovative and inspirational projects that will not only make it safer on our streets and sidewalks, but that will also serve as an invitation to walk or to ride, improvements that encourage great behavior and bring neighborhoods together.

If the City of LA is unable to come up with at least two great proposals per Council District for this coming funding cycle, perhaps it’s time to look at the Cities of San Fernando, Rancho Palos Verdes, Burbank, Covina and Claremont. What are they doing that LA isn’t doing?

The City of LA has a long history of talking the talk, but when it comes to Safe Routes to School can it walk the walk?

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

If Occupy LA Occupied City Hall

CityWatch, Oct 7, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 80

RETHINKING LA - The Occupy Wall Street movement has gone viral, spreading across the country as people of all walks gather in their respective cities to protest corporate greed, social inequity, corporate personhood, and a host of other issues that reflect the spectrum of discontent with the status quo.

Occupy LA is approaching the end of its first week on the north lawn of LA’s City Hall and in that short time they have incurred the wrath of the most deadly of movement enemies, benign neglect.

Protesters in New York have been pepper sprayed, arrested, and restricted by ordinance from using amplified sound while Occupy LA has competed with the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor for media coverage.

Protesters in Seattle have braved the chilly weather without tents, shivering in the cold rain as the police confiscated their supplies and arrested those who resisted the ban on blankets, sleeping bags, and “lounging” behavior.

Protesters in Los Angeles have been quietly accommodated by law enforcement, cheerily visited by City Hall staff, welcomed into Council Chambers, and gifted with a City Council Resolution of Passive Support that memorializes the many issues that prompt Occupy LA to exert their 1st Amendment rights.

City Council President Garcetti was joined by Councilmembers Alarcon and Rosendahl in a brief tour of the Occupy LA camp, an expedition that was prompted by earlier public comments in City Council pointing out the contrast between the theoretical debate on the council floor and the reality on the streets.

To their credit, they came, they saw, and they postured.

(Note: The LA Council will consider a Resolution of Support for Occupy LA on Tuesday, authored by Alarcon and Rosendahl.)

As for the residual impact on Occupy LA, they still move their tents from the lawn to the sidewalk each night in deference to the Los Angeles Municipal Code restriction on camping in city parks, a classification that applies to the lawns surrounding City Hall.

LA’s City Council is missing out on a big opportunity by not embracing Occupy LA and bringing them inside, after all, there is so much City Hall could learn from the movement. Typically, the twin enemies of a protest are limited resources and resistance, challenges that either crush a movement or refine it into an effective organization.

City Hall could take a lesson from Occupy LA in the following areas:

Media - Occupy LA established a Media tent on the north lawn and the events are livestreamed via internet, allowing viewers to interact at all hours with each other and with members of Occupy LA.

The ongoing narrative and dialogue is complemented by the full spectrum of social media and dissemination of content is comprehensive. Contrast this with City Hall’s continued reliance on physical posting of notices in a city of 485 square miles and the gap between what Occupy LA has done in less than a week and what City Hall fumbles on a regular basis.

Education - Within days, Occupy LA had structured classes on the issues so that participants could move beyond experiences and slogans and into the substance of the agenda, whether economic, legal, environmental, social, or strategic. The open air classrooms offer proponents the opportunity to clarify their message and audience members an opportunity to engage in dialogue. Contrast this with City Hall and the ongoing confusion that reigns supreme on issues that include the budget, water & power, transportation, infrastructure, code enforcement, public safety, and the delivery of city services.

Communication - New York authorities have enforced a ban on amplified sound under threat of 30 day jail terms so the Occupy Wall Street protesters rose to the challenge by employing the human microphone. A speaker yells “mic check” and the crowd repeats the words, the speaker continues and the crowd repeats the words, resulting in a public address system that is creative, participatory, effective, and triumphant, a small victory that edifies as well as ensures an attentive audience.

Contrast this with City Hall and the degrading experience of public comment before an inattentive City Council that endures commentary as a necessary evil.

Healthcare - It’s not an afterthought or a response to a crisis, it’s a basic human need. Occupy LA has it covered and that includes the range of elements that contribute to health including shelter from the elements, sanitation and bathroom facilities, wash stations, good nutrition, and social needs.

Occupy LA has it all while the City of LA still acts as if it deserves a commendation from the United Nations for placing portable toilets on the streets and allowing homeless to sleep on sidewalks. (but not in cars, that’s prohibited by LAMC 85.02)

Public Participation - At Occupy LA, if you show up, you’re a member. If you speak up, you will be heard. The General Assembly meets every evening and the proceedings are broadcast via internet, allowing for commentary from the viewing audience.

Contrast this with the City Council’s ongoing debate over neighborhood councils, the definition of a stakeholder, the rules and regulations for participation, ethics training, and vetting and it’s evident, Occupy LA could teach City Hall a thing or two about engaging the public, treating them with respect, and creating a rewarding experience.

Funding - Within hours of establishing an online presence, Occupy LA had created a funding strategy that included several mechanisms for participation, from establishing a mailing address so that supplies could be shipped to a downtown location, to runners who would pick up donations, to online contributions of money, to organized and scheduled deliveries that ensure consistent support.

Contrast that with the City of LA’s inability to process permit fees by phone or online or in person unless you’re willing to trek downtown on a Friday and wait in line. Hands down, Occupy LA could teach City Hall a thing or two about how to handle money.

Food - Occupy LA addresses the problem of limited resources by seeking out solutions that have more than one application. Even the delivery of pizza goes beyond simple immediate sustenance and provides diners with more cardboard for signage. Creating signs turns into an art project for kids who are learning silkscreening, all of which turns the lawn into gallery space.

Contrast this with City Hall’s contempt for the public as they engage in marathon sessions with no concern for the public’s need for sustenance, all as the Council enjoys catered lunches in Council Chambers while the public sits under “no food or beverage” signs.

Security - Occupy LA is aware of the potential for disorder and it responds to the opportunity by creating order that prevents problems, not by displaying force but by giving respect, lots of respect. City Hall keeps the front doors locked and does more to create a “fortress mentality” than the State Capitol, clearly articulating that the people of LA are not to be trusted. Occupy LA has strategies for diffusing tension and avoiding disorder, without resorting to force. The techniques work and the LAPD is responding with similar strategies of non-resistance.

Urban Planning - The Occupy LA microcosm demonstrates a sensitivity to the many elements of a “whole community” including great public space for gathering, protected areas for childcare, pockets for the different elements of the human experience including arts and culture, political dialogue, education, supplies, foodservice, active zones and passive zones, all of which communicate respect for the human experience. Contrast this with the cavalier approach of City Hall where the people of LA are treated as a burden that has the audacity to demand facilities that work, a budget that is balanced, and the delivery of city services.

Occupy LA has accomplished a great deal in less than a week, demonstrating that they have admirable organizational skills and a knack for herding cats that is the essence of a successful movement.

At the same time, they have been criticized for not having a cohesive platform as if the ability to raise an alarm is limited to those who also posses the solution. This is like requiring all medical patients to know the cure before they can complain of the symptom or that all malpractice suits be limited to victims who have medical degrees. Occupy LA is on the right track, they’ve raised the alarm, and the murmur of dissatisfaction is gathering momentum.

Another criticism leveled at Occupy LA is that the numbers aren’t inspiring, as if there is a threshold for validity that comes with participation. The only problem with this is that it is not historical, all movements start off in bits and pieces, some fail and some gather steam, but they all start somewhere.

In hindsight, there will be great debate over the tipping point, the moment at which a complaint resonated and turned into a demand, the place at which a simple campsite turned into the beginning of a journey, the point at which people looked to the left and to the right and realized that there was significant common ground and it was littered with broken promises and squandered potential.

The most significant criticism comes from the pragmatists on the sidelines who contend that Occupy LA will fail because the participants haven’t suffered enough and haven’t encountered significant oppression.

Apparently, the naysayers feel that righteous indignation is insufficient fuel for a call to action, a position that does more to justify their lack of action than to condemn Occupy LA, leaving them on the sidelines as part of the problem, not the solution.

To contend that Occupy LA deserves a place in City Hall simply because they get sleeping bags shipped overnight, pizza delivered regularly, and keep the toilet paper stocked is overly-simplistic. Running the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world takes much, much more. It takes leadership and a willingness to stand up.

That’s where Occupy LA comes through, with a clear voice of contempt for the status quo, demonstrating the individual leadership that is coalescing into collective leadership, willing to stand up and scream

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

City Hall Sharks Circling Neighborhood Councils

CityWatch, July 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 59

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA is almost one month into the first month of its 2011/2012 budget, a $6.9 billion behemoth that exceeds last year’s budget by $150 million and is the largest operating budget in the history of LA. The increase in LA’s budget is a quiet fact that was completely overshadowed by the City Hall budget drama of the last couple of years that has been used to justify significant cuts to city staff and services complemented by increases in fees, permits, fines, and penalties.

During the City Council’s contentious budget hearing earlier in the year, the heads of each city department appeared before the Budget & Finance Committee to defend their department, their staff, and their operating budget. One by one, from the offices of the City Controller and the City Attorney to the departments of Aging and Community Development, the City of LA’s org chart was shaken, squeezed and put through the budget wringer.

The public showed up to defend the city departments that were on the chopping block, arguing vehemently against cuts to the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning, and the many others that deliver the public safety and quality of life city services that Angelenos consider to be essential.

As the hearings progressed, the crowd thinned, and by the time the Neighborhood Councils were on the chopping block, the outcome was a fait accompli, resulting in a 10% reduction in annual budgets and the loss of all rollover funds. This action took place quietly and was complemented by the continued evisceration of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment.

Missing from the exchange was the deafening roar of support from the Police Department, the Fire Department, Recreation and Parks, Libraries, Cultural Affairs, Planning or any of the other departments who enjoyed the support of the neighborhood councils as they defended their budgets and their mandates.

The budget dust settled, neighborhood councils went back to work, rollover funds were swept and the new $40,500 annual budgets were allocated in order to fulfill their City Charter mandated mission “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

All of a sudden, the City Family rediscovered their affection for neighborhood councils and department heads came courting their budget buddies, demonstrating the fact that self-preservation has no boundaries.

In a city with a $6.9 billion operating budget, it’s an incredible demonstration of bold egocentrism that motivates a manager of a billion dollar department to ask neighborhood councils for a share of their meager pittance, a reward that can hardly be worth the manager’s time.

And yet the city family sharks circle the neighborhood councils, asking for money to pay for equipment and services that should be paid for with their own budgets.

The city’s budget grew by approximately $150 million this past year, money that funds the delivery of city services that include public safety and public works. Neighborhood councils collectively account for less than $4 million of the city’s $6.9 billion budget, a number that pales in comparison to the $1.2 billion Police Department budget or the $480 million Fire Department budget or the $133 million Transportation budget.

In spite of their limited funds, neighborhood councils still find a way to support the LAPD with volunteers and funding, they still find a way to train and equip volunteers for the LAFD, they continue to pay to clean streets, to pull weeds from sidewalks, to empty trash, to remove graffiti, and they continue to fund median strip improvements, speed humps, Sharrows, and planning outreach.

But, along the way, the burden of that $40,500 budget has distracted the neighborhood councils from their mandate of advising the City of LA on the delivery of City Services and has allowed then to assume responsibility for funding the departments that should be answering to the neighborhood councils.

There is something absurd about the largest departments within the city family shaking down the smallest members. Any financial benefit to the larger department is surely negligible relative to the time and energy it takes to accomplish but the process also reverses the roles, given that neighborhood councils should actually be advising the city departments on their budgets and operations. After all, it’s the City Charter mandate.

The larger absurdity is that City of LA department managers can find the time to chase funds from one pocket to another, foregoing the larger opportunity to perhaps engage in the efficient operation of their department or, even bolder, look for opportunities to engage the public in roles of oversight.

But if the City of Los Angeles is to consider the departmental shake-downs of neighborhood councils appropriate shuffling of city funds, there should be some protocols in place, rules that govern the transference of neighborhood council funds to the operating budgets of city departments:

1) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that stood up for the neighborhood councils during the City of LA’s Budget Hearings and defended the volunteers who work so hard to fulfill their City Charter mandate of engaging the public in monitoring the delivery of City Services. When the General Managers and Directors of LA’s Departments and Bureaus stand side by side with neighborhood councils as partners, they should feel free to solicit funds for their departments.

2) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to City Departments that have Commissions with a seat that is set aside for Neighborhood Council representation. When the Police Commission has an NC seat, the LAPD should feel free to solicit funds for their equipment. When the Rec & Parks Commission opens up an NC seat, RAP should feel free to solicit funds for their programs.

3) Neighborhood Councils funding should be limited to departments that entertain reciprocal requests for funding and services. Of course, this is the way things were supposed to be before they were flipped, one where the neighborhood councils advised the city on the delivery of city services and the departments were actually responsive to the local priorities.

The absurdity of the biggest of the big going after the smallest of the small in order to fund services and supplies is predatory and does nothing to advance LA but simply allows the departments to consume the host.

The missed opportunity through all of this is for the City Family to take its collective eyes of the budgets of other departments and to focus on outside revenue sources that require community support as a key element in qualifying and implementing federal and state money that would go much further in funding city services.

Neighborhood councils are in an ideal position to serve as the funding partners on Office of Traffic Safety funding that would go directly to LAPD staffing and services. The impact of an OTS grant is much more significant that any NC contribution to LAPD office supplies.

Neighborhood councils are best equipped to conduct the outreach necessary to qualify for funds such as the CA Statewide Park Program that funded the creation of parks in underserved communities. The impact of a $5 million grant far outweighs the negligible benefit of a neighborhood council contribution for RAP outreach materials.

Neighborhood councils are perfect partners for the Transportation Department as the City of LA goes after Safe Routes to School funding, money that can be put to work improving the sidewalks and streets of our neighborhoods. The impact of proactive teamwork has the potential to deliver millions of dollars to our streets which far outperforms the current meager contributions that are made in desperate attempts to “prime the pump” and motivate a reticent department.

It’s time that City Hall and the city departmental leadership recognize neighborhood councils as partners in engaging the public in the civic process, as partners in departmental oversight and accountability, and as partners in great funding that supports the delivery of city services.

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

CityWatchLA - LA Fails to Cash the Check

CityWatch, Feb 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 12

The City of LA is mired in a budget crisis, one that has prompted the mayor to go on a “confidence tour” while the city council conducts triage on city assets and the people of LA brace themselves for the next round of service cuts and fee increases.

While those in control would have us believe that this is all due to the current global economic crisis, it’s not quite true. Quite simply, the City of LA has been mismanaging money through thick and thin, through feast and famine, and even when the funding comes through, LA fails to cash the check.

While city hall attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the people who live here and who operate small businesses here, the real opportunities to pay our staff, repair our infrastructure, support healthy communities and partner with our schools are missed because of simple ineptitude.

1) The City of LA competes with itself for funding. The federal and state government both have Safe Routes to School funding, dispensed on an annual basis and LA allows the Department of Transportation, Public Works, and the CRA to all submit projects that compete with each other. A more efficient solution would be to allow Public Works (a charter department) to take the lead and then to ask the hard question, “Why is there a redundancy of services by the LADOT and the CRA?”

2) The City of LA simply fails to compete for great funding. The Office of Traffic Safety provides funds that can pay for public safety personnel and overtime but LA continues to go after funding for “Watch the Road” billboards as the city council debates furloughs and layoffs.

3) The City of LA qualifies for funding and then simply fails to do the work.

• It’s been years since the city council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the funds had been in place for years. They blamed city staff.

• It’s been years since I stood on Wilshire Blvd. with LA’s gridlock busting Mayor, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel, and LADOT GM Rita Robinson to announce the federal funding that was going to be spent on revitalizing and rebuilding Wilshire Blvd., from one end to the other. Since then, the Mayor has lost interest, Greuel is now the City Controller, Robinson retired in frustration and works for LA County, and anyone who travels on Wilshire Blvd. does so at their own risk.

• As of last week, the city council continues to debate Wilshire Blvd., finally deciding to avoid making a decision until they had seen more reports and studies. Meanwhile, LA residents pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

4) The City of LA’s failure to complete projects and then invoice the federal and state authorities disqualifies us from funding cycles. City staff engage in the “sister agency” turf war that screams of the inefficiency of having such redundancy. The LADOT has two projects still open under a Cooperative Work Agreement (fund extension) which makes the whole city ineligible for BTA state funds that pay for city projects that improve safety and convenience.

5) The City of LA qualifies for funding but can’t do the math. When the LADOT was at the Transportation Committee to discuss plans for its share of the Metro’s “local return” funds, the numbers being discussed were based on 10% of net instead of 10% of gross. I pointed out the error ($7.3 million over 5 years) and it was corrected.

LA’s City Council has an obligation to protect the city’s assets and to the deliver city services. The Great City priorities of Public Safety, Public works, Public Health, and Public Education depend on an honest, open and transparent accounting of our funds. It continues with the responsible management of our funds and it moves forward with oversight and accountability.

As for today, it’s incumbent on the city council to “cash the check” and put city staff to work repairing our streets and delivering city services.

(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.)

CityWatchLA - More Politics of Scarcity

CityWatch, Jan 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 3

Induced demand is a powerful political weapon and the people of Los Angeles are subjected to “either/or” proposals with such regularity that the current debate over the sale of LA’s parking assets is just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the impending budget crisis.

As the streets of Los Angeles collapse and another Operation Pothole gets underway, City Hall is quietly moving to sell off income producing fixed assets, this time positioning the “either/or” scenario as “either we layoff city employees or we sell off parking assets.”

OMG!

The City of LA has been moving in this direction for years, ample time to conduct an open and transparent discussion of the proposed sale of city assets. Now we find ourselves racing against the ticking clock (another powerful negotiating tool!) and the City Council is rushing to make a decision while the public finds itself on the sidelines.

Tick, tick, tick!

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were slammed with the “9% phone tax” ballot measure, positioned as a reduction of 10% from the then illegal fee that was being collected by the city but also positioned as necessary if the city was to continue to offer the same great service. All was forgiven and the city moved on...towards the edge of the budget crisis cliff. The law was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were offered the “either/or” option of paying more for trash collection or suffering a shortage in public safety staffing. The people of LA bought into the “10,000 Police Officers on the streets of LA” mandate and the trash fees went up but the city of LA was in the middle of a budget crisis and the money was used elsewhere. Meanwhile, police officers are moving from patrol duties to clerking responsibilities, all in an effort to replace furloughed and laid-off civilian employees. The promise was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were grappling with closed libraries, closed fire stations, fee increases, permit increases, shuttered cultural centers, loss of incremental tax revenue, strained infrastructure, and restricted delivery of city services.

Wait! It was yesterday! And it’s still happening today! How quickly we forget!

Through it all, the City Council gets the advice, counsel and support of the City Attorney while the people of Los Angeles get...well...a great view of the proceedings from Channel 35 and the option of dropping by council chambers for a moment or two of public comment.

Typically, in significant transactions between two or more parties, skilled representatives are at the table to advise their clients on the deal, the options and the ramifications of potential decisions.

In Los Angeles, the City Attorney (CA) is busy working more than one side of the table, advising the City Council, advising the CAO, advising the Department of Recreation and Parks, interrupting only long enough to remind the people of Los Angeles that the CA can’t offer advice or support to the residents, “After all, the people of LA aren’t the CA’s client.”

The current brouhaha over the sale of LA’s parking assets is simply another in a long series of one-sided, induced-demand, fire-sale crisis solutions that is fed to the people of Los Angeles who are out-gunned, under-represented, and over-burdened. That must change!

Somehow those deliberating over the fire sale of city assets as a short term solution to a long term problem have missed the successes of neighboring communities where parking income has been leveraged into community enhancements and streetscape improvements, improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

Well-managed parking assets combined with park-once valet options stimulate the economy, improve employment opportunities, and result in safer streets, all as a result of embracing parking revenue, not jettisoning it off as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

While the complexities of parking asset development, funding, construction, operations and management are handled by the many city departments involved in representing the people of LA, one thing is certain; it must be conducted with greater foresight, transparency, accountability, and results.

From Orange County to Mammoth Lakes to the City of Bell, the arrogance of governance without oversight has demonstrated its fatal sting. Now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to demand representation and oversight, starting with a City Prosecutor with enforcement authority.

(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.)

NCs Finding a Seat at the Table

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

The journey has been long and it has often been tedious and fatiguing, but it has paid off.

When the CAO's recommendations for the neighborhood council system came up two weeks ago, the BudgetLA community turned out in great numbers and went to work, fighting in the Budget and Finance Committee and in the City Council and again at the E & N Committee. Committee Chair Paul Krekorian championed the NC cause and took the proposed cuts off the City Council agenda and out to Committee, demActive Imageonstrating that a strong relationship with an NC Champion was worth its weight in public comment.

The council sessions have been rugged, the people who have worked the phones, sent the emails, spoken in public comment, shared their victories, offered their commitment and stood their ground have made a difference and that is what the neighborhood council system is all about.

As of yesterday, City Council instructions for actions on items involving neighborhood councils include the directive "in consultation with the neighborhood councils" demonstrating a huge shift in the relationship of the public with the City Council.

The City Council is still weighing options on NC elections, NC funding, Rollover funds, Bankcards, Expenditures and the structure and staffing levels for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Departments including the City Clerk's office, the City Controller's office, the CAO, the CLA, the City Attorney, DONE, BONC and CDD are all working on reports for the future.

Meanwhile, the BudgetLA community has a plan. It's a beginning, a place to start, but it's not a report, it's not a survey, it's a plan.

Plans are rare these days, especially ambitious plans that come with the commitment of the public.

This plan for the future of the Neighborhood Council System will be presented to the Mayor's office on Friday, February 19. If you care about the role of neighborhood councils in the future of Los Angeles, this is the meeting to attend.

There is a lot of ground to cover, from NC elections and NC funding to the core priorities of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we put all of our energy into being part of the solution as we take on the city's budget crisis and as we work together to position neighborhood councils as an asset in the journey to make Los Angeles a Great City.

Deputy Mayor Larry Frank hosts BudgetLA

Friday, February 19, 2010

3:00 pm

Mayor's Press Room

3rd Floor

200 Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

As for the NC agenda items that were in City Council over the last two weeks, Krekorian's recommendations were all passed unanimously, with an amendment to the rollover fund motion, giving neighborhood councils the opportunity to claim all money encumbered through January 29, 2010.

1) Committee recommends a) that the city report back to the committee within two weeks of the feasibility of a non profit taking over NC funding, b) making BONC the managing commission and moving DONE staff under them. “We have to move forward and study this,” Krekorian says. “We need to move. We are in a crisis.” Report back in two weeks.

2) Krekorian said "It’s clear to me this is a broken accounting system. This is a system that requires reform. Sweeping these funds into the reserve would not allow NCs what they need to meet their commitments. We need to move the funds into the unappropriated balance account, subject to certain claims. We also need a better verification process." Report back in two weeks.

3) Committee recommends that the NCs submit monthly accounting reports of bank cards to maintain the current procedure and improve transparency. Also moves that cash withdrawals from NCs be eliminated and that DONE report back, within two weeks, how that will get done. Report back in one week.

4) Committee recommends that DONE report back in 60 days.

5) Krekorian recommends total REJECTION of 50% cut in NC funding the CAO had recommended citing partnership with NCs as basis on which to move forward, calling that the “sweet spot in this issue.”

Krekorian vows to continue the discussion with the city and NCs for better, more efficient and transparent ways to move forward.

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

CityWatchLA - Find a Bright Spot and Clone It

CityWatch, Feb 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 11

Fast Company magazine features an article by columnists Chip Heath and Dan Heath that proposes a counter-intuitive approach to problem solving, especially when the problem is one of significant size.

Find a bright spot and clone it.

That's the first step to fixing everything from addiction to corporate malaise to malnutrition. A problem may look hopelessly complex. But there's a game plan that can yield movement on even the toughest issues. And it starts with locating a bright spot -- a ray of hope.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with a budget crisis that calls for complex solutions of revenue enhancement, of systemic efficiencies, of budget cuts, and of staffing reductions, I looked to our neighbors for that "Bright Spot" and I found Long Beach.

Long Beach and Los Angeles compete for the same money and yet somehow Long Beach seems to come out ahead of LA. For example, LA and LB both submitted proposals to the Metro during the Call for Projects, asking for money to install bike racks on sidewalks throughout the respective cities. Both Long Beach and Los Angeles were awarded money but Long Beach's award exceeded LA's by a factor of 40 to 1 per capita.

The result is that Long Beach received money from the Metro's Call, paid their Public Works employees to install the bike racks, and went to work improving the quality of life in their community.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles took the smaller award, gave it to a contractor, decided that supervising the contract was too much work and suspended the program, citing the budget crisis as the cause.

Long Beach put their city employees to work with a well-funded program, Los Angeles churned paper and folded.

There are a couple of Bright Spots here that should serve as "Rays of Hope" as we look for long-term solutions to the budget crisis.

Long Beach filed ambitious requests for funding. The project is simple, the installation of inverted-U bike racks, but the request was comprehensive and it did three things; it put people to work, it served as a traffic congestion solution, and it contributed to a street revitalization program. With half a million residents, Long Beach has a population one eighth the size of LA but they asked for five times as much as Los Angeles (40 to 1 per capita) and they prevailed because they had the audacity to think big and to go to work. It took no more time or energy or paper to ask for the larger amount of money.

It took a simple commitment to actions that resonate.

A bike rack may not seem like a comprehensive solution to our budget crisis but if installing them puts people to work, if the money to pay people to install them is there for the asking, why aren't we putting in more bike racks?

Is it time to shift from a problem focus to a solution focus? is it time to look for flashes of success?

We can deliberate, we can pontificate, and we can negotiate but if we want to change course, it's important that we look for success stories and bright spots, then we must duplicate them.

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

CityWatchLA - LA's Best Bike Plan - "Bringing home the bacon!"

CityWatch, Jan 5, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 1

Anyone who cares about the quality of life on the streets of Los Angeles, whether they ride a bike or not, has a vested interest in the development of LA's Bike Plan. More importantly, anyone who cares about LA's budget crisis, whether they care about the streets or not, has a vested interest in the development of a powerful visionary Bike Plan for Los Angeles. Any bike related funding requests made at the Federal, State or County levels are immediately challenged by the simple hurdle "Is this proposed project part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan?" If the answer is no, the project is summarily disqualified for funding and Los Angeles then watches the money go to other cities that have laid down a bold vision for their community, that have written powerful proposals for transportation and that have made a commitment to going after the funding and bringing it home to make their streets safer and more effective for everybody.

LA's current Bike Plan was developed in 1996 and is part of the Transportation Element of the City's General Plan, a state mandated document that directs the growth and development of the City of Los Angeles. The Bike Plan was updated and re-approved by City Council twice and is current through 2012. In a rare demonstration of enthusiasm, the LADOT's Capital Funding Department initiated a Bike Plan update process a couple of years ago, secured funding, hired a consultant, and partnered with the Planning Department on the development of the Draft Bike Plan.

This is in stark contrast with the LADOT's enthusiasm for actual Bikeways projects and over the last 13 years, the City of LA has picked up about $65 million in Bikeways funding which has resulted in 13 miles of Bike Paths and 55 miles of Bike Lanes. Critics charge that this demonstrates a complete lack of commitment to developing a "bikeable LA."

LA is nothing if not the City of "Big Plans" which include the General Plan, the 35 Community Plans, the Master Plans, the Specific Plans, and many Vision Plans. In this environment, the Bike Plan is a small and obscure document, a funding document, yet it contains within it the potential power to provide connectivity, not just to the cyclists who want to ride the streets of Los Angeles, but to the many plans that sometimes overlap, contradict, overrule or simply fall short. In other words, the Draft Bike Plan is the missing link.

The public comment period for the $450,000 Draft Bike Plan closes this Friday, and the consultants, the LADOT and City Planning will then go to work, reviewing and considering your comments for inclusion the Draft Bike Plan that will then be presented to the Planning Commission. Of course, that is contingent on them receiving your comments by this Friday.

Critics of the Draft Bike Plan claim that the document "aims low and still falls short" and charge that, if nothing else, the $450,000 Draft should at least be an improvement over the old plan. While it's easy to find people who agree that the new Bike Plan should be an improvement over the old Bike Plan, it's hard to find people who will wade through the 563-page document.

Of those who have read the Bike Plan, the response has been consistently negative, varying only in intensity. Among the harshest critics was the "LA Bike Working Group" and which conducted four public workshops to engage the public and to develop "LA's Best Bike Plan," resulting in 35 significant recommendations that were pared down to the following 12 principles.

If these sound reasonable, please go to LABikePlan.com and send them in as your recommendations for LA's Draft Bike Plan. If not, I would love to hear your opinion. Either way, I hope you'll take a moment to give your opinion.

The 12 PRINCIPLES of "LA's Best Bike Plan"

1. Genesis:
Every street is a street that cyclists will ride.

2. All City:
A Backbone Bikeway network will be the engineering focus in the immediate future

3. Action
LA must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years

4. Transformation
Neighborhood pilots projects to create pockets of ultra bike friendliness, including bike boulevards

5. Strength
Any new plan should go through a full programmatic EIR

6. Intelligence
Evaluate success by measuring progress against goals, timelines, bike counts, and collision data

7. One Generation
Get em' young - building a car-free army from LA's youngest generation - beginning at the school level

8. Justice
LAPD will undergo mandatory 8 hour training in cyclists' rights and laws concerning cyclists, and practical bike training.

9. Execution
Move Bikeways out of LADOT

10. Democracy
Have the plan voted on by cyclists, or the NCs

11. Complete
The six Es - Equality, Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation - are the structure for the plan.

12. Equality
The Cyclists' Bill of Rights is the foundation for the plan

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

Measure R Funding Followup - It Pays to Check the Math!

A City Watch article combined with 60 seconds of public comment resulted in an adjustment to the proposed Measure R Local Return budget, yielding a $7.3 Million increase in Bike/Ped funding.

At issue is the Mayor and the City Council's Transportation Committee's commitment to bike and pedestrian advocates that 10% of Measure R Local Return funds would be set-aside for Bike/Ped projects.

The 10% commitment had advocates celebrating but a check of the math revealed a small $7.3 million problem, the LADOT had calculated the 10% on net funds yielding $10.8 million over the next 5 years instead of on gross which would yield $18.1 million.

I wrote of the error for CityWatch but even my nearest and dearest pointed out that it was difficult to read at best. Apparently what mattered is that Councilman Alarcon's staff read it and they were engaged.

I showed up for Wednesday's Transportation Committee ready to debate the LADOT's spread sheet and to fight for the $7.3 million but the conference room on the 10th floor was dark. It turned out that the City Council was still in session, debating Medical Marijuana. The long delay gave me the opportunity to attempt to engage other bike/ped advocates in a discussion of the misleading math that made up the preferred Measure R Local Return budget and to prepare for public comment.

Public comment at City Hall is typically an exercise in futility that ranges in effectiveness somewhere between Pony Show theatrics to a cry for help. Because of the late hour we were given 60 seconds to make our case before the Transportation Committee, a tough window on any day, made tougher because I would be discussing a $181 million dollar budget gross and net calculations and unrelated funding for mega Transit projects.

I gave it 60 seconds of summary, the buzzer went off and I concluded to silence. Then, as I stood to leave, the City's Legislative Analyst said "You're right." I waited but that was it. I asked "So then you'll fix it?" It was that simple. "Yes."

It took a City Watch article to get their attention, it took a half day of milling about City Hall for 60 seconds of public comment and it resulted in $7.3 million in additional funding for bike/ped projects.

I'm convinced, more than ever, we must pay attention and we must stay engaged!

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 - Metro’s Identity Crisis

CityWatch, July 14, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 56

The Metro is proposing to take LA's cycling community for a ride, one step forward and two steps backward, all in a misguided effort to revise the Metro's bikes-on-rail policy.

Current Metro policy prohibits cyclists from bringing their bikes on rail during peak hours (6:30 am - 8:30 am and 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm) a policy that is rarely enforced or even acknowledged based on the anecdotal presence of bikes on most Metro light rail during these hours.

The Metro is proposing to remove the restriction, a simple action that should be hailed by the cycling community with cheers of "They like us! Right now, they really like us!"

But a quick survey of the eight-page handout for the proposed policy revision revealed the small print, the details, the motivation for the out-of-character "What have we done for the cycling community lately?" posture of the Metro. Under the "enhance safety" bullet point, the Metro addressed safety by slipping in a universal limit on cyclists with a two bikes per rail car limit. This means that the last Red Line train from NoHo in the middle of the night, one that typically has two cars, would be limited to 4 cyclists.

The late night trains are typically light on passengers but heavy on bikes. It also means that during busy times, cyclists would be racing back and forth on the platform with their bikes, counting cyclists and looking for the "light" rail car. Hardly a safety improvement on the platform!

There are a couple of significant issues here, bigger than the simple specifics of where the bikes go and how many fit.

1) Bikes are a form of transportation. Cyclists are able to get around the city and fill Metro service gaps because of their bikes. Metro passengers are able to get farther and to fill service gaps because of their bikes. We should be supporting the potential synergy here, not limiting its efficacy by excluding cyclists with limitations that apply to no other user group.

Mike Cannell, the General Manager for Metro Rail Operations, explained that with the increase in ridership on the Metro Rail, space has become increasingly scarce. Good point. He pointed out that with the success of the Flyaway from the airport, more and more passengers are taking luggage on the Train. Good point. He pointed out that when you add strollers, carts and ... gasp ... one time he saw a guy with a Christmas tree, we're really now all competing for limited and finite space. Good points!

BUT...bicycles are a transportation solution. When the guy can ride his Christmas tree from the train station to his home, it should be in the same category as the bicycle, but until that day, bikes support and enhance the Metro Rail service as a form of complementary, not just alternative, transportation. All else is "stuff" and to limit bicycles to two per car while not limiting strollers, wagons, luggage, and other personal property demonstrates a clear attitude of "What are we gonna do with all of these cyclists?"

Cannell continued by pointing out that the presence of "all of these bikes" was a violation of the fire and penal codes because of the blocked doorways. He was asked if It was the "blocked doorways" that was the violation or if it was "the bikes blocking the doorways" that was the violation. He responded that it was the bikes. When pressed, he repeated that the prohibition was against bikes, not people or luggage or strollers or Christmas Trees, but against bikes.

Cannell's team pointed out that the space on a rail car is finite and a bike takes up space, thereby reducing Rail Car capacity. Cyclists countered, "By riding a bike, cyclists complement the Metro and close service gaps in the system, thereby increasing Transportation System capacity!"

Crickets chirped when the Metro staff was asked if anybody had actually counted cyclists on buses, on rail, and on the streets and if there was any information or data to support this discussion and the proposed policy recommendations.

The Metro doesn't count cyclists because, apparently, cyclists don't count.

2) The Metro has an identity crisis. Anyone who visits the Metro with any regularity is reminded of the old tale of the Elephant surrounded by the blind men. Essentially, six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body.

The blind man who feels a leg says "It's like a pillar!" The one who feels the tail says "It's like a rope!" The one who feels the trunk says "It's like a tree branch!" The one who feels the ear says "It's like a hand fan!" The one who feels the belly says "It's like a wall! The one who feels the tusk says "It's like a solid pipe!"

The Metro is the proverbial "elephant." The Train folks exclaim "The Metro is a Rail System supported by bus connectivity."

The Bus Operations folks exclaim "The Metro is a Bus System that saturates the region with connectivity but competes with Rail for operating funds!"

The Training folks exclaim "It's a conflicted environment with everybody in our way!" The Real Estate folks exclaim "It's a development opportunity supported by transit!"

The Parking Lot folks exclaim "Seriously, look around. It's a parking lot supported by transit!" The Outreach folks exclaim "It's an opportunity to engage and to create community!" The Pedestrian folks exclaim "Hey, where's the elephant?"

The Bicycle folks exclaim "Don't anger the elephant!" Through it all, the local municipalities and agencies look at the elephant and see an ATM that's gonna dispense $40 Billion of Measure R money over the next 30 years, all to projects based on the Metro's priorities and oversight.

The Metro, by design, is our Regional Transportation Authority. It's an "elephant" and all of "the blind men" are correct. It's many things, but first and foremost, it is responsible for creating and funding a Transportation System that services all modes, using all methods and moving all people.

Federal funds along with Measure R funds put the Metro in a significant position of power and the character of our regional Transportation System is due to the priorities that are established at the top. The Metro funds everything from freeways to bike lanes to educational materials to the trees that make it more pleasant to walk to the bus stop.

Based on results it is evident that the Metro has meandered in its commitment to creating a Transportation System with a "multi-modal" commitment to moving people.

There is hope that this is going to change. The Metro has a new CEO, Art Leahy, and a new Chairman of the Board, Ara Najarian, both of whom have a reputation for innovation and a commitment to civil service.

Leahy and Najarian now have the opportunity to work together to integrate the many opinions of "the blind men" into a cohesive vision and mission for "the elephant." It's on them to create a real regional Transportation System that is committed to moving all people using all modes and that is committed to improving the quality of life for our communities.

Their first challenge is on the horizon and will come up this Thursday in the Operations Committee when the limit of the number of cyclists comes up for a vote. As Cannell puts it, "This system wasn't built with cyclists in mind."

The Metro now has the opportunity to address that oversight and to integrate cyclists as transportation solutions into a real Transportation System. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate 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 - 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.)