LA Needs a Plan that Endures

CityWatch, July 16, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 56

The upside of having LA's Historic Preservation Department housed within City Planning is that it makes it simpler to care for LA's General Plan, dusting it off periodically and waving it about to prove that, at one time, LA actually had a plan for the future. LA's General Plan is mandated by State law and Municipal Code and is intended as a blueprint for the growth and development of Los Angeles. In reality, it is a ceremonial document, an unmonitored relic completely lacking in enforcement authority and political support. It is, by definition, a piece of history preserved for antiquity.

This is not to say that old plans are not good plans. The Chicago Plan is very old, yet it continues to guide and inspire.

Visitors to Chicago are greeted at the airport by an exhibit that offers an overview of the plan.

The Borders bookstore on Michigan Avenue has an entire display section dedicated to the Chicago Plan along with maps, commentary and updates.

It's fair to say that the Chicago Plan's co-author was correct when he said ""Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized."

As for visitors to LA's airport, they are greeted by huge banners urging them to "Visit Las Vegas!" While one might argue that this is part of a creative revenue enhancement scheme, the "anywhere but here" strategy for encouraging tourism is of dubious merit.

It also reveals a lack of identity, something the Los Angeles Plan should provide, if only as the starting point for a General Plan that moves Los Angeles forward into the future.

The City of Los Angeles must have "A Plan that Endures" for these four reasons:

1) It's the Law. The City of Los Angeles, like any other municipal authority, is required to plan for the future. LA's dusty, outdated and ill-enforced Plan creates an adversarial environment that is generating lawsuits against the city. Community members should be partners, not plaintiffs, and a solid General Plan with enforcement authority would move LA forward.

LA's current General Plan is the beginning point for negotiations and challenges and variances that make a mockery of the process. By design, the Plan should clarify policies and ideals, ending debate over challenges, and serving as the beginning point of actions that are consistent with LA's Great City vision.

2) It brings LA's vision to life. The City of Los Angeles has allowed the development of our communities to take place project-by-project, requiring community members to fight individual variances and specific curb-cuts, one at a time.

This process is profitable for the consultants and lawyers, it's simply the cost of business for the developers, but it is absolutely painful and demoralizing for the neighborhood.

The tyranny of development must stop and a General Plan that clearly articulates the policies and ideals of LA's vision for the future must be the blueprint for moving forward.

3) It's an active solution to our challenges. No city can afford to function without a plan, especially one in a budget crisis.

Yet Los Angeles continues to engage in short term planning, political wrangling, and data-free decision making. It is imperative that the City of LA double down on Planning, collect the data, engage the public, and commit to implementing long-term solutions to the challenges that threaten the quality of life in Los Angeles.

4) It moves our communities forward. The quality of life in our communities is threatened. The people of Los Angeles deserve a General Plan that can be held up as the guiding document for all land use and development decisions.

Now is the time to develop and implement a General Plan that allows the community to come together on issues ranging from mobility to air quality to the environment, avoiding the piecemeal debates that take place when planning is conducted project-by-project with no vision for the city as a whole.

Los Angeles is a city of talent, recognized around the world for innovations and creativity. LA deserves a General Plan that is more than a museum piece, a dusty vestige that merely satisfies an administrative requirement.

LA deserves a General Plan that moves this city forward, a Plan that brings our vision to life, establishing a narrative for the future that sees Los Angeles taking its place as a Great City.

(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 - 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)

CityWatchLA - Neighborhoods Win Input Extension on Bike Plan

CityWatch, Dec 1, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 98

City Planning Department has extended comment period for LA's Draft Bike Plan. This is good for cyclists, great for neighborhoods!

Three weeks after the deadline for public comment on LA's Draft Bike Plan ended, Jane Blumenfeld, City Planning's Acting Deputy Director, reversed position and announced an extension on the public comment period until January 8, 2010. This reversal signifies a victory for the bike activists, the community groups, and the neighborhood councils who rose to the occasion, calling the initial 42-day comment period on the 563 page Draft Bike Plan an insult to the civic engagement process. In the grand scheme of things, it would be easy to dismiss LA's Draft Bike Plan as a simple document that humbly addresses the needs of a niche transportation mode. Hardly the stuff of the LA visionaries who are frothing at the mouth as they position themselves to spend billions of dollars on mega-transit projects, quickly and quietly and fueled by the conviction that they know best. But that would be a mistake.

LA's Draft Bike Plan has the potential to benefit the city as a whole, for cyclists and non-cyclists alike, and the process for developing the plan, as well as the final document, is important for several reasons.

First, LA's Draft Bike Plan has gone a long way toward establishing a reasonable and meaningful minimum standard for public comments on the planning that impacts our communities.

The Department of Transportation and City Planning initially released the Draft Bike Plan with a 42-day comment period, clearly demonstrating a cavalier approach to the public participation process.

With neighborhood councils requiring 60 days just to cycle through a monthly committee meeting and then a monthly board meeting, the chances of NC review were reduced to nil.

Bloggers seized on this failure and issued the challenge. This simple rallying cry brought together bloggers, the NC Action Summit, the Valley Alliance, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the CD11 Transportation Committee, and neighborhood councils from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to Studio City to Mid-City West to Palms to East Hollywood to Encino to others too numerous to list.

Result: a meaningful process for public engagement and a meaningful comment period.

Second, LA's Draft Bike Plan has the capacity to bring a sense of scale to the streets of Los Angeles by addressing them from the perspective of a single human on a bike.

Developing a powerful Bike Plan demands that we look at the city from the ground up, starting with the movement of people instead of adding them as an afterthought.

For too long, the streets of LA have been evaluated simply on their ability to hold more cars and side streets have been evaluated based on their ability to absorb overflow and cut-through traffic. The development of LA's Bike Plan demands that we grapple with the tough questions and decide how people will live and work and socialize and move about the City of Los Angeles.

This discussion positions multi-modal transportation choices as the starting point for LA's Transportation and Planning departments.

Result: streets that are for people, supported by real transportation choices.

Third, LA's Draft Bike Plan is just one of many plans. After all, Los Angeles is a "City of Plans."

There are 35 Community Plans, then there are the Specific Plans, complemented by the Master Plans, supported by Vision Plans, all overlapping and lost in the melee created every time the Mayor and the City Council initiate a Trash Plan, a River Plan, a Sidewalk Plan, a Tree Plan, a Golf Plan or a Lighting Plan.

Toss a couple of mega-plans such as the Harbor Plan or the NBC-Universal Plan in the mix and it's evident that the only people who benefit from this scenario are the consultants who churn plans as if City Hall has unlimited shelf-space, complete with unlimited dust.

The development of LA's Bike Plan comes complete with community calls for integration. It comes with challenges for real implementation, not just as an exercise in required planning but as the first real step in improving the quality of life in our communities.

Result: integrated Community Planning supported by a commitment to implementation.

Finally, LA's Draft Bike Plan is already serving as a reminder that as much as Los Angeles is the land of diversity, it is also the land of Common Ground.

Regardless of geography, culture, language, economics, professions or modes of travel, the people of Los Angeles all share the same desire to travel freely and safely on their streets. Some walk, some ride, some drive, some take mass transit and all will benefit from a robust Bike Plan with a real vision.

After all, cyclists simply want well-maintained streets free of potholes and debris.

They prefer streets with moderate vehicle volumes and speeds, an environment that is likewise safer and more hospitable for drivers and pedestrians.

They want to patronize local businesses that offer accommodations for cyclists.

They want great routes to schools, jobs, city centers and residential communities and they want a great relationship with law enforcement so that the streets are free of crime. In other words, what's good for cyclists is good for the community.

Result: the establishment of common ground and the development of real community.

INFO: The journey to a better Bike Plan continues and if you'd like to participate, visit LABikePlan.com to download a copy of the Draft Bike Plan.

Visit BikeWritersCollective.com to download a copy of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights.

To participate in the development of LA's Best Bike Plan, join the LA Bike Working Group in Hollywood on Saturday, December 12 at 2pm. 1711 Van Ness Avenue, Los Angeles, 90028.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) Photo credit: Photo by Lucyrk in LA via LAist Featured Photos on Flickr

LA's Mean Streets - Unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians and mass transit passengers!

(Hans Gutknecht/Daily News) Album ID: 767869 Photo ID: 23918480

Monday was a bad day for pedestrians and cyclists and mass transit passengers in the City of Los Angeles.

First a woman cyclist was killed at 12:10 pm as she rode on Louise Avenue in Reseda. The Daily News reports that she was hit by a LADWP truck operated by a contractor and pictures of the scene indicate that it was a large truck hauling a trailer loaded with light poles. The LAPD reports that she was southbound on the sidewalk of Louise and was crossing the street when she was hit by the right-turning truck as it turned from Valerio onto Louise. The cyclist was pronounced dead at the scene.

The afternoon was not yet over when news came out that the Fire Department was attempting to extricate a male adult from under a bus on South Pacific Avenue in Venice. According to the LAPD, the 30-year-old man was crossing the street in the crosswalk when he was hit and dragged by a right-turning bus. The bus operator did not know the pedestrian was under the bus and continued for a couple of blocks before he was flagged down and informed of the body stuck under his bus. The pedestrian was pronounced dead at the scene.

At about the same time, a motorist on West Vanowen Street plowed into a bus stop, hitting four people and dragging one woman until the vehicle was stopped by a tree and a pole. Residents from nearby lifted the vehicle to free the trapped woman who was then transported to a local hospital and is reported in critical condition. The other women suffered minor injuries.

In all three cases the fire department, the police department and the press report that the vehicle operators required medical attention and at least two were transported to area hospitals.

Our streets are filled with vehicle operators who can't handle their vehicles or the environment in which they operate or the consequences of their failure to control their vehicles.

If the City of Los Angeles were a movie set, it would be illegal to allow children on the streets and the 1st Assistant Director and the Transportation Captain would be up on charges for allowing the set to disintegrate into a scene where people die on a regular basis.

But it's not a film set, it's reality and it's bad. It's no longer headline news when somebody dies as the result of a traffic collision, just scrolling trivia, with names withheld and incidents forgotten as the next victim takes their place on the list of the nameless who dared to walk, ride a bike or take the bus.

Our streets are filled with high performance vehicles driven by low performance operators. Our cars are engineered for speed and come with air bags, seat belts and crash cages, all which enable the occupants to survive a traffic collision but this does nothing for those who walk, ride or simply stand on a sidewalk. These are the most vulnerable and we do nothing to make the streets safer for them.

The City of Los Angeles may not be in a position to address the driving skills of all those who operate vehicles on the streets of LA, but it surely is in a position to require those who operate City owned vehicles or City contracted vehicles to take a simple driving course that stresses the rights of pedestrians and cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.

If we are to set a safety standard for our streets, it is imperative that we start with those over whom we have the most control, those who are on the payroll of the City of Los Angeles.

I'm calling on the City of Los Angeles to implement a training program to ensure that any city employee or contractor operating City owned or contracted vehicles be required to successfully complete a course for motor vehicle operator's on safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The League of American Bicyclists already has the course material in place for a program such as this, all that's missing is the political will to make it a reality.

Now is the time and we are the political will.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatch, Sept 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - 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.)