Question for LA’s City Hall: Who are You Working For?

CityWatch, Oct 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 79

RETHINKING LA - "Conflict of Interest" charges are fighting words and those who stand accused of serving two masters often find themselves in an uphill battle to defend their honor, their careers, and even their lives.

Ethical clouds have hung over LA’s City Hall for generations, sometimes wispy and prompted by rumor and other times dark and supported by criminal allegations. Political regimes have toppled, reform movements have taken steps to ensure impartiality, and through it all, controversy follows those who speak on behalf of the people of Los Angeles.

The recent Congress of Neighborhoods at LA’s City Hall included training sessions for neighborhood councils on ethics, including conflict of interest and the Brown Act. Perhaps it’s the relentless oversight of community members that has prompted some neighborhood activists to turn it around and reexamine the actions of our current Mayor and City Councilmembers.

Over the course of history, a betrayal of loyalties has consistently been considered one of the most serious crimes against a community and the penalties are typically severe, ranging from excommunication and banishment to imprisonment and execution.

Efforts to ensure loyalty have ranged from dangerous physical challenges in battle and co-mingled bloodlines to public oaths and legal contracts but no single effort has been able to prevent betrayal from entering the battlefield, the courtroom, the sporting arena, the boardroom, council chambers, and the negotiating room.

The art of the double-deal is as old as the act of negotiation itself and some of our wisest and most revered of strategists have included elements of deception and subversion in their counsel, but that doesn’t make it right, it simply makes it common.

On the one hand, the artful manipulation of loyalties carries with it the seductive glamour of a James Bond movie but in reality, the art of the double-cross is less about “the deal” and more about “the betrayal” and the sale of allegiance to the highest bidder.

The people of Los Angeles are surrounded by measures that are in place to ensure that those who act on their behalf are doing so openly, honestly, and impartially. At the same time, there are those who charge that the net is full of holes and only serves to keep honest people honest while the dishonest simply grow more powerful and wealthy.

In sports, professional athletes are forbidden from associating with gamblers and members of organized crime in an effort to ensure that those competing in sporting events are actually competing and not influencing the outcome for financial gain. Baseball’s Pete Rose was denied his place in the Hall of Fame because he served two masters, one was baseball, the other was a bookie.

In legal circles, professionals are held to a high standard that restricts an attorney or a firm from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client.

In local government, elected officials are required to recuse themselves from any negotiations or actions that would benefit them financially. This can include direct benefits as well as benefits to a company or cause that has contributed to the politician.

LA County’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) recently found itself immobilized by contributions when a large developer brought a huge contract before the Board, only to find the entire Board subject to conflict of interest charges because of the liberal contributions that had preceded the contract. The METRO Board, unable to move forward without a vote, chose to invoke the “Hayden Rule” which they defined as “the drawing of straws to select a representative group from the recused members,” providing a randomness that ensured no “conflict of interest.”

METRO went forward, allowing all members of the Board to keep the developer contributions, allowing the Board to vote on the contract, allowing the Developer to benefit from the approved contract, and motivating a member of the audience to call Tom Hayden who was surprised to be credited with the legal “workaround” saying he had never heard of it.

Political figures in LA’s City Hall are regulated on a few different levels, from the Fair Political Practices Commission at the state level to the Ethics Commission at the city level. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ran afoul of both organizations when he accepted tickets to sports and entertainment events but failed to disclose the gifts as required.

Developer Rick Caruso recently made the news when he resigned from the Coliseum Commission amid charges that he serves two masters, one being the Coliseum Board and the other being USC where he serves as a trustee. USC’s football team is the Coliseum’s largest tenant and the proposed “master lease” would give more control over the Coliseum to USC.

City Councilman Bernard Parks, also on the Coliseum Commission, opposed Caruso’s participation in the USC contract talks and is fighting USC’s efforts, claiming that a private school should not have control over a publicly owned stadium.

On the other side of town, City Councilman Ed Reyes on the receiving end found himself of a complaint that charged him with serving two masters in violation of a state law designed to prevent public officials from also serving on boards, commissions, city councils and other governing bodies that may have interests that clash.

Reyes resigned from the Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority at the urging of deputy city attorneys, who advised “it was less risky to his position as councilman to resign from the Gold Line board should the attorney general conclude that he holds incompatible offices.”

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition was the most recent setting for “conflict of interest” charges, coming in the midst of debate over local development issues and the city’s municipal budget.

A presentation on Farmers Field and the AEG’s proposal to move the convention center in the process of bringing a football team to LA drew great debate, most of which revolved around the terms of the deal and the risk to the people of LA. The rigorous debate was best summed up by a community activist who bellowed “Let’s get ready for some Football!” on the condition that any member of the AEG team be expressly forbidden from contributing funds to any politician anywhere in the City of LA, the County of LA, or the State of California. “Only then will the people of LA stand a fair chance of a level playing field.”

This was followed by a speaker who pointed out that the City of LA regularly engages in negotiations with the City’s Union representatives, people who also contribute campaign funds to those who run for office and who represent the people of LA.

“How can the Mayor, the City Council, and the City Attorney represent the people of Los Angeles,” the budget activist asked, “if they are negotiating with Unions who have directly contributed to their political campaigns?”

One might suggest that it cuts both ways, even a Councilmember who was not on the receiving end of Union campaign contributions would lack an impartial position if the Union contributed to their opponent and/or campaigned on behalf of their opponent.

Through it all, the City Attorney is elected by the people of Los Angeles, in a campaign that is fueled by contributions from many special interests, to a position that legally represents “the City, its departments, commissions, and employees in civil litigation and transactions.”

Representatives of LA;s City Attorney frequently remind the people of Los Angeles that it is the Corporate City that is the client, not the people of Los Angeles.

Which master does the City Attorney serve as he takes his place at the table, next to the Mayor and the City Councilmembers, and proceeds to negotiate contracts that benefit the employees of LA while the people of LA aren’t considered “the client” and aren’t invited to the process.

It is imperative that the Mayor and the City Council clearly identify the master they serve. If money has changed hands, they must acknowledge the ethical cloud that follows the money and they must recuse themselves from the negotiations.

Lawyers can lose their licenses for violating specific standards that prevent even the impression of conflict. Athletes can lose their ability to compete just for communicating with known gamblers. Business licenses can be revoked if the operators are found to associate with members of organized crime.

Yet when it comes to LA’s City Hall, the people who are making decisions on behalf of the people of Los Angeles are negotiating with people who have contributed to their political careers. It’s time to take the money off the table and to ask those in City Hall the tough question, “Who are you really working for?”

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

405 Closure: A Tale of Two Tweets

CityWatch
Vol 9 Issue 57
Pub: July 19, 2011

RETHINKING LA - The much anticipated weekend closure of LA’s 405 freeway caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the threat of Carmageddon loomed heavy on the horizon and officials unleashed a barrage of “stay home” warnings in every format imaginable including relentless email blasts, repetitious press conferences, and electronic sign messaging throughout the countywide freeway system. As the world watched,@Jet Blue airlines seized on the opportunity and offered “jetpool” flights over the 405 between Burbank and Long Beach airports for $4. This press coup drew a challenge from @GaryRidesBikes who suggested that cyclists could beat a jet in door-to-door travel time. @TomVanderbilt, author of “Traffic, Why we Drive the Way We Do” and Slate columnist, accepted Gary’s tweet as a Top-Gear style challenge and, as the world watched, the race was on.

Jet Blue passengers @OhaiJoe and @EzraHorne hopped in a car for the ride to the Burbank Airport, while@WolfpackHustle cyclists rode from Burbank to Long Beach in a #flightvsbike race that saw Jet Blue CEO@davidjbarger join the flight to welcome the racers. (rumors that the Jet Blue pilot was racing the cyclists for pink slips were unconfirmed)

Ignoring the “stay home” advice of the naysayers, Gary entered the race representing the pedestrian/mass transit mode and walked to the Red Line, where he rode for free to the Blue Line, transferred for the ride to Long Beach where he then walked the final leg to the Long Beach Lighthouse. Total cost - $0.00.

The Wolfpack cyclists, an elite group of athletes who averaged 24+ mph on the ride to Long Beach, took an oath to ride legally, as did Gary who crossed all streets with the signal, prompting Vanderbilt to tweet “Where is@garyridesbikes? Probably stuck at one of those epic LA pedestrian crossings. #flightvsbikes”   The cost of the Wolfpack ride included lots of coffee, donuts, and a celebratory refueling that may have included malted beverages.

As the dust settled, the cyclists won in 1:34, the ped/transit combo placed at 1:54, and @Jennix, who surprised the field with her stealth entrance on inline skates, showed at 2:34. Jenni is no stranger to long distance skating and leads “The Night Skate” rides on the streets of LA.

Meanwhile, the airline passengers enjoyed a record 12 minute Jet Blue flight, but experienced connectivity issues that included the traditional security maze and a taxi-cab driver who couldn’t find the Long Beach Lighthouse, the large navigational facility that is traditionally used as a guide to travelers. Joe and Ezra ended up walking the final leg for a 2:52 fourth place finish. Their $4 Jet Blue tickets included consolation prizes of cake, snacks, and Jet Blue gift bags.

@WolfpackHustle reveled in their victory by noting “Meanwhile... our politicians and police cowered and bit their nails, telling people to stay home and avoid this beautiful weekend.”

@JetBlue proved to be good sports about the race and asked for a rematch, this time racing from LAX to JFK.

As for the taxi-cab driver, his inability to help travelers in the first/last mile connection of multi-modal transportation demonstrates the big opportunity to be found in little solutions, such as the Wolfpack offer of $8 bike rides back to Burbank.

While other cities embrace bikeshare programs, pedicab networks, jitneys and streetcar connectors, LA continues to invest in transportation philosophy that is fully a generation behind in commitment to modal choices and connectivity.

If there is anything to be learned from Carmageddon’s peaceful non-appearance it’s this:

1) Angeleno’s are resilient and innovative - Time after time, whether it was the ‘84 Olympics, the Northridge earthquake, the Metro strike, or the shutdown of the 405, there are many ways to get around LA and it’s up to LA’s leadership to support great sustainable choices.

2) Great choices support sustainable behavior -  If LA’s leadership were to give walking and cycling the same support that they just gave the $1 billion widening of the 405 freeway, LA would experience traffic congestion relief at a fraction of the price and Angeleno’s would have great multi-modal choices.

3) Metro Works - Increasing service frequency and offering free rides through anticipated congested areas yielded positive results, demonstrating the folly of the recent Metro service cuts. Dollar for dollar, the cost of offering service pales in comparison to not offering service.

4) Celebrate the local economy - Theatres offered $4.05 tickets, bars offered $4.05 beverages, and neighborhoods citywide celebrated the opportunity to slow down to a local pace, enjoying the many local attractions that can get missed as one races to the Woodland Hills Costco.

5) Freeway Closures Rule - The success of the 405 closure had such a positive impact on life in the Los Angeles basin that some suggest it should be a regular event. A poll at Bitter Lemons yielded an 84% favorable response to the question “Should Los Angeles make Carmageddon a Regional Holiday and shut down the 405 once a year?”

6) Carmageddon is now Karmageddon - We reap what we sow and as Doug Failing, the Metro’s executive director of highway projects, pointed out “There is not a lot of elasticity in the system, even on the weekends.” The 405 closure just demonstrated the efficacy of a multi-modal commitment combined with a behavioral shift. A billion dollars of freeway widening is going to have a hard time competing with that kind of impact. The choice is ours.

Los Angeles just experienced a significant triumph of the Complete Streets philosophy, one that embraces all modes of transportation and commits to supporting choice as the essential element of a transportation system with the “elasticity” that our freeway system lacks.

As for next steps, it’s time to congratulate the State of California, the County of LA, the City of LA, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, and everyone else involved with the 405 closure for demonstrating that when it matters, they can work together to make it happen. Now it’s time for them to put that same focus on making the streets of LA a great place to go for a walk, to ride a bicycle, to catch a bus, to hop on a train, to get to the airport, and yes, to drive a car.

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

LA’s Developers are Above the Law

CityWatch, July 15, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 56

RETHINKING LA - Only in LA can a developer come to town with a $20 Billion budget, go to work on a construction campaign that impacts literally every neighborhood in the city, and not take responsibility for traffic mitigation, pedestrian and cyclist access, ADA compliance, roadway improvements, signalization enhancements, or simply adhering to LA’s municipal code.

This cavalier behavior is the work of the LAUSD, they’re LA’s largest developer, and they are above the law.

When the LAUSD’s building program gets implemented in a neighborhood, it doesn’t come with the expected community benefits that would demonstrate a partnership, it comes with an expectation that the local municipal authority will take responsibility for any street improvements and traffic mitigation.

The LAUSD spent $228 million on Central Los Angeles High School #9, aka the Visual and Performing Arts High School, and failed to deliver an ADA accessible school. The City of LA was expected to deliver the improvements that would support and encourage children as they walked and bicycled to school.

This isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, and the recent roster of newly constructed LAUSD schools that are on LA’s Safe Routes to School project list demonstrates LAUSD’s shortcomings when it comes to connecting with the community.

Simply put, if the LAUSD played by the same rules as the residents, they would build to code, they would include community benefits, and they would improve local streets to mitigate traffic and to support the kids who walk and bicycle to school. But they don’t because they are above the law.

Not to be outdone, the LA County Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), owner of massive amounts of property including the land surrounding more than 70 transit hubs, is developing mixed-use Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects such as Hollywood’s W Hotel & Residences and the Westlake/MacArthur Park development.

Hollywood’s TOD came with great promises of intersection improvements, community benefits, connectivity, and public space enhancements.

When the ribbon was cut, the truth was revealed, LA’s Metro is another developer that operates as if it is above the law, violating LA’s municipal code, ignoring community benefit obligations, and creating traffic issues that took the life of a pedestrian in a crosswalk within the first few weeks of operation.

Not to be outdone, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is technically part of the City Family yet it operates independently, a privilege that comes from having a dedicated and protected revenue stream. The CRA uses incremental tax revenue to develop “blighted” neighborhoods, a designation that was almost applied to the entire city of LA. It does this with the bull-in-a-china-shop behavior that locals have come to expect from the CRA’s well-funded development partners. Land is condemned and seized using the unique “I can do better than you!” interpretation of eminent domain, and then the notion of “public use” is twisted and the public gets used, literally.

The CRA is consistent with the Metro and the LAUSD in its arrogant approach to development and it also violates municipal code, ignores its community benefits obligation, and develops property as if it is above the law. Based on results, it is.

Rounding out the slate of mega-developers is the City of Los Angeles itself. One would think that of all developers, the City of LA could be counted on to develop its projects with a strict adherence to LA’s municipal code but that’s not the case.

LA has several building campaigns in different states of completion, and they include libraries, fire stations, and police stations. Funded with public money, these projects are built with an admirable goal of “on time and under budget” but with disregard for the third commitment, “up to code.”

Funded projects have a momentum that allows them to proceed without the traditional obligations of community benefit, of accessibility and for connectivity, and of community oversight.

In the process of defending local residents of the East Hollywood neighborhood who were being cited by Building & Safety for over-in-height fences and other code violations, I visited several municipal facilities, some of which were out of code, including the new Rampart Police Station.

In the spirit of LA’s complaint-driven process for code enforcement I attempted to initiate a code violation complaint, only to discover that the City of LA is also above the law. Apparently, Building & Safety can’t take a code violation complaint on municipal property and developments and I was sent on a journey of “anywhere but here” as I attempted to hold the City of LA to its own standards.

The residents of Los Angeles live in a city that preys on itself. Public money is spent on projects that arrive with their own gravitational pull, bending the community to the will of the project. Schools, fire and police stations, libraries, transit developments, and infrastructure improvements should arrive wrapped in respect, not contempt for the community.

The City of Los Angeles has an obligation to enforce the law of the land evenly, and if it applies to the residents, it also applies to the largest developers in the city. Most of all, it applies to the City of Los Angeles.

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

We ARE Traffic!

Driver of 207 orange bus takes a break
in right turning lane to the 101 Fwy,
while traffic is backed up
for an entire block behind it. 

When Metro Bus Operators drive their buses on the busy streets of LA, they are governed by the same CVC rules as other road users plus some additional Metro policies plus the higher standards that come with holding a professional operator's license...EXCEPT when it's break time!

This bus operator stopped in a Hollywood Blvd. red-curbed travel lane on the approach to the 101 Freeway at 5 pm, stacking up right turning traffic for an entire block, all in order to pick up sustenance and nutrition at a 7-11 market.

"We ARE Traffic!"

One would think that the operator of the passing Rapid Bus would find the "break-time" conflict inconvenient. But the popularity of this Hollywood Blvd. break spot demonstrates that the "See Nothing, Say Nothing" code is still in effect.

Equally disturbing is the fact that this happens with such impunity. Does the LAPD have a "See Nothing, Cite Nothing" code in effect?

Most disturbing is the fact that Metro bus operators fend for themselves when it comes time to using the "facilities" or taking a lunch break. (DASH operators have it even worse, taking their breaks on the sidewalk of Hollywood Blvd. or in the back of an idling car.) If the mass transit authorities have no respect for their staff, it's small wonder that they have no respect for the public.

Perhaps its time to set aside the "We are traffic!" banner and remind Metro "We are People!" This applies to bus operators, cyclists, transit passengers, motorists, pedestrians and police officers.

That's when the quality of life on the streets of LA will improve for everybody.

Hollywood Bike HUB at Hollywood & Vine

Fly-through video rendering by Jeremy Grant

Hollywood & Vine's "Hollywood Bike HUB" is on its way to the Metro Board for final approval, having just picked up an endorsement from the Metro's Planning & Programming Committee along with a recommendation that it serve as a "demonstration project" in the establishment of transit oriented development (TOD) standards.

The Hollywood Bike HUB is a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB would also offer a Bike Share for residents and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB would serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. The Hollywood Bike HUB is good for cyclists, good for residents, good for tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.

One would think that bike storage would be a basic for Metro transit hubs, especially when surrounded by TOD but such was not the case at Hollywood & Vine.

The Hollywood Bike HUB journey began earlier this year, about the time that we should have been celebrating the centenary of the Hollywood & Vine crossroads. Instead, all eyes were on the ribbon cutting at the W Hollywood's four acres of TOD, representing the collective machinations of the City of Los Angeles, the CRA, the Metro, and the Developers, and two-thirds of a billion dollars in funding from sources that included ARRA, Calpers, and the CRA.

The W Hollywood, from the hotel to the condominiums to the apartments, claims to channel the Hollywood spirit, connecting to Hollywood's heyday and "infusing it with the contemporary innovation, energy, elegance, and excitement" of the W experience. Metro officials positioned the integrated Hollywood & Vine Red Line station as a "flagship transit HUB," one that sets a standard for multi-modal connectivity.

None of this resonated with the pedestrians and cyclists who noted that the promised intersection improvements failed to materialize, that the promised bike-share and car-share facilities failed to happen, that the public space was surrounded by fortress walls of exclusivity, and that cyclists were obviously an afterthought as evidenced by the lack of bike racks or bike storage.

I spoke up and pointed out that waiting until after the ribbon cutting to ask "Where do the cyclists fit?" is hardly a demonstration of a multi-modal commitment. While the issue of bike parking facilities at Hollywood & Vine was the immediate challenge, the larger problem was the simple fact that TOD projects are being built throughout the county, (35 underway, 17 more on paper) and yet there are no Metro TOD standards in place. Developers qualify for funding based on their promises of TOD facilities, improving their position by writing "public benefit" into their proposal, yet without standards in place, it's a soft claim with little meaning. Hollywood & Vine proves the point.

While advocating for TOD standards, I proposed several locations for the Hollywood Bike HUB, a bike facility where people could not only safely park their bikes, but also rent bikes, get minor repairs done, and buy bike accessories, such as lights, patch kits, pump, etc. to make their commute more convenient, comfortable, and safe.

Over the past year, I've been joined by Enci of illuminateLA, Ron Durgin of Sustainable Streets, Glenn Bailey of the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, Bart Reed of the Transit Coalition and Jeremy Grant of the LA Bike Working Group. The struggle to incorporate robust bicycle facilities at the Hollywood & Vine station took us on a journey that included meetings with Metro staff, the developers, the tenants, the Sheriff's Department, the CRA, the City Council, the LADOT, and anyone else with a finger in the pie.

Ultimately, it was the Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega and Metro Boardmember Richard Katz who embraced the vision of the Hollywood Bike HUB and the notion that TOD standards should drive the development process, not simply be added as a garnish at the ribbon cutting.

To that end, Jeremy Grant developed the Hollywood Bike HUB renderings that went to the Metro Board this past week and the Planning and Programming Committee approved the Hollywood Bike HUB concept, sending it to the full Board this Thursday morning for final approval.

Boardmember Katz added the following language to the Hollywood Bike HUB motion:

"Direct staff to develop the Hollywood Bike HUB as a demonstration project, engaging the public and using the process to develop robust TOD standards that provide systemic commitments to pedestrians, cyclists, open space, connectivity, accessibility, and community benefit."

The Hollywood Bike HUB is located on the east side of Vine Avenue, just south of Hollywood Boulevard. With over a thousand square feet of interior space, the HUB is a commitment to connectivity, literally and figuratively. Guests will have access to showers, lockers, activated public space, and local information services, all as elements of the HUB's commitment to connectivity.

The intersection of Hollywood & Vine was born 100 years ago when the City of Los Angeles annexed Hollywood, renamed its streets, and ushered in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Griffith, Pickford and Sennett came to town. Radio Stations proudly announced "Broadcasting live from Hollywood & Vine!" Record labels and production companies commissioned architects such as Schindler, Neutra, and Naidorf/Becket. Charlie Chaplin and Will Rogers kept offices in the Taft Building along with neighbors such as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The intersection grew to become one of the busiest in the city and one of the most famous in the world.

Hollywood & Vine has seen the glamor days of Clara Bow's It Cafe, the Brown Derby and Sardi's. It has also seen tough times with businesses closing, buildings falling into disrepair, sidewalks cracking and crowds toughening. Through it all, it has maintained its status as the center of Hollywood, crossroads of hopes and dreams for people from around the world.

I believe that the crowd-sourced solutions that brought the Hollywood Bike HUB to the Metro Board are an example of all that is great about Hollywood and evidence that Hollywood is reclaiming its title as the center of the creative universe.

CityWatchLA - Hey LA, Let’s Sue for Transportation Malpractice!

CityWatch, Oct 8, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 80

The single greatest threat to the status quo of transportation planning and development in the LA area is the Hippocratic Oath, the simple commitment to do no harm. "Primum non nocere."

Imagine if all transportation projects were first screened to eliminate the twin traps of over-treatment and therapeutic nihilism. Consider the benefit to the community if transportation authorities were responsible for the unintended consequences of "the cure." The practitioners of the 405/Sepulveda Pass project would be conducting business in a dramatically different fashion if they had started the journey by taking the Hippocratic Oath. Their current loyalty is to the $1 billion contract that directs the widening of the 405 in order to accommodate a northbound car-pool lane from the 10 freeway to the 101 freeway, not to the community it impacts.

When the "treatment" is completed, three bridges will have been replaced, 27 on-ramps and off- ramps will have been adjusted, and 13 underpasses and structures will have been widened.

When the "patient" awakens, freeway traffic will exit on "improved" off-ramps, entering the local community at freeway speeds. Enhanced integration between the freeway and adjacent streets will support local freeway-alternative traffic congestion. Widened streets with faster traffic will eliminate pedestrian traffic and render mass transit access obsolete.

The practitioners of the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement would be developing a completely different project if they were to apply the simple standard of leaving things better than they found them. The current bridge has features that the proposed bridge lacks, resulting in a project that includes "engineered conflict."

The "patient" has long objected that the proposed bridge fails to plan for all modes of transportation and does not replace the current existing pedestrian walkway. Community members also point out that the proposed bridge fails to address a vision for connectivity, options for the future of Terminal Island. Project Managers dismiss the complaints as unnecessary, pointing out that it's simply a shipping route for trucks.

The Long Beach City Council agrees with the community and had to take formal action, simply to request that existing features be retained in the future. They concur with the Coastal Commission in recognizing that a $1 billion investment in connectivity is a half century commitment to the future of Terminal Island and to restrict that vision is to damn the "patient" to a life of shipping container storage.

Other projects such as the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway and the Sepulveda Reversible Lane demonstrate that there is no greater power than a funded project. In both cases, the inadvertent identification of a specific element required its inclusion in the final project, regardless of its appropriateness, simply because it was funded as named.

The Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway has 100 yards of dedicated Busway on the eastbound end of the 4.5 mile project, the last vestige of the original $93 million Busway project that proposed a bus lane down the center of Santa Monica Boulevard, from Beverly Hills to the 405. It's there to qualify for the funding, not because it belongs or serves any purpose.

The Sepulveda Reversible Lane has been reduced to 100 yards inside the Mullholland tunnel, the last vestige of an $11.3 million project that proposed reversible lanes from Wilshire Boulevard to Mullholland Boulevard. The project was funded, it has been absorbed into the 405/Sepulveda Pass project, and the reduced reversible element exists simply to qualify for the funding.

These projects demonstrate the need for a new paradigm for transportation planning and development.

1) The community benefit must be required, not negotiated. The W Hollywood Hotel has already experienced its first pedestrian death, caused by a truck driver leaving the facility and running over an old lady in the crosswalk. The negotiated "community benefits" included intersection improvements at all four corners, bulb-outs, ped scrambles, etc. but none of them "penciled out" meaning the developers do this for a living and the community is out-gunned.

2) The project must actually be an improvement, not simply an effort to churn funding. Funded projects that inadvertently include obsolete elements are dead. Improving the community is the objective, not simply funding transportation departments. Design & Build mandates encounter Stall & Defend opposition from the local community because they fail to consider the unintended consequences.

3) The project must leave the community better than before, not as the result of community intervention, but as the result of a simple guiding principle that is in the DNA of the project. The impact to the local community must be a priority and solutions that sever routes, restrict access, and increase cut-through traffic are not solutions, they are problems.

The largest developers in our community are Caltrans, Metro, and the CRA. The most significant amount of public money being spent on development is dedicated to transportation and transportation related projects. The greatest opportunity to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood is through responsible transportation planning and development that is community oriented.

The current struggle for the development and implementation of standards for Transit Oriented Development is left to the community while Metro and its development partners charge ahead.

The current struggle for traffic congestion relief that actually improves conditions instead of simply moving the problem to adjacent streets is left to the community while the Department of Transportation charges ahead.

LA's future as a Great City demands that all transportation development continue with a "do no harm" mandate and that it is supported with real community benefit standards as the foundation for progress, not simply the fallout of long protracted battles with the neighborhood.

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

CityWatchLA - Planning for Billion Dollar Project: LA City, County MIA

CityWatch, Aug 27, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 68

This past week, nine people gathered at the Metro's 405/Sepulveda Project headquarters in an effort to prepare for a meeting they did not intend to attend. If not attending a meeting requires the participation of nine engineers, consultants, and outreach coordinators from the Metro and Caltrans, one can only imagine how many people would be required in preparation for a meeting that actually took place.

The "I-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project" is a 10 mile HOV lane project that includes modifications or replacement of supporting infrastructure such as 27 ramps, 3 bridges, 13 underpasses and 18 miles of sound walls. Along the way, the gravitational pull of this mega-project resulted in the already-funded Sepulveda Blvd. Reversible Lane Project getting absorbed into the 405/Sepulveda project.

The 405/Sepulveda Project is a "design and build" endeavor that involves Caltrans, the Metro, the LADOT and the County of Los Angeles. The lines of responsibility are blurred to the point of absurdity, resulting in community meetings that direct local concerns to "The Department or Authority not in attendance.

Case in point, two months ago, the Metro and Caltrans sent a team to Caltrans Headquarter to present the 405/Sepulveda project to the Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee, a group made up of representatives from local municipalities, advocacy organizations, consulting groups, and community councils throughout LA and Ventura Counties.

The Caltrans team was ill-prepared. Two lead members were within their second week of employment, and on the first PowerPoint slide it was evident that the audience should be giving the presentation, perhaps even building the project.

An audience of professionals might be a tough crowd but they are also an asset which makes it curious that Caltrans and the Metro never followed up, save for the meeting to prepare an exit strategy to their promise "to return with more information!"

Even more importantly, where was the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and the LA County Planning staff through all of this and why does it take the audience members in an outreach meeting to point out violations of law and design standards to the 405/Sepulveda engineers and outreach team?

The 405/Sepulveda project is positioned as a connectivity solution, one that will facilitate the smooth flow of people through the Sepulveda Pass. While the potential impact of a billion dollars in physical infrastructure is considerable, it is acutely evident that the real potential for connectivity is in improvements to our human infrastructure.

Now more than ever it is imperative that the City of Los Angeles take the lead on connecting the many agencies and authorities that have an impact on our streets, our neighborhoods and our quality of life.

It is completely unacceptable that Caltrans and the Metro call a meeting to address the impact of the 405/Sepulveda on the streets of LA and the LADOT fails (again) to consider it important enough to attend.

It is completely unacceptable for Caltrans and the Metro to hold a planning meeting to discuss improvements to LA County land without the participation of LA County engineers and planners.

Most of all, it is completely unacceptable that the project manager of a billion dollar project can't simply take charge and address the concerns of the public without resorting to responses such as "The Agency not in attendance is responsible for that element of the project. You'll need to talk to them."

If Los Angeles is to move forward, it will be because we connect as people first, setting a standard for connectivity that creates stronger and more efficient relationships.

(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 - Is LA Developing Tunnel Vision...Again?

CityWatch, Aug 24, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 67

LA's most recent commitment to connectivity demonstrates a complete disconnect from our history, from the wishes of the community, and from reality.

90 years ago the City of Los Angeles implemented a School Pedestrian Tunnel Program in an effort to address the brutal fact that fully 2/3 of all traffic collision deaths were pedestrians.

LA's noble but misguided experiment with segregated underground facilities for pedestrians was limited by the sheer complexity of the initiative and was soon replaced by more effective strategies such as implementation of traffic control devices, crosswalks, all-stop phases, pedestrian right-of-way standards and traffic enforcement.

LA's tunnels have theoretically been maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works which relies on a meager "Bridge and Tunnel Maintenance Account" funding that apparently fails to cover any security improvements, let alone even simple maintenance costs.

Community concerns over the deteriorating condition of the tunnels date back 40 years when the Los Angeles Board of Education referred to some of the tunnels as "unsafe, filthy places that harbored criminal activity." The LA went so far as to adopt a policy for pedestrian tunnel closure that required the participation of the City Transportation, the LAPD, the Board of Education, and local community members.

Over the years community groups have rallied to address the blighted tunnels in their neighborhoods, pointing out the inherent design flaws that create inhospitable environments for vulnerable pedestrians.

25 years ago Atwater Village residents spent a year collecting petitions in an effort to close local tunnels that the LA Times referred to as "smelly, dangerous lairs for gangs, graffiti artists and drunken slumberers." Councilman Wachs, LAPD Capt. Cunningham, and Fletcher Drive Elementary School Principal Christensen called for the closures. Evidence such as trash-littered tunnel entrances, human excrement smeared floors, graffiti marked walls, and empty beer bottles confirmed the wisdom of their actions.

More recently, communities such as Woodland Hills and Valley Village have fought to close pedestrian tunnels under their freeways, citing the same concerns of public safety and ineffective connectivity.

Two tunnels in Woodland Hills run under the Ventura Freeway and they came under scrutiny when LAPD's Sgt. Kearney was attacked in the Sale Avenue tunnel by two men who hit him over the head with a beer bottle and then charged at him with a long kitchen knife.

Two tunnels in Valley Village run under the Hollywood Freeway and they also came under scrutiny when their seclusion resulted in criminal activity and long-term encampments that prevented local residents from enjoying the adjacent parks.

Through it all, it's typically local residents who partner with the LAPD and local schools in an effort to make the streets safer for the pedestrians and the neighborhood safer for everybody. Tunnels have been closed all over the city, some filled with cement, some simply barricaded, and others fenced off and locked with a padlock.

These tunnels have all been closed ... until now!

Current proposals for connectivity include re-opening two tunnels that connect to schools and re-opening two tunnels that connect to parks. In one case, funding requests have been made in an effort to reopen the tunnels and enhance them with better lighting. In the other case, reopening previously closed tunnels has been positioned as an "option" in a City Planning document.

Training children to fear the streets instead of supporting them with traffic calming measures is a complete abdication of responsibility.

Training children to use underground tunnels contradicts simple crime prevention standards that include awareness of surroundings, staying visible, and keeping an escape route.

Simple self-preservation strategies are at odds with "Walk into the tunnel!" Most importantly, the ever present trash and debris is a signal that the area is unsupervised. It's a signal to turn away and seek another route.

Current efforts to enhance connectivity are noble, especially because they address the needs of pedestrians and cyclists on their way to school. But it's imperative that Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Standards (CPTED) serve as a foundation for all proposals and that the safety of people of all modes are supported on the streets of Los Angeles.

Most importantly, any efforts to address connectivity must start by connecting the LAPD, Councilmembers, Neighborhood Councils, the local schools, the LADOT, City Planning, Public Works, Caltrans, local residents and anybody else who has a vested interest in mobility and public safety on the streets of Los Angeles.

(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.)

Metro's Art Leahy holds court with the Transit Coalition

The Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, joined the Transit Coalition for its monthly get-together at Philippe's the Original, sharing double-dips and beers with a capacity crowd made up of transit staff, advocates, politicos, consultants, and press. Most importantly, he shared some insight into his plans for the Metro and his desire to becoming an agent of change at the helm of LA County's transportation system.

Leahy has a folksy charm that disarms his audience, concealing the fact that he is a sharp strategist, a firm negotiator, and a demanding leader who sets standards and expects results. In his fifteen months at the helm of the Metro, staff have discovered quickly that he is results driven and there is a trail of ex-staffers to demonstrate the penalty for failing to respond to the call for change.

One of Leahy's first acts as CEO was to take his management staff to the ticket window at Union Station to allow them to see how hard it was to buy a monthly pass. Packed into the atrium near the One Gateway Metro HQ was a line that wrapped around itself, offering evidence of a Metro administrative disconnect from the Metro passenger experience. That line is no longer found, a small situation that occurred at Union Station, but a solution that resonated throughout the 1400 square mile service area. It also serves as the incident that allows Leahy to state "In word and deed, the Metro cares about our passengers."

Leahy continued the attack on the Metro's status quo, removing all of the artwork at Metro HQ because it all celebrated One Gateway and served as a reflection of the things that the Metro management valued. Themselves! He replaced it with pictures of bus stops, train stations, passengers, and transportation, all as a reminder to the corporate staff that they are "overhead" and that the passenger is the purpose of a transportation system.

As for the "rubber on the road" experience of the passenger, the Metro's Agent of Change acknowledges that driving a bus is simple but points out it's dealing with all of the transactions that is the hard part. Nevertheless, Leahy says he is committed to understanding the operators in order to get them to understand the passengers. To that end he has an advantage, having worked his way through college by driving a bus.

Leahy is not shy about his heritage as a bus operator and, in spite of his UCLA and USC degrees, it is his ability to insist that communication be framed in "language that a bus driver can understand" that is the essence of his call for good simple standards. In fact, as he points out, Metro's strict adherence to a management hiring standard that included college degrees that resulted in a Metro leadership that didn't know how to implement a bus bridge or conduct a relay. All that is due to change as he reinvigorates the Metro leadership with real world experience, not simply college pedigrees.

For all the talk of customer service, behavior that drives results, promoting from within, and service standards that resonate, the news that drew the loudest response from the audience was simple and yet revolutionary. Leahy revealed his plan to actually require Metro Execs to ride the bus and rail. If ever there was a "One of Us!" moment, that was it.

Art Leahy is definitely an agent of change. He moves strategically and his simple actions are designed for maximum impact. The results already demonstrate that the status quo is under attack and the future of the Metro is based on a commitment to customer service and to a transportation system. It's all Leahy talks about, that and his conflicted UCLA/USC lineage.

Art Leahy's commitment to operations is commendable and he details his commitment to connecting the Metrolink, Amtrak, Metro Bus, Metro Rail, and the Municipal operators into a regional transportation system that operates consistently and in sync. From the little details, such as the fact that the Metro polishes bus wheels but leaves trash on the bus, to larger opportunities and commitments such as the Metro Board's 30/10 plan, Leahy is focused and driven. He's also punctual, a behavioral trait that comes naturally to those who ride the train.

He also has room to grow as he embraces the Metro opportunities that lie ahead. As he addresses the Metro's commitment, he repeatedly speaks of the passenger which is only part of the Metro's contract with the public. There are two unaddressed elements that must be addressed if the Metro is to take its place as a comprehensive transportation system.

• The first is the simple fact that the Metro's customers include everybody who contributes financially to the Metro, regardless of whether they ride the bus or the rail. Measure R will raise an estimated $40 Billion from an increase in sales tax which means that anyone who spends money in LA County has a vested interest in the performance of the Metro. Purportedly, the impact of the Metro benefits everybody, whether they are passengers or not. This distinction is an important foundation for a comprehensive transportation system.
• Second, the Metro is one of LA County's largest developers and has 50 Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) on paper with 32 of them in play. This enormous impact on residential and commercial behavior has a tremendous impact on our communities and on the quality of life in those neighborhoods. The Metro's ability to reduce the need to travel within LA County is an opportunity that is missing from the typical transportation discussion. Yet, it is a significant impact that doesn't need its wheels polished or an operator at the wheel.
• Third, while the Metro is busy implementing customer service standards that impact the purchase of monthly passes or a bus operator's greetings, the huge opportunity lies in the need to implement standards for the integration of Transit Oriented Development into a community. While the Metro talks of a complete transportation system, it will not be complete until it includes those who simply live in the area or operate a shop or walk the street or ride a bike. Great public space is part of a commitment to the community and a comprehensive transportation system must address the complete community.

The Transit Coalition meets monthly on the last Tuesday of each month at Philippe's the Original. In addition to Art Leahy, recent guests include John Fenton of the Metrolink and Bruce Shelborne of Metro.

Metro - System Capacity Improvements

One of the most efficient, effective and immediate things the Metro can do to improve capacity is to address Human Infrastructure, the attitudes and behavior of the Metro staff and passengers. For your consideration I offer these four opportunities.

1) Communication - If the public asks enough Metro employees, the variety of answers will be sure to include a yes, a no, a maybe, and a go away. But it will often result in the run-around. This wastes time and speaks to a systemic flaw that should trigger an examination of the larger issue and the opportunity for clarification.

Example: Recent discussions of the 761 which frequently heads over the hill well under capacity but with a full bike rack has generated complaints as cyclists wait multiple rounds in order to ride over the hill. Metro staff, from Jody Litvak to Lynne Goldsmith to the Bus Operators, are unable to agree on the Metro's policy for bikes on-board policy, offering up "No" and "Only on the last run" and "At the Operator's discretion" and "Only with Operator liability" and "It's not my department." Somehow an opportunity to address systemic confusion was missed and the question lingers. Why does the 761 head over the hill, under capacity but without allowing the cyclists who are left behind the opportunity to put their bikes inside at the back? Also, why does the 761 pass up folding bikes when its rack are full? Best of all, why hasn't this series of questions to staff and complaints to customer service triggered an examination of the triple rack opportunity to increase capacity by 50% for cyclists? They work in Long Beach. Any objections have been dismissed by the Long Beach experience and data. Is anyone paying attention to this opportunity to improve capacity?

2) Training - The public can hardly be expected to understand the Metro policies and then behave accordingly if they are so confusing and exist with so many interpretations. The Metro staff implement and enforce different versions of old and new policies with such creative enthusiasm that it simply drives contempt for the system and an "everyone for themselves" behavioral pattern among the passengers.

The Transit Court will be addressing "Bikes on Escalators," a prohibition that defies comprehension in light of the baby carriage and luggage accommodation, yet it seems to be getting revived. Bike on Trains are prohibited during certain hours but Metro staff explain "That prohibition isn't enforced, it's just there in case we need it." Bus Operators tie off their bike racks and call them "broken" so they can ride bike-free on the freeway. Bus Operators enforce prohibitions against bikes-on-board unless the passenger is able to speak clearly and articulate "Metro policy is to allow bikes-on-board at the Operator's discretion and this empty bus has room in the back for my bike so there is no reason to exclude me from this bus." Rail Operators produce old bike policy pamphlets from the early Red Line days, Bus Operators produce new bike policy pamphlets and find restrictions that don't exist, through it all the thing that is most unclear is "What are we going to do with all of these cyclists?"

3) Logic - Bus Operators frequently inform the public that bikes on-board are allowed at a Bus Operator's discretion but that the Bus Operator is responsible for any damages so they will not allow it. This type of information is simply an insult to the public's intelligence. Kerr's Catering Service v. Department of Industrial Relations (1962) established that an employee can not be held liable for damages that are part of the cost of doing business. Wear and tear, broken dishes in the cafeteria, etc. are not the responsibility of the employee and the Metro should be clear on California Labor Law. Most importantly, the Metro should nip this "liability mythology" because it simply frames the passenger as a liability, not as an integral element of a Comprehensive Transportation System.

A well designed environment will yield good behavior. People sit on the stairs because there is no place to sit. This interferes with the movement of passengers and cyclists are less likely to use the stairs but now the escalators are off limits? People congregate in the middle section of the platform because the Purple Line trains them to count on that section, but this behavior means the head and tail are less populated. Every exiting passenger heads to the center of the platform to exit. Design and communicate to spread passengers out. I always wait for the front car because I have a bike and it is the least populated car, but at Union Station, at NoHo and on the Purple Line, it's not clear where to wait for the front of the train.

Benches that draw passengers to the ends of the platform, clear messaging so passengers can behave accordingly, traffic flow so that boarding is more efficient, simple communication and guidance such as "stand to the right, walk to the left" would all go a long way to increasing capacity and enhancing the passenger experience.

4) Oversight - Equipment malfunctions and breakdowns are to be expected but the most recent Union Station escalator incident bears witness to the systemic lack of oversight. When the escalator closest to HQ went out of service last week, the failure of an out-of-service sign with directions to the elevator in the parking lot to appear should be an indicator that Metro staff who use the escalator take a great deal for granted. The fact that the repairs took days to commence, all for a burned out wire, should have generated a sign indicating that repairs were on the way. This simple incident, so close to Metro HQ, should serve as a trigger that would cause Operations to examine the Metro's response to "out-of-service" incidents and generate a policy for communicating, or responding and for analyzing the data. It is my experience that the escalators at some stations are frequently out-of-service but the staff tell me that no data is collected nor reported. How does the Metro improve?

Complaints from the public are often about staff but the larger opportunity is to look for issues that indicate an opportunity to address communication, training, logic, and the larger Metro environment that allows ongoing conflict between passenger expectation and reality. The 761 issues with under capacity buses that could transport cyclists with their bikes on board is an example of complaints that should have generated an examination of the specific line and the more general policy.

5) Collaboration - I have participated in Cyclist/Metro brainstorm sessions, task forces, and roundtables over the last several years and each time I am hopeful that I am investing my time and energy in a process that will yield a meaningful progress in establishing cyclists as an integral element in LA County's Comprehensive Transportation System. In each case, I spend too much time listening to how hard is is for Metro employees to do their job. I've listened to Metro Bus Operators who need me to know how hard it is to control an articulated bus, Metro Trainers who need me to know how many people they are responsible for training and how difficult it is, HQ staff who need me to understand how difficult it is to work in a political environment, Communications staff who need me to understand how difficult it is to simply get color schemes approved, Operations staff who need me to listen to an explanation of their budget constraints, and enough internal drama to turn even the hardiest bicycle advocate away and yet I persist. Metro morale issues are not the cycling communities responsibility and they must be dealt with before we can move forward and collaborate. We understand the realities of the world we live in, no need to impress us with complexities and budgets, we get it.

Let's collaborate. Let's focus on active solutions to real opportunities that will enhance Metro capacity and the passenger's experience.

Real opportunities for real active solutions:

761 - this line often runs under capacity on a vital route for cyclists yet full racks and a "no-bikes-on-board" policy from the operators prevents cyclists from getting home. Communicate the "Bus Operator's discretion" policy, dispel the liability mythology and let's enhance capacity. Bikes on Board! (Locals have racks for two bikes. Larger buses have higher capacity but still only hold two bikes. Double capacity buses should hold four bikes. Why does the arbitrary limit of two cyclists keep coming up?)

Triple Racks - Long Beach uses them, examine the liability data, dispel the mythology and increase capacity for cyclists on buses by 50% in one swift move.

Bikes on Escalators - Remove the restriction or restrict all carriages, carts, luggage and "stuff" but be consistent and communicate clearly. To allow this to slide into Transit Court oversight is absolutely unacceptable.

Bikes on Rail - Remove the time-of-day restrictions from Metro materials and communicate clearly the policy. With 100 languages spoken in our community, many people simply follow the crowd. Communicate clearly and the crowd will move in the right direction.

Bikes on Buses - Communicate clearly, starting with Metro staff, and demonstrate that cyclists are gap connectors, transportation solutions, not simply a burden and a liability.

Collect the Data - Efforts to restrict cyclists (two per rail car, two per bus...) defy the reality of our world. The Red Line on a Saturday morning is full of workforce cyclists headed to their jobs in the Valley. The Orange Line at night is full of workforce cyclists headed home from their jobs in the West Valley. Metro staff must base their decisions on real data and real need, not on "Monday to Friday, 9 to 5" observations.

Integrate Cyclists as Partners - Cyclists are gap connectors and enhance systemic capacity. To simply look at the space a cyclist and a bike take up is a disservice to the impact that cyclists have on the capacity of the system. Many of my Metro trips would not work if I was unable to combine transit with the bike. Cyclists are Transportation Solutions and must be integrated as vital partners, not as an afterthought.

Metro's Hollywood & Vine Station needs a Bike HUB!

The Metro's CEO, Art Leahy, refers to the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station as "a flagship transit HUB, one that should set the standard for the Metro's comprehensive transportation system." Gatehouse Capital refers to its W Hollywood Hotel & Residences Development as "a glamorous venue, one that will seduce you - mind, body and soul." Legacy Partners refers to its 1600 Vine Residential/Retail development as 1600 Vine as "a truly unique living experience full of comfort, urban conveniences, and contemporary amenities in one of Los Angeles’ most renowned locations."

Collectively, Hollywood & Vine is LA's largest Transit Oriented Development and it became a reality after a decade of grappling that saw the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, the LADOT, the Chamber of Commerce, lawyers, developers, investors, activists, neighborhood councils, artists, merchants, and neighbors all working to protect their interest in one of the most iconic intersections on earth. Now that the dust has cleared, the awesome magnitude of the Hollywood & Vine TOD has become the standard for future Transit Oriented Development projects.

I think that's a problem.

For all of the celebratory ribbon cutting, soft focus photo opps and champagne toasts, the details matter and the Hollywood & Vine TOD is missing some significant details that go a long way to demonstrating a commitment to people who walk, who ride a bike, who simply want to enjoy public space and who believe that a TOD is something more than an interchange, that it is a significant place, one that is made for people.

Missing from the Hollywood & Vine project is a Bike HUB, a community benefit that is provided by the Metro, the CRA, Gatehouse Capital, and Legacy Partners. This simple commitment to supporting cyclists goes a long way to demonstrating a commitment to TOD projects which purportedly serve cyclists, pedestrians, mass transit passengers and the immediate community.

1) The Hollywood & Vine project has overbuilt on its motor vehicle parking requirements, demonstrating a bias that encourages vehicle trips instead of working to reducing congestion by reducing the number of generated vehicle trips.

2) The Hollywood & Vine project has failed to provide the bike parking as required by LA's Municipal Code, a fact that failed to trigger a response from Building & Safety, a department that never invokes any bike parking minimums in spite of the law.

3) The Hollywood & Vine project unfolded over several years and during that time, the community requested a Community Car Share program, a Community Bike Share program, and a Community delivery service but none of the promises turned into reality. 

4) The Hollywood & Vine project received concessions and funding and legal support (eminent domain) based on its claims of a positive impact on the community, the economy, the traffic, and the quality of life as a whole for those who live in Hollywood, those who work in Hollywood and those who visit Hollywood.

5) The Hollywood & Vine project claims to be a Transit Oriented Development, a designation that includes a commitment to cyclists, pedestrians, vibrant street life and a connectivity to the community.

All of this being said, I look at the two-thirds of a billion dollar H'wood & Vine TOD Fortress and I ask "Where's the Bike HUB?"

I propose that the Metro and the CRA and Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners get together and immediately implement a Bike HUB program at Hollywood & Vine and I've got the location already selected. (There are actually three great locations, one on Hollywood Blvd., one on Argyle, and this great location on Vine)

Imagine a Bike HUB on Vine Ave., a bike shop for locals where cyclists can work on their bikes as well as store them in a secured environment. The Bike HUB could also offer a Bike Share for locals and a Bike Rental for tourists. In addition, the Bike HUB could serve as a Visitor's Center for tourists who simply need info on the neighborhood. Good for cyclists, good for the residents, good for the tourists, good for business and great for transit, offering Metro passengers a "last mile" option.

There are many iterations of the Bike HUB concept, from city-sponsored and more city-sponsored to artistic eco-storage to on-campus facilities to sophisticated spa facilities with showers, lockers, and masseuse to the bike storage robot, they all offer variations of bike repair support, secure bike storage, bike-share or bike-rentals, education, encouragement, and helpful information on the surrounding community. Los Angeles is surrounded by great examples of bike co-ops including the Bicycle Kitchen, BikeRoWave, the Bike Oven and the Bikery. There is also the Bikestation organization with facilities in Long Beach and Covina and Claremont.

Last week's Urban Land Institute TOD Summit featured politicians, transit operators, bureaucrats, developers, lawyers, planners, and advocates, all clamoring to keep their place at the table as LA's 30/10 plan for putting $40 Billion to work on a dozen mega transit projects picks up steam. There in the mix was Andréa White-Kjoss, President and CEO of the Bikestation, working to remind the Summit attendees to keep things in perspective, that the high altitude funding and planning will only succeed if the vision is kept centered on the experience of the individual, the person who walks or rides a bike or shops at the store or meets friends in the public space.

It is imperative that we set professional standards for active transportation and that we firmly establish "last-mile" elements into any TOD programming. The folks at Bikestation have a strong support track record for providing innovative solutions to unique transit opportunities and Hollywood is the capital of innovation and opportunity.

Now, more than ever, it's important that we set a standard at the Hollywood & Vine TOD, that we firmly establish a standard for a Bike HUB and that we make it a robust success, with the support of professionals such as the folks at Bikestation, with the support of the Metro and the CRA, with the support of Gatehouse and Legacy, and with the support of the community.

What happens in Hollywood will set the course for the future.

Trader Joe’s sets a TOD Standard - Bike Parking!

It’s been a little more than three weeks since Enci sent the tweet heralding the arrival of Trader Joe’s in Hollywood but lamenting the fact that it would be sans Bike Racks. The Tweeps responded, the news spread through the Facebook crowd, and Trader Joe’s started getting phone calls. Lots of them.

It would seem that convenient, safe, and effective Bike Parking would be the norm, not the exception but such was not the case and so the battle unfolded, with Enci calling for a boycott and Trader Joe’s playing dumb.

Trader Joe’s, like any large company, organization, bureaucracy, has mad skills in the fine art of the “Anyone but me!” line of defense when dealing with the public, the customer, the stakeholder, the reason for their existence. They went to work.

They started by blaming their failure to provide Bike Racks on the City of LA, claiming that it required a permit and that it would be completely inappropriate to put bike racks on Vine, in front of the building. I pointed out that it was not true.

They then shifted the responsibility to their Landlord, Legacy Partners, saying that it was the developers responsibility to put in Bike Racks, not theirs. I again pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to Legacy Partners, attempting to remove any obstacles, and was informed that Bike Racks on the street would be a problem for aesthetic reasons. I pointed out that the building would look a lot nicer if it was surrounded by people, bikes, signs of life! Legacy then changed tack, claiming that their Development Agreement with the Metro and the CRA forbid Bike Racks. I pointed out that it was not true.

I spoke to the Metro, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and unfortunately, they also had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to the CRA, they had no prohibition against Bike Racks and, again unfortunately, they had no requirement in the Development Agreement for Bike Racks.

I spoke to LA’s City Council President Eric Garcetti, pointing out that LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development opened with no Bike Racks, all in violation of LAMC 12.21-A16. He smiled and said that they had a great plan for centralized bike parking somewhere else on the W Hollywood’s four and half acre lot. I pointed out that it was not true.

Somehow LA’s largest Transit Oriented Development made it all the way to the finish line with no Bike Parking standard in place for tenants, even though the City of LA requires it.

Somehow the Metro, the CRA, the City of LA, Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners are able to put Federal, State, County, City money to work developing the neighborhood, yet do it with complete contempt for the people who don’t arrive in a motor vehicle.

It’s been two weeks since the TJ’s in Hollywood opened, it’s been two days since Director of Construction installed the Bike Racks. They look great and they are a victory for a few reasons.

*We’ve got Bike Racks and can lift the boycott! Now we can shop at Trader Joe’s!

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Trader Joe’s Corporation! No Wave or Wheelbender Bike Racks, simple inverted-U racks that are properly installed and spaced and protected and accessible and visible and convenient and effective. This is the Bike Rack Standard for Trader Joe’s.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the Metro and for the CRA. Transit Oriented Development must have a Bike Parking standard for the project as a whole and for the tenants. Centralized Bike Parking is a non-starter, a figment of Garcetti’s imagination, implausible, unacceptable, a simple violation of the “convenient and practical” rule that governs design.

*We’ve established a Bike Parking standard for the neighborhood.

This is not the first time Enci has tangled with the City or with Property Managers over Bike Parking. There was the City National Plaza and their threat to impound bikes, there was the Museum Square incident that saw her bike booted and there was the successful Bike Rack campaign at LAPD Headquarters.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

Metro/LADOT prefer the imports over the locals

Los Angeles is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world, and yet when it comes to transportation planning, apparently the experts are nowhere to be found.

Consider the Metro's upcoming Bicycle Design Workshop taught by John Ciccarelli, a well-regarded professional from Santa Clara County. Are there no professionals in Los Angeles who can address Bicycle Planning? Ryan Snyder lives mid-city, has served on the local neighborhood council, is a nationally recognized planner with experience in active modes, knows the streets and the people and yet he gets passed over. Ron Durgin is a League of American Cyclists certified instructor and his Sustainable Streets organization has planning and education street cred and yet he gets passed over.

How about the Metro's recent Bike to Work Week which was coordinated by the Inland Transportation Services company, a transportation demand consulting organization that claims "extensive experience in the management, implementation and administration of regional rideshare programs." They hail from Riverside County. Based on the Metro's miserable mode-share performance, perhaps it's time to give another consultant a shot at coordinating the Metro's TDM projects. Of the Metro's 9200 employees, 155 ride the Metro to work, 39 bicycle to work, and 36 walk to work. Surely there is a company in Los Angeles County that can beat those numbers.

The Metro isn't alone. The City of LA authorized the LADOT to enter into a contract with Bellevue, WA's Ilium Consulting and to produce a Bike Map with a cost "not to exceed $400,000." Ilum Associates was selected because of its "extensive experience in the production of maps for use by the public." The City Council approval took place in December of 1996 and since then, Ilium and the LADOT have apparently wandered off the trail as the funded Bike Map of Los Angeles has not appeared. Ilium, it should be noted does other marketing work for the LADOT. Apparently nobody knows the street of LA like the folks in Seattle. Are there no cartographers in Los Angeles? Are there no marketing companies in Los Angeles?

The City of LA is currently in the process of developing an updated Bike Plan, supported by Alta Planning with principals hailing from Portland and Marin County. Again, the City Council approved an LADOT initiated contract with the contractor, this time for $450,000, and one that relied on folks from far, far away to join us here on the streets of Los Angeles so they can help us locals find our way. Granted, Alta ended up hiring local folks to execute some of the work, the same thing a local company would have done if it had been awarded the contract, but the City of LA/Alta contract is executed between the Portland/Berkely principals and the City of LA. Isn't there an LA based transportation and planning company capable of handling this kind of work? Further complicating matters is the LA Bike Plan website, complete with an admin address in Portland. Does the City of LA not even own its websites? This is especially unfortunate since Alta Planning has moved on, claiming its work is done, and leaving an "Infeasible" Bike Plan in its wake.

The US Department of Labor reports that the unemployment rate in Washington State is 9.9% and the unemployment rate in Oregon State is 11.7%. Meanwhile, here in California, the unemployment rate is 13%. Why is it so tough for the Metro and the LADOT to hire local? Los Angeles is the center of the universe with people from around the world working hard to get here, to the capital of creativity and innovation. It's time for our transportation authorities to respect the people they purportedly serve by putting them to work.

LA's Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa claims that building a smart transportation system means "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" but the real question is "Who gets LA's transportation jobs?" The people of Los Angeles know the streets of LA, we know the traffic patterns of LA, we know the needs of LA and we know LA. We know the destinations, we know the communities and we know the people. Why do we have to watch from the sidelines while the "imports" bring transportation planning to the natives of Los Angeles?

We deserve better! We deserve accountability! We deserve a commitment from the Metro and from the LADOT that the work done in our communities will be done by locals and for the locals, not to the locals.