LA’s Shadow Government

CityWatch, Aug 19, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 66

RETHINKING LA - 45 years ago, Mayor Sam Yorty’s Charter Reform Commission presented a draft of a new City Charter which included the creation of a system of elected neighborhood councils with advisory powers, a proposal that was summarily rejected by the Los Angeles City Council.


30 years later, the State of California eliminated the Los Angeles City Council’s power to veto secession measures and City Hall suddenly found itself motivated to embrace a vision of a responsive government that delivers city services efficiently and with oversight and accountability.

In 1999 the voters approved a new City Charter which declared “We the people of the City of Los Angeles, in order to establish a responsive, effective and accountable government through which all voices in our diverse society can be heard; to provide fair representation and distribution of government resources and a safe, harmonious environment based on principles of liberty and equality, do enact this Charter.”

The new City Charter’s Article IX provided for the creation of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and a citywide system of neighborhood councils in order to “promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs.”

It took the threat of secession and the will of the people but this simple mandate has resulted in a current roster of 95 neighborhood councils, including Wilmington and Coastal San Pedro which are approaching their 10th birthdays on December 11, 2011.

Along the way, neighborhood councils have struggled to find their place in a city that has a track record for rejecting oversight and advice. Some neighborhood councils floundered, some prevailed, and some raised the bar so significantly they may have even threatened the status quo at City Hall.

In fact, in many cases, neighborhood councils have taken on the role of shadow government, filling the gaps that come from the uneven distribution of city services.

The Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council has gone beyond simply advocating and advising on issues that include sustainability, open space and homelessness. They have taken a lead position on developing a Complete Streets standard for downtown, assuming the role of the Transportation Department in embracing a policy that comes with both federal and state mandate.

The Woodland Hills-Warner Center Neighborhood Council has gone beyond simply commenting on city council motions and advising the council office on traffic, utility rates, and parking. They have taken a lead position on engaging the community in the development and implementation of the Warner Center Specific Plan, complete with outreach that includes mailers and town halls.

They have assumed the role of the Planning Department and they offer the public a better opportunity for public participation than City Hall.

The Mar Vista Community Council has gone beyond simply posting Community Impact Statements on City Council motions that include City Hall Google accounts and Arizona boycotts. Their Green Committee has set a standard for sustainability that could serve as the blueprint for the Mayor if he were to get serious about his commitment to making LA the Greenest big-city.

They’ve assumed the role of Environmental Affairs and their record of accomplishment ranges from the Wise Water Expo to the Green Gardens Tour to campaigns to ban plastic bags and styrofoam.

Along the way, neighborhood councils around the city have defined themselves within the parameters of the Charter mandate, some are highly specialized and formal, some are looser and more social.

Some are highly functional and some struggle to overcome organizational challenges. In many ways they are completely unique and yet they have much in common.

One thing neighborhood councils share is the judgment that critics levy on the group of 95 councils based on the actions or inactions of the few.

While the LAPD administers its billion dollar annual budget amidst City Controller charges that its “business functions are stuck in the 1950s," the City Council can still find time to debate the intricacies of managing a neighborhood councils $40,500 annual budget and the implications of purchase orders vs. debit cards.

While the LADOT is taken to task by the City Controller for losing track of its arsenal of 36,000 parking meters, resulting in a lack of oversight on the collection and depositing of meter revenue, the City Council can still find time to pontificate on the proper inventory control procedures for neighborhood council office equipment.

While the City Council gets taken to task in the California Court of Appeal for exceeding its authority, resulting in a reversal and the conclusion that “the City Council abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by law,” the City Attorney [link] finds time to audit neighborhood council elections and ponder the impact of the City Council created “factual based stakeholder” designation.

Neighborhood councils have been taken to task for their failure to aggressively engage the public and in many cases that’s a fair charge. But volunteers working with a limited budget can’t be expected to exceed the performance of City Hall and its $6.9 billion budget and yet they do.

Neighborhood councils have been criticized for keeping sloppy books and in many cases that’s an accurate appraisal. But volunteers, picking up where another volunteer left off, sometimes lose receipts yet their record exceeds the LAPD which was found to be missing receipts in 56 percent of audited transactions totaling $2.6 million.

Neighborhood councils have been taken to task for failing to demonstrate a comprehensive proficiency of Ethics laws, Brown Act requirements, and California Public Records Act standards yet City Hall allows the individual departments to post their unique interpretations of the law on their websites, demonstrating that the real need for training is at City Hall, not in the community.

Through it all, neighborhood councils continue to plod along, contributing money to the Department of Transportation for Sharrows, to Rec and Parks for events and maintenance, to the LAPD for tactical gear and somehow that meager budget continues to generate the attention of City Departments who can’t manage to get by on their own budgets.

While the merits of neighborhood councils giving their money to other city departments continues to draw great debate, the real work of neighborhood councils has shifted from simple advice and oversight, now taking on the role of Shadow Government.

Neighborhood Councils are the Planning Departments, they are the Transportation Departments, they are the Rec and Parks Departments, and they are the Sanitation Departments to their communities. They have become the de facto City Hall in a city that sees the delivery of city services as an optional benefit when it should be the purpose of City Hall.

The discussion over the purpose of neighborhood councils and the role of volunteers in the future of LA is sure to ruffle feathers, but that’s an indicator of the importance of this debate.

One of the greatest opportunities to engage in this great dialogue is on September 24th when the 2011 LA Congress of Neighborhoods takes place at City Hall. There will be 21 workshops, all designed by community leaders, ranging from basic topics for new board members to advanced sessions for experienced members.

The LA Congress of Neighborhoods is free, it’s open to the public, and it includes breakfast and lunch! Register and then make plans to join community leaders from all over the city in planning for the future of our city.

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

LA City Hall Confuses Growth for Development

CityWatch, June 17, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 48

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Hall confuses growth for development.

There is a huge difference between growth and development, a distinction that is lost on the caretakers of LA’s future as they gamble on size over substance in a planning Ponzi scheme that is consuming our resources. Growth is simply an increase in size, something third-world countries are capable of doing to the point of absurdity, resulting in unstable governments, illiteracy, disease, high mortality rates, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, the lack of a middle class and heavy dependence on developed nations.

Development, on the other hand, is an improvement in the quality of life for a community, regardless of increases or decreases in populations, and results in improved infrastructure, health care, education, economic opportunity and prosperity, arts and culture, justice and freedom, mobility, and a commitment to a sustainable future.

For years, City Hall has held fast to a planning strategy based on the assumption that the hordes were at the gates and that the population of Los Angeles was going to spike dramatically, straining the infrastructure of an already challenged city.

City planners stoked the fears in local communities, and politicos pushed agendas that paved the way for speculators, builders, and investors by softening restrictive code and supporting construction with public funds.

Mayor Villaraigosa went so far as to claim the construction boom [link] was an indication of economic prosperity and promised to name the “construction crane” the official bird of Los Angeles. The fact that LA’s biggest years for construction coincided with the slowest population growth in over a century was lost on Villaraigosa who continues to tout publicly funded construction sites as evidence of economic growth and employment opportunity.

The State of California doesn’t leave county and city development to chance, requiring all municipal authorities to adopt a General Plan that will serve as a “constitution for future development.”

It’s unfortunate that the term “development” is used so freely, diluting the impact of a word that at one time was used to refer to the implementation of goals and policies that improve the quality of life in a community. Now it symbolizes a commitment to growth at the expense of quality of life, an investment in construction at the expense of infrastructure, and all for a market that doesn’t exist.

LA’s General Plan has seven required elements; Land Use, Transportation (now referred to as Circulation), Housing (recently updated), Conservation, Open-Space, Noise, and Safety. In addition, LA includes elements such as Power Systems, Libraries, Public Schools, Sewerage and Wastewater, Cultural and Historical Monuments, and Water System.

None of this means much because the elements lack integration, have been adopted or updated independently of each other, and are fairly consistently ignored. In fact, it’s safe to say, the City of LA is being run as if the only thing that mattered was funding public safety at the expense of city services and infrastructure maintenance while projecting bold optimism in the restorative power of crony speculation.

Through it all, the members of the public most engaged in the civic process spend the bulk of their time on land use issues, from hillside construction to McMansions to parking to fence heights.

Even the most committed eventually tire and fall by the wayside, leaving scant few to fight the larger battle, a Mayor and City Council leading the City of LA into the future without the benefit of an updated General Plan, without a commitment to investing in infrastructure, and without the full delivery of city services.

The City of LA is looking more and more like a third-world country, broken streets, failing schools, high unemployment, a disappearing middle class, and an unstable government that is unable to deliver on its city service commitment. These are the symptoms of a city led by people who confuse a commitment to growth with a mandate for development.

It’s evident that the Mayor and the City Council are in denial, ignoring State Law and City Charter mandate by engaging in Community Plan updates charades that rely on fictional data that is contradicted by reality.

LA has within it the elements of a global city, capable of taking a leading position in culture, technology, communications, industry, economics, politics and human rights. All that’s missing is the leadership of the people to demand of City Hall a General Plan that commits to development as a refinement, not simply expansion, and a commitment to infrastructure and city services to support the Great City vision.

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

City Planning Embellishes Reality

LA's Department of City Planning is filled with some of the most creative people in town, folks who regularly turn out innovative and imaginative work that entertains, inspires, and stirs passion.

Unfortunately, the work falls under the category of "fiction" because of its limited connection to reality. I offer as an example the Planning Department's staff report on the City of LA's proposed Bike Plan.

City Planning staff reports are like movie trailers, they offer a quick preview of the upcoming proposal so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation in advance of the actual "screening." Seasoned film audiences know that there are three types of trailers;

Teasers that offer a glimpse of what can be expected.

Spoilers that offer up the entire plot and leave nothing to be discovered.

Impostors that offer up an entertaining journey that bears no resemblance to the actual film.

City Planning's Bike Plan staff report falls into the Impostor category, offering the Planning Commission an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality.

1663 miles of Bikeways - the cameo: Planning Staff promise 1663 miles of Bikeways, a claim that includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes. Bike Paths are very expensive off-road facilities that cost more per mile than what the Bureau of Street Services spends to resurface a mile of our streets. Bike Routes are the streets that get a little green sign that says "Bike Route" indicating that the Bikeway mileage has been pumped up. Bike Lanes get a commitment of 56 miles and an additional "speculative" 511 miles which indicates they will end up on the editor's floor. This Bike Plan relies on a cameo appearance by recognizable talent, and then surrounds it with 1663 miles of language that lacks substance and commitment.

Bicycle Boulevards - the knock-off: Planning Staff acknowledges that the public clamors for "innovative bicycle treatments" including Bicycle Boulevards. They are low-density local routes that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Rather than actually include Bicycle Boulevards in the proposed Bike Plan, City Planning offers up "Bike Friendly Streets" as a knock-off substitute, the equivalent of featuring "the other, other Baldwin brother" in Slap Shot IV.

Cyclists' Bill of Rights - the inspiration: Planning Staff acknowledge that the City Council directed the LADOT, Planning, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the City Attorney and the LAPD to report back on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. This City Council directive was ignored. Instead Planning Staff dismisses some principles as redundant while claiming that others are included. This is true in the same sense that the works of Shakespeare are also in the Bike Plan, after all he used the same alphabet and if properly rearranged, one could find A Comedy of Errors.

Backbone Bikeway Network - the theme: Planning Staff acknowledge the work of the LA Bike Working Group in creating the Backbone Bikeway Network which is positioned as a commitment to connectivity. Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.

Complete Streets Act - the surprise ending: Planning Staff acknowledge the powerful cultural shift that has resulted in innovative multi-modal transportation funding and policy. This includes the Complete Streets Act which supports the rights of all those who use the streets, from pedestrians to cyclists to mass transit passengers to motorists. It's only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?

The Department of City Planning's Bike Plan Staffing Report is a good read. It's interesting, it's informative, and it's a complete work of fiction.

In the grand scheme of things, LA's proposed Bike Plan is the equivalent of bad script turned into a bad film, supported by a great trailer that merely needs to get an opening night audience in order to recoup its investment. Then, it goes straight into the bargain bin at the 99¢ Store.

CityWatchLA - LA: A City at War with Itself

CityWatch, Oct 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 83

When departments within the City of Los Angeles fight with each other, their warlords take the struggle for turf into local neighborhoods and the streets of LA become battlefields where quality of life is written off as collateral damage. The casualties are the residents and business operators, because city attorneys work overtime to minimize departmental liabilities. On battle scarred Hollywood Blvd., locals navigate this eight foot excavation pit that bears witness to the no-man’s land that separates city departments from collective accountability and the responsible delivery of city services.

Weeks have gone by and the pit sits as a quiet reminder that the City of LA can take a sidewalk out of compliance and then simply drive away, violating its own standards and demonstrating the need for greater connectivity at City Hall.

The pit's origins lie in the Fire Department's construction of Regional Fire Station #82, a 32K square foot facility funded with $30 million of Prop F money that is 18 months post-groundbreaking.

The effort is administered by the Department of Public Works and involves Contract Administration, Engineering, Planning, General Services, Transportation, Street Lighting, Street Services, and a host of Contractors and Sub-Contractors.

A simple boring project by sub-contractors in order to install a Fire Department traffic control override system resulted in the discovery of lead covered conduit of unknown origin. By law, contractors notify the DWP upon discovery. The DWP then takes control of the site to determine what's underground and who the owner is.

The DWP excavated, they deliberated, and they evacuated. They left behind a plywood covered pit, crumbling asphalt, a berm of dirt and cement debris, and the obligatory misplaced DWP barricades and caution tape. Weeks have gone by.

A city official described working with the DWP by comparing it to the Roman Army. "Decentalized command with autonomous Generals running their own battalions, you can't rely on rules and code, you have to negotiate with each commander."

While private contractors are limited from street work during peak hours, from haul routes without authorization, and from street closure without permit, the DWP is charged with operating to their own authority.

In situations such as this, contractors and sub-contractors are prevented from completing their work, setting them up for claims against the city for the additional cost of pulling crews off jobs and standing by while the city of LA appears on Family Feud.

The irony of the departmental liability battle is that each department is represented by diplomatic forces that come from the City Attorney's office. While it's unclear whether the attorneys consider the City of LA or the specific department to be their client, it's abundantly clear that they do not serve the people who live and work in LA: A city under siege.



(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.)

Bike Week gives way to Bike Life

Bike Week is over and the Metro planners have driven back to the office, the LADOT employees have tossed the leftover Bike Week supplies, the consultants are cashing their checks, the press is busy covering Lindsay Lohan, and LA's law enforcement is banking shifts in anticipation of the upcoming Memorial Day traffic.

As for the cyclists, Bike Week has simply given way to Bike Life, the ongoing and long term campaign to change the world by focusing on LA's streets, making them safer for cyclists.

For all of the attention that Bike Week draws, the real test is the following week. Who rode to work on Monday? How many people at the Metro plan to get out of their car and give bike commuting a shot this week? How many staff at the LADOT will justify that $50 LA City Parking Buyout by hopping on a bike and riding to work? Seriously, this is the week to count the cyclists, to measure the impact of the huge Bike Week focus that took meeting after meeting after meeting of Metro and LADOT staff, all on the clock in the midst of a huge budget crisis, all so they could drive their cars to the Bike Week events.

Forgive me for my cynicism, but this is the week that either justifies the efforts of the Bike Week promoters or challenges the effectiveness of their efforts.

I'd be willing to forgive the Metro and the LADOT their commitment to their cars if they would just give us a good turnout of staff at this Thursday's Caltrans District 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee and next Tuesday's Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee. But, based on results, the attendance will be thin, very thin. Last month's Caltrans7BAC meeting drew the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator for just a few minutes and was unable to hold her attention, in spite of the fact that Topanga Canyon Boulevard was on the agenda. As for the Metro, nobody attended. The prior month, LADOT Bikeways was unable to send staff to the LABAC meeting, in spite of the fact that the Bike Plan was on the agenda. The Metro hasn't sent staff to the Bicycle Advisory Committee of LA, the largest city in the State of California, for a couple of years. How's that for priorities!

And yet, the LADOT and the Metro are able to send staff in quantities sufficient to invade small countries for fun stuff, as long as it interests them, and as long as it takes place in the daytime. Have these people never heard of flex-time? Come in a little later, stay a little later. Better yet, split up and stop sending so many people to the same meetings, send them where they might benefit. Best of all, send them where the public might benefit.

This Thursday, Alex Thompson will be presenting the LA Bike Map during the "open space" brown bag lunch session at the Caltrans 7 Bicycle Advisory Committee. Enci will follow with a presentation on the LA Greensters. During the BAC, Sgt. Krumer of the LAPD will be presenting "Cyclists and the Law (Enforcement)." One would think that the crowd-source mapping technology, the pedal-powered transpo team, and the LAPD Cyclist Training would interest Transportation Professionals, yet the Metro and the LADOT seem to find the Caltrans 7 BAC of little interest.

On Tuesday, Jeremy Grant will be presenting the Backbone Bikeway Network during the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Backbone is a simple Vision for Connectivity that is a revolutionary commitment to the destinations that involves the LADOT, the Metro, Caltrans, the LAPD, the LASD, the Bureau of Street Services, the Department of Public Works, Street Lighting, the CRA, and just about anybody else who has a piece of the streets.

And yet...

Based on the past, expectations are low that the Bikeways staff from the Metro and the LADOT will be in attendance at either of the upcoming opportunities to engage the community and work with them on making our streets a great place to ride.

I think it's time for that to change. I think it's time for the Metro and the LADOT and also LA's Department of City Planning to consider the cycling community a constituent group, just like they do neighborhood councils, homeowner associations, community councils and others. Cyclists may not be a geographic group but as a common interest group, cyclists deserve the same respect and attention that other groups get.

I regularly meet Planning Department staff at neighborhood council events. Apparently the budget crisis hasn't prevented them from engaging in planning work in the community. Yet when the LA Bike Plan, which is part of the Transportation Plan which is part of the General Plan which is the responsibility of the Planning Department, comes up, we hear "Budget Crisis!" as the excuse for not sending staff to the Caltrans7 BAC or the LABAC.

I really think it's time for that to change and I'm calling on the Metro, the LADOT, and the Department of City Planning to work with the cycling community to make the streets of Los Angeles great places to ride. I'm calling on the Metro and the LADOT and City Planning to keep that Bike Work commitment going and to embrace Bike Life, the idea that what's good for cyclists is good for the community, all year long!

Bike Week has given way to Bike Life, let's make it happen!

CityWatchLA - Mayor’s 30/10 Vision: Is Metro Up To Task?

CityWatch, Mar 26, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 24

Mayor Villaraigosa recently traveled to Washington DC to drum up support for the "30/10" plan that would enable the LA Metro to put 30 years of Measure R Transportation funds to work on an accelerated 10 year schedule that would a bring a dozen mega-projects to life within the decade.

All that is needed is federal backing for the creation of a Transportation Bank that would then loan billions of dollars to the Metro based on the anticipation of sales tax revenues from the future. Voters approved the Measure R ½-cent sales tax last year but the typically long term nature of transportation planning, funding, and construction meant that many voters would not see the Measure R projects become a reality. The "30/10" plan would change that. And, in addition, would produce jobs now.

This is the kind of vision that could change the landscape of LA County in many ways, not just in terms of improved connectivity but also by stimulating employment and improving the community economically and environmentally.

The tough question is not "Can the Mayor pull off the funding coup?" The really hard question that nobody is asking is this, "Can the Metro bring a dozen mega-projects to life within the decade?" It doesn't look good.

1) The Metro's own staff doesn’t believe in the Metro.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, the Metro's own staff are less likely to walk, bike, ride the Metro's bus or rail system or car-pool than the general public.

What is it about going to work for the Metro that prompts them to engage in behavior that is at odds with the mandate of the Regional Transportation authority?

Approximately 7% of the general public rides the Metro but only 1.6% of the Metro staff takes advantage of the free Metro pass and then puts it to work.

If nothing else, having 9200 staff members ride the Metro would offer a supreme opportunity for oversight and feedback but somehow the Metro can't even convince its own staff to "Go Metro!"

2) The Metro's customers don't believe in the Metro.

Whether it's the zoo-like gates, the illusory TAP cards, the erratic service, the behavior of bus operators on the streets, the inter-departmental confusion or the painful Board meetings, Metro patrons have plenty to complain about and the Metro's own survey reveals that the Metro serves people who simply have no other choice.

Granted, that's a huge simplification and there are plenty of satisfied Metro passengers who travel regularly and effectively and without complaint. Unfortunately, they are not in the majority and that is the simple test that the Metro can't pass.

When the majority of Metro passengers ride because they have a choice, not because they have no choice, then and only then will the Metro have a system in place that should be super-funded and taken wide. Until then, slow down and focus on the details.

3) Metro’s commitment lagging.

The Metro's commitment to a multi-modal transportation system is lagging behind that of the Federal and State government, leaving in doubt the Metro's ability to bring a robust and comprehensive list of mass-transit projects to life in 10 years. In fact ramping up the funding and the schedule would be the motivation for cutting the multi-modal corners even more dramatically.

The Metro must commit to supporting all modes of transportation, beginning with those who walk. Pedestrians turn into Metro customers if they can access the system but that requires a commitment to walkable streets. Are the standards in place?

Cyclists are gap connectors that increase systemic capacity but their ability to become Metro customers depends on simple accommodations including access to rail cars, functional racks on buses and bike parking at Metro stations, the holy grail of cycling! "Is there any room left for the cyclists?" has been the Metro's approach to bike planning for too long. That must change.

4) Lack of oversight.

The Metro's lack of oversight and casual approach to the details are causes for slowing down the process, not accelerating it, and now is the time to implement systemic changes in the way the Metro engages in the business of planning, building, and operating our regional transportation system.

From blocked emergency exits to homeless encampments to safety hazards to malfunctioning equipment, the Metro's inability to accept feedback and respond effectively allows the system to muddle along, desensitizing patrons and normalizing mediocrity.

From bike paths to escalators to security cameras to intercoms, the Metro should be in the business of checking, double-checking and ensuring a high level of performance, not simply offering excuses. Unfortunately, offering excuses is the Metro's current strong suit.

The Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station is considered a "flagship" station which makes it especially unfortunate that ribbon cutting on the W Hollywood, LA's largest Transit Oriented Development caught the Metro off-guard.

Only now, after repeated calls from the public, is the Metro attempting to engage Operations, Planning, Security and Real Estate to ask the tough questions such as "Who has the little key for the toilet paper dispenser?" and "Where do the LAPD have authority and where does the W Hollywood security have authority and where do the LASD and the Metro Transit Police have authority?" along with the popular "Where do the cyclists park their bikes?"

This project has been in the works for over a decade and it is only after the ribbon cutting that the Metro responds to complaints and actually conducts a site survey to evaluate their responsibilities and their shortcomings.

5) Not talking to authorities.

The Metro's inability to synchronize with local authorities, municipal transit operators, law enforcement departments, developers, property managers, and with itself is a cry for intervention, not for funding. LA County will have a Comprehensive Transportation System in place when a passenger can ride smoothly throughout the region without having to pay over and over again, experiencing the shortcomings of a Balkanized environment that leaves casual passengers and tourists scratching their heads and wondering "Why can't we get along?" Is there nobody (C'mon Tony!) that can pull it together?

Funding the Metro now with 30 years of anticipated Measure R proceeds would be like offering the Hatfields and McCoys moonshine and guns.

Now, more than ever, the Metro must engage in a diplomatic mission that results in a regional ticketing process that integrates all transit operators.

Now is the time to synchronize the local authorities so that effectiveness is the goal and competitiveness is ended.

Law enforcement must end the petty "blinders" approach to responsibility that results in enforcement gaps and confusion on the streets.

The Metro's Real Estate department must take responsibility for the performance of its development partners and not simply execute contracts and walk away from the communities that suffer from TOD failure.

But most of all, the Metro needs to get it together and stop the inter-departmental game of hot potato that occurs when a customer makes a complaint.

A recent call regarding the missing bike parking and lack of maintenance at the Hollywood & Vine Station was sent from Bike Planning to Real Estate and back to Bike Planning and then to the Sheriff and then back Real Estate and then to Operations. The Mayor's staff got involved and suggested taking it to the Metro Board.

Is it any wonder the Metro Board hears petty complaints? No one else can handle them!

The Mayor's 30-10 vision, if funded, has the potential to change the way LA moves. But only if the Metro is able to rise to the occasion and become the requisite partner in greatness that can match the big vision with a big commitment to the details.

At this point, the vision is in place, the funding is in play, and it's up to the Metro to rise to the occasion.

Go Metro! Or, Metro be gone!

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

LADOT and City Planning revisit "The errors of the past!"

The LADOT and City Planning have a "secret meeting" planned for a select number of bike activists along with representatives from three city council offices, all in a clear demonstration that the public process is of low priority in the ongoing saga of the City of LA's Proposed Bike Plan. (aka the $450,000 two year long uncoordinated journey of professional malpractice led by the Department of "No!")

At issue is the meeting that is planned for this Tuesday @ 4:00 pm (shh! It's a secret!) where the LADOT and City Planning are intending to "preview" the new and improved Proposed Bike Plan, the one that Michelle Mowery, LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator, referred to on KPCC Radio last week as having elements that the public hasn't seen yet. That doesn't speak well for the two year long process of gear-grinding and other infeasiBULL planning injustices.

There are two explanations for the upcoming "secret meeting" process for the Proposed Bike Plan unveiling:

1) The LADOT and City Planning have forgotten how the community meetings went in 2008, when community members complained vocally and with great enthusiasm about the fumbled opening process that was limited to four meetings of two hours each, light on dialogue and heavy on post-its and poster board. These meetings serve as a low point in the civic engagement process and perhaps the LADOT and City Planning completely forgot that to exclude is a huge mistake. Perhaps they forgot that excluding the public is a bad idea and the 'secret meeting" is the result of simple incompetence.

2) The LADOT and City Planning might remember clearly that the participation of the public raises the expectation and sets a standard for performance in excess of the departmental intentions. Bike Activists have long held that the Proposed Bike Plan process was flawed from the beginning, when the Bikeways Un-Coordinator drafted the scope of work, put it out to bid, selected the consultant, supervised the consultant, refined the initial Bike Plan proposals, implemented the infamous "Infeasible" status and then retreated into the "budget crisis" retreat that allowed a regrouping, this time claiming that there was no more money for the consultant. Perhaps the "secret meetings" is a simply calculated attempt to circumvent the public process and to get to the finish line.

Either way, this "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

City Council President Eric Garcetti, PLUM Committee Chair Councilman Ed Reyes, and Transportation Committee Chair Councilman Bill Rosendahl are currently participants in the "secret meeting" and their staff are collecting the names of "friendlies" (three per CM!) who can meet with LADOT and City Planning for a limited review of the Proposed Bike Plan. The Councilmembers would be well advised to reconsider their affiliation and inadvertant endorsement of this "briefing" that is, at best, a simple case of incompetence but at worst, a demonstration of subtrefuge.

The City of Los Angeles has a Bicycle Advisory Committee, one made up of 15 people representing the 15 Council Districts and 4 more people who represent the Mayor. The 19 members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee met just last week and the City of LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator submitted a written report on, among other things, the Proposed Bike Plan. No mention was made of this "secret meeting" but that is probably because it is...a secret! How is it that the LABAC is left out of the loop? That's standard operating procedures for the LADOT and City Planning, both of which consistently fail to involve the very people our elected officials have designated as their representatives and advisors.

There is one more possible explanation for the "restricted" access of the "secret meeting" and that is the sheer size of the Proposed Bike Plan is too much or average mortals. At several hundred pages of bikeways planning fodder, light on vision but heavy on background information, the Proposed Bike Plan even has a diagram of a four-way stop intersection, just in case none of us have ever seen one. The Proposed Bike Plan has proven mildly interesting but painful to print, and even more tedious to read, all as one hopes that the vision for Los Angeles will magically appear if one simply sticks with it. Perhaps the "secret meeting" is limited to speed readers, those who can digest hundreds of pages of Proposed Bike Plan in a single sitting, offering insightful feedback and recommendations that will make us all proud and that will make LA a great place to ride.

That leaves us with three possible explanations for the "secret meeting" scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

1) Incompetence
2) Subtrefuge
3) Technocratic Superiority

Regardless of the explanation, the "secret meeting" is a flawed process, consistent with the LADOT and City Planning journey, but completely unacceptable to the people of Los Angeles who deserve accountability, responsibility, and the opportunity to participate in the process and on the delivery of the final product.

This "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

CityWatchLA - We've got no Vision!

CityWatch, Dec 11, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 101

The Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council's Sustainability Committee grabbed the future by the horns and took a step toward self-sufficiency by bringing eight planning gurus to town for a "Community Greening" initiative that involved politicos, non-profits, developers, activists and planners, all committed to turning LA's landscape of obstacles into the land of hope.

Led by Ashley Zarella Hand and Veronica Siranosian, the project was funded by a grant from the Center for Communities by Design, supported by the American Institute of Architects.

It consisted of a Dream Team of Urban Planners from all over the country who toured the downtown community, walked with stakeholders, debated, moderated, interviewed, brainstormed and grappled with the hardscape and the softscape … all the while asking the question nobody could answer "What do you want LA to look like in five years?"

For the professionals in the crowd, and there were many, the elements of sustainability are academic and simple, "Environmental, Social, Economic!" But for the neophytes and casual participants, the idea of defining sustainability was wide open and that made the discourse very interesting. What makes a community sustainable and where do we start?

The Sustainable Development Assessment Team (SDAT) offered their preliminary evaluation and recommendations before they left town to return to their homes in Seattle, Portland, New York, Chapel Hill, Pittsburgh, and Oklahoma City.

The final and formal results and recommendations of the SDAT initiative will be presented in March 2010 with hard action items that can be accomplished within the scope of the neighborhood councils, including both low-hanging fruit and broader visioning goals.

Ashley noted that the SDAT typically works with Mayoral Commissions and that this was the first time they had partnered with a neighborhood council.

"Our intention is to learn from other successful communities so that we can maximize our assets and connect our stakeholders and revitalize our community.

To do that we must shift from a developer-driven vision to a community-driven vision and this SDAT process is the first step to making that happen downtown."

The SDAT team was led by Walter Sedovic, a rock star planner who engaged and inspired and encouraged the exchange of anecdotes as if they were precious gifts while reminding the project participants that real change requires hard data, often cumbersome and difficult, but critical as a tool for change.

In a landscape surrounded by data collecting assets, he threw down the first partnership challenge saying "Find the data collecting experts and make them part of the team!"

Seattle's Jim Diers, the author of Neighborhood Power: Building Community the Seattle Way, was stunned by the environment of "No!" that he encountered during his visit.

He held nothing back when he yelled "Yes We Can!" and shifted the discourse into the establishment of "Yes!" zones that focused on possibilities and relationships committed to creating a vision for accomplishment rather than the acceptance of "We don't do it that way in Los Angeles."

While the hard recommendations won't arrive for a few months, the SDAT team offered a few observations that were challenging and eye-opening including their puzzlement over a neighborhood council system that creates a structure and then attempts to populate it, as opposed to a system that looks for activity and energy and then supports with training, funding and structure.

Paula Reeves noted that "Paperwork should never become the substitute for real community work and it's sometimes messy, but it's important to keep in mind which one is the process and which one is the vision."

It quickly became apparent that messy was the friend of sustainability as Portland's Robert Yakas recounted tales of guerrilla tactics that brought pilot projects to life, creating a real tangible vision and a focus point for change.

"Pick something, focus on it, engage the people around you and make it happen. It's messy, it's fun and it'll change the world!"

Sara Geddes, also of Portland, echoed his comments and recommended blurring all boundaries, going so far as to introduce the "Zipper" as a replacement.

"In our tour of the downtown community, we noticed so many lines separating communities and projects and people. Blur the lines, replace them with open space that brings people together, create "Zippers" of green space and open space that knit the human fabric of the neighborhoods into a larger community!"

To follow the DLANC DIY journey to sustainability and their pursuit of a community vision for Los Angeles, visit www.downtownsustainability.com.

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

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.Streetsblog - Bike Working Group Gives Cyclists a Chance to Talk Bike Plan This Weekend

LA.Streetsblog by Stephen Box on October 13, 2009

The Bike Writers Collective is calling up the LA Bike Working Group to take on LA's Draft Bike Plan, reviewing it, discussing it, and then working together to make it a powerful visionary document that supports the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. All LA cyclists are invited to join in as the spirit of Government 2.0 takes over the Los Angeles City College Faculty Lounge at 1pm this Saturday, October 17, 2009.

The Draft Bike Plan was released on September 24th and the comment period is scheduled to close on November 6th, a window of 42 days for public participation. This is the first of many objectionable elements to the Draft Bike Plan and the City's idea of civic engagement. The LA Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to "demand" that the comment period be extended until Jan 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also voted unanimously to support the fight for an extension of the comment period. Now it's up to the cycling community to prepare those comments.

Riding a bike in Los Angeles has always been a demonstration of self-sufficiency and independence. At first it simply meant carrying a spare tube, some tools and a pump. Somewhere along the way it grew to include carrying a pocket guide to the law, some key phone numbers and some bail money. Then the Department of DIY took things into their own hands and now the cycling community finds themselves confronted with the fact that if they want a decent Bike Plan, they're going to have to make it themselves.

Cyclists can take a look at the complaints and the criticism of the Draft Bike Plan, from LAStreetsBlog and again on LAStreetsblog to CityWatchLA to WestsideBikeSide to BikeGirl. But the most important thing they can do is to take a look at the Draft Bike Plan, (editor's note: If you want to compare the "original" maps from earlier this summer with the current ones that were quietly downgraded, you can find the original maps here.) download it to their laptop and then to ride over to the LA Bike Working Group and to dig in. We'll start as a group then we'll break into smaller groups and we'll work through the plan and create a vision for Los Angeles, by cyclists for cyclists.

Portland is currently going through the same Bike Plan update process as Los Angeles and they have 11 Working Groups, 1 Steering Committee and 1 Technical Advisory Committee, all working together to ensure that the Bike Plan is a robust document that represents the desires of the cycling community. Somehow the City of LA got consultants from Portland but not the spirit of community nor the commitment to an open and engaging process. Now is LA's chance to change that and to create a Bike Plan that truly supports cyclists and their rights on the streets of Los Angeles.

LA Bike Working Group, 1 pm on Saturday the 17th of October, 2009. LACC Faculty Lounge, right in the center of the campus which is right in the center of LA. To plan your visit via public transportation, go to metro.net. The Red Line drops you off right by the College at Santa Monica & Vermont.

A Tale of Two Cities: LA's Metro vs. NYC's MTA

Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/October 10, 2009

New York City's Transit Authority welcomes surfers on the subway while LA's Metro Rail management works to limit cyclists from the rail system. One large city embraces people and their "stuff" while LA looks squarely at cyclists and their gap-closing transportation solutions and says "you are a congestion problem."

Steve Lopez of the LA Times tells a story of an old LA surfing buddy who now lives in New York City and still manages to catch a wave or two, rising early to catch the A Train in Harlem and carrying a 7' surfboard all the way to Roackaway Beach in Queens. Somehow she is able to navigate the NYC subway system without the support of the NY Surfers' Advisory Committee or any other transit activists, she simply rides the subway and it all works out.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, cyclists are in limbo, waiting for word on the Metro's proposed limit on cyclists which would only allow two cyclists per rail car. The proposal was originally presented to the Operations Committee on July 16th by Mike Cannell, General Manager of Rail Operations. At that time, the Metro Board's Operations Committee directed the CEO to present to the Board by September 30, 2009, the following:

(1) A comprehensive legal opinion of all risks posed by MTA' s accommodation of bicycles, wheelchairs, luggage, strollers, et al.;
(2) A review and report on bike-an-rail policies adopted by other large transit properties in the United States; and
(3) A unified plan to ensure that our rail operations are as safe as possible for all users, including a specific bike-on-rail policy.

The odd thing about this directive is that is didn't instruct the staff to consult with the Metro's own Bikeways division. Does the Metro know that it has a Bikeways Division?

The Board, after some prodding from the public, modified the instruction to gather input so that it included, among others, the cycling community!

September 30, 2009 has come and gone. I made sure to let Mr. Cannell know that I would like to be included in the "cycling community" input process. Since then I've heard nothing.

I made a few inquiries, I sent a few emails, I finally filed a Request for Public Records (RPA) and the response I received was this:

"Unfortunately, after much searching, Records Management has no documents to provide on this matter since the relevant Metro personnel have not yet received all the information to make an informed decision. Therefore, we will close your request at this point. You may contact me at (213) 922-4880 or lord@metro.net if you have any questions or comments."

About the same time that the Records Management department says there is nothing to look at, I'm reading a report that Mr. Cannell submitted quietly to the Metro's CEO and the Metro Board, way back on August 27th, 2009.

I'm not sure how this "non-report" qualifies as the fulfillment of the Board instruction or how this would qualify as "gathering input from the cycling community" but it is apparent that it was done so quietly that even the Metro's Records Management department was unaware of the action.

Ultimately, all snubs and fumbles and RPA failures and misunderstandings aside, it's a sad day when a surfer in Harlem gets more respect from the local transit authority than a cyclist in Los Angeles who simply wants to close those service gaps and get to work on time or home to the family.

It's time for the Metro to form a Metro Bicycle Advisory Committee and it's time for the Metro to embrace cyclists as transportation solutions.

"See you on the Metro!"

LABAC Demands Draft Bike Plan Comment Period Extension

Gail Goldberg, Director of Planning
Jane Blumenfeld, Citywide Planning Division
Department of City Planning
City of Los Angeles

Dear Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Blumenfeld:

The Bicycle Advisory Committee of the City of Los Angeles voted unanimously at its regular meeting of October 6, 2009 to “demand” that the Draft Bicycle Plan Update comment deadline of November 6, 2009 be extended to Friday, January 8, 2010.

The reasons for this action include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Only six weeks were provided for review and comment on a Draft Plan that has taken 18 months to release, including four months after its promised “end of May” release date;
2. The BAC and its subcommittees only meet once every two months, a sixty (60) day cycle;
3. The Draft Plan was released less than two weeks prior to the full BAC meeting, thus providing inadequate time for a thorough review and submittal of comprehensive recommendations by any BAC subcommittee prior to such meeting;
4. The next regular BAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2009;
5. The Draft Plan is a very detailed and lengthy document, containing 195 pages of text and 17 pages of maps citywide as well as a 351-page appendix;
6. The BAC members have not been provided printed copies of the Draft Plan;
7. Some BAC members do not have the ability to print out a document of this length, or at all;
8. The maps are difficult to read online; and
9. There are only a very limited number of printed copies of the Plan available for public review (only at the nine regional City libraries and two City Planning offices).

These are significant challenges to providing meaningful input. The BAC is composed of 19 members appointed by each Councilmember and the Mayor and serve as volunteers without compensation. An extension of the comment deadline will allow the BAC to submit its recommendations in a thoughtful, orderly manner. I believe City Planning and the BAC share the same goal of achieving the best possible Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles. You can assist by extending the comment deadline to January 8, 2010.

Thank you.

Glenn Bailey, Chair
Bicycle Advisory Committee
City of Los Angeles


c: Bicycle Advisory Committee

CityWatchLA - Greuel Scolds Transpo for Dismissing the Public

CityWatch, June 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 49

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel chastised representatives from both the Transportation and the Planning Departments, saying "We've got a room full of people, all claiming to have been left out of the Bicycle Plan Update process. You can't call that the result of effective outreach!"

This took place at a "Special" meeting of the Transportation Committee scheduled for 8 am on what turned out to be Laker Celebration Day. A glance at the agenda indicates that it must have been Greuel's intention to wrap up all of the cycling issues in one big meeting, as she approaches the conclusion of her reign as the Transportation Committee Chair and prepares to take over the City Controller helm. Unfortunately, Councilmen Parks, Alarcon and LaBonge were no shows and it was left to Chair Greuel and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to navigate a busy bike agenda that included the Bike Plan, Bikeways funding, Bike Parking, Abandoned Bikes, the efficacy of the Bikeways Department and the LAPD's relationship with the cycling community.

When it came time for the LAPD to report on their training for LAPD officers on cycling rules and regulations and to report on recent incidents between the LAPD and cyclists, Greuel called for the LAPD to step up and ... they weren't there. Somehow it was the LADOT who knew the LAPD weren't going to attend the meeting, not the Councilmembers, an interesting revelation in the realities of our City Government.

Greuel at first moved the item to another date but the room erupted in protests from people who wanted to be heard. She took public comment on the item and heard from a long list of people who called on the LAPD to support cycling as a transportation choice and who called for better education of the LAPD on the specifics of the California Vehicle Code that cause so much confusion on the streets.

Attending the standing room only meeting were cyclists from all over the city representing a wide range of cycling interests and expressions but united in their desire to see the City of LA support cycling as a transportation solution. They were joined by representatives from homeowners associations and neighborhood councils, as well as cycling organizations and a variety of advocacy groups.

We’re all here noted one participant because "we just want to be involved in making our streets better places to ride and our communities better places to live."

When speakers complained of the consultant-driven process that has kept the public from participating, Rosendahl sat up and called for the consultants to step forward. Nobody moved. Not the consultants in Portland, not the consultants in Berkeley, not the consultants in Colorado, and not the consultants in San Francisco. They just couldn't hear the call.

Rosendahl found this to be disturbing and he began digging into the money. "How much have we paid these consultants?" he asked the Transportation and Planning representatives. When he heard that the City of LA has already paid out 80% on a plan that all at the table profess they have not yet received, he was not happy. He called for the consultants to show up next week at the regularly scheduled Transportation Committee meeting to account for the money, the contract and the Bike Plan.

The Department of Transportation was well represented at the meeting, in spite of their claim that this is a Planning Department process. Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT was flanked by Haripal Vir, Michael Uyeno, and Carolyn Jackson, all of whom were there backing up a Bikeways staff that claimed not to have the Bike Plan. As for the Planning Department, GM Gail Goldberg, who said last month "The Bike Plan will be out in two weeks!" was nowhere in sight and in her stead were two Planning reps with a feeble PowerPoint presentation that should have been entitled "Smoke and Mirrors."

In a meeting that stretched for three hours in spite of the 60 second limit on public comment, cyclists took opportunity after opportunity to share their experiences riding the streets of Los Angeles and stressing the need to address the significant safety issues that cyclists confront every time they roll onto the streets, it was a comment overheard after the meeting was adjourned that was the most revealing.

"Well, I guess we survived that one!" said one LADOT staff member to another … demonstrating clearly that from their perspective … it's meetings such as this with calls for accountability that pose the most significant threat, not the streets of LA. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

CityWatchLA - The Emperor's New Bike Plan

CityWatch, June 16, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 48

The City of Los Angeles is led by folks so befuddled in their duties and yet so enamored with themselves that they spend the bulk of their energy directing the city's many departments to "make more plans" and "report back to us" and "repeat as necessary" and "schedule more meetings," all as the city spirals into ruin.

Several years ago LA's Bikeways Department came before the City Council and said "It's time to update our Bicycle Plan!" The City Council, ever mindful of San Antonio's quest to turn LA into America's greenest big city, quickly approved the plan to update the Bicycle Plan, after all "LA loves cyclists!"

With the smell of money wafting from City Hall, consultants from around the country pedaled their way to Los Angeles and LA's Bicycle Plan Update Process was on, or so it seemed.

Consultants from Portland and Berkeley and Denver and San Francisco convened community meetings and showed the local cycling community the plans of other cities. "Imagine, your Bike Plan could look just like this, albeit with less vision and less commitment and less hope for becoming a reality, but it would have all the pretty colors!"

A website was built, postcards were passed out, comments were solicited and then...gasp...nothing happened!

The contract was extended another year and periodically, LA's Planning Department and Transportation Department would wake from their respective slumbers long enough to report to the City Council's Transportation Committee, turning in reports and giving verbal presentations on the thorough planning process. It was heady stuff that must have inspired many to embark on careers as consultants, after all the money is good and the expectation for performance is low.

Through it all, the Transportation Committee was inundated with complaints until finally, with pressure building for improvements to the LA's cycling environment, the City released the Draft Bike Maps which have lots of very pretty colored lines and incorporate "vision" terms such as "infeasible" with such regularity that one is left wondering if this is part of a plan for ending cycling in LA, rather than supporting it.

Last week, the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee convened for its bi-monthly meeting and had some fairly direct concerns about the missing Bike Plan and the "leaked" bike maps but they were unable to find anybody who would take responsibility for the Bike Plan or the process.

One would think that the LABAC, which is filled with members of the community appointed by the Mayor and the City Council to advise the City of LA on matters related to cycling in LA, would be involved in the process of updating the Bike Plan. Such is not the case.

The only Department represented at the meeting was Transportation which claimed complete ignorance in all things Bike Plan, claiming that they're completely out of the loop on the maps and the plan, adding "It's all in the hands of the consultants!" Further distancing themselves from the process which they set in motion two and a half years ago, they went on the offensive and blamed any department not present for the failings of the process.

The Planning Department was blamed for holding up the plan, the City Attorney's Department was blamed for not supporting the process, Public Works was blamed for not participating, the LAPD was blamed for not caring enough to attend the meetings and Street Services was blamed for not weighing in on street maintenance standards.

Through it all, the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator complained that they receive no respect from the other Departments and went on to maintain complete innocence, absolving themselves of any responsibility in the process, a position contradicted by their own consultants.

Several months ago, the Transportation Committee, in a frenzy of support for the cycling community, directed the LADOT to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the Bicycle Plan. In the hallway, after the meeting, cyclists approached the consultants to confirm the directive and were shocked to hear the consultants respond "We don't take direction from the City Council. We only take direction from the LADOT."

The City Council has long offered words of hope for the City's Bike Plan and along the way, the Transportation Committee has received reports from the General Managers of both Transportation and Planning. Rita Robinson and Gail Goldberg have both turned in glowing accounts of the Bike Plan process but the real question is very simple.

"Has anybody actually seen the Bike Plan?"

On Wednesday, June 17th, the Transportation Committee convenes at 8:00 am for a SPECIAL meeting that, once again, provides for a "Department of Transportation (DOT) report relative to a Bicycle Plan update."

How will Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel respond when the public takes a look at the charade and cries out "But the Emperor has no Bike Plan!"

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

CityWatchLA - Making LA’s Deadly Crosswalks Safe

CityWatch, Jan 16, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 5

The intersection of 5th and Flower is just like any other downtown LA intersection in that it is designed to move large quantities of vehicles rapidly and efficiently.

It is especially successful in this endeavor with seven lanes of one-way traffic moving east on 5th and six lanes of one-traffic moving south on Flower.

This intersection is also home to the Central Library, to the Bonaventure Hotel and two huge office buildings, all generating heavy pedestrian activity which is at odds with the movement of the vehicles.

The problem is that this intersection is designed to simply move either vehicles or people, with the success of one group coming at the expense of the other.

Eastbound vehicles stack seven and eight deep in the left turn, waiting for the pedestrians to clear the intersection. Pedestrians enjoy a four-second "Walk" phase as they set out to cross six lanes of street, all with vehicles edging forward into the crosswalk.

The tragic death of Gwendolyn Coleman last week after she was hit in the crosswalk by a DASH bus only dramatizes the intense conflict at 5th and Flower.

As a community, our first responsibility is to work together to protect our most vulnerable. When pedestrians and motorists are left to compete for space, pedestrians will lose every time. Unfortunately, for most, the loss is their lives.

Last week the Urban Design Studio, led by Emily Gabel-Luddy, went before the Planning Commission with a bold and comprehensive proposal that would dramatically improve pedestrian life in downtown Los Angeles. Consisting of new Architectural Design Standards and new Street Standards, that work together to balance the needs of the different user groups, the plan was endorsed by the Planning Commission and now goes to the City Council.

We now have an opportunity to put people first and it starts with calling on our City Council and demanding a walkable city.

We now have an opportunity to honor Gwendolyn Coleman and it starts with calling on the LA Department of Transportation and demanding a pedestrian-oriented intersection at 5th and Flower.

We now have the opportunity to change our own lives and our communities and it starts by simply going for a walk.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatchLA - Death in the Crosswalk

The sign reads: A woman’s life ended here today and many will be changed. God bless her and her family. Let’s all slow down a little here in downtown.

CityWatch, Jan 13, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 4

“Let’s All Slow Down A Little”
By Stephen Box

Time in the cross walk ran out for Gwendolyn Coleman last week.

On Wednesday, January 7th, at 6:30 in the morning, Gwendolyn Coleman stepped into the crosswalk at 5th and Flower Downtown LA and started to cross the street. She never made it. She was hit by a DASH bus and killed. The LAPD later reported that the woman had been crossing the street legally and that the DASH operator did not see the woman because of a blind spot.

The circumstances of this tragic incident are shocking and have resonated not just through the downtown area, as is evidenced by the spontaneous memorial, but throughout the city. Discussions broke out on the danger of LA's streets and the difficulty a pedestrian has in competing with vehicular traffic for the simple right cross the street safely.

This particular intersection is especially tough for pedestrians. The first of the three phases, the "Walk" phase, is only 4 seconds long. There are six lanes to cross and the "Walk" phase is only sufficient for a healthy adult to get to the second lane before the blinking red hand appears.

The debate over signal timing, along with arguments over the speed of motor vehicle traffic on streets with significant pedestrian activity, have long been a point of contention and this intersection is a sad but excellent example of a bias toward moving cars at the expense of the safety and convenience of pedestrians.

The City Planning Commission has just unanimously approved a proposal to make Downtown Los Angeles more walkable and pedestrian-friendly. The proposal has been in the works for two years and consists of two parts, an Urban Design Standards and Guidelines element and a Downtown Street Standards element.

While this significant step is much too late for Ms. Coleman, it's not too late to honor her by working together to make LA a better … and safer … place for pedestrians.

Meanwhile, the Department of Transportation is appearing before Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting with proposals to raise the speed limits at several locations throughout the Valley.

There's no better time than the present for LA’s citizens, the LADOT and City Planning to begin working together at leveling the safety playing field for those who cross the City’s many crosswalks on foot.

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

Villaraigosa's Plan for a Car-Free City Hall

In an effort to cut the budget deficit, LA’s Mayor San Antonio has announced plans to reduce the City motor pool and eliminate the “home garage” perk that a significant number of City Hall staffers currently enjoy.

Opponents to the plan argue that this would mean that staffers would have to rely on personal cars, many of them gas-guzzling SUVs, minivans and sedans.

Sadly, none of our City’s leadership looked at this situation and realized that this is an opportunity to get our City staff onto the streets, literally, on foot, on a bike or on mass transit.

How far have we NOT come in our march to becoming the “greenest and cleanest big city in America” if it’s simply not an option for our leadership to get out of the car and go for a walk!

This is a good time for the Mayor and the City Council to act aggressively, not only to cut costs, but to really lay down a city-wide commitment to supporting and promoting alternative transportation.

SoapBoxLA proposals:

Hire local – The City of Los Angeles could reduce congestion as well as its travel expenses simply by hiring local and encouraging city employees to walk, ride or use transit.

How is it that the Mayor’s first rep to Hollywood lived in Palmdale and commuted to Hollywood in order to represent the Mayor. Are there no people living in Hollywood qualified to work for the Mayor? (No word yet on the new rep)

Hollywood is on the Red Line. If the Mayor sends out the signal, his reps can jump on the Metro and be at City Hall faster than those traveling by single occupant vehicle. (SOV)

Take it all the way through the departments! A City Council motion to requiring the General Managers of City Departments to live in the city has been floating for years with no success. Not even GM’s are required to live in the city?

At one point, LADOT had a GM who commuted from home in San Jose to work in Los Angeles.

How great would it be if City Staff actually walked the same streets, used the same bus stops, shopped at the same stores and could actually relate to the issues of our unique communities from the inside, not just from workshops and discussions and hearings.

Hiring locally will also force us to confront the housing shortage. Staffers currently explain that their choice to live in other communities is based on a lack of affordable housing. We need to be talking about this and the answer is not to have City staff live in surrounding communities, it’s to grab the bull by the horns, confront the housing issue and get busy dealing with the shortage.

Once we’ve got staff out of the SOV’s and living in the neighborhoods they serve the next step will be:

Accessibility - Hold all meetings at locations that are accessible for peds, cyclists and transit users. This simple step will go a long way in reducing congestion in our neighborhoods. It will also go a long way in enlightening our City Staff on the issues faced by those who live in the neighborhood. Staff will truly experience first hand the lack of amenities for those who walk, pedal and ride transit.

For example, the Griffith Park Master Plan Working Group holds its meeting at the Ranger Station in Griffith Park. There is no evening bus service, it’s a long walk with minimal amenities for peds and it’s dark, way dark.

This commitment to meeting locations with full access should be complemented by full promotion on all meeting announcements of pedestrian access, bike parking locations and transit routes that service the locations. Current meeting information typically promotes parking directions as if parking is a birthright! Stop giving away “free parking” as if it’s free!

Once we’ve got the community out of the SOV-only paradigm, the next step will be:

Car Pool – Get the “City Family” to car pool with the other Agencies that hold meetings in our communities. In fact, hold the meetings together and perhaps even start to work together!

Our communities currently host meetings held by the LAUSD, the CRA, the Metro, SCAG, Caltrans, LAPlanning, LADOT, DWP, RAP, CERT, our NCs, our City Council, our City Council Committees, and it goes on and on. We’re getting met to death.

It is impossible to attend all the meetings of all the departments and agencies that have a piece of the neighborhood. It requires full time focus just to monitor, forget about participating and advocating and attempting to affect the process and the outcome.

If these departments and agencies held meetings in the communities together, perhaps they would get to know each other and perhaps they would start to work together.

For example, the LAUSD is coming to the neighborhood but they are unaware of the NC structure in the neighborhood, they are unaware of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. The community organizers were even unaware of the City’s early notification system!

Why is it up to the community to point out conflict and disconnect between departments and agencies?

Why is it up to the community to chase from one department to the next when the “Community Family” has a mandate to work together, represent the people and improve the quality of life in our community?

Three weeks ago the LACounty Transportation Funding Collaborative held an all day session entitled “It’s Time to Move LA!”

Two weeks ago SCAG held hearings on its Regional Transportation Plan.

Last week the LA City Council held an all-day session to present its Strategic Transportation Plan.

The Metro is currently holding Westside Extension Transit Corridor hearings.

The LA Planning Department and LADOT will be holding Bicycle Master Plan Workshops in the next few weeks.

All these meetings on transportation and traffic congestion relief and solutions (complete with free parking!) will wear out even the most committed of community activists.

Is this the intention?

If not, let’s consolidate, work together, bring the whole “Community Family” together and get back to the business of improving the quality of life in our community!

Ultimately, the Mayor’s simple proposal to get rid of some of the City’s motor pool has in it the ability to create significant connectivity in our city.

By hiring local city staff, by holding meetings that are accessible to all modes of travel and by getting the “Community Family” to carpool, literally as well as figuratively, we will have gone a long way to better representing our communities and improving the quality of life for all.