Traffic in LA.: Most Vulnerable Angelinos at Risk

CityWatch, Jan 17, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The honesty is refreshing but the revelation is contemptible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Hall Sharks Circling Neighborhood Councils

CityWatch, July 26, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 59

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LADOT: Driven to Distraction

CityWatch, July 5, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 53

RETHINKING LA - The City of LA’s Department of Transportation has been busy at work in our communities, removing crosswalks, increasing speed limits, dodging critical audits, and fixing tickets through the City Hall Gold Card program.

So busy, in fact, that they continue to miss the well intended and even better funded advice offered by the State of California on how they can bring Safe Routes to School money to the streets of LA, grants that would result in streets that are safer for children who walk and bicycle to school.

The federal (SRTS) and state (SR2S) Safe Routes to School programs have a simple mandate, to empower local communities as they work to make walking and bicycling to school a safe and routine activity. The funded projects include roadway and sidewalk improvements as well as education and encouragement programs.

The City of Los Angeles has a notoriously poor track record with Safe Routes to School programs and has repeatedly drawn the ire of the City Council for simply failing to perform. Four years ago Councilman Grieg Smith exclaimed "Our Department of Transportation is one of the slowest, most bureaucratic departments in the city, I am constantly banging my head against the wall to get them to do what I want them to do."

This outburst came in city council chambers when it was revealed that funding was in place to improve nearly three dozen of LA’s most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren but the work had not been done. LADOT’s Assistant General Manager John Fisher defended the department by explaining that the department was busy with regular and routine projects. “Safe Routes to School programs are ‘special’ projects.”

David Anderson, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said "Nothing is more important than the safety of children, which is why Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration are reviewing the projects administered by local agencies to determine actions for improvement."

Two and half years ago, the LADOT received a review from Caltrans that categorized LA’s proposals as “Boilerplate, cookie cutter applications with identical wording.”

The City of Los Angeles was taken to task for sloppy work such as attaching the same generic letters of support to each application in lieu of conducting actual community outreach and generating project applications with the participation of the impacted neighborhoods. “SR2S and SRTS applications must be prepared from the grass-roots ground-up, not from the top-down, as it appears the City of L.A. applications were.”

LA was also called out for disguising vehicular flow improvement projects as pedestrian and cyclist safety enhancements. “The City of Los Angeles consistently stuck to the same limited number of tools that generally favor traffic operation over safety.”

One of the reviewers wrote “As a resident of the City of Los Angeles it pained me to give low scores to my own city, but I did not feel poor applications could be given passing scores. Doing so would ensure no improvement in the future.”

That sentiment is rare in City Hall where the “Fair Share!” mantra reigns supreme and the commitment to quality proposals and efficiently implemented programs falls by the wayside.

The City of LA entered this most recent Safe Routes to School funding cycle on the “Red Flag” list, ineligible for funding because of a failure to implement prior funded projects. In short, LA qualifies for funding but fails to put that money to work on improvements and education that would make our streets safer for children as they walk and bicycle to school.

After exerting more energy beating the system than it would take to simply excel at the Safe Route to School program, the LADOT is now off the “Red Flag” list and in the process of delivering the current roster of Safe Routes to School projects, all of which work together to demonstrate a complete failure to improve since the last round of funding.

The LADOT is the lead department for LA’s Safe Routes to School funding. Theoretically, the projects can come from the community but, in practice, the process takes place within a committee made up of City Council and City Department representatives, resulting in projects that were recently approved by LA’s Transportation Committee with only cursory oversight.

The deadline for the current SRTS funding cycle is July 15, 2011 which leaves no time for active participation from the community on the prioritization of projects or input on the specifics of individual projects. LA will be submitting 10 infrastructure and 2 non-infrastructure proposals, apparently excluding parochial and private schools from the process as if those children don’t have the right to safe streets that accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.

When staff from Caltrans, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the LA Unified School District (LAUSD) and Ventura County collectively take the City of LA to task for consistently failing to perform in the Safe Routes to School funding program, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s program.

When the City Council takes the LADOT to task for waiting until the last minute to involve the council offices in the process, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s process.

When the City of LA repeatedly conducts the business of the people in a manner that excludes the public while applying for grants that require the participation of the community in developing the applications, it’s worth taking a look at LA’s Department of Transportation.

Most importantly, when the LADOT is busy defending itself against charges of inappropriate use of Measure R funding, double-dipping on federal funds, and other roadside distractions that consume management energy and focus, it’s worth taking a look at our streets and asking Mayor Villaraigosa “Who’s in charge of making our streets safer for our children?”

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

CityWatchLA - Streets are for People

CityWatch, Apr 22, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 32

What happens in Los Angeles doesn't stay in Los Angeles … it resonates! In fact, common wisdom holds that "As goes LA, so goes the nation." This was especially evident at this week's Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) conference in San Diego where almost 1000 traffic, public health, land use, law enforcement and advocacy professionals came together to leverage federal funding and implement safety initiatives that reduce fatalities on our streets.

Against the backdrop of LA's budget crisis and the proposed reduction of city services in an effort to close the $463 million deficit, the OTS funding, programming and partnership opportunities are all the more important.

Dr. Jeffrey Michael of the US Department of Transportation opened the conference with a big picture challenge saying "When it comes to traffic safety, we look to you for leadership in addressing distracted and impaired motorists."

Christopher Murphy, OTS Director, made it personal and challenged the conference participants to start by changing their own behavior. "It's up to the professionals to set the standard so stop multi-tasking and concentrate when you're driving."

Conference participants were presented with an array of opportunities to work together on engineering, education, encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement strategies for making our streets safer for all users.

LA was well represented at the conference and Ron Durgin, President of Sustainable Streets, said "Implementation of California's Complete Street Act is so much more likely when engineers and law enforcement and advocates all work together to make our streets safer for all modes, from peds to cyclists, from transit passengers to motorists."

For the people of Los Angeles, safe streets are much more likely if they are pursued by the local community in partnership with local advocates and City Hall.

The immediate opportunities on the horizon are the current Safe Routes to School funding, federal and state money that can be spent to improve local sidewalks and streets to encourage children on their school commutes.

For more information, visit OTS.ca.gov or SustainableStreetsLA.org or email info@SustainableStreetsLA.org

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

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.)

CityWatchLA - Speed on LA’s Streets: Who’s in Charge?

CityWatch, Apr 17, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 31

Got a speedy response from Councilman Greig Smith on my CityWatch article on speed limits and speed being a killer. His thoughts:

“I appreciate your concern about speed limit engineering studies. What is missing in your article is that we are REQUIRED by state law to readjust our speed limits every few years to properly reflect the average speed. If that is not done, or if the city CHOOSES to ignore that study, the city MAY NOT use radar on those streets. Considering that the most reliable ticket for speed is done by radar tracking, to not comply means that will be little or no enforcement on those streets. I have been to Sacramento to try and get he law changed for years. The legislature refuses to make changes to the law. I have always argued that this process automatically raises speeds each time you do it, until you reach a level of speed that is the maximum cars can travel on a road, regardless of what is safe.

I don't know if your were unaware of this law, or you purposely over looked it so you can blame the City Council for this, when it is clearly out of our control. Either way I believe a correction is warranted.”

GREIG SMITH
Councilman, 12th District

Councilman Smith is correct when he points out that my article failed to mention the state law addressing the establishment of speed limits and the use of radar/laser speed limit enforcement. The omission was not because I am unaware of the law nor was it because I wanted to blame the City Council for the law but simply because I have written about the law so many times that this time I left it out.

Nevertheless, here is a recap of the relevant "speed trap" law. California State law specifies that in order to use radar/laser speed limit enforcement, the speed limit of a street must be set based on a survey of unobstructed traffic during non-peak hours and the speed limit is to be set at the 85% mark. This speed limit survey is to be conducted every 5-7 years and if the speed limit certification lapses, law enforcement officers can't use radar/laser to enforce the speed limit.

Councilman Smith, in my opinion, is incorrect when he claims "it is clearly out of our control."

This is Los Angeles, the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world. Nothing is out of our control if we work together to make it happen.

1) John Fisher, the Assistant General Manager of the Department of Transportation, sits on the California Traffic Control Devices Committee which has been reviewing the "speed trap" law and the conditions for surveying and establishing speed limits. Communities throughout the state have expressed their frustration with the status quo. Is the City of Los Angeles doing all it can to encourage Fisher to fight for change?

2) Councilman Dennis Zine recently introduced a City Council Resolution calling for a revision to the "speed trap" law and the City Council approved it. Was this a simple gesture to appease community activists opposed to the recent wave of speed limit increases or was this the battle cry of a City Council prepared to fight for a change to State Law?

3) Assemblyman Paul Krekorian has introduced the "Safe Streets Bill" (AB776) that will allow local governments, through a public process, to consider pedestrian safety when reviewing local speed limits, not just the rising speed of passing motorists. Has the City Council taken a position on the "Safe Streets Bill" and are we prepared to go to Sacramento to support Krekorian?

4) While Fisher works the CTCD committee for changes and Zine takes that resolution on the road and Krekorian fights in the Assembly, the City of Los Angeles has a full tool-box of engineering solutions at its disposal including bulb-outs, road diets, refuge islands and other traffic calming devices that would put safety first.

The brutal reality is this, we are in the midst of a crisis. Our streets are crowded, our streets are dangerous and they're getting faster and faster, not safer. The presumption that motorists will drive at a prevailing speed that is safe is simply flawed. That speed may feel safe for the motorist safely inside a vehicle engineered for speed but that doesn't take into account the more vulnerable pedestrian or cyclist on the street.

The City of Los Angeles maintains speed limit certification on 700 street segments. Some of these surveys have been expired for years and some of the surveys rely on old data collected long ago. Why the rush to increase the speed limits when we have so many opportunities to work together to make our streets safer for everybody.

I spoke to Councilman Smith and he indicated that he has lobbied and testified in Sacramento in an effort to have the "speed trap" law revised so that local authorities have more control of their streets. He went so far as to call it "a stupid law" and said he is willing to continue the battle.

In response to my suggestion for traffic calming measures, he acknowledged that our streets are engineered for speed but countered that he thinks more law enforcement is the best opportunity to make our streets safer for everybody. He added that there is a real need for education, "especially in our multi-cultural environment with so many interpretations of the rules of the road."

He concluded our conversation by pitching another solution to the current crisis on the streets and that is to simply combine the City's grants programs under one Grants Department so that we can go after law enforcement money, education money, engineering money and do it effectively and efficiently. Currently each City Department conducts their own grants programs, some effectively and some ineffectively, but ultimately resulting in the City falling far short of our "Fair Share."

The opportunity is ours. I'm calling for a moratorium on speed limit increases. It's time for us to decide if we're going to work together to make Los Angeles the City of Great Streets or if we're going to continue to let people die in our crosswalks. It's our call. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and is a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Students Win 4-Way Stop for Hollywood School

CityWatch, Pub: Mar 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 20

Pulling a play from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," the students in the Hollywood Schoolhouse's Leadership Class successfully used the threat of a student march down Fountain Avenue to Councilman LaBonge's office, at first getting his attention, then getting his support and finally getting a promise of a four-way stop sign at the intersection of Fountain and McCadden. Not only that, it came with the assurance from LADOT Assistant John Fisher that it would be installed within two weeks.

The best part is, the march never took place. At first rescheduled and then finally cancelled, the students instead held a Thursday afternoon rally on their playground and hosted parents and LaBonge. It's a good thing the kids never marched because the sidewalk from the school to the Hollywood Constituency Center is narrow, uneven and broken. Add the uncrossable streets and the intense traffic and the route was hardly suitable for a protest march.

Of course, that's the point. Fountain Avenue is hardly an appropriate route for pedestrians. Yet that's the route the kids take every day when they walk from the school to their educational garden several blocks away. All on 3rd world sidewalks, past the neighborhood liquor store and alongside the traffic that weekly sends a car careening onto the sidewalk, into a fence or across somebody's front yard.

Debbie Wehbe, President of the Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council, reports "the area is simply not safe for pedestrians, not just because the intersection is dangerous to cross but because the cars speed around each other, causing collisions that occur on a regular basis." Wehbe pointed out the scarred fence, the skid marks and the narrow sidewalks that bear witness to the vulnerability of the pedestrians who dare to walk alongside the heavy traffic. "The last accident had a motorist racing at 45 mph from one stop sign to the next stop. It's madness!"

Brent Becker, a parent who has been involved with the school for 9 years reports that there was some opposition to the 4 way stop signs but countered "It won't slow down traffic, it's already at capacity. It will simply make it safer for our kids to cross the street."

The Hollywood Schoolhouse has been in the neighborhood since 1945. It has grown, just like the neighborhood and it sits in one of the most densely populated areas of Los Angeles and it suffers from some of the most intense cut-through traffic in the city.

Stephen Bloodworth, Head of School, was proud of his students explaining "Our school has a long history of civic engagement and in the tradition of its founders, we offered the students in the Middle School Leadership Elective class the opportunity to select a project. They organized themselves around the public safety initiative and selected the intersection of Fountain and McCadden for the focus. They wrote the speeches you heard today, they made the signs you saw today and they wrote the letters that drew the attention of our Councilman, all of which culminated in this victory for everybody."

Bloodworth was beaming as he surveyed the his students and declared "This is a great civics lesson that furthers our mission and makes it safer for our kids to go to school."

As for the intersection improvements at Fountain and McCadden, LaBonge was careful to point out that the stop signs would not be supported by crosswalks, explaining "Our studies show that there are more injuries to pedestrians when there is a crosswalk than when there is no crosswalk. You see, crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security." (Stephen Box is a transportation activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Getting LA Moving - A DIY Proposition!

CityWatch, Dec 19, 2008

Vol 6 Issue 102

LA’s Mayor is a funny guy with a wicked sense of humor. First he says it's time for a change over at the Department of Transportation and then he appoints Rita Robinson as the General Manager. Robinson has a long legacy with the City of Los Angeles, having served as the interim GM of Transportation, the interim GM of Housing, and in departments such as Community Development, City Administrative and Recreation & Parks. Robinson left her most recent post as the General Manager of the Department of Sanitation, bringing her unique blend of sameness to the Department of Transportation.

Right out of the gate, Robinson's presence was felt as she turned up at press conferences and smiled, turned up at Commission hearings and smiled, sat in Committee meetings and smiled and, on special occasions, showed up at City Council to bless the proceedings with a smile. Through it all, she managed to avoid any of the troublesome shifts in policy, vision, process and culture that would have actually resulted in a significant impact in the way DOT functions, but was instead able to wrap "more of the same" in a huge friendly smile.

Mayor Villaraigosa then tricked us with the Million Pothole Campaign. You know, the one where the City of LA fills a million potholes. It turns out that a "pothole" isn't actually a hole in the ground but is a unit of measurement. Like a bushel or a boatload. It must be one of those crazy European metric innovations he picked up on one of his jaunts to "anywhere but LA." All totaled, the City of LA poured a million units of asphalt, filling a metric boatload of holes in the ground but as for how many, we're still looking for a Texas Instruments calculator with "pothole" on one of the buttons.

LA's Safe Routes to School program was good for a giggle when it was discovered that the program was not so much about moving children as it was about moving money. Unfortunately, the joke was on LA as the traffic turned out to be two-way and the City of LA lost approximately a million dollars in SRTS funding this year.

In the "Just Kidding!" category was the Pico/Olympic traffic plan, notable not so much for its engineering merits but for the manner in which the Mayor and Robinson steamrolled the community, ensuring instant opposition and an economic stimulus package that immediately benefited the ranks of the City's consultants and attorneys.

Fresh from this stinging rebuke from the Westside communities, Robinson responded to calls for a Memorandum of Understanding between the DOT and Neighborhood Councils by flatly rejecting the idea, claiming "It's simply unnecessary. After all we already communicate." Councilman Alarcon called for a report on the MOU and the DOT responded with a report that failed to mention the MOU. Alarcon again asked for a report on the MOU, this time giving November due date. Robinson apparently misunderstood as the due date has come and gone with not a whimper out of the DOT.

Meanwhile, the DOT has addressed the problem of speeding motorists by simply raising the speed limit. Poof! Now they're driving legally. With the increased speed limits including Reseda Boulevard (50 mph alongside a bike lane) and Mulholland Drive (40 mph, prompting locals to call for skull & crossbones signage) locals were sure the efforts were a joke but this time the DOT was serious. Very serious. Turns out the revised speed limits were a key strategy in maintaining radar and laser speed enforcement which results in a significant source of revenue for the city. While other transportation authorities are espousing 30-35 as the optimum speed for capacity, through-put and safety, our leadership evaluates speeds based on the optimum revenue capacity. Look who's laughing now!

Through it all there was the talk. Lots of talk.

Wendy Greuel, Chair of the City Council's Transportation Committee, was on the road with the City's Transportation Strategic Plan. Well, actually, the plans for the Plan as there still isn't a Plan but there is much talk about the plans for the consultants and the plans for the funding and the plans for the parameters of the development of the final Plan. To Greuel's credit, she recognized the vacuum that represented the City's vision for transportation and has attempted to fill it, but at the end of the year, perhaps it's time to get everybody a pair of Nikes!

As for getting it done, Denny Zane's well attended and wildly stimulating Let's Get LA Moving conference brought together a Who's Who of transportation experts, gurus, savants and innovators, all focused on the mission of getting LA moving. This event was just one of the many "What's it gonna take?" happenings that were part of the groundswell of community support that led to the successful Measure R campaign. Through it all, Zane, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, Professor Shoup, County Supervisor Zev, and a host of politocos took to the streets, engaging neighborhood councils, demonstrating that when it truly matters, success depends on a relationship with the community.

Not to be outdone, the local DIY Transportation Team passed up the lure of billions of dollars of funding and simply took paint and sweat and a few friends and went to work improving the streets of the Eastside. Sharrows (shared lane) markings have turned up courtesy of Capt. Sharrows and the Fletcher Bridge received bike lanes and supporting signage, all courtesy of the DIY team. Apparently it's true, if you want it done right, DIY! The LADOT responded with uncharacteristic speed and confiscated the offending signage, removed the bike lanes and sharrows, and returned the streets to their original state of mediocrity.

While the paint and signage quickly disappeared, the debate over the integration of cyclists and motorists continued, coming to a head on July 4th as Dr. Christopher Thompson allegedly used his car to take out two cyclists on Mandeville Canyon Road in the road rage incident heard around the world. Shock at the incident brought attention to the nascent Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that went on to pick up endorsements from Neighborhood Councils, Advisory Committees and the Los Angeles City Council.

Through it all, it took a tragic incident in Chatsworth to remind us that the people of Los Angeles are at their best when things are worst. September's crash between a Metrolink train and a freight train left 25 people dead and 135 injured in the worst passenger rail disaster in modern Southern Californian history. in the midst of the wreckage, the Chatsworth and Porter Ranch Neighborhood Councils rose to the occasion and rallied the community to support and serve the victims of the crash and the emergency crews working around the clock to free those still trapped.

This was a humbling moment for us all as we were confronted with our mortality and the fact that it's crazy out there for everybody, regardless of how we travel. Whether we walk, ride a bike, drive a car, ride a bus or take the train, we must come together and work together to fund and implement innovative transportation solutions that move us safely and effectively throughout Los Angeles.

That's my wish for the Holidays! See you on the Streets! (Stephen Box is a transportation activist and writes for CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - LA’s Transpo Department Leaves $1 Million Unspent Bucks on the Table--Now Lost

CityWatch, Oct 17, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 84

Scapegoating
By Stephen Box

The City of Los Angeles lost approximately a $1 million in Safe Routes to School funding, simply by failing to execute the funded projects.

During the 2000 and 2001 cycles of the SRTS program, approximately $3 million was awarded to LA but the LADOT left one/third "on the table" meaning that it wasn't spent and that it's lost, not just to LA but to all applicants throughout the state. Money that could be spent somewhere, making it safer for children to walk and ride a bicycle to school.

All totaled the LADOT has qualified 31 projects in the last seven cycles of the SRTS funding program for a total value of approximately $11 million. Of those 31 projects, 11 have been completed. Of the remaining 20 projects, 10 projects are "underway" while five have simply been "initiated" and the remaining five show "no activity."

Through it all, the LADOT has taken an interesting tack, claiming that the City of Los Angeles should be getting awarded more money, simply because it's their "fair share" of the State SRTS pool. All this while failing to demonstrate a commitment to completing the projects and putting the awarded money to work in our communities, where it belongs.

In July, LADOT reported to the City's Transportation Committee and indicated that it works closely with the City Council offices on the selection of the projects but gave no indication that they had spoken to Neighborhood Councils or involved the public in the process. The Department report was heavy on a "Fair Share" complaint, arguing that the money should be allocated based on population rather than on project merit or on performance.

Imagine that, funding based on performance! The LADOT prefers the "Fair Share" approach.

In spite of the LADOT's commitment to keeping the dialogue limited to the funding aspect of the SRTS program, the public appeared and argued that the Neighborhood Councils had not been involved in the process and that there was no opportunity for the community to get involved in promoting projects.

Councilmembers Alarcon, Greuel and Rosendahl all gave the LADOT directions to include more projects that promote cycling as an option for kids to get to school and to involve the community in the process of selecting projects and working together to promote those projects. Committee Chair Greuel pointed out that something as simple as bicycle parking at schools would go a long way to promoting cycling as a viable option for kids.

LADOT's General Manager has continued with the "Fair Share" battle cry, appearing before the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition a couple of weeks ago and referring to the huge size of LA and the small size of the SRTS funds, all the time failing to note the large number of projects that have not been completed or the absolute absence of community involvement in selecting those projects.

Through it all, it's important that we keep in mind that this isn't about the LADOT, this isn't about the Transportation Committee, this isn't about SRTS funding, it's about creating a community where kids are safe walking and riding a bike to school.

Councilwoman Greuel reminds us, in her most recent newsletter, that it's simply not safe out there for kids. "In 2006 alone, 192 children Citywide were injured while arriving at or departing from school."

Dr. Enrique Penalosa, the former mayor of Bogatá, claims "Cars are to children today what wolves were to them in the Middle Ages. Is that the best we can do after 5000 years of urban history?" Penalosa is credited with transforming Bogata into a model city by raising the standard for greatness saying "the measure of a great city is not its buildings or freeways but whether a child is safe walking or riding a bicycle."

It's up to us as community leaders to "Partner in Greatness" by fighting to ensure that our children are safe and free of fear.

It starts with us working together to promote innovative SRTS projects that improve our communities and it continues with us judging the LADOT based on performance. Often harsh but always fair!

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