CityWatchLA - Hey! I’m Walkin’ Here!

CityWatch, June 23, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 50

Los Angeles took a small step toward becoming a pedestrian oriented city as a result of last week's "Pedestrian Safety" conference held across the street from City Hall at the Caltrans Castle.

Hosted by the local folks at Caltrans and sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the Caltrans State Division of Design, the conference was designed to help state and local transportation professionals address pedestrian safety issues through design and engineering solutions. Caltrans Director Doug Failing wasted no words as he set the course for the two day journey, declaring to the assembly of engineers, planners, public works administrators and community activists that his commitment to street use was "All modes, all methods." Short on words, long on impact.

There were moments of silence during the conference, such as when the speakers pointed out that California State Law doesn't just suggest that local authorities support pedestrian activity, nor does it simply require that they support pedestrian activity. The State of California actually specifies that "all levels of government" work to increase levels of walking and pedestrian travel. The stunned look on the game faces of the professionals who have spent entire careers moving cars was worth the price of admission.

There were also moments of lively interaction as debates broke out over jaywalking, crosswalks and the often referenced "false sense of security" that is touted as an excuse to remove marked crosswalks in Los Angeles.

All of these debates clearly illustrated that the "science" of engineering and planning is driven by philosophy and political will. To that end, a community needs to clarify its goals and use the tools to make them a reality.

A bit of revelation, a bit of revolution and the attendees were divided up into teams and turned loose on the streets of Los Angeles for a field trip where they were called on to assess the situation, apply the principles from the conference, and then to make recommendations.

Some teams were made up of representatives from the same agency and other teams were made up of representatives from different communities. While the "sameness" of some teams allowed them to reach consensus quickly, it was the "diverse" teams that had robust discourse and a much more detailed list of recommendations for improving the studied intersections.

This bit of discovery ended up becoming one of the workshop recommendations, that agencies incorporate robust design input from the beginning, all based on a commitment to include bicycling and pedestrian facilities into "all transportation projects."

Unfortunately, the studied intersections did not support the ambition and hope that multi-agency improvements would benefit from greater team input.

The first study intersection was recently "improved" by the City of Los Angeles and included potential partners such as the Metro and Caltrans. Several teams reviewed Los Angeles Ave. as it approaches the 101 and it didn't take long for them to come up with 25 basic recommendations for bringing the intersection up to standards.

The second study intersection was recently "improved" as the result of the Gold Line Extension and this was an especially distressing experience. When the many agencies involved in the Gold Line Extension put that much money on the streets and then ask pedestrians to cross the tracks twice in order to maintain their course, it is evident that pedestrians are still simply an afterthought.

What's it going to take for the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world get in line with Federal and State Law and make our streets safe and accommodating for everybody, especially those who are the most vulnerable, the pedestrians?

Tough questions, solid recommendations, great expectations.

"See you on the Streets!"

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)(Photo credit: LA.StreetsBlog.org) ◘

CityWatchLA - LADOT Demonstrates Need For Department of DIY

CityWatch, June 5, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 45

The City Council took another swing at LA's antiquated bike licensing program, taking the House of Molasses one step closer to a complete repeal of the controversial law. 

Cyclists have long complained that the Bike Licensing program was ineffective, pointing out that the licenses weren't actually available and that a database of registered bicycle owners wasn't actually maintained. 

Critics went further pointing out that the law was so poorly written as to require anyone riding a bike through LA from a neighboring community to purchase a bike license and that the fine of $160 for riding a bike without a license exceeded LA's authority under state law. Through it all, the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Police Department maintained a contract with Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for a program educating the public on "the need to register their bicycles." Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in recent years promoting a program that doesn't even exist! 

The issue came to a head last year when the LAPD pulled a group of cyclists over and began citing them for riding their bikes on the streets of LA without bike licenses. The cyclists charged that the citations were a form of harassment, that the LAPD pulled them over and then had to search the book until they could find an infraction. 

The editor of Los Angeles Magazine was on that ride and he detailed the incident and the "retaliatory tickets" in a feature article in the January edition of the magazine. 

This was the proverbial last straw and cyclists organized a "Storm the Bastille" ride and over 100 cyclists filled the City Council's Transportation Committee chambers and charged the LAPD with bias based policing, detailed the absurdity of the bike license program and called for its repeal. 

The LAWeekly was there for the meeting and wrote of the event quoting Rhode Bloch who at one point referred to   the LADOT's Bikeways Department asking "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" [Link] 

Streetsblog wrote of the event finding the showdown between Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to be one of the highlights of an emotional and energetic committee meeting.    

Through it all, the LAPD stood their ground! 
 
The cyclists persevered, charging that the process itself was the punishment, that cyclists either take the ticket and pay $160 (in person!) or take a day off from work to fight the ticket. Either option was unacceptable, especially since their only crime was to challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle by daring to ride a bike on the streets of LA in front of the LAPD. 

For nine months the controversy has simmered and this past Tuesday the Council motion calling for an ordinance repealing the law finally made its way to the full City Council. Phew! 

In spite of the fact that the Councilmembers all agreed on the need to repeal LAMC 26.01, they took the time to engage in a bit of pontificating that left audience members shaking their heads. 

Councilman LaBonge jumped to his feet and immediately shifted the debate "to the children" and pointed out that if a child was hit by a car while riding to school, how would we know the identity of the child? While this doesn't really address the complaint that the LAPD was writing $160 tickets to adults, all of whom carried ID, he raises a good point. 

But the bike license solution is hardly an effective solution to the "child identity" dilemma, especially since kids  borrow bikes, become separated from their bikes and sometimes ... gasp ... even walk to school which leaves us waiting for the LaBonge shoe license proposal. 

Councilman Zine stepped up to regale the audience of his glory days on the beat and of the times in which he was able to return stolen bikes to their owners, all because of the bike license program.   

Unfortunately much has changed since those days and the defunct bike licensing program is no match for the many techniques that today's cyclists employ to deal with bike theft. I was reminded of Rhode Bloch's exclamation at the Transpo committee. "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" 

Cyclists these days use a variety of techniques for "marking" bikes so that they can be identified and reclaimedby their owners. In fact while the LAPD is still relying on a cigar box filled with receipts and index cards, cyclists employ a variety of online resources to support safe cycling in the City of LA. Imagine if the City Council were to actually work with the cycling community! 

Cyclists can register their bike at stolenbikeregistry.com list their stolen bike on totalbike.com post or text incidents with motorists on BikeX post locations of crashes, hazards and thefts at Bikewise, email in Metro incidents to Metro@illuminateLA.com or hit-and-run incidents to HitAndRun@gmail.com 

All of this speaks volumes about the strained relationship between our City's leadership and the cycling community. 

As for the DIY movement in the cycling community, Bicycling Magazine recently highlighted the exploits of LA's Department of DIY and the recent short lived Fletcher Bridge bike lane improvements that were installed in the middle of the night and at no cost to the City of LA. 

The LADOT responded with uncharacteristic swiftness and the offending bike lane was painted black and the supporting signage was removed. Bicycling magazine quoted the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator as saying the DIY incident "lost goodwill." 

Rosendahl took some time during the bike license debate to address LA's relationship with the cycling community and he asked the same LADOT Bikeways Coordinator about the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that he has been championing since the horrendous Mandeville Canyon incident of last year that left two cyclists broken and bleeding, purportedly at the hands of a motorist who found their lane positioning offensive. 

The Bikeways Coordinator responded that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was still under review because there were a few items that gave them some concern and they were reviewing the document with the help of the City Attorney. This is the same document that opens by claiming "Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear." One can only wonder if it's the "travel safely" or the "free of fear" that gives the LADOT staff cause for concern. 

Rosendahl pressed on and went after the City's long overdue Bike Plan. When he asked the LADOT how many miles of BIKE PATHS there are in Los Angeles, the LADOT sidestepped the specific question and  instead responded "About 5% of the City's roadway network has a bikeways facility on it." 

(There are 6,500 miles of roadway in Los Angeles. There are 51 miles of BIKE PATH and there are 142 miles of BIKE LANE.) 

At the end of the day, the long, slow and cumbersome repeal of the City's Bike License law drove home the simple message that if the City of Los Angeles is going to become a bike-friendly city, it will be a Department of DIY project.  

“Cyclists across LA have until June 12 to review and offer suggestions to city planning officials on proposed new bike lanes that would traverse the city.” Complete LA Times report here .  

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

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 - The Valley on Speed

CityWatch, Apr 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 28

Our City's leadership, elbow firmly on the pulse of the community, is considering LADOT/LAPD proposals to increase speed limits on several Valley streets.

As neighborhoods throughout LA recoil in shock at the recent wave of pedestrian deaths, our City Council Transportation Committee continues to ignore the simple fact that speed kills.

On Wednesday afternoon, Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilmembers LaBonge, Rosendahl, Parks and Alarcon, will decide if the speed limits on Victory Blvd., DeSoto Ave., Balboa Blvd., and Zelzah Ave., should be increased. Zelzah Ave. was recently in the news as the location where Victoria Santos, 60, stepped into the crosswalk with a green light, only to be struck and killed by a motorist in a pickup truck.

Lassen's speed limit was increased by City Council action last year along with streets throughout the Valley.

Zelzah's speed limit was almost increased last year but an uproar from the community resulted in the proposal getting pulled at the last minute.

The speed limit proposals seem to come in small batches of up to six streets, usually spread out so that only one or two increases occur within any Neighborhood Council area. In spite of this low impact approach to increasing the speed limits throughout the Valley, NC's have gone to great lengths to oppose the increases. Woodland Hills-Warner Center NC has appealed to the LAPD, the LADOT, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Committee, all in an effort to prevent the speed limits in their community from being raised.

The City Council put their relationship with the Neighborhood Councils in perspective when it ignored the wishes of the people and raised the speed limit on Mulholland.

As for the upcoming increases, the LADOT and the LAPD argue that their hands are tied, that State law treats all cities alike, from Mayberry to Los Angeles, and that if we are to certify our streets for radar and lasar speed limit enforcement, we must raise the limits.

Los Angeles is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world. For our leadership to claim helplessness is to argue for mediocrity.

People are dying in our crosswalks. Our streets aren't safe for our most vulnerable of loved ones. Now is the time for our leadership to work with the Neighborbood Councils to make our city safer, not faster!

Councilman Zine has introduced a resolution calling for a revision to the law governing the establishment of speed limits. It won't go anywhere until the City Council joins him in making this resolution a priority.