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.)

Bicycle Awareness: For Those in Power, Ignorance is Still Bliss!

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 84

RETHINKING LA - Law enforcement officers are fond of quoting the popular standard "ignorance of the law excuses no one" when dealing with the public but when faced with an accusation of scofflaw behavior, suddenly ignorance is a solid defense.

The LAPD officers responsible for the blocked Bike Lane pictured above are going to have a hard time explaining why they were out shopping on Sunset Blvd instead of protecting and serving, but as for the illegal parking job, it’s not their fault. They merely need to plead ignorance and then point to the DMV.

After all, the DMV’s “Wilco Tango Foxtrot” interpretation of the California Vehicle Code specifies “You may park in a bicycle lane if your vehicle does not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a "No Parking" sign posted.”

From the top down, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles need to get together and embark on an education program directed at those in charge, those responsible for operating this state and this city.

Between the DMV’s car-centric creative interpretation of the law and the CHP’s complete ignorance of the rules of the road as they apply to pedestrians and cyclists, [link] it is apparent that the real opportunity to make our streets safer for everybody is to start with those in power.

Last year, the LAPD developed a Bicycle Awareness training [link] program for its officers that firmly established the rights of cyclists on the streets and replaced “ride to the right” with “ride where it’s right” as the principle for lane positioning.

Bike Activists were given the opportunity to participate in the development of the program and the Cyclist/LAPD Task Force was optimistic that the Bicycle Awareness training would have a significant impact on the streets, turning LAPD officers into partners, not adversaries.

Unfortunately, the mandate to participate in the training program was not as significant as the promises made to the cycling community and it is now easier to find officers who have never heard of the program than it is to find officers who have participated and who understand the concepts.

Just last week, a LAPD Supervisor responsible for special events went into a tirade over “cyclists who impede traffic by taking up the whole lane” and “cyclists who ride side by side.” The street that he was referring to, San Fernando Road, has two lanes in both directions with a left turn pocket in the center. This LAPD Supervisor needs to engage in some Bike Awareness training before he spreads any more mis-information about cyclists and “impeded traffic.”

The DASH bus operator pictured here was headed north on Vermont Avenue when he came up behind me and my wife as we rode our bikes in the curb lane. Instead of dropping behind us to pull to the curb, this guy honked from behind, then pulled alongside on our left, “asserted” himself and moved to the curb in the direction of his bus stop.

His willful violation of CVC 27001(a) and CVC 21750 clearly demonstrate that this “professional” bus operator is either ignorant of the law or a scofflaw, in either case, unfit for service.

The City of LA’s Department of Transportation is responsible for operating a fleet of 400 buses that provides 30 million trips per year aboard the DASH, the Commuter Express, Cityride, Shuttles and Charter services.

Simply training the operators of those 400 buses on the rights of cyclists would make the streets safer but that Bicycle Awareness program never made it out of the hands of the LAPD.

Passing a cyclist is no cause to honk, in fact it distracts the cyclist at the worst possible moment, in this case as the operator is about to illegally and unsafely force the cyclist from the road in violation of the prohibition against “interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle.”

Complaints to the LADOT typically result in an obtuse explanation of the Byzantine network of contractors who operate the LADOT’s transit system, one that allows the City of LA to avoid responsibility for educating its bus operators on Bicycle Awareness. (link)

LA County’s Metro is the largest operator of buses in the region and it still has a training manual that instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”

The Metro’s Chairman of the Board is LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and LA controls three other seats which are filled by City Councilman José Huizar, Richard Katz, and Mel Wilson. In other words, the City of LA has a tremendous impact on the operation of the Metro and a tremendous responsibility for its performance.

Perhaps it’s time to share the LAPD’s Bicycle Awareness program with the Metro!

LA’s Department of Water & Power moves a lot of equipment through the streets of Los Angeles, relying on a combination of staff and contractors to operate its fleet of trucks.

The incident pictured here is still being debated by LA’s policy makers and City Attorney, resulting in a clear demonstration of the need for greater education and an understanding of the rules of the road. Are crosswalks an extension of the sidewalk? If so, can cyclists ride in the crosswalk? If not, how do we explain the Orange Line Bike Path?

Through it all, once the debate is put aside, the important thing to remember is that the City of LA operates huge pieces of equipment on local neighborhood streets that are surrounded with homes, populated with families, and filled with pedestrians and cyclists who have as much right to the streets as the professional vehicle operators moving the City of LA’s equipment.

LA is a company town and our neighborhoods are Hollywood’s backlot. That’s one of the things that makes LA such a magical city.

But the people who issue film permits don’t seem to realize that a Bike Lane is a traffic lane, that it is not simply an extension of the parking lane. Most importantly, Trucks that are 8’6” wide don’t fit into a parking lane that is 7’ wide. [link]

The City of LA issues film permits and retired LAPD officers in uniform provide traffic control for the film shoots begging the question, “Who is responsible for their training and education?”

The film shoot pictured above should have lane closure and traffic control so that cyclists riding downhill on Sunset get the same respect that motorists would get if the lane ahead were closed.

Some of the greatest threats to a cyclist have nothing to do with the operators of large vehicles and everything to do with those responsible for repairs and maintenance. [link]

Detours that appear with no warning, manhole covers that aren’t flush with the surface of the street, cracks between asphalt and cement bus pads, gutter pans that aren’t flush, poorly positioned water mains, divets from special event equipment, and drain grates that run parallel to the curb are all deadly road hazards for cyclists.

For all the promise of Eurotopian Bikeway engineering, the real opportunity to engineer our streets for cyclists is to start by educating those responsible for maintenance and repair of our streets on the needs of cyclists and on the difference between a Hummer and a Huffy.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has embraced cycling as a viable mode of transportation and has committed to supporting cyclists with the full force of his Mayoral authority, directing City of LA department heads to partner with him in making LA a Bike Friendly city.

If he is serious about his commitment, he’ll make Bike Education a priority and he’ll start by educating the City Family on Bicycle Awareness, from the LAPD to the DWP to the LADOT.

Imagine 40,000 City of LA employees going about their business with a new sensitivity to how streets work, to the rights of cyclists, to the repair, and maintenance of streets so that they are safe for everybody.

For all the talk of “40 miles a year” of Bikeways improvement and millions of dollars in Measure R money, the real opportunity to move LA forward immediately is to embrace Bike Education, for cyclists, for motorists, for the LAPD, for the engineers, for the policy makers and the pothole fillers, so that the people who use the streets understand how to integrate cyclists into the traffic mix.

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

We ARE Traffic!

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

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

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

"We ARE Traffic!"

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Distracting from Bigger Issues

CityWatch, Aug 3, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 61

LA's City Council is poised to approve two contracts that will allow the LA Fire Department to outsource the Emergency Medical Services Billing and Collection System (EMSS) while implementing the Fire Department Field Data Capture System (FDCS). This will allow the LAFD to manage patient history data, communicate emergency information and initiate billing data collection on scene.

The anticipated approval of these contracts will mark the end of a journey that began eight years ago, addressing the issue of uncollected debts that was highlighted by the City Controller and the City Council during the recent budget debates.

While the $10 million contract with Scanhealth for a digital data transfer system promises to improve the delivery of services using digital data transfer, it is the contract with Advanced Data Processing Inc. that is positioned as an opportunity to improve billing collections and contribute to the City's General Fund.

In the 2009 fiscal year, the LAFD billed $151 million for emergency medical services but collected only $58 million. The outsourcing of the billing and the increase in ambulance fees are both positioned by the Mayor and the Controller as important steps that will allow the LA to deliver on the LAFD's mission while efficiently recovering the costs of the service. In addition, the proposal is designed to protect the City from exposure to Federal, State and HIPAA liability.

While there is some controversy over these proposals … unions want city workers trained to do the work and there is the charge that it constitutes double billing, once when the taxpayers fund the LAFD and again when they pay for the services as rendered … but by the end of Tuesday, it's expected that the contracts will be approved, the vendors will go to work on implementation, and the LAFD will continue providing world class service to the people of Los Angeles.

As for the Mayor and the City Council, now is the time for them to initiate a larger discussion on the issues that have been overshadowed by the current emphasis on increasing the LAFD's General Fund contribution through an improved data and billing collection process.

1) The Los Angeles Fire Department's PIO, Brian Humphreys refers to the LAFD as "The tip of the spear for an ailing health care system, providing primary medical care to a sizable portion of LA's population."

Statistically, it seems simple, increase the collection rate and increase contribution to the General Fund. But another way to approach this is to ask "Who is calling the LAFD and why are they going to the LAFD for primary health care?"

People with no money or with no connection to medical services are hardly in a position to respond to a more efficient billing process. They're symptoms of a larger broken system.

2) The Los Angeles Fire Department is a Social Services agency in communities such as Hollywood, addressing the mental, substance abuse, social, and medical needs of the homeless population.

One of Hollywood's LAFD Captains estimated that as much as 40% of their resources was dedicated to the task. An increase in the efficiency of the billing process will not address the fact that the LAFD has become the de facto caretaker of LA's invisible population.

3) The Los Angeles Fire Department spends an inordinate amount of time responding to traffic collisions, responding to approximately 100 per day and taking responsibility for emergency medical services as well as transportation of victims.

By contrast, the County Fire Department also responds but then relies on private ambulances to transport victims.

Increasing the efficiency of the billing process doesn't address the fact that the service itself might be better privatized in the case of traffic collisions and that unlicensed and/or uninsured motorists are not likely to respond to a more efficient billing process.

The City Council's pursuit of efficiencies in data management and in billing collections are commendable but these motions fail to address the larger issue of causality and of responsibility.

Whether it's the poor without health insurance or the means to pay for an ambulance, motorists or passengers without auto insurance, or indigent without MediCal/Medicare coverage, the fact remains that the City is quickly ending a conversation that should be taking place with the County, the State, and the Federal providers of medical services and support.

The Los Angeles Fire Department is a world class organization and offers everything from emergency medical care to the supervision of movie set pyrotechnic stunts.

The LAFD is also a leader in the training of community members for emergency preparedness in the Community Emergency Response Teams and Urban Search & Rescue Teams, an investment for the times that the LAFD needs support.

This ongoing work has resulted in a citywide full service Life Safety Network, a system that has proven its value during incidents such as the Griffith Park fire, the Station fire, and the Metrolink Train crash.

The first opportunity here is to move beyond simple data and billing collection and to fully support the LAFD by looking for systemic solutions that address homelessness, traffic collisions, and patients who lack medical services and support, all of whom currently rely on the LAFD for high quality and unconditional medical services and transport.

While the idea of reducing homelessness, traffic collisions and poverty may seem unrealistic, the opportunity for City Family efficiencies in the delivery of services is certainly worth exploring, not ignoring.

The second opportunity here is for the Mayor and the City Council to look beyond the LAFD as a simple General Fund contributor and to rally the city departments who are responsible for traffic safety on the streets, for social services, for connecting Angelenos with the County, State and Fed medical services, and for Emergency Preparedness and to work together to make sure that Los Angeles is pursuing maximum outside funding for the great work that the LAFD does.

(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 - Slow Down for Julia

CityWatch, Mar 9, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 19

Julia Siegler stood on the north side of Sunset Boulevard and looked at her school bus, parked on south Cliffwood Avenue. She looked to her left, began to cross the street and hesitated, getting knocked to the ground by one vehicle and then run over by a second vehicle.

Much can be made of the fact that Julia crossed the street against a red light, and it has. But not much has been made of the fact the two motorists left the scene of the traffic collision before the Los Angeles Police Department arrived.

The first LAPD press conference offered up incorrect information of the crash and of the motorists, sending the public and the LAPD on a goose chase that was resolved later that day when the two motorists made contact with the LAPD. Much could also be made of the speed of the motorists, but it wasn't. Questions as to the speed of the motorists were rebuffed with "Not an issue!" responses. (The question was "What was the speed of the motorists?)

Much could be made of the environment, but it wasn't. Sunset Boulevard is a very fast street with lots of motor vehicle traffic. Sunset and Cliffwood, the scene of the tragedy, is signalized so I asked the obvious question "Was the demand actuated ped crossing button working?" I didn't get an answer.

That prompted me to go and take a look at the traffic signals at Sunset and Cliffwood, along with the signals at the intersections to the east and to the west. Here's what I found.

Sunset and Cliffwood is an intersection with demand-actuated signals at all four corners, requiring pedestrians to use a push button to call for a pedestrian "walk" phase.



When I pushed the button, the response was immediate and countdown started for the east west traffic, shifting to amber and then to red. I've never seen such a responsive traffic signal. I tried it with traffic, without traffic, with cars on Cliffwood and with none. In all cases, that signal offered an immediate response and a ped "walk" phase within seconds. Was this signal operating like this on February 26 when Julia Siegler attempted to cross Sunset?

Further confusing, Cliffwood has four demand-actuated signals but the east/west ped "walk" phase is set for fully-actuated timing. In other words, it is always a walk phase unless shifting to red.

Sunset and Kenter, just to the east of the tragic crash, is an intersection with demand-actuated signals used to cross Sunset and fully-actuated signals to cross Kenter. That means peds only need to push the button to cross Sunset.



I pushed the button and waited. Nothing happened. No countdown, no chirping for the blind, no indication that I had done anything meaningful, significant, or likely to result in an opportunity to cross Sunset supported by the "walk" phase of the traffic signal.

I tried it several times and in the video you can see that it took almost a full minute and the arrival of three motor vehicles on Kenter to get a "walk" phase to cross Sunset. Kenter also only has crosswalks on three sides of the intersection.

Sunset and Burlingame is an intersection to the west of Cliffwood and it has one demand-actuated signal to cross Sunset and one demand-actuated signal to cross Burlingame. This intersection is odd in that the default setting for the intersection is an all red, yet anybody approaching from any direction gets instant recognition.



Motorists don't need to slow down or stop, the signal simply turns green as if to "approve" of their passage.

Pedestrians approaching the "all-red" intersection simply push the buttons and get an instant ped "walk" phase with no hesitation or countdown. I tried it several times, with and without oncoming traffic and it was uncanny.

If ever a pedestrian needs to feel powerful, simply come to this "first-come, first-served" intersection and hit the ped button. "Walk!"

Sunset and Bundy is a busy signalized intersection farther to the east of Cliffwood that gets fairly decent traffic from south on Bundy as well as both directions on Sunset.



This intersection also features fully-actuated signals for east/west pedestrians and demand-actuated signals for north/south pedestrians. The white "walk" phase is quite fast , requiring pedestrians to be in place and ready to move. Not really the hospitable environment for pedestrians.

On either side of Cliffwood, there are traffic signs with speeds posted, some white (regulatory) and some yellow (advisory). Traveling east, on the approach to Cliffwood where Julia attempted to reach her school bus, motorists are greeted by a yellow sign that "advises" motorist that the "comfortable" speed is 25 mph.



From the west, motorists are informed by a white sign that the speed limit is 35 mph and also advised that the "comfortable" speed is 30 mph. There is no better time than now to look at all of the signage on Sunset and ask "Why?" Is this the limit of LA's attempts to control traffic.

More "suggestions" and "advice" to motorists traveling too fast to even read the signs which then prompts the LADOT to embark on a billboard campaign advising motorists to keep their eyes on the road. "Slow Down" must be a regulation, not simply a suggestion.

Traffic engineers can probably explain the three-sided crosswalk configuration over the four-sided crosswalk. They can probably use a slide rule to justify the short white "walk" phase and the longer "flashing hand" phase of the three part crossing signalization.

They can even offer up the "Crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security" demonstrating that even traffic engineers make mistakes. (It was a question, not a conclusion, at the end of the infamous Berms traffic study.

Often misquoted and always misunderstood, it has served the LADOT well but the pedestrian community has suffered. Traffic engineers and law enforcement officers can work all day to explain the complexities of using radar/laser tools for speed limit enforcement, they can talk all day about through-put and congestion and capacity and friction and conflict and eye lines and they can try very hard to impress me with how complex the world of traffic control really is for the professional, forget about the amateur.

But the real question is this: Do pedestrians need a degree from MIT to cross the street?

Would it be too much to have some sort of "pedestrian" logic applied to the traffic signals at the four neighboring intersections on Sunset Boulevard? The pedestrians walk down streets like Cliffwood with no sidewalks.

They are trained to walk in the street with motor vehicles. They push buttons that may or may not respond, they stand and watch the world go by, sometimes reminded that on the food chain of Los Angeles transportation, they rate right up there with the trash (can) and that if they really want to cross the street, they need to get in an automobile like everybody else.

In the days immediately following Julia's tragic death, the LAPD and others put the emphasis on pedestrian and their responsibility for their safety. Good advice, but not enough.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to test the street signals, not just for demand-actuated responsiveness but for all phases and for all modes.

As a cyclist, I encounter intersections such as Sunset and Park or Sunset and Rosemont that won't recognize cyclists and won't cycle green unless a motor vehicle approaches.

Ever wonder who trains cyclists to run reds? LADOT. By the way, it's the law that signals recognize all modes, it's just not common in Los Angeles. The current failure rate for LA's parking meters is 20% which begs the question, "What's the failure rate for traffic signal sensitivity and accuracy?" Anyone can guess but why guess when people are dying.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to investigate speed as a factor. Nothing about LA's traffic will change without data and when I called to get the speeds of the motorists, the question was dismissed.

Standing at the corner and watching the oncoming traffic from the east, vehicles traveling 35 mph would have been slowing down traffic. That street is fast. If cars are moving, they pose a threat. The faster they move, the great the threat. We must have data.

The City of Los Angeles has an underground bunker below City Hall East where the LADOT operates the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system [LINK] but the LADOT doesn't play well with others nor does it share its data. That must change.

When there is a traffic collision, it must be standard operating procedure to evaluate that street, the community, the behavior of the people who use the street, and to ask the hard questions. Are we working together to make this street safe for all people? Are we making the safety of our most vulnerable a top priority?

Julia Siegler's death is tragic. It shouldn't have happened. It has resulted in a sense of helplessness in the larger community made up of Julia's neighbors and family and friends and schoolmates and even strangers.

An impromptu memorial of hundreds of flowers, candles, photos and stuffed animals, sits at the accident site at the corner of Sunset and Cliffwood, along with a sign that reads “Slow Down, For Julia.”

In Los Angeles, we name buildings after politicians, and we name intersections after children who get killed trying to get to school. That must change!

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

Cyclists claim their Rights, Smokey writes a Ticket

As thousands of cars idled in gridlock that resulted in miles of parked cars, LA's Park Rangers focused on the arrival of 50 cyclists, complete with General Services Bike Police escort, and stood prepared to enforce a law they couldn't identify, following the orders of people they can't identify, and finally writing me a ticket for "FAILING TO COMPLY WITH TRAFFIC CONTROL OFCR."

Friday, December 18th, marked the end of the pedestrian nights at the Griffith Park Festival of Lights and the beginning of the vehicular nights. To the city's credit, there were 14 pedestrian nights and there will be 13 vehicular nights, marking the first time in 14 years that the car-free nights outnumber the vehicular nights. As for cyclists, there was the token press conference "Bike-Night" and then nothing but the traditional "it's for your own safety" exclusion from the vehicular nights.



For the last four years, cyclists have ridden the Festival of RIGHTS, decorating their bikes and howling at the moon, riding the Festival a few rounds and challenging the prohibition on cyclists. This year was no different. Well, not much. When we arrived at Mulholland Fountain for the traditional milling about and socializing, there were two General Services Bike Cops who were very polite and friendly and who told us it was their responsibility to escort us safely through the Festival of Lights.

We rode, we howled, we enjoyed riding Griffith Park and we made lots of friends along the ride. At least that's what it sounded like as the cyclists and the people stuck in gridlock exchanged holiday greetings.

As we regrouped at the Zoo parking lot, we encountered Sgt. Kilpatrick of LA Rec and Parks. He artfully moved his vehicle so as to block us and then gave us a series of explanations on why we couldn't ride the streets of Griffith Park. I asked him under whose authority he was prohibiting cyclists while we watched the public drive their cars on the street right behind him. He said they were Rec and Park streets and they could exclude cyclists. I invoked State Law, pointing out that Los Angeles may be a big city but it hardly trumps State Law and CVC 21 is the Uniformity Code and it guarantees me the right to ride the streets that are open to the motoring public.


Sgt. Kilpatrick then invoked the special event argument, I responded by asking for the permit. He had none. I asked for his supervisor, he said he was it. I asked who gave the instructions to prohibit cyclists, he didn't know. We chatted for a while and he was very polite but firm, he said he would cite us if we violated the ban on cyclists in the park during the Festival of Lights. I asked what law would be violated and he didn't know. He really didn't know what law because when he wrote the ticket, it was for failing to comply.

Here are a few problems:

1) "It's for your own safety!" is code for getting cyclists out of the way of the motorists. It's not about our safety or the streets would be cleared of motor vehicles, intersections would be grade separated and motorists would be banned from the park. It's about moving motor vehicles and the plan was prepared by engineers who can't conceive of what to do with all of the humans.

2) Simple attempts to restrict cyclists must be resisted as a matter of principle. Los Altos went so far as to paint "NO BIKES" on El Monte Road before cyclists protested and won. Pasadena drafted an ordinance restricting cyclists from riding two abreast, making it to the second reading before cyclists again prevailed. In both cases, CVC 21 was invoked and used to demonstrate that local municipalities don't have the authority to restrict cyclists unless specifically articulated in the CVC. (Bike licenses, sidewalk riding and cyclists on the freeways are the exceptions) The Griffith Park prohibition is one of tradition and it is inappropriate and illegal.

3) The prohibition has no "Owner" and there is no accountability. Did Councilman Tom LaBonge direct the Park Rangers and the LADOT to prohibit cyclists from the Festival of Lights? Did the DWP determine that the Festival would be safer with no cyclists? Was it the LADOT who prepared the traffic plan for the Festival and determined that the two hour trek through the gridlock would be safer for the motorists if the cyclists were banned? Was it the Park Rangers who banded together and proposed a cyclist-free Festival? Why is it so hard to find the person behind the directive?

4) Sgt. Kilpatrick is in his third decade of service as a Peace Officer. How is it he stands prepared to enforce a ban on cyclists on the streets of Griffith Park, yet he can't identify the supporting law, he can't identify the authority who gave him his orders and he can't even offer up a reasonable defense of the absurd policy. He is the guy in charge. I would hope that he is enough of a professional to recognize that a man of his experience and his level of authority is of value because he thinks, because he asks questions and because he does what's right, not just what he's told. We are so far beyond the "I'm just following orders." days and the City of Los Angeles deserves better from those who operate under the color of authority. Putting on a badge and a gun means stepping up and doing what's right, not simply what is anonymously passed down as a directive.

5) The City of LA is in the midst of the worst budget crisis in our lifetimes. Rita Robinson, the GM of the LADOT, just met with the neighborhood council reps to tell them that the year-long Memorandum of Understanding meetings would not result in an MOU because she was unable to make any commitments in the middle of the current budget and staffing crisis. How then does she find the money to pay LADOT Traffic Officers to work Griffith Park wrangling the tens of thousands of motor vehicles that jam up the park and the surrounding community. Who is paying for the LADOT staff?

6) Rec and Parks stands to lose over 200 members of their staff as a result of the Early Retirement Incentive Plan. The department is in turmoil and local communities are being told that their parks are in danger of being closed and services restricted, all as a result of the budget meltdown. Meanwhile, the Park Rangers are out in Griffith Park with all of the trucks and gear, looking for cyclists who threaten the stability of the eco-system with their nefarious plan to ...ride their bikes on Crystal Springs Drive, the one with the bike lanes that get decommissioned during the holiday season to make room for more cars. Who is setting the Park Ranger priorities and who is directing them during the Festival of Lights?

7) The DWP has hosted the Light Festival ever since then-City Council President John Ferraro helped them think of it 14 years ago. How does the DWP get to host the Festival of Lights without pulling a permit, without paying fees that other organizations would have to pay if they wanted to put on a special event and dramatically impact the operation of the park as well as the surrounding community. How did the DWP avoid the rules and regulations and fees that apply to all other community groups and non-profits and special events?

8) The traffic on the 5 Freeway gets congested all the way back to the 134 Freeway, requiring mitigation and supervision from Caltrans and the CHP. In the last 14 years, have the operators of the Festival of Lights taken responsibility for evaluating the impact of the Festival on the freeway and on the safety of those who are caught in the congestion? Are Caltrans and the CHP voluntary partners with the Festival of Lights or are they simply responding to the disruption of service on the freeway?



Councilman Tom LaBonge of CD4, Jon Kirk Mukri of Rec and Parks, Rita Robinson of LADOT, and David Freeman of the DWP are all, at some point in time, referred to as the authority and the one in charge when it comes to the DWP's Festival of Lights in Griffith Park.

One of them needs to step up and take responsibility for the Festival of Lights.

That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the Mayor's commitment to making LA the Greenest Big City.

That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the City's current budget crisis.

That person needs to reconcile the current Festival of Lights with the Mayor's recent acknowledgment that he and the City of LA don't do enough for cyclists.

Most of all, that person needs to rise to the occasion and give the people of LA hope that even in the midst of these dire straits, there are people within the City of LA who will do what's best for the people of LA.

Happy Holidays and I look forward to seeing you on the streets of Griffith Park.

CityWatchLA - Mayor’s Electric Vehicle Dream Blows a Fuse!

CityWatch, Dec 4, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 99

Mayor Villaraigosa selected the LA Auto Show as the backdrop for the announcement of his "Plug-In Infrastructure" scheme that proposes to create a network of electric charging stations throughout Los Angeles, all in anticipation of the onslaught of electric vehicles that he is convinced will be the next expression of LA's love affair with the car.

"The car culture started here, and it’s here that the new generation of vehicles should also begin.” The Mayor bemoaned the fact that LA is typically #1 in traffic congestion and #1 in air pollution.

"We need to find new, cleaner ways to travel,” Villaraigosa intoned … with a sense of discovery.

Then he offered up the details of the latest strategy in his ongoing pursuit of the "Greenest Big City" title, this time banking on a partnership between Edison, the DWP, Nissan, GM, Ford and the neighboring communities of Burbank, Pasadena, Santa Ana and Santa Monica.

This "Plug-In" team would offer electric car owners incentives ranging from tax rebates for home chargers to high-occupancy-vehicle lane access to preferential or free parking.

This news failed to resonate in Hollywood where small business owner Bechir Blagui stands alone, on Hollywood Boulevard, electric community car-share business plan in one hand and electric plug in the other hand, waiting for help in establishing one simple, solitary charging station in front of his business so he can offer locals and tourists alike a sustainable car-share program … and contribute to Mayor V’s grand green plan.

Bechir has turned to the LADOT, the LADWP, Councilman Tom LaBonge and City Council President Eric Garcetti for help but his vision of a charging station on Hollywood Boulevard is still just a dream.

Meanwhile, Garcetti found time to stand as Villaraigosa's wingman for the "Plug-In" press conference where they committed to a network of 500 charging stations consisting of 400 refurbished stations and 100 new stations complemented by the subsidized installation of private charging stations at homes and businesses.

Villaraigosa said "It is crucial to prepare for the expected influx of thousands of electric vehicles."

Garcetti added, "This initiative will bring together regional stakeholders to coordinate efforts that will streamline charging station installations at homes, business, and multi-family residential buildings, explore and expand public charging options, and create incentives for EV drivers."

Critics point out that vehicles, regardless of power source, take up space and LA's new focused support of zero emission vehicles hardly qualifies as a congestion relief solution.

Max Utility explains that there are almost six million registered vehicles in LA County which, at 119 square feet of space each, occupy 25 square miles of space when parked. (For perspective, note that Manhattan Island is just 22 square miles!)

Max concludes by pointing out that the average vehicle spends 95% of its life parked, which leaves all vehicles equal environmental offenders and consumers of valuable real estate in LA, America's capital of congestion.

Somehow lost in the rush to "Plug-In" is the recent report issued by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which offers up "First Mile, Last Mile" solutions that would encourage people to get out of their cars and onto mass transit.

Recognizing that getting to and from a Transit Hub is an obstacle for many potential transit passengers, SCAG spent $125,000 to come up with solutions that would help people navigate the home-to-transit and transit-to-home journey.

LADOT's GM Rita Robinson and City Planning's GM Gail Goldberg gave a co-presentation at a special combined meeting of the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission where they unveiled the SCAG report with great fanfare.

The $125,000 ideas included ... brace yourself ... Carpooling, Taxis, Short-Term Car Rental, Folding Bikes, Bike-Share, and Car-Share."

Less than three months ago Villaraigosa, again at a press conference, attacked congestion and air pollution and offered as the remedy a car-share program.

"Providing alternatives to car ownership will help improve the environment and the city's traffic congestion," he told the gathering. Then he cut the ribbon on a partnership between the City of LA and ZipCar, a large car-share company that made a small commitment to place less than two dozen shared vehicles in a city of four million people, all in return for an exclusive relationship and the use of dedicated parking spaces.

The "Car-Share" concept keeps coming up as a congestion relief solution and successful programs in other cities have demonstrated that a single shared car can replace ten privately-owned vehicles and that car-share participants end up driving less than when they owned a vehicle.

Participants enjoy the use of a vehicle when it's needed without the expense of owning, registering, insuring, storing and maintaining a vehicle that will spend most of its life parked and waiting to be driven.

A survey of the USC and UCLA ZipCar programs reveals that the cars are popular and that car-share participants enjoy easy access to a vehicle and reserved parking when they return, all for a simple membership fee and an hourly rate.

Villaraigosa has promoted the benefits of car-share programs. He has promoted the benefits of electric vehicles. He has committed to supporting both car-share programs and electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, citizen Bechir Blagui puts "car-share" and" electric vehicle" together and gets ... well … ignored.

How can the City of Los Angeles ignore the needs of a small business operator, one who simply needs assistance in the process of installing a charging station on Hollywood Blvd. at a parking space dedicated to the use of electric cars? After all, he's simply asking for the assistance that Villaraigosa promises in his press conferences when the microphones are on and the cameras are flashing.

At Tuesday's Auto Show press conference, Villaraigosa promised that city officials would streamline the permitting and inspection process for the new charging stations.

He promised that local building codes and standards would be revised and that the utilities would modify their customer service process to better accommodate the charging stations.

He even went so far as to claim that his "Plug-In" program would lure battery and charging stations to Los Angeles resulting in masses of green jobs while Angelenos reduced their reliance on foreign oil.

Unfortunately he didn't promise to answer the phone when citizen Bechir called for help.

Earlier this year President Barack Obama proclaimed "Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities and towns across the country. Over the last decade, small businesses created 70 percent of new jobs, and they are responsible for half of all jobs in the private sector. They also help enhance the lives of our citizens by improving our quality of life and creating personal wealth. Small businesses will lead the way to prosperity, particularly in today's challenging economic environment."

When Villaraigosa was first inaugurated as Mayor he referred to Los Angeles as the city that best embodies bold dreams. He asked the people of LA to join him in his dream for LA. He called on LA saying "Fellow Angelenos, let's make Los Angeles a city of Purpose! Let's dare to dream! Let's dare to dream together!"

If Villaraigosa is serious about "daring to dream together" it means supporting others in their dreams.

To do that, he'll need to step out of the limelight of the LA Auto Show and onto the streets of Hollywood where he'll meet people who have big dreams … and can help bring his Plug In program to fruition … who simply need the City to do its job.

If he really wants remove the hypocrisy from his promise … really wants to make a difference … he'll grab LaBonge and Garcetti and together they'll power up Bechir's dreams of LA's first electric car-share program on Hollywood Boulevard.

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

CityWatchLA - Zero Deaths, Everyone Counts

CityWatch, Apr 21, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 32

California's Office of Traffic Safety, the department that administers traffic safety grants, recently convened a statewide Summit and, for the first time, invited bike activists to participate. I was honored to receive a "scholarship" to the conference in San Francisco.

Given the recent spike in pedestrians deaths in Los Angeles coupled with the City's current financial woes, I fully expected to encounter a full contingent of City Council and DOT representatives, all with grant proposals in hand and all asking "What can we do?" But such was not the case.

What I encountered was 750 people from around the state, ranging from law enforcement officers to traffic engineers to public health advocates, all marching under the banner of "Toward zero deaths, every 1 counts" and all committed to working together to not just lowering the number of deaths on our streets but to eliminating them altogether.

The uniqueness of this conference was apparent at registration when I was handed a flyer that reminded guests "do not leave service revolvers unattended in the guest rooms." It continued at the opening session when the call to order included a moment of silence for those law enforcement officers and road maintenance workers who had been killed this past year while working to make our streets and highways safer for everybody.

During the conference I had breakfast with a Police Officer from Vernon, population 100, who wanted to know how he could address the safety of the "workforce" cyclists who work in Vernon and ride the sidewalks, often after dark, and who don't know the rules of the road.

I had lunch with a Police Officer from San Francisco and heard first hand how they were able to establish a working relationship with the cycling community, all while making safety a priority and somehow accommodating a Critical Mass ride that regularly draws thousands of cyclists to the streets.

I had dinner with traffic engineers who punched holes in the "crosswalk removal" studies and the "false sense of security" mythology that is so often referenced as the LADOT reevaluates and removes our crosswalks.

Through it all we heard of the current trend in traffic safety which is to focus on surviving the collision, a scenario that leaves the pedestrians and cyclists on the street as vulnerable or more vulnerable than ever. While the mileage death rate is at its lowest point since it began being measured, speed-related fatalities are on the rise.

Tom Vanderbilt, author of "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), drove home the point that our greatest opportunity for improving safety lies in modifying motorist behavior in order to prevent the collisions, not in simply engineering to survive them.

As the conference progressed and the speakers offered solutions from all directions it became apparent that there is no simple answer but that there are a multitude of approaches and our greatest opportunity is to simply lay down some priorities and to work together to make them happen.

To that end I am pleased to announce that pedestrian and cyclist safety is one of the eight areas of focus for the Office of Traffic Safety, that the OTS is keeping track of the numbers and that the OTS mission is to effectively and efficiently administer traffic safety grants that reduce traffic deaths, injuries, and economic losses.

The hard questions for the City of Los Angeles is these:

• What are LA's priorities for safety on the streets?
• Does LA evaluate pedestrian, cyclist and motorist safety?
• Is LA going after the funding that will support efforts to make our streets safer for everybody?

(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 - DOT GM Robinson: “Time for Great Opportunity”

CityWatch, Jan 27, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 8

The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment convened the first of three NC Town Halls this past Saturday, drawing approximately 50 community leaders to the Valley Civic Center for a session that was heavy on speakers but light on content.

Rita Robinson, GM of the Department of Transportation, was the headliner and her casual style drew positive comments from the audience. Dismissing pessimists and optimists alike, Robinson urged the community to partner with her as realists saying "We are a city in crisis, we are a nation in crisis, but it's also a time of great opportunity. Our challenge is figuring a way to work together to put our money to the best use possible."

Robinson opened the room up for public comment and literally the entire room rose, causing traffic jams at both microphones. NC reps immediately went local, very local, addressing specifics to their neighborhoods that demonstrated the huge chasm between City Hall's high-altitude bombing approach to transportation and the reality on the streets.

A pastor of local church spoke of a 20% reduction in attendance as a result of the recent adjustment in parking policies in his neighborhood, eliciting from Robinson, "I'm all in favor of folks going to church, Heaven knows we need the prayer!" She promised to look into the local issue of street parking as well as the many other red curb, left-turn, debris-in-the-street, misplaced-transit-stops local issues that help the focus of the attending representatives.

There were a couple of speakers who went a bit more global, such as August Steurer, PLUM Chair from Woodland Hills Warner Center, who pointed out that as the community works so hard to address land use issues, it's tough to advise on Planning and Development if the local community doesn't know what's going on with Transportation. He urged the department to join with Planning in early notification of local work and projects so that they can be integrated.

The event was initially billed as a Neighborhood Council "Valley Training Day" but somewhere along the line, it shifted into a Town Hall meeting.

Councilmembers Richard Alarcon, Wendy Greuel and Dennis Zine opened the session, all professing their love for Neighborhood Councils and all managing to lay down a foundation of "budget crisis" along with a dose of "lower your expectations, 'cause we're out of money."

Councilman Alarcon spoke of the Council File Motion and expressed his commitment to working with Neighborhood Councils to make sure that it became a viable mechanism for NC involvement in City Government. Councilwoman Greuel informed the attendees that Angelinos spend an average of 93 hours a year in traffic, forgetting that this same crowd probably spends an average of 94 hours a year listening to reports on traffic, all while waiting for a couple of minutes at the microphone. Councilman Zine spoke of his world travels, admonishing the crowd to lower their expectations. "I've traveled all over the world and, in comparison, it's not so bad here!"

Commissioner Al Abrams, Isaias Cantu of the City Clerk's office and Vivian Swanigan of the City Attorney's office all took a turn at the carefully choreographed and well-timed session, complete with "Wrap it Up" cue cards and featuring Gong-Show enforcement, delivering what could be best described as a living bulletin full of announcements.

BongHwan Kim, GM of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, speaking under the same stopwatch pressure as the others, explained that the heads of departments throughout the City have complained "We just don't know how to relate to Neighborhood Councils. We have a lot of information that we need to communicate but we don't know how." (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCretive.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 - Speed Limit Decision Held Up for NC Input

CityWatch, Jan 16, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 5

The City Council's Transportation Committee put the brakes on the LADOT's proposed West Valley speed limit increases, directing the LADOT to allow the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council (WHWCNC) the opportunity to weigh in on the Corbin Ave., Fallbrook Ave., and Mulholland Drive surveys. Public opposition to the five proposed speed limit increases included several different objections but it was the simple complaint of flawed civic engagement, of ineffective outreach, of a year long journey without public participation that resonated most. The Committee resolved the issue by deferring City Council action until after the community and the LADOT take the proposals to the public.

Of the five speed limit increase proposals on the agenda, two of them, Saticoy Street and White Oak Avenue, were not affected by the Committee's ruling. They stand approved and there will be no additional public presentation or hearing before they go to the City Council for final approval.

At issue is the routine maintenance or recertification of the speed limits on the City's streets that are certified for radar or lasar speed limit enforcement.

There are approximately 700 street segments in the City that are certified for radar or lasar and each year approximately 100 of them come up for recertification. Of those 100 speed limit surveys, approximately 20 resulted in recommendations of an increase in speed limit so that the prevailing speed might better match the speed limit.

This process is in accordance with the State's 85% rule, aka the "speed trap" law, which calls for the setting the speed limit so that 85% of the motorists are considered driving at legal speed, which then allows the LAPD to enforce the speed limit with radar or laser. Or as the LADOT's Principal Engineer, Allen Willis, puts it: "In other words, the public gets to vote on the speed limit with their gas pedals."

Arguments against the process include calls to explore street calming techniques so that the prevailing speed matches the speed limit. Instead of raising the speed limit, for example, using tools such as speed humps, speed tables, road diets, lane reconfiguration, signal positioning and signal timing, that would make the streets more accessible to other modes of travel, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

"This is great for our Neighborhood Council and for our community.,” noted Jim Anderson, Chair of the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council Public Safety Committee, “Our commitment is to partner with the LAPD and the LADOT to make sure our streets are safe for everybody, not just for motorists but for everybody. The Town Hall that I'm planning will give us the opportunity to work together and to engage our community." (Stephen Box writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreateive.net )

CityWatchLA - The Sound of Death on LA’s Streets…and No One is Listening

CityWatch, Oct 10, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 82

LA Traffic
By Stephen Box

Two weeks ago, in the early evening of a warm Friday night, Michael Duffin parked his car on Hazeltine Avenue, across the street from his home in Valley Glen, a quiet residential community in the south Valley of Los Angeles.

He pulled up behind two of his neighbors who had just parked on the street and who were standing next to their cars engaged in a conversation.

Hazeltine Avenue, in the half-mile stretch between Oxnard and Burbank, is a dimly lit street with parking on both sides, one lane of travel in each direction and a median strip to accommodate left turns. It has no crosswalks, no stop signs, no signals, no speed bumps, nothing to slow down the traffic that flows unimpeded through the neighborhood. Duffin exited his car holding a bag from Burger King and began to cross Hazeltine mid-block between Hatteras and Emelita.

He made it two-thirds of the way and was in the northbound lane when a car traveling in excess of 60 mph hit him, throwing him 80 yards up the street. He landed at the corner of Hazeltine and Emelita.

He never saw it coming. His neighbors across the street never saw it coming. They reported hearing the sound of an impact “like a car hitting another car. It was loud and it was solid. We looked and then we saw Michael lying in the street.”

The driver of the car never stopped. Michael Duffin was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Michael was not alone. Two hours later Jose Silva left a sporting event at Cathedral High School in Chinatown and began to cross the street when he was struck by a speeding car as it ran a red light, hitting him with such force that he was thrown forward and then hit again by the same car. The driver of the car never stopped. Jose was pronounced dead at the scene.

Unfortunately, these incidents aren’t unusual or even uncommon. In fact they’re barely news. In the days that followed, a motorist racing down La Cienega at 125 mph crashed head-on into a mini-van, killing himself and severely injuring the two occupants of the other vehicle.

On Victory Boulevard, a motorist traveling at 90 mph lost control and hit a tree so hard that a front wheel broke off and flew into the bedroom of a nearby home. The motorist was killed. The occupants of the home were unharmed.

Our streets are engineered to move traffic. They are filled with high-performance vehicles operated by low-performance motorists. In terms of lives lost, only cancer and heart disease have a higher toll than traffic.

Recent debates over speed limit increases in order to provide for radar enforcement fail to address the fact that our streets are engineered for speed and our neighborhoods are under siege.

A decade ago, a motion was introduced to the Los Angeles City Council, recognizing that with the continuing growth of the City “traffic problems such as excessive speed, commuter shortcuts and spillover from commercial developments are becoming increasing serious in residential neighborhoods and are adversely affecting the quality of life more than ever before.” The motion went so far as to call for traffic-calming measures including “speed hump installation, narrowing of paved roadways and the installation of speed-limit signs and other measures designed to discourage unnecessary traffic in residential neighborhoods and reduce the speed of vehicles traveling through them.”

It concluded by calling on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to protect residents “from traffic flows that are excessive or inappropriate for their neighborhoods” and to create a Neighborhood Calming Section.

Since then, there have been many innovations in traffic calming techniques including roundabouts, ped scrambles, pelican crossings, bulb-outs, safety islands and shared streets.

Since then, community members are becoming more emphatic about reclaiming their streets, about creating neighborhoods where kids can walk to school, where streets are crossable and where the quality of life is more important than maintaining “alternate routes.”

Since then, community members have become more active and educated and committed to promoting innovations in transportation and not just those who have traveled to Europe. One only has to visit West Hollywood to see bicycle boxes and pelican crossings, roundabouts and safety islands that make one slow down just to watch, in envy, as environmental solutions provide equality for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and mass transit passengers.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the LADOT is busy installing ped scrambles in ten different locations throughout the City. Ped Scrambles are all-walk phases of an intersection that provide pedestrians with the option of crossing the intersection diagonally.

While the LADOT is to be applauded for its implementation of the ped scramble, members of the community are left wondering how this all came about with no contact with the community. It’s not that the idea is bad, it’s just that the community might have some insight as to the best intersections, based on first hand experience.

All of which brings us to the real opportunity for innovation in transportation in Los Angeles and that is to engage the community in the process.

Its local community members that know which Franklin Avenue valets are racing through which side streets at midnight. They’ve got a proposed solution, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local community members that have Woonerf plans already drawn up, all in an effort to reduce the speed of the cut-through traffic on their residential street, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local cyclists who can tell you that there are 34 streetlights burned out or missing on the Cahuenga Pass, making dodging the uneven manhole covers and potholes difficult at night, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local bus passengers that can tell you which intersections are tough for bus connections and great for ped scrambles, if anyone is ready to listen.

It’s local pedestrians who can tell you which streets are simply not crossable on foot, if anyone is ready to listen.

The people of Los Angeles deserve more from the LADOT than an email address and the opportunity to submit questions, if properly formatted and vetted by committee, board and then chair.

The people of Los Angeles deserve the right to participate in the vision for their community … from the beginning, and that includes our plans for how we move, how we get about and how we share our public space.

It’s time for the LADOT and people of Los Angeles to partner in making our streets great places for walking, for riding, for living and for sharing, for all modes of travel. For making them safe for the Michael Duffins and Jose Silvas. And the hundreds of other who will follow to their sad ends if the LADOT doesn’t engage the community and take action now.

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

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

CityWatch, Sept 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 74

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - LADOT Dragging Their Feet on LA’s Crosswalk Death Traps

CityWatch, August 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 65

Who’s Listening to the Neighborhoods?
By Stephen Box

A little over six years ago, Jennifer Liu finished her school day at Granada Hills High School, walked off the campus and into the crosswalk at Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street where she was hit by a car.

The impact of the collision was so great that the halves of her brain were separated. Her collarbones snapped, her ribs were broken and one of them speared her right lung. Blood trickled out of her ears and nose.

Jennifer spent five weeks in a coma. Against the odds, she awoke, relearned everything she knew and went on to graduate from High School and then from College. Looking back on the incident outside Granada High School, Jennifer wonders if the collision wasn’t God’s way of saying, “Slow down, stop racing.”

Jennifer’s father, David Liu, came out of the experience committed to improving the Zelzah Avenue and Kingsbury Street crosswalk. Community members, school staff and school supporters joined him in the fight, all in an effort to have the City of Los Angeles install a “smart” crosswalk, one that would alert motorists to the presence of a pedestrian.

The battle has not been easy.

Last year the City Council addressed the fact that 33 of the most dangerous street crossings for schoolchildren had not received safety improvements even though the city has had funding for the work for years.

LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher blamed the 2001 hiring freeze for putting them behind schedule and explained that the department had picked up the pace on special projects since hiring an additional 13 workers in 2006.

One councilman angrily responded, "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."

As for Zelzah and Kingsbury, ground was broken months ago, equipment was installed and the “smart” signal remains wrapped up and inoperable.

Community advocates, parents and school staff are frustrated with the situation, one that is aggravated by the LADOT’s recent proposal to raise the speed limit on Zelzah Avenue, all as the community works to calm traffic and address the congestion in the area.

The LADOT pleads helpless in the speed limit raising proposal, pointing out that they merely conduct the engineering and traffic surveys that are required as a condition of certifying the speed limits, all in accordance with state law as a condition of using radar to enforce speed limits.

Which means, the LAPD can’t use radar on speeding motorists until the speed limit survey certifies the speed limit, but the large number of speeding motorists “vote with the gas pedal” and the new speed limit is set at the 85% mark so the speed limit is raised. Now the LAPD can use radar on the motorists who are now not speeding because the speed limit just got raised.

All of this on Zelzah Avenue, which still does not have a functioning “smart” crosswalk at Kingsbury.

Through it all, community members are asking the LADOT, the Transportation Committee and the Transportation Commission how all of this takes place without community involvement.

Two weeks ago, the Transportation Commission rejected three LADOT requests for speed limit increases in the West Valley simply because they had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils as part of the process.

Last week, the Transportation Committee had six LADOT requests for speed limit increases on the agenda. Members of the community spoke in opposition, arguing that the proposals had not gone to the Neighborhood Councils, that the proposals were in conflict with efforts to calm traffic and establish walkable, rideable, livable communities and that the criteria for evaluating appropriate speed limits was outdated and ineffective.

The Transportation Committee pulled the Zelzah Avenue proposal and then approved the other 5, including Reseda Avenue, which would increase the speed limit from 40 to 50 mph alongside a bike lane.

Community members continue to ask the hard questions:

Who sets the priorities for the Department of Transportation?

Why are the Neighborhood Councils not involved in evaluating and advising the city on transportation projects in their communities?

What is the LADOT’s record for delivery on Safe Routes to School projects and what happens to the funding on projects that the LADOT fails to deliver?

(Stephen Box is a long-time community issues advocate. Box writes for CityWatch.)