CityWatchLA - Neighborhoods Want a Voice on Speed Limits

CityWatch, Nov 11, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 91

LA Traffic
By Stephen Box

The LA Department of Transportation is chomping at the bit, standing by with 20 proposed speed limit increases for the Valley, all the while claiming that their hands are tied, that they are simply abiding by State Law and that in order for the LA Police Department to use radar enforcement, local speed limits must be set based on the 85 percentile mark.

In other words, "motorists vote with the gas pedal."

Six of these speed limit revisions are up for approval by the Transportation Commission on Thursday 10 a.m. If approved, the proposals go to the Transportation Committee and then to the City Council for final approval. The process takes a little over a year from initiation to Commission presentation.

In spite of the long journey, the LADOT doesn't notify the Neighborhood Councils until, in this case, seven days in advance of the Commission meeting. Granted, it's more than the legal minimum of 72 hours but with a one year lead time involving the DOT, the Council office, the LAPD and the City Attorney, a seven day notice hardly communicates a sincere desire … much less a commitment … to involve the community.

Meanwhile, the State of California is considering revisions to the state law regulating the establishment of posted speed limits and is considering a proposed modification that would allow local municipalities a "soft floor" that would provide a mechanism for setting legal and radar enforceable speed limits at lower than the 50 percentile, simply by documenting the mitigating conditions and justification for the lower speed.

The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) took public comment on this issue at its September meeting and also took written recommendations from the City of Carlsbad, the City of Escondido and the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs' Association. The draft minutes for this meeting indicate that the City of Pasadena, the City of Thousand Oaks, the City of San Jose and the California Police Chiefs' Association were also all in the mix.

With all of the recent debate over the LADOT's proposed speed limit increases, how is it that the communities in the City of LA didn't hear until now that the statewide standard for setting speed limits is under evaluation and that a recommendation for revision is being entertained by the California Transportation Department? After all, the City of Los Angeles is represented on the CTCDC by LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher.

If you think the speed limit for your street should be set by the motorists who cut through your neighborhood, sit back and let the LADOT slide those speed limit revisions through the Transportation Commission and the City Council.

If you think the speed limit for your street should be set based on the unique character of your street, your neighborhood and your community and should accommodate the pedestrians and cyclists who might also use the street, speak up.

If you'd like to see us develop and use more tools for traffic calming and enforcement, speak up and challenge our leadership to innovate and to support healthy neighborhoods where a commitment to quality of life is a reality, not simply a campaign promise.

If you think that your opinion matters, email Will Kempton, Director of the California Department of Transportation at will_kempton@dot.ca.gov to view it and urge him to provide local communities real tools for traffic enforcement including a "soft floor" on the 85th percentile rule, a reduction in the reliance on the 85th percentile rule and support from Caltrans in the use of alternative methods of traffic control.

Send a copy to me and I'll take your message to the Transportation Commission on Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 10 a.m.

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

CityWatchLA - An MOU with the Transpo Department a Must

CityWatch, October 2008

NCs and the DOT
By Stephen Box

Proponents of an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the LA Department of Transportation and the Neighborhood Councils need only look to the City Council for inspiration and reassurance that a document codifying an agreement to work together is not only wise, but necessary. Two years ago, at about the same time that earlier incarnation of a Neighborhood Council MOU with the LADOT sat unsigned and collecting dust, the City Council noted that during the Metro's Call for Projects process, "inadequate outreach was done, which did not allow the Council sufficient time to analyze and thoroughly review the City's proposed project submission list. In the future, it is critical that internal coordination occur to ensure that there is consensus on all projects that are submitted for funding and that Metro's submission deadline is met."

The City Council then acted to "ensure adequate Council input and review," a standard that seems reasonable and responsible.

A few months later, as the LADOT presented the proposed projects to the Transportation Committee, 15 members of the cycling community showed up and protested, pointing out that the entire process had taken place without the community being involved. The proposed projects, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, had been assembled with no public support and were being submitted for approval without little time for public review.

The LADOT countered by explaining that the Metro Call for Projects had come up so suddenly that they had to scramble to assemble the projects for submittal. The 2007 Call was the first since 2001 and the DOT simply had no time to prepare.

It was at this point that the simple question was asked; "Doesn't the LADOT have a comprehensive plan or a vision for LA's Transportation?"

Crickets chirped.

The General Manager of the LADOT acknowledged that the preparation of the transportation projects was based on funding opportunities, not on a Strategic Transportation Plan. This explained why the public was excluded from the process. There was no process. It all came to light when the community insisted on getting involved.

We've come a long way since then. The Department of Transportation has a new General Manager. The City Council has held a single-topic session to focus on creating a Strategic Transportation Plan.

However, as for the community, the NC's continue to watch from the sidelines. Sometimes, if the NC's are quick, they can ask questions and perhaps even offer advice!

Ultimately, if the situation is to improve, it is up to the NC's to make the same demands that the City Council made, a process to ensure adequate Neighborhood Council input and review and a working group to oversee the relationship. A demand that the LADOT obey the City Charter and provide notification to NCs in sufficient time for them to consider the issues and provide the advice they are mandated to give.

History indicates: An NC MOU with the DOT is a must. If it's good enough for the City Council, it's good enough for the Neighborhood Councils.

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 - They Never Promised US a Rose Garden

CityWatch, August 5, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 63

Department Violates the Charter
By Stephen Box

(“We’re not required to notify neighborhood councils’ on proposed speed limit increases.-Rita Robinson, Department of Transportation General Manager.”)

It's been three years since my wife and I joined representatives from four Neighborhood Councils and sat down with the senior Management of LA's Department of Transportation to develop a memorandum of understanding, all as part of USC's Civic Engagement Initiative.

Dr. Terry Cooper and his team from USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development facilitated the event which spanned several months, (including two holiday weekends as some of the LADOT staff repeatedly pointed out) and included moderated team building exercises designed to encourage empathy and a win-win working relationship. The participating NC's were Silver Lake, Hollywood United, Northwest San Pedro and Mar Vista, each sending five representatives who met on weekends with a team from the LADOT led by Assistant General Manager John Fisher and Senior Transportation Engineer Glenn Ogura.

Through it all, I found the opportunity to develop relationships with the members of the LADOT and the other NC's to be of tremendous value, a benefit that I value to this day. I also thought the final work product, the LADOT/NC MOU, was of value and I was proud to have participated in its creation.

The journey was not without drama with some neighborhood council reps demanding that the process include the Department of Planning and threatening to withdraw if changes weren't made. The NC reps also found that the DOT representatives were unwilling to accept terms such as "major project" and "significant impact" without great debate that resulted in a watered down MOU.

Ultimately, we completed the process and produced a document that was approved by the participants and then sent to the respective NC's and the Department of Transportation for endorsement.

The Boards of the four councils each approved the MOU and I was honored to be selected by Hollywood United to serve as its NC rep, serving as the primary contact for the DOT.

The project leader, Thomas Bryer, called to invite us to USC's Rose Garden for a small ceremony to commemorate the signing of the MOU and the commencement of the "new" relationship between the NC's and the LADOT.

The ceremony never took place.

Since then, Bryer finished his work at USC. He is now known as "Dr. Bryer" and is a Professor of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Gloria Jeff has come and gone as LADOT's General Manager and the department is now led by Rita Robinson.

As for the NC's relationship with LADOT, not much has improved. The LADOT recently appeared before the Transportation Commission with recommendations for speed limit increases in the valley. Ms. Robinson was asked if the department had notified the neighborhood councils of the proposed changes and she responded, "No. We are not required to notify the neighborhood councils of actions such as this."

Perhaps it's time to revisit the City Charter.

Meanwhile, we wait, acutely aware that the LADOT never promised us the Rose Garden. Read the proposed NC/DOT Memorandum of Understanding here .

(Stephen Box is a community activist and a contributor to CityWatch.)

Villaraigosa's Plan for a Car-Free City Hall

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

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

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

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

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

SoapBoxLA proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Metro is currently holding Westside Extension Transit Corridor hearings.

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

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

Is this the intention?

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

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

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