CityWatchLA - Transpo Commission: Caught in the Blind Spot

CityWatch, Mar 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 20

LA's Transportation Commission has a rich legacy of "consent agendas" that routinely rubber stamp the LADOT's proposed speed limit increases with out so much as a question, a bit of discussion, a suggestion for traffic calming or even an acknowledgment that our streets are getting fast, very fast. Yesterday's Commission meeting saw the LADOT's Assistant General Manager arguing that the City of Los Angeles was challenged by aging infrastructure and personnel limitations. He spoke affirmatively in favor of "embracing the new technology." Of course, he was defending the department's parking meter performance, not the City's ability to control speeds on the streets of LA.

When it comes to speed limit controls, the LADOT still embraces the State's 50 year-old speed trap law and an antiquated and ineffective approach to public safety that requires the presence of a law enforcement officer in order to control the speed of traffic.

I challenged the Commission to at least have a conversation about traffic calming, to simply ask if there is a correlation between traffic collisions and the streets picked for speed limit enforcement.

It would seem that if the Transportation Commission has the authority to approve speed limit increases, they would also have an obligation to review the overall philosophy for which streets are selected and in determining if those streets are in sync with the Community Plans, the Bike Plans, the surrounding TOD projects.

In other words, "Does the City of Los Angeles have a big-picture strategy for effectively establishing speed limits and for effectively enforcing those speed limits?" (The answer is no!)

The W Hollywood, LA's largest Transit Oriented Development project, just opened. It's located over the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station. TOD projects have a purported emphasis on cycling and pedestrian access and yet Vine isn't eligible for speed limit enforcement and Hollywood's certification will expire in a few months.

In the works for over a decade, did the LADOT not know the W Hollywood would be opening?

Glendale Boulevard is a brutally fast street and recent hit and runs have taken down two cyclists, resulting in the death of one. Yet the speeding traffic continues and the speed limit certification will also expire in a few months. Van Nuys, Foothill, Oxnard, and Pico are all set to expire in the next three months.

The current approach to speed limit enforcement is based on the State's Speed Trap Law.

1) Certify the speed limit by surveying the current traffic and setting the speed limit so that 85% of the motorists are considered legal.

2) Maintain the speed limit certification in order to use radar/laser speed limit enforcement.

3) Only enforce the speed limits on streets with current certs (500 street segments of streets out of 7200 miles citywide, approximately 10% of LA's total street mileage is eligible for speed limit enforcement using radar/laser)

Even if one believed in the current approach to making our streets safer, the City of LA's implementation is so bad that in some cases, one can be ticketed for speeding on one side of an intersection but not the other.

Streets such as Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Roscoe, Laurel Canyon, Magnolia simply aren't eligible for speed limit enforcement. In Hollywood, speeders on Vermont and Western won't be getting tickets. After next week, motorists in a hurry should use Fairfax because the speed limit certification expires on the 19th.

The City of Los Angeles currently embraces an approach to speed limit enforcement that simply doesn't work. The LADOT is unable to maintain the speed limit certifications for the streets of Los Angeles and the LAPD doesn't have the personnel necessary to enforce speed limits on the streets of Los Angeles.

The Transportation Commission is at a fork in the road. It can take the road to irrelevance, one marked by rubber stamping agendas that approve anything proposed by the LADOT, or it can take the road to innovation and responsible oversight, asking the hard questions and demanding that the LADOT and the LAPD work with the community to make our streets safer for everybody.

Raising the speed limits on our streets is not a solution to controlling speeding traffic. It is simply the perpetuation of behavior that simply does not work.

It has been said that repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result is the sign of insanity. In this case, the LADOT and the Transportation Commission are repeating the same behavior and claiming that it will make our streets safer.

Our streets are unsafe, the City of LA is repeating the same behavior, it's beyond insane, it's professional incompetence.

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

East Hollywood NC Frees the Street!

CityWatch, Mar 12, 2010

Vol 8 Issue 20

Hollywood Neighborhood Council is taking over Santa Monica Boulevard on Sat the 13th, from 2pm to 10pm, celebrating the local art community and LA’s growing bike culture. The EHNC is one of the most densely populated communities, bordered by some of LA’s busiest streets but for one day, the street will belong to the people, not to the motor vehicle. Ride your bike to East Hollywood and join one of the many bike tours of the local galleries including the Barnsdall Gallery, which is hosting a Bike Week celebration featuring an exhibit entitled “In the Living Room of Bike Culture.” The bike tours are led by local guides and will leave Santa Monica and Madison every half hour.

Santa Monica Boulevard, right at Madison and across from the Cahuenga library, will be loaded with opportunities to make art, view art, purchase art, admire art, and maybe even become art!

Hop on a bike to take a tour of some of East Hollywood’s finest galleries, like Synchronicity, Thinkspace and Junc. Check out New Media Artists, see a show at Sacred Fools, check out or just browse among the dozens of artists and performers displaying their creations at the street scene on Santa Monica Boulevard.

There will be plenty of food and live entertainment, including the exotic salsa dancers of Salsarologo and the gypsy jazz phenomenon of KillSonic.

Bring the kids along for arts and crafts, face painting, and lots of hands-on fun. Be sure to bring an old T-shirt for a BYO silk screen.

Come join the celebration as the people of East Hollywood take back the street for a day of art, music, cycling and fun.

ArtCycle is a collaborative creation of Artist Jen Moran, Cyclist Enci Box, EHNC Board President David Bell, Downtown Art Walk Director Jay Lopez and a host of artistas, cyclistas and community members who think that the streets of Los Angeles are beautiful when they are full of people!

“See you on the Streets!”



(Stephen Box is a cyclist and a cycling advocate. He can be reached at Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net)

Transient Oriented Development (TOD)

The W Hollywood Hotel & Residences, perched atop the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station, has simultaneously raised the curtain and lowered the standard, establishing itself as LA's largest Transient Oriented Development (TOD) complete with a public plaza that offers convenient single serving drug sales, discrete nooks for defecation and urination, secure yet public overnight sidewalk accommodations, and a popular valet-adjacent vomitorium. Let there be no mistake, when it comes to the creation of great public space, the W Hollywood turns its back and runs.

The inadvertent pursuit of the Transient Oriented Development (TOD) title over the more highly sought after Transit Oriented Development (TOD) status is just one of the many miscommunications and misunderstandings that have occurred during the long and contentious W Hollywood development process.

Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners have spent over a decade developing the land owned by the Metro. Along the way they engaged in a journey that City Council President Eric Garcetti referred to as "sometimes painful, but worth the effort." (wait until he sees the vomitorium!) Jeff Cohen, Chief Operating Officer of Gatehouse, agreed with Garcetti and said the process he went through was "not for the faint of heart."

Hollywood Chamber of Commerce President Leron Gubler rises above the fray and simply states that the W Hollywood was developed with a unique "local focus" in mind and a commitment to alleviating congestion, explaining "That’s why the project is right next to an MTA subway stop."

All of which prompts me to suggest that Eric and Jeff and Leron hop on their bikes and pedal over to the "local focus" Transient Oriented Development known as the W and join me in looking for the bike parking. There are directional signs, three of them, alerting the public to the bike parking. There just isn't any bike parking.

This is a problem for several reasons:

1) Failure to deliver on the TOD promise: This is a $600 million Transit Oriented Development, funded with significant amounts of your (the public's) money on land owned by you (the public). The TOD promise comes with assurances that the project will cater to cyclists and pedestrians and that it will have a positive impact on the community, creating human density and offering opportunities to live, to work, to shop and to socialize, all without having to further congest the streets with private motor vehicles.

2) Lack of Metro oversight and accountability: Evidently the Metro's Bike Planning Department was unaware of the decade long development process that went into bringing the W Hollywood to the ribbon cutting ceremony. Apparently the Metro staff didn't get invited to the ribbon cutting ceremony and were unaware that the project has passed the finish line, leaving behind a public plaza at the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station that is the responsibility of...nobody!

3) Lowers the standard for future TOD projects: This is the largest TOD in Los Angeles and there will be more. Now is the time to raise the bar and to engage in development that is so brilliant that it causes those around the world to covet and envy, not to giggle and mock. When the City Council, the CRA, the Chamber of Commerce, the BID, the Metro, the LADOT, the LAPD, the LASD, and the Federal Government all get together, one would think two things would happen.

* Real leaders would rise to the occasion and create powerful and effective teamwork.
Unfortunately, the public hears nothing but the difficulty of working with so many agencies and authorities. This is a cry for leadership.

* Real innovators would rise to the occasion and create a world class Transit Oriented Development.
Unfortunately, the public hears nothing but the limitations of scale with so many details to be resolved. This is a cry for innovation.

4) Demonstrates a lack of standards: Whether it's the simple process of deciding in advance who sits at the big table and who waits until the ribbon cutting to get a shot at the scraps or whether it's deciding in advance what the design standards are for TOD, this project is a scream for attention. Cyclists and pedestrians are the user group that is to be considered from the beginning of the project conception, not after the project delivery. Simple access and accommodation standards are given to the designers and architects in advance, not squeezed in after construction. Does the Metro and the City of Los Angeles have those standards? If yes, why weren't they implemented? If not, develop and implement them immediately before engaging in any more missteps.

5) When this many authorities working with this much money use "I assumed!" as an operating mantra, it borders on professional negligence. The details matter. They are significant. They are the telltale whisps of smoke that indicate a much larger problem, one that may not surface for some time. But they are significant and one can only wonder, "What else was completely overlooked?"

6) Bike parking should be visible to those who ride by. It should reinforce that this is a rideable community. It should reinforce that cyclists are welcome on the Metro, whether they leave their bikes secured at the stations or take them on the train or bus. It should be visible so that the community's eyes are on the cyclists and their bikes. It should reinforce that bikes are an integral part of the Metro's commitment to a robust and comprehensive Transportation System. It should be part of the basic foundation of accommodation, not an afterthought that comes up when everything else is done.

7) Public Space should encourage good behavior! As we gathered for a site survey, it was apparent that wherever we stood, we were in the way. Great public space isn't just open, it's designed to foster social interaction, yet the benches here are fixed and allow people to sit back to back but not to face each other. Where do people "hang out" and relax? Where do couples or small groups sit and chat? The Metro's Hollywood & Vine open space attracts transients and discourages community. Tough charge, backed up by reality. What looks good on paper doesn't always translate into reality. Environmental architecture is not simply positioning a "rain forest" to the east and specifying bamboo for the planter, it is "designing for good behavior," a standard that applies to all disciplines, from law enforcement to transportation to development to hospitality.

Twelve days ago, I called Lynne Goldsmith, Metro's Bike Planning Manager, to report that the W Hollywood had made it past the ribbon cutting and still the Metro hadn't installed any bike racks. She explained that the Metro has big plans, but that the bike racks wouldn't be installed until later in the year when the Metro "programmed" the small room off to the side of the rest rooms, next to the elevator. I pointed out that the W Hollywood has been in development for a decade and asked how the Metro could justify waiting until after the opening to begin thinking about "Where do the cyclists fit?"

(Goldsmith's promise should be tempered with the knowledge that the Metro's Hollywood & Western Red Line Station also has a room set aside for bike parking. At one time it even had racks stored in it, now gone, and the room is still empty years after the development was built, with your money!)

Goldsmith told me how busy she was and suggested that I call Greg Angelo, Director of New Business Development in the Metro's Real Estate Department. We chatted, he suggested that I talk to Goldsmith. I pointed out that she said she had no authority and had sent me to him. I offered my opinion on the "little room of urine" that was the current plan and pointed out that it violated basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards. He became a bit argumentative and told me that I can't complain of a deficiency without proposing the solution. I proposed that the new deficiency was a failure to perform and that the solution was for him to join me for a site survey and to take responsibility for doing his job. We were off to a great start.

One of the simplest and snarkiest solutions to the criticisms of the public is to demand that all interaction be solution-oriented. This closes down feedback and deprives people from participating in the "discovery" process that is part of real innovation. The solution may not be present as the problem is experienced but that should not discourage people from yelling "Fire!" when they see a fire. Angelo seems to think that the solution that eluded the Metro for years is my responsibility for identifying during the process of pointing out that the Hollywood & Vermont Red Line Station is lacking Metro oversight and accountability. The new rest rooms have never seen paper supplies. The bike parking signs are up, the bike parking isn't. He didn't know that until I called. I've already earned my keep, he hasn't.

It gets worse.

I get an invitation to a site survey at the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station. Then I received an amended invitation moving it out an additional day. No request of availability or convenience, after all, the public is always available to complain, but it's the Metro staff's time that is valuable. Still, I'm pleased that the meeting will take place and I simply adjust my schedule, pleased that Goldsmith and Angelo and others from the Metro will be joining me for a survey of the Metro station.

Tuesday arrives and I lock my bike up to a light pole on the public plaza. I'm joined by Ron Durgin of Sustainable Streets and Enci of illuminateLA, both of whom take a one hour survey of the W Hollywood Hotel &; Residences with me. When we return to the small empty room off to the side of the elevator, we find Lieutenant George Grein, Retired, of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. He has just interrupted a drug deal in the future home of the Metro's safe, secure, and effective Hollywood & Vine bike parking. We are later joined by Sergeant Cliff Yates of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who is the supervisor for this area of the Metro. Both Grein and Yates concur that isolation and seclusion are bad ideas for bike parking and that the evidence of human waste, transient accommodations, and drug activity would support my contention that the bike parking should be located elsewhere.

Goldsmith and her assistant, Tony Jusay, arrived and seemed to have a hard time letting go of the little room as a bike parking solution without having another option to grab. Since we were still standing in the little room, I offered that there may be many solutions but it is imperative that we agree that the little room was not one of them. At this point, Goldsmith engaged in displacement activity that had her cleaning the broken baby carriage, the floor mat, the newspapers, the barricades, and the debris, all as we watched and wondered how this moved the site survey forward. Jusay was able to get her to return to the discussion.

Ben Cien, Vice President of Construction and Design at Gatehouse arrived and we now had a fairly robust discussion going, all of it focused on the little room of horrors. All that was missing was somebody from the Metro who had the authority to say "Yes!" Apparently Angelo was unable to make the meeting, too busy to even communicate with the group or to offer an alternative meeting time. Too bad because the resulting two hour survey was then an exercise in "Who's in charge?"

Cien explained that he thought "everybody had signed off on the plan to install a little door" and to make the now "open and secluded little room" into an eventually "secured and secluded little room."

The LASD representatives stayed out of the fray, the cycling representatives argued vehemently against bike parking that requires security cameras and security officers, neither of which are in place, in order to be safe. Both Cien and Goldsmith offered arguments that the camera monitoring and the close proximity of the W Hollywood security would make the environment safe. (Hence the drug deal and the human waste and the evidence of overnight accommodations!)

The cyclists walked the larger facility with Cien, a pleasant host who seemed proud of the many W Hollywood elements. He was comfortable in his skin, greeting guests and staff as we walked through the hotel, the back hallways, the sidewalks, and the parking garage. We chatted about the project including the LEED elements and even offered up that if the employees of the W Hollywood were offered Urban Cycling classes, they would be more likely to ride their bikes to work, take advantage of the employee dressing rooms and bike parking. (there were three large bike racks in the employee parking area of the garage but only one bike)

We measured off some public plaza space as options for bike parking, having arrived prepared to actually survey. We offered some criteria for the eventual solution including visible, close to the entrance, secure, protected with a canopy or cove, out of the passageway, and we looked for opportunities. Essentially, the bike parking must work for the casual cyclist who arrives for the first time, no membership card for a "bike room" or other pre-arranged bike parking. Simple racks that a casual visitor would feel comfortable using and that would serve as secure and effective bike parking. It starts there, not with the VIP program that requires registering, a key card, a membership, and a visit to One Gateway.

Goldsmith had prepared for the meeting by packing a large bag of "That's not possible!" and suggestions such as a canopy or moving the planter or doing anything other than using the little room was met with "That's not possible!" Since she can't say yes and she has no plan and she isn't prepared and she hasn't asked, how does she know the answer will be "No!"

I'm not sure how this project turned into such an environment of limitations but somehow Lynne Goldsmith's contribution to the two hour bike parking survey was a series of "No!" responses to suggestions covering bike parking location, style, visibility, canopy, accessibility, and responsibility. Of course, when listening to Goldsmith speak authoritatively on limitations, from political to financial to social to environmental, I remind myself to never take a "No!" answer from somebody who doesn't also have the authority or power to say "Yes!"

The site survey ended with the obligatory confusion and lack of resolution over authority. The LASD typically is responsible for the Metro Station and the plaza area with the developer/property manager responsible for the actual development. Again, the ribbon has been cut and those at the meeting were unclear of who had authority and who maintained the rest rooms and who was in charge.

I'm not sure who is going to step up on this one. It might be County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who also serves on the Metro Board. Perhaps Metro CEO Art Leahy will decide that the buck stops with him. Maybe Doug Failing, the Metro's Executive Director of Highways and Interim Director of Planning, or perhaps Roger Moliere, the Metro's Chief of Real Property Management & Development, will take a shot at solving the bike parking problem that has caused "paralysis of analysis" within the Metro's Bike Planning department. Angelo is already a no-show and Goldsmith is simply in charge of "No!"

This may seem like a lot of effort, all simply to get some bike racks installed on the public plaza on top of a Metro station at the new W Hollywood TOD but it's much much more.

This is the largest Transit Oriented Development in the City of Los Angeles. The $600 million that is invested in this TOD project came from many sources including you, the public. The Metro's budget comes from you, the public. A standard is being set, not just with the use of public funds, but with the implementation and design of TOD projects of which there will be more. In addition, the Metro is busy, working on the Expo and the Orange Line Extension. The mistakes they make will be repeated unless we work together to raise the bar. The Eastside extension has bike racks installed at Soto and at Mariachi Square. In both cases they need to be reinstalled correctly. That feedback doesn't come from the Metro, it comes from cyclists who care enough to insist on excellence.

Transit Oriented Development is the concept that was sold to the public. The Metro, Gatehouse Capital, Legacy Partners, the CRA, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Improvement District, the LA Department of Transportation, the LA Police Department, the LA Sheriff's Department, the Federal Government, CalPERS, and Deutsche Bank Berkshire Mortgage all have a piece of this project and it's a shame that we're still standing on the public plaza having a "Who's in charge?" discussion while the work remains incomplete.

For too long, the question "Is there any room left over for the cyclists?" has been the battle cry for the Metro's Bike Planning Department. This is the last time. Who is the person who will say 'Yes!" to bike parking at the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Station.

Metro Bike Parking - Won't Get Fooled Again!

Won't Get Fooled Again

In 1971 The Who released their 5th album, entitled "Who's next" featuring album cover art consisting simply of a photograph, taken at Easington Colliery, of the band apparently having just urinated on a large concrete piling protruding from a slag heap. The album cover was voted by the VH1 network as the second greatest album cover of all time. The album itself went platinum...three times over.

"Who's next" inspired a generation of rock and roll fans and, apparently, also served to inspire the Metro's transportation engineers who continue to incorporate the "public urination" and "large concrete piling protruding from a slag heap" concepts in their Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) programming.

Consider the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station, now also the home of the W Hollywood Hotel & Residences, a $600 Million Transit Oriented Development that somehow made it past the ribbon cutting without so much as a nod toward the incorporation of bike parking.

The Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station has been in operation for a little over a decade. During that same period of time the Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners team has been working to bring the largest mixed-use TOD to Hollywood. This decade-plus journey saw the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the Los Angeles City Council, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) all working together to bring the gift of Transit Oriented Development to Hollywood. Somehow these titans of development got swept up in the hugeness of the Metro Red Line and W Hollywood Hotel & Residences partnership and lost sight of the details.



Transit Oriented Development (TOD) typically refers to residential and Commercial Centers designed to maximize access by Transit and Nonmotorized transportation, and with other features to Encourage Transit Ridership. A typical TOD has a rail or bus station at its center, surrounded by relatively high-density development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards one-quarter to one-half mile, which represents pedestrian scale distances. It includes these design features (Morris, 1996; Renne, 2009):

• The neighborhood is designed for Cycling and Walking, with adequate facilities and attractive street conditions.
• Streets have good Connectivity and Traffic Calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds.
• Mixed-use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices, within each neighborhood.
• Parking Management to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking compared with conventional development, and to take advantage of the parking cost savings associated with reduced automobile use (NJDOT, 2007).
• Transit Stops and Stations that are convenient, comfortable and Secure, with features such as comfortable waiting areas, venders selling refreshments and periodicals, washrooms, Wayfinding and Multi-Modal Navigation Tools

Of the five basic TOD elements, the Metro and the W Hollywood have failed to get past the first half of item #1, designing for Cycling. Somehow the Metro's Real Estate Department, led by Roger Moliere, Chief of Real Property Management & Development, and Greg Angelo, Director of New Business Development, allowed a significant 2/3 of a billion dollar development to get to the finish line before they spoke up and said "What about the cyclists?" Within the Metro's Planning Department is a team led by Lynne Goldsmith that is responsible for bike parking at Metro facilities. How is it that the Hollywood & Vine Metro Station is now built out and the W Hollywood ribbon cutting is old news, yet the Metro still doesn't have a plan for cyclists other than wandering around asking "Is there any room left over for the bike parking?"



The Association of Pedestrian and Bike Professionals (APBP) has national standards for bike parking. They are pretty simple. Accessible, visible, secure. Bike parking isn't mystery science, it's often just good common sense and a bit of commitment. All of the training and common sense in the world can't help a major entity such as the Metro if they can get a decade into a project and pass the finish line before they consider the implementation of a bike parking element. This is simply Planning Malpractice. The bike parking element isn't optional, it an integral element of the TOD concept and of the Metro's larger commitment to its status as a Comprehensive Transportation System.

The City of Los Angeles also has bike parking standards. (see below) They are not quite as simple but they are part of the Municipal Code of Los Angeles. The LA Department of Transportation was involved in this project from the early days, working with the Metro and the developers on traffic mitigation, traffic controls. The LA Department of Transportation has a Project Grants, Bikeways and Enhancement Division led by Michael Uyeno, which is responsible for bike parking in the City of Los Angeles, as specified in LA's City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which is part of the City's General Plan. Doesn't anybody read these documents? Isn't anybody responsible for actually following through on these commitments?

Law Enforcement professionals have standards for the built environment referred to as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and if any law enforcement professionals had advised the developers and the Metro on this project, it is reasonable to suggest that they would have excluded secluded areas that reek of human waste as safe areas for bike storage. "Natural surveillance" is a key element and the eyes of the public are of greater value than the hollow promise of video cameras. Urine stains on the walls and floor would be the "broken windows" that serve as cues to both criminals and those who value their safety that this is not supervised real estate.

It's been a year since I last posted "Good for Bikes, Good for Business!" Since then, salaries have been paid, checks have cleared the banks, vacations have been taken, raises have been given and some promotions have been awarded. Granted, those who work for the Metro, the LADOT, the CRA, the City Council, Building and Safety, the LA Police Department, the LA County Sheriff's Department, Gatehouse Capital and Legacy Partners aren't responsible for reading my blog on bike parking, but they are responsible for doing their jobs.

Based on results, often harsh but always fair, anybody responsible for incorporating cyclists, bike parking, and public safety into the Metro's Hollywood & Vine Red Line Station and the W Hollywood's TOD has failed.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

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)

WooHoo! Go get the volunteers, they'll work for free!

The Automobile Club of Southern California is hosting "Volunteer Day" on the 405 Freeway and is inviting motorists from throughout the Southland to participate in a "Barn-Raising" approach to improved mobility and congestion relief. Bring a shovel, a pickax, a hardhat and any available heavy earth moving equipment for a fun weekend working with other committed motoring activists as we all pitch in and build that High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on the 405 freeway. Originally estimated to cost $1 Billion, the Interstate 405 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Project is the second largest Recovery Act funded transportation project in the nation.

As we all know, these are tough times, with the State of California and the City of Los Angeles facing severe economic conditions that include record home loan foreclosures, unemployment, and furloughs for State and Municipal employees who work in environments of great uncertainty. It is against this background that the motoring public has rallied together and offered to give up that $1 Billion, asking that it instead be used to balance the budget, to fund pedestrian projects, to fund bikeways projects, to improve the environment, to support the threatened transit circulators, to reposition mobility as a mechanism for connectivity at the local level, not simply as a traffic sewer that shoots people through our communities on their way far, far away.

We motorists still believe in the 405 HOV project which when completed will result in a continuous 72-mile HOV lane, making it the longest HOV lane in the country. But we also realize that the days of super-sized funding are long gone so we figure if we're going to really change the world and make it possible to live in Northern California while working in southern California, we're going to have to pitch in to make it work.

The idea of utilizing volunteer labor came from the cycling community, a well meaning crowd of pedal powered travelers, who dealt with the lack of funding for their bikeways projects by forming the Department of DIY. Along the way came transportation authorities who realized that this meant "free labor" and before you could say "Get out of my way!" the cycling community was doing surveys, developing plans, conducting outreach, analyzing data, evaluating projects, and advocating for a better world. All while the people paid to perform the same duties fumbled and complained that the activists didn't know how tough it was to be employed, to be well-paid, and yet to be so helpless.

Well, the motoring public isn't helpless. That's why we're gathering on weekends to build our way out of this congestion. That's why we're donating our time and effort to making the 405 HOV project even bigger and even more effective. That's why we need you to give up your weekend and join in the revolution. (please carpool, there isn't much parking on the westside, but that's something else we're going to work on!)

LA's Sharrows Campaign goes astray before it's underway...

The City of Los Angeles is finally getting close to implementing a Sharrows pilot project, complete with study methodology, data collection, analysis, and evaluation. Phew! All this in order to get Sharrows painted on the streets of Los Angeles.

Sharrows, for the uninitiated, are "Shared Lane" markings that typically consist of the image of a bicycle with a chevron on top but sometimes use a cyclist in a little "house." The Sharrow communicates good lane positioning (theoretically) and is meant to encourage cyclists to ride in the lane and out of the door zone. The Sharrow is also meant to communicate to the motoring public that cyclists belong on the street, in the lane, and out of the door zone. The debate over Sharrows typically comes down to the proper lane position for cyclists. The minimum positioning for the Sharrow is typically 11' from the curb line which is 3' from the edge line of the typical 8' parking stall. Not really outside the door zone! Cycling activists who favor riding completely out of the door zone contend that 13' from the curb line is the appropriate minimum position for a Sharrow.

Many cities have implemented Sharrows as a tool for supporting cyclists as a vital and viable element of a comprehensive transportation system. San Francisco, Long Beach, Portland, Hermosa Beach, Pasadena, Austin, and even the sovereign state of Highland Park have Sharrows on their streets. In some cases the Sharrows went down without much forethought or before/after behavior evaluation. In other cases, the process included significant data collection and analysis.

San Francisco did a study in 2004, collecting and analyzing videotape of cyclists and motorists before and after the installation of Sharrows on 6 different streets in San Francisco. The stated goals of the Sharrows pilot project in San Francisco were to:

• Improve positioning of both cyclists and motorists on streets without bike lanes;
• Reduce aggressive motorist behavior;
• Prevent wrong-way bicycling;
• Prevent bicycling on sidewalks.

The pilot project and the study were successful, revealing the most significant impact was on the behavior of motorists who increased their distance from the parked cars on the right side of the street by 50%.

Of course, this was San Francisco and there is no way that the City of Los Angeles could use this study to justify Sharrows on the streets of LA. After all, San Francisco is smaller than Los Angeles, they have different sensitivities, their paint is unlike our paint, there is not much LA can learn from SF!

The US Department of Transportation is also studying Sharrows in six cities around the country including Austin which recently installed 70 Sharrows along with cameras that will collect data so that the USDOT can evaluate motorists and cyclists and their ability to figure out on their own how Sharrows work.

According to the National Associations of Transportation Officials (NACTO) and their Cycling for Cities initiative, more than 76 American municipalities are now utilizing Shared Use Lane Markings to encourage cyclists to ride in a safer lane position, to alert road users to the correct lane position of cyclists, to move cyclists our of the "door zone" of parked cars, to encourage safe passing by motorists, and to alert all road users to the presence of cyclists. without taking up any additional road space.

In city after city, a simple survey reveals that every city had an objective when they implemented their Sharrows program. In Seattle, Sharrows were a "friendly reminder from the Seattle Department of Transportation to drivers: Leave room for those who choose to pedal their way around town." In Portland, "the explicit purpose of sharrows is to educate drivers that bikes belong in traffic lanes." From Wisconsin, "Sharrows remind moptorists that bicycles belong on the street." From the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices comes the explanation "This pavement marking indicates the appropriate bicyclist line of travel, and cues motorists to pass with sufficient clearance."

Along comes Los Angeles, led by the LADOT, and implementing a Sharrows pilot program takes on a completely new meaning. First of all, the emphasis seems to be on impacting the behavior of cyclists, not motorists. In light of recent objections to Sharrows, such as the LADOT's stated fear that they will interfere with the flow of traffic and that the paint will be slippery, the fact that SCAG and the LADOT are partnering in a study that evaluates the behavior of cyclists and not of motorists leaves one asking the question, "What is the purpose of the pilot project?"

In San Francisco, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to improve the position of both cyclists and motorists. It was also to reduce aggressive motorist behavior.

In Austin, the purpose of the Sharrows program was to study the ability of cyclists and motorists to figure out how the Sharrows work.

In Los Angeles, it appears that the purpose of the Sharrows program is to impact the behavior of cyclists. That reeks of the LADOT's mandate to normalize the behavior of LA's motorists and to demonize the behavior of LA's cyclists. Will the AAA come along to help, bringing volunteer motorists to help in analyzing the shift in the behavior of motorists? Why is the largest city in the most populated state in the most powerful country in the world engaging in a "scientific" study of a pilot program that commenced with no purpose, that fails to evaluate motorists, that consists of little commitment, and a casual approach to supporting cyclists in Los Angeles.

Based on Austin's size, Los Angeles should be putting down over 400 Sharrows and installing cameras to study the impact on the behavior of both motorists and cyclists. Better yet, Los Angeles should be asking why Austin has a better relationship with the USDOT and why Austin is getting federal support in studying the impact of Sharrows on motorists and cyclists.

Barring a partnership with the USDOT, perhaps Los Angeles could simply take a look at the Bellevue Sharrows study which documents traffic volumes for both motorists and cyclists along with traffic speeds.

From Austin to San Francisco, from Bellevue to Long Beach, Great Cities are doing Great Work and they all have great ideas that should inspire Los Angeles to engage in a Sharrows pilot program that raises the standard, not just for the implementation of Sharrows but for the process of evaluating pilot programs. Come on LA, raise the bar!

Most of all, remember that on congested streets, surface markings will be hidden by...vehicles! If the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported by signage such as the BAFUL (R4-11) that reinforces the Sharrows message and reminds motorists that cyclists have the right to use the full lane. If the LA version of the Sharrows program is to succeed, it must be supported with a clearly defined campaign goal, with an inspired mechanism for collecting and analyzing robust data on the behavior of all modes, and with the enthusiastic (not reluctant!) support of the City of Los Angeles.

There are No Accidents!

 

(Blog post modified to reflect conflicting LAPD reports and updates. One LAPD source indicates the two motorists (in a Mercedes and a Toyota) were traveling south on Cliffwood Avenue and turning right on the red, hitting the young girl and then running over her. The second LAPD source indicates that the two motorists (is a SUV and an Infiniti) were traveling west on sunset Boulevard, clipping the young girl and then running over her.)

A 13-year-old girl attempting to catch her school bus began to cross Sunset Boulevard at Cliffwood Avenue. She stepped off the curb, into the crosswalk and against the red light just as two cars approached. She stepped from the NW corner of the intersection. The cars either came south on Cliffwood and turning right on Sunset or they came westbound on sunset. Either way, the first car grazed the young girl, knocking her to the ground. The second car ran her over. The young girl was transported to the hospital where she was pronounced dead.

LAPD West Traffic Captain Nancy Lauer is quoted by the LA Times as saying "It appears to be a horrible accident."

1) There are no accidents. The death of Julia Siegler was not the result of Mother Nature, it wasn't an act of God, there was no "force majeure" at work. This was a traffic collision, a horrendous event, a brutal incident, a circumstance with life-ending ramifications but it was in no way, shape, or form an accident. There are no accidents.

An accident is a determination. It is a ruling, it is the pronouncement that comes at the end of an investigation, it is not a word to be used casually at the scene of the crime. Oh, wait, was this the scene of a crime?

2) This was big news. The LA Times gave this story great coverage, not because a pedestrian died trying to cross Sunset Boulevard, but because the LAPD didn't know the identity of the motorists responsible for driving vehicles that ended the life of Julia Siegler. For most of the day, the LAPD were looking for hit-and-run motorists.

As is turns out, the two motorists stopped their cars on Sunset Boulevard and waited for the ambulance to transport the victim to the hospital. The young girl's mother was with her when she was hit and she initially responded by pounding on the hood of the first car with her fists and screaming, according to Commander Andy Smith of the LAPD. Of course Smith wasn't there when the incident happened and he wasn't there when the mother calmed down and told the motorists "It's not your fault." With her daughter gone and as the chaotic scene quieted down, the mother of the dead girl told the motorists they could leave.

The motorists left without offering their identification or contact information. They left without providing any insurance information. They left without contacting the LAPD. They left and went on with their business. They left what could be the scene of a crime. Even if the death of a pedestrian didn't make it a crime scene, it could very well become one when the motorists left without fulfilling their simple obligations to participate in the exchange of information and in the investigation of the tragic traffic collision that resulted in the death of a young girl.

But they both chose to accept the authority of a grieving mother who has just lost her daughter as enough to relieve them of any obligations under the California Vehicle Code. Apparently they both believed that a grieving mother had authority that trumps the laws of the land. Either that or they both simply didn't know the law and both lacked the simple common sense that would prompt them to consider it good form to chat with the local law enforcement folks. No matter how you slice it, it's simply unacceptable. Either way, their behavior was unacceptable and it resulted in the LAPD spending the best part of a day looking for them.

There were approximately two dozen witnesses at the scene who were interviewed by the LAPD as part of the investigation which was reported by the LAPD as being "a thorough investigation." Yet none of the witnesses and bystanders who came across the scene to offer assistance were able to offer the license plate information for the two motorists. Apparently everyone involved assumed that the identity of the motorists wasn't an issue, yet based on results, it was.

Will this result in the motorists being responsible for reimbursing the City of Los Angeles for the wasted LAPD investigative time? Loss of drivers license for demonstrating a complete failure to understand the responsibilities of a motorist involved in a traffic collision resulting in injury or death? Criminal charges for leaving the scene?  So far, none of the above. Capt. Lauer says, "At this point, we have not arrested nor have we booked either of the drivers. It appears to be a horrible accident."

3) This was unnecessary. It turns out, according to one LAPD source, that the first motorist hit the young girl with the side-view mirror of the car, knocking her to the ground. The second motorist then ran over the junior high school student as she lay on the ground, in the crosswalk.

Much can be made of the fact that the pedestrian was crossing against the red and, obviously, staying out of the crosswalk until the traffic signal indicates that is is safe to cross would be the simplest hindsight solution.

But in light of the fact that fully 20% of LA's parking meters are not functioning, it seems reasonable to ask if the demand actuated crosswalk signal control was actually functioning.

Further, the Fed Highway Administration (FHWA) recently released modifications to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and included enhancements to the standards for signal timing in an effort to support the needs of pedestrians. It seems reasonable to take this time to review the timing of the crosswalk and to determine if this signal adequately supports the needs of pedestrians.

LAPD sources indicate speed was not an issue. It was. The vehicles were moving and if the first car made contact and the second car was unable to avoid running over the young girl, then they were traveling too fast and too close. Sunset Boulevard is posted for 35 mph, both sides are residential neighborhoods and there was a school bus waiting on South Cliffwood, all great reasons to require and expect the motorists using Sunset to travel at a reduced speed that allows them to control their vehicles. Based on results, often harsh but always fair, speed was an issue.

The school bus was parked on a street with no sidewalks. Pedestrians walk in the street to get to intersections, learning along the way that the streets are engineered and designed for motor vehicles first, humans second. It doesn't excuse bad behavior but it certainly explains it. Pedestrians learn quickly to navigate the environment based on their needs, not on the rules.

A young schoolgirl's enthusiasm for catching her school bus and her decision to cross the street against the red is a dramatic wake up call that should cause us to look at all of our intersections that serve as transit transfer points. How many people are making bad decisions based on the need to catch a bus that may be two signal phases away. Think of all of the busy intersections that would benefit from pedestrian phasing or all-walk phases. How many lives would be saved?

4) Call for action. The LAPD has been around long enough and has been in hot water hot enough to know that words matter. The word "accident" must be forbidden, stricken from the official vocabulary of the Los Angeles Police Department. It has a dehumanizing effect on tragic circumstances and it desensitizes the public to the tremendous loss of life on the streets of Los Angeles. For all of the talk of public safety, our streets are a battle field and people are dying with increasing regularity. To use the term "accident" is to normalize the loss of life in traffic tragedies and that is completely unacceptable. It also positions us as helpless and we are not helpless.

5) Call for action. Sunset Boulevard is posted at 35 miles per hour and the speed limit certification is valid through February 14, 2014 which means that for the next four years, the LAPD can use radar/laser speed limit enforcement for the 14 miles of Sunset Boulevard from the Beverly Hills city limits to PCH. Will that be popular? Probably not. Will it make cut-through traffic less effective and attractive? Possibly. Will the use of radar/laser speed limit enforcement make Sunset Boulevard a safer street? According to the LAPD and the LADOT, radar/laser speed limit enforcement is the most effective tool for controlling speeding motorists and for making the streets safer. This would be a great time to put that claim to the test and Sunset Boulevard would be the place to start.

6) Call for action. The LAPD must stop making excuses for people who get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, run over a human being, and then leave the scene of the incident. This incident must have been traumatic for everybody involved but especially the people throughout Los Angeles who are again reminded that motorists involved in traffic tragedies are free to leave the scene without identifying themselves and without fear of prosecution. Approximately one third of traffic collisions in Los Angeles result in a hit-and-run. Why? Because the LAPD accepts it, the City Attorney accepts it, the District Attorney accepts it, and worst of all, because the people of Los Angeles accept it.

Journalistic Malpractice

An 86-year-old cyclist was hit by a car and critically injured as he rode on Sepulveda Boulevard in Torrance. The cyclist was riding from the south side of Sepulveda, between Maple Avenue and Hickory Avenue when he was hit by a motorist traveling east.

Larry Altman, the crime reporter for the Daily Breeze, wrote of the incident "The elderly man was riding his bike north across the street and was not in a crosswalk when an eastbound car hit him." Altman attributes the information to Torrance police Sgt. Jeremiah Hart.

I called Altman and asked why he would point out that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk. He said it was his way of pointing out that the cyclist was crossing mid-block and made a reference to jay walking. I pointed out that crossing mid-block is not necessarily illegal and that jay-walking is a nebulous and misapplied term that was irrelevant here. I offered up that his observation that the cyclist wasn't in a crosswalk was about as appropriate as pointing out that the cyclist wasn't wearing a parachute, the difference being that the parachute would have been legal while riding on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk in Torrance is actually illegal. - Journalistic Malpractice #1

I then offered up that perhaps the cyclist wasn't actually crossing the street mid-block but was instead pulling out of one of the many parking lots and attempting to turn left onto Sepulveda Boulevard, the same direction every single motorist on the south side of Sepulveda Boulevard goes if they want to head west. It's a reasonable theory based on the fact that one can't actually cross Sepulveda in the area where the cyclist was hit, there is nothing on the other side. It's also one I confirmed with Lt. Levine of the Torrance Police Department who confirmed that vehicular traffic on the south side crosses the eastbound traffic lanes to turn left onto westbound Sepulveda Boulevard. As for simply crossing the street, there's a wall, the tree line, the curbs. But there is no destination. - Journalistic Malpractice #2

This led me to ask the simple question, how fast was the motorist traveling if the cyclist was unable to cross the three lanes of traffic and reach the median strip before the motorist hit the cyclist? It was 1:00 pm, under clear skies, light traffic and nothing blocking the motorist's or the cyclist's eyelines. How fast was the motorist traveling? Could the motorist have changed lanes to avoid the cyclist? Were the other lanes taken by other motorists? Apparently the journalist forgot to ask the question, the Torrance Police Department press release failed to note the speed, and the Daily Breeze even failed to note that there were open questions. - Journalistic Malpractice #3

Journalists such as Larry Altman are in a position of responsibility. Their words have impact. Their questions are important and if they are lazy, if they simply reformat press releases, if they lack knowledge and if they repeat their misunderstandings, it's journalistic malpractice.

Torrance Police Department update:

I spoke to the investigating officer this morning, unnamed and unquoted until the supervisor gives permission.

The motorist was traveling in the #1 lane (closest to the center) at 40 mph, the speed limit.

The motorist 1) did not see the cyclist until the last moment when the cyclist rode into the side of the vehicle 2) saw the cyclist leave the parking lot of the YMCA and begin to ride across the street.

The cyclist 1) rode straight out of the YMCA parking lot across the street 2) rode at a 45 degree angle east bound from the parking lot, heading toward the center of the street when he rode into the side of the motor vehicle.

The cyclist was a customer at the YMCA and the investigating officer confirmed that it is legal for exiting motorists to turn both left and right onto Sepulveda. The investigating officer couldn't comment on the question "Was the cyclist attempting a vehicular left by crossing the three lanes and heading to a turning lane?" because he was unfamiliar with the term "vehicular left."

When asked about the legality or illegality of riding a bicycle on the sidewalks/crosswalks of Torrance, the investigating officer said "It's illegal, just like it is everywhere in California." I pointed out that it's not illegal everywhere in CA. Local municipalities are given the option and many, such as Los Angeles, pass on the right to prohibit cyclists from riding on the sidewalk. The prohibition also comes with singage requirements.

The point of impact was 832 feet past the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Maple Avenue. The investigating officer did not ask the motorist if he went through the intersection at speed on a green or if he started from a stop at the red light.

The cyclist's bike is a 70's vintage 10 speed and it is at the Torrance Police Department. It is bent.

The cyclist was unable to offer any information to the investigating officers regarding the traffic collision.

The cyclist was determined to be at fault by the Torrance Police Department for violating CVC 21804(a) failure to yield to traffic when entering the roadway from a private driveway.

I asked the Watch Commander if the motorist might have been able to avoid the cyclist by moving to the empty median strip to the left or by slowing and moving to the right to allow the cyclist to continue merging left. (motorist says he didn't see the cyclist to the last minute yet saw him exit the driveway three lanes to the right. SLOW DOWN and allow other traffic to use the street!)

At this point, the Watch Commander concluded our conversation by saying "It's an accident!" and wishing me a good day.

NC Leaders at the DONE Restructure Table; Keys in BudgetLA Plan Adopted

CityWatch, Feb 23, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 15

The City of Los Angeles is in flux and the resulting reorganization of the city is dividing the community into two groups, one is experiencing overwhelming crisis, the other is experiencing incredible opportunity. • Yesterday's announcement by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment was being combined with the Community Development Department was perceived by some as a step backward while others looked at it as progress. Either way it's an opportunity, one that the neighborhood councils must seize, quickly.

• However you measure the Mayor’s decision to combine departments and the DONE restructure proposal, the crisis produced on considerable success: leaders from at least 75 neighborhood councils participated in the BudgetLA Project and had a voice at the solutions table. The BudgetLA recommendations that the City examine outsourcing the NC funding program, outsourcing elections, turning training and mentoring over to NCs and including a critical volunteer assistance program were made part of the restructure package.

• The BudgetLA community has been meeting since the beginning of the year, tackling LA's budget crisis with broad strokes and with an eye for detail. Through it all, the consistent message is "everything is on the table and must be considered as we work together to solve the budget crisis, and that neighborhood councils must be at that table as partners in the process."

To that end, the BudgetLA community has experienced unprecedented success, first with Councilman Paul Krekorian's leadership in the Environment and Neighborhoods Committee and then with Deputy Mayor Larry Frank in the Mayor's Office. This time of crisis is also the time of opportunity and it is up to the community to rise to the occasion and to deliver a vision for Los Angeles, one that results from the public taking a leadership role in reorganizing LA as a Great City.

• This past Friday, and again on Saturday, BudgetLA representatives met with Deputy Mayor Larry Frank and presented the DONE re-org plan. This plan was adopted twice with a resounding vote from the community members in attendance at the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition meeting and then again at the BudgetLA meeting.

Neighborhood Council’s have much to be proud of, including the fact that they have a place at the table as well as a role in the programming and staffing of the future Neighborhood Empowerment Department.

• In all, leaders from 75 of the 90 certified neighborhood councils participated in the BudgetLA meetings, debating much and looking for common ground. The plan that was presented to the E & N Committee and then again to the Mayor's office is simply the starting point, the beginning of the journey, one that has neighborhood councils taking a leadership role.

Neighborhood Councils have much to be proud of, including the simple fact that the community showed up with a plan and that it had an impact on the Mayor's office and the resulting reorganization of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. For those who call this a time for "triage" and refer to neighborhood councils as "under attack" the simple reality is this, the city is in the middle of a budget crisis and all departments and everybody feels as if they are under attack.

• Now, more than ever, we must work together to deliver a vision for Los Angeles that is based on a balanced budget, well defined priorities, efficient delivery of services, and effective evaluation of performance.

As for the Neighborhood Council system, the BudgetLA community has the opportunity to move forward as partners in developing a strategic plan for Neighborhood Empowerment based on a commitment to "grass roots civic engagement and volunteerism.

To that end, BudgetLA meets again this Saturday to review details of the Mayor’s DONE restructure –plan, consider other budget issues to target and work on next steps for the future of the neighborhood council system. Deputy Mayor Larry Frank and Special Assistant Attorney Jane Usher have been invited.

BudgetLA

February 27, 2010

10:00 am

Hollywood Presbyterian Church

Upper Terrace Hall

(enter on Yucca, park on Yucca)

1760 N. Gower Avenue

Hollywood, CA 90028

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

NCs Finding a Seat at the Table

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

The journey has been long and it has often been tedious and fatiguing, but it has paid off.

When the CAO's recommendations for the neighborhood council system came up two weeks ago, the BudgetLA community turned out in great numbers and went to work, fighting in the Budget and Finance Committee and in the City Council and again at the E & N Committee. Committee Chair Paul Krekorian championed the NC cause and took the proposed cuts off the City Council agenda and out to Committee, demActive Imageonstrating that a strong relationship with an NC Champion was worth its weight in public comment.

The council sessions have been rugged, the people who have worked the phones, sent the emails, spoken in public comment, shared their victories, offered their commitment and stood their ground have made a difference and that is what the neighborhood council system is all about.

As of yesterday, City Council instructions for actions on items involving neighborhood councils include the directive "in consultation with the neighborhood councils" demonstrating a huge shift in the relationship of the public with the City Council.

The City Council is still weighing options on NC elections, NC funding, Rollover funds, Bankcards, Expenditures and the structure and staffing levels for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Departments including the City Clerk's office, the City Controller's office, the CAO, the CLA, the City Attorney, DONE, BONC and CDD are all working on reports for the future.

Meanwhile, the BudgetLA community has a plan. It's a beginning, a place to start, but it's not a report, it's not a survey, it's a plan.

Plans are rare these days, especially ambitious plans that come with the commitment of the public.

This plan for the future of the Neighborhood Council System will be presented to the Mayor's office on Friday, February 19. If you care about the role of neighborhood councils in the future of Los Angeles, this is the meeting to attend.

There is a lot of ground to cover, from NC elections and NC funding to the core priorities of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we put all of our energy into being part of the solution as we take on the city's budget crisis and as we work together to position neighborhood councils as an asset in the journey to make Los Angeles a Great City.

Deputy Mayor Larry Frank hosts BudgetLA

Friday, February 19, 2010

3:00 pm

Mayor's Press Room

3rd Floor

200 Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

As for the NC agenda items that were in City Council over the last two weeks, Krekorian's recommendations were all passed unanimously, with an amendment to the rollover fund motion, giving neighborhood councils the opportunity to claim all money encumbered through January 29, 2010.

1) Committee recommends a) that the city report back to the committee within two weeks of the feasibility of a non profit taking over NC funding, b) making BONC the managing commission and moving DONE staff under them. “We have to move forward and study this,” Krekorian says. “We need to move. We are in a crisis.” Report back in two weeks.

2) Krekorian said "It’s clear to me this is a broken accounting system. This is a system that requires reform. Sweeping these funds into the reserve would not allow NCs what they need to meet their commitments. We need to move the funds into the unappropriated balance account, subject to certain claims. We also need a better verification process." Report back in two weeks.

3) Committee recommends that the NCs submit monthly accounting reports of bank cards to maintain the current procedure and improve transparency. Also moves that cash withdrawals from NCs be eliminated and that DONE report back, within two weeks, how that will get done. Report back in one week.

4) Committee recommends that DONE report back in 60 days.

5) Krekorian recommends total REJECTION of 50% cut in NC funding the CAO had recommended citing partnership with NCs as basis on which to move forward, calling that the “sweet spot in this issue.”

Krekorian vows to continue the discussion with the city and NCs for better, more efficient and transparent ways to move forward.

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

LA’s Budget Crisis: No Time for Flip-Flop Leadership

CityWatch, Feb 19, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 14

BongHwan Kim, the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, is experiencing a "moment of reckoning" brought to him courtesy of the city's budget crisis and the resulting debate over NC funding, DONE operations, core priorities and the delivery of services. Kim's "defining moment" is revealing him as a department leader without a clear direction or plan, evidenced by his contradictory comments and endorsements at the BudgetLA meeting on Saturday, the Budget & Neighborhoods Committee on Tuesday and the City Council on Thursday.

On Saturday, Kim endorsed a proposal to pursue a independent organization from outside the city family to administrate the NC funding program. This comment came at the BudgetLA meeting that also featured Lupe Solorio of Community Partners who introduced her organization as a potential "oversight" organization. It sounded like Kim was in favor.

On Tuesday, Kim sat at the Horseshoe and endorsed a proposal to direct the CAO, the CLA, the City Clerk, CDD, the City Controller and BONC to explore options within the city family to find a host for the NC funding oversight responsibilities. In some cases, the departmental reports came with requests for additional staffing. In no case, did they come with a plan. It now sounded like Kim was in favor of an "in-house" concept.

While it's true that the ability to entertain opposing positions is a sign of wisdom, it can border on doublethink when contradictory proposals get oscillating support with no more thought or explanation other than "It's important to explore all options." That may have been true in the days of research and forecasting but the city is in the midst of the battle and now is the time for decisive leadership with actions based that demonstrate commitment and confidence.

Thursday's City Council session gave a demonstration of the complete opposite as Councilman Greig Smith grilled Kim, asking if he could get the NC funding audit work done on schedule. Kim responded "I'll do my best." drawing the ire of Smith who went on the attack, suggesting that if that was the best answer available, Kim should resign and the Mayor should fire him.

Harsh words on a tough day. The City Council chose this moment to leave Kim hanging, leaving chambers to debate in closed session, returning to announce a motion to increase the call for layoffs to 4000.

Kim eventually found himself at the Horseshoe where he offered a new answer to Smith's query, "I will follow the instructions of the City Council and I will get it done if I have to do it myself."

Strong words but they come at the end of a journey that has too much ambivalence and not enough commitment to a vision and a plan.

LA’s budget crisis is no time for flip-flop leadership and vague answers. LA’s neighborhood councils deserve more.

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