Father and Son Grand Tour Dream Ends With Tragedy

photo credit hereinmalibu

21 years ago, Rodrigo "Rod" Armas strapped on his helmet, hopped onto his bike and set off on the LA Wheelmen's Grand Tour, an annual cycling event that starts and finishes in Malibu, drawing participants from throughout California as well the surrounding Western States. Grand Tour riders typically have an appetite for distance as is evidenced by the route options which range from the 200 Kilometer, 200 mile, 300 mile and 400 mile routes.

The Grand Tour is a fully supported event meaning that there are abundant pit stops and sag teams that patrol the route, offering everything from encouragement and refreshments to medical and mechanical support. The ride starts early on Saturday morning and riders must complete their selected route within 24 hours.

This past Saturday, Rod again saddled up for the Grand Tour, this time accompanied by Christian, his 14 year-old-son. They were among the last cyclists to check in, picking up numbers 473 and 474. Rod strapped on the same helmet he used 21 years before and the father and son team set off on the Highland Double, a 200 mile route that heads up to Port Hueneme and then turns inland over the rural, quieter and hillier back roads of Ventura County.

At around 9pm on Saturday evening, Brian Meek, a cyclist who had stopped with mechanical difficulties was in the Rincon pit stop when two cyclists rode in, stirring cheers and applause. The cyclists were Rod and Christian and they were the two last riders on the Highland Double route. Bryan reports that as Rod sat down he dropped his helmet in the dirt. "One of the guys at the stop took it from him and said he would clean it for him. The father and son were tired but in great spirits and shared some of their ‘stories’ with all of us. I listened as the father shared that he was wearing the same helmet he used 21 years ago the first time he rode the Grand Tour.

As Saturday turned into Sunday, Rod and Christian had approximately 190 miles behind them including 8500 feet of elevation gain and four very challenging hills. They were riding on the shoulder in ideal conditions. the sky was clear, there was great visibility, the roads were dry and there was a slight off shore breeze. All was well and they were within miles of rolling into the finish line in Malibu.

A SAG driver passed the father and son team on PCH and reported that all was well and that the cyclists were making good progress toward the Malibu finish.

At approximately 1:30 am, the next SAG driver came across an emergency scene with medical and law enforcement personnel at work on the two cyclists who lay on the ground at 34000 PCH. The SAG driver radioed back to the the other support teams in order to coordinate the Triple Century cyclists who would soon be riding south on PCH past the emergency scene.

Rod was pronounced dead at the scene and Christian was airlifted to UCLA Medical Center with severe and comprehensive injuries. Their bodies were crushed, their bikes were destroyed, their blood was on the road and yet there was no sign of the person responsible for the mayhem.

The LA County Sheriff's Department provides law enforcement services for the City of Malibu and they found an abandoned Dodge Ram pickup truck approximately 1 mile farther south on PCH. There was no sign of a driver.

The Ventura County Sheriff's Department deployed a K-9 unit to the scene in an effort to locate the person who drove the truck into Rod and Christian and then left them broken and bleeding on the road.

Two hours later at 3:25 am, a security guard at Zuma Bay called from the guard shack to report that he had found the suspect and the Sheriff's Department arrested Robert Sam Sanchez, 30, of Oxnard. Sanchez was transported to a hospital where a blood test was performed and then he was placed in the Lost Hills Station jail where he was charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) vehicular DUI resulting in injury (21153a) and felony hit and run (2991a).

The story thus far is chilling and has had a significant impact on the cycling community, who for the most part, will pause for a moment as the realization that "It could have been me!" sinks in and then go back to life as usual.

But for some, this is more than a moment to mourn the loss of one of our own and the opportunity to offer condolences to the broken family left behind, this is the time to ask some hard questions.

1) Robert Sam Sanchez, the suspect who stands accused of running down Rod and Christian, has already bailed out and is at home enjoying freedom and the assumption of innocence, an assumption that will probably prevail if he has access to any decent legal representation.

Sanchez was not caught behind the wheel of the vehicle, the investigation is taking place by two Deputies who are part of the traffic division of the Sheriff's Department, not the criminal division, and their Supervisor is on medical leave.

What's it going to take for this investigation to be conducted with the full and enthusiastic support of the LA County Sheriff's Department? What's it going to take to get the District Attorney involved now, while the investigation is under way? (btw this is #4 of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights - "cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."

2) Lt. Glafkides, the Watch Commander on duty Saturday evening and Sunday morning reports that she has worked this station for 3 and half years but she has never heard of the LA Wheelmen or the Grand Tour. There were 4 Deputies on duty in Malibu that night. There were none on duty in the unincorporated areas around Malibu. The LA Sheriff's Department also handles law enforcement responsibilities for other "contract" communities such as Hidden Hills, Westlake Village, Calabases and Agoura Hills. All totaled, there are approximately 145 square miles in the area that are under the watch of the LASD.

How does the Sheriff's Department not notice the large number of cyclists rolling through the community and how is it that the Watch Commander doesn't know of such a significant event? Lt. Chew relates that he has an email from the LA Wheelmen indicating that an event would be taking place but somehow the Watch Commander never received the message nor noticed in the years prior that the Grand Tour was taking place.

3) PCH has such a horrific record of traffic tragedies and through it all, cyclists find themselves having to argue for their rights on the road. Brad House was hit from behind by a road raging motorist and flipped into the air over the car. The judge found Brad at partial fault, after all, he was in the lane!

Two cyclists, Scott Bleifer and Stanislov Ionov, were hit from behind and killed by the operator of a catering truck. This incident stirred a significant community debate that had many arguing that the cyclists were at fault for riding two abreast and in the lane.

Missing from the discourse is the simple discussion of how pedestrians and cyclists and mass transit passengers and motorists can all use PCH while maintaining some sense of balance based on equality and a guarantee that all modes of transportation will be supported.

After the deaths of Scott and Stanislov, the PCH Task Force was formed and given the mandate of reviewing safety issues for cyclists on PCH, monitoring conditions on PCH and maintaining interagency responsibility for the conditions of PCH. Velo LaGrange and the LACBC and others tout this as one of their accomplishments and yet...the PCH Task Force has gone dormant and cyclists are dying. Why, even the "Share the Road" signs are getting hit by motorists!

The City of Malibu refers to the Sheriff's Department who refer to Caltrans. Meanwhile PCH remains a very busy and congested and conflicted corridor that more closely resembles a traffic sewer than a vital community lifeline.

Through it all, the cycling community has to ask the hard question "What are we going to do about it?"

4) The speed limit on PCH varies from fast to faster to really fast. The exact numbers vary but range from 45 to 50 to 55. Again, the LASD refers to the State's speed trap law and throws up their hands saying, "It's state law, we set the limits based on the 85% rule." (This is the "science" where motorists vote in an opinion poll with their gas pedals)

Do we really live in communities that are so helpless? Are we not adults with some responsibility for our city, our county and our state? How is it that we tolerate such helplessness from our leadership and from out law enforcement offices?

If PCH needs to be slowed down, let's slow it down. There are 28 miles of PCH through Malibu and on this past Saturday night there were 4 Deputies on duty. Engineer a road diet, implement traffic calming technology, do something other than wring hands and wonder why people are dying!

photo credit independentsources

5) The Office of Traffic Safety put the spotlight on Malibu and reported that "Malibu is #1!" Unfortunately the category was for vehicle injuries. Granted, the report from the Office of Traffic Safety is based on statistics from 2005 but unless something dramatic has changed, Malibu is left with the lingering reality that for a City of their size and with the number of miles traveled, they have been recognized by the State of California as:

#1 for vehicle injuries
#2 for alcohol accidents
#1 for alcohol related accidents for the age group 21 to 34
#1 for speed related accidents
#2 for accidents after dark

Granted, there is a motorcycle cop in Malibu who leads the County in tickets issued but unless he is going to escort me every time I ride my bike to the store, he's an anecdotal anomaly. The brutal reality is this: Malibu is a tough place for pedestrians, for cyclists and for mass transit passengers who must navigate some brutal stretches of PCH.

What are we doing to address the significant danger of the speeding motorists and intoxicated motorists that have Malibu one of the most dangerous communities in the State of California?

6) Motorists who run over pedestrians and cyclists choose to run. They do it time after time and then again. The penalty for running is better than the penalty for being drunk. This inequity in the law needs to shift.

Even worse is the simple fact that hitting a pedestrian or cyclist while sober is hardly a crime. After all, "He came out of nowhere!" is a legal defense and "I didn't see him!" is an acceptable explanation for killing and maiming.

The motorist who ran down LA Wheelmen Bobbi Fisher from behind was sober but had a dog in his lap and was distracted, resulting in a broken back for Bobbi. The motorist wasn't even cited.

The motorist who turned left into oncoming LA Wheelmen on a tandem simply said "I didn't see them." Advanced in age and with failing eyesight, the motorist lost his California license, a small inconvenience he overcame by pulling an out of state license using his vacation property as his address. He still drives to the local pub in Malibu while the cyclists slowly heal.

Putting a motor vehicle on the road is a significant responsibility and yet our leadership acts as if it is a basic right and that any effort to hold a motorist accountable is an infringement of their basic human rights.

What is it going to take for us to take the lead and to establish safety and freedom of fear as basic human rights. (btw - this is #1 of the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear.)

7) Ride organizers and Cycling clubs live in fear of LIABILITY. Why? For encouraging people to get off the sofa and go for a ride?

What is it going to take for "We don't need no stinkin' permits!" to become the battle cry of access to the new public space, the streets of our communities?

In fact, what's it going to take for us to shift the fear of liability and to reverse the relationship. Our leadership should be the ones grimacing and cringing and feeling the full fear of liability every time another pedestrian or cyclist is injured or killed on the public streets that they are responsible for maintaining and supervising!

Why are pedestrians and cyclists treated as 2nd class citizens when they want access to our streets? These streets belong to the public and our leadership is responsible for maintaining fair and equitable access.

Why would we tolerate anything less?

As for me, this is far from over. I'll see you on the Streets!

CityWatchLA - Park[ing] Day LA is On the Way

CityWatch, June 26, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 51

Park[ing] Day LA hits the streets of Los Angeles on Friday, September 18th, as community activists, neighborhood leaders and urban planners throughout the city step up to the curb, put a quarter in the meter, and proceed to transform curbside metered parking spots into temporary public parks.

Jane Jacobs, in "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" writes that in order to make a city safe, prosperous and worth living in, one must start with "lively and interesting streets."


To that end, Park[ing] Day LA is an opportunity for community members to engage passers-by, motorists, members of the press, city leadership and yes, even the authorities, in a rational and respectful dialogue of everything from our city's parks and public space to the environment and allocation of land to mobility issues and local beautification projects.

Park[ing] Day LA is an opportunity to create community, engage the public and create a dialogue, all while taking advantage of one of the best real estate deals in town, the public park(ing) space.

Park[ing] Day originated in 2005 when Rebar, a San Francisco based art and design collective, transformed a metered parking spot into a park-for-a-day in an effort to make a public comment on the lack of quality open space in American cities. Their goal was to reprogram the urban surface by reclaiming streets for people to rest, relax and play and their mission is to promote creativity, civic engagement, critical thinking, unscripted social interactions, generosity and play.

This is the third year that Los Angeles will be participating in Park[ing] Day and the call is out for individuals and organizations who want to work together to stir a discussion of LA's parks, open space and land use allocation.

Last year there were over 70 parks spread throughout Los Angeles, built and hosted by community activists, architectural and design firms, advocacy groups and neighborhood councils.

Cyclists loaded up trailers with sod, trees and park benches and then rode through Central LA until they found an empty park[ing] space. They would throw a quarter in the meter, unload, roll out a park, sit for a spell and engage the passers-by in a conversation and then after the meter had run out, they would load up and head off to another empty park[ing] space.

Architects and designers in Silver Lake created a Zen garden complete with babbling brook and flagstone walk that proved to be irresistible to those who wandered by.

East Hollywood, which is the "park-poorest" neighborhood council in the city, went all out and built the "East Hollywood Rec Center" complete with swimming pool and BBQ pit. Alfredo Hernandez hosted a party that earned him the title of Park Czar.

Mia Lehrer and Associates built a park inspired by the LA River and complete with willows and giant reeds. The beautiful and serene environment was complemented with shade from plastic bags and police line tape as a reminder of the impact of pollution on nature.

One park featured basketball, some created complicated political statements, others simply loaded up on basic park amenities and encouraged folks to sit a spell and relax.

As for the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, well, they simply did it all. Not content with a simple parking space, they simply shut down the street and threw a block party. Organized by Gunner Hand and Ashley Zarella, the block party included bands, food, exhibits and, in keeping with the park theme, served as the driving force for a petition drive for a downtown dog park.

The 3rd annual Park[ing] DayLA is just 3 months away and now is the time for neighborhood councils to partner with community groups and to select a message, pick a location, assemble the team and go to work transforming LA's best real estate deal, the park[ing] space, into a park.

For a recap of last year's Park[ing] Day LA and ideas on how to build your own park visit www.ParkingDayLA.com

Park[ing] Day LA has a twitter page on www.twitter.com/ParkingDay_LA

For an overview of the origins of Park[ing] Day visit www.ParkingDay.org

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

CityWatchLA - Hey! I’m Walkin’ Here!

CityWatch, June 23, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 50

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough questions, solid recommendations, great expectations.

"See you on the Streets!"

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

CityWatchLA - Greuel Scolds Transpo for Dismissing the Public

CityWatch, June 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 49

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel chastised representatives from both the Transportation and the Planning Departments, saying "We've got a room full of people, all claiming to have been left out of the Bicycle Plan Update process. You can't call that the result of effective outreach!"

This took place at a "Special" meeting of the Transportation Committee scheduled for 8 am on what turned out to be Laker Celebration Day. A glance at the agenda indicates that it must have been Greuel's intention to wrap up all of the cycling issues in one big meeting, as she approaches the conclusion of her reign as the Transportation Committee Chair and prepares to take over the City Controller helm. Unfortunately, Councilmen Parks, Alarcon and LaBonge were no shows and it was left to Chair Greuel and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to navigate a busy bike agenda that included the Bike Plan, Bikeways funding, Bike Parking, Abandoned Bikes, the efficacy of the Bikeways Department and the LAPD's relationship with the cycling community.

When it came time for the LAPD to report on their training for LAPD officers on cycling rules and regulations and to report on recent incidents between the LAPD and cyclists, Greuel called for the LAPD to step up and ... they weren't there. Somehow it was the LADOT who knew the LAPD weren't going to attend the meeting, not the Councilmembers, an interesting revelation in the realities of our City Government.

Greuel at first moved the item to another date but the room erupted in protests from people who wanted to be heard. She took public comment on the item and heard from a long list of people who called on the LAPD to support cycling as a transportation choice and who called for better education of the LAPD on the specifics of the California Vehicle Code that cause so much confusion on the streets.

Attending the standing room only meeting were cyclists from all over the city representing a wide range of cycling interests and expressions but united in their desire to see the City of LA support cycling as a transportation solution. They were joined by representatives from homeowners associations and neighborhood councils, as well as cycling organizations and a variety of advocacy groups.

We’re all here noted one participant because "we just want to be involved in making our streets better places to ride and our communities better places to live."

When speakers complained of the consultant-driven process that has kept the public from participating, Rosendahl sat up and called for the consultants to step forward. Nobody moved. Not the consultants in Portland, not the consultants in Berkeley, not the consultants in Colorado, and not the consultants in San Francisco. They just couldn't hear the call.

Rosendahl found this to be disturbing and he began digging into the money. "How much have we paid these consultants?" he asked the Transportation and Planning representatives. When he heard that the City of LA has already paid out 80% on a plan that all at the table profess they have not yet received, he was not happy. He called for the consultants to show up next week at the regularly scheduled Transportation Committee meeting to account for the money, the contract and the Bike Plan.

The Department of Transportation was well represented at the meeting, in spite of their claim that this is a Planning Department process. Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT was flanked by Haripal Vir, Michael Uyeno, and Carolyn Jackson, all of whom were there backing up a Bikeways staff that claimed not to have the Bike Plan. As for the Planning Department, GM Gail Goldberg, who said last month "The Bike Plan will be out in two weeks!" was nowhere in sight and in her stead were two Planning reps with a feeble PowerPoint presentation that should have been entitled "Smoke and Mirrors."

In a meeting that stretched for three hours in spite of the 60 second limit on public comment, cyclists took opportunity after opportunity to share their experiences riding the streets of Los Angeles and stressing the need to address the significant safety issues that cyclists confront every time they roll onto the streets, it was a comment overheard after the meeting was adjourned that was the most revealing.

"Well, I guess we survived that one!" said one LADOT staff member to another … demonstrating clearly that from their perspective … it's meetings such as this with calls for accountability that pose the most significant threat, not the streets of LA. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

CityWatchLA - The Emperor's New Bike Plan

CityWatch, June 16, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 48

The City of Los Angeles is led by folks so befuddled in their duties and yet so enamored with themselves that they spend the bulk of their energy directing the city's many departments to "make more plans" and "report back to us" and "repeat as necessary" and "schedule more meetings," all as the city spirals into ruin.

Several years ago LA's Bikeways Department came before the City Council and said "It's time to update our Bicycle Plan!" The City Council, ever mindful of San Antonio's quest to turn LA into America's greenest big city, quickly approved the plan to update the Bicycle Plan, after all "LA loves cyclists!"

With the smell of money wafting from City Hall, consultants from around the country pedaled their way to Los Angeles and LA's Bicycle Plan Update Process was on, or so it seemed.

Consultants from Portland and Berkeley and Denver and San Francisco convened community meetings and showed the local cycling community the plans of other cities. "Imagine, your Bike Plan could look just like this, albeit with less vision and less commitment and less hope for becoming a reality, but it would have all the pretty colors!"

A website was built, postcards were passed out, comments were solicited and then...gasp...nothing happened!

The contract was extended another year and periodically, LA's Planning Department and Transportation Department would wake from their respective slumbers long enough to report to the City Council's Transportation Committee, turning in reports and giving verbal presentations on the thorough planning process. It was heady stuff that must have inspired many to embark on careers as consultants, after all the money is good and the expectation for performance is low.

Through it all, the Transportation Committee was inundated with complaints until finally, with pressure building for improvements to the LA's cycling environment, the City released the Draft Bike Maps which have lots of very pretty colored lines and incorporate "vision" terms such as "infeasible" with such regularity that one is left wondering if this is part of a plan for ending cycling in LA, rather than supporting it.

Last week, the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee convened for its bi-monthly meeting and had some fairly direct concerns about the missing Bike Plan and the "leaked" bike maps but they were unable to find anybody who would take responsibility for the Bike Plan or the process.

One would think that the LABAC, which is filled with members of the community appointed by the Mayor and the City Council to advise the City of LA on matters related to cycling in LA, would be involved in the process of updating the Bike Plan. Such is not the case.

The only Department represented at the meeting was Transportation which claimed complete ignorance in all things Bike Plan, claiming that they're completely out of the loop on the maps and the plan, adding "It's all in the hands of the consultants!" Further distancing themselves from the process which they set in motion two and a half years ago, they went on the offensive and blamed any department not present for the failings of the process.

The Planning Department was blamed for holding up the plan, the City Attorney's Department was blamed for not supporting the process, Public Works was blamed for not participating, the LAPD was blamed for not caring enough to attend the meetings and Street Services was blamed for not weighing in on street maintenance standards.

Through it all, the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator complained that they receive no respect from the other Departments and went on to maintain complete innocence, absolving themselves of any responsibility in the process, a position contradicted by their own consultants.

Several months ago, the Transportation Committee, in a frenzy of support for the cycling community, directed the LADOT to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the Bicycle Plan. In the hallway, after the meeting, cyclists approached the consultants to confirm the directive and were shocked to hear the consultants respond "We don't take direction from the City Council. We only take direction from the LADOT."

The City Council has long offered words of hope for the City's Bike Plan and along the way, the Transportation Committee has received reports from the General Managers of both Transportation and Planning. Rita Robinson and Gail Goldberg have both turned in glowing accounts of the Bike Plan process but the real question is very simple.

"Has anybody actually seen the Bike Plan?"

On Wednesday, June 17th, the Transportation Committee convenes at 8:00 am for a SPECIAL meeting that, once again, provides for a "Department of Transportation (DOT) report relative to a Bicycle Plan update."

How will Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel respond when the public takes a look at the charade and cries out "But the Emperor has no Bike Plan!"

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

LADOT Bikeways to LA Cyclists: An Open Letter

Dear Cycling Community,

We've had some great times over the years, we've come a long way together, but it's time to take a hard look at our relationship.

You used to be so happy, so grateful for bits of attention and your very own Bike to Work Week, but lately you seem so demanding. All this talk of equality and the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and wanting support from the LAPD is very disturbing. Especially now that you've started evaluating the performance of the LADOT.

Frankly, it's just too much. It's as if you don't know your place anymore.

Anyway, you seem so unhappy with us!

All of this brings us to that painful place where it's apparent that the best thing is to simply end this relationship and go our separate ways.

There was a time when our relationship had promise, a time when we shared common interests and seemed to benefit from each other's company but things have changed.

We're both under a lot of pressure lately. We have financial issues and you...well...whatever.

Let's just say goodbye and go our separate ways.

If it makes you feel better, it's not you. Truth be told, it's just that...well...there's someone else!

His name is San Antonio and he's so dreamy. He's not very tall but he drives a big car! Well, he doesn't actually drive it himself, he has a driver and it's not really a car, it's a Yukon. Can you believe that! He makes my heart go pitter patter! Anyway, he's quite busy, after all, he's very important, and he has a Deputy named Jaime who drives a big Hummer and he's the one who looks after us.

It's not what you think, it's not like we're a "kept" department, it's just that we're special and we need special attention.

Okay, it's really important that we end things quickly, after all it wouldn't do to make San Antonio jealous. You probably already know how he feels about cyclists and it would just upset him if he saw you hanging around.

As for the Bikeways funding, we're gonna keep it, after all, it was kind of a gift. Right? Surely you understand. We can't give it back anyway, it's already been spent...on...stuff.

Anyway, we've had some good times. We've had some laughs. Remember the Bike Plan? That was good for some laughs. We're still laughing. What a hoot!

Hugs and kisses,

LADOT Bikeways!

p.s. As for LaBonge, you can keep him. We never really took him seriously anyway and besides, he's so annoying!

CityWatchLA - MTA: Take Me to Your Leader

CityWatch, June 12, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 47

Those who doubt that the City of Los Angeles is a ship adrift in treacherous waters need only visit the Metro Board to watch our Captain in action and they'll leave convinced that we are in dire straits.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa shows up late, insults the public, lectures other elected officials, wanders off when the discourse fails to hold his attention then returns to pontificate before simply disappearing, all in a clear demonstration of the leadership style that the Los Angeles depends on as the city faces down biggest challenges of this generation. Granted, chairing the Metro Board is just one of San Antonio's many responsibilities but given the significance of the most recent regular Board Meeting and the $3.7 Billion budget they had on the agenda, one would think that he would at least stick around for the vote.

The Board meeting in question was scheduled to start at 9:30 am and the public was greeted with a sign that stated "The Metro wants your input" and then another smaller sign that stated "public comment cards will not be accepted after the start of the board meeting." With the Metro Boardroom filled to capacity at 9:30 and the overflow crowd sent to the cafeteria, the Metro's staff stopped taking cards and left the public to watch as the Boardmembers trickled in and finally reached quorum just shy of 10 am.

Props to the Governor's representative, Caltrans Director Doug Failing and Councilman Jose Huizar, both of whom were on time and ready to grapple with the future of transportation in LA County. They were joined by newly seated County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas and collectively they served as the welcoming party for the other Boardmembers who drifted in as if their participation was a casual afterthought with little significance or impact on the lives of those who packed the room.

County Supervisor Don Knabe picked up the gavel and called the meeting to order, San Antonio still missing in action. He tried to knock a few items off the agenda, obviously stalling and then he took public comment, scheduled for the end of what looked to be a minimum of a three hour meeting and moved it to the beginning, mixing it up with public comment on agenda items.

This didn't bode well for members of the public who were counting on speaking at the end of the meeting and he called out names of people who couldn't get back into the main room in time to grab their 60 seconds of glory at the microphone.

During the confusion, San Antonio slipped in and took control of the meeting. Well, he gave it a shot. As the Metro's budget came up for discussion and action, he looked at the comment cards and then addressed the crowd, challenging them "Do you really need to speak on this item? We're in danger of losing quorum and if you speak it will only take up valuable time?" He repeated this challenge three times, growing more direct and condescending each time.

At one point, a member of the audience yelled out "I took the day off to come here and I'm going to address the Board!" Another member of the audience yelled out "I'm an elected official, just like you, and I'm here to speak on behalf of people who voted for me and expect me to represent them! I'm going to speak!" That guy is going to go far if he keeps that up!

When the dust had settled, the public had the opportunity to talk, the representatives of the surrounding communities had also spoken and San Antonio had slipped out the back door, leaving the remaining Boardmembers to approve the budget and set the course for the Metro.

Keep in mind, the Metro Board consists of heavyweights including the five County Supervisors, representatives from Glendale, Santa Monica, Lakewood, Duarte, the Governor's appointee, Doug Failing and San Antonio and his three appointees, Richard Katz, Jose Huizar and Rita Robinson.

One would hope that the Mayor of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world would be able to lead this crew of seasoned veterans of the system in an orderly meeting, especially as they sit on Measure R funds that amount to tens of billions of dollars of OUR money, all precariously positioned and awaiting their leadership and vision and execution. One would also hope that these leaders would also keep San Antonio in check but such is not the case.

All the more reason for the people of Los Angeles to step up and to take responsibility for the future of this City and to ask the hard questions, "Who's at the helm and why are we headed for the rocks?" (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

City Council Creates Office of DIM

LA's City Council has taken the bold step of creating the Office of Dusty and Ignored Motions (DIM) that specifically tracks all Council motions and monitors City Departments, reporting back on the "snubbing" that those motions receive as they collect dust and a few laughs before they are completely ignored and are finally forgotten.

Rumors that Councilman Jack Weiss will be appointed as the City's Chief DIM Officer were unconfirmed as was the "suggestion" that this post would carry with it a $200K per year salary and would also be supported by a staff of 24, all to be selected and hired by the Chief DIM Officer.

A Council spokesperson explained the need for the Office of DIM by pointing out that the unique structure of the City of LA's government leaves the City Council with the illusion of authority but that in fact, it's all a charade. While this "political threatre" is good for groups of school children who tour the Council Chambers on any given workday, it's bad for the people who live and work and conduct business in LA and who depend on strong leadership in order to enjoy the quality of life they expect from the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Nation in the world.

A brief glance at some recent motions from last year that caused the people of LA to rush to the Council mic exclaiming "You like us, right now, you like us!" revealed that the Departmental "Lands of NO!" include the LAPD, the Department of Transportation and the Planning Department.

These Departments along with many others, have gotten so good at ignoring the City Council that they actually sit in Council Chambers, dressed up for the occasion, and look directly at the Council as they nod their heads up and down, all the while saying very clearly "Yes, we can't!" They then quickly turn the discussion into a complaint of their staffing woes and their budgets constraints. The actual motion in question fades from the discussion and begins the journey into ignomy while the City Department staff wear out their Capezios dancing around the City Council instructions.

Councilman Ed Reyes of Council District 1 introduced a motion that simply called on the Department of Planning to create a pilot project in his district consisting of a public workshop so that residents, bicyclists, businesses and others could weigh in on bicycle projects such as Bicycle Boulevards, Road Diets and Bike Stations. The input from his district which includes northeast Los Angeles, Dodger Stadium, Chinatown and MacArthur Park, would then be incorporated into the City's Bicycle Plan.

This motion had his one of his constituents blogging "I am going to thank the Councilman tomorrow, on my way to work. The man is a genius." Meanwhile, the Department of "No!" stifled their snickering long enough to nod their heads and they then promptly ignored the motion and went on their way.

Council President Eric Garcetti introduced a motion a year ago this coming June 27 that directed the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings" (Sharrows) pilot program on Vermont Avenue between Hollywood Boulevard and 4th Street and Fountain Avenue between the 101 Freeway and Hoover Street. Sharrows are a lane marking (Chevron and cyclist) that is used to indicate the correct lane position for cyclists so that they are not in the door zone and so that motorists are clear on the correct lane positioning. Sharrows consist of paint. Right there in the lane 15 feet off the curb line. They're pretty simple until you bring the LADOT to the table.

This motion had cyclists throughout the City hopeful that Los Angeles was going to finally explore the full toolbox of engineering innovations that cities around the world use to support effective and safe cycling on urban streets. Of course, the Department of "No!" had other ideas and the creative excuses for a lack of progress have included concerns over the use of paint on the streets of LA because it's slippery, explanations that the work is taking a looooong time because the contractor is very busy, and the very simple "These streets are filled with cars. There's simply no more room for cyclists!"

Councilwoman Janice Hahn recently responded to tensions between the cycling community and the LAPD with a motion directing the Los Angeles Police Department to report on recent bicycle incidents and conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, as well as efforts to increase police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

The LAPD showed up, flanked by the LADOT, and gave a powerful demonstration of non-responsive blame-shifting, referring the cyclists of LA as "these people" and then passing the baton so that the LADOT's representative could chime in on the training of cyclists on safety and responsibility. In both cases they demonstrated an inability to read OR incredible skills at simply dodging the directions and avoiding the responsibility.

As a wise Councilwoman once said, "I used to believe in conspiracy until I met gross incompetence."

Either way, the City Council of Los Angeles has done some great work, or so it would seem if one were to simply survey the landscape of dog-eared motions, all ambitious in their wording but ultimately impotent in their impact.

Now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to rally behind the Office of DIM and to encourage the City Council to pay attention, to insist on results and to follow through on these momentary sparks of innovation that need to go from motion to reality.

LAPD - "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

(LAPD Officers ride the Hollywood/Vine crosswalk until they defer to the primacy of the motor vehicle and ride out into the oncoming traffic)

A couple of months ago, I was observing the LAPD's Valley Traffic Division as they conducted a pedestrian crosswalk sting on Reseda Boulevard. It was an amazing sight to watch. A police officer in street clothes, the "decoy," would step out into the crosswalk and begin to cross the street. Motorcycle officers stood lined up on the side streets, at the ready to ride into the relentless traffic to cite the motorists who failed to yield the crosswalk to the pedestrian. It was like watching cowboys herd cattle with the traffic cops pulling over as many as four motorists at a time and lining them up curbside for their tickets. It was an amazing sight to witness.

At midday, when the sting operation shutdown for lunch, I saw Officer "K" writing tickets for three male cyclists. My curiosity was piqued. After all, this was a crosswalk sting. The LAPD was there to cite motorists who failed to yield to pedestrians. I watched.

The cyclists were riding inexpensive bikes on the sidewalk when they were stopped and they were dressed as if on their way to or from some form of manual labor. They might be referred to as workforce cyclists. They were silent throughout the ticketing process. They avoided eye contact, they took their tickets and they silently rode north on Reseda.

I asked Officer "K" what the cyclists had done to warrant the citations.

He explained that they had crossed the intersection in the crosswalk against the flashing hand.

I commented that the law prohibiting crossing against the flashing hand applied to pedestrians and that the 3 men were clearly cyclists, not pedestrians.

That was when Officer "K" smiled and said "That's why I wrote them up for crossing against the solid circular red!"

I pointed out that the light couldn't have been red because the crosswalk still had the flashing hand.

He said he had to write it that way because there was no California Vehicle Code (CVC) to rely on to enforce that ban against riding in the crosswalk.

I countered by pointing out that it's not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk and that was why there was no CVC prohibiting it.

He stiffened up a bit here and responded that it was up to a Judge to decide and that even if the ticket got thrown out by the Judge, the process was a learning experience.

I closed my mouth and held my tongue but from my perspective, the process had become the punishment, not the lesson.

I'm not sure when the LAPD mandate went from enforcing the law to teaching the law but it leaves me wondering "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

The City Council asked the same question last month when an incident between the operator of a Hummer and several cyclists sparked the cycling community to ride en masse to the Police Commission and the Inspector General claiming bias based policing.

Cyclists involved in the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident claimed the Hummer driver hit a cyclist and then left the scene, driving over three more bikes in the process and dragging one of them up the street. The LAPD responded, caught the Hummer driver, interviewed those at the scene and then allowed the driver of the unlicensed Hummer to drive away from the incident.

The cyclist community was so enraged by this incident that they scheduled a "Storm the Bastille" ride on May 1st and asked the City Council to join them in fighting for even handed and equitable enforcement of the law. The City Council responded to the complaints of the May 1st "Storm the Bastille" cyclists with the following motion (09-1035):

MOTION Numerous incidents have been reported relative to bicycle and vehicle collisions and aggressive motorists attitudes to law-abiding people riding bicycles. Complaints have also been raised regarding the treatment of bicyclists by the Los Angeles Police Department. It is critical that the City respond to these situations and respond appropriately.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Los Angeles Police Department to report on recent bicycle incidents and conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, as well as efforts to increase police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

The motion was made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seconded by Councilmembers Ed Reyes, Tom LaBonge, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel.

Unfortunately, the motion directing the LAPD didn't elicit the response the cyclists sought.

LAPD Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese reported to the City Council two weeks later but he failed to address "police training related to bicycling activities and laws," instead regaling the council with his version of the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident. He relied on his memory for the report, having neglected to bring the actual file (a compilation of three reports, initially logged as two reports and finally released as single report with a single report number) and I would contend that he made a few mistakes along the way including referring to the cyclists of Los Angeles as "these people."

Albanese reported that the cyclist hit the Hummer, a statement that is contradicted by reality. The cyclist was hit from behind, the damage was to the rear of the bike and he was thrown forward. Tough to do unless the LAPD is going to claim that the cyclist also broke the laws of physics. Albanese continued by claiming that the statements of all witnesses were taken, again contradicted by reality. I forwarded the contact info of another witness to the incident to the LAPD, one who was not on the ride or in the Hummer but who lived in the area. He had identified himself to the Officers at the scene but was told, "We already know what happened." Albanese then referred to the investigating division as both Central Traffic and South Traffic. A small mistake, but nonetheless, a mistake.

Through it all, the Deputy Chief of the LAPD demonstrated some serious skills. He was initially directed to report on LAPD training but he artfully dodged that instruction and shifted the discussion to an incident but denied the City Council the opportunity to actually review the report which left him free to present his version of the incident unchallenged.

The LADOT Bikeways Coordinator sat next to him and followed suit, turning the conversation into an off-topic discussion of bicycle safety and responsibility training for cyclists as well as the updates of the City's Bicycle Plan and the LADOT website.

The LAPD and the LADOT made no pretense of addressing training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws and that is a complete failure, not only to respond to a City Council directive, but to the community as a whole.

The need to address training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws was made clear this past week.

On Monday, June 1, 2009 at approximately noon, a woman rode her bicycle on the sidewalk of Louise Avenue in the valley. As she approached the intersection of Valerio she rode into the intersection on an unmarked crosswalk. At the same time a large truck approached the intersection on Valerio and proceeded to turn right onto Louise. The cyclist and the truck collided, she fell to the ground and the truck crushed her head as she lay on the street.

The operator of the truck, which was equipped with a crane and was hauling DWP power poles, was unaware of the incident until he was notified via walkie talkie by his "pilot" in the escort vehicle that was behind the truck.

This incident is tragic, a life was lost. In addition, the lives of those involved will forever be scarred by the horrific nature of the scene. The fact that the vehicle was moving through a quiet residential neighborhood is also a concern as is the fact that the truck was operated by an LADWP contractor.

But especially disturbing is the resulting confusion during the investigation of the incident and the confusion over "the rules of the road."

Councilman Smith's office responded to the incident the next day and explained, via email, that "the bicyclist was reportedly riding on the wrong side of the roadway and traveling against the traffic flow; making her the initial "primary cause" of this tragedy." The email went on to detail the law enforcement experience of Councilman Smith, Chief of Staff Mitch Englander and Public Safety Deputy Jim Dellinger.

The LAPD's Public Information Officer confirmed the report that the LAPD considered the cyclist the "primary cause" of the incident because she was riding a bike in a crosswalk which is a violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road. The PIO explained that a cyclist must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic.

I asked if he had ever ridden the Orange Line Bike Path or the Chandler Bike Path or any of the City's bikeways facilities that actually direct cyclists into the crosswalk at intersections. The PIO paused and then suggested that I speak to the investigating officer.

I called the LAPD's Specialize Collision Investigation Detail (SCID) and spoke to the investigating officer assigned to this case who also explained that cyclists must obey the rules of the road which prohibit riding a bike in the crosswalk. I asked for the actual vehicle code or municipal code that prohibits cyclists from riding in the crosswalk and he simply referred to CVC 21200 and repeated the claim that cyclists must dismount before using a crosswalk.

The cyclist who lost her life at the intersection of Louise and Valerio is not here to explain what happened. She is not here to defend her actions and in a way it doesn't matter because, regardless of who is determined at fault, she is still dead.

But...I believe we have an obligation to be accurate in applying the law to this incident and it is either illegal for a cyclist to ride a bike in a crosswalk or it's not. That is a simple issue that can be settled quickly and if the LAPD's appraisal of this incident is based on that ruling then it is very important that we are accurate in applying the law.

I contend that it is not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk. It might not wise, it might not be advisable, but it is definitely not illegal. cyclists are not required to dismount at intersections or at crosswalks.

The fact that there is confusion over such a simple issue demonstrates the real need for specific training for the LAPD on bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

On May 1, 2009 the City Council called on the LAPD to report on police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

This tragic incident and the resulting confusion demonstrate the need for the LAPD to review and report on their departmental training of the rules and regulations that govern safe and effective cycling in the City of Los Angeles.

p.s. Attached is a 2006 City Council resolution addressing cyclists in the crosswalks.

CityWatchLA - LADOT Demonstrates Need For Department of DIY

CityWatch, June 5, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA Bikeways stimulates Seattle and Portland economies

Los Angeles is getting a new bike map, three bike maps actually, and they'll be here in late June or early July according to Carolyn Perez Andersen, the President of Seattle based Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design. Ilium also provides the LADOT with brochures, maps, wayfinding, marketing and other materials to support the DASH line and other transit services provided by the City of Los Angeles.

These bike maps are not to be confused with the three Draft Bike Maps that were released this past Thursday by the City of Los Angeles as part of the City's Bicycle Plan Update Draft Map. The Ilium Bike Map contract was approved a little over two years ago by the City Council which authorized the Department of Transportation to commission Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for the "development, marketing and distribution of the Los Angeles and Surrounding Communities Bicycle Map." The contract was to cover two years with two one-year extensions and authorized a cost "not to exceed $400,000."

This might be a good time to ask why the City of LA authorized a $400,000 contract with Ilium for a Bike Map and then entered into a $450,000 contract with Alta for a Bike Plan which also includes a Bike Map.

Actually the good time to ask these hard questions would have been long ago and we did ask them then but to no avail.

I was at the City Council on December 19, 2006 when the Ilium contract came up for approval. I was joined by two other cyclists and we all testified to the efficacy of the Metro's Bike Map and to the unnecessary expense of producing another map, especially if it only covered LA and left holes and gaps indicating other municipalities. Anyone who travels for more than a few miles in any direction in LA knows you can visit several cities in a simple journey. Would we collect separate maps for each City? How would I carry these 88 maps?

I'm no Eagle Scout but I can certainly navigate my way across town without requiring two LA Bike Maps, one developed by a company based in Seattle and the other developed by a company based in Portland. In fact, if I wanted a Bike Map, I'd much rather rely on the comprehensive Metro Bike Map which includes all the municipalities within LA County and which already exists, as opposed to the Ilium mystery map and the Alta promise of a map.

In spite of our protest, the motion was approved unanimously at 13 to 0. Councilwoman Jan Perry was absent and CD7's seat was empty.

We left Council Chambers disappointed that $400,000 was going to be spent duplicating something that already existed but we were assured by LADOT staff that their version was going to have "special" features.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with the budget crisis, I think it's not only fair but essential that we challenge our city departments to account for their performance and that we start with a very simple "Show me the money!"

Watching the LADOT's funding schemes is like watching three card monte and we know how that exercise in "Trust me!" ends.

Ilium Strategic marketing & Design is no stranger to Los Angeles. They have been engaged in a lucrative relationship with the City since 1991. One of the more recent (2006) contracts was for $5 million and included "marketing services for other transit related programs within the City such as the LAPD's Bicycle Program which educates users on bicycle safety and the need to register their bicycles."

Well, that was money well spent. This contract expires at the end of this month and there are two one-year options available.

Would it be too much to involve the community in the development of resources such as the maps that the LADOT has commissioned from Ilium? After all, we're the ones who will purportedly be using them, if they are of any use and if they are accessible.

I still have the Metro Bike Map that I took to City Council when I protested the Ilium contract. It still works! I also have a post-it note with the biking infrastructure of Los Angeles detailed on it, after all, there's not much to speak of and so it doesn't require much paper.

The City of LA is sitting on revenue that is more than 30% higher than the day Mayor Villaraigosa took office. Our budget crisis is one of accountability and the effective management of our money. This little contract with Ilium is just one of many contracts with many companies. Where's the oversight? Why does the City of Los Angeles allow departments to contract with so many different companies to provide duplicate marketing and website services, all with great redundancy and insulation and at great expense and waste.

This is Los Angeles. I believe that we deserve better!

LA's Mean Streets - Unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians and mass transit passengers!

(Hans Gutknecht/Daily News) Album ID: 767869 Photo ID: 23918480

Monday was a bad day for pedestrians and cyclists and mass transit passengers in the City of Los Angeles.

First a woman cyclist was killed at 12:10 pm as she rode on Louise Avenue in Reseda. The Daily News reports that she was hit by a LADWP truck operated by a contractor and pictures of the scene indicate that it was a large truck hauling a trailer loaded with light poles. The LAPD reports that she was southbound on the sidewalk of Louise and was crossing the street when she was hit by the right-turning truck as it turned from Valerio onto Louise. The cyclist was pronounced dead at the scene.

The afternoon was not yet over when news came out that the Fire Department was attempting to extricate a male adult from under a bus on South Pacific Avenue in Venice. According to the LAPD, the 30-year-old man was crossing the street in the crosswalk when he was hit and dragged by a right-turning bus. The bus operator did not know the pedestrian was under the bus and continued for a couple of blocks before he was flagged down and informed of the body stuck under his bus. The pedestrian was pronounced dead at the scene.

At about the same time, a motorist on West Vanowen Street plowed into a bus stop, hitting four people and dragging one woman until the vehicle was stopped by a tree and a pole. Residents from nearby lifted the vehicle to free the trapped woman who was then transported to a local hospital and is reported in critical condition. The other women suffered minor injuries.

In all three cases the fire department, the police department and the press report that the vehicle operators required medical attention and at least two were transported to area hospitals.

Our streets are filled with vehicle operators who can't handle their vehicles or the environment in which they operate or the consequences of their failure to control their vehicles.

If the City of Los Angeles were a movie set, it would be illegal to allow children on the streets and the 1st Assistant Director and the Transportation Captain would be up on charges for allowing the set to disintegrate into a scene where people die on a regular basis.

But it's not a film set, it's reality and it's bad. It's no longer headline news when somebody dies as the result of a traffic collision, just scrolling trivia, with names withheld and incidents forgotten as the next victim takes their place on the list of the nameless who dared to walk, ride a bike or take the bus.

Our streets are filled with high performance vehicles driven by low performance operators. Our cars are engineered for speed and come with air bags, seat belts and crash cages, all which enable the occupants to survive a traffic collision but this does nothing for those who walk, ride or simply stand on a sidewalk. These are the most vulnerable and we do nothing to make the streets safer for them.

The City of Los Angeles may not be in a position to address the driving skills of all those who operate vehicles on the streets of LA, but it surely is in a position to require those who operate City owned vehicles or City contracted vehicles to take a simple driving course that stresses the rights of pedestrians and cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.

If we are to set a safety standard for our streets, it is imperative that we start with those over whom we have the most control, those who are on the payroll of the City of Los Angeles.

I'm calling on the City of Los Angeles to implement a training program to ensure that any city employee or contractor operating City owned or contracted vehicles be required to successfully complete a course for motor vehicle operator's on safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The League of American Bicyclists already has the course material in place for a program such as this, all that's missing is the political will to make it a reality.

Now is the time and we are the political will.

"See you on the Streets!"

LA Bike Plan's "Proposed Bicycle Network" Aims Low and Still Falls Short

Last Thursday was Groundhogs Day for LA's long overdue Bike Plan and the Draft Bike Map peeked its head out of the city's Byzantine den of multi-departmental oversight and looked around for its shadow.

The release was quiet with only neighborhood council members notified of the availability of the Draft Bike Map at local libraries as well as online at http://www.labikeplan.org/bikeway_maps.

There may have been others notified but as somebody who signed in at four workshops, I find it strange that I didn't receive notification. Apparently the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, The LA County Bicycle Coalition, the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Bike Writers Collective and the many local cycling organizations were also left off the distribution list.

Nevertheless, word of the release spread quickly and the public has had the weekend to review the three Draft Bike Maps.

Heres my take on the City of LA's Bicycle Plan Draft Bike Map:

1) Outreach: FAIL! Seriously, what is it going to take to get the LADOT (and Planning) to engage the public and to treat the community with a little respect. The LADOT Coordinator had previously claimed that the budget for outreach was 20% of the $450K budget for the Bicycle Plan. Surely that would cover the cost of emailing those who are established in the cycling community or those who have attended prior meetings and signed up for notifications. City's Transportation Committee, as far back as Jan 10, 2007, has taken the time to specifically instruct the LADOT to include the public in the process. And yet, the current distribution for the Draft Bike Map left out the cycling community.

2) Format: FAIL! Surely we could find somebody at Starbucks with an iPhone who could throw this map through iMap and perhaps generate something close to useable. Others more knowledgeable than I have commented:

"This map is embarrasing. If I was forced to release a map like this by a client I would hang my head in shame." Marcotico

I find the maps to be cumbersome and close to useless with a dose of frustrating thrown in. I looked at my neighborhood, was unable to compare the new map with the old, was unable to filter the noise, was unable to do anything other than to exclaim "More of the same from the LADOT!"

3) Vision: FAIL! This document sets out to aim low and then still falls short. Who gets to call improvements "infeasible" and decide that cyclists belong on side streets? Who gets to position a diluted "bike friendly" designation as our hope for improving the city of Los Angeles for cyclists? Why not include real data such as vehicle counts or speed limits or hipster coffeehouses or any of the many factors that make a streets favorable for cyclists? Why not set the bar really, really high and then let the community come together to make it happen?

How about a tally sheet. Be so bold as to give us the actual mileage of proposed Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes and Bike Boulevards. LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher went on record with some commitments. Are they reflected on this map?Tell us what's really on the table.

4) Usefulness: FAIL! I simply have to look at Hollywood and ask the simple question "Will this improve conditions as I ride from home to USC, Downtown, Griffith Park, Glendale, Burbank, the Valley, the Westside, NE LA, South LA, Harbor, ANYWHERE?" Seriously, the answer is no! Even the existing popular routes that I ride now remain unimproved by anything so simple as signage or sharrows or any encouragement while at the same time "bike friendly" streets are identified that appear to encourage me to "get out of the way" of motorists on their popular routes. This is not a useful document nor does it reflect a useful strategy or vision.

Why gray out neighboring communities? We still ride through them and any evaluation of efficacy of routes will include connecting with neighboring communities. Why can't LA play nice with the neighbors? Do we really need 88 municipal maps as well as the County map?

5) Clarity: FAIL! The cloud of "unfeasible" routes simply creates visual noise that obscures the brutal reality. There is no Bikeways vision in place, there is no clearly articulated strategy or commitment to standards or improvements. Optional, subject to further evaluation and "may include" are the foggy terms that allow this document to deteriorate in an expensive suggestion.

Graphic artists have reacted at first glance with shock that a cumbersome mapping document such as this was released to the public with a straight face.

"tried to pull it into adobe illustrator to separate out the wishful thinking parts but it's lo res flattened artwork... no dice, thus wishing for them to put this into google maps and allow for turning off and on proposed routes versus infeasable routes etc... pdf fucking sucks and since it's a lo res image they could have just as well made it a jpeg..." RB

"Ahh, why can't someone make a better online mapping interface that doesn't suck... PDFs are so 1990..." jerich1ne

6) Standards: FAIL! There are Bike Routes, there are Bike Lanes and there are "Shared Roadways." Then there are Bike Boulevards. Well, there would be if the LADOT wasn't so afraid of them. The LADOT needs to settle down and set standards and then work from that position. Others have begun the process. There are Bike Routes, there are Bike Lanes and there are "Shared Roadways." Seriously, we know what Bike Paths and Bike Lanes are and where they are but EVERY street is a "Shared Roadway" and even with bike paths and bike lanes, cyclists can ride all the streets. The challenge is to support cyclists who ride the streets of Los Angeles. How is this new "Shared Roadways" designation going to do this?

7) Vocabulary: FAIL! Repeating the phrase "where bicyclists have full legal access under the California Vehicle Code" is completely unnecessary and a waste of space. It goes without saying (kind of like "the laws of gravity will apply to all users of this street") but if necessary, say it once on the map and get it over with. Better yet, use the legal standard which is that cyclists have the right ride on roads and highways unless expressly prohibited. That means the streets of LA and it also means 1000 miles of highway in the State of California. Why does LA keep sprinkling this little bit of "permission" on the small streets?

In addition, using soft words and phrases such as "might be implemented" and "subject to further evaluation" and "applications of various treatments" leaves enough vagueness as to be meaningless and useless.

8) Subterfuge: SUCCESS! The LADOT wrote the scope of work for this project and secured the funding and handled the call and made the presentations to the City Council. All through the process, it was clearly driven by the LADOT. The Bike Plan consultant kicked off the Bike Plan process by referring specifically to the LADOT Coordinator by name as the authority that framed the specs of the process and the direction of the vision. Along the way, the Bicycle Plan, which is part of LA's Transportation Plan which is in turn part of the City of LA's General Plan, was shuffled so that a member of Planning was listed as the project manager but rest assured, this is an LADOT project and the vision comes from LADOT's mandate to move motor vehicles.

Make no mistake, no matter how hard the LADOT works to put the Bike Plan on Planning, this is an LADOT project and that is a good thing for motorists. This is funded with Bikeways funding, this should benefit cyclists but it is driven by a commitment for moving cyclists out of the way of motorists.

9) Funded activity with no real impact: SUCCESS! This map is an indication of things to come. It lacks commitment, uses soft language and includes enough "gray" markings to create the illusion that there is some real Bikeways activity taking place. It has colorful dotted lines that indicate things to come (or not) it has lots of routes that will get you where you need to go (or not) and it will have kept a lot of people gainfully employed during its long gestation period. It's a funding exercise!

10) Creative use of the word "UNFEASIBLE" in a vision document: SUCCESS! Is this an engineering standard? Is this a planning document? When did political will dictate the creation of a master planning document? Why is the LADOT's philosophy the driving force in this process? What happened to public input?

Overall, I'm calling the LA Bike Plan Update Draft Bike Map a complete success from the LADOT's perspective for subterfuge, funding and the bold use of the word "UNFEASIBLE" but a complete failure from the perspective of the cyclists who have hope that they'll get some support as the ride the streets of LA.

From my perspective, I'm calling this process flawed from the beginning and I'm putting my hopes for better cycling on the streets of Los Angeles in the hands of the DIY crew!

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - The World of Facebook, YouTube, Google & Twitter—for Pros and Pedestrians

CityWatch, May 29, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 43

On Saturday at the Valley Regional Congress in Panorama City, Neighborhood Council members from around the city will have the opportunity to "Get Connected" as they explore the free social media tools and embrace the new technology that will allow them to communicate effectively in the digital arena.

The session will appeal to both novices and webmasters and an overview of tools such as Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, WordPress, Blogger, StumbleUpon, Flickr, Picassa, Digg, Google, LinkedIn and Ning as well as ideas for including them as part of a neighborhood council strategy for outreach and communications and, most of all, for creating community.

The idea that "if you build it, they will come!" may have made for a great movie but as a strategy for creating online traffic, it falls far short. "Get Connected" includes real techniques for driving website traffic, establishing blog footprints, maximizing email effectiveness, mastering the networking sites and communicating effectively in an environment that is rapidly changing the way we interact.

The Valley Regional Congress is open to the public citywide and is designed to provide Neighborhood Council members with opportunities to forge alliances and coalitions while sharing information on topics ranging from land use to transportation to public safety to community building and connectivity.

Open to the public and free of charge, the Valley Regional Congress takes place on Saturday, May 30 from 8 am to 3 pm at the Panorama High School, 8015 Van Nuys Blvd, Panorama City 91402

For more information on the Valley Regional Congress, visit http://ValleyRegionalCongress.org

To participate in the Valley Regional Congress wiki, visit http://valleyregionalcongress.wetpaint.com

For more information on "Get Connected" visit http://ConnectTheLinks.com

(Stephen Box is a communications and marketing expert … and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

League of American Bicyclists Tarnishes the Bronze

Photo by Gary Kavanagh

The League of American Bicyclists has a long history of fighting for the rights of cyclists. Formerly know as the League of Wheelmen, they have been around since 1880.

In many ways not much has changed from the early days.

The League was there in the early days to counter antagonism against cyclists from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians. Now we find ourselves up against motorists, bus operators, and law enforcement officers.

The League was there in the early days leading 100K cyclists in a campaign for paved roads, an improvement that benefitted many and led to our national highway system.

Along the way there have been ups and downs and discontent within the League but through it all, they have maintained a position as the national voice of cyclists.

That's why it's especially hard to criticize but all the more important to point out when they fumble, especially when it sets local bike activists back in their efforts to make their communities "Bike Friendly."

First there was the League of Bicyclist's award to the City of Los Angeles of an honorable mention as a "Bike Friendly" city last year. This tarnished the League's credibility and set the concept of "Bike Friendly" awards back a notch. Apparently the award was based on intentions and the fact that the City of Los Angeles had embarked on a Bike Plan update journey. That's the Bike Plan that was due last year and is still under wraps.

Now there is the League of Bicyclist's award to the city of Santa Monica of a Bronze Status as a "Bike Friendly" city. The award is being given today.

Santa Monica is a great city with many wonderful attributes and their bike valet program is one of the best. BUT surely a city with a police department that has a special "cycling suppression" detail that regularly squishes group rides and writes tickets that exceed common sense would get disqualified from the process.

The League of American Bicyclists is a wonderful organization but it has completely destroyed the "Bike Friendly" program with it's completely disconnected and superficial awards to Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The greatest mistake in this process is that they didn't engage the cycling community in the process, they didn't require the award applicant to account for their relationship with the cycling community, they simply engaged in bureaucrat to bureaucrat award negotiation and I believe the cyclists who ride the streets of these communities deserve better.

Attached is an article from the Santa Monica Press Telegram that covers the LAB Bronze award for Santa Monica.

City recognized for its dealings with bicycles

By Kevin Herrera for the Santa Monica Daily Press

May 22, 2009
CITYWIDE — Boasting nearly 16 miles of bike lanes and a popular valet program catering to those who use pedal power, Santa Monica was recently recognized for being a bicycle friendly community by a national organization advocating on behalf of cyclists.

The League of American Bicyclists, which represents the interests of the nation's 57 million cyclists, awarded City Hall with a bronze level distinction for its "remarkable commitments to bicycling," placing an emphasis on bike lanes, the valet program and future plans to build bicycle parking facilities Downtown.

"We are trying to create a supportive environment for biking in Santa Monica and we feel we need to help people make different choices when planning a trip," said Beth Rolandson, a principal transportation planner for City Hall and an avid cyclist.

"It's a challenge," Rolandson added. "It's really about education for everyone, both bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as drivers, so we can all co-exist safely."

Santa Monica is the first city on the Westside to be honored with the award, and is joined by Long Beach, which represents the southern portion, among this year's honorees. The previous recipients from the county are Claremont and Santa Clarita.

The news came as a shock to some riders who have complaints about City Hall's failure to keep pedestrians off the beach bike path and aggressive police officers harassing those participating in monthly, organized rides such as Critical Mass.

"Santa Monica is a great place with the infrastructure in place and fun rides … but until we focus on equality and that becomes the foundation, we are never going to get that level playing field," said Stephen Box, co-founder of the Bike Writers Collective, which has created a "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" that has been adopted by the city of Los Angeles, but not Santa Monica.

"If you focus on equality, then you can design streets that are good for everybody," Box added. "It's the basic principal that our streets are public spaces and [cyclists] should be equal partners in that space."

Cities are recognized by the league for their role in actively supporting cycling for fun, fitness and transportation and are judged by their record in promoting bicycling in five key areas: education, engineering, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.

Nationally, 108 of the 274 communities that have applied have been honored, representing some 37 states, according to the league.

The bronze designation is one with real meaning since it is difficult to earn, and all applications are carefully evaluated by a team of local cyclists, national experts, and League of American Bicyclists staff, representatives form the league said.

Platinum, gold, silver, and bronze awards are given twice each year.<>

Metro vs. Cyclists

This past Monday, Enci and I were riding south on Vermont, a couple of hundred yards north of Prospect.

We were riding southbound on Vermont in lane #2 alongside parked cars at approximately 3:25 pm in light traffic. I was in the lead, Enci was in second position and the bus was in third. I heard Enci scream, I looked back and saw a bus behind me but not Enci. I pulled over and the bus passed me, pulling to the curb just yards further on. Then I saw my wife riding down Vermont.

Bus Operator #25119 had just "asserted" himself into the #2 lane at the expense of my wife's position and in doing so, forced my wife to choose between the side of the bus, the parked cars or simply braking to avoid getting hit by the bus as it came from behind alongside her and then simply merged right toward her.

Tough choices!

This incident drew a Metro Supervisor, two Sheriff's Deputies, an LASD Supervisor, LAPD officers from both Hollywood (4) and NorthEast (2) and an LAPD Supervisor. Quite a significant show of force!

The Bus Operator was long gone when the first LAPD officers responded to my call. As we stood on Hollywood Blvd. talking to the officers, Operator #25119 came back on his return route, graciously slowing down and waving, apparently enjoying the spectacle. Imagine his shock when Officer Lee WALKED off in pursuit and pulled the bus over.

Through it all, we experienced a cloud of jurisdictional confusion over who takes the report and law enforcement confusion over whether or not it's a crime to run a cyclist off the road.

I went to the Metro Board on Thursday to address 1) this incident 2) the issue of training and oversight of bus operators on safe interaction with cyclists on the road 3) the jurisdictional confusion 4) feedback opportunities for the metro on weekends and holidays.

It was a crazy session, public comment was scheduled for the end of the meeting and then moved to the beginning. It was a full house with overflow in the cafeteria. They moved public comment from the end of the meeting to the beginning and all of a sudden I heard them call my name. I was prepared for a two minute speech but they cut us down to 60 seconds and so I gave it my best.

I went over my time and kept going, committed to hitting the 4 points and I thought County Supervisor Knabe was trying to cut me off, then I realized he was calling over Jack Gabig, the Division Manager, who motioned for me to follow him out a side door. For a moment I flashed on that scene from Casino and imagined a bunch of Metro Operators waiting "backstage" but with RoadBlock and Courage flanking me, I figured I was in a good position.

Mr. Gabig spent half an hour taking my complaint and I'd like to think we're on our way to starting a relationship between cyclists and bus operators, one that puts our safety before their schedule or convenience.

Attached is an email I sent as a recap of that meeting.

Mr. Gabig,

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me at the Metro Board Meeting and for discussing the details of my complaint.

I wanted to recap the specific elements so that you can address them or direct me to the appropriate person.

1) Metro vs. Cyclist incident from this past Monday. My wife was riding her bike south on Vermont, in contol of the #2 lane, when she was run off the road by Operator #25119.

From our first encounter with a Metro supervisor to those we speak with along the journey, it is made clear that this is a personnel issue and that we have no right of access to the Metro file or process.

I contend that Metro passengers and those on the streets and sidewalks also have rights and that the Metro can surely balance the personnel limitations with appropriate resolution and communication of this complaint.

Further to the potential claim that this is a personnel issue, I would contend that this is, first and foremost, a criminal complaint.

2) Metro Training and Oversight: This incident, along with similar incidents, indicates a need to address the training and oversight of the Metro's Operators. From honking unnecessarily to passing unsafely, CVC violations must not be tolerated, especially when they endanger the lives of cyclists.

The Metro's manual calls for 3 to 4 and a half feet of passing room for cyclists but some operators still "assert" themselves and squeeze cyclists.

The Metro's manual refers to "cyclists and other road hazards" indicating a culture of primacy that results in unsafe and illegal behavior.

3) Jurisdictional confusion must be resolved: Once again, we experienced jurisdictional confusion as my call to LAPD resulted in 1 Metro Supervisor, 2 Sheriffs, 1 LASD Supervisor, 2 NE LAPD Officers, 1 NE LAPD Supervisor, 4 Hollywood LAPD Officers.

One shouldn't have to watch law enforcement officers debate jurisdiction in order to report a crime. One shouldn't have to know the system in order to get the full support of the system.

If there is a memorandum of understanding between the LASD and the LAPD with regards to jurisdiction on the streets, the rail lines, the busway and the bike paths, please consider this a formal request for that MOU.

4) Metro Customer Service is cumbersome and ill-equipped to handle simple complaints, as evidenced by the deluge of tweets, messages, emails, texts and verbal stories I received over the last 3 days that conclude with "I tried to contact the Metro but I gave up!"

One would think that from a simple loss prevention position, the Metro would want a customer service system that yields good accurate data on safety and performance.

And yet...the current system doesn't allow someone to call in during the evening, on weekends and holidays. There's not even an answering machine in place!

Most important is the need for significant improvement in acknowledging complaints and reinforcing the process by communicating resolution, even if in general terms. But there must be some confirmation that the process works.

I thank you for your help in addressing this specific situation and the larger opportunity of the relationship between the Metro and cyclists.

As I mentioned today, cyclists and bus operators move at the same speed across town and share the curb lane so it's imperative that we develop a relationship based on equality and respect.

I look forward to working with you.

LADOT to Cyclists "There's no more room for cyclists!"

The LADOT's Bikeways Division, aka "the Department of No!" has a presentation that should be entitled "Why you can't have what you want."

For years now, Bikeways staff has been offering up excuses for their lack of innovation and progress, explaining "LA is simply built out. There's no more room for cyclists!"

This month's Bicycling magazine quotes the Bikeways Division's spokesperson as saying "What I need is roadway. Right now, all I can do is try to find places to squeeze bikes in."

The LADOT has repeated this for so long it starts to sound like the truth. Over and over, Bikeways Reps claim there's no more room. This goes unchallenged by real debate or discourse, leaving a wake of bobbleheads behind, all chanting "There's no more room!"

Then along comes reality...


The streets of Los Angeles are actually pretty wide. Especially if you get the parked vehicles off the main streets.

Sunset Blvd. and Hollywood Blvd. are notorious for 18 Wheelers and Commercial vehicles, all parked for long stretches, not for deliveries, not for errands, not to simply stage them between runs but for days on end. Best part, they're parked illegally!

Let's ticket them! Let's tow them! Let's open the streets up for the movement of goods and people! Let's get LA moving!


Or not.

Even when there is already a bikeways facility in place, the LADOT is hesitant to enforce. In fact, the LADOT Parking Enforcement Division still doesn't even enforce CVC 21211(b) which prohibits a vehicle from blocking a bike path or a bike lane.

Wilco Tango Foxtrot!

Yep, it's true. This past week, the Captain of the LADOT's Hollywood Division of Parking Enforcement informed me that the department did not enforce the prohibition because they had not been trained in the procedure. (I think it involves writing a ticket. It used to involve a paper and pen but now they have those little machines and maybe it really is complicated)

Two years ago, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel initiated a motion that would modify the existing law and penalty schedule so that the City could enforce the ban on blocking bike lanes in the City of Los Angeles.

I was there as the Department of Transportation's Michael Uyeno stepped up and said that things were fine the way they were. Uyeno oversees the Bikeways Division. This moment of "fuhgettaboudit!" was quite the reveal.

His advice was roundly ignored and the motion made its way through the Committee and the City Council and on May 14, 2007 San Antonio himself signed the City of LA ordinance #178794 establishing penalty provisions applicable to CVC 21211(b). In other words, if you park a car so that it blocks a bike lane, it's gonna cost $70 and $150 the second time!

Or is it?


Here's an idea. Let's all chip in and get some bikes for the folks over in the LADOT's Bikeways division. Then let's get them to ride with us from downtown, through the 2nd street tunnel (it's fun! Howl, we all do!) up Glendale Blvd., then west on Sunset Blvd. and then Hollywood Blvd. Then let's attack the fallacy of "there's no room!" and let's seriously go after some solutions.

Why aren't there Sharrows on Glendale Blvd? It has parking on both sides, there's loads of room and it's posted for 35 mph, complete with speed zone certification and eligible for radar/laser speed limit enforcement. It even has a body count that would seem to indicate the need for some traffic calming support. Keep in mind it's also alongside a park, a church and loads of residential.

Why are the bike lanes on Sunset Blvd. blocked by vehicles and where is the LADOT's Parking Enforcement? Why aren't they fully trained on the enforcement authority of the prohibition against blocking a bike lane. It's been 2 years! Write the tickets, tow the vehicles, support those who need your help!

Why is Hollywood Blvd. used as storage for 18 Wheelers, in clear defiance of "Anti-Gridlock" signs and "1 hour parking" signs and red curbs and all sorts of prohibitions? Why is all of this ignored by LADOT Parking Enforcement officers who can not possibly claim to not notice these monstrous lane blocking trucks? After all, they also have to swerve to miss them!

Seriously, there is plenty of room in this city for us to all get along, for us to all use the streets and to do it safely and equitably.

Let's get the LADOT up to speed on this concept and then let's get them up to speed on the enforcement of LAMC and CVC and then let's get them up to speed on the innovations that will make our streets safer and more effective for everybody.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - A Proven Business Strategy that will Save LA from Bankruptcy: Partnership with the Customers

CityWatch, May 26, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 42

Los Angeles is big.

It's the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world.

Los Angeles is actually bigger than big. Los Angeles is BIG!

Which means that when LA is in financial trouble, like now, it's in BIG financial trouble.

As LA's leadership lumbers through the budget morass, the public keeps hearing that the crisis is especially difficult for LA because the City is so big, so cumbersome, so complicated. Solutions don't come easily and change takes time, after all, LA is BIG!

All of which sounds plausible. As we're often told in budget meetings, it takes time to turn a battleship and, well, they're also very big.

After all, smaller cities can throw a bake sale or fire the dog catcher and balance the budget but LA, well, it's so BIG!

And yet ...

Fast Company magazine featured the travails of some companies that are also recognized as being big. Some of them have pretty big budgets, perhaps even bigger than that of Los Angeles. They've weathered financial storms just like LA and they've prevailed, even grown from the experience.

Why not LA?

After all, the City of LA is actually a $7 billion service industry corporation, bound by the simple mandate to increase revenue and/or reduce costs, all while efficiently and effectively servicing the four million customers/stakeholders who own the company.

Fast Company's "Through the Fire" article looks at the experiences of Cisco, Corning, IBM, Intel and Schwab, and offers up five strategies for exiting the storm even stronger.

Intel's 1st quarter revenue was $7.1 billion, down 26% over last year. They responded by doubling down, investing more in their core but hedging the bet by backing it with a commitment of collaboration with their customers, turning an 18 month game plan into a long-term plan. Key take-away, a collaboration turned the customers into partners and the load lightened.

Los Angeles, by way of contrast, threw kidney punches and alienated stakeholders rather that drawing them in as partners. The Mayor's budget process is a sham, guaranteed to alienate participants so that their term of duty rarely exceeds one year. The budget survey's superficial review of the process is an insult to a city full of talented innovators, professionally committed to making this a Great City but denied that same participation at the civic level.

Corning went through the budget crisis drill just a decade ago when its revenue went from $7 billion to $3 billion in just 18 months. They said never again. They instituted an early-detection system and positioned four "operational rings of defense" that started with simple spending cuts and hiring limits, moved to reduced work weeks, limited use of contractors and temps and finally resulted in layoffs resulting in staff cuts of 13%. As dramatic as the current crisis is, they had a plan and they avoided the 4th ring, which was to sacrifice their core: Research & Development.

LA, by way of contrast, floundered as the moment of decision approached and was still debating "share the pain" staffing reduction plans from departments that had no "rings of defense" strategy in place, just departmental commitments to survive, even at the expense of the host.

Schwab found itself in a tough place, asking people with less money and less confidence to trust them as they struggled to be optimistic and honest in a bleak financial environment. Schwab's solution was to engage in conversations and to provide information at lightning speed. People are hungry for relationships they can trust and Schwab satisfied that need by engaging its customers and allowing a community to evolve.

LA, by way of contrast, allowed the budget battlefield to, again, break down into dueling departments and constituencies, rather than simply engaging the customers in the process and allowing a community to evolve. Confidence was never the commodity associated with City Hall and the City’s leadership spent more time producing panic rather than hope. It was the Neighborhood Council leaders who called on the City to "Partner in Greatness," not the Mayor and the City Council.

IBM employed a "follow the money" strategy and focused on its core strengths, going after the significant IT money being spent as part of the stimulus package. Of course, this required focusing the energy of the entire company on a specific strategic plan, which it had in place. IBM's Smarter Planet initiative was launched this past November and positioned the company to go after new business such as energy and utilities.

LA, by way of contrast, has no long term strategic plan, lacks a clear idea of its strengths and still uses a fragmented IT strategy that has departments unable to communicate with themselves, all of which leaves us far behind while smaller cities innovate and partner and put technology to work. IBM partnered with Dallas and is implementing smart utility metering that offers feedback on cycles as tight as 15 minutes which positions the city to realize a 10% reduction in utility usage and the resulting environmental benefits, all as the result of IBM's "getting smart" and "following the money" strategies.

Cisco simply survived the meltdown by embracing technology, creating community and personalizing the experience. Cisco's Mike Metz explains "There aren't enough salespeople in the world for what we need to do." Cisco's "market transition" has resulted in more efficient delivery of services resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues.

LA, by way of contrast, still employs a Council District Deputy system that has "handlers" hustling down the delivery of services and the facilitation of solutions, typically duplicating the 311 service but actually just adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already swollen and compartmentalized system.

For too long the people of Los Angeles have heard "LA is so BIG!" as an excuse for mediocrity and, in the current budget crisis, as an excuse for catastrophe. Larger entities with equally daunting challenges have survived the meltdown and come out stronger and in better position.

Why not LA?

Through it all, it's important to keep in mind that the differences between the five companies referenced in this exercise in innovation are many, including the fact that they all faced significant reductions in revenue while the City of LA has been enjoying a dramatic increase in revenue over the past five years. LA's problem is that increases in costs and obligations have outpaced increases in revenues.

LA's fork in the road is to look for inspiration in the success stories of companies that have employed the full spectrum of innovations or take the path of GM and to embark on the road of desperation.

Either way, it's our choice.

It's time for Los Angeles to demand a vision, a strategic initiative, and a long term plan for exploiting opportunities and for weathering the inevitable storms.

It's time for the leadership of Los Angeles to personalize the experience of living in LA, to make communication the foundation for community, not simply a Brown Act required exercise in process, and it's time to partner with the innovators and the problem solvers and the community leaders who are committed to making Los Angeles a Great City.

It's time for us to Partner in Greatness. (Stephen Box owns a marketing and communications company and is a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

LADOT Bikeways vs. the Volcano

LA's budget crisis seemed so bad the Department of Transportation actually carried the Bikeways division to the edge of the volcano, apparently fully prepared to toss it over the edge, willing to sacrifice it all in an effort to save the city from financial collapse.

At the last minute, it was revealed that the threat was hollow, that the Bikeways Division is Prop C funded meaning that if the staff were canned, the city would then simply return the "Congestion Relief" funding, resulting in no financial benefit to the City's General Fund.

Nevertheless, it was all part of an exciting week as department after department, constituent group after constituent group, union after union and, eventually, department head after department head, all paraded before the city council and begged a second bowl of porridge.

Why, one would think we're in the middle of a financial crisis.

Truth be told, we're actually doing all right. Since San Antonio has stepped up as LA's 11% solution, the city's annual revenue has grown from $5.4 Billion in to $7.1 Billion. LA's crisis is not one of shrinking revenue but of escalating costs that are rapidly exceeding the 31% increase in revenue. All of which brought the city to a moment of truth when somebody pointed out that the days of lean are on their way.

Call for moderation drew challenges of "You first!" and the city went to the wire, wrestling all the way.

When the dust had settled, money had magically appeared, the budget was balanced and everybody agreed to "Share the Sacrifice" meaning 10% cuts throughout the city and furloughs, layoffs and other austerity measures positioned for implementation.

As for the LADOT's Bikeways Division, they survived intact. Phew!

Now the cyclists of Los Angeles can get back to NOT getting the '08 Bike Plan ($450K) and NOT getting the '08 Bike Map ($400K) and NOT getting the Orange Line maintained (5.27.09 Transpo Committee) and NOT getting any Bikeways support in the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident (1:50)

Of course, LADOT's Bikeways Department hasn't been idle.

Bikeways was on the job last year when the Department of DIY pitched in to help with the public works backlog, painting a bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge. The paint was barely dry when the Bikeways staff moved with uncharacteristic speed, painting out the bike lane and removing the supporting signage. Bikeways staff reported at the August Bicycle Advisory Committee and in the press that the DIY bike lane was dangerous, resulted in "lost goodwill" and put cyclists in danger. Phew!

photo by Sean Bonner

Bikeways was also on the job last year when Westside cyclists needed a little extra excitement on their Culver Blvd. Bike Path.

This Bike Path is on former Red Car land that belongs to the Metro but there is a cooperative agreement in place that allows the city to operate a bike path. Definitely safer than the Fletcher Bridge!

But most of all, Bikeways was on the job last year, developing the Sunset Boulevard Bike Path, a Class I mixed use path between Alvarado and Coronado, right in the heart of Silver Lake. What a bold move!


The Sunset Boulevard Bike Path! Definitely safer than the Fletcher Bridge!

It's moves such as this that leave one wondering "Is the volcano still warm?"

CityWatchLA - Street Safety: Disconnect Between ‘Walk’ and ‘Talk’

cCityWatch, May 22, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 41

Rhode Bloch sat in the front row of City Council chambers, having arrived early in order to claim his 60 seconds of Public Comment time. This was Monday when he challenged the City Council on its commitment to a greener LA, a healthier LA and a safer LA, concluding by urging them to join him in working to make the streets of Los Angeles safer for everybody. That night, Rhode Bloch lay on Glendale Boulevard, dropped by a hit and run motorist traveling 45 -50 mph who came from behind and hit him at speed, braking only after Bloch was already on the hood of the car. The motorist didn't stop to see if the cyclist was dead or alive, the motorist didn't call for assistance, the motorist simply left him in the street where he landed.

The incident took place alongside Echo Park Lake, just a 100 yards south of the location where Jesus Castillo lost his life a month ago, also riding home alone at night on Glendale Boulevard. Rhode Bloch is a blessed cyclist, he survived the incident and he is recovering quickly.

On Tuesday morning, just hours after the hit and run incident on Glendale Boulevard, the City Council convened with an agenda that included speed limit increase proposals for Zelzah and Balboa Avenues. This huge disconnect between "talk" and "walk" could not be more exaggerated if it were staged.

The debate over the "science" of the establishment of speed limits is old. The City Council claims their hands are tied and the critics claim it's not science it's simply an opinion poll for motorists who use their gas pedals to cast their vote.

Over the past year, it seemed that the leadership of Los Angeles and the community members who are clamoring for safer streets that are walkable, ridable and livable had begun to agree that the State's "Speed Trap" law needed revising.

Along came Assistant Majority Leader Paul Krekorian with AB766, the Safe Streets Bill, and it was clear that the leadership of Los Angeles was behind a movement to revise the State's antiquated "Speed Trap" law. At least that's how it appeared.

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilman Richard Alarcon stood alongside Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and announced their support for the Safe Streets Bill which went to Sacramento last week, purportedly with the support of the Mayor and the City Council.

All of which is in stark contrast to the reality of the State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing where bike activists showed up to testify in favor of the bill, where neighborhood council representatives showed up in support of the bill and yet nobody from the City of Los Angeles stood in support of the Safe Streets Bill.

One might argue that Sacramento is a long way from Los Angeles but keep in mind, the LA Department of Transportation had a representative sitting in the room to testify in support of another bill. The City of Los Angeles had a lobbyist sitting in the room to stand in support of another bill. Both individuals clearly identified themselves as speaking on behalf of the City of Los Angeles and yet neither of them spoke in support of the Safe Streets Bill.

This failure to represent is in stark contrast to the stated support for safer streets that we receive at every turn in the debate.

As for this past Tuesday, I took the time to trek downtown and I stood prepared to protest the speed limit increases but it was for naught. Councilman Smith pulled the Zelzah proposal, asking for 30 days, so it is tentatively scheduled to return on June 19.

As for the Balboa Avenue speed limit proposal, it somehow made it to the City Council agenda without stopping at the Transportation Committee for the obligatory rubber stamping that is part of the assembly line like process for increasing the speed limits throughout the City of Los Angeles. It was also pulled from the agenda.

I took the opportunity to speak of Rhode Bloch's testimony the day before and his near tragic experience on Glendale Boulevard. I concluded by calling for a moratorium on speed limit increases for the streets of LA and asked that the City instead get behind AB766, the Safe Streets Bill.

As for Glendale Boulevard, the debate over speed traps and the state law is irrelevant, at least for now. Glendale is certified and posted for 35 mph and the speed zone survey is valid through July of 2010. Nobody's hands are tied!

All of which begs the question, "What kind of body count is necessary before we get speed limit enforcement on Glendale Boulevard?" (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - LA Speed Limits: Business as Usual

CityWatch, Pub: May 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 40

Fresh on the heels of a move to liberate the department of any responsibility for LA's Safe Routes to School program, the LADOT stands before the City Council with proposals to increase the speed limits for Zelzah and Balboa Avenues.

These controversial proposals have been struggling through the process, picking up significant community opposition and stalling, first in the Transportation Commission and then again in the Transportation Committee, all while other speed limit increase proposals have sailed through the City Council. The proposed speed limit increases are the result of the state- mandated speed zone surveys, all required in order to use radar/laser for speed limit enforcement. State law provides that the speed limits be set so that 85% of the motorists currently driving that street be considered legal. This often results in speed limits being raised as motorists "vote with the gas pedal!"

It was just a week ago that Assistant Majority Leader Paul Krekorian's AB766 - Safe Streets Bill had its day in the Assembly Transportation Committee. This bill proposed that communities should have the opportunity to convene a public hearing and, if determined that an increase in speed would be detrimental to pedestrian and cyclist safety, to simply retain the speed limited as posted.

The Safe Streets Bill arrived in Committee with significant support from Los Angeles. The Mayor and the City Council both endorsed the Safe Streets Bill. The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council unanimously endorsed the Safe Streets Bill. Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel and Councilman Richard Alarcon both stood with Assemblyman Paul Krekorian and called for equality as the underlying principle to rely on when establishing speed limits.

Greuel complained that under current law, "We only get two choices and they're both bad. Raise the speed limits or stop using radar!"

Alarcon spoke of establishing speed limits based on equality and called for a process that weighed the needs of everybody, including pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit passengers.

The Safe Streets Bill was opposed by the AAA, the Teamsters and the CHP, all of whom defended the status quo as being completely reasonable. Transportation Committee Chair Mike Eng agreed saying the speed trap law has worked for the last 30-50 years and there was "no reason to mess with the science."

The Safe Streets Bill failed to pick up approval and it remains in the Transportation Committee of the California State Assembly. The bill now goes to a public hearing which pleases supporters who want to get the topic out into the public arena for a robust discussion.

Both Krekorian and Alarcon joined the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils this past Thursday and engaged in a robust discussion of the bill. Krekorian indicating that he was calling for the State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on the Safe Streets Bill be held here in his district.

As for the City of Los Angeles, it's business as usual. The Zelsah and Balboa speed limit increases are on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, May 19, 2009 at 10am. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Dude, Where’s the Bike Plan?

CityWatch, May 12, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 38

It's been almost six months since the LADOT's Bikeways staff went before the Transportation Committee and announced that LA's Bicycle Plan would be presented to the community in January of 2009. January has come and gone and the four promised community meetings haven't taken place, the draft document hasn't been delivered and the community hasn't been given the opportunity to participate in the process.

LA's Bicycle Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles and it is intended to guide the city in the development of a citywide bicycle transportation system as well as support efforts to fund bicycle projects and programs.

The Bicycle Plan is funded with Transportation Development Act funds to the tune of $450,000 and the work is being performed by Alta Planning, a consulting firm based in Portland and Berkeley. The City's Department of Planning is the lead on the project although it's the LADOT using Prop C funds to pay for their staff to work on the project.

Cyclists have gone on record with great hopes that the "2008 Bicycle Plan" would be a powerful document full of vision and commitment. Instead they have been rewarded with silence and exclusion.

Most recently, the Bikeways Division of the LADOT went before the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee to explain their "closed" meetings conducted by consultants from Colorado, all as part of the Bicycle Plan public engagement initiative. Committee Chair Tom LaBonge expressed concern with "closed" meetings being held as part of the Bicycle Plan process, especially in City Hall. He deferred to the City Attorney who also expressed concerns with the process and suggested that the LADOT report back to the committee in 30 days. LaBonge concurred and gave the direction.

In response to criticism of the process, the Bikeways rep leaned into the microphone and said "It should be noted that the Department of Planning is the lead on this process."

The four public workshops held early last year were met with significant criticism and charges of weak and ineffective outreach. The meetings were held with such little notice that even the City's own Bicycle Advisory Committee had no warning and couldn't agendize the workshops or act to support or contribute.

The consultant from Portland came under fire during the first session when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding document, perhaps music to the ears of bureaucrats but hardly the battle cry of a room full of cyclists who want to know how to make LA a great place to ride.

She continued by dividing cyclists into four groups, failing to acknowledge what's often referred to as the "invisible" cyclist, the Workforce Cyclist. They don't ride for fun or to change to world or to get some exercise, they simply ride as an economic necessity and they often ride late at night, unsupported and often unclear on rules of the road or right of way.

Things got worse, not better, at the second workshop and that was the last LA heard from Portland.

Since then, Alta Planning has been busy with the Pasadena Bike Plan, the LA County Bike Plan and who knows what else.

Meanwhile the cyclists in LA wait for a Bike Plan that was supposed to be delivered to the City Council month ago. But before it gets to the City Council, there are supposed to be four public workshops and a trip to the Transportation Committee which means that the Bike Plan might end up being a year late!

Perhaps the consultant from Portland with all of the funding experience was correct when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding tool although we never imagined that it was the development of the plan that would be the funding opportunity.

Regardless of their motivations for riding, cyclists are transportation solutions. It's time for Los Angeles to look beyond the funding and to support cyclists with a Bicycle Plan that is full of vision and that is matched with a commitment to making Los Angeles a great place to ride. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

AB766 "Safe Streets" Bill

"I'm going to Sacramento and I need your help!"

On Monday, May 11th, Enci and I will be in Sacramento to testify in support of Assistant Majority Leader Paul Krekorian's AB766 "Safe Streets" bill which will give local communities more control over the establishment of speed limits in their neighborhoods. We'd like your help.

This past year I have attended LA's Transportation Commission meetings, Transportation Committee meetings and City Council meetings, all in an attempt to stop the increase in speed limits throughout our city. Time after time, our city's leadership has explained that their hands are tied, that they are simply complying with State law and that it's the same standard for those in the High Sierras to those in Los Angeles.

I happen to disagree with that scenario and I'm going to fight to make sure that local communities have control over the speed limits in our neighborhoods.

At issue is our desire to use radar and laser for speed limit enforcement. This requires the City of LA to perform speed zone surveys and to certify the speed limit using a formula that establishes the speed limit at the 85% mark of the prevailing speed of traffic. In other words, motorists vote on the speed limit with the gas pedal and in many cases, the speed limit gets increased, all as we simply attempt to control speeding.

With Krekorian's bill, neighborhood councils will be able to address the dangerous trend of rising speed limits, which have unfortunately led to accidents with pedestrians and bicyclists and, in a few tragic cases, fatalities. These engineering studies – under which the speed limits have been creeping up - fail to take into account the human element of traffic and end up endangering our neighbors.

Quite simply, the Safe Streets Bill aims to provide local governments with an additional tool to keep the speeds traveled on local roads at a safe level for drivers, pedestrians, and communities as a whole. The legislation balances the ability of drivers to safely drive on city streets at a reasonable speed with the needs of bicyclists, residents and pedestrians to be able to access those same streets without an undue risk of a collision, thus enhancing both community safety and traffic flow.

There are several ways you can join us in this fight to make our streets safe for everybody and to return control over our streets to the local community.

1) Join us in our journey to Sacramento. We'd love to have your company and to have you join us in speaking up for local authority and community control.

2) Give us a letter of support that we can carry with us and introduce into the record. Tell the State Assembly who you are, where you live, your experiences with speeding traffic on the streets of your community. Join us in endorsing Krekorian's AB766 "Safe Safe Streets" bill. Email your support to SafeStreets@BikeWritersCollective.com.

3) Pass this letter on, or forward this email to your friends and family and neighbors and ask them to support our efforts to make our neighborhoods safe for everybody.

4) Call or email your City Councilperson and ask them to support this endeavor, after all they're the ones who have long been complaining about not having their hands tied when it comes to setting speed limits. Now's the time to speak up!

5) Follow our journey on Twitter, on Facebook, on our blogs at illuminateLA and at SoapBoxLA.

Thanks for your help!

AB 766

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 766, as introduced, Krekorian. Vehicles: speed limits. Existing law permits a local authority to decrease or increase a prima facie speed limit on any street, other than a state highway, based on an engineering and traffic survey, and for enforcement purposes requires that survey to be redone after a certain number of years.

This bill would allow a local authority retain a prima facie speed limit on any street, other than a state highway, if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street and does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 22358.2 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
22358.2. (a) Notwithstanding Section, 40802, a local authority may retain a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3 on any street other than a state highway, if the local authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a higher speed limit is not the most appropriate for the orderly movement of traffic upon the street and does not promote a safe environment for the neighborhood or pedestrians. (b) If a local authority makes a finding pursuant to subdivision (a), the prima facie speed limit does not have to be rejustified by an engineering and traffic survey as provided in Section 40802.

"Storm the Bastille" - May Day

"Storm the Bastille" cyclists rode to City Hall to call on the City Council for support and after an hour and a half of public testimony, the City Council responded with a Motion directing the LAPD to investigate and address police officer training.

The issue that prompted the cyclists to ride was the recent Hummer vs. Cyclists incident when a Hummer driver hit a cyclist, left the scene and then ran over the bikes of the cyclists who were trying to get his license information.

The week prior, Jesus Castillo was killed by a hit and run driver who was caught within hours, found to be driving on a suspended license, yet was out on bail before the Ghost Bike for Jesus was even placed on the street.

Many of the cyclists who spoke referred to these incidents as part of a larger gestalt of contempt for cyclists. They called on the City Council to address behavior that ranges from motorists who endanger the lives of cyclists to police officers who harass cyclists.

The most significant charge was that the LAPD is actually endangering the lives of cyclists by using their cars recklessly to herd cyclists on group rides, aggressive acts that are ineffective and dangerous.

Councilman Smith interrupted today's meeting after the first speaker to advise the Council that this was an inappropriate venue for a complaint of LAPD behavior and to advise the cyclists to take it to the Police Commission. The cyclists responded "We've already been there this past Tuesday!" The City Attorney allowed that the City Council was the right place for the testimony.

The Hummer victims testified and called on the Council to explain how the Motorist could be allowed to drive away after hitting a cyclist, leaving the scene and then running over three more bikes.

Roadblock called on the City Council to address the LAPD;s aggressive behavior, and cyclist after cyclist gave their personal experiences and stories, all concluding by asking the City Council to step up and support cyclists as transportation solutions, not problems.

Alex Thompson cut to the chase and addressed the LAPD's treatment of cyclists and the City Council's failure to support cyclists by following through on the motions and resolutions that go nowhere.

Enci spoke of her origins in Eastern Europe and the fact that when she made it to America, she experienced freedom and equality like never before, until she climbed on a bike and then became a 2nd class citizen.

I called on the City Council to examine their record. The Reyes motion of 2006 addressing the rights of cyclists when hit by a car was approved unanimously and then simply faded into oblivion. The motion setting aside $400K for a Bike Map was approved unanimously and then the money disappeared but yet no map. The motion setting aside $450K for the bicycle Master Plan was approved unanimously and it was due in 2008. No Plan, no word, no respect.

We took the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the City Council and they endorsed it, advising the departments of the City of Los Angeles to report on how to incorporate it "into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." No reports, no action, nothing has happened.

"What's it gonna take for the City Council of the largest City in the most Populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to make safety on the streets a priority?"

Councilman Bill Rosendahl and Councilwoman Janice Hahn responded with a motion directing the LAPD to report back to the City Council and to address the complaints and the conflicts and the issue of police officer training on bicycling activities and laws.

Rosendahl, Hahn, Reyes, Greuel all responded to the public testimony of the cyclists and committed to addressing the issues and to supporting the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. Cardenas wrapped by suggesting that the cyclists go to the police Commission, earning a thundering "Been there!" from the room.

It should have ended there but Councilman Tom LaBonge stepped up and puffed out his chest and said "Take me to your leader!"

He went outside to the front steps of the Van Nuys City Hall and gave a meandering pontification that veered from "Yes, we can't!" explanations of how hard progress really is to an explanation of Equestrian licenses to a lecture on responsibility and the downside of group rides. He tossed in his interpretation of the 3 E's, forgetting that there are really 6 E's. He left out Evaluation, Encouragement and EQUALITY. All this from a guy who still doesn't have bike racks at this field offices.

At the end of the day, it remains to be seen whether this "Storm the Bastille" ride will have any impact.

For the cyclists it was a great day, a great ride and a great opportunity to forge a stronger community of cyclists. After a celebration lunch at Joe Peep's Pizza, some went off to play bike polo, some went back to work, and others headed of to DTLA's May Day activities.

"See you on the Streets!"

CityWatchLA - Fast Times in the San Fernando Valley

CityWatch, May 1, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 35

LA's Transportation Commission just approved three more speed limit increases in the San Fernando Valley, this time for Roscoe Boulevard, Sherman Way, and Tampa Avenue.

The proposals were on the Board's consent agenda, meaning they would have passed without discussion but for the fact that a member of the community showed up to object.

Two of the newest Commissioners, Jaime J. Rodriguez and Grace E. Yoo, both voted against the proposed speed limit proposals, indicating they would like more information.

Stephanie M. Rodriguez, John Frierson, and Board President George E. Moss all voted for the proposed increases which left D. Malcolm Carson in position to defeat the proposals or to affirm the increases.

Carson gave a fairly comprehensive speech agreeing with the many objections to the speed limit increases including the need to consider the safety of pedestrians and cyclists when raising speed limits. He also agreed that LA should consider other mitigation techniques such as road diets, traffic calming, and other complete streets tolls, all of which looked like he was going to vote against the proposals.

Then he reversed his position saying so much time had been invested in the proposals that he didn't want to stand in the way, an explanation he also used last time when he approved another round of speed limit proposals in the West Valley.

The fact that two of the commissioners would want more information on the State's "Speed Trap" law, the need to reconcile the speed limit with the prevailing speed in order to use radar and laser, and other options for facilitating compliance with the 85% rule should speak volumes in terms of the need for a public conversation on speed limits in our communities.

Department of Transportation’s Assistant GM, John Fisher, instead defers on the community's desire to get involved in the establishment of speed limits by saying "As we all know, the setting of radar-enforceable speed limits can become a very emotional issue."

The recent spike in pedestrian deaths on the streets of LA indicates that fear is a very rational response and the LADOT's failing to consider the people who live on the affected streets, walk on the affected streets and ride bikes on the affected streets is a failure to serve the needs of the community.

Deputy City Attorney Shelley Smith demonstrated the need for public participation when she advised the new Commissioners on the proposed speed limits. Smith positions the speed limit increases as a simple vote for or against radar enforcement. She has been contradicted on this point in the past by then-Commissioner Andrea Alarcon and this time by Commissioner Carson but Smith continues. Having prepared the Municipal Code amendments that are on the table, one might question her objectivity when advising the Board on how to vote.

The discussion over speed limit increases should never turn into a debate over the use of radar or laser speed limit enforcement. In fact, this entire debate is borne from a desire to put the most effective law enforcement tools in the hands of the LAPD. At issue is the hasty, uninspired and lazy rush to simply raise the speed limits rather than to explore the other options.

Here are the issues:

1) The community must be involved from the beginning of the process. Speed limit certifications are expiring every year. The community should know what is coming up and how many streets are currently expired and not eligible for radar/laser enforcement. (some have been expired for years so to refer to people who fight the speed limit
increases as obstructionists is disingenuous)

2) The process should always start with a conversation of the full tool-box of mitigation tools, from bulb-outs to safety islands, diagonal parking to bike lanes, speed tables to stop signs, traffic calming to road diets. These options must be explored first and in every instance, speed limit increases must be positioned as a last resort and with the full participation of the community.

This past year the City of Los Angeles approved approximately 20 speed limit increases and is prepared to process another dozen.

Meanwhile traffic engineers, law enforcement agencies and communities throughout the state are working to revise the "speed trap" law and to give local communities more control over their streets.

It's time for the people of the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to work together to take a leadership role in developing Safe Streets for everybody. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

EHNC Declares East Hollywood a "Pedestrian Oriented Community"

Feet First Campaign kicks off East Hollywood SoleMates™ Project

The East Hollywood Neighborhood Council has set the standard for Los Angeles by declaring East Hollywood a "Pedestrian Oriented Community" and committing to an ambitious five-step "SoleMates™" program that will engage the community, establish a standard and fund the improvements.

David Bell, President of EHNC board, said "We're excited to declare East Hollywood a Pedestrian Oriented Community and we're looking forward to working with our neighbors to make our vision of a walkable, livable community a reality."

East Hollywood is transit rich and has three Metro Rail stations within its boundaries. At the same time it is park poor with the least parkland of any Los Angeles neighborhood council. its boundaries are Hollywood Boulevard to the north, the 101 Freeway to the south, Western Ave. to the west and Hoover to the east.

With 54 thousand stakeholders, East Hollywood is one of the densest communities in LA and with over 100 languages spoken it is definitely one of the most diverse. Locals are proud of the rich variety of restaurants, theaters, clubs and galleries that make up East Hollywood.

East Hollywood is one of the youngest Neighborhood Councils in Los Angeles, having just celebrated its 2nd anniversary, but it has a rich legacy of leadership positions on everything to communications to land use to policy.

The EHNC used a music video as part of its certification process and was a pioneer in social media with YouTube videos, MySpace, Twitter and Facebook all complementing the more traditional styles of communication.

Last year, East Hollywood was the first Neighborhood Council to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and two months ago, they took thousands of people to the streets with ArtCycle, a street fair that included guided bicycle tours of the art galleries in the neighborhood.

The SoleMates™ project is an innovative approach to developing walkable, ridable, livable communities that put people first and positions access and mobility as basic human rights that serve as the foundation for a complete and sustainable community.

For more information, contact Stephen Box at 323.962.6540 or FeetFirst@ThirdEyeCreative.net.

Download the SoleMates Project in pdf here.

CityWatchLA - Bike Path to Blight Path … and No One to Blame

CityWatch, Apr 28, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 34

The Orange Line Bike Path is 14 miles of bureaucratic "no-man's land"  and a jurisdictional "hot-potato" that has departments and agencies  scrambling for cover as the City's Transportation Committee asks "Hey! How did the Bike Path turn into a homeless encampment?"

Critics long ago warned that building a bike path with a fence on one   side, a wall on the other and surrounding it with bushes and trees   that grow up and out would result in an environment that is unsafe   for pedestrians and cyclists but hospitable to those who favor seclusion and a place to hide.

Those warnings were ignored and the predictions came true. The Orange Line Bike Path is now so overgrown that in some areas such as Van  Nuys, it is populated with homeless encampments. Making things worse is the close proximity of a recycling center and two liquor stores.  All very convenient for the campers but at the expense of the pedestrians, the cyclists and the local residents.

Two months ago, the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council convened a meeting   to address the situation, a meeting so well attended by agency and department reps that it seemed certain that the Bike Path was to be  cleaned up and reclaimed. Such was not the case.

This past week, the Transportation Committee jumped into the fray and convened a meeting to determine what went wrong and who is going to   fix it. The LADOT took the hot seat and explained the difficulty in supervising maintenance contracts and of working with the Metro and Rec & Parks and how the abundant overgrown landscaping wasn't their fault.

The LAPD was represented, Councilman Cardenas was represented and the Neighborhood Prosecutor, Tamar Galatzan also  appeared but nobody could explain who was in charge, who had authority and who had a plan.

Councilman Alarcon cut to the chase at one point in the "Who's  responsible?" debate and said simply "If it's LA's Bike Path then we  should take care of it!"

That should have been the point at which everybody stepped up but  instead we were treated to another round of "Yes, We Can't!"

Unfortunately, the Groupthink that prevents agencies and departments   from being "negative" and just calling it as they see it is still in   play and the LADOT, the Metro, the LAPD, the LASD, the Neighborhood   Prosecutor, the BOSS, LAHSA, the Councilmembers and anyone else with   a piece of the Bike Path are still having polite meetings where they dance about and explain why they're not responsible.

The Orange Line Bike Path has been around for a little over three  years. It was designed and built by the Metro and the LADOT Bikeways Department was there through the entire process. In fact the LADOT is so proud of the Orange Line that they have a presentation they take  to conferences taking credit for its success. Somewhere along the way, the responsibility for the Orange Line was formally transferred  to the LADOT which, based on results, dropped the ball.

Perhaps it's time to call in the DWP and have them cut down the  forest, relandscape with drought tolerant plants and create a 14 mile long demonstration garden on water conservation. Maybe we could plow it all under and plant a 14 mile long Victory  
Garden and use the wide stretches for a Farmer's Market.

Whatever we do, it is imperative that the LADOT stop paying its contractors until they execute their contracts.

It is also imperative that the LAPD clarify with dispatch and the  patrol officers that the Orange Line Bike Path is not the  responsibility of the Sheriff but is the responsibility of the LAPD.

If the Van Nuys area is to be cleaned up, it would also be wise to have the Neighborhood Prosecutor work with the ABC to address the two  liquor stores that cater to the "campers" and who are a blight on the  community.

As long as blight is on the radar, the recycling center has had a negative impact on the area and yet it continues to operate. It's time for us to work together to make our abatement programs work for  the neighborhood.

Most of all, we've got to get over our fear of raising the standards and offending other departments. We've got to evaluate performance  based on results, not on bureaucratic endurance. We've got to stop   settling for mediocrity and we've got to reach for greatness.

The Orange Line Bike Path is either a monument to our mediocrity or   it’s an opportunity to demonstrate our greatness. Either way, it's our   call. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

Glossary:

LADOT - The Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Within the  LADOT is the Bikeways Division, responsible for the Orange Line and  other bikeways facilities.   http://www.ladot.lacity.org

Metro - The Countywide Metropolitan Transit Authority. They are the  major operator of bus and rail service in Los Angeles County. http://www.metro.net/index.asp 

LAPD - The Los Angeles Police Department . They are responsible for the Bike Path. When calling 911 from a cell phone remember that it goes to the CHP. Program 213-928-8206 or 213-928-8208 into your cell phone so that you can get to LAPD dispatch quickly.http://www.lapdonline.org

LASD - The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. They are a County Agency under contract to provide services to the Metro. They patrol the Metro Stations, they are responsible for the busway and they respond if there is an incident on a bus. They are not responsible for the Bike Path. http://www.lasd.org

BOSS - LA's Bureau of Street Services. They are responsible for the 6500 miles of streets within Los Angeles. They pick up the abandoned furniture and they factor into this scenario on the Orange Line because of the homeless encampments and the amount of furniture that must sometimes be removed. You can reach them by calling 311. http://www.lacity.org/BOSS 

LAHSA - The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority is a joint powers authority representing both the City of LA and the County of LA. You can access social services by calling 211. http://www.lahsa.org

Rec & Parks - The Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks is sometimes mentioned when discussing bike paths because bike paths are often considered recreational facilities. In fact the LADOT fought all the way to the State Supreme Court to have bike paths declared recreational facilities so that the City would not be liable for injuries resulting from design or maintenance negligence. (Prokop vs. City of Los Angeles) LA prevailed and bike paths are now funded with transportation funding but then declared recreationa facilities. Meanwhile, Rec & Parks has little to do with bikeway facilities except when Bikeways was looking for someone to handle the Orange Line maintenance. http://www.laparks.org

ABC - The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues and regulates liquor licenses. If the two liquor stores along the Orange Line Bike Path in Van Nuys are contributing to the problems, it must be documented and the ABC will consider this when evaluating the licenses. If the LAPD and the Neighborhood Prosecutor aren't documenting the incidents and their relation to the liquor stores, the ABC can't do its job. The local ABC agent must be involved in the Orange Line Task Force. http://www.abc.ca.gov

VNNC - The Van Nuys Neighborhood Council meets every month and on May 13, the full Board will convene to address the issues of the  community. Expect to see reps from the offices of Padilla and Cardenas and Villaraigosa as well as Bikeways, the LAPD, the Metro, the City Attorney's office and anyone else with a piece of the Orange Line Bike Path. http://vnnc.org

CityWatchLA - Break for Taxi Parkers Stirs a Hornet’s Nest

CityWatch, Apr 28, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 34

LA's City Council, taking another swing at the hornet's nest, has directed the LA Department of Transportation to work on a plan to soften neighborhood parking prohibitions for taxi cabs.

While at first glance it seems like a great and green idea to support our Taxi Cab industry, any revisions to the LA Municipal Code restricting commercial vehicles in neighborhoods surely warrants a thorough analysis and a conversation with the community.

Therein lies the rub.

The dust from the fray over the City Council's recent revision of parking rates, hours and enforcement has barely settled and they're at it again. All with no Neighborhood Council engagement.

We live in a city where 18 wheelers regularly park overnight in violation of prohibitions but the political will for enforcement is lacking. After all, they're engaged in the business of moving goods and that's good for LA!

We live in a city where motor-homes get parked on side streets and quiet neighborhoods quickly turn into campgrounds, all in violation of prohibitions. Again, all that's missing is the political will to enforce the code and to tackle homelessness with some real solutions, not a blind eye.

We live in a city where detached trailers used for advertising litter the curb lane and clutter the streets, yet our leadership can't find a way to solve the problem. Whether it's respect for the 1st amendment or simply fear of litigation, the community is still left without the support it deserves.

It's in this context that the City Council's recent actions to modify neighborhood parking regulations are especially cavalier.

It remains to be seen if there is any merit in the proposal. But at a minimum, any proposals should come with the full engagement and participation of the neighborhood councils.

Until then, the City should enforce the Municipal Code fairly and equitably. Item comes before the Transportation Committee again on Wednesday, May 6. LADOT Report here. Ron Kaye commentary. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - Echo Park Ghost Rider

CityWatch, Apr 24, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 33

Jesus Castillo moved from Sonora, Mexico to Echo Park in search of the American Dream. He was 44. He didn't own a car. In fact he didn't have a drivers license. He simply rode his bike everywhere.

He lived in Echo Park and he was a day laborer, taking work when he could and where he could. Through it all, he rode his bike everywhere.

A week ago, late at night, he was riding south on Glendale Boulevard when he was hit from behind by a motorist who, according to witnesses, was swerving. He was killed just under the Sunset crossing of Glendale Boulevard. The police arrested the motorist within hours and charged him with vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. The motorist had a suspended license and was driving the car belonging to his mother.

The parents of Jesus Castillo are in town, having traveled from Sonora to visit the spot where there son was run down from behind and left to die in the streets by a drunk driver.

Cyclists responded to the news with shock and with outrage and with hard questions.

What are we doing to get drunk drivers off the streets? What are we doing to get drivers with suspended licenses out of the driver's seat? How do we get those convicted of drunk drivers into diversion programs that have a real impact?

Last week's Office of Traffic Safety Conference in San Francisco addressed this very subject and highlighted the need to support law enforcement with innovations in the judicial programs so that the cycle of abuse can be stopped.

The Honorable Richard Vlavianos of San Joaquin showcased a DUI Court program that addressed high risk, multiple offenders and has a documented 50 percent increase in compliance rates and an 80 percent reduction in recidivism among the high risk offenders.

What's it going to take for the largest City in the most populated State in the most powerful Country in the world to step up and make public safety on our streets a priority?

As for the cyclists, they ride this Friday at 8 pm with a Ghost Bike. It's a tradition in the cycling community around the world that when a cyclist is killed by a motorist, a white bike is placed at the location to memorialize the tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

Let's work together to make sure this is the last Ghost Bike placed in our community. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net.)

Orange Line Camp Grounds

LA City Council's Transportation Committee meets today to review the Orange Line Bike Path, also known as the Orange Line Campgrounds.

The Bike Path has long been a popular homeless encampment, especially in the Van Nuys area where the overgrown bushes, the liquor stores at each end and the recycling center all work together to create the perfect environment.

Things came to a head a couple of months ago and everybody who had a piece of the jurisdictional Gordian Knot visited the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council to assure the community that they were "All over it!"

It turns out that the LADOT had a contractor who was responsible for maintenance on the Bike Path but that the contractor had been remiss. The contractor got busy, put an edge line on some of the bushes leaving behind a well trimmed and trash free homeless encampment that was soon occupied by happy campers.

Since then...

We rode the Orange Line this past Saturday and this is what we found:

1) a car missed the turn (wb just west of Sepulveda) and drove onto the bike path, taking out the signs which are still on the ground. The shopping cart survived the incident.

2) the path has a dirt edge line that creeps well into the path indicating that it has not been cleaned in ages.

3) the large bushes that provide the homeless shelter have NEVER been cut back. The Orange Line Campground is occupied. The recent maintenance work resulted in a neatly trimmed Campground with an edge line along the bike path, completely missing the point. The bushes, the liquor stores and the recycling center make this a very popular Campground.

4) the lights don't come on until 8pm

5) the broken sprinkler control with the open cage and leaking water doesn't speak well for any supervision.

6) the body on the bike path (passed out) and the difficulty in calling in the incident on the Orange Line Bike Path indicates a need to clarify AGAIN the jurisdictional issues for the Bike Path. LAPD dispatch can't take the call quickly without an address, dispatch wants to give the call to the Sheriff, the LAPD Sgt. that I flagged down said the LAPD doesn't have jurisdiction until 50' from the Orange Line. Capt Jordan of the LASD says that the Bike Path is City, the Busway is Metro.

CityWatchLA - Zero Deaths, Everyone Counts

CityWatch, Apr 21, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatch, Apr 17, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 31

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

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

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

GREIG SMITH
Councilman, 12th District

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Inside the Crosswalk Sting at Deadly Intersection

CityWatch, Apr 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 29

Watching the LAPD conduct a crosswalk sting operation is like watching the home team win the big game, over and over again. Last week, Capt. Trotter of Valley traffic responded to the recent spike in pedestrian deaths by deploying a team of traffic officers to the intersection of Reseda and Dearborn on the west side of Cal State Northridge.

Sgt. Justice ran the operation which consisted of plainclothes officers crossing the street in the crosswalk while a dozen officers stood by in squad cars and on motorcycles to cite the motorists who fail to yield the road to the pedestrians.

Senior Lead Officer Del Valle was the first LAPD "decoy" to cross the street and on his first pass three motorists blew past him, earning citations from the motorcycle officers who raced into the congested street with lights, sirens and loudspeakers full bore.

Within minutes, all officers were busy writing tickets and the decoys had a chance to rest while waiting for the supporting team to reposition.

The intersection of Reseda and Dearborn has residential on one side and CSUN on the other. In both directions on Reseda there are abundant restaurants, coffee shops and businesses that draw a heavy pedestrian crowd, all supported by crosswalks that challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle.

The crosswalk sting drew immediate attention from neighbors, the merchants and students with many stopping by to thank the LAPD and to share their own "ped vs. motorist" horror stories.

As for the motorists, their responses ranged from "there was no ped" to "I didn't see the ped" to " I thought the other cars were stopping to turn" to "I just followed the other cars." These excuses prompted Capt. Trotter to explain "When a motorist sees other cars slow down or stop, they must assume there's a pedestrian in the area, even if they can't see one, and they must slow down and be prepared to yield."

The impact of the sting was dramatic to watch, especially when the motorcycle officers rode into the traffic with one arm in the air like cowboys herding cattle and pulling over up to four motorists at a time.

Sgt. Justice was asked how other neighborhoods could advocate for a similar operation in their community but his response was less than encouraging. "The LAPD doesn't respond to public pressure but uses data to determine where to deploy our forces."

In other words, LA's vision for safe streets is based on reacting to the unnecessary death of our most vulnerable before we act to make our streets walkable, ridable and livable.

If you'd like to work with the LAPD to make our streets safer, take a walk to your local police station and invite the Captain to go for a walk.

Unfortunately, getting a police escort is the only safe way to cross the street these days. Let's work together to change that. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. )

CityWatchLA - The Valley on Speed

CityWatch, Apr 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CityWatchLA - Pain on LA’s Deathwalks Turns Epidemic

CityWatch, Apr 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 27

If you want to kill somebody in Los Angeles … and get away with it … jump into a car and run them down while they're in a crosswalk. Chances are that the authorities will scratch their heads, do a study and then remove the offending crosswalk and/or raise the speed limit and you'll end up getting an apology for any road hazards that interfered with your journey.

Three months ago, at 6:35 in the morning, 58-year-old Gwendolyn Coleman stood at the corner of 5th and Flower in Downtown and waited for the light to turn green. As she crossed the street, a DASH bus turned left onto Flower and struck Coleman who died at the scene. The bus operator explained that he did not see her because of a blind spot.

Three weeks ago, at 6:40 in the morning, 60 year-old Victoria Santos stood at the corner of Lassen and Zelzah in the Valley and waited for the light to turn green. As she stepped into the crosswalk, an eastbound motorist on Lassen turned right on the red and struck Santos who died at the scene. The motorist explained that he stopped
at the limit line, looked and didn't see anybody and then proceeded. The police have determined that the death was the fault of the victim.

This past Sunday, at three in the morning, 19-year-old Adrianna Bachan was in the crosswalk at Jefferson Boulevard and Hoover when she was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver.

Later that night, 56-year-old Agapito Gaspar Nicholas was in the crosswalk at Figueroa and Avenue 51 in Highland Park when he was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver.

This past Tuesday night, at 6:25 in the evening, Alina Sheyman and Maria Velasquez, both in their 70's, were killed in the crosswalk of Fountain & La Brea when a left turning car hit another car and caused it to spin out of control, killing the two women. (This intersection is the border of Los Angeles and West Hollywood.) The motorists were released.

Through it all, the primacy of the motor vehicle remains unchallenged while pedestrians are killed on a regular basis. Adding insult to injury … or death, speed limits are being raised and crosswalks are being removed, both of which discourage pedestrians and communicate clearly that the streets of Los Angeles streets aren't made for walking.

From the NoHo Arts District to Woodland Hills, crosswalks get targeted for removal, first with a sign that indicates "This marked crosswalk at this location is proposed to be removed as part of a traffic safety improvement." The logic behind the crosswalk removal is that they give pedestrians a false sense of security.

Instead of posting "Abandon all hope..." signs throughout the City, imagine what would happen if we worked together to create that elusive "sense of security" instead of simply denying any grounds for its existence.

Incredible community capital is repeatedly wasted in debating the logic, the law and the engineering behind the speed limit increase proposals and the city's policy for the removal of crosswalks.

Law enforcement authorities argue that the same "speed trap" laws apply to everyone, from small towns in the High Sierras to Los Angeles, and that their hands are tied as far as the establishment of speed limits. Somehow this argument falls short of addressing the fact that Los Angeles is the largest city in the state and that it
has the most significant traffic congestion in the nation.

Our City's leadership has failed in their mandate to make safety on our streets a priority by not addressing this situation with an aggressive context specific solution.

Meanwhile, traffic engineers argue for the removal of crosswalks in Los Angeles, pointing to a study performed several decades ago in San Diego that indicates that less traffic fatalities occur without a crosswalk than with a crosswalk.

The LADOT performed its own study some time ago and repeated the results, all of which is the foundation for the City's policy to reevaluate existing crosswalks periodically and to remove them when resurfacing and restriping streets.

While it's true that the studies demonstrate a reduction in traffic fatalities at locations that had crosswalks removed, the City is unable to determine how much of that is due to a simple reduction in the number of pedestrians crossing the street.

Also, LA's study failed to include incidents that involved turning vehicles, yet that is the dangerous and common situation that took the lives of the aforementioned of Coleman, Santos, Shayman and Velasquez. Hardly conclusive and hardly satisfactory.

The real opportunity here is for the City of Los Angeles to move from a reactive approach to traffic safety and to develop a vision for public safety that goes beyond writing speeding tickets and restricting pedestrians and actually includes a full complement of traffic solutions and puts a premium on the safety of everybody on the streets.

It's not too late for us to honor Gwendolyn Coleman by working together to make 5th and Flower a pedestrian oriented intersection.

It's not too late for us to create "ped zones" around CSUN and USC and other schools that guarantee that they are the safest places for pedestrians instead of the most dangerous.

It's not too late for us to create a full tool box of traffic calming solutions and to move speed limit increases to the end of the list of options after road diets, traffic calming and significant safety engineering that provides a safe and level playing field for pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit passengers in their daily joust with motorists.

Need we ask the question: How many more Gwendolyn Colemans have to die? (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch.)

CityWatchLA - Cyclists and Other Road Hazards

CityWatch, Apr 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 27

This past Sunday, the operator of a large, articulating Metro Local bus pulled up behind a cyclist riding in the Sunset Boulevard bike lane, honked his horn twice, and then accelerated, veering to the right into the approaching bus stop, and forcing the cyclist to the curb. The cyclist was infuriated and confronted the bus operator who responded by explaining to the cyclist and then again to his passengers that the solid line indicates a bike lane but that the dashed line on the approach to the corner indicates a “bus zone” and that cyclists must stop and give way to buses.

Based on this incident, it appears that there is a disconnect between the California Vehicle Code (CVC) that governs all other road users and the Metro’s policies and practices for using the same roads.

CVC 27001(a) specifies "The driver of a motor vehicle, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, shall give audible warning with his horn." The Metro, on the other hand, instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”

Passing a cyclist is no cause to honk, in fact it distracts the cyclist at the worst possible moment, in this case as the operator is about to illegally and unsafely force the cyclist from the road.

Further, characterizing cyclists as “road hazards” only serves to reinforce the “might is right” bias that is so dangerous on our streets.

CVC 21750 specifies that “the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle…”

When a motorist pulls in front of a cyclist, especially in a long articulating bus that comes to rest at an angle with the back end still in the bike lane, the cyclist is forced to suddenly stop and choose the curb, the back of the bus or the traffic lane and none of them are good choices. Getting cut off by a right-turning vehicle is one of the most dangerous of scenarios for a cyclist and is often referred to as the “right-hook.”

As for this incident, a complaint was logged and an email was sent to Metro Customer Service, Metro Management and the Metro Board’s Chair, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

To date, there has been no response.

A similar incident occurred a couple of weeks ago when Will Campbell, an intrepid bike commuter and technophile, was riding in the bike lane on Venice Boulevard, only to end up curbed by the operator of a bus on the 333 line. Campbell always travels with two cameras, one of them mounted on his handlebars, and he posted a video of the incident on his blog.

What a difference a video makes.

In Campbell’s case, an email was sent from customerrelations@metro.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it indicating that “This matter will be thoroughly investigated and the appropriate corrective measures taken.”

Of course, if it’s the Metro’s policies and training that are at odds with safe cycling, there’s nothing to investigate and there are no corrective measures to take.

At the end of the day, cyclists and bus operators should be able to share the road effectively and safely. Both average the same cross-town speeds (14.5 mph) both spend most of their travel time in the curb lane and it’s no challenge to simply avoid each other, rather than squeezing and jockeying for position.

Cyclists who complement their ride with the Metro can navigate the city with speed that is competitive to other modes. Whether it’s jumping on the Orange Line to get across the Valley or riding the Red Line to short-cut the Cahuenga Pass, sometimes the Metro can make all the difference.

Likewise, Metro passengers with bikes are able to travel farther and quicker, closing service gaps and riding to routes with shorter headways.

These are challenging times at the Metro. A new CEO, Art Leahy, is taking the helm and the Board Chairman, Antonio Villaraigosa, has just named LA City Councilman Jose Huizar and Department of Transportation GM Rita Robinson as Board Directors.

While all eyes are focused on the Metro’s billion dollar funding issues and on long term planning, it’s important to remember that our streets are filled with pedestrians, cyclists, mass transit passengers and motorists, and that they are humans and that they are vulnerable and that they need to get home safely.

Our streets are the new “public space” and our ability to share that space is one of our greatest opportunities for revitalizing and redefining our communities. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a contributor to CityWatch.)