DONATE

Tag: #lasidewalks

Categories
Completing Streets Uncategorized

We’re not throwing shade but neither is LA #GotShade

As you all may have noticed, LA is getting hotter and hotter. Literally. This is critical as we consider those travelers who are most vulnerable to rising temperatures, such as older adults and children, while they are walking, rolling, and waiting for the bus. However, there are currently challenges to getting more shade in the City of Los Angeles public right-of-way.

On August 27, Investing in Place held a conference call to provide partners updates and explainers on three City of Los Angeles public right-of-way issues:

  • Bus Shelters
  • #LASidewalks + Urban Tree Canopy
  • Potential merger of Bureau of Street Services and Department of Transportation

Bus Shelters

If you want to know the importance of a bus shelter, ask any bus rider what it’s like waiting for the bus. There are currently 1,870 bus shelters installed at Metro bus stops in the City of LA. This covers less than ¼ of all bus stops. There is a 20+ year history of why our bus shelters are so far behind in covering our needs here in sunny LA.   

Here is a quick breakdown:

  • In 2001, the City of LA contracted with a private advertiser, Outfront / JCDecaux, to build and install bus shelters in exchange for an exclusive 20-year contract to advertise on select street furniture in the public right-of-way. The City, in turn, received bus shelters and other street furniture at minimal cost, a share of the ad revenue, and annual fees from JCDecaux.
  • In 2012, the City’s then-Controller, Wendy Greuel, conducted an audit that examined the City’s Street Furniture Program and the contract with Outfront / JCDecaux. In the first 10 years of the contract, JCDecaux implemented 710 total bus shelters (657 new / 53 replacement) compared to the projected delivery of 2,185 bus shelters (1,285 new / 900 replacement). The audit pointed to the Program’s arduous, 16-step approval process, which relies heavily on City Council Office approvals, as a primary contributor for why JCDecaux was unable to install the initial projected number of bus shelters.
  • Today in 2018, there are only a few years left on the contract. A renegotiation and possible contract extension to improve delivery of street furniture for the City is currently being considered by City Council. We will provide updates on those contract negotiations as they progress.

Next Steps:

Investing in Place is following the contract negotiations, which are currently in City Council committees, though have not been agendized for discussion in the near future. We are also considering outreach to individual Council Offices to discuss their vision for improved transit amenities in their District, particularly if the Street Furniture Program contract is amended.

#LASidewalks + Urban Tree Canopy

The City of LA has approximately 11,000 miles of sidewalks and estimates put those in need of repair at about 4,600 miles. As part of the largest Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mobility settlement in the country, the City of LA has launched a $1.4 billion sidewalk repair program.

This is great news for people walking and rolling on our City’s crosswalks and sidewalks. We want to see access to safe sidewalks coordinated with the retention of mature, lush trees to protect people walking and rolling from extreme urban heat. There is still a great need to discuss how a coordinated effort with shared goals lead to our streets, sidewalks, and crosswalks being safe, cool, and accessible for people using our public space. Many people may not realize this, but 11 separate City agencies are responsible for construction and maintenance in the City of LA public right-of-way. With that many cooks in the kitchen, it is easy to see why navigating our public right-of-way can be such a challenge.

The Sidewalk Repair Program has just completed its first fiscal year and here are some highlights for the Program:

  • Repaired 625,500 SF of sidewalk
  • Equivalent to approximately 24 miles
  • Constructed 671 curb ramps
  • Completed 115 Rebate Sites
  • Piloted Alternative Materials at 15 sites
  • Trees Removed: 460
  • Trees Planted: 791

A potential merger of the Bureau of Street Services and the Department of Transportation

Speaking of coordination and shared goals, in May 2018, Councilmembers  submitted a Council motion to merge Bureau of Street Services (BSS) with the Department of Transportation (DOT). While these two departments are completely separate agencies with different leadership and oversight, many of their programs overlap. For example, if your car is parked on a street during street sweeping hours: DOT manages the parking restrictions but BSS manages the street sweeper. Similarly, DOT is the agency that designs and sites bike lanes, but BSS manages the crews that actually paint the lane lines in the street.

So how would merging these agencies affect the people of Los Angeles?

Investing in Place has written extensively on this issue:

We believe a citywide Capital Improvement Plan is one solution. A citywide Capital Improvement Plan, or “CIP”, would allow the City to identify projects and budget for years in advance, make the City more competitive to leverage other funds, such as County, State or Federal money. The City would also be able to better anticipate community education and engagement needs with a centralized list of projects. If community members know the proposed changes for their neighborhood in advance, they can more effectively engage with City departments and policymakers.

Next Steps:

Currently the motion is waiting to be heard in two Council committees: Public Works & Gang Reduction and Transportation. We want the City to seriously consider the benefits a CIP would bring and are interested in keeping this conversation going with any interested partners.

Categories
Completing Streets

How can we Fix our Right-of-Way, the Right Way?

The following post summarizes a portion of a CAO FUSE fellow report released last month that recommends ways to improve infrastructure agencies operations and services in the City of Los Angeles. This post also includes our initial reactions to the report’s most impactful “Tier 1” recommendations: a) relocating the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) into the Department of Public Works (DPW), and b) creating a citywide Office of Infrastructure Management. We will share similar posts analyzing the report’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations shortly.

 

Have you ever seen this image of the Los Angeles street and sidewalk — and the mosaic of different City agencies that are responsible for the different parts? (Hint: we blogged about it earlier this month!)

Source: DIY Great Streets Manual, Mayor’s Office

 

This image may not matter much–until you need to get a pothole repaired, or a crosswalk or bus shelter installed, or a broken sidewalk fixed. Then what do you do? And when will it happen? Will it happen at all?

 

We need to Stop Trippin’

It is not a secret that the City of Los Angeles struggles with project delivery of basic infrastructure maintenance and repairs. Our current Mayor Eric Garcetti successfully campaigned on prioritizing “back-to-basics” maintenance before being elected in 2013. In 2015 the City settled a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit, known as the “Willits settlement,” because Los Angeles sidewalks were found to be not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. And in a report shared last month by the City’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), a constituent survey found that residents gave City delivery of public works services (including sidewalk and street repair) a score of 3.5 out of 10.

This report, “Evaluation of the State of Street Related Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles,” written by FUSE fellow Laila Alequresh, is well-researched with strong historical context. Its key finding could be summed up in that image of the Los Angeles sidewalk and street above: so many City agencies influence each part of our public rights-of-way and infrastructure. But these agencies do not operate from shared visions/missions and coordinated workplans. The City’s inability to keep up with basic maintenance issues on sidewalks and streets is especially challenging given that both residents and Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) rank sidewalk repair as the city service in need of most improvement, in the report’s surveys.

This is an exciting first step. The City of Los Angeles needs to reassess and refine how our public rights-of-way are managed, maintained, and improved. And the current practice of excluding sidewalks and crosswalks from broader transportation and mobility planning removes the walking/rolling experience from our new Los Angeles transportation revolution. So what now?

 

If we all agree on the problem, what is the solution?

The FUSE report identifies the need for improved coordination and communication between the City’s seven infrastructure agencies: Department of Transportation (DOT); Department of Water & Power (DWP); and the Department of Public Works (DPW), comprised of five Bureaus, Contract Administration (BCA) Engineering (BOE), Sanitation (BOS), Street Lighting (BSL), and Street Services (BSS). Based on employee surveys, the report found a “universal belief that better planning and coordination across Bureau siloes and beyond is absolutely necessary.”

The report proposes two “Tier 1” recommendations, which are ranked highest of all report recommendations on a scale of impact, cost, and longevity:

  • Move DOT under the Department of Public Works as a sixth Bureau.
  • Create an Office of Infrastructure Management (OIM) within the Board of Public Works

The primary idea supporting the Tier 1 recommendations is that by transferring all street-related agencies under the same governing body, different transportation and infrastructure services and projects will benefit from improved coordination and communication, which will lead to better delivery of city services for constituents.

 

People who make music together cannot be enemies (at least while the music lasts)

On paper, these recommendations make sense. It is logical that the various agencies that work on street and sidewalks should be housed in the same administrative body. As the report states, this should lead to better project and delivery of services.

However, this logic only applies if the inter-bureau coordination and communication of the current Public Works Bureaus work well together towards shared missions. The report quotes current Public Works employees that point to competition, rather than collaboration, between Bureaus. Nearly the entire existing conditions research in the report demonstrates that there is much needed improvement to achieve streamlined, successful coordination between the Public Works Bureaus.

What if someone had suggested Justin Bieber join the boy band One Direction? Both the solo artist and the group dominated pop charts and enjoyed fans from similar demographics. But, as we saw One Direction disband in recent years, there is also a strong logic that any group needs a strong foundation before adding a new member.

We are not convinced that the Tier 1 recommendation of moving the entire Department of Transportation into the Public Works as a sixth Bureau will solve the report’s identified problems of misaligned missions and uncoordinated project delivery. As a standalone department, DOT has a different culture of managing and delivering projects than the Public Works Bureaus. And the current lack of coordination within existing Public Works Bureaus does not reflect an existing best practice of interagency coordination and streamlined communication. The report does not demonstrate any evidence as to why this restructuring would assuredly lead to better interagency infrastructure coordination.

Also important, DOT is the City leader in mobility and safety, pushing Mayor’s Executive Directive #10 and departmental priority Vision Zero: the goal of reducing traffic fatalities to zero by 2025. However, safety for all road users has not currently proven to be a top priority for Public Works Bureaus. A focus on safety and the impact that street design can have on our lives is also not highlighted in the FUSE report, which focuses almost exclusively on needed maintenance and repairs. For instance, the report rightly points out that infrastructure services should be based on residents’ needs, not grant opportunities. But responding to residents’ maintenance needs requires different systems and planning than designing a 7,500-mile street network (and 11,000 miles of a sidewalks) for saving lives. What happens when the leading voice to reduce traffic fatalities in Los Angeles is tucked into a six-Bureau entity that has not demonstrated a similar commitment to safety?

Before approving a major interagency restructuring, which would have a huge citywide administrative and budgetary impact, we recommend identifying more concrete evidence and proven strategies to improve coordination between the seven City infrastructure Departments and Bureaus.

 

Why buy when we can (potentially) fix?

The second Tier 1 recommendation proposes creating an Office of Infrastructure Management (OIM), housed in the Board of Public Works (BPW), the 5-member commission with governing authority over the Public Works Bureaus. The proposed OIM could potentially serve as a much-needed connecting body between the various infrastructure agencies’ work plans, missions, and projects. This also seems like an ambitious City restructuring that would require amending the City Administrative Code with little evidence of why this would work better than the existing BPW alone. Without intentional and strategic leadership input from all impacted infrastructure agencies, it is possible that this proposed office could become an additional bureaucratic hurdle staffed by City employees who are not authorized to make broader policy decision or recommendations.

As discussed above, “infrastructure” issues like sidewalks and street furniture are routinely separated from “mobility and transportation” safety planning, even though these are critical components to the path of travel for people walking and rolling. And the report uses the example of the City’s 2015-adopted General Plan mobility element, Mobility Plan 2035, never being vetted by the Board of Public Works or Public Works Council Committee. We ask if there are incremental and measured steps to address this disconnect in place of creating a new office.

The report points out the absence of a citywide capital expenditure plan in Los Angeles. Departments and bureaus have their own plans, but these are also not always coordinated. As a potential first step, the BPW Commissioners might oversee development of a 5-year citywide coordinated capital expenditure plan (we see you, Tier 2!). It may also be worth exploring if relevant staff from the Department of City Planning (DCP) who track transportation-related grant opportunities should be included in this work.

Aligning efforts to increase coordination and accountability for projects in the right-of-way may also present opportunities to shift specific programs and tasks between agencies. We also recommend a further assessment of the infrastructure agency work plans to identify programs that may make sense to restructure. Revising agency work plans could potentially deliver a higher return on efficiency and less administrative and budget impacts than moving entire departments.

 

Let’s fix our right-of-way the right way

The FUSE report is a significant unveiling of our City’s inter-agency challenges and proposes recommendations that intend to address these challenges. It is a critical for the City of Los Angeles to address these challenges soon, particularly with new local and statewide transportation funding and infrastructure opportunities.

The needs identified by the report to improve coordination and provide an oversight entity for all street-related projects are warranted. But tangible and realistic improvements such as a comprehensive mobility plan that incorporates both the Public Works’ jurisdiction of the sidewalks and all infrastructure agencies’ management of the streets might be possible at a lower cost.

The Tier 1 recommendations are self-identified as large in scale, impact, and potentially in cost. We ask: do they have to be? We ask: are these the right moves?

We look forward to seeing this report discussed further by the City in 2018 and will share our further analysis of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations of the report shortly.

Categories
Completing Streets Convenings

LA’s at the Tripping Point. Organizing advocates for better #LAsidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops and urban tree canopy.

Thank you to everyone who attended the Tripping Point!
Thank you to everyone who attended the Tripping Point!

Thank you to the 150+ community members who attended the Tripping Point – you all made our first weekend mobility summit a major success. Angelenos from all walks of life came out to learn how to make their voices heard. Los Angeles is at a moment of change, with respect to its built environment, transportation and its responsibilities to protect all street users. And we need it. Over 45% of the City of LA’s sidewalks are broken, there is a backlog of over 20,000 requests to fix them, and the City currently has no inventory or prioritization plan in place for addressing these tremendous infrastructure needs.

Because of a recent class action lawsuit on the lack of access and accessibility for the City’s sidewalks and crosswalks, the City is now obligated to invest at least $31 million a year in fixing our long neglected public space and rights of way. But we hosted the Tripping Point because we think community members need to get involved to ensure these investments are done right – and accelerated. The settlement requires the City of LA to fix its sidewalks within 30 years – we believe we can not wait that long. And with new funding like Measure M and other revenue sources, we are advocating that these fixes be completed within 10 years using a data driven strategic plan with robust community engagement.

Given all this, we are still optimistic as livable streets advocates – there has never been a time when the combination of attention, commitment, and funding for L.A.’s streets has been as solid as it is now. But, as our keynote speakers and attendants reminded all of us on Saturday, there also can be no doubt that more needs to be done. We need to organize and expand the movement for safe and accessible sidewalks, crosswalks, bus stop, urban tree canopy and more. This is why we believe we are at the Tripping Point.

Our streets and sidewalks need to be more accessible and safer, and, in many ways, the city is falling short of the mark. Creating streets, sidewalks, crosswalks that are safe and accessible for all has to be a priority.

To start off the morning, we were treated to a story from Cleo Jones, a member of the Willits class action settlement. Cleo suffered a fall due to a buckled sidewalk and now gets around with the help of a cane. To the audience, she said it’s time to start making sure that LA keeps its commitments to make city streets safer for pedestrians like her. “I don’t want to walk in the street,” she said, “I don’t want to walk in the mud.” We couldn’t agree more.

Deputy Mayor for City Services Barbara Romero then spoke with us about the importance of human-scale infrastructure. As a child growing up in Boyle Heights, she told us her neighborhood landmarks were freeways and she could smell the pollution in the air. Deputy Mayor Romero told us the city is changing its attitude toward data-driven responses to street repair requests. As she put it, “Collecting data isn’t enough.” Under the direction of Deputy Mayor Romero and Mayor Garcetti, the city is changing its focus from how many requests it gets, to how long responses are taking and whether or not community goals are being met. There is also a need for a new focus on integrating service plans, exploring ideas how accessibility and safety programs like Vision Zero projects can be wrapped into road and sidewalk repair as it happens. The community can also play a role in shifting the priorities at City Hall. Many people say there is no constituency for improving our City’s 11,000 miles of sidewalks – which over 45% are in disrepair. At Investing in Place we think this couldn’t be more further than the truth but we agree we need to organize around our sidewalks, crosswalks, urban tree canopy – and connect with City Hall leaders to do more to address these issues. The more feedback that Angelenos from all areas of the city provide, the easier it is to secure greater funding to invest in livable streets.

Community member Vanessa Clay spoke to us about using neighborhood councils as tools for effective advocacy. In the northeast San Fernando Valley, she said, the issue is not that sidewalks are broken but that “there are no sidewalks.” She told us about a successful campaign to get a sidewalk put in place on a route that children took to a local park, and told us that neighborhood council representatives are there to help us. The best advice for dealing with city representatives? “Be persistent.”

Councilmember Nury Martinez reminded us that there is cost to doing nothing. In her district,this year alone, 9 people have already lost their lives to traffic collisions. Councilmember Martinez reflected on the neighborhood where she grew up and watching as a departing factory left behind high unemployment and a polluted environment. “Investing in human beings is the right thing to do,” Councilmember Martinez said, adding that it was important to amplify the voices of those who have been passed over for infrastructure spending in the past. “The workforce in L.A. comes from the northeast San Fernando Valley, and we have no safe way to get to work,” she said. The councilmember encouraged participants to be more vocal about their funding needs.

General Manager Seleta Reynolds of LADOT had a discussion with our Executive Director Jessica Meaney about what advocacy looks like in Los Angeles, and how the city’s residents can get more of the results they’re really looking for. General Manager Reynolds said that because of Los Angeles’ history, there is a strong network of advocacy groups working on issues like social justice, environmental justice, and other important issues. However, she said, it’s just as important that those groups be willing to “link arms” and fight together on the overarching problems that affect all of them. General Manager Reynolds discussed the importance of advocating based on the outcomes we want, and instead of focusing just on the outputs of an agency like LADOT. Instead of working just to get more trees planted, or more miles of sidewalk repaired, we should have a cohesive outcome that we can work towards. Outcomes like zero pedestrian deaths, and safe and accessible streets, provide the guidelines for building the city we want.

Following the keynote speakers, we concluded the morning session with our breakout groups. Julie Sauter of the city’s Bureau of Engineering, along with Francois Nion and Melissa Hernandez of JCDecaux, Nat Gale from the Department of Transportation and Carter Rubin from the Mayor’s office of Great Streets led presentations and a group discussion on how to get your sidewalk fixed, get a bus shelter installed or cleaned, request a crosswalk and more. The session was focused on highlighting which City agencies control different parts of the city sidewalks, how those bodies operate, other powerful players and hot to advocate for these improvements.

Meanwhile, Rudy Espinoza and Azusena Favela of LURN led an informative session explaining the city’s legislative process and administrative structure. If you don’t know who to hold accountable when things don’t change, it is that much more difficult to be an effective advocate. Rudy and Azusena broke down the responsibilities of the various government officials and explained the mechanisms that allow city council to slow down or speed up the legislation process. LURN also walked participants through the basics of advocacy, focusing on making the most of meetings with representatives. First, Rudy and Azusena explained powermapping, a tool that identifies who has the power to influence your concern, and then mapping connections between that person and yourself.

Emilia Crotty and the Los Angeles Walks team conducted a walk audit that taught practical assessment tool to participants. The group walked on a route through the neighborhood, identifying the elements that contributed to a safe, accessible and pleasant walking environment. During this session, participants learned how to spot the relationship between the built environment of a neighborhood and how residents interact with it, a crucial skill if we want to make our public spaces more useful and welcoming!

After lunch, the day concluded with a final round of breakout sessions. Jenny Binstock of TreePeople and Rachel Malarich of Koreatown Youth and Community Center hosted a talk on urban forestry issues in Los Angeles. The city has committed to beginning to repair its sidewalks, which in many places will mean removing fully grown trees and losing some of the existing canopy. Jenny and Rachel discussed how the city can develop an Urban Forestry management plan that would protect healthy trees from pests, and ensure that sufficient new tree coverage will be planted to replace the shade our streets will be losing. In some areas where large, sidewalk-buckling trees are being replaced with smaller ones, it will be necessary to plant up to four new trees for every one removed in order to protect the urban canopy. As Jenny said, “We have to plan today for the Urban Forest we want 50 years from now.”

Max Podemski of Pacoima Beautiful, Enrique Huerta of From Lot to Spot and Fernando Cazares of the Trust for Public Land co-hosted a session on urban greening. The group leaders showed participants how cities around the world have reused existing infrastructure to create livable spaces. L.A. could use multi-benefit infrastructure like community gardens, green alleys, and parklets to increase mobility, safety, and rainwater capture. After the initial discussion, participants got into groups and discussed where in Boyle Heights urban greening projects would be most effective.

There also was a workshop from America Aceves, a community organizer at Proyecto Pastoral, who presented tools for organizing in your community around pedestrian safety issues. This workshop helped participants develop their own personal story to engage others, how to set up one-on-one meetings to build partners and support and more.

All in all, it was a day filled with informative activities and passionate community members. We hope that you took away valuable skills from the Tripping Point that will help as we make our push to fix #LAsidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops, the urban tree canopy. And, most of all, we hope you had as much fun as we did!

In July or August, the City of Los Angeles will be considering a prioritization process for fixing the City’s sidewalks – stay tuned for more information on that. This Advocacy Summit would not have been possible without support from our partners: American Heart Association, AARP, Office of Traffic and Safety, Los Angeles Walks, Tree People, Pacoima Beautiful, LURN, From Lot to Spot and Los Angeles Aging Advocacy Coalition.

For more information, please see:

The Tripping Point Program

Presentations

Categories
Public Participation transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Investing Measure M’s Local Return to Fix Sidewalks and Streets

Over the past months, most of the attention on Metro’s ballot measure has been, understandably, on the major transit and highway projects planned by Metro. But, for many of us working at the neighborhood level, the important caveat is: the measure would also generate billions of dollars for local projects in the City of Los Angeles and every other city in the county. That means opportunities to re-invest in our sidewalks, crosswalks, and streets — the crucial but often forgotten infrastructure that helps get us to our transit stations or bus stops.

Like Propositions A and C and Measure R before it, Metro’s ballot measure (what might be coined “Measure M”) would include a substantial local return program. Local return is a formula funding program that distributes money to local jurisdictions for street and sidewalk repair, municipal transit operations, capital projects, and other transportation purposes based on population.

Metro’s Measure M would allocate 17 percent of the new ballot measure revenue to local return, which would increase to 20 percent after 2039. By our estimate, this would generate over $130 million per year for all 88 cities and the County of Los Angeles, including over $50 million per year for just the City of Los Angeles (due to the fact the City of LA represents approximately 40% of the County’s population). If you’re a City Manager, public works or streets services official, elected official, or a transportation advocate in any of LA County’s cities, you have a timely opportunity to advocate for where local return funding should go.

In May, two motions were introduced at Los Angeles City Council, kicking off the discussion of how the City of Los Angeles might use the revenue from its share of local return from the potential ballot measure.

Local return is an important revenue source for cities to maintain their local transportation infrastructure. Most cities use their local return to operate small bus systems, to repave streets and repair sidewalks, and to leverage state and federal grants for capital projects. Metro’s Measure M proposes to expand eligibility to include stormwater capture and transit-oriented communities.

With so many competing demands on a limited funding source, it is important for cities to set clear priorities to use local return funding efficiently and effectively to achieve desired policy outcomes. For more background on local return in the City of Los Angeles, see our policy brief from our webinar in May.

As discussed in our brief, Investing in Place’s priorities with local return are:

  • To prioritize projects based on need,
  • To integrate complete streets and green streets into street repair, and
  • To set aside 20 percent of funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, bus stops, safe routes to school, and other related projects that address safety and access for people traveling on foot or bicycle, as recommended in the City’s Mobility Plan 2035.

These policies will maximize the benefits of the potential measure for Los Angeles’ neighborhoods, deliver improvements more cost effectively, and prioritize the safety of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

When this issue was last discussed by council members in May, the Transportation Committee considered the two local return motions, heard testimony from the public — including many of our partners — and directed city staff to report back with a more comprehensive proposal for using the new revenue in line with the City’s adopted policy priorities, including Mobility Plan 2035, the Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan, Vision Zero, and more.

Taking a pause to consider the magnitude of potential investment and the best way to prioritize all of these needs is a win for advocates, giving us time to engage with staff and council offices to articulate a more holistic approach to transportation funding in the City of Los Angeles.

Stay tuned for updates as this discussion continues at Transportation Committee possibly in August or in the early fall and consider signing onto our letter (to be drafted in early August) outlining Investing in Place’s priorities for local return in the City of Los Angeles.  To join our local return working group efforts and/or learn more, please email jessica@investinginplace.org.

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Ballot Measure Recap: What Did We Win?

Two years ago, over 60 #metrofundwalkbike advocates attended a Metro Planning & Programming Committee meeting on the Short Range Transportation Plan, setting off a series of actions and incremental victories for walking and biking in Los Angeles County.

Last month, our efforts culminated in a ballot measure expenditure plan that would spend over $4 billion* (2015 dollars) on walking, biking, and connecting our residents to transit stations and bus stops over the next 40 years. Dubbed the Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan, Metro’s measure will go before voters in November and needs two-thirds support to pass.

In the last few months, our coverage focused on the changes we were pushing for and we scored some significant wins in the revised plan while defending all the great projects that were included in the March draft. Now that the dust has settled after the final plan’s adoption, it is clear that the ballot measure is a huge leap forward for walking and biking in Los Angeles County and includes funding to make our communities safer, healthier, and more equitable.

That doesn’t mean our work is done — far from it. We still need to better define what we mean by transportation equity, to focus on parts of the county that are falling behind like the Gateway Cities, and to grow the voices of local champions on these issues.

While our work continues, it is important to recognize that all of our future victories will be easier in an environment where there is robust funding for transit, streets, and the rest of our transportation system. The November ballot measure — Measure M — is a critical piece of that equation. As Metro and the campaign start to educate voters about the measure, here’s a recap of what Measure M would do for walking and biking:

1. Integrate First and Last Mile Access to Transit into All Projects

With the recent opening of rail lines in the San Gabriel Valley and the Westside, there’s been a lot of coverage about whether people can easily access the new lines. Up until now, people walking and biking to transit have been an afterthought in transit planning, but those days are over — Metro’s recent Quality of Life report found that a vast majority of transit users get to the train station or bus stop without a car.

One of the most significant revisions in the final expenditure plan was the addition of an innovative policy to fund first and last mile improvements near new transit stations. The policy would require cities to contribute three percent of the cost of new transit projects and allow them to use that money to make improvements for walking and biking in the vicinity of the new stations. We called the Active Transportation Strategic Plan a “game changer” because it helps build an integrated transportation system that truly connects neighborhoods to transit. Our initial estimate values these improvements at about $300-500 million over the life of the measure.

2. Finish Los Angeles River and San Gabriel Valley Greenways

Los Angeles County has an extensive network of greenways along our rivers, railroad rights-of-way, and other corridors. These paths provide important links to schools, parks, and other community destinations.

For some long-distance bike commuters, the paths provide efficient, traffic-free routes to transit stations and regional job centers. But this network is incomplete, with missing links that prevent people from fully utilizing the system. Many of these missing links are in park-poor communities without safe places for children and families to be physically active.

Measure M includes funding to close the gap in the Los Angeles River bike path through Downtown Los Angeles and open to the public some of the tributaries to the San Gabriel River that are currently behind locked gates. The result will be a connected bike path network for preschoolers with training wheels, people who love riding for miles on end, and everyone in between who would be able to use high-quality bike paths to meet their friends and family, to get to work or school, and more. The measure allocates over $650 million for these projects.

3. Fund Safe Routes to School and Other Active Transportation Programs and Projects

Each subregion had the opportunity to set aside funding for walking, biking, and safe routes to school, depending on local priorities. (For more about Los Angeles County’s nine subregions, see our memo on Councils of Governments.) Nearly all subregions did. These programs vary in name, description, and funding levels, but they all set aside funding for future active transportation needs. Eligible uses would include infrastructure like sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes, and programs like safe routes to school, public education campaigns, and open streets events.

Funding and investments will be controlled by the subregion, so it is important for advocates to get involved in setting the priorities, including which specific projects and programs should be funded in each part of the county.

Here’s how much each subregion set aside for walking, biking, safe routes to school, and complete streets programs:

Measure M - active transportation funding

4. Require Complete Streets in All Projects

All projects in the ballot measure are governed by Metro’s Complete Streets Policy, which requires projects to incorporate the needs of people walking, biking, and taking transit. While we had asked for this policy to be included directly in the ballot measure ordinance, the fact is that complete streets is already required and has been since 2014. Metro staff is still working on updating planning procedures to ensure that all projects comply with the policy, and advocates will need to keep a watchful eye on projects to make sure that they do, but voters should feel comfortable that even the highway projects included in the measure will make accommodations for people walking, biking, and taking transit.

5. Repair Streets and Sidewalks

Fixing streets and sidewalks is the responsibility of local jurisdictions, but many cities haven’t had enough funding to keep their sidewalks in good condition and make them accessible for people with disabilities.

Metro’s final expenditure plan increased local return up to 20 percent with the expectation that cities will use this funding to make infrastructure improvements. To make sure voters understand this commitment (and at our urging), Metro included sidewalk repair right alongside fixing potholes in the 75-word ballot summary that voters will see:

Sidewalks are an essential part of the transportation system, so it is critical for cities to have the resources to maintain them.

6. Fund Countywide Walking and Biking Programs

In addition to all of the funding described above, Metro has reserved $857.5 million — about $20 million per year — for programs and projects that serve the whole county. This would provide a stable funding source for ongoing program costs currently subject to the uncertainty of grant funding, like safe routes to school, bike safety classes, public education campaigns, open streets, and bike share. Stable funding is essential for these programs to grow and reach the maximum number of residents possible. This funding might also be used for capital projects with countywide significance, or maintenance and operation of active transportation infrastructure.

And So Much More…

These walking and biking programs are just one piece of what the measure would do. It also includes dedicated funding for transit maintenance in perpetuity, yet-to-be-identified bus rapid transit projects, expanded bus and rail operations, and enhanced service for students, seniors, and people with disabilities. This all adds up to a remarkably balanced, forward-looking plan that makes significant investments in our communities. The measure is a strong foundation for us to build on to create truly safe, healthy, and equitable communities and we are pleased to support it.

To learn more about our work on defining transportation equity in Los Angeles County, please register to join us at The California Endowment for a partner’s convening on September 12.

*The sum of all projects and programs included in the expenditure plan with a primary purpose of enhancing walking and biking (“active transportation”) is $3.9 billion. Some of these programs also include other related purposes that might not be exclusively for walking and biking, such as complete streets and first/last mile improvements. This $3.9 billion estimate does not include the potential value of Metro’s new first/last mile policy that integrates walking and biking improvements near new transit stations into the transit project budget, which could add another $300-500 million for walking and biking. All estimates are in 2015 dollars.

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

City of LA Sidewalk Policy Program proposal

Update on March 9, 2016: The Joint Committee will discuss this item on Monday March 14th at 2pm in City Hall.  Please email us at jessica@investinginplace.org if you plan to attend or are interested in more information. Thank you!

Last week, members of the City of Los Angeles Joint Committee of Public Works and Gang Reduction and Budget and Finance Committee submitted a letter to the City Council with their policy proposals for the City of Los Angeles Sidewalk Program.  Read the complete letter here.

The letter signed by Councilmembers: Paul Krekorian, Joe Buscaino, Nury Martinez and Mike Bonin opens with, “For forty years, the City of Los Angeles has been stuck with a dysfunctional policy when it comes to sidewalks.” This lack of a solid policy for the City’s over 11,500 miles of sidewalks, has created a situation of buckled sidewalks, utilities in the middle of the sidewalks blocking access, missing sidewalks, lack of curbcuts, crosswalks in need of redesign and upgrade, and intersections and paths of travel in need of critical safety and livability fixes and more – this growing list of infrastructure problems totals over $1.5 Billion dollars in need for the City of Los Angeles.

As a result of the lack of sidewalk repair, several years ago plantiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen, and Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”) filed a class action to ensure better access for persons with mobility disabilities to the city’s sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkways. This lawsuit was settled in 2015 and outlines key next steps, as well as mandates the City of Los Angeles invest a minimum $31 Million annual in sidewalk repair.

Concurrent to the sidewalk class action, in June 2014 the Joint Committee of Public Works and Gang Reduction and Budget and Finance began holding hearings and community meetings across the city to engage hundreds of stakeholders in efforts to finally develop a comprehensive sidewalk program. The Joint Committee recommendations now will go before the full City Council for discussion. As outlined in their letter the recommendations are to ensure a City of Los Angeles Sidewalks policy include the following elements:

  1. Incentivize Proactive Repairs by Property Owners
  2. Inspection and Certification
  3. Comprehensive Repair Program
  4. Warranty for Future Damage
  5. Prioritizing and Coordinating Repairs
  6. Demand based Repair Work Coordinated by Council Offices
  7. Division of Labor for the Repair Work
  8. Preserving the Urban Forest While Maintaining Accessibility
  9. Utilizing Non-Standard Sidewalks Designs and Materials
  10. Leveraging the Sidewalk Program, Accelerating Constructions and Alternative Financing Options

For more detail on what these 10 elements should address – we highly recommend partners read the 5 page letter.

What’s unclear to us after reading the letter is: will this program finally create a comprehensive inventory of the City’s 11,500 miles of sidewalks in order to ensure the prioritization, coordination, and acceleration is feasible and developed in a systematic and data driven framework for the entire city?

For several months, Investing in Place has been convening a work group on this pending policy. Supporting the creation of an inventory has become the clear ask from advocates across the city in order to ensure steps are taken to create a comprehensive program.  With the City of Los Angeles budgeted to spend $31 Million by July this year, creating a citywide inventory would be a helpful and pragmatic next step.  For more background, see our comment letter and ideas the Investing in Place workgroup, and AARP submitted to the Joint Policy Committee for fixing the most critical element of the transportation network – the city sidewalk.

Stay tuned as we learn more about this important infrastructure program.

© Investing in Place. All Rights Reserved.

Site Credits

Stay up to date on our work!

Sign up for our newsletter

hello@investinginplace.org

Instagram Youtube Linkedin

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

Richard France assists clients with strategic planning, visioning, and community and economic development. He is a strategic planner at Estolano Advisors, where he has been involved in a variety of active transportation, transit-oriented development, climate change resiliency, and equitable economic development projects. His work in active transportation includes coordinating a study to improve bike and pedestrian access to transit oriented districts for the County of Los Angeles, and working with the Southern California Association of Governments to host tactical urbanism events throughout the region. Richard also serves as a technical assistance provider for a number of California Climate Investment programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities, Transformative Climate Communities, and Low Carbon Transit Operations programs. He has also taught at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Richard received a Bachelor of Environmental Design from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. in Urban Planning from UCLA.

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

Matt Horton is the director of state policy and initiatives for Accelerator for America. He collaborates with government officials, impact investors, and community leaders to shape infrastructure, job creation, and equitable community development efforts. With over fifteen years of experience, Matt has directed research-driven programs and initiatives focusing on housing production, infrastructure finance, access to capital, job creation, and economic development strategies. Previously, he served as the director of the California Center at the Milken Institute, where he produced research and events to support innovative economic policy solutions. Matt also has experience at the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), where he coordinated regional policy development and planning efforts. He holds an MA in political science from California State University, Fullerton, and a BA in history from Azusa Pacific University. Additionally, Matt serves as a Senior Advisor for the Milken Institute and is involved in various advisory boards, including Lift to Rise and WorkingNation.

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

Madeline is the Deputy Director of the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at the Luskin School of Public Affairs. She oversees and supports students, staff, and faculty who work on planning and policy issues about how people live, move, and work in the Southern California region. When not supporting the work of the Lewis Center community, Madeline is doing research on the transportation patterns and travel needs of vulnerable populations in LA. Her recent work includes studies of low-income older adults in Westlake, public transit safety among university students, and uncovering the transportation needs of women, and girls in partnership with Los Angeles public agencies. Outside of UCLA, Madeline serves as the vice-chair of the Metro Westside Service Council and enjoys spending time seeing Los Angeles on the bus, on foot, and by bike.

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

Luis Gutierrez, works in the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as the Director of Energy & Water in the Office of Energy and Sustainability (MOES), Luis oversees issues related to LA’s transition to clean energy, water infrastructure, and serves as the primary liaison between the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Water and Power. Prior to joining MOES, Luis managed regulatory policy proceedings for Southern California Edison (SCE), focusing on issues related to equity and justice. Before joining SCE, Luis served as the Director of Policy and Research for Inclusive Action for the City, a community development organization dedicated to economic justice in Los Angeles. Luis holds a BA in Sociology and Spanish Literature from Wesleyan University, and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Cal State LA.

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

Kim is a writer, researcher and communications strategist, focused on sustainability, urban resilience and safe streets. Her specialty is taking something complex and making it clear and compelling. Harvard-trained in sustainability, she won a prize for her original research related to urban resilience in heat waves—in which she proposed a method to help cities identify where pedestrians spend a dangerous amount of time in direct sun, so they can plan for more equitable access to shade across a city.

jessica@investinginplace.org

(213) 210-8136

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

For over almost two decades, Jessica has led efforts in Los Angeles to promote inclusive decision-making and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation funding. Jessica’s current work at Investing in Place is grounded in the belief that transparent and strategic prioritization of public funds can transform Los Angeles into a city where inclusive, accessible public spaces enrich both livability and well-being. As a collaborator and convener, Jessica plays a role in facilitating public policy conversations and providing nuanced insights into the interplay of politics, power, and process on decision-making and fiscal allocations.