DONATE

Author: Investing in Place

Categories
Uncategorized

Celebrating LA’s Public Spaces – A New Report from Investing in Place

child on a swing

At Investing in Place, we believe that public spaces are the heart of Los Angeles. Today, we’re excited to announce the release of our latest report, “Common Ground: Favorite Public Spaces in Los Angeles.” Nearly 200 Angelenos have shared their stories, giving us a glimpse into the parks, plazas, and sidewalks they love the most – spaces that connect them to nature, nostalgia, and one another.

 

What We Learned from Angelenos

In a series of 114 one-on-one interviews and 82 online surveys, participants told us about the places that matter most to them. From Griffith Park to Little Tokyo, Angelenos named more than 200 different spaces they love. What makes these spaces so special? It’s the memories they create, the accessibility they offer, and the ways they foster community.

 

Here’s a taste of what we heard:

 

Certain areas around Ventura Blvd. in Studio City/NoHo: Because it’s very accessible. I can usually find handicap parking. Sidewalks are maintained. We spend time eating, getting coffee, shopping and at the farmers’ market. It’s a place we’ve been going to forever. It’s special to me because of the nostalgia I have for it.

 

Little Tokyo: I love the vibrancy and walkable, great restaurants. The juxtaposition of the major cultural institutions in a walkable neighborhood – it creates the opportunity for a whole day.

 

Mid-City – Pico/Hauser – Coloring Book Plaza: It’s a wide area of sidewalk painted with outlines of flowers for kids to color in with chalk. There’s also a curved path that my kids love to scooter on their way to school. To hang with family/meet other families for play dates. Because we have no playgrounds in the neighborhood.

 

Hollenbeck Park: I grew up in the ‘hood. One of the only green spaces nearby. I go there to hang out, picnic. I grew up going there, we had birthdays and special events.

 

Key Findings  

The report highlights the role public spaces play in the daily lives of people living in Los Angeles. People visit these spaces to connect with nature, exercise, unwind, and spend time with family and friends. Local, walkable spaces are particularly loved, with many people citing proximity and ease of access as reasons why their favorite spots are meaningful to them.

  • 25 people said their favorite space is special because it’s close to home.
  • 18 mentioned accessibility without needing a car.
  • More people walk to their favorite space than any other mode of transportation.

Some spaces were especially popular: Griffith Park and the Los Angeles River Greenway topped the list.

 

A Call to Manage What Matters

As we elevate the importance of these spaces, it’s critical that decision-makers prioritize them in policies and investments. Last week’s Executive Directive #9 from Mayor Karen Bass, calling for equitable investment in the city’s public right-of-way, underscores the momentum to protect and enhance our shared spaces. But Common Ground reminds us why these places matter on a personal level – they aren’t just amenities; they’re integral to our city’s identity and the well-being of its people. Our neighborhoods rely on these spaces for everything from social connections to climate resilience. When we listen to the voices of those who depend on them, we can build a city that reflects the needs of all.

 

Explore the report and these wonderful places

We invite you to dive into Common Ground and discover the favorite public spaces in LA, along with the personal stories that make them special. Visit these places, celebrate our shared spaces, and enjoy the sense of community they offer!

 

[Read the Full Report Here]

 

Categories
Uncategorized

We Did It! Mayor Bass Creates a Capital Planning Steering Committee to Improve How LA Manages the Public Right-of-Way

It’s a Key First Step Toward a Comprehensive, Multi-Year Capital Infrastructure Plan

Investing in Place has been a leading voice calling for Los Angeles leaders to prioritize creating a comprehensive plan for the city’s public right-of-way—and we did it!

 

On October 16, Mayor Karen Bass issued Executive Directive No. 9: Streamlining Capital Project Delivery and Equitably Investing in the Public Right-of-Way.

 

The Directive addresses essential reforms to our public right-of-way that place equity, community engagement, and transparency at the forefront for the first time in Los Angeles’ history. This is a major step toward creating a better-run, people-centered city. See what other leaders—our partners in this work—are saying about this exciting initiative here. Our thoughts were also included in the Los Angeles Times and Torched coverage. 

 

We’re proud to say that our collective voice has made a difference! 

 

The Executive Directive’s opening lines mirror the calls we spent years researching, developing, and promoting. Investing in Place is proud to have laid the foundation for this transformative moment by providing city and community leaders with analysis and insight into how LA City currently plans for and manages its public right-of-way, compared with nationwide best practices and what other cities do. (See our online library of resources.) 

 

Over the past several years, we:

  • Conducted research on over 30 cities’ Capital Infrastructure Plans (CIPs). 
  • Launched LA’s first-ever inventory of all elements of the public right-of-way.
  • Convened roundtables and held workshops for civic, business, and community leaders. 
  • Interviewed City staff to identify barriers to creating an equitable CIP for Los Angeles. 
  • Rallied over 80 civic organizations and individuals behind our community pledge that we submitted to the Mayor last year, including many of the key principles reflected in Mayor Bass’ Directive.

Our insights and recommendations are referenced throughout the Directive, especially in these key points: 

  1. For the first time, Los Angeles will engage the disability community as a key partner in planning and maintaining the public right-of-way.
  2. Maintenance and asset management will be prioritized, with transparent cost allocations for these efforts.
  3. Project list development will move from the “black box” to a process that includes community engagement as a component.
  4. The Directive eliminates bureaucratic silos by consolidating multiple existing workgroups, creating a unified, shared vision.
  5. The Directive emphasizes equitable investment in the public right-of-way, ensuring historically underserved and low-income communities receive the attention and resources needed to address long-standing infrastructure disparities.
  6. The Directive commits to economic and workforce development, prioritizing procurement and career path opportunities for Angelenos and small businesses, supporting local hire initiatives and fostering community growth.

But the work is just beginning.

 

An Executive Directive is a crucial first step, but it’s only the beginning. The reason a CIP has never been adopted in Los Angeles when cities like Boston, Chicago, Long Beach, New York, San Diego, and Seattle have one is because it takes work. Now, we need leadership from both inside and outside City Hall to collaborate in untangling decades of complex processes, data, and traditions. This won’t be easy, but it can be done.

 

Currently, LA has over 20 city agencies and entities, each operating with separate year-by-year budgets, no unified plan, no comprehensive project list, and no shared vision—leaving the public uninformed. Mayor Bass’ Executive Directive sets a clear vision for change, and now is the time to act.

 

The Directive introduces key elements for a more transparent process and a better-run city—things Los Angeles has been missing for decades.

 

This is a promising first step, and we’re ready to work alongside city staff and community leaders for these plans to move off the page and into reality.

 

We need your continued partnership. 

 

Join us as we continue to work with the City to see that this not only gets done but gets done right—and that people like you inform the process and the outcomes. Here’s what you can do:

  • Share this news with the people in your own networks. Here are some additional resources to make it easy to spread the word. 
  • Follow the ongoing work of the new Capital Planning Steering Committee, or get updates from us by signing up for our newsletter at the bottom of this page.
  • Keep raising your voice and asking the city to follow through on these promises.
  • Donate to Investing in Place so we can keep up this work, especially as it ramps up now.

It will take all of us. Let’s get to work!



Categories
Uncategorized

Workshop Recap: 30 Cities, 1 Challenge

Examining Sidewalk Infrastructure Policies for Inclusive Access and Equity

Earlier this month, nearly 50 people from various backgrounds, including community members, city staff, organizations, and design firms, gathered online last week to discuss the challenges and potential solutions for sidewalk policies in 30 cities, with a focus on the City of Los Angeles.

 

Missed it? 

LA’s Sidewalk Dilemma

Los Angeles is home to 9,000-11,000 miles of sidewalks, but the infrastructure has been under stress and neglected for decades. Investing in Place’s executive director Jessica Meaney provided an overview of the city’s backlog: over 50,000 repair requests remain unresolved, and there is a 10-year wait for access ramp installations. This lack of resources and organization makes it difficult for people, particularly those with disabilities, to safely and equitably access and navigate LA’s neighborhoods.

 

One major issue is LA’s unsuccessful 2016 “fix-and-release” policy, which only addresses a small percentage of the city’s sidewalks. As a result, sidewalks are often left in disrepair, contributing to a fragmented public right-of-way. With no centralized sidewalk program since the 1970s, the burden largely falls on property owners, many of whom lack the resources to make repairs. The liability, however, still falls on the City of Los Angeles.

 

The Broader Landscape: 30 Cities’ Sidewalk Policies

USC Ph.D. student Laura Messier shared her research in which she examined the sidewalk policies of 30 U.S. cities, revealing that LA’s challenges are far from unique. She found that 23 of the 30 cities place the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance on property owners, with only 13 of these cities offering financial assistance. This decentralized approach often results in inconsistent enforcement (LA City Council suspended sidewalk enforcement), with most cities relying on complaint-based systems like 311 instead of proactively inspecting their sidewalks. Laura noted that only four cities have proactive inspection programs, such as Denver’s 11-year cycle and Seattle’s sidewalk condition assessment report. Additionally, just four of the seven cities where the city assumes responsibility for sidewalks have a comprehensive plan.

 

Laura emphasized that many cities struggle to manage sidewalk maintenance sustainably, often facing deferred maintenance costs that continue to grow. Cities with proactive inspection programs, like Denver and Seattle, are the exception rather than the rule. Enforcement mechanisms are also lacking, with only a few cities, such as San Francisco, actively enforcing their sidewalk regulations.

 

She suggested that transitioning responsibility for sidewalks to city governments is a critical step forward, as it aligns with the need for accessible, equitable pedestrian networks. Laura underscored the importance of operationalizing Complete Streets policies to create a connected transportation system that ensures access for all. She also called for a more systemic approach to equity, pointing to the Dallas sidewalk prioritization framework as a useful model. 

 

Lastly, she proposed a social ecological model for sidewalk management, which links individual health outcomes to broader environmental and societal factors.

 

Moving Toward Solutions

Jessica and Laura agreed that the key to improving sidewalk infrastructure is centralizing responsibility and creating a coordinated approach. This would involve cities directly overseeing sidewalk maintenance rather than relying on property owners. Laura pointed to Dallas’ equity-based prioritization framework and Denver’s shift toward taking city-level responsibility as potential models for other cities, including LA.

 

Another significant takeaway from the workshop was the opportunity to integrate sidewalk policies with broader health and equity initiatives. Laura proposed a social-ecological model that connects sidewalk networks to public health, emphasizing that better sidewalks promote mobility and individual and community well-being. She suggested looking into innovative funding mechanisms like adding sidewalk fees to utility bills or incorporating sidewalk improvements into Complete Streets policies to ensure they align with public transportation goals.

 

Next Steps

After a group discussion, the workshop concluded with a call to action for cities to prioritize sidewalks as essential infrastructure and view them through equity and accessibility. By centralizing maintenance responsibilities, increasing efficiency, and securing dedicated funding, cities can begin to address the significant sidewalk backlog and create a more inclusive public realm.

 

Investing in Place is committed to advocating for leveraging public space to improve the quality of life of all Angelenos and visitors.

 

Key Action Items:

  • Support a Citywide Sidewalk Inventory: Urge Mayor Karen Bass to back the Bureau of Engineering’s ongoing pilot project. (Click here to email the Mayor.)
  • Stay informed on City Council discussions and consider submitting a comment letter for the following files related to sidewalks and the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games:
  • Learn from Denver’s example: Follow up on Denver’s transition to city-level responsibility for sidewalk maintenance.
  • Leverage the 2028 Olympics: Advocate for improved accessibility and livability along LA’s sidewalks in preparation for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This discussion is part of a larger national movement for inclusive, accessible sidewalks and aligns with Investing in Place’s campaign for a Capital Infrastructure Plan for Los Angeles.

 

 

Workshop Background: 

Speaker Bio: Laura Messier is a PhD student in Population, Health and Place at the University of Southern California with an interest in built environment impacts on behavior and health, inequities between demographic groups, and the governmental policies and systems that shape built environments. She received her Bachelor of Architecture degree in 2008 from the University of Texas at Austin, practiced architecture in New York and San Francisco, and is a Registered Architect in California. 

 

She served on committees for the Strategic Mobility and Sidewalk Master Plans in Dallas from 2020 to 2021 and is working to translate that experience and research of sidewalk policies in the 30 most populous U.S. cities into action. She holds a graduate certificate in Geographic Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington, where she was named a National Institute for Transportation and Communities Scholar in 2020. In 2022, she was awarded a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to continue her work studying sidewalks and the public right-of-way. Get in touch! You can reach Laura at lmessier@usc.edu

 

Resources and Related Materials re: LA City Sidewalks: 

Categories
Uncategorized

LA Sidewalks: Where Life Happens, and Infrastructure Policy Doesn’t

Sidewalks are complex ecosystems.

 

Consider the entire experience for someone trying to get around Los Angeles in a wheelchair: getting onto the sidewalk and using it to get through the neighborhood, crossing multiple intersections, waiting at a bus stop in the sun or in the dark, not knowing whether any of that will be accessible or how long the wait might be. The journey involves multiple problems and multiple players to fix those problems.

 

Sidewalks are so much more than concrete. Trees, shelters, lights, public bathrooms, benches, and more all combine to make sidewalks places where we can walk or roll to run errands, bump into neighbors and friends, buy meals from street vendors, or just enjoy an evening stroll. When the public right-of-way is well-maintained and functional, the city thrives and is welcoming. After all, sidewalks are where life happens. 

 

But LA’s sidewalks fail us. We can’t rely on them to get around (social failure). We can’t rely on them to help us mitigate the effects of extreme heat or floods (environmental failure). 

 

In the first two posts of this series (here and here), we’ve painted pictures of the many ways people use and experience the broader category of public space that includes sidewalks and all the essentials that make them useful and enjoyable. We’ve demonstrated that the scale of LA’s sidewalk network is huge, our sidewalks are supposed to serve multiple and diverse functions in order to be useful, and LA has no real program for managing them effectively.  

 

Here, we’ll more fully explain the “no real program” part of the problem and offer three recommendations for Mayor Bass to address that lack.

  

Roles and Expectations are Murky: No One is Accountable

 

We’ve already shown that sidewalks are multifaceted, serving various purposes for people using them, and incorporating numerous infrastructure elements. This complexity makes sidewalk maintenance and policy development challenging.  

 

When it comes to managing these vital elements of LA’s public right-of-way, here’s what it looks like from within the City:

  • More than 20 different departments and agencies
  • Budgeting one year at a time
  • No unified plan
  • No comprehensive list of projects
  • No shared vision
  • The public is in the dark

 

Let’s drill down further. 

 

The sidewalks and everything happening on them are managed by the more than 5,500 staff from the Department of Public Works (DPW), which is made of up five different bureaus: 

  • Bureau of Contract Administration
  • Bureau of Engineering*
  • Bureau of Sanitation
  • Bureau of Street Lighting
  • Bureau of Street Services**
  • Public Works Board Office – Board Secretary and Staff

 

*The Bureau of Engineering (BOE) manages the sidewalk repair program mandated by the Willits Settlement and also houses the ADA coordinator (Americans with Disabilities Act). And, while not in the Department of Public Works, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is involved to ensure the financial resources required by the settlement are allocated. 

 

**The Bureau of Street Services (BSS) is the designated asset manager for sidewalks, overseeing policy, data, planning, maintenance, and operations, including inspection and enforcement. This role is crucial because even if the City reverted to full property owner responsibility (as presented  in our previous post), BSS would still handle compliance and enforcement. 

But we’re not done. 

 

There also are smaller programs created over the years to meet specific needs. Some of these programs involve sidewalks but are housed outside the Bureaus:

  • Office of Community Beautification (making the city beautiful with volunteers)
  • Office of Citywide Filming (attracting film and TV productions to LA)
  • Petroleum Administration (manages drilling leases)
  • Project Restore (nonprofit historic restoration and preservation)
  • Community Forest Advisory Committee (community input for LA’s urban forest)
  • Office of Forest Management (goals for and management of LA’s urban forest)
  • Climate Emergency Mobilization Office (climate resilience and healthy communities)

 

And there’s even more. 

 

Our sidewalks also house utilities such as power lines, fiber optics, gas pipes, and water mains—all managed by separate entities. These features often present challenges for sidewalk design and maintenance, as they can limit the width of sidewalks, create uneven surfaces, and require frequent repairs or replacements. Moreover, the integration of drainage and stormwater capture systems further complicates maintenance. 

 

Talk about a fragmented approach!

 

There’s no clear designation of ultimate responsibility for the state of our sidewalks. There are no comprehensive programs or plans (beyond the legal settlement) to address ongoing sidewalk issues, without which we can’t hold anyone accountable. The responsibility ends up falling on elected officials.

 

This Lack of Leadership, Coordination, and Oversight Has Tangible Consequences

 

When we hear about new initiatives in Los Angeles that tout the words “mobility” or “transportation,” there’s an implicit assumption that all aspects of how we move through the city are being considered. However, this assumption is misleading. While the LA City Department of Transportation (LADOT) may be synonymous with transportation planning and mobility improvements, their expertise and jurisdiction are confined strictly to the roadbed—meaning the spaces occupied by vehicles, not the sidewalks where people traverse daily. 

 

Without dedicated leaders to champion sidewalk improvements and integrate them into funding and planning efforts, sidewalks continue to deteriorate and be neglected by the City. 

 

The concept of “organized abandonment,” as articulated by scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore, provides a powerful lens through which to examine the City of Los Angeles’ approach to sidewalks and the broader management of its public right-of-way. Organized abandonment refers to the systematic neglect and divestment from certain communities or public services, often leading to severe social, economic, and infrastructural consequences. In the context of Los Angeles, this abandonment is vividly illustrated in the City’s fragmented and ineffective management of sidewalks.

 

For years, LA’s sidewalks have been subjected to what can only be described as deliberate neglect, where the responsibility for maintenance is shuffled between property owners, legal settlements, and a patchwork of City departments. 

 

Ultimately, by failing to prioritize and adequately fund sidewalk maintenance, the City has effectively abandoned this crucial element of the public right-of-way.

 

The entire management of the public right-of-way in Los Angeles is broken. This is not just a matter of poor coordination; it is a fundamental failure to recognize and address the needs of all Angelenos. The public right-of-way should serve everyone—people walking, rolling in a wheelchair, riding a bike, catching the bus, or driving a car—but the current system prioritizes vehicles at the expense of everyone else. The City’s piecemeal approach to managing sidewalks, bus and bike lanes, and other elements of the right-of-way, reflects a deeper, systemic problem: a lack of vision and leadership in creating a truly inclusive, accessible and climate-resilient urban environment.

 

From Organized Abandonment to Organized Care

 

Mayor Karen Bass has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to address this issue head-on.  We’re not the only ones calling for this. Two-thirds of Los Angeles voters supported Measure HLA. Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez has written about this (from September 1 and from August 17). Urban planning expert Donald Shoup has weighed in. 

 

Addressing the broken management of the public right-of-way must be a priority. This means not only fixing the sidewalks but also rethinking how the entire system is managed. 

 

Mayor Bass must take these three steps: 

 

  1. Develop a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP). LA is the only major U.S. city without this type of long-term plan for the public right-of-way. A CIP is an effective, artful and lasting solution. It provides a multi-year budget that prioritizes the needs of people and fixes a clearly broken system. See our 9 principles that Los Angeles’ CIP must include as it moves forward, endorsed by more than 80 Los Angeles business and civic leaders. These principles acknowledge the unique characteristics of Los Angeles and the need for a well-crafted CIP that aligns with best practices from major cities across the country. We sent them to Mayor Bass last December. 

 

  1. Define roles and responsibilities within the Public Works Department and LADOT. This may sound like a small step, but it would actually be monumental – and it’s long overdue. Mayor Bass should immediately begin by clarifying these processes, starting with roles, responsibilities, and workflows around LA’s sidewalks.  

 

  1. Create a Public Works Director position. Public Works has 5,500+ employees who are managed by a politically appointed board and City Council committee. Currently, without a single director, there’s no one ensuring that all the parts work together seamlessly or held responsible for it to work.

 

The era of organized abandonment must end. In its place, we need a commitment to organized care—where the needs of all residents, especially the most vulnerable, are met with proactive and equitable policies.

 

The management of the public right-of-way should be reimagined, with sidewalks and all of the infrastructure elements within them, finally receiving the attention and care they deserve. Only then can Los Angeles become a city where everyone can move freely and safely, regardless of how they travel.

Categories
Uncategorized

LA’s Fix-and-Release Policy: A Do-Nothing Approach to Sidewalk Maintenance

Organized abandonment.

 

That’s a concept from scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and it’s how we described the City of LA’s approach to sidewalks when talking with Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez. He dove head first into the rabbit hole of LA sidewalk “policy,” and his two recent columns are worth the read (from September 1 and from August 17). He visibly captures the topography of LA sidewalks: “sidewalk mountain ranges,” “peaks and valleys,” “ramps and canyons,” “jagged peaks and snaking tree roots.”  

 

Los Angeles has a sidewalk maintenance policy known as “Fix-and-Release.” It was intended to function like this: the City would fix the buckled sidewalk in front of your house, then release it to you—meaning, you would then be responsible for keeping the sidewalk accessible and functional. But the City is still the party with ultimate responsibility and liability (see pages 39-40 of the report) if there’s an injury from someone tripping on a broken sidewalk. 

 

This policy has been confusing from the start. The City hasn’t made significant progress, so there’s not much to “release.” As of June 2021, only 4,879 certificates had been issued under the Fix-and-Release policy, covering less than 1% of the City’s 640,000 sidewalk parcels.

 

A closer look reveals that this approach is fundamentally flawed and ineffective.

 

As documented in an August 2023 memo from the Bureau of Engineering (BOE), the current policy assigns property owners responsibility for sidewalk maintenance under state law. At the same time, the City is tasked with ensuring accessibility under federal law. The Fix-and-Release policy, however, has resulted in the City neither fixing its sidewalk at a reasonable pace nor holding property owners accountable for their maintenance responsibilities, leaving a significant gap in this framework. 

 

While billed as a way to equitably share responsibility between the City and property owners, Fix-and-Release is actually a policy of inaction. The City Council wrote into the municipal code that the City will not inspect and enforce maintenance obligations for any sidewalk built prior to 2017—in other words, almost every sidewalk—until the City rebuilds the sidewalk in front of that property to current accessibility standards. Theoretically, this should streamline repairs and ensure that sidewalks meet federal accessibility standards. In practice, it has done little to address the underlying issues. 



The City Council’s decision to ease the burden on property owners did not fully acknowledge the significant investment required to address our sidewalk infrastructure. Nearly a decade after the City settled the Willits case, Los Angeles still does not have a complete inventory and assessment of our broken sidewalks, let alone a true accounting of how much funding it will take to fix them. This results in a systemic failure to achieve the accessibility goals the policy aims to support. 

 

With the Council declining to enforce sidewalk maintenance, while also not developing a comprehensive plan to fix them, sidewalks remain in disrepair. The current approach is not only inadequate but also disingenuous. It allows the City to avoid taking decisive action while placing an undue burden on property owners who want accessible sidewalks in front of their homes. The “Fix-and-Release” model has proven to be a hollow promise, failing to deliver on its objectives and contributing to growing frustration among neighbors and advocates alike.

 

It is time for the City of Los Angeles to reconsider its ineffective sidewalk policy. For years, Investing in Place has advocated for ending LA’s Fix-and-Release model in favor of a more effective approach that genuinely improves sidewalks, enhances accessibility, and treats them as assets to be managed. We will explore these issues at our Sidewalks Zoom Workshop on September 24th, where we’ll review policies from 30 major U.S. cities. Last year, Councilmember and Public Works Committee Chair John Lee supported reconsidering Fix-and-Release, but the proposal failed to gain traction with other council members. 

 

It’s crucial that we advocate and adopt a policy that not only promises but delivers meaningful improvements to our public spaces. Our sidewalks are not just pathways; they are vital components of our public infrastructure and essential to the well-being of all Angelenos.

 

In the next post, we’ll explore why sidewalks are ecosystems, and why LA’s fragmented approach to managing them is a social and environmental failure.

Categories
Uncategorized

Understanding LA’s Sidewalks: Scale, Scope, and History

If you see something, say something. 

 

This is what we’re taught. Notice a hazard? Don’t just ignore it. Tell someone about it.

 

Now imagine you do see something in your Los Angeles neighborhood: you see multiple people trip and fall over the same broken sidewalk on your street. You see people in wheelchairs being forced to take dangerous detours over the curb, into the road where there’s no shoulder to protect from the cars whizzing by, and forced to continue in the road until they reach the next curb cut that lets them return to the ironic “safe” sidewalk. 

 

So, you do the right thing and say something. You report the hazard to the City of Los Angeles the only way you can: through the City’s MyLA311 system. Your request has been received and recorded. Great! Estimated wait time: “in excess of 10 years.” Also, the City says: we might need to contact you during that time. Please be available. If we can’t reach you at your preferred method of communication after three attempts, your request will be deferred. 

 

If you change your preferred method of communication in the 10 years it takes the City to pay your matter any attention (not a stretch to think you might change contact information), that broken sidewalk will continue to remain broken. No matter that the broken sidewalk has nothing to do with whether or not you still use the same phone number. No matter that the location of the broken sidewalk can’t change, even if you move. If they can’t reach you, they set it aside. 

 

Does this sound like a functional city?

 

Even more than roads, sidewalks are connectors that link neighborhoods and enable people to safely walk, ride in their wheelchairs, or ride to a friend’s house, to school, to work, to the park, to church, or to the doctor. One of a city’s most critical elements and fibers for the people is its sidewalks and all the things that can’t happen without them: access ramps, shade trees, lights, and much more. Without a well-managed sidewalk program, there is no chance for a well-managed street tree or street light program.

 

The City of Los Angeles boasts one of the country’s largest network of sidewalks that millions rely on daily. Despite how essential they are for public infrastructure and daily life, sidewalks are overlooked by the City.

 

There’s no program that oversees them. There’s no clear articulation of who is responsible for improving them or for their upkeep. There’s no plan in the works to make things right. 

 

The Scale of LA’s Sidewalk Network

 

LA’s sidewalk network is staggering. With an estimated 9,000 to 10,000 miles of sidewalks crisscrossing the city—though no one knows the exact mileage of existing or missing sidewalks—it is one of the most extensive public space infrastructures in the United States. According to a 2021 Controller’s audit, more than half of this network is broken or in disrepair.

 

That’s 5,000+ miles of broken or damaged sidewalk. (That’s the equivalent of a broken sidewalk stretching from LA City Hall to Santiago, Chile.)

 

“Some of the sidewalk on La Brea is so bad, you would have to walk in traffic, almost, but you can’t.”

 

That’s a quote from our Mayor Bass, as told to Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez… this month! 

 

To be fair, managing such an extensive network is a monumental task. It doesn’t help that it’s a task that’s been ignored since the 1970s—the last time the City had a robust sidewalk program. Decades of neglect have allowed even minor issues to escalate into widespread problems. Cracks, tree root intrusions, and other forms of damage are common, and the City’s response to these issues has historically lagged far behind the need.

 

We produced this short video about LA sidewalks six years ago, and it’s still relevant today. Back then, we also gathered community members at events in Boyle Heights and Panorama City. These summits called The Tripping Point, were designed to organize advocates for better sidewalks, crosswalks, bus stops, and urban tree canopies. Again, these needs are still urgent today.  

 

The Scope of Responsibility

 

In Los Angeles, sidewalk maintenance has traditionally fallen on property owners. This means that homeowners and businesses are expected to repair and maintain the sidewalks adjacent to their properties, a policy rooted in state law from 1911. Not surprisingly, this decentralized, patchwork, and private sector management approach has led to significant inconsistencies in the condition of public spaces on the sidewalks across the city. 

 

Fixing a buckled sidewalk can cost thousands of dollars. Theoretically, the City will share costs up to $10,000 (2021 Controller’s audit). But that requires spending the money upfront and then waiting and hoping the rebate comes through. Rebate applications are submitted through the City’s MyLA311 service request system—and we’ve already seen how well that works for sidewalks.  

 

Wealthier neighborhoods often have the resources to maintain well-kept sidewalks, while lower-income areas may struggle with the financial burden of repairs. This disparity exacerbates existing inequalities within the city. Deteriorating sidewalks in lower-income neighborhoods make it difficult or dangerous to navigate safely, limiting access to essential services and hindering the ability to enjoy simple activities like walking or playing outside. These amenities, often taken for granted in wealthier neighborhoods, are crucial for overall well-being.

 

Over the past 50 years, Los Angeles policymakers have made the choice to exclude sidewalks from most of LA’s transportation efforts and investments. The City of LA prioritizes public tax dollars for roads and highways while ignoring critical public space infrastructure such as sidewalks. That’s like spending all your home repair money on the floors while ignoring the crumbling ceilings and walls. 

 

This neglect has had lasting consequences. One example of deferred maintenance has resulted in significant repair backlogs: a 10-year waiting period for access ramps, without which those in wheelchairs or those pushing strollers can’t even get around their own neighborhoods.  

 

LA Makes History With Largest ADA Settlement in the Nation

 

In 2016, the City of L.A. came to an agreement that ended a class action lawsuit initiated by disability rights advocates alleging inaccessible sidewalk conditions across Los Angeles. Known as the Willits settlement, it requires LA to spend $1.37 billion over 30 years to address broken sidewalks, inaccessible curb ramps, and other access barriers in the public right-of-way.

 

In addition, in the 2021 audit, the City Controller said that in the previous five fiscal years alone, the City received more than 1,700 claims and 1,020 lawsuits for sidewalk injuries, and paid out over $35 million in settlements as a result. 

 

Setting the Stage for Reform

 

Sidewalks do more than just help us get from place to place—they’re the foundation of a city’s livability. Sidewalks provide a space to rest in the shade of a tree, wait for the bus with friends, enjoy a meal from a street vendor, take a walk to get outside and move, or just play for kids and adults. When cities invest in essentials like shade trees, streetlights, bus shelters, access ramps, trash cans, benches, and public restrooms, sidewalks become places where daily life can be for everyone.

 

This is the standard of service that should be expected from every city, especially large cities with multi-billion dollar annual budgets. This is what a well-managed City of Los Angeles could achieve. However, the current approach falls far short, and change is long overdue.

 

To understand the need for reform, we must first look at the City’s existing Fix-and-Release policy—a well-intentioned but flawed system of sidewalk maintenance. We’ll cover that in our next post…

Categories
Uncategorized

Concrete Dreams Workshop: Los Angeles Sidewalks Past, Present, and Future

On April 10th, 2024, we hosted an online workshop titled “Concrete Dreams: Los Angeles Sidewalks Past, Present, and Future.” Over 75 people joined us in a 90-minute discussion, bringing together experts, legal thinkers, public agency staff, community advocates, and interested individuals to discuss the ongoing challenges and future opportunities for LA’s sidewalk infrastructure.

 

  • Recording of the meeting: (link) 
  • Slide deck: (link)
  • Meeting agenda: (link)

Workshop Overview: We began with an overview of the current state of LA’s sidewalks, highlighting systemic neglect and the urgent need for reforms. Key data points from the 2021 Controller’s Audit on LA’s Sidewalk Repair Program illustrated the gaps and areas requiring immediate attention, underlining the critical need for a robust sidewalk master plan.

 

A Discussion on Sidewalk Accessibility with Disability Rights Advocates: The focus then shifted to user experiences, featuring three community leaders who use wheelchairs and navigate LA’s sidewalks daily:

 

Cynde Soto: Shared her lifelong experiences as a wheelchair user and her work with Communities Actively Living Independent & Free (CALIF). She emphasized the need for increased civic participation and community organizing around disability rights.

 

David Radcliffe: Discussed his advocacy with the Writers Guild of America, West, and personal experiences with cerebral palsy, highlighting the importance of media representation and opportunities for disabled talent.

 

Hector Ochoa: Spoke about his struggles with LA’s broken sidewalks and his decision to prioritize getting a car due to accessibility issues. As Director at EDGE College Transition Services & Independent Living Services, he ensures the disability community’s voice is heard in policy discussions.

 

The Class Action Lawsuit and Accessibility Failures in LA’s Sidewalks and Crosswalk: Paula Pearlman, an attorney and disability rights advocate, provided an in-depth analysis of the 2016 class action lawsuit against the City of LA, known as the Willits case. She discussed the settlement agreements, the mandates they outlined, and the city’s current progress in meeting accessibility standards. Her insights are crucial in understanding the legal landscape and the city’s obligations moving forward.

 

What’s happening now? What does the recently approved voter measure: Healthy Streets LA mean for sidewalks and access? We discussed the recently approved Healthy Streets LA ballot measure, which aims to enhance street infrastructure. The group explored the measure’s implications for sidewalk accessibility, opportunities it presents, and potential challenges in its implementation.

 

Q&A and Conclusion: The workshop concluded with a lively Q&A session, reinforcing the importance of collective effort in advocating for accessible sidewalks.

For more information, contact us at hello@investinginplace.org. 

 

Thank you to all who attended and contributed to the discussion!

Categories
Uncategorized

Time’s up for status quo in LA’s public right of way decision making

In less than 30 days, the City of Los Angeles will begin implementing the requirements of the HLA initiative, which received voter approval. Angelenos made it clear: they want streets designed for people, not just cars.

However, there’s a significant problem: the current system for rolling out this mandate is not just flawed, it’s severely broken. Without action from the Mayor and City Council to set the course for this initiative, its implementation risks becoming chaotic, entangled in existing city power and budget struggles, and ultimately failing to serve the best interests of the 200+ neighborhoods across Los Angeles.

 

Even more troubling is the evident inequality within the current system. The implementation of HLA risks leaving underserved communities behind, failing to address their significant needs.

 

Here’s what needs to be done as a starting point:

 

Designate Budgets and Resources

  • Allocate funding to create the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in the FY25 Budget: The CIP must align with the implementation of the mobility plan; one cannot proceed without the other. This serves as the primary tool for establishing agreed-upon priorities, funding levels, schedules and interdepartmental coordination.
    • In addition to securing funding in the FY25 budget for the CIP, it’s imperative for the Mayor and City Council to uphold the CIP motions and requests for report-backs from the CAO’s office regarding the progress of this endeavor, as they’ve been directed to do several times. It’s crucial for the Mayor and City Council to lead this effort, rather than delegating it to the budgeting office.
  • Develop a 5-year Forecast of Locally Controlled Funding for Sidewalks and Streets: This forecast will aid in planning and long-term budgeting efforts, providing clarity and foresight for infrastructure investments. 

Coordinate Policy Oversight

  • Reschedule City Council’s Transportation Committee Meetings to Ensure Full Attendance: Over the past several months, attendance at Transportation Committee meetings has been inconsistent due to conflicts for Council members with overlapping committee responsibilities. Given the critical juncture of implementing the voter-approved measure, it’s imperative to have all policymakers able to be fully engaged.

  • Schedule Joint Transportation Committee and Public Works Committee Meetings:

    These meetings are essential as they bring together the scopes of both committees – Transportation Committee primarily overseeing LADOT and Public Works Committee overseeing all Public Works bureaus. Coordination at the policy level, set by the Council and Mayor’s office, is crucial.

    • Additionally, public meetings are vital to ensure engagement and transparency. Given the significance of the subject matter, consider increasing membership to 5 for both the Public Works and Transportation Committees, to facilitate broader involvement of Council members in substantive policy deliberations; currently, currently the committees have only 3 – 4 members.

Clarify Elements of the Mobility Plan 

  • Policymakers must establish clear guidelines and procedures for transforming the Mobility Plan map outlines into actionable project components, defining the inclusion or exclusion of features like sidewalks, access ramps, street trees, bus stops, and stormwater capture in mobility plan projects. 
  • Given the absence of a comprehensive sidewalk program in Los Angeles beyond the terms of the Willits settlement, which arose from an accessibility lawsuit initiated in 2010 and settled in 2016, it is imperative for policymakers and Angelenos to grasp the necessary steps toward developing a more comprehensive program aimed at enhancing walkability and accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

Provide Updates on the CAO’s Equity Index and the Infrastructure Equity Scorecard Pilot 

  • On a quarterly basis, sharing the CAO’s Infrastructure Equity Work will assist in prioritizing resources and locations effectively. 

These tasks represent the beginning of what will likely be a more extensive list of actions for the systems change this moment requires. The time for maintaining the status quo in decision making in LA’s public right-of-way has passed.



Categories
Uncategorized

The Public Way Event: Making Infrastructure Work for People

We were thrilled to see a packed room at our January convening — The Public Way: Making Infrastructure Work for People — with over 90 attendees. The group included staff from public agencies, elected officials, community and business leaders, and researchers, all committed to making Los Angeles a better place. Despite the rainy weather, their enthusiasm was palpable, and their dedication to improving our city was inspiring.

 

Our three speakers each brought their unique perspective and experience, but common themes emerged:

  • Without a CIP, LA loses out on available funding because we don’t have a cohesive plan.
  • We can only make good decisions with a plan and a shared vision.
  • It IS possible to do the hard things here in Los Angeles.

We kicked things off with Miguel Santana, the CEO of California Community Foundation and the previous City Administrative Officer for the City of LA. He was in that role at the height of LA’s fiscal crisis, and he shared how the lack of a Capital Infrastructure Plan made surviving those hard times even more challenging.

 

“A plan helps you define what’s most important. Before we get to the distribution of resources or prioritization of which communities get what, we need a shared vision of what kind of community we want to have, from the community’s perspective.”

 

He reminded us what’s possible: “Imagine 20 years ago, when having a new rail system in LA was just an idea. When you think about what we’ve done as a region, it is possible to build infrastructure and a consensus about how it should be built, where it should go, and how it should be used.”

 

Jason Foster, CEO of Destination Crenshaw, is a shining example of how residents can shape infrastructure projects to claim their space and boost their community. “We own the public right-of-way as taxpayers and voters. The quickest way to talk about community ownership is to get people tied into their public space.”

 

He explained that when the K-Line was announced in 2011, the community knew it would disrupt businesses up and down the Crenshaw corridor for the next decade.

“It’s easy to look at that change, turn away from it, and resign to this place not being for you. The name Destination Crenshaw comes from the late Nipsey Hussle. He wanted to ensure that the Crenshaw residents first saw their neighborhood as a destination before the rest of the world.”

 

Bob Blumenfield, an LA City Council member and current Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee, shared some of LA’s challenges when making budget decisions.

 

Blumenfield spoke about funding limitations: “In the past, a lot of our special funds and fees for critical infrastructure, whether water, sanitation, et cetera, have never really been adjusted for inflation. If they have, it hasn’t been done adequately. That is a big limitation to why our infrastructure is how it is.”

 

He cited an example: “We have street lighting now, and we’re doing what? $48 million in street lighting. The assessment is that we need 200 times that to meet our needs, but we haven’t raised those fees since ’96, and it’s tough to raise fees.”

 

He also underscored the importance of vision: “You have to envision your future to make it happen, to will it into being.” He added, “If I had that magic wand, we would create a room like this to get people together and focus on the vision and how we can implement it.”

 

Throughout the afternoon, everyone in the room discussed and asked questions, but to close the event, public policy expert Mikaela Randolph offered this call to action: “Now’s the time to step into your leadership role and start bringing people together to develop a shared vision to get this done.”   We couldn’t agree more!

Categories
Uncategorized

Time for Action: Mayor Bass, Lead LA Towards a Comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan

This fall, Investing in Place took a significant step towards improving the infrastructure of Los Angeles by sending a letter to Mayor Karen Bass and key City Council committee chairs. This letter, endorsed by over 80 organizations and individuals, calls for the establishment of a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the city.

 

This initiative marks a crucial milestone in our ongoing efforts to ensure that the City’s investment in the public right-of-way aligns with the community’s needs and addresses the substantial challenges of maintaining a city’s infrastructure, particularly one of the scale and complexity of Los Angeles.

 

Since 2017, Investing in Place has collaborated with Los Angeles City staff, experts in the field, and community partners to develop strategies that ensure public funds are spent wisely to enhance LA’s sidewalks and streets. Unfortunately, Los Angeles remains one of the few major U.S. cities without a comprehensive CIP, a gap that we believe needs urgent attention.

 

Our letter outlines nine key principles that we believe must guide the development of a CIP for Los Angeles. These principles, detailed in the letter’s attachment, emphasize the importance of a clear vision, fostering collaboration, and increasing transparency. By adhering to these principles, the CIP can serve the entire city, ensuring that investments are made thoughtfully, strategically, and equitably for a lasting impact.

 

Community engagement has been at the heart of our efforts. Through numerous conversations with community members and leaders across Los Angeles, a clear consensus emerged: the city desperately needs a CIP, and the process of developing it must be intentional and inclusive. The overwhelming support for this initiative, as evidenced by the signatures of over 80 supporters listed in the letter’s second attachment, underscores the urgent need for action.

 

We are calling on Mayor Bass to set the citywide vision for how we actualize this goal. Imagine policymakers, city departments, bureaus, community organizations, business leaders, and all community members locking arms in a united front to improve the condition of Los Angeles’ sidewalks and streets. The Mayor’s leadership will be instrumental in guiding this collective endeavor.

 

As we continue to advocate for this critical initiative, we invite all stakeholders to join us in supporting the call for a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan for Los Angeles. Together, we can ensure that our city’s infrastructure meets the needs of all its residents, now and in the future.

 

Stay tuned for updates on our progress and how you can get involved in this transformative effort. Let’s work together to build a better Los Angeles!

Categories
Uncategorized

From Uncertainty to Clarity: Join Investing in Place’s Campaign for LA’s First Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP)

Click here and Sign on and show your support for these 9 Essential Principles in LA’s Capital Infrastructure Plan

Background: The City of Los Angeles allocates more than $1 billion in public funds each year to enhance its sidewalks and streets, but there’s no clear way for individuals, groups, or businesses to have a voice in how that money is spent. This creates a lack of transparency and a level of uncertainty about the future of LA’s public right-of-way (which includes streets and sidewalks, and everything that makes them safe and usable: ramps, crosswalks, public bathrooms, streetlights, bus shelters, trash cans, etc.).

Los Angeles is the only major U.S. city without a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP). Investing in Place is leading the movement to create LA’s first CIP based on the nine principles, as identified from our research of best practices.

 

We invite individuals, elected officials, businesses, organizations, and all interested parties to join us in advocating for these essential 9 principles.

 

Link to Pledge. 

Categories
Uncategorized

We’ve Got LA’s Number: An Inventory of Los Angeles Streets, Sidewalks, and Everything in Between

To gain a big-picture understanding of the scope of what the City of LA is charged with managing and maintaining, Investing in Place has created and published an inventory of the elements within the public right-of-way in Los Angeles.


A comprehensive, one-stop inventory of City-managed assets did not exist before this.


A complete inventory should encompass at least two things:

1. Raw numbers of what the City owns (miles of streets and sidewalks, plus all the essentials that make that space usable); and

2. The condition of those assets. This inventory tackles No. 1.


This is the first of its kind for Los Angeles, and it will aid policymakers and the public to truly understand the scope of LA public infrastructure.


Click here for our full report (PDF) and data tables below and linked google sheet. 

Categories
Uncategorized

Creating LA’s Capital Infrastructure Plan: 10 Lessons From Other Cities

Part 2 of 2


Los Angeles spans 468 square miles, with nearly 4 million people using 7,500 miles of roads and roughly 9,000 miles of sidewalk. Despite being one of the largest networks of infrastructure in the country, there’s no single plan for maintaining it. 

 

There are plenty of separate plans for individual elements of the public right-of-way, but they’re City silos planning their own piece of it, one year at a time.

 

In Part 1 of this series, we argued that LA needs a Capital Infrastructure Plan to guide the way the City of LA maintains our public right-of-way, and we defined three things LA can do right now to start creating one. In this post we’ll share what we’ve learned about how to create this type of plan and what should be in it.

 

Investing in Place has researched Capital Infrastructure Plans (CIPs) from more than 30 cities (so far!). Our initial assessments are based on reading and analyzing other cities’ plans. Our next step is to talk to leaders from select cities to learn more about their processes, successes and challenges.

 

There is no ONE plan for Los Angeles to copy. We differ from most cities by our sheer size, our levels of income disparity among neighborhoods, and certain policies (like California’s Prop 13). 

 

But this research process has helped us identify some criteria that stand out as particularly important for a city as complex as LA.

 

We approached our research with a few key questions in mind: 

  1. How does each city develop their plan and set their vision? Who leads that conversation?
  2. Do they have an inventory of infrastructure assets (that goes beyond pavement quality and bridge conditions)? 
  3. Have they articulated a process that includes equity for prioritizing outcomes and projects?
  4. Is their plan (and the process by which it is created) accessible to the public, and understandable for non-experts? 

For a full list of our research questions and findings, check out our research spreadsheet.

10 Things We Need in LA

What follows are some lessons and observations from various cities’ CIPs that can help inform our process for creating a plan for Los Angeles. 

1. We need to make it easy for people to engage in this process. 

  • Boston – provides a capital projects map.
  • Chicago Works survey – capital improvement suggestion form allows the public to submit neighborhood project recommendations.
  • Oakland – the Department of Racial Equity has an explicit role in development, and CIP Working Group has a coordinator dedicated to community outreach.
  • San Diego – a Citizen’s Guide to Infrastructure lays out the entire process of developing their CIP.

2. We need to go beyond engagement to give community members an official role in the process.  

  • Minneapolis – since 2019, there has been a citizen-run CIP committee, made up of appointed citizen commissioners, two from each council district and a handful of mayoral appointees.
  • San Diego – is mandated by a City Council-approved policy to engage the community about the CIP.
  • San Antonio – hosts community bond committees for streets to allow for public input into project recommendations.

3. We need to build on existing plans and policies to create a long-term vision and to develop project lists for the CIP. 

Other cities have plans that are comprehensive and include robust community engagement. These plans typically inform the CIPs and project prioritization. 

4. We need to be intentional about engagement and coordination within City agencies and departments.

  • San Francisco – Office of Resilience and Capital Planning. They have a Capital Planning Committee that meets monthly. 
  • DC, Oakland, Minneapolis, and San Diego have a version of an Infrastructure Cabinet that meets regularly. It typically consists of key department managers to increase coordination and information sharing. 
  • Other cities are implementing organizational tools to facilitate intragovernmental coordination:
    • Jersey City – new Department of Infrastructure includes engineering, architecture, transportation and more under one roof to ease cross-departmental project coordination.
    • Long Beach – implemented a Dig Once Policy, which places a moratorium on excavations of right-of-way that have been developed in any way within the previous 60 months, encouraging departments to coordinate about breaking ground on projects.

5. We need to fund desired outcomes. 

6. We need a process for prioritizing projects based on equity. 

  • Oakland – has a project prioritization scoring rubric (p.6) that lists equity as its highest point-getter, tied with the Health and Safety criteria. 
  • Philadelphia – identifies racial equity in its community engagement strategy.

7. We need a comprehensive inventory of assets, which includes state-of-good-repair and maintenance. 

  • This can be budgeted within the CIP or it can be a stand-alone budget plan.
  • Dallas – has an inventory of infrastructure needs mapped out across the city.
  • Eugene – includes this as “other costs associated with CIP projects.”
  • Vancouver, British Columbia – tracks the value of its assets in real dollars, and identifies the gap between their infrastructure needs and funding as an “infrastructure deficit.”

8. We need to include an Unfunded Strategic Plan, to provide a comprehensive view of need and priorities for future funding opportunities. 

  • Identifying unfunded needs could assist cities in pursuing regional, state and federal grant funding opportunities. Having shovel ready infrastructure projects increases readiness and agreement on future priorities.
  • Eugene and Long Beach both have an unfunded needs assessment.

9. We need to build in continuous updates and coordination with the City’s operating budget.

  • Typically, capital project proposals are separate from operating or general fund proposals and budget documents, though they are often on a similar timeline or they alternate every year if the city is doing multi-year budgeting. 
  • Sometime around November to February, departments are expected to submit capital project proposals to some version of the OMB and elected officials. This can take place every two years, and is often more of an update to or a revisiting of an existing CIP.

10. We need to include resilience investments to boost emergency preparedness and preparation for climate change.

  • Houston – integrates into the city’s CIP efforts and projects from rebuilding after Hurricane Harvey in 2017, and its subsequent 2020 Plan: Resilient Houston.
  • Miami – the Stormwater and Flood program is integrated into the city’s CIP. 

Additional Resources and What You Can Do to Help

This topic can be complicated, but it would be a huge benefit to our city if more people were familiar with it. So we are investing in resources that make budgeting and planning more understandable for all citizens. 

  1. What others are doing: See our growing list of research on CIPs from 30+ cities. 
  2. Fact sheet about CIPs: What is a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP)? And why does L.A. need one?
  3. How we do things in LA: Materials from previous Investing in Place workshops: 
    1. What is a CIP? 
    2. What is LA’s budgeting process (for public works and transportation)? 
    3. Who manages LA’s public right-of-way? 

In addition to this research, we are in the process of creating our own inventory of LA’s public right-of-way, and we are meeting with people who use the right-of-way and the people who manage the right-of-way – to learn about the needs and priorities throughout our city.

Contact us to:

  • Help us with the inventory
  • Invite us to speak to and listen to your organization
  • Connect us with your experts
Categories
Uncategorized

Creating LA’s Capital Infrastructure Plan: 3 things LA can do right now

Part 1 of 2

Los Angeles doesn’t have an overarching plan to guide the way it maintains its public right-of-way. The City needs one in order to thoughtfully and equitably invest in our city’s collective wealth–the streets, sidewalks, trees and public spaces that can make it possible for all Angelenos to live fully and move freely.

 

We have defined a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) in previous blog posts and reports as: 

 

A long-term, unified direction for investment in our city’s infrastructure, working toward a vision for the city defined by those who live here. A CIP serves as the city’s plan for its major assets: it lists specific projects and programs along with expected costs and timelines. It encompasses all sources of funding. 

 

Investing in Place is calling for a CIP for the public right-of-way that is a 10-year budgeted plan using projections from the public works and transportation formula funds the City receives every year. The plan will include funding coming in from all sources, as well as a plan to be ready for future funding opportunities and grants. 

 

Through initial work started in 2022, Investing in Place has identified the first steps needed for creating a Capital Infrastructure Plan in the City of Los Angeles’s public right-of-way (PROW). These are initial steps that set the City up for long-term success, as follows:

 

  1. ASSET INVENTORY & ASSESSMENT: Collect all department and bureaus asset management inventories, starting with the five Public Works Bureaus and Department of Transportation.
    • The City needs to inventory assets and understand the scale and asset conditions (infrastructure asset management).
    • A complete inventory and the infrastructure conditions are likely not obtainable immediately, but are the first steps to understanding who has what.  
  2. COORDINATE PLANNING EFFORTS: Identify all of the existing, disconnected, and often conflicting efforts to plan for the public right-of-way from various city entities, such as (but not limited to): 
    • Bureau of Engineering – Equity in Infrastructure program
    • Bureau of Engineering – Sidewalk Repair Program (Wilit’s settlement)
    • Bureau of Street Services – One Infrastructure Street Improvement Projects 
    • Bureau of Street Lighting –  Smart City Efforts
    • Board of Public Works – Public Right-of-Way Protocols
    • Department of Transportation – Vision Zero
    • Department of Planning – Mobility Plan 2035
    • Chief Administrative Office – Equity in Infrastructure (a motion that began this process in 2021 at the request of City Council by members no longer on the council)
  3. DEVELOP, ARTICULATE, AND ADOPT A VISION for the streets and sidewalks that incorporates all competing uses this critical public space contains. Policymakers need to agree on outcomes the city wants to achieve in the public right-of-way in 10 years to meet the needs of the people (e.g. 80% of the sidewalks will be accessible, or the urban tree canopy and shade in public areas will be increased by 35%). There needs to be a policy-level agreement of what success looks like. The foundation of this vision can be built on existing adopted plans and must be inclusive to be effective, meaningful, and measurable. We need to know where we are going so we can honestly assess if we are meeting the needs of the people.

As these first steps are undertaken and to effectively create a functional CIP that delivers needed outcomes, the plan must initially include three critical components to eliminate “on-the-shelf” syndrome that afflicts many plans:

  • A prioritized project list with expected costs, funding sources and timelines.
  • A plan for state-of-good-repair/maintenance and asset inventory to monitor conditions.
  • Staff capabilities and local hire development programs to implement and create targeted local hire.

This is possible: other cities do this. Read Part 2 (coming soon!), where we share what we’re learning from those other cities.

 

Notes:
 – The types of investments covered by the CIP vary widely across different cities.  The most common assets listed include buildings/public facilities, roadways, parks, transportation, and utilities. Many cities include housing (New York, San Francisco, Atlanta). Some cities include the airport in the CIP (Chicago, Eugene, San Diego, Long Beach), and others include police and fire (Boston, San Francisco).
– Infrastructure asset management refers to the management of physical, rather than financial assets. Infrastructure assets can include but are not limited to: streets, roads, sewer lines, water lines, bridges, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, traffic signals, traffic signs, street trees, landscaped medians, storm drains, etc.
Categories
Uncategorized

Keeping Our House in Order: What LA Has Done, and What’s Next

In this post we explore why Los Angeles needs a Capital Infrastructure Plan for its public space and what such a plan should include. Then we present a detailed timeline of what City leaders and agencies have done since 2005 to achieve these goals, and we share why those actions represent progress but are still not enough to get us what we need. 

 

Think about the 60%+ of Angelenos who rent their homes. Statistically, you are likely one of them. Now, imagine that home – house, apartment, condo, ADU – needs repairs. The roof might leak after that last big storm, the paint is chipping a bit around the door frames, the driveway is crumbling because of tree roots, and the toilets keep running unless you jiggle the handle just the right way. You’re worried your aging parent who lives with you might not be able to climb the three front steps in a few years. Your concerns are not about vanity: they are about the quality of life for you and the people you love.

 

The reality: you have to depend on someone else, your landlord, to make a plan. They likely share your desire to improve the property, but they don’t know it like you do – especially if they don’t live nearby. After all, they don’t use the toilet. How will they know the state of the property, the living conditions, where to begin, and how to allocate their resources if they don’t ask you what you need and if they don’t keep track of everything? 

 

Should they just start working on things with no plan and without an assessment of the current state of the various needs? What should they do first? You don’t want to paint the exterior before fixing the catawampus door frames. And, what’s your vision for how you want your home to look when all is done? If your landlord doesn’t answer those questions first and get some input from you, the person who calls it home, how can they possibly make good decisions about what to do to make your home truly livable and to prioritize needs? 

 

A city is MUCH more complicated than our homes, but we still need those same things to manage and maintain our public right-of-way in Los Angeles.  

Investing in Place is calling for a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) for the City of Los Angeles, to make sure we can provide the basics to make the city truly livable. We have defined a CIP in previous blog posts and reports as:

A long-term, unified direction for investment in our city’s infrastructure, working toward a vision for the city defined by those who live here. A CIP serves as the city’s plan for its major assets: it lists specific projects and programs along with expected costs and timelines. It encompasses all sources of funding. 

We often hear from people who say this type of plan already exists. 

 

It doesn’t.

 

That said, we understand the confusion. Over the past 10 years there has been a growing list of efforts to improve capital planning, interdepartmental coordination, and equity in the City of LA’s public right of way – and that’s great. 

 

But are they getting the job done?

 

How could we possibly know? There is no basis on which to judge progress.

  • There’s no overarching vision to compare it to. 
  • There is no inventory to know what we started with and where we are now. 
  • There’s no inclusive process to know how progress compares with what people want and need.. 
  • There’s no unified definition of how to measure equity to help determine the value of our investments. 
  • There is no one comprehensive place to see ALL THE MONEY (local, regional, state, federal), all the programs, and all the projects.

In this post, we offer a history of what has been done toward these efforts – and a summary of why they are not yet getting us what we need.

 

State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles  

 

In the fall of 2017, FUSE research fellow Laila Alequresh, working in the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), released a report titled: Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles. 

 

To research and compile this detailed assessment of Los Angeles, Alequresh worked with “the entire Department of Public Works (all Bureaus and the Board), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Water and Power, this Office, the City Council, and the Mayor’s Office. Over 400 one-on-one interviews were conducted, numerous field observations were performed and the operations of both the City of Los Angeles and other municipal jurisdictions were studied to learn from their experience.”

 

This comprehensive report provides a deep analysis of how the City of Los Angeles can improve its management of the public right-of-way. When this report was released in 2017, Investing in Place reviewed, analyzed and tracked the committee meetings where the report was presented. 

 

We wrote several blog posts about the report: 

To quote ourselves from that last blog post: “The FUSE report recommendation we are most excited about is the reinstitution of a citywide Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Rec 2.5. Los Angeles is the only major City in the country that currently lacks a citywide capital plan. While a capital plan for all City assets could include other public facilities, including parks, libraries, or City-owned vacant lots, we can start with a multi-year plan and budget for our public right-of-way.”

 

One of the key issues that is a central theme through the entire FUSE report is “fragmentation in decision making for street related programs.”  

 

“Unlike the majority of the cities in California, or the country, programs relating to the surface of the street and activities over the street sit with two departments, DPW and DOT. By having these functions reside in multiple areas, the City takes a tactical, rather than strategic approach to managing the movement of goods and people across the City,”  FUSE Report page 64.

 

As it is set up now, the City of Los Angeles has divided and decentralized responsibility for the right-of-way and programs that operate on the surface of the right-of-way among multiple departments and policymakers. 

 

The 2017 report is one of the reasons Investing in Place has developed a laser focus on supporting efforts toward a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Plan for the City’s public right-of-way.

 

We need to set aside agency structural issues and focus on developing and adopting a long-term, comprehensive, budgeted plan (including local, regional, state and federal formula funds and grants) that encompasses the entire public right-of-way, based on an articulated vision for the future of Los Angeles: a 10-year Capital Infrastructure Plan.  

How We Got Here: A Timeline

To provide context and background, we’ve compiled a history of what has been happening since 2005 in the City of Los Angeles around capital infrastructure planning, interdepartmental coordination, and addressing equity in infrastructure. 

 

2005: Council adopts an annual investment target of 1% of General Fund revenues for capital and infrastructure improvements. This 1% investment target is implemented through the City’s annual Capital Improvement Expenditure Program (CIEP) budget that encompasses the acquisition, renovation or construction of new and existing Municipal Facilities and Physical Plant infrastructure. (C.F. 04-1822-S3).

 

From the 2017 FUSE report: “The City already has a policy that aims to allocate 1% of the budget to infrastructure, although this is not always met given other city priorities and macro-economic factors.” page 110

 

2008:  The Chief Administrative Office (CAO) stopped publishing two documents related to capital improvement:  that CIEP mentioned in the previous item, and also what’s known as the Capital and Technology Improvement Policy (CTIP). 

 

Why? So far we haven’t been able to understand that. Our best guess is the recession. 

 

What did do: “It (the CTIP) consisted of large investment projects underway by departments, largely around public facilities and public works. This data is not captured in the budget system so departments were requested to submit a list of projects for the CIP book. The book served as a central source for a list of capital projects, but came short of including all city departments. Furthermore, it served as a repository of projects, but it did not serve as a true capital expenditure plan which typically outlays capital investments according to city policy. Many projects included in the CIP book were bond or special funded.” FUSE Report, page 105.

 

2011: Street and Transportation Projects Oversight Committee (STPOC) was established by the Council and Mayor during adoption of the 2011-12 Budget. Its stated purpose was to:

1. Ensure that street and transportation projects are delivered in a timely manner

a) Unify management and provide accountability to those Departments involved in delivering street and transportation projects; and

b) Develop solutions for issues that delay the delivery of these projects.

Critique on STPOC in 2017 FUSE report page 73:  

“While this committee brings together employees to share progress and challenges to projects, there is no equivalent planning meeting from which the project list originates. During the meeting, Bureaus and DOT present a status of current projects and challenges as appropriate. Each department and group brings their own version of a status report that includes different information.”

“Currently decisions on proposed projects are made on an ad-hoc basis without consideration of larger city priorities. This is particularly intensified by the many offices seeking grant opportunities on top of existing work plans. This fragmentation in decision making renders a proactive planning function more vital.”

October 2013:  C.F. 13-1384 Councilmembers Paul Krekorian and Bob Blumenfield introduced a motion “that the Council instruct the CAO, with the assistance of any other relevant City Departments, to create a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Strategic Plan .” 

 

August 2015: City Council approves the planning department’s Mobility Plan 2035, “the policy foundation for achieving a transportation system that balances the needs of all road users. As an update to the City’s General Plan Transportation Element (last adopted in 1999).” From page 13 of the Mobility Plan.  Currently the Mobility Plan 2035 does not identify funding, projects, or a prioritization plan. It relies on detailed maps that identify high level priorities for key streets. For more background see our June 2022 post: Under the Surface: The Roots of LA’s Lack of Progress Toward Safer Streets.

Fall 2017: FUSE research fellow, Laila Alequresh, working in the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), released the report mentioned earlier: Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles. Top recommendations include moving the Department of Transportation into the Department of Public Works as a Bureau, similar to the existing five bureaus. The report recommends this as a way to centralize the City’s transportation and street infrastructure agencies, which often rely on each other’s separated work plans to deliver projects. This recommendation, and many others in the report are not adopted. 

 

The report also documents the need for an asset inventory and for a comprehensive plan:

  •  “Address lack of asset data, timing of maintenance activities, selection of appropriate preventative and deferred maintenance lifecycle activities and scheduling for asset upgrades by prioritizing strategic asset management activities across asset classes.” (Recommendation 2.2)
  •  “Establish guidelines for large, critical infrastructure investments by reinstituting a Citywide Capital Expenditure Plan.” (Recommendation 2.5)

November 2019: City Council approves the LADOT Mobility Investment Program (MIP). The MIP aims to establish project delivery best practices, and identify  projects that would align well with funding eligibility criteria and are based on their 2018-2021 Strategic Plan pillars – equity, safety, accessibility, sustainability. (This effort is tied to Measure M subregional program funding, which allocated funding to each of the 9 Los Angeles County Council of Governments, one of which is Central Los Angeles City.) 

 

February 2020: Mayor Garcetti issues Executive Directive 25: L.A.’s Green New Deal: Leading By Example. This includes a directive for City departments to prepare the “Public Right-of-Way Protocols” to ensure all departmental decisions regarding the use and design of the public right-of-way support goals like a reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportation emissions.

 

May 2020: With the formulation of the 2020-2021 City Budget, the Mayor’s Office designated social equity as a funding priority. At the same time, the City Council and Mayor adopted a revised Capital and Technology Improvement Policy (CTIP), which includes an updated Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program (CTIEP),* and puts this in motion for the first time since 2008. This included increasing the minimum investment target of General Fund revenues for capital and infrastructure improvements from 1% to 1.5% — with a goal of increasing to 2% of General Fund revenue for capital and technology improvements starting in Fiscal Year 2021–22. 

Who decides what gets on the CTIEP list? Ultimately, the decision is made by the City Council when the annual budget is considered. For what goes into the recommended CTIEP, that is a combination of CAO and Mayor’s Office leadership based on each department’s budget submittal.

*Our understanding of the difference between these frustratingly similar acronyms: CTIP (Capital and Technology Improvement Program) is the term CAO uses for the overall capital program, while CTIEP (Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program) is how CAO describes the CTIP’s budget.

 

November 2020: The Controller’s Equity Index is released. Controller’s Equity Index was released in November 2020 based on the 2010 Census Tract; Cal Enviro 3.0; and 2018 American Community Survey.

 

January 2021: Council motion submitted to develop a plan for a City Capital Infrastructure Program to address equity. (C.F. 21-0039)

 

From the motion: “The City’s infrastructure investment is done on an ad-hoc basis and often the critical infrastructure needs in low income communities are ignored. The city must take a more unified and holistic approach to planning for infrastructure improvements to ensure equity for all neighborhoods. This includes assessing deficits in neighborhoods and creating a plan and prioritization list for addressing them.”

 

This motion elevated the continued call to take a unified approach to addressing infrastructure through an equitable investment strategy, which starts with assessing deficits and acknowledging historic disinvestment. This motion recognized that all neighborhoods in Los Angeles are not starting from the same place.

 

May 2021: The Board of Public Works approves the Public Right-of-Way Protocols, which formally establish safety, climate action, and equity as the three guiding principles for departments’ work in the public right-of-way. It is signed by the general managers of LADOT, Public Works Bureaus – Street Services (aka StreetsLA), Engineering, Sanitation, Street Lighting, Contract Administration) – and the Department of City Planning. 

 

November 2021: Resulting from the council actions in May 2020, the City restarts the Capital and Technology Expenditure Plan (CTIEP) and publishes its first expenditure plan since 2008. Projects that were included in the City’s annual FY22 budget book are folded into the CTIEP. 

  • We have demonstrated that the City’s annual budgeting process is limited and not getting outcomes the city’s infrastructure needs. So, if the CTIEP is pulling from that, it’s not a comprehensive needs-based document. 
  • Because the annual city budget books do not include all grants and state and federal funding, the CTIEP is a limited, incomplete scope of projects.
  • And from the FUSE 2017 Report page 105: “a true capital expenditure plan which typically outlays capital investments according to city policy” Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles.  Based on our research, the CTIEP (expenditure plan) does not address this. 

December 2021: Based on the January 2021 Council motion submitted to develop a plan for a City Capital Infrastructure Program to address equity* (C.F. 21-0039), the Office of Chief Administrative Office (CAO) recommends creating a new division: Equity, Performance Management and Innovation Division. 

 

*Important to note, the CAO’s office leads on multiple initiatives around racial justice and equity in the City.

 

January 2022: Effort being led by the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) to develop guidelines for equity in infrastructure.

 

“The Infrastructure Equity Scorecard Pilot Project launched with the City’s Bureau of Engineering as a tool to guide investment in infrastructure with an understanding of equity, increasing access, system quality and long-term livability for communities that need it most. Following an environmental scan of related efforts, critical social, environmental and built environment criteria were identified for determining priority neighborhoods for investment. The work will result in an Infrastructure Equity Scorecard to test future projects against strategic equity-focused priorities of the City.” From the Mayor’s Fund for LA

January 2022: To build on the Public Right-of-Way Protocols approved in May 2021, the Board of Public Works approves a new plan to improve coordination among City departments that do work in the public right-of-way: the “Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding: Improving Project Planning and Delivery in the Public Right of Way.”  

 

August 2022:  The Healthy Streets L.A. Ballot Initiative is certified by the City Clerk, and City Council unanimously votes to put it to voters in a special election on March 5, 2024. 

 

October 2022: Report back from the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) on the “Mobility Plan (MP 2035) Implementation and City Mobility Plan Street Improvement Measures.”

The CLA was directed by City Council to provide a response to:

  • MP2035 Status and Implementation 
  • Departmental Coordination and Project Oversight
  • Capital Planning Activities
  • Community Engagement and Outreach 

Key Recommendations from the CLA that the Council include:

  • Incorporate MP2035 implementation in the Annual City Budget Process 
  • Request the Mayor incorporate above funding requests in FY24 budget 
  • Instruct LADOT, Department of Public Works with assistance from CAO to report back on work being done by existing working groups (attachment 5) 

Attachment 5: Interdepartmental Working Groups 

  • Streets Working Groups 
  • Streets and Transportation Projects Oversight Committee) 
  • Street Reconstruction/Vision Zero Program (Complete Streets Executive Steering Committee)
  • Sidewalk Repair Program (Executive Steering Committee)
  • Mayor’s Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding Oversight Committee
  • Bus Speed and Reliability Working Group
  • Street Renewal Management Group
  • Other Coordination Efforts 
  • STAP
  • City partnering with Metro on First/Last Mile
  • City partnering with Metro on Bike Share

October 2022: Responding to Social Equity Motion (C.F. 21-0039): The staff from the division of Equity in the Chief Administrative Office presented to the Budget and Finance Committee) on Equity Prioritization within City’s Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program. (Link to meeting video) 

 

Council Committee members: Bob Blumenfield, Monica Rodriguez and Paul Krekorian raised multiple questions.  For example, Blumenfield pointed out that qualitative data for investments is important in gauging project effectiveness, and also that geography isn’t the only parameter of equity, raising the example of how bus shelter infrastructure is inherently an equity project regardless of geography. Rodriguez brought up  harped on the fact that there was no policy determination instructing the CAO to utilize the Controller’s equity index, suggesting this decision was somewhat arbitrary.

 

Council Committee members seemed to arrive at consensus that the CAO still has a lot of work to do before they will produce something that City Council will approve of. Almost all Councilmembers acknowledged that the CAO has a tall task before them, but also that measuring equity in public infrastructure projects is crucial to correcting historical disinvestment

 

Time:14:22 Council President Krekorian pushes back on CAO’s equity analysis: “We’ve given them very little guidance in what we want to see come out of this. And the other part of that, we’re just talking about CTIEP here, when there are many different sources of city investments in physical infrastructure. There are all sorts of other things that may or may not be included in the CTIEP,” …… “I’m not very satisfied with where we are now, but I put the blame on us rather than the CAO’s office.  

 

We have more policymaking to do to determine what we want our outcomes to be. What we want the direction of our investments to be.”

 

Where Do We Go From Here?

As noted in the intro, it’s impossible to assess where we are, when:  

  • There’s no overarching vision to compare it to. 
  • There is no inventory to know what we started with and where we are now. 
  • There’s no inclusive process to know how progress compares with what people want. 
  • There’s no unified definition of how to measure equity to help determine the value of our investments. 
  • There is no one comprehensive place to see ALL THE MONEY (local, regional, state, federal), all the programs, and all the projects

Investing in Place is currently working in creating the inventory, and ultimately creating a model Capital Infrastructure Plan for the public right of way that is based on a vision, informed by the inventory, inspired through an inclusive process, prioritized based on equity, and comprehensive enough to see all funding, all projects, all timelines in one place – made publicly available. 

 

We hope you’ll join us. 



Categories
Uncategorized

Psst! Look Back to Look Forward: Why LA City’s Budget Process Doesn’t Work

Not a lot of time to read? Skim our Visual Storybook


The 1976 movie All the President’s Men revealed a lot about national politics and it popularized the catchphrase, “follow the money.” In government and politics, good policy (and bad) is only as strong as the money behind it. You need money to get something to become policy, and you need money to get that policy implemented. And in local government, the most important policy is the budget. Not many people see the budget as a “policy,” but it is in fact the most important vote the LA City Council takes every year. Without it, none of the other policies work (you can’t do anything without the funds to do it!).


At Investing in Place, we are focused on making the entire City’s public right-of-way infrastructure useful for every Angeleno. This encompasses everything that’s not private property, including sidewalks, roadways, street trees, bus shelters, street lighting, public bathrooms, bus-only lanes, bike lanes, access ramps, and a list of countless other investments that are intended to make our city move.


Our work has always been focused on equity in public infrastructure, so we spend a lot of effort researching budgets to understand how city funds – tax dollars – are spent. And given the way LA City organizes its budgets (by department and bureaus), we often find ourselves at a deadend. The complete picture never comes into focus because in the current LA City process, no one has a complete picture, even if they try to see it.


Let us show you what we see, and how we’ve pieced it together as we tried to follow the nearly $1 billion in funding just for public infrastructure.


In this post, we’ll:

  • Introduce the main players in LA City budgets
  • Tell you how much money we’re dealing with, where it comes from, what it covers 
  • Give an overview of LA’s annual budget process, with a focus on public works and transportation funding 
  • Offer next steps on how make this process more effective in improving the public right-of-way

Meet the Players

There are at least 19 different sets of players involved in directing investments, programs, and construction of the City’s public right-of-way.

  1. The Mayor’s office
  2. The City Council
  3. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
  4. The Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA)
  5. The Board of Public Works 
  6. Bureau of Engineering (Department of Public Works)
  7. Bureau of Contract Administration (Department of Public Works) 
  8. Bureau of Sanitation (Department of Public Works) 
  9. Bureau of Street Lighting (Department of Public Works) 
  10. Bureau of Street Services (Department of Public Works) 
  11. Department of Transportation 
  12. Department of Water and Power 
  13. Department of Building and Safety (LADBS)
  14. Department  of General Services 
  15. City Planning
  16. LAPD
  17. LAFD

Not in City agencies, but still significant players:

  1. Metro 
  2. Private Development (including community and nonprofit organizations)

All of these players (minus 18 & 19) are dotted all throughout the City’s organizational chart, have different managerial structures, and only communicate with each other when it’s necessary. 


The one policy document that rules them all is the City budget, our most important policy document. As we dive into how that document is created, remember what the City does with its $11 billion+ annual budget. 

  • Police
  • Fire and paramedics
  • Residential refuse collection and disposal
  • Wastewater collection and treatment 
  • Street maintenance and other public works functions 
  • Enforcement of ordinances and statutes related to building safety
  • Public libraries
  • Recreation and parks 
  • Community development 
  • Housing 
  • Aging services 
  • Planning 
  • Airports and the harbor 
  • Power and water services
  • The convention center

 

That $11 Billion+ Budget

So, how does the City divide its massive budget across its core services? The Fiscal Year from July 2022-  June 2023 (FY23) LA City Adopted Budget totals to just under $11.8 billion dollars, divided up as follows:

    • $7.5 billion in the General Fund
      • General fund money is unrestricted – meaning it can be spent on any of the City’s priorities. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the total budget is made up of the General Fund.
    • $4.3 billion in Special Funds 
  • Special Funds are restricted – they are designated to fund specific projects, programs, or priorities.  

The General Fund derives its revenues from:

  • Taxes
  • Licenses
  • Permits
  • Fees
  • Fines
  • Intergovernmental revenues
  • Charges for services
  • Special assessments
  • Interest incomes

Note: there are departments that have control of their own revenues and special funds:

    • Airports
    • City Employees Retirement System
    • Harbor
    • Library
    • Pensions (Fire and Police)
    • Recreation and Parks
    • Water and Power

Funding for Streets, Sidewalks, and the Public Right-of-Way comes from Special Funds

The City has more than 600 Special Funds. Those are funding sources that flow to the City every year. Some are funds that are provided to every city in the state or the county, while others are generated solely in the City of Los Angeles. Special Funds always come with specific restrictions and uses, which is what makes them special. For instance, Los Angeles County’s four transportation sales taxes (Prop A, Prop C, Measure R,  and Measure M) make up a significant portion of the City’s investments happening in the streets and sidewalks. These four countywide transportation sales taxes flow by formula every year to the City and are quite reliable, as we saw through the past several years of COVID, when sales tax-based transportation funds remained relatively consistent while other funds declined. 

 

PROCESS: How the City of Los Angeles Drafts its Annual $11 Billion Budget 

The City’s fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30. However, as soon as the annual budget is adopted, the process for the next year’s budget begins.  

It starts with a letter from the Mayor in mid-September that defines City objectives for the next fiscal year. 


The Mayor’s letter guides City departments, bureaus, and other offices in preparing their annual budget requests. The City’s Charter (which is a local government’s constitution) requires that departments submit budget requests to the Mayor by January 1. In practice, to ensure this deadline is met, all City departments must submit their budget requests to the Mayor by the end of November. 

 

This first six months of the budget process is opaque at best and leaves us with questions: 

  • Who decides each department’s priorities and how? 
  • Do priorities build on existing departmental plans and initiatives? 
  • How do departments consult the public at this stage?

Then starting in December, in conjunction with analysis by the Office of the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and each General Manager, the Mayor’s office reviews the budget requests of every City department, bureau, and office. There are more than 40 budget requests from departments and bureaus. Each department has its own process, and each budget request report varies in the format on how they are submitted. There is no template, and some reports are known to be as long as 700 pages!


The Mayor’s budget team then reviews these requests in consultation with departments, with primary guidance from the CAO. While that is happening, the Mayor’s team develops revenue projections with the assistance of the Office of Finance, the CAO, and the Controller, in order to match the budget requests with projected revenue. 


In mid-March the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates (two representatives from each regional neighborhood alliance) release their annual recommendations for the budget, which are developed through department and bureau meetings they have throughout the year to learn more about needs and priorities.  


The City Charter requires that the Mayor present the Proposed Budget to the City Council by April 20 of each year. When April 20 falls on a weekend or City holiday, the Mayor must submit the Proposed Budget on the next business day.


Finally, the Public Gets a Look  

The Proposed Budget is often unveiled at an event called The State of the City.

This unveiling is the first time both the public and City Council see the proposed department priorities, and how they have or have not been incorporated in the draft annual budget. This is the time the mayor makes a speech highlighting their office’s priorities.


The Council’s Budget and Finance Committee first reviews the Mayor’s proposal and  makes recommendations to the entire Council. By early May, this committee has begun the process of examining the Proposed Budget in public, day-long hearings with the Mayor’s Office, General Managers, the CAO, the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), and staff. This can go on for weeks, and results in many requests for more information that are addressed in hundreds of memos from the CAO and CLA’s office. The 5-member Budget and Finance Committee (and, notably, its chair) has the power to shape the budget as the City pushes up against its statutory deadline to adopt a balanced budget.


More often than not, those memos, like much of the budget public hearings and debate (and, really, the budget process as a whole), tend to focus exclusively on staffing levels. There’s little attention paid to capital expenditures, identifying consensus on needs, or new priorities. Granted, the city’s ability to deliver services is, of course, dependent upon staff – so staff resource allocations are important. But it’s also important to identify capital expenditures, priorities and projects. 


Congratulations: You Have Another Annual Budget

After the Budget and Finance Committee has its weeks-long hearings, the full City Council debates the priorities and sends the Mayor an amended budget for the Mayor to adopt, veto, or line-item veto… all before June 1st. 


But what does the annual City budget tell us? 


For our work, we know that LA City’s Annual Budget lists how much City-controlled funding the City is budgeting (read: hoping) to spend on public works and transportation projects. But that’s not the full story.

 

Remember those nearly 20 departments that have some policy or funding oversight of the public right-of-way? If you wanted the full story – the actual amounts budgeted (not actually spent) on the public right-of-way – you’d spend the rest of your life cross-referencing what might seem like a million different spreadsheets, and you still wouldn’t be able to get a sense of the full picture. Remember those special funds (not the general fund)? There are nine key special funds to look at when determining annual funding for public works and transportation, as you can see in the following chart: 


City of L.A.’s Public Works and Transportation Special Funds 

FY22 Appropriations

Source: Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2021/2022

  1. Proposition A Local Return ($296 million)
  2. Proposition C Local Return ($93 million)
  3. Measure R Local Return ($60 million)
  4. Measure M local return ($70 million)
  5. Special Gas Tax Fund ($112 million)
  6. Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment Fund ($73 million)
  7. Street Damage Restoration Fee ($55 million)
  8. Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Fund ($5 million)
  9. Sidewalk Repair Fund ($23 million)

What’s not on this list: State and Federal Funding (allocations and grants) and any other non-City controlled funding (e.g. Foundation grants). So this means the money available every year for managing and investing in L.A.’s public right-of-way is difficult to determine, track and measure – and kept in multiple places and departments and is not part of the City’s annual budgeting process. 


This simple data only tells us how much the City can spend, and in huge generalities. The Budget Books, and even the controller’s 2019 Special Fund analysis, keep those funds segregated. The current budget process doesn’t contain analysis or presentation of funding data by projects or programs – and that lack  limits the ability for the City to measure successes and challenges. 


But wait, there’s more…


The City Only Looks Forward, Not Back 

There’s no reporting or analysis of what was actually spent and what it achieved. This fundamental budgeting technique is squashed by the bureaucracy of always adding more budget as a means of self preservation. Never is there independent, yearly analysis to ask: Was it enough? Did it get us the results we wanted? Was it too little? Without this regular analysis, all those in the City’s budget process are missing a key datapoint to make the best decisions.


Every year the budget conversation is focused on projections, looking forward in vague ways, but missing any accounting on how the funding was spent the previous year. Every year, the budget books contain performance measures from the Mayor’s office on how to spend allocated money, but best practices dictate that performance metrics must show how money was spent – organized by program and stated goals for public works and transportation.


Where Do We Go From Here?

LA’s annual budgeting process is a tremendous undertaking that involves immense coordination, communication, and political alignment. The future of the City’s right-of-way and public space currently hinges on this frenzy of a year-round budgeting process. 


All of this happens without an accurate assessment of:

  1. The total funding available for the City’s public right-of-way
  2. A current inventory and state of the City’s existing infrastructure 
  3. An articulated and adopted vision by the Mayor, City Council and other policymakers of what we are working toward: 
    • What does success for the City’s public right-of-way look like in 10 years? 
    • What does an implementation plan look like, to achieve the projects and programs of the Mobility Plan, Vision Zero, sidewalk repair, urban tree canopy, bus shelters and public bathrooms – all rolled into one comprehensive and accessible plan? 

The City of Los Angeles needs a comprehensive guiding document that focuses on project implementation and stewards public dollars for the greatest need and greatest outcome.



Up next: we will review the City’s attempts to create such a document, including some existing plans that are sometimes mistaken for Capital Infrastructure Plans but fall short. The good news is that more and more people are talking about LA’s lack of such a plan and are interested in creating one. We are energized by this momentum.


Up next: coming in early 2023!

What is the City and other partners doing to address these issues? Stay tuned.

Categories
Uncategorized

Hiding in Plain Sight: Billions in Public Funding

The City of LA has roughly $1 billion each year for public works and transportation (primarily through the local return of four countywide transportation sales taxes), and even more from state and federal funds. 

 

Where does all that money go? The sad, short (and true!) answer is: No one knows. 

 

No one (truly, no one) has a clear picture of where BILLIONS of public works and transportation funds in the City of Los Angeles have gone over the years, and there is no publicly accessible funding plan for past, present, or future investments.

 

You’d have to spend hundreds of hours scouring dozens of spreadsheets buried within multiple City department websites and internal documents to start to uncover the answer. We’ve done that – since 2018 – and we still can’t tell you much about where this public money goes. 

 

What we can tell you is that the process to allocate and spend these funds is opaque at best, often left to political interests and bureaucratic legacies that keep money flowing without focusing on the outcomes we say we want for our city.

 

It has been said, Los Angeles has the largest public works program in the nation, yet still has broken, unpassable sidewalks and for many, no viable, reliable, and safe transportation options… other than driving (and that isn’t always safe). 

 

That’s why:

  1. Los Angeles needs a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP).
  2. Investing in Place has made developing a CIP our #1 priority. 

To get there, though, we need to recognize what it takes to change the way this spending is connected to who’s in power. To make a CIP a reality for Los Angeles, we must partner with fellow Angelenos who care about the future of the City, hold planning workshops, and roll out an educational campaign about CIPs and how other cities develop theirs. 

 

We can no longer continue on the path we’ve been on for decades that has lacked a  clear vision and funding plan to achieve the shared outcomes so many are calling for.

 

LA is Dysfunctional Without a Plan

In 2017,  FUSE Fellow Laila Alequresh identified the lack of a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) as a leading problem in Los Angeles’ management of public space. She said Los Angeles is the only major city in the United States without a CIP. 

 

A CIP creates a multiyear public works and transportation project list and budget that will help people understand what is being planned and prioritized, and what tradeoffs are being made in their own communities. This list will include projects across the city and across departments, revealing how taxpayer funding is planned to be invested. It will be publicly accessible.


Since LA does not have a CIP, public infrastructure planning, design, and construction is handled separately by different agencies and policymakers – and is planned one year at a time rather than multiple years in advance. 

 

As a result, the City is inefficient and ineffective with our public dollars. 

 

And when communication and consensus breaks down, our local government struggles to provide basic services.

 

And when communication and consensus breaks down, our local government struggles to provide basic services. A prime example: The City’s sidewalk repair program. For example, in Fiscal Year 2021 there was a backlog of requests for 4,000 access ramps (also known as curb cuts), and only 615 (or just 15%) had been completed.

 

Municipal and Good Governance Experts Have Known This for Years

Several leaders have been calling for a CIP for years, even before the FUSE report.

 

Nearly a decade ago in 2013. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield introduced a motion directing the City to create a Capital Infrastructure Strategic Plan. The motion directed the City to prioritize projects, identify funding, create mapping tools, and facilitate public transparency. As part of the motion, the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) committed to an interdepartmental working group to develop this plan.

 

Also starting in 2013, Councilmember Joe Buscaino and others championed “Save Our Streets LA,” a $3 billion bond-turned-sales tax ballot measure to fund emergency street repairs. This proposal didn’t gain enough traction for a 2014 vote, and the Countywide Measure M soon overshadowed it. But it brought renewed awareness to the dire conditions of so many Los Angeles streets.

 

Investing in Place worked on a similar motion in 2021, to define and measure equity in project lists. That process is currently being led by the Chief Administrative Office.

 

But it’s 2022, and there’s still no plan. 

 

The Time is Now

It’s time to create a long overdue CIP for the City of Los Angeles.  

 

Just last month, on the infamous leaked audio of LA City Councilmembers Nury Martinez, Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo, you can hear the Councilmembers plotting about various city assets behind closed doors. They are not stewarding those assets on behalf of the public, they are using those assets to gain and maintain power and control for themselves. 

 

This reveals a massive vulnerability for the parts of the city that are actually owned by the public. 

But it doesn’t have to be this way…

 

What does a CIP actually do for the City?

  • A CIP helps distribute power. Developing and adopting a CIP can distribute power, knowledge, and coordination among agencies, policymakers, and people throughout the city. Without a CIP, it’s almost impossible to know about planned projects and/or opportunities.
  • A CIP helps facilitate local hire. It has the potential to create jobs. With a forward-looking, committed project list, local job centers and apprenticeships can coordinate to develop a pipeline to ensure local hires and align with upcoming work. 
  • A CIP prioritizes equity. For too long, the City Council’s approach for allocating public works and transportation funds has been to “divide by 15”: funds are divided equally among the 15 City Council districts. But equal is not equitable. Many LA neighborhoods have borne multi-generational racism, displacement, violence, segregation, and greed. Without a plan that identifies priorities and projects over the next 10 years, there’s no accountability to make sure LA prioritizes the needs of communities of color and low-wage workers, in order to account for this history.
  • A CIP provides transparency. Because the City has no overarching plan with project lists, budgets, and a timeline for implementation, the public does not know where our own money goes and to what purpose: we do not know how much each City department gets, and what they are supposed to do with it. 
  • A CIP helps implement the Mobility plan. In 2015, Los Angeles adopted a new Mobility Plan that included a Bicycle Enhanced Network, a Neighborhood Enhanced Network, a Transit Enhanced Network, and Pedestrian Enhanced Districts. These networks are “aspirational” – meaning they set the vision for modal priorities on corridors, but they require further conceptual design and project development and prioritization. A CIP would turn those mapped networks into plans: specific projects with assigned funding and a timeline for implementation. 
  • A CIP enables coordination. Los Angeles has up to 11 agencies working within the City’s public right-of-way, sometimes working toward the same outcomes but without a coordinated approach. Each bureau and department does things differently, often competing with each other for grants and often pursuing opposing visions for the streets and sidewalks. The CIP would give a clear focus and coordinated project list that everyone is working from.
  • A CIP takes work. The reason a CIP has never been adopted in Los Angeles when cities like Boston, Chicago, Long Beach, New York, San Diego, and Seattle have one is because it takes work. Once the city decides to do this, financial and operational experts will need to collaborate to untangle decades of processes, data, and tradition. This won’t be easy, but it can be done.

What you can do next:

  1. Join our introductory workshop via Zoom, November 15, 3 p.m. – 4 p.m.  RSVP today!
    link here.
  2. Read our summary: What is a CIP?
  3. Check out our previous posts on this topic:
  4. Look for our next post: Why LA’s current budgeting process is not getting us the outcomes the city needs for public works and transportation.
  5. Support us: Join the dozens of individual supporters and foundations like The California Endowment, The Energy Foundation, and TransitCenter to underwrite this work by clicking here to make a donation. 

We hope you’ll join us!

Categories
Uncategorized

The Bus Stops Here: In New IiP Report, LA Bus Riders Face Delays, Trash, Heat

Thank you to our partners who helped us connect with community members to audit six critical LA Metro bus lines, documenting what it actually is like to ride the bus in LA.

 

We’ve published the results! Go here to see the full report, and y aquí para leerlo en español. Keep reading below for a summary of the highlights.

 

More than 50 riders completed first-hand audits* on six key bus lines traversing the city of Los Angeles. The top issues facing people who ride the bus were identified as:  

  • Reliability: Nearly half (44%) said the bus did not arrive when they thought it would.
  • Bus stop conditions: Nearly half of the 244 stops audited were described as dirty or as having trash or litter, while 65 bus stops (27%) lacked shade.
  • Accessibility: In more than half of the 126 observations, there was at least one person on the bus using a wheelchair, cane, crutches or mobility device. Yet, eight stops had no accessible boarding, 21 had narrow sidewalks, and 19 felt too close to moving cars—all conditions that would make it difficult for those using mobility devices to board the bus. 

When asked what would make their bus trips better, people said they want buses to be fare-free, faster, and more frequent—many specifically asking for bus-only lanes. Notably, they want bus stops to have more shade and benches and less trash.

 

Bus Riders Do the Talking

People who ride the bus are tired of being an after-thought. We rarely hear from actual bus riders when decisions are made. In this report, they do the talking. 

 

We are providing the report to the current city council and to the candidates for mayor and for city council. The mayor controls a third of the Metro board and drafts the city budget (which contains $1 billion annually for streets and public right of way). The city council approves that budget and directs city services in their districts.  And 105 of Metro 119 bus lines operate some or all of their service in City of LA, with a recent Metro report citing, the average trip taken on Metro Bus is less than five miles, and on average about half the journey time is spent waiting for the bus.

 

We encourage policymakers at both Metro and the City of Los Angeles to use this data to inform their public works and transportation investments, and we especially want our mayor and city council members to pay attention to what their own constituents deal with day in and day out.

 

This bus survey is part of a larger Investing in Place campaign currently underway about the need to create a Capital Infrastructure Plan in the City of Los Angeles. 

 

*The audit consisted of observations: 58 volunteers completed 126 observations (each person could observe more than one route). An observation included riding one of the six bus lines identified for the study, and answering questions about their experience waiting for the bus and riding the bus.

Take Action

Everyone: Join us to improve buses in your neighborhood.

Advocates and Community Leaders: LA needs a plan—one that is specific about projects and budgets. Let’s get it done together! 

  • Shed light on the public infrastructure projects that benefit neighborhoods by practicing budget transparency. One way to do this is by creating a Capital Infrastructure Plan. 
  • Help demystify the ways that the Board of Public Works makes infrastructure improvements.
  • We can’t improve our own neighborhoods if we don’t know what’s budgeted or what projects are being prioritized by any of the 11 City departments that work on streets and sidewalks. 
  • Collaborate and join us!

Elected Officials and Policy Leaders: Talk to bus riders where they are—on the bus. 

  • Experience the bus for yourself— ride the bus to get somewhere, not as a photo op. Let us know your favorite Metro bus line and why. 
  • Ask questions about the timeline, budget and implementation plan for improving access and shade at bus stops in Los Angeles. 
  • Ask questions about where local, state and federal public works and transportation dollars are going and how they are prioritized.
  • Reach out to us to talk more about how we can support an inclusive and accessible Capital Infrastructure Plan for the City of Los Angeles. 

Go here to donate to support this work.



Categories
Uncategorized

Under the Surface: The Roots of LA’s Lack of Progress Toward Safer Streets

If you saw the June 7 Los Angeles Times editorial “Is LA Getting Serious About Safer Streets?” you probably came away with more questions than answers. That’s because LA public works and transportation policy looks a lot like the roots in that striking photo that leads the piece: a meandering mess that trips up even the most intrepid advocates (or that most people are forced to just go around).

So here’s how we see it and what you can do about….

The editorial mentions a potential ballot initiative for 2024 and a separate but related motion the LA City Council will consider this month. 

Both the grassroots-led ballot measure and the City Council’s motion in response are great signs. They bring focus to our urgent need for:

  • Safer streets
  • A way to make progress toward safer streets inevitable (by tying one action to another: if street work is happening, new safety measures must be included)
  • An overarching plan for maintaining and improving LA’s entire public right-of-way infrastructure

With the changes coming to the Mayor’s office, City Council and other critical elected offices, and the next several months of campaigning, it is essential to bring these issues to light. 

At Investing in Place, we have begun focusing much of our efforts on that third bullet – the need for an overarching plan for everything related to public works and transportation in Los Angeles. We believe this is the key to achieving bullets 1 and 2. The ballot initiative and the motion each make some progress in that area, but there are nuances (of course) that we’ll explore here in detail.

With this in mind and with what follows here, we hope you will consider your role: 

  • Participate in the joint committee meeting on Wednesday 6/22 at 2pm and weigh in
  • Submit public comment to the council file (CF 15-0719-S26)
  • Connect with us to talk more about what’s happening and ways to get involved 

Some Crucial Background and Context

Over the past year, a coalition of groups led by Streets For All has been gathering signatures to place a measure on the LA City ballot, seeking voter approval to implement the City’s Mobility Plan 2035 every time a street has substantial improvements made to it such as repaving. These Mobility Plan networks include the Bicycle Enhanced Network, the Neighborhood Enhanced Network, the Transit Enhanced Network, Pedestrian Enhanced Districts, etc. These networks are “aspirational” – meaning they set the vision for modal priorities on corridors, while also requiring further conceptual design and community outreach to weigh trade offs related to implementation of those networks. The coalition expects to submit their signatures for qualification for the November 2024 ballot in the next several weeks. 

In anticipation of this, Council President Martinez alongside four other Councilmembers (De León, Harris-Dawson, Price, and Rodriguez) (Council File: 15-0719-S26) introduced a motion to develop an ordinance based on the Healthy Streets Ballot measure for adoption by the City Council. The motion takes the ballot measure further by calling for project coordination among all the many departments that touch the public right of way and to prioritize these projects based on equity.  

 

What Might Happen Throughout the Summer

City Council is working to have the motion approved in some form before they go on summer recess (July 5 – July 22).  And, in order for the City Council to approve it, it must be first heard in the committees the motion was assigned to, for discussion and potentially changes.  For this motion, it will be heard in a joint committee meeting of Public Works and Transportation on June 22nd and later in the Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee.  It is expected to be approved in committee and sent to the full City Council, and if approved there, one of its first tasks will be led by the City’s Attorney’s office to draft the ordinance.  Then depending on how long it takes for the ordinance to be drafted, the earliest it could be reviewed and discussed by the City Council is in August. 

This motion is aligned with the timing for the Healthy Streets Ballot initiative as it is expected to turn in its signatures in the next several weeks, and if the initiative is certified by the City Clerk, it then goes to City Council with three options: 

  •     adopt it as written,
  •     put it to voters in a special election, 
  •     put it to voters in the next general election

Several Possible Outcomes 

After June (based on the outcomes of the above), there can be several possibilities from there: the city adopts a new ordinance and the coalition withdraws their ballot measure. That is one option. The other option would be for the City to adopt theirs but then also adopt a companion measure that talks about how to implement theirs.

The motion introduced from City Council a few weeks ago is an effort to prepare for the ballot measure and to take it a step further than the Mobility Plan 2035 currently goes by integrating elements that aren’t as easily drawn on the mobility plan project maps like: crosswalks, bus shelters, street lights, stormwater infrastructure, sidewalk repairs and street trees.  

And the new motion brings that expansive vision towards equitable implementation by elevating the need for cross departmental and bureau collaboration,  and most importantly, it calls for a system to prioritize the work by existing definitions of equity in a multiyear work plan that is tied to funding.¹  

 

The Need for a Capital Infrastructure Plan for LA

The current motion is elevating an issue core to our hearts, creating a capital infrastructure plan. Many people are surprised to learn that the close to $1 billion in funds the City of Los Angeles (and this isn’t even counting State and Federal funding + Metro capital projects within the City) gets by formula every year has no long range plan for investing those dollars.  Creating a Capital Infrastructure Plan for the City,  is something Council President Martinez has been calling for and this new motion builds on those efforts. 

 Three things this motion gets right: 

  1. Puts the issues of the City’s public right of way front and center during the next several months of local election campaigns and civic discussions. 
  2. Addresses the lack of implementation of the City’s Mobility Plan 2035 mobility networks as elevated by Streets for All and a coalition of organizations with their pending ballot initiative. 
  3. Highlights the long-standing need for a Capital Infrastructure Plan that coordinates and prioritizes public works and transportation projects that bakes in equity from the start.  And this effort builds off previous efforts and work currently underway in the Chief Administrative Office (CAO).  (See Council File 21-0039) and for transportation projects at LADOT (See Council File 19-1373).

Five questions that must be answered as this issue goes forward to policy discussion: 

  1. What is the single, unified vision for Public Works and Transportation from City policymakers? 
  2. How do the departments working in the City’s public right of way  coordinate today and why doesn’t that work well? The agency leaders and those doing the work (as disjointed as it might be), need to share the barriers to doing this.  As a first step in this process, in January 2022, General Managers of various departments including the Department of Public Works (DPW) and LADOT signed onto a, “Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding: Improving Project Planning and Delivery in the Public Right of Way.”² 
  3. How does each department approach capital planning? (How far into the future do they look, do they maintain strategic unfunded project lists, how do they prioritize their own local resources? How do they get input from the public?)
  4. What is the right way to bring communities in on planning for the public right of way without giving privileged voices unfair influence? To what extent should local stakeholders be able to hold up projects with broader benefits?
  5. How does this build on the existing work from the City’s Administrative Office (CAO) to create a 5 year funding plan and prioritize funding by equity metric? (See January 26, 2022 CAO report) 

This issue of public spending on public infrastructure is one of the top issues for our city. Investing in Place will  continue to track the progress of the various efforts and will work with community partners, policymakers, and agency staff to understand the challenges, and the opportunities for solutions.  Stay tuned for more. 

 

¹Currently the Mobility Plan 2035 does not identify funding, contained scoped out projects, or a prioritization plan based on equity metrics, it relies on detailed maps that identify high level priorities for key streets.  It has been the view that a General Plan (which requires a lengthy General Plan Amendment process and City Council approval to update) should not contain these elements. These would be better contained in a Capital Infrastructure Plan (CIP) or Mobility Improvement Plan (MIP).

²The Board of Public Works also adopted the Interagency MOU. This agreement between departments sets into motion new processes for project scoping, agency coordination, data sharing, and joint work program development to deliver more holistic projects in the public right of way.

 

Key information:  Council File: 15-0719-S26

Date introduced: 05/25/2022

Title: Mobility Plan 2035 / Street Improvement Measures / Healthy Streets LA Ballot Measure / Street Resurfacing / Slurry Seal Projects / High Injury Network / Dangerous Streets

Mover

  •     Kevin De León
  •     Marqueece Harris-Dawson
  •     Nury Martinez 
  •     Curren D. Price, Jr.
  •     Monica  Rodriguez 

Second

  •     Herb Weson, Jr. 

Pending in Committee

  •     Transportation Committee
    • Bonin, Chair
    • Koretz
    • Buscaino
  •     Public Works Committee
    • Blumenfield, Chair
    • Lee
    • De León
    • O’Farrell 
  •     Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee
    • Martinez, Chair
    • O’ Farrell
    • Buscaino 

Section 452 (b) of Los Angeles Charter: 

When an initiative petition requesting the adoption by the Council of a proposed ordinance is presented to the Council by the City Clerk, the Council must take one of the following actions within 20 days after the presentation, unless the petition is withdrawn by the proponents:

  • adopt the proposed ordinance, without alteration;
  • call a special election to be held not earlier than 110 days nor more than 140 days after Council action on the petition to submit the proposed ordinance, without alteration, to a vote of the electors of the City; or
  • determine to submit the proposed ordinance, without alteration, to a vote of the electors of the City at either the next regular City election to be held more than 110 days from the date of Council action on the petition or the next Statewide election conducted by the County of Los Angeles to be held more than 110 days from the date of Council action on the petition.

Election Code 711(d):

Withdrawal of Initiative. The proponents of an initiative petition may withdraw the petition at any time before the City Council has taken action on the initiative pursuant to Charter Section 452 or 453. The proponents also may withdraw the initiative after the City Council has taken action to submit the initiative to a vote of the electors under Charter Section 452 or 453, provided that withdrawal occurs not later than the 88th day before the election and only upon approval of the proponents and the City Council. In order to withdraw the initiative, the proponents shall file with the City Clerk a written notice of withdrawal signed by all five proponents. 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

What does all this mean?

This past week, we shared a deep dive of Metro information in a series 3 posts – the result of months of research, meetings with current and former Metro staff, meetings with our advocacy and organizing partners, anonymous discussions with bus operators, archive visits, and conversations with national experts.

I know; there is a lot to digest here. We shared this information to encourage others to see what we’re seeing. Every community member, bus rider, bus operator, organizer and advocate, journalist, policy-maker, and transportation agency employee should be asking questions about how we address this failure to create a transportation system that works for everyone – especially those who depend on it to survive (and that’s both people who ride and people who operate it!).

The initial response received in just a few short days has shown that even as deep as we dove, there is still so much more to this issue that must be uncovered. We heard from current and former operators sharing the disconnect between the policy-makers and the actual operations, something we have also been hearing from people who rely on the bus. There have been calls back to the legacy of RTD (the agency that eventually became Metro in 1993) that impacts the way operators are paid and treated. Any one of these issues is alone is important enough to address – and there is a lengthy list of what needs to be done.

It can seem overwhelming. It can be overwhelming. The responsibility is on each of us who cares not just about the system but the opportunities it unlocks for our neighbors, our friends and our families when it truly acts as a reliable, safe, and effective public utility. Imagine if your water didn’t flow or your lights went out 10% – 15% of the time. 

Investing in Place’s mission is to shine a light on public investments and advocate for a more inclusive decision-making process and equitable resource allocation in public works and transportation programs for all people in Los Angeles. This work is mostly behind the scenes, mostly in the weeds of multi-hundred page documents, and requires an alliance of partners and communities to share insights not written in those pages.

This week, I hope we shared information to help inform the conversation and frame meaningful questions we should all be asking our agencies and ourselves in whatever role we find ourselves.  

Join us in this effort. Continue to ask these questions. Use your network, power, influence – to whatever degree it exists – to help Metro do better. Want to do even more? Become a supporter of the Investing In Place work by making a contribution to help underwrite this continued collaboration, research, analysis and publication of the information needed to create a world class transportation system in Los Angeles.

Links to this week’s series: 

New to us and want to know more about our work? Click here to learn more about Who We Are.

Categories
Uncategorized

Promises and Press Releases: Where are the Better Buses?

When the Metro Board adopted the Transit First Scenario alternative for its implementation of the NextGen plan in January 2020 – just two months before COVID-19 lockdowns swept the U.S. – the plan’s aims were among the most ambitious that the agency had ever pursued. The Transit First alternative called for a significant reorganization of Metro’s bus service and major investments in busy corridors where riders have suffered long waits and slow rides for decades. 

But Metro’s history is full of false starts. Many of the agency’s plans have been announced with public fanfare only to falter, ultimately resulting in no lasting changes for transit riders. And after two fraught years, it appears  that the NextGen Transit First Scenario may be yet another such floundering plan.

But we do what we always do: we get to work to reveal the facts. We look for board motions, implementation reports, budgets and expenditures – the details of how plans can and have been implemented. While politicians may love a good press conference, we love a good balance sheet with the actuals. (In accounting, actuals are the recorded revenues and expenditures at a given point in time, as compared to the budget, which is only a forecast of income and spending projections.)

It has been challenging for the public and groups like ours to understand and engage in Metro’s budget prioritization for some time, particularly when it comes to the bus system because of the lack of detail on transit operations investments as well as the quick and one-way Metro budget public processes. Not to mention we never saw a detailed funding plan or project list for NextGen Scenario first. That was why we prioritized our work around these key issues last spring. And, through our Better Buses for LA work group, we created a comment letter that over 54 organizations and 276 individuals supported calling for several key issues such as:

  • The allocation of resources to ensure greater procedural equity in FY23 budget-making.
  • The expansion of bus service to meet existing needs and to prioritize bus capital improvements

And that’s why we were excited the Metro Board member Supervisor Mitchell responded to our concerns her amendment to motion 2021-0397 in May 2021:

  • “Report back with a more thorough and participatory public and legislative process for future budgets and mid-year budget adjustments, including a board meeting that considers the budget exclusively.”

We now find ourselves in yet another year with a very similar budget outreach process which seemingly ignores Supervisor Mitchell’s request . This month there is a presentation about the process, and it does reference the new CEO listening sessions that happened in the fall of 2021. Investing in Place participated in one of the listening sessions. However, we have seen little change beyond that so far.

Without a more transparent budgeting and accounting process, the public isn’t able to help understand and shape the public dollars and infrastructure desperately needed by so many. At the bare minimum, Metro should be honestly sharing how much progress has made on implementing the NextGen Transit First Scenario (see Figure 1), which, according to the direction of the Metro Board, was scheduled to take place over 6 years and to include nearly $1 billion in capital spending and reallocated bus service hours to create an all-day, frequent, and reliable network.

The approach from Metro was: we shouldn’t add more buses until we fix the underlying infrastructure of the bus system.  Metro identified that infrastructure, which includes things like bus stops, shelters, and the congested city streets in need of bus only lanes, as being the primary contributing factor to declining bus speeds. Consequently, fixing the underlying infrastructure meant consolidating bus stops, creating new bus-only lanes, allowing passengers to board through rear doors, implementing traffic signal priority for buses, and improving the bus stops themselves. The plan also included the elimination of almost all of the system’s Rapid buses, including the Santa Monica Boulevard Line 704, Venice Boulevard Line 733, West LA to Sylmar Line 734, with the idea being that their service would be consolidated back into local routes that would be making fewer stops. 

While the rapid routes were actually eliminated, it’s unclear if speed improvements have actually been realized since data and implementation information has been hard to come by. What we do know is that by the end of June 2021, at least $7 million was allocated to be invested in bus speed improvements (see Figure 2).

Questions still linger…how much of that was spent and where? What was programmed for the following year in FY22? Is $7 million a year the best Metro can do given the critical importance the bus system is for so many people in the Los Angeles Region who are struggling to get by? These are the essential workers and others who rely on the bus for their daily needs during the pandemic. (Metro had the least amount of transit ridership loss during the past two years than any other transportation agency in the Country.) 

Since 2018, the Metro and LADOT bus speed work group has implemented 12.8 bus only lane miles, which is small but important progress on a very large problem.

To put it in perspective, remember the scale of the bus and street network in Los Angeles: the City of Los Angeles alone has 23,000 lane miles, and about 40% of those are major avenues and boulevards.

In addition to creating Bus Only Lanes (BOL), the Metro and LADOT work group is:

  • Piloting red paint/thermoplastic treatment –  In the summer of 2021 LADOT implemented this partial red thermoplastic treatment along portions of Wilshire Boulevard and the MyFigueroa segment in DTLA and has recently started applying it in and around downtown Los Angeles. 
  • Implementing their successful AB 917 State Legislation for Camera Bus Lane Enforcement.  LADOT has recently started to develop implementation strategies for this legislation. 
  • Implementing Metro G Line (Orange) Busway signal improvements.
  • And future work includes (per a Jan 2022 Board Report): “Metro continues to work with LADOT to improve editing Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and expand it to more buses and along non-TSP Tier 1 Corridors. Today on Metro Rapid Buses receive TSP, which can extend green lights to prioritize certain buses. Metro is exploring the viability to enable TSP on its entire 2,300 bus fleet.”

These are laudable projects. They also represent a welcome shift in the relationship between the City and Metro, which have often seemed to operate at cross purposes on the issue of bus service. But both the level of investment and the rate of progress are wholly incompatible with Los Angeles’s existing (let alone its forecasted) needs.

While COVID-19 has created trying and unprecedented conditions for many local government agencies, it has also presented tremendous opportunities to try new approaches. Federal COVID relief funds are ideal resources for the one-time fixes of many of the bus routes and services needed to improve operations and bus speeds. These investments would have a significant immediate and long lasting impact for the bus network. 

But has any of that happened? With available public data we have been able to find so far, it’s just not clear. 

Investing in Place has been attending NextGen Metro meetings since 2018. For years, we have written analysis, blog posts, comment letters, led convenings and work groups, collaborated with partners for organizing and advocacy with Metro Board members and at Board meetings, but now we find ourselves looking at data and conditions where Metro bus service is actually worse now than it was 25 years ago.

As we struggle to measure Metro’s adopted NextGen Plan, its stage of  implementation, and the state of Metro’s bus service – we keep coming back to Metro’s opaque budget and funding prioritization process. We are seeking to understand why there seems to be no funding to substantially improve the Metro bus experience. It’s a publicly stated priority, yet the proof that investments have been made are less so.

 

Categories
Uncategorized

The Metro Bus Operator Crisis

Being a bus operator is hard work. It is both physically and mentally demanding work, and throughout the long days, drivers are charged with getting riders to their destinations safely. Too often, it is a thankless position.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic upheaval that has accompanied it, appears to have changed the calculus for many of those in Metro’s labor pool. Metro has been losing more operators each month than it can hire.

In the Fall of 2021, as Metro tried to reinstate pre-COVID bus service (7.1 million RSH), the agency’s statistics show a gap immediately between the number of worker-hours that Metro would have needed to run service according to the timetable and the worker-hours they actually had at their disposal.

The picture on the ground was grim. Riders were left stranded by the system as operator callouts led to rolling cancellations throughout the day. That was despite promises from Metro to undo the COVID service cuts and repeated admonitions from the Board of Directors to boost hiring to support the NextGen program that riders were told would finally boost frequencies on major corridors.

Like so much else in our region, the worst impacts of the service cancellations were concentrated in some of the neighborhoods that could least afford them. According to an analysis by Henry Fung, chair of Metro’s Community Advisory Council, canceled buses fell disproportionately in South Los Angeles. Out of 15 bus lines which reported a 25% or greater cancellation rate in January, Fung says that 13 of them serve South Los Angeles. And, that rate means that one out of every four buses on a line would be canceled every day for the entire month. The Vermont Rapid Line, one of the few Rapid lines remaining serving one of the county’s busiest transit corridors, experienced a cancellation rate of nearly four in 10 buses – 40%!

The reasons for such a disparity – and why it should fall on one of the poorest regions of Los Angeles County – might be able to be found in the way Metro schedules operators work. Fung indicates that after training, new operator hires at Metro may be sent to work anywhere in the county. Metro’s service area is enormous, and, with Los Angeles’s traffic, this can result in multi-hour commutes for drivers to or from work in an unfamiliar part of town. Municipal bus services throughout Los Angeles County such as Long Beach Transit and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus have much smaller service areas, which therefore ensures a greater idea for prospective bus operators where they will commute to.

The elevated number of operator callouts in South Los Angeles could be, at least in part, a product of harmful perceptions about the frequently stigmatized area. This is a challenging problem, to be sure – but it is Metro’s duty to solve it and solve it well. Riders in South Los Angeles rely on transit to navigate the city. Good transit can liberate riders, but on the flipside bad transit can entrap riders.

Investing in Place’s analysis indicates that despite the unfavorable commuting conditions and high cost of living, operators start at a rate ($19.12 after six months) that is below several of the agency’s peers. As Henry Fung writes in his letter, the approximately $30,000 a new hire at Metro could expect to earn in a year is barely enough to get by, even without the challenges that come with being a bus driver.

Metro is currently short almost 600 bus operators. This is a crisis.  Based on the data we have, the best month Metro had in hiring new operators was April 2021, with 43 new people hired, but they haven’t hit that level since. 

Metro Transit Operator Hiring Trends 

*Metro Rail and Bus Operators come from the same group of staff. When Metro increased rail service, it took away bus operators. And when new rail lines start, that will be another hit to the bus operator pool.

At this rate it may be years before Metro has enough operators to restore bus service to pre-COVID levels.  The impact of this is huge, we know that the majority of Metro bus riders have no other choice but the bus to meet their daily needs.  COVID-19 bus ridership numbers clearly demonstrated that.  Metro suffered the least amount of transit ridership loss than anywhere in the country since the start of the pandemic. Metro bus riders still relied on the bus in the early days of the pandemic. Why, you may ask? Because Metro is a lifeline, the only option, and likely because many bus riders are also low wage service workers who took care of the region while many of us sheltered in place.

The current contract with Metro’s transit operators expires June 30, 2022. Metro executives and Union leadership are meeting to develop a new contract.

We have learned about key themes impacting the desirability of the job such as: 

  • Starting Pay
  • Unpredictable schedule and location
  • Working conditions on the bus 
  • The fact operators are currently contractually required to show up  for overtime hours if called back. Over the past two years this has had a tremendous impact on staff and their families due to Metro’s operator shortage.

It is critical that all Metro leaders – Board and staff – recognize this crisis, and respond with significant changes to restructure the job and the working environment, analyze key takeaways that come up from current operators to inform changes to the new contract, and speed up and streamline the path to full time employment.  It is particularly important to get input from current bus operators – particularly ones with 1-3 years of service.  They can illuminate why so few people want to be a Metro Bus Operator.  

Every decision made by Metro leadership should consider this information to address this crisis if they want to make progress and improve from conditions within the next year. Metro and the Board need to respond with urgency and commitment to radically improve the bus experience for everyone.

Categories
Uncategorized

Metro bus operations: the past, present and future

Metro is currently running the same amount of bus service now as it was in 1998, nearly 25 years ago. Metro is running 6.2 million revenue service hours (RSH) after service cuts were implemented last month due to the bus operator shortage crisis.. We’ll repeat it again. Metro is running the same amount of bus service as it was in 1998. The biggest difference between now and 1998 is that Metro’s budget was only $2.8 billion dollars  compared to today’s $8 billion dollar budget. Metro’s budget has grown because of two additional voter-approved sales taxes (Measure R & Measure M), increased state funding, and federal funding. AND, Metro’s buses have gotten slower.

Bottom line: With a nearly tripled budget, Metro bus service is actually worse now than it was 25 years ago.

The solution is clear: policy-makers and analysts need to be clear with the public that they understand what they are sacrificing and who they are negatively impacting by NOT prioritizing the needs of millions of trips made by people who rely on our bus system for their survival. Investing in Place is currently analyzing over 25 years of Metro budgets and bus operations with a goal of curating data to increase a shared understanding of what has been going on. Our goal is to be able to produce the tools for policymakers, partners and interested community members to understand and engage with Metro’s operations spending.

But first, we have to understand the agency’s history on bus operations funding, where it is today, and analyze what we see is being allocated in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2023 budget. We anticipate the FY23 Transit Operations budget to be presented to the Metro Board in the next few weeks. 

Look out for our next post on the Metro Bus Operator Crisis.

Categories
Uncategorized

LA’s Annual $1 Billion Gamble: Spending without a Plan

LA adds to its processes, confusion, and uncertainty due to a lack of a plan to spend nearly $1 Billion each year on roads, sidewalks, trees, access ramps, bus shelters, and more. And the fix is simple and doesn’t require more spending.

 

Did you know that Los Angeles is the only major US city without a capital infrastructure plan?[efn_note]The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) “recommends that state and local governments prepare and adopt comprehensive, fiscally sustainable, and multi-year capital plans to ensure effective management of capital assets. A prudent multi-year capital plan identifies and prioritizes expected needs based on a strategic plan, establishes project scope and cost, details estimated amounts of funding from various sources, and projects future operating and maintenance costs. A capital plan should cover a period of at least three years, preferably five or more.” https://www.gfoa.org/materials/multi-year-capital-planning[/efn_note] And the reason it matters to you: No one (I mean, no one) has a clear picture of where BILLIONS of public works and transportation funds have gone over the years, and there is no publicly accessible funding plan for past, present or future investments. In short: without a plan, you can be the region with the largest public works program in the nation and you can still have broken, unpassable sidewalks and no viable, reliable, and safe options other than driving.

From our research, we have found that every year in the past few years, at least $700 – $800 million in your tax dollars is dedicated to public works and transportation projects – all without a guiding vision that a capital infrastructure plan would provide. We don’t have this essential guiding document and funding plan, and as a result, we’re not serving the needs of the most vulnerable because we have no means to track where money is being spent.

The truth is: creating such a plan isn’t that difficult. In fact, there is a pending motion from Council President Nury Martinez that can begin to address this.  Council File 21-0039  states:

“Public infrastructure is one of  the most fundamental services the city provides… However, the way these funds are apportioned and implemented is often convoluted and divided between multiple agencies and city departments.”

“The City must take a more unified and holistic approach to planning for infrastructure improvements to ensure equity for all neighborhoods. This includes assessing deficits in the neighborhoods and creating a plan and prioritization list for addressing them. This type of assessment will ensure that the City can better coordinate between city departments with purview over public infrastructure.”

This is an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to operationalize equity in its Public Works and Transportation departments. The City Council has publicly acknowledged it, and this is where the process gets mired in bureaucracy and in some ways, a power struggle. 

The Council President’s motion instructs the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to prepare a plan to reform the City’s Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. This was requested in January 2021 — in September 2021, City Staff still has not provided this requested plan.

So, what can we do?

Here are our recommendations for the the top 3 things we need the City of Los Angeles needs to do in the next year to move this important and overdue effort forward:  

  1. Have the City Council and Mayor set a clear unified vision for the future of infrastructure functionality in the City. This is the required first step in creating a Strategic infrastructure plan. The role of the Mayor and City Council is to set vision and governance, and the role of bureaus and departments is to implement it. This requires
    • A single unified vision for Public Works and Transportation from policymakers. For example, the City’s Board of Public Works, manages the Bureau of Public Works, and yet their vision for the next 10 years must include that of other departments that touch the public right of way like the Department of Transportation and LAPD.  This should be grounded in not what the Bureaus and Departments do now, but what they could be doing.
      • Input from stakeholders, especially Neighborhood Councils, that informs the process at the Board of Public Works and City Council.
      • Action by the City Council to vote on a vision document before a plan is developed by the departments.
  2. Be transparent about how much money is annually available to the city for infrastructure work and how it has been and will be spent through the City’s months-long budgeting process. This is accomplished by the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) providing:
    • The key Bureaus and Departments[efn_note] So far, we have identified:
      1. Bureau of Engineering
      2. Bureau of Street Lighting
      3. Bureau of Street Services/Streets LA
      4. Bureau of Sanitation
      5. Department of Transportation
      6. And additional programs as identified 

      And while LADWP does public infrastructure work in the public ROW, their work is constrained by a different governance slightly outside of the City services process.[/efn_note] working on public infrastructure and the public right of way. 

    • The total figure these departments were allocated in City-controlled funds since FY17 to today.  
    • A breakdown of these figures in operating versus capital dollars.
    • The total funding for each of the following programs since FY17, including funding streams (including grants such as ATP and HSIP) and funding allocations for each department related to it:  
      • Safe Routes to School 
      • Vision Zero
      • Sidewalk Repair Program
      • Urban Forestry (Tree trimming, tree planting, etc.)
      • Complete Streets (work program led by BOE)
      • Street Furniture and Bus stop improvements and access
      • Street Lighting 
      • Metro Bus speed improvements and Dash service 
    • A list or description of any as-yet unfunded strategies and/or programs that would improve coordination between departments and/or public safety, equity, public health, or transportation outcomes in the public right of way.
  3. Direct the Chief Administrative Office (CAO) to address the status of the motion reopened June 2021 (Council File 18-0458) by Councilmembers Bonin, Blumenfield, and Buscaino. This original 2018 motion asked: 

“We further move that the City Administrative Officer and the Chief Legislative Analyst, be directed to report with recommendations on existing street-related functions and divisions of other departments and bureaus that could be transferred to a merged streets & transportation department, to enhance efficiency and better deliver city services to the residents of Los Angeles.”

This motion is directly tied to the issues raised in Council President Martinez’s motion:  

“The way [public works] funds are apportioned and implemented is often convoluted and divided between multiple agencies and city departments.The City’s infrastructure investment is done on an ad-hoc basis and often the critical infrastructure needs in low income communities are ignored.”

With the national attention on infrastructure funding, the moment requires that the second largest city in the Nation create a transparent and accessible Capital Infrastructure Plan.  This can only be realized with an accurate accounting of historic public works and transportation investments. We cannot continue to rely on funding windfalls or lawsuits that fall short in order to provide the basic city services that define our city.

Continue to watch this space for further analysis of this fundamental municipal issue.

 

Footnotes:

 

hello@investinginplace.org

Instagram Youtube Linkedin

Stay up to date on our work!

Sign up for our newsletter

Site Credits

© Investing in Place. All Rights Reserved.

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.