DONATE

Author: Investing in Place

Categories
Improving Bus Service Just Growth Measure M transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Measure Thrice, Cut Once: The Moral Imperative of Getting Congestion Pricing Done Right in LA

When Measure M was on the ballot almost three years ago, voters were told that its passage would help ease congestion in traffic-choked Los Angeles. Since its passage we’ve seen the unprecedented rail construction across the region, but still the average LA driver spends 100 hours stuck in traffic every year. What are some other solutions?

Congestion pricing is one traffic management tool. It uses price to incentivize would-be drivers to travel differently at busy times of day by charging actual drivers a fee for using certain routes. Just as gasoline prices go up before long weekends to prevent a gasoline shortage, traffic congestion prices would fluctuate to address high-demand — in this case, vehicle demand for road space. Case studies show that in addition to alleviating traffic, congestion pricing reduces greenhouse gas emissions and traffic crashes — a trifecta of important benefits for LA County.

Last December, LA Metro’s chief executive officer, Phil Washington, and his staff  introduced the LA Metro Board to congestion pricing as a potential way to fill a $26 billion funding gap to complete a suite of 28 LA Metro projects that the LA Metro Board seeks to finish before the 2028 Olympics and Paralympic Games in LA. Last month, Mr. Washington and the LA Metro Board took a different approach and focused on the concept of charging drivers as one possible and very bold way to get rid of vehicle congestion in LA and possibly even fund free transit. Yet details on how that would happen are still being discussed.

 

Congestion pricing in LA today

Metro already operates high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or “ExpressLanes” on portions of the I-10 and I-110 freeways. Solo drivers can choose to pay a price to bypass drivers in the toll free/regular freeway lanes by instead driving in the designated ExpressLanes where operators guarantee a desired average travel speed set by LA Metro. Carpoolers that fulfill the minimum occupancy requirements (2 or more persons) may drive in HOT lanes toll free. Some of the most reliable public buses in LA also operate in the HOT lanes, such as the Silver Line which runs on-time around 90 percent of the time.

Metro offers low-income drivers a one-time subsidy when enrolling in the ExpressLane program, if applicants are able to prove their eligibility. Metro also seeks to mitigate the health burden imposed on low-income communities situated next to freeways by committing proceeds of toll revenue to city active transportation and transit projects serving communities within three miles of the toll lanes. This last point is an important component to a successful congestion pricing model: investing in accessible and reliable transportation choices for people to get around without driving their car.

 

Congestion pricing models

Below are three models of congestion pricing that Metro is currently studying for feasibility.

Cordon pricing — Drivers pay program operators a fee to drive into a designated area. Cordon pricing programs exist today in Singapore, London, and Stockholm. Cordon pricing models work when lots of drivers routinely enter a centralized (business) district with many transportation alternatives to driving. For instance, the Bay Area bridge tolls are a form of cordon pricing to enter San Francisco from other cities. Because jobs in LA are concentrated in numerous districts across the county, a cordon pricing model could be less appropriate in LA than other models. Downtown LA is the only jobs-rich area with many viable transit alternatives to driving. LA Metro estimates a cordon pricing program centered on downtown LA could generate up to $1.2 billion per year in revenue.

Source: Transport for London

 

Corridor pricing — Drivers pay program operators a fee to drive at a steady speed in any lane on a priced road corridor. LA ExpressLanes are a miniature version of a corridor pricing program. As with ExpressLanes, fees would be distance-based and time-based: digital signs present drivers with a cost to the next major exit when entering the facility (calculated behind the scenes by cost per mile) and electronically charge drivers once they pass sensors as they exit the facility. Because many road corridors become congested all over LA, a corridor pricing model, if implemented correctly, could present people in LA with impactful health and safety, among other, benefits. As the Metro research paper on this topic suggests, appropriate test corridors in LA could include portions of the I-101 freeway where it parallels the Metro Red Line and I-10 freeway where it parallels the Metro Expo Line. Agencies have not yet released revenue estimates for the corridor pricing model because too many variables remain undefined at this point in time.

Source: All Singapore Stuff

 

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) pricing — Drivers pay road operators a fee to drive in excess of drivers’ allotted share of vehicle miles traveled. Agencies in California, Oregon, and Iowa have tested this model of pricing. Oregon’s test calculated the number of miles driven in a “congestion zone.” Although technology exists to implement this kind of pricing model, the model has not yet been implemented because of political challenges (Metro research paper). Because this model charges motorists according to miles driven independent of geography this model holds the greatest potential for alleviating traffic over a larger area. However, this model must thoughtfully consider land use and housing patterns in the region, as Los Angeles is increasingly seeing its more affordable places to live moving further away from job-rich areas. Revenue estimates for a region bigger than but principally including LA County reach as high as $10.35 billion per year. For comparison, Metro estimates Measure M generates $860 million in revenue per year.

 

What could congestion pricing accomplish?

Less traffic — Principally, the goal of congestion pricing is to alleviate chronic traffic on priced roads. As Metro’s congestion pricing primer paper states, traffic reduced by 20 percent in Singapore and 30 percent in London. In Stockholm, traffic reduced to 22 percent (down from 30-50 percent). As shown in LA Metro’s latest ExpressLanes performance report, drivers in LA’s ExpressLanes and bus riders who rode on the Metro’s Silver Line in the ExpressLanes traveled at speeds above LA Metro’s desired monthly average speed of 45 miles per hour.

Reduce air pollution — In addition to breaking-up vehicle congestion, congestion pricing could eliminate “elastic” vehicle trips that could be replaced by some other mode of travel. This lowers the total number of vehicle miles traveled, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions overall — a win for our planet and California’s legislative goals, to say the least. Over time, overwhelming driving (and parking) costs could incentivize widespread healthy, sustainable, and affordable living that seldomly requires car travel and hardly justifies car ownership.

Diminish disparities — Congestion pricing quickly and annually raises such large amounts of money that the revenue collected could transform how public agencies, including LA Metro, invest in transportation. When public agencies spend toll revenue in smart and equitable ways — by first spending on ways that improve transportation options in historically disinvested communities, people in the LA region as a whole enjoy more and higher-quality access to jobs, services, and life-enhancing opportunities. Public revenue raised by congestion pricing could be used to counteract decades of institutional neglect of vulnerable communities. At LA Metro, congestion pricing revenue could be used to do more than ask current staff to develop equity-informed recommendations to Metro Board. With Metro’s allocation of revenue raised by congestion pricing, Metro could hire equity-focused staff to teach and enforce equitable decision-making agency wide.

 

Criticisms

But to keep LA moving, we need viable and reliable alternatives to driving

True — successful implementation of any congestion pricing program requires prior and/or simultaneous implementation of viable transportation alternatives to driving alone. Congestion pricing models complement LA’s ongoing sales tax-funded initiatives. Congestion pricing models influence travelers demand for driving and its alternatives, including public transit. Meanwhile, LA’s sales tax-funded initiatives increase the supply of public transit service. Since over seven in ten people in Southern California “ride transit rarely or never, if one out of every four of those people replaced a single driving trip with a transit trip once every two weeks, annual ridership would grow by 96 million — more than compensating for the losses of recent years” (Manville, Taylor, and Blumenberg, 2018).

 

But would pricing roads divert traffic to other streets

Congestion pricing would serve as the incentive (on priced roads), while travel time on unpriced streets would simultaneously serve as the incentive (on unpriced roads) for drivers to travel differently. Drivers who might avoid priced roads by diverting onto unpriced roads might face long drive times that would themselves serve as an incentive to consider traveling differently.

 

But congestion pricing adds to the financial burden on low-income drivers

True — congestion pricing would add to drivers’ financial burden only if congestion pricing operators do not implement countermeasures to subsidize low-income drivers’ access to priced roads. Congestion pricing subsidies would extend (to low-income people who drive) a moral minimum mobility benefit that American society currently denies low-income people by not subsidizing their gasoline taxes or any of the (at least 9) other regressive ways we pay for transportation. Utility companies such as LADWP make sure people can access utilities regardless of income with lifeline services that subsidize low-income households’ access to water and electrical power, for example. Research shows that automobile access is as essential as utilities are to sustaining a lifestyle that can overcome economic disparities. The vast majority of drivers who need to drive and have means to pay congestion prices can instead help to achieve equitable outcomes with congestion pricing.

 

Congestion pricing, again, is only one tool in the traffic management toolkit. Using money as an incentive to change behavior requires thought and intention. Charging a toll to drive poses a choice on the traveler per trip. But behavior can only change without penalty if viable alternatives exist. Congestion pricing is effective when travelers can access and afford (in both time and money) to take transit, ride a bike or scooter, carpool, walk, or something else. We support thoughtful and intentional traffic management tools that do not impose additional burdens onto people who already have the fewest transportation choices.

 

Next steps

Get involved — LA Metro Board members will deliberate whether to commission a 2-year study on implementing a congestion pricing pilot someplace in LA County at the following 3 board meetings. These public hearings will take place in the Metro Board Room at One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012, 3rd Floor at the following times.

Categories
Uncategorized

Large and small agree: we need an equity definition–and local capacity

It is no secret that advocates across Los Angeles, both inside and outside of public agencies have been pushing for a regional definition of equity for a while now. But in 2019, a little over two years after Measure M was voted to be Los Angeles County’s fourth transportation sales tax and when a combination of Measure M and SB 1’s gas tax revenue will pour just under $2 billion every year into the Los Angeles region, we are due for equity implementation.

 

Why think regionally?

A regional definition of equity would do so many things. It would clear up the regularly-confused differences between “equity” and “equality.” It would highlight communities that have been historically underinvested in, resulting in socioeconomic barriers to resources and opportunities. And it would be a first step to a future Los Angeles where people from all backgrounds can afford to live, get to work and school, and enjoy a healthy quality of life.

 

But what we repeatedly heard at our 5th Policymakers Breakfast this week is that a regional definition of equity would also uplift the smaller, underresourced cities of Los Angeles County to better meet the needs of their constituents.

 

The “other 88”

Councilmembers representing cities across Greater Los Angeles, including Huntington Park, West Hollywood, South Gate, El Monte, and Culver City told us: their cities need support. With part-time, unpaid elected officials and minimal agency staff, these jurisdictions face huge hurdles with grant opportunities, project delivery, and community engagement. A regional definition and implementation of equity metrics to countywide investments and policies, would recognize the needs of these communities are just as important as the needs of larger jurisdictions.

 

Uplifting high-need communities across the Los Angeles region requires uplifting local cities. After all, many everyday issues that impact those with the fewest mobility options are all implemented at the local level: traffic safety, crosswalks and sidewalks, bus shelters and tree canopy, bike and bus lanes, and affordable housing policies. And community engagement is directly impactful at the local level.

 

Not only does the Equity Platform lay out the need for a regional definition of equity, but also includes: Build local government capacity serving historically underserved communities. That is exactly what we heard small cities asking for.

 

Otherwise, as Seleta Reynolds (General Manager of the Department of Transportation in the largest City in Los Angeles County) shared, “the gaps between large cities and small cities will continue to grow.”

 

Month 12

Last February, dozens of supporters and advocates of equity praised Metro for approving the agency’s first-ever Equity Platform. But where are we now, one year later?

There are several policies and initiatives across the County that we are tracking that would all be set on the right course by a regional definition of equity. Among them are :

We look forward to working further with all of our partners from across Greater Los Angeles on achieving a #JustGrowth region, where low economic disparities and high racial inclusion make an economically stronger and healthier region as a whole.

Categories
Completing Streets Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

Bus Shelters

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

Here is a quick breakdown:

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

Next Steps:

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

#LASidewalks + Urban Tree Canopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investing in Place has written extensively on this issue:

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

Next Steps:

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

Categories
Completing Streets Measure M Transportation Finance Uncategorized

What’s happening with funding for sidewalks, crosswalks, vision zero and more from Measure M?

Background: A key task of Metro’s Policy Advisory Council (PAC), established in early 2017, was to review, comment and provide input on the Draft Measure M Master Guidelines. And from the June 2017 adopted Measure M Guidelines came a commitment to develop the implementation procedures for ten key Measure M funding pots – eight of which the PAC was to review, comment and provide input (see Measure M Guidelines Administrative Procedures Commitments chart here). The remaining Measure M administrative procedures still to be developed with the PAC are:
– Transit Multi‐Year Subregional Programs
– Subregional Equity Program
– Metro 2% Active Transportation
– 2% System Connectivity Projects (Highway Construction Subfund)
– 2% System Connectivity Projects (Transit Construction Subfund)
– Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Expansion
This blog post is focused on Metro 2% Active Transportation – estimated to invest over $85 million dollars in the next five years in walking, rolling and bicycling investments. And it is important to note that a large majority of Measure M funding for Active Transportation is administered by the COGs in the Multiyear Subregional Programs.
—————————————————————————————————————————–

Developing the first regional fund for active transportation is no easy feat. Per Metro data, 87 percent of Metro Bus and 64 percent of Metro Rail customers arrive at their station or stop by walking, biking, or rolling. And so the Metro 2% Active Transportation Program (ATP) fund that could potentially be used for sidewalks, crosswalks, and Vision Zero is especially important. A strategic vision is essential to address these needs and leverage this new and critical regional funding (luckily Metro the Active Transportation Strategic Plan adopted in 2016!).

Metro’s last Policy Advisory Council (PAC) active transportation working group left many questions regarding how Metro currently funds our active transportation investments. It is important to note that before Measure M, less than 1% of all funding through Metro went to sidewalks, crosswalks, safe routes to school, bicycle lanes and other active transportation programs. Measure M funds are available to grow this long-needed investment across the region, ensuring our transportation system is accessible, safe, and dignified when people catch the bus and/or train. We want to know how the PAC can support a deliberate and equitable investment strategy.

Metro staff has now conducted two 2% ATP PAC work groups (April and July), presented multiple updates to the full PAC (March, May, and June), and shared how Measure M ATP 2% has been budgeted to date. It is Metro’s fiduciary responsibility to move investments forward, but we want to see these budgetary decisions clearly aligned with existing Metro policies (such as the Active Transportation Strategic Plan). We believe this will contribute to a more deliberate and meaningful investment strategy that will yield better transportation options for all.

In an effort to increase transparency and allow stakeholders to weigh in, CEO authorization of 2% ATP has been extended from its original timeline of June 2018 to later this Fall. This gives Metro and engaged stakeholders more time to address outstanding questions from PAC work group and full meetings:

Remaining PAC Working Group Key Questions

  • What qualifies as a “regional priority?”
  • How is funding being prioritized? How does Metro’s Equity Framework inform this program funding prioritization?
  • What are the opportunities for Board staff/non-PAC members to weigh in on the ATP 2% guidelines?
  • Metro Bike Share
    • What is the total cost of Metro Bike Share Program?
    • How has Metro Bike Share been funded in the past?
    • If funding from Metro Bike Share is removed from Measure M ATP funding (OMB has $23 million going towards it in the next 5 years in their cash flow recommendations) what other funding can be leveraged to keep Metro’s Bike Share Program fully funded?
  • Metro Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
    • What specific programs does this program include?
    • How was it being paid for before?

Per Metro staff, they are still working on the following:

  • How do allocations to projects/programs within the subfund get made (decision making process and transparency)?
  • What are the specific eligibility requirements (especially related to capital/operations/programming)?

Metro staff set a goal to schedule an August 2% ATP PAC work group meeting to draft Measure M ATP 2% guidelines, which will then be presented at the September 11th Metro full PAC meeting. The Metro PAC will then have 30 days to review, comment and provide input.

In the meantime, we’d like to be proactive and have conversations with partners about what equitable and feasible guidelines they want to see for this fund. We invite interested folks to join our #JustGrowth conference call on August 28 at 11:30a to share their thoughts on how to best invest Measure M funding for first/last mile improvements, sidewalks, crosswalks, Vision Zero, and even Metro bus service, including dedicated bus lanes. To join the call or to learn more about getting involved, email me: amanda@investinginplace.org

Categories
transportation equity Transportation Finance

Investing in Bus Frequency

Our key message here: In order for the LA Region to re-dedicate itself to fundamentals like bus speed and, most importantly, reducing how long you wait for a bus to arrive, will require increasing investments in bus operations.

By now, everyone admits that Metro has a problem. People aren’t riding buses like they used to. Metro’s bus network drew an average of 887,000 daily boardings during the agency’s 2018 budget year, 22% fewer than it did in 2014.

Losses of such magnitude have cast doubt on the possibility of a transit revolution taking root in Los Angeles, even as nearly all of our region’s goals – from the city’s Mobility Plan 2035 to the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets to CEO Phil Washington’s own stated ambition to get a quarter of county residents onto transit – depend on the occurrence of such an epochal shift.

For a while, Metro leaders were able to point to the rail network, where ridership grew as new light rail lines opened to Azusa and Santa Monica. But the rail lines have also faltered this year, sliding 2% from 2017. And, in truth, we should’ve expected that to happen.

The bus and rail networks cannot meaningfully be separated. They make up one interdependent system, and that system won’t be a success until bus service can once again earn riders’ time, money, and loyalty.

So… where to begin? Metro recently released its Vision 2028 Plan to lay out a widescreen view of what the Los Angeles of the near future could look like. In the next year, the agency will also wrap up its NextGen Bus Study, which will suggest comprehensive changes designed to maximize network efficiency.

But, so far, despite some encouraging signs (for instance, a focus on enforcing transit-only lanes), most of the evidence suggests that Metro is seeking to rebrand its core transit service, when what it really needs is to re-dedicate itself to fundamentals like bus speed and, most importantly, frequency.

Angelenos have signaled their belief in the importance of a robust transportation network by voting for multiple sales taxes to support Metro, but, to compete with the status quo, transit has to be able to offer something more than long waits at unsheltered bus stops for trips that take more than twice as long as a single occupancy vehicle.

While Vision 2028 aims to increase the average bus speed by 30% (an unattainable goal without a commitment to bus-only lanes), frequency of service is barely mentioned.

What’s more, Metro has not made more than minor adjustments to bus service and has expressed an intention to hold service hours mostly flat for years. On the surface, this is not a recipe for getting Angelenos to embrace transit, but, in fact, it’s even worse than it seems. As congestion has increased in the years since the recession, buses have slowed down, turning every year without an increase in service hours into a de facto service cut.

But frequency can’t be ignored. It is among the most important factors that potential riders consider when choosing whether or not to take transit. Jarrett Walker, who worked with Metro on a previous high frequency bus network, has proposed bus frequencies of 10-15 minutes as necessary for quality service. In Vision 2028, Metro aims for the bottom end of this range, but, elsewhere, other transit experts like Alon Levy have suggested that even 10-minute service might not be sufficiently frequent on the network’s core lines.

It is understandable that Metro wants to get more for its operations money, and that it is frustrated with cities have fought against new bus-only lanes, but they have to find a way to make higher frequency service work. If Los Angeles is ever to have the transit network its residents want, Metro needs to learn that frequency is not a dirty word.

Categories
Improving Bus Service Measure M transportation equity Uncategorized

Since 2013, Metro’s average bus speed has declined by 15%. It is time for the LA Region to get serious about bus lanes.

Metro is underway in their NextGen Bus Study to propose a redesign of the entire Los Angeles County Bus Network. NextGen marks the first time in 25 years that Metro will comprehensively re-examine the service it provides, even down to fundamentally rethinking what public transportation can and should be in the 21st century. It is expected the findings from this study will lead to launching a new bus network in the Fall of 2019.

While technology does provide opportunities for the transit sector to better tailor the experience of riding public transportation to the changing expectations of an increasingly-connected world, one thing that hasn’t changed in 2018 is that the quality of bus service will determine how people feel about going Metro.

Over the past 5 years, that quality has been trending downward. Since 2013, Metro’s average bus speed has declined by 15%. Meanwhile, today, rapid buses, originally envisioned as a stepping stone to Bus Rapid Transit, are on time just 66% of the time. As might be expected, average daily boardings have also fallen over the same period, as passengers seek faster and more reliable rides. The bus network carries 20% fewer riders today than it did in 2014.

Achieving NextGen’s goal of reinvigorating Metro’s ridership will require going beyond cosmetic measures like redesigning individual bus lines and marginal adjustments to frequencies. Metro needs to show riders that buses can be trusted to get them where they’re going in a reasonable amount of time. Given where the starting point is – a Metro presentation this month announced that nearly 80% of bus trips originating in the downtown area took at least twice as long as the same trip by car – any substantial solution must find a way to incorporate bus-only lanes on a greater number of LA’s streets.

Bus-only lanes are not a new concept in LA. The original El Monte Busway along the 10 freeway opened in the 1970s. But since then finding the political will to build and maintain high-quality bus lanes has been a halting process. Metro doesn’t have authority over what happens on city streets. The layout of the county, with its many interwoven municipalities, makes coordinating bus lanes along lengthy corridors a daunting challenge.

Take the example of Wilshire, for example. LA’s iconic thoroughfare from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica hosts the region’s busiest bus lines, and, on part of its length, it also has bus-only lanes. But the effectiveness of those lanes has been hindered by the refusal of specific cities and neighborhoods to allow transit-only lanes in their communities.

The lanes stop abruptly in Beverly Hills, Westwood, and Santa Monica, leaving buses stuck in some of the county’s worst traffic, and potentially wiping out the increased speed that they could be achieving by traveling in dedicated lanes. As one of the county’s largest distributors of tax revenue, Metro needs to be willing to use the substantial leverage it has at its disposal to encourage cities to accept bus-only lanes.

Design also plays a major role in the success of a bus-only lane. Using Wilshire again as an example, buses occupy the rightmost traffic lane, leading to frequent conflicts with backed up lines of cars turning right. In general, bus-only lanes should seek to separate buses from the movements of single occupancy vehicles as much as possible. On mixed traffic roads, that means giving buses the center lanes, allowing them to avoid delays. Having center-running bus lanes requires a greater commitment from Metro and the cities, as it necessitates providing some space for passengers to get on and off the bus safely on a platform in the center of the street. But this type of investment is what should be considered normal on LA’s most heavily traveled transit corridors – which are also the ones that experience the most significant traffic delay.

Design and corridor choice are only part of the battle for high-quality bus-only lanes. The continued effectiveness of these lanes relies on active management by Metro, largely boiling down to the enforcement that accompanies them. People driving single occupancy vehicles, as CEO Phil Washington noted on his way to a recent Dodgers game, can often be found in bus-only lanes, leading to traffic jams that negate the investment and scare riders away.

Transit-only lanes need to be clearly marked, and an expectation should be set that only authorized vehicles will be allowed to use the lanes. This type of enforcement, which focuses on improving the speed of a bus ride rather than on monitoring riders, should be a greater point of emphasis in Metro’s bus system.

Expanding bus lanes has never been an easy proposition. But the breadth of the responsibility that Los Angeles voters have placed in Metro’s hands, a sweeping mandate to expand transit use, reduce traffic, and improve the sustainability of our region, demands difficult action be taken. It is time for the LA Region to get serious about bus lanes.

Categories
Completing Streets

City of Los Angeles Proposal to merge Bureau of Street Services and Department of Transportation

Yesterday at the LA City Council meeting a motion was introduced to create a phased action plan to implement a merger of the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) with the Department of Transportation (DOT). The motion represents a step forward to begin efforts to better coordinate and improve how the City of LA manages its public right of way.

We couldn’t agree more. For more background on this issue see our blog post from last December: How can we Fix our Public Right-of-Way, the Right Way?

Next steps will be for this proposal to be assigned to committee and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CAO) office to develop a plan and present for discussion. Interested in this discussion and want to track it?  We will be posting about it but we encourage you to sign up for updates to Council File 18-0458 (click on the little envelope at the top to sign up).

Categories
COG Measure M Transportation Finance

The Road to Rolling and Walking in LA: A 2% Active Transportation Primer

You know what music is to the ears of active transportation advocates? Active transportation funding. Without dedicated funding, how can we build healthy communities where all people have safe and convenient transportation choices?

 

When Measure M was passed by voters in 2016, ensuring a $122 billion funding source for transportation investments across Greater Los Angeles, it marked the first countywide transportation sales-tax that specifically dedicated funding for active transportation!

 

But in a $122 billion expenditure plan that includes transit and highway construction, goods movement, transit operations, state of good repair (maintenance), and local return, where do we find the funds set aside for walking and rolling?

 

Show me the money

One of the Measure M programs that specifically funds active transportation is the 2% Active Transportation program (or 2% ATP). (Not to be confused with the State’s ATP fund!)

Image courtesy of: Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition

 

2% ATP is estimated to generate approximately $17 million per year from Measure M. Program details are currently being developed by Metro, but objectives and eligible uses have been established.

 

Objectives:

  • Expand multi-modal connectivity
  • Improve the regional active transportation network

 

Eligible uses:

  • Active transportation and other capital that achieve 2% ATP objectives
  • First/last mile components of major capital projects listed in the 2016 Measure M Expenditure Plan

Two existing policies that will guide the development of 2% ATP are the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan (ATSP) and Vision Zero. These are critical frameworks that will shape the program’s planning and emphasis on safety.

  • Planning: Countywide funding needs for active transportation are huge. When Metro adopted the ATSP in 2016, staff estimated the cost of funding Countywide annual active transportation needs at low end of $737M and high end of $1.7B.
  • Safety: The adopted Measure M Guidelines  direct projects funded through Measure M to “support the protection of pedestrian and bicycle safety in parallel with Vision Zero or equivalent policies.” While the greater region currently lacks a countywide Vision Zero policy, it is crucial that traffic safety is a priority for active transportation investments.

 

The 2% ATP program will also coordinate with a number of related Metro plans and policies, covering Complete Streets, First/Last Mile, Sustainability, and Bike Share (22.1).

 

It is important to note that 2% ATP is not intended to be a standalone funding source for countywide active transportation needs and programs. Metro envisions this pot of Measure M funds as matching grant program for external funding opportunities (such as statewide ATP), and a competitive fund for regional active transportation projects.

 

Wait, can you show me more money?

Let’s recap:

  • 2% ATP is estimated to generate approximately $17 million annually for the entire region
  • Metro’s own ATSP estimate of regional active transportation needs total $737 million annually (on the low end) and up to $1.7 billion
  • 2% ATP is not intended to be a standalone funding source for active transportation projects

 

While 2% ATP is a step forward in identifying the health and safety needs for Greater Los Angeles that can be addressed through active transportation improvements, it clearly is not enough money to meet the identified countywide need. Fortunately, it is not the only source of active transportation funding in Measure M.

 

 

We have written about the $10 billion Multi-year Subregional Programs (MSP) in Measure M. Part of why we care so much is that is comprises the largest amount of dedicated funding for first/last mile, sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and safe routes to school in Measure M. For further explanation of the difference between 2% ATP and MSP, check out our March 6 #JustGrowth webinar (slides).

 

Since 2% ATP is eligible for matching funds, it will be critical to strategically leverage these limited dollars with other funding opportunities to most efficiently improve the health and safety of our entire region.

 

What’s next?

Metro staff is currently finalizing draft guidelines for 2% ATP. On April 5, Metro will be hosting a 2% ATP working group open to members of the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC) to further refine these guidelines. See the 2% ATP guidelines process below.

On April 4, Investing in Place will be hosting an open planning call with our #JustGrowth participants, and other interested parties, to weigh in on the development of 2% ATP guidelines, prior to the April 5 PAC working group. We are particularly excited to further develop the prioritization criteria for any 2% ATP competitive funds. 

For those interested in getting more involved in the MSP process, this is managed by the County’s nine subregions or COGs. 

Categories
Improving Bus Service Social Equity transportation equity

Moms and Mobility: Who is our transportation system designed for?

Close your eyes and picture the last minivan commercial you saw. You may remember seeing a cleancut, youngish, but not too hip woman, handling life with ease behind the wheel. And that’s because our societal culture (and mainstream marketing) assumes, encourages, and expects women to be the primary members of the household that are running errands (trunk space!), managing kids’ travel needs (safety!), and making more trips because of it (mileage!).

And more often than not, this is true.

Of the few data points available for how women in the U.S. and Los Angeles travel, we know this: Women travel in similar modes than men, but travel shorter distances and make more trips. Women, particularly low-wage and shift workers, are also more likely to travel during off-peak hours (outside of the morning and evening “rush hour” periods). And minivan commercials aside, women are also more likely to use public transportation.

So why isn’t our transportation system better designed for half the population, who are making more trips?

 

Transportation is a Women’s Issue

Three panelists discussed these very issues at a March 7 panel, “Transportation is a Women’s Issue,” hosted by UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) General Manager Seleta Reynolds, Metro Deputy Executive Officer Stephanie Wiggins, and UCLA Luskin urban planning professor Dr. Evelyn Blumenberg are all transportation leaders in their fields of public agencies and academia.

 

Just having an all-female panel on transportation planning is exciting. Transportation planning and engineering is a traditionally male-dominated field and, like most fields, implementation tends to reflect the perspectives of those in the position of making decisions. Even within transportation advocacy, particularly bicycle advocacy, the dominant perspectives have traditionally been from white men.

 

“Planning has always been gender-neutral, but what isn’t measured gets lost.” – Stephanie Wiggins

 

Panelists discussed three primary challenges to shifting this application: lack of comprehensive data (and lack of using available data) that reflects travel patterns outside of the 9a-5p two-way weekday commute; industry-wide funding and performance measures focused on the travel “peak” (morning and evening weekday rush hours); and, especially in Los Angeles, the types of trips that women tend to take are still best served by car.

 

“If what you are solving for is the peak, the peak, the peak, then you’re never going to have a system that has reliable, frequent, comfortable service at the times of day when women need it the most.” – Seleta Reynolds

 

We also see anecdotally and in limited data available, that parenthood impacts women’s professional and travel patterns more significantly than men. While we increasingly see women in the workforce, we still see traditional gender splits in different-sex parental households. Women tend to remain the primary caregivers, both inside the home and for outside travel such as school/child care, appointments, activities, and household errands.

 

“The share of women in the labor market has dramatically increased, but women are also still responsible for much of the unpaid labor associated with household tasks – and it’s difficult to accomplish both with transit” – Dr. Evelyn Blumenberg

 

Panelists also discussed the need to address safety, both actual and perceived, when designing transportation systems that serve women. Sexual harassment, system and physical design, and off-peak transit service were discussed as important lenses through which to update how we look at our transportation systems.  

To view video of the whole panel, please click here.

 

A Better System for All

So where does this leave our minivan-driving moms? And more importantly, what about our many moms who are getting to work, school, doctors, and soccer games without a car?

We can start with our goals.

If we continue to prioritize our transportation system improvements based on commute patterns, we are missing the needs of a majority of our system users. Dr. Blumenberg reported that only 16 percent of total trips are work commutes. Let’s think about shifting our transportation goals from solely reducing peak hour congestion to equitable outcomes for all system users. Not only will this serve our drivers, riders, rollers, and walkers who need it most, but will also create a more effective and efficient system that can potentially improve regional economies and public health by easing the burdens of travel that are disproportionately shouldered by women.

 

Then let’s get the data that informs these goals. What are the travel patterns we see in women and female parents? What are the needs? Who is asking women what they (really) want? During the UCLA panel, Stephanie Wiggins talked about Metro’s upcoming NextGen redesign of the Countywide bus network–and how the team was originally all male. She changed that.

 

It is important to support women leaders in transportation planning, just as it is important to listen to women consumers of our transportation systems. There exists both quantitative and qualitative evidence for a new way of planning and investing in our transportation systems. Investing in Place continues to work with our grassroots partners to amplify these qualitative perspectives through storytelling videos. We look forward to sharing these stories in the coming months.

Categories
Uncategorized

Even Casino Heists Need a Plan

Last month, Investing in Place analyzed the Tier 1 recommendations from the City of Los Angeles FUSE report. This post analyzes the report’s remaining Tier 2 and 3 recommendations. And contains movie spoilers.

************

When Danny Ocean decided it was a great idea to simultaneously rob three Las Vegas casinos in the film Ocean’s Eleven, he had a vision. He knew what he wanted to do, but more importantly he knew how to make that vision a reality. His first step? Find an implementer. His friend Rusty Ryan was the guy who got things done and who helped form the rest of the team of eleven “contractors” that would eventually pull off a triple heist totaling $150 million cash. (Sorry but you have had many years to watch multiple versions of this movie.)

Let’s take the Ocean’s Eleven method and apply it to the Tier 2 and 3 recommendations from the FUSE report released last fall by the City of Los Angeles City Administrative Officer (CAO). (These recommendations are listed at the end of this post.)

The recommendations are all visions of a better coordinated City where agencies seamlessly work together and residents have no complaints about city services. Many of the recommendations are common sense, such as enhancing customer service options on LA311 or encouraging knowledge transfer between veteran staff and new hires. They are much more logical than robbing several vaulted and secure casinos. So why haven’t they happened?

 

Not our First Rodeo
While heavily-researched, the FUSE report recommendations are not the first time strong ideas have surfaced for how to improve the City’s infrastructure operations.

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 CAO committed to an interdepartmental working group to develop this plan.

Also starting in 2013, Councilmembers Joe Buscaino and Mitch Englander 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, but brought renewed awareness to the dire conditions of so many Los Angeles streets.

The puzzle remains in Los Angeles: it is not the “what” but the “how” to make this City better. As we discussed in our Tier 1 recommendations analysis, we can all agree on the problems. The City struggles with interdepartmental coordination while information and decision-making remains very decentralized. This leads to a City with considerable need to improve the public right-of-way (leads nation in traffic deaths, 4,600 miles of inaccessible sidewalks, 8,200 miles of roadway in disrepair, etc.) with little proof it is ready to implement projects and services to address this need.

 

So…What’s the Plan?
Los Angeles has the vision: a safe and thriving City where the public right-of-way serves people of all ages, abilities, and modes of travel. We have the team: talented infrastructure agency leadership and a seasoned workforce of project managers and engineers. Where do we go from here?

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.

Currently, infrastructure management and repairs are handled totally separately from transportation and mobility planning. A CIP for streets and sidewalks would be able to coordinate resources from multiple departments, avoid project sticker shocks, and increase transparency for residents to understand what improvements they might expect in their neighborhoods.

But we all know this. How do we get there?

We don’t have the final answers on that. But we are ready to get to work on a solution. And we see many partners who want to dig into this issue: community leaders, policymakers, and public agency staff. The City of Los Angeles has great ideas already, we just need to come together with a plan to rob the casino implement them and build the better City we all envision.

 

LA City Council Public Works & Gang Reduction Committee will be discussing the Tier 2 and 3 recommendations today (agenda item #2): Wednesday February 7 at 1p in the Board of Public Works Room 350 at City Hall. Listen online to the meeting audio here.

For a full list of Tier 2 and 3 recommendations, please see below or view pages 128-129 of the FUSE report.

************

Tier 2 Recommendations: Improvements to Infrastructure Support Systems
– Rec 2.1: Strengthen oversight over underground activities, optimize time-related street activities, strengthen City paving plans, preserve City street investments, and provide transparency to City partners, utility providers and the public by converting utility coordination from a manual process to an electronic system
– Rec 2.2: 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
– Rec 2.3: Resolve consistent customer issues with closed status messaging, streamline intake process and ease of use, and provide better transparency tools by making enhancements to the LA311 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system
– Rec 2.4: Presen/e taxpayer investments in the City’s street network by updating policies affecting street protections that could include establishment of a moratorium for newly reconstructed streets and a new Concrete Street Damage Restoration Fee
– Rec 2.5: Establish guidelines for large, critical infrastructure investments by reinstituting a citywide Capital Improvement Plan
– Rec 2.6: Bolster proper oversight and direct better allocation of resources to prevent multiple agencies from maintaining the same asset or program by clarifying Bureau and department roles in overlapping programs
Tier 3 Recommendations: Improvements to Specific Infrastructure Programs
– Rec 3.1: Strengthen the city’s overall street network by updating the methodology for resurfacing and slurry seal programs to employ factors beyond the PCI score to prioritize paving and maintenance projects
– Rec 3.2: Support succession planning, skills development, effective program management and best in class customer service by encouraging knowledge transfer and cross-pollination of process expertise across Bureaus/departments and offering regular training regimens to employees and leaders
– Rec 3.3: Promote transparency with utility partners and the public by posting the entire projected annual resurfacing plan online with monthly updates of work completion in a user friendly format
– Rec 3.4: Support timely and quality project delivery within Department of Public Works by streamlining contract processing time and strengthening contract language to consistently include performance metrics
– Rec 3.5: : Improve quality trench work by supporting permittees in assessing the performance of their subcontractors, educating them on city standards, noncompliant work and timeliness of repairs as indicated on the permit
Source: “Evaluation of the State of Street Related Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles” written by FUSE fellow Laila Alequresh and released by the office of Los Angeles City Administrative Officer (CAO).
Categories
Completing Streets

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

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

 

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

Source: DIY Great Streets Manual, Mayor’s Office

 

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

 

We need to Stop Trippin’

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Why buy when we can (potentially) fix?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Uncategorized

Who fixes LA streets (and sidewalks)? A quick primer.

 

The following post is in response to a report issued by the CAO that will be presented to the Public Works and Gang Reduction City Council committee on 12/6/17 at 1pm. Find committee agenda (Item #2) and submit comment here.

 

My street needs fixing. Now what?

Have you ever wondered how to get your sidewalk repaired in the City of Los Angeles? Or how to get a new crosswalk painted? Or get a street tree planted? Many people may not know: each of these city services is currently available–but through three separate and autonomous city agencies*.

Our built environment has a direct impact on our public health, safety, and opportunity. We rely on public infrastructure to get to to daily destinations like work, school, places of worship, medical appointments, and home. We rely on public infrastructure to cook, manage waste, and illuminate spaces at night. The maintenance and service delivery of our public infrastructure shapes the quality-of-life of city residents.

Source: DIY Great Streets Manual, Mayor’s Office

 

So who do I call for street repairs and maintenance?

In an effort to demonstrate Los Angeles street jurisdiction, the above image illustrates the mosaic of Los Angeles City jurisdictions that currently oversee and maintain our public right-of-way (all of the public space from property lines on one side of the street to property lines on the other). As many as 11 separate City agencies are responsible for a certain component of our streetscape. It is understandably confusing. And it is no wonder most residents do not know where to start when they need to request basic city services, maintenance, or repairs.

The table below outlines the seven infrastructure agencies of the City of Los Angeles. Each agency has their own executive leadership and mission statement. It should be noted that the Department of Transportation and Department of Water & Power are each standalone city departments with an executive General Manager. The five bureaus below a) together comprise the Department of Public Works; b) are each led by a Director; and c) each report to a Mayor-appointed citizen commission known as the Board of Public Works.

 

Why are there so many agencies?

The City of Los Angeles is unique from other large U.S. cities. Our city and local government are very decentralized: Los Angeles spans over 450 square miles; we have a strong City Council system (compared to an institutionally weak executive office of the Mayor); and many of our city services departments work separately from each other.

Decentralization of power can promote communication and consensus, rather than focusing absolute power in the hands of one entity. However this process can also create inefficiencies and require excess process, particularly without shared priorities and missions. And when there is poor communication or limited consensus, it can be hard to get anything done. Or know who is responsible for getting the thing done at all.

 

What does this mean for Los Angeles residents and businesses?

Most people living in cities do not look at the street and identify which department or bureau is in charge of what utility or piece of infrastructure. Most people just want to live in safe, clean, and accessible neighborhoods with basic quality maintenance and city services. And we pay taxes to provide for these services with public dollars.

Los Angeles is the only large city in the country that currently lacks a citywide capital plan. This means that public infrastructure planning, design, and construction is handled separately by different agencies. And when communication and consensus breaks down, this means local government can struggle to provide basic services with an efficient and effective investment of public dollars. A prime example is when we might see utility crews digging up a street that was freshly resurfaced and restriped just a few weeks earlier.

One particular issue of decentralization is the separation of sidewalk repair and maintenance from management of the overall City transportation system. This means that City plans and policies that guide the movement of vehicles that use the roadway (cars, trucks, buses, bicycles) do not take into account the experiences of people walking or rolling.

Our sidewalks are the first part of the public right-of-way we experience when we leave our homes. They determine access to and from our residential and commercial properties, encourage or discourage walking as physical activity or necessary transportation and are one of the most basic city services a local government can provide. When they are in a state of disrepair, they become barriers to resources and opportunity, particularly for our neighbors with disabilities.

 

How can we improve on this?

The City’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has produced a report, “Evaluation of the State of Street Related Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles,” written by FUSE fellow Laila Alequresh. The report is a thorough and detailed document that explains the history of Los Angeles infrastructure agencies. Its most impactful recommendation is to move the Department of Transportation into the Department of Public Works as a Bureau, similar to the existing five bureaus described above. 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.

On paper, this move could make sense. It is logical that the various agencies that work on street and sidewalks should be housed in the same administrative body. This could lead to better project and delivery of services. However, this logic only applies if the inter-bureau coordination and communication of the Public Works Bureaus works well together towards shared missions. The CAO FUSE report does not affirm or deny that there is currently streamlined, successful coordination between Bureaus within the Department of Public Works.

The report also recommends creating an Office of Infrastructure Management within the Board of Public Works. The new office would provide support for transportation and street-related services and strategic delivery of capital projects. This office may be intended to serve the purpose of streamlining and improving inter-bureau coordination and delivery of projects. But an assessment of impact is still needed.

The report will be presented to the Public Works and Gang Reduction council committee this Wednesday December 6 at 1:00pm at City Hall. We will be tracking these recommendations and providing our analysis about how our decentralized city government can improve the public right-of-way and quality-of-life for all of our city residents.

 

*Sidewalk repair: Bureau of Engineering; crosswalk: Department of Transportation; street tree: Bureau of Street Services. The street image is from a manual created by the Mayor’s Office Great Streets Initiative and available for download at: lagreatstreets.org/diymanual

Categories
Convenings Uncategorized

Tripping Point: Valley Edition Recap

On Saturday, October 21st, Panorama High School was host to the second Tripping Point: the Valley Edition. With over 60 community members, five neighborhood councils, and our special year 0-5 crew joining, the day was filled with ways to gain skills in advocacy, local civic engagement, and how to access the basic city service of good, accessible sidewalks.

From childcare with First Steps Mobile and intrepretation with Antena, as well as a local street vendor for “frutas frescas” – the Tripping Point is committed to meeting community members where they are. The Valley is home to the Orange Line, one of the most effective bus rapid transit lines in the country. Because all bus riders are pedestrians, the Valley is also home to the most dangerous intersections in the state of California.

In the Valley, the need is great as well as the demand for accessible and safe sidewalks.

Sidewalks are multi-faceted and encompass more than safety and accessibility, but also urban greening and public health. Our steering committee included Koreatown Youth Community Center, Los Angeles Walks, LURN, Outfront/JCDecaux, AARP Los Angeles, American Heart Association, Empower LA, and the Southern California Resource Center for Independent Living.

Keynoting our day were Hector Ochoa, Los Angeles County Disability Commissioner, Luz Rivas, Board of Public Works Commissioner, Ted Bardacke, Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Director of Infrastructure, and Councilmember Nury Martinez, Los Angeles City – District 6.

Hector, a steering committee member, shared his personal experience in addressing the shortcoming of the city’s ability to respond to ADA access requests.

As the City of Los Angeles works to be compliant with the Willits settlement, the backlog of ADA access requests is only the “tripping point”. Ever month, there are over 100 requests sent to the Sidewalk Repair Program. The City has averaged fixing 70-80 sidewalks a year. If you were to send a request in today – it is likely that you will be waiting for two years minimum.

Luz Rivas, a Valley native, shared that the City is extremely committed to addressing the needs.

Ted Bardacke, Director of General Infrastructure, noted that sidewalks are key to connecting our communities with every day resources.

The Sidewalk Repair Program is an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to address its most basic quality-of-life infrastructure. Safe and comfortable sidewalks and crosswalks serve all travelers, improve local economy, and can create vibrant public gathering spaces.

Rather than treated as separate from streets and transit, planning and funding sidewalks should be considered part of a comprehensive transportation network . We look forward to a future where our city is connected by a robust sidewalk and crosswalk network with ample shade and amenities, access to transit with safe and dignified bus stops, patrons connected to commercial and cultural destinations, stormwater runoff treatments, and safe passage for travelers of all ages and abilities.

Community members were then able to choose from a variety of tools being offered:

Morning Session

  1. Sidewalks 101 – Investing in Place
  2. Trees in Your Neighborhood – Koreatown Youth Community Center
  3. Advocacy Made Easy: How to Get What You Want – Los Angeles Walks
  4. Neighborhood Councils 101 – Empower LA

Afternoon Session

  1. How to Communicate with Decisionmakers – LURN
  2. The City’s Plan to Make Sidewalks Safe and Accessible – Bureau of Engineering/Department of Disability
  3. People Street – Great Streets
  4. Hands-On Walk Audit Training – Los Angeles Walks

Consistently drawing larger crowds are Los Angeles Walks’ Advocacy Made Easy and LURN’s How to Communicate with Decisionmakers. Community members are the experts of their communities. They are seeking for the “how-to’s” to advocate for themselves and make their voices heard.

A longtime advocate people having a safe and walkable sidewalk is Councilmember Nury Martinez. On her turf, the Councilmember was fired up and proud to host the Tripping Point in her district. Stemming from her own experience watching her father take public transportation every day of his career, sidewalks are an extremely personal issue.

“It is my responsibility as your Councilmember – if Hollywood and Highland can get zero fatalities with a pedestrian scramble – what’s the difference between Hollywood and Panorama City?” Safety and pedestrian lives are a critical component to bringing transportation equity to the Valley.

Another factor the Valley is known for is its extreme heat during the summer. Molly Peterson, an environmental journalist, shared her urban heat mapping work with the community members just down the street in Pacoima. The group was able to contribute more data points and demonstrate which streets experience the most heat and are in need of bus shelters.

One of the key takeaways we had from our first Tripping Point in Boyle Heights was ensuring we had concrete next steps. Community members wanted their decisionmakers to know that they were ready to fight for their sidewalks. We were inspired to create postcards and send our concerns to our city representatives.

 

If you would like to join us in our campaign for #LAsidewalks, please join our work group ‘Completing Streets: Fixing City of LA Sidewalks’ or feel free to reach me at amanda@investinginplace.org.

 

Resources:

Program (English)

Programa (Spanish)

TP.Valley Powerpoint

Sidewalks FAQ

Categories
Completing Streets Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Uncategorized

It’s time to Stop Trippin’: Fixing the City of LA’s Sidewalks

Sidewalk Policy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

 

Why are close to half of the 11,000 miles of the City of Los Angeles in disrepair?

Some estimates put the amount of damaged sidewalks in the City of Los Angeles at 4,600 miles. Given that sidewalks are the most fundamental piece of our transportation system that impacts all travel modes, how did we get to this point?

 

In the 1970s, the City of Los Angeles took on financial responsibility for sidewalks damaged by trees. Previously, property owners were financially and legally responsible for adjacent sidewalks.

But within a few years the City ran out of dedicated funding to repair sidewalks and stopped making repairs and installing needed accessibility fixes.  It has been over 40 years since the City of Los Angeles has invested in a comprehensive program to fix and maintain its sidewalks, crosswalks, and bus stops. This is painfully evident with deteriorating conditions and lack of accessibility for all citywide.

 

Thanks to partners in the disability advocacy community in 2015 the City settled a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit, commonly known as the “Willits Settlement.” The settlement determined that the City’s crumbling sidewalk infrastructure was not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and prevented people with disabilities from travel and access in Los Angeles. This legal action led the City to develop a sidewalk policy. More info on the Willits Settlement below.

 

What is the new Sidewalk Policy?

In 2015 the City of Los Angeles finalized the Willits Settlement, a $1.4 billion class action lawsuit and largest disability lawsuit nationwide, over the City’s broken sidewalks preventing people with disabilities from traveling around. The settlement requires that the City invest $1.4 billion in sidewalk repair, which will be stretched over 30 years and starting at a minimum of $31 million annually, including:

 

  • Install install, repair, and upgrade curb ramps
  • Repair sidewalks and walkways damaged by tree roots
  • Repair broken or uneven pavement
  • Correct non-compliant cross-slopes in sidewalks

 

Upon fixing a sidewalk to meet ADA compliance, the City will then “release” liability of that portion of sidewalk to the adjacent property owner. Further repairs and liabilities for the repaired sidewalk would no longer be the City’s responsibility. This is commonly referred to as “Fix-and-Release.”

 

The City is collecting data to map every sidewalk, street tree, curb ramps, and street tree to create a robust inventory of sidewalk conditions. This will inform a citywide prioritization process to identify what streets to start repairing first. The City will also integrate “Low Impact Development” principles, such as conserving natural areas and retaining stormwater runoff where possible.

 

How does this impact me?

After the Willits Settlement, the City of Los Angeles developed a Sidewalk Repair Program to prioritize sidewalks in disrepair. There are four program categories:

 

  1. Sidewalk Access Repair Program: Requests by and for people with disabilities
  2. Rebate Program: Property owners willing to pay for their sidewalk and eligible for rebate
  3. Program Access Improvements: General public requests
  4. City Facilities Program: Prioritizing broken sidewalks adjacent to City-owned property

 

Under the first three categories, residents and property owners can initiate requests or work on repairs in identified locations. All requests can be made online at: http://www.sidewalks.lacity.org/ or by calling 311. The City Facilities Program was formed to address the Willits settlement requirement that all sidewalk segments adjacent to City-owned properties to meet ADA-compliance in the first five years of the program. Details on each program category are below.

 

What is the Access Repair Program?

The Sidewalk Access Repair Program is a 20% annual set-aside for sidewalk repair funds to directly address disabilities access requests. Through the Access Program people with disabilities may submit requests for access repairs such as curb ramp installations and tree root fixes along specific paths of travels. The City has set a goal to remediate access requests within 120 days of receiving a request. Requests are prioritized by a scoring criteria that awards more points to requests made a) in residential neighborhoods, b)  within 500 feet of a transit stop/station, and c) unresolved requests dated more than 120 days. All requests can be made online at: http://www.sidewalks.lacity.org/. Also you can call 311 or use the MyLA311 app.

 

What is the Rebate Program?

The Rebate Program rewards property owners who initiate and pay for their own sidewalk repairs through private contractors through a monetary rebate. Residential and commercial owners can receive a rebate up to $10,000. Property owners must apply with the City to participate in the program, then pay for their own repairs. Once certified by the City that the repairs are ADA-compliant, the property owner then receives the City’s valuation offer amount, up to $10,000. All requests can be made online at: http://www.sidewalks.lacity.org/. Also you can call 311 or use the MyLA311 app.

 

What are the Program Access Improvements?

Program Access Improvements allows the general public and others to report a sidewalk, curb ramps, or other pedestrian facilities in need of repair in the public right-of-way. These requests are not specifically tied to an access issue for a person with a disability and follow the same prioritization scoring system as the City Facilities Program (see below). Because the City has prioritized repairing all sidewalks adjacent to City-owned property in the next five years, and City departments charged with responding to sidewalk repair requests have limited capacity,  general residential requests are not likely to be addressed for at least five years. All requests can be made online at: http://www.sidewalks.lacity.org/. Also you can call 311 or use the MyLA311 app.

 

What is the City Facilities Program?

The City Facilities Program allows for the repair of sidewalks, curb ramps, or other pedestrian facilities at City government offices and facilities, including pedestrian rights-of-way adjacent to facilities owned or operated by the City and the paths of travel leading to primary entrances.

 

The City Facilities Program uses a two-tier prioritization method. Tier 1 assigns points based on the sidewalk segment location, adjacent land use, proximity to the Vision Zero High Injury Network (HIN), and number of incident reports. Segments with the highest Tier 1 points total will receive field assessments that scores the sites on damage severity and repair costliness (Tier 2). Segments with the highest combined Tier 1 and Tier 2 scores would be prioritized for repair. Proposed prioritization scoring details are currently being finalized by the City.

 

What does this mean for street trees?

While some sidewalk disrepair in the City of Los Angeles is created by tree roots, a full tree canopy is an essential part of a comfortable sidewalk and neighborhood. Trees lifting the sidewalk were either not appropriately selected when planted, have had infrastructure built up around them, or have not been properly maintained. When following the practice of “right tree, right place,” such tree and sidewalk conflicts can be avoided.

 

As Los Angeles experiences more and more extremely hot days, the Sidewalk Repair Program should be designed in a way to retain protective tree canopy. The City currently has a policy of a 2:1 tree replacement ratio for any street tree removal. However this does not take into account mature tree size, so removing a ficus tree with a 50-foot canopy and replacing it with two small stature trees is not going to have the same shade benefits that were previously being provided to that community.

 

Of course, planting appropriate trees that can grow in these spaces that will not cause infrastructure damage is important. But keeping public health and community benefits in our neighborhoods is just as important and requires thoughtful planning. The Community Forestry Advisory Committee (CFAC) has recommended the City adopt a replacement ratio based on canopy size than number of trees. There would still be a delay in the benefits of mature trees for the subsequent years it will take for the trees to grow to maturity but this ensures a comparable canopy in the long-run. Healthy and mature trees are already being replaced through the Sidewalk Repair Program, and a more robust and revised replacement policy can address this concern.

Note: Sidewalks graphics courtesy of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering

*****END OF FAQ*****

Vision for a Comprehensive Transportation Network

 

The Sidewalk Repair Program is an opportunity for the City of Los Angeles to address its most basic quality-of-life infrastructure. Safe and comfortable sidewalks and crosswalks serve all travelers, improve local economy, and can create vibrant public gathering spaces.

 

Rather than treated as separate from streets and transit, planning and funding sidewalks should be considered part of a comprehensive transportation network. We look forward to a future where our city is connected by a robust sidewalk and crosswalk network with ample shade and amenities, access to transit with safe and dignified bus stops, patrons connected to commercial and cultural destinations, stormwater runoff treatments, and safe passage for travelers of all ages and abilities.

 

This future requires a data-driven strategic master plan that defines transportation with all travel modes and paths of travel in mind. Los Angeles is often touted as being in the midst of a transportation revolution. We are in a unique position to receive unprecedented transportation and infrastructure resources, including Measure M and state SB 1 funds. It is critical to develop a cost-efficient process to effectively leverage public funds and create a transportation system that will support our transit expansion, first/last mile demands, and ensure safety and accessibility for all travelers. A strategic master plan that incorporates the entire public realm (from sidewalks and streets to bus stops and crosswalks), also creates a system for the multiple City departments who oversee infrastructure and transportation to coordinate efforts and resources. This leads to better and faster outcomes for residents and business owners who rely on city services for their daily quality-of-life amenities.

 

A comprehensive transportation network will ensure the City of Los Angeles its highest return on investment in the public realm and create a safe, clean, comfortable path of travel for everyone, regardless of ability, resources, or travel mode. This transportation revolution can not leave our sidewalks behind as they are the most universal piece of transportation infrastructure the City oversees. Let’s not let it fall through the cracks.

Categories
Improving Bus Service

Metro Should Expand All-Door Boarding on Buses

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

It’s not your imagination: your bus trip is taking longer than it used to. Since 2013, local bus speeds have fallen about 5%, and rapid bus speeds are down more than 10%. Despite the branded limited-stop service, rapids now average about the same speed as locals. Buses are also running late more frequently these days. One in three rapid buses are late in 2017, an increase of over 30% from 2013.

Rapid Bus Speeds and On-Time Performance Are Down Since 2013
Rapid Bus Speeds and On-Time Performance Are Down Since 2013. Source: Metro Staff Report

Speed and reliability are major factors in deciding whether or not to take transit. After all, time spent on the bus is time not spent at work or at home. Even for drivers, the perception that buses are slow and not likely to show up when you need them forms a barrier to trying transit. These should be key focus areas for Metro as the transit agency endeavors to reinvigorate its bus network. Metro is already preparing to conduct a multiyear analysis of the network that will inform a potential systemwide “reimagining and restructuring,” but do we really have to wait years before we begin to address bus speeds?

 

Reversing the bus slowdown will likely require a toolbox approach, implementing separate fixes for the individual causes of delay. One tool that Metro has already tested is what’s known as all-door boarding. All-door boarding, or ADB, is simply the practice of allowing passengers to enter transit from either the front or rear doors. ADB is already in effect on Metro’s rail lines, but has been tried out only on a limited basis for buses.

 

Throughout the bus network, passengers are generally required to enter through the front doors, tapping their TAP card or paying as they board. This single entry point can significantly increase the amount of time a bus has to wait at a given stop, slowing down service and potentially leading to delays. Generally speaking, the primary justification of front-door boarding is that it ensures a high rate of fare compliance. The experience of other cities, though, should give us reason to doubt that this perceived benefit really exists.

 

In February this year, the National Association of City Transportation Officials and TransitCenter released a whitepaper called “Better Boarding, Better Buses: Streamlining Boarding & Fares” that analyzed the impact of all-door boarding in North American transit systems. In San Francisco and New York, two of the study cities that opted for a wider implementation of ADB, fare evasion not only did not increase, but it actually declined.

 

San Francisco implemented all-door boarding across its bus network in 2012, and, according to NACTO and TransitCenter, it remains the only U.S. transit agency to institute systemwide all-door boarding. Since ADB was instituted, the program has proven to be a major success, speeding up buses throughout the city and standardizing the time it takes to board passengers. In SFMTA’s final report evaluating the program, the transit operator found that ADB reduced passenger boarding time by 38% at the busiest stops and helped improve reliability. Bus speeds were up 2% across the network.

 

In New York City, the municipal rapid network, called the Select Bus Service, experienced even more pronounced changes in passenger boarding time after the implementation of all-door boarding. On some lines, boarding now takes half as long as it used to.

 

These cities are examples that show ADB can be scaled to include all rapid buses or even the entire network. But Metro can also look to its own pilot programs to see the potential of ADB. In 2015, Metro studied the impact of all-door boarding on the Wilshire rapid route, the busiest bus line in the county. During the pilot period, Metro’s data found that dwell time per passenger fell 32%, and staff estimated that additional time savings would be possible by requiring customers to have a loaded TAP card when they boarded. In its final evaluation, Metro’s report listed a number of additional benefits, including less crowding for passengers and reduced risk of injury as the bus began moving.

 

At the moment, all-door boarding is allowed only on the Orange and Silver Lines, the system’s Bus Rapid Transit routes. ADB was approved to continue indefinitely on the Silver Line in February after a pilot program found it to be extremely successful at improving on-time performance. Building off the experience of the Wilshire pilot, Metro required patrons to buy their fare before boarding, and now only TAP cards can be used on board the Silver Line.

 

Silver Line On-Time Performance Dramatically Increased With ADB
Silver Line On-Time Performance Dramatically Increased With ADB. Source: Metro Staff Report

 

Not only have Metro’s pilots proven that ADB works, they have also shown that it is extremely popular with riders. In evaluating the Wilshire pilot program, staff noted that ADB creates, “the perception of better service, which heavily influences a passenger’s decision to use transit.” Two-thirds of survey respondents found that boarding was “much faster” and nearly 90% of respondents said it was faster overall. A remarkable 82% of riders said they wanted to see ADB implemented.

 

In describing the lessons from case study cities, NACTO and TransitCenter emphasize that ADB should be implemented across bus networks to provide customers with a convenient and simple riding experience. If Metro has concerns about the logistics of a full-scale implementation, the rapid network, which has been hit harder by slowdowns and delays, would make an ideal next step in expanding ADB. It would also help provide the perception of BRT quality service on the rapid bus routes. ADB can be quickly instituted and would immediately begin to show results for Metro’s customers. At a time when every tool is needed, we shouldn’t hesitate to provide popular and effective solutions to help resuscitate our ailing bus service. For riders, every minute counts.

Categories
Completing Streets Just Growth Measure M Uncategorized

Measure M Guidelines Adopted: Congrats Metro! We give you a B+

 

Since Measure M was approved by Los Angeles County voters last November, Metro has been developing the guidelines that will determine how funding from the new $120 billion transportation measure can be spent.

Today, the Metro Board of Directors adopted the Master Guidelines for Measure M.

It is the culmination of months of work and partnership from key community leaders like AARP, American Heart Association, Climate Resolve, Bike SGV, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, Community Health Councils, San Gabriel Mountains Forever, Pacoima Beautiful, Trust South LA, Advancement Project, FAST – Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic, LA Thrives, Enterprise Community Partners, ACT-LA and many many more.

After today’s Metro Board meeting and especially Motion 38.3 by Directors Garcia, Bonin, Solis and Hahn – we give the Measure M adopted guidelines a B+.  A shout out to all the Metro staff working hard to respond to concerns from a variety of stakeholders and perspective.

Click here to see our complete analysis.

We look forward to continuing to work with all our partners towards further developing the Measure M Guidelines with the administrative processes and the Long Range Transportation Plan. Join us for our #JustGrowth work group on July 18th where we will be discussing next steps. RSVP here.

 

 

Categories
Completing Streets Convenings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, please see:

The Tripping Point Program

Presentations

Categories
Uncategorized

Policy Makers come together to discuss defining transportation equity in Los Angeles County

Last week over 50 policymakers and key leaders from across the County joined Investing in Place in discussing “How do we define transportation equity for Los Angeles County?” In order to improve mobility options for all in the region, Investing in Place firmly believes it is critical to have a definition to inform our investments, coordinate with other agencies and jurisdictions, and measure the impact of success or challenges in improving mobility options in low income communities and communities of color. And the update of the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) presents the opportunity to do this.

This is the second elected officials breakfast Investing in Place has convened this year – as we see defining transportation equity and mapping an adopted criteria to build a program in the 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as one of our key campaigns. For too long, we have operated without a shared definition of transportation equity – which hinders the region’s ability to prioritize funding opportunities based on need, and create a meaningful and regionally supported program to measure impacts both good and bad to better inform policies, programs and investments.

The Investing in Place Los Angeles County Transportation Equity Technical Work Group defines “transportation equity” as:

  1. Equitable access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options that connect people to employment, services, education, health care, recreation and cultural destinations.
  2. Shared distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation investments, especially for communities historically impacted by racial injustice, disinvestment, pollution and unsafe streets.
  3. Partnership in the planning, investment, and implementation processes that result in:
    • shared decision making,
    • more equitable health and quality of life outcomes for high-priority areas while strengthening the entire region and serving existing residents, and
    • equitable policies to achieve development without displacement.

The above definition is widely supported, however, determining the criteria to identify the areas, and the program and funding to begin to operationalize this definition is where we focused the morning’s discussion.

In our policy paper on transportation equity we published last Fall, we propose that 1. Race 2. Income and 3. Vehicle ownership are at the crux, along with collision rates (recently added as a priority by our #JustGrowth work group)  to address the shortcomings of long-standing, inequitable policies. The City of Los Angeles Safe Routes to School prioritization process as well as the City’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, are excellent resources that, if scaled at the county level, can have powerful and measurable benefits to the region as a whole – and are inspiring a lot of this work.

So what was discussed ?

  • Agreement we need to define equity and create a meaningful strategy and program for the 2018 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
  • At heart of this work are the real lived experiences from everyday people. This campaign needs personal stories to talk about why this issue matters.
  • Metro traditionally measures need based on access and mobility – using race as a criteria concerns them, and many believe will present challenges. In contrast many members at the breakfast voiced we could no longer ignore race in our mobility policies – and especially could not in any equity strategy.
  • Learn from housing policy that addresses undoing racial segregation in housing policies.  And think about how a shared definition/criteria of high need areas in Los Angeles County could allow for multiple agencies and jurisdictions to have coordinated strategies around housing and development without displacement.
  • Safety matters to all. The City of Los Angeles Vision Zero efforts, included polling on transportation issues.  The city also held focus groups that found people supported targeting resources to high need areas and efforts to improve safety, especially for vulnerable users.
  • Improve measurements to access – especially to job centers.  Consider access when in criteria conversation.

Many of these discussion points provide the key next steps for this process – story banking, examining policies and opportunities that use race as a criteria, continuing to have these conversations with partners and leaders across the County – and especially Metro as staff works to develop their Transportation Equity Strategy by March 2018.

Investing in Place is inspired by last week’s conversation is working to continue this discussion and support a platform for #JustGrowth in Los Angeles County.

Categories
Uncategorized

Bus Rapid Transit: What’s Holding Los Angeles County Back?

Note: This blog was guest written by Jordan Fraade, a second-year master’s student in UCLA’s Urban Planning program. Jordan is completing his Applied Planning Research Project in coordination with Investing in Place.

Since September, I’ve been collaborating with Investing in Place on a study of dedicated bus infrastructure in LA, in particular “how we can work together to push Los Angeles into a future when bus riders can count on the same high-quality, frequent service that rail riders receive on a regular basis.” The school year is almost over, and I’m looking forward to sharing the final product with IiP’s collaborators and partners in a few weeks — including some concrete recommendations based on feedback I’ve gotten from everyday riders. But in the meantime, I’ve spent the last few months traveling all around Los Angeles County, talking to transportation experts from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. My task in all of these interviews was to find out what they think has been holding back the region’s bus service, and how they think we can fix it.

So, what needs to be done? A full analysis of what my interviewees told me will be included in the final report, but in the meantime, here are some major themes that kept coming up:

  • Many people feel geographic equity is key to getting things done in LA. Los Angeles County is huge and diverse, and any measure to raise tax revenue (like Measure M) needs a two-thirds majority to pass. This means a very high level of buy-in is needed across a huge region, and if every part of the county wants to feel like it’s getting its money’s worth, that might mean investing in more expensive, big-ticket projects for those regions, at the expense of upgrades to existing service in the urban core, where most riders live.
  • Taking lanes away from drivers is really, really hard. The Orange Line is the city’s only true BRT line, and it was built on a strip of land that used to belong to the Southern Pacific Railroad. In contrast, the success of future BRT projects in LA will depend on our ability to take existing mixed-traffic lanes, and turn them into bus-only lanes.   Planners call this the “concentrated costs and diffuse benefits”  problem: Thousands of bus riders from across the city will benefit from faster and more reliable travel, but they won’t be as organized or vocal as the handful of neighborhood residents who are furious that the lane in front of their house is being taken away — and want to make sure everybody knows it.
  • Bus riders are frequently “othered,” and have few champions in places of power. One of my interviewees said that even well-meaning transit planners and elected officials sometimes think of bus riders as “those people.” This could reflect unconscious racial and class prejudices. It could be because few Angelenos take transit, and therefore don’t know what it’s like to be a rider on a daily basis. Either way, it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that bus riders are “captive,” and will accept whatever quality of service they’re given. They vote with their feet, just like anybody else.
  • LA’s political structure is decentralized, which makes it difficult to cooperate on big projects. For example, transit projects are built and operated by Metro, but the city Department of Transportation controls street design and engineering. In order to build and maintain dedicated bus lanes, two agencies with very different institutional cultures have to work together and coordinate their efforts. Individual cities and neighborhoods can “opt out” of projects they don’t like, as Beverly Hills and part of Westwood did with the Wilshire Blvd. bus lanes. And LA’s city government is set up to have a small, powerful City Council, giving each Council member effective veto power over what happens in their district. Having a sympathetic ear in City Hall is crucial to success.

I included these findings in a poster I presented on April 3 at UCLA, joined by many of my urban-planning classmates who shared their own research projects. Take a look below:

 

For the last stage of the project, I have been convening focus groups to find out the community perspective — what do riders want and need for their communities, and how can they organize and work strategically to make it happen? I’m holding my final focus group on Wednesday May 24 at 6 p.m. in Downtown LA, and all are welcome! All participants will receive a gift card to La Monarca Cafe. If you’d like to participate, email jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu or call 203.246.8342.

Además, queremos hacer un grupo de discusión para los pasajeros y miembros de la comunidad que hablan español. Vamos a reunirnos dentro de 10 días, y todos los participantes recibirán una tarjeta de regalo a Cafe La Monarca. Si quiere participar, escriba a jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu o llame a 203.246.8342. ¡Gracias!

Categories
Just Growth Measure M transportation equity

Our Analysis of the Measure M Draft Guidelines

After Measure M — the $120 billion transportation measure approved by LA County voters in November 2016 — passed, we asked our readers: how do we guarantee that current and future generations of families, especially in low-income neighborhoods, benefit and thrive with Measure M’s investments?

We heard loud and clear (and we strongly agree): we have to “bake in” equity into all of Metro’s programs, policies, and investments — this is one of the core concepts of our #JustGrowth work group.

The Measure M draft guidelines, released last month by Metro, is one of the first places to start (for background, read our recommendations from back in January) — and today, we’re proud to release our analysis for your feedback and review.

Please click here to read our analysis.

The Measure M guidelines are the first opportunity to review Metro’s approach to implementing the promises made to voters to invest in building a safe, sustainable, and reliable transportation network for the region. Investing in Place reviewed these draft guidelines with an eye toward integrating the policy best practices we care about — including data-driven decision-making, prioritizing the needs of vulnerable communities, and valuing public participation — into all Measure M projects and programs.

In our report, we provide an overview of the guidelines and their role in implementation, highlight aspects we are excited about, and recommend improvements to ensure Measure M stays true to the progressive ideals that led to its passage.

We provided a suite of policy recommendations to ensure Measure M lives up to its potential during implementation. We believe Metro should:

  • Ensure all projects and programs funded by Measure M comply with Metro’s Complete Streets Policy;
  • Prioritize traffic safety–particularly for people walking and biking–in all funding programs for streets and highways;
  • Set clear objectives for each program in line with regional performance metrics;
  • Require transparency and public participation in all project development and prioritization processes;
  • Dedicate funding for countywide active transportation programs, including open streets, bike share operations, bike safety education, and safe routes to school non-infrastructure programs; and
  • Support innovation in the Multiyear Subregional Programs by expanding eligibility for planning, data collection, project development, and transportation demand management (TDM) and building capacity at each council of governments (COG).

To read our policy analysis, please click here.

Next Steps

On Wednesday, April 5th 1pm, Metro’s Policy Advisory Council will meet for the first time to discuss, among many things, the Measure M draft guidelines. We encourage you to attend and provide feedback. The meeting will take place on the 15th floor of Metro’s Headquarters (1 Gateway Plaza). These meetings are open to the public. Metro is accepting public comments on the draft guidelines through May 26th — we encourage all our partners to weigh in by emailing feedback to theplan@metro.net.

Categories
Uncategorized Viewpoints from the Movement

Making Headway: Planning for Bus Rapid Transit on Vermont Avenue

 

Note: This blog was guest written by Jordan Fraade, a second-year master’s student in UCLA’s Urban Planning program. Jordan is completing his Applied Planning Research Project in coordination with Investing in Place.

Last month, I wrote my first blog post for Investing in Place, introducing my project on “how we can work together to push Los Angeles into a future when bus riders can count on the same high-quality, frequent service that rail riders receive on a regular basis.” In practice, this means investing in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — city planners’ catchall term for a variety of bus improvements that increase frequency and speed, decrease time buses spend waiting at stations, and ensure that buses don’t have to sit in traffic.

Back in 2013, Metro released a study identifying 9 potential BRT routes throughout the county, and two of them, Vermont Avenue and the North Hollywood-Pasadena connector, were given more funding when we passed Measure M in November. In early February, Metro released a Technical Study for the Vermont Avenue BRT, which provides 4 alternatives for what the line might look like.

The agency has a decision to make…How can we ensure that Metro makes the most of this exciting opportunity for Los Angeles’ bus riders?

Case Study: Bus Rapid Options for Vermont Avenue

The stakes are very high. Vermont Avenue is the second-most-travelled transit corridor in the city, second only to Wilshire, with an estimated 45,000 bus trips every weekday — for comparison, the entire Metrolink system serves more than 39,000 riders a day. The neighborhoods adjacent to the Vermont Avenue corridor are mostly low-income, densely populated, and have a high percentage of households that commute by transit. There is already frequent transit service on the 204 and 754 buses, but because the corridor is so congested, the buses are overcrowded and slow.

Metro estimates that if BRT is implemented along Vermont, we could be looking at nearly 75,000 riders per day by 2035.

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.13.39 AM.png
Median household income in Los Angeles with Vermont Corridor highlighted. Map by Scott Frazier.

The study area for Vermont BRT is just over 12 miles, stretching from Hollywood Blvd. to 120th Street. Metro’s proposals include:

1. Side-running BRT for the entire corridor (12.4 miles). Currently, each side of Vermont Avenue features 2 or 3 travel lanes, plus a parking lane on the far right. This proposal would take the travel lane next to parking and convert it into an exclusive lane for buses.

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.18.07 AM.png

2. Side-running BRT for the northern end of the corridor and center-running BRT for the southern end. South of Gage Avenue, where Vermont becomes wider, the exclusive bus lanes would be placed in the center of the road instead of along the side.

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.18.15 AM.png

3. Converting the on-street parking lane into an exclusive bus lane. This would remove more than half the on-street parking on Vermont. Where the road isn’t wide enough to accommodate a bus lane, buses would travel in mixed traffic.

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.24.08 AM.png

4. Converting the on-street parking lane into an exclusive bus lane during rush hour only. Buses would have to travel in mixed traffic at all other times, but this proposal would allow almost all Vermont Avenue’s on-street parking to stay in place.

Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.24.16 AM.png

Making Headway on Bus Rapid Transit

Each of these proposals has its upsides and downsides in terms of cost, time savings, and inconvenience to existing drivers, but one clear trend is that the less space you dedicate exclusively for buses, the harder it is to make BRT work well. And if (like me) you are a frequent rider of bus line 720, which goes along Wilshire Boulevard corridor like me, Proposals 3 and 4 might seem familiar to you: their designs are very similar to Wilshire’s dedicated bus lanes.

How well have those dedicated lanes been performing? Let’s take a look:

  • Like most of Metro’s bus lines, ridership on the 720 has declined over the last few years.
Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.24.29 AM.png
Source: Metro Interactive Estimated Ridership Stats. http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/IndexAllBus.aspx
  • The 720 is also one of the 5 worst-performing buses when it comes to on-time performance, based on records kept since 2010.
Screen Shot 2017-03-08 at 11.24.37 AM.png
Source: http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/05/12/60250/data-metro-s-buses-and-trains-having-trouble-stick/

There’s no doubt that the bus lanes on Wilshire were an important step forward for the city, but on a basic performance level, they’re just not working as planned. I think the planners at Metro know this, which is why they recommend choosing Alternative 1 or 2 for Vermont BRT — plans that set aside permanent bus lanes, show the greatest potential for increasing bus speed, and will do the most to improve the mobility for residents and workers along the Vermont corridor.

Next Steps

Now comes the hard part. We have the beginnings of a plan that improves public transit in an area that really needs help. (Several writers have made the case that this corridor should have rail, not a bus, and their analysis is worth reading.)

How do we make sure it gets implemented? And how do we guarantee that riders and community members have a seat at the table when Metro planners and city lawmakers sit down to hammer out the details of Vermont BRT?

These are the questions I’ll be trying to answer over the next several months — and to answer them, I need your help. If you have thoughts about the Vermont corridor plans or bus service in L.A., please reach out to me at jordanfraade@g.ucla.edu. In the next few weeks, with the help of Investing in Place, I’ll be convening focus groups to discuss how better bus transit can improve communities throughout L.A., and I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

Categories
Social Equity Uncategorized Viewpoints from the Movement

Learning from Lancaster: 3 lessons on completing streets and improving quality of life

Last month, Investing in Place met with parents of the First 5 LA Best Start community in the City of Lancaster to talk about transportation concerns. We were joined by Brian Ludicke and Randie Davis of the City of Lancaster planning department, and a diverse group of over 50 parents and children — many who were African-American, Latino, or spoke Spanish as their primary language at home.

In short, parents in Lancaster wanted to see their tax dollars go towards improving crosswalks and sidewalks around schools and more affordable and reliable bus service for students. From a city managerial perspective, safe and walkable communities is not just a health and wellness issue, but in Lancaster, it’s a fiscal and economic development issue. For example, Lancaster was able to build a thriving economic base after the effects of the 2008 Great Recession because of their investments in attracting and retaining small businesses along its Downtown corridor.

As Brian Ludicke (Planning Director for Lancaster) alluded to in his experience working on Lancaster’s Boulevard project (a national Complete Streets model), in order to have a well-functioning city with great quality of life, you need political support, community advocates, and citywide policies with teeth (like a Safe Routes to School plan or Complete Streets policy). It is possible, as Brian demonstrated in Lancaster, to build towards a safe, walkable, and economically-vibrant community.

In all, we were on the same page: we all wanted to understand how to create a safe and walkable community for all, especially youth getting to and from school. This sentiment from Lancaster parents reflected the general viewpoint from LA County as a whole — in a poll we conducted in May, we similarly found an overwhelming number of LA County voters wanted safe, walkable communities.

For Investing in Place and our countywide work, we learned three lessons from the Lancaster forum that would be useful for other cities as they begin to implement Complete Streets projects (and “completing” streets in general):

    1. Good planning and policy starts with listening and intentionally seeking solutions that offer better transportation options for all, starting with the most vulnerable like youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. In our experience, addressing the barriers that the most vulnerable experience today — like access to frequent and reliable bus service, shaded bus stops, safe sidewalks and intersections — helps to strengthen quality of life for all.
    2. Work with businesses, residents, and city departments to build trust and develop shared goals.
    3. Be persistent about building community and political support — and measure progress and outcomes. For example, the City of Lancaster invested $10 million to redesign Downtown Lancaster and has since received over $125 million in new economic activity and a 26 percent jump in sales tax revenue. These types of measurable outcomes are important when making future investments in completing streets, especially with new elected decision-makers.

Thank you to the parents and organizers of First 5 LA Best Start Lancaster for hosting us, and special thanks to Brian Ludicke and Randie Davis of the City of Lancaster planning department for joining us.

For a flashback on the movement for Complete Streets in Los Angeles County, check out this video from a few years back as advocates were building support for Metro’s Complete Streets policy. Still much more work — on advocacy, implementation, and oversight — to be done.

To read more about Brian’s work with the City of Lancaster, please see his interview with Streetsblog Los Angeles here.

Categories
Public Participation transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Ballot Measure Recap: What Did We Win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Finish Los Angeles River and San Gabriel Valley Greenways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measure M - active transportation funding

4. Require Complete Streets in All Projects

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

5. Repair Streets and Sidewalks

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

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

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

6. Fund Countywide Walking and Biking Programs

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

And So Much More…

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

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

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

© Investing in Place. All Rights Reserved.

Site Credits

Stay up to date on our work!

Sign up for our newsletter

hello@investinginplace.org

Instagram Youtube Linkedin

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

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

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

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

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

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

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

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

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

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

jessica@investinginplace.org

(213) 210-8136

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

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