DONATE

Category: Transportation Finance

Categories
Transportation Finance

What Should Riders and Advocates Expect from Metro’s Post-Covid Budget?

Over the course of the last several years, Metro has become increasingly focused on new construction of rail and highway megaprojects, sometimes even to the exclusion of other priorities, like improving the quality of service for existing transit riders.

 

We do not yet know what Metro’s budget for 2021 will look like. Metro has decided to delay adoption of a new budget until September and operate for the first quarter of the new year using continuing resolutions. Since March, the financial environment has changed dramatically between Metro’s last budget and the one that is currently being developed. And the Covid recession is still in its early days.

 

But even with all the unknowns, one thing can be said with certainty: Metro’s riders need Metro to focus its energy on building a more resilient and equitable transportation system. Rather than pursuing new megaprojects that have grown more difficult to manage and complete during the period of the current pandemic, Metro should be turning its attention to projects like the recent rollout of a small network of bus-only lanes in downtown Los Angeles. Such projects can be rolled out rapidly, cheaply, and without requiring a huge concentration of workers in one location. 

 

Similarly, the NextGen Bus plan should be looked at for accelerated financing. The product of several years of study, NextGen produced an ambitious scope of change for how bus service should look in this region, including frequent service all day across LA’s most congested corridors. However, a full build out of the plan has a total cost in the billions and, as yet, no clear funding path to get it to completion.

 

For years now, Metro’s priorities have been dominated by the still far-off prospect of the 2028 Olympic Games. Less than a year following the passage of Measure M, Metro Chair Eric Garcetti proposed the Twenty Eight by ‘28 initiative, which sought to complete about 70% of the projects in the Measure M expenditure plan in the first decade of the new sales tax.

 

The focus on the Olympics and other planned megaevents – the Super Bowl in 2022, the World Cup in 2026 – has been a constant in Metro’s planning, from the decision to begin construction on the Centinela grade separation for the Crenshaw line to the Vision 2028 strategic plan.

 

While we don’t have a detailed picture of the future of Metro’s finances, we can expect financial pain in the short term. Mayor Garcetti recently said that Metro has a $1 billion budget shortfall. Additionally, we can expect that more and more Angelenos will return to the transit system as California continues its piecemeal reopening of the economy. Ridership on Metro is now back up to 525,000 daily rides after falling to 365,000 when closures were at their most strict. 

 

Even more than usual during the pandemic, the bus has been the workhorse of the regional transportation network. During the early days of the safer at home orders, the ratio of bus riders to rail riders actually increased to 3.5 bus riders for every rail rider. This represents a long-held truth in who relies on transit in the LA Region,  that rail riders are more likely to be riders of choice, more likely to work in office environments, and more likely to have the opportunity to work remotely. On the bus network, several corridors, particularly in South Los Angeles, experienced much less reduction in ridership than elsewhere, as a concentration of working class riders had no choice but to continue with the daily routine of their lives.

 

If we extend this out to the present, we can see we’re on a dangerous trajectory. As our region struggles with its reopening, we know that bus ridership did not fall as far as it did in other major American cities and we know that it is rising faster. The white collar workers who have had the benefit of sheltering in their homes will likely continue to be able to do so. In the meantime, more and more essential workers who ride the bus will be coerced to return to dangerous working conditions.

 

Metro has sought to keep buses from becoming crowded by adding back service in anticipation of growing ridership. But anecdotal evidence suggests buses and bus stops are still experiencing dangerous levels of crowding throughout daily operations (to date, Metro has not shared much official data on the crowding situation on its vehicles). Without a significant increase in bus service, that trend will continue, with buses increasingly serving as places where riders risk being unable to socially distance from passengers who are potentially carrying Covid. The implications are clear: Metro would not expect transit riders of choice to accept those conditions, and they should not be forcing those conditions on riders who depend on their service to make their way around town.

 

Without providing sufficient service for riders to be safe on their buses, Metro will risk accelerating in-progress trends away from transit ridership altogether. They will be establishing themselves as an agency who is unwilling or unable to protect riders, and buses will cement a reputation as spaces that are dangerous and full of disease, spaces where anyone with sufficient means would not willingly go. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

 

Metro’s push to accelerate Measure M projects has stretched the agency thin where capital funding is concerned. Additionally, that acceleration has often been directly contingent on the viability of finding private-sector partners who view growth in Metro’s ridership as a safe enough investment for them to take a risk on a future return. The current environment, one in which no one can say how long the Covid pandemic will endure, or, much less, what transit will look like when it does, does not seem like it lends itself to taking risks with huge amounts of capital.

 

Accordingly, we should assume that whatever possibility there might have once been to achieve ambitious plans around building new rail and highway projects for the 2028 Olympics has by now been extinguished. 

 

Metro needs to acknowledge that Twenty Eight by 28 is no longer achievable, and that, in the current environment, it could no longer pursue the acceleration of nice-to-have projects to the exclusion of other goals even if it were. Put frankly, Los Angeles doesn’t have the luxury of spending nearly a decade dressing up to show off its prosperity to the world. Angelenos are hurting, economically, physically, and emotionally. What they need from their transit agency is a rededication to high quality service that is safe and that accounts for their needs and the bus operators serving them equitably.

 

In the immediate post-Covid period, that means Metro should do whatever it can as an agency to shift the focus of its capital priorities away from enormous megaprojects often with localized benefits in low-ridership environments toward a different kind of megaproject: regional investments in course correcting the fundamental service proposition for existing riders where ridership is highest. Planning for this has already been completed in Metro’s NextGen study, but NextGen remains absent from discussions around capital funding and has received little institutional urgency from the board of directors compared to other priorities for funds. In this moment, the visionary NextGen plan, rather than parochial rail construction, is what is needed to reintroduce Angelenos to their transit system and to Metro itself.

 

Metro also needs to reexamine some of its long and stubbornly held policies regarding the built environment in Los Angeles. Metro has sought to stay out of discussions about what bus stops and city streets should look like, while also refusing to install bathrooms or other hygienic stations at its own property at rail stations throughout the county. But Metro can no longer afford to stay out of these fights. There are nearly 100 rail stations throughout Metro’s service area. At these locations, Metro should be looking into self-washing restrooms and sanitary stations that can help keep riders and the public safe. Making it possible to safely be out in public as additional industries resume work will be paramount to our success in reopening Los Angeles. 

 

Similarly, although spending authority might belong to individual cities where streets and bus stops are concerned, Metro serves as one of the largest grantors of funds in the county. As such, Metro can use its position to incentivize cities to make changes to city streets to keep buses from getting caught in traffic, to alleviate transit crowding, and to make the stop environments safe and sanitary. These are capital projects as well, and they are projects that have not been complicated by Covid the way that enormous rail and freeway construction projects have. It is Metro’s responsibility to ensure that Los Angeles does not merely return to a status quo that was failing so many. It is time to think instead about how we can emerge from this crisis into a stronger, more equitable city.

 

Categories
Budgets Improving Bus Service Just Growth Just Growth Champions Measure M Public Participation Resources Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

How We Got Here: Three Decades of Equity at Metro

When Metro merely mitigates for inequitable impacts of already formed projects, Metro sustains economic disparities to resources and opportunity throughout greater LA.

—

Today, Metro attempts to achieve equitable outcomes by minimizing disparate impacts on new projects. Metro projects routinely include mitigation measures to compensate for the parts of a project they see negatively impacts communities that Metro defines.

Metro’s attempts to compensate for inequitable (read: unfair) impacts per project might appease project concerns. However, this approach alone cannot counteract the scale to which enduring hardships weigh on people whose livelihoods rely on LA’s public transportation system.

Compensation plus systems change is needed to address inequity’s root cause. Discriminatory public policy like redlining starts with exclusionary thinking and abets discriminatory outcomes when applied to investments over time. Rather, Metro can achieve fair (read: equitable) outcomes by acknowledging the role its legacy has played in the past. In their Equity Platform Framework, Metro acknowledges that “historically and currently, inequity exists and has been largely defined by race and class – as well as age, gender, disability, and residency. Metro commits to working with historically underserved communities to establish meaningful equity goals.”

Once Metro’s choices reflect a trend of more equitable outcomes then Metro can more genuinely engage with the public to shape and fulfill initiatives that not only lower travel burdens but also transform underserved communities’ access to resources and opportunities. Metro’s 10-year strategic plan (Vision 2028), which the board adopted in 2018, further commits the agency to equitable outcomes. Here, the author of this article recaps Metro’s prior missteps and reviews the agency’s current attempts to more equitably serve LA’s residents and visitors than Metro has in the past.

 

How has Metro involved equity in the past?

Since April 1993, the state of California has authorized Metro to plan, fund, build, and operate LA County’s transportation system [1]. However, Metro has not always carried out its duties fairly. In fact, over the last three decades Metro has gone from being sued for overlooking its most vulnerable customers to now mitigating for inequitable outcomes of Metro initiatives. Next, Metro should prospectively apply equity to transform greater LA into a thriving region.

Below is a summarized timeline of how Metro has involved equity in the past.

 

I. Mandated compliance with Bus Riders Union/Metro consent decree

 

Long before Metro’s founding in 1993, LA transportation officials ambitiously sought to grow a rail transit system that effectively outshined their efforts to cultivate a robust and reliable bus network. In the early 1990s, LA County bus riders — who overrepresented LA County’s population of people of color — shouldered the burden of the regions’ investment in growing a rail network (arguably still the case today). For instance, in 1992, Metro’s buses “carried 94 percent of the agencies ridership, yet the agency dedicated less than a third of its annual budget to bus operations.” At the same time, an overwhelming majority of the agency’s budget (71 percent) went to budding rail programs “that served only 6 percent of Metro’s ridership” [1, p. 163].

While the total number of rail riders was limited by a scant rail network at the time (only Metro’s Blue line was open by 1992), transportation officials willingly decided to invest in rail transit to an extent that dwarfed their investment in bus transit. Rail transit generally costs transit agencies more than bus transit to build and operate because of the many expensive components of rail transit like installing steel tracks and electrical power systems. Although bus passengers in the early 1990s were crowding onto Metro’s buses, transportation officials failed to invest in ways that would directly alleviate overcrowded buses by buying more buses or by operating buses more frequently and reliably in dedicated bus lanes, for example. In spite of this paradigm, LA’s transportation officials in 1994 proceeded to propose a fare increase whose burden would fall heavily on Metro’s bus riders, while simultaneously spending on expensive rail expansion.

In 1994, the Bus Riders Union (an organized coalition of bus riders) and their attorneys from the NAACP’s Legal Defense Funds (LDF) successfully stopped Metro’s proposed fare hike. In 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Hatter Jr. ruled that such a fare hike would result in “disparate impacts” to the Metro’s bus riders who were over 80 percent people of color. By comparison, people of color comprised of less than 60 percent of LA County’s population at the time [1]. Now popularly known as the ‘consent decree,’ this court order precipitated a cap on Metro’s transit fares for 10-years (which has since expired in 2006) and required Metro to buy more buses to alleviate overcrowding. Significantly, this intervention shifted Metro’s attention to address the needs of their current (mostly bus) riders who overwhelmingly represented low-income communities of color, which remains the case today.

 

II. Indirect attempts to apply equity in planning

 

In the first decade of the 2000s Metro remained the rail, bus, and highway agency it had already been for more than three decades. Metro’s 30-year (long-range) transportation planning (LRTP) document from 2009 reflects transportation officials’ continued rail building ambition. It also shows how relatively little investment and attention Metro pays to enhance walking and biking infrastructure, which enable basic human-powered mobility. Metro’s 2009 plan dedicates a mere one percent of the agency’s planned investments over 30 years to improve biking and walking linkages to transit (see 2009 LRTP, Figure F) — outspent twice over by ‘Administration and Other’ costs and thirteen times over by ‘Street and Road’ costs, which until recently have been designed with a singular focus: how to make it easier to drive a private automobile.

 

Source: Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan, p. 15

 

The 2009 LRTP does not address nor ameliorate mobility disparities based on race and income. Although the 2009 plan includes a ‘job accessibility’ metric to show mobility disparities, Metro fails to address the implications of these disparaging metrics. The 2009 plan accepts weak outcomes like taking three decades to achieve small gains. For example, Figure 11 of the 2009 plan (copied below) shows that Metro will take 30 years to lower transit commute times to under an hour for a small additional (12 percentage point) share of transit dependent neighborhoods, which have mostly carless, low-income, or senior households. The 2009 plan ignores the remaining 41 percent of work trips from transit dependent neighborhoods that will take more than an hour by transit for, at least, another 30 years.

 

Source: Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan, p. 54 (red underline added for emphasis)

 

Secondly, the same ‘Environmental Justice’ section of the 2009 plan overstates the positive impact the 2009-plan proposed projects could have on communities of color. For at least 30 more years (through 2040), around half of LA County’s African American, Hispanic, and Asian American ‘subgroups’ and around 70 percent of ‘non-Minority subgroups’ will remain over an hour away from work by transit — an outcome that reflects the need for transportation officials to focus more meaningfully on changing their relationship with policies that govern housing and job growth, which underlie people’s need to travel. Finally this 30-year plan focuses heavily on work trips largely sustaining difficulty for people whose access and independence relies on transit.

 

III. Broadening the agency’s engagement with local officials and advocates

 

In the current decade, Metro accounted for city-controlled infrastructure by committing Measure M funds to cities through two programs: the ‘Multiyear Subregional Program’ (MSP) and continuing the ‘Local Return’ program. Metro also lowers cities’ costs of applying for state transportation funds by assigning Metro staff to write grant proposals for cities. Metro offers this service, called Technical Assistance, to cities free-of-charge.

In the years leading up to 2016, Metro officials built a broad-based coalition that included local officials and advocates to campaign for a sales tax measure, which officials expect will raise $120 billion over 40 years for transportation purposes. Subsequently, Metro’s CEO convened a Policy Advisory Council to help develop the 2020-50 Long Range Transportation Plan “and other work plans and policy areas that the Metro Board may request.” When the measure passed, coalition members representing local jurisdictions, consumers, and other transportation providers gained seats on the Metro Policy Advisory Council (PAC). Members of the PAC’s ‘consumers’ constituency group especially advocate for social equity.

In 2018, Metro Board adopted a 10-year strategic plan (Vision 2028), which validates equity’s importance to fulfilling Metro’s mission. In the plan Metro commits to prioritize communities with need, but stops short of designating who in the agency would guide and how they would hold the agency accountable to its equity commitment. At a public meeting in February, Metro CEO Phil Washington alluded to hiring an officer to champion equity for Metro. We support this notion and urge Metro to hire a CERO – Chief Equity & Race Officer – with multiple staff to define equity and set performance measures, which reinforces all four pillars of the Equity Platform Framework and helps fulfill Vision 2028 strategic goals.

Also in 2018, Metro directors promised to prioritize investments to communities based on need by adopting the Equity Platform Framework. With the framework, Metro challenges its staff to approach every decision with the goal of achieving equitable outcomes countywide. Immediately, the framework should impact how Metro redesigns Metro’s bus network (NextGen), develops a 2020-50 Long Range Transportation Plan, deliberates which projects to accelerate, designs a congestion pricing program, and distributes Measure M’s Active Transportation Funds.

 

What’s next? Centering equity at the outset of every initiative

In the next decade, Metro must move equitable decision-making from the margins to the center of all of its work. When Metro’s directors recently approved their initiative to “Reimagine LA County,” they reaffirmed their commitment to achieve equitable and sustainable outcomes through mobility. Later this month, Metro’s directors will have a chance to anchor equity in Metro’s congestion pricing and TNC fee studies at the outset.

Categories
Budgets Just Growth Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Equity at Metro One Year Later

When Metro focuses on equity prospectively communities all over greater LA gain higher-quality access to more resources and opportunities.

—

A little over one year ago, Metro adopted a set of “pillars” to outline how Metro will transform its decision-making practices to center the needs of LA County’s most vulnerable communities. Anointed Metro’s “Equity Platform Framework,” the four pillars challenge all staff and board members to think differently as they fund, expand, and operate LA County’s main public transportation system. Every day, millions of people’s lives and livelihoods depend on the quality of Metro’s operations and investments. Whose lives in LA County will benefit in the coming years as Metro funds and expands LA’s transportation system depends on whether and how Metro staff and board members prioritize the needs of our most vulnerable communities.

 

Why does it matter that public agencies focus on equity?

Social equity differs from equality. Public officials who make choices with an equity mindset make choices fairly — they account for innate and socially-imposed differences that exist among communities. When public officials make decisions equitably, they resist the false assumptions that ‘all communities can equally access opportunity ’ (they can’t) and that ‘social differences among communities reflect fair decisions’ (they don’t). By Metro’s own data, just under half of transit dependent neighborhoods with mostly low-income, carless, or senior households in LA County will remain over an hour away from jobs by transit through 2040.

If Metro operates from an equity lens, and intentionally increases access in the areas that need it the most first, Metro can diminish persistent disparities and help overcome legacies of discriminatory public policy. Economic research shows that regions with low economic disparities and high racial inclusion have more thriving regional economies.

 

How can Metro implement equity today?

Step 1: Finalize and apply a regional definition of equity

A year after Metro adopted its first-ever Equity Platform, nearly 30 partners from all over the region stood up for equity implementation at Metro. In the past 12 months, Metro has started creating a methodology for a regional definition of equity and equity performance measures. But this work remains unfinished and transportation officials proceed making policy and funding decisions unconstrained by an equity framework.

“Define and Measure,” the first pillar in the Equity Platform, commits to “involve the diverse range of voices that must collaborate” on goals and metrics. A community-driven conversation on a regional definition of equity will also ensure that local priorities are met and protected. Local priorities include funding to sustain or expand local transit service, Vision Zero, first-last mile and complete streets, sidewalk and road repair and transit oriented communities.

 

Step 2: Establish an Office of Race & Equity with Chief Race & Equity Officer and team of staff

It was so exciting to hear Metro CEO Phil Washington publicly state that he intends to hire a Chief Equity Officer to shepherd Metro’s equity work. The monumental lift to build equity into Metro’s culture, governance, and investment decisions needs all the help it can get. Will Metro walk the walk and budget for an equity team? Good thing the annual budget process is here!

 

Step 3: Apply equity definition, performance measures, and community engagement to Metro’s annual budget, financing policies, public investments and programs, and capital projects

In January 2019 Metro launched an initiative named Reimagining LA County: Mobility, Equity, and the Environment to study traffic management tools that can alleviate vehicle traffic congestion and simultaneously generate additional transportation revenue. The two-year study will explore congestion (relief) pricing and charging fees for transportation companies who sell rides on the public right-of-way.

A congestion pricing scenario and/or transportation network company fees could revolutionize how Greater LA manages driving. It is imperative that a robust equity framework apply to these initiatives to prioritize and serve high-need communities, including low-income drivers.

But first, we need a regional definition of equity.

—

This post was initially published on March 13, 2019.

[This post was updated on April 4, 2019 to include the following recap of Metro’s latest decisions on two initiatives: Reimagining LA County (think: congestion pricing) and 28×28 (think: a project list).]

 

In late February we stood with nearly 30 equity partners to boldly call on the LA Metro Board of Directors to define equity and establish equity performance measures by May. In doing so, LA County’s main transportation agency would make progress on implementing their one year-old Equity Platform Framework, which sets the parameters to routinely achieve equitable outcomes countywide. We continue to urge Metro to integrate equitable decision-making in every aspect of their work — in funding, planning, building, operating, and maintaining LA County’s public transportation system.

Thank you to our partners who joined us to deliver an equity-centered comment letter on Metro’s Reimagining LA County initiative and testified before Metro (ACT-LA, Climate Resolve, ELACC, People for Mobility Justice, and SAJE). Here’s a brief update of what we’ve learned through mid-March.

 

1.  LA Metro CEO, Phil Washington, intends to hire a Chief Equity Officer

  • In the CEO’s response to a Director’s question on succession planning for Metro’s equity leader, Mr. Washington said he intends to hire a Chief Equity Officer to shepherd LA Metro’s equity work, which Metro’s former Chief Planning Officer had focused on through the end of February.
  • Urge Metro to hire multiple full-time staffers to focus on equity — We realize that any single full-time staffer at LA Metro would be tasked with a profound duty of championing equitable decision-making in an agency authorized to fund, build, and operate public transportation for a diverse county of nearly 10 million people. Thus, in Metro’s upcoming budget deliberations, we will be calling on Metro to hire multiple full-time staffers to focus on equity.

2.  The LA Metro Board green-lighted the Reimagining LA County Initiative. 

Importantly, the board voted (1) to study congestion pricing for two years, (2) to study imposing fees on ridehail and scooter companies, and (3) to prepare a detailed financial forecast by July to deliver 8 as-yet underfunded projects (prioritizing 4 of which are transit projects) on the 28×28 project list.

  • RE: Reimagining LA County
    • April 2019 – Staff to report to the full Board of Directors on how staff intends to complete the congestion pricing and new mobility fee studies, which alludes to what may be in both studies scope of work.
  • RE: 28×28
    • May 2019 – Staff to report to Executive Management and Construction Committees on progress toward a detailed financial forecast to deliver 8 big projects (prioritizing the 4 transit projects) by 2028, which is sooner than their project schedules in Measure M.
    • July 2019 – Staff to submit to the full Board of Directors a detailed financial forecast to deliver the 8 accelerated projects in the 28×28 project list.

3.  The LA Metro Board attached four caveats to the Reimagining Initiative.

  • Motion 32.1 – another one of the four motions focused on the equity implications of congestion pricing on low-income drivers. In response, Metro staff broadened the scope of a proposed congestion pricing equity strategy to include more underserved communities than just low-income drivers. While these signals are positive, Metro staff must now define equity and its performance measures, while simultaneously authoring a potentially consequential congestion pricing report that could profoundly change travel behavior countywide.

As we continue our advocacy at Metro, we will be urging Metro to (1) establish and staff an Office of Race & Equity, (2) define equity and performance measures by Metro’s May board committee meetings, and (3) necessarily involve community stakeholders in crafting the congestion pricing report and its accompanying equity strategy.

Categories
Budgets Public Participation Resources Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Priorities and Public Money: A Primer on the City of LA Budget

Ever wonder why so many sidewalks in LA are broken, narrow, or missing altogether? Decades of government funding choices that have not prioritized the public right-of-way (sidewalks plus road space) underlie the issue (watch this). Ever wonder how to improve your local parks or libraries or street lights? When constituents earnestly call on their elected officials to step-up a specific public service or to fix broken infrastructure (including sidewalks), we hear public officials tell their constituents: “if it’s not in the budget, we can’t do it.” While budget allocations don’t always directly lead to real-time repairs, how cities decide to spend their annual budget does directly impact what residents and stakeholders can expect from their local government. In this way, the city’s annual budget reflects the city’s priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and highlights the boundaries of what city officials collectively believe they can accomplish.

 

City of LA Budget 101

The City of LA starts its fiscal year on July 1 and ends its fiscal year 12-months later on June 30. The City of LA’s annual budget, which the LA City Council and Mayor officially adopt in June, serves as the city’s spending and revenue plan for the upcoming fiscal year. A ‘FY20’ budget, for example, refers to a budget that starts in July 2019 and ends in June 2020.

The LA City Council is only one legislative body in the city to contribute to the budget, albeit the only body that deliberates budgets in a manner that is visible to the public. City department staff and staff representing the LA Mayor substantially contribute to the earliest iterations of the city’s budget before city councilmembers host their budget deliberations. By the time the City of LA’s 15 Councilmembers deliberate budget allocations in the spring, city department heads and staff representing the mayor’s office have already shaped the budget for several months.

Here’s a rough timeline showing how the City of LA budget is created and passed every year.

    • September to November: City department heads coordinate with Mayor’s staff — Each City of LA department estimates the total amount of funds they need for salaries and wages for their department’s staff, plus new and ongoing initiatives assigned to that department. Then each department General Manager sends to the Mayor’s office staff a proposed annual department budget.
    • November to April: City department heads deliberate with Mayor’s staff — City of LA department General Managers meet with Mayor’s office staff and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to review their department’s proposed budget. The CAO is the financial advisor to the Mayor and City Council and assists in the preparation and administration of the city budget each year. These discussions form the foundation of the Mayor’s annual proposed budget and occur privately, outside the purview of the general public.
    • April: LA City Mayor’s State of the City address — At this annual public event, the Mayor of Los Angeles outlines the city’s priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and unveils the Mayor’s proposed budget. This address sets in motion the public-facing segment of city budget deliberations.
    • May: LA City Council Committee budget deliberations — LA City Council’s 5-member Budget and Finance committee hosts public hearings on the proposed budget for each of the city’s departments, which include the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Department of Public Works, for example. These hearings are hosted at City Hall and members of the public may attend, listen, and give timed public comment on any of the agenda items. The Budget and Finance committee chairperson has authority to schedule these hearings, determine the agendas, and set the allotted time for public comment. Agendas for these public hearings will list which department budgets will be reviewed. State law requires the city to publish agendas no less than 72 hours before each hearing.
    • June: LA City Council budget approval — LA City Council’s 15-member legislative body reviews the budget and adopts the budget by June 1. The new fiscal year starts on the first of July.

How can I get involved?

When engaging with any city’s policy, legislative, or budget process we recommend three basic steps:

1) Relationships are everything

Anyone who wishes to shape the city’s budget in a meaningful way might consider cultivating relationships at multiple levels within city government. Principle players who most influence the City of LA budget include: staff representing department general managers, staff from policy and budget teams of Office of the LA Mayor, and the five city councilmembers who serve on the LA City Council Budget and Finance committee.

(Important to note! While you may live in a district of a councilmember who is not on the Budget and Finance committee, as a member of the public you can still engage with other council offices on issues covered by the committees they sit on.)

2) Know your issues

If you wish to strengthen your “asks” to city officials to deliver a public service or infrastructure, consider accompanying your requests with recommended allocation of resources. Some questions you might study ahead of the ask might include: With what funds could the city pay for the initial ask? Who would maintain the service or infrastructure after it is launched? If the city should maintain any new infrastructure, then how will the city pay to maintain its upkeep? Have any other cities done something similar to what you are requesting? Anyone can rely on relationships during city budgeting and a working knowledge of public finance to strengthen their asks.

3) Show, more than tell

Our elected officials understand that they are representatives. When members of the public can demonstrate huge support or opposition to an issue, our policymakers are more likely to listen. Anyone can show that they represent the interests of many constituents through sign-on letters, large groups at public hearings, widespread social media campaigns, and other methods. We find that the most effective advocacy is to combine individual relationships with city officials with public shows of vast support.

 

What’s the possible impact? A Vision Zero case study

City of LA officials tout a $9.9 billion budget for the fiscal year ending June 2019. This massive city budget breaks down into numerous departmental budgets. Departmental budgets break down further to fund specific initiatives, such as the initiative to save lives that end in traffic crashes, referred to as Vision Zero.

Prioritization — In 2015, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti launched the Vision Zero initiative in Los Angeles. In response, the City of LA’s transportation department (LADOT) developed long-term Vision Zero planning documents that chart out a course to eliminate traffic deaths in LA by 2025 while pointing out the forbidding reality of streets in LA where “motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death of children between the ages of 5 and 14” (LADOT, 2017, p. 18).

Investment — During the city’s budgeting process, Vision Zero advocates and supportive elected officials leveraged LADOT-published planning documents to raise the spectre of funding for Vision Zero from $3 million to $27 million in FY18. This show of support was also influential to continue increases to Vision Zero funding to $37 million in FY19 — a 1,100% budget increase in three years. While this upward trending financial commitment to road safety is encouraging to every road user, physical changes to streets saves lives.

Implementation — So far, some of the City of LA’s most visible Vision Zero accomplishments have included installing diagonal crosswalks in Hollywood (2015), MacArthur Park (2017), and Venice (2018) — an intersection design type that studies show cuts pedestrian collisions by half. Based on a Vision Zero screening of streets for exceedingly high* occurrence of human fatality and injury, city officials have begun reshaping parts of Reseda Blvd. in the West San Fernando Valley, Roscoe Blvd. in the East San Fernando Valley, and five other Complete Street corridors whose present street conditions have often resulted in human tragedy.

* Vision Zero initiatives promote the notion that  traffic crashes are entirely preventable and declare any human fatality by traffic crash as unacceptable.

 

City budgets reflect the city’s priorities for the upcoming fiscal year and highlight the boundaries of what city officials believe they can accomplish together. In order to influence public spending at the City of LA in a meaningful way, advocates can start by cultivating relationships at multiple levels of city government; matching their asks to city officials with funding source recommendations and proposed budgets; and showing support at budget hearings by building partnerships among allies and testifying at public hearings in the spring. The city’s budget cycle is active nearly all year round — starting with department managers and Mayor’s staff deliberations in the fall and ending with a City Council vote and Mayor approval in the spring (June 1). Once your desired initiatives appear in the budget, you and supporters can strengthen your appeal for change.

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
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
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
Public Participation transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Ballot Measure Recap: What Did We Win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Finish Los Angeles River and San Gabriel Valley Greenways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measure M - active transportation funding

4. Require Complete Streets in All Projects

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

5. Repair Streets and Sidewalks

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

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

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

6. Fund Countywide Walking and Biking Programs

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

And So Much More…

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

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

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

Categories
Resources Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Our take on the Metro Ballot Measure Revise

In March, Metro released a draft expenditure plan for a potential half-cent sales tax to be put on the November 2016 ballot. Supplementing existing revenue from Propositions A and C and Measure R, the potential additional measure would raise well over $100 billion over the next several decades for transportation improvements across Los Angeles County. Investing in Place and the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) have worked in partnership to campaign for funding from this measure to make our communities more walkable, bikeable, and equitable. How we spend public funds is a reflection of our shared values. Metro’s plan envisions a future with more transportation options serving more communities, more neighborhoods connected by walking and biking infrastructure, and less congested freeways with fewer bottlenecks. This analysis of Metro’s revised plan builds on Investing in Place’s March policy brief, which outlined our priorities in the potential measure and in all our efforts at Metro, including the 2017 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).  Read our complete analysis here.

Additional Background:

Categories
Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Breaking: LA County voters support safe, walkable neighborhoods and options other than driving

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 7, 2016
Primary Contact: Jessica Meaney
jessica@investinginplace.org
(213) 210-8136
Twitter: @InvestinPlace, #metrofundwalkbike, #metroplan
www.investinginplace.org

STATEMENT: With a November Los Angeles County transportation sales tax, voters strongly support making streets safer for walking and funding alternatives to driving

LOS ANGELES, CA — Investing in Place, a Los Angeles non-profit whose mission is to create livable and safe communities, commissioned Goodwin Simon Strategic Research to survey Los Angeles County voters on their priorities for the use of transportation funds. This poll was funded in part by a grant from Voices for Healthy Kids, an initiative of the American Heart Association.

On June 23rd, the Metro Board of Directors of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (also known as Metro) will decide whether to approve an expenditure plan for a transportation sales tax in the November 2016 general election. Metro’s proposal, if passed by voters in November 2016, would be the region’s 4th transportation sales tax measure.

The survey conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research demonstrated strong voter support for using the revenue from a potential Los Angeles County Transportation sales tax measure to fund alternatives to driving and especially for investing in a county that is safer for walking.

Although there is certainly strong support for spending potential ballot measure funds on freeways, rail transit, and bus service, there is even stronger support for spending the revenue on alternatives to driving. In fact, interest in spending funds from the measure on such alternatives is much higher among those who say they would vote yes on it. In short, making alternatives to driving and especially walking and biking part of the funding priorities for the measure will earn it additional votes.

“We’re on the verge of truly aligning transportation funding with the needs of our communities,” said Jessica Meaney, Managing Director of Investing in Place, “Our survey shows Los Angeles County voters want — and are willing to vote for — investments in making their neighborhoods walkable, bikeable, and easier to get to public transit and bus stops.”

The survey found that support for using ballot measure funds on more freeway lanes (65% in favor) is actually lower than support for investments in making it easier and safe to walk and bike:

  • 83% favor using funds from the measure to make it easier and safer for children to walk or bike to schools.
  • 81% favor using ballot measure funds to improve crosswalks so they are safer for people walking.
  • 74% favor using ballot measure funds for fixing sidewalks, including more street trees, benches, wider sidewalks, lighting, and more separation from cars.
  • 61% favor using ballot measure funds on additional bike paths and bike lanes.

Whereas most County voters are regular walkers, and a lower but still notable 25% bike at least once a month, those proportions could be higher if Los Angeles County addressed concerns about safety from crime and safety from crashes while walking or biking — this could include better lighting, safer crosswalks, and smoother surfaces for strollers, bikes, and wheelchairs.

“Two-thirds of Los Angeles County voters would walk or bike more if the streets felt safe — this number jumps to 78 percent for women under age 60, and up to 80 percent of Latinos,” said Tamika Butler, Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, “People should be able to walk and bike to school, to the store, and to the park without risking their lives. It would be a missed opportunity to spend billions making it easier to drive across the county when so many of our residents can’t even walk safely to the bus stop or bike to the train station.”

Official traffic data estimates people walking and biking represent 19 percent of all trips in Los Angeles County, yet make up 39 percent of those killed in traffic collisions. In low-income communities of color, people walk and bike at higher rates and are at even greater risk of being hit and killed due to lack of investment in safe streets.

“A majority of voters across Los Angeles County support using transportation funds to fix our sidewalks,” said Emilia Crotty, Policy and Program Manager for Los Angeles Walks. “Besides protecting people from injury, we need to avoid the legal mess cities get tangled in when people fall and hurt themselves on our sidewalks. Repairing broken sidewalks is not only the right thing to do, but is a smart fiscal strategy to avoid legal fees in the long run. It also increases transit use by making it easier for people to walk to train stations and bus stops.”

Anisha Hingorani, Policy and Program Manager for Multicultural Communities for Mobility said, “Investing in Place’s survey found that 64% would walk or bike more if the sidewalks were in good repair and accommodated strollers and wheelchairs. Over three-fourths of voters in Southeast Los Angeles, including the Gateway Cities subregion, want more funds to be spent on improving sidewalks. Repairing our sidewalks is a crucial first step to ensuring safe passage for all Los Angeles County residents, especially in low-income communities and communities of color. These community members have been historically shut out of public investment discussions and deserve equitable, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.”

“There is a strong connection between the built environment and public health. Los Angeles County has a tremendous opportunity to leverage billions of dollars in public funds and invest it in improving walking and bicycling conditions throughout the region,” said Eric Batch, Vice President of Government Relations for the American Heart Association. “Investing in Place’s survey found that dedicating funds from the measure to make it safer for our young people to walk or bike to school or near their homes is extremely popular with voters. Also, with 83% of Metro bus riders getting to their stop by walking, funds from this measure can improve options for current bus riders and attract new riders to Metro’s transit system.”

Goodwin Simon Strategic Research conducted 601 interviews in Los Angeles County with a margin of error about plus or minus 4% at a 95% confidence level.

Other key findings of interest from the survey:

  • Just under two-thirds (65%) say they would vote yes on the measure, including 45% who say they would definitely vote yes.
  • Driving is the primary mode of transportation for Los Angeles County voters, and this is true across party, race, and geographic differences. However, voters have conflicted feelings about driving: most feel forced to drive and would prefer other options. For example, more than two in three voters overall (68%) and 79% of those who drive on a regular basis, would like to spend less time in their cars.
  • Among those who drive on a regular basis, 60% would like to be able to walk and bicycle more often to destinations like shops and schools. Among those who say they will vote in favor of the upcoming sales tax measure, 66% say they would like to be able to walk and bicycle more often.

The key findings memo can be found on Investing in Place’s website here: http://tinyurl.com/InvestingInPlaceSurvey

For information about Investing in Place, please visit www.investinginplace.org.

###

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

What a win for Investing in Place & our partners looks like in Metro’s Draft Expenditure Plan

A couple of months ago, we released our analysis of Metro’s draft expenditure plan, covering what’s promising and what’s concerning about Metro’s proposed uses for about $120 billion in potential revenue, or even more from a 45 or 50-year measure that is scheduled to go before Los Angeles County voters in November 2016. Before that can happen, the Metro Board of Directors need to approve an expenditure plan for the ballot measure.  The final expenditure plan is expected to be reviewed by the Metro Board in June. As we get closer to the Metro board’s decision about a final plan, we wanted to provide a recap where we are and where we still need to make progress for the ballot measure to deliver key benefits for our communities with this potential new funding.

In our March 2016 analysis, we praised Metro leadership for funding transit operations and state of good repair, planning for new bus rapid transit lines and transit-oriented communities, and creating new services for students, older adults, and people with disabilities in the draft expenditure plan. We also applauded Metro for dedicating about six percent of the measure for projects and programs that directly serve trips made on foot or bicycle, and an additional three percent for complete streets projects where safety for people walking and biking is the central purpose of the expenditure. (Metro’s own pie chart shows only two percent for active transportation, however many walking and biking projects are in the transit and highway categories.) Together, these projects and programs that focus on making Los Angeles County safer and more accessible to people walking and biking account for about nine percent of the measure. It is still less than what’s needed, but it’s a good start.

There are still missed opportunities that should be fixed before the expenditure plan is finalized to ensure that all communities are served by the potential ballot measure. As we wrote in our analysis, the draft expenditure plan’s funding for active transportation is both inadequate and inequitable. There isn’t enough money overall for walking, biking, and safe routes to school and, more importantly, some communities were entirely left out of the limited active transportation funding that was included. Without investing in safe streets for all communities, the measure falls short of its potential. In our comment letter, we called this a “fatal flaw.”

There are also policy changes that would clarify how walking and biking are integrated into other projects through complete streets and first/last mile access. Integrated planning should be written directly into the ordinance to provide assurance to voters that commitments to complete streets are enforceable. These changes would maximize the value of investments in transit and highways by making sure that all projects consistently deliver benefits for people who walk and bike.

Here’s what a win for Investing in Place and our partners looks like:

  1. Dedicated Funding for Active Transportation in the Gateway Cities

There is no way around the fact that some of Los Angeles County’s most environmentally impacted and lowest-income communities of color are located in the Gateway Cities subregion. Cities like Cudahy, Pico Rivera, Bell, and Compton are emerging as regional leaders on walking, biking, and safe routes to school planning, but just don’t have the resources they need to rebuild streets that haven’t been updated since World War II. Long Beach aspires to be the most bicycle-friendly city in the United States, but would receive no dedicated funding toward their goal under the current proposal. While other subregions will have funding for greenways along the upper Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers (and their tributaries), the lower sections of these rivers will see no access improvements.

Screen Shot 2016-04-29 at 3.08.48 PM
At the Southeast cities townhall hosted by Metro in April, participants showed support for walking and biking investments in the area.

Research by the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and LACBC found that while high-resource cities are able to strategically mix local return and other city revenue with state and federal grants to fund walking and biking improvements, low-resource cities like those in southeast L.A. County don’t have local funding to leverage, and are therefore completely reliant on outside funding sources. A subregional program for active transportation — like those proposed for North County, Las Virgenes-Malibu, San Gabriel Valley, Westside Cities, and Arroyo Verdugo — would be a game changer for these cities, especially if it addresses first/last mile conditions, and safe routes to school investments. Based on population and need, a Gateway Cities Active Transportation Program should be funded at $400 to $500 million over the life of the ballot measure, which is about $10 million per year (2015 dollars). This funding could come from reallocating funding from other projects, pursuing innovative financing from new ExpressLanes in the subregion, or extending the sunset date of the measure to generate more revenue. Without dedicated funding for walking and biking, safe routes to school planning, and complete streets in the Gateway Cities from the ballot measure, the most vulnerable residents in the county will continue to have the least safe streets and the worst access.

  1. Clear Commitment to Complete Streets

In October 2014, Metro adopted its award-winning Complete Streets Policy, which firmly commits the agency to provide for the needs of all people in all of it’s projects. The policy recognizes Metro’s role as a planning, funder, builder, and operator of the region’s transportation system working in partnership with cities to improve streets for people who walk and bike. It is Metro’s role as a funder that is particularly important in the formulation of the potential ballot measure and the creation of new projects and programs that will shape the next half-century of transportation in Los Angeles County. This ballot measure needs to reaffirm Metro’s commitment to complete streets in every project and program.

The draft expenditure plan includes an innovative programmatic approach to addressing safety, congestion, and accessibility on arterial streets, led by each subregion. Some of these programs are called “complete streets” in their program titles, and we included these in our funding analysis in March. Others are vague arterial improvement programs without defined purpose or scope. Metro’s Complete Streets Policy should apply to these programs, but since the programs have yet to be defined, that commitment has not yet been articulated.

The potential of these programs is huge. If all arterial programs were developed with strong complete streets guidelines, then over $3 billion (over 7%) of the measure, in 2015 dollars, would go toward building complete streets that improve safety and accessibility for everyone, including people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving.

*In our March analysis, these programs were counted toward an estimated $1.2 billion in complete streets improvements in the draft expenditure plan.

What needs to be in the measure to guarantee Metro’s commitment to complete streets? In San Diego’s TransNet sales tax, complete streets are written directly into the ordinance that goes on the ballot. They use the following language:

All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the cost of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines.

If Metro were to use similar language in its ballot measure, voters could be confident that projects funded by the measure will deliver safe and accessible streets in their communities.

  1. Integrated Funding for First and Last Mile Access in All Transit Projects

Last week, the Metro Board considered a motion by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti to clarify that first and last mile access will be integrated into all future transit capital projects, building on momentum generated by Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan and Active Transportation Strategic Plan. An amendment by Inglewood Mayor James Butts would go further by allowing cities to count investment in walking and biking improvements around station areas as part of their required 3% capital contribution for major transit projects. (For more information about this motion, see last week’s blog post.) While the motion passed out of Planning and Programming Committee unanimously, it was continued until June by the board due to questions about the financial impact of the new policy.

What the board realized during discussion of the motion is that while it’s one thing to have a strong policy, what also needs to happen is a commensurate increase in transit project budgets to reflect the expanded scope. These improvements were not a part of the cost estimation process for these projects and should have been. While life-of-project budgets 20 or 30 years in the future already factor in a degree of flexibility to account for future uncertainties, there is nothing uncertain about the need to plan for first and last mile access. We recommend that all major transit capital project budgets be increased by 3 to 5% to account for the addition of walking and biking improvements to their scopes, which would require identifying an additional $325 to $550 million countywide in the expenditure plan. The consideration of 45 and 50-year alternatives provides an opportunity to increase project funding without taking away from other projects and programs.

The board will reconsider the motion at its June meeting, and support from advocates is critical to ensure that Metro makes a financial commitment to first and last mile as part of its transit capital program. If the full board adopts the motion, Metro will be making an unambiguous policy statement that transit projects need to include access for people walking and biking in their project budgets.

Mark Your Calendars: We Need You in June!

Metro will be making big decisions at their June meeting. In addition to the first/last mile motion, the board will consider the entire expenditure plan. This is our final opportunity to make the case that walking and biking need more investment in order to make our communities safer and healthier places to live. Please join us at these meetings and let us know you’re coming by RSVPing on here.

Metro Planning & Policy Committee

Wednesday, June 15th at 2:00 PM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

 

Metro Executive Management Committee

Thursday, June 16th at 11:30 AM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

 

Metro Board

Thursday, June 23rd at 9:00 AM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

City of LA Sidewalk Policy Program proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

City of Los Angeles: Sign on to our comment letter and fund sidewalks as part of the transportation network

The City of Los Angeles is considering a policy to address the improvement needs extending over 11,000 miles of sidewalks and paths of travel on Monday November 16th. Investing in Place and partner organizations are concerned that many mobility, safety, sustainability and social equity goals and policies are not being strategically addressed in the recommendations from the City Administrative Offices (5/26/15: New policy for repair and management of sidewalks adjacent to private property).

Therefore, Investing in Place and partners are submitting a comment letter this week and ask others to sign on in support of our recommendations to address these goals. This letter states that we welcome the opportunity to work with the the City to develop a strategic, data driven framework for this policy and work plan. We encourage the City to look beyond sidewalk repairs as simply a budget issue, but to view repairs through a planning lens that examines mobility and quality of life issues,  and not only links but strengthens existing local, regional and state policies and goals. And click here to read AARP’s comments on the proposed policy. Thank you AARP!

Continue reading “City of Los Angeles: Sign on to our comment letter and fund sidewalks as part of the transportation network”
Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Using data to align transportation funding with social equity and public health goals: Best Practice – City of Los Angeles Safe Routes to School

As Los Angeles County considers a fourth transportation sales with potential to generate tens of billions of new transportation dollars, we look to best practices to guide the framework and metrics used to prioritize investments.  And the City of Los Angeles Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan provides just that. It is an example of transportation policy that is based on data and need, taking precedence over political boundaries and supports a citywide vision.

In 2012 the City’s department of transportation (LADOT) launched the Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan to make the most of the city’s resources to address mobility needs for students and families and the 500 public school within the city limits. This strategic plan developed a prioritization and methodology for targeting the top 50 highest Los Angeles Unified District Schools (LAUSD) schools using the criteria:

  • Collision rates
  • Number of enrolled students living within walking distance and bicycling distance of the school (thanks to a critically valuable partnership the City of Los Angeles has developed with LAUSD)
  • Percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunches
  • Determination if the school has previously received a Safe Routes to School State or Federal grant before

As a result of this data based strategic plan that addresses public health and social equity goals, in 2014 LADOT was successful in being awarded over $20 million from the State Active Transportation Program (ATP) to increase safety through street improvements around nine of the highest need schools, develop complementary safety and education campaigns and create school travel plans for the remaining top 50 high need schools. And the Safe Routes to School strategic plan is also a critical part of the City of Los Angeles Vision Zero efforts, enabling the city to layer on data, need, and prioritization methodology to address social equity and public health in not only in its policies but in its funding decisions.

This local example is a powerful story on how regional transportation funds could be allocated on need and desired safety and mobility outcomes using public health and social equity metrics, data, prioritization methodology and partnerships.

Categories
Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Infrastructure Update: #LAsidewalks

Last week Investing in Place met with staff from the City of LA’s Chief Administrative Office (CAO) for a update on the status of the sidewalk repair program.  We learned that in early October the City’s Committees of Budget/Finance and Public Works/Gang Reduction will come together to consider the CAO’s sidewalk repair recommendations for policy action, we believe the policy recommendations need to reflect a different approach.

City of LA - High Injury Network priorization zonesWe see this as a critical time for stakeholders to get involved and support a sidewalk infrastructure policy program that:

  • Views sidewalks as a core part of the City’s transportation network, not piecemealed based on property ownership characteristics (ie City facility, business/commercial, residential).
  • Creates a citywide sidewalk strategic plan/inventory strategy.
  • Creates a prioritization plan based on social equity and public health metrics and uses the city’s high injury network (HIN), and other factors to inform the prioritization plan.
  • Leverages the potential 2016 Los Angeles County transportation sales tax revenue to accelerate the repair program to fix the city’s sidewalks in 10 years, not the proposed 30 years.
  • Involves and is informed by stormwater capture and tree preservation/replanting strategies.
  • Supports meaningful community participation during this effort.

Background: On April 1, 2015 the City of Los Angeles announced the settlement on American with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit to fix LA’s sidewalks. After several years of litigation the City of Los Angeles agreed to fix the city’s broken sidewalks and ensure accessibility and safety for all. This legal agreement represents the largest disability payout in the country. The settlement calls for a citywide sidewalk repair plan and spending over $1 billion in funds to fix and improve sidewalks throughout the city within the next 30 years (see LA Times and Legal Aid Society coverage and analysis).  This then triggered the City Administrative Office (CAO) to issue a report to Mayor Eric Garcetti and City Council, called “New Policy for Repair and Management of Sidewalks Adjacent to Private Property,” in May 2015.  This report included recommendations for a comprehensive sidewalk repair strategy, including the development of policies to address sidewalk repairs by other governmental agencies, commercial property and residential properties. This report is still a recommended action by the CAO’s office.  It is critical to realize, no decisions have been made by the council on how to proceed further.  Members of City Council are currently in the process of assessing the recommendations. They are also holding community meetings, assessing the needs of their districts and requesting input from area residents on sidewalk repair needs.  So now is the time for stakeholders to weigh in. Per staff in the CAO’s office, the City Council is expected to decide on sidewalk funding and repair policy this fall, with the goal of approving the policy and staffing levels by December 2015.

It is a critical time to weigh for stakeholders to weigh in on this policy decision. The city is potentially approving a $1.4Billion dollar infrastructure plan without comprehensive strategic plan or funding strategy. The sidewalks in the City of Los Angeles represent one of the most critical public spaces, but are not yet afforded the same luxuries many other transportation infrastructure projects enjoy such as strategic planning, data and inventory collection, safety prioritization, comprehensive funding or being viewed as a core part of the transportation network.

Next steps: We are thinking about hosting a conference call in the first week in October to brief partners on this policy effort and invite LA City staff to share the latest updates, especially before the Joint Committees meeting. Please email jessica@investinginplace.org if you’d like to be involved.

Categories
Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

City of Los Angeles to invest over $1Billion in fixing sidewalks

After several years of litigation the City of Los Angeles agreed to fix the city’s broken sidewalks and ensure accessibility and safety for all. This legal agreement represents the largest disability payout in the country. The settlement calls for a citywide sidewalk repair plan and spending over $1 billion in funds to fix and improve sidewalks throughout the city (see LA Times and Legal Aid Society coverage and analysis).

Next steps include developing a work plan and prioritization of efforts. Right now the City has over $27 million in approved budgeted funds to get started on this work this year. The source of transportation funds for this work beyond the initial $27 million has not yet been identified. The city is also creating a position to monitor the work and will draft reports on its progress twice yearly.

sidewalks.pressconference
City of Los Angeles announces settlement on ADA lawsuit to fix LA’s sidewalks on 4/1/15

In order to leverage the funds for this scale of infrastructure rehab (over 10,000 miles of sidewalks within the city), an inventory and prioritization process is needed to develop a citywide strategic plan. The data collected and metrics used will enable articulation of detailed costs and an implementation program. Social equity and public health data will need to be critical parts of the performance metrics process to ensure the best outcomes for the highest needs communities in the City. Having a solid strategic plan will enable the city to compete for federal, state and regional transportation funds to complete the infrastructure repair.

Project delivery, transparency and coordination with other Citywide transportation projects will be critical for the sidewalk repair program. 30 years seems like a long time to wait to fix the city’s broken sidewalks, and this process should be accelerated to be completed within 10-15 years. Metro’s 30/10 program offers an example of how this could be done.

However, the City of Los Angeles struggles with delivering transportation projects in timely manner. During the October 2014 Street Transportation Project Oversight Committee and Transportation Committee meetings (audio of meeting, discussion at 58 minute mark), staff discussed the current backlog of safe routes to school, walking, and bicycling projects. This backlog of projects, totaling close to 1/4 of a billion dollars, is waiting for delivery by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Bureau of Street Services (BSS). These are combination of federal, state, and Metro grant funds that the city has been awarded but has not yet implemented.

It is exciting to see the City of Los Angeles ready to fix its broken sidewalks and focus on improving multi-modal travel as seen in the draft mobility plan and DOT strategic plan, but it is critical that the funding and efficient project delivery becomes aligned with these policies goals.

© 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.