Category: Uncategorized

Los Angeles City Council is currently considering Charter Reform proposals that could significantly change how the city plans for, funds, and manages public infrastructure.

Among the proposals under discussion are a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) and reforms related to Public Works leadership and accountability. As City Council deliberates these recommendations over the coming weeks, questions are emerging around governance, implementation, coordination, and long-term stewardship of the public realm.

To help follow the discussion, Investing in Place developed a short civic explainer that provides background on what is being considered, why it matters, and some of the key governance questions currently before City Council.

The explainer covers

• Why Los Angeles is considering infrastructure governance reform
• What a Capital Infrastructure Program is and what it could change
• What City Council is currently considering
• Key questions related to Public Works leadership, accountability, and Charter Sections 507 and 580
• Important upcoming decision points before the November 2026 ballot deadline

Read the full explainer here

As Charter Reform discussions continue, Investing in Place will continue sharing updates and analysis focused on the systems, governance, and long-term stewardship needed to better care for Los Angeles’ sidewalks, streets, parks, and public spaces.

As Los Angeles considers how to reform its City Charter, members of the Board of Public Works recently presented their proposal for “Strengthening Infrastructure Governance” to the Charter Reform Commission’s Planning and Infrastructure Committee.

Their proposal supports implementation of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP), a much-needed step that Investing in Place has long advocated for. A citywide CIP would help Los Angeles better understand its infrastructure needs, prioritize investments, improve coordination across departments, and provide greater transparency to the public.

Where the conversation becomes more challenging is around governance.

The Board’s proposal largely focuses on preserving and expanding the Board’s existing role. Board members point to their frequent meetings, oversight of major contracts, and responsibility for reviewing more than $1 billion in annual infrastructure investment. Those responsibilities are significant and important.

But the larger question is not how many contracts are approved or how many meetings are held. The larger question is whether Los Angeles has the governance structure needed to deliver better infrastructure outcomes.

Today, Los Angeles still lacks a clear citywide system for long-term infrastructure planning, prioritization, delivery, and accountability.

The challenge is structural, not personal. The current Board inherited a system that has evolved over decades. But the outcomes suggest that the system itself deserves closer examination.

Today:

• More than 50,000 sidewalk repair requests remain pending.
• It can take years to install accessibility improvements such as curb ramps.
• Streetlight repairs can take months.
• More than 200,000 tree wells sit empty during a period of increasing heat and climate challenges.

These conditions raise important questions:

• Who is ultimately accountable for citywide infrastructure performance?
• Who is responsible for coordinating priorities across bureaus and departments?
• How are infrastructure outcomes measured and reported to the public?
• What governance structure best supports long-term delivery and accountability?

A city can be highly efficient at processing contracts and still struggle to achieve strategic outcomes. Contract administration and executive leadership are different functions, and a well-functioning city requires both.

This is not an either-or choice between oversight and management. Los Angeles needs both strong oversight and strong leadership.

It is also worth remembering that this conversation is not new.

During the Charter Reform process of the late 1990s, commissioners debated whether the Department of Public Works should continue under its existing governance structure or move toward a more traditional executive model with a single accountable leader. Some proposals would have transformed the Board into a part-time oversight body while creating a stronger executive management structure.

Ultimately, the Board retained its executive authority. A Director of Public Works position was created, but with limited authority and administrative responsibilities.

Nearly three decades later, many of the same questions remain unresolved.

As Los Angeles prepares to implement a citywide Capital Infrastructure Program, the city has an opportunity to revisit those questions with a focus on outcomes rather than tradition.

Investing in Place recommends that the City Charter establish a Chief or Director of Public Works with the authority, expertise, and responsibility to lead implementation of the Capital Infrastructure Program and coordinate infrastructure priorities across departments.

This role should be professional, accountable, and empowered to manage long-term infrastructure performance on behalf of the public.

At the same time, there is an opportunity to reconsider the role of the Board of Public Works. Rather than serving as both an oversight and executive body, the Board could evolve toward a governance model similar to those used by the Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports, or the Department of Water and Power. These bodies provide oversight, policy direction, and transparency while leaving day-to-day management to professional staff.

This conversation is not about personalities.

It is about whether Los Angeles has the governance systems necessary to care for its sidewalks, streets, trees, parks, and public infrastructure over the long term.

It is about accountability.

It is about delivery.

And it is about whether the city’s public realm reflects the level of care that Angelenos deserve.

If Los Angeles wants a Capital Infrastructure Program that succeeds, it must also create the leadership structure necessary to implement it.

Who is responsible for public infrastructure in Los Angeles?

As the City prepares to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games while facing significant fiscal challenges, that question has never been more important. Our sidewalks, streets, parks, urban forest, and public facilities are managed through a fragmented system spread across departments, funding streams, and decision-making bodies. Yet no single person is clearly accountable for how that system performs as a whole.

The Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission will hold public meetings on planning and infrastructure on October 18 in Pacoima and October 22 at City Hall. These conversations present an important opportunity to focus not only on what we build, but how we manage it and who is responsible for delivering results.

Los Angeles does not simply need more funding. It needs a better system for planning, prioritizing, and managing public infrastructure over time.

That starts with a Capital Infrastructure Program.

A Capital Infrastructure Program, or CIP, is a multi-year plan that identifies infrastructure needs, establishes priorities, aligns funding, and creates transparency around implementation. It helps cities move beyond annual budget cycles and reactive decision-making toward a more coordinated and strategic approach.

But a Capital Infrastructure Program raises an equally important question: who will be responsible for implementing it?

Earlier this year, Investing in Place recommended creating a Director of Public Works to coordinate infrastructure planning and delivery across departments and oversee implementation of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program. Whatever title is ultimately chosen, Los Angeles needs a single executive accountable for coordinating infrastructure priorities, reporting on progress, and ensuring that departments are working toward shared goals.

This conversation is not simply about organizational charts or departmental restructuring. It is about creating the conditions for better outcomes.

Today, the City’s annual budget process leaves little room for long-term infrastructure planning. Departments are expected to coordinate across multiple funding sources, priorities, and responsibilities, often without a shared framework or citywide set of goals. The result is a system that frequently prioritizes immediate needs over long-term planning, maintenance, and delivery.

A well-designed Capital Infrastructure Program would help change that.

A CIP does not require consolidating every infrastructure function into a single department. What it does require is a shared, citywide framework that establishes priorities, coordinates investments, and creates accountability over multiple years. It gives departments a transparent work plan tied to budgets, schedules, and measurable outcomes.

Most importantly, it helps move the city from reacting to problems toward managing infrastructure as a system.

This is why governance matters.

A Capital Infrastructure Program cannot depend solely on administrative practice or the priorities of a particular Mayor, Council, or department. If Los Angeles is serious about long-term infrastructure planning, the City Charter should establish a clear framework for how a Capital Infrastructure Program is developed, updated, and reported to the public.

The Charter should define the requirement for a multi-year Capital Infrastructure Program and establish clear expectations around transparency, coordination, public reporting, and accountability.

Just as importantly, it should clarify who is responsible for delivering the plan.

Los Angeles has spent decades attempting to improve infrastructure outcomes through individual programs, motions, and departmental initiatives. While many of those efforts have produced important progress, they have not fundamentally addressed the governance challenges that make coordination difficult and accountability unclear.

The opportunity before the Charter Reform Commission is to address those structural issues directly.

This is not about concentrating power. It is about creating responsibility.

The City needs someone who can coordinate across departments, align budgets and priorities, communicate progress to the public, and be held accountable for results.

As the Charter Commission develops its recommendations, the public deserves a clear discussion of the available governance options. Should responsibility rest primarily with the Mayor? The City Council? The Board of Public Works? A Director of Public Works? What structure is most likely to produce long-term accountability and better outcomes?

These are foundational questions, and they deserve thoughtful public discussion.

Public infrastructure shapes mobility, accessibility, climate resilience, economic opportunity, public health, and quality of life. When infrastructure systems work well, they are often invisible. When they fail, the consequences are felt every day.

The Charter Reform process presents a rare opportunity to build a stronger foundation for how Los Angeles plans, funds, and delivers infrastructure.

A Capital Infrastructure Program is an essential part of that foundation.

Clear accountability is the other.

As Los Angeles considers its future, one question should remain at the center of the conversation:

Who is responsible for delivering the public infrastructure that Angelenos rely on every day?

Today we are proud to share The Civic Promise: A Roadmap for Infrastructure Reform in Los Angeles.

For years, Investing in Place has studied a simple question: Why does Los Angeles struggle to consistently maintain and improve the sidewalks, streets, parks, trees, and public spaces that shape everyday life?

The answer is not a lack of ideas or dedicated public servants. More often, it is a lack of the systems needed to plan, prioritize, fund, coordinate, and deliver infrastructure over time.

Over six months, the Public Space Leadership Council—a cross-sector group of civic leaders from government, planning, finance, design, philanthropy, and community organizations—worked together to identify practical reforms that could help Los Angeles better manage its public realm.

The result is a roadmap containing 16 recommendations to improve how the City plans, budgets, maintains, and invests in public infrastructure.

The recommendations range from creating a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program and improving asset management to strengthening accountability, coordination, workforce development, and public transparency.

At its core, the report is about helping Los Angeles become a city that can reliably care for the places people rely on every day.

Sidewalks, streets, parks, plazas, trees, and other public assets are among the City’s most-used resources. Yet Los Angeles lacks many of the basic tools that other major cities use to manage them effectively.

We believe that can change.

This report is an invitation to think beyond individual projects and focus on the systems that shape outcomes across the city. It is intended to support ongoing conversations about infrastructure governance, public investment, Charter Reform, and the long-term stewardship of Los Angeles’ public spaces.

We hope you’ll read it, share it, and join the conversation.

Read the full report: The Civic Promise: A Roadmap for Infrastructure Reform in Los Angeles

When you look at a city’s sidewalks, streets, parks, trees, and public facilities, you learn a lot about how that city is governed.

Right now, Los Angeles faces a growing infrastructure challenge. Sidewalks remain in disrepair, accessibility improvements lag behind need, parks face ongoing funding pressures, and critical public assets require greater investment and coordination.

As Los Angeles enters the 2025-26 fiscal year facing a significant budget deficit, these challenges are exposing a deeper structural issue: the City lacks a long-term system for planning, prioritizing, funding, and managing infrastructure.

Today, Los Angeles makes infrastructure decisions largely through annual budgets, individual projects, and department-specific processes. Without a shared, multi-year framework, it becomes difficult to assess needs, establish priorities, make tradeoffs, or measure progress over time.

The result is a system that too often operates reactively rather than strategically.

A Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) can help change that.

A CIP is a multi-year planning and budgeting tool that helps cities understand infrastructure needs, establish priorities, identify funding sources, coordinate investments across departments, and track progress over time. It provides a transparent framework for making decisions about public assets and helps ensure that infrastructure investments align with long-term goals.

Los Angeles remains the largest major U.S. city without a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program.

At a time of growing infrastructure needs and limited resources, the City can no longer afford to make decisions one budget cycle at a time. A Capital Infrastructure Program would help Los Angeles better understand its needs, make priorities clearer, and invest more strategically in the public assets that residents rely on every day.

The question is no longer whether Los Angeles needs a Capital Infrastructure Program.

The question is how quickly the City can build one.

For the first time in decades, Los Angeles has a real opportunity to reform how it plans, funds, and manages the sidewalks, streets, parks, and public spaces that millions of people rely on every day.

In October 2024, Mayor Karen Bass issued Executive Directive #9: Streamlining Capital Project Delivery and Equitably Investing in the Public Right-of-Way (ED #9), launching an effort to develop Los Angeles’ first comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP). The directive recognizes something many Angelenos experience every day: the condition of our public spaces reflects the systems used to manage them.

ED #9 establishes an important framework for improving transparency, coordination, and equity in how infrastructure investments are made. Key commitments include engaging the disability community in planning and maintaining public spaces, directing investments toward underserved communities, and supporting workforce development and local hiring.

Most importantly, it begins the process of developing a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program, a tool used by cities across the country to align priorities, budgets, and project delivery over time.

This matters because Los Angeles currently lacks a long-term system for planning and managing infrastructure.

The result is visible throughout the city.

Half of LA’s sidewalks are in disrepair. More than 200,000 tree wells sit empty. Streetlights remain broken. Accessibility improvements move slowly. Public restrooms are scarce. Bus shelters, shade, and basic public amenities remain unevenly distributed across neighborhoods.

These are not isolated problems. They are symptoms of a system that has historically made infrastructure decisions one project, one budget cycle, and one department at a time.

A Capital Infrastructure Program creates an opportunity to approach these challenges differently.

Instead of reacting to problems individually, a CIP helps cities understand needs comprehensively, establish priorities, coordinate across departments, and make investments based on long-term goals and available resources. It gives city staff a multi-year work plan and provides the public with greater visibility into what is being funded, when projects will be delivered, and how decisions are made.

At its best, a CIP helps shift infrastructure planning from a reactive process to a strategic one.

This is ultimately about more than sidewalks, parks, or streetlights.

It is about how Los Angeles stewards public resources, serves its residents, and creates accountability around public investment.

For too long, infrastructure planning has often been fragmented across departments, funding streams, and political priorities. A comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program offers an opportunity to create greater coordination and transparency while helping the city make clearer decisions about what gets funded and why.

The timing is significant.

With the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympic and Paralympic Games approaching, Los Angeles has a rare opportunity to strengthen the systems that support public infrastructure long after these events have passed. The question is not simply how the city prepares for these moments, but whether it uses them to build lasting capacity.

Meaningful systems change is never easy. It requires leadership, coordination, public trust, and sustained commitment. But the alternative is to continue addressing infrastructure challenges one project at a time while the underlying problems remain unresolved.

Executive Directive #9 creates an opportunity to think differently.

The condition of our sidewalks, streets, parks, and public spaces is not simply a reflection of maintenance needs. It is a reflection of how the city organizes itself to plan, fund, and deliver public infrastructure.

Every broken sidewalk, dark streetlight, empty tree well, or inaccessible curb ramp points to a larger question about how Los Angeles governs and cares for the public realm.

The sidewalks may be broken.

The city doesn’t have to be.

Today we’re excited to share a new report, Common Ground: Favorite Public Spaces in Los Angeles.

Over the past year, we asked nearly 200 Angelenos a simple question:

What’s your favorite public space in Los Angeles, and why?

The answers took us across the city—from Griffith Park and the Los Angeles River Greenway to Little Tokyo, neighborhood sidewalks, local parks, plazas, and community gathering places.

People told us about places that connect them to nature, childhood memories, family traditions, exercise, community, and everyday life.

One person described a stretch of Ventura Boulevard they have visited for years because it is accessible, familiar, and full of memories. Another shared their love for Little Tokyo because it offers culture, walkability, and the chance to spend an entire day exploring on foot. Others spoke about neighborhood parks, plazas, and sidewalks that provide opportunities to gather, play, relax, and connect.

The report highlights several themes:

• People value public spaces that are close to home.
• Walkability and accessibility matter.
• Parks remain beloved destinations, but neighborhoods themselves are important public spaces.
• People use public space to connect with nature, unwind, exercise, and spend time with others.

Most importantly, the report reminds us that public space is personal.

Sidewalks, parks, plazas, and shared public places are more than infrastructure. They are where people build memories, find connection, and experience their city.

We hope you’ll take time to explore the report and perhaps discover a few new places along the way.

Read the full report: Common Ground: Favorite Public Spaces in Los Angeles

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

For Investing in Place, this marks an important milestone.

For years, we have researched, written about, and convened conversations around a simple idea: Los Angeles needs a comprehensive, multi-year approach to planning, funding, and managing its public infrastructure. The City’s sidewalks, streets, parks, trees, lighting, accessibility improvements, and other public assets are too important to be managed one budget cycle, one department, or one project at a time.

Executive Directive #9 creates a pathway toward something Los Angeles has never had before: a citywide Capital Infrastructure Program.

The Directive establishes a new framework for improving coordination, transparency, equity, and long-term planning in the public right-of-way. Among its commitments are:

• Engaging the disability community as a partner in planning and maintaining public spaces.
• Prioritizing maintenance and asset management.
• Expanding transparency around project selection and investment decisions.
• Improving coordination across departments and existing work groups.
• Directing resources toward historically underserved communities.
• Supporting workforce development and economic opportunity for Angelenos and local businesses.

Most importantly, the Directive initiates the development of a five-year Capital Infrastructure Program.

This moment did not happen overnight.

Over the past several years, Investing in Place and many partners across Los Angeles have worked to elevate the need for a more coordinated approach to public infrastructure. Together we have:

• Conducted research on more than 30 cities and their Capital Infrastructure Programs.
• Developed LA’s first inventory of public right-of-way assets.
• Convened workshops and roundtables with civic, business, community, and government leaders.
• Interviewed City staff to better understand barriers to creating a Capital Infrastructure Program.
• Organized support from more than 80 organizations and civic leaders around a shared set of principles for infrastructure planning and investment.

Many of the ideas reflected in Executive Directive #9 have been part of these conversations for years.

That is encouraging.

But the release of the Directive is only the beginning.

Creating a Capital Infrastructure Program will require significant work from city staff, elected leaders, community members, and outside experts. Los Angeles currently manages infrastructure through dozens of departments, agencies, funding streams, and annual budget decisions. Building a coordinated, transparent, multi-year system will require new ways of working together and new ways of making decisions.

That work will not be easy.

But it is necessary.

For too long, Los Angeles has lacked a shared framework for understanding infrastructure needs, establishing priorities, coordinating investments, and communicating those decisions to the public. Executive Directive #9 creates an opportunity to begin building that framework.

The directive provides a vision.

The next step is implementation.

Investing in Place looks forward to continuing this work alongside city staff, community leaders, and residents to help ensure that Los Angeles develops a Capital Infrastructure Program that is transparent, equitable, and capable of delivering results over the long term.

This is an important step forward.

Now the real work begins.

Earlier this fall, Investing in Place hosted a conversation with USC researcher Laura Messier to explore how 30 major U.S. cities manage their sidewalks.

The discussion revealed something important: Los Angeles is not alone.

Across the country, cities struggle with aging sidewalks, deferred maintenance, accessibility challenges, and unclear responsibility for repairs. Most cities still place maintenance responsibility on adjacent property owners, while only a handful proactively inspect sidewalk conditions or maintain comprehensive plans for long-term investment.

Laura’s research found that many communities face the same fundamental challenge: sidewalks are essential public infrastructure, but the systems used to maintain them are often fragmented, reactive, and underfunded.

For Los Angeles, the findings reinforce the need for a more coordinated approach.

With more than 50,000 unresolved repair requests and long waits for accessibility improvements, the city’s sidewalk challenges are not simply a maintenance issue. They are a governance challenge.

The workshop also highlighted examples from cities such as Denver, Seattle, and Dallas that are experimenting with more proactive approaches, including city-led maintenance programs, regular condition assessments, and equity-based prioritization frameworks.

The conversation reinforced a growing consensus: if cities want safe, accessible, and equitable sidewalk networks, they need systems that match the scale of the responsibility.

As Los Angeles considers a Capital Infrastructure Program and broader infrastructure reforms, these lessons from other cities offer valuable insight into what works, what doesn’t, and what it takes to maintain the public spaces people rely on every day.

Sidewalks are where daily life unfolds.

They are where people walk to school, wait for the bus, meet neighbors, exercise, run errands, and access jobs, parks, and services. For someone using a wheelchair, a sidewalk is also part of a larger system that includes curb ramps, intersections, bus stops, lighting, shade, and other infrastructure that determines whether a trip is possible at all.

Sidewalks are much more than concrete.

Trees, benches, shelters, lights, public bathrooms, transit stops, and accessibility features all contribute to whether the public right-of-way is welcoming, functional, and safe.

When these systems work together, neighborhoods thrive.

When they don’t, everyday life becomes harder.

As we explored in our previous posts, Los Angeles faces both a massive sidewalk backlog and a maintenance policy that has struggled to keep pace with the scale of need.

The challenge is not simply maintenance.

The challenge is management.

Today, responsibility for sidewalks and the public right-of-way is spread across more than 20 departments, agencies, offices, and programs. Los Angeles budgets one year at a time. There is no comprehensive infrastructure plan, no citywide project list, and no shared framework for prioritizing investments.

The result is a system where responsibility is fragmented and accountability is unclear.

Sidewalks are managed separately from streetlights. Trees are managed separately from accessibility improvements. Transit access is often disconnected from sidewalk conditions. Individual departments may perform important work, but no single entity is responsible for ensuring that all of these elements work together to support people’s daily lives.

Los Angeles has an opportunity to change that.

Three steps would help move the city toward a more coordinated and accountable approach:

Develop a Capital Infrastructure Program. Los Angeles remains the largest major city in the country without a comprehensive, multi-year infrastructure plan.

Clarify roles and responsibilities. Clear ownership and accountability are essential for managing a system of this scale.

Create strong infrastructure leadership. The City needs leadership responsible for coordinating priorities across departments and ensuring public investments align with long-term goals.

Ultimately, this conversation is about more than sidewalks.

It is about how Los Angeles cares for the public spaces people rely on every day.

Because sidewalks are where life happens.

Our infrastructure systems should reflect that reality.

For nearly a decade, Los Angeles has relied on a sidewalk maintenance approach known as “Fix-and-Release.”

The idea sounds straightforward.

The City repairs a damaged sidewalk and then releases responsibility for future maintenance to the adjacent property owner.

In practice, the policy has not delivered the results many hoped for.

As of 2021, fewer than 5,000 properties had received release certificates, representing less than one percent of the City’s approximately 640,000 sidewalk parcels.

The challenge is that responsibility is divided in ways that make accountability difficult.

Property owners are generally responsible for maintaining sidewalks under state law. At the same time, the City remains responsible for ensuring accessibility under federal law. Yet Los Angeles has largely suspended enforcement of maintenance requirements while also struggling to repair sidewalks at the scale required.

The result is a system where neither the City nor property owners are effectively positioned to address the growing backlog.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles still lacks a complete inventory of sidewalk conditions and does not have a comprehensive long-term plan for addressing maintenance needs.

This matters because sidewalks are not optional infrastructure.

They are essential for mobility, accessibility, public health, and neighborhood quality of life. When they fall into disrepair, the consequences are felt most acutely by people with disabilities, older adults, children, and anyone who relies on walking or transit.

The limitations of Fix-and-Release point to a larger issue.

The challenge facing Los Angeles is not simply about repairing individual sidewalks. It is about creating a system capable of managing and maintaining one of the largest sidewalk networks in the country.

That requires looking beyond individual policies and asking a broader question:

Who is responsible for ensuring the entire system works?

If you see something, say something.

That’s what we’re taught. Notice a hazard? Report it. Help fix the problem.

Now imagine you see people repeatedly tripping over the same broken sidewalk in your neighborhood. You watch someone using a wheelchair leave the sidewalk entirely because a missing curb ramp blocks their path. You decide to report the problem through the City’s 311 system.

Your request is received.

Estimated wait time: more than 10 years.

Does that sound like a functional city?

Los Angeles has one of the largest sidewalk networks in the United States, with roughly 9,000 to 10,000 miles of sidewalks connecting neighborhoods across the city. Yet according to a 2021 Controller audit, more than half of that network is broken or in disrepair.

That’s more than 5,000 miles of damaged sidewalks.

To be fair, managing a network of this size is a significant challenge. But Los Angeles has not had a comprehensive sidewalk program since the 1970s. Decades of deferred maintenance have allowed small problems to become large ones.

The consequences are visible throughout the city. Broken sidewalks make it harder for older adults, people with disabilities, parents pushing strollers, and anyone walking to safely move through their neighborhoods. Accessibility improvements remain backlogged. Basic maintenance often happens years after problems are reported.

The challenge is made even more difficult by how responsibility is structured.

California law places much of the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance on adjacent property owners. This has created a patchwork system where conditions vary widely from neighborhood to neighborhood. Wealthier communities are often better positioned to address repairs, while lower-income neighborhoods may struggle with the financial burden.

In 2016, Los Angeles entered into the largest ADA sidewalk settlement in the nation, committing $1.37 billion over 30 years to improve accessibility throughout the public right-of-way. Yet the scale of need continues to exceed the City’s current approach.

Sidewalks are more than infrastructure.

They connect people to schools, jobs, parks, transit, businesses, and one another. They are among the most heavily used public assets in Los Angeles, yet they often receive far less attention than roads and highways.

To understand why, we need to look at the City’s current sidewalk policy and why it has struggled to deliver results.

That’s where we’ll turn next.

On April 10, 2024, Investing in Place hosted an online workshop exploring the past, present, and future of Los Angeles’ sidewalks.

More than 75 participants joined the conversation, including disability rights advocates, legal experts, public agency staff, community leaders, and residents interested in improving accessibility and public space across Los Angeles.

Resources

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

Key Themes

The discussion began with an overview of the current state of LA’s sidewalks and the findings of the 2021 Controller’s Audit, which documented significant challenges in how the City plans, maintains, and repairs sidewalk infrastructure.

A central focus of the workshop was accessibility.

Community leaders Cynde Soto, David Radcliffe, and Hector Ochoa shared their experiences navigating Los Angeles as wheelchair users and discussed the barriers that continue to limit mobility, independence, and access throughout the city. Their stories reinforced the importance of designing and maintaining sidewalks that work for everyone.

Attorney and disability rights advocate Paula Pearlman provided an overview of the Willits settlement, the landmark disability rights lawsuit that requires Los Angeles to improve accessibility throughout the public right-of-way. Her presentation highlighted both the progress that has been made and the work that remains.

Participants also discussed the recently approved Healthy Streets LA ballot measure and what it could mean for sidewalks, accessibility, and the future of street improvements across Los Angeles.

Looking Ahead

The workshop reinforced a simple idea: sidewalks are essential public infrastructure.

They connect people to jobs, schools, parks, transit, businesses, and one another. Creating a more accessible and equitable Los Angeles will require continued attention to sidewalk conditions, long-term planning, and meaningful engagement with the communities most impacted by these decisions.

Thank you to everyone who participated and contributed to the conversation.

In less than 30 days, Los Angeles will begin implementing Healthy Streets LA, the voter-approved measure requiring the City to move forward with long-promised mobility improvements.

The measure reflects a clear message from voters: Angelenos want safer, more accessible streets and public spaces.

But implementation raises an important question.

Does Los Angeles have the systems needed to deliver?

Healthy Streets LA is often discussed as a transportation initiative. In reality, its success depends on something much broader: how the City plans, budgets, coordinates, and manages public infrastructure.

Today, those systems remain fragmented.

Sidewalks, access ramps, street trees, bus stops, stormwater infrastructure, and street improvements are managed through different departments, funding streams, and decision-making processes. The result is a system that often struggles to coordinate investments, establish priorities, and communicate progress to the public.

If Los Angeles wants to successfully implement Healthy Streets LA, several foundational pieces must be addressed.

Build a Capital Infrastructure Program

The City needs a multi-year framework for understanding infrastructure needs, setting priorities, coordinating investments, and tracking progress. A Capital Infrastructure Program would provide that foundation.

Improve Coordination

Transportation, Public Works, accessibility, urban forestry, and other infrastructure systems are deeply interconnected. Policymakers should ensure stronger coordination across committees, departments, and agencies responsible for implementation.

Clarify What Projects Include

The Mobility Plan was adopted more than a decade ago, but important questions remain about how projects are defined and delivered. Sidewalks, curb ramps, trees, transit access, and other elements of the public right-of-way should be considered together rather than as separate investments.

Advance Infrastructure Equity

As implementation moves forward, transparency around infrastructure conditions, investment priorities, and equity metrics will be essential to ensuring that historically underserved communities benefit from public investment.

Healthy Streets LA presents an opportunity to improve more than individual projects.

It presents an opportunity to improve how Los Angeles makes infrastructure decisions.

The question facing the City is not simply how to implement a ballot measure.

It is whether Los Angeles will use this moment to build the systems needed to plan, fund, and deliver public infrastructure more effectively over the long term.

The status quo is no longer sufficient.

The opportunity now is to build something better.

More than 90 civic leaders gathered with Investing in Place this month for a conversation about one of Los Angeles’ biggest challenges: how to better plan, fund, and manage public infrastructure.

Participants included public agency staff, elected officials, researchers, business leaders, community organizations, and residents. While they brought different experiences and perspectives, a common theme emerged throughout the discussion:

Los Angeles cannot effectively manage its infrastructure without a shared plan.

Former City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana reflected on the City’s fiscal challenges and the consequences of making major infrastructure decisions without a long-term framework.

“A plan helps you define what’s most important,” he told attendees. Before decisions about budgets and priorities can be made, communities need a shared vision of what they want their city to become.

Jason Foster, CEO of Destination Crenshaw, spoke about the importance of community ownership and participation in shaping public investments.

“We own the public right-of-way as taxpayers and voters,” he said. Public infrastructure works best when communities see themselves reflected in the decisions being made around them.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield discussed the realities of funding infrastructure in Los Angeles, including decades of deferred maintenance and revenue streams that have not kept pace with growing needs.

Yet despite the challenges, the conversation remained focused on possibility.

Throughout the afternoon, speakers returned to a similar idea: Los Angeles has tackled difficult infrastructure challenges before. Progress requires leadership, coordination, and a willingness to think beyond the next budget cycle.

For Investing in Place, the discussion reinforced why a Capital Infrastructure Program remains so important.

A citywide plan helps establish priorities, coordinate investments, improve transparency, and create a shared framework for making decisions about public assets. Without one, infrastructure decisions become fragmented, reactive, and harder for the public to understand.

This fall, Investing in Place joined more than 80 organizations, civic leaders, and community partners in calling for Los Angeles to create a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP).

The letter, sent to Mayor Karen Bass and key City Council leaders, reflects years of research, collaboration, and discussion about how Los Angeles plans, funds, and manages its public infrastructure.

At the time, Los Angeles remained one of the only major U.S. cities without a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program.

That matters because a CIP is more than a list of projects. It is a tool for establishing priorities, coordinating investments, improving transparency, and helping cities make informed decisions about long-term infrastructure needs.

Over the past several years, Investing in Place worked with city staff, practitioners, researchers, and community leaders to better understand how other cities approach capital planning and what lessons might apply in Los Angeles.

Those conversations led to nine principles that we believe should guide the development of a Capital Infrastructure Program for Los Angeles.

The principles emphasize:

• A clear vision for infrastructure investment.
• Transparency and public accountability.
• Cross-department coordination.
• Equity in decision-making and resource allocation.
• Long-term planning and stewardship.
• Meaningful community engagement.

Most importantly, the principles recognize that infrastructure decisions shape everyday life. Sidewalks, streets, parks, trees, lighting, and other public assets are among the City’s most-used resources, yet Los Angeles has historically lacked a comprehensive framework for planning and managing them.

The strong support behind this letter reflects a growing recognition that Los Angeles needs a more coordinated approach.

Creating a Capital Infrastructure Program will require leadership, collaboration, and sustained commitment. But it also presents an opportunity to better align public investment with community priorities and create a stronger foundation for the future.

We invite you to read the letter and explore the nine principles that informed it.

Together, they represent a vision for how Los Angeles can better plan, fund, and care for the infrastructure that residents rely on every day.

How many streetlights does Los Angeles manage?

How many bus shelters, curb ramps, street trees, traffic signals, sidewalks, bike lanes, and miles of roadway make up the public right-of-way?

Until recently, there was no single place to find the answer.

To better understand the scale of the infrastructure Los Angeles is responsible for managing, Investing in Place worked with City staff and agencies to create the first comprehensive inventory of assets in the public right-of-way.

The result is We’ve Got LA’s Number, a first-of-its-kind report documenting more than 125 types of public assets that help make Los Angeles function every day.

Why does this matter?

Because cities cannot effectively manage what they do not measure.

Infrastructure planning begins with understanding what exists. Before policymakers can prioritize investments, estimate maintenance needs, improve accessibility, or develop long-term plans, they need a clear picture of the assets they are responsible for maintaining.

This project focuses on a foundational question:

What does Los Angeles own?

The report compiles information from multiple City departments and agencies to create a more complete understanding of the public right-of-way, including sidewalks, streets, streetlights, trees, transit amenities, accessibility infrastructure, and other public assets.

The inventory does not evaluate the condition of these assets. Instead, it establishes a baseline by documenting what exists and the scale of the City’s responsibility.

For city leaders, practitioners, researchers, and residents, this information provides an important starting point for conversations about infrastructure investment, maintenance, transparency, and accountability.

We hope this resource helps support better decision-making and a deeper understanding of the public spaces and infrastructure that Angelenos rely on every day.

Read the report

Explore the data tables and interactive spreadsheet

Los Angeles is not the first city to create a Capital Infrastructure Program.

Over the past year, Investing in Place reviewed capital planning practices from more than 30 cities across North America to better understand how large cities plan, fund, and manage public infrastructure.

No two cities approach capital planning in exactly the same way. But several themes emerged consistently.

1. Make Participation Easy

The best capital planning processes are understandable and accessible to the public.

Residents should be able to see what projects are planned, how decisions are made, and where investments are occurring.

2. Give Communities a Real Role

Public engagement is important, but many cities go further by creating formal structures that allow residents to help shape priorities and investments.

3. Build on Existing Plans

Successful capital plans do not start from scratch.

They connect adopted plans, policies, and community priorities into a shared investment strategy.

4. Coordinate Across Departments

Infrastructure systems cross organizational boundaries.

Cities that plan effectively create structures for regular coordination among departments responsible for transportation, public works, utilities, parks, and other infrastructure.

5. Fund Outcomes

The strongest plans begin with desired outcomes and then align budgets to achieve them.

6. Prioritize Equity

Many cities use explicit criteria to help direct investments toward communities with the greatest need.

7. Understand Infrastructure Conditions

Asset inventories and condition assessments provide the information necessary to make informed decisions and plan for long-term maintenance.

8. Identify Unfunded Needs

Several cities maintain lists of unfunded priorities to help guide future investments and improve readiness for grant opportunities.

9. Connect Capital and Operating Budgets

Building infrastructure is only part of the equation.

Long-term maintenance and operations must also be considered.

10. Plan for Resilience

Infrastructure investments should help cities prepare for climate change, extreme weather, and future challenges.

What We Learned

The most important lesson from other cities is simple:

Planning matters.

Cities that maintain strong infrastructure systems generally have clear priorities, transparent decision-making processes, long-term plans, and regular coordination across departments.

Los Angeles has the opportunity to build these foundations while creating its first Capital Infrastructure Program.

The goal is not to copy another city.

The goal is to learn from their experience and develop an approach that reflects the scale, complexity, and needs of Los Angeles.

Our research continues, but one conclusion is already clear: a Capital Infrastructure Program can help Los Angeles make smarter, more transparent, and more coordinated decisions about the public assets residents rely on every day.

Los Angeles manages one of the largest public infrastructure systems in the United States.

Thousands of miles of streets and sidewalks, streetlights, trees, bus stops, accessibility improvements, and other public assets shape daily life across more than 200 neighborhoods.

Yet Los Angeles lacks a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) to guide how these assets are maintained, improved, and funded over time.

A CIP is more than a list of projects. It is a long-term framework for understanding infrastructure needs, establishing priorities, coordinating investments, and communicating those decisions to the public.

Based on our research and conversations with city staff, practitioners, and community leaders, three foundational steps are necessary to build a successful CIP for Los Angeles.

1. Know What We Own

The first step is understanding the full scope of the City’s infrastructure.

A comprehensive inventory should identify public assets across departments and agencies and establish a baseline for understanding the City’s responsibilities. Over time, this inventory should also include information about asset conditions and maintenance needs.

Cities cannot effectively manage what they do not measure.

2. Coordinate Existing Plans

Los Angeles already has many plans, programs, and initiatives affecting the public right-of-way.

The challenge is that they often operate independently of one another.

A successful CIP should help connect these efforts, align priorities, and provide a shared framework for decision-making across departments and agencies.

3. Define Success

Before deciding what projects to fund, Los Angeles must decide what outcomes it wants to achieve.

What should the public right-of-way look like in ten years?

What level of accessibility should residents expect?

How should investments support safety, shade, mobility, maintenance, and neighborhood quality of life?

A Capital Infrastructure Program works best when it is guided by a clear vision and measurable goals.

Building the Foundation

As Los Angeles develops a Capital Infrastructure Program, three elements will be essential:

• A prioritized list of projects and programs.
• A long-term strategy for maintenance and asset management.
• The staffing and workforce capacity needed to deliver results.

Cities across the country already use these tools to guide infrastructure investment and improve transparency.

Los Angeles can too.

The question is not whether the City needs a Capital Infrastructure Program.

The question is whether we are ready to build the foundation for one.

Los Angeles has spent years trying to improve how it plans, funds, and manages public infrastructure.

Reports have been commissioned. Working groups have been created. Equity initiatives have been launched. Coordination efforts have been introduced. Yet despite these efforts, Los Angeles remains the only major U.S. city without a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP).

Why?

Because many of these efforts have addressed individual pieces of the problem rather than the system as a whole.

A Capital Infrastructure Program is more than a list of projects. It is a long-term framework that helps a city understand its assets, establish priorities, coordinate investments, align funding, and communicate decisions to the public.

Over the past two decades, Los Angeles has repeatedly identified the need for better infrastructure planning and coordination. The timeline below highlights some of the key milestones.

A Timeline of Infrastructure Planning in Los Angeles

2005

City Council adopts a policy target of investing 1% of General Fund revenues in capital and infrastructure improvements.

2008

The City stops publishing key capital planning documents that previously provided a centralized view of infrastructure projects and investments.

2011

The Street and Transportation Projects Oversight Committee (STPOC) is established to improve project delivery and coordination.

2013

City Council directs staff to develop a comprehensive Capital Infrastructure Strategic Plan.

2015

The City adopts Mobility Plan 2035, establishing a long-term transportation vision but without a corresponding implementation, funding, or prioritization framework.

2017

The FUSE report, Evaluation of the State of Street Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles, identifies fragmentation in decision-making, the need for asset management, and the need to reinstitute a citywide capital planning process.

2019

LADOT adopts the Mobility Investment Program (MIP) to improve project delivery and prioritize transportation investments.

2020

The City revives its Capital and Technology Improvement Expenditure Program after more than a decade and adopts social equity as a budget priority.

2021

City Council advances a motion calling for a Capital Infrastructure Program focused on equitable investment and addressing infrastructure deficits.

The Board of Public Works also adopts Public Right-of-Way Protocols establishing safety, climate action, and equity as guiding principles for infrastructure work.

2022

The City advances several efforts related to infrastructure coordination, project delivery, and equity, including the Infrastructure Equity Scorecard Pilot and new interdepartmental coordination agreements.

At the same time, Healthy Streets LA qualifies for the ballot, raising broader questions about how Los Angeles plans and delivers infrastructure improvements.

What the Timeline Reveals

Looking across these efforts, a consistent theme emerges.

Los Angeles has repeatedly identified the need for:

• Better coordination
• Stronger asset management
• Clearer priorities
• More equitable investment
• Greater transparency
• Long-term planning

What the City still lacks is a comprehensive framework that brings these elements together.

A Capital Infrastructure Program provides that opportunity.

To build one, Los Angeles needs five foundational pieces:

• A shared vision for the future of the public right-of-way.
• A comprehensive inventory of public assets.
• Meaningful public engagement.
• A clear approach to prioritization and equity.
• A transparent accounting of projects, funding, timelines, and outcomes.

The challenge facing Los Angeles is not a lack of studies, committees, or recommendations.

The challenge is turning decades of recommendations into a system.

That is the work ahead.

For years, Investing in Place has worked to understand how Los Angeles funds, manages, and delivers improvements to its sidewalks, streets, transit access, trees, lighting, and other public infrastructure.

What we discovered was surprisingly simple:

No one can easily see the full picture.

Los Angeles invests hundreds of millions of dollars each year in the public right-of-way through a combination of transportation sales taxes, gas taxes, special assessments, local revenues, state funding, federal grants, and other sources. Yet those investments are managed across numerous departments, bureaus, agencies, and special funds.

As a result, it is difficult for policymakers, city staff, and the public to answer basic questions:

• How much funding is available for public infrastructure?
• What projects are being funded?
• What outcomes are those investments intended to achieve?
• How do different funding sources work together?
• Are investments aligned with city priorities?
• Are we making progress?

The Challenge

Los Angeles organizes its budget primarily by department and funding source.

Transportation, Public Works, accessibility improvements, street lighting, urban forestry, transit access, and other infrastructure programs are often planned, budgeted, and reported separately.

This structure makes it difficult to understand how investments work together to improve the public realm.

It also limits the City’s ability to evaluate performance across systems.

For example, a budget may identify how much funding is allocated to a department or program, but it is often much harder to determine:

• What infrastructure outcomes were achieved.
• Whether investments met identified needs.
• How projects were prioritized.
• Whether spending aligns with long-term goals.

The Missing Piece

Most major cities use a Capital Infrastructure Program (CIP) to connect projects, funding, priorities, schedules, and outcomes.

A CIP helps decision-makers understand not only how much money is available, but how investments contribute to broader community goals.

It creates a framework for answering questions such as:

• What infrastructure do we own?
• What condition is it in?
• What investments are needed?
• How should limited resources be prioritized?
• What progress are we making over time?

Without that framework, infrastructure decisions often occur one project, one department, and one budget cycle at a time.

What Better Looks Like

A stronger approach would include:

A Comprehensive Asset Inventory

The City should maintain a clear understanding of the infrastructure it owns and is responsible for maintaining.

Transparent Infrastructure Funding

Funding sources should be easier for policymakers and the public to understand, track, and evaluate.

Multi-Year Capital Planning

Infrastructure investments should be planned over multiple years rather than through annual budgeting alone.

Performance Reporting

The City should regularly evaluate not only how much money was spent, but what outcomes were achieved.

Shared Priorities

Infrastructure decisions should be guided by a clear vision, measurable goals, and transparent prioritization criteria.

Why This Matters

The condition of Los Angeles’ sidewalks, streets, trees, lighting, transit access, and public spaces is not simply a maintenance issue.

It is also a budgeting and governance issue.

If Los Angeles wants to improve the public realm, it needs systems that allow decision-makers and residents to understand where money is going, what it is accomplishing, and how investments contribute to a shared vision for the future.

Before we can improve the system, we need to understand it.

And to understand it, we have to follow the money.

Los Angeles invests billions of dollars in public infrastructure.

Every year, funding flows into sidewalks, streets, streetlights, transit access, trees, accessibility improvements, and other public assets through local sales taxes, gas taxes, special assessments, grants, and other funding sources.

So where does all that money go?

The honest answer is that it is surprisingly difficult to know.

Infrastructure funding in Los Angeles is spread across multiple departments, agencies, programs, and funding streams. Project decisions are often made separately, budgets are organized differently across departments, and there is no single public document that connects investments to a shared citywide strategy.

As a result, residents and policymakers alike struggle to answer basic questions:

• What infrastructure projects are planned?
• How are projects prioritized?
• What tradeoffs are being made?
• What outcomes are investments intended to achieve?
• How will success be measured?

The challenge is not a lack of funding.

The challenge is a lack of coordination.

For decades, Los Angeles has managed infrastructure largely through separate departments and annual budget cycles. Streets, sidewalks, streetlights, transit access, and other public assets are often planned and funded independently, making it difficult to align investments around a common vision.

The consequences are visible throughout the city.

Sidewalk repair backlogs persist. Accessibility improvements move slowly. Basic maintenance competes with new projects for limited resources. Public agencies often pursue similar goals without a shared framework for prioritization.

This is why a Capital Infrastructure Program matters.

A Capital Infrastructure Program brings projects, funding, priorities, and timelines together into a single public framework. It helps decision-makers understand what infrastructure exists, what investments are needed, and how limited resources should be allocated over time.

Most major cities already use some version of this approach.

Los Angeles does not.

Without a comprehensive plan, infrastructure decisions remain fragmented and difficult for the public to understand.

With one, the City can make priorities clearer, improve transparency, coordinate investments, and better connect public spending to public outcomes.

The question facing Los Angeles is not whether infrastructure funding exists.

The question is whether the City has the systems needed to steward it effectively.

What is it actually like to ride the bus in Los Angeles?

To answer that question, Investing in Place partnered with community organizations and bus riders to conduct first-hand audits of six major Metro bus lines serving neighborhoods across Los Angeles.

More than 50 riders participated, documenting their experiences waiting for and riding the bus. Together, they completed audits at 244 bus stops and shared observations about reliability, accessibility, comfort, and safety.

The findings were clear.

Reliability Matters

Nearly half of participants reported that the bus did not arrive when they expected it to.

For many riders, uncertainty and waiting are a significant part of the transit experience.

Bus Stops Need Investment

Many bus stops lacked basic amenities.

Nearly half of the stops observed were described as dirty or affected by litter. More than one-quarter lacked shade, an especially important concern in a region experiencing increasingly extreme heat.

Accessibility Remains a Challenge

Bus riders regularly include older adults and people using wheelchairs, canes, crutches, and other mobility devices.

Yet auditors documented bus stops without accessible boarding areas, narrow sidewalks, and locations where passengers were forced to wait too close to moving traffic.

Riders Know What They Need

When asked what would improve their trips, riders consistently called for:

• More reliable service
• More frequent buses
• Faster travel times
• Additional shade and seating
• Cleaner bus stops
• Bus-only lanes

Perhaps most importantly, the report centers the voices of people who rely on transit every day.

Too often, discussions about transportation happen without hearing directly from bus riders. This project was designed to change that.

Their experiences remind us that transit is not just about buses. It is also about sidewalks, shade, accessibility, maintenance, and the public spaces that connect people to the places they need to go.

We hope this report helps policymakers, transit agencies, and community leaders better understand the everyday experience of riding the bus in Los Angeles and supports future investments that make transit more accessible, comfortable, and reliable.

Read the full report

Leer el informe en español