Category: Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what can we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Footnotes:

 

The City of Los  Angeles is in the process of developing a new bus shelter program as its 20 year contract with Outfront/JCDecaux expires at the end of this year (see Council File 20-1536).  As part of the replacement process, Los Angeles is hosting “demonstration projects” for potential new shelters across the city this month (see StreetsblogLA’s coverage of it here).

While the City spends two weeks showcasing potential new bus stops, we are still left with fundamental questions about this program. In particular, details have been scarce regarding implementation, funding and repairs to existing sidewalk damage where shelters are installed.

Funding:  When the City issued its Request for Proposals earlier this year, they asked for proposals “to include a minimum of three different cost proposals based upon the City participating in zero percent, fifty percent and one hundred percent of the program’s foreseen capital expenditures (CAPEX) costs.” (May 20, 2021 CF 20-1536 report to Public Works Committee).

While interested community members are being encouraged to check out the new shelters, there is no public discussion on the financing and scope of this new program. If the City contributes no capital dollars, the new program, like the old program, will likely be steered by advertising revenue.

There are key issues that need to be discussed with policymakers and community members such as:

1. How many Metro bus stops will get new shelters? What is that timeline (6 months? a year)? Will this include DASH bus stops?

2. If the City provides 100% of the funding up front:

• • How much will this cost?

  • Where is this funding coming from?

  • Is Metro contributing to the effort?

  • Does this include funding for fixing/addressing access ramps and sidewalk repairs where needed ?

  • With a CAPEX of 100% how many shelters can be installed in year 1?

  • What do the initial finances look like? Who is reviewing them?

  • What happens at the bus stops where we need shelters but the sidewalks are not ADA accessible and in disrepair? Will the broken sidewalks/crosswalks be fixed in order to install needed shelters?

3. Is there coordination for new shelters with the City’s urban forestry program? Can the new shelters include trees?

4. Bureau of Street Services (BSS) manages: sidewalks, the street vendor program, and the street furniture program – is there an opportunity to coordinate and discuss how these 3 key programs work together to support an inclusive and accessible space?

LA Sidewalks: It is no secret that there is a lack of coordination and investment in the City’s sidewalks and crosswalks. There is reason to be concerned that this new street furniture program is moving ahead without addressing the fact that the City of Los Angeles has no guiding policy or set of metrics to inform the development of a walkable and rollable city with vibrant and inclusive sidewalks serving multiple needs and community uses.

The difference between how the City of Los Angeles manages its roads for people in cars, as opposed to those walking, rolling and using the bus is staggering.

For the past 20 years, Los Angeles bus riders have not been provided a shelter and seat in the shade, unless there can be advertising money recouped from it. In a region where voters have taxed themselves 4 times to improve transportation options, why is it that policymakers have decided that it doesn’t include transit and bus access? Or sidewalk and crosswalk access?

We have heard anecdotal information from Bureau of Street Services staff that 50% or more of the bus stops in Los Angeles are currently unable to have a bus shelter because the sidewalk is in disrepair, inaccessible or not wide enough. But in reality, we have no idea what this number is because even after the 2015 Willits Class action lawsuit, the City still has no inventory of the 11,000 miles of sidewalks that cover our city.

For the past 20+ years, policy makers in the City of Los Angeles have decided to hand over sidewalks and bus shelters, both critical parts of our transportation network, to property owners and the private sector to manage, only inserting City policy to attempt to leverage advertising revenue. This current approach only benefits wealthy homeowners and those who do not ride buses.

The City of Los Angeles needs a comprehensive bus stop upgrade capital program (not a plan, not a contest, not a pilot, but something that will be implemented). Done in partnership with Metro, with transportation funds and not a program reliant on advertising revenue.

 

Background:

• Let’s Talk Some Shade 

• Got Shade? 20 years of bus shelters in the City of Los Angeles 

• LA Sidewalk Policy Frequently Asked Questions 

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

Over the past year, the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the mobility of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) in Los Angeles, particularly mothers in South Los Angeles. Mothers who relied on taking public transportation suddenly were waiting for less frequent, more crowded buses, thus increasing the risk for COVID-19 exposure. Furthermore, systemic disinvestments continued to harm mothers of color across the city including cracked sidewalks to walk strollers, and lack of protected bike lanes for recreational trips with kids.

 

Our partners East Side Riders Bike Club surveyed 23 mothers of Black and Latinx descent about how COVID-19 has affected their transportation needs. These surveys were taken between November 2020 and March 2021 (link to full survey here). 

 

East Side Riders Bike Club (ESRBC) is a grassroots organization that was founded in 2008, based in Watts. East Side Riders Bike Club started as a small collective that rode around Watts, Florence-Firestone, and Compton distributing food and water to unhoused folks in the area. 

 

The organization seeks to engage the community through a variety of activities including youth bike rides, which help kids to stay healthy and out of gang activity. ESRBC thus established a program called Life Lanes that ensured the safety of bike riders from gangs when riding through Watts. ESRBC hosts frequent group bike rides that give community members an opportunity to bike for free without having to purchase a bike or pay for equipment.

 

Furthermore, ESRBC hosts Bicycle Education and Safety Training Classes during summer, winter, and spring break for the community. After the classes are completed, students receive free helmets and lights. 

 

Community is a central focal point of ESRBC. ESRBC often hosts barbecues and breakfast for the community. During COVID-19, ESRBC has served breakfast on weekdays for the Watts community. Currently, ESRBC has served over 240,000 meals since the COVID-19 pandemic began. You can donate to support the work of East Side Riders Bike Club here.

 

Findings:

Out of the 23 mothers surveyed, 70% were Latinx and 30% were Black. Most mothers (57%) made under $25,000 a year, 74% of mothers were between the age of 30-45, and 39% of mothers learned Spanish as their first language.

 

We found that 83% of mothers surveyed used their cars as a primary mode of transportation, however 70% of mothers were not looking for or saving up for a new car. This suggests that car ownership, while necessary for day-to-day activities, is also potentially expensive with high costs for gas, insurance, and maintenance. 70% of mothers surveyed said that they knew other mothers that found high costs for purchasing a vehicle and insurance financially challenging. 

 

Similar trends can be seen with primary modes of transportation among various trips. Over 65% of mothers drive their kids to preschool or grade school, 70% of mothers drive to the grocery store and to medical/dental appointments, and 65% of mothers surveyed drive for recreational trips. Recreation trips to the park, beach, museums, and visiting family had the most varied distribution, as 26% of mothers surveyed used the train and 22% of mothers used bikes as a primary mode of transportation. These numbers show potential that mothers surveyed would be open to alternative modes of transportation other than driving if a feasible option was available.

 

Mothers surveyed also responded to what transportation infrastructure improvements would greatly benefit them and their families. Out of the 23 respondents, 48% of mothers surveyed would like to see more protected bike lanes and bike paths away from car traffic, and 30% would like to increase the current amount of bike lanes. Mothers would like a safe and comfortable place to bike with infrastructure that protects them and their children from car traffic.

 

35% would like to see bike improvements that reduce dangerous driving and speeding. This number correlates to the biggest pedestrian improvement priority: creating pedestrian improvements that reduce dangerous driving (52% of those surveyed). This makes a lot of sense as many kids in Watts and South LA walk and bike. 

 

We thank East Side Riders Bike Club for the amazing work that they do, and are grateful for their partnership in our Moms and Mobility Campaign. 

Our Moms and Mobility Campaign: This year Investing in Place is  working together with the East Side Riders Bike Club, Los Angeles Walks and South Central LAMP in a funded partnership to combine new data and new voices from women to impact policy and investments for the City’s transportation network.

Next week, Metro is set to vote on its largest ever annual budget. Spurred by the ongoing economic recovery in Los Angeles and stimulus support from the federal government, the transit agency expects to spend $8 billion next year. That money pays for rail and highway construction, system maintenance, local government services. But, as Metro points out, it will also go toward restoring transit service to its pre-Covid levels after the Board of Directors approved 20% cuts last year.

Joined by a coalition of transit riders, advocates, and community organizations, Investing in Place opposed the bone-deep service cuts put in place by Metro during the pandemic. These cuts, we argued, would fall disproportionately on the Black and brown low-income Angelenos that make up the core of Los Angeles’s transit riders. While local leaders spoke about the selflessness of essential workers, they were putting many of those same workers in even greater risk of lost wages, serious illness, or even death by stripping the transportation services on which they relied.

Metro argued that these cuts were undertaken out of necessity, but that was shown not to be the case when staff identified a mid-year surplus and failed to recommend that any of that money be used for restoring service. When the Board of Directors twice directed the agency to use the additional funds to boost bus service, staff delayed and an eventual compromise was put in place to return to the pre-Covid level of service by September 2021, a full 18 months after the cuts were first implemented.

In pushing Metro to provide the “Old Normal” of service during the pandemic, we were asking the agency to hold the line in support of the riding public. This, in our opinion, was a duty that Metro owed to Angelenos who had no choice but to continue relying on public transportation. Now, though, with Metro’s financial position better than ever, we cannot support the idea that the Old Normal is cause for celebration.

Since the end of a federal consent decree in 2006, Metro has repeatedly cut bus service. With the exception of the cuts that began in March 2020, bus service has been kept flat for nearly a decade. During that decade, riders voted with their feet, abandoning the buses and the transit system as a whole once it became clear to them that Metro was not serious about providing high-quality service.

Riders can tell from experience when transit service is bad. The wait for buses becomes agonizing. The time it takes to get to their destination becomes unreasonably long. But they generally don’t have data on hand to make their experience something more than anecdotal. It turns out, Metro’s own budgets show the degradation in service that riders have been noticing on the ground.

In statistics that the agency records on the number of hours its bus fleet is in service annually, as well as how far they cumulatively travel each year, it can be seen that bus speeds have dropped 20% on average since the start of the 21st century.

In the upcoming budget year, Metro expects that bus speeds will reach their lowest point yet. And, as NextGen redirects more bus service hours onto congested corridors where demand is higher, we can expect that trend to continue without significant and expedient work to get buses moving faster. That means that, even as Metro touts its belated decision to return to the pre-pandemic Old Normal, the actual amount of bus service riders are getting will continue to decline.

Below, we graph the number of budgeted service hours for each year dating back to 2000 in black. But, if we want our year-to-year comparisons to be more effective, we want to adjust each years budgeted hours based on average bus speeds. That is shown in red. What the red line tells us is, for any given year, how much service would need to be provided in order to match what riders could have expected at the start of the century.

Our takeaway is simply this: bus service has collapsed since the Great Recession, and Metro has done nothing to repair it. More and more transit riders have left the system because of the too-slow, unreliable, infrequent, and unsafe riding environment that Metro provides. While the agency says they are “restoring” service, the real service provided continues to sink. And riders cannot be fooled.

If Metro were to provide a level of bus service equal to what was provided in 2000, it would need to dramatically accelerate its bus fleet or provide 1.5 million service hours above what is currently proposed in the 2022 budget. While the NextGen plan proposes to accelerate buses, on the current funding timeline, it would take a decades or longer to complete the planned speed improvements to the network. This budget is, quite frankly, not a document that reflects either the ambition or the urgency with which Metro needs to approach the problem of declining bus service.

We call on Metro to dramatically increase the level of service provided in the 2022 budget, and to begin the first real expansion of bus service in Los Angeles since the end of the federal consent decree.

A few months ago, during a presentation on Metro’s latest initiative intended to rescue the failing bus system, a proposal was floated to request $100 million in federal funding for the purpose of improving the region’s long neglected bus stops. Investing in Place has long called for shelters and other components of a safe and dignified riding experience, so it is encouraging to see Metro begin to direct its focus in this area. But it is concerning to hear that this investment is being held out as contingent on federal aid, when Metro has local resources for these purposes.

 

Improving the bus system is an issue of paramount importance for Metro. While major rail investments will take decades to pay off, the only thing standing between Los Angeles and a world-class bus network is that that has never been a high-priority goal for local decision-makers. Unfortunately, that also seems to explain why existing funds are not being targeted for these improvements, but it is extremely difficult to figure out what is being funded instead.

 

Understanding where operations-eligible money is going is critical to informing efforts to restore and expand bus service and bus only lanes beyond the pre-Covid baseline, as well as increase shade and bus shelters, reimagine public safety and support fare free transit. In advance of May’s public budget hearing, Metro should commit to providing a clear analysis of revenues eligible for transit operations, and whether funding for operations is being diverted to other projects.

 

Metro has significant funding from four sales taxes passed by county residents. However, the opacity of budgeting at Metro means that there is no easy way to hold decision-makers accountable to pursuing policies that would make life better for riders.

 

It is critical that not only advocates and community organizers, but also the Metro Board of Directors, understand whether operations-eligible money is going to support capital projects unrelated to transit operations (such capital expansion). These commitments will provide an irreplaceable boost to the equity of Metro’s budget process, by increasing the ability of community members and organizations to provide informed comment and analysis on agency budget and priorities. And have the potential to lead to seeing Metro develop a 3-5 year funding plan to build buses back better. 

 

We know we are not alone in the dark about understanding how Metro spends their discretionary funding. Operations funding covers many departments with Metro, including going to the agency’s policing contracts. We need Metro to provide transparency regarding how the different pots of money are being spent so that the public can determine whether those choices will achieve the key outcomes for the region. Metro is largely funded by the people of Los Angeles County – who have voted to tax themselves to provide more transit.

 

Last month, Investing in Place sent a letter to Los Angeles Metro requesting that the agency approach future budgets through a procedural equity lens. Procedural equity is a tool in which Metro’s organizational structures and policies would be transformed to better serve the marginalized communities Metro provides services to by making it easier for those communities to access and substantially impact Metro’s decision making process. We ask Metro to provide a clear analysis of revenues eligible for transit operations and other spending categories with clear descriptions and activities included in each category.

In May, Metro will vote on the approval for its 2022 budget, following a year of Covid-induced financial stresses. The vote marks a return to normalcy for Metro after the 2021 budget vote was delayed for months in the wake of the pandemic declaration and the accompanying economic shutdown. But for transit riders in Los Angeles, a return to the pre-pandemic normal is not a welcome prospect. 

 

Under the old normal, transit ridership plummeted deliriously as riders abandoned a service made unreliable through cuts and disinvestment. It saw the needs of a privileged minority of “choice” riders pitted against those of a stable base of bus riders, with the latter’s needs routinely being disregarded.

 

Things have been going wrong at Metro for far longer than the world has been in quarantine, and the blame for that can be traced directly back to the financial decisions baked into Metro’s annual budget process. As the primary transportation provider and planner for Los Angeles County, Metro’s budget accounts for more than $6 billion in annual spending on transit, highways, roads, and more. But the process by which that money is divvied up is decidedly old school: it’s a black box from which numbers emerge apparently at random with no explanation and next-to-no input from riders.

 

That’s why Investing in Place sent Metro a letter last month requesting that the agency begin to change the way it approaches budgeting to address procedural equity concerns. Procedural equity can be thought of as the way in which a service provider centers the needs of those most affected by its policies in its internal structures. Are there organizational structures and policies that support access to spaces where decisions are made? Are groups who face greater barriers to accessing service proactively sought out so they can authentically engage with decision-makers? Can they really expect to influence how decisions are made?

 

In Metro’s case, Investing in Place believes the answer to each question is “No.” While, truthfully, much of the change will require a major shift in organizational thinking within Metro – a shift that we are hopeful incoming CEO Stephanie Wiggins will help to bring about – there are small improvements that Metro could make without delay.

 

In particular, one proposal that Investing in Place submitted to Metro was that the agency should commit to extending the public review period for the budget from two weeks to a full month. The current 14-day window forces riders, activists, and organizers to compress a great deal of activity into an arbitrarily truncated timeframe. There is insufficient time to analyze the contents of the budget, conduct community outreach, and to collaboratively develop a response to Metro’s proposal. And, given that drafts of the budget are already available, it does not seem to be a hardship to suggest that they be shared publicly. Nonetheless, Metro has indicated that they will proceed with the 14-day timeframe for at least another year.

 

On our part, this ask was not for a silver bullet or panacea. We were asking for a show of good faith. A modest adjustment to the baseline that would demonstrate Metro’s commitment to making more lasting improvements to procedural equity going forward.

 

The role of transit advocacy groups like Investing in Place is to provide a source of analysis that can help build capacity and spread awareness in transit-riding communities. These are functions that Metro can and should be interested in fulfilling itself, but at a minimum it is in the agency’s best interest to support an informed and engaged ridership. It is our sincere hope that Metro will come around to viewing the development of its budget as a participatory process, and one of the region’s greatest tools for achieving equity.

During the February meeting of the Metro Board of Directors, the transit agency was scheduled to hear two items with urgent importance to riders throughout Los Angeles: a plan from staff to restore service that was cut in September, and a request from staff for $111 million to patch enormous budget overruns for policing.

Transit advocates and community members have been pushing Metro to be more active in support of their riders, and that language has recently become a fixture within Metro’s Board meetings. In January, Directors indicated that they knew riders did not trust their needs to be met by their transit agency. Building that trust required listening and taking action based on what they heard, which the Directors sought to do in directing staff to restore bus service to pre-Covid levels by June of this year.

Operations staff returned in February with a report that said that bus service could not be restored before December, and that riders may be “confused” by the impacts of adding back cut service. Further, at the meeting of the Board of Directors, Metro staff again indicated that a building back of bus service hours was at cross-purposes with an implementation plan for NextGen that had been in place for years.

Even amidst the clear opposition from the Board, staff expressed yet more consternation about restoring service. Whereas riders and advocates have said for years that, even before Covid, successive cuts have left unacceptably infrequent service on Los Angeles streets, Metro is seeking to use ridership numbers as a reason not to provide more buses.

The frustration with these reports was evident in remarks made by the Directors. Board Chair Eric Garcetti expressed his disappointment that Metro’s service restoration plan would take so long, and that the report received was so focused on reasons why trying to serve riders better and faster might not pan out. In introducing the presentation by Operations head Jim Gallagher, Garcetti warned that he would be listening for solutions-oriented language: “I’m less interested in why we can’t do it.”

Directors Mike Bonin and Janice Hahn spoke with similar force about the pressing need to stand with the predominantly low-income, disproportionately Black and Brown riders that rely on Los Angeles’s buses. Director Bonin stated that this was now the third time that the Board would be giving the same directive to staff, and that staff had apparently thought the Board “didn’t mean it.” Directors Solis, Hahn and Garcetti each made suggestions about potential pathways to accelerating a return to pre-Covid levels of service.

As riders and advocates have become increasingly vocal about the impacts of service cuts during the pandemic, the Board has shown that they are listening. That can be seen, too, in what was not discussed during February’s meeting. 

Originally scheduled to be approved, an item that would have approved $111 million in funds for Metro’s policing contracts was suddenly removed from the agenda at the last minute. This huge sum of money needs Board approval because over the last three years, Metro has already spent it. To date, the agency has spent about 15% in excess of the $750 million baseline contract approved by the agency in 2017.

It is hard to imagine any other category of spending in which budget overruns like this could be racked up over a period of years without, apparently, any authorization by the Board. Further, advocates and riders continue to press Metro to change what public safety looks like on the system in a fundamental way.

Metro’s relationship with police is under widespread scrutiny, like many other public agencies in Los Angeles. While the county, LAUSD, and voters themselves have sought to pursue new models of public safety, Metro has mostly continued under the status quo.

Metro’s policing overspending item will return for consideration by the Board in March, and there is a requirement that riders and advocates will continue to place on Metro’s Board of Directors: that they give consideration to the needs of all their riders. Black riders, brown riders, unhoused riders. They, as much as white so-called “choice” transit riders, deserve to feel safe, and deserve to feel that their needs are a priority to Metro.

 

On Thursday, Metro’s Board of Directors will be asked to vote on floating more than $110 million in additional funding to maintain the agency’s existing contract for uniformed police on the transit system. The contract, which was negotiated in 2017, resulted in replacing the Sheriff’s Department with a lucrative policing-by-committee approach including sheriff’s deputies and officers from the Los Angeles and Long Beach Police Departments.

Concerns were raised back then about the terms of the agreement. In particular, its planned expenditures of more than $650 million over a five-year period offered a potentially huge new revenue stream for both the LAPD and the LBPD. The contract consisted of offering overtime to officers – specifically to more expensive supervisory staff –  was enough to make the public wonder how much we were truly getting for our money. The response was that the overtime pay was a useful tool to make the shifts more attractive as voluntary work. 

There were also plenty of concerns about the reputation of these agencies over policing Black and brown Angelenos, and Metro’s history of targeting these same riders for violations of its code of conduct. Those questions only became amplified last year in the wake of the killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Dijon Kizzee, Andres Guardado and too many others by police.

So what is happening in Los Angeles? Last week, Metro staff gave a presentation to the Operations and Public Safety committee stating that through the first three years of the five year contract, the agency has overspent its budget for policing by about 17%–that’s $111 million dollars! The policing contract includes no money for special event deployments or other times that Metro might request a police presence on the system.

According to the staff presentation, without the Board’s approval to boost the total contract value to up near $800 million dollars, the agency will run out of money for policing by this summer – a full year early. Staff compound this by saying they also expect to return to ask for an extension of 6 months on the existing contract, amounting to $84 million more dollars (plus whatever unvetted additional services staff authorize, of course).

Let’s not mince words. Metro has to ask for an increase in its contracts with the Los Angeles Police Department, the Long Beach Police Department and the County Sheriff because the original contracts were egregiously generous and because the agency’s approach to policing  mirrors the systemic failures we’ve seen elsewhere; namely, overly generous contracts with little oversight, insufficient accountability mechanisms, and an over-reliance on police overtime.

There is no other category of spending that could exceed its budget by this much without the Metro Board raising serious questions about the program’s sheer fiscal irresponsibility. As we have discussed at length with respect to bus service, even when the Board directs money to restoring service, Operations resists spending it. How is it then that in the wake of the largest wave of calls to change the mainstream conception of acceptable policing practices, Metro is pushing not only for more money but for a longer period of time on a contract that simply is not working?

We find ourselves asking the peculiar question of having to ask, “Did Metro not know that special events happen in Los Angeles?” Given the intensity of focus at the same time as the contract was approved on the recent selection of the city for the 2028 Olympics, this seems unlikely. What was the chain of approval for requesting special police deployments? Why is Metro only coming to the Board for approval after multiple years of above-budget spending?

There are so many questions that the Board should put to staff, but the biggest one is this: Why should the Board – or the public – trust Metro’s spending going forward? In a moment when radical change is being demanded, staff has indicated that they are dedicated to retrenchment – failed models of policing that rely on pushing armed police into confrontations with unhoused Angelenos.

Metro owes the public a full accounting of what went wrong with this contract. Why was the contract structured in a way that allowed the agency to run up a huge tab for unanticipated services? What alternatives did the agency consider when existing policing resources were deemed insufficient? How is the agency holding leadership accountable for contract overages and what controls are being put in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen again? As the agency is convening an Public Safety Advisory Committee that will be providing recommendations for a future public safety contract, we need to have a clear understanding of what went wrong here. Expanding an already bloated police budget at a time when the public, including Investing in Place and many partners we work with, are calling for more thoughtful and effective approaches to public safety does not inspire trust.

Riders want, expect, and deserve a safe riding experience, but we do not accept that the current contract and approach delivers that. The Board should take notes from the Los Angeles Unified School District and use this as an opportunity to be bold in redirecting funds from policing to other resources to provide compassionate public safety and services on board the system.  It is past time to close the door on this failed contract and the attitudes toward policing that it represents.

Investing in Place is working towards a vision where Los Angeles is a city that addresses the safety and access needs of all who call it home. We stand in solidarity with our partners like the Labor Strategy Center/Bus Riders Union and Alliance for Community Transit – Los Angeles, who have been advocating for years to reimagine public safety on our public transit system and divest to invest in our communities. Not only is this contract broken, but so is Metro’s approach to its role in supporting public safety for Black and brown people as they travel throughout our region, and now is the time to revisit that approach. 

 

During February’s meetings of the Metro Board of Directors, agency staff is preparing to deliver a recommended plan for restoring service that once again rejects a clear directive from the Board to “immediately” begin restoring bus service to pre-Covid levels.

Instead of following through on this promising turn of events, staff have produced a report full of excuses and obstructions, ultimately concluding that the pre-Covid baseline of 7 million annual bus service hours should not be returned to before the end of 2021.

While the Board acknowledged that it would take time to recruit and hire staff sufficient to resume pre-Covid bus service, staff present it as an insurmountable challenge. According to the new report, they can neither hire, train, nor even process the number of resumés that would be required to get more drivers on the road. 

We view this excuse as unacceptable. Bus service is Metro’s business and these are extraordinary times. Metro riders have faced greater challenges than this every single day of the pandemic.

Perhaps most frustratingly, Metro staff seems determined to cast the NextGen plan to improve the lacking quality of service on LA’s buses as directly oppositional to increasing the frequency of buses on the road. NextGen was not adopted with the immense service cuts that were undertaken in the wake of the Covid pandemic in mind. Nor were those cuts part of an intended transition plan. Now that the cuts have been adopted, however, Metro claims that reversing the cuts would be “confusing” for riders.

It is important to remember how we got here. Bus riders, transit advocates, and the Board of Directors themselves had to rally to course correct decisions by agency staff that failed to consider the needs of riders. 

In the January meeting of the Board of Directors, Metro staff proposed to allocate zero dollars out of an enormous unexpected surplus of sales tax revenue to restore the bone-deep service cuts that the Board had approved in the fall of 2020. The Board’s response to staff’s failure to prioritize riders was categorical.

Director Bonin said, “There is not a greater need than to begin to restore service.” He added that the failure to restore service for workers during the pandemic was a failure to meet “the demand of the moment.”

Director Hahn took Metro staff to task for having failed “to address one of the Board’s biggest priorities: restoring service.” She further highlighted the fact that bus riders are essential workers and that not just Metro but the entire region relies on bus riders. “Their work and dedication,” she said, is what has kept Los Angeles’s economy running smoothly, and not without cost to the workers personally. Hahn concluded, “Our riders need to be able to depend on us.”

Directors Dupont-Walker, Garcia, and Solis concurred on the intensity of need in low-income Black and brown communities during the pandemic, with Garcia adding that Metro has heard “time and again from riders” that frequent service needs to be prioritized.

Throughout that meeting, discussion returned to equity, which Metro has said is to be a primary focus for the agency moving forward. Directors noted repeatedly that the focus on equity must begin with increasing service.

Despite receiving numerous calls from members of the public about the direct impacts that service cuts during the pandemic were having on the lives of real people, staff has rejected calls for immediate relief for passengers. In the report, reference is made to postponing service increases until a full vaccine rollout has been achieved. Definitionally, this means Metro is refusing to consider resumption of pre-Covid service levels until the pandemic is at its end. This contradiction of the orders of the Board should not be allowed to stand. To read the excuses contained within this report is to be overwhelmed by the sense that Metro staff simply do not want to do what it takes to improve conditions for riders.

We hope that the Board will stand by its righteous rhetoric from January and reject the plan set forth by staff to delay restoration of service.

 

COVID-19 has changed life for everyone, but communities of color have been most severely affected. In Los Angeles, even amid the strict lockdowns of the early days of the pandemic, many Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) workers in South Los Angeles had no choice but to continue commuting in to work, putting their bodies on the line in order to afford the necessities of life here. 

In the fall of 2020, our partners at South Central LAMP surveyed 36 mothers of Latinx descent as well as indigenous mothers from Mexico and Central America on how COVID-19 is affecting their transportation needs. 

South Central Los Angeles Ministry Project (SC LAMP) serves low-income families in South Los Angeles. All the families in SC LAMP’s core Family Literacy Program, which targets women and their children ages 0-5, are living below the poverty line, and nearly 100% are immigrant, Latinx, and Spanish- speaking. This is a community disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic on all levels – health, employment, mental health, access to basic necessities, and education, including decreased opportunity for a high-quality early education due to fewer spots in local preschools.

The community at SC LAMP sees firsthand how this virus affects their families. As much as the community that SC LAMP serves would like to stay home, they do not have a safety net that allows them to. Many of the families SC LAMP works with often do not have access to public benefits, live in dense households, and often need to use shared spaces like laundromats (which increases likelihood to exposure) or go to grocery stores. Often families either do not own cars or own only one, which is used by the employed family member.  Leaving the rest of the family to have to take public transportation. While telehealth has become a way to keep people at home, at times as a pregnant woman you would need to go in for an onsite visit and if you are transit dependent the opportunity for exposure increases.

It can be established from bus ridership data that many of the bus lines of South LA remained generally crowded even as lines in other parts of the county were emptying out. But that data can obscure the real human needs, fears, and wants that are represented in each transit trip. SC LAMP’s survey process demonstrated a path forward for community outreach and preserving space for community members frequently omitted from transportation policy discussions to come together. The moms who participated provided invaluable input and showed again how meaningful ongoing, deep surveys about riders’ lives can be.

SC LAMP staff shared that this type of survey has become more difficult to conduct during the pandemic. Group or classroom settings that were previously used for these sessions to stimulate discussions are no longer available. In spite of the challenges, thanks to amazing collaboration from the moms, these mobility surveys were a tremendous success.

SC LAMP staff did each survey one-on one, and scheduling and explaining the purpose of the call was the initial process of this project that took 15-20 minutes. With the second contact, staff called the moms to conduct the survey, taking approximately 45 minutes to an hour. Sometimes, these calls were friendly, or sad talks with a tone of loneliness, or other participants were focused and direct with their responses. South Central LAMP staff shared that surveying their community during this time was not easy, as many members – including the staff lead asking the questions  – are struggling with the balance of talking about transportation needs during an on-going crisis where many families are struggling to meet core household needs. South Central LAMP staff shared with us: “At the end of the day, I was vocally tired and emotionally touched, but in the end, it was worth it and rewarding.” Staff read the questions with respective options to answer, and sometimes walked through with the mother how their usual routine contrasted with their “new routine” so they were able to process and respond with confidence to their struggles with transportation during these difficult times. Staff heard the desire of the moms to participate in this survey because this was an opportunity to share their concerns. These interviews gave the mothers an opportunity to speak with someone about their frustrations and new challenges with transportation that  COVID-19 brought into their lives. Often agencies are quick to say “let’s survey the community!” This response however glosses over the fact that surveys often require high levels of community trust, time and existing relationships. We are grateful to the community at South Central LAMP and all the moms who answered the calls given that the mothers were often busy with their children, cooking or washing the dishes when staff called them, but they made time for me to hear what to hear more about Moms and  Mobility Campaign and participate in the survey.

FINDINGS: 61% of mothers surveyed wanted more frequent service and shorter wait times for the bus. Bus service hours and bus frequency has decreased for FY21, an important priority for the upcoming fiscal year is to increase bus service to help mothers of color get around more easily.  Link to full survey here.

Most of the mothers surveyed made less than $25,000 a year.  The survey found that 47% of mothers did not drive and that 67% of mothers were not looking to buy or save for a new car. Some of the comments received included mothers who were nervous to drive or chose not to drive because they did not have legal documentation, and there were also comments about having no savings to buy a car. 81% mothers also said they knew other mothers who did not know how to drive, with one personal anecdote being one mother waits for her husband since he is the only person at home who knows how to drive.

Most mothers who took the survey drive when going to a medical appointment or when making a recreational trip (both 67%). This high percentage shows that for essential and leisurely trips, mothers often have no choice but to drive. Those who did not drive to their medical appointments said that they were able to get a ride, or have transportation provided to them by the clinic. 

Mothers also responded to what improvements in transportation and the built environment would benefit them. Out of the 36 respondents, 64% would like to see more street lighting, 56% would like to see improvements that would reduce dangerous driving and speeding cars, 81% would like to see cleaner streets, and 64% would like to see homeless encampments and car camping reduced, citing concerns of safe housing and lack of safe places to park for people who live in their cars. Walkability in their neighborhoods is a big concern for these mothers, and simple improvements could really improve access around the neighborhood. 

The survey also revealed that an overwhelming majority of mothers were interested in a car sharing program. This would greatly benefit mothers who need to get to places that are not feasible on a bus, or by walking or riding a bike, while simultaneously cutting the burden of maintaining and paying insurance for a private automobile. See our report with SC LAMP from a listening session in 2019: Moms on scooters, buses, rideshare and more – South Central LAMP weighs in on Rideshare & Micromobility.

We thank South Central LAMP for the amazing work that they do, and are grateful for their partnership in our Moms and Mobility Campaign. 

 

BACKGROUND: South Central LAMP is a nonprofit founded by Catholic Sisters after the 1992 uprisings determined to rebuild neighborhoods in South LA and provide systems of care for lower-income women.

Recognizing the impact of the pandemic on the educational development of the families they work with, South Central LAMP launched a hybrid program that includes on-site and distance learning early childhood education (ECE) classes for children, and 100% distance learning parenting and ESL classes for parents during COVID-19. Children receive 3 hours of in-person instruction and 4 hours of live virtual instruction each week; mothers virtually attend each class for one hour per week. They divided their parenting classes into three groups, so mothers can engage in smaller groups tailored to their needs. SC LAMP currently has 62 children enrolled in ECE classes and 21 parents in adult classes.

Classes are complemented by instructional packets that families pick up along with all the supplies they will need for learning, experimentation, and creation at home. Families are provided with additional support through virtual office hours, regular teacher check-ins, and advocacy services, including Zoom home visits during which families have a chance to speak one-on-one with SC LAMP’s Family Advocate, who is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. These visits primarily involve a discussion of personal goals, the provision of mental health support, and linkage to local resources.

As a trusted ally, supporter, and advocate,  families look to SC LAMP staff for support in navigating this difficult time. Staff have been working with local community partners, neighborhood groups, and government officials – including Councilmember Price and Mayor Garcetti – to learn what resources are available, so this can be shared with families and the broader community. Some of these resources have included funds for undocumented immigrants, food giveaways, and information on such topics as eviction protections, worker rights, protecting themselves and others from Coronavirus, and navigating the Safer at Home orders.

As food is a dire need in their community, and SC LAMP expanded the weekly community food distribution they conduct on their campus. Since May, SC LAMP has added 170 households to the distribution. They now provide a total of 260 unduplicated households, encompassing over 1,000 individuals, with a pre-packed box of meat, dairy, and fresh fruits and vegetables twice each month. SC LAMP continues to work with their partner, St. Francis Center, to add more households. Children in the Early Childhood Education classes also receive boxed meals each week (breakfast and lunch for 5 days/week, 10 meals total).

While meeting these needs is their priority, SC LAMP is also striving to maintain a sense of some kind of normality for the families and children they work with. They are continuing community workshops virtually, including regular yoga workshops on Zoom and a workshop series presented by the Los Angeles Public Library. With safety precautions in place, they are also conducting on-site health screenings/services – in partnership with local health agencies, and annual events for children, including the Harvest Festival book distribution and holiday toy giveaway. In addition to mitigating the impact of the pandemic on the community, it is the staff’s intention to bring hope and calmness to the families they serve during this challenging time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the access deficit that many mothers in South LA face. Even before the pandemic, mobility options for lower-income mothers were limited in South LA. Investing in Place and South Central LAMP documented a typical trip that Maura and her two children made to Chuck-e-Cheese. Maura’s trip typically takes 1.5 hours on two buses to get to Chuck-e-Cheese with her family. Women typically make more trips a day running errands and caring for children and are more likely to use public transportation than men, so trip times on an unreliable and slow transit network add up. In 2019, mothers also mentioned that they were not able to take their kids to a school social event because there was no bus access to Griffith Park, as well as missing doctors appointments because the bus passed them up. 

Support the important work of South Central LAMP by donating to them today. 

Our Moms and Mobility Campaign: This year Investing in Place is  working together with the East Side Riders Bike Club, Los Angeles Walks and South Central LAMP in a funded partnership to combine new data and new voices from women to impact policy and investments for the City’s transportation network.

As detailed on the Investing in Place blog earlier this week, when Metro’s Board of Directors gathered on Thursday for its monthly meeting to allocate an unexpected windfall of sales tax revenue, the most likely outcome was that none of the new funding would go toward increasing bus service. Despite direction from the Board in September that staff prioritize a rapid restoration of service that was cut due to covid, internal recommendations called for that money to go towards maintenance and infrastructure projects instead.

But thanks to a coalition of Angelenos throughout the county and the leadership of a key group of Metro directors who showed their willingness to listen, learn and take action, this disastrous outcome has been avoided. Directors Garcetti, Bonin, Hahn, Solis, and Garcia have our appreciation for authoring a motion to correct the recommendations from staff that failed to prioritize Black and brown workers that continue to rely on Metro service. The motion they produced forcefully reiterated the prior stance of the Board that it is unacceptable for Metro’s service cuts to be maintained any longer than is absolutely necessary. The motion also directed staff:

• To immediately restore a minimum of $24 million to transit operations;
• To fund maintenance using capital funds instead of money eligible for bus operations;
• To plan for restored operations at the pre-Covid baseline beginning in July;
• To prioritize bus drivers for the Covid vaccine; and,
• To identify opportunities to help all Angelenos get to vaccination sites.

This motion, overturning the recommendation of Metro staff, passed with a unanimous vote from the Board of Directors.

We say again, thank you to the Board of Directors for listening and for using their power to uplift transit riders. As Director Bonin said, this is only a first step, but it is a step in the right direction for transit riders in Los Angeles.

Most importantly, thank you to all the incredible transit riders and advocates that came together to pressure Metro to do the right thing. A diverse coalition that includes ACT-LA, the Bus Riders Union, Streets For All, the Democratic Socialists of America Los Angeles, SAJE, the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Cal State LA, and many many more came together and share in today’s victory. 

Without your support – your emails, calls and messages on social media – riders would likely have gotten no service back. Essential workers, Black and brown Angelenos from communities being slammed by the second wave of the Covid pandemic, would have continued to have to deal with unacceptably crowded and infrequent service.

This no small victory. For working class families, like those whose stories were shared with the Board today, restoring bus service is a matter of urgent importance. Each hour of service cut results in riders missing pay because they are late, or squeezed in close quarters that might result in themselves or a loved one contracting a deadly illness. As caller after caller testified, the workers that have kept Los Angeles moving during the pandemic rely on Metro. It is critical that we do whatever we can to protect them.

Today is not the end of this fight, but the beginning. Metro’s budget negotiations for 2022 are an even bigger battle that has already begun. In 2022, we will need to come together to push for continued service restorations and expansions of service above and beyond the pre-Covid baseline, while also halting the extension of huge policing contracts and freeway expansion projects that destroy communities.

But because of the watchfulness and responsiveness of Angelenos, we go into these conversations with momentum and, at least on this issue, with a majority of the Metro Board on our side. Thank you all so much, and let’s keep moving forward together.

Join advocates on Tuesday February 2nd at 11am, to debrief on Metro’s decision and discuss what comes next. RSVP here.

We  did this! Thank you to everyone who help submit over 150! written comments led by organizations and leaders at:

• Action Center on Race and the Economy
• Active SGV
• Alliance for Community Transit-Los Angeles
• Bus Riders Union
• Cal State LA
• Central City Association
• Communities Actively Living Independent & Free
• Community Power Collective
• CSUN students
• Culver City Council member, Yasmine-Imani McMorrin
• Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles
• Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
• Ground Game LA
• Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
• Investing in Place
• Jobs to Move America
• Kenny Uong
• KIWA
• LA  Podcast
• Los Angeles Forward
• Los Angeles River Communities for Environmental Equity
• Los Angeles Walks
• Move LA
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Neighborhood Councils in the City of Los Angeles
• People for Mobility Justice
• SAJE
• Streets for All
• Streetsblog LA
• Sunrise Movement Los Angeles
• Transportation Committee, Angeles Sierra Club
• Transportation Committee, League of Women Voters of Los Angeles
• UCLA students
• UNITE HERE Local 11

In what might be properly called a bonanza, Metro’s Board of Directors will hear a report on Thursday informing them that the agency is on pace to receive sales tax revenues nearly $300 million above what they had budgeted back in September. As the largest U.S. transit agency west of the Mississippi River, one might think such news would be welcomed within Metro as an opportunity to provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of bus riders who have had no choice but to bear with the agency as it slashed service in the face of fiscal uncertainty. So how is it possible that instead the likeliest course of action seems to be that the Board will approve a staff recommendation that restores none of the eliminated service – and even that unscheduled additional service cancelations will continue to be the norm?

Well, let’s back up. Local governments across the county, state and country are struggling mightily. Without the immense power afforded to the federal government to literally print money, or (generally speaking) even that of the federal and state governments to levy taxes on personal income, cities have been put in an extremely dire situation. The City of Los Angeles, for one example close to home, has approved massive worker furloughs and will potentially follow those up with layoffs in order to stitch up a $600 million hole in an already reduced budget. So Metro’s windfall is noteworthy and, frankly, strange.

Metro is in this fortunate position for three reasons. One is that sales tax revenue has been less affected by the Covid downturn than originally imagined. Characteristic of the extreme inequity that has suffused this unusual recession, entire segments of the population have found their ability to buy goods unchanged by the pandemic. A robust ecosystem of delivery services and online shopping – not to mention the malls, which as of this writing remain open – have enabled consumer spending to remain vigorous over the last year.

That leads us to the second reason: Metro is uniquely dependent on sales taxes. Locally generated sales taxes make up more than half of the agency’s annual budget. Compare that to the struggling City of Los Angeles, where sales tax accounts for 8% of the $7 billion general fund and even less overall.

And lastly there is this: A majority of Metro’s revenue comes from sales taxes because Angelenos have democratically elected – four separate times! – to tax itself to fund the agency. All public offices belong to the people, but, truly, none more than Metro. The very financial solvency of the transit operator is owing to a public that has affirmed and reaffirmed that transit should be a priority.

It is for these reasons above all that Metro now finds it has $282 million to allocate that it had not been expecting. But, surprisingly, increasing service from the bone-deep cuts approved in September does not appear to be a priority for staff. In fact, despite claiming that $59 million of the surplus would go to “Bus/Rail Operations and State of Good Repair,” none of the money is recommended for increasing service in a presentation put together by staff. Instead, the recommendation has it going to maintenance, infrastructure, and recruitment.

When Metro’s Board of Directors approved service cuts as part of its 2021 budget last September, they also approved a motion calling for ongoing staff reports on how the agency could get back to its pre-pandemic baseline. That motion stated plainly: “maintaining [the service cuts] for the remainder of the fiscal year is not acceptable for riders nor is it consistent with the agency’s strategic priorities.” But, despite this clear direction, staff have come back with a recommendation that flies in the face of the wishes of the Board and the riding public.

Staff provides little in the way of acceptable support for this recommendation. In an informational report, staff indicates that the economic recovery has stalled out and that ridership is trending down, despite 400,000 trips still occurring each day on the bus system alone. They also suggest that stricter stay at home measures have led to more individuals forgoing transit trips, but they neglect to mention that the same increased severity in the pandemic has also increased the need to protect the many riders who do not have that choice.

Perhaps most troublingly, staff have ruled out the expenditure of nearly all of the surplus sales tax $223 million of it as untouchable for the purposes of increasing transit service. This is because the money is instead going to offset lost revenues from fare sales (since most bus riders are riding for free still), advertisers, tolls, and parking. We will set aside for another post that Metro claims to be seeking to move to fare free service, and that this reluctance to fund service without farebox recovery portends very negative things for free service. Rather, most telling is the advertising revenue.

The staff report indicates that Metro’s ad revenue is down because its “advertising contract has been temporarily modified to provide relief to the vendor by reducing their payments.” The relief that the agency is refusing to riders it is instead providing to large advertising corporations. Bus riders, whose lives are on the line during the pandemic, are being asked to subsidize a reduced contract for profitable corporations. The Board of Directors should forcefully reject the recommendations of staff.

It has already been a long and difficult winter in Los Angeles, with the feared second wave of the Covid pandemic arriving with shocking ferocity. Throughout the region, hospitals are filled to capacity, the number of confirmed Covid cases has skyrocketed, and deaths from the disease have followed their wrenching upward trend. All of this has taken place in the context of local economic shutdown measures that have never equalled the intensity of the precautionary safer-at-home measures of last spring.

In marked contrast to the quiet and deserted streets of March and April, Angelenos now leave their homes into a city where many of life’s daily routines have resumed something like a normal ebb and flow. People are running errands. The streets are filling up with traffic from single occupant cars. And, of course, many hundreds of thousands of mostly lower-income Angelenos are riding Metro buses, mired in that same traffic, trying to get to jobs they need to make ends meet.

It is not lost on these bus riders that the extended waits and crowded services they are now facing as a result of the decisions made on their behalf by Metro. Nor is it lost on them that their communities are likely to be the hardest hit by the vicious second wave of Covid. But that fact seems to go unremarked upon within the walls of Metro headquarters.

In four separate votes, Angelenos have supported the sales taxes that have kept Metro afloat even in the most strenuous of economic times. Those votes were not to give Metro an unconditional grant, but to invest in its potential. Metro owes Angelenos and it owes riders in particular to make good on that potential and to prioritize restoring transit service.

The Board of Public Works convened over Thanksgiving week to approve releasing the Request for Proposals (RFP) regarding the new bus shelter and street furniture contract. Later that day, there was also a motion introduced by Councilmembers Bonin and Blumenfield regarding the parameters of digital advertising and revenue. The RFP deadline for potential firms is February 19th, 2021 at 5:00PM PST. All proposals will be examined by Spring 2021, with a contract ready for approval by mid summer (to catch up on the events leading up to the RFP please check out our previous post). At the Board of  Public Works meeting, BSS/StreetsLA was instructed to do more outreach to Neighborhood Councils and the general public.  Those meetings have been scheduled for the following dates:

• Thursday December 10 at 3:30-5:30PM, 
• Tuesday December 15 at 12:00-2PM, 
• Saturday December 19 at 1:00-3:00PM, and
•  Monday December 21 at 9:00-11AM. 

In October, alongside Los Angeles Walks, People for Mobility Justice and the Alliance for Community Transit (ACT-LA), and the Natural Resource Defense Council we sent our key ideas to policymakers regarding the bus shelter and street furniture program:

• Prioritize the Angelenos who have to live with the outcomes of the City’s decisions. For two decades, transit riders in Los Angeles have suffered from a street furniture contract that overpromised and underdelivered. As the city prepares to enter into a new multi-year contract, it is imperative that the needs of people walking and riding the bus be considered paramount in the design, placement, and maintenance of street furniture assets.
• Decouple provision of new bus shelters and public toilets from expectations of revenue generation. The last 20 years have shown that street furniture is not an effective revenue stream: Los Angeles received less than $4 million per year on average from this program over the life of the contract. But treating street furniture as a revenue generator can hinder or fully derail efforts to make the City’s public right-of-ways better, safer, and more inviting spaces.
• Prioritize placing bus shelters and other street furniture along Metro’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 routes in the NextGen network. Bus shelters are an integral part of the transit network. The City should not be asking its street furniture to reinvent the wheel when they can instead focus on the plan which Metro is currently implementing to bring a frequent all-day bus network to the City’s busiest transit corridors. The City should direct its contractor to begin by installing new shelters along these routes in order to facilitate the development of a world-class transit network on city streets.
• Return any revenue from commercialization of the public right-of-way to communities in need. The revenues from the previous street furniture contract were split between the General Fund – where they were a drop in the ocean – and independent accounts maintained by Council District Offices. The City should instead utilize existing definitions of High Need Communities in programs such as Vision Zero and Safe Routes to School to provide funding back into communities impacted by unsafe public spaces. These monies should benefit our communities and help to make them more accessible than they have been in the past.
• Set minimums, not maximums, for bus shelter installation. Los Angeles needs bus shelters badly. As the City continues to warm due to climate change, the waiting environments on our streets have already become dangerous. In contrast to the last contract, this time the City should look to get as many new bus shelters installed as possible, even above the coverage of 75% of riders that StreetsLA has targeted. To accomplish this language should be tailored to set minimum benchmark progress with defined penalties for failing to meet the marks. Incentives should be provided using City dollars earmarked for transportation purposes for the contractor to exceed these minimums in every benchmark period.

Background: The Sidewalk and Transit Amenities Program (STAP) is intending to follow the city’s business model where costs for bus shelters and amenities are funded by advertising revenue. However, it is critical to note, the last 20 years have shown that street furniture has not been an effective revenue stream: Los Angeles received less than $4 million per year on average from this program. However, BSS/StreetsLA seems to be betting on the Super Bowl, College Football Championship, World Cup, and Olympics events in the next 8 years to bring in a lot of revenue for the City but there is no evidence that this is guaranteed to work. Furthermore, waiting 6-8 years for the international events such as the World Cup and Olympics in order for significant revenue to be generated for bus shelter and street furniture deployment, is too long a wait for low-income communities of color to receive shade and a place to sit at bus stops.

At the Board of Public Works meeting on November 24th, there were also a lot of concerns brought up by neighborhood council members and West LA community members during public comment about how placing digital advertising kiosks on sidewalks were problematic, and that the kiosks would distract people driving, in direct contrast to the City’s vision zero efforts. While some of their reasons for opposing digital kiosks may differ from Investing in Place’s, it is a valid question why in order to receive bus shelters we must couple that with advertising. Not everything that is facilitated through the City has to be a revenue generator, especially since in the past bus shelters were deployed in neighborhoods with high revenue potential instead of the communities where they are needed most. It remains unclear why for a region that has 4 transportation sales taxes that funds freeways, buses, trains, bike lanes, sidewalks are not being leveraged for bus shelters. It is baffling that the only strategy the city has to provide shelter and a place to wait for the bus is through monetization. The average cost of a bus shelter is $25,000, and then with maintenance being the primary expense after it is installed. 

 

Investing in Place is inspired by being part of growing and inclusive movement on budget advocacy. We believe a strong and organized constituency that improves conditions for bus riders in Los Angeles is long overdue. In partnership with the ACT-LA coalition and many other community organizations and leaders, we are working for transit that serves people who rely on it with fast, frequent, reliable, and affordable service.

Issue: In March and April of 2020, Metro cut about 20% of bus service due to impacts from COVID-19. Metro is now working to adopt a budget from July 1st, 2020 to June 30th, 2021, that keeps these cuts in place. Metro went from 7 million revenue service hours in fiscal year 2020 and proposes to go to 5.6 million revenue service hours in fiscal year 2021.

Community Response: For weeks, organizers, advocates and community members have been calling on Metro to make a plan to increase bus service instead of cutting it. What community organizations are hearing from their members today is: buses are crowded and unreliable, with long waits.

As a result of these organizing and community efforts, five Metro Board members introduced a motion that will be heard at tomorrow’s Board Meeting. We have developed an analysis of tomorrow’s motion to help inform and amplify the needs of bus riders today.

Please see our analysis below.

 

Investing in Place review of Metro Board Meeting Agenda item: 10.1 

To be heard at the Metro Board Meeting September 24, 2020

Authors: Metro Directors Bonin, Garcetti, Solis, Garcia and Kuehl (5 Authors)

Votes needed to pass a motion: A majority vote

Total number of Metro Directors: 13

Motion preamble: Related to Item 10: Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) Budget

The COVID-19 Crisis has created incredible strain on Metro’s operations and finances. An unprecedented drop in sales tax and other revenue has caused a $1.2 billion decrease in Metro’s budget from FY20 to FY21, with additional volatility likely throughout FY21 and beyond. At the same time, COVID-19 health and safety measures and labor agreements have increased operational costs per hour of service. Despite an infusion of federal funding from the CARES Act, Metro still faces an uncertain operations budget that will require continuous updates throughout the fiscal year.

The proposed FY21 budget is an accurate reflection of today’s greatly diminished transit service levels. However, maintaining current service levels for the remainder of the fiscal year is not acceptable for riders nor is it consistent with the agency’s strategic priorities, including NextGen. At a time when COVID-19 has exposed all of the region’s underlying inequities, Metro must plan for and facilitate an equitable recovery that prioritizes the mobility needs of our county’s most vulnerable populations, who disproportionately rely on bus service.

Metro should prepare an FY21 Operations Recovery Plan that outlines a clear decision-making framework for restoring service and identifies the financial and human resources needed at each stage of recovery. This Plan should clearly articulate how NextGen parameters are being applied to interim service decisions, in addition to public health and customer experience considerations. Most importantly, this Plan should commit to achieving NextGen’s performance outcomes (revenue miles, number of high-frequency lines, number of people with access to frequent service), even if pre- COVID revenue service hours may not be necessary to achieve them.

SUBJECT: FY21 OPERATIONS RECOVERY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE Motion by Directors Bonin, Garcetti, Solis, Garcia, and Kuehl that the Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to:

1. Report back to the Operations, Safety, and Customer Experience Committee in 60 days, with updates every 60 days thereafter, with an FY21 Operations Recovery Plan that achieves the following outcomes:

Investing in Place: Metro staff need to provide updates achieving outcomes from  1-5 of the “Operations Recovery Plan,” at the November 19th 9am Operations, Safety, and Customer Experience Committee, then present it at the Metro Full Board Meeting December 3rd 10am. And then every 60 days thereafter.

1. Aligns bus lines with their respective NextGen service tier standards.

Investing in Place: This means that when Metro says a bus route is a NextGen Tier 1 line, which must run every 7.5 minutes or less during peak hours, Metro has to budget enough service hours to run the line at least that frequently.

See list of Tier 1 and Tier 2 bus routes at the bottom of this page.   

2. Does not exceed maximum load factors on buses and trains based on industry- accepted health and safety standards.

What is a “load factor”? Metro establishes load factor standards to guide service quantity determination, e.g. how crowded a bus needs to be to trigger Metro to add more service to the bus route. 

Investing in Place: We are unclear as to what “industry, health, and safety standards” is Metro using. As of today, Metro has no existing policy that has been clearly communicated to riders and policymakers. This is a problem. Metro needs a plan that is publicly shared and implemented. It is critical that this plan demonstrates consistency in planning, delivering, and communication service to all stakeholders. 

Last week, Metro staff shared that the load factor they are using to determine service levels is 75%.

“We’re currently trying to ensure buses are at no more than 75 percent seated capacity compared to the 130 percent standard we used prior to the pandemic.” Metro Source blog 09/21/20

This is not consistent with what Metro is advising people who ride the bus. At the end of June, Metro’s blog, The Source, published a post on “Returning to Metro,” in which they told riders to “keep your distance whenever possible,” adding that riders should “avoid sitting in a vacant seat directly next to another rider” and “keep at least one row of seats between you and other riders.” If that distancing is not possible on the vehicle when a rider boards, Metro advises riders to get off and wait for the next bus. See our blog post here for more information. 

Metro built up a lot of good will over the past 2 and a half years through their community outreach around the bus network redesign project NextGen. Metro has consistently heard that people wanted fast, frequent and reliable bus service. Metro staff responded with a proposal that was proactive, which met the demand of short trips and needs for frequent service. However, this budget scenario is backtracking on that goodwill by cutting frequent service, not providing data, and not providing clear communication about decision making and opportunities for community input. It is critical that Metro’s response to the COVID-19 crisis leads with equity, upholds clear and consistent communications, and demonstrates transparency.

We urge Metro to publish load factors and weekly ridership numbers, as well as leveraging the data sets and analysis used in the NextGen study.  This includes incorporating the equity focused communities analysis. 

Data points:

• Metro evaluates the number of people on buses using APCS (automated passenger counting) and videos from inside buses. 

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) recommends: There appears to be no universal standard for bus load capacity regardless of vehicle size. Transit agencies are expected to create their own maximum seating capacity and to increase service levels to match demands, while bus operators are expected to enforce load capacity. 

Link to APTA research: “Developing a Pandemic Virus Service Restoration Checklist.” 

And APTA’s “The COVID-19 Pandemic Public Transportation Responds: Safeguarding Riders and Employees.”

Investing in Place does not support APTA’s recommendation as a best practice for Metro. We are sharing this in case it is helpful as it is often referred to by Metro staff and policymakers.  Investing in Place does not encourage a policy of bus operators having to enforce load capacity, for their own safety (i.e. no conflicts with passengers, less distractions).  APTA’s recommendation seems to set up drivers for conflicts with bus riders and provides no objective standards and unclear communications.

3. Sets criteria for adding service in anticipation of future on-street conditions related to economic sector and/or school reopenings and the return of traffic congestion and effect on bus speeds.

Investing in Place: Metro has repeatedly said they will add service when ridership warrants it. It is critical that the agency flips this approach to a more proactive one. Metro needs to have a plan in place to ensure the seats are available as the ridership returns. 

An operations recovery plan for Metro bus service should include a publicly adopted plan that includes benchmarks such as:

“If  we hit X milestone, we will add additional service.

In reality, what community partners are hearing from their members today is: buses are crowded and unreliable, with long waits. 

Data questions:

• How does Metro track bus speed?
• What is the “Metro Arterial Performance Measurement Program” data telling us about traffic on key bus corridors?

4. Takes full advantage of operational savings from faster bus speeds to achieve performance-based service outcomes.

Investing in Place: Since March 2020, Metro has cut about 20% of bus service, the proposed FY21 budget from Metro wants to keep that  20% bus service reduction until June 30, 2021 and possibly beyond. Community organizations and their members are saying today, that buses are crowded and infrequent and more buses are needed today. 

One of the ways to measure bus service levels is “Revenue Service Hours,” or RSH.  RSH are defined as: hours that vehicles are transporting or loading passengers or on layovers between trips. Revenue service is measured in terms of revenue hours and revenue miles.

• Metro’s Pre-Covid RSH: 7 million 
• Metro’s proposed FY 21 budget RSH: 5.6 million

Metro staff is asserting that they can run the same level of service because bus speeds are faster during COVID due to less traffic on the streets. However, while many people are able to stay home, many are still traveling within their neighborhood. And many essential workers are still commuting. Community reports show traffic is back in many neighborhoods, yet Metro staff state “that buses are averaging 1-2 miles an hours faster during COVID.”  Where is this data?

Data questions:

• How does Metro track bus speed?
• What is the “Metro Arterial Performance Measurement Program” data telling us about traffic on key bus corridors?

5. Restores revenue service hours as appropriate to achieve all of the above outcomes.

Investing in Place: It is hard to see how Metro Operations Recovery plan, as outlined in 1-4 above, is achieved without adding more service hours. 

1. Report back to the Finance, Budget, and Audit Committee in 60 days with an amendment to the FY21 Budget, if necessary, to implement the above FY21 Operations Recovery Plan.

Investing in Place: Metro staff need to provide a budget update and if needed a budget amendment for achieving outcomes from  1-5 of the “Operations Recovery Plan,” at the November 18th 1:30pm Finance, Budget, and Audit Committee, and then present it at the Metro Full Board Meeting December 3rd 10am.

 

Detail on Metro Next Gen Tier 1 and Tier 2 Bus Routes

Tier 1 definition: Metro buses that, under the NextGen plan, will be every 7.5 minutes or less during peak hours

Tier 2 definition: Metro buses that run greater than 7.5 minutes but run 10 minutes or less during peak hours

 

Tier 1 buses:

2 – Sunset/Alvarado

4 – Santa Monica

16 – 3rd

18 – Whittier

20 – Wilshire

28 – Olympic

33 – Venice

45 – Broadway

51 – Avalon

60 – Long Beach

70 – Garvey

108 – Slauson

111 – Florence

180 – Colorado/Fairfax

204 – Vermont

207 – Western

212 – La Brea

234 – Sepulveda

901 – G Line (Orange)

910 – J Line (Silver)

 

Tier 2 buses:

10 – Melrose

14 – Bever

30 – Pico

40 – Hawthorne/Crenshaw

48 – San Pedro

53 – Central

66 – Olympic

78 – Las Tunas

81 – Figueroa

105 – Vernon

206 – Normandie

210 – Crenshaw

233 – Van Nuys

240 – Reseda/Ventura

251 – Soto

 

Bus Routes that have dropped from Tier 2 to Tier 3 (15 minutes or less):

35 (Washington)

55 (Adams/Compton)

76 (Valley)

115 (Manchester)

152 (Roscoe)

162 (Sherman)

166 (Nordhoff)

224 (Lankershim)

260 (Atlantic)

603 (Glendale)

605 (Boyle Heights)

761 (Sepulveda Pass Rapid)

 

Bus Routes that have dropped from Tier 2 to Tier 4 (30 minutes or less):

601 (Warner Center)

 

 

This week, Metro’s Board of Directors will vote on adoption of a proposed budget for all agency spending through next June. The current fiscal year, which began in July, has been unprecedented for Metro, particularly with regard to the ongoing financial crisis caused by COVID-19. As a result, Metro has taken the likewise unprecedented step of operating without an approved budget for nearly a full quarter of the year. Now, when the Directors meet, they will be considering a funding plan which cuts bus service by 20% on the year, from 7 million total hours to 5.6 million. The proposed budget may be balanced fiscally, but by adopting it as it currently stands, Metro will be creating a deficit in service. By their own analysis, Metro staff state that service will not even potentially return to pre-Covid levels until late 2022.

Metro has justified these cuts by saying that they are exercising prudent fiscal management and that they are “running 80% of [their] normal service for 55% of [their] normal ridership.” This is intended to give the impression that Metro is actually providing more service than they need to, but these are not normal times and their benchmark is misleading because it fails to take into account the agency’s own social distancing guidelines. 

Allowing for safe social distancing on transit vehicles has been one of the primary focuses for transit agencies across the country during the Covid pandemic. Social distancing is a priority for maintaining the health and safety of passengers and drivers alike. Some agencies have provided direct guidance as to lowered capacities for their vehicles, which may be as low as 10 to 15 passengers on a 40-foot bus, down from around 40 seated passengers with no distancing procedures in place. 

While Metro has not publicly released concrete numbers on how many passengers can safely ride their vehicles, they have put out guidance that indicates their agreement with similar restrictions. At the end of June, Metro’s blog, The Source, published a post on “Returning to Metro,” in which they told riders to “[k]eep your distance whenever possible,” adding that riders should “[a]void sitting in a vacant seat directly next to another rider” and “[k]eep at least one row of seats between you and other riders.” If that distancing should happen not to be possible on the vehicle when a rider boards, Metro advises riders to get off and wait for the next bus.

Add to these seating guidelines that Metro drivers have been cordoning off the front of the bus to prevent passengers from getting too close to them, and there are not very many seats available to choose from. Bus layouts differ across the fleet, but in the example below, the red marks indicate seats that are recommended for use by Metro, and the dividing line indicates where the cordon would go. In this scenario there would be about 10 socially distant seats for passengers.

With that lowered capacity, Metro is saying that riders should have three to four times as much personal space as they did before the pandemic. Now, when we revisit Metro’s justification, the problem becomes clear. Riders should have three times as much personal space as before, but Metro is not providing three times as much space. If they were, they would be running 165% of normal service for 55% of normal ridership. Instead, they are proposing half that amount.

Where possible, Metro has been using articulated buses, which allow for more passengers, on the busiest routes. But they don’t have enough of these longer vehicles to accommodate the need throughout the network while also running the planned service deficit.

The resulting status quo has left bus riders in the lurch. Metro’s recommendation is that they shouldn’t ride an excessively crowded bus, that they should get off and wait for another. But this is not a practical suggestion for the typical bus rider. Bus riders are often low-income workers who do not have a great deal of flexibility in their schedules and cannot expect to receive leniency for starting a shift late. Furthermore, Metro’s proposed service cuts mean waiting longer for that next bus to come, with no guarantee that it will be any less crowded when it arrives. Metro is leaving its riders with little alternative but to ride unsafely crowded vehicles.

As with government agencies across the country, Covid has dramatically reshaped Metro’s financial projections, but the same cannot be said of its priorities. After all, Covid has also laid bare the inequities that run through LA’s massive regional economy. If anything, the pandemic has shown the extent to which a stalwart commitment by service providers like Metro to equitable recovery paths is needed. Consequently, there is no more basic rubric with which to grade Metro’s budget than its treatment of bus riders. The budget proposal coming before the Board of Directors this week fails that test and we urge the Board to reject it.

 

Over the past several years, Investing in Place has been partnering with South Central LAMP to better understand and amplify how our transportation systems better serve moms and their families – especially low-income women.

We are excited to share our report from our “Moms and Mobility” convening. All of the participants were immigrants and spoke English as a second language, and some women were undocumented and/or have family members who are also undocumented. The listening session was facilitated by South Central LAMP Executive Director Diana Pinto was conducted primarily in Spanish with English translation services provided by the translation firm Antennae Aire.

The focus of the listening session was to identify and discuss mobility needs and challenges for South Central LAMP community members.  Most of the participants identified their primary modes of transportation as driving and taking the bus.  While the majority of the participants had smartphones, very few of them had access to a credit card.

Transportation is a field that has historically been dominated by white, privileged and male perspectives. Our campaign on #MomsandMobility is an effort to change that.

While this work was conducted before COVID-19, we are excited to be expanding our Moms and Mobility campaign with more partners this year. Stay tuned for how to get involved.

Report in English. 

——————————————–

Durante los últimos años, Investing in Place se ha asociado con South Central LAMP para entender y amplificar como nuestros sistemas de transporte sirven de una mejor manera a madres y a sus familias – especialmente mujeres de bajos recursos.

Nos emociona el poder compartir nuestro reporte de la junta de “Moms and Mobility”. Todos los que participaron eran inmigrantes que hablaban ingles como segundo idioma, y algunas mujeres eran indocumentadas y tenían familiares que también eran indocumentados.

La sesión de escucha fue facilitada por la directora de South Central LAMP Diana Pinto, y fue conducida principalmente en español con servicios de traducción al ingles proveídos por la firma de traducción Antennae Aire.

El enfoque de la sesión de escucha fue para identificar y discutir las necesidades de movilidad y los retos para los miembros de la comunidad de South Central LAMP. La mayoría de los participantes identificaron sus principales métodos de transportación como manejar y tomar el autobús. Aunque la mayoría de los participantes tenían teléfonos inteligentes, muy pocos tenían acceso a una tarjeta de crédito.

El campo del transporte ha sido históricamente dominado por perspectivos privilegiados y blancos. Nuestra campaña de #MomsandMobility es un esfuerzo para cambiarlo.

Este esfuerzo fue hecho antes del COVID-19, y estamos felices de expandir nuestra campaña de Moms and Mobility con mas socios este año. Manténganse al tanto de como poder involucrarse.

Reporte en Español.

For over five years, one of Metro’s biggest concerns has been trying to reverse the downward plunge of bus ridership. We must take it then as a sign of our extraordinary times that, in a matter of weeks, the agency’s mindset has been inverted completely: who would have imagined at the start of the year that by April Metro would be telling people to stay off transit for all but the most essential trips?

Throughout the past two months – as stringent restrictions on business operations and personal movement have been enacted to slow the spread of COVID-19 through Los Angeles County – Metro has been forced to repeatedly modify bus and rail service, making major cuts across the board. This has been necessary, according to Metro, in order to adjust to reduced passenger demand and an increased number of driver call-outs each day (Metro estimates a range of 25% – 30% of staff have been unable to work during COVID-19).

During April’s Operations Committee meeting, Conan Cheung, Senior Executive Officer for Operations, announced the latest plan for bus and rail operations, which went into effect on April 19th. The new service changes call for buses and trains to run on Sunday frequencies every day of the week, with trips also being added back for lines that do not usually run on Sundays to retain basic coverage for those riders.

With these changes, Metro says that they have established a baseline of service at which transit riders will not be forced to breach social distancing requirements, while also allowing for the agency to save money and maintain more reliable service for the remainder of the Covid crisis. However, by relying on the pre-existing Sunday schedule, Metro has disproportionately reduced transit for bus riders, exposing them to longer waits and more crowded waiting and riding experiences. If they want to ensure safe and rider-centered transit for the frontline workers and the unhoused Angelenos who are currently most reliant on their service, Metro must add back bus service above the current baseline. Metro is working to do this on corridors such as Slauson, Olympic, Broadway in South LA, 3rd Street and more – where they are increasing bus service and adding articulated buses.  Metro reports that 43% of the bus riders along the South LA Slauson are still riding. We are eager to see this type of data as it is showing key lifeline bus routes that need increased service now and going forward. 

Bus riders have always made up the majority of Metro’s ridership; in January, they outnumbered rail riders 2.5 to one. This massive disparity has grown only larger since the issuance of state and local Safer at Home orders. Since that time, comparatively wealthier rail riders have been more likely to be able to forgo transit trips. Metro reports that rail ridership is down three quarters compared to 65% on the buses. That means that as of March, bus riders now outnumber rail riders 3.5 to one.

Despite this, it is bus riders who will bear the brunt of Metro’s new schedule changes, unless new bus service is added. Last month, the Metro Board approved cuts that eliminate 29% of service hours for bus lines compared to 14% of service hours for rail lines. Additionally, while, on the rail network, Metro has pledged to continue running full train-car consists in order to facilitate distancing, on the bus network no such measures are available, unless we see targeted increased bus service using articulated buses implemented.

Without targeted increases to bus service, we might expect that Metro’s buses will become too full for passengers to distance and that riders will be left waiting long intervals for buses at stops where practicing safe distancing is generally difficult on narrow sidewalks.

Last month, when Operations Committee Chair Mike Bonin brought up the heavy cuts to bus service, he was told by Cheung that Metro wanted to use Sunday service as their guide because riders already had familiarity with that schedule, allowing them to make the change more quickly. While it is important to acknowledge that Metro is being forced to act faster than ever these days – service changes being normally accompanied by public outreach campaigns – it doesn’t stand to reason that the Sunday schedule will be more easily understood by riders. 

It is true that some passengers may have experience riding transit on Sundays, but for riders accustomed to riding to work on other days of the week, it is unlikely that they would be familiar enough with Sunday service to make a seamless transition to the new, significantly-reduced headways.

Some friction is no doubt unavoidable, but Metro should be leading in this moment with safety and transparency rather than simplicity as a guide. To that end, ACT-LA submitted a letter requesting that Metro restore bus service on high-demand corridors in order to protect passengers from crowding that might occur during the course of the day. This would mean a marginally greater expenditure for Metro, but it would prevent the close-quarters contact that can be the difference between life or death right now. More than attempting to find the minimum level of service that can be easily achieved, promoting safe distancing practices should be Metro’s aim.

In response to a question about crowds on Metro buses, staff responded that they were utilizing on-board passenger counts and social media to determine whether or not buses might be too full. But neither of these can be relied upon to allow Metro to supply additional service when and where it is needed. Metro reviews passenger counts on a monthly basis, which means the information will come too late for Metro to use it to prevent person-to-person transmission of Covid. 

Checking social media is a good but insufficient strategy: it means Metro will only know about crowded vehicles when a social media user – likely younger, wealthier, and whiter than the median transit rider – happens to be on-board and contact the agency. There is no solution to the issue of intermittent crowding on Metro buses that doesn’t involve increasing service.

The vast majority of rides taking place on the bus network right now are riders whose jobs have been deemed so essential that they do not have the luxury so many of us take for granted – the ability to be Safer at Home. Metro’s service changes seem to suggest that it wants to operate as much as possible like it is business as usual. But there is nothing usual about this moment in time. For the essential workers who still rely on transit, and for the rest of us who depend on those workers, the bus trips that are being taken right now are more important than ever.

At the May Operations committee, we encourage Metro to share data on COVID-19 trends on specific bus routes and continue to share this data going forward to inform the COVID Recovery Task Force and NextGen implementation and prioritization. Over 340,000 trips have been made every day on Metro bus and rail during Stay at Home orders, understanding where key essential trips are happening and additional buses are needed is critical. Investing in Place supports Better Buses for LA and the Metro staff and operators who are working incredibly hard to respond and serve our communities, however we see a breakdown from Metro Executive Leadership and the Board in sharing this information and having a much needed conversation about what is happening on our streets now. The Board is sharing aggregate data reports on transit service but our communities, policymakers, transit operators and local jurisdictions need real time data for specific lines and neighborhoods as the COVID-19 recovery policies and programs begin to be developed. 

 

Los Angeles community members are currently under state, county and city stay-at-home orders. Public Health experts strongly suggest continued mitigation strategies to prevent coronavirus transmission for the foreseeable future. For the transportation field, this means almost every aspect of the industry – mass transit, rideshares, taxi, bike/scooter share, parking, tolls, and gasoline – is being negatively impacted and drastically changed. 

 

For LA regional transit, initial reports from Metro staff show that bus ridership is down 70% and rail ridership is down 85%. This is good. We want people to stay home right now.  And while still so much is unknown about COVID-19 – one thing that is undeniable, the impacts are and will continue to be the hardest for Black and brown and low-income households – who are the majority of Metro’s transit riders and have few safe and reliable transportation options. Many essential workers from these communities rely on transit  to get work, stock grocery store shelves, prepare take-out meals, provide health care services, and take care of the region. These households also have members who are staying home but still rely on transit to access a grocery store or food pantry and medical services. How is our region and our transportation ecosystem taking care of these folks right now? And what about when we enter the recovery phase? 

 

Investing in Place has been exploring the implications of COVID-19 for transit service, transit riders, and transportation plans and projects. We’re finding ourselves with more questions for Metro, than answers from them. At the crux of our questions is equity.

 

Metro is in for a major decline in revenue, which means there will be some big and tough decisions for Metro leadership to make. How will smaller cities fare? What plans will Metro advance, and which will be tabled? In the midst of this crisis, and then during recovery, will Metro lead with the goal of ensuring safety and access for those who are most exposed and most vulnerable in its system: bus drivers and bus riders?

 

Transparency in Budget Impacts and Decisions

Transportation agencies need to be nimble and rise to the occasion. Metro must demonstrate leadership and help get us past this historic pandemic. Metro plays an essential role, no agency is more important for planning LA’s transportation system than Metro. While Metro is best known for running buses and trains, they do so much more. Metro also funds local street and highway projects, and serves as a real estate developer for land it owns and leases near transit stations. And each year, the agency directs the investment of billions of dollars from sales tax revenues (Propositions A and C and Measures R and M). Metro directs funding for local cities and councils of governments, carpool lanes, sidewalk repair, rail construction, bicycle lanes, bus service, and other projects and programs that affect how we get around the Los Angeles Region. It is critical that Metro’s response to the COVID-19 crisis leads with equity, upholds clear and consistent communications, and demonstrates transparency.

 

Metro CEO Phil Washington has stated that he anticipates an $800 million dollar shortfall in Los Angeles County transportation sales taxes over the next several months. Last year Metro had a $7 billion dollar annual budget – so the projected financial loss represents 11% of Metro’s budget. It’s likely that the deficit will continue to grow.

 

How will Metro address these shortfalls? Which projects will be cut, which services will be prioritized and funded? How will cities, communities, and stakeholders be involved in this prioritization? How the agency addresses equity in broader planning, programming, and investment decisions will be critical. Will the agency reduce or have free transit fares to support low income households and the influx of unemployed people?

 

And how will Metro prioritize the coming relief from the Federal Bill: 3548 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act  which will provide $710 to $810 million, or even up to $1.2 billion, in assistance to LA Metro. Will this funding go towards bus and rail operations, capital projects? And how will this relief funding be prioritized?

 

Metro’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery Will Reflect its Values

And after several years of developing an Equity Framework – Metro has the guiding principles in place to center equity in its crisis response. Last summer, Metro adopted its first-ever agency wide definition of “Equity Focused Communities.” This definition identifies two demographic factors that have historically been determinants of disinvestment and disenfranchisement, as well as a third factor Metro added to the mix: (1) race/ethnicity, (2) household income, and (3) households with low vehicle ownership. 

 

We are entering a massive recession and transportation budgets will shrink in the aftermath and throughout the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. An important question now is: how will Metro use its Equity Focused Communities to inform recovery? Key decisions will have to be made. 

 

Metro leadership needs to clearly articulate the outcomes they are working towards during the pandemic and once we enter the recovery phase. The agency should set metrics and clear and communicated guiding principles for changing investments, programs and stakeholder engagement. Will Metro’s COVID-19 recovery strategies be motivated by making Measure M and 28 x 28 capital projects whole again? Or is it focused on providing good services, getting NextGen back on track and prioritizing our most vulnerable communities in recovery? Metro operates as one of, if not the biggest transportation funder for 88 cities, unincorporated Los Angeles County, and over 30 municipal transit operators (think Big Blue Bus or Foothill Transit). Setting regional goals and metrics, and establishing leadership and clarity in communications now is critical. 

 

Data 

While Metro is more than just buses and trains – it’s a regional transportation agency – getting it right on transit right now is key. If we are leading with the goal of safety and access for all of those on the bus – both bus drivers and passengers, we need transparency on data and funding and clear ways for stakeholders to understand the trade-offs being made before policy decisions are made. 

 

Data is essential to making informed policy decisions that, in this case, prioritize shrinking resources. Metro needs to publish bus and train ridership data weekly  to identify where ridership is dropping off during the pandemic, but more importantly what are key lifeline transit lines for essential workers and essential trips? This data should also be coordinated with local cities/municipal transit operators to create a more informed picture of what is happening on the streets and what travel demand looks like during COVID-19.

 

Response and Recovery efforts must be grounded in equity 

This week Metro has their first Metro Board committee/meeting cycle while operating under COVID-19. How the agency addresses equity in broader planning, programming, and investment decisions will be critical. And although everything in the  transportation field right now is in flux, one constant remains: the inequities that characterize our transportation network continues to reflect years of inequitable public policymaking and a persistent lack of investment in lower-income communities and communities of color. As we look at the immediate response to the COVID-19 crisis, we should not lose sight of this reality. In response to the pandemic, Metro’s short term goal should (rightly) focus on advancing public health goals and protecting the most vulnerable among us. But as we look ahead to our recovery from this crisis, our goal should not be a return to “normal.” The status quo was not, is not, and will not be satisfactory. Instead, we should demand a recovery plan that emphasizes our goal of creating a transportation network (and a transit system) that reflects our broader desire for a more inclusive, just, and resilient society. Now, as we prioritize the safe transit of essential workers and our vulnerable neighbors, Metro leadership must also consider how this approach can inform our changing world. That means looking at ways to permanently implement fare-free transit for low-income transit riders, prioritizing investments that create a safe and reliable bus network for historically marginalized riders, and coordinating with local jurisdictions to prioritize transportation investments that expand access and opportunity for underserved communities. Right now, more than ever, Metro leadership needs to ensure that the agency’s response and its broader recovery efforts are grounded in equity. 

 

Next Steps:

• Attend the April 14th Better Buses Work group meeting via zoom (This work group is open to all. We meet monthly on the 3rd Tuesday of every month from 3:30 – 5:00pm.)
• The Metro Board of Directors meetings scheduled for March were postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to comply with local and state directives limiting the number of people that can gather, the Board will forgo holding meetings at Metro headquarters and instead hold virtual meetings. Board Committees will take place on Wednesday, April 15, and Thursday, April 16, and the full Board meeting will be Thursday, April 23.
• All of the meetings will be accessible via video stream at http://boardagendas.metro.net or by phone by calling 213-306-3065 and entering the meeting ID number associated with each meeting.
• A written public comment submission period will open up 72 hours before each meeting. Because in-person comments are not possible, the public will have the following three methods to provide public comment:

1. 1. By emailing your comment before the meeting to jacksonm@metro.net, making sure to note the agenda number and item along with your comment

Guest Blog Post by Felipe Escobar,  Pacoima Beautiful

Bus shelters make a difference for transit users, particularly on hot days in the San Fernando Valley. These bus shelters are only becoming more necessary as climate change brings hotter days to our communities. In fact, according to a study by UCLA, the number of hot days (95 degrees plus) could triple by 2050. This figure is troublesome because having shade on a hot day can determine how comfortable a person is, especially when having to wait for a bus for an extended period. For transit users in the northeast San Fernando Valley, one of the hottest areas Los Angeles County, not having shade, is a reality that is lived at many bus stops. This is why Pacoima Beautiful together with Investing in Place, Outfront/JCDecaux and Climate Resolve, are teaming up to create a model that benefits the areas that needed the most by working to install 10 bus shelters in Los Angeles City Council District 6.

This gets us one step closer to achieving environmental justice for our communities. We know that because of poor planning, communities in the northeast San Fernando Valley lack necessary infrastructure such as sidewalks, stormwater drainage, and parks for residents to escape to on hot days. According to the LA County Parks Needs Assessment, Sun Valley only has 1.6 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. This is the story in many communities in the nation where necessary infrastructure was only added in affluent neighborhoods.

“The Shade is important. It is too hot, and we could pass out, especially when the bus takes a long time. This is urgent.”  

Transit user

 

 

 

 

The Bus Shelter Blitz seeks to add more bus shelters to areas that need it the most.

The Bus Shelter Blitz is an effort to address shade and heat issues for residents that use public transportation. As part of the collaboration, Pacoima Beautiful conducted on the ground outreach throughout the district to determine the areas with the higher needs for bus shelters. In September, Pacoima Beautiful members conducted in-person interviews at different sites identified as possible sites through GIS mapping and METRO’s ridership data.

We were able to talk to 196 people during the outreach period. The ten bus stops that were most frequently selected by residents, and which we have also determined to be feasible to submit for permits are as follows:

 

• EB Vanowen NS Amestoy
• NB San Fernando NS Sheldon
• Van Nuys Blvd at Chase
• NB Van Nuys FS Victory
• SB Lankershim NS Stagg
• NB Sepulveda NS Saticoy
• NB Lankershim FS Tuxford
• WB Sherman Way FS Tuxford
• WB Sherman Way FS Van Nuys
• NB Van Nuys NS Vanowen
• SB Van Nuys NS Arleta

 

“It will be good to have bus shelter because there are children and elderly people under the sun waiting for the bus” Transit User

 

 

 

 

 

The benefit of the Bus Shelter Blitz project is that it focuses on a ground-up approach for designing what amenities to bring to a community as opposed to historical birds-eye view where people not familiar with the community’s conditions decide what improvements to bring to an area, often this approach results in mismatched projects that do not bring any real benefits to communities, and it leaves residents unhappy.

As we move forward in striving to make communities more resilient to climate change, we need to continue to implement solutions that begin with those most affected and vulnerable. There is also a need for less red-tape to get much-needed amenities out to the communities. Currently, a challenge to getting bus shelters approved is the dense bureaucratic red tape that a request for bus shelters needs to go through. A request for bus shelters goes through different agencies and council offices for review. A solution can be to simplify the request process by reducing the number of eyes that needed for approval and making the request for new shelters available through different venues such as in-person, phone, and online.

 

 

“I just got out of the hospital and to be waiting under the sun for the bus is unbearable” Transit user

 

 

 

 

 

Projects such as the bus shelter blitz is a good model where those most impacted by heat while waiting for their bus have a say on which areas to prioritize. Climate change is affecting transit users in Los Angeles every day, and by making sure our transit users have adequate shade is one way we can work towards making our communities more resilient.

For more information see our presentation on this project.

 

Guest blog post by Slate-Z Communications Associate: Josie Clerfond

 

Less than 25% of bus stops in the city of Los Angeles have a bus shelter.

Given the scarcity of shade in Los Angeles, rising temperatures, heat-island effects of cement, this is a significant issue for riders who do not have a sheltered place to wait for their bus. Exposing people who ride the bus to rain, sun, and excessive heat is a public health concern. As noted in the New York Times article Why Shade is a Mark of Privilege in Los Angeles, this issue impacts community members in the South LA promise zone disproportionately, due to relatively higher rates of use of public transit in South LA neighborhoods and lower amounts of tree cover.

A grant from the 11th Hour Project, secured in partnership with Investing in Place, offers funds for community organizing for new bus shelters in Council District 8 — stops where people who ride the bus currently stand exposed to the elements. The Bus Shelter Blitz, as the project has been called, has been working to determine where the bus stops should go in Council District 8 has been a process led by SLATE-Z. (And in San Fernando Valley led by Pacoima Beautiful.)

New bus shelters will entail:

1. Permanent shade structure with a bench
2. Hydration stations (water fountains) where feasible

Where should new shelters go? Over 300 Surveys Conducted 

SLATE-Z Conducted community outreach at events and in neighborhoods in South LA. 

At the Central Avenue Jazz Festival on July 27th and 28th, 2019, we conducted written surveys on which respondents could circle their top 10 preferred bus shelter locations and provide feedback about the transit experience. 

At the Taste of Soul Festival on October 19th, residents engaged with our digitized survey, through which they could select their top 10 bus shelter locations and provide feedback on various issues of transportation safety. Through this second iteration of our outreach efforts, SLATE-Z was able to collect useful data and achieve a greater understanding of transit needs in CD 8.

And this November, Slate-Z deployed a team of our partners at CD Tech on a door knocking campaign throughout the district. Our survey, which was available in both English and Spanish, facilitated discussions and the ability for residents to shape the transit infrastructure that affects their daily lives. In contacting over 300 South LA transit riders, our Bus Shelter Blitz campaign completed a large mobilization effort to obtain the necessary community input and ideas. This  process allowed us to hear from those who regularly utilize the transit services we seek to improve. 

Based on this outreach, the top 10 feasible and community prioritized locations in Council District 8 are:

• Western Ave & Adams Blvd bus stop (North bound)
• Western Ave & Exposition Blvd bus stop (North bound)
• Western Ave & Florence Ave bus stop (North bound)
• Figueroa St & Florence Ave bus stop (South bound)
• Vermont Ave & Exposition Blvd bus stop (South bound)
• Crenshaw Blvd & Slauson Ave bus stop (North bound)
• Florence Ave & Vermont Ave bus stop (West bound)
• Western Ave & Century Blvd bus stop (North bound)
• Western Ave & Florence Ave bus stop (South bound)
• Vermont Ave & Manchester Ave bus stop (South bound)

SLATE-Z is currently in contact with Council District Member Marqueece Harris-Dawson, and will submit the above sites for permitting. Stay tuned for bus shelter installations coming in 2020. 

Other major findings:

We conducted comprehensive outreach regarding the public transit experience in Council District 8. Residents had the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback on what is necessary to improve their transit experience. Overwhelmingly, respondents identified the need for increased safety and security at bus stops and on buses. Safety—both on the buses and at bus stops—was determined to be a major concern for people who ride the bus.

The timeliness and frequency of buses was another challenge illuminated by survey respondents. SLATE-Z continues to advocate for community-led infrastructure improvements the improve transportation options for community members – especially those with the least options. We understand that ease of mobility for South LA residents is crucial to their safety, quality of life and economic success.

Co-Authored by:

Jessica Meaney, Investing in Place

Rudy Espinoza, Inclusive Action for the City 

John Yi, Los Angeles Walks

 

This week the City of Los Angeles Public Works and Gang Reduction committee will hear staff recommendations from the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) on what to do about bus shelters (including trash cans), automated public toilets, and digital advertising panels on sidewalks. The Bureau of Streets Services proposal reads as an effort to commercialize every inch of ADA compliant space on the City’s sidewalks, as opposed to one looking to serve people who ride the bus, or who walk or roll to crucial community assets like schools, hospitals, grocery stores.

 

Investing in Place asks its partners and supporters to write the City Council and ask them to develop a guiding policy and vision for our City’s sidewalks. We need a guiding vision that leads City Departments and all subsequent policies impacting the public right of way, on the path to becoming a walkable and rollable city with vibrant and inclusive sidewalks serving multiple needs and community uses. Some specific thoughts on the proposal and contact information for the committee members can be found on the bottom of this post.

 

Currently, the City of Los Angeles has no guiding policy or set of metrics informing the development of a walkable and rollable city with vibrant and inclusive sidewalks serving multiple needs and community uses. The only sidewalk program the city has is one based on litigation settled in 2015 (Willits v. City of Los Angeles), and most recently the “Risk Reduction Program,” which conducts  spot fixes (that are not ADA compliant) on sidewalks with known tripping hazards from previous trip and fall lawsuits. Last year, the City of Los Angeles fixed 18 miles of the City’s sidewalks. It’s estimated over 4,000 miles of the City’s sidewalks are in disrepair. At the rate the City of Los Angeles is investing in its public right of way, it will take over 200 years to have an accessible and walkable/rollable city. And we would argue, simply achieving  compliance of the Willits lawsuit settlement will not result in a walkable and rollable city. Additionally, the program is woefully under resourced and does not require the City to build new sidewalks where none exists – it is limited solely to repair of existing ones. 

 

The City’s approach to bus shelters hasn’t fared much better than sidewalks. The City’s bus shelter program has been failing since Controller Wendy Greuel’s audit in 2012. While we fully support an effort to increase the provision of  bus shelters, public bathrooms, and wayfinding signage – we believe the current proposal before the Public Works Committee falls short. It is silent on how commercializing the public right of way will serve people who use sidewalks and bus stops. 

 

Sidewalks serve many purposes in the City of Los Angeles, and without a guiding policy or vision from policymakers rooted in supporting many uses, we will continue to see inconsistent policy decisions and priorities for this critical public, shared space. For instance, it took the City years to legalize street vending, and now as the City works to create a permit program for street vendors(a program also managed by the Bureau of Street Services), advocates are fighting back against proposals that would require vendors to pay $541 to obtain a permit. These initial costs seek to gain revenue for the city, without taking into account how it impacts the livelihoods of low-income entrepreneurs and the elderly who rely on vending to pay their bills. And earlier this year, the City struggled to reconcile policies for people who have nowhere to sleep but the sidewalks, with one proposal from policymakers that sought to make it illegal for people to sleep on the majority of sidewalks.  

 

Now more than ever, the City needs to pull together the many needs, uses and challenges existing on its sidewalks and public right of way and create a unifying public policy and vision for one of the City’s most important assets and public spaces – sidewalks. 

 

If policymakers decide to adopt the BSS proposal and commercialize the City’s sidewalks we must ask ourselves: Who will benefit from this proposed revenue source? Given the lack of existing policy and vision, and lack of specifics on how revenue will be used in the BSS report it is unclear to us if funding will be used to build and fix sidewalks, reduce permit costs for street vendors, or provide clean and safe bathrooms. The City’s priorities should be clear and transparent.

 

We’ve witnessed the power of our allies in the LA Street Vendor Campaign, who have advocated for a just system that allows low-income entrepreneurs the opportunity to use the public right of way in a safe and respectful manner.  And our allies advocating for more shade and street trees continue to sound the alarm about the removal of trees and lack of an urban tree canopy. And we have been a part of sidewalk advocacy Tripping Point Summits and community organizing efforts to see bus shelters installed and more. And lastly, our City’s grappling with a chronic homelessness crisis is making it more and more clear that Los Angeles needs a vision for our sidewalks that unifies marginalized communities and directs Departments to support the historically disenfranchised.  

 

We see so much organizing and interest from community members to have their sidewalks meet the needs of their communities. But the report posted from Bureau of Street Services last week is silent on these community efforts and how advertising revenue will address the myriad of issues faced by Angelenos, especially those in low-income communities. While the report does look to the future by calling out the 2028 Olympics, we believe that it’s not enough. Our public spaces should serve the needs of Angelenos, not sporting events.  

 

It’s time for the City of Los Angeles to adopt a guiding policy and vision that improves the public right of way for all Angelenos and their needs, but especially the most under-represented and marginalized. Los Angeles deserves sidewalks that are accessible, safe, and vibrant.

 

What’s in the BSS Staff report and being decided?

BSS staff is recommending that Los Angeles City Council reject  Outfront Media/JCDecaux proposal to extend their existing street furniture contract, and let that contract expire on 12/31/2021.  

• Negotiate the sale of existing street furniture or direct Outfront Media/JCDecaux to remove all existing street furniture. 
• And BSS seeks authorization to begin working on requests for proposals (RFP)  to secure a new program through the Board of Public Works that will:
  • Do a request of information to inform BSS RFP process on best practices.
  • Explore business models and options for the City to share a portion or 100% of the capital expenditure to maximize revenues for the City. 
  • At a minimum, provide shelters in each Council District to achieve 75% transit ridership coverage with priority given to “districts with the highest needs.” 
  • Eliminate Exclusive Advertising
  • Provide expanded advertising opportunities.

Bureau of Streets Services/Streets LA also is seeking approval to: 

• Work with the Department of Convention and Tourism Development. 
• Create a sidewalk, parkway and roadway inventory of all street furniture – coordinating with other LA City departments, Metro and other municipal transit providers to develop the inventory. 
• Maximize the the street furniture program and revenues for the 2028 Olympics and ParaOlympics.
• Create a streamlined process for installing street furniture based on approval of a development plan one year at a time. 

The City Council Public Works and Gang Reduction Committee is chaired by Councilmember Bob Blumenfield and includes Councilmembers Joe Buscaino, Nury Martinez, David Ryu, Mitch O’Farrell and Monica Rodriguez. Emails on this proposal can be sent to the committee staff member, Michael Espinoza at Michael.Espinosa@lacity.org. Printed copies of the email will be in the packets handed to Councilmembers and forwarded to Council staff.

Here are some points to highlight in your email:

• NEED FOR A CITYWIDE SIDEWALK GUIDING POLICY AND VISION, among City Departments and all policies impacting the public right of way that sets the City on the path to becoming a walkable and rollable city with vibrant and inclusive sidewalks serving multiple needs and community uses.
• WHAT HAPPENS TO FUNDS RAISED BY THIS PROPOSAL – When advocates approach the City of Los Angeles to fix its sidewalks and expand its small sidewalk repair program, we hear, “it’s too hard, let’s downscope and try pilots, let’s focus on spot fixes.” Any money raised by commercialization of a public space should be used to improve our public spaces.
• HOW DO WE BUILD AND MAINTAIN “NON REVENUE” BUS SHELTERS – This proposal has one whole sentence dedicated to the need to provide bus shelters that don’t increase revenue for the city. While this new program is a great, and much needed, idea it raises a lot of questions about transparency and equity. If the BSS is serious about creating a new program in the public’s right-of-way it should be the focus of more than just that one sentence. A real place would include goals, metrics, accountability, transparency, funding sources, and more.
• HOW DO WE MAKE SURE EVERY PART OF THE CITY IS GETTING ENOUGH BUS SHELTERS – One of the recommendations for the program states, a goal of providing bus shelters to “At a minimum, provide adequate number of bus shelters in each council district to achieve 75% transit ridership coverage with priority given to District with highest needs.” How will this program define High Need? Is it lifting up the work done in previous City departments to do this and align programs?