DONATE

Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

Equity Focused Communities at Metro

This summer the Metro Board of Directors took a giant step towards defining and mapping high need communities in Los Angeles County, and applying this definition to evaluate planning efforts and resource allocations – namely NextGen and Congestion Pricing.

In June, the Metro Board unanimously adopted the motion, “Defining Equity Focused Communities,” from Directors Bonin, Garcia, Solis, Kuehl, Hahn and Dupont-Walker.

“This definition identifies two demographic factors that have historically been determinants of disinvestment and disenfranchisement: household income and race/ethnicity.”  

 

And Metro adds a third factor to the mix: households with low vehicle ownership. Using these 3 factors to create a map of high need neighborhoods and communities in Los Angeles County, Metro can now evaluate and prioritize where key transportation investments and policies can have the greatest impact on increasing access to opportunity. This is an important step forward for the agency, as you can not measure what you don’t define. This motion builds upon previous work from Metro and their 2018 Equity Platform, and takes the needed steps to operationalize and apply the Equity Platform. 

As Metro and local jurisdictions look to accelerate projects and leverage the nearly $2 Billion in tax dollars coming into the County each year for transportation investments – how are we ensuring that these investments will lead to a healthy, equitable region? Equity Focused Communities now changes that by providing an agency wide starting point to to do that (in the past Metro has been defining equity project by project – resulting in a huge variety of definitions, strategies, and impacts from Metro to address equity). 

 

“Adopting a working definition for use during the critical planning efforts underway, most notably the NextGen Bus Study and the Congestion Pricing Feasibility Study, would result in real benefits for communities that have waited a long time for their needs to be addressed equitably.”

 

This definition was developed as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan Draft Values Framework where Metro staff have been working with USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE) research experts and the Metro Policy Advisory Council and other stakeholders.

 

Next Steps?

  • After adopted Equity Focused Communities as a working definition under the first pillar of the equity platform, Metro will be using it to evaluate scenarios on planning efforts currently underway – including NextGen and Congestion Pricing, along with supplemental metrics if necessary and appropriate.
  • Continue to refine the definition and applicability of Equity Focused Communities through the development of the Long Range Transportation Plan and in consultation with the Policy Advisory Council and Chief Equity Officer.

 

For more information:

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

How We Got Here: Three Decades of Equity at Metro

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

—

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

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

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

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

 

How has Metro involved equity in the past?

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

II. Indirect attempts to apply equity in planning

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Categories
Budgets Just Growth Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Equity at Metro One Year Later

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

—

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

 

Why does it matter that public agencies focus on equity?

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

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

 

How can Metro implement equity today?

Step 1: Finalize and apply a regional definition of equity

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

But first, we need a regional definition of equity.

—

This post was initially published on March 13, 2019.

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Budgets Public Participation Resources Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

 

City of LA Budget 101

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

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

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

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

How can I get involved?

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

1) Relationships are everything

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

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

2) Know your issues

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

3) Show, more than tell

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Congestion pricing in LA today

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

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

 

Congestion pricing models

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

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

Source: Transport for London

 

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

Source: All Singapore Stuff

 

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

 

What could congestion pricing accomplish?

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

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

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

 

Criticisms

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

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

 

But would pricing roads divert traffic to other streets

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Next steps

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

Categories
Uncategorized

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

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

 

Why think regionally?

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

 

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

 

The “other 88”

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Month 12

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

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

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

Categories
Completing Streets Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

Bus Shelters

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

Here is a quick breakdown:

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

Next Steps:

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

#LASidewalks + Urban Tree Canopy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investing in Place has written extensively on this issue:

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

Next Steps:

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

Categories
Completing Streets Measure M Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remaining PAC Working Group Key Questions

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Improving Bus Service Measure M transportation equity Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Uncategorized

Even Casino Heists Need a Plan

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

My street needs fixing. Now what?

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

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

Source: DIY Great Streets Manual, Mayor’s Office

 

So who do I call for street repairs and maintenance?

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

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

 

Why are there so many agencies?

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

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

 

What does this mean for Los Angeles residents and businesses?

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

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

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

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

 

How can we improve on this?

The City’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) has produced a report, “Evaluation of the State of Street Related Infrastructure Programs in Los Angeles,” written by FUSE fellow Laila Alequresh. The report is a thorough and detailed document that explains the history of Los Angeles infrastructure agencies. Its most impactful recommendation is to move the Department of Transportation into the Department of Public Works as a Bureau, similar to the existing five bureaus described above. The report recommends this as a way to centralize the City’s transportation and street infrastructure agencies, which often rely on each other’s separated work plans to deliver projects.

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

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

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

 

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

Categories
Convenings Uncategorized

Tripping Point: Valley Edition Recap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Session

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

Afternoon Session

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Resources:

Program (English)

Programa (Spanish)

TP.Valley Powerpoint

Sidewalks FAQ

Categories
Completing Streets Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Uncategorized

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

Sidewalk Policy Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

What is the new Sidewalk Policy?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

How does this impact me?

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

 

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

 

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

 

What is the Access Repair Program?

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

 

What is the Rebate Program?

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

 

What are the Program Access Improvements?

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

 

What is the City Facilities Program?

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

 

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

 

What does this mean for street trees?

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

 

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

 

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

Note: Sidewalks graphics courtesy of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering

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

Vision for a Comprehensive Transportation Network

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Categories
Completing Streets Just Growth Measure M Uncategorized

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

 

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

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

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

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

Click here to see our complete analysis.

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

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what was discussed ?

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

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

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

Categories
Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Categories
Uncategorized Viewpoints from the Movement

Making Headway: Planning for Bus Rapid Transit on Vermont Avenue

 

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

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

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

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

Case Study: Bus Rapid Options for Vermont Avenue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Headway on Bus Rapid Transit

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

Categories
Social Equity Uncategorized Viewpoints from the Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Public Participation transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Ballot Measure Recap: What Did We Win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Finish Los Angeles River and San Gabriel Valley Greenways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measure M - active transportation funding

4. Require Complete Streets in All Projects

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

5. Repair Streets and Sidewalks

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

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

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

6. Fund Countywide Walking and Biking Programs

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

And So Much More…

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

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

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

Categories
Resources Social Equity transportation equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

Our take on the Metro Ballot Measure Revise

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

Additional Background:

Categories
Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other key findings of interest from the survey:

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

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

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

###

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Dedicated Funding for Active Transportation in the Gateway Cities

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

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

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

  1. Clear Commitment to Complete Streets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Your Calendars: We Need You in June!

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

Metro Planning & Policy Committee

Wednesday, June 15th at 2:00 PM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

 

Metro Executive Management Committee

Thursday, June 16th at 11:30 AM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

 

Metro Board

Thursday, June 23rd at 9:00 AM

Metro Board Room, 3rd Floor

Categories
Public Participation Social Equity Transportation Finance Uncategorized

City of LA Sidewalk Policy Program proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello@investinginplace.org

Instagram Youtube Linkedin

Stay up to date on our work!

Sign up for our newsletter

Site Credits

© Investing in Place. All Rights Reserved.

New Title

New Name

New Bio

Estolano Advisors

Richard France

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

Accelerator for America, Milken Institute

Matt Horton

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

UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Madeline Brozen

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

Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass

Luis Gutierrez

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

kim@investinginplace.org

Communications Strategist

Kim Perez

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

jessica@investinginplace.org

(213) 210-8136

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

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