DONATE

Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

COVID-19 and Metro – More questions than answers

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Transparency in Budget Impacts and Decisions

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Data 

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

 

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

 

Response and Recovery efforts must be grounded in equity 

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

 

Next Steps:

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

Bus Shelter Blitz

Guest Blog Post by Felipe Escobar,  Pacoima Beautiful

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

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

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

Transit user

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

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

We were able to talk to 196 people during the outreach period. 

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, see our presentation on this project.

Categories
Uncategorized

Community-Led Bus Shelters

Guest blog post by Josie Clerfond, SLATE-Z

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

Given the scarcity of shade in Los Angeles, rising temperatures, and the heat-island effect of pavement and concrete, this creates a significant challenge for transit riders who often wait in the sun with little protection from the elements. As noted in the New York Times article Why Shade Is a Mark of Privilege in Los Angeles, this issue disproportionately affects communities in South Los Angeles, where transit use is higher and tree canopy coverage is lower.

Through a partnership between SLATE-Z, Investing in Place, Climate Resolve, and Outfront/JCDecaux, funding was secured to support community organizing and the installation of 10 new bus shelters in Council District 8.

The Bus Shelter Blitz project was designed to ensure that community members helped determine where these shelters should be located.

The new shelters will include:

  • Permanent shade structures with seating
  • Hydration stations where feasible

More Than 300 Residents Participated

SLATE-Z conducted outreach at community events, through neighborhood surveys, and through door-to-door engagement across South Los Angeles.

More than 300 residents participated in the process, helping identify locations where new shelters would provide the greatest benefit to transit riders.

This outreach was about more than selecting locations. It was an opportunity for residents to shape the transportation infrastructure that affects their daily lives.

What We Heard

Residents consistently identified safety and security as major concerns at both bus stops and on buses.

The timeliness and frequency of bus service also emerged as significant challenges.

These findings reinforce what many transit riders already know: improving mobility requires more than transportation investments alone. Riders need safe, comfortable, and reliable access to the transit system.

SLATE-Z continues to advocate for community-led infrastructure improvements that expand transportation options and improve quality of life, particularly for residents with the fewest mobility choices.

Projects like the Bus Shelter Blitz demonstrate how community engagement can help direct public investments to the places where they are needed most.

Categories
Uncategorized

Sidewalks Need a Vision

Co-authored by Jessica Meaney (Investing in Place), Rudy Espinoza (Inclusive Action for the City), and John Yi (Los Angeles Walks)

This week, Los Angeles policymakers are considering recommendations related to bus shelters, public toilets, digital advertising panels, and other amenities in the public right-of-way.

While these discussions may seem technical, they raise a much larger question:

What is the City’s vision for its sidewalks?

Currently, Los Angeles has no guiding policy or set of metrics for developing a walkable and rollable city with vibrant, inclusive sidewalks that serve multiple needs and community uses.

The City’s primary sidewalk program stems from the Willits settlement, a disability rights lawsuit focused on repairing damaged sidewalks and improving accessibility. While that work is important, compliance alone will not create the kind of public spaces Angelenos deserve.

The challenge is much larger.

Sidewalks are some of Los Angeles’ most important public spaces. They serve many purposes and many users. They provide access to schools, transit, parks, jobs, healthcare, and local businesses. They are places where people walk, roll, wait for the bus, sell food, gather, and move through daily life.

Yet policy decisions affecting sidewalks are often made independently of one another.

Street vending, bus shelters, street trees, accessibility improvements, public bathrooms, homelessness, and sidewalk repairs are frequently addressed as separate issues rather than as part of a larger vision for the public right-of-way.

At the same time, Los Angeles continues to struggle with aging and deteriorating infrastructure. Thousands of miles of sidewalks remain in disrepair, many bus stops lack shelters and shade, and residents continue to advocate for safer, more accessible public spaces.

This is why we believe the City must first establish a guiding vision for its sidewalks and public right-of-way.

That vision should recognize sidewalks as shared public spaces that serve many functions and many communities. It should provide clear priorities, measurable outcomes, and direction for City departments making decisions about the public realm.

Without a unifying vision, Los Angeles will continue to make fragmented decisions that fail to address the broader needs of residents.

As policymakers consider future investments and policies, the goal should not simply be to generate revenue or approve individual projects. The goal should be to create sidewalks that are accessible, safe, welcoming, and responsive to the diverse needs of Angelenos.

Los Angeles deserves sidewalks that reflect the importance of the public spaces we share.

Categories
Uncategorized

Equity Focused Communities at Metro

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

The definition identifies two demographic factors that have historically shaped patterns of disinvestment and disenfranchisement: household income and race/ethnicity. Metro added a third factor: low vehicle ownership.

This summer, the Metro Board of Directors took an important step toward defining and mapping high-need communities across Los Angeles County and applying that definition to transportation planning and resource allocation.

Together, these indicators create a countywide framework for identifying communities that may benefit most from transportation investments and policies.

This is a significant step forward. Metro’s 2018 Equity Platform established a commitment to equity, but Equity Focused Communities provides a practical tool for applying that commitment across the agency.

As Metro plans major initiatives such as the NextGen Bus Study and Congestion Pricing Feasibility Study, this framework will help evaluate how investments and policy decisions affect communities with the greatest transportation needs.

As we often say, you cannot measure what you do not define.

Historically, Metro has approached equity differently across projects and programs. A common definition creates a starting point for more consistent evaluation, accountability, and decision-making.

What’s Next?

Metro will use Equity Focused Communities as part of ongoing planning efforts, including NextGen and Congestion Pricing, while continuing to refine the framework through the Long Range Transportation Plan process and 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

How LA’s Budget Shapes Priorities

Ever wonder why so many sidewalks in Los Angeles are broken, narrow, or missing altogether? Decades of funding decisions that have not prioritized the public right-of-way—sidewalks, streets, and related infrastructure—are part of the answer.

Ever wonder how to improve a local park, library, streetlight, or public service? When residents ask elected officials to fix infrastructure or expand services, they often hear the same response: “If it’s not in the budget, we can’t do it.”

While budget allocations do not always translate immediately into visible improvements, they directly influence what residents can expect from their local government. In that sense, a city’s budget is a reflection of its priorities. It reveals what elected officials believe they can accomplish and what they are willing to invest in during the coming year.

City of LA Budget 101

The City of Los Angeles fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year. The annual budget, adopted each June by the Mayor and City Council, serves as the City’s spending and revenue plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

A FY20 budget, for example, refers to the fiscal year running from July 2019 through June 2020.

Although the City Council ultimately approves the budget, many important decisions are made long before budget hearings begin. Department staff, the Mayor’s office, and the City Administrative Officer (CAO) all play significant roles in shaping the budget before it reaches the Council.

A Simplified Budget Timeline

September–November: Department leaders develop budget requests and submit them to the Mayor.

November–April: Department leaders, the Mayor’s office, and the CAO review funding needs and priorities.

April: The Mayor releases a proposed budget and outlines priorities for the coming fiscal year.

May: The City Council Budget and Finance Committee holds public hearings on departmental budgets.

June: The City Council adopts the budget before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.

How Can You Get Involved?

When engaging in the City’s budget process, we recommend three basic steps.

1. Relationships Matter

Anyone seeking to influence public spending should understand who helps shape budget decisions.

Key players include department leadership, staff in the Mayor’s office, budget staff, and members of the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee. Building relationships and understanding how decisions are made can help residents and advocates engage more effectively.

2. Know Your Issue

If you are asking the City to fund a service or improve infrastructure, it helps to understand how that request might be paid for and maintained over time.

Some useful questions include:

  • What funding source could support the proposal?
  • Who would maintain it?
  • What are the long-term costs?
  • Have other cities successfully implemented similar programs?

Strong ideas are often strengthened by practical funding and implementation strategies.

3. Show Support

Elected officials are more likely to respond when they see broad community support.

Public testimony, sign-on letters, partnerships, neighborhood organizing, and public awareness campaigns can all demonstrate that an issue matters to residents. The most effective advocacy often combines strong relationships with visible public support.

A Vision Zero Case Study

One example of how priorities become investments is Vision Zero.

In 2015, Mayor Eric Garcetti launched Vision Zero, Los Angeles’ initiative to eliminate traffic deaths. LADOT developed plans identifying dangerous corridors and outlining strategies to improve safety.

Advocates, community members, and elected officials then worked to elevate Vision Zero during the budget process.

Funding grew from approximately $3 million to $27 million in FY18 and then to $37 million in FY19.

That increase reflected a growing recognition that traffic deaths are preventable and that street safety requires sustained investment.

Budget allocations alone do not save lives. Implementation matters. But without funding, plans often remain plans.

Why This Matters

City budgets are where priorities become real.

They reveal what a city values, where resources are directed, and what improvements residents can reasonably expect in the years ahead.

For anyone seeking better sidewalks, safer streets, improved parks, stronger transit, or more effective public services, understanding the budget process is essential.

The budget cycle is active nearly year-round. By understanding how it works, building relationships, and organizing around shared priorities, residents can play a meaningful role in shaping the future of Los Angeles.

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

Defining Equity Across LA County

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 envision a more coordinated City where agencies work together efficiently, ensuring residents receive seamless and responsive 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. 


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: Present 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.

 

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 public health, safety, and opportunity. We rely on public infrastructure to get to daily destinations like work, school, places of worship, medical appointments, and seeing our friends and family.  The maintenance and service delivery of our public infrastructure shape the quality of life of city residents.

Source: 2017 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 without a citywide capital plan. This means that public infrastructure planning, design, and construction are handled separately by different agencies. When communication and consensus break down, local governments 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. 

 

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 to centralize the City’s transportation and street infrastructure agencies, which often rely on each other’s separate work plans to deliver projects.


On paper, this move could make sense. It is logical that the various agencies that work on streets and sidewalks should be housed in the same administrative body. This could lead to better projects and delivery of services. However, this logic only applies if the inter-bureau coordination and communication of the Public Works Bureaus work well together toward 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 streamline and improve inter-bureau coordination and project delivery, 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 1:00 p.m. 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 is available for download at lagreatstreets.org/diymanual

Categories
Convenings Uncategorized

The Tripping Point Comes to the Valley

On October 21, 2017, more than 60 community members gathered at Panorama High School for the second Tripping Point, a community event focused on sidewalk accessibility, safety, advocacy, and public health.

Hosted with neighborhood councils, community organizations, disability advocates, and public agencies, the event brought together residents from across the San Fernando Valley to learn how to navigate City processes, advocate for improvements, and better understand the challenges facing Los Angeles’ sidewalks.

From childcare and interpretation services to hands-on advocacy workshops, the Tripping Point was designed to meet people where they are and make civic participation more accessible.

The Valley is home to the Orange Line, one of the country’s most successful bus rapid transit corridors. It is also home to some of the most dangerous intersections in California and many neighborhoods that continue to struggle with inadequate sidewalk infrastructure, limited shade, and barriers to accessibility.

Throughout the day, speakers and participants highlighted the importance of sidewalks as essential public infrastructure that connects people to schools, jobs, transit, parks, healthcare, and community life.

Los Angeles County Disability Commissioner Hector Ochoa shared his personal experiences navigating inaccessible infrastructure and the challenges residents face when seeking sidewalk repairs and accessibility improvements.

Public Works Commissioner Luz Rivas spoke about the City’s commitment to addressing long-standing infrastructure needs, while Mayor Garcetti’s Director of Infrastructure, Ted Bardacke, emphasized the role sidewalks play in connecting communities and improving quality of life.

A recurring theme throughout the day was that sidewalks should not be treated as separate from transportation planning. Safe and comfortable sidewalks, accessible transit stops, shade, street trees, and public spaces all work together as part of a connected transportation network.

Participants also discussed transportation safety, urban heat, disability access, and strategies for engaging decision-makers and advocating for neighborhood improvements.

The Tripping Point was created to give residents practical tools and information while building a stronger community voice around the future of Los Angeles’ sidewalks and public spaces.

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

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.

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.

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

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Jessica Meaney

Jessica Meaney is the founder and executive director of Investing in Place.


She has spent more than two decades working across philanthropy, government, and nonprofit organizations in Los Angeles, focused on how cities care for public space. Jessica holds a BA from Prescott College and a master’s degree in urban sociology from California State University, Los Angeles.


Her background in urban sociology shapes how she understands infrastructure, not simply as physical assets, but as reflections of how cities allocate resources, set priorities, and shape daily life. She examines sidewalks, streets, and parks as interconnected civic systems influenced by governance, finance, and institutional design.


At Investing in Place, Jessica leads research, convenings, and long-term analysis of how Los Angeles manages its public realm. Her work increasingly explores how cities structure and sustain public space systems over time, contributing to broader conversations about public governance and the social life of infrastructure.