@nobodyinparticular: To me, this whole episode is rather sad… I expect that the LADOT will favor bikes over cars… I expect that LA’s elected officials will favor bikes over cars… I expect that the general public in LA favors bikes over cars. I am not happy with any of that… but it’s obvious… not irrational… and certainly not a surprise to me.

What I DON’T expect is that public agencies will lie about something that they can easily tell the truth about.

Why didn’t LADOT’s Ken Firoozmand (and Bruce Gilman and Carol Jackson) just say “Of course we’re planning peak lanes on Reseda – because we see the need more capacity for more cars.” It doesn’t seem like the LADOT would have gotten themselves in trouble for just telling the truth here. There would have been no story. Instead the LADOT vociferously denied something that the LADOT already put in writing… I don’t understand quite why.

This saddens me because we depend on a great deal of trust for the public to work with public agencies to get things done… and, with their false denials, the LADOT has strained the public trust. This is going to make their jobs tougher in the long run.

I would assert that you’re inaccurate in your suggestion that the the peak hour parking restriction plan was “merely being considered internally.” The LADOT would like for you to think it was just being considered internally, but that’s not true. It was a plan that was already made public and already acted on – in that it had already stopped the alternative (the approved bike lane) from moving forward.

Please consider the record:

1. The LADOT bikeways folks began work on bike lanes on Reseda; lanes that had been approved since 1996.

2. The LADOT bikeways folks stopped said work because West Valley District told them that they were putting in peak hour lanes in the near future.

3. The LADOT bikeways folks reported this project work stopped in writing, citing the planned peak hour lanes.

4. Bicyclists and others responded to the LADOT’s written plan overruling the bike lanes.

5. The LADOT West Valley District, LADOT Management and LADOT Public Relations folks went out and made statements that there were no plans and that it was all a “rumor” that LADOT “had not propagated.”

This doesn’t sound “internal” to me – it was reported in writing in a status report at a public meeting. At that point it’s external – it’s public! Nor does it sound like it was “merely being considered,” the DOT stopped work on the bikeway because of “peak hour lane usage in near future.” The plan for the peak lanes had already won at that point.

Fortunately, the LADOT backed away from their plan when faced with public pressure. At that pont, they lied about it – calling it a “rumor”. A rumor, according to the dictionary, has “no discernable source” but the source was the LADOT itself, in writing.

I think that we bicyclists should be outraged at the deceptive behavior of the LADOT on this plan, and on the subsequent falsehoods propagated about it. I think that we should work hard until Reseda (and the other streets that fall into the same peak-lane category – including Tampa and others) is striped with bike lanes.

Is there any way to get Ken Firoozmand censured or “dis-barred” by one of the professional engineering organizations he beongs to? Who licenses him, and could this incident be placed in evidence for when his license is renewed?

So, even if a decision had not been made yet, it was definitely being considered.

We just need to remain conscious of the fact that planning agencies are a jumble of internally conflicting points of view and plans, and who wins out in the end is a result of multiple pressures, one of them being public support or outrage. (Albeit, that’s hardly the most influential pressure, compared to politicians, private developers, and internal politics within the agency). However, The fact that activists and residents came out STRONGLY against this approach, when the plans were merely being considered internally and only whispers had reached the public, has definitely sent a message. It’s gave them a preview of what they may face if they were to try to move forward with the car lane expansion.

So the ‘bike thugs’ – and I use that term lovingly – definitely scored an early victory here. The fact that LADOT is now publicly backing away from those plans is a very very good sign.

That being said, public and private sector institutions have greater longevity than grassroots organizations. After all, they are paid to be there every day. The rest of us have to take away from our daily lives to participate. So, it is often VERY COMMON for agencies to wait for public response to die down, deny that any deicions have been made (which is technically true), and then quietly move forward with that plan a couple years later.

SO, this victory is temporary. Continued pressure is going to be necessary to ensure that the peak hour plan is permanently shelved, therefore showing up to subsequent meetings, forming coalitions with Reseda home and business owners, and coordinating with adjacent neighborhood councils remains crucial.

Towards that end, crafting a credible, alternative vision is very helpful for exciting and mobilizing us and our allies. Dedicated bus lines and bike lanes – that’s the good stuff. Articulating a credible vision shows DOT that we are not just a bunch of reactionary NIMBYs but a community that actually welcomes change, if its the right kind.

So, everyone who showed up should congratulate themselves. It was a job well done.

See you at the next meeting!

The story isn’t over yet. If it is proven that the cyclists were over-reacting, I’ll apologize. However, that’s not the way the evidence is pointing.

Glenn Bailey – Chair of the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee. Glenn is an appointed volunteer who spotted this issue near the bottom of a boring monthly report – keeping an eye out for the bike facilities planned in his neighborhood – doing what a bicycle advisory commitee member should do. (Truth be told, I got that same report when Glenn did and I didn’t notice anything.)

Paul Meshkin – LADOT Bikeways Engineer – did his job, told the truth. He didn’t stick his neck out, but compared to the duplicitous later response from DOT, Meshkin’s basic status report is an example of openness and transparency, which could make government more collaborative and more effective. I bet he was frustrated when the DOT West Valley folks overrode the bike lane project Paul was working on.

Also heroes include: Ted of bikinginla, Streetsblog, LACBC, Midnight Ridazz.com – all of whom got the word out on this after Glenn Bailey raised the issue briefly at the August BAC meeting.

i like you too josef. but linton is spot on.

My guess would be that many of these staffers, who I expect are a minority at LADOT, want to keep their job, their salary, their healthcare, their homes… those things are big motivators. I don’t think that valuing one’s job qualifies one as “mentally off.” If I work for LADOT and I use twitter to alert cyclists (or drivers, or homeowners) about something I don’t agree with that my supervisors are pushing… I can expect to be ostracized (if not fired) when that tweet comes to light. Being a whistleblower is courageous, but not easy. I wish the pro-bike pro-community pro-transparency DOT staffers were more courageous… but I don’t think that they are the problem. I think the problem is much more based in LADOT’s pro-car majority (who are in postions of greater power) not so much in LADOT’s pro-bike minority.

I am worried about Paul Meshkin, the LADOT staffer who put the truth in writing – regarding the Reseda bike lanes. I don’t think that he’s a whistleblower – he just did his job – he was honest, open, clear with information. I hope that his honesty doesn’t cost his career. I don’t expect that he will be immediately openly fired or reprimanded, but folks who swim against the grain (sad that telling the truth can be seen as against the grain) find themselves passed up for promotions, etc. Meshkin did exactly what you’re asking for – he communicated with cyclists – via the city’s official body: the Bicycle Advisory Committe (LABAC.)

Let’s keep an eye on and compare Meshkin’s trajectory with that of Ken Firoozmand at DOT’s West Valley District office. It appears to me that Firoozmand is the person who denied that LADOT had plans for Reseda peak-only lanes, after communicating those very plans with LABAC chair Glenn Bailey, DOT Bikeways’ Paul Meshkin, and probably some folks at the Northridge West Neighborhood Council. He told various folks one thing, then denied it. His superiors repeated his denial, suggesting that bicyclists, LABAC appointees, Neighborhood Council activists had fabricated some kind of crazy “rumor.”

For this incident, I suggest that it’s important for cyclists to support good things done by DOT staff (including LADOT Bikeways’ Paul Meshkin,) and to reserve the bulk of criticism for DOT staff that have actually prioritized cars over bikes and have lied about it (including LADOT West Valley’s Ken Firoozmand.)

If they can’t get their act together and communicate with the us, the cyclists on the road everyday, then maybe they shouldn’t be working in the bikeways division.

Can I get an email wut wut!

fyi – I got the date wrong on my comment above. The Paul Meshkin report was from June 2009, not August 2009. Thanks to Glenn Bailey for alerting me to my error.

The only part of that I like is if it comes with MASSIVE congestion pricing. I’d be happy to see some private company take over the major boulevards if they were able to make a 200% profit on congestion pricing rates, roll half of it back to non-automotive projects, and pay taxes on the rest.

I also want a talking gorilla that wears a derby hat and suspenders for my birthday, which is coming up, amigos.