LA's Department of City Planning is filled with some of the most creative people in town, folks who regularly turn out innovative and imaginative work that entertains, inspires, and stirs passion.
Unfortunately, the work falls under the category of "fiction" because of its limited connection to reality. I offer as an example the Planning Department's staff report on the City of LA's proposed Bike Plan.
City Planning staff reports are like movie trailers, they offer a quick preview of the upcoming proposal so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation in advance of the actual "screening." Seasoned film audiences know that there are three types of trailers;
Teasers that offer a glimpse of what can be expected.
Spoilers that offer up the entire plot and leave nothing to be discovered.
Impostors that offer up an entertaining journey that bears no resemblance to the actual film.
City Planning's Bike Plan staff report falls into the Impostor category, offering the Planning Commission an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality.
1663 miles of Bikeways - the cameo: Planning Staff promise 1663 miles of Bikeways, a claim that includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes. Bike Paths are very expensive off-road facilities that cost more per mile than what the Bureau of Street Services spends to resurface a mile of our streets. Bike Routes are the streets that get a little green sign that says "Bike Route" indicating that the Bikeway mileage has been pumped up. Bike Lanes get a commitment of 56 miles and an additional "speculative" 511 miles which indicates they will end up on the editor's floor. This Bike Plan relies on a cameo appearance by recognizable talent, and then surrounds it with 1663 miles of language that lacks substance and commitment.
Bicycle Boulevards - the knock-off: Planning Staff acknowledges that the public clamors for "innovative bicycle treatments" including Bicycle Boulevards. They are low-density local routes that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Rather than actually include Bicycle Boulevards in the proposed Bike Plan, City Planning offers up "Bike Friendly Streets" as a knock-off substitute, the equivalent of featuring "the other, other Baldwin brother" in Slap Shot IV.
Cyclists' Bill of Rights - the inspiration: Planning Staff acknowledge that the City Council directed the LADOT, Planning, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the City Attorney and the LAPD to report back on the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. This City Council directive was ignored. Instead Planning Staff dismisses some principles as redundant while claiming that others are included. This is true in the same sense that the works of Shakespeare are also in the Bike Plan, after all he used the same alphabet and if properly rearranged, one could find A Comedy of Errors.
Backbone Bikeway Network - the theme: Planning Staff acknowledge the work of the LA Bike Working Group in creating the Backbone Bikeway Network which is positioned as a commitment to connectivity. Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.
Complete Streets Act - the surprise ending: Planning Staff acknowledge the powerful cultural shift that has resulted in innovative multi-modal transportation funding and policy. This includes the Complete Streets Act which supports the rights of all those who use the streets, from pedestrians to cyclists to mass transit passengers to motorists. It's only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?
The Department of City Planning's Bike Plan Staffing Report is a good read. It's interesting, it's informative, and it's a complete work of fiction.
In the grand scheme of things, LA's proposed Bike Plan is the equivalent of bad script turned into a bad film, supported by a great trailer that merely needs to get an opening night audience in order to recoup its investment. Then, it goes straight into the bargain bin at the 99¢ Store.
Those who encounter a pothole on the streets of Los Angeles are advised to call 311 and to report the pothole, as if the location of the pothole is critical information that will assist the City of LA in the delivery of City Services. Nothing could be further from the truth. The City of Los Angeles is well aware of the condition of the 6,500 centerline miles of streets and 800 centerline miles of alleys that make up the largest municipal street system in the nation.
The Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) employs sophisticated data collection to inventory all 69,000 pavement sections in its database. An automated vehicle equipped with a computerized work station collects digital imagery and uses lasers to capture roadway roughness and rutting data. This "pavement distress data" is used to prioritize the different layers of service, from emergency repairs to slurry seals to maintenance overlays to resurfacing to reconstruction.
Then the politicians take over, the asphalt is divided into 15 lots and allocated evenly to the council districts where local gatekeepers release it to his or her constituents, based on those 311 calls. "Thanks for voting! Your pothole is a winner!"
Pothole Politicians have cemented their careers based on their ability to fend off the scourge of the streets, bringing to power Wendy Greuel as the Pothole Queen, Councilmembers Garcetti and Krekorian as the high-tech 311 iPhone App pothole hunters, and the Mayor with his "Operation Pothole" and "Operation Smooth Ride" campaigns.
Through it all, Los Angeles has managed to avoid actually improving its streets and still leads the nation in deteriorated road conditions. Research estimates that fully 64% of LA's streets are in poor condition, causing LA residents to pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.
Meanwhile, the City Attorney pays out on claims to those who can prove that road conditions caused the damages and/or injuries, but only if the victim can prove that the City knew of the road condition and failed to fix it in a timely manner. This is an odd threshold to overcome in light of the fact that LA's potholes have history, they have relationships, and they are as much a part of the community as many of the other landmarks.
Consider the pothole that resides at 4th and Hudson in Council District 4. The area is referred to as the Hudson River (Video) in recognition of the perpetually flooded intersection and the algae covered liability that has caused damages and injuries for years with no relief or remedy from the City of LA.
The Hudson River is caused by an underwater stream that floods the basement of a home on Hudson Avenue. The property owner pumps the water out of the basement and into the street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
The water on Hudson Avenue runs south and pools in a large pothole at the intersection of 4th and Hudson where it brazenly collects victims with not a hint of interference from the City of LA. BOSS staff come and visit, LADOT staff survey the route, supervisors retire, the locals train new city staff, heads are collectively scratched, solutions are proposed, more staff retires, and the years go by.
The tremendous irony to the amazing fortitude of the Hudson River is the fact that 4th Street has long been a claimed by cycling advocates as an optimal location for a demonstration of the Bicycle Boulevard concept, a shared roadway optimized for bicycle traffic.
Bicycle Boulevards are low-density local routes such as 4th street that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, providing free-flow travel by prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Traffic calming techniques are used to inhibit non-local motor vehicle traffic and include roundabouts, chicanes, chokers and diverters.
Advocates have organized bike tours to engage the community and drum up support for the 4th Street Boulevard, a project that has seen three of its advocates go down in the Hudson river. They typically slip on the algae in the submerged pothole, resulting in one shattered elbow, one fractured elbow and one bruised elbow. Still they ride!
Perhaps City Attorney Carmen Trutanich, who is responsible for handling the claims against the city for damages and injuries sustained as the result of poor road conditions, could pick up the phone and dial 311, calling in the pothole at the corner of 4th and Hudson.
Maybe the LAPD Officers who ride escort on the 4th Street Bicycle Boulevard Rides could pick up the phone and call 311, reporting the pothole at the corner of 4th and Hudson.
Surely the LADOT staffmembers who surveyed 4th Street time after time, all in an effort to feign commitment to the 4th Street Bicycle Boulevard (that's the one that failed to make it into the proposed Bike Plan) could at least pick up the phone and dial 311, voting for the pothole at the corner of 4th and Hudson.
If nothing else, the Building and Safety staff who periodically investigate the mystery of the water that appears on Hudson Avenue, rain or shine, could call their buddies at BOSS, tipping them to the pothole at the corner of 4th and Hudson.
While it's fair to suggest that repairing the streets of Los Angeles is a costly proposition, not repairing them can be even costlier. It's estimated that road conditions are a factor in 60% of traffic collisions, typically complementing or causing a failure in human behavior.
Calculate the cost of LAPD's Traffic Officers and the LAFD's Ambulances, and the budgetary impact of deferred street maintenance starts to appear. The cost of kicking the problem down the road is much greater than the cost of investing in LA's streets now.
A Great Streets commitment requires funding but the City of LA lacks the commitment to aggressively pursue the funds, falling short on applications and then failing to spend the money when it qualifies.
LA is currently in danger of losing funds that have already been awarded, $1.5 million in Safe Routes to School funding, $2.5 million in Highway Safety Improvement funding, and $10 million in Federal Surface Transportation Project funding.
For all of the talk from those who have been in charge for years, the Hudson River and the 4th Street Bicycle Boulevard remain the canaries in the mine, the indicator species that reveal LA's failure to perform and the flaws in the system.
Our streets are failing and asphalt is still dispensed as a political favor by those who lack a vision for connectivity and a commitment to a city that works.
(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)
This past week, Caltrans hosted two “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” seminars that were attended by bike activists representing illuminateLA, the Bike Writers Collective, Sustainable Streets, the LA Bike Working Group, Bikeside, the OCBC, and CICLE, by municipal planners representing Pasadena, Long Beach, Claremont and San Dimas, and by Caltrans staff including Engineers, Planners, Architects, Environmental and Legal.
Missing from the meeting was staff from the LADOT Bikeways Department. While some participants travelled from distant cities by plane, train, and automobile, staying overnight in hotels, the LADOT staff would simply have to walk downstairs from their 9th floor office in the same building. But they didn’t.
This is especially unfortunate because the subject of Sharrows was addressed during the seminar and the LADOT Bikeways staff missed hearing the “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” instructors address these points:
1) Sharrows should be positioned in relation to the travel lane to the left, not the curb line to the right.
2) Sharrows should be positioned (default placement) between the tire tracks of motor vehicle traffic in order to indicate a lane control position and to increase life of the Sharrows.
3) Sharrows must be placed so that they both discourage too-close-in-lane passing by motorists and door-zone (<13’ from the curb) riding by cyclists.
During another portion of the seminar, an instructor addressed poorly positioned Sharrows and liability and responsibility:
1) If a motor vehicle traveling in a straight line in the travel lane and a cyclist riding a meandering line of Sharrows placed a consistent distance from the curbline of a variable width street were to collide, the motorist would have right-of-way. Aftert all, the cyclist would be "merging traffic" and would be at fault.
2) Sharrows should be placed so that the cyclist using the Sharrows as a guide for lane position ends up in control of the lane, not in an inferior right-of-way (ROW) position that engineers conflict.
Meanwhile, back on the streets of Los Angeles, there are three issues with LA’s pilot Sharrows project that need to be addressed by the LADOT’s Bikeways Department. Requests for clarification and adjustment have elicited evasive responses that do not resolve the simple engineering dilemma.
1) The purpose of a Sharrow as articulated by the CTCDC and Caltrans is threefold:
a) To position cyclists out of the door zone. (minimum is 11’, experts call for 13’)
b) To position cyclists in a lane control position on a non-sharable (<14”) lane.
c) To clearly communicate to road users the correct lane control position for cyclists.
2) LA’s pilot Sharrows project adheres to two arbitrary installation guidelines:
a) The Sharrows are consistently placed 12’ from the curbline, even on a street of variable width.
b) The Sharrows are inconsistently placed at variable distance from each intersection, not based on the distance from the intersection but placed adjacent to the first vehicle parking space.
3) LADOT’s Bikeways Department either has guidelines and a standard for its pilot Sharrows project or it doesn’t.
a) If it does, they need to be public and they should be in the hands of LA’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. They also should be in the hands of the public which purportedly will offer feedback on the Sharrows and in the hands of the Neighborhood Councils which monitor the delivery of city services. This is especially true for the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council which actually contributed their money to help fund the Sharrows program.
b) If it doesn’t, they need to look to Long Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Hermosa Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Oakland and borrow theirs.
The City of Los Angeles is surrounded by cities who take a short amount of time, prepare a plan, involve the public, and then proceed to do good work, setting standards for excellence and picking up awards and further funding as they go.
Why doesn’t the LADOT Bikeways Department simply imitate success.
The current debate over the elements of LA’s pilot Sharrows projects consists of some simple questions and objections from the public and non-responsive evasive distractions from the LADOT Bikeways staff:
1) LADOT says that this is a pilot project and that these issues are being addressed for the first time. Simply not true. As one angry LABAC member recently pointed out “In 1997 I drove up to Oregon where I saw Sharrows for the first time. I took a picture of them and presented it to the LADOT back in 1997 at a BAC meeting. The LADOT came back and said the concept of a Sharrow was a dangerous liability to the City and they wouldn't consider it.”
The subject of Sharrows is not new, the science of engineering the Sharrows isn’t new, the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, Chaired by the LADOT’s John Fisher, approved Sharrows on August 12, 2004. To hide behind the “We’re new at this!” is simply an avoidance of responsibility by the LADOT Bikeways Department.
2) LADOT responds that calls for supporting signage are new and isolated. Again, simply not true. When the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway was being built, the subject of “engineered conflict” came up (2005) and the public requested “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) signage support but the request was denied.
The issue was conflict between cyclists on a through line in the bike lane while the motorists were given an exit lane that merged across the bike lane. (Similar to the westbound lane on Sunset Blvd. in Silver Lake where a through traveling cyclist was taken out by a motorist merging to Griffith Park Blvd. by Triangle Park) The “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) and “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” (R4-11) signs are old topics and have been rejected over and over.
3) LADOT responds to calls for positioning the Sharrows based on a relationship to the lane marker to the left as new and isolated. Again, simply not true. The MUTCD’s Guidance on bike lanes directs:
Bicycle Lane Markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) – page 9C-3
Guidance:
Bicycle lane markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle lane.
In 2006 this was an issue on Sunset Blvd. where the bike lanes were positioned an equal distance from the curbline, not from the travel lane. The significant variable width of the street resulted in bike lanes that had a meandering relationship to the adjacent travel lane.
4) LADOT responds to comparisons to other cities by feigning ignorance and challenging critics “What cities?” as if they don’t know. If it’s true, it demonstrates a failure of relevance. If it’s not true, it is absolutely unacceptable.
Look at the center lane positon supported by the green stripe on the Sharrows in Long Beach. Look to the R4-11 signage support on the Sharros in Hermosa Beach. Look to the Oaklands standard for guidance on how to plan, how to communicate, how to disseminate information so the public, the implementation team, those responsible for evaluating, those responsible for oversight are all in sync.
LADOT’s Bikeways Department fails to acknowledge the three mandates for Sharrows, instead adhering to two arbitrary rules (12’ from the curb, only alongside parking)
The three biggest problems with the LADOT’s placement of the Sharrows:
1) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that sometimes direct cyclists to an incorrect position.
a) Fountain westbound past Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane, setting up a right hook conflict. Engineered Conflict!
b) 4th Street westbound approaching Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane to the right of a through/right turn combo lane. Engineered Conflict!
2) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that meanders while through traffic should follow a straight line.
a) Fountain has wb sections where the Sharrows direct cyclists to merge in and out of through traffic.
b) 4th Street has a Sharrow 10’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 15+’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 10’ off the center. This takes place with no sensitivity to the intersection treatment. (flared approach to facilitate right turns, merging traffic from intersection into one lane)
3) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy results in a violation of the Caltrans guidance: “If used, the Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals of 75 m (250 ft) thereafter.”
a) Churches and Convalescent homes with loading zones and parking restrictions may not have on-street parking in front but that shouldn’t interfere with the placement of Sharrows “immediately after an intersection” but the LADOT places them at variable distances based on parking.
b) This results in variable positioning and a delayed merging action at the rear of the first parked car instead of a simple position clarification immediately after the intersection. Very non-sensitive to the context of the environment.
4) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy also results in the placement of Sharrows too close to approaching intersections where traffic should be sorting based on destination (through vs. right-turn) but the Sharrows hold the cyclist in position too long. (Fountain approaching Western or 4th approaching Vermont)
5) The failure of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department to connect with the other city departments that have authority over elements of Fountain and 4th Street demonstrates a complete disconnect from the United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations which calls for “improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects.”
a) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT did not consult with the DWP nor was a survey of water main covers conducted in advance of the Sharrows installation.
b) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT’s partnership with the Bureau of Street Services on the Sharrows installation did not include any synchronicity of street resurfacing or maintenance or pothole repair.
c) It is acutely apparent that this was not a consideration because the LA City Department actually installing the Sharrows at the direction of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department is the same department responsible for LA’s street maintenance and repair.
It is imperative that the LADOT’s Bikeways Department immediately develop and implement a Sharrows Standard, even if only a temporary “pilot project” standard, and that it correctly position the Sharrows based on the travel lane (not the curb), that it correctly position the Sharrows in the lane control position on non-shareable lanes (<14’) and that it clearly communicate (signs and paint) to all road users the correct positon of cyclists on the street.
My name is Stephen Box. I ran for the City Council in March 2011 of Los Angeles, representing the 4th District.
Currently I work for the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment on Neighborhood Council Elections, communication and outreach endeavors, funding, advocacy, board retreats and campaign workshops.
Posts
