LA's pilot Sharrows project demonstrates need for Standards and Accountability

(photo by Joe Linton)

What a production!

LA's first official Sharrow on Fountain Ave., heading east from Western, directs cyclists toward the first pothole. The rocky road continues because the Sharrows line up with the right tire track of the motor vehicle traffic, typically the most worn area of the street.

In the other direction, the first Sharrow on Fountain Ave., heading west from Vermont, places cyclists in the right turn lane, a lane that doesn't continue through the intersection. This sets up the cyclist for a "right-hook" collision and directs them into the back of the upcoming parked cars.

Along the way, cyclists enjoy Sharrows that are consistently 12' from the curb but vary in distance from the center line of the street by a distance that ranges from 18' to less than 7' which results in a meandering journey down Sharrow Lane.

Making the journey more interesting is the fact that the placement of the Sharrows is not context sensitive, failing to take into account anything other the presence of on-street parking and the distance from the curb. Road conditions? Potholes? Varying intersection treatments? Water Mains? Driveways, parking lots, destinations, human behavior, anything? Nothing!

The LADOT's Bikeways Department has committed four significant missteps in the opening moves of LA's nascent Sharrows program. How about some standards!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to move cyclists out of the Door Zone, define the Door Zone and set a standard for the position of the Sharrows based on the stated intent to clear the Door Zone. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to move cyclists to the correct lateral position on a non-sharable (side-by-side) lane, define the correct position and set a standard for the position of the Sharrows based on the stated intent to correctly position the cyclist in the travel lane. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows is to alert road users within a narrow traveled way of the lateral location where bicyclists ride, one would think that there would be some signage supporting the Sharrows. R4-11 "Bicycles May Use Full Lane signs fit the bill. Here comes a Standard!

If the purpose of the Sharrows it to reduce conflict and improve safety on the streets for all road users, define the behavior that is desired and then set a standard. Passing distances? Predictable riding? Here come the Standards!

Standards are good for the success of LA's pilot Sharrows project, they are good for the success of the larger commitment to implementing Sharrows throughout LA, they are good for developing project oversight tools, they are good for engaging the community by clearly communicating expectations, and they are good for cyclists and other road users because they offer real tools for evaluating the successful implementation of LA's pilot Sharrows project.



Local cyclists look to the City of Long Beach and ask why Los Angeles can't have a Green Shared Lane that serves as "an invitation to ride" but at every turn the answer is "No!" Yet the person responsible for saying "No!" is anonymous, hidden from the public. Now is the time for the LADOT's Bikeways Department to 'fess up and reveal the truthfulness in their rejection of the Green Shared Lane. Who is in charge of the Department of "No!" and why can't Los Angeles have creative and innovative transportation solutions that truly support cycling on the streets of Los Angeles? Why must the LADOT's Bikeways Department consistently resist any effort to move forward with transportation innovations? Why must it be always be a fight to move forward?

Local cyclists look to the City of Hermosa Beach and ask why Los Angeles can't have Sharrows in the center of the travel lane supported by signage that reinforces the rights of cyclists to control the lane. The R4-11 sign has been requested by cyclists before but the LADOT's Bikeways Department responds with an unattributed "No!" that serves as a deterrent but comes with no transparency or accountability.

If nothing else, this Fountain Ave. Sharrows journey has demonstrated the need for the LADOT's Bikeways Department to:

1) develop, implement, and communicate Sharrows standards, with clearly stated goals and expectations. This must be coupled with some form of oversight and accountability. Take a look at Oakland's Sharrow Standards for an example.

2) develop and reveal a clear hierarchy of authority so that the people of Los Angeles know who is in charge, who they must appeal to, who is responsible and who is accountable. The LADOT's Bikeways Department is in charge when convenient, they play victim when it gets heated, they feign helplessness when convenient, and they go missing in action when there is controversy.

Who would have thought! Sharrows have the potential to reinforce good behavior for cyclists, good behavior for motorists, and good behavior for bureaucrats. Not bad for simple paint on the streets!

LADOT's Bikeways Department continues to fumble LA's Sharrows program

(photo by @LosAngelesCM)

The LADOT's Bikeways Department is busy installing Sharrows on Fountain Ave. in East Hollywood, drawing cheers from those who have waited years for any progress and jeers from those who think that years of debate and planning and preparation should have prevented the missteps that have already occurred.

Fountain Ave. is a street of variable width. There are three distinct areas between Western and Vermont with street width that ranges from 38' to 60' (approx) and with lane configurations that vary from traditional midblock to a variety of intersection treatments. This makes the LADOT's Bikeways Department's decision to place the Sharrows a consistent 12' from the face of the curb all the more dangerous. While the traffic lane on Fountain Ave. proceeds from one end to the other in a straight line, cyclists are directed by the Sharrows to follow a line that varies in distance from the center of the street, moving cyclists back and forth as the street narrows or widens. Urban Cycling education directs cyclists to pick a line and stay with it, communicating clearly to other road users with predictable behavior their intended destination. Yet the Sharrows are less than 7' from the centerline of the street in the study area and as much as 18' from the centerline of the street at the Vermont end. The Sharrows must be in a consistent position so that cyclists are integrated into the traffic flow, not inserted and then removed based on the variable curb position.

The Sharrow pictured above is placed 12' off the curb to the right but it's 18' from the centerline of the street. This Sharrow is in the right turn lane, a travel lane used by right turning traffic accessing a side street and positioning the cyclist in position to become the victim of a Right Hooking motorist who will pass on the left in order to turn right. The correct position for the Sharrow is to the left, closer to the center of the street, positioning the cyclist with through traffic, allowing right turning traffic to pass the cyclist on the right and turn onto the side street.

This Sharrow directs cyclists into the back of the parked cars ahead, or cyclists can veer to the left and enter the traffic lane as the street narrows, hardly an inspired engineering choice. Cyclists should be in the correct position in advance of this conflict point, the Sharrow needs to be moved to the left.

This Sharrow is also placed 12' off the curb to the right but it's less than 7' from the centerline of the street. The orange circles indicate that this is one of the "study" Sharrows and that the behavior of motorists and cyclists in this area will be gauged to determine the efficacy of the Sharrows. Studying the impact of the Sharrows that are in the travel lane and ignoring the Sharrows that are outside the travel lane is a study that will yield skewed results. This curious study may not gather much data on the impact of Sharrows on the behavior of cyclists and motorists but it certainly reveals a great deal insight into the LADOT's Bikeways Department's strategies, priorities, logic, and knowledge of urban cycling.

This photo is looking back at Fountain at an all too common variable street width. The flow of traffic on the single lane in each direction is smooth but the addition of the Sharrows directs cyclists to move in and out according to the width of the street. The Sharrows should position cyclists in the correct position in the lane, not just a uniform distance from the curb. Bad for cyclists, bad for the flow of traffic.

This photo demonstrates the importance of the "measure twice, spray paint once" mantra, demonstrating that even when the LADOT's Bikeways Department commits to placing the Sharrows a uniform 12' from the curb, they're just not up to the task. 12' is not always 12' the LADOT's Bikeways Department is doing the measuring. This is an easy enough mistake to make but on a bike, the misplaced Sharrows are easy to find. Cyclists know when they are moving back and forth and as we rode the street, even without measuring, we were able to pick the Sharrows that didn't "feel" right.

Painting Sharrows on the street without surveying the larger environment and determining the best place for cyclists results in Sharrows that engineer conflict, directing cyclists into potholes, over sunken water main caps, and along the most worn line on the street (the right tire track of the motor vehicle traffic). Simply adding the consideration of the best street surface would result in the Sharrows being placed in the center of the travel lane which is also the best location for controlling the lane. Even better would be to coordinate with the Bureau of Street Services (they installed the Sharrows!) and prep the street so that local resurfacing projects and the implementation of the Sharrows program could be complementary.

(photo by Dan Gutierrez of DualChase.com)

These Sharrows are in the center of the travel lane and they are supported by the R4-11 “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” Sign which reinforces the message that motorists need to hear. The correctly placed Sharrows are supported by the signage and together, they communicate clearly to cyclists and motorists the correct lateral lane position for cyclists on a travel lane that is too narrow to share side-by-side. These Sharrows are not in East Hollywood and the R4-11 sign is nowhere to be found on Fountain Ave.

The City of Los Angeles would do well to check its "We don't take direction from the neighboring villages!" attitude and start looking around at the more agile and innovative communities that are consistently beating LA at improving the quality of life for their residents, their road users, their businesses, their visitors and their voters. Long Beach spent 4 weeks planning their Sharrows project and they ended up picking up an Innovation Award from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Manhattan Beach reportedly spent a mere $2K on their Sharrows but complemented that meager investment of funds with maximum professional implementation and fastidious attention to detail, drawing compliments from even the hardiest of transportation critics. Effective solutions do not need to be complicated or expensive, sometimes simply executing well is a significant step in the right direction.

As for Los Angeles, it's not to late to salvage the floundering Sharrows project. The best place to start would be to engage the critics, involve the constituents, draw in the advice of the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee and LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee, and invite the community to participate in the process. Relying on advocates who are on the clock is the simplest way to get applause from the choir but it is hardly the formula for creative and constructive criticism. Most important, go ride a bike. Ride through Long Beach, ride through Manhattan Beach, then ride down Fountain Ave. The street looks a lot different when viewed from a bike.

CityWatchLA - LA’s Best Bike Plan

CityWatch, Oct 20, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 86

The City of LA's recently released Draft Bike Plan has stirred so much controversy, the cycling community moved right past "public comment" and convened the LA Bike Working Group in an effort to simply go to work drafting "LA's Best Bike Plan."

Drawing people from all over the city and from all walks of life, the first Bike Working Group (BWG) took place this past Saturday in Hollywood, one of the communities that the LADOT and City Planning continue to overlook as they schedule workshops for the Draft Bike Plan process.

The BWG opened up the Draft Bike Plan for discussion and then drew the participants into the process of actually creating a real Bike Plan, rather than simply commenting on somebody else's version. From the opening vision to the need for imperative language, to the standards and designations to the tools for implementation, the entire document is open to revision or replacement.

The release of a "plan" is no news in Los Angeles, a city where at any given moment there are a dozen Community Plans in various states of revision along with an assortment of Master Plans, Specific Plans, Strategic Plans, Overlays, Surveys and Zones, all of which demonstrate that if nothing else, Los Angeles has big plans.

Typically generating little interest from the community, plans such as this are usually decent paydays for a consultant, all in fulfillment of some funding mandate that requires a municipality to maintain a "City Council approved Transportation Plan" in order to qualify for funding that will likely get cobbled together with other funding sources, all of which slips into a murky mess that defies oversight.

According to the Draft Bike Plan, in the last 13 years the City of Los Angeles has spent $65 Million on Bikeways amenities. During that time they have built "13 miles of Bike Paths, 55 miles of Bike Lanes and 6 miles of Bike Routes." I'm sure there are other elements in there such as bike racks, bike maps, little blinkie lights and racing socks. But $65 Million? This Draft Bike Plan is a cry for help, better yet a cry for an audit.

As the LADOT and City Planning come up on the two year anniversary of the initiation of the Draft Bike Plan process, it is apparent that this plan is worse than a mess, that it is a boiler-plate document rife with mistakes and lacking even the simplest attempt or ambition to improve over the old 1996/2002 Bike Plan that currently reigns as the Bike Plan of record.

Two weeks ago at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson presented, as one of the six action issues on the agenda, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. He called on the neighborhood council members at the Summit to take the CBR to their respective NC's for endorsement and then he went further, urging them to ask for a longer comment period for the just released Draft Bike Plan and to use the CBR as the starting point in their examination of the plan.

Since that time, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to ask the City of Los Angeles to extend the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to a minimum of 90 days in order to allow the NC's to analyze the plan and to offer comments.

The City's Bicycle Advisory Committee also voted unanimously, this time to "demand" an extension of the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan from 42 days to 94 days, ending on January 8th, 2010.

As neighborhood councils grapple with their committee and board schedules in an effort to add their voices to the call for a lengthened comment period, a survey of the Draft Bike Plan revealed the true motivation for the enthusiastic push for an accelerated approval process, the document is a pro forma mess!

The LA Bike Working Group will convene again on Saturday, October 31, 2009 at 1 pm to continue with creation of LA's Best Bike Plan. For information visit http://LABikePlan.com.

As for the other issues from the NC Action Summit, the next meeting of the Rate Payers Advocate Task Force will be on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday). For more information visit the DWP Ratepayer Advocate.

Also meeting on the 24th is the Sidewalk Repair Task Force, at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the Sidewalk Repair Program.

Meetings location:
Hollywood City Hall
6501 Fountain Avenue
Hollywood, CA 90038

(Stephen Box is a cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

A Tale of Two Cities: LA's Metro vs. NYC's MTA

Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/October 10, 2009

New York City's Transit Authority welcomes surfers on the subway while LA's Metro Rail management works to limit cyclists from the rail system. One large city embraces people and their "stuff" while LA looks squarely at cyclists and their gap-closing transportation solutions and says "you are a congestion problem."

Steve Lopez of the LA Times tells a story of an old LA surfing buddy who now lives in New York City and still manages to catch a wave or two, rising early to catch the A Train in Harlem and carrying a 7' surfboard all the way to Roackaway Beach in Queens. Somehow she is able to navigate the NYC subway system without the support of the NY Surfers' Advisory Committee or any other transit activists, she simply rides the subway and it all works out.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, cyclists are in limbo, waiting for word on the Metro's proposed limit on cyclists which would only allow two cyclists per rail car. The proposal was originally presented to the Operations Committee on July 16th by Mike Cannell, General Manager of Rail Operations. At that time, the Metro Board's Operations Committee directed the CEO to present to the Board by September 30, 2009, the following:

(1) A comprehensive legal opinion of all risks posed by MTA' s accommodation of bicycles, wheelchairs, luggage, strollers, et al.;
(2) A review and report on bike-an-rail policies adopted by other large transit properties in the United States; and
(3) A unified plan to ensure that our rail operations are as safe as possible for all users, including a specific bike-on-rail policy.

The odd thing about this directive is that is didn't instruct the staff to consult with the Metro's own Bikeways division. Does the Metro know that it has a Bikeways Division?

The Board, after some prodding from the public, modified the instruction to gather input so that it included, among others, the cycling community!

September 30, 2009 has come and gone. I made sure to let Mr. Cannell know that I would like to be included in the "cycling community" input process. Since then I've heard nothing.

I made a few inquiries, I sent a few emails, I finally filed a Request for Public Records (RPA) and the response I received was this:

"Unfortunately, after much searching, Records Management has no documents to provide on this matter since the relevant Metro personnel have not yet received all the information to make an informed decision. Therefore, we will close your request at this point. You may contact me at (213) 922-4880 or lord@metro.net if you have any questions or comments."

About the same time that the Records Management department says there is nothing to look at, I'm reading a report that Mr. Cannell submitted quietly to the Metro's CEO and the Metro Board, way back on August 27th, 2009.

I'm not sure how this "non-report" qualifies as the fulfillment of the Board instruction or how this would qualify as "gathering input from the cycling community" but it is apparent that it was done so quietly that even the Metro's Records Management department was unaware of the action.

Ultimately, all snubs and fumbles and RPA failures and misunderstandings aside, it's a sad day when a surfer in Harlem gets more respect from the local transit authority than a cyclist in Los Angeles who simply wants to close those service gaps and get to work on time or home to the family.

It's time for the Metro to form a Metro Bicycle Advisory Committee and it's time for the Metro to embrace cyclists as transportation solutions.

"See you on the Metro!"

CityWatchLA - LA’s Bike Plan: Lacks Vision, Teeth

CityWatch, Oct 2, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 81

LA's Draft Bike Plan is a huge document of thin ambition, relying on controversy over process to distract from the fact that it lacks vision, it lacks substance, and it lacks the teeth necessary to bring about any change.

The Draft Bike Plan was released last week, an hour before the end of the day on the eve of furlough Friday, giving city staff the opportunity to "drop and run" and providing a three-day cooling off period before they had to answer for the long overdue, hotly contested and controversial document. Commissioned in December of 2007, the Bike Plan is part of LA's Transportation Plan which is an element of the city's General Plan. As the consultants so eloquently explained during the community workshops during March of 2008 that kicked off the Bike Plan process, the Bike Plan is a critical funding document that must be updated in order to qualify for funding. As for positioning it as a powerful visionary document with implementation teeth, city staff has never expressed such ambition.

The limited opportunity for robust community involvement at the onset, the long, dark and silent period of time when the plan went overdue, the release of Bike Plan maps that positioned "infeasible" as a standard for the future of LA bikeways and the promise of another limited public access comment period have all fueled great gnashing of teeth and provided great fodder for the blogs.

This Saturday, at the NC Action Summit, Dr. Alex Thompson will address the Draft Bike Plan when he presents the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights for endorsement and for inclusion in the Bike Plan. At the Transportation Committee and at City Council, staff was directed to position the CBR as the foundation for the Bike Plan but as the city’s consultant from Alta Planning so eloquently put it, “We don’t work for the City Council.”

Now that the Draft Bike Plan has been released we can evaluate it and I contend that it fails on three levels, based on content, based on process, and based on commitment.

CONTENT:

Missing from the Draft Bike Plan is the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a vision document that has picked up endorsement from neighborhood councils and community groups throughout Los Angeles, working its way to the City's Transportation Committee where staff was directed to include it in the city's Bike Plan. It is missing. In its place is a plaintive whimper of a vision that simply asks for consideration. At the Federal and State levels, Equality is positioned as the foundation of mobility planning but here in Los Angeles, cyclists can look forward to a future based on "consideration."

Long Beach, by way of comparison, has a Bike Plan that opens boldly by stating that the City of Long Beach "Consider every street in Long Beach as a street that bicyclists will use." It continues by establishing a policy to integrate its bikeways facilities with surrounding communities, a significant commitment given the fact that LA County cyclists have 88 municipalities to traverse and synchronicity is important if cycling is to be a viable transportation choice.

From the missing Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the boiler-plate data and specs, the Bike Plan not only misses the big picture but it also fails to establish itself as the authoritative document that could be used to settle some of the minor Bikeways controversies that have arisen of late in Los Angeles.

The Draft Bike Plan does demonstrate a bit of creativity, unfortunately it's creative accounting. By using the collective term "Bikeways" which includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes, Bike-Friendly and Good Wishes, the Draft Bike Plan can claim a significant improvement over the old plan. But apples to apples, LA's old Bike Plan had 452 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. The Draft Bike Plan now has 400 miles of existing and proposed Bike Paths and Bike Lanes. That's a decrease. Adding Bike Routes and Bike-Friendly streets to the mix is bad math and engineers should know better. The simple fact is, LA slid backward and Topanga Canyon Boulevard was designated for bike lanes on the old plan, the engineering and funding was in place and the LADOT rejected it, electing to downgrade it to "infeasible" and finally "possible" but in reality "never."

From the vision to the details, LA's Draft Bike Plan is hundreds of pages of very pretty, shelf-ready Bike Plan, destined to collect dust.

PROCESS:

The Draft Bike Plan’s short comment period prevents Neighborhood Council involvement, simply by shortcutting a process that essentially requires a full month cycle for committee meetings and then a full month cycle for Board Meetings, simply to offer feedback. The cavalier manner in which the 89 Neighborhood Councils are dismissed from the process speaks volumes.

As if often the case, staff cry budget blues when explaining why the community meetings are limited but then fail to take advantage of Neighborhood Council regional meetings such as the NC Action Summit, the NC Congress, NECA, the Valley Alliance, the Westside Alliance, the Harbor Alliance, the South LA alliance, LANCC, the Citywide Alliance and PlanCheckNC.

It’s not hard for city staff to find the public, if they’re really sincere about finding us. The hard charge is simple, do they really want the public involved?

Through it all, it should be noted that the LADOT is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Neighborhood Councils in which 60 days is the minimum period of time for comment on small projects and the amount of time increases with the significance of the proposal or plan. It is telling that the Draft Bike Plan is given less than the minimum time, giving it less significance than simple neighborhood improvements or variances.

The Draft Bike Plan refers to "respect and consideration" as the essence of the vision and it is imperative that the City of Los Angeles bring those words to life now, not down the road after the Draft Bike Plan has gone through the process.

APPLICATION:

The value of LA's Draft Bike Plan is in its ultimate impact on the streets of Los Angeles but we have little hope that real change will occur and, in fact, we have evidence that it is a document with no teeth carrying little commitment from even its departments of origin.

The 2002 Bike Plan called for 9 miles of Bike Lanes on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. Caltrans provided the engineering and the funding for the Bike Lanes but the City of Los Angeles declined, electing to go with peak hour parking. The City of Los Angeles rejected funding for the Topanga Canyon Boulevard Bike Lanes

All the talk of bikeways amenities, support for cyclists, steps taken by the city to encourage cycling as a viable transportation choice are contradicted by the simple fact that nobody from City Planning of the Department of Transportation found the courage to simply cross the street to offer some advise to the LAPD on the positioning of their bike racks at the new Police Headquarters.

Granted, one would think that the LAPD would be familiar with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) but such is not the case. The bike racks are as far from the front entrance as possible, around the corner and behind a wall, in an area that offers refuge to someone who would want to hide and wait for a victim.

LA's Bike Plan has long given the LADOT the responsibility to communicate to the city departments simple bike parking standards. To this day the Library Department, the Fire Department, City Hall, Rec and Parks, and the 45 City Departments that compete with each other for autonomy can't agree on how to position a bike rack if they even have bike racks.

This does not speak well for the Draft Bike Plan's ability to serve as the platform that will bring together the dozen departments that have a piece of the street that the cyclists of Los Angeles, hereafter known as transportation solutions, must navigate in order to get home safely at the end of the day.

Conclusion: LA's Draft Bike Plan is thin on content of substance, is the product of an ongoing flawed process, and avoids at all turns any attempt to position itself as a document of change with a real plan for implementation. It is an exercise in civic enragement designed to qualify the City of Los Angeles for Bikeways funding that will then simply fall into the co-mingled coffers of the LADOT, a department that has failed to establish or support cycling as a viable transportation choice in the City of Los Angeles.

(Stephen Box is a transportation advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.netThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ) Photo: farm4static.flickr ◘

Topanga Canyon Speedway

It must be tough to buy a gift for LA's Department of Transportation. Caltrans tried but the gift was rejected. At the very least, the LADOT could have just accepted it and then rewrapped it and regifted but instead they just straight up said "No!" It's enough to make one wonder if Caltrans will be sending gifts to the LADOT anytime in the near future.

At issue are the bike lanes that Caltrans funded and engineered and wrapped up with a bow and tried to have delivered to the City of Los Angeles.

Topanga Canyon Boulevard runs through Woodland Hills in the West Valley and is also known as California State Highway 27. It belongs to the State of California and Caltrans is responsible for it but, as is the custom, defers to the local authority with regard to improvements and integration into the local transportation system.

Doug Failing, Director of Caltrans District 7 which includes Los Angeles County and Ventura County, was the featured speaker at a Great Streets Forum held last year in Woodland Hills. Hundreds of people turned out for inspiring presentations and discussions of Great Streets and how they are designed, the features that make them great, the designations that bring them to fruition.

A member of the audience who lives close to Mulholland Drive asked what it would take to make Topanga Canyon Boulevard a Great Street. Mr. Failing responded by describing a street with open setbacks, wide sidewalks, parkway separation, bike lanes, traffic lanes and a median strip with shade trees and greenery, all delivered in a way that integrates with the activity of the local community as the boulevard weaves through the west valley. The room erupted in applause. Pat Smith, the Urban Planner who has been working with the Warner Center Specific Plan was there and when she takes notes, she simply draws what she hears. The person sitting next to her watched her sketch the "reimagined" Topanga Canyon Boulevard and said quietly "I'm going to Art School!"

Caltrans embarked on a local improvement campaign and, as guided by the City of Los Angeles Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which in turn is part of the General Plan, generated the money and the engineering for Bike Lanes on Topanga Canyon Boulevard. The Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Topanga Canyon from Mulholland Drive to CA State Highway 118, a distance of about 9 miles. That's a fairly significant bikeways improvement and a significant connector in a densely populated area.


The LADOT's traffic engineer in charge of the west end of the San Fernando Valley is Ken Firoozmand, a legend in Valley Bikeways Improvements who has been in the news lately for interupting the development of the Reseda Boulevard Bike Lanes. Again, the Bike Plan called for bike lanes on Reseda but as the local LADOT authority, Firoozmand overruled and determined that the area would benefit from peak-hour parking instead of the bike lanes. A report was generated that indicated the bike lanes were not going to happen and the cycling community stormed the local Neighborhood Council, wrote letters, made phone calls and Allan Willis, LADOT's Principal Transportation Engineer for Valley Traffic Operations dismissed the whole brouhaha as "trash talk." Councilman Zine dismissed the concerns of cyclists as based on rumor. Councilman Smith was simply silent. Then the "Report" turned up and the Bike Lanes were back in play.

As the cycling community engaged in an end-zone victory dance, the LADOT was apparently in the clubhouse toasting Firoozmand and Willis, giggling at the gullibility of the cycling community, and plotting the next evisceration of LA's moth eaten Bike Plan, due to be replaced with a newer "Infeasible" Bike Plan sometime between last year and never.

Ken Firoozmand is from LADOT Operations. He has authority over the streets in the West Valley. Bikeways is part of LADOT Funding. They simply don't have the heat to make the Bike Plan come to life. This is evidenced by the simple fact that when push comes to shove, bikeways improvements disappear from the landscape. The consultant engaged by the City of LA to develop LA's new Bike Plan opened the process by describing the need for a Bike Plan as "a funding requirement." The Bike Plan wasn't presented as a tool for changing the world, simply as a device needed to qualify for grants. She then went on to specify the 17 points of compliance that were necessary from a funding perspective. But all of the funding in the world doesn't translate into bikeways improvements if the Engineers in charge believe in pushing motor vehicles at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. The city picked up $1.25 million of Bicycle Transportation Account funds for the Fletcher Bridge bike lanes (0.25 miles of bike lanes!) The money did not result in bike lanes on the Fletcher Bridge. (The Department of DIY gave it a shot but they were removed!)

My simple question to the LADOT is this, if you're not going to use those Topanga Canyon Boulevard bike lanes, can I have them? I'd like to put them to work and it seems a shame to have them go to waste! I can think of so many great places to place 9 miles of bike lanes.

"See you on the Streets!"

Dispatch from Down Under – Brisbane Bikeways

While on Walkabout Down Under, we were tickled to see that the Brisbane City Council has announced plans for the controversial $1.6 million CityCycle bike hire scheme. Locations have been announced for the first 80 bike parking stations and the project will roll out in the middle of 2010.

CityCycle will allow people to pick up and drop off bikes at stations located across West End, Kangaroo Point, the City Business District (CBD), Fortitude Valley, New Farm and New Stead. The network, designed to reduce inner-city traffic congestion and parking demand, will then be expanded to take in St. Lucia, Toowong, Milton and South Brisbane with a final complement of 2000 bicycles across 150 stations.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, LADOT Bikeways staff proudly announced plans to add bike lanes to a small section of Reseda Blvd. that they claim is almost 1.5 miles in length. Transportation Engineers indicate that the bikes lanes would feature a painted line indicating the edge of the bike lane as well as a stencil of a cyclist and the phrase "Bike Lane" placed at regular intervals.

Reseda Blvd. already has 2 miles of bike lanes to the south, approximately 4.5 miles from the beginning of the proposed bike lanes, which will run to the north. This "slight" gap in connectivity in no way impedes a cyclist from enjoying a bike ride on Reseda Blvd. and will, in fact, get a cyclist within 1.5 miles of Cal State Northridge!

Both projects have received criticism, with CityCycle critics claiming that the $300 AU deposit per bicycle for casual rentals and the $150 AU deposit for subscription cyclists was prohibitive and would discourage use. However, Bicycle Queensland Manager Ben Wilson said it was a "fantastic" scheme and rejected criticism. "Anyone who gets their head into first gear can use it very cheaply with the annual subscription," he said.

The LADOT came under criticism for committing to such a small section of Reseda and for projecting that it would take a full year to finish the engineering for the project with the bike lanes finally installed in late 2010. LADOT officials were quick to point out that the painted line on the street needs to be straight when the road is straight and it needs to curve when the road curves.

When pressed to account for the length of time it takes to get bike lanes painted on the streets of Los Angeles, LADOT officials rejected the questions as "trashtalk" and reminded the audience that the bike lanes would be supported with little signs that said "Bike Lane" and that is when the project starts to get very complicated.

Brisbane is a city of 2 million people and cyclists have access to approximately 396 miles of bike trails and bike lanes.

Los Angeles is a city of 4 million people and cyclists have access to approximately 193 miles of bike trails and bike lanes.

Brisbane features the King George Square Cycle Centre, Australia's first major end-of-trip facility for cyclists and pedestrians using active transport to the Brisbane CBD.

The Cycle Centre is available on a membership basis and has a number of features including 420 individual bike racks, male and female change rooms with a total of 35 showers, lockers, ironing/laundry service, excellent security and cycle access direct to the door via Turbot Street or Roma/Herschel Streets from the Bicentennial Bikeway or through Roma Street Parklands from the north.

Los Angeles features curbside bike parking in a quantity sufficient to ensure one rack for every 2 miles of street, which means if you ever see two bike racks together, it will be 4 miles until you see another!

As for the Bike Boxes, Colored Bike Lanes, Lockers, Showers, Bike Stations and other amenities that Brisbane cyclists enjoy, Angelenos will just have to travel more if they'd like to experience them. Sad but true!

If there is ever any doubt that City of Los Angeles lacks vision, one need only take a look at the LADOT Bikeways Department and those doubts will be dispelled.

See you on the streets!

LADOT to Cyclists "There's no more room for cyclists!"

The LADOT's Bikeways Division, aka "the Department of No!" has a presentation that should be entitled "Why you can't have what you want."

For years now, Bikeways staff has been offering up excuses for their lack of innovation and progress, explaining "LA is simply built out. There's no more room for cyclists!"

This month's Bicycling magazine quotes the Bikeways Division's spokesperson as saying "What I need is roadway. Right now, all I can do is try to find places to squeeze bikes in."

The LADOT has repeated this for so long it starts to sound like the truth. Over and over, Bikeways Reps claim there's no more room. This goes unchallenged by real debate or discourse, leaving a wake of bobbleheads behind, all chanting "There's no more room!"

Then along comes reality...


The streets of Los Angeles are actually pretty wide. Especially if you get the parked vehicles off the main streets.

Sunset Blvd. and Hollywood Blvd. are notorious for 18 Wheelers and Commercial vehicles, all parked for long stretches, not for deliveries, not for errands, not to simply stage them between runs but for days on end. Best part, they're parked illegally!

Let's ticket them! Let's tow them! Let's open the streets up for the movement of goods and people! Let's get LA moving!


Or not.

Even when there is already a bikeways facility in place, the LADOT is hesitant to enforce. In fact, the LADOT Parking Enforcement Division still doesn't even enforce CVC 21211(b) which prohibits a vehicle from blocking a bike path or a bike lane.

Wilco Tango Foxtrot!

Yep, it's true. This past week, the Captain of the LADOT's Hollywood Division of Parking Enforcement informed me that the department did not enforce the prohibition because they had not been trained in the procedure. (I think it involves writing a ticket. It used to involve a paper and pen but now they have those little machines and maybe it really is complicated)

Two years ago, Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel initiated a motion that would modify the existing law and penalty schedule so that the City could enforce the ban on blocking bike lanes in the City of Los Angeles.

I was there as the Department of Transportation's Michael Uyeno stepped up and said that things were fine the way they were. Uyeno oversees the Bikeways Division. This moment of "fuhgettaboudit!" was quite the reveal.

His advice was roundly ignored and the motion made its way through the Committee and the City Council and on May 14, 2007 San Antonio himself signed the City of LA ordinance #178794 establishing penalty provisions applicable to CVC 21211(b). In other words, if you park a car so that it blocks a bike lane, it's gonna cost $70 and $150 the second time!

Or is it?


Here's an idea. Let's all chip in and get some bikes for the folks over in the LADOT's Bikeways division. Then let's get them to ride with us from downtown, through the 2nd street tunnel (it's fun! Howl, we all do!) up Glendale Blvd., then west on Sunset Blvd. and then Hollywood Blvd. Then let's attack the fallacy of "there's no room!" and let's seriously go after some solutions.

Why aren't there Sharrows on Glendale Blvd? It has parking on both sides, there's loads of room and it's posted for 35 mph, complete with speed zone certification and eligible for radar/laser speed limit enforcement. It even has a body count that would seem to indicate the need for some traffic calming support. Keep in mind it's also alongside a park, a church and loads of residential.

Why are the bike lanes on Sunset Blvd. blocked by vehicles and where is the LADOT's Parking Enforcement? Why aren't they fully trained on the enforcement authority of the prohibition against blocking a bike lane. It's been 2 years! Write the tickets, tow the vehicles, support those who need your help!

Why is Hollywood Blvd. used as storage for 18 Wheelers, in clear defiance of "Anti-Gridlock" signs and "1 hour parking" signs and red curbs and all sorts of prohibitions? Why is all of this ignored by LADOT Parking Enforcement officers who can not possibly claim to not notice these monstrous lane blocking trucks? After all, they also have to swerve to miss them!

Seriously, there is plenty of room in this city for us to all get along, for us to all use the streets and to do it safely and equitably.

Let's get the LADOT up to speed on this concept and then let's get them up to speed on the enforcement of LAMC and CVC and then let's get them up to speed on the innovations that will make our streets safer and more effective for everybody.

"See you on the Streets!"

LADOT Bikeways vs. the Volcano

LA's budget crisis seemed so bad the Department of Transportation actually carried the Bikeways division to the edge of the volcano, apparently fully prepared to toss it over the edge, willing to sacrifice it all in an effort to save the city from financial collapse.

At the last minute, it was revealed that the threat was hollow, that the Bikeways Division is Prop C funded meaning that if the staff were canned, the city would then simply return the "Congestion Relief" funding, resulting in no financial benefit to the City's General Fund.

Nevertheless, it was all part of an exciting week as department after department, constituent group after constituent group, union after union and, eventually, department head after department head, all paraded before the city council and begged a second bowl of porridge.

Why, one would think we're in the middle of a financial crisis.

Truth be told, we're actually doing all right. Since San Antonio has stepped up as LA's 11% solution, the city's annual revenue has grown from $5.4 Billion in to $7.1 Billion. LA's crisis is not one of shrinking revenue but of escalating costs that are rapidly exceeding the 31% increase in revenue. All of which brought the city to a moment of truth when somebody pointed out that the days of lean are on their way.

Call for moderation drew challenges of "You first!" and the city went to the wire, wrestling all the way.

When the dust had settled, money had magically appeared, the budget was balanced and everybody agreed to "Share the Sacrifice" meaning 10% cuts throughout the city and furloughs, layoffs and other austerity measures positioned for implementation.

As for the LADOT's Bikeways Division, they survived intact. Phew!

Now the cyclists of Los Angeles can get back to NOT getting the '08 Bike Plan ($450K) and NOT getting the '08 Bike Map ($400K) and NOT getting the Orange Line maintained (5.27.09 Transpo Committee) and NOT getting any Bikeways support in the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident (1:50)

Of course, LADOT's Bikeways Department hasn't been idle.

Bikeways was on the job last year when the Department of DIY pitched in to help with the public works backlog, painting a bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge. The paint was barely dry when the Bikeways staff moved with uncharacteristic speed, painting out the bike lane and removing the supporting signage. Bikeways staff reported at the August Bicycle Advisory Committee and in the press that the DIY bike lane was dangerous, resulted in "lost goodwill" and put cyclists in danger. Phew!

photo by Sean Bonner

Bikeways was also on the job last year when Westside cyclists needed a little extra excitement on their Culver Blvd. Bike Path.

This Bike Path is on former Red Car land that belongs to the Metro but there is a cooperative agreement in place that allows the city to operate a bike path. Definitely safer than the Fletcher Bridge!

But most of all, Bikeways was on the job last year, developing the Sunset Boulevard Bike Path, a Class I mixed use path between Alvarado and Coronado, right in the heart of Silver Lake. What a bold move!


The Sunset Boulevard Bike Path! Definitely safer than the Fletcher Bridge!

It's moves such as this that leave one wondering "Is the volcano still warm?"

CityWatchLA - Dude, Where’s the Bike Plan?

CityWatch, May 12, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 38

It's been almost six months since the LADOT's Bikeways staff went before the Transportation Committee and announced that LA's Bicycle Plan would be presented to the community in January of 2009. January has come and gone and the four promised community meetings haven't taken place, the draft document hasn't been delivered and the community hasn't been given the opportunity to participate in the process.

LA's Bicycle Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles and it is intended to guide the city in the development of a citywide bicycle transportation system as well as support efforts to fund bicycle projects and programs.

The Bicycle Plan is funded with Transportation Development Act funds to the tune of $450,000 and the work is being performed by Alta Planning, a consulting firm based in Portland and Berkeley. The City's Department of Planning is the lead on the project although it's the LADOT using Prop C funds to pay for their staff to work on the project.

Cyclists have gone on record with great hopes that the "2008 Bicycle Plan" would be a powerful document full of vision and commitment. Instead they have been rewarded with silence and exclusion.

Most recently, the Bikeways Division of the LADOT went before the Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee to explain their "closed" meetings conducted by consultants from Colorado, all as part of the Bicycle Plan public engagement initiative. Committee Chair Tom LaBonge expressed concern with "closed" meetings being held as part of the Bicycle Plan process, especially in City Hall. He deferred to the City Attorney who also expressed concerns with the process and suggested that the LADOT report back to the committee in 30 days. LaBonge concurred and gave the direction.

In response to criticism of the process, the Bikeways rep leaned into the microphone and said "It should be noted that the Department of Planning is the lead on this process."

The four public workshops held early last year were met with significant criticism and charges of weak and ineffective outreach. The meetings were held with such little notice that even the City's own Bicycle Advisory Committee had no warning and couldn't agendize the workshops or act to support or contribute.

The consultant from Portland came under fire during the first session when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding document, perhaps music to the ears of bureaucrats but hardly the battle cry of a room full of cyclists who want to know how to make LA a great place to ride.

She continued by dividing cyclists into four groups, failing to acknowledge what's often referred to as the "invisible" cyclist, the Workforce Cyclist. They don't ride for fun or to change to world or to get some exercise, they simply ride as an economic necessity and they often ride late at night, unsupported and often unclear on rules of the road or right of way.

Things got worse, not better, at the second workshop and that was the last LA heard from Portland.

Since then, Alta Planning has been busy with the Pasadena Bike Plan, the LA County Bike Plan and who knows what else.

Meanwhile the cyclists in LA wait for a Bike Plan that was supposed to be delivered to the City Council month ago. But before it gets to the City Council, there are supposed to be four public workshops and a trip to the Transportation Committee which means that the Bike Plan might end up being a year late!

Perhaps the consultant from Portland with all of the funding experience was correct when she positioned the Bicycle Plan as a funding tool although we never imagined that it was the development of the plan that would be the funding opportunity.

Regardless of their motivations for riding, cyclists are transportation solutions. It's time for Los Angeles to look beyond the funding and to support cyclists with a Bicycle Plan that is full of vision and that is matched with a commitment to making Los Angeles a great place to ride. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

CityWatchLA - The Orange Line Bike Path Buck Stops…Where?

CityWatch, Feb 13, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 13

The mystery of the blighted Orange Line Bikeway was solved when Paul Meshkin of the LADOT's Bikeways Division revealed that the contractor responsible for maintenance had "overlooked" the section from Hazeltine to Sepulveda and that the person responsible for supervising the contractor had "overlooked" the failure to perform but that all parties somehow remembered to cash their checks. All's well that ends well!

The contractor, Sunscape Landscaping, was paid $160,000 for a six month contract which required them to sweep the path twice a week and trim the brush. The contract expired this past Saturday.

Sunscape has been busy executing their landscaping contract with the Metro in the same area but on the busway portion of the Orange Line. Somehow in all of the confusion over which bush belongs to whom, the contractor simply forgot to maintain the bikeway which is the LADOT's area of responsibility.

The rapid deterioration of the bikeway drew the attention of the CityWatch, Daily News and LAist all of which motivated the Metro, the LAPD, the Sheriff's Department, the Council office and the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council to action and that's when the LADOT was discovered to be asleep at the handlebars.

The response from all parties was swift and a multi-disciplinary committee is in place to address the larger issue of environmental design, security, homelessness, crime, graffiti and the basic maintenance and supervision of the bikeway and busway facility.

Sunscape was gracious enough to move through the area, clearing trash, trimming bushes and putting an edgeline on the Van Nuys jungle. This one shot fulfillment of the six-month contract seems to have taken them off the hook to the city and they now stand in line to pick up an extension of the contract, this time for 3-5 years. Apparently, no failure-to-perform goes unrewarded!

By midweek the bikeway had been cleared of trash, the bushes had been trimmed back and the richly landscaped and overgrown bikeway now has a lovely edgeline, all of which must make the bikeway residents feel much prouder of their accommodations.

It's fair to say that the bikeway is now a well maintained campground, free of trash but still an attractive refuge for those who seek shelter or a place to hide. It still has the bush "caves" and a trail through the brush that parallels the bikeway.

LADOT staff turned up at the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council in response to concerns over the deterioration of the bikeway and the resulting negative impact on the community.

A concerned board member gave a list of problems that included burned out landscaping, plywood shelters, concertina wire, bottles, trash, and loitering men dropped off by the housing authority. When she pointed out that that very day she had been accosted by a drunk as she made her way down the bike path, the LADOT Coordinator graciously responded with a discussion on the difference between a bikeway and a sidewalk.

Perhaps if the LADOT spent less time debating the limits on their responsibilities and more time on multi-departmental solutions, valuable facilities such as the Orange Line Bikeway wouldn't deteriorate as if in a bureaucratic no-man's land.

Perhaps if the LADOT spent more time biking or walking the bikeways of Los Angeles, they would be able to spend less time in the Neighborhood Councils explaining the many limitations on their ability to supervise their areas of responsibility.

Perhaps if the LADOT dropped the "Yes, We Can't" approach to problem solving we could spend less time on discussions of the difference between a sound wall and the side of a building and more time on the lack of supervision that makes the Orange Line such a great place for graffiti, trash, crime, and all of the other symptoms of an unsupervised, overgrown, isolatated, ill-landscaped and poorly maintained environment, book-ended by two liquor stores which provide the tenants of the bikeway with fuel for the decline.

LA deserves better. There are too any departments involved for something as significant as a 14 mile long bikeway to simply fall between the cracks.

The cyclists who ride this path knew what was going on, the pedestrians and joggers who use the path were aware, the commuters who frequent the area knew of the problems, the local residents knew of the problems, and yet …

The LAPD, the Sheriff’s Department, the Metro, the City Attorney, the Council Office, Street Services and the LADOT all stand by with a look of jurisdictional confusion on their collective faces and watch as the Bikeway deteriorates to the point of absurdity while the contractor stands in line at the bank.

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

Daily News - Cleanup Work Completed Along Orange Line Bikeway

Daily News, by Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer

VAN NUYS - Final cleanup took place Tuesday on a San Fernando Valley bikeway that had become home to transients and trash, city transportation officials reported.

A contractor for the L.A. Department of Transportation removed the last of the trash Tuesday on a 1-1/2-mile stretch of Orange Line bikeway between between Sepulveda Boulevard and Hazeltine Avenue.

The bike path had become blighted with trash, homeless encampments, drinking spots and overgrown weeds along the route.

"It's done. It's all cleaned up," said Paul Meshkin, an LADOT transportation engineer in charge of the 14-mile bikeway. "Today, it looks really nice. Every tree is trimmed. Trash has been removed. We just have to make sure the contractor stays on top of it."

Meshkin said Sunscape landscaping was hired last summer on a six-month contract to maintain the bikeway. Negotiations are under way to renew the contract, which expires this month.

Los Angeles police and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies had periodically picked up trash along the route.

"I'd like to see a requirement for how often they (the contractor) must do maintenance," said Glenn Bailey of Encino, chairman of the city's Bicycle Advisory Committee. The bikeway "needs to be clean and maintained. And the users and the residents need to know exactly how often the work will be done - and that it be done."

dana.bartholomew@dailynews.com
818-713-3730

CityWatchLA - Season Opens at the Orange Line Campgrounds

Zach Behrens wrote of the Orange Line Bikeway on LAist and keyed in on the homelessness issue and the encampments. Dana Bartholomew of the Daily News then wrote of the Bikeway and the blight and contrasted it with the Metro's commitment to bike facilities at the stations. CityWatchLA then ran this piece focusing on the lack of maintenance, security and oversight along with the engineered isolation and unfortunate landscaping choices that work together to create an unsafe environment.

CityWatch, Feb 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 10

Orange Line Bike Path a Bumpy Ride
By Stephen Box

The Orange Line … an express bus service that runs across the south Valley … is a classic example of the axiom "Success has many parents but failure is an orphan."

When it comes to ridership, LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Metro CEO Roger Snoble and LA City Council Transportation Chair Wendy Greuel all speak glowingly of the popularity of the Orange Line and point at the near capacity numbers as evidence of their wisdom.

When it comes to the bikeway that runs alongside the Metro Orange Line, all of a sudden the crickets chirp and there's nobody left at the podium taking credit or responsibility for the maintenance issues, the homeless encampments, the graffiti, the crime, and the general decline of the bikeway.

Calls to the Metro are forwarded to the Sheriff's Department with an explanation that the Sheriff has a contract to provide security and law enforcement for the Orange Line. Calls to the Sheriff's Department yield an explanation that their contract is for the transitway, not the bikeway and that it’s an LAPD problem. Calls to the LAPD yield a series of referrals to the gang detail, the homelessness detail, the bike patrol and the Senior Lead Officers, all of whom seem to be missing in action, based on recent experience.

At the end of the day, it turns out that the LADOT has a Bikeways Division that has a contract with a contractor who is then responsible for the maintenance of the Orange Line bikeway, 14 miles of bike path, separated in many areas with a sound wall on one side and a chain link fence on the other, heavily landscaped, overgrown and littered with campsites.

The Orange Line opened in 2005 with a celebration that included a bike ride for supporters. Bike Activists reveled in the attention but grimaced at some of the engineering and design choices that indicated a lack of empathy for the cycling population and a sensitivity to the basic needs of a cyclist.

Cyclists compiled a report of the bikeway and provided recommendations on the intersection conflict points, the lack of cyclist oriented signalization, the poor landscaping choices and the isolation that results from putting up chain link fence and sound walls on either side of the path.

The Orange Line Bikeway was developed in conjunction with the LADOT Bikeways division and somewhere along the way the responsibility for the Orange Line Bikeway shifted from the Metro to the City of Los Angeles.

The City of LA took over like a proud parent, producing a PowerPoint show entitled "Orange Line Bike Path: Integrating a Bikeway within a Bus Rapid Transit Corridor" that they take on the road to transportation conferences.

The unfortunate reality is simple. The Orange Line Bike Path is no-man's land. It is isolated. The entrances are littered with shopping carts. The abundant trash and the overgrown landscaping give witness to the lack of supervision. The paths worn through the bushes bear indicate heavy off-path foot traffic.

This past Saturday, Nate Kapin of Sherman Oaks interrupted his Orange Line bike ride to comment. He says he's a regular, having lived in the Valley since May of 1940 "when you could hunt rabbits here." He says he's seen it all and that he rides the Orange Line every day. "This could be a real park. Put in some benches so people could sit and socialize, clear some of the brush back, put in a water fountain, some bathrooms, people would flock to this path. But not now! Look at it! It's trashed! I see people in the bushes, I see it all!"

It's too late to redesign the Orange Line bike path, but it's not too late to hold the contractor responsible for fulfilling his obligations for maintenance. It's not too late to get the Sheriff's Department and the LAPD to agree on who has jurisdiction and to get law enforcement to patrol the bike path. It's not too late to get the LADOT Bikeways Division to put the PowerPoint aside and to spend some time on the Orange Line bikeway.

Perhaps it's even time for a Bike Ride. After all, the Sheriff's Department has a bike patrol team. The LAPD has a bike patrol team. The Park Rangers even have a bike patrol team and by the overgrown look of things, perhaps they're the ones we should start calling

(Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net)

LADOT Reality Check

The LADOT Bikeways staff reported to the City's Transpo Committee that their three most significant bikeways "successes" are:

1) The LA River Bike Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT was referring to:

a) Successful litigation! The City of Los Angeles is flush with victory after fighting all the way to the State Supreme Court to avoid taking responsibility for the design and maintenance of the LA River Bike Path. The City of LA rejected the claims of an injured cyclist who was injured on the gate/chain link fence at the Victory end of the bike path. The City of LA fought the claim arguing that the City of LA is immune from any liability for the bike paths, that anyone who rides on a bike path does so at their own risk and that they are recreational facilities and not transportation facilities.

(No attempt was made to reconcile the fact that the LADOT apparently calls the LA Bike Path a transportation facility when seeking funding and then a recreational facility when looking for immunity.)

The bottom line is this; cyclists riding the LA River Bike Path do so at their own risk, (there's a sign just N of the Los Feliz bridge informing cyclists of this limitation) and the LADOT has argued successfully that riding a bike is a recreational endeavor inherent with the risks that come with such dangerous pursuits. Hunting bear? Jumping out of a plane? Swimming with sharks? Wrestling Gators? Riding a bike on the LA Bike Path? You are a daredevil and you are on your own!

b) Successful communication! Cyclists on the LA River Bike Path often find themselves at odds with other user groups and mistakenly take the term "Bike Lane" to mean "Bike Lane." That's not the case. The LA River Bike Path is actually the LA River "Mixed Use" Path and is fair game for dog-walkers, roller-bladers, joggers, pogo-stickers, ballroom dancers, hop-scotching, jump-roping, shopping cart pushing, picnic basket carrying, non-motorized vehicular travelers of all flavors and speeds! Of course, that's a mouthful to put on a sign so the LADOT continues to post "Bike Path" signs because it's simpler that way.

c) Successful eradication of light pollution! Apparently the wildlife in the LA River were kept awake at night by the pesky Bike Path illumination. No Worries. Freelance wildlife fans liberated all of the copper from the bike path electical system (twice!) leaving the Bike Path in the dark and the wildlife free to do whatever they do when it's dark.

2) The Orange Line Bike Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT is referring to:

a) The Metro's successful Orange Line Bike Path. In a classic demonstration of "Success has many parents, failure is an orphan." the LADOT is more than willing to glom onto the success of the Metro's OL Bike Path when discussing success but when it comes to taking responsibility for the maintenance of the Bike Path, the LADOT fought for two years to avoid signing the paperwork, insisting that the Metro hasn't completed the project.

b) The Chandler extension which consists of bike lanes (yea for magic paint and the BSS who actually did the work!) and the Chandler Bike Path which was in the news recently as the location of the collision between a roller blader and two League of American Bicyclist licensed instructors, resulting in broken bones for both cyclists and yet another confusing debate over the use of the term "Bike Path" vs. the use of the more appropriate term "Anybody-but-that-motorist-Path." The LA section of the Chandler Bike Path is distinguishable from the Burbank City section in that the LA side features drought resistant (dirt) landscaping while the Burbank section uses reclaimed water and is actually landscaped and green and feels like a parkway.

3) The Expo Line Bike Lanes/Path. Apparently by success, the LADOT is referring to:

a) The future? Is the list of accomplishments so short that by #3 the LADOT has to start pulling out the list of hopes, dreams and good intentions? The report started off with "We've been doing a number of things..." and then shifted into the future of the Expo line, a facility that is a Metro project. Telling other agencies how to do their business seems to be the major "success" of the LADOT Bikeways Department.

b) The opportunity? Perhaps this time around, the cycling community will have the opportunity to forge a relationship with the Metro, developing and refining on the bikeways design standards and establishing safe and effective accessibility to the Expo line for cyclists. As for the role of the LADOT in the development of the Expo Line, one need only look to the streets surrounding the Orange Line and Van Nuys Blvd. for a demonstration on the LADOT's commitment (or lack of commitment) to connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. (Busted curb lanes, missing crosswalk, parking for 18 wheelers? Is this an industrial zone and traffic sewer or a transit hub?)

At the end of the day, it is excruciatingly apparent that the LADOT operates with little if any accountability or obligation to lay down real goals, actual accomplishments and any sense of accountability. This meeting, just like all the others, included an LADOT call for more staffing in order to continue with the Transportation malpractice that is inflicted on the people of Los Angeles.

All totaled, there are 11 people currently working on the secret projects that purportedly are the future of LA's Network of Bikeways. As our City leadership is scrambling to find opportunities to cut the City budget, the Bikeways department brazenly steps up to the mic and acknowledges that they can't think of three things they have done that would justify their existence. Bold, cavalier and utterly contemptible!

This would be a great time for the LADOT Bikeways Department to start preparing the "stuff-we-did-this-year" report for the upcoming Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 2008. As usual, we'll be "Storming the Bastille" and asking for accountability in measurable terms.

"See you on the Streets!"