LA Bike Plan - Round 1 to Bike Activists

Jane Blumenfeld, Acting Deputy Director for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, has announced that the City Planning staff will be taking comments on the Draft Bicycle Plan until January 8th, 2010. This is a significant victory for the bike activists who immediately reacted when the Draft Bike Plan was initially released with a November 6, 2009 deadline for comments.

As recently as November 4 at the Eastside Bike Plan Workshop hosted by Councilman Ed Reyes and the Bike Oven, City staff were passing out comment cards that specified the November 6, 2009 deadline. Blumenfeld has all along acknowledged that the City of LA would take comments but the issue raised was that there is a big difference between "accepting" comments and "incorporating" comments.

The extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010 comes with the assurance that comments will be incorporated into a "revised" Draft Bike Plan that will be released in February of 2010 and that the community will then have two more months to review the Bike Plan before City Planning holds two public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission.

For many bike activists, the single greatest flaw in the Draft Bike Plan was the exclusion of the public in the process. Neighborhood Councils around the city took the Department of Transportation and City Planning to task for releasing the $450K Bike Plan with only 42 days of comment period. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee (LABAC) voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period to January 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to call for an extension of the comment period.

Shortly after the release of the Draft Bike Plan, Dr. Alex Thompson presented the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the NC Action Summit and called on the Neighborhood Council leaders to act quickly to declare the short comment period insufficient and prohibitive. NC's from Mar Vista to Silver Lake to East Hollywood to Mid City West to Woodland Hills-Warner Center all issued resolutions with the common theme, "the public needs more time!"

Perhaps the most robust and pointed resolution came from the CD11 Transportation Committee who took the 42 day comment period to be such a insult that they issued the following recommendations:

I. Recommendations to L.A. Bicycle Plan
1) The new L.A. Bicycle Plan should extend and enhance the 2007/2002/1996 Plan. Currently, it is a step backward from previous plans in both language and bicycle lane mileage.
2) The deadline for public input must be extended from November 6th (42 days of input) to January 8th (in excess of 90 days).
3) Every street is a street that cyclists will ride. This is the language of the Long Beach Bicycle Master Plan, currently a great success.
4) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should go through a full programmatic EIR. This will make its ambitions eligible for off the shelf and last minute funding, as well as open the possibility of reducing parking and travel lanes in some locations.
5) Retail should be a positive element in scoring streets for desirability of bikeways. Cyclists want to go to similar destinations as motorists.
6) Bicycle routes should be eliminated as a designation for the City of Los Angeles.
7) The L.A. Bicycle Plan should have predetermined annual performance measures included within it. These performance measures should not allow for the spontaneous designation of streets as Bike Friendly Streets without significant enhancement.
8) Neighborhood pilot projects must be included as an approach for experimenting with street treatments.

II. Recommendation to Change the Designation to a Different City Entity to Oversee the L.A. Bicycle Plan
Because the LADOT has shown a bias in favor of the movement of automobiles over the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee therefore concludes that the LADOT is woefully inadequate to effectuate a new Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles, and recommend the City designate a different entity to implement this important task, and to provide sufficient human and financial resources to do so.

From WestsideBikeside to BikeGirl to illuminateLA to the kids from FIRSTteamWestside to SoapBoxLA the community has responded clearly to the cavalier behavior of the LADOT and City Planning.

It's great to see the process work. Now, we can get busy creating a Bike Plan for the City of Los Angeles.

Here is the letter from Jane Blumenfeld:

Thank you for your interest in the update of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Plan. We'd like to share with you information about the next steps so that you can continue to participate in the development of the Plan.

City staff will take comments on the draft Bicycle Plan (which can be read on line at labikeplan.org) until January 8th, 2010. After January 8th, staff will begin to prepare a revised Plan (including the maps) based on all of the input that has been received through the website, at workshops, in letters, e-mails, and on comment cards. We anticipate releasing a staff report and a revised Draft Bicycle Plan in February 2010 and giving all interested parties two months to review the revised plan. We will then hold 2 public hearings on behalf of the City Planning Commission (one in the Valley and one near downtown) to hear your comments on the revised Plan.

Following the 2 hearings, the City Planning Commission will hold a public meeting in the spring to act on the revised plan. Staff will provide the Commission with information about the comments made at the two public hearings and any additional proposed modifications based on input received.

Following the City Planning Commission's action, two City Council committees will act on the City Planning Commission's recommendation for the Bicycle Plan: the Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) and the Transportation Committee. Their recommendations will then be considered by the full City Council.

Please contact Jordann Turner at 213 978-1379 if you have any questions.

Jane Blumenfeld
Acting Deputy Director
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
213 978-1272

CityWatchLA - Two Tales of Cyclists Down and the Uneven Hand of Justice

CityWatch, Nov 10, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 92

Last year, on July 4th, Dr. Christopher Thompson drove his car down Mandeville Canyon and came up behind two cyclists, pulled alongside and exchanged words then pulled in front and slammed on the brakes, seriously injuring both cyclists and telling the police officer who first arrived at the scene that he did it "to teach them a lesson."

That same week, as Paul Moore rode his bike south on Bundy Drive, a motorist approached him from behind, overtook him and then turned right, slamming him to the ground.

Unlike Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson, the cyclists in Mandeville Canyon, Paul didn't get up. In fact, before the day was over, surgeons would remove a section of his skull, storing it in a refrigerator for later reattachment, all in an effort to alleviate the cranial swelling and bleeding. That evening Paul slipped into a medically-induced coma that allowed his brain to rest and recover.

By Monday morning, news of the Mandeville Canyon incident had spread and by early afternoon, LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl stood before the press and proclaimed "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!"

Concerns that the case would be handled as a traffic collision instead of a criminal act were cleared up by the LAPD's Captain Eaton who flanked Councilman Rosendahl and assured the public that this was a road rage incident that would be investigated as a felony criminal assault. This show of force went a long way toward reassuring the cycling community that justice would be pursued.

As for Paul, he slipped into the pool of anonymity that comes with being one of 550 LA Fire Department medical transports that occur each day in the City of Los Angeles. Of those 550 transports, approximately 100 of them are the result of a traffic collision and they include motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Paul was just one of many.

The public clamored for more information on the Mandeville Canyon incident, the press responded with radio, television and newspaper coverage. The blogs were filled with activity and comment sections had to be shut down because of the intense debate and personal animosity that took place.

Meanwhile, Paul's wife worked quietly to investigate the circumstances that left her husband lying on the street with multiple broken bones and a left frontal lobe injury that resulted in Aphasia which is the inability to form words.

It took two days for Rosendahl and Eaton to step up to the microphone and to address the Mandeville Canyon incident. It was eight days before Paul's wife received the Police Report in the mail with information on Paul's collision.

The report detailed the location, the motorist and the cyclist. There wasn't much else there except that Paul's bicycle had been transported to the Fire Station. It's curious that the bike wasn't considered evidence but, of course, that would imply an investigation.

Paul's wife went to Fire Station #59 and found Paul's bike with very little damage. One of the firemen looked in the log, found the incident number, and said the team who responded to the accident was not working, except for the Captain who was out on a call.

Paul's wife left and called Capt. Cessor, introducing herself and asked about Paul and the traffic collision. She asked if Paul was conscious when the LAFD arrived at the scene but Cessor responded "Can't answer that. Can't answer anything medical due to confidentiality."

Questions about who called 911, what happened to Paul's helmet, which corner the collision occurred on yielded a response that was completely discouraging.

Cessor informed Paul's wife "I don't know where your questions are going, so I'm going to refer you to the Arson Unit as they are the legal experts." She passed over the phone number for the Arson Unit adding "They probably wouldn't have any information about this accident."

By now, Rosendahl was calling for a Cyclists' Town Hall to address the issues that cyclists encounter as they ride the streets of Los Angeles. He went on to convene the Mandeville Task Force that would look for ways to mitigate tensions between cyclists and motorists. He continued all the way to the Transportation Committee and then the City Council where he urged his fellow Councilmembers to incorporate the Cyclists' Bill of Rights into the city's Bicycle Plan.

Paul's family spent the same period of time struggling to navigate the medical system and the insurance labyrinth and the emotional journey, celebrating the fluttering of eyelids and the twitches and grimaces that they counted as the signs of Paul's recovery.

Paul left UCLA and went to the Barlow Respiratory Hospital and then back to UCLA and then out to Casa Colina in Pomona. Through it all, his family was by his side, playing music, talking to him, struggling to communicate and to encourage and to maintain hope through the recovery process.

Periodically there would be some activity in the Mandeville Canyon case and members of the cycling community would hold vigil at the LAX Courthouse, hoping against hope that justice would be served and reporting back on the developments.

As for Paul, justice was limited to battles his family and his doctors fought with the insurance company's grievances and appeals representatives, quite a tough position for the victim of a crime.

Apparently, when Rosendahl told the world "Cyclists need a Bill of Rights!" it didn't include Paul Moore, a cyclist whose life was ruined by a motorist who "right-hooked" him in violation of CVC 21750 which specifies that “the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle…”

The Cyclists' Bill of Rights claims, as right #4, "Cyclists have the right to the full support of our judicial system and the right to expect that those who endanger, injure or kill cyclists be dealt with to the full extent of the law."

This past week, the cycling community threw a virtual Twittertape parade when the jury in the Mandeville Canyon trial came back with a guilty verdict on all seven charges for Thompson including Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Mayhem. Thompson was considered a flight risk, denied bail, remanded into custody where he awaits sentencing.

Unfortunately, there are many more cases out there, including the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on PCH, the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist on Glendale Boulevard, and the motorist charged with the hit-and-run death of a cyclist in Santa Clarita.

Add to the mix the motorists who are charged with hit-and-run assaults on cyclists on the Westside and in Echo Park and Downtown and the Mandeville Canyon case starts to look like the exception, not the rule.

Most alarming is the simple fact that Paul Moore's life was destroyed by a motorist who right-hooked him just 1500 yards from Bill Rosendahl's Westside office and Paul never made it past dispatch statistic for the LAFD team that transported him to UCLA. He spent 6 months in the hospital, he lost the ability to move and to talk and his family was left to struggle with his recovery and with the surgeries and with the seizures and the financial struggles and the insurance battles, and in the midst of all of the debates over equality and justice, Paul was completely forgotten.

"What about Paul?"

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

CityWatchLA - If Only the Mayor Rode a Bike...

CityWatch, Oct 30, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 89

If Mayor Villaraigosa rode a bike, the current process for updating the LA's Bike Plan would be a lot different. For starters, it would have the Mayor's attention and that alone would be a significant shift, but most importantly, it would be incorporated into the Mayor's campaign for turning LA into a Great City.

1) The Mayor has committed to making LA one of the safest big cities and if he rode a bike, he'd realize that the place to start is on the streets of LA. They're one of the most dangerous places in the city.

People die on a daily basis. It's no longer news. The public as a whole is desensitized to the fact that our streets are a battleground and that nobody is free from the conflict. LA is a city under siege.

If the Mayor were to jump on a bike and attempt to pedal from City Hall to the far reaches of his kingdom, he'd quickly realize that the real opportunity to make Los Angeles a safer city for everybody would be to start with the streets of LA and that would result in a Bike Plan with real vision, with real imperative language and with a real commitment to moving people safely. That would be good for the Bike Plan and it would be good for LA.

2) The Mayor has committed to making LA the greenest big city and if he rode a bike, he'd realize that the place to start is with our air. Breathing LA's air is one of the most significant threats to our health.

Long time residents take it in stride, repeating the "It used to be worse!" mantra that has become the battle cry for mediocrity.

If the Mayor were to look at the city from a bike, he'd realize that supporting alternative transportation is key to greening our city and it that would result in a Bike Plan with a real commitment to the environment and to supporting positive transportation choices.

3) The Mayor has committed to supporting the well funded and long term expansion of LA's mass transit system and if he rode a bike, he's realize that one of the simplest and most inexpensive ways to complement the effectiveness of mass transit is to close service gaps and to offer people more choices.

Cycling is a gap connecting option that allows mass transit passengers to travel more efficiently and it requires little effort to support. If the

Mayor were to use a bike to get from his home to the Metro, he'd realize that simple innovations to accommodate rather that to alienate cyclists would go a long way toward improving the efficiency of the transit system as a whole. This would result in a Bike Plan that strongly positions cycling as a transit solution and would establish strong standards rather than weak suggestions.

4) The Mayor has committed to making the creation of jobs his number one priority and if he were to show up for one of the Bike Plan workshops, he'd realize that the simplest place to start would be to have the City of LA actually hire locals.

The Bike Plan is being developed by consultants from Portland, San Francisco, and Colorado and the city staff who are guiding the process come from Inglewood, Santa Clarita, Fullerton and Long Beach.

If the Mayor were to ride a bike on the streets of LA, he'd realize quickly that there is no "high-altitude" approach to creating a great Bike Plan. It requires rubber on the road experience and it requires local knowledge of not just the streets and the community but of the political landscape.

The people who are in LA after the office is closed are the people who are in the best position to create a robust and powerful vision for LA's Bike Plan. Hiring local would result in a great Bike Plan and it would put Angelenos to work.

Safer streets, a greener city, more efficient mass transit and the creation of jobs!

If only the Mayor rode a bike.

For more information on LA's Bike Plan, visit http://LABikePlan.com

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

LA.Streetsblog - Bike Working Group Gives Cyclists a Chance to Talk Bike Plan This Weekend

LA.Streetsblog by Stephen Box on October 13, 2009

The Bike Writers Collective is calling up the LA Bike Working Group to take on LA's Draft Bike Plan, reviewing it, discussing it, and then working together to make it a powerful visionary document that supports the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. All LA cyclists are invited to join in as the spirit of Government 2.0 takes over the Los Angeles City College Faculty Lounge at 1pm this Saturday, October 17, 2009.

The Draft Bike Plan was released on September 24th and the comment period is scheduled to close on November 6th, a window of 42 days for public participation. This is the first of many objectionable elements to the Draft Bike Plan and the City's idea of civic engagement. The LA Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to "demand" that the comment period be extended until Jan 8, 2010. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also voted unanimously to support the fight for an extension of the comment period. Now it's up to the cycling community to prepare those comments.

Riding a bike in Los Angeles has always been a demonstration of self-sufficiency and independence. At first it simply meant carrying a spare tube, some tools and a pump. Somewhere along the way it grew to include carrying a pocket guide to the law, some key phone numbers and some bail money. Then the Department of DIY took things into their own hands and now the cycling community finds themselves confronted with the fact that if they want a decent Bike Plan, they're going to have to make it themselves.

Cyclists can take a look at the complaints and the criticism of the Draft Bike Plan, from LAStreetsBlog and again on LAStreetsblog to CityWatchLA to WestsideBikeSide to BikeGirl. But the most important thing they can do is to take a look at the Draft Bike Plan, (editor's note: If you want to compare the "original" maps from earlier this summer with the current ones that were quietly downgraded, you can find the original maps here.) download it to their laptop and then to ride over to the LA Bike Working Group and to dig in. We'll start as a group then we'll break into smaller groups and we'll work through the plan and create a vision for Los Angeles, by cyclists for cyclists.

Portland is currently going through the same Bike Plan update process as Los Angeles and they have 11 Working Groups, 1 Steering Committee and 1 Technical Advisory Committee, all working together to ensure that the Bike Plan is a robust document that represents the desires of the cycling community. Somehow the City of LA got consultants from Portland but not the spirit of community nor the commitment to an open and engaging process. Now is LA's chance to change that and to create a Bike Plan that truly supports cyclists and their rights on the streets of Los Angeles.

LA Bike Working Group, 1 pm on Saturday the 17th of October, 2009. LACC Faculty Lounge, right in the center of the campus which is right in the center of LA. To plan your visit via public transportation, go to metro.net. The Red Line drops you off right by the College at Santa Monica & Vermont.

LABAC Demands Draft Bike Plan Comment Period Extension

Gail Goldberg, Director of Planning
Jane Blumenfeld, Citywide Planning Division
Department of City Planning
City of Los Angeles

Dear Ms. Goldberg and Ms. Blumenfeld:

The Bicycle Advisory Committee of the City of Los Angeles voted unanimously at its regular meeting of October 6, 2009 to “demand” that the Draft Bicycle Plan Update comment deadline of November 6, 2009 be extended to Friday, January 8, 2010.

The reasons for this action include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Only six weeks were provided for review and comment on a Draft Plan that has taken 18 months to release, including four months after its promised “end of May” release date;
2. The BAC and its subcommittees only meet once every two months, a sixty (60) day cycle;
3. The Draft Plan was released less than two weeks prior to the full BAC meeting, thus providing inadequate time for a thorough review and submittal of comprehensive recommendations by any BAC subcommittee prior to such meeting;
4. The next regular BAC meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1, 2009;
5. The Draft Plan is a very detailed and lengthy document, containing 195 pages of text and 17 pages of maps citywide as well as a 351-page appendix;
6. The BAC members have not been provided printed copies of the Draft Plan;
7. Some BAC members do not have the ability to print out a document of this length, or at all;
8. The maps are difficult to read online; and
9. There are only a very limited number of printed copies of the Plan available for public review (only at the nine regional City libraries and two City Planning offices).

These are significant challenges to providing meaningful input. The BAC is composed of 19 members appointed by each Councilmember and the Mayor and serve as volunteers without compensation. An extension of the comment deadline will allow the BAC to submit its recommendations in a thoughtful, orderly manner. I believe City Planning and the BAC share the same goal of achieving the best possible Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles. You can assist by extending the comment deadline to January 8, 2010.

Thank you.

Glenn Bailey, Chair
Bicycle Advisory Committee
City of Los Angeles


c: Bicycle Advisory Committee

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!"

CityWatchLA - The Emperor's New Bike Plan

CityWatch, June 16, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 48

The City of Los Angeles is led by folks so befuddled in their duties and yet so enamored with themselves that they spend the bulk of their energy directing the city's many departments to "make more plans" and "report back to us" and "repeat as necessary" and "schedule more meetings," all as the city spirals into ruin.

Several years ago LA's Bikeways Department came before the City Council and said "It's time to update our Bicycle Plan!" The City Council, ever mindful of San Antonio's quest to turn LA into America's greenest big city, quickly approved the plan to update the Bicycle Plan, after all "LA loves cyclists!"

With the smell of money wafting from City Hall, consultants from around the country pedaled their way to Los Angeles and LA's Bicycle Plan Update Process was on, or so it seemed.

Consultants from Portland and Berkeley and Denver and San Francisco convened community meetings and showed the local cycling community the plans of other cities. "Imagine, your Bike Plan could look just like this, albeit with less vision and less commitment and less hope for becoming a reality, but it would have all the pretty colors!"

A website was built, postcards were passed out, comments were solicited and then...gasp...nothing happened!

The contract was extended another year and periodically, LA's Planning Department and Transportation Department would wake from their respective slumbers long enough to report to the City Council's Transportation Committee, turning in reports and giving verbal presentations on the thorough planning process. It was heady stuff that must have inspired many to embark on careers as consultants, after all the money is good and the expectation for performance is low.

Through it all, the Transportation Committee was inundated with complaints until finally, with pressure building for improvements to the LA's cycling environment, the City released the Draft Bike Maps which have lots of very pretty colored lines and incorporate "vision" terms such as "infeasible" with such regularity that one is left wondering if this is part of a plan for ending cycling in LA, rather than supporting it.

Last week, the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee convened for its bi-monthly meeting and had some fairly direct concerns about the missing Bike Plan and the "leaked" bike maps but they were unable to find anybody who would take responsibility for the Bike Plan or the process.

One would think that the LABAC, which is filled with members of the community appointed by the Mayor and the City Council to advise the City of LA on matters related to cycling in LA, would be involved in the process of updating the Bike Plan. Such is not the case.

The only Department represented at the meeting was Transportation which claimed complete ignorance in all things Bike Plan, claiming that they're completely out of the loop on the maps and the plan, adding "It's all in the hands of the consultants!" Further distancing themselves from the process which they set in motion two and a half years ago, they went on the offensive and blamed any department not present for the failings of the process.

The Planning Department was blamed for holding up the plan, the City Attorney's Department was blamed for not supporting the process, Public Works was blamed for not participating, the LAPD was blamed for not caring enough to attend the meetings and Street Services was blamed for not weighing in on street maintenance standards.

Through it all, the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator complained that they receive no respect from the other Departments and went on to maintain complete innocence, absolving themselves of any responsibility in the process, a position contradicted by their own consultants.

Several months ago, the Transportation Committee, in a frenzy of support for the cycling community, directed the LADOT to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the Bicycle Plan. In the hallway, after the meeting, cyclists approached the consultants to confirm the directive and were shocked to hear the consultants respond "We don't take direction from the City Council. We only take direction from the LADOT."

The City Council has long offered words of hope for the City's Bike Plan and along the way, the Transportation Committee has received reports from the General Managers of both Transportation and Planning. Rita Robinson and Gail Goldberg have both turned in glowing accounts of the Bike Plan process but the real question is very simple.

"Has anybody actually seen the Bike Plan?"

On Wednesday, June 17th, the Transportation Committee convenes at 8:00 am for a SPECIAL meeting that, once again, provides for a "Department of Transportation (DOT) report relative to a Bicycle Plan update."

How will Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel respond when the public takes a look at the charade and cries out "But the Emperor has no Bike Plan!"

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

LAPD - "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

(LAPD Officers ride the Hollywood/Vine crosswalk until they defer to the primacy of the motor vehicle and ride out into the oncoming traffic)

A couple of months ago, I was observing the LAPD's Valley Traffic Division as they conducted a pedestrian crosswalk sting on Reseda Boulevard. It was an amazing sight to watch. A police officer in street clothes, the "decoy," would step out into the crosswalk and begin to cross the street. Motorcycle officers stood lined up on the side streets, at the ready to ride into the relentless traffic to cite the motorists who failed to yield the crosswalk to the pedestrian. It was like watching cowboys herd cattle with the traffic cops pulling over as many as four motorists at a time and lining them up curbside for their tickets. It was an amazing sight to witness.

At midday, when the sting operation shutdown for lunch, I saw Officer "K" writing tickets for three male cyclists. My curiosity was piqued. After all, this was a crosswalk sting. The LAPD was there to cite motorists who failed to yield to pedestrians. I watched.

The cyclists were riding inexpensive bikes on the sidewalk when they were stopped and they were dressed as if on their way to or from some form of manual labor. They might be referred to as workforce cyclists. They were silent throughout the ticketing process. They avoided eye contact, they took their tickets and they silently rode north on Reseda.

I asked Officer "K" what the cyclists had done to warrant the citations.

He explained that they had crossed the intersection in the crosswalk against the flashing hand.

I commented that the law prohibiting crossing against the flashing hand applied to pedestrians and that the 3 men were clearly cyclists, not pedestrians.

That was when Officer "K" smiled and said "That's why I wrote them up for crossing against the solid circular red!"

I pointed out that the light couldn't have been red because the crosswalk still had the flashing hand.

He said he had to write it that way because there was no California Vehicle Code (CVC) to rely on to enforce that ban against riding in the crosswalk.

I countered by pointing out that it's not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk and that was why there was no CVC prohibiting it.

He stiffened up a bit here and responded that it was up to a Judge to decide and that even if the ticket got thrown out by the Judge, the process was a learning experience.

I closed my mouth and held my tongue but from my perspective, the process had become the punishment, not the lesson.

I'm not sure when the LAPD mandate went from enforcing the law to teaching the law but it leaves me wondering "Who Teaches the Teachers?"

The City Council asked the same question last month when an incident between the operator of a Hummer and several cyclists sparked the cycling community to ride en masse to the Police Commission and the Inspector General claiming bias based policing.

Cyclists involved in the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident claimed the Hummer driver hit a cyclist and then left the scene, driving over three more bikes in the process and dragging one of them up the street. The LAPD responded, caught the Hummer driver, interviewed those at the scene and then allowed the driver of the unlicensed Hummer to drive away from the incident.

The cyclist community was so enraged by this incident that they scheduled a "Storm the Bastille" ride on May 1st and asked the City Council to join them in fighting for even handed and equitable enforcement of the law. The City Council responded to the complaints of the May 1st "Storm the Bastille" cyclists with the following motion (09-1035):

MOTION Numerous incidents have been reported relative to bicycle and vehicle collisions and aggressive motorists attitudes to law-abiding people riding bicycles. Complaints have also been raised regarding the treatment of bicyclists by the Los Angeles Police Department. It is critical that the City respond to these situations and respond appropriately.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Los Angeles Police Department to report on recent bicycle incidents and conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, as well as efforts to increase police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

The motion was made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Councilman Bill Rosendahl, seconded by Councilmembers Ed Reyes, Tom LaBonge, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel.

Unfortunately, the motion directing the LAPD didn't elicit the response the cyclists sought.

LAPD Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese reported to the City Council two weeks later but he failed to address "police training related to bicycling activities and laws," instead regaling the council with his version of the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident. He relied on his memory for the report, having neglected to bring the actual file (a compilation of three reports, initially logged as two reports and finally released as single report with a single report number) and I would contend that he made a few mistakes along the way including referring to the cyclists of Los Angeles as "these people."

Albanese reported that the cyclist hit the Hummer, a statement that is contradicted by reality. The cyclist was hit from behind, the damage was to the rear of the bike and he was thrown forward. Tough to do unless the LAPD is going to claim that the cyclist also broke the laws of physics. Albanese continued by claiming that the statements of all witnesses were taken, again contradicted by reality. I forwarded the contact info of another witness to the incident to the LAPD, one who was not on the ride or in the Hummer but who lived in the area. He had identified himself to the Officers at the scene but was told, "We already know what happened." Albanese then referred to the investigating division as both Central Traffic and South Traffic. A small mistake, but nonetheless, a mistake.

Through it all, the Deputy Chief of the LAPD demonstrated some serious skills. He was initially directed to report on LAPD training but he artfully dodged that instruction and shifted the discussion to an incident but denied the City Council the opportunity to actually review the report which left him free to present his version of the incident unchallenged.

The LADOT Bikeways Coordinator sat next to him and followed suit, turning the conversation into an off-topic discussion of bicycle safety and responsibility training for cyclists as well as the updates of the City's Bicycle Plan and the LADOT website.

The LAPD and the LADOT made no pretense of addressing training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws and that is a complete failure, not only to respond to a City Council directive, but to the community as a whole.

The need to address training for the LAPD on bicycling regulations and laws was made clear this past week.

On Monday, June 1, 2009 at approximately noon, a woman rode her bicycle on the sidewalk of Louise Avenue in the valley. As she approached the intersection of Valerio she rode into the intersection on an unmarked crosswalk. At the same time a large truck approached the intersection on Valerio and proceeded to turn right onto Louise. The cyclist and the truck collided, she fell to the ground and the truck crushed her head as she lay on the street.

The operator of the truck, which was equipped with a crane and was hauling DWP power poles, was unaware of the incident until he was notified via walkie talkie by his "pilot" in the escort vehicle that was behind the truck.

This incident is tragic, a life was lost. In addition, the lives of those involved will forever be scarred by the horrific nature of the scene. The fact that the vehicle was moving through a quiet residential neighborhood is also a concern as is the fact that the truck was operated by an LADWP contractor.

But especially disturbing is the resulting confusion during the investigation of the incident and the confusion over "the rules of the road."

Councilman Smith's office responded to the incident the next day and explained, via email, that "the bicyclist was reportedly riding on the wrong side of the roadway and traveling against the traffic flow; making her the initial "primary cause" of this tragedy." The email went on to detail the law enforcement experience of Councilman Smith, Chief of Staff Mitch Englander and Public Safety Deputy Jim Dellinger.

The LAPD's Public Information Officer confirmed the report that the LAPD considered the cyclist the "primary cause" of the incident because she was riding a bike in a crosswalk which is a violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road. The PIO explained that a cyclist must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic.

I asked if he had ever ridden the Orange Line Bike Path or the Chandler Bike Path or any of the City's bikeways facilities that actually direct cyclists into the crosswalk at intersections. The PIO paused and then suggested that I speak to the investigating officer.

I called the LAPD's Specialize Collision Investigation Detail (SCID) and spoke to the investigating officer assigned to this case who also explained that cyclists must obey the rules of the road which prohibit riding a bike in the crosswalk. I asked for the actual vehicle code or municipal code that prohibits cyclists from riding in the crosswalk and he simply referred to CVC 21200 and repeated the claim that cyclists must dismount before using a crosswalk.

The cyclist who lost her life at the intersection of Louise and Valerio is not here to explain what happened. She is not here to defend her actions and in a way it doesn't matter because, regardless of who is determined at fault, she is still dead.

But...I believe we have an obligation to be accurate in applying the law to this incident and it is either illegal for a cyclist to ride a bike in a crosswalk or it's not. That is a simple issue that can be settled quickly and if the LAPD's appraisal of this incident is based on that ruling then it is very important that we are accurate in applying the law.

I contend that it is not illegal to ride a bike in the crosswalk. It might not wise, it might not be advisable, but it is definitely not illegal. cyclists are not required to dismount at intersections or at crosswalks.

The fact that there is confusion over such a simple issue demonstrates the real need for specific training for the LAPD on bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

On May 1, 2009 the City Council called on the LAPD to report on police officer training related to bicycling activities and applicable regulations and laws.

This tragic incident and the resulting confusion demonstrate the need for the LAPD to review and report on their departmental training of the rules and regulations that govern safe and effective cycling in the City of Los Angeles.

p.s. Attached is a 2006 City Council resolution addressing cyclists in the crosswalks.

LA Bikeways stimulates Seattle and Portland economies

Los Angeles is getting a new bike map, three bike maps actually, and they'll be here in late June or early July according to Carolyn Perez Andersen, the President of Seattle based Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design. Ilium also provides the LADOT with brochures, maps, wayfinding, marketing and other materials to support the DASH line and other transit services provided by the City of Los Angeles.

These bike maps are not to be confused with the three Draft Bike Maps that were released this past Thursday by the City of Los Angeles as part of the City's Bicycle Plan Update Draft Map. The Ilium Bike Map contract was approved a little over two years ago by the City Council which authorized the Department of Transportation to commission Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for the "development, marketing and distribution of the Los Angeles and Surrounding Communities Bicycle Map." The contract was to cover two years with two one-year extensions and authorized a cost "not to exceed $400,000."

This might be a good time to ask why the City of LA authorized a $400,000 contract with Ilium for a Bike Map and then entered into a $450,000 contract with Alta for a Bike Plan which also includes a Bike Map.

Actually the good time to ask these hard questions would have been long ago and we did ask them then but to no avail.

I was at the City Council on December 19, 2006 when the Ilium contract came up for approval. I was joined by two other cyclists and we all testified to the efficacy of the Metro's Bike Map and to the unnecessary expense of producing another map, especially if it only covered LA and left holes and gaps indicating other municipalities. Anyone who travels for more than a few miles in any direction in LA knows you can visit several cities in a simple journey. Would we collect separate maps for each City? How would I carry these 88 maps?

I'm no Eagle Scout but I can certainly navigate my way across town without requiring two LA Bike Maps, one developed by a company based in Seattle and the other developed by a company based in Portland. In fact, if I wanted a Bike Map, I'd much rather rely on the comprehensive Metro Bike Map which includes all the municipalities within LA County and which already exists, as opposed to the Ilium mystery map and the Alta promise of a map.

In spite of our protest, the motion was approved unanimously at 13 to 0. Councilwoman Jan Perry was absent and CD7's seat was empty.

We left Council Chambers disappointed that $400,000 was going to be spent duplicating something that already existed but we were assured by LADOT staff that their version was going to have "special" features.

As the City of Los Angeles grapples with the budget crisis, I think it's not only fair but essential that we challenge our city departments to account for their performance and that we start with a very simple "Show me the money!"

Watching the LADOT's funding schemes is like watching three card monte and we know how that exercise in "Trust me!" ends.

Ilium Strategic marketing & Design is no stranger to Los Angeles. They have been engaged in a lucrative relationship with the City since 1991. One of the more recent (2006) contracts was for $5 million and included "marketing services for other transit related programs within the City such as the LAPD's Bicycle Program which educates users on bicycle safety and the need to register their bicycles."

Well, that was money well spent. This contract expires at the end of this month and there are two one-year options available.

Would it be too much to involve the community in the development of resources such as the maps that the LADOT has commissioned from Ilium? After all, we're the ones who will purportedly be using them, if they are of any use and if they are accessible.

I still have the Metro Bike Map that I took to City Council when I protested the Ilium contract. It still works! I also have a post-it note with the biking infrastructure of Los Angeles detailed on it, after all, there's not much to speak of and so it doesn't require much paper.

The City of LA is sitting on revenue that is more than 30% higher than the day Mayor Villaraigosa took office. Our budget crisis is one of accountability and the effective management of our money. This little contract with Ilium is just one of many contracts with many companies. Where's the oversight? Why does the City of Los Angeles allow departments to contract with so many different companies to provide duplicate marketing and website services, all with great redundancy and insulation and at great expense and waste.

This is Los Angeles. I believe that we deserve better!

CityWatchLA - Is LADOT Violating the City’s General Plan?

CityWatch, Sept 12, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 74

LA’s Cyclists: ‘Count Me In’
By Stephen Box

LA Department of Transportation’s Bikeways Coordinator stood before a room full of cyclists gathered for a Bicycle Master Plan workshop and explained, with a straight face, that the City no longer did traffic counts on cyclists because “the company that did the counting went out of business.”

It was unclear at the time if this meant that there simply was nobody left to do the counting or if the technology of counting things has disappeared when the company went out of business.

LA’s City Council, in 2002, implemented a Bicycle Plan that directs the Department of Transportation to conduct traffic counts including bicycle counts at intersections along designated Citywide Bikeways for comparison purposes.

The Plan further specifies that traffic studies conducted as part of DEIR’s or other environmental clearances include bicycle traffic counts if the intersections are located on Citywide Bikeways.

The Plan further directs the DOT to undertake annual bicycle parking counts at public bicycle parking facilities.

The Plan concludes by directing the LAPD and the LADOT to track bicycle accident reports as part of Bicycle Plan monitoring. It also specifies the creation of an accident report map as a means of pinpointing safety enhancement needs.

And yet, as the City of LA is in the middle of updating the City’s Bicycle Plan, an element of the City’s Transportation Plan, all of which is part of the General Plan, the City has no data.

The Hawthorne Effect, tested in the 30’s, found that when something is measured, it improves and when it is measured and reported, it improves exponentially.

Other Cities have demonstrated the effectiveness of this principle by laying down a goal, establishing a starting point, keeping count and evaluating success based on performance.

Mayor Daley set out to make Chicago the most bicycle-friendly city in the United States. He established goals for improvement and he measured performance by counting and is responsible for installing 10,000 bike racks, more than any other city in the United States.

San Francisco’s vision to establish the highest per-capita bicycle use in North America includes having the Municipal Transportation Agency measures the effectiveness of this campaign by counting cyclists. The MTA reports that cycling on Market Street increased 31% from last year to this year, demonstrating that the City’s efforts to ensure that cyclists feel safe and welcome on the streets were successful.

Meanwhile, the LADOT can report with thorough detail where we stand on funding but when it comes to accounting for those dollars, nothing. No performance reports. Nada.

What happened to the Sepulveda Reversible project and were any cycling counts included in that project? How about the Safe Routes to School projects? Were cycling counts included to determine if the efforts were effective? How safe are our streets and how many cyclists have been injured or killed in traffic collisions on the streets of Los Angeles?

What is our record for moving people, not simply motor vehicles, through the intersections of Los Angeles? Do we even count people?

The only way the City of Los Angeles will ever improve conditions on the streets is if we evaluate based on performance, not simply the funding or completion of projects. Effectiveness has to be based on real numbers.

As for this cyclist, I know I count and I expect to be counted!

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

CityWatchLA - LA’s Bicycle Plan – Read Between the Lies

CityWatch, Aug 26, 2008
Vol 6 Issue 69

Transportation Politics
By Stephen Box

The City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of updating its Bicycle Plan, also known as Chapter IX of the Transportation Element of the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles.

To the uninitiated, the Bicycle Plan sounds like a hopeful planning document with the potential to lay down policies and plans that will integrate cycling as a transportation solution, complete with positive environmental impacts, health benefits and congestion relieving results.

To those who have been paying attention, the Bicycle Plan more closely resembles another LADOT funding scheme, short on vision and long on opportunity to fund uninspired roadway projects with the limited funds made available for Bikeways projects.

Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT, offers her support for the Bicycle Plan explaining that it will allow the Department of Transportation to apply for the State’s Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding.

Mia Birk, the consultant from Portland who facilitated the Bicycle Plan workshops earlier this year, opened the session by explaining that the Bicycle Plan was necessary to qualify for BTA funding, and then went into an overview of the “17 points of compliance” necessary to qualify for funding. Was this a funding seminar?

Most recently, LADOT’s Bikeways Coordinator appeared before the City Council’s Transportation Committee to report on the progress of the Bicycle Plan update process and reported that the Bicycle Plan was necessary if the City was to qualify for the Metro’s Call for Projects and the State’s BTA funding opportunities.

This “focus on funding” might be a good thing if it resulted in the means to develop and implement a “vision” that resulted in an improved environment for cyclists.

Unfortunately for the community, the results are not there.

For example, the LADOT has succeeded in funding only two projects using BTA funds out of the $50 million made available statewide over the last 7 years.

The first funded project was in the 05-06 funding cycle and was for a section of the LA River bike path with an award of $500,000.

The second was in the 06-07 funding cycle and resulted in an award of $1.25 million for a quarter mile of bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge, a project that was referred to as having a total value of approximately $7 million. (Bike lanes are essentially painted lines supported by signs and the cost typically runs $50K per mile)

The LADOT took the $1.25 million for the quarter mile of bike lane on the Fletcher Bridge and then applied to the Metro for the same project, calling it a “Bikeway Improvement” and asking for approximately $7.5 million, referring to the total value of the project as $20 million.

In other words, the LADOT has funded a Bridge-Widening project using Bikeways Improvement money by disguising it as a Bikeways project.

It is against the backdrop of the extravagant Fletcher “bike lane” project that cyclists ask about simple improvements to the cycling environment such as better curb lane maintenance, traffic signals that recognize cyclists and more bike parking throughout the city.

It’s unfortunate that cyclists have to rely on specific funding and aren’t simply included in all roadway design, improvements and maintenance projects. That day will come soon.

In the meantime, the meager funding set aside for cyclists ends up cobbled together to fund projects that fail to demonstrate a commitment to cyclists as much as they demonstrate a commitment to road widening.

The Bicycle Plan has the potential to be a significant and powerful document, full of vision and promise and hope.

For that to happen the Bicycle Plan needs to start with Equality as the principle that drives all Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Encouragement and Evaluation options and choices.

(Stephen Box is a cyclist activist and writes for CityWatch.)