Bicycle Awareness: For Those in Power, Ignorance is Still Bliss!

CityWatch, Oct 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 84

RETHINKING LA - Law enforcement officers are fond of quoting the popular standard "ignorance of the law excuses no one" when dealing with the public but when faced with an accusation of scofflaw behavior, suddenly ignorance is a solid defense.

The LAPD officers responsible for the blocked Bike Lane pictured above are going to have a hard time explaining why they were out shopping on Sunset Blvd instead of protecting and serving, but as for the illegal parking job, it’s not their fault. They merely need to plead ignorance and then point to the DMV.

After all, the DMV’s “Wilco Tango Foxtrot” interpretation of the California Vehicle Code specifies “You may park in a bicycle lane if your vehicle does not block a bicyclist and/or there is not a "No Parking" sign posted.”

From the top down, the State of California and the City of Los Angeles need to get together and embark on an education program directed at those in charge, those responsible for operating this state and this city.

Between the DMV’s car-centric creative interpretation of the law and the CHP’s complete ignorance of the rules of the road as they apply to pedestrians and cyclists, [link] it is apparent that the real opportunity to make our streets safer for everybody is to start with those in power.

Last year, the LAPD developed a Bicycle Awareness training [link] program for its officers that firmly established the rights of cyclists on the streets and replaced “ride to the right” with “ride where it’s right” as the principle for lane positioning.

Bike Activists were given the opportunity to participate in the development of the program and the Cyclist/LAPD Task Force was optimistic that the Bicycle Awareness training would have a significant impact on the streets, turning LAPD officers into partners, not adversaries.

Unfortunately, the mandate to participate in the training program was not as significant as the promises made to the cycling community and it is now easier to find officers who have never heard of the program than it is to find officers who have participated and who understand the concepts.

Just last week, a LAPD Supervisor responsible for special events went into a tirade over “cyclists who impede traffic by taking up the whole lane” and “cyclists who ride side by side.” The street that he was referring to, San Fernando Road, has two lanes in both directions with a left turn pocket in the center. This LAPD Supervisor needs to engage in some Bike Awareness training before he spreads any more mis-information about cyclists and “impeded traffic.”

The DASH bus operator pictured here was headed north on Vermont Avenue when he came up behind me and my wife as we rode our bikes in the curb lane. Instead of dropping behind us to pull to the curb, this guy honked from behind, then pulled alongside on our left, “asserted” himself and moved to the curb in the direction of his bus stop.

His willful violation of CVC 27001(a) and CVC 21750 clearly demonstrate that this “professional” bus operator is either ignorant of the law or a scofflaw, in either case, unfit for service.

The City of LA’s Department of Transportation is responsible for operating a fleet of 400 buses that provides 30 million trips per year aboard the DASH, the Commuter Express, Cityride, Shuttles and Charter services.

Simply training the operators of those 400 buses on the rights of cyclists would make the streets safer but that Bicycle Awareness program never made it out of the hands of the LAPD.

Passing a cyclist is no cause to honk, in fact it distracts the cyclist at the worst possible moment, in this case as the operator is about to illegally and unsafely force the cyclist from the road in violation of the prohibition against “interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle or bicycle.”

Complaints to the LADOT typically result in an obtuse explanation of the Byzantine network of contractors who operate the LADOT’s transit system, one that allows the City of LA to avoid responsibility for educating its bus operators on Bicycle Awareness. (link)

LA County’s Metro is the largest operator of buses in the region and it still has a training manual that instructs its operators to sound the horn for “cyclists and other road hazards.”

The Metro’s Chairman of the Board is LA’s Mayor Villaraigosa and LA controls three other seats which are filled by City Councilman José Huizar, Richard Katz, and Mel Wilson. In other words, the City of LA has a tremendous impact on the operation of the Metro and a tremendous responsibility for its performance.

Perhaps it’s time to share the LAPD’s Bicycle Awareness program with the Metro!

LA’s Department of Water & Power moves a lot of equipment through the streets of Los Angeles, relying on a combination of staff and contractors to operate its fleet of trucks.

The incident pictured here is still being debated by LA’s policy makers and City Attorney, resulting in a clear demonstration of the need for greater education and an understanding of the rules of the road. Are crosswalks an extension of the sidewalk? If so, can cyclists ride in the crosswalk? If not, how do we explain the Orange Line Bike Path?

Through it all, once the debate is put aside, the important thing to remember is that the City of LA operates huge pieces of equipment on local neighborhood streets that are surrounded with homes, populated with families, and filled with pedestrians and cyclists who have as much right to the streets as the professional vehicle operators moving the City of LA’s equipment.

LA is a company town and our neighborhoods are Hollywood’s backlot. That’s one of the things that makes LA such a magical city.

But the people who issue film permits don’t seem to realize that a Bike Lane is a traffic lane, that it is not simply an extension of the parking lane. Most importantly, Trucks that are 8’6” wide don’t fit into a parking lane that is 7’ wide. [link]

The City of LA issues film permits and retired LAPD officers in uniform provide traffic control for the film shoots begging the question, “Who is responsible for their training and education?”

The film shoot pictured above should have lane closure and traffic control so that cyclists riding downhill on Sunset get the same respect that motorists would get if the lane ahead were closed.

Some of the greatest threats to a cyclist have nothing to do with the operators of large vehicles and everything to do with those responsible for repairs and maintenance. [link]

Detours that appear with no warning, manhole covers that aren’t flush with the surface of the street, cracks between asphalt and cement bus pads, gutter pans that aren’t flush, poorly positioned water mains, divets from special event equipment, and drain grates that run parallel to the curb are all deadly road hazards for cyclists.

For all the promise of Eurotopian Bikeway engineering, the real opportunity to engineer our streets for cyclists is to start by educating those responsible for maintenance and repair of our streets on the needs of cyclists and on the difference between a Hummer and a Huffy.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has embraced cycling as a viable mode of transportation and has committed to supporting cyclists with the full force of his Mayoral authority, directing City of LA department heads to partner with him in making LA a Bike Friendly city.

If he is serious about his commitment, he’ll make Bike Education a priority and he’ll start by educating the City Family on Bicycle Awareness, from the LAPD to the DWP to the LADOT.

Imagine 40,000 City of LA employees going about their business with a new sensitivity to how streets work, to the rights of cyclists, to the repair, and maintenance of streets so that they are safe for everybody.

For all the talk of “40 miles a year” of Bikeways improvement and millions of dollars in Measure R money, the real opportunity to move LA forward immediately is to embrace Bike Education, for cyclists, for motorists, for the LAPD, for the engineers, for the policy makers and the pothole fillers, so that the people who use the streets understand how to integrate cyclists into the traffic mix.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net .)

CityWatchLA - Wilbur Ave Bike Lane Brouhaha an LADOT Conspiracy?

CityWatch, Oct 12, 2010
Vol 8 Issue 81

"I used to believe in conspiracies, until I discovered incompetence." -Former L.A. councilwoman Ruth Galanter

A simple Bureau of Street Services (BOSS) resurfacing project on the Valley's Wilbur Avenue and a Department of Transportation (LADOT) "road diet" have kicked the proverbial hornet's nest, resulting in a clash of cultures that continues to escalate, drawing both CD12's Councilman Smith and LADOT's departing GM Rita Robinson into the fracas. Nine months ago, the BOSS notified local agencies and utilities that Wilbur Avenue, between Devonshire and Chatsworth, was scheduled for a facelift. After allowing six months to pass, ensuring that there are no construction conflicts, the BOSS went to work performing a street improvement that typically brings cheers from the community.

The Department of Transportation, which has three sections engaged in the business of designing street plans, (only two of them subscribe to the BOSS notifications!) jumped on the street resurfacing opportunity and implemented a "road diet." Wilbur went from two lanes in both directions to one lane in each direction, a left turn lane, and bike lanes on both sides.

All this took place quietly. No outreach, no coordination between the LADOT and the neighborhood councils or the CD12 council office or the cycling community or the local PTA or the local NASCAR chapter. No coordination took place between the LADOT's Operations, Geometrics, and Bikeways divisions. Nobody notified the City of LA's Bicycle Advisory Committee. Nada!

The LADOT argues that they simply took advantage of an opportunity to engage in a "road diet" and to add bike lanes and that they should be congratulated, not criticized. "After all," says LADOT's Assistant GM John Fisher, "the 1996 Bike Plan calls for bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue and we had a very small amount of time to design and implement a new striping plan. We had no time for outreach."

Conspiracy theorists tend look at situations such as this and wonder if the LADOT simply dropped bike lanes onto Wilbur as part of an engineered conflict strategy, killing any hope of a bikeway network, resulting in an "I told you they don't fit!" declaration and allowing a return to "business as usual."

Realists, like Galanter, will look at this situation and simply chalk it up to incompetence.

1) LADOT Incompetence: Wilbur Avenue has been designated for Bike Lanes since '96 and yet the LADOT Bikeways division never developed a striping plan. 14 years is a long time and yet the LADOT claims they had no time for outreach because the resurfacing work was a surprise to them.

DOT Operations subscribes to the BOSS resurfacing notification yet DOT Bikeways doesn't. The simplest and cheapest way to introduce bikeways facilities to the streets of LA is to work cooperatively with other departments.

2) Outreach Incompetence: The LADOT has a Bikeways Project Coordinator who somehow has the time to travel, from Sacramento and Chattanooga, giving presentations on facilities that don't exist in the City of Los Angeles.

It would seem that the highest priority would be on coordinating the divisions within the LADOT, the LADOT with other city departments, and the City of LA with the people who actually walk, ride bikes, take mass transit and drive the streets.

Most importantly, it would seem that coordinating transportation issues with the people of Los Angeles would be a priority but, based on results, such was not the case.

For all of the billion dollar transportation solutions on the horizon, the simplest opportunity for the people of LA to improve access and mobility is to focus on "human infrastructure," information and education that results in small behavioral shifts, all adding up to safer streets, greater communication and cooperation, and enhanced effectiveness for all modes.

The Wilbur Avenue incident is the epitome of arrogance, imposing a solution on the community without input and then framing the situation as a win-lose proposal.

It created a situation that consumed incredible amounts of energy and time, not from the folks who are on the clock, but from the community, all because the LADOT is evidently incapable or unwilling to simply engage the community in the solution.

"Road diets" are not new and the notion that moderate speeds increase capacity and through-put is counter-intuitive but true.

The fact that property values go up as speeds go down and the fact that local residents can cross the street safely and enjoy active transportation when cut-through traffic is eliminated are all missing from the conversation because the conversation never took place.

The LADOT must embrace a "Common Ground" approach to traffic engineering or the Wilbur Incident repeat itself in other neighborhoods.

3) Council Office Incompetence: Councilman Smith has come forward to argue that the bike lanes don't make sense. In fact, he went so far as to introduce a motion that would require all bikeways improvements to go to the local neighborhood council for approval. This from a guy who has worked the hardest in city council to keep neighborhood councils from gathering steam.

He has championed speed limit increases in his district over neighborhood council objections. But now, they become his ally (or tool) in fighting the LADOT who acted against his wishes.

Smith objects to the bike lanes on Wilbur Avenue, claiming cyclists are only 2% of the population and that they shouldn't get more than their share.

He forgets that when discussing Measure R, he fought to have the funding for bikeways improvements reduced below 0.75%, again arguing that cyclists should only get their fair share.

He apparently subscribes to the win-lose theory of transportation planning (wait until he finds out about the Complete Streets Act!) and is simply confused on what constitutes "fair share."

The upside to Smith's involvement in the brouhaha is his motion that now directs all transportation projects in the community to the neighborhood council, a position that empowers the community and introduces accountability and oversight to the mysteries of transportation.

4) LA Times incompetence: Sandy Banks wrote a column bemoaning the Wilbur Avenue "improvements" and demonstrates the casualness that is all too common at the LA Times. While the general public may not care too much about the difference between bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths, one would think that journalists would at least attempt to differentiate between a $2K bike route and a $1.5MM bike path. (Wilbur gets neither but that doesn't stop the LA Times from getting them mixed up)

The LA Times refers to 400 miles of existing bikeways facilities, projects the addition 40 more per year for the next 20 years, and predicts a resulting 1600 miles of Bike lanes and paths. Whew! Too much cut-and-paste on the Mayor's press release! The reality is this, there are currently 58 miles of paths and 157 miles of lanes.

The proposed Bike Plan will result in 157 miles of paths and 213 miles of lanes. The Mayor's promise of 1600 miles includes 511 miles of studies, 101 miles of routes, and 651 miles of friendly streets. Step away from the Kool-Aid!

Banks (and the Times) can be forgiven the sloppy grasp of transportation designations and mathematical failures but the LA Times column inadvertently justifies "road diets" with when it protests the impact of the bike lanes on Wilbur.

Banks writes "For years, Wilbur Avenue had been a free-flowing community secret, a commuter street that bypassed the congestion of Northridge's main routes. Then a "street improvement" project last month turned our speedway into a parking lot."

The Wilbur "road diet" isn't a tool for benefiting cyclists, it's a strategy for getting Banks and other motorists to slow down, to stop using the smooth-flowing street as a cut-through alternative to the arterials that are congested. It is a tool for returning streets to the community, to the people who live in the neighborhood.

Through it all it is evident that the real clash of cultures is not between cyclists and motorists, nor is it between locals and cut-through traffic. It is between City Departments that operate with complete arrogance combined with contempt for the public and Neighborhood Councils, empowered by the City Charter to advise the Mayor and the City Council on the budget and the delivery of services.

The Wilbur Avenue fracas is dismissed by many as a tempest in a local neighborhood teapot but the impact will resonate throughout the city. This could be good for neighborhood councils, it could be good for local residents and merchants who are most directly impacted by cut-through traffic, and it could be good for people of all modes if we can work together and establish common ground.

For that to happen, it's important that puff pieces such as LA's proposed Bike Plan are analyzed for accuracy and held to a performance standard.

It's imperative that the Bike Plan be incorporated into the community plans and that it is integrated into LA's strategic transportation plan. Most importantly,

LA's proposed Bike Plan must satisfy the Complete Streets Act which goes in to effect on Jan 1, 2011.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Cyclists/LAPD Task Force Celebrates Bike Week

Thursday's meeting of the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force marked the 5th meeting of cyclists and LAPD brass, all in an effort to support cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles with LAPD policies and training that are relevant and effective. It's been a long journey but it has paid of and the LAPD has delivered.

Sgt. Krumer screened the LAPD's new online training module for patrol officers that clearly articulates the rights of cyclists and the LAPD's commitment to supporting cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. It was rewarding to hear the LAPD's narrator say "All streets are a street that a cyclist will ride." The debate over "Ride where it's right" vs. "Ride to the right" is addressed and the training session concludes:

"As police officers, it is our duty to ensure the rights and the safety of all users of the roadway. Cyclists deserve a well trained police force that understands the law and its application. The Department is committed to supporting the cycling community and encourages all of its officers to educate both motorists and cyclists of their mutual obligations to respect each other and SHARE THE ROAD."

Chief Doan then recapped some new LAPD  policies, directives and a Special Order that address several of the issues that the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force has addressed over the last several months.

* Cyclists have long complained that the law requires them to ride in bike lanes (except in specific circumstances) yet the city turns a blind eye when motorists, production companies, armored trucks, or trash cans block the lanes, creating an obstacle course for cyclists.

 The LAPD met with LADOT's Chief Jimmy Price of Parking Enforcement and has issued an Operations Notice clarifying the need to cite for "impeding/blocking bike lanes."

* Cyclists are often given conflicting information about the appropriateness of riding in the crosswalk, typically after an incident involving a collision with a motorist. The irony here is that the Orange Line takes cyclists from the protected Bike Path through intersections by using the crosswalk, yet cyclists get cited in some cases and a dead cyclist was blamed for her death because "she was riding the wrong way in a crosswalk."


The LAPD has clarified that crosswalks are extensions of the sidewalk and if sidewalk cycling is allowed, crosswalk cycling is allowed.

* Cyclists in Los Angeles sometimes encounter law enforcement officers from different agencies, all on the same streets. From the LAPD to the County Sheriffs to the Highway Patrol, it can sometimes be tough to figure out who to call and who's in charge. Recently, a cyclist was hit by a Metro bus, he then called LAPD but the LASD showed up and allegedly prevented the cyclist from obtaining the bus operators information. (LASD works for the Metro)

The LAPD has clarified and issued a Communications Division dispatch policy that the LAPD has authority over incidents involving the Metro on the streets of Los Angeles.

*Cyclists who are injured when forced from the road or when taking evasive action are the victims of a No-Contact Traffic Incident and the motorists who caused the incidents are responsible, even though there was no contact. The term "hit and run" applies to those who fail to "hit" but flee the scene. Two recent incidents highlighted the need to clarify the need to address this situation and the LAPD has issued a Special Order that clarifies the LAPD's responsibility and commitment to "No-Contact Traffic Reports with Injuries."

When the Cyclists/LAPD Task Force first met, it was at times a bit adversarial, with cyclists pushing and the LAPD defending, but this journey has paid off. As of this Bike Week meeting, the LAPD speaks the language of Bike Activists. This was the best Bike to Work Day event in town.

CityWatchLA - LADOT Demonstrates Need For Department of DIY

CityWatch, June 5, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 45

The City Council took another swing at LA's antiquated bike licensing program, taking the House of Molasses one step closer to a complete repeal of the controversial law. 

Cyclists have long complained that the Bike Licensing program was ineffective, pointing out that the licenses weren't actually available and that a database of registered bicycle owners wasn't actually maintained. 

Critics went further pointing out that the law was so poorly written as to require anyone riding a bike through LA from a neighboring community to purchase a bike license and that the fine of $160 for riding a bike without a license exceeded LA's authority under state law. Through it all, the LA Department of Transportation and the LA Police Department maintained a contract with Ilium Strategic Marketing & Design for a program educating the public on "the need to register their bicycles." Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in recent years promoting a program that doesn't even exist! 

The issue came to a head last year when the LAPD pulled a group of cyclists over and began citing them for riding their bikes on the streets of LA without bike licenses. The cyclists charged that the citations were a form of harassment, that the LAPD pulled them over and then had to search the book until they could find an infraction. 

The editor of Los Angeles Magazine was on that ride and he detailed the incident and the "retaliatory tickets" in a feature article in the January edition of the magazine. 

This was the proverbial last straw and cyclists organized a "Storm the Bastille" ride and over 100 cyclists filled the City Council's Transportation Committee chambers and charged the LAPD with bias based policing, detailed the absurdity of the bike license program and called for its repeal. 

The LAWeekly was there for the meeting and wrote of the event quoting Rhode Bloch who at one point referred to   the LADOT's Bikeways Department asking "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" [Link] 

Streetsblog wrote of the event finding the showdown between Deputy Chief Earl Paysinger and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to be one of the highlights of an emotional and energetic committee meeting.    

Through it all, the LAPD stood their ground! 
 
The cyclists persevered, charging that the process itself was the punishment, that cyclists either take the ticket and pay $160 (in person!) or take a day off from work to fight the ticket. Either option was unacceptable, especially since their only crime was to challenge the primacy of the motor vehicle by daring to ride a bike on the streets of LA in front of the LAPD. 

For nine months the controversy has simmered and this past Tuesday the Council motion calling for an ordinance repealing the law finally made its way to the full City Council. Phew! 

In spite of the fact that the Councilmembers all agreed on the need to repeal LAMC 26.01, they took the time to engage in a bit of pontificating that left audience members shaking their heads. 

Councilman LaBonge jumped to his feet and immediately shifted the debate "to the children" and pointed out that if a child was hit by a car while riding to school, how would we know the identity of the child? While this doesn't really address the complaint that the LAPD was writing $160 tickets to adults, all of whom carried ID, he raises a good point. 

But the bike license solution is hardly an effective solution to the "child identity" dilemma, especially since kids  borrow bikes, become separated from their bikes and sometimes ... gasp ... even walk to school which leaves us waiting for the LaBonge shoe license proposal. 

Councilman Zine stepped up to regale the audience of his glory days on the beat and of the times in which he was able to return stolen bikes to their owners, all because of the bike license program.   

Unfortunately much has changed since those days and the defunct bike licensing program is no match for the many techniques that today's cyclists employ to deal with bike theft. I was reminded of Rhode Bloch's exclamation at the Transpo committee. "Have they never spoken to a cyclist?" 

Cyclists these days use a variety of techniques for "marking" bikes so that they can be identified and reclaimedby their owners. In fact while the LAPD is still relying on a cigar box filled with receipts and index cards, cyclists employ a variety of online resources to support safe cycling in the City of LA. Imagine if the City Council were to actually work with the cycling community! 

Cyclists can register their bike at stolenbikeregistry.com list their stolen bike on totalbike.com post or text incidents with motorists on BikeX post locations of crashes, hazards and thefts at Bikewise, email in Metro incidents to Metro@illuminateLA.com or hit-and-run incidents to HitAndRun@gmail.com 

All of this speaks volumes about the strained relationship between our City's leadership and the cycling community. 

As for the DIY movement in the cycling community, Bicycling Magazine recently highlighted the exploits of LA's Department of DIY and the recent short lived Fletcher Bridge bike lane improvements that were installed in the middle of the night and at no cost to the City of LA. 

The LADOT responded with uncharacteristic swiftness and the offending bike lane was painted black and the supporting signage was removed. Bicycling magazine quoted the LADOT Bikeways Coordinator as saying the DIY incident "lost goodwill." 

Rosendahl took some time during the bike license debate to address LA's relationship with the cycling community and he asked the same LADOT Bikeways Coordinator about the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, a document that he has been championing since the horrendous Mandeville Canyon incident of last year that left two cyclists broken and bleeding, purportedly at the hands of a motorist who found their lane positioning offensive. 

The Bikeways Coordinator responded that the Cyclists' Bill of Rights was still under review because there were a few items that gave them some concern and they were reviewing the document with the help of the City Attorney. This is the same document that opens by claiming "Cyclists have the right to travel safely and free of fear." One can only wonder if it's the "travel safely" or the "free of fear" that gives the LADOT staff cause for concern. 

Rosendahl pressed on and went after the City's long overdue Bike Plan. When he asked the LADOT how many miles of BIKE PATHS there are in Los Angeles, the LADOT sidestepped the specific question and  instead responded "About 5% of the City's roadway network has a bikeways facility on it." 

(There are 6,500 miles of roadway in Los Angeles. There are 51 miles of BIKE PATH and there are 142 miles of BIKE LANE.) 

At the end of the day, the long, slow and cumbersome repeal of the City's Bike License law drove home the simple message that if the City of Los Angeles is going to become a bike-friendly city, it will be a Department of DIY project.  

“Cyclists across LA have until June 12 to review and offer suggestions to city planning officials on proposed new bike lanes that would traverse the city.” Complete LA Times report here .  

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

LA Bike Plan's "Proposed Bicycle Network" Aims Low and Still Falls Short

Last Thursday was Groundhogs Day for LA's long overdue Bike Plan and the Draft Bike Map peeked its head out of the city's Byzantine den of multi-departmental oversight and looked around for its shadow.

The release was quiet with only neighborhood council members notified of the availability of the Draft Bike Map at local libraries as well as online at http://www.labikeplan.org/bikeway_maps.

There may have been others notified but as somebody who signed in at four workshops, I find it strange that I didn't receive notification. Apparently the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, The LA County Bicycle Coalition, the Caltrans Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Bike Writers Collective and the many local cycling organizations were also left off the distribution list.

Nevertheless, word of the release spread quickly and the public has had the weekend to review the three Draft Bike Maps.

Heres my take on the City of LA's Bicycle Plan Draft Bike Map:

1) Outreach: FAIL! Seriously, what is it going to take to get the LADOT (and Planning) to engage the public and to treat the community with a little respect. The LADOT Coordinator had previously claimed that the budget for outreach was 20% of the $450K budget for the Bicycle Plan. Surely that would cover the cost of emailing those who are established in the cycling community or those who have attended prior meetings and signed up for notifications. City's Transportation Committee, as far back as Jan 10, 2007, has taken the time to specifically instruct the LADOT to include the public in the process. And yet, the current distribution for the Draft Bike Map left out the cycling community.

2) Format: FAIL! Surely we could find somebody at Starbucks with an iPhone who could throw this map through iMap and perhaps generate something close to useable. Others more knowledgeable than I have commented:

"This map is embarrasing. If I was forced to release a map like this by a client I would hang my head in shame." Marcotico

I find the maps to be cumbersome and close to useless with a dose of frustrating thrown in. I looked at my neighborhood, was unable to compare the new map with the old, was unable to filter the noise, was unable to do anything other than to exclaim "More of the same from the LADOT!"

3) Vision: FAIL! This document sets out to aim low and then still falls short. Who gets to call improvements "infeasible" and decide that cyclists belong on side streets? Who gets to position a diluted "bike friendly" designation as our hope for improving the city of Los Angeles for cyclists? Why not include real data such as vehicle counts or speed limits or hipster coffeehouses or any of the many factors that make a streets favorable for cyclists? Why not set the bar really, really high and then let the community come together to make it happen?

How about a tally sheet. Be so bold as to give us the actual mileage of proposed Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, Bike Routes and Bike Boulevards. LADOT Assistant General Manager John Fisher went on record with some commitments. Are they reflected on this map?Tell us what's really on the table.

4) Usefulness: FAIL! I simply have to look at Hollywood and ask the simple question "Will this improve conditions as I ride from home to USC, Downtown, Griffith Park, Glendale, Burbank, the Valley, the Westside, NE LA, South LA, Harbor, ANYWHERE?" Seriously, the answer is no! Even the existing popular routes that I ride now remain unimproved by anything so simple as signage or sharrows or any encouragement while at the same time "bike friendly" streets are identified that appear to encourage me to "get out of the way" of motorists on their popular routes. This is not a useful document nor does it reflect a useful strategy or vision.

Why gray out neighboring communities? We still ride through them and any evaluation of efficacy of routes will include connecting with neighboring communities. Why can't LA play nice with the neighbors? Do we really need 88 municipal maps as well as the County map?

5) Clarity: FAIL! The cloud of "unfeasible" routes simply creates visual noise that obscures the brutal reality. There is no Bikeways vision in place, there is no clearly articulated strategy or commitment to standards or improvements. Optional, subject to further evaluation and "may include" are the foggy terms that allow this document to deteriorate in an expensive suggestion.

Graphic artists have reacted at first glance with shock that a cumbersome mapping document such as this was released to the public with a straight face.

"tried to pull it into adobe illustrator to separate out the wishful thinking parts but it's lo res flattened artwork... no dice, thus wishing for them to put this into google maps and allow for turning off and on proposed routes versus infeasable routes etc... pdf fucking sucks and since it's a lo res image they could have just as well made it a jpeg..." RB

"Ahh, why can't someone make a better online mapping interface that doesn't suck... PDFs are so 1990..." jerich1ne

6) Standards: FAIL! There are Bike Routes, there are Bike Lanes and there are "Shared Roadways." Then there are Bike Boulevards. Well, there would be if the LADOT wasn't so afraid of them. The LADOT needs to settle down and set standards and then work from that position. Others have begun the process. There are Bike Routes, there are Bike Lanes and there are "Shared Roadways." Seriously, we know what Bike Paths and Bike Lanes are and where they are but EVERY street is a "Shared Roadway" and even with bike paths and bike lanes, cyclists can ride all the streets. The challenge is to support cyclists who ride the streets of Los Angeles. How is this new "Shared Roadways" designation going to do this?

7) Vocabulary: FAIL! Repeating the phrase "where bicyclists have full legal access under the California Vehicle Code" is completely unnecessary and a waste of space. It goes without saying (kind of like "the laws of gravity will apply to all users of this street") but if necessary, say it once on the map and get it over with. Better yet, use the legal standard which is that cyclists have the right ride on roads and highways unless expressly prohibited. That means the streets of LA and it also means 1000 miles of highway in the State of California. Why does LA keep sprinkling this little bit of "permission" on the small streets?

In addition, using soft words and phrases such as "might be implemented" and "subject to further evaluation" and "applications of various treatments" leaves enough vagueness as to be meaningless and useless.

8) Subterfuge: SUCCESS! The LADOT wrote the scope of work for this project and secured the funding and handled the call and made the presentations to the City Council. All through the process, it was clearly driven by the LADOT. The Bike Plan consultant kicked off the Bike Plan process by referring specifically to the LADOT Coordinator by name as the authority that framed the specs of the process and the direction of the vision. Along the way, the Bicycle Plan, which is part of LA's Transportation Plan which is in turn part of the City of LA's General Plan, was shuffled so that a member of Planning was listed as the project manager but rest assured, this is an LADOT project and the vision comes from LADOT's mandate to move motor vehicles.

Make no mistake, no matter how hard the LADOT works to put the Bike Plan on Planning, this is an LADOT project and that is a good thing for motorists. This is funded with Bikeways funding, this should benefit cyclists but it is driven by a commitment for moving cyclists out of the way of motorists.

9) Funded activity with no real impact: SUCCESS! This map is an indication of things to come. It lacks commitment, uses soft language and includes enough "gray" markings to create the illusion that there is some real Bikeways activity taking place. It has colorful dotted lines that indicate things to come (or not) it has lots of routes that will get you where you need to go (or not) and it will have kept a lot of people gainfully employed during its long gestation period. It's a funding exercise!

10) Creative use of the word "UNFEASIBLE" in a vision document: SUCCESS! Is this an engineering standard? Is this a planning document? When did political will dictate the creation of a master planning document? Why is the LADOT's philosophy the driving force in this process? What happened to public input?

Overall, I'm calling the LA Bike Plan Update Draft Bike Map a complete success from the LADOT's perspective for subterfuge, funding and the bold use of the word "UNFEASIBLE" but a complete failure from the perspective of the cyclists who have hope that they'll get some support as the ride the streets of LA.

From my perspective, I'm calling this process flawed from the beginning and I'm putting my hopes for better cycling on the streets of Los Angeles in the hands of the DIY crew!

"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?"

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!"

Yawn...another lame bike lane in Los Angeles...

Riding my bike north on Reseda Boulevard, I'm nestled into the doorzone comfort of a typical LA Bike Lane when, all of a sudden, no bike lane. Just the ass end of a White SUV!

For some strange reason the bike lane simply ends. There's no signage to indicate that the bike lane has ended but the right side stripe simply ends, the lane to the left moves to the right and there you have it...another entry in the Lamest Bike Lane Contest!



I find it hard to believe that the LADOT would pull such a trick on the cycling community. The SUV must be parked illegally. If only there were a Police Officer in the vicinity, I could ask for clarification.

It's then that I notice a police car cruising the Park. It entered on the North side and drove across the lawn...

past the pint-sized children chasing soccer balls...


past the families watching the children play...

past the duck pond and the little ducks and more little children.

What kind of Community Policing consists of driving through the park without even getting out and saying hey to the children or without saying quack to the ducks or without slowing down long enough to notice that people are laughing and shaking their heads at the drive-thru law enforcement?