LADOT Bikeways Misses Another Opportunity to Connect

This past week, Caltrans hosted two “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” seminars that were attended by bike activists representing illuminateLA, the Bike Writers Collective, Sustainable Streets, the LA Bike Working Group, Bikeside, the OCBC, and CICLE, by municipal planners representing Pasadena, Long Beach, Claremont and San Dimas, and by Caltrans staff including Engineers, Planners, Architects, Environmental and Legal.

Missing from the meeting was staff from the LADOT Bikeways Department. While some participants travelled from distant cities by plane, train, and automobile, staying overnight in hotels, the LADOT staff would simply have to walk downstairs from their 9th floor office in the same building. But they didn’t.

This is especially unfortunate because the subject of Sharrows was addressed during the seminar and the LADOT Bikeways staff missed hearing the “Understanding Bicycle Transportation” instructors address these points:



1) Sharrows should be positioned in relation to the travel lane to the left, not the curb line to the right.

2) Sharrows should be positioned (default placement) between the tire tracks of motor vehicle traffic in order to indicate a lane control position and to increase life of the Sharrows.

3) Sharrows must be placed so that they both discourage too-close-in-lane passing by motorists and door-zone (<13’ from the curb) riding by cyclists.

During another portion of the seminar, an instructor addressed poorly positioned Sharrows and liability and responsibility:



1) If a motor vehicle traveling in a straight line in the travel lane and a cyclist riding a meandering line of Sharrows placed a consistent distance from the curbline of a variable width street were to collide, the motorist would have right-of-way. Aftert all, the cyclist would be "merging traffic" and would be at fault.

2) Sharrows should be placed so that the cyclist using the Sharrows as a guide for lane position ends up in control of the lane, not in an inferior right-of-way (ROW) position that engineers conflict.

Meanwhile, back on the streets of Los Angeles, there are three issues with LA’s pilot Sharrows project that need to be addressed by the LADOT’s Bikeways Department. Requests for clarification and adjustment have elicited evasive responses that do not resolve the simple engineering dilemma.

1) The purpose of a Sharrow as articulated by the CTCDC and Caltrans is threefold:

a) To position cyclists out of the door zone. (minimum is 11’, experts call for 13’)

b) To position cyclists in a lane control position on a non-sharable (<14”) lane.

c) To clearly communicate to road users the correct lane control position for cyclists.

2) LA’s pilot Sharrows project adheres to two arbitrary installation guidelines:

a) The Sharrows are consistently placed 12’ from the curbline, even on a street of variable width.

b) The Sharrows are inconsistently placed at variable distance from each intersection, not based on the distance from the intersection but placed adjacent to the first vehicle parking space.

3) LADOT’s Bikeways Department either has guidelines and a standard for its pilot Sharrows project or it doesn’t.

a) If it does, they need to be public and they should be in the hands of LA’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. They also should be in the hands of the public which purportedly will offer feedback on the Sharrows and in the hands of the Neighborhood Councils which monitor the delivery of city services. This is especially true for the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council which actually contributed their money to help fund the Sharrows program.

b) If it doesn’t, they need to look to Long Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Hermosa Beach and borrow theirs. They need to look to Oakland and borrow theirs.

The City of Los Angeles is surrounded by cities who take a short amount of time, prepare a plan, involve the public, and then proceed to do good work, setting standards for excellence and picking up awards and further funding as they go.

Why doesn’t the LADOT Bikeways Department simply imitate success.

The current debate over the elements of LA’s pilot Sharrows projects consists of some simple questions and objections from the public and non-responsive evasive distractions from the LADOT Bikeways staff:

1) LADOT says that this is a pilot project and that these issues are being addressed for the first time. Simply not true. As one angry LABAC member recently pointed out “In 1997 I drove up to Oregon where I saw Sharrows for the first time. I took a picture of them and presented it to the LADOT back in 1997 at a BAC meeting. The LADOT came back and said the concept of a Sharrow was a dangerous liability to the City and they wouldn't consider it.”

The subject of Sharrows is not new, the science of engineering the Sharrows isn’t new, the California Traffic Control Devices Committee, Chaired by the LADOT’s John Fisher, approved Sharrows on August 12, 2004. To hide behind the “We’re new at this!” is simply an avoidance of responsibility by the LADOT Bikeways Department.

2) LADOT responds that calls for supporting signage are new and isolated. Again, simply not true. When the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway was being built, the subject of “engineered conflict” came up (2005) and the public requested “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) signage support but the request was denied.

The issue was conflict between cyclists on a through line in the bike lane while the motorists were given an exit lane that merged across the bike lane. (Similar to the westbound lane on Sunset Blvd. in Silver Lake where a through traveling cyclist was taken out by a motorist merging to Griffith Park Blvd. by Triangle Park) The “Yield to Bikes” (R4-4) and “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” (R4-11) signs are old topics and have been rejected over and over.

3) LADOT responds to calls for positioning the Sharrows based on a relationship to the lane marker to the left as new and isolated. Again, simply not true. The MUTCD’s Guidance on bike lanes directs:

Bicycle Lane Markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) – page 9C-3

Guidance:

Bicycle lane markings on Class II Bikeways (Bike Lane) should be placed a constant distance from the outside motor vehicle lane.

In 2006 this was an issue on Sunset Blvd. where the bike lanes were positioned an equal distance from the curbline, not from the travel lane. The significant variable width of the street resulted in bike lanes that had a meandering relationship to the adjacent travel lane.

4) LADOT responds to comparisons to other cities by feigning ignorance and challenging critics “What cities?” as if they don’t know. If it’s true, it demonstrates a failure of relevance. If it’s not true, it is absolutely unacceptable.

Look at the center lane positon supported by the green stripe on the Sharrows in Long Beach. Look to the R4-11 signage support on the Sharros in Hermosa Beach. Look to the Oaklands standard for guidance on how to plan, how to communicate, how to disseminate information so the public, the implementation team, those responsible for evaluating, those responsible for oversight are all in sync.

LADOT’s Bikeways Department fails to acknowledge the three mandates for Sharrows, instead adhering to two arbitrary rules (12’ from the curb, only alongside parking)

The three biggest problems with the LADOT’s placement of the Sharrows:

1) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that sometimes direct cyclists to an incorrect position.

a) Fountain westbound past Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane, setting up a right hook conflict. Engineered Conflict!

b) 4th Street westbound approaching Vermont, the Sharrow puts the cyclist in a right turn lane to the right of a through/right turn combo lane. Engineered Conflict!

2) Strict adherence to the “12’ from the curb” position results in Sharrows that meanders while through traffic should follow a straight line.

a) Fountain has wb sections where the Sharrows direct cyclists to merge in and out of through traffic.

b) 4th Street has a Sharrow 10’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 15+’ off the center followed by a Sharrow 10’ off the center. This takes place with no sensitivity to the intersection treatment. (flared approach to facilitate right turns, merging traffic from intersection into one lane)

3) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy results in a violation of the Caltrans guidance: “If used, the Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals of 75 m (250 ft) thereafter.”

a) Churches and Convalescent homes with loading zones and parking restrictions may not have on-street parking in front but that shouldn’t interfere with the placement of Sharrows “immediately after an intersection” but the LADOT places them at variable distances based on parking.

b) This results in variable positioning and a delayed merging action at the rear of the first parked car instead of a simple position clarification immediately after the intersection. Very non-sensitive to the context of the environment.

4) Strict adherence to the LADOT’s “Sharrows only adjacent to vehicle parking” policy also results in the placement of Sharrows too close to approaching intersections where traffic should be sorting based on destination (through vs. right-turn) but the Sharrows hold the cyclist in position too long. (Fountain approaching Western or 4th approaching Vermont)

5) The failure of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department to connect with the other city departments that have authority over elements of Fountain and 4th Street demonstrates a complete disconnect from the United States Department of Transportation Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations which calls for “improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects.”

a) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT did not consult with the DWP nor was a survey of water main covers conducted in advance of the Sharrows installation.

b) It is acutely apparent that the LADOT’s partnership with the Bureau of Street Services on the Sharrows installation did not include any synchronicity of street resurfacing or maintenance or pothole repair.

c) It is acutely apparent that this was not a consideration because the LA City Department actually installing the Sharrows at the direction of the LADOT’s Bikeways Department is the same department responsible for LA’s street maintenance and repair.

It is imperative that the LADOT’s Bikeways Department immediately develop and implement a Sharrows Standard, even if only a temporary “pilot project” standard, and that it correctly position the Sharrows based on the travel lane (not the curb), that it correctly position the Sharrows in the lane control position on non-shareable lanes (<14’) and that it clearly communicate (signs and paint) to all road users the correct positon of cyclists on the street.

LADOT Bikeways to LA Cyclists: An Open Letter

Dear Cycling Community,

We've had some great times over the years, we've come a long way together, but it's time to take a hard look at our relationship.

You used to be so happy, so grateful for bits of attention and your very own Bike to Work Week, but lately you seem so demanding. All this talk of equality and the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and wanting support from the LAPD is very disturbing. Especially now that you've started evaluating the performance of the LADOT.

Frankly, it's just too much. It's as if you don't know your place anymore.

Anyway, you seem so unhappy with us!

All of this brings us to that painful place where it's apparent that the best thing is to simply end this relationship and go our separate ways.

There was a time when our relationship had promise, a time when we shared common interests and seemed to benefit from each other's company but things have changed.

We're both under a lot of pressure lately. We have financial issues and you...well...whatever.

Let's just say goodbye and go our separate ways.

If it makes you feel better, it's not you. Truth be told, it's just that...well...there's someone else!

His name is San Antonio and he's so dreamy. He's not very tall but he drives a big car! Well, he doesn't actually drive it himself, he has a driver and it's not really a car, it's a Yukon. Can you believe that! He makes my heart go pitter patter! Anyway, he's quite busy, after all, he's very important, and he has a Deputy named Jaime who drives a big Hummer and he's the one who looks after us.

It's not what you think, it's not like we're a "kept" department, it's just that we're special and we need special attention.

Okay, it's really important that we end things quickly, after all it wouldn't do to make San Antonio jealous. You probably already know how he feels about cyclists and it would just upset him if he saw you hanging around.

As for the Bikeways funding, we're gonna keep it, after all, it was kind of a gift. Right? Surely you understand. We can't give it back anyway, it's already been spent...on...stuff.

Anyway, we've had some good times. We've had some laughs. Remember the Bike Plan? That was good for some laughs. We're still laughing. What a hoot!

Hugs and kisses,

LADOT Bikeways!

p.s. As for LaBonge, you can keep him. We never really took him seriously anyway and besides, he's so annoying!

Good for Bikes, Good for Business! Bike Parking!

Hollywood sits right square in the middle of the universe. At least it does for me and based on the abundant crowds of people and the rampant development and the gridlock traffic, it's true for many others also.

Hollywood is the land of promises, the land of dreams, the land of hope.

It's the kind of neighborhood that urban planners had in mind when they estimated that as much as 30% of the traffic congestion is caused by motorists circling the block and searching for a parking place.

It's the kind of neighborhood that traffic engineers had in mind when they estimated that half of all motor vehicle trips were only a couple of miles in distance.

It's the kind of neighborhood that cyclists have in mind when they suggest that they would be more likely to ride their bikes if only there were end-trip accommodations. (that's another way of saying "Where are the bike racks?")

A couple of years ago, Chicago's Mayor Daley declared his city the greenest big city and went to work supporting healthy activities such as cycling by promising to install ten thousand bike racks. One can track the progress of the bike rack installation online and search by zip code and by ward and by neighborhood. The Department of Transportation has a Department of Bike Parking. Very promising!

Meanwhile, here in Los Angeles, the Department of Transportation's Bikeways Division just presented a contract to the Public Works Department for payment after a four year journey to install 700 bike racks. All this in a city with 6500 miles of streets. At a rate of one bike installed every two days at an average one per nine miles of street, it appears that the contractor did the work on foot.

Of course, this is the land of promise, not of action. This is the land of dreams, not of reality. This is the land of hope, not of results. This is the land where the LADOT paints the orange bike rack markers outside the City Council President's office 8 months ago and then never returns to install the bike racks. They then get away with complete failure to complete a simple bike rack installation.

All this on Hollywood Boulevard, the "Walk of Fame," a pedestrian oriented district and a transit hub, a community with such potential if only there were some bike racks upon which to rest a weary bike. Between La Brea Avenue and Western, there are approximately half a dozen inverted U bike racks, one of the simplest, cheapest and most effective forms of bike parking and yet so rare.

The intersection of Hollywood & Western has a few opportunities for bike parking, none of them good and all of them serving to advertise why riding a bike in Hollywood is a bad idea.

The CRA's Hollywest (Ralph's) development on the NE corner has bike parking at less than the LAMC required minimum but who's gonna bust the CRA. They elected to go with the wheel-bender bike rack and chose to instal it so that the bikes extend into the walkway. The inability to lock the frame of a bike to the rack is advertised by the remains of a bike, a wheel that remains locked to the rack.

The Metro Village (Red Line) development on the SE corner also has bike parking with two typically unused wave racks on the street level and the more popular and effective inverted U racks in the center behind a wall. There's also a bike locker for two but that's a VIP situation and the waiting list is a year long. The inverted U racks have a bike carcass still attached as a reminder to all that leaving a bike at the Hollywood & Western Red Line station is at your own risk. With empty storefronts and a patio that now serves as a campground, the station is far from a secure location for bike parking. Too bad. Such promise if only the racks were in a better position.

The Mayer Building on the SW corner has security bars on the windows and little orange paint marks that promise bike parking in the future but other than that, there is no evidence that riding a bike is an encouraged or supported behavior at the SE corner of Hollywood & Western.

The Thai Hot Dog has the best promise for bike parking with a wrought iron fence that is stretched for several yards. Patrons of the 24 porn shop have plenty of opportunity to lock up their bikes under the brightly illuminated signage and in front of the heavily trafficked popular business. Who would have thought?

Bike parking is such a simple amenity and it goes such a great distance in changing the character of a neighborhood. Putting bike racks up front in plain sight is not only a great security measure, it also encourages and reinforces cycling as a viable transportation solution.

The inverted U rack is the simplest and cheapest but there are other racks that are a bit more stylized while still offering the basic two points of frame contact and an opportunity to secure the frame with a U-lock, all while securing the bike out of the traffic lane of the pedestrians.

A little wayfinding goes a long way and serves to normalize cycling by reminding people that cyclists also have a place in the neighborhood.

Bike racks don't have to be boring and plain, they simply need to work.

Sometimes they take on a whimsical or artistic flair.

Sometimes they are a part of the public art in a public space.

They simply need to run parallel to foot traffic and offer two points of contact for the frame.

They can be converted parking meter poles.

In some lands they even protect from the elements. (I know, we don't even do that for people!)

Car spaces can be converted into bike parking with great success and look at the capacity !

Great racks in great locations are good for cyclists and good for the neighborhood and good for business!

Bike parking can also be innovative and opportunistic, such as this out of commission boat that uses the sliding racks like the ones that have been sitting unused at Hollywood & Western for a couple of years.

These bike racks have been kept under lock and key where they're safe, since 2005. Not one has been stolen.

These are some of the loneliest bike racks in the city of Los Angeles. The next closest racks are a mile to the west and a quarter mile to the east.

When in doubt, add some more racks.

Why can't we get along?

Apparently we can!

For the nature lover in all of us!

While the City of Los Angeles is full of examples such as these of weak and ineffective attempts to provide bike parking, the City Council went to work and put into place an ordinance specifying the City's bike parking standards. All that's required is the political will to implement this legislation.

From the Los Angeles Municipal Code: (LAMC 12.21-A. 16)

16. Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities. (Added by Ord. No. 167,409, Eff. 12/19/91.) Off-street parking spaces for bicycles and facilities for employee showers and lockers shall be provided as follows:

(a) In the C and M zones, for any building, portion thereof or addition thereto used for non-residential purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet, bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the rate of two percent of the number of automobile parking spaces required by this section for such non-residential uses; provided, however, that at least one bicycle parking space shall be provided for any such building having a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet of non-residential use. If the calculation of the number of required spaces under this paragraph results in a number including a fraction, the next highest whole number shall be the number of spaces required.

(b) The bicycle parking space requirements in Paragraph (a) shall also apply to any building, regardless of zone, owned by the City of Los Angeles and used by the City for government purposes which contains a floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.

(c) All bicycle parking spaces required by this Subdivision shall include a stationary parking device which adequately supports the bicycle. In addition, at least half of the bicycle parking spaces shall include a stationary parking device which securely locks the bicycle without the use of a user-supplied cable or chain. Devices which hold the bicycle upright by wheel contact must hold at least 180 degrees of wheel arc.

(d) Each bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of two feet in width and six feet in length and shall have a minimum of six feet of overhead clearance.

(e) Bicycle parking spaces shall be located no farther than the distance from a main entrance of the building to the nearest off-street automobile parking space.

(f) Bicycle parking spaces shall be separated from automobile parking spaces or aisles by a wall, fence, or curb or by at least five feet of open space marked to prohibit parking.

(g) Aisles providing access to bicycle parking spaces shall be at least five feet in width.

(h) Signage which is clearly legible upon approach to every automobile entrance to the parking facility shall be displayed indicating the availability and location of bicycle parking.

(i) Showers and lockers shall be provided as required by Section 91.6307 of this Code. (Amended by Ord. No. 177,103, Eff. 12/18/05.)

It was up to the LADOT Bikeways Division to develop the standards for bike parking and they did not disappoint!
While cities such as Chicago fumble along with commitments and results, Los Angeles demonstrates its unique approach to supporting the cycling community by putting pen to paper towel and drafting some almost accurate plans for bike parking installation, closing any back doors and putting to rest any insinuations that the LADOT is insincere in its support of cycling as a valid means of transportation.

(The paper towel is actually the bike rack plan offered by LADOT Bikeways to facilitate the installation of the bike racks at the Griffith Observatory. It's hard to imagine how it resulted in the re-installation and then the re-re-installation of the racks. It looks so simple, complete with the minor error included!)

Let there be no doubt. The evidence is in! The LADOT Bikeways Division is committed to supporting the cycling community!