CityWatchLA - Mayor Hits Ground, Misses Opportunity

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bike crash has generated press around the country, prompting well wishes from around the globe, but somehow failing to elicit the most basic of the appropriate post-crash behavior from the highest ranking member of LA's cycling community.

The New York Times recounts the details of the Mayor's recent bike ride that ended quickly when a taxi operator pulled out in front of him and caused him to fall, resulting in a broken elbow that required surgery. It also references the Mayor's Copenhagen revelation of last year when he declared "In the area of bicycling I’ve got to do a better job and the city’s got to do a better job" and his new Huffington Post declaration “It’s time to recognize that bicycles also belong on L.A.’s streets.”

Grist refers to the incident as "a prime teachable moment to deflate the myth that collisions between military-sized vehicles and cyclists are no big deal. Instead, he reinforced the notion that public streets are for autos -- and anyone else enters at their own risk."

The Mayor has an opportunity to build on his "Biking in Los Angeles should be a natural" declaration, but it requires action, not just talk and YouTube video thanking the public for their concern. While promises of a Bike Summit play nicely to the cyclists of LA, unless the attendees are the General Managers of the many city departments who have a piece of the streets, it will simply be another opportunity to commiserate over the mean streets of LA as the audience bestows "One of us!" street cred on the Mayor.

I propose that the Mayor's real opportunity is to use the specifics of his bicycle crash on Venice Blvd. as an opportunity to improve the streets of LA for everybody and to do it by engaging in some simple and yet effective solutions.

1) Collect the data. Immediately following an incident on the streets of LA, go to LABikeMap.org and enter the data. (collision, near-miss, road conditions, harassment, etc.) No change will take place without good data and while the City of LA deliberates with Google over cloud computing, Bikeside has simply created a crowd sourcing process that allows the public to collect the data that drives the funding for improving the streets of LA for everybody.

2) Endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The right to travel safely and free of fear is supported by basic law, municipal code, and departmental policy. All that's missing is for the Mayor of Los Angeles to endorse it, communicating to the cycling community that he supports them in word and in action.

3) Implement the Backbone Bikeway Network. Now is the time for the Mayor to commit to connectivity, bringing the full City Family (LAPD, BOSS, Public Works, Planning, DWP, RAP...) together to support the implementation of the Backbone Network, supporting connectivity with Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation and Human Infrastructure that goes beyond simple paint on the street. The Mayor has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by bringing inter-agency leadership (Caltrans, CHP, Metro, LASD, LAUSD, CRA, SCAG...) together to make the Backbone Network an integral element of the Mayor's 30-10 plan.

4) Prioritize Human Infrastructure. Now is the time for the Mayor to set a good example by taking "Confident City Cycling Course" taught by Sustainable Streets. This is also the time to have the City Family participate in bicycle awareness training on the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles. At Chief Beck's direction, the LAPD developed an online program that sets a standard for effective communication and education. Let's use it!

5) Supervise the Professionals. LA's Department of Transportation licenses and regulates more than 2300 taxi cab operators and if pulling out in front of a cyclist and causing significant bodily injury doesn't warrant some response or trigger some call for education, what does? The motorist who pulled out into traffic and caused the Mayor to hit the ground must be held accountable for his actions, regardless of intent which is rarely an issue. Careless, inattentive, and distracted driving are the more common causes of injury but, regardless, if a Taxi Cab Operator fails to drive safely, he must be held accountable.

6) Empathize with the Public. As the City Council considers enhanced collection strategies for LAFD Ambulance services, it is imperative that the Mayor acknowledge the fact that the average Angeleno would not get emergency surgery on a weekend for an injury suffered on the streets of Los Angeles. If the Taxi Cab Operator caused the Mayor's injury, did the Taxi Cab Operator's auto insurance cover the bills? Surely the Mayor's health insurance, paid for by the public, is not covering an injury caused by a professional motorist licensed and regulated by the City of Los Angeles! The Mayor must clarify legal and financial responsibility, not simply brush it off.

These simple steps don't require scheduling a Bike Summit or gathering cyclists together to hear how tough it is on the streets of Los Angeles. They simply require the Mayor to take care of a few details and in doing so, he will get to proclaim "Los Angeles, the City with a Backbone!"

LA City Council - "Failure to Deliver"

Los Angeles is a City that loves to order departmental surveys, concept reports, project studies, recommendations and proposals. What Los Angeles doesn't do well is deliver.

It's been two and a half years since the LA City council, over the objections of the LADOT, acted decisively and made it illegal to park in a Bike Lane in Los Angeles. Unfortunately the LADOT and the LAPD are still ill-equipped to enforce the ban and the ordinance remains irrelevant.

It's been a little over three years since the City Council approved the contract with Illium and Associates for Bike Maps which we argued would be redundant since the Metro does county-wide maps that are of better detail and quality than the city maps. The City Council moved forward and approved the $400,000 contract but that was the last movement to be made. Three years later, is Ilium developing those maps? Is Alta Planning also developing Bike Maps as part of the Bike Plan process?

Last year CM's Huizar and Perry said "I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the General Services Department, be requested to develop a mass parking policy and designate an efficient place and manner to lock up large number of bicycles for individuals who come to City Hall as a part of a group." Maybe it was just a joke and we fell for it. Ha, ha! Seriously, how hard is it to lock up bikes at City Hall? Too tough for the LADOT to figure out. They study, we wait.

It's been over 18 months since CM's Garcetti and Reyes got all interested in Sharrows and said "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings," also known as "sharrows," pilot program. So far, nothing except that the plan to engage in a study is almost underway. Meanwhile, Long Beach has put in colored Sharrows and the Department of DIY has put in homemade Sharrows.

It's been 18 months since CM's Greuel and Garcetti were inspired by the bike-share programs of the Great Cities they visited, returning to LA and commanding "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Transportation to examine the feasibility of creating a bike sharing program in the City of Los Angeles and submit recommendations to the Transportation Committee within 45 days." Tough talk! New Transportation committee Chair Rosendahl liked it so much, he gave the same instructions to the LADOT last week.

Meanwhile, on February 24, Claremont and Covina will be cutting the ribbon on "Bikestation Claremont and Bikestation Covina, the first bicycle and alternative transportation center “network” in the United States."

It would be great to have the City Council's Transportation Committee visit Claremont and Covina for the Bikestation ribbon cuttings but the 24th is an important day in LA, everybody will be on the 10th floor as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck visits the Transpo Committee. Will he have the Hummer vs. Cyclist report from last year?

It's been almost a year since a group of cyclists encountered a motorist behind the wheel of a Hummer, sans license plate, and ended up in a Wilco Tango Foxtrot encounter. Three times the Transportation Committee has directed the LAPD to appear to report on the incident and the subsequent investigation but in all three appearances the LAPD neglected to bring the actual LAPD report, resulting in a lot of "I don't know. I'll have to check." responses. Will Beck produce the report? Will Rosendahl follow up on the failure of the LAPD to respond to his instructions?

It's been over a year since the City Council embraced the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and boldly directed "the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Planning Department, Department
of Public Works, and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, in consultation with the City Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report with recommendations on how to
incorporate the principles enshrined in the "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." That went nowhere fast.

The City Council has demonstrated clearly that it is incapable of following up on the many instructions it puts in play. Hence the need for community oversight. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that LA's Budget, the delivery of services, and the civic process itself be open and transparent. The public must be at the table.

CityWatchLA - Kids Challenge LA Leadership

CityWatch, Nov 6, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 91

Anyone who has made the journey to City Hall to offer public comment knows how frustrating and unfulfilling the experience can be. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation for members of the public who attempt to navigate the cumbersome system that appears designed to service everyone except the serfs who dare to approach the sovereigns.

The recent round of Bike Plan (draft) Workshops has proven to be as frustrating and insulting as any of the "public enragement" exercises the City of LA typically hosts.

Guests to the four LADOT/Planning sponsored events were given the opportunity to walk around in a circle, looking at sections of the 563 page plan in three ring binders, viewing sample pages on poster board on easels, and scanning large map sections of the city.

This superficial overview of a complex element of the City's Transportation element of the General Plan came complete with snacks and the opportunity to offer feedback to the staff and consultants who then made note of the comment. At least they were supposed to take notes.

One attendee came prepared with a formal comment from her organization only to experience a consultant who attempted to "fix" her feedback, suggesting that she was wrong.

Critics of the Bike Plan Workshops note that in a city of four million people, there must be a more effective mechanism for communicating the details of a cumbersome document. There must be more effective tool for examining maps and there must be a more effective way to engage the public and allow a robust conversation to take place.

Participants have pointed out that the "view and comment" process prevents people from discussing, sharing, engaging and learning.

Through it all is the simple charge that a 42 day comment period seems designed to simply "qualify" as public engagement but that it fails to offer the public the opportunity to actually review the Bike Plan (draft) and engage the community and the neighborhood councils in time to offer intelligent and informed opinions.

As the grumbling continues and with the official comment period ending on November 6th, a group of kids from the Westside has risen to the occasion with a solution that gives hope for the future.

The FIRSTteamWestside (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) is a group of kids who prepared a presentation that they intended to give at the Bike Plan (draft) workshops.

Their mission was to develop a plan to improve local transportation. They did the research and they prepared and they discovered that the public workshops were not the robust public arena they desired so they adapted.

Their coach reports “The kids were hoping to give a presentation at one of the "public forums" but were badly disappointed when they found out that members of the public would not be allowed to speak so they posted it on YouTube and submitted the link at labikeplan.org.”

They also inspired and they challenged and they raised the standard for civic engagement. Oh, yeah! They made some good points too!

This feedback and presentation to the City of Los Angeles Bike Plan is one of the ways the team has shared its research project with experts, policy makers and the general public.

Unfortunately, the City of Los Angeles doesn't trust its staff with access to YouTube!



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

CityWatchLA - LA’s DIY Bike Plan

CityWatch, Nov 3, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 90

The City of Los Angeles took another swing at the public hornet's nest when it released LA's Draft Bike Plan, a 563 page document that cost $450,000 and took two years to complete, stirring such public contempt that the cycling community simply put down the protest signs, formed the LA Bike Working Group (BWG) and set out to draft "LA's Best Bike Plan" in open workshops around the city.

The first challenge to the efficacy of LA's commitment to mediocrity came when LABikePlan.com appeared, hosting the same Draft Bike Plan as the city's LABikePlan.org website and the same opportunity to submit comments to the city, but also offering links to articles that criticize the Draft Bike Plan process and content.

The second challenge came when cyclists met in Hollywood to dig into the city's Draft Bike Plan, breaking it up into manageable chunks, a process made necessary by the significant size and the limited comment period of 42 days. (It ends on November 6, 2009)

It took a couple of hours but there came a point at which it became obvious, the best place to start is at the beginning and for the Bike Plan, that meant a do-over, this time a DIY (Do It Yourself) do-over!

The third and most recent challenge came when cyclists met downtown this past weekend to refine the many contributions from the diverse group of participants into a focused vision that would serve as the foundation for LA's Best Bike Plan.

Embracing a democratic and participatory process, the work product of four groups was refined into 23 points which were simmered down to a foundation of three that serve as the platform for LA's Best Bike Plan.

1) "Consider every street as a street that cyclists will ride."

2) "Build a Backbone Bikeway Network as the engineering focus in the immediate future."

3) "Los Angeles must commit to the implementation of key measures within 2 years."

In the time it took the staff of City Planning and the Department of Transportation to organize its out-of-town consultants and to stage the four Draft Bike Plan workshops, the LA Bike Working Group had gathered input from the community, established teams with specific focus, and positioned a platform based on equality.

This may seem like a "Bike Culture" victory that benefits the few but it represents much, much more and it benefits the city as a whole.

City staff dismiss critics as "trashtalkers" and argue for mediocrity by pointing out that "not everybody is an angry cyclist." This demonstrates the cavalier manner in which our city is (mis)managed. As Laura Chick pointed out "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention."

Today it's the Bike Plan, tomorrow it's your Community Plan, last week it was Cloud Computing, next week it'll be Golden Parachutes. The bottom line is this, the leadership of Los Angeles is counting on our indifference to maintain the status quo and to avoid accountability.

Whether you ride a bike or walk or take mass transit or ride in a car, we all benefit from citywide support of cycling as a transportation solution, as an environmental solution, and as a community building solution.

Great Streets are well maintained, they're shareable, they have moderate traffic volumes and speeds, they result in lower crime rates, and they benefit local businesses, resulting in healthy, sustainable and complete communities.

If you believe that Los Angeles should be a Great City, it is imperative that you join with other constituent groups such as the cycling community and support their pursuit of greatness. After all, this is Los Angeles, why settle for anything less!

This isn't the first time that the DIY movement has been active in Los Angeles. Past efforts have resulted in Sharrows (shared-lane markings) in Echo Park and in Highland Park, a DIY Bike Lane on the Fletcher Bridge and a community park at Wilshire and Vermont.

In other cities, the Official Urban Repair Squad (OURS) has taken to improving the streets of Toronto, leaving behind a Bike Lane in their first engagement and a note saying "Our agents inform us that your city is too busy patting self on backside about 2001 bike plan that they don't bother to make any bike lanes. We come to make roads safe for citizens of Toronto. We hear city is broke. We fix. No charge."

Residents of Hawaii's Kauai island reacted to the government's $4 million and two-year long plan for the repair of a vital road as unacceptable and so they fixed it themselves in eight days for free. Their livelihood was threatened, their intelligence was insulted and their spirit of self-sufficiency was engaged.

As for LA's Draft Bike Plan, the apologists stand in the background and murmur "it's not that bad" and "there's some good stuff in there" and the cloud of mediocrity just gets thicker.

LA's Bike Plan is part of the Transportation Element of the city's General Plan and the current Bike Plan was drafted in 1996, readopted by City Council in 2002 and again in 2007.

Many funding sources, from both the federal and state levels, require that proposed bike projects be part of a City Council approved Bicycle Transportation Plan.

This enthusiasm for plans is motivated by the desire to qualify for funding and then the enthusiasm fades. The current Bike Plan is effective until December of 2012.

In the last 13 years, LA has spent $65 million of Bikeways funding which has produced 13 miles of Bike Paths (one mile per year!) 54 miles of Bike Lanes (four miles per year!) and one mile of Bike Route (136 yards per year!)

Critics charge that the money has also funded the LADOT's Bikeways Department of a dozen people who are best known for their "Why You Can't Have What You Want" PowerPoint presentation which positions cyclists as adversaries with other modes rather than as a "Common Ground" transportation solution.

As for next steps, the bureaucrats are off in search of rubber stamps while the LA Bike Working Group continues to work on "LA's Best Bike Plan."

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

RELATED STORIES

● “Bikes and Cars: Can We Share the Road?” – LA Times LINK .
cydo

CityWatchLA - LA’s Best Bike Plan

CityWatch, Oct 20, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 86

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA.Streetsblog - Courtroom Drama for Cyclists throughout the County

LA Streetsblog by Stephen Box on October 13, 2009

The wheels of justice grind slowly and sometimes it's hard to believe that the system is working but a survey of the legal landscape in LA County reveals that there are several cases working that should be of great interest to the cycling community. Danny Jimenez, local cyclist and lawyer, says "victims are often discouraged by the difficulty in obtaining justice but when the system works, it's encouraging to see a Judge and a Prosecutor and a Jury doing their job and doing it well."

In the last year and a half, there have been several drunk driving and road rage incidents that have shaken the cycling community, leaving a trail of dead and broken bodies behind along with a general feeling of frustration and despair for the friends and families of the victims.

Dr. Christopher T. Thompson is charged with 2 counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) 2 counts of Battery with Serious Bodily Injury (243d) reckless driving (23103a) and reckless driving causing specified injury (23105a) and Mayhem (203) all stemming from the Mandeville Canyon Road Rage incident that left two cyclists broken, bleeding and lying on the road. Thompson's case is slowly working itself through the system at the LAX Courthouse. Today, they will pick a judge to replace Judge Cynthia Reyvis and will then hear pre-trial motions. Tomorow, they start jury selection.

Alejandro Hidalgo is charged with vehicular manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) (23153b) in the death of Jesus Castillo on Glendale Boulevard and his case is coming up in the Downtown Criminal Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 30 at 8:30 and no trial date has been set for this case.


Robert Sam Sanchez is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in the death of Rodrigo "Rod" Armas and the injury to his son, Christian Armas on PCH and that case is coming up in the Malibu Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 20 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.

Marco Antonio Valencia is charged with Vehicular Manslaughter (191.5a) and DUI (23153a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) and in the death of Joe Novotny on Bouquet Canyon Road in Santa Clarita and that case is coming up in San Fernando Courthouse. The next hearing is on October 28 at 8:30 am and no trial date has been set.

Jim Azpilicueta is charged with two counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (245a) and Hit-and-Run with serious bodily injury (20001a) in an incident that caused a cyclist to sustain significant injuries including severe damage to her face. The arraignment is set for October 14 at 8:30 am.

There is another case pending in the Hit-and-Run with Serious Bodily Injury (20001a) incident that left Roadblock lying on Glendale Boulevard after being hit from behind and flipped into the air, landing with just enough consciousness and awareness to catch a partial license plate of the car as it sped off into the distance. The arraignment is set for Nov. 2 at 8:30 am in Dept. 60 Metro Court.

Missing from the dockets of the Southland Courthouses is the infamous Hummer vs. Cyclists case. The LAPD response to the Hummer vs. Cyclists incident received much attention and resulted in a City Council motion directing an LAPD report on police activity and the resulting investigation. It also stirred a Storm the Bastille ride to City Hall, three visits to the Police Commission, and claims filed with the LAPD Inspector General. But it did not result in a court case.

This is why cyclists need the Cyclists' Bill of Rights. The CBR has picked up endorsements from the City Council, from the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and from neighborhood councils around LA. The CBR 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."

Now is the time for the cycling community to embrace the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and to insist that it be included, as written, in LA's Draft Bike Plan, just released and already under attack for having a 42 day window for public participation and not using imperative language that will support the rights of cyclists on the streets of Los Angeles.

Pay close attention to what's happening in City Council, in the Courts and, most of all, on the Streets!

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.

CityWatchLA - Bike Group First to Take Action

CityWatch, Oct 13, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 84

The LA Bike Working Group, made up of cyclists from around the city, is meeting this Saturday in East Hollywood to develop grassroots recommendations for the LA's Draft Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which is part of the City's General Plan.

City Planning and the LADOT recently released the Draft Bike Plan, an element of the Transportation Plan which is part of the city's General Plan. Cyclists charge that the 42 day comment period is insufficient for meaningful review and significant contribution, further charging that the entire process is simply a charade and that the Draft Bike Plan actually proposed less bike lanes and bike paths than the old Bike Plan. Two weeks ago, Dr. Alex Thompson presented the Cyclists' Bill of Rights to the NC Action Summit as one of the six issues that were on the agenda for action. The CBR received a 50-1 endorsement and it was at that point that the neighborhood councils were asked to support the cyclists by 1) calling on City Planning and the LADOT to extend the comment period for the Draft Bike Plan to 90 days 2) calling on City Planning and the LADOT to include the Cyclists' Bill of Rights in the Draft Bike Plan and 3) asking for a inventory of the Craft Bike Plan improvements within the neighborhood council boundaries.

Since then, the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils voted unanimously to call for an extension of the deadline for public comment. The Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee voted unanimously to call for an extension of the deadline for public comment. Neighborhood Councils are working to agendize the call for an extension along with the call for an inventory of their community, all while the clock ticks.

The hard charge here is that in many cases, the Draft Bike Plan has actually removed bikeways amenities from the plan, resulting in a retreat rather than an advancement, which makes one wonder why it takes a $450K plan in order to do less, rather than more.

The controversy over the Draft Bike Plan has been documented at CityWatchLA [LINK] on LA.Streetsblog again on LA.StreetsBlog and on WestsideBikeside BikeGirlBlog and on SoapBoxLA

The cycling community is asking for support in developing a powerful visionary document that will begin with "Consider all streets as streets that cyclists will ride." and that will continue with real language of imperative rather than simple suggestions and hopes and wishes. This plan, like all plans, belongs to the people of Los Angeles and it must be a plan that reflects the wishes of the community.

It must be an improvement, it must integrate with the other plans that cover the community and it must have teeth.
●●●
As for the other topics covered at the NC Action Summit those working groups are scheduled as follows:

● The Rate Payers Advocate Task Force which will meet on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the DWP Ratepayer Advocate.

● The Sidewalk Repair Task Force will also meet on October 24 at 1pm, immediately following the SLAP meeting. (4th Saturday) For more information visit the Sidewalk Repair Program.

● The Budget Reform Task Force will meet on November 7 at 1 pm, immediately following the LANCC meeting. (1st Saturday) For more information visit the City Budget Reform.

● The Medical Marijuana Task Force will meet on November 14 at 1 pm, immediately following the PlanCheck meeting. (2nd Saturday) For more information visit Medical Marijuana.

● As for the 1/2 Off Initiative, the campaign is moving forward and the organizing committee is taking on volunteers and funding. For more information visit Half off Initiative.

To follow upcoming NC Action Summit events visit the calendar at the NC Action Summit website.

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

LA's Bike Plan - Return to Sender

At last night's Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, the LABAC voted unanimously to "demand an extension of the comment period" effectively moving the deadline from 42 days to 94 days. This action from the LABAC is the same action that neighborhood councils throughout the city are taking and speaks volumes to the amount of energy that is wasted in Los Angeles on simply getting the process adjusted so that the public can participate.

That element of the development of the City of LA's Draft Bike Plan aside, now the real work begins and here are my recommendations for the Draft Bike Plan.

First, lose the softly worded vision and replace it with the simple call for "Consider every street in Los Angeles as a street that bicyclists will use."

All planning, design, engineering, supervision, maintenance, law enforcement, and enhancement must be driven by this simple principle and it must resonate through the many city departments that have any responsibility for our streets and the people who use them.

Second, put the Cyclists' Bill of Rights, as written, in the Draft Bike Plan.

Any objections are simply internal and bureaucratic and the argument that LA doesn't have authority over some of the rights is simply not true. LA has law enforcement, LA has mass transit, LA has streets, LA legislates and LA enforces and LA has influence over judicial activity. But regardless of LA's real and self-imposed limitations, the Cyclists' Bill of Rights is a simple enunciation of rights and it belongs in the Bike Plan.

Third, the Draft Bike Plan must use real language of commitment and that the soft words that dilute the potential effectiveness of the plan be replaced by words that have real meaning and that are absolute.

Fourth, it is imperative that we accept the insignificance of the Draft Bike Plan and start this process by backing up and asking how we can position it so that it has any meaning in the larger landscape of Los Angeles. We must be willing to stop the process and to engage in an EIR that will position the Bike Plan as a document that has authority and can withstand Level of Service challenges and that can be used to hold departments accountable.

I offer several examples of how the current Bike Plan is currently completely disregarded by the LADOT, by Planning, by the LAPD, by the Harbor Commission, by literally anybody with a plan who is doing anything in Los Angeles!

1) San Pedro Waterfront Development Project: The Port of Los Angeles just approved the San Pedro Waterfront Development Project which comes with a price tag of $1.2 Billion. Was there any consideration for cyclists in this plan? Did they incorporate the Draft Bike Plan into this plan? Over the 10 year development journey for the SPWDP, was there ever any synchronization between City Planning and the LADOT and the Port of LA to ensure that the needs of cyclists were addressed in the mobility element of the SPWDP? The Port ignores the Bike Plan.

2) Warner Center Specific Plan Revision: LA City Planning and the LADOT are in the process of updating the Warner Center Specific Plan with an initial budget of $500K. The process includes traffic studies, environmental studies, strategic economics impact evaluation and urban design. Was there any consideration for cyclists in this plan? Did they incorporate the Draft Bike Plan into this plan? Over the recent development journey for the WCSP, was there ever any synchronization between City Planning (Tom Glick) and the LADOT (Armen Hovanessian - Sr. Traffic Engineer) and the Consultants to ensure that the needs of cyclists were addressed in the mobility element of the WCSP? City Planning and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.

3) Topanga Canyon Boulevard: LA's 2002 Bike Plan classified 9 miles of Topanga Canyon Boulevard as Class II Bike Lanes. Caltrans provided the engineering and the funding for 9 miles of bike lanes and instead elected to pursue peak-hour parking. Do the LADOT's Sr. Traffic Engineers have the authority to override the LA Bike Plan? When there is conflict between the Bike Plan and the priorities of the local LADOT Traffic Divisions, who resolves the conflict? The LADOT ignores the Bike Plan.

4) Orange Line Bike Path: The Bureau of Engineering is in the process of widening Victory Boulevard east of Balboa Boulevard, with combined widening of 8 feet to accommodate the addition of a westbound left turn-lane and a bus bay adjacent to the Victory/Balboa Park & Ride Facility. Improvements include construction of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC pavement, street lighting, and striping. The roadway widening has reduced the radius of the curb return resulting in a new access ramp that is smaller than the old ramp. The City's position is that ADA access ramps are mandated by the Feds with only one priority, providing equal access to the disabled community to City services, and that sidewalks are considered a service per the courts. Is this section of the Orange Line Bike Path a sidewalk or a Bike Path? Is there a Bike Plan standard for curb cuts on Bike Paths? Is there a standard for Bike Paths and intersections? Is there an engineering protocol for Bike Paths vs. Street Widenings? Is the Orange Line Bike Path protected by the Bike Plan and who is responsible for maintaining its integrity? The Bureau of Engineering ignores the Bike Plan.

5) LAPD Headquarters: The new Los Angeles Police Department headquarters is nearing completion and includes bike racks on the north side of the building. The position of the new bike racks is out of sight of the LAPD staff and is tucked behind a large wall, several large planters, a small wall, violating the Draft Bike Plan standards and basic Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards. This building is across the street from the LADOT headquarters. Does the Draft Bike Plan call for the LADOT to communicate with the other departments in the City of Los Angeles so that the proposed standards become a reality? Is there any attempt to integrate the different departments within the City of LA so that there is some uniformity to the application of law, code, design standards, engineering standards, maintenance standards, accommodation standards and will it be with the same enthusiasm that the LADOT worked with the LAPD on the new bike racks or can we expect something more meaningful? The LAPD and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.

6) LADOT Headquarters: The City of LA recently reconfigured the intersection 2nd and Los Angeles which is the SE corner of the LADOT's headquarters. The drainage grate is the old style of parallel bars that will accept a narrow bike tire, creating a danger for cyclists who ride in the curb lane and roll across the drainage grate. At the same time, the LADOT has been embarking on a funded journey to swap out the old drainage grates with new cross-hatched grates that are purportedly safe for cyclists. Is there a standard for drainage grates in Los Angeles? If there isn't, why not? If there is, who enforces it and why are the old dangerous style being installed on new road projects? Who is responsible for integrating the many departments who have a piece of the streets? How do we change policy and address these situations more comprehensively? The BOE and the LADOT ignore the Bike Plan.

7) NBC Universal Development: NBC Universal Execs have announced plans to spend $3 Billion on developing their property in Universal City, allocating $100 million to traffic mitigation measure so that the project has a positive impact on the community, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Meanwhile, the LA Bike Plan calls for a Bike Path alongside the LA River, an amenity that the NBC Uni folks oppose and there proposition is to cut the Bike Path and redirect it so that it is no longer a continuous LA River Bike Path. Do the NBC Uni execs have the authority to trump the Bike Plan? Who is entertaining these proposals and how does it happen away from public oversight? What good is the Bike Plan if years of development of the River Path can be interrupted by NBC Uni Developers? How do 38 community groups speak with unanimous opposition to this development and LADOT Bikeways doesn't step in to hold the Bike Plan as a document that must be reckoned with or is it a meaningless document that carries no weight? NBC Uni ignores the Bike Plan.

8) LA has plans, lots of them. The Southern California Association of Governments has a plan, Metro has a plan, LA has a General Plan. There are 35 Community Plans, lots of Specific Plans, and Master Plans for everything from Golf to Lighting to Parks. Toss in a Transportation Element and a Strategic Plan and all that's missing is a Printing Master Plan that would deliver all of these plans to the many people and departments and agencies and authorities who simply can't keep up with the dueling plans.

LA's Draft Bike Plan is not worth the dust it will collect as it sits on the shelf. For it to have any meaning, it must be given teeth and it must be integrated with the other plans that currently trump the Bike Plan. This is the missing element if for making the Bike Plan a document of significance. The evidence is there, even the departments responsible for the Bike Plan ignore it. Only fools repeat the same behavior and hope for a different result.

Ladies and Gentlemen, LA's Draft Bike Plan, brought to you by the fools who brought you the last Bike Plan.

CityWatchLA - Hollywood Gives up on Tourism, Embraces its Truck Stop Future

CityWatch, Sept 11, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 73

Hollywood Boulevard is one of the most famous streets in the world and to many people, it's known as the Walk of Fame. But those days are gone as the leadership of Los Angeles gives up on tourism and embraces trucking as the future of Los Angeles. As a sign of that commitment, Hollywood Boulevard is being reinvented as the Truck Stop to the Stars!

Tourists come from around the world to walk the Boulevard, starting at LA Brea Gateway and passing the Roosevelt Hotel, Grauman's Chinese Theatre, the Kodak Theater, Ripley's, Madame Tussauds, the El Capitan, the Egyptian, the Pig 'n Whistle, Musso & Frank's, Boardner's...phew! We haven't even hit Vine Street! Keep going and there's the Pantages Theater, the Music Box Theatre, a great view of the Hollywood sign and an equally good view of the Griffith Observatory. It's as if Hollywood Boulevard is the center of the Entertainment Industry universe.

Along the walk, there are abundant cafes, restaurants, shops and opportunities to enjoy the local flavor which varies dramatically from one block to the next, featuring a community so diverse that over 100 languages are spoken within the densely populated neighborhood that wraps around the Thai Town and Little Armenia area known as East Hollywood.

One would think that such a hot tourist attraction would be guarded and protected by city leadership, celebrated and supported as a valuable heritage that deserves to be nurtured, not just for its economic potential but simply for its cultural legacy and value as an iconic symbol of the entertainment industry that gave birth to to the celebrated community.

Granted, Hollywood has had a bit of a roller-coaster past, going from peaks filled with klieg lights & red carpets to lows lit with red lights and inhabited by squatters. Along the way, Hollywood Boulevard lost its claim to fame as the center of the Entertainment Industry. FilmLA Inc., (formerly the EIDC) the company that handles the bulk of the film permitting process for the LA area, gave up its Hollywood digs in order to move to the old Unocal Building in downtown LA. Production companies, post-production facilities, payroll companies, sound studios, rental companies, and studio support of all flavors left town for more hospitable accommodations in surrounding communities. While Hollywood fiddled, local cities such as Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank, Santa Clarita, and Glendale courted the Industry and facilitated moves that left Hollywood light on production and heavy on blight.

Things have now reached the point that even if a local crew member were to get called by a local production company to shoot a film locally, that person would likely be paid by a payroll company located in Burbank or Santa Monica, would likely rent everything from trucks to grip & electric from over the hill, would likely drive to the westside for all post-production, and would likely go to Santa Monica to sell the finished product at the American Film Market. "Local" just doesn't really mean "local" anymore!

Of course, Paramount Studios and Eastman Kodak are still in the neighborhood and if the film does well, our local crew member will be able to sit in the grandstands on Hollywood Boulevard to watch the stars arrive at the Kodak Theater to pick up their Academy Awards, so it's fair to say that Hollywood has hung on to some of its glamorous past. Barely!

While Hollywood's shine faded and the CRA came in to address the blighted conditions, speculators started circling, waiting for the right moment to dive in with bags of taxpayer money to develop any of the large number of chain-link protected empty lots that litter the Boulevard all the way to Sunset on the east. For literally years the locals and the developers have been engaged in a tug-of-war over the past, the present and the future of Hollywood Boulevard, debating development, revitalization, funding, traffic, infrastructure, community character, and nightclubs. Adding fuel to the fire were and are charges of cronyism, corruption and simple incompetence.

In the midst of the brouhaha, Hollywood lost its most valuable commodity, its name! Hollywood is the brand known around the world and Universal City, located just outside of Los Angeles on LA County land, simply lifted it and reinvented themselves as Universal Hollywood, leaving the locals on the boulevard to debate the CRA projects that litter the landscape and promise, at best, a better quality strip mall selling more expensive t-shirts.

Apparently, the fix is in, the deed is done and all that remains is for Hollywood to recover, rise from the ashes, reinvent itself, a task that appears to be underway.

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce took a shot at promoting Hollywood as the Capital of Healthcare, an image that is supported by the fact that of the top three employers in Hollywood, two of them are Hospitals! Kaiser Permanente and Children's Hospital edge out Paramount and Sunset-Gower Studios, 8800 employees to 8000 employees, and based on results, often harsh but always fair, the Healthcare Industry has overtaken the Entertainment Industry as the substance of Hollywood.

All of which could change quickly, especially if LA's leadership continues to support the Trucking Industry with the bold and cavalier carte blanche and red carpet that they have offered thus far.

Hollywood Boulevard is designated as a Major Highway. It ranges in width from 60' at the eastern Laurel Canyon end to 70' at the western Virgil end and it varies in width along the way, getting as wide as 82' at one point. It is referred to as "built-out" by the Transportation Department, meaning that it is lined with historical buildings that prevent the widening or streamlining of the boulevard. It has three Metro Rail stations between Highland and Western, making this one of the most transit rich boulevards in the City of Los Angeles.

And yet, requests for bike lanes and sidewalk widenings are quickly squelched as simply impractical. The current City of LA Bike Plan maps confirm this by simply ignoring Hollywood Boulevard on the surveys and by using the visionary term "Infeasible" when referring to bikeways improvements for the boulevard. After all, "It's simply too 'built-out' and there is no more room!" This has become a popular refrain from the Department of "No!"

This position is repeated at community meetings throughout the area while complaints of 18 wheelers parked on Hollywood Boulevard, often for days on end, fall on deaf ears.

Calls to Councilmembers Eric Garcetti and Tom LaBonge yield instructions from local deputies on how to dial 311, an exercise in futility that leaves the caller frustrated and the 311 operator confused. The LAPD defer to the LADOT, the LADOT has been aware of the problem for two years and Chief Jimmy Price himself has claimed that the department is all over it and yet...the Hollywood Boulevard is still an 18 Wheeler Parking lot.

The simple secret is this; the parking ticket is cheaper than the off-street parking fee plus the shuttle back home. Locals park 18 Wheelers on Hollywood Boulevard because they can. They can because Garcetti and LaBonge let them. Parking Enforcement Supervisors acknowledge that there is no political will to enforce of parking restrictions for the operators of 18 Wheelers who leave their vehicles on the Boulevard, even when parked under a Tow Away sign.

As for the parking enforcement officers, there's simply no motivation to spend an entire shift working on the impound of an 18 Wheeler when during the same time, the same officer can write a full book of tickets. One Supervisor explained "These drivers need to sleep! It's better to let them park on the boulevard than to drive tired."

Good logic but not when it impedes traffic, forcing those in the #2 lane on a congested and "built-out" street to merge into the #1 lane to avoid sideswiping the 18 Wheeler.

Unless, of course, Garcetti and LaBonge are now reinventing Hollywood as the Trucking Capital and if that's the case, then it all makes sense. With the Healthcare Industry in flux, Garcetti and LaBonge are apparently betting on the future of Hollywood as a Truck Stop. It's the kind of genius plan we've come to expect, although the thought of Garcetti and LaBonge working in sync is a stretch. Regardless, public safety concerns be damned, Walk of Fame be gone, it's time for Hollywood to welcome its destiny, don the Trucker Cap, and embrace the future.

Hollywood is now your "Last Stop for Gas!"



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

Bikes! Bikes! Bikes!

Years ago Enci and I were on a large evening ride that took hundreds of cyclists through the greater LA area. As we rode through one of the neighboring cities, I noticed that the intersection up ahead was "corked" by the local police department. "Why, that's thoughtful of them!" I said to myself, smiling as I basked in the obvious respect that we were drawing from the local authorities.

As we approached the next intersection, the police had blocked the intersection so that we all turned right. "Excellent! This is what it's like to be accepted into the mainstream paradigm of "transportation" and to be treated as a solution, not a problem!" I said to myself. (It was a noisy crowd, I did a lot of talking to myself)

As I rode my high-horse, it dawned on me that the friendly faces that were "corking" intersections for us were actually simply steering us out of town. The route was simply "Anywhere else, very quickly!"

We were run out of town. But for most of the trip, we were convinced that they were working for us, that right then, they really liked us and wanted to help us.

I learned then to look closely to see if the "help" is really helpful or if it's simply a way to get the cyclists out of the way.

This brings us to LA's Bike Plan. What should be a document that positions cycling as a legitimate transportation solution instead dresses up like a "We're here to help!" solution but it's really a "Get out of the way!" ploy to move cyclists to the fringe.

The current Bike Plan is still under wraps but the Bike Plan Maps reveal less Bikeways facilities than the old plan had which means the City of Los Angeles paid its consultants $450,000 to erase the inconvenient elements.

The proposed Bike Maps are unintelligible without the Bike Plan, unless of course you have an LADOT decoder ring. They're also Orwellian and seek to position "infeasible" as an engineering term that purportedly supports cycling as a safe and effective means of moving through Los Angeles, as long as it's done from within the confines of a spin class at the Equinox.

All of this is to say, take a look at the motion Alex Thompson is working through the Mar Vista Neighborhood Council:

"The MVCC finds that, with respect to Mar Vista, the maps for the draft Bicycle Master Plan show that the plan does not offer a significant improvement over existing conditions for cyclists riding in Mar Vista. We therefore recommend that the scope of the work be rewritten to position the Bicycle Plan as an inspiration and aspiration document that will support cycling as a transportation choice."

Take a look at the presentation I gave at Saturday's Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition where I asked the NC's to simply ask the hard questions and to endorse the Cyclists' Bill of Rights.

Most importantly, look closely whenever the City of Los Angeles presents the cycling community with a gift that positions "Safety, Security and Liability" as their motivation for action or, more likely, inaction.

It's Equality that should be the foundation for our mobility and public space policies and anything less is an effort to get somebody out of the way.

"See you on the Streets"

CityWatchLA - Greuel Scolds Transpo for Dismissing the Public

CityWatch, June 19, 2009
Vol 7 Issue 49

Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel chastised representatives from both the Transportation and the Planning Departments, saying "We've got a room full of people, all claiming to have been left out of the Bicycle Plan Update process. You can't call that the result of effective outreach!"

This took place at a "Special" meeting of the Transportation Committee scheduled for 8 am on what turned out to be Laker Celebration Day. A glance at the agenda indicates that it must have been Greuel's intention to wrap up all of the cycling issues in one big meeting, as she approaches the conclusion of her reign as the Transportation Committee Chair and prepares to take over the City Controller helm. Unfortunately, Councilmen Parks, Alarcon and LaBonge were no shows and it was left to Chair Greuel and Councilman Bill Rosendahl to navigate a busy bike agenda that included the Bike Plan, Bikeways funding, Bike Parking, Abandoned Bikes, the efficacy of the Bikeways Department and the LAPD's relationship with the cycling community.

When it came time for the LAPD to report on their training for LAPD officers on cycling rules and regulations and to report on recent incidents between the LAPD and cyclists, Greuel called for the LAPD to step up and ... they weren't there. Somehow it was the LADOT who knew the LAPD weren't going to attend the meeting, not the Councilmembers, an interesting revelation in the realities of our City Government.

Greuel at first moved the item to another date but the room erupted in protests from people who wanted to be heard. She took public comment on the item and heard from a long list of people who called on the LAPD to support cycling as a transportation choice and who called for better education of the LAPD on the specifics of the California Vehicle Code that cause so much confusion on the streets.

Attending the standing room only meeting were cyclists from all over the city representing a wide range of cycling interests and expressions but united in their desire to see the City of LA support cycling as a transportation solution. They were joined by representatives from homeowners associations and neighborhood councils, as well as cycling organizations and a variety of advocacy groups.

We’re all here noted one participant because "we just want to be involved in making our streets better places to ride and our communities better places to live."

When speakers complained of the consultant-driven process that has kept the public from participating, Rosendahl sat up and called for the consultants to step forward. Nobody moved. Not the consultants in Portland, not the consultants in Berkeley, not the consultants in Colorado, and not the consultants in San Francisco. They just couldn't hear the call.

Rosendahl found this to be disturbing and he began digging into the money. "How much have we paid these consultants?" he asked the Transportation and Planning representatives. When he heard that the City of LA has already paid out 80% on a plan that all at the table profess they have not yet received, he was not happy. He called for the consultants to show up next week at the regularly scheduled Transportation Committee meeting to account for the money, the contract and the Bike Plan.

The Department of Transportation was well represented at the meeting, in spite of their claim that this is a Planning Department process. Rita Robinson, General Manager of the LADOT was flanked by Haripal Vir, Michael Uyeno, and Carolyn Jackson, all of whom were there backing up a Bikeways staff that claimed not to have the Bike Plan. As for the Planning Department, GM Gail Goldberg, who said last month "The Bike Plan will be out in two weeks!" was nowhere in sight and in her stead were two Planning reps with a feeble PowerPoint presentation that should have been entitled "Smoke and Mirrors."

In a meeting that stretched for three hours in spite of the 60 second limit on public comment, cyclists took opportunity after opportunity to share their experiences riding the streets of Los Angeles and stressing the need to address the significant safety issues that cyclists confront every time they roll onto the streets, it was a comment overheard after the meeting was adjourned that was the most revealing.

"Well, I guess we survived that one!" said one LADOT staff member to another … demonstrating clearly that from their perspective … it's meetings such as this with calls for accountability that pose the most significant threat, not the streets of LA. (Stephen Box is a transportation and cyclist advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at Stephen@ThirdEyeCreative.net) ◘

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) ◘

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!

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!"

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.)