What Council will hear will be a lot of rah rah cheerleading about how much progress has been made, exaggeration of supporting facts, and lots of (BS) excuses for failures. Case and point is this bit of City Hall doublespeak (pdf) regarding the Bike Plan Implementation Team – a team of staff from bike-critical departments and citizen stakeholders which was created by the bike plan:

The BPIT has served as a valuable forum for dialogue among staff, cycling advocates, and the public on the implementation of the 2010 Bicycle Plan. While the BPIT is a work in progress, future meetings will continue to underscore the importance of partnering with the cycling community . . .

This paragraph gives one the impression that the BPIT is a valued resource for City staff, and that they’ll continue to put energy to it. Immediately above it, in the same report, staff outline why they will stop the monthly BPIT meetings, making the meeting a quarterly formality.

The City Hall perspective is completely out of touch with reality: the reality of the streets, and the reality of their inaction. What would their report say if they were in touch with reality?

Here’s what I would report:

After a brief honeymoon period following the bike plan’s passage, advocates and staff returned to their innate positions of conflict. City staff, sometimes called civil servants, did the best to prove that their first service was to themselves and the protection of an inept Bikeways department. Consequently failures occurred across the board. The City failed to meet its first target for almost 50 miles of bikeways in Fiscal Year 2010-11, falling short by (best estimates) 20 miles, and making a liar out of the Mayor, who promised the cycling community fast progress. The City renewed a huge 5 year safety and education contract to bike safety program Safe Moves, which has failed the City of Los Angeles for years. And the City dropped the ball on CicLAvia, double billing and double dipping by charging CicLAvia twice for traffic engineering studies – once for the 10/10/10 CicLAvia, and again for the 4/10/11 CicLAvia.

How’d it happen?

Opaque heel dragging is the new black:

In the bad old days opaque heel dragging was the fashion in this city. City staff proudly showed off each season’s new innovations in stonewalling and citizen deception.

But after the adoption of the bike plan, that all changed. Openness, transparency and good communication became popular like hippy dresses worn over jeans. Everyone bike related at City Hall was showing off their new, healthy relationship with the public. “Oh, did you see that new report that LADOT Bike Blog posted? It shared information! So cuute!” “That willingness to disagree politely that Bikeways tried out the other day was so refreshing – that dour ‘we’re always right’ outfit they had been wearing was so 2010.”

Then came the BPIT meetings.

"Training for BPIT"

The meetings were rough and tumble and everyone didn’t get what they wanted – but that was the point. Staff knew that the public was unhappy, but they needed to know why. Enter the BPIT. The public wanted things to move faster but they needed to learn what the obstacles were. Enter the BPIT. BPIT meetings were, or could have been, the opportunity to find those things out. They were not supposed to be cruise ship vacations with no hangovers – they were supposed to be a way to exchange information, including the important, but painful, info that advocates were not happy with the sluggish pace.

But after one two many crushingly boring meetings with unrestrained ramblings from whomever took the floor (can we get a talking stick please?), and the great TMI-flowchart explaining why nothing gets done, no one wanted anything to do with it. The process was broken and no effort was made to fix it. Advocates said the process was broken and stopped inviting city staff to their swanky cocktail parties. The Mayor, or someone working for him, decided “if it IS broke, still don’t fix it”, made the BPIT a quarterly formality, and hung a “No Visitors” sign at City Hall’s entrance.

Now, opaque heel dragging is the hotness. Walk past City Planning or DOT and you’ll the hushed tones: “I can’t believe they shared information with the outsiders, that’s so done with, don’t they know that?” and “didn’t you just love how they shut down those BPIT meetings, that was so adorable.”

On the other hand, walk past the Eco Village, Bike Kitchen or any other bike hangout and you can expect to hear a lot of forehead slapping. “How could we be so stupid. Of course it was going to go back to the old ways, it’s their nature!  Why did we ever believe them?”

What does it mean?

We don’t know yet what the bad effects, but we can try to read the signs. So far progress on the bike plan has been touch and go. Things appear to move forward, and then get hung up. The 4th St Bike Boulevard project is a great example. I’m not 4th St junkie but just observe the process – it’s been hung up on standing water issues, traffic signal issues, and everything else for years. In a larger sense that’s exactly what’s happening to the city’s momentum on bikes.

The City fell short of it’s stated goals for bikeways additions in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. They came up short on education and reapproved an uninspiring contract with Safe Moves. They double billed on CicLAvia and failed to step up and make sure that the July CicLAvia took place.

Across the board bike projects that should have been discussed and on their way to implementation months ago – can anyone say “Venice Blvd in South LA and DTLA”? – are be stalled out. The City is sticking all kinds of projects into the EIR process without advocate input – with the result that bike projects are being delayed 12 months to a year and a half, whenever they actually get into the EIR process. The City has gone for low hanging bike fruit and is running out, and they’re already behind schedule.  The chance that the Mayor achieves anything he promised gets slimmer by the day.

What can we do?

I don’t know, but I am done with fighting over process. If the City wants to have an inclusive process and work with bike activists and advocates, great, let’s see results. If the City want to exclude bike activists, great, let’s see results. That’s all I care about anymore: results.

If we’re excluded from the process, I’ll lob policy grenades in public until we get results. If we’re included in the process, I’ll press fervently in private until we get results.  We know how to do both, we’re good at both, and I really have no strong preference for either.

For the next 6 months we’ll probably be doing this:

City staff fail utterly.  Advocates scream bloody murder.  Electeds are confused.  Repeat until exhausted.

Now is later.

To be clear, the Bike Plan Implementation Team (BPIT) serves to coordinate efforts among City departments and community stakeholders.  Created by the 2011 LA Bike Plan, the BPIT meets on the first Tuesday of every month to decide how the on-paper ideas of the Plan will become the on-the-ground facilities of our streets.  Frequent participants include City Planning, LADOT, LA Bike Advisory Committee, LACBC, Council representatives, and Bikeside (obviously).  With such a wide variety of voices at the table, you might expect decision-making to be an arduous process.  However, as I mentioned, the City has added a measure of concision, by simply short-circuiting the community’s input.

According to many participants who attended the meeting two months ago, community members were not given enough advance notice of the top ten discussion to prepare recommendations.  Planning and DOT came to the table with loads of preparation.  The conversation that resulted in the final list did not follow a pre-determined procedure.  Now, the informal has almost crystallized without the voice of the people being heard.  The top priority bike projects for our city are being held hostage without due process.

I’ve created some maps to help you understand the shortcomings of the current top ten.  Let’s first take a look at the existing cycling facilities in our city, and those in development.  Here is the existing Backbone Network and the “Year Zero” projects.  Existing facilities are in blue, and Year Zero is in red.  So far, so good.  In fact, the Year Zero projects are doing quite a bit to enhance the connectivity and usefulness of the existing network.

(click any of the map images below to visit the fully interactive versions, which include the Valley and South LA)

Now have a look at how the Top Ten projects fit in (they are highlighted in pink).  Not bad, but I believe we can do better.

Finally, the streets marked in green are the Bikeside recommendations for priority projects.

Let’s take a closer look at the current top ten and my arguments against some of the projects.  In general, we are looking at a series of projects that serve Downtown LA.  I know, I know, it’s the only place that people ride bikes.  But maybe someday in a crazy future LA, people might ride their bikes to the beach.  UCLA students might head to Culver City.  People may even one day ride their bikes in the Valley or South LA!  Besides their geographical concentration, I have a few specific criticisms of these projects.

Take, for example, the S. Figueroa proposal.  This bit smacks of laziness and tunnel vision.  First, this street is already designated as a bike route, which means that cyclists already receive some sort of accommodation.  Second, while we’re on the topic of redundancy, as well as discussing unnecessary repetition, this project does nothing for connectivity that Hoover and Main Streets aren’t already doing.  Finally, it’s entirely opaque to me why we need to connect USC cyclists to a string of car-related businesses, parking lots and finally Staples Center.  Oh, I know!  I’ll ride my bike from school a half-mile to pick up my car from the Midas service center, hitch the car to the back of my bike, then tow it to a nearby parking lot so that I can empty my wallet even faster while I watch the Lakers!  Puh-leez.  Given that the security one enjoys when parking her bike near Staples is analogous to what she enjoys dressed in a banana suit while sitting in a cage full of silverbacks, I doubt that riding your bike to the game will catch on anytime soon.  My suggestion is to scrap this project in favor of something that actually serves some destinations, and enhances the overall usefulness of the network.

Moving a short way west, we find the absolutely pitiful Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. proposal.  This one makes me scratch my head even more than Figueroa.  Once again, we see the City departments giving top priority to a project that simply mimics an existing facility not too far away, in this case, W. 39th St.  And what in the world are the destinations that this project serves?  Getting middle schoolers not even half a mile down the road to the Crenshaw Church for an after school program?  Making sure that the waiters from Jerry’s Flying Fox can make it to 7 Kings Liquor before they head home?  Perhaps the inscrutable wisdom of our city planners escapes me.  Or perhaps this is what it looks like – a worthless project that’s on the table simply to front-load the yearly mileage requirement put forth in the Bike Plan.

The last proposal that I’m going to gripe about is the one on Spring/Main.  And I’m not even going to spend much time doing it, because I see the same problems here as elsewhere.  These roads are already bicycle facilities, and don’t connect to any “uncharted” territory.  Granted, these streets do serve loads of local businesses, but the area is already high-traffic.  Improving bicycle facilities in the area most likely won’t increase the throughput at these shops.

What makes our projects so much better, then?

I’ve already discussed why developing Sepulveda between Santa Monica Blvd. and Venice Blvd. is a good idea.  Add to that the stretch from Culver Blvd. to Centinela, and cyclists can then access the Westfield Shopping Center from Santa Monica, UCLA, even Downtown.  Move to the east and you will see that we suggest extending the Vermont project as far north as Wilshire Blvd.  Completing this connection would be a major foot in the door to providing South LA with quality cycling infrastructure, and an alternative to taking the Harbor Freeway to Downtown.  Notice also that on the north end, Hollywood and Koreatown gain access to truly useful parts of the Backbone, especially Venice Blvd.

Cruise over the hill and you will see that Sherman Way can provide residents with access to tons of businesses, as well as edging closer to a direct connection between the Valley and Downtown.  Endowing Devonshire with a continuous facility should be a no brainer, especially since the remaining portion is less than a mile-and-a-half.

While our recommended stretch of Nordhoff parallels Plummer, it provides a continuous route from one side of CSUN to the other, as well as completing a circuit with Woodley, Devonshire, and Reseda.  It may seem pointless to create a big circle for cyclists to ride around, but that’s not how the road will be used.  These types of connections have been shown to increase ridership in other cities, and they do so by creating maximum surface area for trips to begin and end with relevant destinations.  Finally, Topanga Canyon Blvd. provides great North-South connectivity, joins the rest of the Valley to the western-most spur, and already has funding, design and engineering from Caltrans.

At this stage in the game, it is critical that you, as a member of the cycling community, reach out to your Neighborhood Council, City Council, your favorite bicycle lobby (which is clearly Bikeside, right?), or attend the BPIT meeting, and let the City know what projects should receive priority treatment.  Don’t let Planning and DOT wrestle this process away from us.  Shatter the crystallized top ten list.  Demand due process!

Top of the April 5th BPIT Agenda

Bikeside went to the Bike Plan Implementation Team meeting on Tuesday.  Here’s what we learned and what we think:

7th Street lane:  the project from Catalina to Figueroa is in the outreach phase and city staff are meeting with community stakeholders before finalizing the design.

7th Street continued:  as part of the Wilshire Grand, the developer is setting aside 9 million dollars for street improvements in the immediate area.  Part of that money will go to a bicycle facility on 7th Street extending east from Figueroa.

Sunset Blvd:  Although Sunset is part of the Backbone Network, city staff decided not to take advantage of resurfacing between Douglas and Figueroa to install any facilities.   Staff stated that it was not in the Top 10 and in an anti-gridlock zone, which makes it protected by city ordinance.  Staff also stated, however, that Sunset was purposely restriped in paint, not thermoplastic, so it will be much simpler and cheaper to retrofit.

Venice Blvd:  This will continue the lane from Crenshaw east to Main Street, creating the city’s first continuous facility from Downtown to the Westside.  Staff divided the route into five sections based on road width, each with their own alternatives including lanes, road diets, and sharrows.

BPIT offers a chance to get inside Bikeways’ thinking.  Their Venice presentation began with all the “negative” affects like decreased speed and less auto capacity.  Advocates were quick to jump on that, countering that those things don’t necessarily happen and in some cases aren’t even negatives.  Traffic is not a fixed science, and installing a bike lane does not necessarily increase congestion, advocates said.  If you put in a bike lane in front of Magnolia Avenue Middle School and it decreased traffic speed, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

This mode of thinking is not exactly new.  Lots of cities do innovative treatments that increase safety and demonstrate alternative thinking.  Bikeways seems stuck in the past and unable to demonstrate the kind of current planning their constituency yearns for.  Other communities continue to change the meaning of the urban street and Los Angeles slogs through the mud.  Bikeways should be leading the charge towards a livable Los Angeles, but instead they appear preoccupied with how their projects will affect car travel.  That is bike planning for the 1980s, not the 2010s.

They’re not consciously trying to do this, they’re just stuck in an outdated model and are not directed otherwise.  Take the same staff and plop them in NYCDOT or the Portland Bureau of Transportation and I’m sure they’d do just fine.  And, of course, the next slide of the presentation listed all the benefits of putting in a lane on Venice Blvd.  But why lead with the bad that isn’t actually all that bad?  Look around, Bikeways, this is a new era, and you’re getting left in the dust.

Comprehensive and Competitive Education

Every LA cyclist has been thrown a sharp elbow.  Sometimes, drivers create hazards for us in the form of right hooks, verbal abuse, or dooring.  Sometimes, the streets themselves present a challenge, whether it comes from potholes or debris.  Cycling citizens deserve an opportunity to learn the skills necessary to handle any condition.  When drivers are added to the mix, they should know better than to deny us proper space and respect.  And when we can’t protect ourselves, we deserve educated law enforcement that offers protection based on the letter of the law.  Let’s demand that the City set a standard of education for road users that touches on all modes of transportation, and opens up a competitive bid for the contract that will fulfill this standard.

Sepulveda Synergies

In addition to educating citizens, we will of course continue to move toward greater access to the streets.  One area that causes a great deal of consternation is UCLA.  Currently, the campus is extremely difficult to access from any direction, but with a few small changes it could become a highly connected part of the Backbone Bikeway Network.  Consider what would happen if we allowed cyclists safe passage from Santa Monica Boulevard to Venice Boulevard via Sepulveda.  As soon as Beverly Hills finishes redesigning Santa Monica in 2012, a few high-traffic components will link together to form a giant bikeway running from Hollywood to Venice.  Los Angeles, by re-orienting a mere three miles of road toward bike use, could connect Entertainment and Education to the Beach, and alleviate an ocean of parking issues by the shore.  (Stay tuned for more on Beverly Hills’ effort as it develops.)

Venice’s Final Four

Finally, we have an opportunity to go after a big win this month.  We already know that Venice Boulevard is the best street to ride on in our city, and that it plays a central role in linking together the Backbone Network.  Now is our chance to take a leap by making Venice the first complete component of the Network.  Today, the lane on Venice ends at Crenshaw Boulevard, just four miles short of where Venice ends in Downtown.  Bikeside advocates for increasingly accommodating cycling in these Final Four miles using a variety of techniques, from creating new facilities, to strengthening enforcement against dangerous driving.  The opportunity for raising the standard on LA’s premier cycling street is truly immense.

So what do you think?  Good ideas or just some more hot air?  Are you ready to join us in guiding the implementation of the Bike Plan?  Weigh in with a comment below, or, better yet, join us at the BPIT meeting, Tuesday April 5 at 2:00pm.  We will be at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Room 721.

110317 Cyclist LAPD Task Force Agenda screen shot

Last Thursday, the Cyclist LAPD Task Force met once again (agenda, pdf) to discuss law enforcement and biking in Los Angeles. The Cyclist LAPD Task Force was created last January by Chief Beck and bike activists as a way to begin collaborating, after years of boisterous and acrimonious conflict. So far the Task Force has taken on issues like Critical Mass, training of LAPD officers in the rules of the road for cyclists (and those around them), and hand cuffing, with a degree of success.

At the top of the agenda was a report on LAPD’s 2nd round of Officer Training. You may recall that LAPD previously trained it’s officers in the rudiments of the law re bicycling with a slide show and quiz, last year. This time around, the training went deeper. Sgt Krumer dropped a hint that Bikeside had not posted the new Officer training, so here it is:

(hint taken Sgt Krumer!)

The big news perhaps for Bikeside followers is that LAPD has begun to upgrade enforcement along the Backbone Bikeway Network, which was added – at some personal cost to this activist! – to the final 2010 Bike Plan (and approved.) The department will begin by asking it’s four Traffic Divisions – Valley, West, Central, and South – to report collision statistics along the Backbone.

In a similar vein, LAPD will be reorganizing how they handle bike related incidents. Previously, any bike involved incident would be sent to the appropriate Traffic Division (the four mentioned above) if it was a traffic collision or citation. However, if it was a crime, then it would be handled by the appropriate geographic division – of which there are 21, such as Rampart, Hollywood, and West LA. Now all reports, regardless of whether they are crimes, collisions, or citations, will go to the traffic divisions. While this may seem arcane and irrelevant, it will help us to keep LAPD accountable, by reducing the responsible parties from 25 divisions to just 4.

LAPD also shared that Valley Traffic Division will be putting motorcycle cops on duty on Wilbur Avenue in the road dieted section. At last Tuesday’s community meeting on Wilbur Ave’s reconfiguration (or, as the vote turned out, non-reconfiguration), numerous community members reported that motorists are driving in the bike lanes. Hence, Valley Traffic will work to restore a measure of respect for the bike lane lines. While we’re on Wilbur, Sgt Krumer reiterated that Valley Traffic believes there are fewer collisions on Wilbur since the implementation of the road diet.

A number of other items came up, here’s a quick run down:

• LAPD took a field trip to USC with the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee’s Jeff Jacobberger and Sustainable Street’s Ron Durgin to study safety issues there.
• A short discussion took place regarding how many LAPD officers will staff CicLAvia.
• Stings on unsafe driving around cyclists are stalled. When the topic was raised I suggested that it was important to get it moving, and that, to avoid political blowback, and to be fair, LAPD ought to run stings on cycling behavior at the same time and place as it runs stings unsafe driving.
• Although LAPD will not be changing it’s handcuffing policy, it will clarify how that handcuffing policy applies with respect to cyclists. My hope is that this will give us some leverage to move forward the discussion about the ridiculously frequent cuffings of cyclists.

Present at the meeting were myself (Bikeside), Stephen Box (Bikeside, Bike Writers Collective), Enci Box (Bikeside, Bike Writers Collective), Jeremy Grant (Bikeside), Ron Durgin (Bikeside, Sustainable Streets), Glenn Bailey (LA Bicycle Advisory Committee), Bobby Gadda (LACBC), Commander Jorge Villegas, Sergeant David Krumer, Officer Jeff Kievet, and two officers who I regrettably forgot the names and ranks of (AT fail!)

P.S. – howabout the music in that LAPD training vid?  Rockin!

here.

In November, the City Planning Commission rejected the draft bicycle master plan, largely because the plan’s commitment to bicycle lanes was too weak. It was only after adoption of the Backbone network of lanes that the plan won approval. Furthermore, without a strong commitment to lanes, the plan would never have received support among the cycling community. The inclusion of the Backbone was a ringing endorsement that bicycle lanes are the most important facility for creating a supportive environment for cyclists in Los Angeles.

Metro’s 2011 Call for Projects was LADOT’s first test to back up that endorsement and show it was serious about implementing facilities that would be both useful and have strong community support. LADOT failed this first test.

The 2011 Call for Projects application contains zero bike lane projects. Instead, LADOT submitted projects that are more of the same-old facilities that don’t do much of anything for anyone. The biggest example of this is a project to add a section of bicycle path along Ballona Creek. The section goes less than a mile, from Fairfax Ave to Venice Blvd. It is “stand-alone” and won’t connect to the existing Ballona Creek path. It also duplicates a facility less than a fifth of a mile away on Venice Blvd. For this project, LADOT applied for 2 million dollars. LADOT also applied for funding of a 1.25 mile section of path along the LA River headwaters and a mile-long bridge and path across the LA River downtown. Total facilities: 3.25 miles. Total funding applied for: 16.1 million dollars. By LADOT’s own numbers, the same amount of funding would stripe 575 miles of bike lanes.

Looming larger, though, is the fact that LADOT’s projects are so removed from Metro’s application guidelines. Metro’s materials stated particular projects would receive priority: lanes and paths that are gap closures, facilities close to transit hubs, sharrows, road diets, enhanced bicycle routes, bike parking, wayfinding and signage, and bike sharing.

This is a list of useful projects that the community would certainly support. Yet, it seems LADOT decided to ignore these guidelines almost entirely. Only the bike corrals and the bicycle friendly street projects come close to any of the priorities. There are no lanes, no transit access, and no sharrows. Can it really be that Bikeways had no projects that satisfied these priorities and were suitable for application?

It seems unlikely that Metro would approve funding for facilities as useless as the stand alone Ballona Creek path and as expensive as the Taylor Yard bridge. The LADOT Bike Blog stated that those two projects were included at the request of councilmembers. That fact is what leads us to the real problem with these projects—LADOT Bikeways is afraid of fighting to put in useful facilities. They would rather do a politically easy and useless project like Ballona Creek than a politically hard but worthy project like continuing the lane on Santa Monica.

I want to have faith in LADOT. I want to have faith that, as a cyclist, they care about my needs and safety. I want to have faith that, as an Angeleno, they are working towards a healthy, safer, sustainable city. I want to see LADOT emboldened by community engagement, roll up its sleeves, and fight for a worthy project. For now, though, it seems we will have to wait.

Ed. note: This post originally stated that the 2011 Call did not include bike parking projects. The 2011 Call includes an application for bike corrals to be installed by council district.

On the other hand, the plan is so urban-planning sexy, that it might just even out in the end. For a constituency with such sex appeal, a sex-neutral bike plan is probably just fine.

Sex appeal starts with confidence, boldness, attitude, and some backbone. A man or woman standing tall is sexiest of all. This plan is Los Angeles standing tall. Riding tall. It has sand, guts & salt. It has ambition and it doesn’t run from problems – it runs with solutions. Running alongside, organizing the plan and engaging with it, is the Backbone Bikeway Network.

LA's officially sexy Backbone

You see, Planning staff just went crazy loco with the latest iteration of the plan. They took that nutty Backbone proposal that Bikeside & The Bike Writers Collective had floated, and they owned it. Consequently, the Backbone no longer belongs to us bike scum. No, now it belongs to all of us Los Angelinos.

Los Angeles, your bike plan has a Backbone, and the Backbone, that handsome devil, is in the plan’s details:

Policy 1.1.2, Program A:

Backbone Network

Establish a Backbone Network at an approximately two mile grid to provide access to Downtown Los Angeles, Regional and Community Centers, and community and citywide amenities . . .

If you remember the old plan – that sounds like the Citywide Network has just been renamed as the Backbone. Is that all there is to it, just a change in semantics?

Policy 3.2.2, Program B:

Network Working Group

Establish an informal Network Working Group (Group) as for the Networks. Staff from relevant departments will participate, including but not limited to, DCP, LAPD, DOT, DPW-BSS, RAP, and the Mayor’s Office. The Group will have consistent and substantial representation from the cycling community. The Group may also seek engagement from other relevant local agencies including the County, Metro, LAUSD, and other municipalities . . .

That’s a genuine political mechanism for ensuring the implementation of the Backbone Network, as well as the other two networks – the Neighborhood Network and the Green Network. That alone suggests there might be more to this Backbone inclusion than simply semantics.

Notice that the Network Working Group will have outside cyclists on it. This sets it apart from Bike Plan Implementation Team, which does not have guaranteed citizen representation.

The plan actually outlines this somewhat explicitly, and the section it comes from tells a bit more about the Backbone:

Chapter 5: Collaboration

Collaboration is key to the implementation of the 2010 Plan. Many challenges remain, and each neighborhood will have differing perspectives on the role that bicycling should play in their community. The convenience and safety of cycling in Los Angeles is a street level question, answered day by day and block by block by the experience of individual cyclists. It is difficult to foresee which programs best address cyclists’ needs on each street segment. Therefore, apart from broad trends, the Plan does not try to discern future circumstances. In turn, the Plan leaves great latitude for the prescription of specific solutions to unknown circumstances. The Plan’s policies, programs, and extensive networks provide an alphabet of solutions that can be selected and applied at the right location at the right time.

Coordinating the selection of these solutions will be four key groups, the City’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (3.2.1.A), the Bicycle Plan Implementation Team (3.2.2.A ), the Network Working Group (3.2.2.B) and the Regional Bicycle Plan Implementation Team (3.2.3.A) ,which will assist in identifying, coordinating, scheduling, and implementing appropriate solutions. These groups, comprised of City staff and citizen cyclists with broad expertise and a finger on the City’s cycling pulse, will be well placed to negotiate the political and bureaucratic circumstances to maximize improvements for cyclists. They provide a conduit for City staff to access the skills of peers and the experience of cyclists, as well as a means for cyclists to communicate their needs to staff.

This is part of what’s sexy about the Backbone’s inclusion in the plan. It takes guts to take this approach. Creating a solution that includes citizens from the get-go goes against the traditions of the City. I like that the plan is confronting this problem head on.

I noticed when we were pushing for the Backbone at the last hearing that some of the bigger principles of the Backbone haven’t been well expressed. For example, many people thought we meant to have bike lanes on every portion of the Backbone. Absolutely not. Each street will need to be treated differently. Some streets might desperately need to a separated bike lane in order for most cyclists to feel comfortable. On the other hand, for many streets it’s not a question of facilities, but a question of respect. Education and enforcement may be a better solution.

Even with engineering solutions we can do better than the boring and bland “bike lanes for breakfast, lunch and dinner” diet. In some places signal timing, street resurfacing, changes in intersection configuration or sharrows may be better or more realistic.

The problem is to determine which solutions will work. Without millions of dollars of funding, there’s no way that the plan could determine the right approach to each of the streets in the Backbone. But the plan doesn’t prescribe solutions in this way. Instead it provides the Network Working Group as a way of resolving these issues dynamically. Yes, this kicks the can down the road a bit, but in addition to being unrealistic that we could prescribe solutions for each street now, it’s undesirable. We need the capacity to thoughtfully explore solutions for each street, and the Network Working Group provides this capacity.

As I mentioned in passing, the Backbone proposal is not to simply add bike lanes to each street.  Similarly, it is also not a proposal to only address connectivity with facilities & engineering.  Methods that use encouragement, enforcement, or education to make a street safe are top of the list for the Backbone.  In fact, since these types of solutions can often be less expensive, and because they sometimes involve less political strife, they can be more desirable.  Non-engineering solutions in many cases can be implemented on all the streets of the Backbone *today*, providing the possibility that we could have a functional Backbone within a year or two years, not decades.  Again, the plan:

With capital funding limited, and hundreds of miles of street facilities to maintain and improve, merely providing bicycle facilities would not provide the beneficial results that this 2010 Plan envisions. In some cases, infrastructure solutions alone cannot solve all of the problems that cyclists encounter, as we have seen with collisions that occur within bicycle facilities. Conversely, infrastructure modifications may not always be necessary to create a supportive environment for cyclists. Integrating engineering approaches with education, enforcement, and encouragement programs multiplies the benefits to cyclists. Just as the Networks weave together to form a complete Citywide Bikeway System, the Plan offeres an opportunity to focus a variety of its individual programs on a portion of a network in order to improve dramatically the safety and convenience of those select corridors.

I’m finding that it’s better to think of the Backbone as a goal rather than a prescriptive set of programs. Take the streets of the Backbone and ask yourself, “what would need to happen to make these streets ultra-safe and ultra-convenient for cyclists?” Whatever your answer is, or whatever our answer as a city is, that’s the Backbone. The goal is connectivity. The methods are whatever is politically necessary (and politically productive!) and whatever is physically and socially necessary.

There’se more to say, but not in this post. I’m extremely grateful to everyone who made the Backbone happen, whether it was thinking of it, facilitating it politically, or working it into the plan – Stephen Box, Claire Bowin, Heidi Sickler, and Joe Linton deserve special mention. Let me leave you with some quotes from the 2010 Bike Plan that show how the Backbone integrates with the plan. These are not all the places that the Backbone is mentioned, but it will give you a sense for how the Backbone is expressed:

The 707 mile Backbone Network will enable access to major employment centers, transit stations and stops, and educational, retail, entertainment, and other open space and recreational resources. It is expected that the Backbone will initially be used primarily by experienced riders who are comfortable riding close to moderate to heavy traffic volumes. However, in time, by resolving the perceived and actual dangers to cyclists on arterials, the Backbone streets may become more accessible to riders less comfortable with greater traffic volume.

…

Each network works with the others to enhance their individual functions, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Segments of each network were chosen with the other networks in mind to achieve maximum coverage. The target types of cyclists for each network were considered in relation to the others, and the types of potential engineering solutions on each network were drawn up with the other networks in mind.

…

At their core then, all three networks enhance neglected open spaces, and in this fashion, all three networks work together. Indeed, the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks, where they integrate seamlessly with the Green Network, put the City’s lively street activities in touch with its natural beauty.

…

The Networks are, at their core, not only a physical network of inter-connected streets and paths but also an organizing structure, around which to focus the Plan’s many policies and programs defined in Chapter 4. A holistic approach to creating supportive cycling environments on network elements will necessarily make use of many policies and programs.

…

Both the Neighborhood Network and the Backbone represent a rethinking of the city’s streets as more than conduits for moving motor vehicle traffic. Streets are our most abundant open spaces, and the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks provide the opportunity to enhance the function of these streets for cyclists, pedestrians, and indirectly, by making them more civilized as open space, and enhancing their function as places for commerce.

…

Policy 1.1.2 C

Five Year Implementation Strategy: In collaboration with the community and Council Districts develop a comprehensive implementation strategy to identify funds and construct at least 200 miles of bicycle facilities on the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks every five years until complete.

…

Policy 1.1.7 A

Transit/Bikeway Priority Streets: Establish Major Class II Streets within the Backbone Network that have Rapid Bus Service as Transit/Bicycle Priority Streets. Review the need for a peak hour travel lane on Transit/Bicycle Priority Streets. Install transit/bicycle only lanes where feasible.

…

Policy 1.2.2 A

Sidewalk Bicycle Parking Program: Continue to install and maintain City-standard bicycle racks on sidewalks. Identify areas with demand for bicycle racks and implement an installation schedule. Prioritize the installation of racks on streets within either the Backbone and/or Neighborhood Networks.

…

Policy 1.2.7 F

Expanded Bicycle Parking Standard: Explore the feasibility of permitting reduced vehicle parking in exchange for bicycle parking especially in locations along the Backbone Network and/or adjacent to a transit station.

…

Policy 1.3.1 B

Bicycle-Transit-Only Lanes: Allow bicycle use on surface street bus-only lanes as permitted by California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21202. Work with Metro to develop bus-only lane standards to accommodate bicycles and install appropriate signage and on-street markings. Identify corridors on the Backbone Network that are potential candidates for the inclusion of bus-only lanes.

…

Policy 1.3.2 A

Clean Mobility Hubs (Bicycle Commuter Center): Work with transit agencies and adjacent property owners to include attendant operated bicycle storage, lockers, restrooms and showers, and bicycle rental and repair facilities, and WiFi at all transit stations identified as Clean Mobility Hubs on the Bicycle Plan Maps. Coordinate and support Metro efforts as necessary. Leverage the role of the Mayor and the Mayor’s appointees as members of the Metro board and/or the Metro Technical Advisory Committee to increase support for the development of bicycle amenities at transit locations. Prioritize the development of Hubs that are located on the Backbone Network.

…

Policy 1.3.2 D

Bus Stop Bicycle Parking: Work with Metro, local transit agencies and adjacent property owners to include bicycle parking racks within 50’ of all existing and new transit stops. Prioritize bus stops that are located on either the Backbone or Neighborhood Networks.

…

Policy 1.4.1 C

Recreational Rides: Organize and lead local and citywide recreational rides ranging from 5-30 miles. Prioritize routes that include the Green, Backbone or Neighborhood Networks.

…

Policy 1.4.1 G

Streets as Public Space: Encourage the use of Backbone and Neighborhood Streets for a variety of events such as Farmers’ Markets, Art Cycles and other cycling events, parades, races, and art fairs to promote public awareness of streets as public space.

…

Policy 1.4.2 H

Wayfinding: Develop and install wayfinding signage along the Green, Backbone, and Neighborhood Networks to inform cyclists of key destinations along or adjacent to their route.

…

Policy 1.4.3 B

Bicycle Buddy Program: Develop and operate a Bicycle Buddy Program to encourage the use of the bicycle for commuting purposes on the Backbone Network. Work with the City and Metro to disseminate information about the Program.

…

Policy 2.2.1 B

Sting Operations: Target unsafe bicycle riding, and motorist driving behavior on the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks and in school zones as resources permit. Publicize the stings to improve bicycle and motorist interaction.

…

Policy 2.2.4 A

Hot Zones Map: Develop and update annually a GIS-based map of crash data … that reflects the number and types of all collisions (auto, bicyclist, pedestrian) that are occurring throughout the City …

Objective: Direct funding dollars and improvements to locations with moderate to high SWITRS collisions particularly those along the Backbone Network and in school zones.

…

Policy 2.3.5 B

Bikeways Maintenance Program: Establish and implement a routine maintenance program which responds to the visual inspection reports for repair/removal of potential hazards, including but not limited to potholes, railroad crossings, inappropriate/unsafe storm drain grates, and gutter cracks. Prioritize the maintenance of streets on the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks.

…

Policy 3.1.3 B

Bicycle Plan Trust Fund: Establish a trust fund to collect project related trip-mitigation fees to be used for 2010 Plan project and program implementation. Prioritize the use of funds on the Backbone Network.

…

Policy 3.1.3 C

Standard Mitigation Measure Revision: Revise the standard mitigation measures to include contributions to the Bicycle Plan Trust Fund and/or the installation of bicycle facility improvements and/or bicycle amenities such as parking, internal bikeway paths, etc. Focus fund improvements on the Backbone Network.

…

Policy 3.2.5 D

Annual Bicycle Count: With the assistance of local bicycle groups, count the number and type (sex, age) of cyclists traveling on the Backbone and Neighborhood Networks each year.

Dreaming of what could be

Better Bike BH touches upon Beverly Hills’ blatant disregard of the federal Complete Streets policy, lack of bike parking, and overall sheer inaction on everything bike-related.

I personally have yet to see a single sign post or pavement marking that acknowledges the existence and the rights of cyclists in Beverly Hills.  Indeed, not a single inch of bike lane.

My favorite is a photo gallery which depicts both problems and solutions with a series of Before and After scenarios.

One of their most pressing campaigns is making that uncomfortable (to say the least) stretch of Santa Monica Blvd rideable, either through on-street infrastructure, or an adjacent separated path.  I fully support this, since this stretch of Santa Monica Bl is the least pleasant part of my daily commute.  Why do cyclists get demoted to 2nd class citizens as soon as they leave the comfort of the bike lane which dead ends on Beverly Hills’ doorstep?

If you have something to suggest or have equally strong feelings about these issues, the next meeting is this Sunday.  Grab a slice from Mulberry Street Pizzeria, then walk down to Peet’s Coffee.

October 31st, 2 pm
Peet’s Coffee, 258 S. Beverly Drive, 90212

Agenda items:

• Safe Routes to school
• Bike lanes
• Citywide network of bike friendly streets
• Previous and upcoming events

Be advised that the Halloween Parade is taking place on Sunday evening in adjacent West Hollywood, so if you want to avoid traffic, getting there by bike would be the best option.

Also, if you want to get in on the loop, check out the Better Bike BH Google Group – http://groups.google.com/group/better-bike-bh.

“Oh but what about the nice weather, the beach, the movie stars, the abundance of avocados??”.

No.  None of that makes up for the huge inequalities, lack of humanity and compassion, and the bad air quality.

Sure, there’s a cute, livable, walkable bubble here and there, but they’re too far apart to make LA feel like a cohesive city.  As a whole, Los Angeles blows.
First step to creating change is to complain and create a ruckus, let folks know you’re not happy.  That involves, well, a whole lot of complaining.  More cyclists (and Angelenos in general) need to complain, on a regular basis.  Stop going straight home after work to your TV shows, it’s making you lethargic and impassive.

But while you complain as loudly as you  can, you should concurrently try to find out why things aren’t the way they should be.  That’s what I’m hoping to accomplish here.  Why does my daily commute to work feel so unsafe?

Let’s start with one of the most obvious offences.  The reason so many cyclists’ commute through Beverly Hills and the LA Country Club sucks is due to the fact that they have to avoid the few streets that are direct routes through this area.  Sunset, Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard.  Further south, we have Olympic and Pico.  Sure, if they’re bold enough, they chance it anyway and deal with the fast moving traffic and bad pavement.  In some lone cases, even a dead-ending bike lane.

Sunset has some decent stretches. But once it starts winding around those blind curves north of the Country Club, you’re using up an extra life riding on a street with no shoulder and no sidewalk to bail out to.

Santa Monica Bl is great throughout West Hollywood, that short-lived bike lane is the best part of my commute.  Slightly better than Wilshire when crossing through Koreatown or Mid-City, but still not a pleasant ride.

Wilshire.  Oh Wilshire.  Potholes the size of craters.  Maybe one day I won’t feel like Don Quixote on a bike, fighting against the rapid buses, and dueling with fast cars with no license plates.  I keep hearing about this bike/bus lane of epic proportions – I’ll believe it when I see it.

Beverly Hills is part of the problem.  I don’t want to be the next Brandon Chau.  We need more enforcement, more accountability – why can’t the police and judicial system be biased in the cyclists’ favor for once?

Whomever is in charge of the Gauntlet on Wilshire is part of the problem.  And we’re not the only ones with a shitty street by that name.  A major part of the problem is the sheer size and placement of the Los Angeles Country Club.  Why is that monstrosity even there?!?  It feels like a slap in the face of riders commuting through there.

Residential streets are not an option – I’ve tried it enough to know that the more you turn off a street and onto another, you increase your chances of getting hit by a nonchalant unattentive motorist.  Therefore, these major thoroughfares must be made safer to ride.

From what I can tell, Los Angeles has been sucking for at least the past 30 years.  All of its major problems still haven’t been dealt with.  Regardless of what cards we’ve been dealt, we can’t let it get any worse.  If you give a damn about this city, you better complain every chance you get.

LA get your standards up!

Legend to the 1977 Backbone

LA already has a Backbone . . . from 1977.  City Planner Claire Bowin discovered and scanned this map from the 1977 LA Bike Masterplan.  It’s a map of the planned bikeways from that plan, and it plans for two systems – a Backbone system and a broader (but one assumes, lower priority) Citywide system.  That’s right, someone in 1977 conceived of a Backbone network for Los Angeles and you can download the scanned map here (2.3 Mb pdf.)

1977 Backbone, Central Area

Not only that, they appear to have had a similar concept – a sparser network of big streets that would connect Los Angeles cyclists to all parts of LA.  They even chose some of the same roads – for instance check out this screenshot of the central area.  The heavy squiggly lines denote elements of the 77 Backbone, and  that’s Venice Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Sepulveda, and Vermont in heavy squiggles.  Those streets appear both in the 77 Backbone and nearly finalized 09 Backbone.

What blows my mind about this is that we never knew about the 77 Backbone.  Stephen and I brainstormed this concept along with a bunch of others independently.  So, how did we arrive at the same place?

I contend that a Backbone network is a natural idea for Los Angeles.  Sprawling Los Angeles as it is today inspires the Backbone.  Los Angeles as it was in 77 also inspired a Backbone.  We see phenomena like this all the time where an idea is arrived at independently by two different persons or groups.  Einstein and Hilbert both discovered the equations for general relativity independently and nearly simultaneously; Newton and Leibniz derived the fundamentals of Calculus independently.

We’re no math & physics geniuses, trust me.  But, we see a similar phenomenon in nature which doesn’t require individual genius.  Often species evolve similarly in response to their environment.  Birds and bats both evolved wings.  Dolphins and sharks both developed dorsal fins, and have similar swimming surfaces to the “swimming dinosaur” Ichsyosaurus.  It’s a process biologists call convergent evolution, and it happens when natural selection pressures select for similar characteristics in different species.

Was either the 77 Backbone or the 09 Backbone a product of an evolutionary process?

Consider this: out of 20 or so concepts from that brainstorming session, and a number of others brainstormed in Bike Working Group (BWG) III, only 12 made it to the finish line, including the Backbone.  Then the Backbone was selected as one of the top 5, and then one of the top 3, by a vote at BWG III.  The Bike Working Group steering committee was so enamored with the idea, we selected it as the focus for BWG IV and V.  Even the streets were selected in a competitive process, where participants at the BWG IV and V proposed streets and other participants supported or countered their suggestions.  As well, at each step the BWG Steering Committee refined the non-physical aspects of the Backbone concept.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 77 Backbone also arose through an evolutionary planning process, beating other ideas to the finish line again and again.

So what is it about LA that provokes, that needs, that inspires a Backbone?

Well, maybe it’s just the sheer size of the LA sprawl . . . it just goes on for miles and miles and miles.  And unlike a place like NYC, it doesn’t have the geography of the rivers defining it’s sprawl.  Sure, we have the hills, the mountains and ocean.  But a river has a harsher effect on transportation, a decisive way of stopping you.  You can ride up a hill, and over a mountain, but you can’t bike across a river.  I guess you can call the LA river a factor, but it’s just not that expensive to cross, so it presents far less of a barrier than the Hudson.

Further, LA’s development is so lacking in definition.  NYC has a distinct core, Manhattan, which defines it’s center.  LA has . . . what?  Downtown LA is developed, but it’s not really the hub of LA.  Without Manhattan, NYC would be in shambles, but without DTLA, LA would make do.  LA is like a sprawling carpet of moss – no one part completely dependent on the others, all the parts equally important and equally unimportant.

If you lose the freeways, it’s the same with LA’s streets.  There’s no one street or two streets or three streets that define LA.  Take out Vermont, Van Nuys Blvd, and Venice, and traffic just shifts east or west or north or south.  That’s true for motorists and cyclists.

In other words, LA geography doesn’t choose a Backbone for us.  It doesn’t, by way of geography, indicate what roads are important and what aren’t.

So in lieu of that, Los Angelinos must make their own decisions about what roads are important.  That’s the Backbone – cyclists creating and defining and owning the cycling geography of Los Angeles.

Most everyone came to a consensus that the policy of the Backbone is to open the streets to all users (drivers, bikers, peds) and share the streets the safest way possible. The Backbone standards do not require physical removal of car lanes; but, in some cases a road diet may be demanded of the current condition. On some streets, it’s just a matter of connecting or extending the existing bike lane (Venice Bl or Santa Monica). Maybe it’s as simple as green lanes or sharrows. Some intersections and straightaways might need more traffic enforcement to keep the speeders and light runners at bay. It could be a just a sign that directs bicyclists to the safest route. There are many solutions — the Backbone isn’t just a single solution plan.

“This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” -Ray LaHood, US Secretary of Transportation

The philosophy of the Backbone Bikeway Network is connectivity. The Backbone will be a lifeline that gives priority to people and their choices in life (work, play, shop, eat, etc.). This is in deep contrast to the status quo. Up until now the roads have come to divide one neighborhood from another. A safer transportation environment that is geared to the user (and not the device) will transform the cluster of communities we call the City of LA and connect them in a way that makes it easier, friendlier, and safer for everyone.

Alex unveiled the LA Bike Map that showed the number of bike related traffic incidences just around the Hollywood area where the meeting was at. It wasn’t surprising considering the concentration of traffic the nearby streets see everyday. Unsafe traffic conditions are what keep most people from using a bike for local commuting and short leisure trips. By taking the data from the LA Bike Map the Backbone Bikeway Network can address the need of safety across the whole City and bring new riders to the streets.

Part of BWG V was set aside to review and critique the Backbone Bikeway Network Maps. As in the last meeting, the maps were broken down into Central, Valley and Harbor areas and reviewed one at a time by each group. This way the Bike Working Group promoted joint ownership of solutions and defuses the typical confrontational attitudes between community and infrastructure development. Individual stakeholders from throughout the City, the Mayor’s office, and co-operatives (Valley Bikery and Bikerowave, just to name a few) offered their input on what the best streets for Backbone should be. Keep an eye out for map revisions after the Backbone Bikeway Network is fully examined and evaluated.

After the review of the maps we moved on to presenting the wayfinding and signage element of the Backbone Bikeway Network. You can view the full presentation here.

Once the Backbone is in place it is essential for people to be able to use it in a very practical and almost effortless way. Signs informing cyclists of Backbone Bikeway Network direction changes and to confirm distance, direction, and destination allows cyclists and pedestrians (and even motorists) to know their location if they are not already familiar with the area. Wayfinding signage would encourage more people to use the Backbone and make bicycling integral to our daily life. It would bring together the neighborhoods that are left so disconnected today. (…full article)

We finished up by having a group discussion about the vision of the Backbone Bikeway Network and the next steps that will be taken to put this plan in place. The word is definitely out on the street with radio, television and newspaper mediums picking up the story. The time for change is now. The City’s planning and transportation departments need to recognize that the citizens of Los Angeles suffer on a daily basis because of their inability to coordinate a safe bikeway network. We must inform residential and commercial communities that a strong bicycling infrastructure will enhance their neighborhood’s economy, environment, health, and safety. It’s time we improve the quality of the streets for the people and make them efficient for everyone.

Photos by Mihai Peteu.

The Full Backbone Network

This Saturday, March 6th, we’ll finalize the Backbone Bikeway Network streets, and move on to discussing methods for making those streets ultra safe and ultra convenient for cyclists.  From 2pm till 5pm the fifth Bike Working Group will convene at the Hollywood Adventist Church (around the back) at 1711 N Van Ness Blvd.

Everyone is welcome, and everyone will be looked to for input.  Come out and be heard!

Here’s some links to accurate articles about the Backbone:

• The Vision of the Backbone at IlluminateLA
• Wayfinding & Signage on the Backbone Bikeway Network at JeremyGrant.com
• LA’s Best Bike Plan – A plan with a Backbone at SoapBoxLA
• The Backbone Bikeway Network – Valley Edition at JeremyGrant.com
• The Backbone Bikeway Network right here, on BikesideLA.org

Also, my HULK-like co-blogger, Mihai, will be on KPCC tomorrow on the Pat Morrison show, getting interviewed about he Backbone Network.  The show is from 1pm-3pm, but Mihai says he’ll probably be on sometime between 1:20 and 1:40.  Looks like NBC may be in on some interview action for Mihai too.

I really like getting Jeremy’s perspective on the Backbone Network.  I love this part:

Taking a hint from our past transportation history in Los Angeles, a “freeway” system similar to that used by cars should be implemented for bicycles to facilitate longer trips. While motorists are presented with an easy to use and efficient route for longer distances, cyclists have had to deal with a zig-zag, mish-mash of dead-end bike lanes, inadequate lane markings and poor signage.

and I also love how he wrapped up:

The advantage of a powerful system such as this is that it provides transportation improvements for all level of road users. Sure, it will enhance the bicyclist’s experience; but, it will also mitigate the difficulty of sharing the road with motorists and pedestrians resulting in a safer road atmosphere for everyone.

but the real gems are in his recalling how we put these things together (and of course, they’re not final, but they’re finally out there!)  For those comments, and for a look at the map,  you gotta visit his blog.

Backbone Bikeway Network, Central Area (updated) - click to enlarge

It’s the Backbone Bikeway Network.  The Backbone Bikeway Network will get you from Downtown to West LA, Crenshaw to Valley Village, and LAX to Hollywood.  The Backbone doesn’t have neighborhood level detail, because that’s not what a citywide system is for – this system gets you 5 and 10 and 20 miles across town.  It goes on major streets – arterials – unlike the proposed Bike Plan, and it gets you within striking distance of major destinations like Dodger Stadium and City Hall.

This is the first section – the Central Area.  Mad props are due to Mihai Peteu for designing this beautiful map – let’s hear it for Mihai!  In the next few days we’ll come out with the Valley map, and the South LA map.  This is the hardwork of the 3rd Bike Working Group, and we fought and loved over each decision.  Therefore, we invite you to criticize!

Here’s a basic criticism: what do you do once you get near your destination and you must leave the Backbone?  Then you make use of the neighborhood network.  The neighborhood network is whatever the neighborhood has – bike lanes, sharrows, traffic calming, narrow streets with high speeds and pot holes, wide streets with calm traffic, whatever happens to exist there.

The draft plan fell into a trap – it tried to describe the big picture (the Backbone) and it tried to describe the small picture (the neighborhoods), in one step.  It did that all at one level of detail, street by street, zoomed all the way in.  That might work for a small town, but for such a big city, it’s confusing at best.  Trying to use the city’s draft to understand the big picture is like using a Thomas guide to get to Vegas.

Now, you might say, “if they implement the proposed plan, it won’t matter that the maps are hard to read, just so long as the facilities exist.”  Well, sure, if it was a good plan.  However, it’s pretty clear that when they were designing the plan the designers were zoomed way in too.  Proposed bikeways squiggle and end, and they change types.  By designing with the map zoomed all the way in, they lost the big picture, and we ended up with a vision-less proposal for a bikeway system.  Moreover, as Joe Linton showed us, when you do the math, there really wasn’t much planned in the draft proposal.

We left out the neighborhood network because we wanted a clear, communicable vision of what city connectivity could be, and should be.  However, we’ve got a secret tool box of innovative approaches we hope to deploy in neighborhoods.  I’ll give you some clues – they involve neighborhood level democracy, cut through traffic, and mini-humans.

The Backbone doesn’t lack vision, but it demands political will.  At $8,000 per mile of bike lane, striping this network would cost next to nothing.  However, it will take political will to stand up to the status quo who don’t want to come to the bike party – it’s an ambitious plan.  I say, “so what?”  I’m here to stay and we’re prepared to develop and supply the political will to make this happen.  I will personally go to neighborhood councils along these stretches and make impassioned pleas for support.  We will make it happen, we only require the endorsement of City Council of the concept.

Over the next few days we’ll post the other maps, and provide a few more details about the Bike Working Group’s conception of the Backbone.  Until then, weigh in!

Last time we identified our 5 most important design principles:

• Genesis: Every street is a street cyclists will ride
• All City: Create a Backbone bikeway network that will get cyclists from any part of the city to any other
• Action: LA must commit to implement key measures within 2 years
• Transformation: Neighborhood pilots projects to create pockets of ultra bike friendliness, including bike boulevards.
• Equality: The Cyclists’ Bill of Rights is the foundation for the plan.

Last time we got started on identifying streets for the back bone network.  This time we’ll start with that, getting a solid discussion going on which streets and what should go on them.  Then we’ll spend some time identifying what programs the City of LA could implement as low hanging fruit in other categories, and what measures we want implemented within 2 years of adoption.

Come by, and lets work!

(Photo by Mr. Rollers)