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!

Call them what you want: Cycle Tracks, Protected Bike Lanes, Bike Paths. Bottom line is, most people won’t start riding until you take cars out of the equation. Why? Because even well-intentioned people do stupid or careless sh**, and when people do stupid or careless sh** while in a car, they could hurt or kill others.  Even a cyclist’s own mistake can put them at much greater risk when riding alongside traffic.

So we have a chicken and the egg problem – you have to build great facilities first, then the people will ride.  Current bike lane designs are ripe for abuse.  There’s no way in hell police departments anywhere in the city will ever be able to effectively police bike lane misuse.  In some cases, police themselves use them as parking lanes.  Needless to mention, bike lanes also fail at protecting the cyclist.  Visual proof follows.

Standard Bike Lanes Are Failing

Ahh, the all-too-familiar Venice Bike lane block'o'trashcans...

Common occurence on the Ocean Ave bike lane, Santa Monica

UPS truck in New York, one of the biggest repeat offenders on the My Bike Lane website.

Impromptu unloading area, West Hollywood

Simple solution to avoiding all of the above:

Completely take cyclists out of harm’s way. 

The "controversial" Prospect Park West bike lane, NYC

Dennis Hindman hits it right on the head with his comments on the “BPIT Top 10” LADOT Bike Blog article. We need a “perceived barrier” that physically separates and protects cyclists from car traffic.  As a buffer, use planters, landscaping, bollards, or a row of parked cars.  You know, “experimental” stuff that most people here would consider futuristic or unattainable.  Vancouver gets it, Montreal gets it.  Expect, and ask for more.  Remind your local government that cyclists pay the same taxes that motorists pay*.  We have the right to ride safely and free of fear.

More proper propaganda follows – both excellent Streetsfilms shorts.

Physically Separated Bike Lanes

Prospect Park West Family Bike Ride/We Ride the Lanes

Physically Separated Bike Lanes

* preemptive warning to ignant fools that dare bring up the cost of Gas in the comments:  gas is not a tax, it’s an energy commodity.  Kind of like food for cyclists.

UPDATE
The Grand Opening of Long Beach’s protected bike lanes on Broadway and 3rd streets is this Saturday at Noon.

The existing LA County Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in 1975 and not updated since.  The draft plan identifies 695 new miles of bicycle facilities.  Most of that will be in the Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys, but there are important parts of Western LA County that the draft plan covers, like Marina del Rey and the Santa Monica Mountains.

About half of the new miles will be Class III bike routes designated only by a “Bike Route” sign.  Only 20 miles—3 percent—of the draft plan are nonstandard treatments, and those are limited to Bicycle Boulevard Class III enhancements.  County staff stated that no other non-standard facilities would be included in the plan, citing the fact that they are still considered “experimental” by CALTRANS.

Steve Diels, Redondo Beach Councilmember, led an icebreaker and then Brett Hondorp of Alta Planning gave one of Alta’s tried-and-true presentations before opening the room up for questions.  At that point, a cascade of pent-up frustration fell upon County staff.  Why no continuous bike path along the beach?  Why no nonstandard facilities?  How were new facilities chosen?  Why is the draft plan unfunded and what about Measure R funds?  Why can’t Marina real estate developers include facilities as part of their projects?  What’s with inconsistent enforcement by LA County sherrifs?  LA County staff Abu Yusuf and Allan Abramson dutifully answered each question, but could not offer any solutions or assurances beyond the scope of the draft plan itself.

The largest frustrations were with the proposed facilities around the Marina.  Several attendees complained that the draft plan did not really enhance cyclist safety.  One attendee ask why not a separated lane around the Marina on Admiralty Way?  Cycle tracks are experimental, County staff replied.  One attendee said he would never take ride on Washington Blvd with his family during the summer, even on the existing lane.  The draft plan essentially ignores two of the largest incident points in the Marina, especially Admiralty & Palawan Way:

To its credit, there is a lot of good in the draft plan.  One facility Bikeside likes in particular will help link the Westside with South Bay along Aviation Blvd.  Aviation Blvd is the only way for cyclists to take a mile-saving inland route to the South Bay and avoid the Sepulveda Tunnel.  This— thankfully a Class II lane—will link up to LA City facilities to the north and, hopefully, to another facility included in the South Bay draft master plan.

There is one enormous Westside gap, however:  Sepulveda Blvd.  As Sepulveda crosses the VA Campus, from Ohio Ave to Cashmere St, it falls under County jurisdiction.  The County’s section of Sepulveda includes the intersection of Wilshire & Sepulveda.  That intersection, as shown by maps in the County’s draft plan, is one of the biggest incident points in the Westside under County control, and they are essentially deciding to do nothing about it.  Their plan will dump cyclists into traffic at the most dangerous intersection along Sepulveda.

County staff stated at the meeting that they wanted the plan to make it so a cyclist would never know when he or she were entering or leaving County territory.  That clearly doesn’t apply here.  The City of LA made Sepulveda part of the Backbone and thinks it perfectly reasonable to put down a lane all the way from Culver City to Van Nuys, yet the County considers a bike lane on this strip of Sepulveda “Not Feasible.”  Way to go, LA County–you just made the City of LA the more progressive bike planning entity!

Staff are taking public comment on the draft plan until May 20th.  Let them know you want a safer Marina and a lane on Sepulveda at http://lacountybikeplan.com/contact/.

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.

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.

This morning LACBC blogged that the draft needs work, and Joe Linton simultaneously made his stance known on LA Streetsblog.  They join Bikeside, Stephen Box, Damien Newton, and Josef Bray-Ali, among others, in publicly voicing their unhappiness with the draft.

We’ve got to keep voicing our opinions on this draft, and the best opportunity to do that is tomorrow – Thursday, Nov 4th, at City Hall (City Council Chambers), at 8:30 am in the Planning Commission hearing. It’s item 10 on the agenda, so you can play the “come a bit late” game, but I wouldn’t chance it too much.  However, it is possible the item will come up significantly after 9:30.

The question is, will the Planning Commission hear the message – that this bike plan doesn’t cut it – and take the unified cycling community’s advice?  We can get a good plan out there, relatively painlessly, but it requires some fortitude on Planning’s part.

Each new voice has brought a simple, clear and direct revision to the table, so let’s review some of them:

Josef Bray-Ali – simple tweaks for good policy:

Trolling the plan, Josef Bray-Ali has come up with some small tweaks that are game changers.  He points out that allowing developers to swap out of parking for bike parking can be a win-win.  Development costs are reduced and street space becomes available, and most importantly, cyclist have something better than a dying sapling to lock to.

He also points out that while the plan gives limited voice to discussing data collection, it does not commit or even discuss the frequency for reporting this data.  We can have all the data in the world, but if it’s collecting dust in Michelle Mowery’s filing cabinet, it won’t do us any good.

Joe Linton – how we got here, and poison pills:

In his Streetsblog post, Joe runs the plan through a historical lens.  How did we get here?  How, after spending $450,000 hiring one of the best consultants money can buy, and nearly 3 years of work, did we end up with a bike plan that is universally considered unacceptable?

In 2009, the city spends about half a year dismantling their consultants’ recommendations, and then publishes their initial bike plan draft to near-universal dismay. The plan introduces a new category of “speculative” bike lanes (about 400 miles) - initially labelled “infeasible” later called “potential” later called ”further study.”

This kind of semantic manipulation ends up with the bike plan being littered with poison pills which deflate the bike plan’s stated goals.  The fixes that Rach, Joe and I developed hit on a few of these:

A worthwhile bike plan will commit the city to making L.A.’s streets safer for bicycling.  The current (1996) approved plan in effect today designates 190 additional future miles of bike lane. The 2010 draft commits to ~56 miles of additional future bike lanes.

…

3.1.1 The bike plan should include more bike lane mileage than the current plan already in effect.

3.1.2 The bike plan should commit to robust bike-friendly street treatments. While it’s not feasible to detail every location, the plan should at least target implementation beyond the minimum. As currently specified in the draft, all the bike-friendly street facilities could be considered complete if the city installs a couple hundred signs.

….

3.1.3 All technical standards should support bike facility implementation. Minimum car-lane width should preferably be 9 feet, and certainly not worse than today’s 10-foot standard.

The gist of this is that firstly, the any adopted bike plan must be honest about the commitment the plan makes to facilities.  The poison pills are deceptive in that they leave people thinking they have been promised something, when in the hundreds of pages of fine print it is made clear that they are not.

The second point is that those honest commitments to facilities must be substantial.  Otherwise we can kiss our future as a city goodbye – we’ll just remain mired in an antiquated and soul sucking way of doing things, and personally, if we don’t get out of that mode, I’m outta here.

LACBC – a real commitment to Bike Boulevards:

From the outset of the bike plan update process, city employees have sought to include bike boulevard language, but under the euphemism “Bicycle Friendly Streets” (abbreviated BFS.)  The euphemism is a problem, and I promise it will be more of one down the line.

LACBC identifies a greater problem (as just one recommendation of three.)  In the current plan, signage and sharrows, or even lesser pavement markings, can be enough to designate a street as BFS.  That’s barely an upgrade from the much reviled bike route standard.  LACBC specifies a simple solution:

As was mentioned in our previous post, Planning did incorporate some changes but did not do enough to distinguish a Bicycle Friendly Street from a bike route. We are asking that Planning stipulate that every Bicycle Friendly Street will incorporate signage, on-street pavement markings, and traffic calming features; a minimum of 3 treatments. For a Bicyle Friendly street to actually prioritize bicycle travel it must always incorporate traffic calming features in addition to signage and on-street markings, thus differentiating it from a bike route.

Stephen Box – Planning for Incomplete Streets:

Stephen sussed out an important detail from the staff report on the bike plan.  On January 1st AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act of California, goes into effect. The act requires that any major revision to City’s General Plan which affects roadways will plan for all modes.  This is a big deal for cyclists because it means that in the future the City’s General Plan will have to plan for us, and pedestrians, and transit users – not just motorists.

But the staff report (pdf, pg 18) asserts that the draft bike plan doesn’t have to comply with Complete Streets:

… the development of the 2010 Bicycle Plan, as a single chapter, does not represent a substantial revision of the Transportation Element …

In other words, from city staff’s perspective, the bike plan is not a significant aspect of the Transportation Element, and therefore changing it is not a significant revision to the General Plan.  That means they don’t think it must comply with Complete Streets.

You gotta ask, why, in a draft BIKE PLAN, are we planning for Incomplete Streets?  Stephen:

It’s only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?

Complete Streets should be at the center of any adopted bike plan.

Damien Newton – Improvement does not denote success:

I’m a pretty strong cyclist, but I could get 10% faster and I still wouldn’t be world class.  In the same fashion, even if this draft is better than the currently adopted bike plan, and I don’t agree that it is, improvement is not synonymous with success.  The current bike plan is so deficient, and the draft bike plan presented last September was so bad, that you can start from either, improve them substantially, and still have a plan that doesn’t cut it.  Damien:

True, the most recent draft of the plan is a huge improvement from earlier drafts.  However, earlier drafts were so bad that pretty much anything would have been an improvement.  Whether the current draft is better than the Plan of Unfulfilled Promise (aka the 1996 Bike Plan) isn’t even clear.  What is clear is that the Draft Bike Plan, even if fully implemented, isn’t going to make Los Angeles a world class city for bicycling.

As Damien said, if we just want to muddle through and see painfully slow incremental improvements, this plan might work.  But if we aspire to be a cycling city, to be a world class city – which entails world class transportation – then this ain’t the plan.

Bikeside – Include the Backbone Bikeway Network:

The Backbone Bikeway Network was developed by the cycling community, in community meetings.  It wasn’t a “take input, disregard the input in the drafting” process, which is the paradigm the city chooses to operate under.  We actually picked the Backbone streets using three colors of highlighter and a big huge black magic marker.  The other aspects of the Backbone network evolved as community members selected them over time.  The Backbone has a mandate, and it’s an approach with transformative power, in that it positions cyclists as leaders in reclaiming our boulevards for street life – it’s not just about cycling.  As Stephen puts it, the interpretation of the Backbone by city staff was reductive:

Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.

The full Backbone concept, as an approach to connecting city departments, as a complete streets approach to rehabilitating our boulevards, as a holistic approach to improving street life, and as a commitment to work with other modes in the process – that’s what Bikeside would like included in the plan.  We’ve got the chapter half written, all we need is the opportunity to collaborate.

Big Picture:

This update process, twice now, has been produced a draft via the Design & Defend methodology.  The designers take input.  They then design the plan, in an intensive collaborative process between City Planning, DOT, and (perhaps) other departments.  During this design phase the cycling community is hardly contacted at all, and given no degree of control.  Bigger picture still, non-cyclists are not engaged as well.

Ultimately, this produces a draft that citizens, cycling and non-cycling, will not be happy with.  Being familiar with this process, city staff design the plan defensively.  There are big claims which provide cover for tepid commitments.  There are devilish details which take the wind out of the draft’s sails.

The ultimate result is politically engineered conflict.  Left out of the process, the only opportunity for citizens to weigh in effectively is left to commissions and committees.  Citizens can avoid criticism and be run over, or we can criticize, and risk being disqualified as negative.  Facing a draft that looks more like a fortress full of booby traps than an honest policy document, the engagement is necessarily acrimonious.

It’s time to move away from Design & Defend.  It’s time for cyclists, and bigger picture still, citizens, to be at the table at every stage of the process.  It’s time for that process to be wholly public.  Only in that way can we have an honest conversation about what we need for LA to be cycling friendly and citizen friendly.

Unfortunately, the work falls under the category of “fiction” because of its limited connection to reality. I offer as an example the Planning Department’s staff report on the City of LA’s proposed Bike Plan.

City Planning staff reports are like movie trailers, they offer a quick preview of the upcoming proposal so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation in advance of the actual “screening.” Seasoned film audiences know that there are three types of trailers;

Teasers that offer a glimpse of what can be expected.

Spoilers that offer up the entire plot and leave nothing to be discovered.

Impostors that offer up an entertaining journey that bears no resemblance to the actual film.

City Planning’s Bike Plan staff report falls into the Impostor category, offering the Planning Commission an entertaining and inspiring experience that bears no connection to reality.

1663 miles of Bikeways (http://labikeplan.org) – the cameo: Planning Staff promise 1663 miles of Bikeways, a claim that includes Bike Paths, Bike Lanes, and Bike Routes. Bike Paths are very expensive off-road facilities that cost more per mile than what the Bureau of Street Services spends to resurface a mile of our streets. Bike Routes are the streets that get a little green sign that says “Bike Route” indicating that the Bikeway mileage has been pumped up. Bike Lanes get a commitment of 56 miles and an additional “speculative” 511 miles which indicates they will end up on the editor’s floor. This Bike Plan relies on a cameo appearance by recognizable talent, and then surrounds it with 1663 miles of language that lacks substance and commitment.

Bicycle Boulevards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard) – the knock-off: Planning Staff acknowledges that the public clamors for “innovative bicycle treatments” including Bicycle Boulevards.  They are low-density local routes that give priority to cyclists by discouraging cut-through motor vehicle traffic, prioritizing right-of-way, and providing traffic control that supports cyclists at the arterial crossings. Rather than actually include Bicycle Boulevards in the proposed Bike Plan, City Planning offers up “Bike Friendly Streets” as a knock-off substitute, the equivalent of featuring “the other, other Baldwin brother” in Slap Shot IV.

Cyclists’ Bill of Rights (http://bikewriterscollective.com) – the inspiration: Planning Staff acknowledge that the City Council directed the LADOT, Planning, Public Works, the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee, the City Attorney and the LAPD to report back on the Cyclists’ Bill of Rights. This City Council directive was ignored. Instead Planning Staff dismisses some principles as redundant while claiming that others are included. This is true in the same sense that the works of Shakespeare are also in the Bike Plan, after all he used the same alphabet and if properly rearranged, one could find A Comedy of Errors.

Backbone Bikeway Network (http://labikeplan.com) – the theme: Planning Staff acknowledge the work of the LA Bike Working Group in creating the Backbone Bikeway Network which is positioned as a commitment to connectivity. Rather than embrace this theme and use it to connect the City Family in the delivery of City Services, Planning Staff dilutes the Backbone and fails to support cyclists as they commute on the streets to the same destinations as pedestrians, mass transit passengers, and motorists. Instead, it proposes bike tunnels, bike trails, and other last-resort solutions that divide communities rather than connect them.

Complete Streets Act (http://www.completestreets.org/federal-policy) – the surprise ending: Planning Staff acknowledge the powerful cultural shift that has resulted in innovative  multi-modal transportation funding and policy. This includes the Complete Streets Act which supports the rights of all those who use the streets, from pedestrians to cyclists to mass transit passengers to motorists. It’s only in the small print of the staff report that City Planning reveals its claim of an exemption from the Complete Streets Act. Is there something wrong with the Complete Streets Act? Does City Planning find fault with the complete Streets Act?

The Department of City Planning’s Bike Plan Staffing Report is a good read. It’s interesting, it’s informative, and it’s a complete work of fiction.

In the grand scheme of things, LA’s proposed Bike Plan is the equivalent of bad script turned into a bad film, supported by a great trailer that merely needs to get an opening night audience in order to recoup its investment. Then, it goes straight into the bargain bin at the 99¢ Store.

I’m astonished to say that after 32 months of hard work, the draft Bike Plan that Claire Bowin has presented to LA’s cyclists is worse than our current plan.  Cyclists will be worse off if this draft plan is adapted. You will find below three suggestions (doc, pdf) to fix the draft bike plan, and nine serious problems (doc, pdf) with the draft.  These documents were developed by myself, Bikesider Rach Stevenson, and CicLAvia force Joe Linton.  They are not comprehensive, but we think they strike at core flaws we all agree on.

The draft is like glass ornament – shiny, beautiful and utterly fragile.  The Mayor and City Planning have touted it as including 1600 miles of bikeways, but you would have to walk between the raindrops to make that a reality.  Sure, the draft has hundreds of miles of bike lanes “designated”.  But when you get down in the details you find out 511 of those miles fall in the “further study” category – a category that has previously gone by the name “potential” and “infeasible”.  Only 56 miles of bike lane are left.

Everywhere you look in the draft are qualifications, conditions, and turns of phrase that rob it of power.  Some crippling strokes are obvious, such as the designation of 90% of bike lanes as infeasible.  Others are buried in devilish details.  For example, the draft sets the minimum car lane width of 11 feet.  Most lanes in LA are less than 11 feet, and most cities use a 10 foot or 9 foot standard.  By adopting an 11 foot standard, the possibilities for making room for cyclists are dramatically reduced.

It’s important that we fight this draft.  The simplest thing you can do is attend the City Planning Commission hearing this Thursday morning.  It’s at City Hall in City Council Chambers (rm 340), at 8:30 am.

Follows are our problems (doc, pdf) and fixes (doc, pdf):

What’s Needed for a Better Bike Plan

1. Detailed Planning for Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, and Evaluation

A table with a short leg rocks and tilts. A five legged table with one very long leg, and four short ones . . . well, it cannot rightly be referred to as a table. Without greater detail in planning for Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, and Evaluation, the detailed plans for Engineering (infrastructure) will fail.  Details for these areas should be fleshed out, and done so with public involvement.  Programmatic outlines and schedules should be worked out with community leaders and responsible departments at the table.

2. Add a Chapter on the Backbone Bikeway Network

The Backbone Bikeway Network offers a way to connect our city departments, rehabilitate our boulevards, and provide cyclists safe and efficient ways to cross Los Angeles.  The Backbone Bikeway Network was developed in a series of six community meetings, open to all members of the public, which offered the public control over the ultimate product.  As such, it is a widely supported plan that represents the wishes of many cyclists.

The draft plan should include a chapter on the Backbone network that is written in collaboration with the cycling community.  While many of the streets in the Backbone have been added to the Citywide Bikeway Network, the accompanying principles of departmental connectivity, holistic planning and complete streets, and the plans to fulfill those principles, have been left out.  One chapter on the Backbone would provide an orienting vision for the draft plan.

The Backbone focuses on improving those major arterials that cyclist need to cross Los Angeles.  It approaches this with a win-win Complete Streets approach, where improvements for cyclists would synergize to improve the environment for pedestrians and businesses. The Backbone would seek to rehabilitate key major boulevards – Santa Monica Blvd, Reseda Blvd, Vermont Avenue, and Sepulveda Blvd, for example – so that they become pedestrian friendly, bike friendly, and retail friendly.

3. Focus on Safe Streets

A worthwhile bike plan will commit the city to making L.A.’s streets safer for bicycling.  The current (1996) approved plan in effect today designates 190 additional future miles of bike lane. The 2010 draft commits to ~56 miles of additional future bike lanes.

A focus on Los Angeles streets includes the following changes to the 2010 drafts:

3.1 Draft Bike Plan

3.1.1 The bike plan should include more bike lane mileage than the current plan already in effect. The total committed (not speculative) bike lane mileage should be greater than 190 miles – preferably at least 250 miles of committed bike lanes. (A good start toward this would be to harmonize upward the discrepancies between the draft Bike Plan, the draft Implementation Plan and the approved Downtown Street Standards. Many streets listed in the Implementation Plan as “sufficient width” are in the Bike Plan as “speculative.”)

3.1.2 The bike plan should commit to robust bike-friendly street treatments. While it’s not feasible to detail every location, the plan should at least target implementation beyond the minimum. As currently specified in the draft, all the bike-friendly street facilities could be considered complete if the city installs a couple hundred signs. The city should specify minimum targets for overall bike-friendly streets, using levels shown in the technical documents. For example: 50% Level 5: Traffic diversion, 20% Level 4: Traffic calming, 15% Level 3: Intersection treatments, 10% Level 2: Pavement markings, and 5% Level 1: signage.

3.1.3 All technical standards should support bike facility implementation. Minimum car-lane width should preferably be 9 feet, and certainly not worse than today’s 10-foot standard.

3.2 Draft Implementation Plan

3.2 1 No bike routes should be prioritized in the Implementation Plan. Routes are ineffective, meaningless and in no way a priority. The plan should prioritize meaningful on-street facilities: lanes and robust bike-friendly streets.

3.2.2 The Draft Implementation Plan should not scale back facilities specified in the Draft Bike Plan. For Bike Plan streets designated for lanes, the Implementation Plan should implement them as lanes, not as routes. The current draft Implementation Plan downgrades facilities on Laurel Canyon, Main, Spring, Venice, Western, York and elsewhere.

3.2.3 The Implementation Plan should include more committed on-street bike facilities in population-dense central neighborhoods in early implementation years. For Koreatown, Westlake, East Hollywood, Pico-Union, Adams-Normandie, Downtown, and other central areas, the plan includes very little, mainly a few “speculative” facilities to be studied beginning in Year 4 and Year 5 for possible later implementation.

Nine serious Problems with the Draft Bike Plan

1. Lack of Commitment to On-Street Bike Lanes

The draft plan includes four types of bike facilities: paths, lanes, bike-friendly streets, and routes. To date in L.A., routes are nearly meaningless. Bike paths and bike-friendly streets are relatively expensive, hence implementation is limited not by the plan mileage, but by the city’s success in securing outside grant funding. On-street bike lanes are very cheap; the amount of lane mileage planned represents the city’s commitment to make safe space for bikes on city streets.

The 2009 draft plan commits to just 56 new miles of bike lane on 6500 miles of roads in Los Angeles. In addition to the approved 56 miles of bike lane, the plan has 511  additional miles of proposed/infeasible/study bike lanes referred to as ‘speculative.’ The plan does not detail how these can be implemented. Instead of fully approving the ‘speculative’ lanes, the city anticipates performing expensive environmental review to determine if these speculative lanes can be implemented or not.

The current bike plan (approved in 1996) includes 190 miles of remaining future bike lanes. The 2010 draft plan backpedals on lanes already approved. Any update to the plan should include more bike lanes than the prior version, or it will not be supported by bicyclists. The 2010 draft fails to commit to the facilities most desired and most needed by cyclists (as reported by LADOT).

2. Most Aspects of Bike Planning Neglected

The standard for bicycle planning is excellence in the “Five ‘E’s” – engineering, enforcement, education, encouragement, evaluation.  The draft plan has extensive detail on the first E – engineering – in the form of maps and an implementation strategy for infrastructure.  However, there is nothing similar for any of the other 4 Es.  There are no timetables for enforcement programs, no funding proposals for education, and no detailed program for encouragement strategies.  Regarding evaluation, the draft plan only states that DOT will include bicycle counts as part of regular traffic counts. Contrast this with NYC, which has been doing citywide counts for over a decade.

All the infrastructure in the world is unlikely to succeed if it is not accompanied by robust programs in enforcement, education, encouragement, and evaluation.  The draft lacks necessary implementation detail for the other Es similar to what has been developed for engineering.

3. Bicycle Friendly Streets are Vague and Non-Committal

Over 650 miles of bikeways in the draft plan are designated as ‘Bicycle Friendly Streets’. Despite accounting for the largest fraction of bikeways in the plan, Bicycle Friendly Streets suffer from the least specificity in the Bike Plan.  A range (five levels) of possible treatments is given but with no indication of how many miles of street, let alone which street, will receive which treatment – and how many streets will receive robust facilities and which cursory.  Though there are many bike friendly streets already in Los Angeles (that cyclists know of and use daily), simply identifying these streets by adding a sign  doesn’t make Los Angeles a safer place to bike, and shouldn’t count as bike plan implementation.  Under the current proposal it will.

4. Not Enough Facilities in Low-Income Neighborhoods

In the draft Bike Plan and Implementation Plan, bikeways are inequitably distributed. Bike lanes are more likely in more suburban areas; very few committed (non-speculative) lanes are shown in the urban core. Denser low-income neighborhoods get fewer miles of facilities, despite being places where fewer households own cars and where people are more likely to cycle to work.

5. Questionable Facilities Prioritized in the Implementation Plan

Among the streets prioritized in the draft Implementation Plan are some odd choices. For example, Palms Boulevard in West LA is prioritized as a year 2 project.  Between McLaughlin and Walgrove, this street is so steep in places that it’s often difficult to walk up, much less bike.The Implementation Plan prioritizes more than 30 miles of new bike routes, despite bike routes being meaningless, and not requested by cyclists. The choice of streets and types of facilities prioritized demonstrates a disconnect between what planners would choose from a bird’s eye view, and the realities that cyclists are acquainted with. The draft Implementation Plan was developed behind closed doors by DOT & Planning, without public participation, and it shows.

6. Over-commitment to Bike Paths

Fiscally, the draft Implementation Plan prioritizes bike paths over bike lanes and other facilities.  Bike paths are off-street facilities like the River Path or the Beach Bike Path. Bike lanes are on-street facilities like the Venice Blvd bike lane, or Sunset Blvd bike lane. While the Implementation Plan calls for 24 miles of bike path vs 256 total miles of bikeways, that 24 miles of bike path will cost $63 million, while the other 232 miles of facilities will cost only $6.3 million. Here are the five big problems with bike paths:

6.1 Cost: As we already mentioned, bike paths are costly.  According to the plan, a mile of bike path costs $2.64M to build.  By contrast, also according to the FP, a bike lane mile costs $28K to build. Bike paths are 94 times more expensive than bike lanes.

6.2 Nightime: Unless lit, who will ride a bike path at night?  Alone, secluded, dark – it is an optimal way to get mugged, and people have been mugged. Even when lit, which adds to the capital cost, the paths are in isolated areas, away from people, without an exit for 1/4 or 1/2 a mile.  Effectively, bike paths are useless after dark, which means they cannot serve commuters from October till March. L.A.’s streets, where other types of bikeways are located, are already lit, and they have more eyes and ears watching them than a bike path.

6.3 Policing: Policing bike paths is difficult. Gangs use bike paths as a convenient escape route where LAPD doesn’t regularly patrol. Further, 911 operators/responders will ask for nearest cross streets and are unequipped for incidents on L.A. paths.

6.4 Destinations: Bike paths don’t go where most cyclists need to be. Just like motorists, most cyclists are headed to major destinations located on or near arterials.  Therefore they need routes that get them to and from those destinations, and usually bike paths do not function in that capacity.

6.5 Traffic Justice: Collision data for L.A. indicates that the vast majority of bike-involved collisions take place on arterials, not bike paths. Therefore, infrastructure funds and DOT staff attention should be directed to those places, in order to protect those riders who are getting injured and killed.

7. Workforce Cyclists are Neglected:

Probably the largest cycling demographic in Los Angeles is workforce cyclists. They are the working class day laborers, cooks, security guards, janitors, etc. – primarily Spanish-speaking immigrants, who keep Los Angeles moving by pushing the pedals to get to and from work. Dan Koeppel wrote a compelling article detailing this culture, and anyone who lives in LA is familiar with them. Yet, the proposed bike plan ignores their existence, classifying all cyclists according to the three categories given by FHWA – advanced, basic, and children.

For the plan to succeed, it must address the specific needs of workforce cyclists, and that begins with recognition.

8. Minimum Lane Width Standard Inappropriately Anti-Bike:

In the technical standards (on Section 5, page 33) the document sets a minimum car-lane width of 11 feet. The current L.A. City practice is 10 feet, and some bike-friendly cities use a 9-foot minimum. Increasing the minimum car lane width effectively squeezes out bike lanes, making them infeasible. If the bike plan purports to make L.A. better for cycling, then none of the plan’s technical specifics should make bike facility implementation more prohibitive/difficult than it already is.

9. Mid-Process Changes Inhibit Community Feedback:

As multiple draft plan versions have been released since early 2009, the city has revised documents without clear notice, creating a moving target, not conducive to meaningful community review.

While the public was reviewing the most recent facilities maps (released June 2010), Planning staff asserted that the community should instead review an unreleased GIS file. The GIS file was made available upon request, in August 2010. While the public was reviewing the complicated GIS file, a subsequent spreadsheet file was released – merely posted at the city bike plan website, with no notice to the community. It’s unclear when the “final” facilities spreadsheet list was posted, but it appears to have been less than a month prior to public hearings and comment deadlines. Large numbers of discrepancies between multiple changing maps, lists, totals, and actual conditions have made community input difficult.

So here’s a handful of thoughts aimed at getting the ball rolling.  Think about the bike plan and what you want from it.  We’ll all be riding on the result.

[Note: Where I say "respondents" I am referring to those who answered the DOT online public outreach survey conducted for the bike plan.  'Proposed' always refers to those bikeways that can be accommodated within existing conditions.]

1) Bike Lanes: Further study

The bike plan divides the future bikeways into two categories: ‘proposed’ and ‘bike lanes: further study’.  ‘Proposed’ means the roadway is ready for the bikeway to be constructed and ‘further study’ means studies are allegedly needed to assess the overall impact of the bikeway before construction can begin.  Neither the studies nor the bike lanes are guaranteed to be implemented.  Piecemeal implementation of the 1996 bike plan left cyclists in Los Angeles with an incomplete and fragmented network of bikeways.  Only 339 miles of 673 miles of designated bikeways in the 1996 bike plan were ever completed and more than 35% of those are bike routes identified by signage only.  Since 90% (511 miles) of the bike lanes in the 2010 bike plan are in this ‘further study’ category – which is also described as ‘speculative’ by the bike plan – this is potentially a huge pitfall.

Existing, proposed, and potential (now known as 'further study') bikeways from the 2010 bike plan. Over 90% of the bike lanes allegedly require further study before construction can begin, and the majority of proposed bikeways are 'bicycle friendly streets'.

2) Bike paths

Ninety-nine miles of bike paths are proposed, compared to just 56 miles of bike lane.  Bike paths are physically separated from roads and are typically used for recreational purposes rather than utilitarian.  Since bike paths are, by design, away from regularly-serviced streets they are initially more expensive to construct and remain more costly to maintain than a bike lane.  They receive little or no policing, especially at night, making them a more risky option.   According to DOT, one mile of bike path is almost 100 times more expensive than one mile of bike lane ($2.64 million per compared to $28k).  Bike paths are almost as desirable as bike lanes, according to the DOT survey, (35% vs 43% for most preferred facility) but only 16% of respondents said they needed a bike path to reach their destination, compared to 63% who said bike lanes were the most needed facility.  In summary, all of the bike lanes in the plan (both proposed and those labeled as requiring future study) would cost $19.5 million while the total cost for all future bike paths is over a quarter of a billion dollars ($263 million).  Worth it?  Have a think!

Is the 2010 Los Angeles bike plan going to meet your bicycling needs? Read the bike plan and attend a public hearing to make sure your voice is heard.

3) Bicycle Friendly Streets

‘Bicycle friendly street’ (BFS) will be the designation applied to streets that cannot accommodate a bike lane or bike route, e.g. if the roadway is too narrow.  BFSs are not particularly cheap ($30k – $300k per mile) but are proposed as a way to ‘provide continuous bicycle access’.  That is, they will bridge the gaps between more significant facilities, such as bike lanes.  There are 5 levels of BFSs, where treatments range from mere signage to sharrows to traffic diversion (a list of treatments can be found on pg 55 of the Technical Design Handbook).  Approximately three-quarters (over 600 miles) of the proposed bikeways are BFSs  so it’s important to consider the kinds of treatments that would make your bike ride safer and more comfortable.  Do you think the suggested treatments are effective?  Which ones need to be prioritized?  Currently, specific details on which streets will receive which treatments are not publicly available.  One concern is that 600 miles of streets could simply be given “share the road” signs and promptly dubbed “bicycle friendly”.  Is this enough?

Things I particularly like: requiring a public hearing for any proposed removal of existing bicycle lane or path, distributing educational leaflets about bicyclists’ rights to drivers renewing their licenses through the DMV, encouraging schools to install quality bike parking, increasing the bicycle carrying capacity of local buses, and installing bike-sensitive detectors at intersections.

Didn’t know all of that stuff was in the bike plan?  A summary of the suggested programs, along with schedules and lead departments, is in chapter 4.  Look it up!

Mull these things over, identify programs you think are particularly (in)efficient or (un)important and consider how they will be funded and implemented.  Attend a hearing and make your voice heard.  I’ll be attending the Hollywood hearing, possibly others as well, so I hope to see you there.

Bike Plan Public Hearings:

Saturday, September 25, 10am-1pm. Hollywood Municipal Building, 6501 Fountain Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90028

Wednesday, September 29, 11:30am-1:30pm. Webinar Public Hearing. Check website for details.

Wednesday, September 29, 5pm-8pm. Felicia Mahood Senior Center, 11338 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90025

Thursday, September 30, 5pm-8pm. Constituent Service Center, 8475 S. Vermont Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90044

Saturday, October 2, 10am-1pm. Braude Constituent Service Center, 6262 Van Nuys Blvd, Room 1B, Van Nuys, CA 91401

It’s a draft plan because the citizens of LA have a right and a duty to take part in an open and transparent revision process.  While the email below emphasizes that the drafting process has been inclusive, with one exception the public has not seen any updates to the draft proposed bike plan since December – seven months.  We have been assured by City Planning officials that the draft will undergo more revisions.  Good.  The public hasn’t had sufficient opportunity to take part in the drafting process thus far, so it will be nice to get a chance to get our hands dirty.

Second, it’s a proposal plan because the citizens of LA have no obligation to consent to replace the current plan with the draft proposed plan.  I’m not saying we should or should not adopt the draft proposed plan (I haven’t read it yet), but it is important to recognize that we have the power to refuse.  If the draft proposed plan is not a substantial improvement over the current plan it would be logical to refuse.  If the drafters of the plan revise in bad faith, a protest refusal is reasonable.  If the draft proposed plan is great, if it is revised in good faith, then I will be exhilarated to support its approval.

So in the spirit of good process, here is the original email, with a few words I added in bold:

To all Interested Parties:

The City of Los Angeles is pleased to release the draft proposed 2010 Los Angeles Bicycle Plan. The 2010 draft proposed Bicycle Plan is a comprehensive update of the current Bicycle Plan first adopted in 1996 and re-adopted by the City Council in 2002 and 2007. The 2010 draft proposed Bicycle Plan (2010 Plan), a component of the Transportation Element, (an element of the City*s General Plan), is part of the City*s commitment to transform Los Angeles from an auto-centric City to a City with a multi-modal transportation system. The 2010 draft proposed Plan designates 1,633 miles of bikeway facilities and proposes two new bicycle networks (Citywide and Neighborhood). Additionally, the 2010 draft proposed Bicycle Plan includes a Technical Design Handbook that will assist both City staff and residents in selecting and designing facilities for future bikeways that are safe and consistent with current standards and guidelines.

The 2010 draft proposed Los Angeles Bicycle Plan is a result of extensive fieldwork, numbers public workshops (only nine), and suggestions from thousands of public comments received from September 2009 draft proposed Bicycle Plan.  The draft proposed Bicycle Plan is a joint effort between the Department of City Planning an Department of Transportation.

The complete document and maps will be available on the project website [www.labikeplan.org] by end of the day June 18th with printed copies available for public review at the City*s Central Library and eight regional libraries and the Department of City Planning*s Downtown and Van Nuys Public Counters by June 30th, 2010.

A series of workshops/public hearing will be held between September 7-18, 2010 to take public testimony and comment.

Please see the attached flyer for additional facts on the 2010 Bicycle Plan and information regarding the public hearing process.

Jordann Turner
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
2010 Bicycle Plan-Project Manager
200 N. Spring Street, Rm 721
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 213.978.1379 | Fax: 213.978.4656

After the comment deadline on the Bike Plan passed without council attention, many called attention to the failure of Councilman Bill Rosendahl to pick up the issue.  I’m glad that Rosendahl has re-engaged on the Bike Plan.  After talking with him in December, Bill invited Stephen Box and I to submit a series of questions, which he would pose to LADOT & Planning staff responsible for the bike plan.  These questions are the questions we submitted, and staff received them a day ahead of time, so they would be prepared to answer them.

I appreciate Rosendahl’s willingness to ask some hard questions, particularly in a LA culture where city staff are often treated too gently.  By asking those questions, Rosendahl helped to expose a possible prejudice of Michelle Mowery’s, and put staff on the record on important issues.  Here’s the 12 questions:

1. From the “scope of work”, to the contract, to the selection of the consultants, to the supervision of the consultants, to the final development and presentation of the Draft Bike Plan, who is in charge and who is responsible for the Draft Bike Plan?

2. How was the drafting of the proposed plan funded? Who pays the consultants and the staff for the development of the Draft Bike Plan and where do the funds come from? What is the mandate for these funds and what is the accountability?

3. The proposed Bike Plan plans to add how many miles of Bike Lanes to the Streets of Los Angeles?

4. In what ways does this proposed plan propose improve safety conditions for cyclists as they travel to schools, employment centers, transit hubs, social and entertainment attractions? How does this Draft Bike Plan get cyclists where they need to go?

5. The current plan is good until the end of 2012 – what’s the motivation for replacing the current plan with the proposed plan?

6. How does the proposed plan differ from the plan that Alta delivered to the city?

7.  Regarding the current plan and the proposed plan – what metrics measure the difference between the two?  Will we use the Bikeway Quality Index (BQI) and the Cycle Zone Analysis (CZA) that our consultant, Alta Planning, uses in Portland?

8. Currently bikeways stop and start and don’t connect to one another.  What are the projected cost and timeline estimates for the development of a Bikeway Network that connects our city?

9. Alta Planning is reportedly one of the finest consulting groups in the world for bike planning. How is it that the City of Los Angeles kicked off the Draft Bike Plan process with Alta but did not incorporate the robust Bike Plan process that Portland used/is using to develop their own Bike Plan?  For example in Portland Alta maintained eleven working groups, and they used community bike rides to engage and survey.

10. The CA Supreme Court supported the City of Los Angeles will not assuming liability for cyclist injuries due to unsafe bike paths on the LA River and Ballona Creek.  Does the plan address this?  Why would the City of LA continue to build bike paths that shirk responsibility for protecting cyclists, resulting in a “ride at your own risk” bikeway that offers less legal protection than if the cyclist were on the street?

11. Chapter Three of the Draft Bike Plan addresses off-road cycling, currently prohibited/restricted in the City of Los Angeles. Given that the initial recommendation to study this topic appeared in the 1996 Bike Plan and that the topic was addressed by the Department of Rec and Parks in their assessment study last year, why would the LADOT and the Department of Planning continue to address a Rec & Parks issue in a Planning document? Is the Department of Rec & Parks involved in the development of Chapter Three?

12.  This plan is an element of the Transportation Plan, so what is the motivation for including off-road cycling, which is primarily recreational, within the plan?

The full audio of the meeting is available here.

That’s been a common refrain in backroom discussions about the proposed LA Bike Plan.  When the plan first came out there was outrage at the lateness, and frustration with the narrow comment period.  Then, as people began to dissect the plan, dismay at how short it fell in multiple categories.

I think it was when CICLE’s analysis of the proposed bike lane mileage came out that I first wondered why we should change plans.  If the proposed bike plan has less bike lane mileage by 100 miles than the current plan, why should we want it?  The old plan has richer policies, and the language is stronger.

The draft plan is the opus of Michelle Mowery, LA’s bicycle coordinator.  So is the 1996 plan, but that is the work of a younger, more ambitious Mowery.  Now Mowery treats the cycling community with open hostility.  I have to suggest then, consider the source.  Since she wrote the current plan, Mowery has overseen 15 years of bikeways and cycling safety failure in Los Angeles.  If the new, proposed plan is her baby – and all her allies in City Hall leap to defend it – do we really want more of her way of (not) getting things done.

I think it’s time to have a serious, public discussion about this.  If the final draft of the bike plan – to be released in February – doesn’t exceed the current plan, why adopt it?  The current plan is good till 2012 and, while it may seem harsh, what motivation do cyclists have to support a plan that is worse than the current?  Just because a thing is new, doesn’t necessarily mean it is better.

What do you think?

BILL ROSENDAHL: Alta Planning is reportedly one of the finest consulting groups in the world for bike planning. How is it that the City of Los Angeles kicked off the Draft Bike Plan process with Alta but did not incorporate the robust Bike Plan process that Portland used/is using to develop their own Bike Plan?  For example in Portland Alta maintained eleven working groups, and they used community bike rides to engage and survey.

MICHELLE MOWERY: With all due respect the City of Portland is 450,000 people.  It’s a homogeneous community that is very white, and very progressive with respect to transportation.  They have a trolley system that works very well, as well as their transit overall.  We are a very diverse, disjointed city of 4 million people.  They are 30 years ahead of us in the development of their, well, they’re not quite 30, they’re more like 20 years ahead of us in the development of their bikeway.  So we’re a step behind Portland in what we’re trying to do. Granted, several of us would like to see a lot of changes in the city happen very quickly, but again we have a very diverse city with a lot of needs.

Ok, let’s start from the beginning: Mowery doesn’t even answer the question.  The question, rephrased, is why did LA not get the same intensive process in revising the bike plan that Portland did, given that we used the same consultant? Mowery never answers that question, and instead makes throwaway remarks about why LA is behind Portland in bike friendliness.  Mowery does mention that Portland is far ahead of Los Angeles in terms of being bike friendly.  You might interpret that as an answer to the question, in that a less bike friendly place will have less to talk about, and less people to talk to. Mowery never makes that connection directly, and even if she did, it’s still not an answer.  Frankly, given that she saw these questions 2 days ahead of time, and that she has been working on this plan for 2 years now, she should have an answer.

The real answer is probably that we didn’t spend enough money.  Or, rather, we didn’t spend enough money on community outreach.  LA contracted with Alta to update our bike plan for $450,000 . . . but most of that money went into things other than community outreach.  For example, instead of having a quality community outreach process, we spent a ton of the money on a technical handbook which we could have easily got from San Francisco at a 5-finger discount

Instead of mentioning the 450,000 bucks LA spent on a terrible plan, she focused on the 450,000 people of Portland and how that compares to LA’s 4,000,000.  I don’t see how LA being larger than Portland should mean that Portland would have a larger outreach process than LA?  MTA believes that LA has a 2.5% mode share for bikes, and Portland has roughly 9%.  That means that, in absolute terms, there are more trips made by bicycle in Los Angeles, than in Portland, because LA exceeds Portland in population by a factor of 9, but lags in mode share by less than a factor of 4.

What possible connection can racial diversity have to it?  By saying that Portland is homogeneous and LA diverse, Mowery seems to be making an argument that diverse places are inherently slower to adopt bicycles, or inherently dysfunctional politically.  It’s not clear to me, but it smacks of a freshman political science major selling a bad theory.  I can think of two examples of racially diverse cities that are politically functional (at least as compares to LA), and are making huge strides toward bike friendliness.

New York.

Chicago.

Those are the 1st and 3nd largest cities in the US, with LA being the 2nd largest. They’re both world class cities with cultural and racial diversity up the wazoo.  They are, very much, LA’s peers.  Therefore, the argument that Portland is ahead of us because of it’s alleged homogeneity falls flat. And it still doesn’t explain why the outreach process for LA’s bike plan update was so lack luster.

It all comes back to, why highlight Portland’s WHITENESS?  The homogeneity argument isn’t convincing, but at least it’s color neutral.  I don’t really think it has anything to do with bikes at all.

You can hear the meeting audio here, with the Bike Plan report beginning around 20:20, the question and Very White answer at 40:28 (and you can also hear me briefly take Mowery to task at 58:01.)

(I  just read through my piece here looking for errors and I thought it came off a little bit Vulcan = detached, unemotional, logical.  So I just wanted to add a note here and say that I’m outraged at the way Mowery handled this question, and I think it’s a truly vile way to discuss an issue, and I’m mad about it.  So hopefully that informs the tone, adjusting it to an Angry Vulcan tone.)

The Best Bicycle Plan is a proactive vision that will offer success for the whole community; a reduction in crime and hospitalization, and a growth in economy. This Plan will provide new facilities as a fortified foundation for the next generation of cyclists. It’s development, implementation and maintenance will be guided by the voice of the cyclists and neighborhoods it serves. The Best Bicycle Plan’s policies establish safe and equal access to the streets, education for law enforcement and drivers, multi-modal integration, support facilities and programs to increase ridership. Above all, this Plan establishes and protects the right to ride in the City.

Visit Jeremy’s blog to read the full introduction; if you’re interested in cycling in LA his blog is a good one to subscribe to.

(Photo by G.E.T.)

• Bicyclists can, and will, ride on every city street; California law allows as much.
• Bicyclists, pedestrians, social vehicles and private vehicles will equally share the privileges and responsibilities of the public realm; these will be the ingredients of tomorrow’s healthy, lively Los Angeles.
• Bicyclists, as citizens, will work with neighborhood and city governments to implement backbone lanes, ciclovias and other elements of civitas; bicycle life is a big source of a vibrant urban life.
• Bicyclists, as citizens, are going to push and pull this government to see some direct goals accomplished, in two years.
• Bicyclists will open the doors to a transparent government; open data will lead to direct goals.
• Bicyclists will live in a city of educated, aware citizens. Drivers will know; police will know; youth will know. The global cycling movement is in its infancy but growing.
• Bicyclists will see that this gets done right, from EIRs to engineering.
• Bicyclists will do it better. And have fun doing it.

Great introduction David!  Who will take the challenge next?

We challenge anyone and everyone to write an introduction to LA’s Best Bike Plan, which begins with the sentence “Every street is a street that cyclists will ride.”  500 words or less!  Submit your composition to alexcthompson@gmail.com. I’ll post the submissions in batches as I receive them . . .

(photo from the Library of Congress photostream)

City staff will take comments on the draft Bicycle Plan (which can be read on line at labikeplan.org) until January 8th, 2010.

YEEEHAWWW!  Thank you Jane for doing the right thing by protecting the need of the public to work with the city to discuss our concerns.

When the Bike Plan was released, I read the release memo and saw that we were only given 42 days for public input.  Rather than opening the plan, and ripping through the plan in a panic to produce my comments, I immediately blogged about the unreasonable public comment deadline.  Bike Girl wrote a great post about it simultaneously.  Soon the whole Bike Writers Collective was enjoined in fighting for a lengthy and fair public comment period.

We did that because process counts.  Ultimately, negotiating content and commitment for the Bike Plan will determine how it impacts cyclists, and more broadly, citizens.  But the process determines how it is negotiated, and therefore sets the limit on changes.  With an extension of the public comment period, we now have the opportunity to give a more intelligent and solution oriented critique of the proposed plan.

Blumenfeld did more than extend the deadline.  In her email she outlined and explained the process for consideration of the proposed bike plan, something that no one has done till now:

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

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

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

To summarize:

1. Comments will be received until January 8th
2. Final draft released in February
3. Two months of review
4. Two public hearings at the City Planning Commission
5. PLUM Committee and Transportation Committee consider the plan

This summary by Blumenfeld is greatly appreciated.  Till now I hadn’t met anyone who had a clear idea of how the process would work once the final draft was finished.  Now we understand it.

How did the deadline get extended after it had passed?  Well, I don’t really know yet.  I do know that collectively the bike community brought a ton of heat on this issue, with a lot of help from our friends.  I blogged about it – [1],  [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] – and Stephen wrote about it – [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and just now, [7] – Bike Girl [CRUSH], BikingInLA [SWOOP] [BLAM], Josef Bray Ali [WiN], Mikey Wally [SMASH], Matt Ruscigno [BOOM], Jeremy Grant [!!!], and many others.  The Mar Vista CC, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Silver Lake NC, Mid City West NC, Valley Alliance of NCs, NC Action Summitt, CD11 Transportation Committee, Palm NC, East Hollywood NC weighed in demanding an extension, and the LACBC even threw in some emails.  Glenn Bailey, Joe Linton, and a few friends in City Hall, among others had tremendous impact behind the scenes.  (sorry if I missed anybody.)

Which is to say, a lot of heat was brought, and somewhere a crack was found, and the bike community was heard and respected.

We’ve got time to work on this now.  Let’s Make It HAPPEN!

(Photo by moi)

If you read the actual list of facilities and add up all the miles, then you’d be aware that the plan only calls for 28 new miles of bike lanes.

Only 28 miles. That’s all.

Thank you Joe for doing this incredible piece of work.  Linton builds on something we knew from Table 1-2 – this plan proposes less bike lanes than the current plan:

Suppose you took the 1996 plan (also the 2002 plan, and the current [2007] plan) and you built all the bike lanes in that plan.  At the end you’d have 325 miles of bike lane – the 88 miles existing in 1996 and the 237 proposed miles.  Now, if you took the proposed bike plan, and built all the bike lanes in it, you’d end up with only 268 miles of bike lane – the existing 143 miles and another 125.  That’s 57 miles less – and that’s what that “- 57″ which is underlined represents.  So, you begin to see how this plan is unambitious.

What Linton discovered is that the list of bike lane mileage adds up to 28 miles of proposed bike lanes.  That’s not the 125 which is underlined in red above.  So not only is the plan self contradictory, but it asks for 154 miles less of bike lane, not 57 less that it asserts.  In total, this plan envisions an LA with 171 miles of bike lane, as opposed to the current plan, which envisions one with 325 miles.

Here’s some more math for you – stick with me, it’s worth it.  The Bike Plan update contract was for $450,000.  The draft is 212 pages, and the appendix is 351 pages, making 563 pages.  So $450,000, divided across 563 pages is $799 per page.

Let’s go one step further.  Michelle Mowery, the LADOT bikeways coordinator who is responsible for this plan, has spent a good chunk of time on the plan I’m sure.  Jordann Turner, the Planning lead who was out of town when the deadline that couldn’t be extended passed, and his boss Helene Bibas, have also spent a lot of time on the plan.  I’ll bet some LADOT engineers probably have been involved too.  We know that Jane Blumenfeld has spent some time answering inquiries about the plan.

Guess who pays their salaries?  Taxpayers.  That means the cost of the plan easily tops $563,000 – or $1000 per page.

For $1000 per page the people of Los Angeles got a lousy listless plan filled with errant diagrams, more errors than paragraphs, and math that Sarah Palin and George Bush could better if they tried their hardest to screw up.

We could do better with an invisible slide rule, compost powered laptop and an upside down abacus.

You can quote me on that.

(photo by Mulling it Over)

The Planning Department has been misleading people, telling people that their comments will be considered in the LA Bike Plan after the public comment period has passed.  Even better, the Planning Department refused to extend the deadline, but the recipient of the comments, Jordann Turner, was out of town on the day of the deadline:

I will be out of the office until November 16.  For Bicycle Plan Update infomation, visit the project website at www.labikeplan.org.

That’s the email that I, and many others, received when we submitted our comments on the deadline.  Planning can’t extend the deadline, but they sure as hell can be out of town for 10 days afterward.  If Planning had any notion of realpolitik, they’d have extended the deadline 10 days (instead of the 50 we were asking for), from November 6th till November 16th, called it a “compromise”, and walked away.

How has Planning been misleading people?  Jane Blumenfeld, Deputy Director Citywide Planning Division, has been replying to requests for a deadline extension (or, now that the deadline has passed, a new public comment period) with the following:

Please be assured that the deadline has been extended.  We are finalizing the date of the public hearing in January and comments and input can be submitted up until (and following) the public hearing.  We welcome your comments.  Thank you for your participation and interest.

My understanding is that this is impossible, or rather, not lawful.  A final draft of the Bike Plan must be released before the public hearing . . . 30 days before the public hearing.  So, if you submit your comments after the final draft is released Planning simply cannot adjust the final draft to reflect them – the draft cannot be altered at that point.  Blumenthal is indicating that you can submit the comments even beyond the hearing, but people don’t submit comments just to be heard.  The idea is that the comments could change the draft.  By indicating that they will accept comments, Planning is implying, without saying it, that those comments could impact the draft, when in fact they can’t.  That might not be lying, but it’s misleading.

Moreover, it misses the point.  The public should have substantial and sufficient time to consider the draft plan before making a judgment, and submitting comments.  Those comments should be received and considered.  The formal public comment period is a sacred time during which the document can be considered.  Not only did Planning give insufficient time to the public comment period, but Joe Linton even recognized that the draft was being altered during that period.

Planning is not playing fair, and not doing a very good job of it.  I don’t fault them for doing a bad job of it – after all, it is Michelle Mowery’s game that they’re playing, and only Mowery plays her particular form of obstruction well.

(Photo by me, Alex Thompson!)

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)

What’s this all about?  Well, LA’s proposed bike plan isn’t all that great.  In fact, it’s so bad, it’s a step backward!  So instead of rejecting the new one and keeping the old one, Bikeside and the Bike Writers Collective are writing their own plan!  We’re calling it LA’s Best Bike Plan.

At Bike Working Group II the consensus was that the plan should begin with the assumption that “every street is a street cyclists will ride.”  This language comes from the Long Beach Bike Plan, in which the first policy, Policy 1.1, is “Consider every street in Long Beach as a street that bicyclists will use.”  We liked this principle so much, we chose it as one of our top three design criteria, and decided that LA’s Best Bike Plan should begin with that sentence.

Get writing!

(Photo by Olivia Kate Jaffe)