LABP: LADOT "woefully inadequate" (8/100)

Thanks to Ken Alpern, I was able to attend the Council District 11 (Bill Rosendahl) Transportation Advisory Committee.  We discussed the draft LA Bike Plan, and we passed two motions, unanimously (with 1 abstention each.)

The 1st Motion:

The first, was authored by the committee collectively, with Jay Handel (West LA NC) at the lead:

Because the LADOT has shown a bias in favor of the movement of automobiles over the movement of pedestrians and cyclists, the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee therefore concludes that the LADOT is woefully inadequate to effectuate a new Bicycle Plan for the City of Los Angeles, and recommend the City designate a different entity to implement this important task, and to provide sufficient human and financial resources to do so.

Emphasis mine.  This motion was a revelation – people who are not cyclists get it.  They get our problems with DOT, and they get it because they have similar problems with DOT.  I realized that once I got into the committee, and so I suggested that the plan should probably not be controlled by DOT.  I must have hit a nerve, because pretty soon everyone was breathing fire.

“What is this committee and why do I care?” I hear you asking.  Council District 11 (CD 11) encompasses most of West LA.  Currently, Bill Rosendahl, Chair of the Transportation Committee, is the councilman in that district.  This committee advises him on transportation issues – so I figured, here’s a good way to get on his agenda. We’re trying everything folks.

The 2nd Motion:

My reason for being there was to discuss the details of the bike plan.  To stimulate discussion, and possibly as the basis for a motion, I brought eight preliminary talking points from the Bike Working Group.  When I brought up the talking points, we started discussing them, and pretty quick Jay Handel motioned for endorsement.  Ultimately, CD11’s Transportation Advisory Committee was the first body to make a SICK multipoint motion on the LA Bike Plan:

  1. The new LA Bike Plan should extend and enhance the 2007/2002/1996 plan.  Currently it is a step backward from previous plans in both language, and bike lane mileage.
  2. The deadline for public input must be extended from November 6th (42 days of input) to January 8th (in excess of 90 days.)
  3. Every street is a street that cyclists will ride.  This is the language of the Long Beach Bike Master Plan, currently a great success.
  4. The LA Bike Plan should go through a full programmatic EIR.  This will make its ambitions eligible for off the shelf and last minute funding, as well as open the possibility of reducing parking and travel lanes in some locations.
  5. Retail should be a positive element in scoring streets for desirability of bikeways.  Cyclists want to go to similar destinations as motorists.
  6. Bike routes should be eliminated as a designation for the City of Los Angeles.
  7. The LA Bike Plan should have predetermined annual performance measures included within it.  These performance measures should not allow for the spontaneous designation of streets as Bike Friendly Streets without significant enhancement.
  8. Neighborhood pilot projects must be included as an approach for experimenting with street treatments.

So my question is: Bill Rosendahl, where are you?  The whole community is asking for a deadline extension, and all it takes is for you to make a statement publicly on it and it will happen – for sure.  Will you do it?  We’ve heard nothing official from your office.

(I’m gonna start putting photos at the bottom of posts, often unrelated, because I want to.  Don’t like it?  Tough!)


(Photo by G.E.T.)

Alex Thompson

Bikerowave co-founder, Cyclists' Bill of Rights co-author, President of Bikeside, and Math Phd. HULK SMASH straight from Michigan!

4 thoughts on “LABP: LADOT "woefully inadequate" (8/100)

  1. Wow, nice job on the progress made at this meeting–and your coverage. The 1st motion is big news, but not so much for your emphasized portion (re LADOT being inadequate to effectuate the LA Bike Plan), which, agreed, may be news to some and wouldn’t hurt from more publicizing, but the fact that this Advisory Committee seems poised to “recommend the City designate a different entity to implement this important task”–that seems huge.

    So how to proceed on what will surely be met with either (1) apathy from city planners (=ing no action) or (2) wholesale opposition from LADOT and other agencies (also =ing no action)? I’ll leave that question of “well then, what agency?” to others with more intimate knowledge of city bureaucracy (but I know Josef has posted tantalizing ideas on reshuffling some of these issues).

    While a big picture strategic plan is certainly in order, seems to me the first step must be to secure the extension of time for the comment period–because I see this and any real change as taking some time and the exercise of political muscle. Lord knows the City has taken their time on releasing the draft, but the City now seems to be fine with their larger business-as-usual structure of moving forward on implementing the plan–that is, they’ve released the draft plan, they’ve scheduled a paltry 5 public meetings, and set up a website to solicit comments. After that they’ll “consider” the comments, maybe make a few changes here and there, issue bologna reasons why some of the better and long-range, far-reaching comments cannot be implemented, and ultimately implement the “new” plan only to get back to their car-y business of “real transportation.” Think differently? I would love to be proved wrong on that.

    The message must be delivered that we need more time–with understood subtext that mere comments to a castrati bike plan that only nibbles around the edges of real progress are insufficient to promote any real progress and ultimately under serve the people of the City. Portland hasn’t always been a bike friendly city, they had to make it that way. Probably took some fighting. Same for, say, Boulder and numerous other cities that have made slow but steady transportation shifts. Thanks for all your efforts moving that ball forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *