Keeps pedestrians and bikers away from the cars. They could be enclosed in that 1″ chain link

Think about it.

The Backbone Bikeway Network would give the cyclists a safe and fast way to get across town to the same destination that motorists go.

The Backbone Bikeway Network would mandate that these streets would be first priority for street services, repair, maintenance, and for LAPD enforcement, LADOT resurfacing, Caltrans repairs, etc..

This would benefit motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and businesses. These streets won’t need special paint, nor would it take away from motorists because they don’t own it. The streets (all streets) belong to humans and it is bad to suggest that the BBN would be for one user at the expense of another.

Streets are paid for in many ways, including sales tax, general funds, fed and state money, not just gas tax. Please google it and you’ll find info. Also, the tear and wear on the streets that we all (motorists, cyclists, peds, roller bladers, scooter drivers, etc.) pay for with our sales tax, far outweigh the tear and wear that cyclists cause on the street.

In addition we all pay for the traffic police, the fire department support, the damage to the environment and the health care and insurance costs for a mode (cars) that kills 40K people a year and injures many times more. We all pay for the costs incurred by an auto-centric culture.

When the city is laying off people and budget cuts are inevitable, the DOT’s proposed bike plan is not going to see any fruition for years. Mowery can testify to that. The LADOT’s bike plan is a dog & pony show. Bikeways is going to be one of the first departments that is going to be cut.

Cyclists and motorists, we need to band together and make the streets safe for all users. Both men and women outgrow their driving years by about 10 years, so we are all together in this. We need to make the streets that are already taking us to school, to work, to shopping and employment centers safe for all users and the Backbone Bikeway Network guarantees just that.

A.MEN. Seriously, this is a great idea.

Well, ideally, I’d like to see bike lane PLUS sharrow in the lane right next to it.

If there isn’t enough space for a bike lane, and a road diet is totally out of the question, a sharrow with a bright and visible green stripe down the middle would be just fine in my book – check out Long Beach’s sharrow pilot project:

http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/06/29/cyclists-pumped-about-long-beachs-green-sharrows/

Isn’t that simply beautiful??
1) This says “Cyclists allowed by law to ride in the lane. Don’t you dare honk”
2) Also, by putting the sharrow slightly to the left of the middle of the lane, it entices riders to stay out of the (usually) crappy pavement and debris near the curb.

How expensive can paint possibly be?!?! They can’t say no to our demands. Our safety and lives are on the line.

I love the constructive discussion this has sparked. Please do come to the next LA Bike Working Group meeting, this is the kind of feedback we need from you guys. We want as many riders as possible to put their stamp of approval on this rogue bike plan of hours.

Stay tuned for more maps and the next LABWG meeting place and time.

Seriously though: Nice work.

I’m definitely with you on that. I think the fear of traffic being unbearable with reduced lanes comes from a similar place as the myth that adding lanes decreases congestion. Several studies have shown (Sorry, I don’t have the actual sources on hand – but one of the studies is mentioned in Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Spark’s book Suburban Nation) that this is likely not true, and that within a few years traffic on roads with added lanes will be just as bad as it was before the new lanes due to the increased confidence of travelers taking non-critical short-distance trips.

Conversely, the theory would suggest that removing lanes will simply decrease the number of short, unnecessary trips taken. When you add bike lanes and the fact that a whole new group of travelers will now feel safe enough to make short trips by bike – you’ll likely either end up with the same or less traffic as before removing those lanes.

Overcoming that (understandable, but unfounded) fear from motorists about increased congestion is a big hurdle, as I see it. But as it is, you can already get almost anywhere in LA proper at the same speed by bike as by car. It seems logical enough on the surface, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that adding bike-lanes and even taking away traffic lanes will make traffic congestion any worse.

Do you think 8th or 9th avenue in Manhattan didn’t already have traffic congestion? Of course it did — but a decision was made to take steps to accommodate something other than the car. As you say, one doesn’t *need* to drive in NYC (and I didn’t own a car), but the congestion on those roads is worse than many LA streets and they still put in the lanes.

I’m not suggesting 2 bike lanes on every green line on the above map, but I think there are some huge improvements to be made. No one balked when streets with no bike (or sometimes pedestrian) access were built in this city. Don’t you think that mind-set should change?

BTW – to all – more posts on this forthcoming – don’t believe that you’ve read the full story yet. I’d love to answer all these questions but I’m totally buried . . . keep the good critiques coming.

/I keed