The Bike Path To Nowhere
February 5th, 2010 
9 Comments
[I wrote about this topic hastily and sloppily earlier this week, here is a more clearly and deeply presented article. This was article was first published in City Watch which, if you really want to understand City politics, you ought to subscribe to.]
As the city, state and federal government burn money that doesn’t exist, City Councilman Bill Rosendahl & Paul Koretz are pushing LA to seek Federal support for an extension of the beach bike path at $15 million per mile. Cyclists’ have expressed preference for on-street facilities in the city, but the two West LA councilman, who both serve on the Budget & Finance Committee, are supporting this expensive off-street facility, at the edge of LA, which will serve residents in the Palisades, Malibu, and northern Santa Monica.
According to the LA Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA), LADOT spent $740,000 designing this project in the 90s but the County rejected the project in 1995. Since then the project sat on the shelf collecting dust. Now, in a motion sponsored by Rosendahl, and seconded by Koretz, the City proposes to “include in the City’s 2009-2010 Federal Legislative Program SPONSORSHIP and/or SUPPORT for legislation and/or administrative action to provide funding to extend the Marvin Braude Bike Path” two miles, at a cost of $30 million. (CLA Report)
For reference, bike lanes cost $28k per mile, according to p. 175 of the City’s draft Bike Plan. By contrast, the proposal to extend the Marvin Braude Bike Path two miles is 535 times more expensive per mile, at $15 million per mile.
Cost of bike lanes according to LADOT
All around the country cities are dusting off “shovel ready” projects to apply for stimulus funds. The question becomes then, is this project the face that LA would like to put forward? While Long Beach makes incredible strides with a few million dollars, should the City of LA spend exorbitant sums to connect two patches of beach? Do we want to be the city with the “Bike Path To Nowhere?”
Ted Rogers of BikingInLA supports the project. He argues, “there is no local or state money at risk; this is simply a hail mary pass to the feds to see if they will fund it.” Since it’s federal money, why not?
I believe we have a responsibility to do something useful with federal money. If those federal funds are purely discretionary, then they could be used to put doctors and nurses through school. Or to assist families in need. Or to pay for health research.
If those funds are earmarked for transportation, then they can be used for projects that have a greater return on investment. Projects which don’t cost more than ten million dollars per mile. As Joe Linton puts it “If I were the city and I had $30M in my pocket, then there are a multitude of better ways to spend that money making L.A. better for bikes.” While I’d like to see LA get more federal money, I think it’s asinine to apply for federal money that our neighbors may also submit applications for, when our application is so cost ineffective.
Rogers argues that the project will “will allow cyclists to bypass one of the most dangerous sections of PCH.” He concludes that the project “could save lives — and probably will, if it gets built.”
I don’t disagree – it’s a tough section to ride and most years cyclists are killed on PCH. But while a life is extremely valuable, saving lives is often very cheap. For instance, the Backbone Bikeway Network – a proposal by the Bike Working Group to connect all of LA with bike lanes – would cost, in the worst case scenario, $10 million, for 200 miles of inner city bike lane. That will save many more lives and that’s a cost effective proposal.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the Feds approve the Bike Path To Nowhere, it could displace worthy projects, which are highly cost effective, and which save more lives. In other words, in the final calculus this project could cost lives.
The big question remains – why does the project have the very round $30,000,000 price tag? According to the CLA, LADOT proposes “to provide a breathtaking view of the ocean”. Doing that, according to DOT’s Bureau of Engineering “requires the design to provide an elevated structure through the beach corridor, the project cost is estimated to be $30,000,000.”
Aha! It’s costly because this is no normal bike path, it’s a flying bike path, which will swoop and float above the frothy waves. Meanwhile, if we wanted to execute a cost effective solution, which would make cyclists safer, we could pursue bike lanes on PCH, which would cost . . . $28k per mile. Throw in some barriers, perhaps a signal for cyclists, and you’re still well under $4 million.
In 2008, 23% of 1581 bike collisions were hit & runs, and more than 3/4s of those were felony hit & run. Cyclists need help, but not help at any cost. The City needs help too – it needs leaders who can evaluate a project such as this, and make the call about whether it is cost effective. When two councilman, both of who sit on the Budget & Finance Committee, make the wrong call, I get a sinking feeling about LA’s future.
Author Info
While I disagree with you about extending this bikeway, I do applaud your sense of fiscal responsibility. Who would have thought that you would turn out to be a budget-hawk like John McCain?
I take it then that you also oppose building the Subway to the Sea, since it would cost billions — not millions — more than building it above grade. The money saved would be more than enough to build out every proposed bikeway in the city, and still turn Wilshire into the city’s first coast-to-Downtown bicycle boulevard.
And like me, you undoubtedly consider the $450 currently being spend to add a car pool lane over Sepulveda pass — at a cost of $45 million a mile — a waste, and have urged that the work be immediately halted in favor of a dedicated busway over the pass, which would move more people far more efficiently and affordably for decades to come.
Or is it only relatively extravagant bikeways you oppose?
A new approach – I appreciate your innovation. Watch the GOP comparisons though!
I don’t have the expertise to evaluate any of those. Light rail does seem to be more cost effective, and my friend Ken Alpern is kicking ass by getting it done all over the city. I definitely support him, and he’s shrewd about costs.
Any roadway widening is idiotic, so that’s my position on the 405. Putting light rail down the center of the 405 seems like a good project . . .
Look, right now one of the huge advantages cyclists have is that we are an extremely cost effective solution to transportation problems. We’re practically invisible from a budgetary standpoint, which is why one of Mowery’s best ways to shut us down is to complain of “political infeasibility”, because she can’t really talk about costs (except when she builds the LA River Path at $2 million/mile.) If we start having a big budget impact, well we lose that advantage, and we will have that much harder of a problem getting infrastructure built.
We’ve got huge budget problems at every level of gov’t – everyone should be a budget hawk when it comes to low return on investment.
Can’t argue with you about watching budgets. You’re right, of course; where we differ is you’re comparing the cost of the extension to the cost of bike lanes, which makes it seem outrageously expensive, while I’m comparing it to the cost of other infrastructure projects, which makes it insignificant. And I do think that from Washington’s perspective, this is a drop in the bucket — though perhaps it shouldn’t be.
However, over the years, we have repeatedly seen funds that could have been available to the city and state go to waste simply because no one asked for them. And oddly, I’ve seen projects get turned down by the feds because they didn’t cost enough. Crazy world, I know, but that’s the one we live in. So I’m a firm believer in asking; if they say no, we’re no worse off than we were before.
And the GOP reference was purely intentional. Cruel, I know; but still…
Marvin Braude Bike Path advocates: Allow me to interject a simple request. Find out where the money is coming from and drop the speculation. Somebody applied for and then spent $750K on the design/planning of a project that is now estimated to cost $30 million. Now Senator Fran Pavley is joined by Councilmembers Rosendahl and Koretz in endorsing the pursuit of this $30 million.
Any support should start with some simple information.
Where is the money going to come from? (Don’t speculate or guess, simply start with facts and then use them as a foundation for opinion)
Is this the only potential use for the “mystery funds” or are there other opportunities to spend it? (facts, not speculation or hypothetical)
If the cycling community gets a $30 million, 1.9 mile extension on the Marvin Braude Bike Path, does this have an impact on our perceived need in other funding requests. (ie., But you just got $30 million last week, now you want funding so you can ride across town?)
If this $30 million bike path extension of 1.9 miles were to be funded, what signal would it send regarding our ability to function with fiscal responsibility. Don’t look to the excesses of others to justify our behavior, nor to the behavior of others to justify the “looting” but simply help me understand how the City of Los Angeles can stand proud in the face of bankruptcy and say “We operate this city with a commitment to financial responsibility and accountability.”
All things considered, position this in the priorities of the cycling community and in the larger priorities of the City of Los Angeles. We’re not getting it done as we speak, is it a wise investment of our time to debate/pursue the Marvin Braude extension as LA fumbles in the middle of a Budget Crisis of Biblical proportions and the City of LA fumbles its relationship with the cycling community.
What are our priorities? Is this on the list?
It will be much easier to land the $30 Million for a new place voters/campaign contributors can play with their bicycles. (as toys) Bicycles as transportation has the stench of European Socialism and Third World Poverty in American political culture.
The mentality that’s working against your small project cost is ‘real’ transportation projects are for cars, buses, and trains and value into the billions. The contractors for these projects have more money to spend to ensure they have a steady stream of projects too. ‘Go big or go home’ mentality applies.
A few million to restripe streets in the districts with the least political contributors and small-time (if any) contractors keeping the project alive with the likely outcome being turning a bunch of car-centric voters into raging TEA-baggers is another reason why no one will touch such a fiscally responsible project.
You will have more luck selling cycling-friendly projects this way:
-Get the National Association of Realtors behind you with the rationale that cycling friendly streets increase neighborhood valuations. They have millions to of dollars with which they lobby. Maybe you can ride on their coattails in exchange for green-wrapping the NAR?
-Create a *massive* cycling project with the mindset that ‘bikes are toys’ so you can get contractors on your side and not violate common American sense.
You aren’t thinking big enough.
Wow, all this financial talk is making my head spin. The “burning funding money before it expires” mentality sure does sound familiar, it’s a very American concept indeed and it seems to happen in academia, public and private sectors. I think I understand where Ted and Mr Asphalt_Jesus are coming from… It’s a shame that this 30 million dollar proposal seems to cater more to our tourists and weekend warriors than to our average joes that commute on a daily basis. BUT, If we _absolutely_ can’t convince them to put the money towards more common sense bike projects, I guess I’ll take a 2 mile scenic extension that I’ll ride maybe once a month. Better than nothing.
But honestly, it’s almost as if public officials don’t have this sense of urgency. The urgency of hit and runs, the urgency of laziness that causes everyone to drive 1 mile to the grocery store, the urgency of the fact that if we keep widening the frickin’ roads and highways we won’t have any more room for outdoor public space.
LA 30 yrs from now – no sidewalks, you can just step out of your front door, and you’ll be right next to your car. Literally, you’ll be able to take one step onto solid ground, then hop into your car. From the couch to your car, and viceversa. Air conditioning, reality shows, and foosball. Who needs the great outdoors? The Planet isn’t entertaining enough!! More TV shows!!
I*&#$(&@#($(@@#*** !!!
I think it’s cool that you are willing to dig through all the red tape with the city and clearly let people know where their money might be going and why – regardless of each persons take on the issue it is important to know what is going on first.
Thanks Jo! I’m catching some flak for my position on this one, so it’s nice that you appreciate the information.