L.A. Cyclists Want A Better Ride
TrackBacks (0)
Comments (6)
Cycling advocacy groups want the revised Bicycle Plan to "consider all streets as
streets that cyclists will ride."
(Photo from Creative Commons)
Cycling advocates plan to question the strength of the city of Los Angeles' revised Bicycle Plan at series of workshops held by transportation and planning officials that begin Thursday. Despite the fact that the $230 million plan proposes nearly 700 miles of new bikeways, cycling advocacy groups consider it to be sloppy and inadequate.
"The more I read the plan, the more I think it's a mess," Joe Linton, Campaigns Director for Cyclists Inciting Change thru Live Exchange, said. "Bicyclists should really mount a strong campaign for it to be changed quite a bit so it's at least a step in the right direction."
Linton and colleagues like Stephen Box, a co-founder of the Bike Writers Collective, want the plan to include a grander focus, a Cyclist's Bill of Rights and a requirement for an environmental impact report that would give the plan better standing when it comes to implementation.
Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also demanded that the six week public comment period be extended from Nov. 6 to Jan. 8 to allow more time for analysis. In response, city planner Jane Blumenfeld told Glenn Bailey, chairman of the advisory committee, that comments would be accepted until a public hearing is held in January.
Most recently changed in 2002, the Bicycle Plan helps secure state and federal transportation funds by mapping out bikeways and proposing cycling-related policies involving areas like education, engineering, parking and transit integration.
For instance, policy suggestions in the plan include requiring a public hearing before removing bike lanes and listing bicycling as a legitimate mode of transportation in the municipal code. While the code change would force the city to discuss the needs of bicyclists in future road construction projects, it's still not as strong of a proclamation as cycling groups desire.
They want the plan to include the following declaration: "consider all streets as streets that cyclists will ride." Combined with a bill of rights, cyclists feel they would be better included in roadway planning, during which the city currently takes only automobile traffic into account.
Since 1996, five percent, or 526 miles, of all city roads have been designated as bikeways. The new plan more than doubles that by creating a grid of bikeways no further than one mile apart.
Cyclists believe such a grid is not enough. They prefer paths and lanes over routes because these dedicate a space of road or land to bicycle traffic. On the other hand, bicycle routes are bikeways where planning officials found lanes to be "infeasible," and that signage alerting drivers of cyclists' presence was the only accommodation possible. Although cited in the plan as the most preferred and most needed bikeway, the city proposes reducing 143 existing miles of bicycle lanes to 125 miles in the future.
County Bicycle Coalition Campaigns and Communications Director Aurisha Smolarski said she would like more designated bike lanes.
"The policy document shows some hope, but the draft maps are contradictory," she said. "The plan needs to be more committal and more responsive of cyclists."
In order to create more bicycle lanes, LADOT would potentially have to remove car lanes, increasing automobile traffic at the expense of making cycling safer. They also have to listen to business owners who demand more street parking. However, bike paths, which mainly run along flood channels, allow for less of a balancing act.
Opponents like Josef Bray-Ali, founder of Bike Oven, a volunteer-run bike repair collective, point out that safety should come first. According to him, the city has not studied cycling safety since 1996.
"The cheapest way to implement cycling facilities is to take a car lane away--this is most effective as well as beneficial to local commercial districts and the overall air quality and livability of the city," he said.
To remove vehicle lanes would require an EIR, giving more say to local businesses and residents, but also adding to the plan's costs. Funded by federal, state, county and local sources, the plan allots $152.3 million for bicycle paths, $70.7 for making streets bicycle-friendly--usually through decreasing stops and vehicle traffic--and a combined $7.1 million for bike lanes and routes.
Additionally, the plan encourages developers to consider bike parking and traffic on all types of new construction from shopping centers to industrial structures. Citing the building of the new police headquarters, the Topanga Canyon Boulevard project and the San Pedro waterfront development project, that is a suggestion advocates feel LADOT has not enforced.
Although setting a goal of increasing bicycle trips from half a percent to five percent by 2020, Box said the plan "lacks the teeth necessary to bring about any change."
In order to create the strongest possible Bicycle Plan, Bailey advocates widespread public participation before the planning department submits the proposal to the City Planning Commission.
"Then once the plan is adopted by the City," he said, "bicyclists will need to work together to achieve the prompt implementation of its provisions."
"I've heard" that the LA Bike Plan isn't worth the paper it's written on. "Some say" that Richie and Sam are both convicted serial killers.
The truth in these matters is borne out by facts, not by wild anecdotes about "what some are saying" or "what you heard". The Bike Plan (as drafted) counts for a net loss in planned bike lanes and bike routes and it continues LADOT's policy of automobile supremacy over the essential interests of civilized people in an urban environment: safety, civil life, community, and local business.
An EIR, in this case, is essential to holding this department's feet to the fire to extract the Bike Plan we deseperately need.
"most progressive in the country for major urban areas" huh??? Who said this??? This plan compared to much much better plans in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Sacramento, Portland, Boulder, Seattle - most of which aren't as good as many European or Canadian bike facilities.
As Damien noted, it's not even progressive for L.A. County. Long Beach, Santa Monica, Burbank and Pasadena have better plans. The 2009 plan is a step down even compared to LA's 1996 plan, which wasn't all that great to begin with.
The cat is out of the bag. No EIR for a Stadium why do we need them for bike lanes?
I'm interested who you heard that this was one of the most progressive bike plans in the country. It's not even in the top 10 for L.A. County.
One way to give cyclists a better ride is to mount them on your car hood. OK, only joking. Bikes are a nice idea but don't see it happening in L.A.
How do the policies in this plan compare with other big cities? Despite calls for an EIR and a longer public comment period, I've heard that the new bike plan is actually one of the most progressive in the country for major urban areas.