i don't think LA proper could support the program.

i agree with alec F. it's not that i hate the program, i just think it should sit below other priorities.

hehe.
mg

Perhaps dismissing the program all together is a bit extreme? Don't you think?

Any and all avenues should be explored as Mr. Kenefick cleverly pointed out.

What is the deal with the resistance?

I suppose it is easier to say "They don't like bikes and they are just in it for the money".... than to give City Councilmembers an ounce of credit for bothering to put the agenda on the table.

What on earth is so terrible about getting a bit of press by using a bike to make you look good?

Anyone checked out Metro's Measure R site yet? They are "using" the bicycle to make themselves look good as well. I say go for it!

but lets call this what it really is. advertising revenue for the city. they don't care about bicycles, they just care about more money. lets not get ahead of ourselves and view this as progression for bicyclists.

i say the city meets the needs of those already bicycling before it creates a massive fleet of ugly advercycles.

As it stands many in Los Angeles own bikes and never use them because they are afraid. Or they drive their bike to some path and never set a wheel to the real streets. Our problem isn't a lack of bikes, it's a perception that riding a bike in LA will get you hurt or killed. My upstairs neighbor has a bike that collects cobwebs. If we can't get even get people who own bikes to commute by bike how are we going to sustain a system of borrowing bikes.

I dislike taking the bus, and in any case there are some places buses don't go, so for me to bike to and from Metro stations would be a perfect solution.

So yes, they should make L.A. safer for bicyclists, and yes they should institute sharing. Do both as quickly as feasible. I don't care which gets done first.

We at LACBC are constantly confronted with DOT's enforcement of autos
as the primary means of transportation in the City of LA. It is
refreshing and exciting to see some of the City Council members
supporting a bicycle feasibility study to be conducted by them, but it
flies in the face of the extreme bunker mentality of LADOT.

If this motion is successful, LADOT may very well come out with a
feasibility report saying that anything that doesn't direct 100% of
transportation dollars to moving autos quickly across our city on some
utopian scheme of flying guideways, is impractical. We know that
starving funding for bicycle projects is impractical, but we don't
have a lot of traction with LADOT; no past efforts have been great
enough to flip that funding priority with LADOT.

Michael is right, a first step would be to fully fund the existing
LADOT bicycle program (which is currently laking about 5 out of 8
staff members). Another thing would be to step of the progress on
implementing the existing bicycle master plan, or to make some sort of
meaningful pledge to implement the update when it comes out next year.
So doing a lofty 'velib' style program seems a bit, well, lofty.

But that's where my opinion differs from Michael's. I'm all for
greenwashing when it comes to DOT, maybe some of that green will soak
into their huge, bicycle unfriendly bureaucracy. If the elected
officials of our city can pass a motion to change even a little part
of LADOT's priorities, even if it's only for a short study, then I
want to see that happen.

At this point responsible bicycle advocates have to get behind a
panoply of different bicycle approaches. LACBCs approach should be,
and has been supportive of any efforts to improve bicycle amenities.
We do have policy recommendations and best practices, but we are not
in a position to be uncompromising... yet.

So for now,
Velib: YES
Sharrows: YES
Bike lanes: YES
Separated Bike Path System: YES
Ballona Creek safety: YES
Finish the LARIO Trail: YES
Build a contiguous bikeway along Expo: YES
Make it easy to bike to the train station: YES
Bikes on transit: YES
Bikes on the freeway: pending the appropriate policy and law changes, then yes.

I am actually quite encouraged to see the notion of a bike-share program come up in Los Angeles.....although the points made by the distinguished bike advocates are well taken.....

Clearly there is a deeper root problem when it comes to sharing the road that a bike-share program would not directly solve, but is that really reason enough to dismiss the idea entirely? I think not.

A bike-share program created with a bit of cleverness that includes tweaks specific to the landscape of Los Angeles could provide an opportunity for the awareness of the viability of cycling to grow.

Can we all agree that there would be a benefit to having Metro stations support bike-share programs? Or that providing the bikes to certain high density pockets around town would be a fun experiment?

The fact that this discussion is even on the table could be taken as a sign of the shifting attitudes about the potential uses of the road.

This strikes me as an opportunity to really push the powers that be over at LADOT to recognize at least the possibility of a road having multiple types of users.

In a way, a bike-share program could serve as a platform through which to advertize the benefits of cycling. Safety could be an educational component of the program. If UCLA had a bike-share program, perhaps Prof. Cahn could lead an instructional workshop to interested first time and would be riders....

If the cleverness and creativity wont come from those who rule LADOT from on high, surely it can come from the vast network of creative and intelligent folks who have already chosen to cycle in Los Angeles, despite the comically enormous risks to both life and limb.

A bike-share program provides opportunities for growth. I hope we can find a way to tap into it here in our fair City of Automobile Traffic.