Showing up the day of to talk during public comments is great, but to effective at lawmaking you need to ... lobby! Yes, actually lobby. Set up appointments with staff, present your wishes, make promises to do things that make the legislator look good or do well in the next election (even vaguely).

Also, do your homework on who and what you're facing in the cities departments. They don't listen to the council! There has to be a way to make them responsive to our demands.

There are good reasons for not wanting sharrows (e.g. They don't do much for old people or kids. They aren't going to work on streets w. traffic going 45mph), but the crap Michelle Mowery pulled out of her rear about "thermoplastic paint" is absurd. Her cluelessness is our great advantage, and yet we don't exploit it because our paid advocates aren't lobbying, they're cleaning out bike lockers!

i was very curious to hear the Council's (and LADOT's) take on the brief, as it seems comprehensive, future-thinking, and includes practical implementation advice. and since the LA County MTA helped fund it, i hoped the LADOT might actually be making a plug for action based on the study...

They definitely go in the middle of narrow lanes... they direct bikes to share the lane... not to hug the curb.

Sharrows are designed to indicate (in no uncertain terms) that the traffic lane they are in is legally shared by cars and bikes, and if installed properly, they direct a cyclist to ride in a safe road position (outside of the door zone). If they're in a narrow lane, then they would indeed have to be essentially in the center of it.

Concerning lawsuits: I'd be shocked if the LADOT has never been sued by MOTORISTS for the incredibly poor condition and design of L.A.'s roadways.

Lets talk about sharrows.

I don't have a car. I bike commute everyday 6 miles each direction.

Sharrows are narrow. If they are installed improperly they will impede car driver's perceptions of my rights on the road. Unless they go in the middle of every narrow lane (such as Washington Blvd between Overland and its intersection with Culver, Beverwil between Cattaraugus and Sawyer) and not on the edge, I don't want them.

1) Sharrows are "expensive" the money isn't budgeted for them.

2) The city may have a potential liability by insinuating that a high traffic street is safe for bicycle travel.

3) Sharrows are some how in conflict with right turn pockets and there is no way currently to reconcile the rules regarding sharrows and the rules regarding the turn pockets which are plentiful in Los Angeles

4) That the thermo plastic that DOT uses could be a hazard to cyclists if it gets worn and slick, another potential liability.

That is the gist of the things I remember from their testimony.

My sense is that they were basically putting up obstacles that they can use as bureaucratic cover so they can get away for putting this off and stalling for another 10 years.

-----------

My thoughts:

1) I am admittedly ignorant to the costs of infrastructure ... but I can't imaging the expense of painting sharrows is that great, especially in relation to the expense of other road projects. Putting in sharrows would be extremely cost effective if it were integrated into any road work .. ie if they are already closing, working on, repaving and or repainting a street they could do sharrows at that time for little added expense.

2) It is patently absurd to suggest that the city would have liability for putting down sharrows on any street. Period. Sharrows make the roadway safer. Every roadway in LA is legal to be driven on by bicycle. If there is any liability to be had its for all those streets that need sharrows and don't have them. AT THE VERY LEAST every current class 3 bikeway (aka bike routes) should be instantly eligible for sharrows.

Sharrows only indicate where a bike is legally and safely supposed to ride. Sharrows do not indicate anything different about a road than what is currently recognized as settled law and settled safe practice for vehicular cycling. This is as absurd as not arguing against posting the legal speed limit for fear that people might drive at that speed.

3) There may be some truth to this ... and if that is the case the rules need to be changed to reflect the fact that as stated above sharrows only indicate where a bike is legally allowed to ride and therefore are appropriate for any street.

4) Again what ridiculous excuse making. All the DOT needs to do is call any of the many number of cities who have sharrows. Ask what material they use. What works the best. Get it. Use it.

This shit is so absurd to me.
Again bikes are less than an afterthought. And when they are finally considered, it like lets see how much time and money we can waste to get the least amount done. Let's create a few problems for every solution so we can have an excuse not to acomplish anything any time soon.

D.O.T. = Yes we Can't.

Erik, the LADOT and the LAPD (and most of L.A.'s departments) are in many ways their own autonomous little worlds. From what I've heard, the Public Works Department and the LADWP are even worse.

An excellent summary of the meeting! Overall I thought it was a turning point for the cycling community here in Los Angeles. When I attended my first transportation subcommittee meeting almost two years ago their were only a handful of cyclists in the audience. When I spoke at that meeting Councilman Parks dozed and we had tepid interest from the other councilpersons. That's all changed. Now the audience was packed (in large part due to Stephen Box and Enci's tireless agitating) and the council is listening and acting.

It's chilling to me that we have two city departments, LAPD and LADOT that don't seem to answer to the council or the public. Who do they answer to exactly? The mayor? Themselves? Their paid consultants?

1. Sharrows Nuance: While I sense that LADOT folks are dragging their heels on sharrows - the reason I think for this is that they are trying to set too high a bar by bringing it out citywide, instead of scrambling out a quick pilot to see how easy it is. I want to clarify what I heard the DOT's Mike Uyeno say - this is all paraphrasing - I haven't listened to the tape. I didn't think he said that the DOT didn't want to implement sharrows because they would slow down traffic (aside: this may be why the DOT doesn't want to implement them... but, actually, I wish that road-markings were all that it took to slow down LA traffic!), I heard him say that if LADOT did sharrows and someone didn't like them, then that person could challenge the city, using environmental review laws (like NEPA and CEQA) to legally challenge the sharrows - if that opponent asserted that the sharrows slowed down traffic and thereby increased auto emissions.

My sense is that it wasn't so much that Uyeno asserted that sharrows slow traffic, it was that if LADOT wasn't (painstakingly, cumbersomely, tortoisesquely) thorough about their analysis, then the project could be legally challenged. I think that this is a double standard - I'd like to see LADOT take a couple years of study every time they widen roads, or propose more-and-more-and-more cars projects like the Pico-Olympic one-way stuff.

It does feel like the LADOT is taking way too long to do something that's cheap, visible, proven and easy. I'd suggest that bicyclists propose some specific streets that meet the state's criteria for sharrows... get a pilot project on the ground... then move on to implementing more assertive on-street projects like road diets, bike lanes, and bicycle boulevards. When we push for the bigger stuff that actually takes space away from cars, then the DOT will want to fall back to something less pushy - ie: sharrows.

2. Follow the Money: Council motions come and go. They are worthwhile, but I have seen quite a few well-intentioned motions get through all the hoops, but never really accomplish anything because there's really no money behind them. If we want to see the bike plan implemented, then we need to be looking at the city budget and pushing the council, the mayor, and the DOT to commit real money to the bike program. The mayor's budget comes out early in the new year... and gets debated and approved by council in early spring. Anyone out there good with accounting and interested in analyzing the current numbers and pushing for increased bike money in the upcoming budget?

Bike and pedestrian projects are also cheap and easy to do quickly - so a project can be completed and praise can be awarded to current councilmembers before they get termed out. So, we're not asking for much and the reward to the councilmember can be nearly instant.

Further, most cycling advocates in L.A. are educated, employed (mostly) self-publishing, self-organizing, and very active in their communities. You mess with this type of constituent at your own peril.

We need a more focused knowledge of how the LADOT and LAPD (and other departments) can be changed in slight ways to suit our interests, because I think we have a few politicians on our side.

I was so jealous of everyone who got a chance to be there. I had a few zingers prepared but I had to work in my bike shop all day. Thanks for the report Damien.

LADOT's inane thumb-twiddling on the subject of sharrows was another matter, however. Cyclists are already riding these streets; all we're asking is that they indicate where in the lane we should ride, so drivers understand that they're required to share the lane.