I agree with Joe on the rivers being able to accommodate commuters. We need road access – and I believe it should be a priority – but the rivers are a huge resource for us here in LA, and an absolutely unique one; they’re also one that could be leveraged fairly quickly and invitingly for those who might otherwise not want to ride in traffic.

I think it would be very, very cool if – as a matter of policy – ALL of the rivers could be seen as a sort of bicycle freeway system, mapped and managed as transit arteries, with commuter services – parking, maintenance, and security – similar to what motorists get now. Maybe even a financial incentive, like a tax credit, for those who choose to commute on them, as opposed to be car on “real” freeways.

I always get kind of tired when people point to Amsterdam (or even Portland, or – god forbid – Davis) as the kinds of places L.A. should emulate in terms of bike policy. We’re not them, and we never will be. The rivers are one place that we’ve got that they don’t, and they’re totally unique.

I know that calling them “bike freeways” is probably a horrifying thought to those who would have peaceful, riparian idylls on the banks. But I’m being kind of symbolic here – after all, we’re talking about bikes, and I don’t think the ideas are incompatible (it doesn’t even have to be because every river has two banks, though it bears pointing out.)

Anyway, just fantasizing.

Josef – I think our rivers can accomodate a rich mix of users including walkers, recreational and commuting cyclists and others.

I’d rather the river were not bounded by 8 to 12′ of blacktop with cyclists whizzing by. I think the quiet reflection of the river should be reserved for walkers and a slow-paced recreational cyclist or two.

And there are no red lines in the map I downloaded! WTF?! There are only bike routes going into downtown (except the “planned” LA River Class 1).

“a”(Toothy, Robust)”public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship, and Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary.”

“Democrats should have “no intention” of working with Republicans if it’s not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority.” (Howard Dean)

This is what WE THE PEOPLE gave the Democrats all that power to do for ALL of us.

You see, Dr. Dean knows that in medicine and healthcare there is only one acceptable standard. And that standard is the HIGHEST level of EXCELLENCE you can provide for everyone. Nothing less has ever been acceptable in caring for a precious human life.

And the White House is right too. “Good health care reform is essentially good economic policy.” (Christina Romer)

jacksmith — WORKING CLASS

Thanks, Joe. Can you comment on what – exactly – is going on at the very south end of the LA-Central-West map, at the Washington Blvd. crossing?

I’m assuming that we’re looking at an extension of the L.A. River path. What is hard to tell is whether it crosses the bridge or drops down beneath it at some point (if I recall, the Wash Bl. span is a bit odd, with a funky middle segment that’s on land, or something?)

I agree completely that the L.A. River – and all of our rivers, with paths constructed – would make amazing commuter routes, and I regret that I didn’t put that in bolder, plainer terms in the story. I don’t mean to make it seem as if recreational routes and commuter routes are somehow locked in opposition to each other – especially in our region, where the rivers, as you’ve shown us, are a practically pre-built network of car-free paths. I guess the irony is that, as we struggle to implement the rivers-to-bikes vision, which is trying to sell the sensible to those who seem to absolutely lack any sense at all, we also find it a challenge to sell the idea that it is important not just to get people into our rivers, but over them.

The bike plan shows a red line – a bike path running along the river perpendicular to the river – which I think is a good idea for both recreation and transportation. It does show a bike lane on Fletcher which is very feasible and has been in the city’s bike plan since the 1984 olympics, but never officially implemented.

One odd thing is that purple line (bike friendly street – not bike lane) on North Spring Street… in the city’s Cornfield Arroyo Seco Plan, that street is designated for bike lanes. See http://lacreekfreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/great-plans-for-the-cornfield-arroyo-seco-area/ … so the bike plan draft is inconsistent with (and potentially undermining?) other good bike planning the city is doing at a more local level… City Planning Department – if you’re reading this – please change your bike plan maps to agree with the better designations in your specific plan.

You’re right. The purple dots on the Broadway bridge indicate a “bike route,” which is as you describe, and not a dedicated bike path, as I say above. My mistake. The draft map shows proposed “bike paths” as -brown- dots, which – with my crappy, old, washed-out laptop screen – turn out to look just like purple, hence my colorblind misinterpretation.

So things are even worse. That means there’s NOTHING proposed as a river crossing until Fletcher.

Thanks for pointing this out.

- Dan